Case Summaries

Elections

[01/31] National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee
In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a Maine law applicable to ballot question committees, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the state defendants is affirmed, where the statute satisfies constitutional standards, in that: 1) the appellants demonstrated no circumstances in which the statute fails to provide them fair warning of its reach, and hence their due process vagueness claim was rejected; 2) the provision's $100 reporting threshold is narrowly tailored to meet Maine's compelling interest in an informed electorate; and 3) the statute is not overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

[01/27] Vandermost v. Bowen
In writ petition proceedings concerning California state senate electoral maps, the requested writ of mandate is denied, where: 1) the court concluded that it was authorized to entertain the writ petition and to determine which state senate districts should be used for the 2012 primary and general elections in the event a proposed referendum on those districts qualifies for placement on the ballot and stays the operative effect of the state senate district map certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission; 2) the court would not issue a writ of mandate commanding the secretary of state to refrain from taking any action implementing the Commission's certified state Senate map, and instead ordered that, if the proposed referendum qualifies for the ballot, the secretary of state and local election officials are to use the state senate map certified by the Commission as interim boundaries for the 2012 primary and general elections, as that map is the alternative most consistent with the constitutional scheme and criteria embodied in the federal and state constitutions.

[01/20] Perry v. Perez
In cases challenging redistricting plans in Texas for race discrimination under the federal Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas implementing interim electoral district maps for the 2012 Texas elections are vacated and cases are remanded for further proceedings, where the district court erred to the extent it exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of the collective public good for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve the interests of the citizens of Texas.

[01/19] Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange
In a suit involving the State of Washington's "top-two" primary election system, the district court's order granting the state's request for reimbursement of attorney's fees is reversed, and its summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in other respects is affirmed, where: 1) the state showed that its primary system furthered an important regulatory interest in providing voters with relevant information about the candidates on the ballots, so as to defeat the plaintiffs' as-applied freedom of association claims; 2) the state's primary system did not violate its fundamental right of access to the ballot by making it difficult for a minor-party candidates to qualify for the general election ballot; 3) a plaintiff did not explain how the state infringed its trademark in connection with the provision of competing services; 4) a written settlement definitively resolved the state's liability for attorney's fees; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to add a new claim; 6) the plaintiffs waived a claim concerning compelled speech because it was not included in any complaint; and 7) the primary system was severable from an unconstitutional provision of the same enacting legislation.

[01/19] Farris v. Seabrook
In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a Washington statute prohibiting contributions of more than $800 to a political committee making expenditures in a recall campaign, the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting Washington from enforcing its limitation is affirmed, where: 1) the plaintiffs satisfied their burden to demonstrate that the contribution limit was likely an unconstitutional and harmful burden on their rights of free speech under the First Amendment; and 2) the district court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that all other factors necessary for issuance of the injunction were present.

[12/29] Family PAC v. McKenna
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court preserving and stricking certain provisions of Washington State's election law as applied to PACs, judgment is affirmed where: 1) Washington Revised Code sections 42.17.090 and 390-16-034 survive constitutional scrutiny because they are substantially related to the important governmental interest in informing the electorate; but 2) Revised Code section 42.17.105(8) fails because it is not closely drawn to achieve such interest.

More...

Education

More...