Latest news with #ElectionsCode
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A voter deposits a mail-in ballot at the drop box outside the Chester County Government Center on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Capital-Star/Peter Hall) A GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on provisional ballots is dead, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Friday. The high court's rejection means county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out their mail-in ballots have been rejected under the state Supreme Court's decision in October. The case at issue, Faith Genser et al vs. the Butler County Board of Elections, stemmed from a lawsuit filed after the 2024 primary election by two Butler County voters. They claimed they were disenfranchised when the board refused to count provisional ballots the voters cast on Election Day, after learning their mail ballots were disqualified for missing dates. The board of elections reasoned that the Pennsylvania Election Code says provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are 'timely received' can't be counted, even if the voters' mail-in ballots are rejected. In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found the Elections Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter, and as long as there are no other issues that would disqualify their provisional ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain its decision not to hear the appeal. Attorneys for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not respond to an email requesting comment. 'Republicans don't think every rightful vote should count. We disagree, and now, the Supreme Court has sided with us. Pennsylvanians deserve to have their say in every election – full stop,' Democratic National Committee Chairperson Ken Martin said in a statement. The case is one of many involving 'paperwork errors' on vote-by-mail-ballots, since absentee voting without an excuse became an option in 2019 with the passage of Act 77. 'Every election, thousands of Pennsylvania mail ballots are voided due to common technical mistakes made by voters,' Rich Ting, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said. 'Thanks to Faith Genser and Frank Matis fighting for their right to vote, all Pennsylvania voters who make those mistakes are guaranteed the right to vote by provisional ballot as a failsafe.' The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center with pro-bono counsel from Dechert LLP represented Genser and Matis in their lawsuit. 'The Supreme Court's determination not to hear this case means that Pennsylvanians who make a technical mistake with their mail-in ballots will have a way to fix the mistake instead of losing the opportunity to vote,' Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said. In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argued the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures. In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.' The decision last week is the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on reviewing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision. In November it refused to place a stay on enforcement of the ruling days before the presidential election. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has taken steps to pass amendments to clarify the vote-by-mail law in recent weeks. House Bill 1396, sponsored by Speaker Joanna McClinton (D-Philadelphia) would give election workers up to a week before Election Day to prepare to count mail-in ballots, a process that has been a bottleneck for election results in parts of the state, and has provided fodder for election deniers. The measure would remedy other ambiguities in Act 77, such as making clear that county election officials must notify voters if their mail ballots are rejected. It passed the House with a 102-101 vote along party lines May 13. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SLO County group won its recall fight but won't get a dime for legal fees. Why?
An attempt to recoup more than $150,000 in attorney's fees from the city of Grover Beach by citizens grassroots group GroverH2O fell short in court. The effort to recover a total of $151,630 in legal fees came at the close of a clash between GroverH2O and the city over petitions to recall Councilmembers Zach Zimmerman and Dan Rushing and Mayor Karen Bright due to their votes to raise water and wastewater rates to pay for the since-discontinued Central Coast Blue water recycling project. GroverH2O submitted a total of six versions of its recall petition to the city in early 2024, culminating in an April 26, 2024, lawsuit that alleged that the recall efforts were being blocked in bad faith by city clerk Wendy Sims and other city officials by unlawfully rejecting two lines in the petition. Sims originally denied the petitions because the city took issue with two sentences it believed to be 'false, misleading and inconsistent with the requirements' of Chapter 1 of the Elections Code, according to the original lawsuit. Those statements were: 'Dan Rushing voted to make Grover Beach the industrial area of Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande.' 