Major Pending Election Cases
This is a list of pending election law litigation cases that Election Law at Moritz is currently monitoring.
Voto Latino Incorporated et al v. HobbsCase Page - last updated on January 27, 2020 (12:07 PM)
Whether Arizona's deadline for voters to submit their early ballots by mail is constitutional?
Complaint filed 11/26/19.
Martin v. Secretary of State of GeorgiaCase Page - last updated on October 7, 2019 (11:14 AM)
Whether Georgia gave vote-by-mail voters a reasonable opportunity to cure rejected applications for mail ballots consistent with the Due Process Clause; whether Georgia treated vote-by-mail voters differently than in-person voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
Complaint filed 10/15/18. Temporary Restraining Order granted filed 10/15/18. Motion to Intervene filed 11/11/18. Order granting Motion to Intervene filed 11/1/18. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed 11/12/18. Motion to Intervene Granted 11/13/18. Motion for Reconsideration filed 11/15/18, denied 11/15/18. Name changed to Martin v. Secretary of State of Georgia filed 12/10/18. Case in the court of appeals closed 1/4/19. Comes Now Defendant, Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Georgia and moves to have the docket in this matter corrected to reflect the correct Defendant name filed 2/27/29. Civil case terminated filed 4/17/19. Motion for attorney fees granted in part and Plaintiff awarded $51,013.28 (7/23/19).
Mecinas et al v. HobbsCase Page - last updated on February 4, 2020 (8:47 PM)
Whether Arizona's ballot design, which features the Republican candidate's name first vertically, is valid under law?
Complaint Filed 11/1/19. Amended Complaint Filed 11/15/19. Motion to Dismiss Case 1/2/20. Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Case 1/16/20.
Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. ErtelCase Page - last updated on October 7, 2019 (10:55 AM)
Whether Florida's Secretary of State violated the Equal Protection rights of voters by rejecting vote-by-mail and provisional ballots on the basis of an allegedly "standardless signature matching process"
Complaint filed 11/8/18. Emergency Motion for TRO filed 11/8/18. Preliminary Injunction granted 11/15/18. Appeal from the U.S District Court Docketed 11/15/18. Motion to hold case in abeyance filed 1/2/19. Motion to hold case in abeyance is denied filed 1/11/19. Defendant changed from Detzner to Ertel. Order denying motiont to dismiss as moot filed 2/15/19.Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are dismissed without prejudice filed 7/29/19. Order Granting Appellees' motion for out-of-time response to jurisdictional question, Denying Appellants' request to file replies to Appellees' response 6/17/19.
Lamone v. BenisekCase Page - last updated on September 23, 2019 (2:35 PM)
Original Issue before U.S. Supreme Court: Whether a single-judge district court can conclude that a three-judge panel is not required to hear a 28 U.S.C. § 2284 complaint, not because it is insubstantial, but because the complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as determined by the court.
Current Issue: Whether the Maryland legislature's redrawing of Congressional district lines violates the U.S. Constitution.
US District Court for the District of Maryland Opinion filed on 04/08/2014. US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Opinion filed on 10/07/2014. US Supreme Court Granted Petition for Writ of Cert on 06/08/2015. Oral Argument held on 11/04/15. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion filed 12/8/15. Second Amended Complaint on remand filed 3/3/16. Motion to Dismiss filed 4/20/16. Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss filed 8/24/16. Answer to Amended Complaint filed 9/7/16. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 5/31/17. Joint Status Report filed 6/2/17 and 6/30/17. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed 6/30/17. Memorandum Opinion Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/24/17. Order Entering Stay filed 8/24/17. Notice of Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court filed 8/25/17. Jurisdictional Statement filed 9/1/17. Motion to Expedite filed 9/1/17. Order Denying Motion to Expedite filed 9/13/17. Motion to Affirm filed 10/31/17. Brief in Opposition to Motion to Affirm filed 11/13/17. Order postponing further consideration of jurisdiction question until hearing of case on merits filed 12/8/17. Appellants' Brief filed 1/22/18. Appellees' Brief filed 2/21/18. Supreme Court Judgment affirming district court decision denying preliminary relief filed 6/18/18. Judgement Issued filed 11/7/18. Consent Motion to stay filed 11/15/18. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. The case will be set for argument in the March argument session filed 1/4/19. Argument set for March 26th 2019 filed 1/25/19. Consolidated with Rucho v. Common Cause, opinion filed 6/27/19 vacating and remanding district court's decision, and determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. District Court Order to Dismiss 8/9/19.
