Skip Navigation
Court Case Tracker

Voting Rights Litigation Tracker 2020

Recent months have seen a flood of voting rights litigation, much of it related to Covid-19’s impact on elections.

Last Updated: July 8, 2021
Published: July 28, 2020

2020 saw a flood of voting rights litig­a­tion, much of it related to Covid-19’s impact on elec­tions. This tracker seeks to aggreg­ate all active and recently disposed of litig­a­tion in both state and federal courts pertain­ing to voters’ abil­ity to cast their ballots in 2020 — whether through vote-by-mail, early in-person voting, or elec­tion day voting at the polls. The inform­a­tion below focuses on signi­fic­ant voting cases that remain pending or affect the 2020 elec­tion. This list does not include cases pertain­ing to candid­acy issues, ballot initi­at­ives, or redis­trict­ing.

For cases active in the post-elec­tion day setting, includ­ing those address­ing the count­ing and certi­fic­a­tion processes, see here. For a list of all cases organ­ized by state, see here.

The Bren­nan Center’s 2021 voting rights litig­a­tion tracker can be found here.

Jump to Post-Elec­tion Day Cases.

Jump to state:


Post-Elec­tion Day Cases

Friday, July 2

Geor­gia Ballot Inspec­tion & Records Request

  • Favorito v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343938 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)
  • On 12/23, indi­vidual voters and poll work­ers sued the members of the Fulton County Board of Elec­tions and its director, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide reques­ted absentee ballots and voting records and alleging fraud and irreg­u­lar­it­ies in the Novem­ber 2020 elec­tion.
  • On 5/21/21, the court issued an order to unseal absentee ballots.
  • On 6/14/21, respond­ents filed a motion to dismiss.
  • On 6/21/21, peti­tion­ers filed an amended peti­tion.
  • On 6/24/21, the court issued an order find­ing respond­ents to be entitled to immunity on consti­tu­tional claims.
  • On 7/2/21, peti­tion­ers filed a third amended peti­tion.

Tues­day, May 18

Michigan Voting Machine Inspec­tion Request

  • Bailey v. Antrim County, No. 2020009238CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Antrim Cnty.)
  • On 11/23, an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit seek­ing a forensic inspec­tion of Antrim County’s precinct tabu­lat­ing machines.
  • On 12/4, a judge gran­ted a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion allow­ing inspec­tion, requir­ing preser­va­tion of all records used to tabu­late votes in Antrim County, and enjoin­ing the county from turn­ing on its Domin­ion tabu­lator and from connect­ing the Domin­ion tabu­lator to the inter­net.
  • On 12/14, on consent, the court ordered the release of a report concern­ing Antrim County’s voting equip­ment.
  • On 12/21, the Michigan secret­ary of state was permit­ted to inter­vene.
  • On 4/13/21, defend­ants filed a motion for summary judg­ment.
  • On 5/18/21, the court dismissed the case.

Monday, May 3

Arizona Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion Request #2

  • Burk v. Ducey, No. CV202001869 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Pinal Cnty.)
  • On 12/7, an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit alleging wide­spread voter fraud and seek­ing to decer­tify Arizon­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.
  • On 12/15, the case was dismissed and plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 1/5, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
  • On 3/3, plaintiff filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 5/3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the peti­tion.

Monday, April 19

Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Receipt Dead­line Appel­late Decision

  • Bognet v. Boock­var, No. 3:20-cv-215 (W.D. Pa.), No. 20–3214 (3d Cir.)
  • On 10/22, a congres­sional candid­ate and four indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the exten­sion of the absentee ballot receipt dead­line and the presump­tion that ballots received by 5:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 6, 2020, were timely mailed, even if they lack a post­mark, both of which were ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Demo­cratic Party v. Boock­var.
  • On 10/28, the district court denied a motion to block the dead­line exten­sion.
  • On 11/13, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion or tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 11/20, plaintiffs filed a peti­tion seek­ing review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 4/19, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judg­ment and remanded the case to the 3rd Circuit with instruc­tions to dismiss the case as moot.

Monday, March 8

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Federal Court Chal­lenge

  • Trump v. Wiscon­sin Elec­tions Commis­sion, No. 2:20-cv-1785 (E.D. Wis.), No. 20–3414 (7th Cir.), No. 20–883 (S. Ct.)
  • On 12/2, Donald J. Trump filed a lawsuit and a motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, accus­ing the Wiscon­sin Elec­tions Commis­sion, the mayors of Wiscon­sin’s five largest cities, and other elec­tion offi­cials of multiple viol­a­tions of the Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Code and asking the court to “remand[ ] th[e] case to the Wiscon­sin Legis­lature to…de­termine what remedy, if any, the Wiscon­sin Legis­lature should impose within its author­ity pursu­ant to the Elect­ors Clause.”
  • On 12/8, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee was permit­ted to inter­vene and several motions to dismiss were filed.
  • On 12/12, the court dismissed the case with preju­dice.
  • On 12/13, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 12/24, the 7th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.
  • On 12/30, plaintiffs filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion for exped­ited consid­er­a­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 3/8, the U.S. Supreme Court denied

Monday, March 1

Arizona Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion Request #1

  • Bowyer v. Ducey, No. 2:20-cv-2321 (D. Ariz.), No. 20–17399 (9th Cir.)
  • On 12/2, Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees and others, repres­en­ted by former Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell, filed a lawsuit alleging “massive elec­tion fraud” and seek­ing to decer­tify the results of Arizon­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.
  • On 12/3, the Arizona demo­cratic party moved to inter­vene and a hear­ing on the motion for a 12/7, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and applic­a­tion for emer­gency relief.
  • On 12/9, the district court dismissed the case.
  • On 12/10, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 12/15, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency peti­tion for an extraordin­ary writ of manda­mus in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 3/1/21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the peti­tion for manda­mus.

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #3

  • Feehan v. Wiscon­sin Elec­tions Commis­sion, No. 2:20-cv-1771 (E.D. Wis.), No. 20–3396 (7th Cir.)
  • On 12/1, a Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector and a defeated U.S. Congres­sional candid­ate filed a lawsuit and a motion for emer­gency injunct­ive relief, alleging a “scheme and arti­fice to defraud” in order to “illeg­ally and fraud­u­lently manip­u­lat[e]” the elec­tion results and seek­ing to decer­tify the results of Wiscon­sin’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, or “an order instruct­ing defend­ants to certify the results of the…elec­tion…in favor of Pres­id­ent Donald Trump.”
  • On 12/3, one plaintiff filed an amended complaint, remov­ing the second plaintiff, who had not consen­ted to parti­cip­at­ing in the suit.
  • On 12/9, the court dismissed the case.
  • On 12/10, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 12/15, plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit and an emer­gency peti­tion for an extraordin­ary writ of manda­mus in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 12/22, plaintiffs with­drew their appeal.
  • On 3/1/21, the Supreme Court denied the peti­tion for a writ of manda­mus.

Thursday, Febru­ary 25

National Voter Intim­id­a­tion & Disen­fran­chise­ment Chal­lenge

  • Michigan Welfare Rights Organ­iz­a­tion v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3388 (D.D.C.)
  • On 11/20, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organ­iz­a­tion and indi­vidual voters sued Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ attempts to disen­fran­chise Black voters, includ­ing those in Detroit, Michigan, under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
  • On 12/21, an amended complaint was filed, adding the Repub­lican National Commit­tee as a defend­ant and the NAACP as a plaintiff.
  • On 2/9/21, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee filed a motion to trans­fer venue to the East­ern District of Michigan.
  • On 2/25/21, Trump and the Repub­lican National Commit­tee filed motions to dismiss the case.

Monday, Febru­ary 22

Arizona Elec­tion Contest #1


Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #2

  • Wood v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-4651 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14418 (11th Cir.), No. 20–799 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/13, the pres­id­ent of the Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance filed a lawsuit in federal court, chal­len­ging changes to Geor­gi­a’s absentee ballot processing proced­ures brought about by a consent decree entered into in March 2020 and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the entire state’s elec­tion results as a consequence.
  • On 11/17, plaintiff filed an emer­gency motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 11/19, follow­ing a hear­ing, the court denied the motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 12/5, the 11th Circuit unan­im­ously affirmed the lower court’s 11/19 order.
  • On 12/8, plaintiff filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and a motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Phil­adelphia Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenges

  • In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Novem­ber 3, 2020 General Elec­tion, Nos. 201100874, 20110085, 20110086, 20110087, 20110088 (Court of Common Pleas, Phil­adelphia Cnty.), Nos. 31 EAP 2020, 32 EAP 2020, 33 EAP 2020, 34 EAP 2020, 35 EAP 2020 (Sup. Ct. Pa.), No. 20–845 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/10, the Trump campaign and an indi­vidual voter filed five separ­ate appeals of decisions by the Phil­adelphia County Board of Elec­tions concern­ing the count­ing of a total of 8,366 absentee and mail-in ballots that were signed but allegedly suffer from minor defects, such as miss­ing the voter’s prin­ted name or street address.
  • On 11/13, the Court of Common Pleas denied all five peti­tions.
  • On 11/14, the Trump campaign filed notices of appeal in all five cases.
  • On 11/18, the case was trans­ferred to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
  • On 11/23, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Court of Common Pleas’ deni­als of all five peti­tions.
  • On 12/21, the Trump campaign filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion to exped­ite in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Pennsylvania Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #3

  • Kelly v. Common­wealth of Pennsylvania, No. 620 MD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct., Pa.), No. 68 MAP 2020 (Sup. Ct. Pa.); Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Boock­var, Nos. 20A98, 20–845 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/21, Repub­lican state and federal congres­sional candid­ates and indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the state consti­tu­tion­al­ity of Act 77 (the 2019 Pennsylvania law that created mail-in voting), and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the results of Pennsylvani­a’s General Elec­tions on a state-wide basis and to require that Pennsylvani­a’s General Assembly choose Pennsylvani­a’s pres­id­en­tial elect­ors.
  • On 11/25, the day after Pennsylvania had certi­fied the results of its pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, the Common­wealth Court issued an order prelim­in­ar­ily enjoin­ing defend­ants from taking “any further action to perfect the certi­fic­a­tion of the results of the 2020 General Elec­tion for the offices of Pres­id­ent and Vice Pres­id­ent,” pending a hear­ing sched­uled for Friday, 11/27.
  • The same day, defend­ants filed a notice of appeal and the court canceled the 11/27 hear­ing.
  • On 11/28, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Common­wealth Court’s prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and dismissed the case with preju­dice.
  • On 12/1, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency applic­a­tion for a writ of injunc­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 12/2, plaintiffs with­drew their U.S. Supreme Court injunc­tion applic­a­tion and filed an emer­gency applic­a­tion for a stay of the court’s 11/28 order in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
  • On 12/3, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs’ emer­gency applic­a­tion for a stay of the court’s 11/28 order, plaintiffs filed a second applic­a­tion for injunct­ive relief in the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Alito set a 12/8 dead­line for a response.
  • On 12/8, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the request for injunct­ive relief.
  • On 12/11, plaintiffs filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and a motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied. 

Pennsylvania Poll Watcher Access Lawsuit

  • In re Canvassing Obser­va­tion, No. 201107003 (Ct. Common Pleas, Phil­adelphia-Elec­tion Court); No. 1094 CD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct.), No. 30 EAP 2020 (Sup. Ct. Pa.); Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Boock­var, No. 20–845 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/3, a state court in Phil­adelphia denied an oral request by the Trump campaign to allow its poll watch­ers closer obser­va­tion of ballot canvassing.
  • On 11/5, a Pennsylvania appel­late court reversed and remanded, “requir­ing that all candid­ates, watch­ers or candid­ate repres­ent­at­ives be permit­ted to be present for the canvassing process pursu­ant to [the Pennsylvania Elec­tion Code] and be permit­ted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adher­ing to all COVID-19 proto­cols.”
  • On 11/5, the Phil­adelphia Board of Elec­tions appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
  • On 11/17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the appel­late order and rein­stated the trial court’s order deny­ing the Trump campaign’s request.
  • On 12/20, the Trump campaign filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion to exped­ite in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Pennsylvania Signa­ture Match­ing

  • In re Novem­ber 3, 2020 General Elec­tion, No. 149 MM 2020 (Sup. Ct. Pa.); Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Boock­var, No. 20–845 (S. Ct.)
  • On 10/14, the Pennsylvania secret­ary of state filed a King’s Bench Applic­a­tion with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, seek­ing a declar­a­tion as to whether state law “author­izes or requires county elec­tion boards to reject voted absentee or mail-in ballot­s…­based on signa­ture analysis where there are alleged or perceived signa­ture vari­ances.”
  • On 10/23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order prohib­it­ing the rejec­tion of absentee or mail-in ballots “based on signa­ture compar­ison conduc­ted by county elec­tion offi­cials or employ­ees, or as the result of third-party chal­lenges based on signa­ture analysis and compar­is­ons.”
  • On 12/20, the Trump campaign, as an inter­ven­ing defend­ant, filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion to exped­ite in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Michigan Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion Request

  • King v. Whit­mer, No. 2:20-cv-13134 (E.D. Mich.), No. 20–2205 (6th Cir.), No. 20–815 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/25, Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elect­ors in Michigan, repres­en­ted by former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, filed a lawsuit alleging wide­spread voter fraud and seek­ing to decer­tify the elec­tion results and to certify Donald Trump as the winner of Michigan’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.
  • On 11/29, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order, seek­ing decer­ti­fic­a­tion of Michigan’s elec­tion results or a stay in the deliv­ery of the certi­fied results to the Elect­oral College.
  • On 12/7, the court denied the request for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 12/8, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 6th Circuit.
  • On 12/11, plaintiffs filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 12/18, the plaintiffs filed a motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 12/22, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee filed a motion to dismiss and the City of Detroit filed a motion to dismiss and for sanc­tions.
  • On 1/11/21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 1/14/21, plaintiffs filed notices of volun­tary
  • On 1/28/21, state defend­ants filed a motion for sanc­tions.
  • On 2/22/21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Wiscon­sin Recount Appeal

  • Trump v. Biden, No. 2020CV2514 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane Cnty.), No. 2020CV7092 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwau­kee Cnty.), No. 2020AP2038 (Sup. Ct. Wis.), No. 20–882 (S. Ct.)
  • On 12/3, Donald Trump and Mike Pence appealed the results of Dane and Milwau­kee Counties’ recounts, and the appeals were consol­id­ated in the Milwau­kee County Circuit Court.
  • On 12/11, the court affirmed the results of both recounts and plaintiffs filed notice of appeal.
  • On 12/14, the Wiscon­sin Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judg­ment.
  • On 12/29, the Trump campaign filed a peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and a motion for exped­ited consid­er­a­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 2/22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied.

Friday, Febru­ary 19

National Chal­lenge to Count­ing of Pres­id­en­tial Elector Votes

  • Wiscon­sin Voters Alli­ance v. Pence, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C.)
  • On 12/22, the Wiscon­sin Voters Alli­ance, Pennsylvania Voters Alli­ance, and others sued Vice Pres­id­ent Pence, the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives, the U.S. Senate, the Elect­oral College, and others, seek­ing to enjoin the Vice Pres­id­ent and U.S. Congress “from count­ing Pres­id­en­tial elector votes from states unless their respect­ive state legis­latures vote affirm­at­ively in a post-elec­tion vote to certify the Pres­id­en­tial elect­ors.”
  • On 1/4, the district court denied the motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion.
  • On 1/7, plaintiffs volun­tar­ily dismissed the case
  • On 2/19, the court, sua sponte, issued an order refer­ring plaintiffs’ coun­sel to the Commit­tee for Griev­ances.

National Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request

  • Lati­nos for Trump v. Sessions, 6:21-cv-43 (W.D. Tex.)
  • On 1/18, Lati­nos for Trump, Blacks for Trump, four indi­vidual voters and a former Texas congres­sional candid­ate sued Pete Sessions, Mitch McCon­nell, Mark Zuck­er­berg and others, includ­ing “all members of the 117th U.S. Congress,” chal­len­ging the legal­ity of the 2020 general elec­tion and the 2021 Geor­gia senate runoff elec­tion based on “vari­ous and pervas­ive changes in elec­tion proced­ures imple­men­ted…in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” seek­ing to inval­id­ate the elec­tions and the confirm­a­tion of Joe Biden as pres­id­ent-elect, to unseat the entire 117th U.S. Congress, to enjoin the DOJ and FBI from arrest­ing plaintiffs’ attor­neys in rela­tion to their attend­ance at the Janu­ary 6, 2021 “protest” at the Capitol, and “[o]rder the only lawfully and consti­tu­tion­ally remain­ing federal public offi­cial, [Donald Trump] to take all reas­on­able and neces­sary action…to preserve the lawful and orderly continu­ity of govern­ment.”
  • On 1/19, plaintiffs filed a motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 1/27, the court, sua sponte, issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
  • On 2/16, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
  • On 2/19, certain plaintiffs filed a notice of volun­tary dismissal.

Tues­day, Janu­ary 19

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #3

  • Pear­son v. Kemp, No. 1:20-cv-4809 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14480 (11th Cir.), No. 20–816 (S. Ct.)
  • On 11/25, Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elect­ors in Geor­gia, repres­en­ted by former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, filed a lawsuit alleging wide­spread voter fraud and seek­ing to decer­tify the elec­tion results and to certify Donald Trump as the winner of Geor­gi­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.
  • On 11/27, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory, emer­gency, and perman­ent injunct­ive relief.
  • On 11/29, a federal court judge issued an order enjoin­ing and restrain­ing defend­ants from alter­ing, destroy­ing, or eras­ing any soft­ware or data on any Domin­ion voting machine in Cobb, Gwin­nett, and Cher­o­kee Counties.
  • On 12/3, defend­ants filed an emer­gency motion for relief from the 11/29 tempor­ary restrain­ing order in the district court and a cross-appeal in the 11th Circuit.
  • On 12/4, 11th Circuit dismissed both appeals for lack of juris­dic­tion.
  • On 12/5, defend­ants filed a motion to dismiss in the district court.
  • On 12/7, the court dismissed the case and vacated the tempor­ary restrain­ing order, and plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 12/11, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency peti­tion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On 12/18, plaintiffs filed a motion to consol­id­ate and exped­ite consid­er­a­tion of the emer­gency peti­tion.
  • On 1/11, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 1/19, plaintiff filed a stip­u­la­tion of dismissal in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thursday, Janu­ary 14

Wash­ing­ton Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Culp for Governor v. Wyman, No. 20–2–17720–2 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cnty.)
  • On 12/10, the losing gubernat­orial candid­ate filed a lawsuit seek­ing to inval­id­ate the elec­tion results based on alleged voter fraud.
  • On 12/30, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
  • On 1/14, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Tues­day Janu­ary 12

Nevada Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Elec­tion Integ­rity Project of Nevada v. State of Nevada, A-20–820510-C (Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty., Nevada); No. 81847 (Sup. Ct. Nev.)
  • On 11/16, the Elec­tion Integ­rity Project of Nevada filed an applic­a­tion for an emer­gency perman­ent injunc­tion, seek­ing to block the certi­fic­a­tion of Nevada’s general elec­tion results, to enjoin its elect­ors from cast­ing their votes for pres­id­ent on Decem­ber 12, 2020, and to prevent “any Nevada candid­ate from taking office because the elec­tion was carried out pursu­ant to the require­ments of AB4, which is an uncon­sti­tu­tional law, as it deprives all legit­im­ate voters of Nevada of their right of equal protec­tion.”
  • On 11/20, a state court judge denied the “shock­ing” request.
  • On 1/12, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Pennsylvania Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge (Allegheny County #3)

Friday, Janu­ary 8

New Mexico Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge


New York Congres­sional Contest

  • Tenney v. Oswego County Board of Elec­tions, No. EFC-2020–1376 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego Cnty.)
  • On 11/4, a Repub­lican U.S. Congres­sional candid­ate filed a lawsuit seek­ing, among other things, an order preserving chal­lenged absentee ballot envel­opes and ulti­mately certi­fy­ing her as the victor of the elec­tion.
  • On 12/2, the peti­tioner candid­ate (Tenney) filed an order to show cause seek­ing to end the canvassing process and certify her as the winner.
  • On 12/2, the respond­ent Demo­cratic candid­ate (Brind­isi) filed an order to show cause seek­ing, among other things, a review and account­ing of contested ballots and a manual audit.
  • On 12/8, the court issued an order deny­ing Tenney’s motion, while grant­ing in part and deny­ing in part Brind­isi’s motion, thus direct­ing the respond­ent boards of elec­tion to “fulfill their stat­utory canvassing duties, imme­di­ately correct all of the canvassing errors, and where errors cannot be correc­ted, recan­vass those ballots.”
  • On 1/8, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Thursday, Janu­ary 7

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #8

  • Trump v. Kemp, No. 1:20-cv-5310 (N.D. Ga.)
  • On 12/31, Donald J. Trump filed a lawsuit and motion for exped­ited declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief against the Geor­gia governor and secret­ary of state, seek­ing to decer­tify the results of Geor­gi­a’s Novem­ber 3 general elec­tion.
  • On 1/5, the court denied the motion for exped­ited declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief.
  • On 1/7, plaintiff filed a notice of volun­tary dismissal, purportedly in rela­tion to a “settle­ment.”
  • The same day, defend­ants filed a response to plaintiff’s notice, noting that, while they had no objec­tion to dismissal, “[t]here is no settle­ment.”

Michigan Poll Watcher Access & Drop Box Monit­or­ing Lawsuit

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., v. Benson, No. 20–000225-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims), No. 355378, 355379 (Ct. App. Mich.), No. 162320 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)
  • On 11/4, the Trump campaign and a poll watcher filed a lawsuit, chal­len­ging the poll watch­ers’ ostens­ible lack of access to ballot drop box surveil­lance foot­age and loca­tions where absentee ballots are being coun­ted, as well as an emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment seek­ing an order to imme­di­ately stop count­ing ballots.
  • On 11/5, a state court judge denied the motion, find­ing that plaintiffs had presen­ted noth­ing more than inad­miss­ible hearsay to substan­ti­ate their claims.
  • On 11/9, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejec­ted as defect­ive the Trump campaign’s motion for imme­di­ate consid­er­a­tion of appeal.
  • On 11/30, the Trump campaign filed a new motion for appeal and for imme­di­ate consid­er­a­tion.
  • On 12/4, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied the campaign’s motion for appeal.
  • On 12/7, the Trump campaign filed a motion to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
  • On 12/11, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the motion.
  • On 1/7, the court dismissed the case as moot

Saturday, Janu­ary 2

Request to Inval­id­ate Elect­oral College Act

  • Gohmert v. Pence, 6:20-cv-660 (E.D. Tex.), No. 21–40001 (5th Cir.)
  • On 12/27, U.S. Repres­ent­at­ive Louis Gohmert and the Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elect­ors for the State of Arizona filed a lawsuit against Vice Pres­id­ent Mike Pence, seek­ing to inval­id­ate sections 5 and 15 of the Elect­oral Count Act and to author­ize the Vice Pres­id­ent to exer­cise “exclus­ive author­ity and sole discre­tion in determ­in­ing which elect­oral votes to count for a given state.”
  • On 12/28, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion
  • On 1/1, the district court dismissed the case, and the original plaintiffs filed notices of
  • On 1/2, the 5th Circuit denied Gohmer­t’s emer­gency motion for exped­ited appeal and an inter­ven­ing plaintiff filed a separ­ate notice of appeal.

Thursday, Decem­ber 24

Nevada Chal­lenge to Refusal to Certify Elec­tion Results

  • Miller v. Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers, No. A-20–824971-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/17, a narrowly prevail­ing candid­ate for Clark County Commis­sion filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging defend­ants’ refusal to certify the results of the elec­tion and decision to order a new elec­tion to take place.
  • On 12/24, a state court judge denied the oppos­ing/inter­ven­ing candid­ate’s motion for an order requir­ing the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers to order a new elec­tion.

Friday, Decem­ber 18

Minnesota Elec­tion Contests

  • Braun v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5602 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)
  • Quist v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5598 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)
  • Peterson v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5600 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)
  • Jensen v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5599 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)
  • Rodrig­uez v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5601 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)
  • On 12/1, indi­vidual voters filed five nearly identical elec­tion contests, chal­len­ging the results of the elec­tions for U.S. Senate and four of Minnesota’s Congres­sional districts, alleging elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies and illegal voter assist­ance.
  • On 12/18, four of the lawsuits (BraunPetersonJensen & Rodrig­uez) were dismissed with preju­dice.

Thursday, Decem­ber 17

Geor­gia Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion Request #7

  • Still v. Raffen­sperger, No. 2020CV343711 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)
  • On 12/17, a pres­id­en­tial elector and an anonym­ous indi­vidual filed an elec­tion contest, alleging unspe­cified fraud and miscon­duct and seek­ing to decer­tify the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results for Cobb County, Geor­gia and the state as a whole.

Wednes­day, Decem­ber 16

Massachu­setts Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Moran v. Common­wealth of Massachu­setts, No. 1:20-cv-12171 (D. Mass.)
  • On 12/7, five state legis­lat­ive candid­ates filed a lawsuit seek­ing to decer­tify the results of Massachu­setts’ Novem­ber 3 general elec­tion, alleging elec­tion fraud attrib­uted to vari­ous changes to voting proced­ures imple­men­ted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
  • On 12/16, one of the plaintiffs volun­tar­ily with­drew from the case.

Monday, Decem­ber 14

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #6

Friday, Decem­ber 11

Texas Chal­lenge to Pres­id­en­tial Elec­tions in Geor­gia, Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wiscon­sin

Thursday, Decem­ber 10

Pennsylvania Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #5

  • Metcalfe v. Wolf, No. 636 MD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct. Pa.)
  • On 12/4, indi­vidual voters, backed by the Thomas Moore Soci­ety, filed a lawsuit seek­ing to enjoin certi­fic­a­tion of Pennsylvani­a’s elec­tion, notwith­stand­ing that the results had been certi­fied ten days prior to filing.
  • On 12/9, the Common­wealth Court denied the emer­gency motion.
  • On 12/10, plaintiffs with­drew the action.

Wednes­day, Decem­ber 9

Michigan Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • John­son v. Benson, No. 162286 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)
  • On 11/26, two indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit in Michigan Supreme Court, seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion results due to the secret­ary of state’s affirm­at­ive mail­ing of absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all registered voters, and to allow the Michigan legis­lature to select the state’s pres­id­en­tial elect­ors.
  • On 12/9, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the reques­ted relief.

Tues­day, Decem­ber 8

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #5

  • Boland v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 2020CV343018 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)
  • On 11/30, an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit seek­ing an audit of Geor­gi­a’s voter rolls and compar­ison with the writ­ten ballots cast, or in the altern­at­ive, that the elec­tion results be decer­ti­fied and a new elec­tion be ordered.
  • On 12/8, the court dismissed the case.

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #4

  • Wood v. Raffen­sper­ger2020CV342959 (Super. Ct. Fulton Cnty., Ga.)
  • On 11/25, the pres­id­ent of the Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance filed a peti­tion contest­ing Geor­gi­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion based on Fulton County’s accept­ance of private elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion grants and alleging wide­spread fraud across the state, and partic­u­larly in Fulton County.
  • On 12/8, the court gran­ted defend­ants’ motion to dismiss.

Michigan Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Cost­antino v. City of Detroit, No. 20–014780-AW (Cir. Ct., Wayne Cnty., Mich.), No. 355443 (Mich. Ct. App.), No. 162245 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)
  • On 11/9, two poll watch­ers sued the City of Detroit and others, alleging unevid­enced fraud and miscon­duct by elec­tion offi­cials, includ­ing fail­ing to allow suffi­cient observer access, count­ing late-arriv­ing ballots, allow­ing unqual­i­fied voters to vote under others’ names, and double voting in Michigan’s largest county. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin certi­fic­a­tion of the elec­tion results pending a full invest­ig­a­tion and hear­ing, and an order for an inde­pend­ent audit of the elec­tion.
  • On 11/13, plaintiffs’ motions for injunct­ive relief, for a protect­ive order, and for an inde­pend­ent audit were denied.
  • On 11/16, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’
  • On 11/17, plaintiffs sought leave to appeal from the Michigan Supreme Court.
  • On 11/23, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the request.
  • On 12/8, the lower court denied plaintiffs’ renewed request for an audit.

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #1

  • Law v. Whit­mer, No. 20 OC 00163 1B (Dist. Ct., Carson City, Nevada), No. 82178 (Nev. Sup. Ct.)
  • On 11/17, six candid­ates for pres­id­en­tial elect­ors on behalf of Donald J. Trump filed a contest of Nevada’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of “substan­tial irreg­u­lar­it­ies, impro­pri­et­ies, and fraud” and request­ing that Trump be declared the winner of the elec­tion.
  • On 11/23, defend­ants filed a motion to dismiss.
  • On 12/2, the court denied two motions to compel produc­tion of evid­ence.
  • On 12/4, the court dismissed the lawsuit with preju­dice and ordered plaintiffs to pay defend­ants’ costs.
  • On 12/7, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and an emer­gency motion to exped­ite appeal and defend­ants filed a motion for summary affirm­ance.
  • On 12/8, plaintiffs filed a motion seek­ing to disqual­ify Nevada Supreme Court Justice James W. Hardesty due to his having publicly congrat­u­lated the Nevada secret­ary of state for having admin­istered a success­ful elec­tion.
  • On 12/8, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

Pennsylvania Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge (Bucks County #2)

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Bucks County Board of Elec­tions (a.k.a. In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Novem­ber 3, 2020 General Elec­tion), No. 2020–5786 (Ct. Common Pleas, Bucks Cnty, Pa.). No. 1191 CD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct., Pa.)
  • On 11/9, the Trump campaign, Repub­lican National Commit­tee and others filed an appeal of the decision of the Bucks County Board of Elec­tions to count 2,175 allegedly defect­ive absentee and mail-in ballots.
  • On 11/16, the Trump campaign conceded that they were not alleging, nor did they have any evid­ence of fraud, miscon­duct, impro­pri­ety, nor undue influ­ence in rela­tion to the chal­lenged ballots.
  • On 11/19, the court dismissed the case.
  • On 11/25, the Common­wealth Court affirmed the dismissal.
  • On 12/4, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency peti­tion for appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
  • On 12/8, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the emer­gency peti­tion for appeal.

Monday, Decem­ber 7

Arizona Elec­tion Contest #2

  • Steven­son v. Ducey, No. CV2020–096490 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)
  • On 12/4, members of the Arizona Elec­tion Integ­rity Asso­ci­ation filed a peti­tion contest­ing the results of Arizon­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.
  • On 12/7, plaintiffs volun­tar­ily dismissed the case.

Michigan Elec­tion Data Preser­va­tion Suit

  • Leaf v. Whit­mer, No. 1:20-cv-1169 (W.D. Mich.)
  • On 12/6, the Sher­iff of Barry County Michigan and seven Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees filed three emer­gency motions, seek­ing to prohibit destruc­tion of elec­tion mater­i­als allegedly “needed to determ­ine voter intent, any system­atic fraud, and any crim­inal activ­ity and/or civil liab­il­ity.”
  • On 12/7, the court denied all three motions.

Friday, Decem­ber 4

Minnesota Certi­fic­a­tion Delay Request

  • Kist­ner v. Simon, No. A20–1486 (Minn. Sup. Ct.)
  • On 11/24, polit­ical candid­ates and indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit seek­ing to delay certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion until a compre­hens­ive audit is completed.
  • The same day, Minnesota nonethe­less certi­fied its results.
  • On 12/4, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the case.

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request

Thursday, Decem­ber 3

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #2

  • Trump v. Evers, No. 2020AP001971-OA (Sup. Ct. Wis.)
  • On 12/1, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and the Trump Campaign filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the count­ing of certain ballots cast in Wiscon­sin’s two largest counties and seek­ing to void certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results.
  • On 12/3, the Wiscon­sin Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Mueller v. Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Commis­sion­ers, No. 2020AP001958-OA (Sup. Ct. Wis.)
  • On 11/27, an indi­vidual voter filed an original action in the Supreme Court of Wiscon­sin, seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of Wiscon­sin’s elec­tion results and author­ize the Wiscon­sin legis­lature to select the state’s pres­id­en­tial elect­ors, based on the allegedly unau­thor­ized use of ballot drop boxes.
  • On 12/3, the Wiscon­sin Supreme Court denied the peti­tion.

Wednes­day, Decem­ber 2

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #2

  • Becker v. Gloria, No. A-20–824878-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/16, a state senat­orial candid­ate sued, seek­ing an order for a new elec­tion due to alleged impro­pri­et­ies and fraud in the admin­is­tra­tion of Clark County’s elec­tion.
  • On 12/2/20, the court dismissed the case.

Monday, Novem­ber 30

Minnesota Elec­tion Contest

  • Kist­ner v. Simon, No. 19AV-CV-20–2183 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 1st Jud. Dist., Dakota Cnty.)
  • On 11/30, eleven defeated federal and state legis­lat­ive candid­ates and two indi­vidual voters filed an elec­tion contest in Dakota County, Minnesota, chal­len­ging the results of the elec­tion on state and federal consti­tu­tional grounds.

Friday, Novem­ber 27

Pennsylvania Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #1

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Boock­var, No. 4:20-cv-2078 (M.D. Pa.), No. 20–3371 (3d Cir.)
  • On 11/9, the Trump Campaign and two indi­vidual voters sued the Pennsylvania secret­ary of state and several left-lean­ing counties, alleging denial of observer access and misman­age­ment of the elec­tion process, and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of Pennsylvani­a’s elec­tion results.
  • On 11/15, the Trump campaign filed an amended complaint, and the secret­ary of state moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • On 11/21, the court dismissed the case with preju­dice.
  • On 11/27, the 3rd Circuit unan­im­ously affirmed the dismissal.

Wednes­day, Novem­ber 25

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #6

  • Rodi­mer v. Gloria, No. A-20–825130-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/19, a congres­sional candid­ate filed a lawsuit seek­ing a new elec­tion in Clark County and a declar­a­tion that the use of the Agilis mail ballot processing machine for signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion viol­ates Nevada law.
  • On 11/25, a state court judge dismissed the case.

Tues­day, Novem­ber 24

Nevada Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion & Poll Watcher Access

  • Stokke v. Cegavske, No. 2:20-cv-2046 (D. Nev.)
  • On 11/5, an indi­vidual voter, a “creden­tialed member of the media,” and two polit­ical candid­ates filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the absentee ballot processing proced­ures in Nevada’s largest county, which include the use of a machine to perform elec­tronic signa­ture compar­ison, and the alleged lack of access being afforded to poll watch­ers and members of the media.
  • On 11/6, the court gran­ted a motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and the Nevada State Demo­cratic Party and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion.
  • On 11/24, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Pennsylvania Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #4

Monday, Novem­ber 23

Pennsylvania Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge (Allegheny County #1)

  • Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elec­tions (a.k.a. In re 2,349 Ballots in the 2020 General Elec­tion), No. GD-20–11654 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cnty.), No. 1162 CD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct. Pa.), No. 29 WAP 2020 (Sup. Ct. Pa.)
  • On 11/12, a state senat­orial candid­ate sued the Allegheny County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the canvassing of 2,349 ballots arriv­ing in envel­opes with minor defects.
  • On 11/18, the court dismissed the peti­tion and affirmed the decision of the Board of Elec­tions.
  • On 11/19, the Common­wealth Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for further proceed­ings.
  • On 11/23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Common­wealth Court’s order and affirmed the decision of the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas

Friday, Novem­ber 20

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #3

  • Marchant v. Gloria, No. A-20–824884-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/16, a state congres­sional candid­ate filed a lawsuit seek­ing an order for a new elec­tion due to alleged impro­pri­et­ies and fraud in the admin­is­tra­tion of Clark County’s elec­tion.
  • On 11/20, a state court judge denied the reques­ted relief.

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #4

  • Becker v. Canniz­zaro, No. A-20–825067-P (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/18, a state senat­orial candid­ate sued her victori­ous oppon­ent and anonym­ous indi­vidu­als and corpor­a­tions, chal­len­ging the alleged count­ing of “illegal or improper votes” and the fail­ure to count “legal and proper votes” in the Clark County Commis­sion District C elec­tion.
  • On 11/20, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Thursday, Novem­ber 19

Arizona Elec­tion Audit Chal­lenge

  • Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes, No. CV2020–14553 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)
  • On 11/12, the Arizona Repub­lican Party sued the Mari­copa County recorder and the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors, chal­len­ging a provi­sion of the Arizona secret­ary of state’s elec­tion manual provid­ing for a “limited precinct hand count and early ballot hand count audit” to be conduc­ted after each general elec­tion, and allow­ing sampling to be limited to two percent of a county’s polling places in counties that util­ize a vote center model, whereas the corres­pond­ing stat­ute requires that a sampling of two percent of precincts.
  • On 11/13, the Arizona Demo­cratic Party filed a motion to inter­vene.
  • On 11/19, the court denied the motion for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and dismissed the case.

Michigan Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich.)
  • On 11/11, the Trump campaign and seven poll watch­ers filed a lawsuit in federal court, chal­len­ging the manner in which the elec­tion was admin­istered in Michigan’s largest county, includ­ing alleged lack of poll watcher access and vari­ous fraud and irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of Michigan’s elec­tion results until certain condi­tions are met.
  • On 11/17 and 11/18, inter­venor defend­ants filed motions to dismiss.
  • On 11/19, plaintiffs volun­tar­ily dismissed their case, falsely claim­ing that the Wayne County Board of Canvass­ers had declined to certify the results of its pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.

Nevada Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion Request #5

  • Arrington v. Gloria, No. A-20–825149-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)
  • On 11/19, a congres­sional candid­ate filed a lawsuit contest­ing the results of Clark County’s elec­tion

Pennsylvania Absentee & Mail Ballot Veri­fic­a­tion & Count­ing Chal­lenge

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Mont­gomery County Board of Elec­tions, No. 2020–18680 (Ct. Common Pleas, Mont­gomery Cnty.), No. 1171 CD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct., Pa.)
  • On 11/5, the Trump campaign, Repub­lican National Commit­tee and others filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the Mont­gomery County Elec­tion Board’s canvassing and count­ing of 592 absentee and mail-in ballots whose outer secrecy envel­opes are miss­ing inform­a­tion or the voter’s signa­ture.
  • On 11/13, the court denied the peti­tion for review of the Board’s decision.
  • On 11/16, the Trump campaign filed a notice of appeal.
  • On 11/19, the Trump campaign with­drew the appeal.

Wednes­day, Novem­ber 18

Michigan Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #3

  • John­son v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-1098 (W.D. Mich.)
  • On 11/14, two poll watch­ers, backed by the Amer­ican Free­dom Law Center, filed a lawsuit alleging a laun­dry list of “elec­tion malfeas­ance,” and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion results until certain condi­tions are met.
  • On 11/18, plaintiffs volun­tar­ily dismissed the case.

Pennsylvania Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge (Allegheny County #2)

  • Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elec­tions, No. GD-20–11793 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cnty.)
  • On 11/16, a state senat­orial candid­ate sued the Allegheny County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the canvassing of approx­im­ately 300 provi­sional ballots on which voters signed their names once instead of twice.
  • On 11/18, the court dismissed the peti­tion and affirmed the decision of the Board of Elec­tions.

Pennsylvania Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge (West­mo­re­land County)

  • Ziccarelli v. West­mo­re­land County Board of Elec­tions (a.k.a. In re 2020 General Elec­tion Provi­sional Ballot Chal­lenges), No. 4152 of 2020 (Ct. of Common Pleas, West­mo­re­land Cnty., Pa.)
  • On 11/18, a state senat­orial candid­ate sued the West­mo­re­land County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the Board’s decision to count ballots of voters of provi­sional ballots who were erro­neously instruc­ted to sign the poll book, and their decision to count nine ballots that were miss­ing the inner secrecy envel­ope.

Monday, Novem­ber 16

Geor­gia Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #1

  • Brooks v. Mahoney, No. 4:20-cv-281 (S.D. Ga.)
  • On 11/11, four indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging alleged elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, offer­ing anec­dotal evid­ence, claim­ing that “further evid­ence” will be provided “based on data analys­is…[that] will identify voters who cast votes illeg­ally,” and alleging that “[c]erti­fy­ing [p]resid­en­tial [e]lect­ors without exclud­ing certain counties would viol­ate voters’ funda­mental right to vote by vote-dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment.”
  • On 11/16, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Michigan Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #2

  • Bally v. Whit­mer, No. 1:20-cv-1088 (W.D. Mich.)
  • On 11/11, four indi­vidual voters, backed by True the Vote, filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the manner in which the elec­tion was admin­istered in Allen, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties, includ­ing alleged lack of poll watcher access and vari­ous fraud and irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and seek­ing to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of Michigan’s elec­tion results unless those counties’ results are excluded.
  • On 11/16, the case was volun­tar­ily dismissed.

Pennsylvania Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge #2

  • Pirkle v. Wolf, No. 4:20-cv-2088 (M.D. Pa.)
  • On 11/10, four indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit alleging fraud and irreg­u­lar­it­ies in four Pennsylvania counties in which Biden received more votes than Trump and seek­ing to exclude those counties’ pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results from the Common­wealth’s certi­fic­a­tion of pres­id­en­tial elect­ors, claim­ing that fail­ing to do so would consti­tute an equal protec­tion viol­a­tion.
  • On 11/16, plaintiffs volun­tar­ily dismissed the case.

Wiscon­sin Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge

  • Langen­horst v. Pecore, No. 1:20-cv-1701 (E.D. Wis.)
  • On 11/12, three indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging perceived irreg­u­lar­it­ies in the elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion in Wiscon­sin’s two largest counties and its smal­lest county, which consists almost exclus­ively of a Native Amer­ican reser­va­tion and claim­ing that “certi­fy­ing pres­id­en­tial elect­ors without exclud­ing [those] counties would viol­ate voters’ funda­mental right to vote by vote-dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment.”
  • On 11/16, plaintiffs with­drew the case.

