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
A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose
Closed
A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose, No. 1:20-cv-01908 (N.D. Ohio) |
||
| Case Summary | USPS operational changes may delay receipt of mailed absentee ballots and result in voided ballots. Ohio now allows absentee voters to drop off absentee ballot applications and ballots in secure drop boxes rather than mailing materials via USPS. But Ohio Secretary of State LaRose also restricts county election authorities from installing such drop boxes anywhere other than in the office of each county's board of elections. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that restricting each county to a single location for dropping off absentee materials violates the 1st and 14th Amendments by unduly burdening Ohioan's right to vote and violates the 14th Amendment by making it easier to vote in less populous counties. The plaintiffs also seek temporary and permanent injunctions allowing installation of secure drop boxes in more than a single location in each county and allowing voters to return absentee ballot applications and ballots to any polling place at which they may vote. | |
| Filed | 08/26/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Sixth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Limiting the number of secure drop boxes for turning in absentee ballots to a single drop box per county |
|
| Complaint(s) | 08/26/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/06/2020: Order/Ruling, After the Secretary of State issued Directive 2020-22 authorizing any board to deploy its staff to receive ballots at sites other than the board office, the court determined the suit moot and dismissed without prejudice. | |
| 09/25/2020: Order/Ruling, The court declined to rule on the motion for a temporary injunction to await a state court's ruling on the same issue. The court did, however, order Secretary of State LaRose to coordinate with Cuyahoga County elections officials to prevent the anticipated consequences of his order limiting installation of secure drop boxes to a single location in the heavily populated county. | ||
| 10/06/2020: Order/Ruling, After the Secretary of State issued Directive 2020-22 authorizing any board to deploy its staff to receive ballots at sites other than the board office, the court determined the suit moot and dismissed without prejudice. | ||
| 10/08/2020: Order/Ruling, Secretary LaRose’s October 7 email regarding the court’s previous decision prompted the court to reevaluate the language in his directives. The court granted reconsideration. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Directive 2020-16, which provides for one dropbox per county. The court applied Anderson-Burdick and found that the Directive did not even meet rational basis review. The court granted a preliminary injunction. | ||
A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose, No. 20-4063 (6th Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | Ohio Secretary of State LaRose seeks appeal of the district court's ruling enjoined the Secretary's guidelines that each county only have one drop box, the injunction gave county election officials the green light to install off-site drop boxes and to use their staff to collect ballots off site. | |
| Filed | 10/08/2020 | |
| State | Ohio | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Sixth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 06/21/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Drop Boxes/Drop Off Locations) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/08/2020: Other | |
| 10/09/2020: Other, The Court held that because 1) LaRose made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on appeal 2) refusing to grant the stay would cause disruption to the election process while granting it would harm no one and 3) public policy would favor the stay because of the risk of voter confusion of implementing new voting rules so soon before an election (citing Purcell) it would grant LaRose's motion for a stay pending appeal. In particular, in its discussion of likelihood of success on the merits, the Court determined that the at issue restriction was reasonable and non-discriminatory and so subject only to rational basis review. It further noted that even if, under the Anderson-Burdick sliding scale, the restriction were subject to a form of intermediate review it would pass muster because of the important state interest in uniformity furthered by the restriction. | ||
| 10/28/2020: Order/Ruling, The court dismissed the appeal for mootness. | ||
