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
Garbett v. Herbert
Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Appeal voluntarily dismissed)
Garbett v. Herbert, No. 2:20-cv-00245 (D. Utah), 2020 WL 2064101 |
||
| Case Summary | After a request to modify the signature gathering requirements to permit electronic signatures, a candidate seeking the Republican party nomination for gubernatorial election brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Utah's Governor and Lieutenant Governor, asserting that state's voter signature requirement (28,000 written (original or electronic copies) signatures) for access to primary ballot, in conjunction with emergency measures enacted by state in response to COVID-19 pandemic, violated candidate's First Amendment associational rights and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right. Candidate moved for preliminary injunction. Candidate focused on the 1st Amendment argument and prevailed, though the injunctive relief granted was more narrowly tailored than requested. Candidate sought either to be added to the ballot or to be provided more time to collect signatures once the stay-at-home orders are lifted. Instead, the court granted injunctive relief requiring the candidate to be added to the ballot if 19,040 valid signatures (the pro rata portion of the threshold required based on days available to obtain signatures prior to stay-at-home order effectiveness) were submitted. Ultimately, that number of signatures was not obtained, the candidate appealed to the Tenth Circuit, but then voluntarily dismissed that suit. Prior to bringing suit, the candidate also sought relief from the State from the requirement that the signatures be written (wet or copies). The State determined that it didn't have the power to permit electronic signatures or to reduce the threshold number of signatures, but, in it's opinion, the court did not agree, asserting instead that when the State has greater powers, it also has lesser, complimentary powers. | |
| Filed | 04/13/2020 | |
| State | Utah | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Tenth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn () | |
| Last Updated | 11/19/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, E-signatures) | |
| Complaint(s) | 04/13/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 04/29/2020: Order/Ruling, PI Granted in part. The court determined that (1) availability of an alternative, constitutional route to access the primary ballot did not per se preclude finding that the framework for ballot access by voter signature was unconstitutional as applied, (2) voter signature requirement as applied, in conjunction with the unforeseen, extraordinary circumstances posed by COVID-19 and related good-faith State actions, including stay-at-home orders, had the impact of severely burdening the candidate's access to the ballot and thus her First Amendment associational rights, (3) the signature requirement was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to protect state's compelling interest in ensuring health and safety of citizens, as the Governor could have revised the signature threshold (if 28,000 signatures evidences a modicum of support in normal circumstances, some lower number would reflect a comparable level of support during this time of pandemic, stay-at-home, etc.), (4) the narrowly tailored preliminary injunction would not adversely affect the public interest because it upholds the State's interest in having candidates on the ballot first demonstrate a modicum of support, and (5) since a loss of First Amendment rights entitles the candidate to a presumption of irreparable injury, the balance of harms favored issuance of the narrowly tailored preliminary injunction to reduce signature requirement for access to ballot. The PI serves to enjoin the enforcement of the 28,000 signature threshold, instead directing the State to include the candidate on the ballot if she surpasses the reduced threshold of 19,040 valid signatures, the threshold when the number is reduced proportionally by the time for signature-gathering that was lost due to health concerns (33 days). | |
Garbett v. Herbert, No. 20-4051 (10th Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | After a request to modify the signature gathering requirements to permit electronic signatures, a candidate seeking the Republican party nomination for gubernatorial election brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Utah's Governor and Lieutenant Governor, asserting that state's voter signature requirement (28,000 written (original or electronic copies) signatures) for access to the primary ballot, in conjunction with emergency measures enacted by state in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, violated the candidate's First Amendment associational right and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right. Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff prevailed below on the first amendment issue though the injunctive relief granted was more narrowly tailored than requested. Plaintiff sought either to be added to the ballot or to be provided more time to collect signatures once the stay-at-home orders were lifted. Instead, the court granted injunctive relief requiring the Plaintiff to be added to the ballot if 19,040 valid signatures (the pro rata portion of the threshold required based on days available to obtain signatures prior to stay-at-home order effectiveness) were submitted. Because Plaintiff had not obtained that number of signature she appealed to the 10th Circuit, but then voluntarily dismissed that suit. | |
| Filed | 05/01/2020 | |
| State | Utah | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Tenth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Appeal voluntarily dismissed) | |
| Last Updated | 08/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, E-signatures) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/01/2020: Appellant Brief | |
| 05/04/2020: Order/Ruling, Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed | ||