Gill v. WhitfordCase Page - last updated on September 23, 2019 (10:51 AM)
Whether Wisconsin's redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment right to freedom of association, and plaintiffs' civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1982 and 1988.
Complaint filed 7/8/15. Opinion and Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss filed 12/17/15. Opinion and Order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment filed 4/7/16. Trial briefs filed 5/16/16. Post-trial briefs filed 6/10/16. Opinion finding Assembly Districts unconstitutionally drawn filed 11/21/16. Briefs on Remedies filed 12/21/16. Opinion and Order on Remedy filed 1/27/17. Notice of Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court filed 2/24/17. Jurisdictional Statement filed 3/24/17. Amicus Briefs filed 4/24/17. Motion to Affirm filed 5/8/17. Memo in Opposition filed 5/18/17. Stay Application filed 5/22/17. Order Granting Stay filed 6/19/17. Appellants' Brief filed 7/28/17. Joint Appendix filed 7/28/17. Appellees' Brief filed 8/28/17. Many Amicus Briefs filed in Aug. and Sept. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 9/19/17. Oral Argument Transcript filed 10/3/17. Opinoin Remanding Case on Standing Grounds: under the Wisconsin Constitution, the legislature must redraw the boundaries of those distrcts following each census filed 6/18/18. Amended Complaint filed 9/14/18. Currently proposing canidates for Special Masters. Motion to Intervene granted filed 11/13/18. Emergency Motion to Stay filde 1/7/19. Scheduling Order: Court Trial set for 7/15/2019 - 7/18/2019 at 09:00 AM. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/1/2019. Stipulated Motion to Enter Protective Order 3/29/19. Order Granting in Part and Denying in part Non-Party Movants' Motions to Quash 4/10/19.Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery 5/3/19. Emergency Motion to Stay 5/10/19. Order Denying Motion to Stay 5/13/19. Pretrial Disclosures 6/14/19. Plaintiffs' Motion For Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiciton 6/28/19. Motion for Attorney Fees 7/15/19. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees 7/29/19.
Rucho v. Common CauseCase Page - last updated on October 27, 2019 (4:13 PM)
Whether North Carolina's 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan violates:
(1) the First Amendment;
(2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(4) Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution because representatives would allegedly not be chosen by "the people of the several states" but in effect by the majority party of the state legislature; and
(5) Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution regarding state legislatures' authority to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
Complaint filed 8/5/16. Time to file answer extended to 10/31/16. Answer filed 3/3/17. Opinion and Order denying motion to dismiss filed 3/3/17. Parties' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed 6/5/17. Defendants' Motion for Stay filed 6/26/17. Responses to Motion for Stay filed 7/17/17. Order Denying Stay filed 8/29/17 with Memorandum Opinion filed 9/8/17. Notice of Bench Trial starting Oct. 16, 2017 filed 9/11/17. Parties' Post-Trial Briefs and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed 11/6/17. Opinion finding unconstitutional gerrymander filed 1/9/18. Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Supreme Court Review filed 1/11/18. Order granting stay filed 1/18/18. Motions to affirm by Common Cause and League of Women Voters filed 4/27/18. Reply filed 5/15/18. Order vacating judgment and remanding to District Court in light of Gill v. Whitford filed 6/25/18. Supreme Court Judgement filed 7/30/18. Memorandum Opinion of District Court: under the test set forth in Gill, at least one Plaintiff registered to vote in each of the thirteen districts in the 2016 Plan has standing to assert an Equal Protection challenge to each of those districts; court found unconstitutional gerrymandering in the opinion filed 8/28/18. Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court filed 8/31/18. Emergency Motion to Stay filed 8/31/18. Appeal to Supreme Court case 18-422 filed 10/10/18. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. The case will be set for argument in the March argument session filed 1/4/19. Consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, opinion filed 6/27/19 vacating and remanding district court's decision, and determining that claims of partisan gerrymandering are political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Supreme Court Judgment 8/1/19. District Court Dismissal 9/5/19. Joint Motion for Dismissal of Costs 10/18/19. Brief in Support of Motion For Dismissal 10/18/19. Brief in Opposition of Motion for Dismissal of Costs 10/25/19.
