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
Miller v. Thurston
Closed
Miller v. Thurston, No. 5:20-cv-05070 (W.D. Ark.), 2020 WL 2617312 |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs, who sought to place a constitutional amendment on the Arkansas ballot, filed suit alleging Arkansas' ballot access requirements are unconstitutional as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. They alleged the orders and warnings relating to the pandemic made it impossible for Plaintiffs to comply with the Arkansas' formal constitutional and statutory ballot access requirements, and requested injunctive relief ordering that the Secretary of State accept petitions signed by only 6% of the total vote cast in the previous gubernatorial election (and enjoin the State from enforcing the current 10% requirement), order that electronic signatures be accepted, extend the deadline for signature collection to September 3, 2020 (and enjoin the State from enforcing the current July 3, 2020 requirement), and enjoin the enforcement of the requirement that these signatures be obtained in the presence of a canvasser and notary. | |
| Filed | 04/22/2020 | |
| State | Arkansas | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Eighth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed | |
| Last Updated | 05/13/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Petition Signature Requirement (E-signatures, Witness/Notary) | |
| Complaint(s) | 04/22/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 05/25/2020: Order/Ruling, The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in part. The Court decided against Plaintiffs in finding that the number of signatures did not substantially restrict political discussion, nor did they meet their burden with respect to changing the ballot access deadline or allowing electronic signatures. However the Court did preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the "in-person" requirements that the petition be witnessed in-person by a canvasser and sworn in-person before a notary. | |
Miller v. Thurston, No. 20-2095 (8th Cir.), 2020 WL 3240600 |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs, who seek to place a constitutional amendment on the Arkansas ballot, filed suit alleging Arkansas' ballot access requirements are unconstitutional as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. They allege the orders and warnings relating to the pandemic make it impossible for Plaintiffs to comply with the Arkansas' formal constitutional and statutory ballot access requirements, and request injunctive relief ordering that the Secretary of State accept petitions signed by only 6% of the total vote cast in the previous gubernatorial election (and enjoin the State from enforcing the current 10% requirement), order that electronic signatures be accepted, extend the deadline for signature collection to September 3, 2020 (and enjoin the State from enforcing the current July 3, 2020 requirement), and enjoin the enforcement of the requirement that these signatures be obtained in the presence of a canvasser and notary. | |
| Filed | 06/01/2020 | |
| State | Arkansas | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Eighth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 09/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Petition Signature Requirement (E-signatures, Witness/Notary) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 06/14/2020: Order/Ruling, The District Court held that requirements for voters to propose initiatives to petition to amend Arkansas' constitution at least four months before the election and obtain support of at least 10% of registered voters to get initiative on ballot do not violate voters rights to vote; the requirement for handwritten signatures on initiative petitions and the requirement for in-person canvassers witnessing and notarization of such signatures implicate the 1st Amendment and likely are unconstitutional. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court finding that the State was justified in imposing the requirement for a 'wet' signature, witnessed by a canvasser and notarized. The District Court findings re the timing for the petition and number of signatures in support were not appealed. | |
| 06/15/2020: Order/Ruling, The 8th Circuit granted Arkansas' motion for an administrative stay of the lower court ruling and consolidated this motion with the merits of the case. | ||
| 06/18/2020: Appellant Brief | ||
| 07/08/2020: Other, Transcript of Oral Argument | ||
| 07/23/2020: Order/Ruling, The 8th Circuit reversed the lower court decision for abuse of discretion, holding that the District Court applied the wrong standard when reviewing for success on the merits. The 8th Circuit reasoned that the in-person notarization requirement did not have an effect on the communication of ideas, and therefore did not implicate the First Amendment (nor invoke the standard of strict scrutiny). It further held that the District Court erred in concluding the in-person signature requirement posed a severe burden upon the First Amendment, and reasoned that for a non-severe burden, strict scrutiny also does not apply. The Court concluded the requirement was both reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and reversed the District Court grant of permanent injunctive relief. | ||