Friday, Novem­ber 13

Arizona Ballot Spoil­age Alleg­a­tions, # 2

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Hobbs, CV2020–014248 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)
  • On 11/7, the Trump Campaign, Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and Arizona GOP filed a lawsuit alleging that poll work­ers incor­rectly rejec­ted in-person votes cast on elec­tion day.
  • On 11/9, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee moved to inter­vene.
  • On 11/13, plaintiffs filed a notice conced­ing that the case was moot as to the tabu­la­tion of votes for pres­id­en­tial elect­ors.

Thursday, Novem­ber 12

Arizona Ballot Count­ing Chal­lenge #3

  • Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CVCV2020–014562 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)
  • On 11/12, two indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the alleged fail­ure to count their ballots.
  • On 11/20, follow­ing a hear­ing, the court informed plaintiffs that it would be dismiss­ing the complaint.

Pennsylvania Dead­line to Provide Miss­ing ID Inform­a­tion for Absentee & Mail Ballots

  • Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Boock­var, No. 602 MD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct., Pa.)
  • On 11/4, the Trump campaign and Repub­lican National Commit­tee filed a lawsuit to prevent Pennsylvania from count­ing mail and absentee ballots for which miss­ing ID inform­a­tion is not provided by Novem­ber 9, despite guid­ance from the secret­ary of state direct­ing elec­tion offi­cials to allow voters to provide ID inform­a­tion until Novem­ber 12.
  • On 11/5, the court issued an order requir­ing counties to segreg­ate ballots for which iden­ti­fic­a­tion is received between Novem­ber 9 through 12.
  • On 11/12, the Common­wealth Court gran­ted a motion to inter­vene filed by the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and issued an order enjoin­ing county boards of elec­tions from count­ing any ballots that were previ­ously ordered to be segreg­ated upon find­ing that the Secret­ary lacked the author­ity to change the dead­line for elect­ors to verify proof of iden­ti­fic­a­tion.

Tues­day, Novem­ber 10

Nevada Poll Watcher Access & Ballot Count­ing Lawsuit

  • Kraus v. Cegavske, No. 20 OC 00142 1B (Dist. Ct. Carson City, Nevada); No. 82018 (Nevada Sup. Ct.)
  • On 10/23, the Trump campaign, the Nevada GOP, and an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the alleged fail­ure of Nevada’s largest county to afford poll watch­ers suffi­cient access & its use of a machine to perform initial signa­ture compar­is­ons, as well as the lack of a statewide stat­utory mech­an­ism for poll watch­ers to chal­lenge absentee ballots.
  • On 10/23, the lower court denied plaintiffs’ request for tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 10/29, the lower court denied a writ of manda­mus.
  • On 11/3, the Nevada Supreme Court exped­ited the appeal while deny­ing the request for injunct­ive relief.
  • On 11/10, plaintiffs with­drew their appeal and the Nevada Supreme Court remanded to the district court.

Saturday, Novem­ber 7

Arizona Ballot Spoil­age Alleg­a­tions

  • Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CV2020–014083 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)
  • On 11/4, an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit alleging that her consti­tu­tional rights had been viol­ated when she completed her ballot using a Sharpie provided by Mari­copa County poll work­ers, which allegedly rendered her ballot unread­able.
  • On 11/7, the case was with­drawn

Friday, Novem­ber 6

Geor­gia Motion for Imme­di­ate Injunct­ive Relief in Voting Machine Secur­ity Lawsuit

  • Curl­ing v. Raffen­sper­ger, 1:17-cv-2989 (N.D. Ga.); No. 20–13730 (11th Cir.)
  • On 11/5, plaintiffs in a lawsuit chal­len­ging the secur­ity of Geor­gi­a’s elec­tronic voting machine system filed an emer­gency motion for injunct­ive relief, seek­ing an explan­a­tion of prob­lems that caused discrep­an­cies in voter inform­a­tion and inform­a­tion regard­ing issues voters exper­i­enced with the system on Elec­tion Day. On 11/6, the district court denied the motion.

Pennsylvania Notice & Cure and Provi­sional Ballot Lawsuit

  • Hamm v. Boock­var600 MD 2020 (Common­wealth Ct. Pa.)
  • On 11/3, two GOP polit­ical candid­ates and four indi­vidual voters filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the legal­ity of allow­ing voters whose mail and absentee ballots were rejec­ted for reas­ons unre­lated to voter qual­i­fic­a­tions to cast provi­sional ballots.
  • On 11/6, the court issued an order provid­ing that provi­sional ballots cast on Elec­tion Day where the voter’s absentee or mail-in ballot was timely received be segreg­ated from other provi­sional ballots, pending compli­ance with the stat­utory proced­ures for veri­fy­ing the valid­ity of provi­sional ballots, deny­ing all other reques­ted relief and stay­ing the matter pending further order.

Pennsylvania Absentee & Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line SCOTUS Chal­lenge

  • Repub­lican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boock­var, 20A54, 20–542 (S. Ct.); Scarnati v. Boock­var, Nos. 20A53, 20–574 (S. Ct.)
  • On 7/10, the Pennsylvania Demo­cratic Party and indi­vidual Demo­cratic polit­ical candid­ates filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the common­wealth’s vote-by-mail regime as applied during the Covid-19 pandemic.
  • On 9/17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order, which among other things, exten­ded the absentee and mail ballot receipt dead­line to Novem­ber 6, concluded that Pennsylvania law permit­ted the use of drop boxes, and held that ballots miss­ing the inner secrecy envel­opes (i.e., “naked ballots”) were invalid under state law.
  • On 10/19, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emer­gency applic­a­tion to stay the exten­sion of the ballot receipt dead­line.
  • On 10/28, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Pennsylvania GOP’s motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion of its peti­tion for certi­or­ari.
  • On 10/28, the Pennsylvania secret­ary of state noti­fied the U.S. Supreme Court of the state’s inten­tion to segreg­ate all mail-in and civil­ian absentee ballots received between 8:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 3 and 5:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 6.
  • On 11/4, the Trump campaign filed a motion to inter­vene.
  • On 11/6, the Pennsylvania GOP filed an emer­gency applic­a­tion for injunc­tion pending certi­or­ari review.
  • On 11/6, Justice Alito ordered elec­tion boards to comply with the secret­ary of state’s guid­ance to segreg­ate and separ­ately count ballots received after Elec­tion Day, while declin­ing to grant the Pennsylvania GOP’s request to stop count­ing such ballots.

Thursday, Novem­ber 5

Geor­gia Poll Watcher Access & Ballot Count­ing Lawsuit Dismissed

Wednes­day, Novem­ber 4

Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Record Request & Ballot Count­ing Lawsuit (Bucks County #1)

  • In re Pre-Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Novem­ber 3, 2020 General Elec­tion, No. 2020–05786 (Ct. Common Pleas, Bucks Cnty.)
  • On 11/3, the Trump campaign appealed a decision of the Bucks County Board of Elec­tions that denied the campaign’s objec­tion to the disclos­ure of the iden­tity of voters whose ballots had been rejec­ted in the pre-canvass review, consist­ent with guid­ance issued by the secret­ary of state.
  • On 11/4, the Court of Common Pleas denied and dismissed the peti­tion.

Tues­day, Novem­ber 3

Michigan Poll Watcher Access

  • Polasek-Savage v. Benson, No. 20–000217-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)
  • On 11/3, two poll watch­ers sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and Oakland County, chal­len­ging Oakland County’s declar­a­tion that only one poll watcher per organ­iz­a­tion would be permit­ted at each absent voter count­ing board loca­tion.
  • The same day, a state court judge denied the motion and dismissed Oakland County as a defend­ant.

Nevada Poll Watcher Access & Ballot Count­ing Lawsuit

  • Kraus v. Cegavske, No. 20 OC 00142 1B (Dist. Ct. Carson City, Nevada); No. 82018 (Nevada Sup. Ct.)
  • On 10/23, the Trump campaign, the Nevada GOP, and an indi­vidual voter filed a lawsuit chal­len­ging the alleged fail­ure of Nevada’s largest county to afford poll watch­ers suffi­cient access & its use of a machine to perform initial signa­ture compar­is­ons, as well as the lack of a statewide stat­utory mech­an­ism for poll watch­ers to chal­lenge absentee ballots.
  • On 10/23, the lower court denied plaintiffs’ request for tempor­ary restrain­ing order.
  • On 10/29, the lower court denied a writ of manda­mus.
  • On 11/3, the Nevada Supreme Court exped­ited the appeal while deny­ing the request for injunct­ive relief.
Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alabama

Greater Birm­ing­ham Minis­tries v. State of Alabama, No. 2:15-cv-2193 (N.D. Ala.); No. 18–10151 (11th Cir.)

Re: Photo ID Require­ment (In-Person and Vote-by-Mail)

Greater Birm­ing­ham Minis­tries, the Alabama State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and three registered voters of color sued the State of Alabama, the Governor of Alabama, the Attor­ney General and others, chal­len­ging a state law that restricts in-person and absentee voting to Alabamans who produce one of seven forms of “valid” photo ID and are “posit­ively iden­tif[ied] by two elec­tion offi­cials. The second amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th and 15th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Sections 2 and 201 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the chal­lenged law oper­ates or was inten­tion­ally enacted to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, and in fact deprives would-be voters’ right to vote free from racial discrim­in­a­tion, dispro­por­tion­ately impacts would-be voters of color, and that the “posit­ive iden­ti­fic­a­tion” provi­sion consti­tutes a prohib­ited “test or device” as a prerequis­ite to voting. 

Status: The district court denied plaintiffs’ request for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, then gran­ted defend­ants’ motion for summary judg­ment, which decision was affirmed on appeal July 21, 2020


League of Women Voters of Alabama v. Merrill03-cv-2020–900702.00 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Mont­gomery Cty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse, Witness & ID Require­ments, Receipt Dead­line; In-Person Early Voting (Covid-19)

The LWV of Alabama and indi­vidual registered voters sued Alabama’s secret­ary of state and others, chal­len­ging an exec­ut­ive order and state laws that, vari­ously, (1) restrict the abil­ity to vote absentee to voters who swear or affirm that they satisfy one of the stat­utor­ily enumer­ated excuses; (2) require absentee ballot applic­a­tions to be accom­pan­ied by “proper iden­ti­fic­a­tion”; (3) require that absentee ballots be notar­ized or witnessed by two adults; (4) fail to extend dead­lines to apply for and return absentee ballots; and (5) fail to adopt safety meas­ures for in-person voting, includ­ing early voting. The complaint alleges state consti­tu­tional claims, includ­ing viol­a­tions of Art. I, § 33 and Art. VIII, § 177 of the Alabama Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws and exec­ut­ive order infringe on the right to vote and to “exer­cise the fran­chise free of undue influ­ence from tumult.”

Status: Complaint filed May 28, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted August 5, 2020


People First of Alabama v. Merrill, 2:20-cv-619 (N.D. Ala); Nos. 20–12184 & 20–13695-B (11th Cir.); Nos. 19A1063 & 20A67 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Notary/Witness & Photo ID Require­ments; Curb­side Voting (Covid-19)

People First of Alabama, indi­vidual registered voters, Greater Birm­ing­ham Minis­tries, and others sued Alabama’s secret­ary of state, governor, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that (1) require that absentee ballot affi­davits be notar­ized or witnessed by two adults; (2) require that copies of photo IDs accom­pany all absentee ballot applic­a­tions and some absentee ballots; and (3) prohibit curb­side voting. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, and §§ 2, 3, and 201 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions abridge the funda­mental right to vote, fail to provide reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions for persons with disab­il­it­ies, deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, impose a prohib­ited test or device as a prerequis­ite for voting, and impose a prohib­ited poll tax.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part; Emer­gency motion for stay pending appeal denied by 11th Circuit; Emer­gency applic­a­tion for stay gran­ted by SCOTUS July 2, 2020; Amended complaint filed July 6, 2020; Consent orders entered on behalf of Jeffer­son County and Mont­gomery County defend­ants August 21, 2020; Motions to dismiss and for summary judg­ment gran­ted in part and denied in part Septem­ber 8, 2020; Motions for judg­ment as a matter of law and judg­ment on partial find­ings filed Septem­ber 15, 2020 denied as moot; Settled as to some defend­ants Septem­ber 22, 2020; Final judg­ment and injunc­tion issued Septem­ber 30, 2020, enjoin­ing (1) the notary and witness require­ment “for any qual­i­fied voters who provide a writ­ten state­ment that they have an under­ly­ing medical condi­tion that puts them at heightened risk from COVID-19,” (2) the require­ment that absentee voters provide a copy of their photo iden­ti­fic­a­tion with absentee ballot applic­a­tions if they are over 65 or “cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an under­ly­ing medical condi­tion that makes them partic­u­larly suscept­ible to COVID-19 complic­a­tions,” and (3) any prohib­i­tion on the estab­lish­ment of curb­side voting proced­ures “that other­wise comply with state and federal elec­tion law;” Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal denied Octo­ber 6, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal gran­ted as to the witness and photo ID require­ments and denied as to the curb­side voting ban by 11th Circuit Octo­ber 13, 2020; Emer­gency applic­a­tion for stay of injunc­tion of curb­side voting ban gran­ted by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 21, 2020; Defend­ants’ appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 13, 2020; Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 16, 2020


Thompson v. Merrill, No. 2:16-cv-783 (M.D. Ala.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Greater Birm­ing­ham Minis­tries and indi­vidual Alabama resid­ents on behalf of a class sued the State of Alabama, its secret­ary of state, and others, chal­len­ging state laws and proced­ures regard­ing Felony disen­fran­chise­ment. The original class action complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 8th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the chal­lenged laws and policies inten­tion­ally discrim­in­ate on the basis of race, discrim­in­ate on non-racial bases, uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burden the right to vote, deprive citizens of due process, are void for vague­ness, arbit­rar­ily disen­fran­chise citizens, retro­act­ively punish in viol­a­tion of the Ex Post Facto Clause, disen­fran­chise as cruel and unusual punish­ment, disen­fran­chise on the basis of inab­il­ity to pay fines, and deny or abridge the right of U.S. citizens to vote on account of race or color or member­ship in a language minor­ity group. The supple­mental class action complaint adds addi­tional plaintiffs and alleges unlaw­ful depriva­tion of state-created right to vote and unlaw­ful retro­act­ive depriva­tion of the right to vote in viol­a­tion of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amend­ment, and fail­ure to specify eligib­il­ity require­ments in viol­a­tion of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act.

Status: Order deny­ing defend­ants’ renewed motion to dismiss, and grant­ing in part and deny­ing in part their motion to dismiss the supple­mental complaint, in effect, dismiss­ing claims of two of the plaintiffs and dismiss­ing the State of Alabama as a defend­ant. Motion for class certi­fic­a­tion deniedMotion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied June 29, 2020; State defend­ants’ motion for summary judg­ment gran­ted and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judg­ment denied Decem­ber 3, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

Alaska Center Educa­tion Fund v. Fenu­miai, No. 3AN-20–08354CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 3d Dist.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Ballot Defects (Covid-19)

The Alaska Center Educa­tion Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, and an indi­vidual voter sued the director of the Alaska Divi­sion of Elec­tions, the lieu­ten­ant governor of Alaska, and the State of Alaska, chal­len­ging the state’s fail­ure to provide voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure ballot defects. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Alaska Consti­tu­tion, in that the lack of notice and cure oppor­tun­ity unduly burdens the right to vote and deprives Alaska voters of due process.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 7, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 15, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Decem­ber 9, 2020


Arctic Village Coun­cil v. Meyer, No. 3AN-20–7858CI (Super. Ct. Alaska, 3rd Jud. Dist. Anchor­age); No. S-17902 (Sup. Ct. Alaska)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness/Notary Require­ment (Covid-19)

The Arctic Village Coun­cil, the League of Women Voters of Alaska, and two indi­vidual voters who live alone and are immun­o­com­prom­ised sued the Alaska lieu­ten­ant governor, Alaska Divi­sion of Elec­tions, and its director, chal­len­ging a state law requir­ing that absentee ballot certi­fic­a­tions be notar­ized or signed by an adult witness, if a notary is not avail­able. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Alaska Consti­tu­tion, in that, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the witness/notary require­ment substan­tially and imper­miss­ibly burdens the funda­mental right to vote, by forcing plaintiffs to choose between their health and the right to vote, and “unequally alloc­ates these burdens to eligible voters who are unable to feas­ibly secure a witness signa­ture because they live alone, must self-isol­ate to avoid expos­ure to COVID-19 or both.”  

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 8, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020, hold­ing that, during the pandemic, the witness require­ment “imper­miss­ibly burdens the right to vote” and enjoin­ing the witness require­ment for the 2020 general elec­tion; Order affirm­ing prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued by Supreme Court of Alaska Octo­ber 12, 2020; Status confer­ence sched­uled for April 12, 2021


Disab­il­ity Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer, No. 3AN-20–7060CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 3d Dist.); No. 3:20-cv-173 (D. Alaska); No. 20–35778 (9th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The Disab­il­ity Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples Action Community Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group and indi­vidual voters sued the Lieu­ten­ant Governor of Alaska and the State’s Divi­sion of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the Lieu­ten­ant Governor’s decision to auto­mat­ic­ally mail absentee ballot applic­a­tions only to Alaskan registered voters aged 65 and older, while fail­ing to do the same for registered voters under the age of 65. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, and 26th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion; Article 1, Sections 1 and 3, Article 2, Section 19 and Article 5, Section 1 of the Alaska Consti­tu­tion; and Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, in that the Lieu­ten­ant Governor’s decision discrim­in­ates on the basis of age, infringes on the funda­mental right to vote, denies the rights of due process and equal protec­tion, denies civil rights on the basis of race and/or color, denies the right to vote on a geographic basis, and discrim­in­ates on the basis of disab­il­ity.

Status: Complaint filed July 17, 2020; Removed to federal court July 20, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 3, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 4, 2020; Appel­lants’ emer­gency motion for injunct­ive relief pending appeal denied by 9th Circuit Septem­ber 22, 2020


Kohl­haas v. State of Alaska, No. 3AN-20–09532CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 3d Jud. Dist., Anchor­age)

Re: Ranked Choice Voting

A Liber­tarian state congres­sional candid­ate, the chair of the Alaskan Inde­pend­ence Party, an indi­vidual Repub­lican voter, and others sued the State of Alaska, the Divi­sion of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging a ballot propos­i­tion, passed by Alaska’s voters in Novem­ber 2020, provid­ing for ranked choice voting. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Article 1 of the Alaska Consti­tu­tion, in that the ranked choice voting regime denies plaintiffs’ rights of free polit­ical asso­ci­ation, polit­ical expres­sion, free speech, free assembly and to peti­tion the govern­ment for redress of griev­ances,  

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 9, 2020; Motion to inter­vene gran­ted Decem­ber 28, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona

Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CV2020–014083 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Voting Ballot Spoil­age (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter and ten anonym­ous voters sued the Mari­copa County recorder, the clerk and members of the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors, and Mari­copa County, claim­ing that voters who marked their ballots with sharpies, provided by elec­tion work­ers, were disen­fran­chised when voting machines were unable to read their ballots, and poll work­ers refused to provide them with new ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona stat­utes, the state Elec­tion Proced­ures Manual and the Arizona Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants failed to main­tain a stat­utor­ily compli­ant elec­tronic voting system, failed to ensure correct, impar­tial and uniform elec­tion proced­ures, and deprived voters of their right to a “free and equal elec­tion” and equal protec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 4, 2020; Motions to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and by the Trump campaign and Repub­lican National Commit­tee Novem­ber 5, 2020; Amended complaint filed Novem­ber 5, 2020; Case with­drawn Novem­ber 7, 2020


Aguilera v. Fontes, No. CVCV2020–014562 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Voting Ballot Count­ing, Poll Watcher Access, Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters, on behalf of 10 anonym­ous voters, sued the Mari­copa County recorder, the members of the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors, and Mari­copa County, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ alleged fail­ure to count plaintiffs’ votes. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona stat­utes, the Arizona Consti­tu­tion, and the Arizona Elec­tion Proced­ures Manual, in that defend­ants failed to main­tain stat­utor­ily compli­ant elec­tronic voting systems, failed to “ensure a maximum degree of correct­ness, impar­ti­al­ity, and uniform­ity of elec­tion proced­ures,” interfered with plaintiffs’ free exer­cise of the right of suffrage, deprived them of their right to equal priv­ileges or immunit­ies, failed to afford them with appro­pri­ate oppor­tun­it­ies to correct mistakes, and failed to allow suffi­cient poll watcher access.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 12, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Arizona Demo­cratic Party Novem­ber 15, 2020; Motions to dismiss filed Novem­ber 16, 2020; Case dismissed Novem­ber 30, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 28, 2020


Arizona Demo­cratic Party v. Fontes, No. CV2020–012873 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejec­tion Records (Covid-19)

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 13, 2020; Dismissed Octo­ber 21, 2020


Arizona Demo­cratic Party v. Rodrig­uez, No. C20204441 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Pima Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Rejec­tion Records (Covid-19)

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 13, 2020; Settled Octo­ber 22, 2020


Arizona Demo­cratic Party v. Hobbs, No. 2:20-cv-1143 (D. Ariz.), Nos. 20–16795, 16766 (9th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

The Arizona Demo­cratic Party, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, and Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee sued Arizon­a’s secret­ary of state and others, chal­len­ging a state proced­ure that fails to afford voters an oppor­tun­ity to cure the omis­sion of a signa­ture from an other­wise-valid mail-in ballot. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law places an undue burden on the right to vote and denies voters’ right to proced­ural due process.

Status: Motions to inter­vene by State of Arizona and Arizona Repub­lican Party, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., and Repub­lican National Commit­tee gran­ted June 19 and June 26, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary & perman­ent injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 10, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by State of Arizona Septem­ber 10, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by Arizona Repub­lican Party, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., and Repub­lican National Commit­tee Septem­ber 11, 2020; Emer­gency motion to stay denied Septem­ber 18, 2020; Emer­gency motion for stay pending appeal gran­ted by 9th Circuit Octo­ber 6, 2020


Arizona Public Integ­rity Alli­ance v. Fontes, No. LC2020–252 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.), 1 CA-CV 20–458 (Ariz. Ct. App.), T-20–3-CV, CV-20–253-AP/EL (Ariz. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Instruc­tions (Covid-19)

The Arizona Public Integ­rity Alli­ance, Inc. and an indi­vidual voter sued the Mari­copa County Recorder, the Clerk of the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors and others, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ plan to include an instruc­tion on early ballots that allows voters who wish to correct a mistaken vote to cross out the erro­neous vote and fill in the oval next to the correct candid­ate. The open­ing brief alleges viol­a­tions of state law, in that the new instruc­tion is unsup­por­ted by stat­ute and devi­ates from the elec­tions proced­ure manual promul­gated by the secret­ary of state.

Status: Complaint filed August 25, 2020; Motions for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and to dismiss denied Septem­ber 4, 2020; Reversed by Arizona Supreme Court Septem­ber 10, 2020


Arizona Repub­lican Party v. Fontes, No. CV2020–14553 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: Elec­tion Audit (Covid-19)

The Arizona Repub­lican Party sued the Mari­copa County recorder and the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors, chal­len­ging a provi­sion of the Arizona secret­ary of state’s elec­tion manual provid­ing for a “limited precinct hand count and early ballot hand count audit” to be conduc­ted after each general elec­tion, and allow­ing sampling to be limited to two percent of a county’s polling places in counties that util­ize a vote center model. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona stat­utes, in that the law requires that two percent of precincts – not polling places – be audited. 

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 12, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Arizona Demo­cratic Party Novem­ber 13, 2020


Bowyer v. Ducey, No. 2:20-cv-2321 (D. Ariz.), No. 20–17399 (9th Cir.), No. 20–858 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Fraud Alleg­a­tions; Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees and others sued the Arizona governor and secret­ary of state, alleging “massive elec­tion fraud,” includ­ing destruc­tion of ballots cast for Donald J. Trump, and seeks to decer­tify the results of Arizon­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elect­ors Clause of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants “failed to comply with the require­ments of Arizona law,” usurped legis­lat­ive author­ity and deprived plaintiffs of equal protec­tion and due process.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 2, 2020; Motions to inter­vene filed by Arizona Demo­cratic Party and Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors and Adrian Fontes Decem­ber 3, 2020; Motions to dismiss filed Decem­ber 4, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 9, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 10, 2020; Peti­tion for writ of manda­mus filed in U.S. Supreme Court Decem­ber 15, 2020; Peti­tion for writ of manda­mus denied by U.S. Supreme Court March 1, 2021


Burk v. Ducey, No. CV202001869 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Pinal Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Poll Watcher Access, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Arizona governor, its secret­ary of state, and ten anonym­ous indi­vidu­als, chal­len­ging “a wide­spread scheme and arti­fice to defraud the elec­tion for the purpose of illeg­ally and fraud­u­lently manip­u­lat­ing the vote count to manu­fac­ture an elec­tion of Joe Biden as Pres­id­ent of the United States.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona elec­tion laws and the Elect­ors Clause of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and seeks an order decer­ti­fy­ing the results of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 7, 2020; Motion to dismiss and amended complaint filed Decem­ber 11, 2020; Case dismissed and notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 15, 2020; Affirmed by Arizona Supreme Court Janu­ary 5, 2021; Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied by U.S. Supreme Court May 3, 2021


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Hobbs, No. CV2020–014248 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Ballot Spoil­age (Covid-19)

The Trump campaign, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and the Arizona Repub­lican Party sued the Arizona secret­ary of state, the Mari­copa County Recorder, and the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors, claim­ing that voters were disen­fran­chised when voting machines were unable to read their ballots, and poll work­ers did not provide them with new ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona stat­utes and the Arizona Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants failed to main­tain a stat­utor­ily compli­ant elec­tronic voting system, failed to ensure correct, impar­tial, and uniform elec­tion proced­ures, and deprived voters of their right to a “free and equal elec­tion,” equal protec­tion, and due process.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 7, 2020; Motions to inter­vene filed by Aguilera v. Fontes plaintiffs and Arizona Demo­cratic Party Novem­ber 9, 2020; Evid­en­tiary hear­ing held Novem­ber 12, 2020; Notice of moot­ness as to pres­id­en­tial elec­tion filed by plaintiffs Novem­ber 13, 2020


Fann v. Ducey, No. CV2020–16904 (Super. Ct. Mari­copa Cnty., Ariz.)

Re: Records request

The pres­id­ent of the Arizona senate and the chair­man of the Arizona Senate Judi­ciary Commit­tee sued the Mari­copa County Board of Super­visors and its members, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to produce elec­tion records in response to a legis­lat­ive subpoena. The complaint seeks a writ of manda­mus pursu­ant to Arizona stat­utes and common law.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 21, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by respond­ents Decem­ber 23, 2020; Order dismiss­ing complaint and grant­ing leave to amend issued Decem­ber 23, 2020


Feld­man v. Arizona Secret­ary of State, No. 2:16-cv-1065 (D. Ariz.); Demo­cratic National Commit­tee v. Hobbs, No. 18–15845 (9th Cir.); Arizona Repub­lican Party v. Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, No. 19–1258 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Assist­ance Ban; Out of Precinct (Provi­sional Ballots); Polling Place Alloc­a­tion

Indi­vidual voters, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and others sued the Arizona secret­ary of state’s office, the secret­ary of state, and others, chal­len­ging two state laws that imposed crim­inal penal­ties for assist­ing with ballot collec­tion and rejec­ted ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the laws deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, deny equal protec­tion by dispar­ately treat­ing voters in differ­ent counties, unjus­ti­fi­ably burden the right to vote, and deny the free­dom of asso­ci­ation.

Status: Consol­id­ated with Brnovich v. Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, No. 19–1257 (S. Ct.); District court ruled in favor of defend­ants; The Ninth Circuit reversed and remandedPeti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari gran­ted by the U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 2, 2020; Opin­ion uphold­ing the chal­lenged laws issued by the U.S. Supreme Court July 1, 2021


Fontes v. State of Arizona, No. CV2020–11845 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access, Voter Assist­ance (Covid-19)

The Mari­copa county recorder sued the State of Arizona and the secret­ary of state, seek­ing a declar­a­tion valid­at­ing the county record­er’s policy of allow­ing special elec­tion boards to provide absentee ballot assist­ance via video to voters who are confined due to disab­il­it­ies. The complaint alleges that the policy is consist­ent with laws that protect the voting rights of the disabled, includ­ing Title 2 of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and state stat­utes, includ­ing one that created special elec­tion boards “for the purpose of making it possible for qual­i­fied elect­ors who are ill or have a disab­il­ity to vote.”

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 25, 2020; Judg­ment regard­ing preser­va­tion of ballots cast with special elec­tion boards issued Octo­ber 6, 2020; State’s motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Ruling issued Octo­ber 14, 2020


Hoffard v. Cochise County, No. 4:20-cv-243 (D. Ariz.)

Re: Curb­side Voting (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued Cochise County, Arizona and the director of the Cochise County Elec­tions Depart­ment, chal­len­ging a county policy prohib­it­ing curb­side voting. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, § 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act of 1973, and § 41–1421(B) of the Arizona Revised Stat­utes in that the chal­lenged policy discrim­in­ates on the basis of disab­il­ity.

Status: Amended complaint filed August 27, 2020; Motion to dismiss amended complaint filed Septem­ber 21, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Octo­ber 5, 2020; Order deny­ing prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Octo­ber 22, 2020


Meci­nas v. Hobbs, No. 19-cv-5547 (D. Ariz.); No. 20–16301 (9th Cir.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

The Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, Prior­it­ies USA, and three Arizona resid­ents sued the Arizona secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that gives ballot order pref­er­ence to candid­ates of the same party as the gubernat­orial candid­ate who received the most votes in that county in the preced­ing elec­tion. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law places an undue burden on the right to vote and treats simil­arly situ­ated persons dispar­ately, in viol­a­tion of the right to equal protec­tion.

Status: Dismissed by lower court; Notice of appeal filed by Plaintiffs. & Emergency motion for injunc­tion pending appeal denied July 10, 2020


Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs, 2:20-cv-1903 (D. Ariz.); Nos. 20–16932, 20–17000 (9th Cir.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Dead­line (Covid-19)

Mi Familia Vota, the Arizona Coali­tion for Change and an indi­vidual voter and voter regis­tra­tion worker sued the Arizona secret­ary of state, seek­ing a declar­at­ory judg­ment extend­ing the state’s Octo­ber 5, 2020, voter regis­tra­tion dead­line in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the exist­ing voter regis­tra­tion dead­line severely burdens plaintiff’s right to register voters during the pandemic, thus deny­ing due process and abridging core speech and polit­ical rights. 

Status: Complaint and request for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and Repub­lican National Commit­tee gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted as modi­fied Octo­ber 5, 2020, extend­ing the voter regis­tra­tion dead­line from Octo­ber 5 to Octo­ber 23 and dismiss­ing case; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 5, 2020; Plaintiffs’ appel­late motion to dismiss inter­ven­ors’ appeal filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Emer­gency motions for admin­is­trat­ive stay pending appeal denied by 9th Circuit Octo­ber 7, 2020; Order stay­ing exten­sion of regis­tra­tion dead­line with a 2-day grace period, while allow­ing voters who already registered past the dead­line to remain registered issued by 9th Circuit Octo­ber 13, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by defend­ants Octo­ber 13, 2020; Appeal volun­tar­ily with­drawn Febru­ary 2, 2021


Navajo Nation v. Wauneka, No. _____ (Super. Ct. Ariz., Apache Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Navajo Nation, on behalf of a class, sued the Apache County recorder, elec­tions director, and board of super­visors, seek­ing an order requir­ing that two polling places remain open for an addi­tional hour due to having belatedly opened.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 3, 2020; Order issued Novem­ber 12, 2020


Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. Rodrig­uez, No. 4:20-cv-432 (D. Ariz.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe sued the Pima County recorder, chal­len­ging her decision to close the only in-person early voting site on the Pascua Yaqui Pueblo Reser­va­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the. U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ant’s action denies or abridges plaintiffs’ right to vote on account of race or color and dispro­por­tion­ately burdens racial minor­ity voters’ funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 12, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 15, 2020; Emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss denied without preju­dice and leave to file an amended complaint gran­ted in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opin­ion in Brnovich v. Demo­cratic National Commit­tee July 7, 2021


State of Arizona ex rel. Brnovich v. Fontes, No. CV2020–3477 (Super. Ct. of Ariz., Cnty of Mari­copa)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The State of Arizona sued the Mari­copa County Recorder and Runbeck Elec­tion Services, Inc., four days before the state’s March 17 pres­id­en­tial pref­er­ence elec­tion, chal­len­ging the county record­er’s decision to affirm­at­ively mail absentee ballots to all registered voters in the county due to fears surround­ing the coronavirus. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of a state law that purportedly “only author­izes ballots to be mailed to elect­ors who ‘make a verbal or signed request to the county record­er’” by 5:00 p.m. on the 11th day preced­ing the elec­tion.

Status: Tempor­ary restrain­ing order issued March 13, 2020, enjoin­ing defend­ants from mail­ing early ballots to voters who had not made verbal or signed requests there­fore


Steven­son v. Ducey, No. CV2020–096490 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure, Voter Regis­tra­tion, Double Voting, Fraud Alleg­a­tions; Private Elec­tion Fund­ing; Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Members of the Arizona Elec­tion Integ­rity Asso­ci­ation sued the Arizona governor and secret­ary of state, contest­ing the results of Arizon­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, based on alleg­a­tions that voters in “Demo­cratic strong­holds” were given greater oppor­tun­it­ies to cure ballot defects than those in Repub­lican-lean­ing counties, that out-of-state resid­ents were allowed to vote in Arizona, that voters were allowed to vote twice, and that the results were skewed by the receipt of private phil­an­thropic elec­tion grants. The peti­tion alleges viol­a­tions of Arizona stat­ute and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and seeks an order prohib­it­ing the certi­fic­a­tion of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results.

Status: Peti­tion filed Decem­ber 4, 2020; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed Decem­ber 7, 2020


Voto Latino v. Hobbs, No. 2:19-cv-05685-DWL (D. Arizona)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tion Day Receipt Dead­line

Voto Latino Found­a­tion and Prior­it­ies USA sued the Arizona secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that requires that ballots received after 7 p.m. on Elec­tion Day be discarded. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the law places an undue burden on the right to vote, denies voters’ right to proced­ural due process, and denies or abridges the right to vote.

Status: Settle­ment reached June 18, 2020, provid­ing that the secret­ary will prom­in­ently educate voters about the elec­tion day reciept dead­line and the avail­ab­il­ity of drop boxes and other mail-ballot drop-off options, and to alloc­ate a portion of Coronavirus Aid Relief (“CARES”) fund­ing to expand early voting oppor­tun­it­ies in Hispanic and Latino, Native Amer­ican, and rural communit­ies, includ­ing mobile early voting units, tempor­ary staff hires, increased numbers of ballot drop boxes in rural, Hispanic and Latino, and tribal communit­ies.


Ward v. Jack­son, No. CV2020–015285 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Mari­copa Cnty.), No. CV-20–0343-AP/EL (Ariz. Sup. Ct.), No. 20–809 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail & In-Person Voting Poll Watcher Access, Ballot Inspec­tion & Count­ing; Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

The chair of the Arizona Repub­lican Party sued Arizon­a’s elect­ors for Joseph R. Biden, alleging inad­equate poll watcher access and seek­ing an inspec­tion of mail in and duplic­ated ballots. 

Status: Peti­tion filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Order deny­ing peti­tion and affirm­ing the results of the elec­tion issued and notice of appeal Decem­ber 4, 2020; Affirmed by Arizona Supreme Court Decem­ber 8, 2020; Peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion filed in the U.S. Supreme Court filed Decem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Janu­ary 11, 2021; Certi­or­ari denied by U.S. Supreme Court Febru­ary 22, 2021


Yazzie v. Hobbs, No. 3:20-cv-8222 (D. Ariz.), No. 20–16890 (9th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Tribal members of the Navajo Nation sued the Arizona secret­ary of state chal­len­ging Arizon­a’s law requir­ing rejec­tion of any ballots received after 7:00 p.m. on Elec­tion Day, irre­spect­ive of when they were post­marked. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and of the Arizona consti­tu­tion, in that the elec­tion day receipt dead­line deprives plaintiffs of equal protec­tion and denies or abridges their right to vote on account of race, color, or member­ship in a language minor­ity group.

Status: Complaint filed August 26, 2020; Emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 2, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and others Septem­ber 3, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by filed by Arizona Advocacy Network Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motions to inter­vene denied without preju­dice Septem­ber 16, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Septem­ber 16, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 25, 2020; Order affirm­ing district court’s denial of prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued by 9th Circuit Octo­ber 15, 2020; Motion to dismiss case filed Octo­ber 20, 2020; Case dismissed Janu­ary 6, 2021

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkan­sas

Arkan­sas United v. Thur­ston, No. 5:20-cv-5193 (W.D. Ark.)

Re: Voter Assist­ance Restric­tions

Arkan­sas United and an indi­vidual voter sued the Arkan­sas secret­ary of state, members of the Arkan­sas State Board of Elec­tion Commis­sion­ers, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its voters from choos­ing to receive assist­ance from anyone who has previ­ously assisted six or more voters during a given elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which provides that “any voter who requires assist­ance to vote by reason of blind­ness, disab­il­ity, or inab­il­ity to read or write may be given assist­ance by a person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 2, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Novem­ber 3, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 9, 2020; Motions to dismiss denied Febru­ary 5, 2021


Baker v. Thur­ston, 60CV-20–3565 (Cir. Ct. Pulaski Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters sued the Arkan­sas Secret­ary of State, chal­len­ging a state law that restricts the avail­ab­il­ity of absentee voting to voters who qual­ify for one or more enumer­ated “excuses.” The complaint seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment that “Arkan­sas law…al­lows voters to use any and all reas­ons or excuses to receive and vote by absentee ballot,” or, in the altern­at­ive, that fear of contract­ing Covid-19 is, itself, a valid excuse for receiv­ing an absentee ballot and voting absentee and alleges viol­a­tions of the Arkan­sas Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws infringe on the funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Dismissed on motion July 21, 2020


League of Women Voters of Arkan­sas v. Thur­ston, No. 5:20-cv-5174 (W.D. Ark.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Miss­ing & Mismatched Signa­tures & Ballot Defects (Covid-19)

The League of Women Voters of Arkan­sas and two indi­vidual voters sued the Arkan­sas secret­ary of state and members of the State Board of Elec­tion Commis­sion­ers, chal­len­ging state laws requir­ing that lay elec­tion work­ers conduct signa­ture match­ing and requir­ing rejec­tion of absentee ballots if there is any miss­ing or mismatched inform­a­tion when compared with the voter’s absentee applic­a­tion, includ­ing miss­ing or mismatched signa­tures, without provid­ing the voter with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure such defects after elec­tion day. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions deny voters proced­ural due process and unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote.   

Status: Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 28, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 13, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 26, 2020; Amended complaint filed Janu­ary 12, 2021; Motion to dismiss amended complaint filed Febru­ary 9, 2021


Mays v. Thur­ston, No. 4:20-cv-341 (E.D. Ark.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and the Chris­tian Minis­terial Alli­ance sued the Arkan­sas governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to extend the ballot receipt dead­line beyond 7:30 p.m. on elec­tion day, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the elec­tion day receipt dead­line burdens the funda­mental right to vote and deprives voters of the right of due process, and a viol­a­tion of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that Black voters have less of an oppor­tun­ity than white voters to parti­cip­ate in the polit­ical process because of the elec­tion day receipt dead­line.

Status: Emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied March 30, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed March 31, 2020


Wince v. Thur­ston, No. 60CV-20–5928 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Pulaski Cnty.), No. 4:20-cv-1274 (E.D. Ark.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Count­ing Dead­line (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters sued the Arkan­sas secret­ary of state, members of the Arkan­sas State Board of Elec­tion Commis­sion­ers, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that prevents elec­tion offi­cials from start­ing to count absentee ballots prior to elec­tion day and requires that the count­ing be completed by the time the polls close at 7:30 p.m. The complaint seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment pursu­ant to the Arkan­sas Consti­tu­tion and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged law uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally and arbit­rar­ily burdens voters funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Complaint, notice of removal to federal court, and motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 23, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 28, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted Novem­ber 24, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cali­for­nia

Cali­for­nia Repub­lican Party v. Newsom, No. 34–2020–00277751 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacra­mento)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Ballot Collect­ors (Covid-19)

The Cali­for­nia Repub­lican Party sued Cali­for­ni­a’s governor, attor­ney general, and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the governor’s “stay-at-home” exec­ut­ive order and its inter­play with Cali­for­ni­a’s elec­tion code. The complaint seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment that ballot collect­ing is an “essen­tial” activ­ity under the Exec­ut­ive Order.

Status: Declar­at­ory relief denied; Request for volun­tary dismissal entered May 22, 2020


Elec­tion Integ­rity Project Cali­for­nia v. Lunn, No. 56–2020–00540781-CU-MC-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Voting Poll Watcher Restric­tions

The Elec­tion Integ­rity Project, Cali­for­nia and an indi­vidual voter sued the Ventura County regis­trar of voters, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s “fail[ure] to allow members of the public to observe the processing of vote by mail ballot return envel­opes and vote by mail ballots for the March 3, 2020 primary elec­tion.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Cali­for­nia Elec­tions Code and seeks an order “[a]llow[ing] the processing of vote by mail ballot return envel­opes and the processing and count­ing of vote by mail ballots to be open to the public, both before and after the elec­tions [and] [a]llow[ing] persons wish­ing to observe the processing of vote by mail ballots suffi­ciently close access to enable them to observe the vote by mail ballot return envel­opes and the signa­tures thereon and chal­lenge whether those indi­vidu­als hand­ling vote by mail ballots are follow­ing estab­lished proced­ures.”

