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
Libertarian Party v. Wolf
Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Plaintiff's filed for dismissal. There was no settlement. Instead plaintiff's refered to present circumstances and their belief they did not receive a fair trial.)
Libertarian Party v. Wolf, No. 5:20-cv-02299 (E.D. Penn.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs, three political parties and their supporters and potential candidates for office, sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s in-person signature requirements for party candidates. Plaintiffs argued that given the extraordinary circumstances that have resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Governor’s stay at home orders and social distancing restrictions, the Commonwealth’s signature requirements violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and thus that they are entitled to automatic placement on the November general election ballot. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that amidst the pandemic the signature requirements impose an intermediate burden on Plaintiffs, and that this burden is not outweighed by the Commonwealth’s legitimate interest in avoiding ballot clustering and ensuring viable candidates and the orderly and efficient administration of elections. | |
| Filed | 05/14/2020 | |
| State | Pennsylvania | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Third Circuit | |
| Status | Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Plaintiff's filed for dismissal. There was no settlement. Instead plaintiff's refered to present circumstances and their belief they did not receive a fair trial.) | |
| Last Updated | 09/05/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number) | |
| Complaint(s) | 05/14/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/14/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court denied Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The Court found that amidst the pandemic the signature requirements impose an intermediate burden on Plaintiffs, and that this burden is not outweighed by the Commonwealth’s interests. | |
| 08/14/2020: Order/Ruling, Case voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs. | ||
Libertarian Party v. Wolf, No. 20-2481 (3d Cir.), |
||
| Case Summary | Third parties and their candidates for US House, Senate, and President sued the Virginia State Board of Elections to eliminate the petition signature requirement for the 2020 election due to COVID. After a one day bench trial on 7/13/20, the Court concluded that the signature requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs this election year. The deadline for collecting signatures for House and Senate candidates was extended to August 1, and the signature threshold number was reduced to 35% of the statutory figure. Candidates for President had the signature threshold reduced to 50% of the statutory figure. A previous consent decree entered in the case allows petition circulators to witness signatures over the internet so long as the circulator can actually see the voter sign the form. The original form must also be returned to the circulator so that the circulator can sign the affidavit. After a bench trial in favor of Plaintiffs, Defendants appealed. | |
| Filed | 07/20/2020 | |
| State | Pennsylvania | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Third Circuit | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 09/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/28/2020: Order/Ruling, The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court for the reasons set forth in the District Court opinion. Among other things, the District Court correctly applied the balancing test set out by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). The Third Circuit panel agreed with the District Court that: (1) enforcing the signature requirement, in combination with the Governor’s Orders issued to address the COVID-19 pandemic, imposed only a moderate burden because the record shows that the Appellants have had sufficient time and means to meet the signature requirements under Pennsylvania law (which, the court noted, were reduced by more than 90% pursuant to an order in a previous suit, see Order, Const. Party of Pa. v. Aichele, No. 5:12-cv-02726 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018), ECF No. 115), and (2) the August 3 deadline for collecting signatures did not constitute a “severe burden” requiring strict scrutiny. The court further agreed with the district court that the law survives intermediate scrutiny because it serves the Commonwealth’s legitimate and sufficiently important interests in “avoiding ballot clustering, ensuring viable candidates, and the orderly and efficient administration of elections.” The Court held that for these reasons and others expressed by the District Court, the Appellants have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Because it resolved the merits of the appeal, it denied as moot the motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. | |
