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
Common Cause Rhode Island v. Gorbea
Closed
Common Cause Rhode Island v. Gorbea, No. 1:20-cv-00318 (D.R.I.), 2020 WL 4365608 |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs Common Cause Rhode Island (CC-RI), League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, and three Rhode Island registered voters sued Rhode Island Secretary of State and members of the Rohde Island Board of Elections, challenging the state's two witness/notary signature requirement of mail-in ballots. With exceptions related to voters in medical facilities, abroad, or out of state for military service, Rhode Island requires that “the signature on the certifying envelopes containing a voted ballot must be made before a notary public or two (2) witnesses who shall set forth their addresses on the form.” R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-20-2.1(d)(1), (d)(4).Where the voter is voting by mail because they are “confined in any hospital, convalescent home, nursing home, rest home, or similar institution, public or private, within the State of Rhode Island,” the ballot “must be witnessed by the state supervisors” who travel in bipartisan pairs to each of the aforementioned facilities within twenty days before the election, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-20-14(a), 17-20-2(2). Plaintiffs alleged that these laws violated the ADA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to elections during the COVID-19 pandemic as they imposed an undue burden on elections. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to suspend the witness and notary requirement for the September 2020 primary and the November 2020 general elections. | |
| Filed | 07/22/2020 | |
| State | Rhode Island | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | First Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/13/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement) | |
| Complaint(s) | 07/23/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/30/2020: Order/Ruling, Consent Judgment Granted. The Court found that the parties to the Consent Decree all had validly consented to its terms. Had there been a hearing on the merits, the Court would have found that the mail-ballot witness and notary requirement as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The Court further found that the Consent Decree was fair, adequate, and reasonable. Finally, the Consent Decree was not legally impermissible. The Court additionally rejected the proposed intervenors argument that the Court would be powerless to intervene as the legilature had not acted. | |
Common Cause Rhode Island v. Gorbea, No. 20-1753 (1st Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | The District Court denied a motion to intervene by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island ("the Republicans"). The Republicans appealed the denial of motion to intervene and the entry of consent judgment and decree. They also filed a motion to intervene to appeal and to stay the district court's judgment and decree pending appeal. | |
| Filed | 07/31/2020 | |
| State | Rhode Island | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | First Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/13/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/31/2020: Other | |
| 08/07/2020: Order/Ruling, In a per curiam opinion, the First Circuit reversed in part the district court's order denying intervention only for purposes of appeal, and the motion for stay pending appeal is denied. Specifically, the Court found the burden imposed by the challenged two-witness and notary requirements in the midst of a pandemic is significant. Although the broader regulatory interest is substantial and important, the Court found, but the incremental interest in the specific regulation at issue is marginal at best. The Court observed that the appellants also struggled to establish any significant likelihood of irreparable harm, because voter fraud is dubious as a matter of fact and reality. Given the deference to a district court's exercise of its equitable discretion, silence of Rhode Island itself, the recent election without any attestation requirement, the First Circuit denied stay pending appeal. | ||
Common Cause R.I. v. Gorbea, No. 20A28 (Sup. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | The intervenors Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island applied for an emergency stay of the district court's ruling. The basis for the application is a recent Supreme Court stay of an injunction against Alabama’s witness requirement—a law requiring absentee ballots to be verified by two witnesses or one notary. Merrill v. People First of Ala., 2020 WL 3604049 (U.S. July 2, 2020). The applicants argue the Rhode Island law is the same as that in the Alabama case. | |
| Filed | 08/10/2020 | |
| State | Rhode Island | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 02/04/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Witness and/or Notary Requirement) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 08/10/2020: Petition, Emergency Application for Stay | |
| 08/13/2020: Order/Ruling, The application for stay presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the Court is denied. Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama, 591 U. S. ___ (2020), and other similar cases where a State defends its own law, here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition. Under these circumstances, the applicants lack a cognizable interest in the State’s ability to “enforce its duly enacted” laws. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___, ___ n. 17 (2018). The status quo is one in which the challenged requirement has not been in effect, given the rules used in Rhode Island’s last election, and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would grant the application. | ||