Status: Complaint filed March 4, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied March 6, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 15, 2020


Elec­tion Integ­rity Project Cali­for­nia, Inc. v. Padilla, 2:21-cv-32 (C.D. Cal.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Ballot Collec­tion, In-Person Voting, Elec­tronic Voting Machines, Auto­matic Voter Regis­tra­tion, Same-Day Regis­tra­tion, Voter Regis­tra­tion Drives, Voter List Purges, Emer­gency Powers, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

The Elec­tion Integ­rity Project Cali­for­nia, Inc., and ten congres­sional candid­ates sued the Cali­for­nia secret­ary of state, attor­ney general, governor, and others, chal­len­ging the state’s expan­sion of vote-by-mail, includ­ing the affirm­at­ive mail­ing of absentee ballots to all active, registered voters, allow­ing third parties to collect multiple voters’ absentee ballots, elim­in­a­tion of the require­ment that in-person voters state their name and address out loud before being given a ballot, the imple­ment­a­tion of auto­matic voter regis­tra­tion and same-day regis­tra­tion, the expan­sion of voter regis­tra­tion activ­it­ies on high school and college campuses, the state’s alleged fail­ure to perform voter list main­ten­ance (i.e., to purge ineligible voters from voter rolls), the use of Domin­ion and Smart­matic voting systems, and the governor’s author­ity to issue emer­gency regu­la­tions for voting in response to Covid-19. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions and Guar­an­tee Clauses of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the defend­ants have usurped the legis­lature’s author­ity to “set the manner of elec­tions,” deprived plaintiffs of their rights of equal protec­tion and due process “by dimin­ish­ing the value of votes legally cast by an for the indi­vidual plaintiffs and by and EIPCa’s citizen observ­ers by inten­tion­ally fail­ing to ensure that only legally cast [vote-by-mail] ballots were included in the canvass for the 2020 general elec­tion in Cali­for­nia” and by “apply­ing dispar­ate rules in differ­ent counties, caus­ing the votes of some Cali­for­nia citizens to be treated differ­ently from those of others,” and have deprived Cali­for­ni­ans of “a repub­lican form of govern­ment” and of “protec­tion against inva­sion.”   

Status: Complaint filed Janu­ary 4, 2021; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Janu­ary 11, 2021; Motions to dismiss filed Febru­ary 12, 2021


Fugazi v. Padilla, No. 2:20-cv-970 (E.D. Cal.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure, Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, on behalf of a class, sued the Cali­for­nia secret­ary of state, the San Joaquin County Regis­trar of Voters and others, chal­len­ging San Joaquin County’s certi­fic­a­tion of the March 3, 2020, Cali­for­nia Pres­id­en­tial Primary results prior to the dead­line for curing signa­ture defects, and seek­ing prospect­ive relief requir­ing defend­ants to estab­lish reas­on­able, disab­il­ity access­ible, and consti­tu­tion­ally suffi­cient voting proced­ures for the Novem­ber 3, 2020, general elec­tion. The first amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and Title 2 of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­ity Act, in that defend­ants’ actions deny equal protec­tion, arbit­rar­ily discrim­in­at­ing against voters with disab­il­it­ies, deny and abridge the funda­mental right to vote on account of race, member­ship in a language minor­ity, age, and disab­il­ity, deny proced­ural and substant­ive due process, and fail to make reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions for persons with disab­il­it­ies.   

Status: Motion for TRO denied without preju­dice May 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted Octo­ber 29, 2020; Amended complaint filed March 8, 2021


Galla­gher v. Newsom, No. CVCS20–912 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sutter Cnty.), No. C092070, C093006 (Cal. Ct. App., 3d App. Dist.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

Two state legis­lat­ors sued the Cali­for­nia governor, chal­len­ging Exec­ut­ive Order N-67–20, which provides direct­ives related to the Novem­ber 3 general elec­tion, “which direct­ives signi­fic­antly change the choices voters have with regard to voting and the places and manner of cast­ing votes.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of vari­ous state elec­tion laws, in that the direct­ives usurp legis­lat­ive author­ity.

Status: TRO gran­ted as to Exec­ut­ive Order N-67–20; TRO vacated by Court of Appeal July 10, 2020; Tent­at­ive decision issued Novem­ber 2, 2020 to enjoin the governor’s exec­ut­ive order; Ruling issued Novem­ber 13, 2020; Peti­tion for mandate, prohib­i­tion or writ of certi­or­ari filed in Cali­for­nia Court of Appeals Novem­ber 16, 2020; Amended peti­tion filed in Super­ior Court Novem­ber 18, 2020; Order stay­ing lower court ruling issued by Court of Appeals Novem­ber 17, 2020; Order stay­ing any further proceed­ings in Super­ior Court issued by Court of Appeals Novem­ber 24, 2020


Issa et al. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-1044 (E.D. Ca.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Cali­for­nia resid­ents, backed by Judi­cial Watch, sued Cali­for­nia Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secret­ary of State Alex Padilla, chal­len­ging Exec­ut­ive Order N-64–20, which was issued in connec­tion with the Covid-19 pandemic and mandates that vote-by-mail ballots for the Novem­ber elec­tion be sent to “every Cali­for­nian who is eligible to vote.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions Clause and the Elect­ors Clause of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and substant­ive due process claims under the 14th Amend­ment.

Status: Volun­tar­ily dismissed July 9, 2020


Pico Neigh­bor­hood Asso­ci­ation v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC 616804 (Super. Ct. Cal., Los Angeles Cnty.); No. B295935 (Ct. of App., 2d Appllate Dist., Div. 8); No. S263972 (Cal. Sup. Ct.)

Re: At-Large Elec­tion Proced­ure

The Pico Neigh­bor­hood Asso­ci­ation, an indi­vidual voter, and Asso­ci­ates for Malibu Public Schools sued the City of Santa Monica and 100 anonym­ous indi­vidu­als or entit­ies, chal­len­ging a provi­sion of the Santa Monica City Charter requir­ing the at-large elec­tion of its city coun­cil and of the govern­ing board of the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District, which plaintiffs allege prevents non-Anglo Santa Monic­ans from achiev­ing repres­ent­a­tion in their local govern­ments. The first amended complaint (which removed the Asso­ci­ates for Malibu Pubic Schools as a plaintiff) alleges viol­a­tions of the Cali­for­nia Voting Rights Act and the Cali­for­nia Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sion impairs the abil­ity of protec­ted classes to elect candid­ates of their choice or to influ­ence the outcome of the Santa Monica City Coun­cil Elec­tions, and deprives plaintiffs of equal protec­tion.

Status: Trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs Febru­ary 15, 2019; The Court of Appeal reversed July 9, 2020; Peti­tion for review gran­ted by Cali­for­nia Supreme Court Octo­ber 21, 2020; Brief­ing due March 22, 2021


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-1055 (E.D. Ca.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee, National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, and Cali­for­nia Repub­lican Party sued the Cali­for­nia governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging Exec­ut­ive Order N-64–20, which was issued in connec­tion with the Covid-19 pandemic and mandates that vote-by-mail ballots for the Novem­ber elec­tion be sent to “every Cali­for­nian who is eligible to vote.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions Clause and the Elect­ors Clause of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and substant­ive due process claims under the 14th Amend­ment.

Status: Volun­tar­ily dismissed July 9, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color­ado

O’Rourke v. Domin­ion Voting Systems, No. 1:20-cv-3747 (D. Colo.)

Re: Conspir­acy & Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Phil­an­thropic Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, on behalf of a putat­ive class, sued Domin­ion Voting Systems, Face­book, Inc., Mark Zuck­er­berg, Priscilla Chan, the Center for Tech and Civic Life and governors and elec­tion offi­cials from Geor­gia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wiscon­sin, chal­len­ging an alleged conspir­acy to illeg­ally change elec­tion laws in advance of the Novem­ber 2020 elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of 18 U.S.C. § 241, the Suprem­acy and Elect­ors Clauses of and the 1st, 14th and 15th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burdened plaintiffs’ funda­mental right to vote for pres­id­ent and vice-pres­id­ent, conspired to deprive plaintiffs of civil rights, denied plaintiffs equal protec­tion, due process and the right to speak, asso­ci­ate and assemble, and denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race or ethni­city.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 22, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted April 28, 2021; Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs April 29, 2021; Motion for sanc­tions filed by Pennsylvania secret­ary of state and governor May 17, 2021; Motions for sanc­tions filed by the Center for Tech and Civic Life and Face­book May 21, 2021; Motion for sanc­tions filed by state defend­ants June 9, 2021

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecti­cut

Connecti­cut State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Merrill, No. 3:20-cv-909 (D. Conn.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

The Connecti­cut League of Women Voters, Connecti­cut State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and an indi­vidual voter sued the Connecti­cut secret­ary of state in connec­tion with the secret­ary of state’s fail­ure to extend the policy of allow­ing all registered voters to vote by mail beyond the August primary and through the Novem­ber general elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the exist­ing absentee voting stat­ute, as applied during the Covid-19 pandemic, viol­ates the funda­mental right to vote and denies and abridges the right to vote on account of race or color.

Status: Complaint filed July 2, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Septem­ber 25, 2020


Fay v. Merrill, No. SC20477 (Conn. S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Four U.S. Congres­sional candid­ates sued the Connecti­cut secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s prepar­a­tion and issu­ance of the absentee ballot applic­a­tion for the August 11, 2020, primary elec­tion, which specifies that voters may use Covid-19 “as a valid reason for request­ing [an absentee] ballot.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Connecti­cut General Stat­utes § 9–135, Exec­ut­ive Order No. 7QQ, and Article 6th, Section 7 of the Connecti­cut Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s prepar­a­tion and issu­ance of the absentee ballot applic­a­tion exceeds her legal author­ity, and denies plaintiffs’ right to a fair and honest elec­tion and to have votes coun­ted equally and not be diluted by votes that are unlaw­fully cast. 

Status: Complaint filed July 1, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted July 20, 2020


Fay v. Merrill, No. HHD-CV20–6130532 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hart­ford), No. SC200027 (Conn. S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Four U.S. Congres­sional candid­ates sued the Connecti­cut secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s prepar­a­tion and issu­ance of the absentee ballot applic­a­tion for the August 11, 2020, primary elec­tion, which specifies that voters may use Covid-19 “as a valid reason for request­ing [an absentee] ballot.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Connecti­cut General Stat­utes § 9–135, Exec­ut­ive Order No. 7QQ, and Article 6th, Section 7 of the Connecti­cut Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s prepar­a­tion and issu­ance of the absentee ballot applic­a­tion exceeds her legal author­ity, and denies plaintiffs’ right to a fair and honest elec­tion and to have votes coun­ted equally and not be diluted by votes that are unlaw­fully cast. 

Status: Complaint filed July 20, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted July 22, 2020; Affirmed on appeal August 6, 2020


Rapini v. Merrill, No. HHB-CV20–6060234-S (Conn. Super. Ct., New Britain)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters who are poten­tial and/or former polit­ical candid­ates, and two state legis­lat­ors who are running for re-elec­tion sued the Connecti­cut secret­ary of the state chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s May 6, 2020, memor­andum of opin­ion, which, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, expan­ded the defin­i­tion of “illness” for the purposes of clari­fy­ing which voters are permit­ted to vote by absentee ballot. The peti­tion alleges viol­a­tions of Article 6, § 7 of the Connecti­cut Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary of the state exceeded her author­ity in “erro­neously and improp­erly inter­pret[ing]” the consti­tu­tion’s mean­ing of “illness” for purposes of absentee voting. 

Status: Volun­tar­ily dismissed August 10, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

Delaware

League of Women Voters of Delaware v. State of Delaware Depart­ment of Elec­tions, C.A. No. 2020– 0761 (Del. Ct. Chan­cery)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

The League of Women Voters of Delaware and an indi­vidual voter sued the state Depart­ment of Elec­tions and the state elec­tion commis­sioner, chal­len­ging a state law requir­ing that absentee and vote-by-mail ballots be received by 8:00 p.m. on elec­tion day in order to be coun­ted. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Delaware Consti­tu­tion’s Elec­tions Clause and the Right to Vote Clause, in that the chal­lenged law will deprive plaintiffs of the right to vote, discrim­in­ate against the aged and disabled, and thus preclude the elec­tion from being “free and equal.”

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 3, 2020; Opin­ion deny­ing prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and enter­ing judg­ment in defend­ants’ favor issued Octo­ber 9, 2020


Repub­lican State Commit­tee of Delaware v. State of Delaware, C.A. No. 20–685-SG (Del. Ct. of Chan­cery)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment & Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican State Commit­tee of Delaware and two indi­vidual voters sued the state Depart­ment of Elec­tions and the state elec­tion commis­sioner, chal­len­ging a newly-enacted state law, HB 346, which suspends the state consti­tu­tion’s limit­a­tion on the categor­ies of voters permit­ted to vote by mail in the upcom­ing Novem­ber general elec­tion, instead allow­ing any qual­i­fied voter to do so without provid­ing an excuse, and further provides that absentee ballot request forms be mailed to all registered voters for the Novem­ber elec­tion. The complaint seeks a perman­ent injunc­tion against enforce­ment of HB 346 and a declar­a­tion that, in enact­ing HB 346, the legis­lature exceeded its consti­tu­tional author­ity, that it “imper­miss­ibly used Del. Const. Art. XVII § 1 as a work around of the constraints on absentee voting require­ments,” and that HB 346 is not “neces­sary and proper for insur­ing the continu­ity of govern­mental oper­a­tions” under the Delaware consti­tu­tion

Status: Complaint filed August 19, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

District of Columbia

League of Women Voters v. Newby, No. 1:16-cv-236 (D.D.C.); Nos. 16–5196, 19–7027 (D.C. Cir.)

Re: Proof of Citizen­ship Require­ment

The League of Women Voters of the United States, Alabama, Geor­gia, and Kansas, the Geor­gia NAACP and others sued the Acting Exec­ut­ive Director & Chief Oper­at­ing Officer of the U.S. Elec­tion Assist­ance Commis­sion (EAC), chal­len­ging defend­ant’s decision to permit Alabama, Geor­gia, and Kansas to require applic­ants using the federal voter regis­tra­tion form to provide docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 208 of the Help Amer­ica Vote Act, the Admin­is­trat­ive Proced­ures Act, and EAC’s internal policies and proced­ures, and the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that defend­ant’s actions were arbit­rary and capri­cious, under­taken without the requis­ite approval of 3 EAC members, exceeded his deleg­ated author­ity, failed to provide adequate notice and oppor­tun­ity to comment, and ran afoul of the NVRA’s specific­a­tion of the requis­ite content of the federal voter regis­tra­tion form.

The district court decision deny­ing plaintiffs’ motion for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion was reversed by the D.C. Circuit on Septem­ber 9, 2016. The case was remanded to the district court, which, on Febru­ary 24, 2017, remanded the decision to the EAC with instruc­tions to determ­ine whether defend­ant had author­ity to allow the three states to require proof of citizen­ship on the federal form.  

Status: On June 1, 2017, the EAC announced that they were split along partisan lines in response to the ques­tion posed by the district court, leav­ing the circuit court’s prelim­in­ary injunc­tion in place; Denial of Eagle Forum Educa­tion & Legal Defense Fund’s motion to inter­vene reversed and remanded by D.C. Circuit June 26, 2020; Inter­ven­tion permit­ted August 31, 2020


Michigan Welfare Rights Organ­iz­a­tion v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3388 (D.D.C.)

Re: Race-Based Voter Intim­id­a­tion & Disen­fran­chise­ment (Covid-19)

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organ­iz­a­tion and indi­vidual voters sued Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ attempts to disen­fran­chise Black voters, includ­ing those in Detroit, Michigan. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, in that defend­ants are exert­ing pres­sure on state and local offi­cials not to certify the results of elec­tions, specific­ally target­ing Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan, by intim­id­at­ing, threat­en­ing or coer­cing such offi­cials against aiding plaintiffs and other resid­ents of Detroit from having their votes “coun­ted prop­erly and included in the appro­pri­ate totals of votes cast.”

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 20, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 22, 2020, adding the Repub­lican National Commit­tee as a defend­ant and the NAACP as a plaintiff; Motion to trans­fer venue to the East­ern District of Michigan filed by the Repub­lican National Commit­tee Febru­ary 9, 2021; Motions to dismiss filed Febru­ary 25, 2021


NAACP v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C.), No. 20–5375 (D.C. Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery (Covid-19)

The NAACP sued the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) and the Post­mas­ter General, chal­len­ging recent changes to USPS’s nation­wide postal services, which have resul­ted in delays in mail deliv­ery and changes to the treat­ment of elec­tion mail. The complaint asserts a “non-stat­utory right of action to enjoin and declare unlaw­ful offi­cial action that is ultra vires and unlaw­ful,” “arbit­rary, capri­cious and not in accord­ance with stat­utory require­ments,” and alleges viol­a­tions of 39 U.S.C. §§ 3661 101(e), which, respect­ively, require the USPS to seek an advis­ory opin­ion from the Postal Regu­lat­ory Commis­sion in order to afford members of the public with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to comment on changes “that will gener­ally affect service on a nation­wide or substan­tially nation­wide basis,” and require USPS to provide “highest consid­er­a­tion to the deliv­ery of import­ant letter mail.”

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 10, 2020; Emer­gency motion to enforce and monitor compli­ance the prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 27, 2020; Order issued Novem­ber 1, 2020, requir­ing that express network will be used for elec­tion mail, that all mail ballots be post­marked and processed for deliv­ery no later than the morn­ing after they are mailed; Motion for further relief gran­ted Novem­ber 3, 2020, requir­ing that USPS imme­di­ately perform a sweep of certain USPS facil­it­ies “to ensure that no ballots have been held up and that any iden­ti­fied ballots are imme­di­ately sent out for deliv­ery” and report back to the court by 4:30 p.m. the same day; Status report claim­ing that sweep process has not been completed filed Novem­ber 3, 2020; Order issued Novem­ber 4, 2020, requir­ing USPS to instruct every plant manager in Texas to perform an imme­di­ate sweep of the facil­ity to identify any ballots post­marked by Elec­tion Day and have such ballots sent out for deliv­ery by 5:00 p.m. and report back to the court by 1pm on Novem­ber 5; Order issued Novem­ber 5, requir­ing that “all USPS facil­it­ies that serve a state with an exten­ded ballot receipt dead­line shall, until that dead­line passes perform a morn­ing ballot sweep­…and a mid-to-late after­noon ballot sweep that is timed to ensure that any iden­ti­fied local ballots can be delivered that day”; Notice of appeal of order for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed by defend­ants Decem­ber 9, 2020; Agree­ment concern­ing USPS prac­tices for the Janu­ary 2021 Geor­gia runoff elec­tion approved Decem­ber 24, 2020


Richard­son v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C.), No. 20–5367 (D.C. Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery, Conspir­acy (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters sued the U.S. Pres­id­ent, the Post­mas­ter General and the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”), chal­len­ging “false state­ments about wide­spread mail-in voter fraud when such fraud is virtu­ally non-exist­ent,” and defend­ants’ actions “signi­fic­antly slow­ing down mail deliv­ery of flat mail like absentee and mail-in ballot­s…in an effort to suppress the vote during the pandemic, under­mine faith in the elec­tion process and its results and lay the ground­work for Trump to chal­lenge the results of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion should he lose.” The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and the Postal Reor­gan­iz­a­tion Act of 1970, in that defend­ants’ actions “were inten­ded to and did deprive Plaintiff[s] and thou­sands of other Amer­ic­ans of their funda­mental right to vote, consti­tuted a civil conspir­acy to viol­ate plaintiffs’ consti­tu­tion­ally protec­ted right to vote, and are arbit­rary, capri­cious and an abuse of discre­tion.

Status: Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Octo­ber 8, 2020, enjoin­ing defend­ants from enfor­cing the “late/extra trips policy,” requir­ing defend­ants to author­ize all over­time neces­sary to ensure the timely deliv­ery of elec­tion mail, and pree­mpt­ively deny­ing any request to stay pending appeal; Motion to enforce and monitor compli­ance with prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 27, 2020; Motion for further relief gran­ted Novem­ber 3, 2020, requir­ing that USPS imme­di­ately perform a sweep of certain USPS facil­it­ies “to ensure that no ballots have been held up and that any iden­ti­fied ballots are imme­di­ately sent out for deliv­ery” and report back to the court by 4:30 p.m. the same day; Status report claim­ing that sweep process has not been completed filed Novem­ber 3, 2020; Order issued Novem­ber 4, 2020, requir­ing USPS to instruct every plant manager in Texas to perform an imme­di­ate sweep of the facil­ity to identify any ballots post­marked by Elec­tion Day and have such ballots sent out for deliv­ery by 5:00 p.m. and report back to the court by 1pm on Novem­ber 5; Unop­posed motion to stay report­ing require­ments gran­ted Novem­ber 13, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Notice of appeal of prelim­in­ary injunc­tion order filed by defend­ants Decem­ber 7, 2020; District court case volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 21, 2020


Robin­son v. Board of Elec­tions1:20-cv-1364 (D.C. Super­ior Court)

Re: Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19); Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery

Two indi­vidual voters sued the District of Columbia Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the Board’s policy of clos­ing the major­ity of Ward 8 polling places in an effort to promote absentee voting. The complaint for emer­gency injunct­ive relief alleges viol­a­tions of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the policy ensures that members of a protec­ted class have less oppor­tun­ity than other members of the elect­or­ate to parti­cip­ate in the polit­ical processes and elect repres­ent­at­ives of their choice.

Status: TRO denied; Dismissed on consent June 30, 2020


State of New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C.), No. _____ (D.C. Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery

The states of New York, Hawaii, New Jersey and others sued the U.S. Pres­id­ent, the Post­mas­ter General and others, chal­len­ging the USPS’s “abrupt policy changes,” which “inter­fere with states’ consti­tu­tional duty to admin­is­ter their own elec­tions.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Postal Account­ab­il­ity and Enhance­ment Act, the Postal Reor­gan­iz­a­tion Act, and the Elec­tions Clause of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the USPS acted ultra vires in fail­ing to submit a proposal to the Postal Regu­lat­ory Commis­sion prior to making changes which would “gener­ally affect service on a nation­wide or substan­tially nation­wide basis,” and ignor­ing its oblig­a­tion to give the highest consid­er­a­tion to the conveni­ence and effi­ciency of processing, trans­port­ing, and deliv­er­ing import­ant letter mail, elim­in­ated ready access to postal services to certain popu­la­tions, and that defend­ants’ actions “will hinder the deliv­ery of mail ballots and ballot applic­a­tions, and thereby under­mine the States’ consti­tu­tion­ally-deleg­ated role to regu­late congres­sional elec­tions.”

Status: Complaint filed August 25, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 27, 2020, enjoin­ing defend­ants from enfor­cing postal policy changes and pree­mpt­ively deny­ing any request to stay pending appeal; Motion for summary judg­ment filed Octo­ber 19, 2020; Motion to enforce and clarify gran­ted in part and denied in part Octo­ber 22, 2020; Cross-motion for summary judg­ment filed by defend­ants Octo­ber 26, 2020; Notice of appeal of order grant­ing in part and deny­ing in part motion to clarify filed by defend­ants Novem­ber 27, 2020


Vote Forward v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C.), No. 20–5353 (D.C. Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery (Covid-19)

Vote Forward, indi­vidual voters, Voces Unidas de las Montañas and others sued the post­mas­ter general and the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”), chal­len­ging USPS policy changes imple­men­ted by the post­mas­ter general, includ­ing a ban on late and extra deliv­ery trips and the decom­mis­sion­ing of hundreds of mail sort­ing machines, as well as the post­mas­ter gener­al’s fail­ure to reverse other policies that negat­ively impact the deliv­ery of elec­tion mail. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of federal Admin­is­trat­ive Proced­ure Act and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants acted ultra vires in fail­ing to request an advis­ory opin­ion prior to imple­ment­ing policy changes that affect postal services nation­wide, and that the chal­lenged policies unreas­on­ably and severely burden “the right to vote by caus­ing delays that effect­ively disen­fran­chise voters.”

Status: Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 8, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 28, 2020 and any request to stay the order pending appeal for pree­mpt­ively denied; Emer­gency motion to enforce and monitor compli­ance with prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 27, 2020; Motion for further relief gran­ted Novem­ber 3, 2020, requir­ing that USPS imme­di­ately perform a sweep of certain USPS facil­it­ies “to ensure that no ballots have been held up and that any iden­ti­fied ballots are imme­di­ately sent out for deliv­ery” and report back to the court by 4:30 p.m. the same day; Status report claim­ing that sweep process has not been completed filed Novem­ber 3, 2020; Order issued Novem­ber 4, 2020, requir­ing USPS to instruct every plant manager in Texas to perform an imme­di­ate sweep of the facil­ity to identify any ballots post­marked by Elec­tion Day and have such ballots sent out for deliv­ery by 5:00 p.m. and report back to the court by 1pm on Novem­ber 5; Order issued Novem­ber 5, requir­ing that “all USPS facil­it­ies that serve a state with an exten­ded ballot receipt dead­line shall, until that dead­line passes perform a morn­ing ballot sweep­…and a mid-to-late after­noon ballot sweep that is timed to ensure that any iden­ti­fied local ballots can be delivered that day”; Notice of appeal of order for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed by defend­ants Novem­ber 27, 2020; Agree­ment concern­ing USPS proced­ures for the 2021 Geor­gia runoff elec­tion so-ordered Decem­ber 24, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Janu­ary 15, 2021; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Febru­ary 10, 2021;  Joint motion to dissolve prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Febru­ary 11, 2021; Second amended complaint filed March 9, 2021; Second motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied May 18, 2021


Wiscon­sin Voters Alli­ance v. Pence, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C.)

Re: Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Phil­an­thropic Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

The Wiscon­sin Voters Alli­ance, Pennsylvania Voters Alli­ance, Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance and others sued Vice Pres­id­ent Michael Pence, the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives, the U.S. Senate, the Elect­oral College and others, chal­len­ging the consti­tu­tion­al­ity of federal laws that prescribe the proced­ure and timing for the certi­fic­a­tion of pres­id­en­tial elect­ors and the count­ing of elect­oral votes in Congress as well as that of vari­ous states’ elec­tion laws allegedly “trans­fer­ring post-elec­tion certi­fic­a­tion from the state legis­latures to state exec­ut­ive branch offi­cials.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article II of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged stat­utes (3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 6 and 15) deny voters’ rights to Equal Protec­tion, Due Process, and to have their pres­id­en­tial votes “coun­ted by [ ] their respect­ive state legis­latures” and seeks to enjoin the Vice Pres­id­ent and U.S. Congress “from count­ing Pres­id­en­tial elector votes from states unless their respect­ive state legis­latures vote affirm­at­ively in a post-elec­tion vote to certify the Pres­id­en­tial elect­ors.”

Status: Complaint and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Decem­ber 22, 2020; Order deny­ing prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Janu­ary 4, 2021; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Janu­ary 7, 2021; Order refer­ring plaintiffs’ coun­sel to the Griev­ance Commit­tee issued Febru­ary 19, 2021

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flor­ida

1199­SEIU United Health­care Work­ers East v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-24069 (S.D. Fla.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery Prac­tices (Covid-19)

1199­SEIU United Health­care Work­ers East sued the post­mas­ter general and the United States Postal Service, chal­len­ging recent changes to postal service deliv­ery prac­tices that adversely impact the deliv­ery of elec­tion mail, includ­ing remov­ing a substan­tial number of high-speed sort­ing machines, revers­ing a long­stand­ing policy of deliv­er­ing elec­tion mail irre­spect­ive of post­age paid. The complaint alleges that defend­ants have exceeded their lawful author­ity and engaged in arbit­rary and capri­cious agency action.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Amended complaint and emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Octo­ber 16, 2020; First non-final order issued Octo­ber 23, 2020, requir­ing parties to “confer in an effort to come up with reas­on­able feas­ible meth­ods to ensure that all ballots in Flor­ida are timely delivered…so they may be coun­ted in the upcom­ing elec­tion”; Second non-final order issued Octo­ber 29, 2020, requir­ing that USPS make arrange­ments with every county Super­visor of Elec­tions in Flor­ida to deliver all ballots in USPS’s posses­sion on Novem­ber 3; Third non-final order issued Novem­ber 2, 2020, requir­ing that USPS report to plaintiff the prior day’s “all clear” status on by 10am on Novem­ber 2 and 3; Fourth non-final order issued Novem­ber 2, 2020, requir­ing that defend­ant shall provide plaintiff with an addi­tional report by 9:00 a.m. on Novem­ber 3, “detail­ing the ‘all clear’ status of the…re­tail facil­it­ies in Flor­id­a’s Large Counties”; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Novem­ber 13, 2020


Grimes v. Flor­ida Depart­ment of State, 2020-CA-908 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Prepaid Post­age (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual Flor­ida resid­ents sued the Flor­ida Depart­ment of State, Flor­ida Divi­sion of Elec­tions, secret­ary of state, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that provides that a voter may request a vote-by-mail ballot in person or in writ­ing. The second amended complaint seeks injunct­ive and declar­at­ory relief, includ­ing that the court order the State to auto­mat­ic­ally send mail-in ballots to all voters with post­age prepaid.

Status: Dismissed August 13, 2020


Gruver v. Barton, No. 1:19-cv-121 (N.D. Fla.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment (“Pay to Vote”)

The Flor­ida NAACP, League of Women Voters of Flor­ida, indi­vidual Flor­ida resid­ents, and others sued the Flor­ida secret­ary of state and the super­visors for elec­tions of vari­ous Flor­ida counties, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons with felony convic­tions until they have paid all court-imposed resti­tu­tion, fees, and fines. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law viol­ates the guar­an­tees of substant­ive and proced­ural due process, discrim­in­ates between voters (thus deny­ing equal protec­tion), unduly burdens the right to vote, imposes an illegal poll tax, is imper­miss­ibly vague, burdens core polit­ical speech and asso­ci­ational rights, consti­tutes retro­act­ive punish­ment in viol­a­tion of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and inten­tion­ally discrim­in­ates on the basis of race.

Status: See Jones v. DeSantis, below


Jacob­son v. Lee (formerly Lee v. Dentzner), No. 4:18-cv-262 (N.D. Fla), No. 19–14552 (11th Cir.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

Indi­vidual voters, Prior­it­ies USA, Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, and others sued the Flor­ida secret­ary of state and others, chal­len­ging a state law that requires that candid­ates of the same polit­ical party as the current Flor­ida governor be listed first on all elec­tion ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law creates an undue burden on the right to vote and treats simil­arly situ­ated candid­ates differ­ently without suffi­cient justi­fic­a­tion. The lower court found the ballot order scheme to be uncon­sti­tu­tional. On appeal, the 11th Circuit reversed, find­ing that plaintiffs had lacked stand­ing.

Status: Peti­tion for rehear­ing en banc Octo­ber 28, 2020


Jones v. DeSantis, No. 4:19-cv-300 (N.D. Fla.); No. 20–12003 (11th Cir.); Raysor v. DeSantis, No. 20–12003 (S. Ct.)

Consol­id­ated with Gruver v. Barton, No. 1:19-cv-000302; Mendez v. DeSantis, No. 4:19-cv-00272; Raysor v. Lee, No. 4:19-cv-00301; McCoy v. DeSantis, No. 4:19-cv-00304 (N.D. Fla)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment (“Pay to Vote”)

An indi­vidual Flor­ida resid­ent sued the Flor­ida governor, the super­visor of elec­tions of Hills­bor­ough County, the Flor­ida secret­ary of state, and the State of Flor­ida, chal­len­ging a state stat­ute that prohib­its restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons with felony convic­tions until they have paid all court-imposed resti­tu­tion, fees, and fines. The complaint seeks declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief and manda­mus, alleging state and federal consti­tu­tional and stat­utory claims, includ­ing viol­a­tions of the 14th and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Art. VI, § 4 of the Flor­ida Consti­tu­tion, in that the stat­ute denies the U.S. Consti­tu­tion’s guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion, imposes an illegal poll tax, denies the right to vote and discrim­in­ates on the basis of race, color, or member­ship in a language minor­ity group, and prescribes qual­i­fic­a­tions for the restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons convicted of felon­ies beyond those prescribed by the Flor­ida Consti­tu­tion.

Several indi­vidu­als and organ­iz­a­tions, includ­ing the Flor­ida State Confer­ence of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Flor­ida, inter­vened and moved for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, while defend­ants moved for dismissal. The district court entered a final order grant­ing declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief on May 24, 2020.

Status: Notice of appeal filed by defend­ants. Motion for stay pending appeal denied by district court. Notice of cross-appeal filed by two plaintiffs; Defend­ant-Appel­lants’ peti­tion for initial hear­ing en banc and motion to stay prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted by 11th Circuit; plaintiffs’ emer­gency applic­a­tion to vacate 11th Circuit stay denied by SCOTUSOrder vacat­ing and revers­ing lower court ruling issued Septem­ber 11, 2020


Mendez v. DeSantis, No. 4:19-cv-272 (N.D. Fla.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment (“Pay to Vote”)

An indi­vidual Flor­ida resid­ent sued the Flor­ida governor, the Super­visor of Elec­tions of Hills­bor­ough County, the Flor­ida secret­ary of state, and the State of Flor­ida, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons with felony convic­tions until they have paid all court-imposed resti­tu­tion, fees, and fines. The complaint seeks declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief and manda­mus, alleging viol­a­tions of the 14th and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and Art. VI, § 4 of the Flor­ida Consti­tu­tion, in that the stat­ute denies the U.S. Consti­tu­tion’s guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion, imposes an illegal poll tax, denies the right to vote and discrim­in­ates on the basis of race, color, or member­ship in a language minor­ity group, and prescribes qual­i­fic­a­tions for the restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons convicted of felon­ies beyond those prescribed by the Flor­ida Consti­tu­tion.

Status: See Jones v. DeSantis, above


Namphy v. DeSantis, No. 4:20-cv-485 (N.D. Fla.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Dead­line (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter, the Dream Defend­ers, New Flor­ida Major­ity, and others sued the Flor­ida governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the state’s fail­ure to extend the voter regis­tra­tion dead­line after the online voter regis­tra­tion system crashed on the last day of regis­tra­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ fail­ure to extend the regis­tra­tion dead­line will wholly deprive many Flor­idi­ans of the right to vote without any compel­ling or rational justi­fic­a­tion.

Status: Complaint and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Order deny­ing tempor­ary restrain­ing order and taking prelim­in­ary injunc­tion under advise­ment issued Octo­ber 6, 2020; Order deny­ing prelim­in­ary injunc­tion after the secret­ary of state volun­tar­ily exten­ded the dead­line by 24 hours issued Octo­ber 9, 2020; Notice of dismissal filed Octo­ber 9, 2020


Nielsen v. DeSantis, No. 4:20-cv-236 (N.D. Fla.)

Consol­id­ated with Willi­ams v. DeSantis

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Prepaid Post­age, Ballot Collect­ors (Covid-19)

Flor­ida voters, Alianza for Progress, Inc., and others sued the Flor­ida governor, the secret­ary of state, and others, chal­len­ging vari­ous state laws and prac­tices, includ­ing the State’s fail­ure to provide prepaid post­age on mail-in ballots, the require­ment that ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Elec­tion Day be discarded, and prohib­i­tion on the use of paid organ­izers to assist voters with collect­ing ballots. The third amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, §§ 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act, Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, and § 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act, in that the laws and prac­tices unduly burden the right to vote, deny due process, abridge or deny the right to vote on account of race, discrim­in­ate against and fail to provide reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions to persons with disab­il­it­ies, and fail to provide Span­ish-language voting mater­i­als and assist­ance.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied in part and then fully deniedNielsen plaintiffs’ and Dream Defender plaintiffs’ claims volun­tar­ily dismissed pursu­ant to settle­ment; Settled July 20, 2020


Raysor v. Lee, No. 4:19-cv-301 (N.D. Fla)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment (“Pay to Vote”)

Indi­vidual Flor­ida resid­ents with prior felony convic­tions, indi­vidu­ally and on behalf of a class, sued the Flor­ida secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its restor­a­tion of voting rights to persons with felony convic­tions until they have paid all court-imposed resti­tu­tion, fees, and fines. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law discrim­in­ates and disen­fran­chises on the basis of wealth, consti­tutes an illegal poll tax, is uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally vague, and denies the right of due process.

Status: See Jones v. DeSantis, above


Willi­ams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla.)

Consol­id­ated with Nielsen v. DeSantis

Re: Vote-by-Mail Restric­tions; Early Voting Dates; Curb­side Voting (Covid-19)

Flor­ida voters and organ­iz­a­tions sued the Flor­ida governor, secret­ary of state, and the Flor­ida Elec­tion Canvassing Commis­sion, chal­len­ging a host of alleged fail­ures by the State to make neces­sary voting accom­mod­a­tions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The second amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, §§ 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act, Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, and § 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act, in that the law places an undue burden on the right to vote, abridges the right to vote on account of race, fails to provide reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions for persons with disab­il­it­ies, fails to provide Span­ish-language voting mater­i­als and assist­ance, and denies proced­ural due process.

Status: Consol­id­ated with Nielsen v. DeSantisSettled by original plaintiffs July 20, 2020 and by inter­ven­ing plaintiffs August 5, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geor­gia

Ander­son v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-3263 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity & Resources (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters, the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and the Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the chair and members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board and members of vari­ous county boards of elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide a suffi­cient number and equit­able distri­bu­tion of elec­tion day polling places, to imple­ment adequately func­tion­ing voting systems, and to hire suffi­cient numbers of and adequately train poll work­ers, result­ing in exceed­ingly long wait times to vote. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ actions and inac­tion unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, result in circum­stances that are funda­ment­ally unfair, arbit­rar­ily and dispar­ately deny­ing equal protec­tion to voters in certain counties.

Status: Complaint filed August 6, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 1, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 13, 2020


Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffen­sper­gerNo. 1:20-cv-1489 (N.D. Ga.); No. 20–13414 (11th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Prepaid Post­age (Covid-19)

Black Voters Matter Fund and indi­vidual registered voters, on behalf of a class, sued Geor­gi­a’s secret­ary of state, the Dekalb County Board of Regis­tra­tion & Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging the State’s policy of requir­ing voters to provide their own post­age when mail­ing absentee ballots and ballot applic­a­tions. The second amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the policy imposes an illegal poll tax, denies equal protec­tion, and unjus­ti­fi­ably burdens the right to vote.

Status: TRO denied May 15, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied; Motion to dismiss gran­ted in part  and denied in part August 11, 2020; Final judg­ment entered in favor of defend­ants August 28, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 9, 2020


Boland v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 2020CV343018 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing; Voter Regis­tra­tion Records, Elec­tion Audit, Decer­ti­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, and the vice chairs and members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to remove ineligible voters from Geor­gi­a’s voter rolls and their fail­ure to reject a suffi­cient number of absentee ballots when compared with previ­ous elec­tions’ rejec­tion rates. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, the Elect­ors and Elec­tions Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and Geor­gia stat­ute, in that defend­ants failed to fulfill their voter list main­ten­ance duties, thus allegedly allow­ing votes to be cast by or on behalf of out-of-state resid­ents and deceased persons, and usurped legis­lat­ive author­ity by chan­ging absentee ballot processing proced­ures.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 30, 2020; Motion for exped­ited hear­ing filed Decem­ber 3, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Biden elect­ors Decem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Trump elector Decem­ber 7, 2020; Hear­ing held Decem­ber 7, 2020; Order dismiss­ing case issued Decem­ber 8, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 14, 2020; Order deny­ing applic­a­tion for extraordin­ary relief issued by Geor­gia Supreme Court Decem­ber 14, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal of appeal “due to an out of court agree­ment” filed by plaintiffs Janu­ary 7, 2021; Response to notice of volun­tary dismissal, contest­ing plaintiffs’ asser­tion that the parties entered in to an “out of court agree­ment” filed by defend­ants Janu­ary 7, 2021


Brooks v. Mahoney, No. 4:20-cv-281 (S.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Provi­sional Voting, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters sued the Boards of Elec­tions of eight counties where Joseph R. Biden received more votes that Donald J. Trump, and the Geor­gia secret­ary of state and governor, chal­len­ging alleged elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, includ­ing anec­dotes of a voter not receiv­ing a reques­ted absentee ballot and a voter being told that they had reques­ted an absentee ballot when they had not, a voting machine soft­ware “glitch” in two counties whose results are not being chal­lenged in the suit. Plaintiffs allege that “further evid­ence” will be provided “based on data analys­is…[that] will identify voters who cast votes illeg­ally.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that “[c]erti­fy­ing [p]resid­en­tial [e]lect­ors without exclud­ing certain counties would viol­ate voters’ funda­mental right to vote by vote-dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment.”

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 11, 2020; Amended complaint filed Novem­ber 12, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 16, 2020


Coali­tion for Good Governance v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-1677 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Avail­ab­il­ity & Access­ib­il­ity; In-Person Voting Safety, Curb­side/Mobile Voting (Covid-19)

The Coali­tion for Good Governance and indi­vidual voters sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state and members of the State Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the State’s fail­ure to take appro­pri­ate steps to protect the health and safety of voters and elec­tion work­ers in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, includ­ing post­pon­ing the primary elec­tion, making absentee voting more access­ible, using paper ballots rather than touch­screens, and permit­ting early and curb­side voting. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the State’s fail­ure to make appro­pri­ate modi­fic­a­tions and accom­mod­a­tions denies the funda­mental right to vote and the guar­an­tees of due process and equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion to dismiss gran­ted and motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion denied by district court; Appeal to 11th Circuit volun­tar­ily dismissed August 17, 2020


Curl­ing v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:17-cv-2989 (N.D. Ga.); No. 20–13730 (11th Cir.)

Re: Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity

Indi­vidual voters and the Coali­tion for Good Governance sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, its members and others, chal­len­ging the state’s voting system, which relies primar­ily on the use of elec­tronic voting machines that plaintiffs contend are inac­cur­ate and vulner­able to secur­ity breaches. The third amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and state law and state consti­tu­tional ballot secrecy guar­an­tees, in that the use of the elec­tronic machines denies voters’ rights to due process and equal protec­tion, and infringes upon the funda­mental right to vote, and denies the right to vote “in abso­lute secrecy.”

