This database consolidates and tracks litigation concerning the effect of the pandemic on election law. The purpose of this tool is to provide an interactive list of relevant cases that can be searched by issue, court, status, and jurisdiction.
Case Details
McCarter v. Brown
Closed
McCarter v. Brown, No. 6:20-cv-01048 (D. Or.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiff sought a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction asking for multiple types of relief due to the Governor of Oregon and various local county officials’ executive orders’ violating plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights afforded under the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff’s main complaint is that rules related to the requirements for election ballot initiatives coupled with prohibitions on gatherings and requiring social distancing related to COVID-19, limited Plaintiff from being able to obtain the requisite number of petition signatures required to add a referendum to certain county ballots. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Complaint, using rational basis review after finding that Plaintiff did not satisfy the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals test for applying strict scrutiny. Using the rational basis test, the Court found that Defendant’s requirements for ballot initiatives further an important regulatory interest, and that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim therefore precluding the preliminary injunction. | |
| Filed | 06/30/2020 | |
| State | Oregon | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 09/28/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Petition Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, Deadline/Time to Collect) | |
| Complaint(s) | 06/30/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/20/2020: Order/Ruling, PI Denied because Plaintiff does not present any evidence indicating More Oregon’s Border was reasonably diligent in collecting the required signatures. | |
| 08/19/2020: Order/Ruling, Missing evidence not included in earlier documents presented to the court has been presented. The court insists that the Plaintiff (who is not a lawyer) have legal council to proceed. Judge ordered the Plaintiff to have council by 9/2/2020 to continue the appeal. | ||
| 09/17/2020: Order/Ruling, The United States District Court for the District of Oregon ordered the case to be dismissed without prejudice as the deadline for filing notice of representation by a licenced attorney passed. | ||