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-HillCase Page - last updated on February 4, 2020 (8:49 PM)
Whether Virginia's 2012 congressional redistricting plan constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering
District Court Opinion issued 10/22/15. Appellants' brief filed 9/7/16. Appellees' brief filed 10/17/16. Appellants' Reply filed 11/16/16. Supreme Court opinion issued 3/1/17. Motion for Attorney Fees filed 7/10/18. Because the Supreme Court has shown an interest in clarifying the test and because this Court’s determinations cut against the Supreme Court’s concern that an analysis be “holistic,” id. at 799, there is a likelihood that Intervenors’ appeal will be heard on the merits and will succeed; Motion to Stay filed 7/25/18. Order and Proceed with Remedial Phases Granted filed 9/14/18. Redistricting plans put forward filed 11/2/18. Report of Special Master filed 12/7/18. Supreme Court appendix filed 12/28/18. Addendum to Special Report filed 12/28/18 and 1/8/19. Motion to Amend Report is denied filed 1/8/19. The special master and the plaintiffs have advised the Court that the Second Report of the Special Master contains errors regarding the compactness scores of certain districts in Peninsula Module 2. Accordingly, the special master is hereby ORDERED to submit a corrected final report filed 2/4/19. The plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses is premature given the case in appeal to the Supreme Court and thus the motion is denied 3/26/19. ORDER. Pursuant to the Court's order entered on October 18, 2018], the Commonwealth of Virginia is directed to render payment in the amount of $126,363.71. Filed 4/5/19. SCOTUS opinion dismissing appeal filed 6/17/19. District Court Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 8/2/19. Opposition To Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 8/30/19. Reply in Support of Second Motion For Attorneys' Fees 9/6/19. Defendant-Intervenor Motion to Strike or for Leave to File Responsive Brief 9/6/19. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant_Intervenors' Motion to Strike or Leave 9/9/19.
Common Cause v. KempCase Page - last updated on September 23, 2019 (3:34 PM)
Whether Georgia's maintenance of an allegedly unsecure voter registration database violates the 14th Amendment, the Help America Vote Act, the Georgia Constitution, and Georgia statutory law
Complaint filed 11/5/18. Notice of and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Exoeduted Discovery filed 11/7/18. Court grants temporary restraining order in part filed 11/12/18. Order granting motion of investigative report and amended joint preliminary report and discovery filed 12/7/18. Clerk's Entry of Dismissal APPROVING 116 Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Civil Case Terminated with prejudice filed 6/18/19. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees with Brief in Support 7/22/19. Defendant Response to Plaintiffs' Motion Of Attorney's Fees 8/12/19.
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Frank LaRoseCase Page - last updated on September 23, 2019 (11:27 AM)
Whether the removal of eligible voters from Ohio’s voter-registration rolls, as a result of those voters’ decisions not to participate in recent elections, violates the roll-maintenance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act and has caused eligible Ohio citizens to be deprived of the right to vote.
Complaint 04/06/2016. Answer filed 4/28/16. Amended complaint filed 5/17/16. Defendant's merit brief filed 5/24/16. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for permanent or temporary injunction filed 5/24/16. Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent or temporary injunction, and entering judgment for defendant filed 6/29/16. Appellants' brief at 6th Circuit filed 7/13/16. Appellee's brief filed 7/20/16. 6th Circuit Opinion Reversing District Court filed 9/23/16. District Court Opinion and Order implementing remedies consistent with Sixth Circuit Opinion filed 10/19/16. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 2/13/17. Respondents' Brief filed 3/31/17. Petitioners' Reply filed 4/17/17. District Court Order Granting Joint Motion for Further Relief filed 4/24/17. Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 5/30/17. Petitioner's Merit Brief filed 7/31/17. DOJ amicus brief filed 8/7/17. Additional Amicus Briefs filed 8/7/17. Order Setting Oral Argument for Nov. 8 filed 8/31/17. Respondents' Merit Brief filed 9/18/17. Petitioner's Reply Brief filed 10/16/17. Order removing case from Nov. 8 oral argument calendar filed 10/27/17. Order setting case for oral argument on Jan. 10, 2018 filed 11/17/17. Oral Argument transcript filed 1/10/18. 5-4 Opinion upholding Ohio voter purge procedure filed 6/11/18. OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion for Final Judgment is GRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART and Defendants Motion for Final Judgment is GRANTED IN PARTAND DENIED IN PART. Final judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant on all but one issuethe requirements to inform voters who have moved out of state how to continue to be eligible to vote. Signed by Judge George C. Smith. Pending Appeal, Emergency Motion filed 10/15/18. Order of USCA denying the request for the injunction filed 11/1/18. Case closed. Joint STIPULATION AND ORDER related to the Primary Election on May 7,2019 3/12/19. Brief of Appelants at 6th circuit filed 1/31/19. Respnose Brief by Appellee filed on 7/8/19. ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE file on 8/30/19. Joint Motion for Immediate Isssuance of Mandate 9/3/19. Ruling Letter Denying as Moot Motion For Immediate Issuance 9/4/19.
