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
Middleton v. Andino
Closed
Middleton v. Andino, No. 3:20-cv-01730 (D.S.C.) |
||
| Case Summary | Facts: Individual voters and candidates, the South Carolina Democratic Party, the DNC and the DCCC challenged certain provisions of South Carolina’s vote by mail laws. The challenged provisions include: prohibiting voters under 65 from voting by mail (with limited exceptions) ("Absentee Ballot Age Restriction"); requiring the mail-in absentee ballot envelope to be signed by a witness ("Witness Requirement"); rejecting mail-in absentee ballots not received by 7pm on Election Day ("Election Day Cutoff"); and making it a felony for candidates and paid campaign staff to assist voters with returning voted absentee ballots to elections officials ("Absentee Assistance Ban"). In addition, the plaintiffs challenged South Carolina's failure to provide pre-paid postage on mail-in absentee ballots ("Postage Tax"). These provisions allegedly disenfranchise voters in South Carolina and particularly burden African American voters, especially during the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID-19. Legal Claims: Federal Constitutional Claims: The Absentee Ballot Age Restriction violates the 26th Amendment. The Absentee Ballot Age Restriction, Witness Requirement, Absentee Assistance Ban, and Postage Tax violate the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments (Anderson-Burdick).The Postage Tax constitutes a poll tax in violation of the 14th and 24th Amendments. The Absentee Assistance Ban violates free speech protections under the 1st Amendment. Federal Statutory Claims: The Absentee Ballot Age Restriction, Witness Requirement, Election Day Cutoff, Absentee Assistance Ban, and Postage Tax constitute vote denial in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Absentee Assistance Ban is preempted by Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Complaint Amendment: All claims relating to the Postage Tax were removed in the first amended complaint (see Summary: Dispositive Ruling #2) | |
| Filed | 05/01/2020 | |
| State | South Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Fourth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 02/25/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement, Failure to Provide Vote-by-Mail Accommodations for Voters with Disabilities, Restriction on Assistance or Collection of Mail Ballots for Return, Postage Requirement, Failure to Include ID/Documentation, Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution) | |
| Complaint(s) | 05/01/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/25/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the Absentee Ballot Age Restriction, Witness Requirement, and Election Day Cutoff as they relate to the South Carolina Democratic primary election and primary run-off ("June Primary"). The request with respect to the Absentee Ballot Age Cutoff was found moot in light of South Carolina's passage of S.J. Res. 635, 124rd Gen Assemb. (S.C. 2020). The request with respect to the Witness Requirement was granted solely for the June Primary since (a) the burdens of placing voter health at risk likely outweigh the extent to which the Witness Requirement advances the state's interest in reducing voter fraud and maintaining voting integrity, (b) infringement of the right to vote causes irreparable harm, and (c) the balance of equities tip in Plaintiffs' favor and an injunction is in the public interest in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The request with respect to the Election Day Cutoff was denied because the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits due to the fact that the obstacles to meeting the cutoff are principally unrelated to the pandemic's health risks and the burdens imposed by the cutoff are minimal and nondiscriminatory. | |
| 07/08/2020: Order/Ruling, SEC Defendants, in their capacity as officers and members of the State Election Commission, represent that the Commission intends to provide prepaid postage on all mail absentee ballot return envelopes for the November 2020 General Election. | ||
| 07/24/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims (the Postage Tax claim had been dismissed by a joint stipulation of the parties) because Defendant had failed to prove that the claims fail as a matter of law based on the pleadings alone. | ||
| 09/18/2020: Order/Ruling, The court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Specifically, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction as to the Witness Requirement, and prohibits enforcement of the Witness Requirement for registered absentee voters only during the November 2020 General Election occurring in the State of South Carolina. The court denies Plaintiffs' motion for injunctions regarding the Election Day Cutoff, so absentee ballots will still need to be received by 7:00PM on election day. The court also denied Plaintiff's motion for injunction regarding the Candidate Collection Ban, so candidates and paid campaign staff will still be prohibited from collecting and turning in voters' absentee ballots. | ||
Middleton v. Andino, No. 20A55 (S. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | Application for Stay | |
| Filed | 10/01/2020 | |
| State | South Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | US Supreme Court | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 02/18/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/01/2020: Appellant Brief | |
| 10/05/2020: Other, The Supreme Court stayed the district court’s injunction on two grounds. First, the Constitution entrusts the people’s health to the politically-accountable branches (in this case, the South Carolina legislature). Second, the Court emphasizes again that federal courts “ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election.” The Court stayed the injunction against South Carolina’s ballot witness requirement, except for any ballots cast before the stay issued and received within two days may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement. | ||
Middleton v. Andino, No. 20-2022 (4th Cir.) |
||
| Filed | 09/30/2020 | |
| State | South Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Fourth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 02/25/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/24/2020: Order/Ruling, Stay of injunction pending appeal. | |
| 09/25/2020: Order/Ruling, The appellate court granted a rehearing en banc and vacated their September 24 order which had granted a stay of injunction pending appeal. | ||
| 09/30/2020: Order/Ruling, In an en banc consideration, the Fourth Circuit denied the motion for stay pending appeal. The circuit court leaves in place the injunction against the witness requirement for absentee voting in South Carolina. | ||
| 12/17/2020: Order/Ruling, Dismissed as moot. | ||
