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
Goldstein v. Secretary
Closed
Goldstein v. Secretary, No. SJC-12931 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs, who are each candidates for elected office in Massachusetts, file a claim asserting that the required 44 signatures to be listed on the ballot, in light of COVID-19, pose an unconstitutionally severe burden on would-be candidates. They seek to eliminate the minimum number of signatures for the September 1 primary election. In the alternative they seek equitable relief, such as extended deadlines, or permission for online signatures. The Court agrees that extenuating circumstances call for equitable relief: 50% reduction in the number of signatures needed, extended deadlines, permission for electronic signatures. This only applies to the Sept. 1 primary election. | |
| Filed | 04/08/2020 | |
| State | Massachusetts | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed (The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and granted three forms of relief to the signature requirement to run for elective office in the primary election set for September 1st, 22. i) Number of signatures required is reduced by 5%, ii) deadline to collect signatures is extended to June 2nd, 22, and iii) electronic submission of signatures is to be allowed. Court noted that these provisions only apply to the primary 22, not the general 22 due to the circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic during the primary.) | |
| Last Updated | 03/13/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, Deadline/Time to Collect, E-signatures) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 04/09/2020: Petition | |
| 04/17/2020: Order/Ruling, Petition Granted. Court granted declaratory relief ordering that the number of signatures required for party (as opposed to nonparty) candidates to secure a place on ballots for 9/1 primary be halved, that deadlines for filing be extended, and that candidates be permitted to file for inclusion on ballot using electronic signatures. The Court looks at the constitutionality of restrictions on access to the ballot on a sliding scale, through which it "weigh[s] the character and magnitude of the burden the State's rule imposes on the plaintiffs' rights against the interests the State contends justify that burden, and consider the extent to which the State's concerns make the burden necessary." The Court states that, under the circumstances rising from the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies strict scrutiny to the minimum signature requirements at issue, regardless of whether it applies a "severe burden" or "significant interference" formulation. It is clear that, given the pandemic, traditional venues for signature collection are unavailable. The need to obtain signatures adds a severe burden and a significant interference, and the government has not advanced a compelling interest for why those requirements should still apply under the given circumstances. If the legislature imposed strict new signature collection restrictions right before the election that would be unconstitutional. These new restrictions weren't caused by the legislature, but were imposed by the virus. The judiciary must provide a remedy when fundamental constitutional rights are violated. The Court finds that the State still has a reasonable interest in ensuring that a candidate makes a preliminary showing of support among the electorate before appearing on the ballot. The Court holds that a 50% reduction in signatures required, an extension of deadlines for signatures, and permission to file using e-Signatures is a fair balance between the interests of the candidates and the state. | ||