Title changed from Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted to v. Frank LaRose changed 2/4/19.
Disclosure: EL@M Senior Fellow Daniel Tokaji is involved in this case as one of the cooperating attorneys for the ACLU of Ohio. No EL@M member who participates in any lawsuit covered on the EL@M website is involved in generating the website's information or analysis on that lawsuit.
Frank v. WalkerCase Page - last updated on October 7, 2019 (11:55 AM)
Whether Wisconsin voter ID legislation is unconstitutional as applied to certain classes of eligible Wisconsin voters; more specifically, whether the legislation unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional poll tax, and violates the Equal Proection Clause in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.
District Court Opinion and Order issued 10/19/2015. Appellants' Briefs on appeal in 7th Circuit filed 12/28/15. Appellee's brief in 7th Circuit filed 1/26/16. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing District Court filed 4/12/16. District Court decision and order on remand in favor of plaintiffs filed 7/19/16. District Court Order Denying Stay Pending Appeal filed 7/29/16. 7th Circuit Order Granting Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal filed 8/10/16. Emergency Petition for Rehearing filed 8/11/16. 7th Circuit Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 8/15/16. 7th Circuit Order Denying Initial En Banc Hearing filed 8/26/16. Appellants' Brief and Appendix filed 8/31/16. Appellees' Brief and Short Appendix filed 9/30/16. Oral Argument rescheduled for 2/24/17.Order Grnting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney fees and Expenses filed 4/2/18. Civil Case Terminated filed 4/11/2018.
League of Women Voters v. NewbyCase Page - last updated on November 13, 2019 (9:08 PM)
Whether the EAC unlawfully permitted certain states to modify the national uniform mail-in voter registration form by requiring documentary proof of citizenship.
Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed 02/12/16. Answer filed 4/22/16. Opinion denying motion for preliminary injunction filed 6/29/16. Notice of Appeal filed 7/1/16. Appellants' Brief and Joint Appendix filed 7/18/16. Motion for summary judgment filed in District Court 7/22/16. Federal Appellees' Brief filed 7/27/16. Kobach's Appellee Brief filed 8/3/16. Per Curiam Judgment and Order Reversing District Court filed 9/9/16. District Court opinion and order remanding case to EAC filed 2/24/17. Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed 4/417. Eagle Forum has moved to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of unsealing documents that are currently sealed on the Court’s docket. Contrary to Eagle Forum’s assertion in its Notice, the decision in MetLife does not “resolve [any] issue in favor of unsealing the record” in this case filed 9/18/17. Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court Case Number 19-7027 filed 4/11/19. Appellants Opening Brief 8/5/19. Appellee's Opening Breif 10/4/19. Appellant's Reply Brif 8/25/19.
Georgia Coalition for The Peoples' Agenda v. Secretary of State of GeorgiaCase Page - last updated on December 21, 2019 (3:07 PM)
Whether Georgia's exact-match voter registration protocol violates the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments
Complaint Filed 10/11/18. Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Granted filed 11/2/18. Comes Now Defendant, Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Georgia and moves to have the docket in this matter corrected to reflect the correct Defendant name filed 2/27/19. Submission of Motion to Subsitute Brian Kemp to District Judge Eleanor Ross filed 3/18/19. Brad Raffensperger is substituted as Defendant for Brian Kemp filed 3/26/19. Order Granting Consent Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, Discovery will close on 1/29/20, 9/4/19.
Fair Fight Action v. RaffenspergerCase Page - last updated on February 4, 2020 (8:46 PM)
Whether the Secretary of State's office and the state election board systematically blocked minority voters from the polls in the Nov. 6th election.
Complaint filed 11/27/18. Motion to Dismiss filed 1/28/19. Submission of Motiont to Dismiss District Judge Steve c. Jones filed 2/26/2019. The Court will hold a hearing on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on April 29, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Motion to DIsmiss is Deemed Moot 4/8/19. Renewed Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is Granted 5/30/19. Answer to Amended Comlaint 6/13/19. Motion to Open Discovery 6/13/19. Order Granting in part and Denying in part Motion to Open Discovery 6/28/19. Amended Scheduling Order: Close of Fact Discovery 11/15/19; Close of Expert Discovery 12/16/19, 7/11/19. Stipulated Protective Order 7/15/19.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.