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
Lamm v. Bullock
Active
Lamm v. Bullock, No. 6:20-cv-00067 (D. Mont.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs allege that (i) Governor Bullock’s expansion of vote by mail was unlawful and unauthorized and ii) the Secretary of State’s implementation of it by approving county plans implementing was also unlawful and unauthorized | |
| Filed | 09/09/2020 | |
| State | Montana | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Active | |
| Last Updated | 10/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) VBM causes voter disenfranchisement VBM violates the right to vote and the 14th amendment by prioritizing certain counties |
|
| Complaint(s) | 09/09/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/30/2020: Other, The district court concluded that the threat of mail-in voter fraud in Montana is “a fiction.” The court invoked the Purcell principle and denied the request for injunctive relief. The governor’s directive granting universal vote-by-mail stands. | |
Lamm v. Bullock, No. 20-35847 (9th Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs below, a group of Republican voters and the Ravali County Republican Central Committee alleged that (i) Governor Bullock’s expansion of vote by mail was unlawful and unauthorized and ii) the Secretary of State’s implementation of it by approving county plans implementing was also unlawful and unauthorized. After the district court denied a motion by plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction and granted judgment in favor of the defendants, as well as denying a motion for a stay of the order pending appeal, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a stay with the 9th Circuit. | |
| Filed | 09/30/2020 | |
| State | Montana | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Active | |
| Last Updated | 08/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) Claim that Vote by Mail causes voter disenfranchisement Claim that Vote by Mail violates the right to vote and the 14th amendment by prioritizing certain counties |
|
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/06/2020: Other, Emergency motion for stay pending appeal is denied. | |
Lamm v. Bullock, No. 20-35847 (No. 20A61 (S. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs below, a group of Republican voters and the Ravali County Republican Central Committee alleged that (i) Governor Bullock’s expansion of vote by mail was unlawful and unauthorized and ii) the Secretary of State’s implementation of it by approving county plans implementing was also unlawful and unauthorized. After the district court denied a motion by plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction and granted judgment in favor of the defendants, as well as denying a motion for a stay of the order pending appeal, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a stay with the 9th Circuit. After that motion was denied, plaintiffs sought an emergency writ of injunction from Justice Kagan arguing that the Purcell principle should not apply to the recent election regulation changes due to their proximity to the election as well as re-articulating their substantive claims below. | |
| Filed | 10/06/2020 | |
| State | Montana | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Active | |
| Last Updated | 08/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue, Other Vote-by-Mail Issue) Authority To Act (State Separation of Powers) Claim that Vote by Mail causes voter disenfranchisement Claim that Vote by Mail violates the right to vote and the 14th amendment by prioritizing certain counties |
|
| Complaint(s) | 10/06/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/08/2020: Other, Justice Kagan denied petitioners emergency application for a writ of injunction without opinion. | |