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied without preju­dice August 7, 2020; Emer­gency motion for exped­ited discov­ery gran­ted in part August 11, 2020; Motions for prelim­in­ary injunc­tions filed August 19, 21 and 24, 2020; Coali­tion plaintiffs’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted on paper poll­book backups Septem­ber 28, 2020, direct­ing defend­ants to “provide at least a modicum of the voting backup plan tools essen­tial to protect­ing voters’ consti­tu­tion­ally protec­ted abil­ity and right to cast a ballot that is coun­ted and given the same weight as any other this coming Novem­ber 3 general elec­tion day and there­after;” Notice of appeal filed by defend­ants Octo­ber 2, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Order issued Octo­ber 11, 2020, deny­ing Curl­ing Plaintiffs’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and grant­ing in part and deny­ing in part Coali­tion Plaintiffs’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, while find­ing major secur­ity vulner­ab­il­it­ies; Amended order concern­ing paper poll­book backup issued Octo­ber 12, 2020; Motion to stay denied by district court Octo­ber 14, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal gran­ted by 11th Circuit Octo­ber 24, 2020; State defend­ants’ notice of appeal of Octo­ber 11 order filed Octo­ber 29, 2020; Emer­gency motion for exped­ited discov­ery and imme­di­ate injunct­ive relief denied Novem­ber 6, 2020


Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:19-cv-5028 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing; Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure

The Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia, Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, and the members of the Gwin­nett County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the lack of uniform stand­ards for veri­fy­ing voters’ signa­tures and lack of provi­sions prescrib­ing the time­frame for noti­fy­ing voters of curable ballot defects. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the exist­ing system unduly burdens the funda­mental right to vote, arbit­rar­ily treats simil­arly situ­ated voters differ­ently, thus depriving them of equal protec­tion, and denies due process.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 6, 2019; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 27, 2019; Motions to dismiss filed Janu­ary 10, 2020 and Janu­ary 31, 2020; Settled March 6, 2020


In re Enforce­ment of Elec­tion Laws and Secur­ing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 3, 2020, No. SPCV20–00982-BA (Super. Ct., Chatham Cnty., Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line; Poll Watcher Access; Ballot Count­ing (Covid-19)

The Geor­gia Repub­lican Party and the Trump Campaign filed a peti­tion to command enforce­ment of elec­tion laws, alleging that, the day after the elec­tion, a Chatham County poll watcher had witnessed absentee ballots “that had not been prop­erly processed appar­ently mixed into a pile of absentee ballots that was already set to be tabu­lated,” and was not there­after provided reques­ted inform­a­tion as to whether the ballots had been received prior to the close of polls on elec­tion day. The peti­tion seeks an order requir­ing that the Chatham County Board of Elec­tions segreg­ate all absentee ballots received after 7:00 p.m. on elec­tion day, provide a detailed account­ing such ballots, includ­ing voters’ names, and further requir­ing that such ballots be stored until “further instruc­tion from this Court as to their final dispos­i­tion.”

Status: Motion to inter­vene filed by the Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia Novem­ber 5, 2020; Peti­tion dismissed Novem­ber 5, 2020


Fair Fight Action v. Raffen­sper­ger (aka Ebenezer Baptist Church of Atlanta v. Raffen­sper­ger), No. 1:18-cv-5391 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter List Purges, In-Person Voting, Polling Place Clos­ures, Voting Machine Secur­ity, Vote-by-Mail

Fair Fight Action, Care in Action, Ebenezer Baptist Church of Atlanta, and others sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the State Elec­tion Board, and members of the board, chal­len­ging the State’s elec­tions laws, policies and prac­tices, and its admin­is­tra­tion of the 2018 general elec­tion in partic­u­lar, which plaintiffs allege resul­ted in voter suppres­sion and discrim­in­a­tion “remin­is­cent of the Jim Crow era.” The chal­lenged laws and prac­tices include clos­ing and relo­cat­ing polling places, fail­ing to provide a suffi­cient number of ballots and other resources to polling places, using inac­cur­ate voting machines, illeg­ally purging thou­sands of voters from voter rolls, improp­erly reject­ing voter regis­tra­tion forms, fail­ing to provide suffi­cient provi­sional ballots, fail­ing to prop­erly train elec­tion work­ers, imped­ing absentee voting, and leav­ing the State’s voting infra­struc­ture vulner­able to hack­ing. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Help Amer­ica Vote Act (“HAVA”), in that the chal­lenged laws and prac­tices deny substant­ive and proced­ural due process, includ­ing the funda­mental right to vote, discrim­in­ate on the basis of race, deprive voters of equal protec­tion, deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, and fail to comply with vari­ous provi­sions of HAVA by employ­ing voting machines that produce no paper record when votes are cast and thus cannot be audited.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Decem­ber 27, 2019; Motion for summary judg­ment filed June 29, 2020


Fair Fight, Inc. v. True the Vote (a/k/a Fair Fight v. Engel­brecht), No. 2:20-cv-302 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter List Purges, Voter Intim­id­a­tion, Threats to Elec­tion Offi­cials (Covid-19)

Fair Fight, Inc. and two anonym­ous indi­vidual voters who fear harass­ment sued True the Vote, its founder and exec­ut­ive director, and others, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ campaign to “pree­mpt­ively chal­lenge 364,541 poten­tially ineligible voters” across Geor­gia based on the U.S. Postal Service’s “National Change of Address” registry, notwith­stand­ing that Geor­gia law expli­citly permits Geor­gi­ans who have tempor­ar­ily relo­cated out-of-state to remain registered and vote in Geor­gia (includ­ing, among other voters, students, those who have obtained tempor­ary employ­ment else­where, and those who are out-of-state in order to care for someone ill during the pandemic, or for milit­ary service). Addi­tion­ally, defend­ants have threatened to publicly release the names of the voters they claim are ineligible, thus subject­ing those indi­vidu­als to threats and harass­ment and have offered a $1 million reward fund to “incentiv­ize” indi­vidu­als to report suspec­ted “elec­tion malfeas­ance.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, in that defend­ants’ actions attempt to or actu­ally “intim­id­ate, threaten, or coerce” certain indi­vidu­als from “voting or attempt­ing to vote.”

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 23, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Janu­ary 1, 2020, never­the­less noting that the chal­lenges are “suspect”; Motion to dismiss for insuf­fi­cient process deemed moot Janu­ary 1, 2020; Coun­ter­claims filed by defend­ants Janu­ary 8, 2021; Motion to dismiss coun­ter­claims filed by plaintiffs Janu­ary 29, 2021; Amended complaint filed March 22, 2021; Answer to amended complaint & coun­ter­claims filed March 31, 2021


Favorito v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343938 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Voter Records & Ballot Inspec­tion Request

Indi­vidual voters and poll work­ers sued the members of the Fulton County Board of Elec­tions and its director, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide reques­ted voting records and alleging fraud and irreg­u­lar­it­ies in the Novem­ber 2020 elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Geor­gia Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants failed to ensure that absentee ballots were treated in accord­ance with state law and in a uniform manner through­out the county and through­out the state, thus depriving plaintiffs of equal protec­tion and due process, and that voters for third party candid­ates were treated differ­ently than simil­arly situ­ated voters.  

Status: Peti­tion and emer­gency motion to shorten the time to respond to a discov­ery request filed Decem­ber 23, 2020; Motion to file amicus brief regard­ing peti­tion­er’s motion to unseal records filed by Geor­gia secret­ary of state April 2, 2021; Order to unseal absentee ballots issued May 21, 2021; Emer­gency motion for protect­ive order and exped­ited ruling filed by Fulton County Board of Elec­tions June 9, 2021; Motion to dismiss filed June 14, 2021; Amended peti­tion filed June 21, 2021; Order find­ing respond­ents to be entitled to sover­eign immunity on consti­tu­tional claims issued June 24, 2021; Third amended peti­tion filed July 2, 2021


Geor­gia Asso­ci­ation of Latino Elec­ted Offi­cials, Inc. v. Gwin­nett County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-1587 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14540 (11th Cir.)

Re: English-Only Elec­tion Mater­i­als (Covid-19)

The Geor­gia Asso­ci­ation of Latino Elec­ted Offi­cials, the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the People’s Agenda, Asian Amer­ic­ans Advan­cing Justice – Atlanta, and others sued the Gwin­nett County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, members of the Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, and the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the State’s prac­tice of send­ing only English-language elec­tion mater­i­als, includ­ing absentee ballot applic­a­tions, to Geor­gi­a’s voters. The second amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of §§ 203 and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act, in that the law fails to provide bilin­gual voting mater­i­als and condi­tions the right to vote on voters’ degree of fluency in English, when voters were educated in an Amer­ican-flag school where English was not the language of instruc­tion.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied; Second amended complaint filed June 8, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 4, 2020


Geor­gia Coali­tion for the Peoples’ Agenda v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:18-cv-4727 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion

The Geor­gia Coali­tion for the Peoples’ Agenda, Asian Amer­ic­ans Advan­cing Justice – Atlanta, the Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and others sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the State’s “exact match” law and related proto­cols, which reject voter regis­tra­tion applic­a­tions if a single letter or number on the applic­a­tion does not perfectly match inform­a­tion contained in the Geor­gia Depart­ment of Driver Services and Social Secur­ity Admin­is­tra­tion data­bases. The third amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and § 8 of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”), in that the chal­lenged law and proto­cols unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, dispro­por­tion­ately impact racial minor­ity voters, discrim­in­ate based on citizen­ship clas­si­fic­a­tion and national origin, and fail to ensure that any eligible applic­ant is registered to vote in an elec­tion “so long as that applic­ant [timely] submits a valid voter regis­tra­tion form,” as required by the NVRA.

Status: Motion for emer­gency prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted as to the Novem­ber 2018 general elec­tion; Third amended complaint filed July 24, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal of certain plaintiffs approved April 26, 2021


Geor­gia Repub­lican Party v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-5018 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14741 (11th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

The Geor­gia Repub­lican Party, the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee, Perdue for Senate, and Geor­gi­ans for Kelly Loeffler sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state and the members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, chal­len­ging new absentee ballot signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion rules and the access afforded to poll watch­ers to observe the signa­ture match­ing process. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged rules are “funda­ment­ally unfair,” dilute the value of legit­im­ate votes, and arbit­rar­ily discrim­in­ate against plaintiffs, thus depriving them of due process and equal protec­tion.   

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 10, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia and Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee Decem­ber 11, 2020; Dismissed Decem­ber 17, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 18, 2020; Motion for stay or injunc­tion pending appeal denied by 11th Circuit Decem­ber 20, 2020; Emer­gency motion to stay denied by district court Decem­ber 21, 2020; Motion to volun­tar­ily dismiss appeal filed by plaintiffs Janu­ary 4, 2021


Geor­gia Repub­lican Party v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 2:20-cv-135 (S.D. Ga.); No. 20–14741 (11th Cir.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion, Double Voting, Ballot Count­ing (Covid-19)

The Geor­gia Repub­lican Party, the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee, the Purdue and Loeffler campaigns, and indi­vidual voters sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the chair, vice chair, and members of the State Elec­tion Board, and others, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ alleged fail­ure to imple­ment safe­guards to prevent newly registered voters who voted in another state’s senat­orial elec­tion in 2020 from also voting in Geor­gi­a’s 2021 runoff elec­tion and seek­ing to segreg­ate all ballots cast by voters who newly registered in Geor­gia between Novem­ber 4 and Decem­ber 7, 2020. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of section 11 of the Voting Rights Act and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the Voting Rights Act prohib­its “double voting,” and that allow­ing such votes to be coun­ted would unduly burden plaintiffs’ funda­mental right to vote and deprive them of equal protec­tion and due process by debas­ing the value of their valid votes.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 17, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia and the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee Decem­ber 18, 2020; Case dismissed with preju­dice Decem­ber 18, 2020; Emer­gency motion for a stay pending appeal denied by 11th Circuit Decem­ber 21, 2020; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 4, 2021


Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Dekalb County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-879 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter List Purges

The Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP and the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the People’s Agenda sued the Dekalb County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions and its members and director, chal­len­ging the removal of voters from rolls pursu­ant to the state’s chal­lenge proced­ures without afford­ing notice, an oppor­tun­ity to respond, and the two-elec­tion cycle wait­ing period required under federal law. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 8 of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”) on the basis that (1) Defend­ants are imme­di­ately purging voters without voters’ writ­ten confirm­a­tion and without send­ing a notice and wait­ing two federal elec­tion cycles , (2) Defend­ants’ letters to voters do not qual­ify as “confirm­a­tion notices” as required by the NVRA, and (3) Defend­ants’ removals are nonuni­form and discrim­in­at­ory. In addi­tion, Plaintiffs allege viol­a­tions of the First and Four­teenth Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion on the basis that the county purge proced­ures deny and severely burden DeKalb County citizens’ funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Motion to dismiss denied Septem­ber 2, 2020


Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance v. Fulton County, No. 1:20-cv-4198 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

The Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance and an indi­vidual voter “who oppose the elec­tion of progress­ive candid­ates” sued Fulton County, Geor­gia, chal­len­ging the county’s accept­ance of $6 million in grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to help the city admin­is­ter the Novem­ber elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions and Suprem­acy Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, of the Help Amer­ica Vote Act (“HAVA”), and the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”), in that these juris­dic­tions acted “without legal author­ity, to form a public-private part­ner­ship for federal elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion with CTCL,” and that their actions are pree­mp­ted by HAVA and the NVRA.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 28, 2020; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 4, 2020


Griggs v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-3272 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Fraud

An indi­vidual voter and ten anonym­ous indi­vidu­als sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the Chatham County Geor­gia Board of Elec­tions and others, seek­ing to void the June 9, 2020, primary elec­tion due to alleged fraud and misman­age­ment. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of  the Voting Rights Act, the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants “deprived voters and candid­ates of the right to vote and select candid­ates,” by enga­ging in miscon­duct, “breach[ed their] duty” and were negli­gent, denied voters equal protec­tion by “having differ­ent stand­ards for admin­is­ter­ing elec­tions or for count­ing ballots in differ­ent counties,” and “perpet­rated fraud upon the voters and candid­ates during the June 9, 2020 Primary Elec­tion.”   

Status: Complaint filed August 7, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion of volun­tary dismissal filed Octo­ber 28, 2020


Gwin­nett County NAACP v. Gwin­nett County Board of Regis­tra­tion & Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-912 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting, Satel­lite Voting Loca­tions

The Gwin­nett County NAACP, the Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the Peoples’ Agenda sued the Gwin­nett County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, its members, and the Gwin­nett County Commis­sion­ers, chal­len­ging the defend­ants’ decision to elim­in­ate the first week of early voting at satel­lite loca­tions for the March 2020 pres­id­en­tial primary elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the elim­in­a­tion of early voting oppor­tun­it­ies would severely burden the funda­mental right to vote, discrim­in­ate against Black voters and voters of a lower socioeco­nomic status.

Status: Emer­gency motion for TRO and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied March 3, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed March 9, 2020


Major­ity Forward v. Ben Hill County Board of Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter List Purges (Covid-19)

Major­ity Forward and an indi­vidual voter sued the Ben Hill and Muscogee County Boards of Elec­tions and Regis­tra­tion, their members, and others chal­len­ging defend­ants’ decision to sustain indis­crim­in­ate chal­lenges to approx­im­ately 4,000 voters’ eligib­il­ity to vote in the Janu­ary 2021 Geor­gia runoff elec­tions, based on a “notori­ously unre­li­able” national change of address data­base. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”) and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that sustain­ing the mass chal­lenges unduly burdens the funda­mental right to vote and runs afoul of the NVRA’s prohib­i­tion on remov­ing voters from regis­tra­tion lists based on a purpor­ted address change unless certain proced­ures are followed, and further prohib­its system­atic removal of voters within 90 days of an elec­tion for federal office.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 23, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Decem­ber 28, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 29, 2020; Motion to stay tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 29, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and tempor­ary restrain­ing order dissolved Decem­ber 30, 2020; Final order grant­ing in part motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Janu­ary 4, 2021; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed by plaintiffs Janu­ary 25, 2021


National Defense Commit­tee v. Fulton County Board of Elec­tions and Regis­tra­tion, No. 2021CV344215 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Poll Watcher Access, Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion, Ballot Processing (Covid-19)

The National Defense Commit­tee, the Fulton County Repub­lican Party, and an indi­vidual poll watcher sued the Fulton County Board of Elec­tions and Regis­tra­tion and its director, chal­len­ging the suffi­ciency of access afforded to poll watch­ers to observe the processing of absentee ballots, includ­ing signa­ture match­ing. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia stat­utes, in that ballot processing stations are, among other things, spaced far apart due to comport with Covid-19 social distan­cing guidelines.

Status: Complaint filed Janu­ary 4, 2021; Consent order issued Janu­ary 5, 2021; Motion for contempt filed by peti­tion­ers Janu­ary 7, 2021


New Geor­gia Project v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343646 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project sued the Chair, Vice-Chair, and members of the Fulton County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide the minimum early voting required by law for Geor­gi­a’s Janu­ary runoff elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia law, which requires that early voting oppor­tun­it­ies be made avail­able, among other dates, on Saturday, Decem­ber 31, 2020 and Janu­ary 4, 2021.

Status:  Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 16, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 6, 2021 


New Geor­gia Project v. Evans, No. SU20CV0594 (Ga. Super. Ct., Clarke Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project sued the Chair, Vice-Chair, and members of the Athens-Clarke County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide the minimum early voting required by law for Geor­gi­a’s Janu­ary runoff elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia law, which requires that early voting oppor­tun­it­ies be made avail­able, among other dates, on Saturday, Decem­ber 19, 2020 and Janu­ary 4, 2021.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 15, 2020


New Geor­gia Project v. Kaplan, No. 2020-CV-073305 (Ga. Super. Ct., Bibb Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project sued the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the Macon-Bibb County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide the minimum early voting required by law for Geor­gi­a’s Janu­ary runoff elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia law, which requires that early voting oppor­tun­it­ies be made avail­able, among other dates, on Saturday, Decem­ber 19, 2020, Decem­ber 31, 2020 and Janu­ary 4, 2021.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 15, 2020


New Geor­gia Project v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-1986 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–13360 (11th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Prepaid Post­age, Voter Assist­ance Ban, Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project and indi­vidual voters sued the secret­ary of state, State Board of Elec­tions members, and others, chal­len­ging five state laws that require that ballots received after 7 p.m. on Elec­tion Day be discarded, prohibit voter assist­ance, fail to provide stand­ards for noti­fy­ing voters who have submit­ted incom­plete absentee ballot applic­a­tions, restrict the abil­ity to submit a single applic­a­tion to vote by mail for an entire elec­tion cycle based on age, and require voters to provide their own post­age on absentee ballots, and alleging that the effects of these rules have been exacer­bated by Covid-19. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, 24th, and 26th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the laws unduly burden the right to vote, deny or abridge the right to vote on account of age, impose a poll tax, deny proced­ural due process, arbit­rar­ily impose dispar­ate treat­ment, infringe on speech and asso­ci­ation rights, and are pree­mp­ted by federal law.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part August 31, 2020, requir­ing that “other­wise valid absentee ballots from qual­i­fied voters” must be coun­ted if post­marked by elec­tion day and received by 7:00 p.m. within three busi­ness days there­after. Notice of appeal and filed Septem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to exped­ite brief­ing gran­ted Septem­ber 10, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal denied Septem­ber 16, 2020; Appel­late motion to stay injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 2, 2020


New Geor­gia Project v. Shelton, No. 2020V123366K (Ga. Super. Ct., Hous­ton Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project sued the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the Hous­ton County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide the minimum early voting required by law for Geor­gi­a’s Janu­ary runoff elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia law, which requires that early voting oppor­tun­it­ies be made avail­able, among other dates, on Saturday, Decem­ber 19, 2020 and Janu­ary 4, 2021.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 16, 2020


New Geor­gia Project v. Willis, No. 20-CV-003112 (Ga. Super. Ct., Pauld­ing Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Early Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The New Geor­gia Project sued the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the Pauld­ing County Board of Elec­tions and Voter Regis­tra­tion, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide the minimum early voting required by law for Geor­gi­a’s Janu­ary runoff elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia law, which requires that early voting oppor­tun­it­ies be made avail­able, among other dates, on Saturday, Decem­ber 19, 2020 and Janu­ary 4, 2021.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 15, 2020


Palast v. Kemp, 1:18-cv-4809 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Records

An invest­ig­at­ive journ­al­ist and the exec­ut­ive director of the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the Peoples’ Agenda sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s fail­ure to disclose docu­ments pertain­ing to voter list main­ten­ance which had been reques­ted by plaintiffs pursu­ant to the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”). The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the public disclos­ure provi­sions of the NVRA, in that defend­ant failed to fully respond to plaintiffs’ request for public disclos­ure after being given 90 days’ notice.

Status: Defend­ant’s motion for summary judg­ment denied Febru­ary 4, 2020; Consent motion to stay pending settle­ment filed August 28, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed Octo­ber 13, 2020


Pear­son v. Kemp, No. 1:20-cv-4809 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14480 (11th Cir.), No. 20–816 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure, Poll Watcher Access, Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Issues (Covid-19)

Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elect­ors sued the Geor­gia governor, secret­ary of state, and others chal­len­ging the integ­rity of the state’s elec­tion, alleging “massive” voter fraud, and seek­ing to decer­tify the elec­tion results and to certify Donald Trump as the winner of Geor­gi­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion code, the 14th Amend­ment to and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants “change[d] the stat­utor­ily prescribed manner of hand­ling absentee ballots,” thus usurp­ing legis­lat­ive author­ity, treated simil­arly situ­ated voters differ­ently based on their county of resid­ence, diluted lawful votes, other­wise disen­fran­chised plaintiffs, and facil­it­ated wide­spread voter fraud via the use of Domin­ion voting machines.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 25, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Novem­ber 27, 2020; Order enjoin­ing and restrain­ing defend­ants from alter­ing, destroy­ing, or eras­ing any soft­ware or data on any Domin­ion voting machine in Cobb, Gwin­nett, and Cher­o­kee Counties issued Novem­ber 29, 2020; Order permit­ting an imme­di­ate appeal of the prior day’s order issued Novem­ber 30, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia, the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and the Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee Novem­ber 30, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs and district court hear­ing stayed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Emer­gency motion for exped­ited brief­ing sched­ule and review gran­ted by 11th Circuit Decem­ber 2, 2020; Emer­gency motion to inter­vene by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia, Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, and Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee gran­ted Decem­ber 3, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by inter­ven­ing defend­ants Decem­ber 3, 2020; Emer­gency motion for relief from the Novem­ber 29 tempor­ary restrain­ing order and cross-appeal filed by defend­ants Decem­ber 3, 2020;  Order dismiss­ing both appeals issued by 11th Circuit Decem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by original defend­ants in district court Decem­ber 5, 2020; Order dismiss­ing case and vacat­ing tempor­ary restrain­ing order issued and notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 7, 2020; Emer­gency peti­tion filed in U.S. Supreme Court Decem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to consol­id­ate and exped­ite consid­er­a­tion of the emer­gency peti­tion filed Decem­ber 18, 2020; Motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Janu­ary 11, 2021; stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed by plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court Janu­ary 19, 2021


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. State Elec­tion Board, No. 2020CV343319 (Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity & Surveil­lance Foot­age, Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee and the Geor­gia Repub­lican Party sued the State Elec­tion Board, the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, and others, chal­len­ging the access afforded to poll watch­ers, the use of drop boxes for the return of absentee ballots, the hours during which ballots may be depos­ited in drop boxes, and the avail­ab­il­ity of drop box surveil­lance foot­age. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­utes and seeks orders (1) declar­ing that exist­ing law requires that poll work­ers be permit­ted to “fully and effect­ively observe the cast­ing, processing, record­ing, and tabu­la­tion of every vote,” (2) declar­ing that exist­ing law requires that absentee ballots may be depos­ited in drop boxes only during regu­lar busi­ness hours; (3) requir­ing that “continu­ous video surveil­lance foot­age of all drop box loca­tions in the state must be made publicly avail­able via real time or near-real time stream­ing,” and (4) requir­ing the secret­ary of state to promptly notify local elec­tion offi­cials of the extent of poll watch­ers’ access rights and the limit­a­tion on drop box usage.  

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 8, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by the Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia and the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee Decem­ber 15, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 24, 2020


Schmitz v. Fulton County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, No. 2020CV339337 (Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Voter List Purges

Two indi­vidual voters sued the Fulton County Board of Regis­tra­tion and Elec­tions, its director and chief, seek­ing to compel defend­ants to purge the county’s voter regis­tra­tion list. The veri­fied peti­tion for a writ of manda­mus alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­ute, in that defend­ants have failed to hold a hear­ing in response to writ­ten notices filed by plaintiff, chal­len­ging the qual­i­fic­a­tions of multiple registered voters.

Status: Complaint filed August 13, 2020; Emer­gency motion to inter­vene by the Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP and the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the People’s Agenda Septem­ber 23, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by the New Geor­gia Project Septem­ber 28, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted Septem­ber 29, 2020; Dismissal affirmed by Geor­gia Supreme Court Janu­ary 5, 2021


S.P.S. ex rel Short v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:19-cv-4960 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

Indi­vidual Geor­gia resid­ents, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and others sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the vice chair of the Geor­gia Board of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that mandates that candid­ates be listed on the ballot in descend­ing order of the number of votes received by “candid­ates of the polit­ical parties for Governor at the last gubernat­orial elec­tion.” The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments, in that the law unduly burdens the right to vote and treats voters dispar­ately in viol­a­tion of equal protec­tion.

Status: Supple­mental brief filed by plaintiffs June 12, 2020, address­ing the impact of the 11th Circuit’s decision in Jacob­son v. Flor­ida; Motions for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and dismissal denied August 13, 2020; Consent order to stay case gran­ted Septem­ber 10, 2020


Still v. Raffen­sper­gerNo. 2020CV343711 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Elec­tion Contest, Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

A pres­id­en­tial elector and an anonym­ous indi­vidual sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the Coffee County Board of Elec­tions and Regis­tra­tion, and others, chal­len­ging alleged errors in count­ing the votes for pres­id­ent in Coffee County’s elec­tion and seek­ing to decer­tify the elec­tion results for both Coffee County and the State of Geor­gia as a whole. The peti­tion alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gia stat­ute and of the Geor­gia Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ actions resul­ted in “irreg­u­lar­it­ies, miscon­duct and fraud suffi­cient to change the outcome of the elec­tion in Coffee County, Geor­gia, and place in doubt the entire elec­tion result in State of Geor­gia.”

Status: Peti­tion for emer­gency injunct­ive and declar­at­ory relief filed Decem­ber 17, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 7, 2021


Trump v. Kemp, 1:20-cv-5310 (N.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion, Poll Watcher Access, Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Voter Regis­tra­tion (Covid-19)

Donald J. Trump sued the Geor­gia governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ alleged fail­ure to adhere to Geor­gia elec­tion law by, among other things, allow­ing “unqual­i­fied” indi­vidu­als to register and vote, send­ing unso­li­cited absentee ballot applic­a­tions to voters for the 2020 primary elec­tion, fail­ing to verify signa­tures on absentee ballots, fail­ing to allow poll watch­ers adequate access to observe “all proceed­ings at vote tabu­la­tion centers,” thus allow­ing “miscon­duct” to occur, and fail­ing to assign an “eligible” judge to hear the elec­tion contest filed by Trump in Trump v. Raffen­sper­ger, below, and illeg­ally certi­fy­ing the elec­tion results. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elect­ors Clause of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion was not conduc­ted in the manner prescribed by the legis­lature and that the certi­fic­a­tion of Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion results while Trump’s lawsuit against Governor Raffen­sper­ger was pending deprived him of due process.

Status: Complaint and motion for exped­ited declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief filed Decem­ber 31, 2020; Motion for exped­ited declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief denied Janu­ary 5, 2021; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Janu­ary 7, 2021


Trump v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 2020 CV 343255 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Signa­ture Match­ing, Poll Watcher Access, Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment, Voter Regis­tra­tion, Double Voting, Elec­tion Contest, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion Request (Covid-19)

Donald J. Trump, the Trump campaign, and a Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nominee sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the vice chair of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, and others, chal­len­ging the results of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion on numer­ous grounds, includ­ing the count­ing of absentee ballots without perform­ing adequate signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion or that were reques­ted more than 180 days prior to the elec­tion, and alleging that, among other things, deceased persons, those who had moved out of state, and persons with felony convic­tions had been allowed to vote. The complaint contests the results of the elec­tion pursu­ant to Geor­gia stat­ute, alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion code and the Equal Protec­tion and Due Process Clauses of the Geor­gia Consti­tu­tion, in that signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion proced­ures differed among counties, illegal votes were cast and coun­ted, thus dilut­ing legit­im­ate votes, and seeks an order decer­ti­fy­ing the results of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 4, 2020; Motion for emer­gency injunct­ive relief filed Decem­ber 7, 2020; Emer­gency motion to inter­vene filed by Geor­gi­a’s sixteen Demo­cratic pres­id­en­tial elect­ors Decem­ber 8, 2020; Motion for emer­gency injunct­ive relief with­drawn Decem­ber 8, 2020; Order issued Decem­ber 9, 2020, provid­ing that the case would proceed on a non-exped­ited basis; Emer­gency peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari dismissed by Geor­gia Supreme Court Decem­ber 12, 2020; Emer­gency direct appeal denied by Geor­gia Supreme Court Decem­ber 14, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Janu­ary 7, 2021; Response to notice of volun­tary dismissal filed by defend­ants Janu­ary 7, 2021, contest­ing peti­tion­ers’ asser­tion that the matter was being dismissed pursu­ant to settle­ment; Motion for attor­neys’ fees filed by respond­ents Febru­ary 22, 2021


Twelfth Congres­sional District Repub­lican Commit­tee v. Raffen­sper­ger, 1:20-cv-180 (S.D. Ga.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Early Ballot Processing, Signa­ture Match­ing, Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity; Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

The Twelfth Congres­sional District Repub­lican Commit­tee, an indi­vidual voter, and two Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, the members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, and others, chal­len­ging new rules that permit counties to deploy ballot drop boxes as early as 49 days prior to an elec­tion, to begin processing absentee ballots begin­ning three weeks prior to elec­tion day, and prescribe signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion proced­ures for absentee ballots, as well as defend­ants’ alleged fail­ure to afford plaintiffs suffi­cient poll watcher access. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state law, the Geor­gia Consti­tu­tion, and of the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants have promul­gated rules that are incon­sist­ent with Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion laws, thus usurp­ing legis­lat­ive author­ity; that promote fraud, thus dilut­ing the value of plaintiffs’ votes; and that arbit­rar­ily discrim­in­ate between absentee and in-person voters and between plaintiffs’ desig­nated poll watch­ers and other poll watch­ers, thus depriving them of equal protec­tion.

Status: Complaint and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Decem­ber 9, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee gran­ted Decem­ber 14, 2020; Motions to dismiss filed Decem­ber 15, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by the Geor­gia State Confer­ence of the NAACP and the Geor­gia Coali­tion for the People’s Agenda gran­ted Decem­ber 16, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 17, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Janu­ary 15, 2021


Wood v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:20-cv-4651 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20–14418 (11th Cir.), No. 20–799 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure; Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

The pres­id­ent of the Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state and the State Elec­tion Board, chal­len­ging the valid­ity of a consent decree entered into by defend­ants in March 2020, in connec­tion with Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:19-cv-5028 (N.D. Ga.), above. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elect­ors and Elec­tion Clauses of and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the consent decree imper­miss­ibly changes the “time[], place[ ] and manner” of the elec­tion and denies plaintiffs’ equal protec­tion because, under the terms of the consent decree, “absentee ballots have been processed differ­ently by [c]ounty [o]fficials than the process created by the Geor­gia Legis­lature. Plaintiff seeks an order prohib­it­ing defend­ants from certi­fy­ing the 2020 general elec­tion results in Geor­gia on a statewide basis. 

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 13, 2020; Amended complaint filed Novem­ber 16, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia, Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee gran­ted Novem­ber 19, 2020; Emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Novem­ber 19, 2020; Motion to dismiss and motion to appeal the denial of the tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Novem­ber 23, 2020; Plaintiff’s amended motion to supple­ment motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Novem­ber 24, 2020; Emer­gency notice of appeal filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Order affirm­ing lower court’s denial of emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order issued by 11th Circuit Decem­ber 5, 2020; Peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari and motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion filed in U.S. Supreme Court Decem­ber 8, 2020; Motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Janu­ary 11, 2021; Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied by U.S. Supreme Court Febru­ary 22, 2021


Wood v. Raffen­sper­gerNo. 2020CV342959 (Super. Ct. Fulton Cnty., Ga.)

Re: Elec­tion Contest, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

The pres­id­ent of the Geor­gia Voters Alli­ance sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state, contest­ing Geor­gi­a’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion based on Fulton County’s accept­ance of private elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion grants, chal­len­ging the agree­ment entered into by Defend­ants in connec­tion with the settle­ment of Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:19-cv-5028 (N.D. Ga.), above, concern­ing proced­ures for processing absentee ballots, and the fail­ure to enforce state law resid­ency require­ments and the prohib­i­tion on double-voting, and alleging wide­spread fraud across the state, and partic­u­larly in Fulton County. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Geor­gi­a’s elec­tion code, the Geor­gia Consti­tu­tion, and the 14th Amend­ment to and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that receipt of private elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion funds resul­ted in a dispar­ity in the number of drop boxes among counties, the settle­ment agree­ment changed the stat­utor­ily-prescribed manner of hand­ling absentee ballots (thus usurp­ing legis­lat­ive author­ity), and defend­ants failed to enforce state elec­tion law.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 25, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 8, 2020


Wood v. Raffen­sper­ger, 1:20-cv-5155 (N.D. Ga.), 20–14813 (11th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, ID Require­ment, Pre-Canvassing, Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity, Elec­tronic Voting Machines, Elec­tion Post­pone­ment (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Geor­gia secret­ary of state and the chair, vice chair, and members of the Geor­gia State Elec­tion Board, chal­len­ging the consent decree entered in Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia v. Raffen­sper­ger, No. 1:19-cv-5028 (N.D. Ga.), above, which prescribes signa­ture match­ing proced­ures for absentee ballots and absentee ballot iden­ti­fic­a­tion require­ments; a state rule permit­ting elec­tion offi­cials to begin pre-canvassing absentee ballots prior to elec­tion day; and the use of absentee ballot drop boxes and Domin­ion voting machines and seeks to post­pone the state’s Janu­ary 5, 2021 run-off elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to and Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged rules and proced­ures viol­ate plaintiff’s rights to equal protec­tion, due process, and a repub­lican form of govern­ment.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 18, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic Party of Geor­gia and Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee gran­ted Decem­ber 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by inter­venor defend­ants Decem­ber 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by 0riginal defend­ants Decem­ber 23, 2020; Emer­gency motions for injunct­ive relief and preser­va­tion of evid­ence and inspec­tion of elec­tronic elec­tion/voting equip­ment and produc­tion of original ballots denied and notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 28, 2020

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawaii

Griffin v. State of Hawaii, No. 1:20-cv-298 (D. Haw.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Voter Assist­ance, In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

 A nonpar­tisan candid­ate for polit­ical office sued the State of Hawaii chal­len­ging the state’s vote-by-mail program, which plaintiff believes will under­mine voters’ confid­ence in the voting process, present chal­lenges for disabled and visu­ally impaired voters, and reduce the number of in-person polling places. The complaint does not set forth a cause of action and seeks a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion requir­ing that “only offi­cial ballots [be] used,” that voters be required to sign any ballot sent via USPS to verify iden­tity, and “public compar­ison of aggreg­ated totals with compon­ent parts.”

Status: Motion for emer­gency injunc­tion denied and motion to dismiss gran­ted Septem­ber 28, 2020; Amended complaint filed Octo­ber 13, 2020; Amended complaint dismissed Decem­ber 8, 2020


Reeves v. Nago, No. 1:20-cv-433 (D. Haw.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Uniformed and Over­seas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and Equally Amer­ican sued the chief elec­tion officer for the Hawaii Office of Elec­tions, the United States of Amer­ica, and others, chal­len­ging the Uniformed and Over­seas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”), Hawaii stat­utes, and admin­is­trat­ive rules imple­ment­ing their require­ments, which permit former Hawaii resid­ents to continue voting by absentee ballot in pres­id­en­tial and congres­sional elec­tions if they reside in the North­ern Mari­ana Islands, certain other insu­lar territ­or­ies, or in a foreign coun­try, while fail­ing to afford that right to resid­ents of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Amer­ican Samoa, or Puerto Rico. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 5th and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions and polices viol­ate the guar­an­tees of equal protec­tion and due process by treat­ing differ­ently former state resid­ents depend­ing on where they now reside outside of the United States.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 8, 2020; Amended complaint filed Octo­ber 29, 2020; Second amended complaint filed Decem­ber 18, 2020; Federal defend­ants’ motion to dismiss gran­ted April 23, 2021; Amended complaint filed May 14, 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois

Cook County Repub­lican Party v. Pritzker, No. 1:20-cv-4676 (N.D. Ill.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Request Dead­line, Voter Assist­ance, Signa­ture Match­ing; Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Provi­sional Ballots (Covid-19)

The Cook County Repub­lican Party sued the Illinois governor, members of the Illinois State Board of Elec­tions and others, chal­len­ging a newly enacted law that requires that vote-by-mail ballot applic­a­tions be sent to most registered voters, requires accept­ance of mail-in ballots returned with insuf­fi­cient or no post­age, does not prohibit 3rd party voter assist­ance, does not provide a track­ing system for mail-in ballots, allows mail-in ballots to be reques­ted 3 days before the elec­tion, gives govern­ment employ­ees a paid day off on elec­tion day, presumes that signa­tures on mail-in ballots are authen­tic, allows 16-year-olds to serve as elec­tion judges, and affords voters of 14 days to cure a defect­ive provi­sional ballot. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Article 3, Section 4 of the Illinois Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged law “will lead to fraud­u­lent votes being coun­ted, thus dilut­ing lawful votes for candid­ates of the Repub­lican Party,” “will lead to ballots being collec­ted by paid, partisan polit­ical oper­at­ives and never returned to the elec­tion author­ity, thus directly disen­fran­chising voters for candid­ates of the Repub­lican Party,” and viol­ates the secrecy of voters wish­ing to vote by mail.

Status: Complaint and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed August 10, 2020; Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee permit­ted to inter­vene August 28, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Septem­ber 23, 2020


Harring­ton v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-5303 (N.D. Ill.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Prac­tices (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter, on behalf of a class, sued the post­mas­ter general, the chair­man of the Postal Service Board of Governors, and the “United States Parcel Service,” chal­len­ging the removal from or dismant­ling of Deliv­ery Bar Code Sort­ing Machines in the Chicago area and around the nation. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of federal stat­ute, in that defend­ants’ actions consti­tute a “consol­id­a­tion” of a post office, were under­taken without first provid­ing adequate notice and without consid­er­ing the effect of the clos­ing or consol­id­a­tion on the community served by those post offices, and have cause plaintiffs’ voting rights to be placed at risk and infringed.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 8, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 20, 2020


Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion v. Sand­voss, No. 3:20-cv-3190 (C.D. Ill.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Records Request

The Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion sued the Illinois State Board of Elec­tions, its exec­ut­ive director, and the director and deputy director of voting systems and regis­tra­tion chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to comply with a request to produce a copy of Illinois’ statewide voter regis­tra­tion list. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that the Act pree­mpts the Illinois law restrict­ing access to such inform­a­tion.

Status: Complaint filed July 27, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 5, 2020; Hear­ing sched­uled for Janu­ary 25, 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa

Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee v. Pate, No. 5771 CVCV060641 (Iowa Dist. Ct., Polk Cnty.); No. 20–1281 (Iowa Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, the Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, and the Iowa Demo­cratic Party sued the Iowa secret­ary of state and the Iowa Legis­lat­ive Coun­sel, chal­len­ging the July 17, 2020 Emer­gency Elec­tion Direct­ive, which ordered county audit­ors to distrib­ute to voters “only the blank Offi­cial State of Iowa Absentee Request Form,” for the Novem­ber general elec­tion. The peti­tion for judi­cial review of agency action alleges viol­a­tions of the Iowa Admin­is­trat­ive Code and the Iowa Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary failed to invoke his emer­gency powers prior to issu­ing the chal­lenged direct­ive, which was based on an erro­neous inter­pret­a­tion of Iowa law and uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally intrudes on counties’ home rule author­ity.

Status: Peti­tion for judi­cial review of agency action filed August 31, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary injunct­ive relief gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020; Stay gran­ted by Iowa Supreme Court Octo­ber 6, 2020; Reversed and remanded Octo­ber 14, 2020


Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee v. Pate, No. 5571 060642 (Iowa Dist. Ct., Polk Cnty.); No. 20–1281 (Iowa Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­teeDemo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, and the Iowa Demo­cratic Party sued the Iowa secret­ary of state and the Iowa Legis­lat­ive Coun­sel, chal­len­ging the July 17, 2020 Emer­gency Elec­tion Direct­ive, which ordered county audit­ors to distrib­ute to voters “only the blank Offi­cial State of Iowa Absentee Request Form,” for the Novem­ber general elec­tion. The peti­tion at law alleges viol­a­tions of the Iowa Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged order exceeds defend­ants’ stat­utory author­ity, threatens to deprive voters and plaintiffs of a protec­ted liberty interest without provid­ing due process, and results in simil­arly situ­ated voters being treated differ­ently based on whether they receive blank or pre-addressed absentee ballot request forms.

Status: Peti­tion at law filed August 31, 2020; Emer­gency motion to stay agency action gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020; Stay gran­ted by Iowa Supreme Court Octo­ber 6, 2020; Reversed and remanded Octo­ber 14, 2020; Peti­tion for certi­or­ari denied by Iowa Supreme Court Octo­ber 14, 2020


Iowa Voters Alli­ance v. Black Hawk County, No. 6:20-cv-2078 (N.D. Iowa)

Re: Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

The Iowa Voters Alli­ance and three indi­vidual voters sued Black Hawk and Scott Counties, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ accept­ance of private phil­an­thropic grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to help the city admin­is­ter the Novem­ber elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions and Suprem­acy Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, of the Help Amer­ica Vote Act (“HAVA”), and the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”), in that these juris­dic­tions acted “without legal author­ity, to form a public-private part­ner­ship for federal elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion with CTCL,” and that their actions are pree­mp­ted by HAVA and the NVRA.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 1, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 20, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Novem­ber 25, 2020; Dismissed with preju­dice Janu­ary 27, 2021


League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 06521 CVCV081901 (Iowa Dist. Ct. John­son Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Contents (Covid-19)

The League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa and Major­ity Forward sued the Iowa secret­ary of state seek­ing to prevent the imple­ment­a­tion of a newly enacted law HF 2643, which prohib­its elec­tions offi­cials from using inform­a­tion contained in the voter regis­tra­tion data­base for the purpose of filling in any inform­a­tion that is miss­ing from a voter’s absentee ballot applic­a­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 1, Sections 6, 7, and 9 and Article 2, Section 1 of the Iowa Consti­tu­tion, in that the law unjus­ti­fi­ably and unduly burdens the funda­mental right to vote and denies voters’ right to substant­ive and proced­ural due process and equal protec­tion. Plaintiffs seek an order declar­ing that Section 124 of HF 2643 viol­ates the Iowa Consti­tu­tion and enjoin­ing the secret­ary from imple­ment­ing the chal­lenged provi­sion.