'Dan Rushing approved a project to tear up newly repaired residential streets for 16 wells, a mile of pipelines, and a wastewater treatment plant in Grover neighborhoods.' In May 2024, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Craig Van Rooyen ruled the city violated election law by denying the petitions submitted by GroverH2O on the basis of their content, which organizer and former mayor Debbie Peterson said at the time violated the group's First Amendment rights. In a tentative ruling issued by the court, Van Rooyen directed the city to accept and allow the circulation of the original recall petition submitted in April 2024, including the lines in question. Though the city initially appealed Van Rooyen's decision, it dropped the appeal in May. The unaltered petition to recall Rushing was then released to GroverH2O by the city clerk on May 29, giving the petitioners until June 6 to collect a minimum of 504 valid signatures to get the recall on the November ballot. GroverH2O's petition ultimately accomplished its goal of getting the recall on the November ballot, with 55.4% of votes cast on the recall calling for Rushing's removal. However, the issue of attorney's fees was left unresolved until April 7, when Van Rooyen denied GroverH2O's bid. During public comment at the March 24 City Council meeting, Peterson told the council that GroverH2O expected to see their fees repaid following their victory in court. 'We call on the City Council to respect the majority vote and mandate of the people of Grover Beach and the courts, and cut their — and the people's — losses,' Peterson said during public comment. 'Pay up now before the costs go higher.' Under the Code of Civil Procedure, attorney's fees can be awarded to a successful party if their litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest. According to the ruling, petitioners argued that they 'conferred a significant benefit on the general public by enabling District 2 voters to participate in the selection (or in this case, the rejection) of their elected representative through the recall process in the November 2024 election.' In return, the city argued that the issue of Rushing's recall was already turned over to voters when the city accepted and circulated a revised version of the petition without the contested language. As such, the question at hand came down to whether obtaining a writ directing the city to certify the April 2024 petition containing the contested language conferred a significant benefit to the public, city attorney Rob Lomeli said. 'Ultimately, the court found that because the falsity of statements was never at issue, and because there was already another petition that was being circulated, there really was no benefit that had been conferred on the public, so they denied the fees to these petitioners,' Lomeli said. Lomeli said had the petitioners been successful in their motion to recoup attorney fees, the funding would have come from the city's general fund. While Van Rooyen's decision can be appealed, Lomeli said he hasn't heard anything from the petitioners about further legal action at this time. The Tribune reached out to Peterson for comment but did not receive a reply as of Friday afternoon.
Los Angeles Times
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Huntington Beach voter ID case still alive, kicked back to Orange County Superior Court
A three-judge appellate panel on Thursday kicked Huntington Beach's voter identification case back down to the Orange County Superior Court, calling the lower court's decision that the case was not ripe for decision 'problematic.' Last November, Judge Nico Dourbetas dismissed the state's challenge of the constitutionality of the city's voter ID law, Measure A. The measure was approved by Surf City voters last year and altered the city charter to allow for voter ID beginning in 2026. The city has not detailed plans to implement such a law for next year's election, and the language of the measure stated that it 'may' implement voter ID, not that it will. But the California Fourth District Court of Appeal panel asked Dourbetas to modify his order, granting the city's motion to dismiss the case, within 10 days. If that doesn't happen, the appellate court would take over and invite both parties to file briefs by March 10. Specifically, the court is asking the city to reveal if it intends to conduct voter ID checks beyond those required by state and federal law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed a writ of mandate on Feb. 13, asking the appellate judges to decide the merits of the case. 'We are grateful for, and encouraged by, the appellate court's prompt action,' said Bonta said in a statement. 'Our priority remains the same: making sure that Huntington Beach's Measure A is struck down as quickly as possible.' Thursday's order, written by Judge Kathleen O'Leary, states that Huntington Beach's city charter is now at odds with Elections Code section 10005. Outgoing Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates has argued that the state constitution renders the elections code unconstitutional in regards to charter cities. The order, however, calls Huntington Beach's argument that it has a constitutional right to regulate its own municipal elections free from state interference problematic. It notes that municipal elections are consolidated with statewide elections, which takes the local elections outside of the home rule doctrine. Weber, in a statement, said she is pleased with the direction the case is headed. 'I look forward to a resolution that protects California voters,' she said. Gates did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
