COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker

Case Details

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

 

In Re: Canvassing Observation

Closed

In Re: Canvassing Observation, No. 7003 (Penn. Ct. Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cnty.)

  Case Summary Petitioners, the Trump campaign, allege that poll observers do not have sufficient proximity to canvassing.
Filed 11/03/2020
State Pennsylvania
Type of Court State
Status Dispositive Ruling
Last Updated 11/05/2020
Issue Tag(s) Vote-by-Mail (Poll Observer Access)
Dispositive Ruling(s) 11/03/2020: Order/Ruling, The presiding election day judge, based on the witness's testimony, held that Philadelphia was complying with canvassing observer requirements as set forth in Pennsylvania law.

In Re: Canvassing Observation, No. 1094 CD 2020 (Penn. Commonw. Ct.)

  Case Summary The Trump campaign appealed the court of claims ruling that Philadelphia county was complying with poll observer requirements.
Filed 11/04/2020
State Pennsylvania
Type of Court State
Status Dispositive Ruling
Last Updated 11/05/2020
Issue Tag(s) Vote-by-Mail (Poll Observer Access)
Dispositive Ruling(s) 11/04/2020: Appellant Brief
11/05/2020: Order/Ruling, The appeals court reversed the court of claims, and held that all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives be permitted to observe the canvassing processes within 6 feet.

In Re: Canvassing Observation, No. 30 EAP 2020 (Penn. Sup. Ct.)

  Case Summary Philadelphia county appeals the commonwealth court's reversal.
Filed 11/05/2020
State Pennsylvania
Type of Court State
Status Dispositive Ruling
Last Updated 11/19/2020
Issue Tag(s) Vote-by-Mail (Poll Observer Access)
Dispositive Ruling(s) 11/13/2020: Order/Ruling, The Supreme Court found that the procedures for poll observing that the Philadelphia Board of Elections had implemented were reasonable under law. The court held that the legislature held proximity parameters to the discretion of county boards of elections. The court concluded that, based on the plaintiffs' witness's own testimony, he had sufficient access to observe under the Election Code.
© 2020 The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project All rights reserved.