Status: Motion to inter­vene filed by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., Repub­lican National Commit­tee, National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee, National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, and Repub­lican Party of Iowa July 24, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 25, 2020; Lower court’s denial affirmed by Iowa Supreme Court Octo­ber 21, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 19, 2020


League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 05771 CVCV060692 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Polk Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Drop Box Restric­tions (Covid-19)

The League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa and Major­ity Forward sued the Iowa secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s offi­cial guid­ance that ballot drop boxes may only be deployed at county audit­ors’ offices or on county prop­erty imme­di­ately surround­ing those offices. The peti­tion for judi­cial review of agency action alleges viol­a­tions of state law and the Iowa consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s guid­ance is based on an erro­neous inter­pret­a­tion of Iowa law, was issued in a proced­ur­ally defi­cient manner, and uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally intrudes on the counties’ home rule author­ity.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 14, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 27, 2020; Dismissed Novem­ber 18, 2020


League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, No. 05771 CVCV060695 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Polk Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Drop Box Restric­tions (Covid-19)

The League of United Latin Amer­ican Citizens of Iowa and Major­ity Forward sued the Iowa secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s offi­cial guid­ance that ballot drop boxes may only be deployed at county audit­ors’ offices or on county prop­erty imme­di­ately surround­ing those offices. The peti­tion at law and equity alleges viol­a­tions of the Iowa Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s guid­ance infringes on counties’ home rule author­ity to conduct their elec­tions in a manner not incon­sist­ent with state law, and substan­tially burdens the funda­mental right to vote without being justi­fied by a compel­ling govern­ment interest.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 14, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion and request for exped­ited relief filed Septem­ber 18, 2020; Motion for stay of admin­is­trat­ive action denied Octo­ber 27, 2020; Dismissed Novem­ber 18, 2020


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. Gill, No. 03971 EQCV 193154 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Wood­bury Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Contents (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and others sued the Auditor of Wood­bury County, Iowa, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s decision to send absentee ballot request forms pre-popu­lated with voter inform­a­tion, rather than follow­ing the secret­ary of state’s direct­ive to send only blank ballots. The complaint seeks to enjoin defend­ant to obey the secret­ary’s direct­ives, reject any pre-popu­lated request forms returned to him, and notify the relev­ant voters that they must submit a second request using the non-pre-popu­lated version of the form prescribed by the secret­ary. 

Status: Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion gran­ted August 28, 2020; Inter­locutory appeal denied Septem­ber 16, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Decem­ber 17, 2020


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. Miller, No. 06571 EQCV095986 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Linn Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Contents (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and others sued the Auditor of Linn County, Iowa, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s decision to send absentee ballot request forms pre-popu­lated with voter inform­a­tion, rather than follow­ing the secret­ary of state’s direct­ive to send only blank ballots. The complaint seeks to enjoin defend­ant to obey the secret­ary’s direct­ives, reject any pre-popu­lated request forms returned to him, and notify the relev­ant voters that they must submit a second request using the non-pre-popu­lated version of the form prescribed by the secret­ary. 

Status: Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion gran­ted August 27, 2020; Inter­locutory appeal denied Septem­ber 16, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Decem­ber 17, 2020


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. Weipert, No. 06521 CVCV081957 (Iowa Dist. Ct. John­son Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Contents (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and others sued the Auditor of John­son County, Iowa, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s decision to send absentee ballot request forms pre-popu­lated with voter inform­a­tion, rather than follow­ing the secret­ary of state’s direct­ive to send only blank ballots. The complaint seeks to enjoin defend­ant to obey the secret­ary’s direct­ives, reject any pre-popu­lated request forms returned to him, and notify the relev­ant voters that they must submit a second request using the non-pre-popu­lated version of the form prescribed by the secret­ary.  

Status: Motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 12, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Decem­ber 17, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indi­ana

Buroff v. Gladieux (aka Barnhart v. Gladieux), No. 1:17-cv-124 (N.D. Ind.)

Re: Inmate Disen­fran­chise­ment

An Indi­ana resid­ent, on behalf of a class, sued the Allen County sher­iff in connec­tion with the county’s fail­ure to provide absentee ballots or other access to the polls to inmates in the Allen County Jail who were eligible to vote. The second amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the county’s prac­tices deny or abridge the right to vote, in viol­a­tion of equal protec­tion and without due process of law.

Status: Motion for partial summary judg­ment gran­ted; Legal notice of class certi­fic­a­tion approved Septem­ber 19, 2019; Jury trial sched­uled to commence April 5, 2021


Common Cause Indi­ana v. Lawson, 1:20-cv-2007 (S.D. Ind.); No. 20–2911 (7th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Common Cause Indi­ana and the Indi­ana State Confer­ence of the NAACP sued the Indi­ana secret­ary of state and members of the Indi­ana Elec­tion Commis­sion, chal­len­ging a state law that requires rejec­tion of any voted mail-in ballots that are not received by noon on elec­tion day. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law, “partic­u­larly in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic,” unduly burdens the funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Complaint filed July 30, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 29, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Motion for stay gran­ted & injunc­tion reversed by 7th Circuit Octo­ber 13, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by plaintiff Decem­ber 29, 2020


Common Cause Indi­ana v. Lawson, 1:20-cv-1825 (S.D. Ind.), Nos. 20–2877, 20–2816 (7th Cir.)

Re: In-Person Voting Hours (Covid-19)

Common Cause Indi­ana sued the Indi­ana secret­ary of state, members of the Indi­ana Elec­tion Commis­sion, and others, on behalf of a class, chal­len­ging two amend­ments to the elec­tion code that prohibit voters from peti­tion­ing state courts to extend voting hours and restrict state courts’ author­ity to extend voting hours due to, e.g., long lines or voting machine malfunc­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Art. VI of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments, in that the chal­lenged amend­ments unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, deny proced­ural due process, and run afoul of the Suprem­acy Clause.

Status: Motion to dismiss denied Septem­ber 22, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 22, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 29, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal denied by district court Octo­ber 9, 2020; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion summar­ily reversed by 7th Circuit Octo­ber 23, 2020; Dismissed pursu­ant to stip­u­la­tion April 30, 2021


Common Cause Indi­ana v. Lawson, No. 1:17-cv-3936 (S.D. Ind.); No. 18–2491 (7th Cir.) Consol­id­ated on appeal with Indi­ana State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Lawson, No. 18–2942 (7th Cir.)

Re: Voter List Purges

Common Cause Indi­ana sued the Indi­ana secret­ary of state and the co-direct­ors of the Indi­ana Elec­tion Divi­sion, chal­len­ging amend­ments to the Indi­ana Code that allow voters to be removed from the voter regis­tra­tion rolls without provid­ing the requis­ite notice, response oppor­tun­ity, and wait­ing period. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 8 of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that the Indi­ana law permits removal of voter records without noti­fy­ing voters and without voters’ writ­ten author­iz­a­tion, permits the removal of voter records based on unre­li­able second-hand inform­a­tion, and permits counties to oper­ate list-main­ten­ance programs that are discrim­in­at­ory and non-uniform. 

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted June 8, 2018, and upheld on August 27, 2019, by the 7th Circuit, remand­ing for further proceed­ings; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judg­ment gran­ted and perman­ent injunc­tion issued August 24, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 21, 2020; Oral argu­ment heard April 22, 2021


Fred­er­ick v. Lawson, No. 1:19-cv-1959 (S.D. Ind.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure

Indi­vidual voters and Common Cause Indi­ana, on behalf of a class, sued the Indi­ana secret­ary of state, the St. Joseph County Elec­tion Board and others, chal­len­ging state laws that require rejec­tion of ballots with perceived signa­ture mismatch issues without afford­ing voters notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws infringe upon the funda­mental right to vote without afford­ing voters due process and deny equal protec­tion by allow­ing arbit­rary and incon­sist­ent rejec­tion of ballots.

Status: Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judg­ment gran­ted and defend­ant’s motion for summary judg­ment deniedPerman­ent injunc­tion issued August 20, 2020, preclud­ing the rejec­tion “of any mail-in absentee ballot on the basis of a signa­ture mismatch absent adequate notice and cure proced­ures to the affected voter.”


Indi­ana State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Lawson, No. 1:17-cv-2897 (S.D. Ind.); No. 18–2492 (7th Cir.) Consol­id­ated on appeal with Common Cause Indi­ana v. Lawson, No. 18–2491 (7th Cir.)

Re: Voter List Purges

The Indi­ana State Confer­ence of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Indi­ana sued the Indi­ana secret­ary of state and the co-direct­ors of the Indi­ana Elec­tion Divi­sion, chal­len­ging the state’s then-recently enacted amend­ments to the Indi­ana Code which remove voters from voter regis­tra­tion rolls without provid­ing the requis­ite notice, response oppor­tun­ity and wait­ing period, and util­ize the Inter­state Voter Regis­tra­tion Crosscheck (“IVRC”) in a non-uniform and discrim­in­at­ory manner. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that the chal­lenged law fails to afford voters the notice, response oppor­tun­ity and wait­ing period required by the NVRA and runs afoul of the NVRA’s prohib­i­tion against arbit­rary, unreas­on­able and discrim­in­at­ory removals of voters from regis­tra­tion rolls.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted June 8, 2018 and upheld on August 27, 2019, by the 7th Circuit, remand­ing for further proceed­ings; Motion to dismiss denied and motion summary judg­ment gran­ted August 20, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 21, 2020


Tully v. Okeson, No. 1:20-cv-1271 (S.D. Ind.); No. 20–2605 (7th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual Indi­ana resid­ents and Indi­ana Vote By Mail sued members of the Indi­ana Elec­tion Commis­sion and the Indi­ana secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that restricts the abil­ity to vote by mail to certain stat­utor­ily enumer­ated categor­ies of voters, includ­ing voters aged 65 and older, and the State’s fail­ure to deem Covid-19 concerns a valid excuse. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th and 26th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Art. I, § 23, and Art. II, § 1 of the Indi­ana Consti­tu­tion, in that the law viol­ates the funda­mental right to vote, arbit­rar­ily discrim­in­ates between categor­ies of qual­i­fied voters (thus deny­ing the right of equal protec­tion), denies the right to vote by mail on account of age, and further viol­ates and denies the guar­an­tees of equal priv­ileges and immunit­ies and “free and equal” elec­tions.

Status: Motion for class certi­fic­a­tion pending; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal as to certain plaintiffs filed July 17, 2020; Motion to consol­id­ate with Common Cause Indi­ana v. Lawson (No. 1:20-cv-2007) denied August 20, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied August 21, 2020; Notice of appeal filed August 24, 2020; Denial of prelim­in­ary injunc­tion affirmed by 7th Circuit Octo­ber 6, 2020; Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied by U.S. Supreme Court June 21, 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kansas

Fish v. Schwab (f/k/a Fish v. Kobach), No. 2:16-cv-2105 (D. Kan); No. 18–3133 (10th Cir.)

Consol­id­ated with Keener/Bednasek v. Kobach, No. 2:15-cv-9300 (D. Kan); No. 18–3134 (10th Cir.)

Re: Proof-of-Citizen­ship Require­ment, Voter List Purges

Indi­vidual Kansas voters sued the Kansas secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law and a state regu­la­tion which, respect­ively, require that Kansans who attempt to register in conjunc­tion with a driver’s license applic­a­tion submit docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship, and purge voters who have prop­erly registered but failed to submit docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship within 90 days. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of §§ 5, 8, and 10 of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”) and of Art. I § 4 of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions are pree­mp­ted by the Elec­tions Clause, fail to provide a simul­tan­eous voter regis­tra­tion applic­a­tion with driver’s license applic­a­tions and renew­als, viol­ate the State’s duty to ensure that any eligible applic­ant is registered to vote in an elec­tion when regis­ter­ing in conjunc­tion with a driver’s license applic­a­tion, unlaw­fully require the purging of voter regis­trants for the purpor­ted fail­ure to provide docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship, and that the secret­ary of state has failed to fulfill his duty to coordin­ate the State’s respons­ib­il­it­ies under the NVRA.

The District Court struck down the law in 2018, find­ing that it viol­ated the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on April 29, 2020.

Status: Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied Decem­ber 14, 2020


Kansas Demo­cratic Party v. Schwab, No. 2020-CV-000127 (Dist. Court Shawnee County, Kansas)

Re: “Vote Anywhere” Law

The Kansas Demo­cratic Party, Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, and others sued the Kansas secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the state’s fail­ure to imple­ment Kansas’s newly passed “Vote Anywhere” law, which, among other things, allows out-of-precinct voting. The Peti­tion for a Writ of Manda­mus alleges viol­a­tions of §§ 1–3 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, in that the secret­ary of state has failed to comply with his stat­utory duty to “estab­lish rules and regu­la­tions” in order to imple­ment the law in time for the 2020 elec­tion.

Status: Hear­ing held on motions to dismiss and for summary judg­ment July 1, 2020; Case dismissed July 28, 2020


Keener v. Kobach, No. 2:15-cv-9300 (D. Kan.); No. 18–3134 (10th Cir.)

Consol­id­ated with Fish v. Schwab (f/k/a Fish v. Kobach), No. 2:16-cv-2105 (D. Kan); No. 18–3133 (10th Cir.); Schwab v. Wayne, No. 20–109 (S. Ct.)

Re: Proof of Citizen­ship Require­ment, Voter List Purges

Three indi­vidual voters, on behalf of a class, sued the Kansas secret­ary of state and the Douglas County, Kansas, clerk, chal­len­ging a state law and a state regu­la­tion which, respect­ively, require that Kansans who attempt to register in conjunc­tion with a driver’s license applic­a­tion submit docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship, and purge voters who have prop­erly registered but failed to submit docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship within 90 days. The third amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act and Article 4 of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions are over­broad, infringe on the right of citizens to vote, fail to satisfy the State’s duty to ensure that any eligible applic­ant is registered to vote in an elec­tion when regis­ter­ing in conjunc­tion with a driver’s, license applic­a­tion, unlaw­fully require the purging of voter regis­trants for the purpor­ted fail­ure to provide docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship, remove voters from voter rolls after the 90-day cutoff as set forth in the NVRA, and discrim­in­ates against Kansas resid­ents born or married outside the State of Kansas who have moved to Kansas from out of state.

Status: The District Court struck down the law in 2018, find­ing that it viol­ated the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on April 29, 2020; Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied Decem­ber 14, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

Collins v. Adams, No. 3:20-cv-375 (W.D. Ky.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse & Photo ID Require­ments (In-Person and Vote-by-Mail) (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, the League of Women Voters of Kentucky, the Louis­ville Urban League, and others sued the Kentucky secret­ary of state, governor, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that require voters to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail and provide a photo ID in order to vote in-person or absentee, and further chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to extend modi­fied voting rules, enacted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, beyond the June 23, 2020 primary through the Novem­ber 3, 2020 general elec­tion. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the laws unreas­on­ably burden Kentucki­ans’ right to vote.

Status: Dismissal and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion motions filed, respect­ively, June 19 and July 10, 2020; Amended complaint filed August 19, 2020; Joint stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed August 27, 2020; Order of dismissal issued Septem­ber 1, 2020


Lostut­ter v. Kentucky, No. 6:18-cv-277 (E.D. Ky.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Indi­vidual aspir­ing voters sued the Governor of Kentucky, chal­len­ging state laws and consti­tu­tional provi­sions that crim­in­ally prohibit persons convicted of felon­ies from voting unless and until they success­fully peti­tion the governor for restor­a­tion of such rights. The fourth amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions deny the right of polit­ical asso­ci­ation and polit­ical expres­sion and vest the Governor with unfettered discre­tion to grant or deny such rights.

Status: Motions to dismiss gran­ted as to certain plaintiffs on August 30, 2019 and March 13, 2020; Fourth amended complaint dismissed, cross-motions for summary judg­ment denied as moot August 14, 2020


Nemes v. Bensinger, No. 3:20-cv-407 (W.D. Ky.)

Re: In-Person Voting, Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

Kentucky State Repres­ent­at­ive Jason Nemes and indi­vidual Kentucky resid­ents, on behalf of a class, sued state and county elec­tions offi­cials, county sher­iffs, and others, chal­len­ging the counties’ curtail­ment of in-person voting options for the June 23, 2020 primary, includ­ing the use of a single polling loca­tion for an entire county, and the fail­ure to make in-person voting access­ible to persons with disab­il­it­ies.

The class action complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the counties’ in-person voting restric­tions viol­ate the funda­mental right to vote and suppress, deny, and/or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion deniedVolun­tar­ily with­drawn July 17, 2020, based on the secret­ary of state’s public repres­ent­a­tions that he will not permit single polling loca­tions in the state’s largest counties in the Novem­ber 2020 general elec­tion.


Sterne v. Adams, No. 20-CI-538 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Frank­lin Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse & Photo ID Require­ments (In-Person and Vote-by-Mail) (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters with medical condi­tions render­ing them partic­u­larly suscept­ible to Covid-19 sued the Kentucky secret­ary of state, governor, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that require voters to provide a photo ID when voting in person or apply­ing for a mail-in ballot, and restrict absentee voting to those who qual­ify for one or more enumer­ated excuse categor­ies. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 6 of the Kentucky Consti­tu­tion, in that, as applied during the Covid-19 pandemic, the laws — and defend­ants’ fail­ure to extend “no excuse” absentee voting beyond the June 2020 primary through the Novem­ber general elec­tion — deny Kentucki­ans’ right to a “free and equal elec­tion.”

Status: Complaint filed July 7, 2020; Amended complaint and motion for tempor­ary injunc­tion filed July 31, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisi­ana

Clark v. EdwardsNo. 3:20-cv-308 (M.D. La.) Consol­id­ated with Power Coali­tion for Equity and Justice (3:20-cv-283)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse & Witness Require­ments; Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Defects (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, Cres­cent City Media Group, and the League of Women Voters of Louisi­ana sued the Louisi­ana governor, secret­ary of state, attor­ney general, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that restrict the right to vote by mail, require that mail-in ballots be witnessed, and fail to afford voters notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure mistakes on ballots (includ­ing perceived signa­ture mismatch issues), and defend­ants’ fail­ure to suffi­ciently expand voter protec­tions beyond the primary elec­tions. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the laws deny the funda­mental right to vote, place an uncon­sti­tu­tional condi­tion on the right to vote compel­ling forfeit­ure of the right to bodily integ­rity, abridge the right to vote on account of race or color, and deny due process.

Status: Motion to dismiss gran­ted with preju­dice on stand­ing grounds June 22, 2020


Coun­cil of the City of New Orleans v. Ardoin, No. 2020–08772 (Civ. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans, La.)

Re: Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Coun­cil of the City of New Orleans and its members sued the Louisi­ana secret­ary of state and the Orleans Parish regis­trar of voters, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s policy of restrict­ing the in-person return of absentee ballots to Parish Regis­trar’s office, thus effect­ively prohib­it­ing the use of ballot drop boxes. The veri­fied peti­tion seeks a judi­cial declar­a­tion that the secret­ary’s inter­pret­a­tion of the relev­ant state stat­ute is arbit­rary and capri­cious and that the stat­ute does not, in fact, require that absentee ballots be returned only to the Parish regis­trar’s office.

Status: Veri­fied peti­tion filed and tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Octo­ber 14, 2020


Hard­ing v. Edwards, No. 3:20-cv-495 (M.D. La.), No. 20–30632 (5th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment; Early In-Person Voting (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters, the Louisi­ana State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and the Power Coali­tion for Equity and Justice sued the Louisi­ana governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging state laws that restrict absentee voting to those who qual­ify for a one of limited number of excuses, require that absentee ballots be signed by a witness, and limit the dura­tion of early voting to seven days. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and Title 2 of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, in that enforce­ment of the laws during the Covid-19 pandemic unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, impose a discrim­in­at­ory burden on Black Louisi­anans, and impose or apply eligib­il­ity criteria that screen out indi­vidu­als with disab­il­it­ies from fully and equally parti­cip­at­ing in elec­tions and fail to make reas­on­able modi­fic­a­tions to voting policies and prac­tices in order to avoid discrim­in­a­tion on the basis of disab­il­ity.  

Status: Unop­posed motion to inter­vene by State of Louisi­ana gran­ted August 25, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted as to ADA claims and dismissed in all other respects Septem­ber 7, 2020; Motion for exped­ited hear­ing and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Septem­ber 16, 2020, expand­ing the avail­able excuses to include voters at a higher risk of contract­ing Covid-19 “because of seri­ous medical condi­tions, those subject to a ‘med­ic­ally neces­sary quar­ant­ine or isol­a­tion order,’ those advised by a health provider to self-quar­ant­ine, those exper­i­en­cing symp­toms of Covid-19 and seek­ing a medical diagnosis, and those caring for an indi­vidual who is subject to a quar­ant­ine order and has been advised to self-quar­ant­ine,” and requir­ing that the dura­tion of early voting be increased from seven days to ten days for the Novem­ber and Decem­ber elec­tions; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 13, 2020; Motion for volun­tary dismissal gran­ted May 13, 2021


Louisi­ana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, No. _____ (La. Dist. Ct., St. Martin Parish), No. ___ (La. Ct. App., 3d Cir.)

Re: Elec­tion fund­ing (Covid-19)

The State of Louisi­ana sued the Center for Tech and Civic Life, New Venture Fund, and others, seek­ing to prohibit vari­ous local elec­tion author­it­ies from accept­ing grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to help those muni­cip­al­it­ies admin­is­ter the Novem­ber elec­tion safely and effect­ively. The peti­tion alleges viol­a­tions of state and federal elec­tion fund­ing laws and the U.S. and Louisi­ana Consti­tu­tions, in that “private contri­bu­tions to local elec­tion offi­cials are unlaw­ful and contrary to the meth­ods estab­lished by law,” and that “the admin­is­tra­tion of elec­tions [is] the exclus­ive province of state and federal govern­ments.”

Status: Peti­tion filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Case dismissed Octo­ber 23, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. Dunlap, No. CV-20–95 (Kennebec Super. Ct.). No. Ken-20–262 (Me. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Online Applic­a­tion, Photo ID Require­ment, Prepaid Post­age, Paid Ballot Collect­ors, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Defects, Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

The Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans, Vote.org, and indi­vidual voters sued the Maine secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, chal­len­ging six state laws and prac­tices that restrict the abil­ity to vote by mail, includ­ing requir­ing “paper and pen” vote-by-mail applic­a­tions, requir­ing that first-time vote-by-mail regis­trants submit a photo­copy of a photo ID, requir­ing that voters provide their own post­age on mail-in ballots, disreg­ard­ing any ballots received after 8 p.m. on Elec­tion Day, fail­ing to provide voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure perceived signa­ture mismatch issues, and impos­ing crim­inal penal­ties for compensated ballot collec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th, and 24th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion; Art. I, § 4, Art. I, § 6-A, and Art. II, § 1 of the Maine Consti­tu­tion, and Title 14, § 5951 and Title 5, § 8058 of the Maine Revised Stat­utes, in that the chal­lenged laws and prac­tices unduly burden the right to vote, deny due process, treat voters dispar­ately, infringe on the rights of speech and asso­ci­ation, impose an illegal poll tax, and conflict with state law.

Status: Complaint filed June 24, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 22, 2020; Denial affirmed by Maine Supreme Court Octo­ber 23, 2020


Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee  v. Dunlap, No. CV-20–29 (Kennebec Super. Ct.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

The Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee and Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee sued the Maine secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that requires that candid­ates be listed in alpha­bet­ical order on elec­tion ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Art. I, § 6-A of the Maine Consti­tu­tion, and Title 5, § 4682 of the Maine Revised Stat­utes, in that the law unduly burdens the right to vote, treats simil­arly situ­ated candid­ates differ­ently, denies or abridges the right to vote, and viol­ates equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied June 11, 2020


Hagopian v. Dunlap, No. 1:20-cv-257 (D. Me.)

Re: Ranked Choice Voting

Four registered Repub­lic­ans sued the secret­ary of state, attor­ney general and governor of Maine, chal­len­ging a state law permit­ting voters to “rank as many candid­ates as they wish in order of choice,” but “exhausts” ballots that fail to mark enough candid­ates. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 14th and 26th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged law unduly burdens the right to vote, condi­tions a govern­ment bene­fit on enga­ging in unwanted express­ive conduct, denies voters proced­ural due process and equal protec­tion, and abridges the right to vote based on age for voters over age 65.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied August 14, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed August 19, 2020


Merrill v. Dunlap, 1:20-cv-248 (D. Me.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters who are blind sued the Maine secret­ary of state, the Maine Depart­ment of the Secret­ary of State, and others, chal­len­ging the state’s absentee voting program, which requires voters to fill out a paper ballot and return the ballot by U.S. mail or hand deliv­ery. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act and Section 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act of 1973, and of the Maine Human Rights Act, in that the program fails to make reas­on­able modi­fic­a­tions in order to avoid discrim­in­at­ing on the basis of disab­il­ity, receives federal fund­ing and discrim­in­ates on the basis of disab­il­ity, and denies persons with disab­il­it­ies the right to vote and equal access to places of public accom­mod­a­tion without discrim­in­a­tion because of a disab­il­ity. They seek a prelim­in­ary and perman­ent injunc­tion and the imple­ment­a­tion of a remote access­ible vote-by-mail system.

Status: Complaint and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed July 15, 2020; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Case stayed until Febru­ary 4, 2021; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion dismissed without preju­dice Febru­ary 22, 2021


Payne v. Dunlap, No. Ken-20–169 (Me. Law Ct.); Payne v. Dunlap, No. AUGSC-cv-2020–50 (Kennebec Super. Ct. Me.), No. Ken-20–169 (Me. Sup. Jud. Ct.)

Re: Ranked Choice Voting

Indi­vidual voters and the Commit­tee for Ranked Choice Voting sued the Maine secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the pending People’s Veto Initi­at­ive, which seeks to suspend a newly enacted ranked choice voting law (“the 2019 RCV law”), until a refer­en­dum vote is taken. The complaint alleges that the Maine Consti­tu­tion bars the use of the People’s Veto provi­sion to suspend a law that is already in effect, as is the case with the 2019 RCV law, and further that the proposed veto is prohib­ited by state stat­ute (14 M.R.S.A. § 901 and 21-A M.R.S.A. § 901) because the applic­a­tion for the veto refer­en­dum was not filed within the prescribed time limits.

Status: Case referred from Super­ior Court to Law Court; Order estab­lish­ing course of appeal issued by Law Court June 17, 2020; Order remand­ing to Super­ior Court for further proceed­ings issued by Main Supreme Judi­cial Court August 13, 2020


Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion v. Dunlap, No. 1:20-cv-61 (D. Me.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Records Request

The Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion sued the Maine secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state stat­ute that limits access to voter regis­tra­tion records and defend­ant’s fail­ure to comply with a request to produce copies of such records. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that the Act pree­mpts Maine’s stat­utory restric­tion and requires public disclos­ure of the voter regis­tra­tion list.

Status: Complaint filed Febru­ary 19, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary­land

National Urban League v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-2391 (D. Md.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Deliv­ery (Covid-19)

The National Urban League, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters of the United States sued the Post­mas­ter General and the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), chal­len­ging recent changes to the USPS’s policies and proced­ures, which have slowed the deliv­ery of mail, includ­ing elec­tion mater­i­als. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and federal stat­ute, in that defend­ants’ “trans­form­at­ive actions” unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, effec­tu­ate content and view­point discrim­in­a­tion, were taken without follow­ing stat­utor­ily mandated proced­ures, and exceed the scope of defend­ants’ consti­tu­tional and stat­utory author­ity.

Status: Complaint filed August 18, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 29, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Decem­ber 14, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

Massachu­setts

Bertin v. Galvin, No. SJ-2020–520 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters sued the Massachu­setts secret­ary of the common­wealth, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s refusal to comply with a newly-passed law that requires send­ing vote-by-mail ballot applic­a­tions to every registered voter for the 2020 primary and general elec­tions. The complaint for manda­mus seeks to compel the secret­ary to imme­di­ately comply with the law and to use CARES Act fund­ing to accom­plish its mandate. 

Status: Complaint filed July 13, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed July 22, 2020


Gross­man v. GalvinNo. SJC-2020–584 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, a candid­ate for polit­ical office, and Becky Gross­man for Congress, on behalf of a class, sued the Massachu­setts secret­ary of the common­wealth, chal­len­ging a state law requir­ing that vote-by-mail ballots be received on or before primary elec­tion day, irre­spect­ive of when the ballots are post­marked. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Massachu­setts Consti­tu­tion, in that the law severely burdens the funda­mental right to vote, partic­u­larly in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Status: Emer­gency peti­tion for relief filed August 19, 2020; Peti­tion denied August 26, 2020


Moran v. Common­wealth of Massachu­setts, No. 1:20-cv-12171 (D. Mass.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment, Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion, In-Person Early Voting, Elec­tronic Voting Machines, Ballot Count­ing, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

Five state legis­lat­ive candid­ates sued the Common­wealth of Massachu­setts, its governor, and secret­ary, chal­len­ging the consist­ency of signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion proced­ures across the state, the use of no-excuse absentee voting, the expan­sion of early voting, the dele­tion of elec­tronic voter data and tabu­lator ballot images, and the use of Domin­ion voting machines. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state and federal stat­utes, the Massachu­setts Consti­tu­tion, and of the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws and prac­tices promoted and permit­ted fraud and unspe­cified “miscon­duct” and deprived plaintiffs of their right to a “free and fair elec­tion” and seeks to decer­tify the results of the Novem­ber 2020 elec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 7, 2020; Notice of with­drawal filed by one plaintiff Decem­ber 16, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed by remain­ing plaintiffs Decem­ber 29, 2020


Rivero v. Galvin, No. 1:20-cv-11808 (D. Mass.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, the Boston Center for Inde­pend­ent Living and, the Bay State Coun­cil of the Blind sued the Massachu­setts secret­ary of the common­wealth and the depart­ment of the state secret­ary, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to make the common­wealth’s Access­ible Vote by Mail (“AVBM”) program access­ible to voters with print disab­il­it­ies, includ­ing allow­ing such voters to return ballots elec­tron­ic­ally in the same manner to voters who vote under the Uniformed Over­seas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The complaint alleges of Title 2 of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act and Section 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act of 1973, in that the AVBM program discrim­in­ates against voters with print disab­il­it­ies by prevent­ing them from voting privately and inde­pend­ently by remote means, while notwith­stand­ing that this option is already avail­able to other absentee voters, and denies “qual­i­fied handi­capped person[s] the oppor­tun­ity accor­ded to others to parti­cip­ate” in a program receiv­ing federal finan­cial assist­ance.    

Status: Complaint and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Joint motion to approve consent judg­ment gran­ted Octo­ber 13, 2020, requir­ing the secret­ary to allow voters with print disab­il­it­ies vote by elec­tronic means upon writ­ten applic­a­tion for such an accom­mod­a­tion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan

Alex­an­der v. Winfrey, No. 20–013685-AW (Cir. Ct. Wayne Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter and the Amer­ican Civil Liber­ties Union of Michigan sued the Detroit city clerk, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s fail­ure to comply with her legal duty to issue absentee ballots within 24 hours of receiv­ing applic­a­tions there­for. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­ute and seeks declar­at­ory and manda­mus relief.

Status: Complaint for manda­mus and motions for order to show cause and injunc­tion filed Octo­ber 16, 2020; Settled Octo­ber 21, 2020


Bailey v. Antrim County, No. 2020009238CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Antrim Cnty.)

Re: Elec­tronic Voting Machine Inspec­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued Antrim County, Michigan, alleging stat­utory and common law elec­tions fraud and assert­ing viol­a­tions of Michigan stat­utes and the Michigan consti­tu­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 23, 2020; Order issued Decem­ber 4, 2020, allow­ing inspec­tion, requir­ing preser­va­tion of all records used to tabu­late votes in Antrim County, and enjoin­ing the county from turn­ing on its Domin­ion tabu­lator and from connect­ing the Domin­ion tabu­lator to the inter­net; Secret­ary of state permit­ted to inter­vene Decem­ber 21, 2020; Consent order issued Decem­ber 24, provid­ing for the release of a report concern­ing Antrim County’s voting equip­ment; Motion for summary judg­ment filed by defend­ants April 13, 2021; Order dismiss­ing case issued May 18, 2021


Bally v. Whit­mer, No. 1:20-cv-1088 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Poll Watcher Access, Fraud & Elec­tion Misman­age­ment Alleg­a­tions; Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan governor, the Michigan Board of State Canvass­ers, and others, chal­len­ging the inclu­sion of Allen, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties in the state’s certi­fic­a­tion of the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that certi­fy­ing Michigan’s pres­id­en­tial elect­ors without exclud­ing “certain counties” would viol­ate voters’ funda­mental right to vote by vote dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to exped­ite filed Novem­ber 12, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by the Michigan State Confer­ence of the NAACP Novem­ber 14, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 16, 2020


Barkey v. Brown, No. 20–114457-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Gene­see Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and the Amer­ican Civil Liber­ties Union of Michigan sued the City of Flint and its city clerk, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to timely send duly reques­ted absentee ballots to voters and fail­ing to make avail­able at least one loca­tion to issue and receive absentee ballots during regu­larly sched­uled busi­ness hours. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, which requires that at least one loca­tion be made avail­able for the in-person issu­ance of absentee ballots during regu­lar busi­ness hours and specified other times, and of state stat­utes that require the imme­di­ate issu­ance of absentee ballots reques­ted by mail.

Status: Request for manda­mus relief gran­ted July 23, 2020


Black v. Benson, No. 20–000096-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims)
Cooper-Keel v. Benson, No. 20–000091-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)
Davis v. BensonNo. 20–000009-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims) , No. 354622 (Mich. Ct. App.), No. 162007 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual Michigan resid­ents sued the Michigan secret­ary of state in three separ­ate lawsuits, now consol­id­ated, chal­len­ging the secret­ary of state’s decision to mail absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all registered voters for the August 2020 primary and Novem­ber 2020 general elec­tion. The vari­ous complaints (BlackCooper-Keel, and Davis), allege viol­a­tions of the Michigan Elec­tion Law Act 116 and the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, in that, among other things, the secret­ary of state lacks the author­ity to proact­ively distrib­ute absentee ballot applic­a­tions which have not been specific­ally reques­ted by voters, Michigan law does not specific­ally provide for “direct involve­ment” by the secret­ary of state with absentee ballot applic­a­tion distri­bu­tion, and that the secret­ary of state’s actions exceed the scope of the recent consti­tu­tional amend­ment concern­ing auto­matic voter regis­tra­tion and viol­ate the Purity of Elec­tions Clause of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied June 18, 2020; Dismissed August 25, 2020; Appeal filed by Plaintiff Davis August 25, 2020; Order exped­it­ing appeal issued August 27, 2020; Motion to stay pending appeal denied Septem­ber 2, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by Plaintiff Black denied Septem­ber 11, 2020; Order affirm­ing dismissal issued Septem­ber 16, 2020; Applic­a­tion for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court denied Decem­ber 28, 2020


Carra v. Benson, No. 20–211-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: In-Person Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

A state congres­sional candid­ate and a desig­nated elec­tion chal­lenger during the August 2020 primary elec­tion sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and the director of the Michigan Bureau of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ Octo­ber 16 direct­ive, which requires that poll watch­ers comply with Covid-19 safety meas­ures, includ­ing social distan­cing and mask wear­ing. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­ute, which enumer­ates the bases on which a poll watcher may be denied entry or expelled from a polling loca­tion, which bases do not include refusal to wear a mask or socially distance.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Octo­ber 23, 2020; Settled Octo­ber 29, 2020


Cost­antino v. City of Detroit, No. 20–014780-AW (Cir. Ct., Wayne Cnty., Mich.), No. 355443 (Mich. Ct. App.), No. 162245 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Elec­tion Day Receipt Dead­line, Naked Ballots, Double Voting, Poll Watcher Access, General Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

Two poll watch­ers sued the City of Detroit, the Detroit Elec­tion Commis­sion, and others, chal­len­ging “numer­ous issues of fraud and miscon­duct” that allegedly occurred in Michigan’s largest county, includ­ing allow­ing unqual­i­fied voters to cast ballots under another voter’s name, fail­ing to verify signa­tures on absentee ballots, count­ing “tens of thou­sands” of “naked” ballots of unknown origin, all of which were “attrib­uted only to Demo­cratic candid­ates,” back-dating and count­ing ballots that arrived after the Elec­tion Day receipt dead­line, “system­at­ic­ally us[ing] false inform­a­tion to process ballots,” coach­ing voters to vote for Joe Biden, allow­ing “double voting,” and refus­ing to allow suffi­cient poll watcher access and to record poll watcher chal­lenges. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion and Michigan stat­utes and seeks to enjoin certi­fic­a­tion of the elec­tion results pending a full invest­ig­a­tion and hear­ing and order an inde­pend­ent audit of the elec­tion.

Status: Complaint and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Novem­ber 9, 2020; Motions for injunct­ive relief, for a protect­ive order, and for an inde­pend­ent audit denied Novem­ber 13, 2020; Appeal denied by Michigan Court of Appeals Novem­ber 16, 2020; Applic­a­tion for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court denied Novem­ber 23, 2020; Renewed request for audit denied by lower court Decem­ber 8, 2020


Daunt v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-522 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Voter List Purges

An indi­vidual voter and director of the Michigan Free­dom Fund sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the director of the Michigan Bureau of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging the State’s voter roll main­ten­ance prac­tices. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of § 8 of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, in that defend­ants “have failed to make reas­on­able efforts to conduct voter list-main­ten­ance.”

Status: Complaint filed June 9, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute- Detroit/Down­river and Rise, Inc. Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by League of Women Voters of Michigan and others Septem­ber 14, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion that county defend­ants are not neces­sary parties to the litig­a­tion filed Septem­ber 15, 2020; Motions to inter­vene gran­ted Septem­ber 28, 2020; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Motions to dismiss denied Octo­ber 28, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed Febru­ary 16, 2021


Davis v. Benson, No. 3:20-cv-12130 (E.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Prohib­i­tion on Anonym­ous Elec­tion­eer­ing Mater­i­als (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and the Wayne County clerk, chal­len­ging a state law that requires that any promo­tional mater­i­als pertain­ing to an elec­tion or candid­ate bear the name and address of the person who is paying for the mater­i­als, as well as the secret­ary’s mail­ing of unso­li­cited absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all registered voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion and of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that stat­ute pertain­ing to elec­tion­eer­ing mater­i­als deprives plaintiff of the consti­tu­tional right to print and distrib­ute anonym­ous polit­ical liter­at­ure, and that the mail­ing of unso­li­cited absentee ballot applic­a­tions is arbit­rary and capri­cious, thus depriving plaintiff of his proced­ural and substant­ive due process rights and his consti­tu­tional and stat­utory right to request an applic­a­tion for an absentee ballot.

Status: Complaint filed August 9, 2020; Opin­ion & order dismiss­ing without preju­dice plaintiff’s state claims and due process claims against defend­ant Benson issued Septem­ber 14, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted Novem­ber 9, 2020


Davis v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-768 (S.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and the Detroit city clerk chal­len­ging the legal­ity of send­ing of unso­li­cited absentee voter applic­a­tions to all registered voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, and the state law govern­ing absentee ballot applic­a­tions, in that defend­ants’ actions denied plaintiff’s proced­ural and substant­ive due process rights and were arbit­rary and capri­cious.

Status: Complaint filed August 14, 2020; Order issued Septem­ber 28, 2020, permit­ting inter­ven­tion by A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute, Detroit/Down­river, Rise, Inc., League of Women Voters of Michigan and others; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Second amended complaint filed Octo­ber 7, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 14, 2020; Motions to dismiss filed Febru­ary 25 and 26, 2021


Davis v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-915 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the Detroit city clerk, and the Detroit Depart­ment of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the mail­ing of unso­li­cited absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all active, registered voters and the secret­ary’s refusal to accept and dissem­in­ate plaintiffs’ advice concern­ing the “improper mail­ing of [ ] unso­li­cited absentee voter applic­a­tions to registered voters in the City of Detroit” based on alleged animus toward plaintiffs. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of plaintiffs’ right to equal protec­tion and their substant­ive and proced­ural due process rights and seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment, as well as compens­at­ory and punit­ive damages.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 17, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 1, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied and motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 20, 2020; Order deny­ing plaintiffs’ emer­gency motion for partial summary judg­ment and dismiss­ing count 3 of the complaint issued Octo­ber 30, 2020


Davis v. BensonNo. 1:20-cv-981 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Count­ing (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the Detroit city clerk, and the Detroit Depart­ment of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging the mail­ing of unso­li­cited absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all active, registered voters and the secret­ary’s refusal to accept and dissem­in­ate plaintiffs’ advice concern­ing the “improper mail­ing of [ ] unso­li­cited absentee voter applic­a­tions to registered voters in the City of Detroit” based on alleged animus toward plaintiff. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of plaintiff’s right to equal protec­tion, and that his vote will be diluted if the Detroit city clerk is allowed to count absentee ballots issued to voters “who used the unso­li­cited absentee voter applic­a­tions that were unlaw­fully mailed by the defend­ants” and seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment that absentee ballots procured in such a manner may not be coun­ted.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 14, 2020; Motions for partial summary judg­ment, to exped­ite, and for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 30, 2020Motion to dismiss dismissed as moot Decem­ber 18, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Janu­ary 5, 2021; Stip­u­lated dismissal ordered Febru­ary 23, 2021


Davis v. Benson, No. 20–000207-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: In-Person Voting, Open-Carry at Polling Places

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment filed Octo­ber 22, 2o20; Consol­id­ated with Lambert v. Benson, below, Octo­ber 23, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part Octo­ber 27, 2020; Injunc­tion upheld by Michigan Court of Appeals Octo­ber 29, 2020


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Benson, No. 20–000225-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims), No. 355378 (Mich. Ct. App.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Poll Watcher Access, Drop Box Monit­or­ing (Covid-19)

The Trump Campaign and a poll watcher sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the poll watch­ers’ ostens­ible lack of access to ballot drop box surveil­lance foot­age and loca­tions where absentee ballots are being coun­ted. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion and elec­tion law, in that poll watch­ers’ inab­il­ity to observe videos of voters depos­it­ing ballots into drop boxes deprives plaintiffs of equal protec­tion and impugns the purity of elec­tions, and that state law requires that at least one poll watcher from each major polit­ical party be present at the absent voter count­ing place at all times. The emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment seeks an order mandat­ing that the secret­ary “order all count­ing and processing of absentee ballots cease imme­di­ately until an elec­tion inspector from each party is present at each absent voter count­ing board and until video is made avail­able to chal­lengers of each ballot box” and “order the imme­di­ate segreg­a­tion of all ballots that are not being inspec­ted and monitored as…re­quired by law.”

