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
Crossey v. Boockvar
Closed
Crossey v. Boockvar, No. 266-MD-2020 (Penn. Commonw. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | On April 22, 2020, voters sued Secretary of Commonwealth and Director of the Bureau of Election Services and Notaries on grounds that PA’s current vote by mail process violated the Free and Equal Elections, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the PA constitution. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a preliminary injunction as to the June 2 primary election. The request for the preliminary injunction was denied on May 28 and the appeal was dismissed on June 4 by PA Supreme Court as moot, since the primary election had already occurred on June 2. Plaintiff’s argued PA’s current vote by mail process violated PA constitution because it did not require the State to (1) provide prepaid postage for all absentee and mail-in ballots; (2) establish emergency procedures to ensure that ballots delivered after 8 pm on election day due to mail service delays or disruptions are counted, to the extent otherwise eligible to be counted; (3) allow voters to designate a third party to assist them in collecting and submitting absentee or mail-in ballots and ensure that all such ballots would be counted if otherwise eligible; or (4) provide uniform guidance and training to election officials involved in verifying mail ballots and implement procedures to ensure that voters receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure signature-related defects on absentee or mail-in ballots before any ballot was rejected. On June 17, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the defendant’s objections to the commonwealth court's jurisdiction over the case. The case is ongoing. | |
| Filed | 04/22/2020 | |
| State | Pennsylvania | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 02/18/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Postage Requirement, Signature Verification Standards, Notice/Cure for Mismatches Missing Signature or Mistakes, Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark), Restriction on Assistance or Collection of Mail Ballots for Return) | |
| Complaint(s) | 04/22/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/28/2020: Order/Ruling, Request for preliminary injunction with respect to primary election was denied. | |
| 06/17/2020: Order/Ruling, Case transferred. The court had bifurcated the issues of the preliminary injunction, which the Supreme Court dismissed as moot, and the court's jurisdiction, which is this case. The court ruled that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this case, because the Alliance filed the Petition within 180 days of the effective date of Act 77. | ||
Crossey v. Boockvar, No. 32-MAP-2020 (Penn. Sup. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | On April 22, 2020, voters sued Secretary of Commonwealth and Director of the Bureau of Election Services and Notaries on grounds that PA’s current vote by mail process violated the Free and Equal Elections, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the PA constitution. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a preliminary injunction as to the June 2 primary election. The request for the preliminary injunction was denied on May 28 and the appeal was dismissed on June 4 by PA Supreme Court as moot, since the primary election had already occurred on June 2. Plaintiff’s argued PA’s current vote by mail process violated PA constitution because it did not require the State to (1) provide prepaid postage for all absentee and mail-in ballots; (2) establish emergency procedures to ensure that ballots delivered after 8 pm on election day due to mail service delays or disruptions are counted, to the extent otherwise eligible to be counted; (3) allow voters to designate a third party to assist them in collecting and submitting absentee or mail-in ballots and ensure that all such ballots would be counted if otherwise eligible; or (4) provide uniform guidance and training to election officials involved in verifying mail ballots and implement procedures to ensure that voters receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure signature-related defects on absentee or mail-in ballots before any ballot was rejected. On June 17, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the defendant’s objections to the commonwealth court's jurisdiction over the case. | |
| Filed | 05/28/2020 | |
| State | Pennsylvania | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 10/14/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Postage Requirement, Signature Verification Standards, Notice/Cure for Mismatches Missing Signature or Mistakes, Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark), Restriction on Assistance or Collection of Mail Ballots for Return) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 06/04/2020: Order/Ruling, Appeal dismissed on June 4 as moot because primary election had occurred on June 2 | |
| 09/17/2020: Order/Ruling, The court dismissed as moot the Petitioner's request to extend the recevied-by deadline for mail-in ballots becasue the court granted such an extension in Pennsylvania Democratic Party, et al. v. Boockvar, K., et al., 133 MM 2020. The court also dismissed as moot the Petitioner's request that prepaid postage be provided on mail-in ballot given that the Department of States has announced that it will provide funds to county election boards for postage on mail-in ballots. Finally, the court denied the Petitioner's request that voters be permitted third-party assistance with the return of mail-in ballots. | ||
