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
Moore v. Circosta
Closed
Moore v. Circosta, No. 4:20-cv-00182 (E.D.N.C.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and multiple residents of North Carolina, bring claims against the North Carolina State Board of Elections under the Equal Protection and Elections Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The claims focus on three memoranda released by the state board of elections altering election regulations as required by the settlement in North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans. Plaintiffs claim that these changes were outside of the authoirty of the board and deny people who voted prior to the changes equal protection of the laws. | |
| Filed | 09/26/2020 | |
| State | North Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Fourth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution) Authority To Act (Elections Clause) |
|
| Complaint(s) | 09/26/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/03/2020: Order/Ruling, The federal district court issued a restraining order against the consent decree granted by the state court in NC Alliance. The court applied a Bush v. Gore Fourteenth Amendment analysis, and concluded that the state court had acted too late. | |
| 10/14/2020: Order/Ruling, The District Court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement and distribution of several Numbered Memoranda issued by the North Carolina State Board of Elections pertaining to absentee voting, finding that (1) plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their Equal Protection challenges with respect to the State Board of Elections’ procedures for curing ballots without a witness signature and for the deadline extension for receipt of ballots; yet, (2) injunctive relief should be denied at this late date, even in the face of what appear to be clear violations. | ||
Moore v. Circosta, No. 20-02107 (4th Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | Appeal of District Court injunction denial. | |
| Filed | 10/15/2020 | |
| State | North Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Fourth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark)) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/20/2020: Order/Ruling, The Fourth Circuit considered the sole issue of an extension of the deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots (from 3 to 9 days) in North Carolina. The court believed the witness requirement was not at issue. Citing Purcell, the court declined to enjoin the ballot-receipt extension. The court noted that plaintiffs lack standing and would not succeed on the merits. The November 12 extended deadline stands. | |
| 11/23/2020: Order/Ruling, The court granted appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal. | ||
Moore v. Circosta, No. 20A72 (S. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | The NC GOP House and Senate Leaders each filed their own application for injunctive relief seeking the Supreme Court to stay, pending appeal, an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit leaving in place an extension of the deadline to receive absentee ballots for the 2020 election in North Carolina. | |
| Filed | 10/22/2020 | |
| State | North Carolina | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | US Supreme Court | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 03/03/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark)) | |
| Complaint(s) | 10/22/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/28/2020: Order/Ruling, On October 28, 2020, the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, denied the application for injunctive relief. Justice Barrett did not take part in the decision. Justice Gorsuch, dissenting, cited the Elections Clause as standing for the proposition that the North Carolina State Board of Elections should not have altered the ballot receipt deadline. This decision leaves in place an extension of the deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots to nine days after the election, as well as other measures ordered by Judge Osteen in his October 14, 2020 decision. | |
