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.

[08/31] Wolfe v. Schaefer
In an attorney's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the State Attorney and others, arising from his failed 2008 bid for State's Attorney of Cumberland County, Illinois, claiming that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by publicly disclosing that plaintiff was under investigation by Illinois state agencies for possible violations of legal ethics, tax law, and unemployment-insurance law, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the fact that a candidate for public office is under investigation for legal and ethical violations is a matter of substantial public interest.

[08/27] Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth.
In developers' suit against a water authority for inverse condemnation, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the water authority is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the authority's refusal to include a reimbursement measure in every bond election constituted a breach of its contracts with the developers; 2) because the Legislature has waived the authority's immunity from suit for this breach, the court of appeals' judgment is reversed and remanded to consider authority's remaining issues; and 3) court of appeals' judgment that the authority's actions did not rise to the level of a taking is affirmed.

[08/24] Arntz v. Superior Court
Trial court's grant of a city supervisor's petition for declaratory relief that S.F. Charter section 2.101 did not prohibit her from standing for election to another four-year term as supervisor, and a writ of mandate directing the director of elections to accept the supervisor's filings and to print her name as a candidate on the November 2, 2010 ballot, was an error as, when an appointed supervisor has served three years of one term, and then been elected and served four years of another term, the rounding up language of section 2.101 is operative and prohibits the supervisor being a candidate for another four-year term. Therefore, because the trial court ruled that the supervisor could run again, the court of appeals orders the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate upholding the decision of election officials refusing to put the supervisor's name on the ballot.

[08/20] Bauer v. Shepard
In plaintiffs' challenge to certain provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, claiming that they refrain from speaking about controversial issues such as abortion or from filling out questionnaires about abortion sent by the Indiana Right to Life, Inc., because they fear the prospect of sanctions under the Code, district court's holding that all of the contested provisions are constitutional is affirmed where: 1) district court's judgment that a plaintiff's challenge to the pre-2009 Code became moot is modified as it is unripe; 2) the fundraising provisions are constitutional; 3) the partisan-activities provisions are constitutional; 4) the "commits clauses" provisions are not overbroad; and 5) the recusal clause does not present a constitutional issue at all.

[08/13] Wolfson v. Brammer
In an action by a candidate for judicial office in Arizona, challenging several canons of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) that restricted his political speech and campaign-related activities while a candidate for judicial office, dismissal of the action as moot is reversed where: 1) plaintiff presented a controversy evading review; 2) there was more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that plaintiff intended to seek judicial office in the future; and 3) it was true that plaintiff could not obtain revision of the Code from defendants, but he could nevertheless obtain a form of effective redress in this action.

[08/13] ACORN v. US
In an action challenging provisions in several federal appropriations laws barring the distribution of federal funds to ACORN and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and allied organizations, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part where, in light of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) actual and continuing responsibility to oversee the management of the budgets of Executive Branch agencies, and its consequent impact on the plaintiffs' reputation, plaintiffs showed sufficient injury to bring suit against the Director of the OMB. However, the injunction is vacated in part where: 1) plaintiffs failed to show that the appropriations laws constituted "punishment" under the functional test for a bill of attainder; and 2) the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate "punishment" cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment.

[07/30] Scott v. Roberts
In an emergency appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction by Richard Scott, a candidate for the Republican Party for Governor of the State of Florida, against the Florida Election Campaign Financing Act, the order is reversed where Davis required Florida to justify its excess spending subsidy by reference to an anticorruption interest, but Florida could not satisfy its burden of establishing that its subsidy furthered that interest in the least restrictive manner possible.

[07/29] Wersal v. Sexton
In an action claiming that three provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct (Code) unconstitutionally infringed upon First Amendment rights of judicial candidates, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) a plain reading of one of the clauses chilled plaintiff from engaging in speech–solicitation of funds–which the court had already held was protected First Amendment expression; 2) Minnesota had no compelling interest in preventing judicial preconceptions on legal issues; and 3) the endorsement clause was not a necessary evil to protect from a display of favoritism towards potential litigants.

[07/21] Brandt v. Winnetka
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment that a village ordinance violated the First Amendment by "chilling" plaintiff's willingness to invite political officials and candidates to the village, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in thinking that plaintiff's challenge was too abstract to warrant constitutional adjudication.

Back to Main