Litigation We're Watching

Litigation of Interest

The Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Chapman (United States District Court, Middle District, PA). In a lawsuit filed in February 2018, Court ruled on March 31, 2022 the public records provisions of the National Voter Registration Act require Pennsylvania to produce records regarding the state’s improper registration of foreign nationals, and its actions taken to correct the errors in official voter lists. The court ordered Pennsylvania to produce the list of names with voting histories, and that protected information cannot be wholly withheld, but instead must be produced and redacted only to the extent permitted by law.

Alliance San Diego v. City of San Diego (Superior Court, San Diego, Case No. 37-2021-00024590-CU-MC-CTL). On March 8, 2022, Court ruled the City erred by delaying certification of Measure C, a voter-petitioned proposal to increase the hotel tax on the March 3, 2020 ballot. The City’s ballot materials informed voters Measure C required a 2/3 vote for approval, and the votes in favor of Measure C fell just short of 2/3. Despite this, the City delayed immediate certification citing “a split of authority” in the courts whether the measure required 2/3 of the votes cast or majority of the votes cast. After several appellate courts ruled that majority vote was the correct threshold, nearly one year after the original date for certification, the City Council ultimately declared Measure C passed. The court rebuked the City Council by finding that certification of the results of an election is a ministerial act, and the Council had no authority to delay the declaration of the result of the Measure C votes or to modify the City Clerk’s certified results.

Alliance San Diego v. City of San Diego (Superior Court, San Diego, Case No. 37-2021-00024590-CU-MC-CTL). On March 8, 2022, Court ruled the City erred by delaying certification of Measure C, a voter-petitioned proposal to increase the hotel tax on the March 3, 2020 ballot. The City’s ballot materials informed voters Measure C required a 2/3 vote for approval, and the votes in favor of Measure C fell just short of 2/3. Despite this, the City delayed immediate certification citing “a split of authority” in the courts whether the measure required 2/3 of the votes cast or majority of the votes cast. After several appellate courts ruled that majority vote was the correct threshold, nearly one year after the original date for certification, the City Council ultimately declared Measure C passed. The court rebuked the City Council by finding that certification of the results of an election is a ministerial act, and the Council had no authority to delay the declaration of the result of the Measure C votes or to modify the City Clerk’s certified results.