Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, a city clerk in a Faulkner Act municipality refused to accept for filing a petition for referendum on the ground that the petition did not have a sufficient number of qualifying signatures. Members of a Committee of Petitioners brought an action in lieu of prerogative writ to have the challenged ordinance put on the ballot. They also brought suit under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). Ultimately, the trial court granted the Committee members the relief they sought, placing the ordinance before the voters and awarding them, as the prevailing party, attorney’s fees for the deprivation of a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act. The Appellate Division affirmed all but the trial court’s finding of a civil rights violation. The Appellate Division determined that the Committee members did not suffer a deprivation of a right because the court provided the ultimate remedy - the referendum. Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees was vacated. Upon review, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed that the city clerk violated the right of referendum guaranteed by the Faulkner Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the violation of that right deprived the Committee members a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act. The vindication of that right under the Civil Rights Act entitled the Committee members to an award of attorney’s fees. The Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Division. View "Tumpson v. Farina" on Justia Law

Political groups challenged the constitutionality (42 U.S.C. 1983) of two provisions of Pennsylvania’s election code that regulate ballot access. Sections 2911(b) and 2872.2(a), require that candidates seeking to be included on the general election ballot (other than Republicans and Democrats) submit nomination papers with a specified number of signatures. Section 2937 allows private actors to object to such nomination papers and have them nullified, and permits a Pennsylvania court, as that court deems “just,” to impose administrative and litigation costs on a candidate if that candidate’s papers are rejected. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that the aspiring political parties established that their injury-in-fact can fairly be traced to the actions of the Commonwealth officials and that the injuries are redressable. View "Constitution Party of PA v. Aichele" on Justia Law

Illinois law bars persons convicted of certain crimes from holding public office, 10 ILCS 5/29-1-5. Parker sought to run for a seat on the Peoria school board. The state’s attorney sought to bar Parker, who had been convicted of felony theft in the 1980s, from pursuing that office. After a brief hearing held on short notice, a state court ordered Parker’s name removed from the ballot and enjoined him from running. Parker sued in federal court, arguing violations of due process and equal protection by denying him a chance to defend himself and targeting him based on his race (African American), and challenging the constitutionality of the law on its face. The district court dismissed the suit as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, immunity, and claim preclusion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that immunity, not Rooker-Feldman, bars the enforcement claims and that, even if claim preclusion did not preclude a facial attack on the statute, that challenge fails on the merits. View "Parker v. Lyons" on Justia Law

VRLC is a non-profit corporation and VRLC-FIPE is a political committee formed under Vermont law. VRLC challenged three disclosure provisions of Vermont's election laws as unconstitutionally vague and violating freedom of speech. The court concluded that the Vermont statutory disclosure provisions concerning electioneering communications and mass media activities are constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee due to vagueness nor the First Amendment's free speech guarantee; Vermont's "political committee" definition did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee because of vagueness nor violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee; and Vermont may impose contribution limits on VRLC-PC, an entity that makes contributions to candidates, and the statute's contribution limits were constitutionally applied to VRLC-FIPE, which claims to be an independent-expenditure-only PAC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from a political battle concerning labor unions. Chula Vista Citizens and the Associations sought to place an initiative on the Chula Vista municipal ballot. The City of Chula Vista requires that initiative proponents be electors (the elector requirement). Because Cal. Elec. Code 9202(a) requires proponents to sign a notice of intent, the effect of Cal. Elec. Code 9207 is that the identities of official proponents are disclosed to would-be signatories of the petition (the petition-proponent disclosure requirement). Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the elector and petition-proponent disclosure requirements, both facially and as applied, violated the First Amendment. Determining that the elector requirement was properly before the court because it implicated the chilling of expression and because the parties had not indicated that there were many pending actions in the California courts, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the elector requirement where the Associations did not have a First Amendment right to serve as official proponents of local ballot initiatives. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants as to the petition-proponent disclosure requirement where the requirement was unconstitutional because they require official initiative proponents to identify themselves on the face of initiative petitions. View "Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris" on Justia Law