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment denied Novem­ber 6, 2020; Motion for imme­di­ate consid­er­a­tion of appeal rejec­ted as defect­ive by the Michigan Court of Appeals Novem­ber 9, 2020; Motion for appeal and imme­di­ate consid­er­a­tion filed Novem­ber 30, 2020; Motion for appeal denied by Michigan Court of Appeals Decem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to appeal denied by Michigan Supreme Court Decem­ber 11, 2020; Case dismissed Janu­ary 7, 2021


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Elec­tion Day Receipt Dead­line, Processing and Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machines, Poll Watcher Access; Fraud Alleg­a­tions; Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge (Covid-19)

The Trump campaign and seven poll watch­ers sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the Michigan Board of State Canvass­ers, Wayne County, and the Wayne County Board of County Canvass­ers, chal­len­ging the manner in which Detroit’s largest county admin­istered its elec­tion, includ­ing allegedly fail­ing to afford poll watch­ers with suffi­cient access to absentee ballot processing and count­ing proced­ures, back-dating ballots received after Elec­tion Day, unlaw­fully duplic­at­ing ballots that were unread­able by elec­tronic tabu­lat­ing machines, and double-count­ing ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Michigan stat­utes, the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of and the 12th and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, and seeks to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion results until defend­ants “have veri­fied and confirmed that all ballots that were tabu­lated and included in the final repor­ted elec­tion results” were cast in compli­ance with Michigan law, and prohib­it­ing certi­fic­a­tion of Wayne County’s vote tally until all ballot boxes and other elec­tion mater­ial is opened in the pres­ence of poll watch­ers “who can mean­ing­fully monitor the process, to review the poll lists, absent voter ballot envel­opes…and other mater­ial.”

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 10, 2020; The Michigan State Confer­ence of the NAACP, the Michigan Demo­cratic Party, the City of Detroit, and others permit­ted to inter­vene Novem­ber 17, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by inter­venor defend­ants Novem­ber 17, 2020; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 19, 2020


Elec­tion Integ­rity Fund v. Benson, No. 20–000169-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Online Ballot Applic­a­tion Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Elec­tion Integ­rity Fund and an indi­vidual voter sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the imple­ment­a­tion of an online absentee ballot request tool that does not require submis­sion of actual signa­tures when request­ing absentee ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan consti­tu­tion and a state law requir­ing that absentee ballot applic­a­tions be signed, in that the online absentee ballot request tool viol­ates the purity of elec­tions.

Status: Complaint filed August 24, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 25, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 26, 2020; Case closed Decem­ber 10, 2020


Elec­tion Integ­rity Fund v. City of Lans­ing, No. 1:20-cv-950 (W.D. Mich.); No. 20–2048 (6th Cir.)

Re: Phil­an­thropic Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

 The Elec­tion Integ­rity Fund and three indi­vidual voters sued the Cities of Lans­ing and Flint, chal­len­ging those muni­cip­al­it­ies’ abil­ity to accept private phil­an­thropic grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life for the purpose of assist­ing in the safe and effi­cient admin­is­tra­tion of the Novem­ber elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the U.S Consti­tu­tion, the Help Amer­ica Vote Act (“HAVA”) and the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”), in that defend­ants acted outside their legal author­ity to form a public-private part­ner­ship for federal elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion, which HAVA deleg­ates to states, not cities, and that defend­ants’ actions are pree­mp­ted by the Elec­tions Clause, HAVA and the NVRA.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 29, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 19, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 23, 2020; Motion for injunc­tion pending appeal denied by district court Octo­ber 27, 2020; Motion for injunc­tion pending appeal denied by 6th Circuit Octo­ber 30, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted June 7, 2021


Ganik v. Winfrey, No. 2020–0103685-AW (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Processing (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter and the Amer­ican Civil Liber­ties Union of Michigan sued the Detroit city clerk, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s fail­ure to issue absentee ballots within 24 hours of being reques­ted. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Michigan stat­utes, which require the issu­ance of ballots within 24 hours of being reques­ted.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 16, 2020


John­son v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-948 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s fail­ure to appeal the prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued in Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. Benson, below, which exten­ded the dead­line for receipt of timely-post­marked absentee ballots until four­teen days after the elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 2 of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and federal stat­utes, in that the secret­ary exceeded her author­ity by “acced­ing to a policy” that changes the manner and timing of a pres­id­en­tial elec­tion and by permit­ting Michig­anders to vote for pres­id­ent after elec­tion day.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 29, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans, Detroit/Down­river Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute and others gran­ted Octo­ber 6, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion held in abey­ance pending outcome of appeal in Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. Benson, below, Octo­ber 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Novem­ber 2, 2020; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed Novem­ber 23, 2020


John­son v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-1098 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tion Admin­is­tra­tion, Fraud Alleg­a­tions; Poll Watcher Access; Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

Two poll watch­ers sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and the chair of the Michigan Board of State Canvass­ers, chal­len­ging a laun­dry list of alleged “elec­tion malfeas­ance” at the TCF Center in Detroit, includ­ing count­ing late arriv­ing ballots and ballots cast by unqual­i­fied voters, coach­ing voters to vote for Joseph R. Biden, and thwart­ing poll watch­ers’ access. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elect­ors Clause of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ alleged actions deprive plaintiffs of their right to due process and equal protec­tion by count­ing fraud­u­lent and other­wise illegal votes, and that the secret­ary’s decision to affirm­at­ively mail absentee ballots to all active, registered voters usurped legis­lat­ive author­ity, and seeks to prohibit certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion results until certain condi­tions are met.  

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 14, 2020; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 18, 2020


John­son v. Benson, No. 162286 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Poll Watcher Access, Fraud Alleg­a­tions, Private Elec­tion Grants, Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the chair of the Michigan State Board of Canvass­ers, and others, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s decision to affirm­at­ively mail absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all registered voters and allow­ing ballots to be reques­ted online, which, peti­tion­ers allege, facil­it­ated fraud. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to and the Elect­ors Clause of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, the Equal Protec­tion and Due Process Clauses of Michigan Consti­tu­tion, and state stat­ute, in that defend­ants deprived plaintiffs of their right to due process by fail­ing to audit the elec­tion results and under­min­ing the funda­mental fair­ness of the elec­tion, debased and diluted the value of legal votes, and that the secret­ary’s affirm­at­ive mail­ing of ballot applic­a­tions usurped legis­lat­ive author­ity.    

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 26, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and Michigan Demo­cratic Party Novem­ber 30, 2020; Answer­ing papers due Decem­ber 25, 2020; Order deny­ing peti­tion issued by Michigan Supreme Court Decem­ber 9, 2020


King v. Whit­mer, No. 2:20-cv-13134 (E.D. Ma.), No. 20–2205 (6th Cir.), No. 20–815 (S. Ct.)

Re: Elec­tion Decer­ti­fic­a­tion, Poll Watcher Access, Elec­tronic Voting Machines, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elect­ors in Michigan sued the Michigan Governor, secret­ary of state, and Board of State Canvass­ers, chal­len­ging the use of Domin­ion voting machines, alleging lack of adequate poll watcher access, wide­spread voter fraud by elec­tion offi­cials, and seek­ing to decer­tify the elec­tion results and to certify Donald Trump as the winner of Michigan’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Michigan’s Elec­tion Code and of the 14th Amend­ment to and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants changed the manner of elec­tions (thus usurp­ing legis­lat­ive author­ity), deprived plaintiffs of equal protec­tion by fail­ing to afford Repub­lican poll watch­ers suffi­cient access, and denied plaintiffs’ due process by direct and vote dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 25, 2020; Motions to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and Michigan Demo­cratic Party and an indi­vidual voter gran­ted Decem­ber 2, 2020; Emer­gency motion for a tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Decem­ber 7, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Decem­ber 8, 2020; Peti­tion for a writ of certi­or­ari filed in U.S. Supreme Court Decem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and motion to dismiss and for sanc­tions filed by the City of Detroit Decem­ber 22, 2020; Motion for sanc­tions, discip­lin­ary action, and disbar­ment refer­ral filed by City of Detroit Janu­ary 5, 2021; Motion to exped­ite consid­er­a­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Janu­ary 11, 2021; Inter­venor defend­ant’s emer­gency motion to strike notice of volun­tary dismissal denied Janu­ary 25, 2021; Motion for sanc­tions filed by state defend­ants Janu­ary 28, 2021; Peti­tion for writ of certi­or­ari denied by U.S. Supreme Court Febru­ary 22, 2021; Hear­ing on sanc­tions sched­uled for July 12, 2021


Lambert v. Benson, No. 20–000208-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: In-Person Voting; Open-Carry at Polling Places

An indi­vidual voter, Michigan Open Carry, Inc., Michigan Gun Owners, and the Michigan Coali­tion for Respons­ible Gun Owners sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, the Michigan attor­ney general, and the director of the Michigan State Police, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s Octo­ber 16 direct­ive prohib­it­ing the open carry of fire­arms at polling places on elec­tion day, and state­ments by the other two defend­ants that they intend to enforce the direct­ive. The complaint alleges that the secret­ary’s direct­ive exceeds her consti­tu­tional and stat­utory author­ity.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory and injunct­ive relief filed Octo­ber 22, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part Octo­ber 27, 2020; Injunc­tion upheld by Michigan Court of Appeals Octo­ber 29, 2020


Leaf v. Whit­mer, No. 1:20-cv-1169 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Elec­tion Data Preser­va­tion (Covid-19)

The Sher­iff of Barry County Michigan and seven Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees sued the Michigan governor and secret­ary of state and the Board of State Canvass­ers, seek­ing to prohibit destruc­tion of elec­tion mater­i­als allegedly “needed to determ­ine voter intent, any system­atic fraud, and any crim­inal activ­ity and/or civil liab­il­ity.”

Status: Three emer­gency motions filed Decem­ber 6, 2020; Order deny­ing all three motions issued Decem­ber 7, 2020


League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson, No. 353654 (Mich. Ct. Appeals)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Avail­ab­il­ity, Prepaid Post­age, Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

The LWV of Michigan and indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the State’s absentee voting laws and prac­tices of reject­ing any absentee ballots received after 8 p.m. on Elec­tion Day, refus­ing to provide voters with absentee ballots in a timely fash­ion, and requir­ing that voters provide their own post­age on ballots and ballot applic­a­tions, thus running afoul of Michigan’s newly-passed consti­tu­tional amend­ment afford­ing every voter the right to submit an absentee ballot — by mail or in person — in the 40 days lead­ing up to the elec­tion. The complaint for manda­mus alleges viol­a­tions of Art. I, §§ 2, 3, & 5 and Art. II, §§ 4(1)(g), 4(1)(a), and 4(2) of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion and §168.761(1) of the Michigan Consol­id­ated Laws, in that the laws have not been updated to comport with the Absentee Voting Clause, conflict with the Free Speech & Assembly Clauses, deny voters equal protec­tion, and deny voters’ uncon­di­tional right to vote, as well as the right to do so without being required to pay any costs.

Status: Writ of manda­mus denied July 14, 2020


Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. Benson, No. 2020–000108-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims); Nos. 354429, 354873 (Mich. Ct. App.); No 161837 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Prepaid Post­age, Voter Assist­ance Ban (Covid-19)

The Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans, the Detroit Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute, and indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, chal­len­ging state laws that impose vari­ous restric­tions on Michig­anders’ right to vote by mail. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arts. 1 and 2 of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion of 1963 and viol­a­tions of § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the chal­lenged laws unduly burden the consti­tu­tional right to vote absentee, unduly burden the right to vote in general, deny voters’ rights to due process and free speech, and are pree­mp­ted by the Voting Rights Act.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Septem­ber 18, 2020, requir­ing that other­wise valid ballots post­marked by the day before elec­tion day and received within 14 days of elec­tion day be coun­ted, and permit­ting voters to receive assist­ance with cast­ing absentee ballots from any person of their choos­ing between 5:01 p.m. on the Friday before elec­tion day and the close of polls on elec­tion day; Renewed motion to inter­vene filed by Repub­lican lawmakers Septem­ber 22, 2020; Order exped­it­ing consid­er­a­tion of request to inter­vene issued by Michigan Supreme Court Septem­ber 25, 2020; Appeal of denial of inter­ven­tion dismissed Septem­ber 29, 2020; Lower court injunc­tion reversed by Michigan Court of Appeals Octo­ber 16, 2020


Polasek-Savage v. Benson, No. 20–000217-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

Two poll watch­ers sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and Oakland County, chal­len­ging Oakland County’s declar­a­tion that only one poll watcher per organ­iz­a­tion would be permit­ted at each absent voter count­ing board loca­tion. The emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment seeks an order permit­ting 10 elec­tion chal­lengers per organ­iz­a­tion to be present at each absentee voting count­ing site.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 3, 2020; Emer­gency motion for declar­at­ory judg­ment denied and Oakland County dismissed as a defend­ant Novem­ber 3, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Opin­ion and order issued and case closed Decem­ber 23, 2020


Prior­it­ies USA v. Benson, No. 19–000191-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims), No. 345096 (Mich. Ct. App.), No. 161753 (Mich. Sup. Ct.)

Consol­id­ated with Promote the Vote v. Benson, No. 20–000002-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: Proof-of-Resid­ency Require­ment & Auto­matic Regis­tra­tion Limit­a­tions

Prior­it­ies USA and Rise, Inc., sued Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law and policy that, respect­ively, restrict accept­able forms of “proof of resid­ency” for indi­vidu­als regis­ter­ing to vote within 14 days of an elec­tion, and exclude indi­vidu­als under the age of 17.5 from being auto­mat­ic­ally registered to vote when they obtain a driver’s license or state iden­ti­fic­a­tion card. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arts. 1 and 2 of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws place an undue burden on the right to vote and deny equal protec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 22, 2019; Motion for summary dispos­i­tion filed by defend­ant Decem­ber 29, 2019; Amended complaint filed Janu­ary 21, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed May 4, 2020; Opin­ion and order deny­ing plaintiffs’ motion for summary dispos­i­tion issued June 24, 2020; Order affirmed by Court of Appeals July 20, 2020; Applic­a­tion for leave to appeal to Michigan Supreme Court denied August 14, 2020


Prior­it­ies USA v. Nessel, No. 4:19-cv-13341 (E.D. Mich.); Nos. 20–1931, 20–1940 (6th Cir.)

Re: Voter Assist­ance Restric­tions

Prior­it­ies USA, Rise, Inc., and the Detroit/Down­river Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging two state laws, one of which makes it a crime to “hire a motor vehicle or other convey­ance or cause the same to be done, for convey­ing voters, other than voters phys­ic­ally unable to walk, to an elec­tion.” The other chal­lenged law prohib­its assist­ing a voter with an absentee ballot applic­a­tion unless specific­ally soli­cited by the voter and prohib­its assist­ing a voter in return­ing their applic­a­tion unless the assist­ing indi­vidual is a registered voter in Michigan or a member of the voter’s imme­di­ate family or house­hold. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the laws are uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally vague and over­broad, unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, viol­ate speech and asso­ci­ational rights, and are pree­mp­ted by federal law.

Status: Motion to dismiss gran­ted in part and denied in part May 22, 2020; Michigan Senate and House of Repres­ent­at­ives permit­ted to inter­vene May 22, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Septem­ber 17, 2020, uphold­ing absentee ballot assist­ance restric­tion and inval­id­at­ing voter trans­port­a­tion restric­tions; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 25, 2020; Emer­gency motion for stay pending appeal filed by the Michigan Legis­lature denied by district court Octo­ber 6, 2020; Michigan Legis­lature’s emer­gency motion to stay the district court’s injunc­tion gran­ted by 6th Circuit Octo­ber 21, 2020


Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion v. Benson, No. 1:20-cv-818 (W.D. Mich.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Records Request

The Public Interest Legal Found­a­tion sued the Michigan secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging defend­ant’s fail­ure to comply with a request to allow inspec­tion of voter list main­ten­ance records. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act, which requires public disclos­ure of records “concern­ing the imple­ment­a­tion of programs and activ­it­ies conduc­ted for the purpose of ensur­ing the accur­acy and currency of offi­cial lists of eligible voters.”

Status: Complaint filed August 26, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 12, 2020


Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey, 3:20-cv-12129 (E.D. Mich.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Detroit city clerk, the Detroit Depart­ment of Elec­tions, and the Detroit Elec­tion Commis­sion, chal­len­ging the legal­ity of send­ing of unso­li­cited absentee voter applic­a­tions to all registered voters. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and the state law govern­ing absentee ballot applic­a­tions, in that defend­ants’ actions denied plaintiff’s proced­ural and substant­ive due process rights and were arbit­rary and capri­cious.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied in part August 11, 2020; Plaintiff’s ex parte order to show cause denied along with an order direct­ing plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed or stayed; Amended complaint filed August 14, 2020; Order issued Septem­ber 9, 2020 dismiss­ing without preju­dice plaintiff’s state claims and stay­ing plaintiff’s federal claim; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 10, 2020; Order termin­at­ing as moot plaintiff’s motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Janu­ary 19, 2021


Repub­lican National Commit­tee v. Secret­ary of State, No. 20–000191-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Voter Assist­ance (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican National Commit­tee and the Michigan Repub­lican Party sued the Michigan secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, seek­ing a declar­a­tion that the state’s laws prohib­it­ing third parties from assist­ing voters with absentee ballot return and requir­ing rejec­tion of any mailed absentee ballots not received by 8:00 p.m. on elec­tion day are valid and enforce­able. The complaint acknow­ledges that both laws were enjoined by the court in Michigan Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. Benson, No. 2020–000108-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims), above, and assert that a declar­a­tion of enforce­ab­il­ity is needed to prevent fraud, ballot tamper­ing and voter intim­id­a­tion.  

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 24, 2020; Dismissed Octo­ber 19, 2020


Ryan v. Benson, No. 20–198-MZ (Mich. Ct. Claims)

Re: Elec­tion Fund­ing; Ballot Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters sued the Michigan Secret­ary of State, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s fail­ure to prohibit vari­ous local elec­tion author­it­ies from accept­ing grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to help those muni­cip­al­it­ies admin­is­ter the Novem­ber elec­tion, includ­ing installing ballot drop boxes. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Michigan Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s fail­ure to prevent the local elec­tion juris­dic­tions from accept­ing the grants deprives Michigan voters of the guar­an­tees of equal protec­tion and tarnishes the “purity of elec­tions,” and further that the use of the funds to install ballot drop boxes “cannot possibly meet the [stat­utory] require­ment­s…and even if they did…they are being dispro­por­tion­ately placed in Demo­crat precincts and not made equally avail­able through­out the state.”  

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 5, 2020; Emer­gency motion for imme­di­ate declar­at­ory judg­ment denied Octo­ber 16, 2020


Stod­dard v. City Elec­tion Commis­sion, No. ____ (Cir. Ct., Wayne Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Poll Watcher Access, Curing of Unread­able Ballots (Covid-19)

A poll watcher and the Elec­tion Integ­rity Fund sued the Detroit City Elec­tion Commis­sion and the Detroit city clerk, chal­len­ging the alleged curing of ballots that cannot be read by the elec­tronic count­ing machines, “includ­ing trans­pos­ing the voter’s perceived choices onto a new ballot, without the required over­sight and signa­tures of two elec­tion inspect­or­s—one from each major polit­ical party.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Michigan stat­ute, which requires one inspector from each party to be present at the Absentee Voter Count­ing Board, and of the guid­ance issued by the secret­ary of state, requir­ing that any cured ballot must bear the signa­ture of two elec­tion inspect­ors of differ­ent polit­ical parties, and seeks an order to halt further curing of absentee ballots until inspect­ors from both parties are present, segreg­ate the cured ballots, and halt certi­fic­a­tion “until the stat­utor­ily-required inspect­ors can be located and used to ensure elec­tion integ­rity.”

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 4, 2020; Amended complaint filed Novem­ber 5, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee Novem­ber 5, 2020; Peti­tion for injunct­ive relief denied Novem­ber 6, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

Braun v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5602 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Assist­ance, Witness Require­ment, Early Voting, Ballot Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and Repres­ent­at­ive Ilhan Omar, contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, the waiver of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and outdated voter regis­tra­tion lists. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Articles I and III of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the conduct of the elec­tion deprived plaintiffs of due process and equal protec­tion and viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers doctrine. 

Status: Notice of contest filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Contest dismissed with preju­dice Decem­ber 18, 2020


Carson v. Simon, No. 0:20-cv-2030 (D. Minn.); No. 20–3139 (8th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Two Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial elector nomin­ees sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s agree­ment—as part of a consent decree entered in the state court case of LaRose v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–3190 (Minn. 2d Judi­cial Cir., Ramsey Cnty.), below—to accept other­wise valid absentee ballots that are post­marked by elec­tion day and received within 5 busi­ness days thereof. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 2 of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and federal stat­ute, in that the exten­sion of the absentee ballot receipt dead­line changes the timing of a pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, which change may only be effec­tu­ated by Congress and the state legis­lature.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 22, 2020;; Motion to inter­vene by LaRose v. Simon plaintiffs gran­ted Septem­ber 28, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 11, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 12, 2020; Emer­gency motion for injunc­tion pending appeal denied Octo­ber 16, 2020; Opin­ion revers­ing and remand­ing to district court with instruc­tions to grant a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion order­ing the segreg­a­tion of ballots that arrive after elec­tion day issued by 8th Circuit Octo­ber 29, 2020; Motion by inter­venor defend­ants to certify ques­tion to Minnesota Supreme Court as to whether, under Minnesota law, pres­id­en­tial elect­ors are bound by a stip­u­la­tion waiv­ing any further chal­lenge to a consent decree govern­ing the admin­is­tra­tion of an elec­tion, and to stay proceed­ings; Motion denied by district court without preju­dice Novem­ber 5, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 9, 2020


Coun­cil on Amer­ican-Islamic Rela­tions-Minnesota v. Atlas Aegis LLC, No. 0:20-cv-2195 (D. Minn.)

Re: In-Person Voter Intim­id­a­tion

The Coun­cil on Amer­ican-Islamic Rela­tions-Minnesota and the League of Women Voters of Minnesota sued Tennessee-based secur­ity company, Atlas Aegis LLC, its chair­man, and ten John Does, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ threatened deploy­ment of armed ex-soldiers to intim­id­ate and threaten voters at polling places. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, in that defend­ants’ actions are inten­ded to threaten, intim­id­ate, and coerce voters and those who would help them lawfully vote, and that such conduct has actu­ally intim­id­ated voters and those who would help them to lawfully vote.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 20, 2020; Peti­tion for order approv­ing assur­ance of discon­tinu­ance filed by Minnesota attor­ney general in related case Octo­ber 23, 2020, provid­ing that Atlas Aegis shall not provide any secur­ity services nor intim­id­ate voters in Minnesota around the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 29, 2020, enjoin­ing defend­ants from, inter alia, deploy­ing armed agents within 2,500 feet of voting sites; Motion to approve consent decree filed Febru­ary 3, 2021


Craig v. Simon, No. 0:20-cv-2066 (D. Minn.); No. 20–3126 (8th Cir.); Kist­ner v. Craig, No. 20A73 (S. Ct.)

Re: Post­pone­ment of Congres­sional Elec­tion

A congres­sional candid­ate and an indi­vidual voter sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that post­pones the date of an elec­tion for public office in Minnesota if a major polit­ical party dies within 79 days of the elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and 2 U.S.C. § 7, in that the state law is pree­mp­ted by the federal stat­ute, which sets a uniform, nation­wide date for elec­tions for the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives and unduly burdens the right to vote, and seeks a declar­at­ory judg­ment that the elec­tion in ques­tion must proceed on Novem­ber 3 as sched­uled, notwith­stand­ing the death of 0ne of the candid­ates.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 9, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion to stay denied by district court Octo­ber 13, 2020; Appel­late motion to stay pending appeal denied by 8th Circuit Octo­ber 23, 2020; Motion for stay denied by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 27, 2020; District court order affirmed by 8th Circuit Novem­ber 20, 2020


Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–585 (Minn. Dist. Court.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Voter Assist­ance Restric­tions

The Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging provi­sions of state law that prohibit an indi­vidual from help­ing more than three voters who require assist­ance to vote by reason of blind­ness, disab­il­ity, or inab­il­ity to read or write, in mark­ing their ballots and that prohibit an indi­vidual from help­ing more than three voters in return­ing or mail­ing their absentee ballot The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, Arts. 1 and 7 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws are pree­mp­ted by the Voting Rights Act, uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burden the right to vote, and infringe on speech and asso­ci­ation rights.

Status: Tempor­ary injunc­tion gran­ted by district court July 28, 2020, enjoin­ing Secret­ary of State from enfor­cing either provi­sion of state law; Tempor­ary injunc­tion affirmed by Minnesota Supreme Court with respect to the ballot-mark­ing provi­sion, vacated with respect to the ballot-return provi­sion Septem­ber 4, 2020; Order for dismissal issued Decem­ber 21, 2020


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Simon, No. A20–1362 (Minn. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Receipt Dead­line & Ballot Segreg­a­tion (Covid-19)

The Trump Campaign, Senate Victory Fund, House Repub­lican Campaign Commit­tee, and an indi­vidual voter sued the Minnesota Secret­ary of State, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s agree­ment—as part of a consent decree entered in the state court case of LaRose v. Simon, below—to accept other­wise valid absentee ballots that are post­marked by elec­tion day and received within 5 busi­ness days thereof and seek­ing an order direct­ing the secret­ary to segreg­ate all mail ballots arriv­ing after elec­tion day “in order to preserve the Peti­tion­ers’ abil­ity to chal­lenge the legal­ity of the Secret­ary’s actions and to ensure the fair­ness and integ­rity of the elec­tion.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of federal and state law and U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the exten­sion of the ballot receipt dead­line changes the date of a pres­id­en­tial and congres­sional elec­tion and conflicts with the ballot receipt dead­line estab­lished by the Minnesota Legis­lature.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 28, 2020; Motion in inter­vene filed by indi­vidual voters and the Minnesota Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans Octo­ber 28, 2020; Order issued Octo­ber 29, 2020, direct­ing peti­tion­ers to file a memor­andum of law no later than 4:30 p.m. on Octo­ber 30, address­ing “why this peti­tion could not have been filed at an earlier date and why laches should not apply”; Order dismiss­ing case issued by Minnesota Supreme Court Novem­ber 3, 2020


Jensen v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5599 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Assist­ance, Witness Require­ment, Early Voting, Ballot Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and Repres­ent­at­ive Ilhan Omar, contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, the waiver of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and outdated voter regis­tra­tion lists. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Articles I and III of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the conduct of the elec­tion deprived plaintiffs of due process and equal protec­tion and viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers doctrine. 

Status: Notice of contest filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Contest dismissed with preju­dice Decem­ber 18, 2020


Kist­ner v. Simon, No. A20–1486 (Minn. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge, Audit­ing (Covid-19)

Candid­ates for state and federal legis­lat­ive seats sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and members of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, seek­ing to delay certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s elec­tion results until a compre­hens­ive audit is completed or order a new elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Articles 1 and 3 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, and Minnesota stat­utes, in that the secret­ary allegedly usurped legis­lat­ive author­ity by enter­ing into settle­ment agree­ments waiv­ing the absentee ballot witness require­ment and extend­ing the absentee ballot receipt dead­line, thus creat­ing “an overly broad, arbit­rary, dispar­ate and ad hoc process meant to ensure that every ballot was coun­ted, whether legal or not,” depriving plaintiffs of due process

Status: Notice of contest filed Novem­ber 30, 2020; Order grant­ing motion to dismiss issued Decem­ber 15, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Decem­ber 24, 2020


Kist­ner v. Simon, No. 19AV-CV-20–2183 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 1st Jud. Dist., Dakota Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Count­ing; Elec­tronic Voting Machine; Audit; Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Eleven defeated federal and state legis­lat­ive candid­ates and two indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, the Dakota County elec­tions director, and others, chal­len­ging the state’s agree­ment to waive the witness require­ment for absentee ballots in the general elec­tion, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and the trans­par­ency and results of the Post-Elec­tion Review Process, partic­u­larly in Dakota County. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the Minnesota law, Article I of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ actions deprived plaintiffs of equal protec­tion, viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers, and denied the right of due process.

Status: Notice of contest filed Novem­ber 30, 2020


LaRose v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–3149 (Minnesota District Court, Ramsey County)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness Require­ment & Ballot Receipt Dead­line (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and the Minnesota Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans Educa­tional Fund sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging two state laws that require absentee ballots to be witnessed by a registered Minnesota voter, notary, or other person author­ized to admin­is­ter oaths, and to be received by 3 p.m. (if hand-delivered) or 8 p.m. (if delivered by mail) on Elec­tion Day. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arts. 1 and 7 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws unduly burden the right to vote and deprive Minnesotans of due process.

Status: Stip­u­la­tion and partial consent decree entered June 16, 2020; Order issued August 3, 2020, (1) permit­ting inter­ven­tion by the Repub­lican Party of Minnesota, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and the National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, (2) Deny­ing the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and Repub­lican National Commit­tee’s request to vacate the primary elec­tion consent decree, and (3) grant­ing plaintiffs’ and defend­ant’s request to enter the General Elec­tion Consent Decree; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed August 18, 2020


League of Women Voters of Minnesota Educa­tion Fund v. Simon, No. 0:20-cv-1205 (D. Minn.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Notary/Witness Require­ment (Covid-19)

The LWV of Minnesota Educa­tion Fund and indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that requires absentee ballots be witnessed by a notary, a registered Minnesota voter, or other person author­ized to admin­is­ter oaths, and that the witness must complete a certi­fic­ate. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law, as applied during the Covid-19 pandemic, unduly burdens the right to vote and denies equal protec­tion on account of citizen­ship status with respect to witness qual­i­fic­a­tions.

Status: Proposed consent decree rejec­ted by court; Repub­lican Party of Minnesota, Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. permit­ted to inter­vene June 23, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied as moot Novem­ber 9, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 30, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed by Repub­lican National Commit­tee & Repub­lican Party of Minnesota Janu­ary 13, 2021; Order dismiss­ing counts II & II issued March 29, 2021; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed May 13, 2021


Minnesota Voters Alli­ance v. City of Minneapolis, No. 0:20-cv-2049 (D. Minn.)

Re: Elec­tion Fund­ing (Covid-19)

The Minnesota Voters Alli­ance and four indi­vidual voters sued the City of Minneapolis, chal­len­ging the city’s accept­ance of a $3 million grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”) to help the city admin­is­ter the Novem­ber elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions and Suprem­acy Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, of the Help Amer­ica Vote Act (“HAVA”), the National Voter Regis­tra­tion Act (“NVRA”), and state stat­ute, in that Minneapolis acted “without legal author­ity to form a public-private part­ner­ship for federal elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion with CTCL,” that their actions are pree­mp­ted by HAVA, the NVRA and Minnesota law and consti­tute accept­ance of a bribe.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 24, 2020; motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 16, 2020; Amended complaint filed Novem­ber 13, 2020; Motion to dismiss amended complaint filed Novem­ber 25, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Janu­ary 4, 2021


Minnesota Voters Alli­ance v. Walz, 0:20-cv-1688 (D. Minn.); No. 20–3072 (8th Cir.)

Re: Polling Place Mask Require­ment (Covid-19)

The Minnesota Voters Alli­ance and 5 indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota governor and secret­ary of state, the Hennepin County Auditor, and others, chal­len­ging Exec­ut­ive Order 20–81, which requires that “Minnesotans…wear a face cover­ing in indoor busi­nesses and indoor public settings” and imposes crim­inal penal­ties for fail­ure to do so. The complaint alleges, among other things, viol­a­tions of the 1st Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Article 3 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the exec­ut­ive order restricts and chills core polit­ical speech, is over­broad, denies plaintiffs’ express­ive asso­ci­ational rights, and conflicts with legis­lat­ively-enacted law that crim­in­ally prohib­its wear­ing a mask in public in order to conceal one’s iden­tity.

Status: Motion to dismiss filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 2, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Motion for injunc­tion pending appeal gran­ted in part and denied in part by district court Octo­ber 13, 2020, stay­ing action but deny­ing injunc­tion pending appeal; Request for emer­gency injunc­tion denied by SCOTUS (Gorsuch) Novem­ber 2, 2020; Case dismissed Janu­ary 11, 2021


NAACP of Minnesota v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–3625 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Ramsey Cnty.)
Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness Require­ment & Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

The NAACP of Minnesota and two indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law which requires that absentee ballots must be witnessed by a notary, a registered Minnesota voter, or other person author­ized to admin­is­ter oaths, and that the witness must complete a certi­fic­ate. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Arts. 1 and 7 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the law unduly and unne­ces­sar­ily burdens the right to vote and viol­ates the Consti­tu­tion’s guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion.

Status: Order issued August 3, 2020 (1) deny­ing the inter­ven­tion motion of Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican Party of Minnesota, and others, (2) grant­ing the permissive inter­ven­tion motion of the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, (3) grant­ing plaintiffs’ and defend­ant’s request to enter the General Elec­tion Consent Decree, and (4) deny­ing plaintiffs’ motion for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed August 18, 2020


Overby v. Simon, No. 0:20-cv-2250 (D. Minn.)

Re: Post­pone­ment of Congres­sional Elec­tion

A candid­ate who was appoin­ted to replace a deceased Marijuana Now Party candid­ate sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and governor, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to register her candid­acy and place her name on the ballot for the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion and further chal­len­ging a paral­lel federal court order enjoin­ing the post­pone­ment of the elec­tion in ques­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Minnesota stat­ute requir­ing that a special elec­tion be held in Febru­ary if a major party candid­ate dies within 79 days of the Novem­ber elec­tion and asserts that the provi­sion is not uncon­sti­tu­tional, notwith­stand­ing that it was found to be uncon­sti­tu­tional in the previ­ously-decided case of Craig v. Simon, above.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 29, 2020; Motion for exped­ited injunct­ive relief denied Novem­ber 2, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted June 21, 2021


Pavek v. Simon, No. 0:19-cv-3000 (D. Minn.), Nos. 20–2410, 20–2814 (8th Cir.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

Indi­vidual voters, the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and the Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law which requires that major party candid­ates be listed in reverse order, based on the aver­age number of votes members of their party received in the preced­ing elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law unduly burdens the right to vote and imposes dispar­ate treat­ment in viol­a­tion of the right to equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion to dismiss denied; prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted; Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee, the National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, and the Repub­lican Party of Minnesota permit­ted to inter­vene July 12, 2020; Case stayed July 16, 2020, until the conclu­sion of the 2021 regu­lar session of the Minnesota legis­lature “or until legis­la­tion that moots or other­wise resolves this case is enacted, whichever occurs first”; Notice of appeal filed by inter­venor defend­ants; Inter­venor defend­ants’ motion to stay pending appeal gran­ted by 8th Circuit July 31, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed in district court August 26, 2020; Notice of appeal of order dismiss­ing case filed by inter­venor defend­ants August 28, 2020; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Septem­ber 18, 2020; Case remanded to district court with instruc­tions to vacate prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Septem­ber 21, 2020


Peterson v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5600 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Assist­ance, Witness Require­ment, Early Voting, Ballot Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and Repres­ent­at­ive Ilhan Omar, contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, the waiver of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and outdated voter regis­tra­tion lists. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Articles I and III of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the conduct of the elec­tion deprived plaintiffs of due process and equal protec­tion and viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers doctrine. 

Status: Notice of contest filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Contest dismissed with preju­dice Decem­ber 18, 2020


Quist v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5598 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Assist­ance, Witness Require­ment, Early Voting, Ballot Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and Repres­ent­at­ive Ilhan Omar, contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, the waiver of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and outdated voter regis­tra­tion lists. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Articles I and III of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the conduct of the elec­tion deprived plaintiffs of due process and equal protec­tion and viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers doctrine. 

Status: Notice of contest filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted Decem­ber 29, 2020


Rodrig­uez v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20–5601 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Ramsey Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Assist­ance, Witness Require­ment, Early Voting, Ballot Count­ing, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Secur­ity, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state and Repres­ent­at­ive Ilhan Omar, contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of elec­tion irreg­u­lar­it­ies, the waiver of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, the use of Domin­ion voting machines, and outdated voter regis­tra­tion lists. The notice of contest alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Articles I and III of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the conduct of the elec­tion deprived plaintiffs of due process and equal protec­tion and viol­ated the separ­a­tion of powers doctrine. 

Status: Notice of contest filed Decem­ber 1, 2020; Contest dismissed with preju­dice Decem­ber 18, 2020


Schroeder v. Simon, No. 62-cv-19–7440 (Minn. Dist .Ct., Ramsey Cnty.); No. A20–1264 (Minn. Ct. App.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Indi­vidual aspir­ing voters sued the Minnesota secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its persons convicted of felon­ies from voting until they have fully discharged their sentences, includ­ing parole and proba­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 7, Section 1 and Article 1, Section 2 of the Minnesota Consti­tu­tion, in that the law denies the funda­mental right to vote, and the rights of equal protec­tion and due process, treat­ing simil­arly situ­ated indi­vidu­als differ­ently with respect to a funda­mental right and dispro­por­tion­ately impact­ing people of color and indi­gen­ous people.

Status: Inter­ven­tion denied by lower court; Oral argu­ment heard Febru­ary 24, 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missis­sippi

Harness v. Hose­mann, No. 3:17-cv-791 (S.D. Miss.); No. 19–60632 (5th Cir.)

Consol­id­ated with Hopkins v. Hose­mann, No. 3:18-cv-188 (S.D. Miss.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Three indi­vidual aspir­ing voters sued the Missis­sippi secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a provi­sion of the state consti­tu­tional provi­sion perman­ently barring persons convicted of certain enumer­ated felon­ies from voting. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th and 15th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the state consti­tu­tional provi­sion viol­ates the guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion because they were enacted with discrim­in­at­ory intent and have a discrim­in­at­ory impact based on race.

Status: Plaintiffs appealed district court’s order dismiss­ing case; Oral argu­ment resched­uled June 26, 2020, to an as-yet-undeter­mined later date


Hopkins v. Hose­mann, No. 3:18-cv-188 (S.D. Miss.); Nos. 19–60678, 19–60662 (5th Cir.)

Consol­id­ated with Harness v. Hose­mann, No. 3:17-cv-791 (S.D. Miss.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Six indi­vidual aspir­ing voters, on behalf of a class, sued the Missis­sippi secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging two provi­sions of the state consti­tu­tional that perman­ently bar persons convicted of certain felon­ies from voting and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legis­lature to restore the voting rights of such indi­vidu­als. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 8th, and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the life­time voting ban subjects plaintiffs and class members to cruel and unusual punish­ment, denies them equal protec­tion, is imper­miss­ibly arbit­rary, infringes on the right to polit­ical expres­sion and polit­ical asso­ci­ation, inten­tion­ally discrim­in­ates based on race, and dispro­por­tion­ately impacts Black Missis­sip­pi­ans.

Status: Plaintiffs appealed district court’s order grant­ing partial summary judg­ment to defend­ants; Oral argu­ment heard Decem­ber 3, 2019


O’Neill v. Hose­mann, No. 3:18-cv-815 (S.D. Miss.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse, Notar­iz­a­tion Require­ments, Ballot Applic­a­tion Online Avail­ab­il­ity, Ballot Receipt Dead­line

Indi­vidual voters and the Missis­sippi State Confer­ence of the NAACP sued the Missis­sippi secret­ary of state, the assist­ant secret­ary of state and others, chal­len­ging state laws and prac­tices that limit the avail­ab­il­ity of absentee voting to those who qual­ify for an enumer­ated excuse, require both absentee applic­a­tions and voted ballots to be notar­ized, fail to make absentee ballot applic­a­tion forms avail­able online and require that voted absentee ballots be received before elec­tion day. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws and prac­tices infringe on the funda­mental right to vote and deny equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Novem­ber 27, 2018; Case stayed on June 1, 2020 until further order of the court; Case dismissed on consent of parties Octo­ber 30, 2020


Oppen­heim v. Watson, No. 25CH1:20-cv-961 (Chan­cery Ct. Hinds Cnty.); Watson v. Oppen­heim, No. 2020-CA-983-SCT (Sup. Ct. Miss.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

Six indi­vidual voters sued the Missis­sippi secret­ary of state and the circuit clerks of Hinds and Rankin Counties in connec­tion with a state law that strictly limits the avail­ab­il­ity of mail-in voting to those who satisfy one or more stat­utor­ily-enumer­ated excuses, includ­ing having a “phys­ical disab­il­ity [and] whose attend­ance at the voting place could reas­on­ably cause danger to himself, herself or others.” For the 2020 elec­tion, that provi­sion applies to “any qual­i­fied elector who is under a phys­i­cian-imposed quar­ant­ine due to COVID-19 …or is caring for a depend­ent who is under a phys­i­cian-imposed quar­ant­ine due to COVID-19,” but it does not define “phys­i­cian-imposed quar­ant­ine” nor “depend­ent.” The complaint seeks judi­cial declar­a­tions that the exist­ing stat­ute permits mail-in voting by any voters “with pre-exist­ing condi­tions that cause COVID-19 to present a greater risk of severe illness or death,” and those who “wish[ ] to avoid voting in-person…­due to guid­ance from the MDH, the CDC, or other phys­i­cians or public health author­it­ies to avoid unne­ces­sary public gath­er­ings during the COVID-19 pandemic or if he or she is caring for or support­ing such a voter,” as well as a prelim­in­ary and perman­ent injunc­tion requir­ing the secret­ary of state to so instruct local elec­tions offi­cials and so educate the public.

