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
Garcia v. Griswold
Closed
Garcia v. Griswold, No. 2020CV031467 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cnty.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiff Garcia sought to be on the 2020 Democratic Primary ballot as a candidate for US Senate. Defendant Secretary of State determined that plaintiff had collected 89.5% of the required number of valid signatures. | |
| Filed | 04/24/2020 | |
| State | Colorado | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 09/01/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number) | |
| Complaint(s) | 04/24/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 04/30/2020: Order/Ruling, Relief Granted. The Court found that it had jurisdiction because Garcia had alleged violation of the election code. The Court found that Garcia had substantially complied with the election code's signature requirement, that the purpose of the signature requirement was substantially achieved depiste the non-compliance, that there was a good faith effort to comply. Consistent with the principle that the election code be liberally construed to permit ballot access, the Court granted relief requested by plaintiff. | |
Garcia v. Griswold, No. 2020SA162 (Colo. S. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiff Garcia sought to be on the 2020 Democratic Primary ballot as a candidate for US Senate. Defendant Secretary of State determined that plaintiff had collected 89.5% of the required number of valid signatures. | |
| Filed | 05/04/2020 | |
| State | Colorado | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 09/01/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/04/2020: Appellant Brief | |
| 05/05/2020: Order/Ruling, Because the signature minimum requirement contained in § 1-4-801(2)(c)(II), C.R.S. (2019) must be strictly complied with, the district court’s order directing the Secretary of State to place Lorena Garcia’s name on the June Democratic primary ballot is reversed. | ||
Garcia v. Griswold, No. 20-cv-01268-WJM (D. Colo.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs Garcia and her campaign organization filed a complaint to place Garcia on the 2020 Democratic Primary ballot as a candidate for US Senate. Defendant Secretary of State determined that plaintiff had collected 89.5% of the required number of valid signatures. Plaintiff alleged that the State's application of strict compliance to ballot access rules violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment. She sought a declaration that the Colorado Revised Statute § 1-4-801 et seq. unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs during this election cycle, a TRO precluding the Secretary from certifying the ballot until Garcia's claims were heard (or in the alternative, certify the ballot with Garcia's name included), a declaration that petitions submitted by Garcia were sufficient, and an order requiring the Secretary of State to certify Garcia to the ballot. | |
| Filed | 05/06/2020 | |
| State | Colorado | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Tenth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed (Plaintiffs did not make the necessary showing under the balance-of-harms and public-interest elements of the preliminary injunction test.) | |
| Last Updated | 09/16/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number) | |
| Complaint(s) | 05/06/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| 05/06/2020: Complaint filed. | ||
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/07/2020: Order/Ruling, The order denied plaintiff's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction. | |
| 07/15/2020: Order/Ruling, TRO & PI Denied. The Court found that Plaintiffs had not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits because they had not made a strong showing that they could overcome the Secretary’s equitable defense of laches and they had not shown substantial compliance for constitutional purposes. The Court further found plaintiffs had not made the necessary showing under the balance-of-harms and public-interest elements of PI test. | ||
| 07/15/2020: Order/Ruling, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. | ||
| 08/28/2020: Order/Ruling | ||
