Case Summaries

Elections

[09/01] Warf v. Bd of Elections of Green County
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming unconstitutional disenfranchisement against a county elections board and individuals, alleging that their voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by a Kentucky state trial court judgment that declared void all 542 votes cast by absentee ballot in the 2006 General Election for the office of Green County Clerk, grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as the Green Circuit Court's decision to void the absentee ballots does not rise to a level of fundamental unfairness in violation of Due Process as it is evident that the decision to void all absentee ballots cast in the election reasonably applied applicable Kentucky case law, and the court appropriately looked to analogous state cases and applied the careful scrutiny to incumbent clerks described therein.

[09/01] Nader v. Cronin
In an action by independent candidates for president, including Ralph Nader, who were denied access to Hawaii's ballot for the 2004 election, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the relevant provisions governing ballot access did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the First and Fourteenth Amendments because plaintiffs failed to show that Hawaii's election scheme imposed a severe burden on independent candidates for president even in light of an examination of Hawaii's regulatory scheme as a whole.

[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.

[08/31] Roberts v. Brown
Secretary of State's petition for extraordinary writ and a petition for a writ of prohibition on the basis that the Second Circuit Court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction by accepting jurisdiction to consider a pre-election action for declaratory and injunctive relief that seeks to remove two citizen-initiative proposed constitutional amendments from the November ballot, is granted and the circuit court is directed to dismiss the pre-election proceedings on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the circuit court's determination that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a pre-election to consider the respondents' challenges to Amendments 5 and 6, the circuit court is encroaching on the Supreme Court of Florida's exclusive jurisdiction and is acting in excess of its jurisdiction.

[08/31] Roberts v. Doyle
An order of the Second Circuit enjoining the Secretary of State from placing Amendment 3 on the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed where: 1) the ballot title and summary are confusing to the average voter as the lack of an effective date renders it impossible for a voter to know which homeowners would qualify for the exemption; 2) the ballot title and summary fail to mention that a married person could fail to qualify for the exemption because his or her spouse previously owned a residence; and 3) a voter reading the title and summary could easily conclude that in order to be eligible for the additional homestead, a property owner would have to meet two conditions.

[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches
Judgment of the circuit court striking a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment from the November 2010 general election ballot is affirmed as, based upon the provisions of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, article XI, section 5, of the Florida Constitution, the ballot language setting forth the substance of Amendment 7, related to legislative and congressional redistricting, does not inform the voter of the true purpose and effect of the amendment on existing constitutional provisions and, is misleading.

More...

Education

More...