Status: Complaint filed August 11, 2020; Order declar­ing that Missis­sippi law “permits any voter with pre-exist­ing condi­tions that cause COVID-19 to present a greater risk of severe illness or death to vote by absentee ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic” and allow­ing anyone to vote absentee “if he or she or any depend­ent has consul­ted with a phys­i­cian who recom­mends, because of that indi­vidu­al’s phys­ical disab­il­ity or that of their depend­ent, not attend­ing any public gath­er­ing because of the possib­il­ity of contract­ing COVID-19” and deny­ing all other reques­ted relief issued Septem­ber 2, 2020; Order and opin­ion revers­ing lower court’s expan­sion of absentee voting avail­ab­il­ity and affirm­ing its denial of other reques­ted relief issued by Supreme Court of Missis­sippi Septem­ber 18, 2020


Parham v. Watson, No. 3:20-cv-572 (N.D. Miss.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse & Notary Require­ments, Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, the League of Women Voters of Missis­sippi, and the Missis­sippi State Confer­ence of the NAACP sued the Missis­sippi secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, chal­len­ging: (1) defend­ants’ fail­ure to advise voters that Missis­sippi law allows absentee voting if voters reas­on­ably fear that voting in person will expose them­selves or others to the coronavirus (2) a state law requir­ing notar­iz­a­tion or offi­cial attest­a­tion to apply for and vote absentee, and (3) the lack of notice and oppor­tun­ity to cure ballots rejec­ted due to “faulty signa­ture match proced­ures.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that (1) defend­ants’ fail­ure to advise the public of the avail­ab­il­ity of absentee voting due to Covid-19 concerns, or in the altern­at­ive, the law’s fail­ure to allow absentee voting on the basis of fear of contract­ing or spread­ing Covid-19 signi­fic­antly burdens the funda­mental right to vote, (2) the excuse require­ment is uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally vague, (3) as applied during the Covid-19 pandemic, the notar­iz­a­tion require­ment unjus­ti­fi­ably burdens the funda­mental right to vote, and (4) the cure prohib­i­tion denies the right to due process and signi­fic­antly burdens the funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Complaint filed August 27, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 17, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 8, 2020; Order stay­ing discov­ery pending resol­u­tion of motion to dismiss issued Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion with­drawn Octo­ber 13, 2020; Case volun­tar­ily dismissed on Octo­ber 20, 2020, follow­ing agree­ment that state will make curb­side voting avail­able to anyone show­ing signs of Covid-19 and requir­ing elec­tion offi­cials to provide voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure signa­ture defects after elec­tion day

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri

Amer­ican Women v. State of Missouri, No. 20AC-CC00333 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Notary Require­ment, Signa­ture Match­ing, Receipt Dead­line, Voter Assist­ance Ban, Mail-Return Mandate (Covid-19)

Amer­ican Women and indi­vidual voters sued the State of Missouri and the Missouri secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging state laws that impose vary­ing notar­iz­a­tion require­ments for mail-in ballots on differ­ent categor­ies of voters, require rejec­tion of any absentee ballots received after 7p.m. on Elec­tion Day, irre­spect­ive of the post­mark, prohibit third parties from assist­ing voters with return­ing voted mail-in ballots, impose “incon­sist­ent and indis­crim­in­ate eval­u­ation criteria to determ­ine whether a ballot is valid,” and require that “ballots voted by certain types of voters but not others are only return­able by U.S. Mail and may not be returned in person.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Missouri Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions inter­fere with the free exer­cise of the right of suffrage, deny voters equal protec­tion and due process, unduly burden the right to vote, and infringe on the right to free speech.

Status: Complaint filed August 20, 2020; Judg­ment entered in favor of defend­ants Octo­ber 22, 2020


Missouri State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. State of Missouri, No. 20AC-CC00169 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.); No. SC98536 (Mo. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Excuse Require­ment (Covid-19)

The Missouri NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Missouri, and three indi­vidual voters sued the State of Missouri, Secret­ary of State John Ashcroft, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that restricts absentee voting to voters who provide one of six enumer­ated reas­ons, includ­ing “inca­pa­city or confine­ment due to illness or phys­ical disab­il­ity, includ­ing a person who is primar­ily respons­ible for the phys­ical care of a person who is inca­pa­cit­ated or confined due to illness or disab­il­ity.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the right to vote and of equal protec­tion under the Missouri Consti­tu­tion, and seeks a declar­a­tion that the exist­ing Missouri law must be inter­preted to encom­pass Missouri­ans who fear contract­ing or spread­ing Covid-19. The lower court dismissed the case on defend­ants’ motion on May 15, 2020, and plaintiffs appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Status: Missouri Supreme Court reversed and remanded June 23, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied July 10, 2020; Writ of mandate denied July 15, 2020; Judg­ment entered against plaintiffs and in favor of defend­ants on all counts Septem­ber 24, 2020; Affirmed by Missouri Supreme Court Octo­ber 9, 2020


Organ­iz­a­tion for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, No. 2:20-cv-418 (D. Mo.); No. 20–3121 (8th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tronic Applic­a­tion Submis­sion, Mail-Return Mandate, Notice & Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Ballot Defects (Covid-19)

The Organ­iz­a­tion for Black Struggle, the St. Louis A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute, the Greater Kansas City A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute, and others sued the Missouri secret­ary of state, the Greene County Clerk’s Office, the Jack­son County Elec­tion Board, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that prohibit voters from request­ing mail-in ballots via email (while permit­ting absentee ballot requests to be made by that method), prohibit the return of voted mail-in ballots by any means other than mail (while permit­ting in-person return of voted absentee ballots), and allow rejec­tion of both absentee and mail-in ballots due to imma­ter­ial defects without afford­ing voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure such defects. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that the chal­lenged laws unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, allow disqual­i­fic­a­tion of votes “because of an error or omis­sion on any record or paper relat­ing to any applic­a­tion, regis­tra­tion or other act requis­ite to voting [when] such error or omis­sion is not mater­ial in determ­in­ing whether such indi­vidual is qual­i­fied…to vote in such elec­tion,” and deny voters a consti­tu­tion­ally protec­ted liberty interest without due process.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 17, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Octo­ber 9, 2020, permit­ting “mail-in” ballots to be returned in person (or by a relat­ive within the second degree of consan­guin­ity or affin­ity), while declin­ing to require that mail-in ballot requests may be made via email, and further declin­ing to require that voters be afforded with notice and oppor­tun­ity to cure imma­ter­ial ballot defects; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Motion for admin­is­trat­ive stay pending appeal gran­ted Octo­ber 10, 2020; Emer­gency motion to vacate stay filed Octo­ber 21, 2020; Motion for stay pending appeal gran­ted by 8th Circuit Octo­ber 22, 2020, stay­ing the district court’s injunc­tion that permit­ted mail ballots to be returned in person; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 9, 2020; Motions to dismiss party and to dismiss case filed Decem­ber 18, 2020; Order issued Janu­ary 5, 2020 deny­ing motion to dismiss as moot in light of amended complaint; Order dismiss­ing case issued March 9, 2021


Ostrowski v. Office of Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-00209 (E.D. Mo.)
Re: Vote-by-Mail Fraud (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter sued the Office of Elec­tions of Hawaii, the Lieu­ten­ant Governor of Utah, the Director of the Alaska Divi­sion of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ allow­ance of vote-by-mail fraud. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 12th, and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants have “inhib­ited [plaintiff’s] speech and “caused duress” by “not having adequate checks and balances in place for inde­pend­ent audits of the mail-in ballots cast and/or extend­ing absentee ballots from its former form, which also impinges citizens fully express­ing their wish to the elect­oral college for whom they want for pres­id­ent.”

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Dismissed for fail­ure to state a claim Octo­ber 19, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Montana

Black­feet Nation v. Stapleton, No. 4:20-cv-95 (D. Mont.)

Re: In-Person Voter Regis­tra­tion, Early Voting, Elec­tion Day Voting (Covid-19)

The Black­feet Nation sued the Montana secret­ary of state, the county of Pondera, its county clerk, and others, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ refusal to estab­lish a site that provides in-person voter regis­tra­tion, in-person early voting, and elec­tion day voting on the Black­feet Indian Reser­va­tion, notwith­stand­ing that the major­ity of Black­feet members lack resid­en­tial home mail deliv­ery. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Montana Consti­tu­tion, and the secret­ary of state’s elec­tion direct­ive #10–2015, in that defend­ants’ inac­tion deprives plaintiffs of equal protec­tion, severely burdens the funda­mental right to vote, denies or abridges the right to vote on account of race, color or member­ship in a language minor­ity group, denies plaintiffs the right to parti­cip­ate in free and open elec­tions, and fails to comply with the require­ment that every county contain­ing an Amer­ican Indian reser­va­tion that includes voting-eligible resid­ents to open satel­lite elec­tions offices on those reser­va­tions and provide in-person absentee voting and late regis­tra­tion services equi­val­ent to the services offered at the main county elec­tions office.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 9, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Octo­ber 15, 2020, pursu­ant to agree­ment that defend­ants from Pondera County will provide a satel­lite elec­tion office on the Black­feet Indian Reser­va­tion at Heart Butte High School


Bullock v. United States Postal Service, No. 4:20-cv-79 (D. Mont.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery Prac­tices (Covid-19)

The Montana governor sued the United States Postal Service and the post­mas­ter general, chal­len­ging recent changes in postal service policies, which have caused wide­spread delays, includ­ing (i) elim­in­at­ing over­time pay for certain postal work­ers; (ii) instruct­ing carri­ers to leave mail behind, rather than deliver it, in certain circum­stances; (iii) decom­mis­sion­ing sort­ing machines; (iv) remov­ing mail­boxes; (v) redu­cing oper­at­ing hours; and (vi) chan­ging how elec­tion mail is clas­si­fied and charged. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of federal stat­utes, includ­ing the Admin­is­trat­ive Proced­ure Act, in that defend­ants’ actions exceeded its stat­utory author­ity, and that the postal service’s fail­ure to submit propos­als to the Postal Regu­lat­ory Commis­sion prior to making oper­a­tional changes, thus depriving the governor of the oppor­tun­ity to comment, detri­ment­ally impact­ing Montana state govern­ment oper­a­tions and Montanans in general.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 8, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Joint stip­u­la­tion to stay case in light of settle­ment agree­ment gran­ted Octo­ber 15, 2020, thus requir­ing defend­ants to, among other things, limit the reduc­tion of retail hours, the removal of collec­tion boxes, the clos­ure or consol­id­a­tion of mail processing facil­it­ies, and the removal of mail sort­ing machines; estab­lish a policy that “late or extra trips that are reas­on­ably neces­sary to complete timely deliv­ery of mail [are] not to be unreas­on­ably restric­ted or prohib­ited,” and to not ban over­time; Case dismissed pursu­ant to stip­u­la­tion Decem­ber 1, 2020


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Bullock, No. 6:20-cv-66 (D. Mont.) Consol­id­ated with Lamm v. Bullock, No. 6:20-cv-67 (D. Mont.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, In-Person Early Voting (Covid-19)

Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, the National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee and others sued the Montana governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the governor’s August 6, 2020, direct­ive, which allows counties the option of conduct­ing the upcom­ing Novem­ber general elec­tion primar­ily by mail and specifies time­frames for early in-person absentee voting and for the mail­ing of absentee ballots to voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the governor’s direct­ive changes the time, place and manner in which Montanans will parti­cip­ate and appoint elect­ors in the Novem­ber congres­sional and pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, thus usurp­ing state legis­lat­ive author­ity, and “makes voter fraud and other ineligible voting inev­it­able,” thus “dilut[ing ] honest votes.”

Status: Complaint and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 2, 2020; Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, Montana Demo­cratic Party, and legis­lat­ive major­ity lead­ers permit­ted to inter­vene Septem­ber 8, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by the League of Women Voters denied Septem­ber 14, 2020; Order deny­ing all requests by plaintiffs and enter­ing judg­ment in defend­ants’ favor issued Septem­ber 30, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by Lamm plaintiffs Septem­ber 30, 2020


Driscoll v. Stapleton, No. DV 20–408 (Mont. Dist. Ct., Yellow­stone Cnty.); Stapleton v. 13th Jud. Dist. Ct., No. OP20–0293, DA20–0295 (Mont. S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Receipt Dead­line, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Ballot Defects, Voter Assist­ance Ban (Covid-19)

The chair of the Montana Demo­cratic Party, the Montana Demo­cratic Party, and the Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee sued the Montana secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging state laws that prohibit anyone from collect­ing another person’s ballot unless the person provid­ing assist­ance falls into at least one of six categor­ies of exemp­tion, prohibit an exemp­ted person from collect­ing more than six ballots in an elec­tion (i.e., the Ballot Inter­fer­ence Preven­tion Act”), and reject any ballots received after 8 p.m. on Elec­tion Day, irre­spect­ive of the post­mark. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Art. II of the Montana Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws unduly burden the right to suffrage, infringe on the right of free speech and expres­sion, deny voters due process, and are uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally vague.

Status: Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted, then stayed by the Montana Supreme Court May 27,  2020; Motion to inter­vene gran­ted June 18, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by state legis­lat­ors denied August 11, 2020; Injunc­tion gran­ted for the Novem­ber 3, 2020 general elec­tion Septem­ber 25, 2020, requir­ing accept­ance of all other­wise-valid absentee ballots received 7 days after elec­tion day, extend­ing the dead­line to cure ballot defects until 9 days after elec­tion day, and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted against enforce­ment of the Ballot Inter­fer­ence Preven­tion Act; On Septem­ber 29, 2020, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s injunc­tion against enforce­ment of the Ballot Inter­fer­ence Preven­tion Act, while vacat­ing the ballot receipt dead­line injunc­tion.


Lamm v. Bullock, No. 6:20-cv-67 (D. Mont.)

Consol­id­ated with Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Bullock, No. 6:20-cv-66 (D. Mont.); No. 20–35847 (9th Cir.); No. 20A61 (Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and the Ravalli County Repub­lican Cent­ral Commit­tee sued the Montana governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the governor’s August 6, 2020 direct­ive, which allows counties the option of conduct­ing the upcom­ing Novem­ber general elec­tion primar­ily by mail. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments and Article 1, Section 4 of U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged direct­ive usurps voters’ “right to have, and vote in, a federal elec­tion where the ‘man­ner’ of elec­tion is ‘pre­scribed by the Legis­lature,’” directly disen­fran­chises voters because “reques­ted ballots [will] never arrive or arrive too late and filled-out ballots [will] get lost or [will be] delayed in the return process,” and deprives voters of equal protec­tion by “favor­ing” voters in one county “to the disad­vant­age of voters in other counties” by giving voters in “mail ballot” counties “greater voting power than other-county voters.”

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 9, 2020; Consol­id­ated with Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., v. Bullock, above; Order deny­ing all requests by plaintiffs and enter­ing judg­ment in defend­ants’ favor issued Septem­ber 30, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Emer­gency motion for injunct­ive relief pending appeal denied by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Octo­ber 6, 2020; Emer­gency applic­a­tion for writ of injunc­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 8, 2020


West­ern Native Voice v. Stapleton, No. DV-2020–377 (Mont. Dist. Ct., Yellow­stone Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail; Voter Assist­ance Ban (Covid-19)

West­ern Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck, and others sued Montana’s secret­ary of state, attor­ney general, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that prohib­its anyone from collect­ing someone else’s ballot unless the person provid­ing assist­ance falls into at least one of six categor­ies of exemp­tion, and further prohib­its an exemp­ted person from collect­ing more than six ballots in an elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of §§ 6, 7, 13, and 17 of Art. II of the Montana Consti­tu­tion, in that the law infringes upon the funda­mental right to vote (partic­u­larly in the case of Native Amer­ic­ans), the right of free speech, the right of asso­ci­ation, and the right to due process. 

Status: Motion for TRO gran­ted; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted July 7, 2020; Perman­ent injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 25, 2020; Appeal volun­tar­ily dismissed Octo­ber 15, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevada

Arring­ton v. Gloria, No. A-20–825149-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Contest (Covid-19)

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 19, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted Decem­ber 22, 2020


Becker v. Canniz­zaro, No. A-20–825067-P (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Contest, Illegal Voting, Ballot Count­ing (Covid-19)

A state senat­orial candid­ate sued her victori­ous oppon­ent and anonym­ous indi­vidu­als and corpor­a­tions, chal­len­ging the alleged count­ing of “illegal or improper votes” and the fail­ure to count “legal and proper votes” in the Clark County Commis­sion District C elec­tion. The state­ment of contest alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­utes and seeks a revote of plaintiff’s race.

Status: State­ment of contest filed Novem­ber 18, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 20, 2020


Becker v. Gloria, No. A-20–824878-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion, Double Voting, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

A state senat­orial candid­ate sued the Clark County regis­trar of voters, Clark County, and anonym­ous indi­vidu­als and corpor­a­tions, chal­len­ging Clark County’s alleged “fail­ure to follow multiple required stat­utory proced­ures for conduct­ing an elec­tion,” and seek­ing an order for a new elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­utes, in that elec­tion offi­cials failed to verify signa­tures on absentee ballots, mailed over 90,000 ballots to voters “that should have been on the inact­ive voter list,” allowed voters to cast both absentee and in-person ballots, and other irreg­u­lar­it­ies.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 16, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and Nevada State Demo­cratic Party Novem­ber 18, 2020; Case dismissed Decem­ber 2, 2020


Corona v. Cegavske, No. 20-OC-64–1B (Dist. Ct., Carson City, Nevada)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Voter Assist­ance Ban, Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure; In-Person Polling Place Voting Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, the Nevada State Demo­cratic Party, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee Services Corpor­a­tion, and others sued the Nevada secret­ary of state, the Regis­trar of Voters for Clark County, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that crim­in­ally prohibit third parties from assist­ing voters with return­ing voted absentee and mail ballots, allow the arbit­rary rejec­tion of mail ballots and lack suffi­cient safe­guards, and fail to provide voters suffi­cient oppor­tun­ity to cure ballot defects. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of several provi­sions of the Nevada Consti­tu­tion and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws unduly burden the right to vote, deny voters the right of free speech by prohib­it­ing core polit­ical expres­sion, deprive voters of the right to assembly, and disen­fran­chise voters who require assist­ance return­ing their ballots, includ­ing elderly voters, and partic­u­larly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Status: Volun­tar­ily dismissed August 4, 2020


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., v. Cegavske, No. 2:20-cv-1445 (D. Nev.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Ballot Receipt Dead­line, In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Trump campaign, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and the Nevada Repub­lican Party sued the Nevada secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging newly enacted elec­tion laws that require accept­ance of mailed ballots without a post­mark if they are received by 5:00 p.m. on the 3rd day after elec­tion day, determ­ine the number of in-person polling places for early and day-of-elec­tion voting in a county based on the county’s popu­la­tion, and fail to prescribe uniform stand­ards for the processing and count­ing of ballots. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of 3 U.S.C § 1, 2 U.S.C. §§1 and 7, as well as the Elec­tions, Elect­ors, and Suprem­acy Clauses of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws permit the accept­ance of ballots that might have been mailed after elec­tion day, inhibit rural voters’ abil­ity to vote in person and author­ize dispar­ate treat­ment of rural voters, fail to provide “minimal proced­ural safe­guards to protect against unequal eval­u­ation of mail ballots” and “specific rules to ensure uniform treat­ment,” and “dilute Nevadans’ honest votes.”    

Status: Amended complaint filed August 20, 2020; Motion to inter­vene by the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee, Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, and the Nevada State Demo­cratic Party gran­ted August 21, 2020; Motions to dismiss amended complaint gran­ted Septem­ber 21, 2020


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Gloria, No. A-20–824153-C (Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Trump Campaign and the Nevada Repub­lican Party sued the Clark County regis­trar of voters, seek­ing an order to keep the county’s polling places open for an addi­tional hour after some polling places opened late due to tech­nical diffi­culties.

Status: Complaint filed and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Novem­ber 3, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Novem­ber 9, 2020


Elec­tion Integ­rity Project of Nevada v. State of Nevada, A-20–820510-C (Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty., Nevada); No. 81847 (Sup. Ct. Nev.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Signa­ture Match­ing, Ballot Veri­fic­a­tion Proced­ures, Voter Assist­ance, Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Timely Post­mark Presump­tion, Canvassing Period, In-Person Polling Place & Vote Center Avail­ab­il­ity, Same-Day Voter Regis­tra­tion, Voter List Purges, Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion Chal­lenge (Covid-19)

The Elec­tion Integ­rity Project of Nevada and an indi­vidual voter and former state legis­lator sued the State of Nevada and its secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging newly enacted legis­la­tion (“AB4”), which plaintiffs allege ((2) requires that absentee ballots be mailed to all active registered voters, require accept­ance of other­wise valid mailed ballots lack­ing a post­mark if they are received by 5:00 p.m. on the 3rd day after elec­tion day; (3) determ­ines the number of in-person polling places for early and day-of-elec­tion voting based on a county’s popu­la­tion; (4) allows count­ing of mailed ballots to commence 15 days before elec­tion day; (5) fails to prescribe strict stand­ards for the processing and count­ing of mail ballots, includ­ing signa­ture match­ing; and (6) allows voters with disab­il­it­ies to avail them­selves of assist­ance in complet­ing and deliv­er­ing their ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­utes and the Nevada Consti­tu­tion, in that AB4 contains unfun­ded mandates and deprives voters of equal protec­tion.

Two weeks after the elec­tion, plaintiffs filed an emer­gency motion seek­ing to enjoin the defend­ants from certi­fy­ing the results of Nevada’s general elec­tion, to enjoin its elect­ors from cast­ing their votes for pres­id­ent on Decem­ber 12, 2020, “and prevent­ing any Nevada candid­ate from taking office because the elec­tion was carried out pursu­ant to the require­ments of AB4, which is an uncon­sti­tu­tional law, as it deprives all legit­im­ate voters of Nevada of their right of equal protec­tion.”

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 1, 2020; Applic­a­tion for emer­gency prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and request for exped­ited hear­ing filed Septem­ber 3, 2020; Applic­a­tion for emer­gency tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Septem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to inter­vene as defend­ants by Insti­tute for a Progress­ive Nevada and Progress­ive Lead­er­ship Alli­ance of Nevada gran­ted; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 29, 2020; Order deny­ing peti­tion for writ of manda­mus issued by Nevada Supreme Court Octo­ber 7, 2020; Applic­a­tion for emer­gency perman­ent injunc­tion denied Novem­ber 20, 2020; Motions to dismiss gran­ted Decem­ber 22, 2020


Kramer v. Cegavske, No. 20 OC 00178 1B (Nevada Dist. Ct., Carson City)

Re: Voter List Purges

Three indi­vidual voters sued the Nevada secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s alleged fail­ure to ensure that the statewide voter regis­tra­tion list includes only eligible voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Nevada Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s alleged fail­ure to keep noncit­izens off of the voter rolls deprives plaintiffs of the guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion, due process, and the right to vote, and seeks a perman­ent injunc­tion enjoin­ing the secret­ary of state “from main­tain­ing a statewide list of registered voters that includes noncit­izens.”  

Status: Complaint filed Decem­ber 22, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Febru­ary 18, 2021


Kraus v. Cegavske, No. 20 OC 00142 1B (Nevada Dist. Ct. Carson City), No. 82018 (Nevada Sup. Ct.)

Re: Poll Watch­ers; Ballot Count­ing (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., and the Nevada Repub­lican Party sued the Nevada secret­ary of state and the Regis­trar of Voters for Clark County, chal­len­ging the regis­trar’s fail­ure to submit a “writ­ten plan for the accom­mod­a­tion of members of the general public who observe the deliv­ery, count­ing, hand­ling and processing of ballots at a polling place, receiv­ing center or cent­ral count­ing place” by April 15, 2020, the absence of a stat­utory mech­an­ism to chal­lenge absentee voters paral­lel to the exist­ing stat­utory mech­an­ism for chal­len­ging in-person voters, and the regis­trar’s use of a machine to authen­tic­ate voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­utory law and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the regis­trar’s alleged refusal to comply with Nevada law prohib­its poll watch­ers from “observing the total­ity of the [ballot processing and count­ing] process,” that the lack of a chal­lenge stat­ute applic­able to absentee ballots “debase[s] or dilute[s] the right to vote of those voters who choose to vote in person,” thus depriving them of equal protec­tion, and that the use of a machine to verify signa­tures on absentee ballots arbit­rar­ily makes it harder for Clark County elec­tion offi­cials to “catch improper or fraud­u­lent mail in ballots as opposed to the rest of Nevada.”

Status: Complaint filed and request for tempor­ary restrain­ing order denied Octo­ber 23, 2020; Order deny­ing writ of manda­mus issued Octo­ber 29, 2020; Notice of appeal and emer­gency motion to stay and exped­ite appeal gran­ted in part and denied in part by Nevada Supreme Court Novem­ber 3, 2020, grant­ing the request to exped­ite while deny­ing the request for injunct­ive relief; Appeal with­drawn and case remanded Novem­ber 10, 2020


Law v. Whit­mer, No. 20 OC 00163 1B (Dist. Ct., Carson City, Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Contest, Elec­tion Irreg­u­lar­it­ies, Elec­tronic Voting Machine Accur­acy, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

Six candid­ates for pres­id­en­tial elect­ors on behalf of Donald J. Trump sued six candid­ates for pres­id­en­tial elect­ors on behalf of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., contest­ing the results of the elec­tion based on alleg­a­tions of “substan­tial irreg­u­lar­it­ies, impro­pri­et­ies, and fraud” in Nevada’s 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion and request­ing that Trump be declared the winner of the elec­tion. The state­ment of contest alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­utes, in that the use of signa­ture compar­ison and elec­tronic voting machines produced unre­li­able results, that 500 absentee ballots were received from deceased persons, that voters were improp­erly disen­fran­chised by arbit­rary provi­sional ballot veri­fic­a­tion proced­ures, poll watch­ers were not permit­ted mean­ing­ful access, and that the Nevada Native Vote Project conduc­ted illegal vote drives.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 17, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed Novem­ber 23, 2020; Motions to compel produc­tion of thumb drives and signa­tures denied Decem­ber 2, 2020; Order dismiss­ing case with preju­dice and requir­ing plaintiffs to pay defend­ants’ costs issued Decem­ber 4, 2020; Notice of appeal and emer­gency motion to exped­ite appeal filed by plaintiffs and motion for summary affirm­ance filed by defend­ants Decem­ber 7, 2020; Affirmed by Nevada Supreme Court Decem­ber 8, 2020


Marchant v. Gloria, No. A-20–824884-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion, Double Voting, Illegal Voting (Covid-19)

A state congres­sional candid­ate sued the Clark County regis­trar of voters, Clark County, and anonym­ous indi­vidu­als and corpor­a­tions, chal­len­ging Clark County’s alleged “fail­ure to follow multiple required stat­utory proced­ures for conduct­ing an elec­tion,” and seek­ing an order for a new elec­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­utes, in that elec­tion offi­cials failed to verify signa­tures on absentee ballots, mailed over 90,000 ballots to voters “that should have been on the inact­ive voter list,” allowed voters to cast both absentee and in-person ballots, and other irreg­u­lar­it­ies.

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 16, 2020; Order deny­ing reques­ted relief issued Novem­ber 20, 2020


Miller v. Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers, No. A-20–824971-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

A narrowly prevail­ing candid­ate for Clark County Commis­sion sued the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers and ten anonym­ous indi­vidu­als, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ refusal to certify the results of the elec­tion and their decision to order a new elec­tion to take place. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­ute and the Nevada Consti­tu­tion, in that the Board of Commis­sion­ers is stat­utor­ily mandated to canvass and instruct the Clark County regis­trar to certify the results of the elec­tion, and that it lacks the author­ity to order a new elec­tion. 

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 17, 2020; Complaint in inter­ven­tion filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Order deny­ing inter­ven­ors’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Decem­ber 4, 2020; Inter­ven­or’s motion for writ of manda­mus requir­ing the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers to order a new elec­tion denied Decem­ber 24, 2020


Miller v. Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers, No. A-20–824971-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Elec­tion Certi­fic­a­tion (Covid-19)

A narrowly prevail­ing candid­ate for Clark County Commis­sion sued the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers and ten anonym­ous indi­vidu­als, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ refusal to certify the results of the elec­tion and their decision to order a new elec­tion to take place. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­ute and the Nevada Consti­tu­tion, in that the Board of Commis­sion­ers is stat­utor­ily mandated to canvass and instruct the Clark County regis­trar to certify the results of the elec­tion, and that it lacks the author­ity to order a new elec­tion. 

Status: Complaint filed Novem­ber 17, 2020; Complaint in inter­ven­tion filed Novem­ber 24, 2020; Order deny­ing inter­ven­ors’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion issued Decem­ber 4, 2020; Inter­ven­or’s motion for writ of manda­mus requir­ing the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers to order a new elec­tion denied Decem­ber 24, 2020


Nevada Repub­lican Cent­ral Commit­tee v. Clark County, No. A-20–823821-W (Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Count­ing Board Inform­a­tion Request (Covid-19)

The Nevada Repub­lican Party, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., sued Clark County, Nevada, and its regis­trar of voters, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide reques­ted records, includ­ing images of the signa­ture of every registered voter in the county. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state stat­utes provid­ing that, unless a record is confid­en­tial, “all public books and public records of a govern­mental entity must be open at all times during office hours to inspec­tion by any person,” and placing on the burden of estab­lish­ing confid­en­ti­al­ity on the govern­mental entity.

Status: Peti­tion gran­ted in part Novem­ber 2, 2020, only as to certain records that were in exist­ence at the time the peti­tion was filed on Octo­ber 23, 2020


Paher v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Voter Assist­ance, In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and Nevada Right to Life sued the Nevada secret­ary of state and the regis­trars of voters for Washoe and Clark Counties, chal­len­ging the state’s plan to conduct the June primary as an “all-mail” elec­tion and to auto­mat­ic­ally send absentee ballots to all active registered voters. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments and Art. I, § 4 of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the state’s plan infringes upon the funda­mental right to vote via direct disen­fran­chise­ment and vote-dilu­tion disen­fran­chise­ment, viol­ates the right of equal protec­tion, and viol­ates voters’ right to vote in a federal elec­tion in the manner prescribed by the legis­lature.

Status: Motion to inter­vene gran­ted; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied April 30, 2020; Complaint dismissed and motions to dismiss denied as moot July 31, 2020


Rodi­mer v. Gloria, No. A-20–825130-W (Dist. Ct., Clark Cnty., Nevada)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion; Voter List Inac­tiv­a­tion; Elec­tion Inval­id­a­tion, Elec­tronic Signa­ture Match­ing, Elec­tion Admin­is­tra­tion, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

A state congres­sional candid­ate sued the Clark County regis­trar of voters and the Clark County Board of Commis­sion­ers, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to move voters whose absentee ballot applic­a­tions had been returned as undeliv­er­able in the primary elec­tion to “inact­ive” status, the use and manner of use of an elec­tronic machine to compare signa­tures on ballot envel­opes and the alleged count­ing of illegal votes. The peti­tion for a writ of manda­mus alleges viol­a­tions of Nevada stat­ute and seeks a new elec­tion in Clark County and a declar­a­tion that the use of the Agilis mail ballot processing machine for signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion viol­ates Nevada law.

Status: Peti­tion filed Novem­ber 19, 2020; Case dismissed Novem­ber 25, 2020


Stokke v. Cegavske, No. 2:20-cv-2046 (D. Nev.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion Proced­ures; Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

An indi­vidual voter, a “creden­tialed member of the media,” and two polit­ical candid­ates sued the Nevada secret­ary of state and Clark County regis­trar of voters, chal­len­ging Clark County’s absentee ballot processing proced­ures, which include the use of a machine to perform elec­tronic signa­ture compar­ison, and the alleged lack of access being afforded to poll watch­ers and members of the media. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of state law and the Elec­tions Clause of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the use of the signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion machine “usurp[s] the Nevada Legis­lature’s consti­tu­tional author­ity to set the manner of elec­tions,” and places voters in Clark County “at an unequal risk of having their votes diluted by votes with mismatched signa­tures,” and that defend­ants are not provid­ing poll watcher access as required by law.

Status: Complaint and emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and emer­gency motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and tempor­ary restrain­ing order filed Novem­ber 5, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and the Nevada State Demo­cratic Party gran­ted and motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order and prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Novem­ber 6, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Hamp­shire

Amer­ican Feder­a­tion of Teach­ers v. Gard­ner, No. 216–2020-CV-570 (N.H. Super. Ct. Hills­bor­ough Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Applic­a­tion Process, Witness & ID Require­ments, Pre-Paid Post­age, Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Voter Assist­ance, Voter Regis­tra­tion, Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Amer­ican Feder­a­tion of Teach­ers sued the New Hamp­shire secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, chal­len­ging the state’s absentee applic­a­tion process and state laws that require that voters provide proof of iden­tity and domi­cile with absentee ballot applic­a­tions, require that such applic­a­tions be signed by a witness, fail to provide pre-paid post­age for return­ing voted absentee ballots, reject absentee ballots received after 5:00 p.m. on Elec­tion Day, prohibit third parties from assist­ing voters by collect­ing and deliv­er­ing sealed absentee ballots, impose cumber­some voter regis­tra­tion require­ments, restrict the avail­ab­il­ity of ballot drop boxes and require that all such boxes be “staffed by a prop­erly trained elec­tion offi­cial through­out the course of [their] use.” The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the New Hamp­shire Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged process and laws, vari­ously, unduly burden the right to vote, impose a prohib­ited poll tax, deny voters proced­ural due process, viol­ate voters’ free speech and asso­ci­ational rights, and treat simil­arly situ­ated citizens in a dispar­ate manner, thus deny­ing equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion to inter­vene by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent and the Repub­lican National Commit­tee gran­ted Septem­ber 4, 2020; Amended complaint filed August 31, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part, and defend­ants’ motion for a stay gran­ted in part and denied in part Octo­ber 2, 2020, requir­ing the secret­ary of state to comply with exist­ing law “by devel­op­ing a method to forward an absentee voter regis­tra­tion form directly” to any applic­ant who is domi­ciled in city or town and qual­i­fied to vote therein except for the fact that their name does not appear on the check­list to be used at the elec­tion, and who is tempor­ar­ily absent there­from or unable to “attend the meet­ing of the super­visors of the check­list” due to disab­il­ity, and deny­ing all other reques­ted injunct­ive relief; Defend­ants’ motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion filed denied Novem­ber 2, 2020; Plaintiffs’ motion for inter­locutory appeal denied Decem­ber 10, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 15, 2021


Frye v. Gard­ner, No. 1:20-cv-751 (D.N.H)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Three registered voters, the National Feder­a­tion of the Blind of New Hamp­shire, and Gran­ite State Inde­pend­ent Living sued the New Hamp­shire secret­ary of state and Depart­ment of State, chal­len­ging the State’s fail­ure to make regis­ter­ing to vote and request­ing and cast­ing absentee ballots access­ible to persons who have sight and/or print disab­il­it­ies. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act and Section 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act, in that the absentee voting program discrim­in­ates against persons with disab­il­it­ies and fails to offer reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions to persons with disab­il­it­ies.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion with­drawn pursu­ant to settle­ment provid­ing that defend­ants will take certain steps to make New Hamp­shire’s absentee voting program access­ible to persons who are blind or have other print disab­il­it­ies August 30, 2020; Case will remain open for enforce­ment purposes through­out 2020 elec­tion cycle; Motion to dismiss case as moot filed Septem­ber 22, 2020; Amended complaint filed Octo­ber 6, 2020; Motion to dismiss denied Decem­ber 9, 2020; Second amended complaint filed Febru­ary 11, 2021


League of Women Voters of New Hamp­shire v. Gard­ner, No. 226–2017-CV-433 (N.H. Sup. Ct., Hills­bor­ough Cnty,); Nos. 2019–242, 2020–252 (N.H. S. Ct.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion

The League of Women Voters of New Hamp­shire and three indi­vidual voters sued the New Hamp­shire secret­ary of state and attor­ney general, chal­len­ging laws that require all people seek­ing to register to vote to present docu­ment­ary evid­ence to prove that they intend to remain domi­ciled in New Hamp­shire and impose crim­inal penal­ties for, among other things, regis­ter­ing on elec­tion day and fail­ing to subsequently produce the required proof of domi­cile by a specified dead­line. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Part 1, Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the New Hamp­shire Consti­tu­tion and of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws deny New Hamp­shire resid­ents the right to parti­cip­ate in free and equal elec­tions, unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, conflict with the domi­cile qual­i­fic­a­tions set forth in the consti­tu­tion, deny equal protec­tion, are void for vague­ness, deny equal protec­tion, and deny or abridge the right to vote on account of age.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted, then stayed on appeal; Final order strik­ing down the chal­lenged provi­sion as uncon­sti­tu­tional issued April 8, 2020; Notice of appeal filed by defend­ants May 8, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

Conforti v. Hanlon, No. 3:20-cv-8267 (D.N.J.)

Re: Candid­ate Order on Ballot

A candid­ate for the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives sued the county clerks of Monmouth, Ocean, and Mercer counties, chal­len­ging the order in which candid­ates are listed on ballots used in primary elec­tions. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, Articles I and II of the New Jersey Consti­tu­tion, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, in that the pref­er­en­tial place­ment of incum­bents and “party elites” unduly burdens plaintiff’s funda­mental right to vote and results in vote dilu­tion, deprives plaintiff of equal protec­tion, burdens plaintiff’s asso­ci­ational rights, and inter­feres with plaintiff’s exer­cise of substant­ive rights protec­ted by the state and federal consti­tu­tions.

Status: Complaint filed July 6, 2020; Amended complaint filed Janu­ary 26, 2021; New Jersey attor­ney general and Gloucester County clerk permit­ted to inter­vene March 29 and March 30, 2021, respect­ively; Motions to dismiss and for judg­ment on the plead­ings filed March 29, 2021


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent v. Murphy, No. 3:20-cv-10753 (D.N.J.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion, Receipt Dead­line, In-Person Voting by Provi­sional Ballot (Covid-19)

Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and the New Jersey Repub­lican State Commit­tee sued the New Jersey governor and secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging Exec­ut­ive Order 177 and the legis­lat­ively codi­fied version there­of—A4475—which provides that vote-by-mail ballots shall be sent to all active registered voters for the Novem­ber 2020 general elec­tion, extends the receipt dead­line to Novem­ber 10 for vote-by-mail ballots that are post­marked on or before elec­tion day, treats ballots lack­ing a post­mark as having been timely cast if received within 48 hours of the clos­ing of the polls, and requires voters who appear in person to vote without a voted mail-in ballot to cast a provi­sional ballot, and allows canvassing of mail-in ballots ten days before elec­tion day. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of federal stat­utes and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that A4475 permits vote to be coun­ted before Elec­tion Day, permits vote to be cast after Elec­tion Day, and deprives voters of the right to vote and of equal protec­tion because the expan­sion of the mail voting system “facil­it­ates fraud and other ille­git­im­ate voting prac­tices,” and will “force[ ]” county offi­cials to adopt “arbit­rary and vary­ing proced­ures” to process provi­sional ballots.

Status: Complaint filed August 18, 2020; Atlantic County Demo­cratic Commit­tee’s motion to inter­vene denied and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee’s motion to inter­vene gran­ted Septem­ber 1, 2020; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to show cause why the amended complaint should not be dismissed filed Octo­ber 2, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 6, 2020; Order dismiss­ing case issued Octo­ber 22, 2020


Gusciora v. McGreevey, No. L-2691–04 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Mercer Cnty.)

Re: Online Voting

New Jersey Assembly­man Reed Guscioria, The Coali­tion for Peace Action, and others sued the New Jersey governor and secret­ary of state, seek­ing to enforce a 2010 order which prohib­its the use of inter­net voting in New Jersey, in light of public and private repres­ent­a­tions made by the offices of the New Jersey secret­ary of state and attor­ney general that inter­net-based voting would be used in the May 2020 primary. The letter brief in support of the motion asserts that the court unequi­voc­ally possesses the author­ity to enforce its own order, and alleges state consti­tu­tional claims, includ­ing viol­a­tions of the New Jersey Consti­tu­tion’s guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion, in that the use of inter­net voting would be limited to disabled persons only, thus endan­ger­ing their right to vote securely and consti­tut­ing unequal treat­ment. The state retrac­ted its decision to use online voting on May 18, 2020.

Status: Settled June 19, 2020


League of Women Voters of New Jersey v. Way, No. 3:20-cv-5990 (D.N.J.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

The LWV of New Jersey, the NAACP New Jersey Confer­ence, and three indi­vidu­als sued the New Jersey secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging a state law and prac­tice of reject­ing absentee and provi­sional ballots with perceived signa­ture mismatches without first provid­ing voters notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure any such issues. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law and prac­tice deny the funda­mental right to vote, the right of due process, and the right to equal protec­tion.

