State of Justice: July 2026 Cases in the Courts
Alaska
Alaska v. Sullivan
Alaska Supreme Court orders a spot on the ballot for 2nd Dan Sullivan
The Alaska Division of Elections removed retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan from the Alaska ballot for U.S. Senate after concluding that his candidacy was intended to confuse voters because he shares a name and party affiliation with incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R). During oral argument, the Alaska Supreme Court appeared skeptical that disqualification was appropriate, with Chief Justice Susan Carney describing removal from the ballot as “the most extreme remedy possible” and questioning why the state could not instead distinguish the candidates by using middle initials or other ballot-design tools. Shortly after argument, the court issued a brief order requiring Dan J. Sullivan to be included on the ballot. It remanded the matter to the Division of Elections to determine how his name should appear.
Arizona
Heap v. Galvin
Heap prevails at Arizona Supreme Court as justices reject Maricopa supervisors’ election duty grab
Under Arizona law, election duties are split between county boards and recorders, with county supervisors controlling election-day voting while recorders control early voting. In 2024, after Justin Heap became recorder-elect but before he was sworn in, the board reached an agreement with the lame-duck recorder to allow the board to control the recorder’s IT department and other responsibilities. Upon taking office, Heap canceled that agreement and sued the board to regain control of the recorder’s IT department and responsibilities. A trial court granted Heap’s requested relief, but the board appealed, claiming that the trial court’s order was too close to the July 21 primary to take effect without causing election disruption and confusion. A split court of appeals issued a stay of the trial court’s order. The state supreme court reversed, opting instead to implement the recorder’s 12-point interim operational protocols to avoid disrupting the primary election.
Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona
Arizona high court revives ‘dark money’ free speech fight
In 2022, Arizona voters approved Proposition 211, a law that mandates public disclosure of the sources of campaign spending under certain circumstances. Opponents of the law sued, arguing that forcing disclosure of the source of political spending limits free-speech rights enshrined in the state constitution. Chief Justice Ann Timmer, writing for the majority in a 4-3 decision, argued that the state has certain “police-power” rights over certain types of speech recognized by the Arizona Constitution. Those powers, coupled with Arizona’s history of election spending transparency, counseled upholding the voter-approved initiative.
Colorado
Balink v. Nathan (In re: Ballot Title Nos. 241, 242, 328)
Colorado Supreme Court deals blow to Democrats’ redistricting push
In Colorado, advocates proposed a series of initiatives intended to allow for the consideration and adoption of temporary redistricted congressional maps for the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections. Opponents sued, arguing that two of the three initiatives underlying the effort violated the “single subject requirement” and thus the Colorado Constitution. The state supreme court agreed. The court explained that while it typically grants broad discretion to the Title Board – the government entity responsible for setting the title and content of ballot initiatives – the court nevertheless had to determine whether the initiative language related to more than one subject to avoid confusion with a “yes” vote on matters on which the voter might intend to vote “no.” To demonstrate, the court laid out that the language at issue “would comprise at least two subjects, namely, (1) replacing the constitutional independent congressional redistricting commission with an identical statutory commission; and (2) adopting a specific, temporary 12 congressional district map to be used in the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections.” The court concluded that while the voter may agree with one part of the proposal, the voter could reasonably not support the second part of the proposal.
Maryland
In re Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee
Maryland Supreme Court shuts down Frederick County data center referendum
Late last year, the Frederick County Council adopted an ordinance designating a defunct smelting plant as a 2,600-acre development zone for data centers. The decision drew public outcry, as residents expressed concerns about the proposed data centers’ impact on utility and water usage. Opposing residents collected thousands of signatures to challenge the project by referendum, but the circuit court reversed, finding that the zoning ordinance was not appropriate for a referendum challenge under the Frederick County Charter. The state supreme court agreed, finding that the county council’s zoning decision was not appropriate for a referendum challenge. Additionally, the state supreme court affirmed the circuit court’s conclusion that the proposed referendum did not meet the Charter’s petition requirements because it did not contain a “full and accurate” reproduction of the challenged ordinance.
Nebraska
Common Cause v. Evnen (or Essink v. Evnen)
Nebraska Supreme Court rules voter data case is moot because feds already have records
Last fall, voting rights advocates and voters sued Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) to stop the state from turning over sensitive voter registration data to the federal government, including information such as names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. A trial court judge dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and shortly afterward the Secretary of State released the voter data to the federal government. Here, the state supreme court dismissed the appeal as moot, concluding that because the voter registration list had already been released to the federal government, there was no effective relief left to grant.
Ohio
In the Matter of the Application of Kingwood Solar
Ohio Power Siting Board asks court to punt on high-stakes solar case
In late 2022, the Ohio Power Siting Board (“the board”) denied a commercial developer’s permit application to establish an alternative energy project. In denying the application, the board concluded that the proposed project was not in the public interest because local governments opposed it. The project developer appealed. Now, the board seeks to dismiss the developer’s cause of action because the developer’s precursor agreements have expired, preventing the developer from qualifying to move the project forward. In opposing the motion to dismiss, renewable energy advocates highlight that the project’s precursor agreements expired – in part – because the board missed various deadlines that would have advanced the developer’s appeals, including issuing denials months beyond legal deadlines. There is no anticipated date for the court to make a decision.
McNamara-Smith v. Grube
Ashville Referendum Fight Heads to Ohio Supreme Court Over EdgeConneX Data Center Agreement
Earlier this year, the Village of Ashville’s village council approved a resolution authorizing a contract for a proposed data center campus within the village. In response, residents opposed to the data center contract filed a mandamus action seeking to compel election officials to place a referendum on the November ballot to cancel the data center contract. Notably, the village argues that its decision is insulated from referendum review because it was passed as an emergency measure, thereby exempting it from referendum challenge. Briefing continues, and there is no anticipated date for the court to make a decision.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord
Wisconsin Supreme Court denies access to voter competency records
The Wisconsin Voter Alliance filed open records requests in several counties seeking the notice of voting eligibility forms that circuit courts send to local and state election officials when a judge declares a person incompetent and ineligible to vote. The circuit court concluded that the forms should not be released, and the court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the forms at issue are part of a more comprehensive court record intended to be confidential. Indeed, the legislature specifically closed the hearings and records of a competency proceeding. Thus, the court denied the Alliance’s claim.