Doralee Chandler, a registered voter, filed an amended petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus and for declaratory judgment, alleging that Judge Harrison G. Foster II was not a qualified or eligible candidate for circuit judge because he was not a “licensed attorney” for the constitutionally mandated six-year time period preceding the assumption of the office. The circuit court denied Chandler’s petition and granted Foster’s third-party complaint, determining (1) Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar despite his failure to timely pay his licensing fee four of the six consecutive years prior to the time for taking office, if elected; (2) the suspension of Foster’s license to practice law due to Foster’s failure to timely renew his licensing fee violated his due process rights; and (3) Rule VII(C) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Foster was not “unlicensed” pursuant to Rule VII and in finding that he was qualified to seek the position of circuit judge; and (2) Rule VII(C) is unconstitutional in that it provides for an automatic suspension of a lawyer’s license without procedural due process. View "Chandler v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant, a registered voter, petitioned the circuit court for a declaratory judgment that Angela Byrd, a filed candidate for circuit judge, was unqualified and ineligible for that office because she was not a licensed attorney for a six-year time period immediately preceding the assumption of office for circuit judge. Specifically, Appellant alleged that Byrd failed to timely pay her annual bar license fee for the year 2014, and while her license was suspended, she was no longer licensed pursuant to Rule VII of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. In response, Byrd filed a third-party complaint against the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, alleging that Rule VII(C) was unconstitutional. The circuit court denied Williams’s petition and granted Byrd’s third-party complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of Kelly v. Martin and Chandler v. Martin, concluding that Byrd was an eligible candidate for circuit judge. View "Williams v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, impose base limits, restricting how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee, and aggregate limits, restricting how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a. In the 2011–2012 election cycle, McCutcheon contributed to 16 federal candidates, complying with all base limits. He alleges that the aggregate limits prevented him from contributing to additional candidates and political committees and that he wishes to make similar contributions in the future. McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee challenged the aggregate limits under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, with five justices concluding that those limits are invalid. Regardless whether strict scrutiny or the “closely drawn” test applies, the analysis depends on the fit between stated governmental objectives and the means selected to achieve the objectives. The aggregate limits fail even under the “closely drawn” test. Contributing to a candidate is an exercise of the right to participate in the electoral process through political expression and political association. A restriction on how many candidates and committees an individual may support is not a “modest restraint.” To require a person to contribute at lower levels because he wants to support more candidates or causes penalizes that individual for “robustly exercis[ing]” his First Amendment rights. The proper focus is on an individual’s right to engage in political speech, not a collective conception of the public good. The aggregate limits do not further the permissible governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The justices noted the line between quid pro quo corruption and general influence and that the Court must “err on the side of protecting political speech.” Given regulations already in effect, fear that an individual might make massive unearmarked contributions to entities likely to support particular candidate is speculative. Experience suggests that most contributions are retained and spent by their recipients; the government provided no reason to believe that candidates or committees would dramatically shift their priorities if aggregate limits were lifted. Multiple alternatives could serve the interest in preventing circumvention without “unnecessary abridgment” of First Amendment rights, such as targeted restrictions on transfers among candidates and committees, tighter earmarking rules, and disclosure. View "McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Florida Secretary of State, arguing that Florida was violating the 90 Day Provision of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A), by conducting a program to systematically remove suspected non-citizens from the voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election. The 90 Day Provision requires states to "complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters." Concerned about people who are not citizens casting ballots in Florida elections, the Secretary engaged in two separate programs to identify and remove non-citizens from the Florida voter rolls. Determining that the issue was not moot even if the 2012 elections have passed, the court concluded that the plain meaning of the 90 Day Provision indicates that the Secretary's actions fall under the category of "any program...to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters." Further, the statutory context and policy of the NVRA supported the court's conclusion that the plain meaning of "any program...to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters" was intended by Congress to include programs like the Secretary's. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Arcia, et al. v. Florida Secretary of State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, registered voters seeking to invalidate the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission’s (Commission) assignment of two “holdover senators” in its final 2013 redistricting plan, filed a complaint against the State and Secretary of State (collectively, "State") seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that (1) the Commission did not violate the public’s “right to know”; (2) the Commission is part of the legislative branch and is not an agency, and that it is therefore exempt from statutes promulgating the right of participation; and (3) Plaintiffs’ argument that the Commission violated Plaintiffs’ right of suffrage was without merit. View "Willems v. State" on Justia Law