Status: Stip­u­la­tion reached June 16, 2020, as to July 7 primary only; Settled Janu­ary 13, 2021; Stip­u­la­tion of dismissal filed Janu­ary 13, 2021


League of Women Voters of New Jersey v. Way, No. MER-L-001831–20 (Super. Ct. N.J., Mercer Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tronic Trans­mis­sion of Ballot (Covid-19)

The League of Women Voters of New Jersey and the Amer­ican Civil Liber­ties Union of New Jersey sued the New Jersey secret­ary of state and director of the Divi­sion of Elec­tions, seek­ing an injunc­tion requir­ing defend­ants to elec­tron­ic­ally trans­mit absentee ballots to any  New Jersey­ans displaced due to the pandemic, who have not received their absentee ballot in the mail by Octo­ber 30. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the New Jersey Consti­tu­tion, in that, by fail­ing to elec­tron­ic­ally trans­mit absentee ballots, defend­ants are depriving displaced New Jersey­ans, of their funda­mental right to vote and treat­ing displaced New Jersey­ans differ­ently than those who were able to remain at their perman­ent mail­ing addresses during the pandemic.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 14, 2020; Dismissed Octo­ber 23, 2020


Monmouth County Repub­lican Party v. Way, No. MON-L-003019–20 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth Cnty.); No. 3:20-cv-13914 (D.N.J.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Timely Post­mark Presump­tion, Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Monmouth County Repub­lican Party sued the New Jersey secret­ary of state and the Monmouth County Board of Elec­tions, chal­len­ging enforce­ment of Exec­ut­ive Order 177, which which provides that vote-by-mail ballots shall be sent to all active registered voters for the Novem­ber 2020 general elec­tion, extends the receipt dead­line to Novem­ber 10 for vote-by-mail ballots that are post­marked on or before elec­tion day, treats ballots lack­ing a post­mark as having been timely cast if received within 48 hours of the clos­ing of the polls, requires voters who appear in person to vote without a voted mail-in ballot to cast a provi­sional ballot, and requires each county board of elec­tions to estab­lish at least 10 ballot drop boxes. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of EO177/Public Law 2020, c. 72, in that the secret­ary has failed to issue rules and regu­la­tions, guidelines, and “appro­pri­ate stand­ards” to govern the conduct of the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion, and further alleges that those laws viol­ate federal stat­utes and the Elec­tions and Elect­ors Clauses of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the ballot receipt dead­line changes the date of the pres­id­en­tial and congres­sional elec­tion, and the use of ballot drop boxes promotes fraud.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 24, 2020; Order trans­fer­ring case to federal court issued Septem­ber 25, 2020; Case dismissed pursu­ant to stip­u­la­tion Octo­ber 23, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Mexico

In re Bernan­lillo County Peti­tion for Secured Container, No. D-202-CV-2020–05052 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Drop­box Approval (Covid-19)

Status: Peti­tion denied


Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. v. Toulouse Oliver, 1:20-cv-1289 (D.N.M.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Applic­a­tion Distri­bu­tion, Signa­ture Veri­fic­a­tion, Witness Require­ment, Drop Box Avail­ab­il­ity, Fraud Alleg­a­tions (Covid-19)

Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. sued the New Mexico secret­ary of state, its elect­ors, and the State Canvassing Board, chal­len­ging the affirm­at­ive mail­ing of absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all active, registered voters, the use of ballot drop boxes, the elim­in­a­tion of the absentee ballot witness require­ment, and the state’s signa­ture match­ing proced­ures, all of which plaintiffs allege promoted fraud. The motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion alleges viol­a­tions of the Elect­ors Clause of the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary “made signi­fic­ant changes to the legis­lat­ively defined elec­tion laws,” and seeks to vacate the certi­fic­a­tion of the state’s pres­id­en­tial elec­tion results and to “remand” certi­fic­a­tion author­ity to the legis­lature.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Decem­ber 14, 2020; Exped­ited brief­ing sched­ule ordered Decem­ber 15, 2020; Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 22, 2020; Order vacat­ing exped­ited brief­ing sched­ule issued Decem­ber 23, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee gran­ted Janu­ary 8, 2021; Motion to dismiss filed by Demo­cratic National Commit­tee Janu­ary 8, 2021; Notice of volun­tary dismissal and motion to dismiss without preju­dice filed by plaintiff Janu­ary 11, 2021; Dismissed Febru­ary 2, 2021


New Mexico v. Oliver, No. S-1-SC-38228 (N.M. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Distri­bu­tion; In-Person Polling Place Clos­ures (Covid-19)

Twenty-seven of New Mexico’s 33 county clerks sued the New Mexico secret­ary of state, seek­ing a writ direct­ing defend­ant to conduct the April primary elec­tion using mail-in ballots only and do away with in-person polling places entirely.

Status: Peti­tion filed March 30, 2020; Order deny­ing peti­tion in part, while direct­ing the secret­ary to mail absentee ballot applic­a­tions to all registered voters issued April 16, 2020; Motion for rehear­ing denied May 7, 2020


Repub­lican Party of New Mexico v. Oliver, No. S-1-SC-38537 (N.M. Sup. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Poll Watcher Access (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican Party of New Mexico, the minor­ity lead­ers of the New Mexico House of Repres­ent­at­ives and New Mexico Senate, and others sued the New Mexico secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s newly issued guid­ance on the processing of absentee ballots, which provides that poll watch­ers “are not allowed to monitor the initial” absentee ballot veri­fic­a­tion process performed by the county clerk, while also provid­ing that poll watch­ers are allowed to chal­lenge absentee ballots if the last four digits of the voter’s social secur­ity number are miss­ing. The peti­tion seeks clari­fic­a­tion of the guid­ance prior to the elec­tion “rather than wait­ing until the only avail­able remedy is the irre­voc­able rejec­tion of ballots.”

Status: Emer­gency peti­tion for extraordin­ary writ filed Octo­ber 24, 2020; Peti­tion denied Octo­ber 27, 2020


Repub­lican Party of New Mexico v. Oliver, No. D-101-CV-202002344 (N.M. Dist. Ct., 1st Dist.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Drop­box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Repub­lican Party of New Mexico sued the New Mexico secret­ary of state and the county clerks of Guada­lupe and Taos counties, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s issu­ance of guid­ance allow­ing drop boxes that are not held to the same secur­ity require­ments as the “secured contain­ers” provided for by stat­ute, includ­ing video monit­or­ing. The complaint seeks a declar­a­tion that the same secur­ity require­ments must apply to drop boxes as well as an injunc­tion prohib­it­ing defend­ant county clerks from allow­ing voters to deposit voted absentee ballots in unat­ten­ded drop boxes.  

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 26, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York

Andrew Good­man Found­a­tion v. Dutchess County Board of Elec­tionsNo. 2020–527337 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Dutchess Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Polling Place Avail­ab­il­ity, Safety & Access­ib­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Andrew Good­man Found­a­tion, Elec­tion@Bard, and three indi­vidual voters and college students sued the Dutchess County Board of Elec­tions and its commis­sion­ers, chal­len­ging the use of a church as a polling place for the 5th Legis­lat­ive District in Dutchess County. The veri­fied peti­tion alleges viol­a­tions of the New York State Consti­tu­tion and New York elec­tion laws, in that the exist­ing polling place is inac­cess­ible to persons with disab­il­it­ies, is not access­ible from public trans­port­a­tion, that its use burdens Peti­tion­ers with “oner­ous require­ments, thus construct­ively deny­ing them the right to vote,” and that the site has not been subjec­ted to an access survey to verify substan­tial compli­ance with access­ib­il­ity stand­ards.

Status: Peti­tion filed Septem­ber 4, 2020; Peti­tion denied Octo­ber 14, 2020; Decision recon­sidered and peti­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 23, 2020


Galla­gher v. N.Y. State Board of Elec­tionsNo. 1:20-cv-5504 (S.D.N.Y.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Pre-Paid Post­age, Post­mark Require­ment, Postal Service Deliv­ery (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters and polit­ical candid­ates, on behalf of a class, sued the New York State Board of Elec­tions, commis­sion­ers and co-chairs of the NYS BOE, co-exec­ut­ive direct­ors of the BOE, and the governor, chal­len­ging a state law requir­ing that ballots be post­marked, and an exec­ut­ive order, provid­ing that ballot post­age be pre-paid, in connec­tion with the U.S. Postal Service’s prac­tice of not stamp­ing mail with pre-paid post­age, result­ing in thou­sands of ballots being delivered without a post­mark. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 2 of the New York State Consti­tu­tion and the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the vote-by-mail regime severely and unduly burdens the right to vote and denies the rights of due process and equal protec­tion to absentee voters.

Status: Motions for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted August 3, 2020; Emer­gency motion to compel denied August 7, 2020; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Motion to expand prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 23, 2020


Harley v. Kosin­ski, No. 1:20-cv-4664 (E.D.N.Y.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tronic Ballot Trans­mis­sion (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters who reside abroad, on behalf of a class, sued elec­tion offi­cials in seven states, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to accept and count ballots returned via elec­tronic means. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ inac­tion, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, unduly burdens the right to vote and denies equal protec­tion to voters who reside outside of the United States.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 30, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 13, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Octo­ber 13, 2020


Hernan­dez v. N.Y. State Board of Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-4003 (S.D.N.Y.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, Disab­il­ity Rights New York, the National Feder­a­tion of the Blind of New York, and others sued the New York State Board of Elec­tions, its chair and commis­sioner, and others, chal­len­ging the state’s absentee voting program, which requires voters to fill out and sign a paper ballot with a pen or marker and return by mail, provid­ing no altern­at­ives to accom­mod­ate voters with print disab­il­it­ies who vote from home. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, in that the program denies indi­vidu­als with disab­il­it­ies an equal oppor­tun­ity to access the bene­fits of a service, program, or activ­ity provided by a public entity, and of § 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act of 1973, in that the program denies “a qual­i­fied handi­capped person the oppor­tun­ity accor­ded others to parti­cip­ate in program … receiv­ing Federal finan­cial assist­ance.”

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion with­drawn in connec­tion with settle­ment as to the June 23, 2020 elec­tions; Second motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied August 14, 2020, with an order that defend­ants must “submit a proposed injunc­tion consist­ent with Defend­ants’ writ­ten and oral repres­ent­a­tions regard­ing imple­ment­a­tion of an access­ible absentee voting system for the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion”; Settle­ment discus­sions ongo­ing 


Jones v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Postal Service Deliv­ery (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual polit­ical candid­ates and voters, on behalf of a class, sued the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), the Post­mas­ter General of the USPS, and the United States pres­id­ent, chal­len­ging USPS cutbacks, slow­downs, policy changes, and fail­ure to make aggress­ive efforts to deliver vote-by-mail ballots. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ actions and omis­sions unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, viol­ate the prin­ciple of “one person, one vote,” deny equal protec­tion to voters who are partic­u­larly suscept­ible to Covid-19 expos­ure, reside abroad, or other­wise rely on the deliv­ery of absentee ballots in order to vote.    

Status: Complaint filed August 17, 2020; Motion to exped­ite gran­ted August 20, 2020; Amended complaint filed Septem­ber 9, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part Septem­ber 21, 2020, provid­ing, among other things, that the USPS “shall, to the extent that excess capa­city permits, treat all Elec­tion Mail as First-Class Mail or Prior­ity Mail Express [and] shall pre-approve all over­time…­through Novem­ber 6, 2020.” Settled Septem­ber 25, 2020


League of Women Voters USA v. Kosin­ski, 1:20-cv-5238 (S.D.N.Y.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

The LWV of U.S.A., the LWV of New York, and an indi­vidual voter sued the commis­sion­ers and exec­ut­ive direct­ors of the New York State Board of Elec­tions in connec­tion with the State’s prac­tice of reject­ing absentee ballots without afford­ing voters notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure any perceived signa­ture mismatch issues or other defects. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged prac­tices deny voters’ right to due process, unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, and viol­ate the right to equal protec­tion.

Status: Stip­u­lated consent order filed Septem­ber 17, 2020, provid­ing for post-elec­tion day notice and cure proced­ures


National Coali­tion on Black Civic Parti­cip­a­tion v. Wohl, No. 1:20-cv-8668 (S.D.N.Y.)

Re: Voter Intim­id­a­tion, Robo-Calls (Covid-19)

The National Coali­tion on Black Civic Parti­cip­a­tion and indi­vidual voters sued Project 1599, a lobby­ing firm, and two indi­vidu­als, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ send­ing of robocalls for the alleged purpose of misin­form­ing and intim­id­at­ing would-be voters. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, in that defend­ants “intim­id­ate, threaten, coerce or attempt to intim­id­ate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempt­ing to vote,” and have conspired to deprive Black voters of equal protec­tion and dissuade eligible voters from cast­ing their vote.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 16, 2020; Motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Octo­ber 28, 2020; Motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion and stay denied Octo­ber 29, 2020; Notice of inter­locutory appeal filed Octo­ber 29, 2020; Motion to dismiss denied Janu­ary 12, 2021; Motion to stay discov­ery pending outcome of defend­ants’ crim­inal cases filed Janu­ary 19, 2021; Notice of inter­locutory appeal of Janu­ary 12 order filed Febru­ary 8, 2021; Letter motion seek­ing stay denied Febru­ary 22, 2021; Second notice of inter­locutory appeal of Febru­ary 22 order filed March 2, 2021; New York attor­ney general permit­ted to inter­vene May 19, 2021  


Tenney v. Oswego County Board of Elec­tions, No. EFC-2020–1376 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Contests & Count­ing (Covid-19)

A Repub­lican U.S. Congres­sional candid­ate sued her Demo­cratic and Liber­tarian oppon­ents and the relev­ant boards of elec­tion, seek­ing to preserve all voting mater­i­als pertain­ing to the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion for the 22nd District’s Congres­sional seat, to verify the tallies of votes tabu­lated on elec­tronic voting machine and the chal­lenges to absentee ballots, and ulti­mately to certify her as the victor of the elec­tion. The complaint seeks enforce­ment of the New York Consti­tu­tion and state elec­tion law.

Status: Order to show cause seek­ing to end the canvassing process and certify Peti­tioner candid­ate (Tenney) as the winner filed Decem­ber 2, 2020; Proposed order to show cause seek­ing, among other things, a review and account­ing of contested ballots and a manual audit filed by Respond­ent Demo­cratic candid­ate (Brind­isi) Decem­ber 2, 2020; Order deny­ing Tenney’s motion, while grant­ing in part and deny­ing in part Brind­isi’s motion, issued Decem­ber 8, 2020, direct­ing the respond­ent boards of elec­tion to “fulfill their stat­utory canvassing duties, imme­di­ately correct all of the canvassing errors, and where errors cannot be correc­ted, recan­vass those ballots”; Notice of appeal filed Janu­ary 8, 2021; Brind­isi conceded Febru­ary 8, 2021

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Caro­lina

Advance North Caro­lina v. North Caro­lina, No. 20CV-2965 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Assist­ance Ban (Covid-19)

Advance North Caro­lina sued the State of North Caro­lina, the State Board of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging a state law that “prohib­its the vast major­ity of indi­vidu­als and organ­iz­a­tions from assist­ing voters in complet­ing absentee ballot applic­a­tions and from submit­ting absentee ballot applic­a­tions on a voter’s behalf.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Art. I, § 10 (Free Elec­tions Clause), § 14 (free­dom of speech), § 12 (free­dom of assembly), and § 19 (equal protec­tion) of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the law uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burdens the right to vote and infringes on asso­ci­ational and speech rights.

Status: Complaint filed March 4, 2020; Case remains pending as of Janu­ary 22, 2021


Arnett v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, No. 20-CV-570 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Duplin Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Chal­lenge Process (Covid-19)

The chair­man of the Duplin County Repub­lican Party and the North Caro­lina Repub­lican Party sued the State Board of Elec­tions, its chair and others, seek­ing a judi­cial decree that would enable plaintiffs to lodge chal­lenges to approvals or disap­provals of absentee ballots, stop the count­ing process while chal­lenges are being adju­dic­ated, and permit appeals of the adju­dic­a­tion of chal­lenges. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion and the North Caro­lina Public Records Act, in that defend­ants have refused to permit plaintiffs to “inspect and exam­ine” absentee ballot envel­opes, which are public records, and that the exist­ing pre-elec­tion day absentee ballot processing proced­ures “create an uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally unequal status among voters who vote absentee by mail versus voters who vote in-person,” thus depriving voters of equal protec­tion.

Status: Complaint filed Octo­ber 5, 2020; Motions to inter­vene and to stay proceed­ings filed by North Caro­lina Demo­cratic Party Octo­ber 12, 2020; Order grant­ing motion to inter­vene and deny­ing reques­ted relief issued Octo­ber 15, 2020


Cham­bers v. North Caro­lina, No. 20 CVS 500124 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness Require­ment (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters sued the State of North Caro­lina, the speaker of the North Caro­lina House of Repres­ent­at­ives, pres­id­ent pro tempore of the North Caro­lina Senate, and others chal­len­ging the require­ment that absentee ballots be witnessed by another adult and restricts who can serve as a witness, notably exclud­ing “an owner, manager, director, employee of the hospital, clinic, nurs­ing home, or rest home in which the voter is a patient or resid­ent.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 1, §§10, 12, 14 and 19 of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the regime infringes on the right to parti­cip­ate in a free and fair elec­tion, unduly burdens the right to vote, and viol­ates the guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 3, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 11, 2021


Community Success Initi­at­ive v. Moore, No. 19-cv-15941 (Wake Cnty. Super. Ct.)

Re: Felony Disen­fran­chise­ment

Community Success Initi­at­ives, Justice Served NC, and the North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP sued the North Caro­lina secret­ary of state, the pres­id­ent pro tempore of the North Caro­lina Senate, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that prohibit persons convicted of felon­ies from voting until they have fully discharged their sentences, includ­ing parole and proba­tion, and further condi­tion restor­a­tion of voting rights on full payment of all court fines, fees and resti­tu­tion. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws deny the state consti­tu­tional guar­an­tees of “substan­tially equal voting power,” and to parti­cip­ate in free and fair elec­tions.

Status: Motion for summary judg­ment or in the altern­at­ive for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part Septem­ber 4, 2020, permit­ting indi­vidu­als who have been released from super­vi­sion but who still owe legal finan­cial oblig­a­tions to register and vote


Demo­cracy North Caro­lina v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, No. 1:20-cv-457 (M.D.N.C.)

Re: Voter Regis­tra­tion Dead­line; Vote-by-Mail Assist­ance Restric­tions, ID & Witness/Notary Require­ments; Drop­boxes; Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure; In-Person & Early Voting (Covid-19)

Demo­cracy North Caro­lina, the League of Women Voters of North Caro­lina, and indi­vidual voters sued the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, the board’s chair, and others, chal­len­ging state laws, policies, and prac­tices that impose vari­ous restric­tions on voter regis­tra­tion, mail-in absentee ballots, in-person early voting, and Elec­tion Day admin­is­tra­tion. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, § 208 of the Voting Rights Act, Title II of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act, and § 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act, in that the laws and prac­tices, vari­ously, unduly burden the right to vote, condi­tion the right to vote on compel­ling forfeit­ure of bodily integ­rity, viol­ate the rights of free speech and asso­ci­ation, deny the right to proced­ural due process, and fail to provide reas­on­able accom­mod­a­tions for and dispar­ately impact persons with disab­il­it­ies.

Status: Notice of appeal of denial of motion to inter­vene by Repub­lican National Commit­tee, National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee, National Repub­lican Senat­orial Commit­tee, and North Caro­lina Repub­lican Party pending; Motions to dismiss and for leave to file third amended complaint filed July 30, 2020; Amended motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted in part and denied in part August 4, 2020; Appeal held in abey­ance August 26, 2020; Motions for recon­sid­er­a­tion denied Septem­ber 30, 2020; Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce order grant­ing in part prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted as to exped­ited consid­er­a­tion and denied in all other respects Octo­ber 2, 2020; Order issued Octo­ber 14, 2020, enjoin­ing the cure proced­ure for miss­ing witness signa­tures and deny­ing all other reques­ted relief (includ­ing relief reques­ted in Moore v. Circosta and Wise v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, below); Motion for clari­fic­a­tion denied Octo­ber 30, 2020; Order deny­ing motions to dismiss as moot and grant­ing motion to file third amended complaint issued March 8, 2021; Third amended complaint filed March 18, 2021; Motion to file fourth amended complaint gran­ted July 6, 2021; Notice of volun­tary dismissal of certain parties filed July 8, 2021


Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, No. 20CV09947 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Divi­sion, Wake Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness Require­ment, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Miss­ing Witness Signa­ture (Covid-19)

The Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee, and the North Caro­lina Demo­cratic Party sued the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, its chair and its exec­ut­ive director, chal­len­ging defend­ants’ fail­ure to provide all voters with an adequate oppor­tun­ity to cure ballot defects related to the witness require­ment. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the lack of a notice and cure oppor­tun­ity deprives voters of proced­ural due process, equal protec­tion, and the right to parti­cip­ate in free and fair elec­tions, and burdens the funda­mental right to vote without being justi­fied by a suffi­ciently import­ant state interest.

Status: Complaint filed Septem­ber 8, 2020


Holmes v. Moore, 18 CVS 15292 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Sup. Ct. Divi­sion, Wake Cnty.); No. COA19–762 (N.C. Ct. App.)

Re: Photo ID Require­ment (In-Person and Vote-by-Mail)

Indi­vidual voters sued the speaker of the North Caro­lina House of Repres­ent­at­ives, pres­id­ent pro tempore of the North Caro­lina Senate and others, chal­len­ging a 2018 law (SB 824) that requires that in-person and absentee voters, with narrow excep­tions, present one of eight forms of photo ID. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 1, §§10, 12, 14 and 19 of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the law inten­tion­ally discrim­in­ates and dispar­ately impacts African-Amer­ican and Amer­ican Indian voters; unduly burdens the funda­mental right to vote; unjus­ti­fi­ably creates separ­ate classes of voters who are treated differ­ently, thus deny­ing the consti­tu­tion’s guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion; imposes a finan­cial cost and a prop­erty require­ment as a condi­tion of voting, in viol­a­tion of the Free Elec­tions and Prop­erty Qual­i­fic­a­tions Clauses; and impedes voters’ abil­ity to engage in polit­ical expres­sion and speech by voting, in viol­a­tion of the right of assembly and peti­tion and free­dom of speech.

Status: Lower court denied plaintiffs’ motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and gran­ted defend­ants’ motions to dismiss as to all but one claim (discrim­in­at­ory intent). The North Caro­lina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, direct­ing the lower court to grant the reques­ted prelim­in­ary injunc­tion. Legis­lat­ive Defend­ants’ motion to dissolve the prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed July 9, 2020


Moore v. Circosta, Nos. 4:20-cv-182, 5:20-cv-507, 1:20-cv-911 (E.D.N.C.); No. 20–2104 (4th Cir.); No. 20A72 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Post­mark Require­ment, Witness Require­ment, Voter Assist­ance, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Ballot Defects (Covid-19)

The speaker of the North Caro­lina House of Repres­ent­at­ives, Pres­id­ent Pro Tempore of the North Caro­lina Senate and indi­vidual voters sued the chair of the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions (“NCSBE”), chal­len­ging the consent judg­ment entered in North Caro­lina Alli­ance of Retired Amer­ic­ans v. State of North Caro­lina, No. 20-CVS-8881 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Wake Cnty.), above, and related memos issued by the NCBSE, which extend the absentee ballot receipt dead­line, provide voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure ballot defects after elec­tion day, allow voted absentee ballots to be dropped off at one-stop early voting loca­tions and county board offices, and do not reject ballots that are dropped off by third parties. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Elec­tions Clause and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged judg­ment and memos change the time, place and manner of hold­ing federal elec­tions and deny equal protec­tion to voters who had already cast ballots before the judg­ment and memos were issued.

Status: Motion to inter­vene filed by North Caro­lina Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans and indi­vidual voters Septem­ber 30, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Demo­cracy North Caro­lina, the League of Women Voters of North Caro­lina and indi­vidual voters Octo­ber 1, 2020; Emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Octo­ber 3, 2020, tempor­ar­ily enjoin­ing defend­ants from enfor­cing the Septem­ber 2020–19 Memo, and Numbered Memos 2020–22 and 2020–23 until Octo­ber 16, 2020 and trans­fer­ring case to Hon. William L. Osteen; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 14, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 17, 2020; Order grant­ing request for en banc hear­ing and consol­id­at­ing with Wise v. Circosta on appeal issued by 4th Circuit Octo­ber 19, 2020; Order deny­ing emer­gency motion for injunct­ive relief pending appeal issued by 4th Circuit Octo­ber 20, 2020; Emer­gency applic­a­tion for writ of injunc­tion filed in U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 22, 2020; Applic­a­tion for stay pending appeal denied by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 28, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Janu­ary 15, 2021


North Caro­lina Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans v. State of North Caro­lina, No. 20-CVS-8881 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Wake Cnty.); No. P20–513 (N.C. Ct. App.); No. 440P20 (Sup. Ct. N.C.); Berger v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, No. 20A74 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Witness Require­ment, Pre-Paid Post­age, Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure, Voter Assist­ance Ban; In-Person Polling Place Safety & Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

The North Caro­lina Alli­ance for Retired Amer­ic­ans and indi­vidual voters sued the State of North Caro­lina, the State Board of Elec­tions, and its chair, chal­len­ging state laws and proced­ures that (1) limit the number of days and hours of early voting that counties are permit­ted to offer, (2) require that all absentee ballot envel­opes be signed by a witness, (3) fail to provide pre-paid post­age for absentee ballots and request forms, (4) require rejec­tion of any absentee ballots received more than three days after the elec­tion, even when post­marked by elec­tion day, (5) allow counties to reject ballots for signa­ture defects without provid­ing suffi­cient advance notice and oppor­tun­ity to cure, (6) prohibit voters from receiv­ing assist­ance from most indi­vidu­als and organ­iz­a­tions in complet­ing or submit­ting absentee ballot request forms, and (7) “severely restrict[ ] voters’ abil­ity to obtain assist­ance in deliv­er­ing their marked and sealed absentee ballots to county boards, and impos[e] crim­inal penal­ties for provid­ing such assist­ance.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged laws and prac­tices uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burden the right to vote, deprive voters of equal protec­tion, and deny North Carolini­ans’ right to free and fair elec­tions.

Status: Complaint filed August 10, 2020; Joint motion for entry of consent judg­ment filed Septem­ber 22, 2020, stip­u­lat­ing that, for the 2020 elec­tions, (1) an absentee ballot shall be coun­ted as timely if it is either received by 5:00 p.m. on elec­tion day or post­marked by elec­tion day and received by Novem­ber 12, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.; (2) defend­ants shall insti­tute a process to notify voters of ballot defi­cien­cies that may be cured by certi­fic­a­tion, which certi­fic­a­tion must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 12; (3) voted absentee ballots may be dropped off at one-stop early voting loca­tions and county board offices; (4) defend­ants shall take addi­tional reas­on­able steps to inform the public of the changes; (5) plaintiffs shall with­draw their motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion; and (5) all remain­ing claims against the Exec­ut­ive Defend­ants related to the conduct of the 2020 elec­tions shall be dismissed with preju­dice; Find­ings of fact and conclu­sions of law support­ing order grant­ing joint motion for entry of consent judg­ment issued Octo­ber 5, 2020; Tempor­ary stay issued by North Caro­lina Court of Appeals Octo­ber 15, 2020; Order dissolv­ing tempor­ary stay issued by North Caro­lina Court of Appeals Octo­ber 19, 2020; Repub­lican National Commit­tee’s motion to stay pending appeal denied by North Caro­lina Supreme Court Octo­ber 23, 2020Applic­a­tion for stay pending appeal denied by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 29, 2020


North Caro­lina Demo­cratic Party v. North Caro­linaNo. 19-CV-14688 (Gen. Ct. of Justice, Super Ct. Div., Wake Cnty.)

Re: Early Voting

The North Caro­lina Demo­cratic Party, Demo­cratic Senat­orial Campaign Commit­tee, and Demo­cratic Congres­sional Campaign Commit­tee  sued the State of North Caro­lina, the State Board of Elec­tions, and the chair of the BOE chal­len­ging state laws that restrict early voting oppor­tun­it­ies. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Art. I, § 10 (Free Elec­tions Clause), § 14 (free­dom of speech), § 12 (free­dom of assembly), and § 19 (equal protec­tion) of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged provi­sions unduly burden the right to vote.

Status: Amended complaint filed Decem­ber 20, 2019


North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-1034 (M.D.N.C.); North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. Raymond, Nos. 19–1091, 19–1094, 19–2273 & 20–1092 (4th Cir.)

Re: Photo ID Require­ment (Vote-by-Mail & In-Person Voting); Poll Watch­ers

The North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP, Chapel Hill-Carboro NAACP, Greens­boro NAACP, and others sued the governor of North Caro­lina, the chair of the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions and others, chal­len­ging a state law that requires that voters present one of a limited number of photo IDs (exclud­ing public assist­ance IDs) in order to cast a ballot and expan­ded the number of permit­ted poll watch­ers and bases for chal­len­ging ballots. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 14th and 15th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that the law was motiv­ated by imper­miss­ibly racially discrim­in­at­ory intent, discrim­in­ates on the basis of race, and denies or abridges the right to vote on account of race or color.

The district court gran­ted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, prohib­it­ing defend­ants from imple­ment­ing the law’s voter ID require­ments and ballot-chal­lenge provi­sions for any elec­tion, pending further court order.

Status: Appeal filed Janu­ary 24, 2020; Denial of motion to inter­vene vacated by 4th Circuit August 14, 2020; Stay of mandate issued by 4th Circuit Septem­ber 11, 2020; Peti­tion for rehear­ing en banc gran­ted Octo­ber 5, 2020; Order revers­ing lower court’s prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and uphold­ing the consti­tu­tion­al­ity of the chal­lenged stat­ute issued by 4th Circuit Decem­ber 2, 2020; Peti­tion for rehear­ing en banc denied Febru­ary 8, 2021


North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, 20-CVS-5035 (N.C. Super. Ct., Wake Cnty.)

Re: In-Person Voting Machines (Covid-19)

The North Caro­lina State Confer­ence of the NAACP and 4 indi­vidual voters sued the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions and vari­ous county boards of elec­tions, chal­len­ging the counties’ use of Express­Vote elec­tronic ballot-mark­ing devices, which, plaintiffs allege, “suffer from secur­ity vulner­ab­il­it­ies, are inac­cur­ate, tabu­late votes based on a bar code that cannot be read by the voter, and cannot be suffi­ciently audited.” The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article 1, § § 10 and 19 of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the use of the machines severely burdens plaintiffs’ right to parti­cip­ate in free and fair elec­tions that “accur­ately ascer­tain the will of the people,” and denies equal protec­tion to voters in counties which employ the machines.

Status: Complaint filed April 15, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied August 19, 2020


Stringer v. North Caro­lina, No. 20-CVS-5615 (N.C. Super. Ct., Wake Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Notary/Witness Require­ment, Prepaid Post­age, Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual North Caro­lina voters sued the State of North Caro­lina, the State Board of Elec­tions, and others, chal­len­ging state laws that (1) require that each absentee ballot be witnessed and certi­fied by a notary or two qual­i­fied indi­vidu­als; (2) require most voters to pay for post­age when apply­ing for an absentee ballot; (3) reject ballots received more than three days past the elec­tion, even if post­marked on or before Elec­tion Day; (4) fail to prescribe uniform stand­ards for signa­ture veri­fic­a­tion; and (5) fail to provide notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure to voters whose signa­tures are perceived to be incon­sist­ent. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Art. I, § 10 (Free Elec­tions clause), § 14 (free­dom of speech), § 12 (free­dom of assembly), and § 19 (equal protec­tion) of the North Caro­lina Consti­tu­tion, in that the laws infringe on the right to parti­cip­ate in free and fair elec­tions, and uncon­sti­tu­tion­ally burden the right to vote.

Status: Amended complaint filed July 8, 2020


Talia­ferro v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, No. 5:20-cv-411 (E.D.N.C.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Disab­il­ity Access (Covid-19)

Four indi­vidual voters, the North Caro­lina Coun­cil of the Blind, the Governor More­head School Alumni Asso­ci­ation, and others sued the North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, its director, chair, and others, chal­len­ging the state’s absentee voting program, which requires voters to complete a paper ballot using an ink mark­ing device and phys­ic­ally return the voted ballot to the County Board of Elec­tions, and is thus inac­cess­ible to blind voters who wish to vote inde­pend­ently. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Title 2 of the Amer­ic­ans with Disab­il­it­ies Act and Section 504 of the Rehab­il­it­a­tion Act of 1973, in that the absentee voting program denies indi­vidu­als with disab­il­it­ies an equal oppor­tun­ity to access the bene­fits of the program, fails to provide reas­on­able modi­fic­a­tions to avoid discrim­in­a­tion on the basis of disab­il­ity, excludes indi­vidu­als with disab­il­it­ies from parti­cip­a­tion in the program, and discrim­in­ates on the basis of disab­il­ity.

Status: Motions for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 24, 2020; Proceed­ings stayed for sixty days on consent Novem­ber 22, 2020; Joint motion to extend stay until March 15 gran­ted Janu­ary 27, 2021; Motion for judg­ment on the plead­ings filed by plaintiffs May 13, 2021


Wise v. North Caro­lina State Board of Elec­tions, Nos. 5:20-cv-505, 1:20-cv-912 (E.D.N.C.); No. 20–2014 (4th Cir.); No. 20A71 (S. Ct.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Receipt Dead­line, Post­mark Require­ment, Witness Require­ment, Voter Assist­ance, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure Ballot Defects (Covid-19)

Indi­vidual voters, Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and others sued the State Board of Elec­tions, its chair and others, chal­len­ging the consent judg­ment entered in North Caro­lina Alli­ance of Retired Amer­ic­ans v. State of North Caro­lina, No. 20-CVS-8881 (Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Wake Cnty.), above, and related memos issued by the Board, which extend the absentee ballot receipt dead­line, provide voters with notice and an oppor­tun­ity to cure ballot defects after elec­tion day, allow voted absentee ballots to be dropped off at one-stop early voting loca­tions and county board offices, and do not reject ballots that are dropped off by third parties. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Article I, Section 4, Article 2, Section 1 of and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the chal­lenged judg­ment purportedly changes the time, place and manner of elec­tions for senat­ors, repres­ent­at­ives and pres­id­en­tial elect­ors, dilute the funda­mental right to vote by allow­ing fraud­u­lent or illegal votes, and denies equal protec­tion to those who had already voted prior to issu­ance of the judg­ment and memos.

Status: Emer­gency motion for tempor­ary restrain­ing order gran­ted Octo­ber 3, 2020, tempor­ar­ily enjoin­ing defend­ants from enfor­cing the Septem­ber 2020–19 Memo, and Numbered Memos 2020–22 and 2020–23 until Octo­ber 16, 2020 and trans­fer­ring case to Hon. William L. Osteen; Motion to convert tempor­ary restrain­ing order into prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Octo­ber 14, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 17, 2020; Order grant­ing request for en banc hear­ing and consol­id­at­ing with Wise v. Circosta on appeal issued by 4th Circuit Octo­ber 19, 2020; Order deny­ing emer­gency motion for injunct­ive relief pending appeal issued by 4th Circuit Octo­ber 20, 2020; Emer­gency applic­a­tion for writ of injunc­tion denied by U.S. Supreme Court Octo­ber 28, 2020; Notice of volun­tary dismissal filed Janu­ary 7, 2021

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Dakota

Cross v. Fox, No. 1:20-cv-177 (D.N.D.), No. 20–3424 (8th Cir.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail in Tribal Elec­tions (Covid-19)

Two indi­vidual voters sued members of the Three Affil­i­ated Tribes Tribal Busi­ness Coun­cil, chal­len­ging the require­ment that non-resid­ent Three Affil­i­ated Tribes (“TAT”) voters “return to the reser­va­tion to vote in all TAT elec­tions and defend­ant’s refusal to allow plaintiffs to vote by absentee ballot, regard­less of personal circum­stances such as age, phys­ical disab­il­ity, poverty, etc. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amend­ment to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that defend­ants’ fail­ures deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or member­ship in a language minor­ity group, and severely burden the funda­mental right to vote and deprive plaintiffs of the guar­an­tee of equal protec­tion.  

Status: Complaint and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 29, 2020; Motion to dismiss gran­ted Octo­ber 28, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Novem­ber 19, 2020


Self Advocacy Solu­tions North Dakota v. Jaeger, No. 3:20-cv-71 (D.N.D.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail, Signa­ture Match­ing (Covid-19)

Self Advocacy Solu­tions N.D., the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, and a North Dakota resid­ent sued the North Dakota secret­ary of state and the county auditor of Grand Forks County, chal­len­ging a state law that rejects any ballot with perceived signa­ture mismatch issues without provid­ing the voter an oppor­tun­ity to cure. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the law denies due process and the funda­mental right to vote.

Status: Perman­ent injunc­tion gran­ted August 28, 2020

BACK TO TOP

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio

A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute of Ohio v. LaRoseNo. 1:20-cv-1908 (N.D. Ohio)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Drop­box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute of Ohio, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio State Confer­ence of the NAACP, and indi­vidual voters sued the Ohio secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s direct­ive prohib­it­ing county boards of elec­tions from provid­ing more than one ballot drop box per county, which drop box must be located directly outside of each county board of elec­tions’ office. The complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the secret­ary’s direct­ive substan­tially burdens the funda­mental right to vote and deprives voters of equal protec­tion by arbit­rar­ily valu­ing the votes of resid­ents of counties with smal­ler popu­la­tions over those who reside in more heav­ily popu­lated counties.

Status: Complaint filed August 26, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion filed Septem­ber 4, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc., the Ohio Repub­lican Party, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and the National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee gran­ted Septem­ber 15, 2020; Order issued Septem­ber 25, 2020, hold­ing that plaintiffs have stand­ing, hold­ing the motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion in abey­ance “to see if the conclu­sion of the state litig­a­tion [in Ohio Demo­cratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20 CV 5634 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Frank­lin Cnty.), below] moots this case,” and direct­ing the secret­ary to file, by. Septem­ber 30, a report on efforts to “work closely with the Cuyahoga County board of elec­tions to develop and imple­ment a plan to alle­vi­ate the loom­ing crisis for voters who plan to person­ally deliver their ballots for the Novem­ber 3 elec­tion;” Order dismiss­ing the case without preju­dice issued Octo­ber 6, 2020; Motion for recon­sid­er­a­tion and motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Octo­ber 8, 2020, enjoin­ing the secret­ary of state from (1) enfor­cing the portion of the direct­ive that prohib­its counties from installing multiple drop boxes and (2) prohib­it­ing county boards of elec­tion from deploy­ing its staff for off-site ballot deliv­ery, and declin­ing to issue a stay; Notice of appeal filed Octo­ber 8, 2020; Order stay­ing lower court order issued by 6th Circuit Octo­ber 9, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed Octo­ber 22, 2020


League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose, 2:20-cv-3843 (S.D. Ohio)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Signa­ture Match­ing, Notice/Oppor­tun­ity to Cure (Covid-19)

The League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Insti­tute of Ohio, and two indi­vidual voters sued the Ohio secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging state laws and prac­tices that require elec­tions offi­cials to compare voters’ signa­tures on absentee ballots and voter regis­tra­tion records without provid­ing statewide stand­ards there­for, and further reject any ballots with perceived signa­ture mismatch issues without provid­ing the voter with an oppor­tun­ity to cure. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the 1st and 14th Amend­ments to the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, in that the state’s incon­sist­ent signa­ture match­ing proced­ures deny voters the free­dom of asso­ci­ation and the right to equal protec­tion and unduly burden the funda­mental right to vote, and that the fail­ure to provide voters with adequate notice and suffi­cient oppor­tun­ity to cure signa­ture mismatch issues denies the right of proced­ural due process.

Status:; Motion to inter­vene filed by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, the Ohio Repub­lican Party, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee, and National Repub­lican Congres­sional Commit­tee gran­ted Septem­ber 4, 2020; Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion denied Septem­ber 27, 2020; Volun­tar­ily dismissed May 20, 2021


Ohio Demo­cratic Party v. LaRoseNo. 20CV4997 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Frank­lin Cnty.); 20AP000421 (Ct. of App. of Ohio, 10th Appel­late Dist.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Elec­tronic Trans­mis­sion of Ballot Applic­a­tion (Covid-19)

The Ohio Demo­cratic Party and an indi­vidual voter sued the Ohio secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s refusal to permit voters to apply for absentee ballots by email­ing images of their absentee ballot applic­a­tions to their respect­ive county boards of elec­tions. The amended complaint alleges viol­a­tions of the Equal Protec­tion and Due Process Clauses of the Ohio Consti­tu­tion and seeks a declar­a­tion that exist­ing state law (Ohio Revised Code 3509.03) does not prohibit qual­i­fied elect­ors from submit­ting ballot applic­a­tions via elec­tronic mail, and further that the law affords qual­i­fied elect­ors have a right to do so.

Status: Motion for prelim­in­ary injunc­tion and exped­ited sched­ule filed July 31, 2020; Amended complaint filed August 4, 2020; Motion to dismiss filed August 11, 2020; Motion to inter­vene filed by Donald J. Trump for Pres­id­ent, Inc. August 17, 2020; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion gran­ted Septem­ber 11, 2020; Notice of appeal filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Secret­ary of state’s motion to stay filed Septem­ber 11, 2020; Inter­venor defend­ants’ motion to dismiss filed Septem­ber 14, 2020; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion stayed by Court of Appeals of Ohio Septem­ber 11, 2020; Prelim­in­ary injunc­tion reversed by the Court of Appeals of Ohio Septem­ber 29, 2020; Decisions on motions sched­uled for July 2, 2021


Ohio Demo­cratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20 CV 5634 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Frank­lin Cnty.)

Re: Vote-by-Mail Ballot Drop­box Avail­ab­il­ity (Covid-19)

The Ohio Demo­cratic Party and an indi­vidual voter sued the Ohio secret­ary of state, chal­len­ging the secret­ary’s direct­ive prohib­it­ing county boards of elec­tions from provid­ing more than one ballot drop box per county, which drop box must be located directly outside of each county board of elec­tions’ office. The complaint seeks a declar­a­tion that the relev­ant state stat­ute does not limit the number and loca­tions of secure drop boxes that county boards may provide to the voters of their respect­ive counties.

Status: Complaint filed August 25, 2020; Order issued Septem­ber 15, 2020, declar­ing that Ohio law permits county boards of elec­tion to obtain and use ballot drop boxes and that the secret­ary’s prohib­i­tion on the use of more than one drop box per county or placing drop boxes at loca­tions separ­ate from board offices is “arbit­rary and unreas­on­able”;