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
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Dunlap
Closed
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Dunlap, No. CV-20-95 (Me. Super. Ct., Kennebec) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiff Alliance for Retired Americans is suing Defendants Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General, claiming that 6 provisions related to absentee voting are unconstitutional and deny people’s fundamental rights. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent the 6 challenged provisions from being enforced for the November general election. The 6 provisions include: paper and pen registration, photocopier requirement, postage tax, absentee ballot assistance restrictions, election day receipt deadline, and rejection without notice/signature matching. Plaintiffs allege 6 counts for relief, based on the 1st and 14th Amendments, Maine’s Constitution, and Maine law. | |
| Filed | 06/24/2020 | |
| State | Maine | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed (None) | |
| Last Updated | 02/25/2021 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Signature Verification Standards, Restriction on Assistance or Collection of Mail Ballots for Return, Postage Requirement, Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark)) | |
| Complaint(s) | 06/24/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 09/30/2020: Order/Ruling, The court applied an Anderson-Burdick sliding scrutiny test on constitutional challenges to a variety of Maine statutes: from a physical signature requirement to the absentee ballot deadline. The court held that all burdens on the right to vote were moderate to slight, and denied injunctive relief. | |
Alliance for Retired Americans v. Dunlap, No. Ken-20-262 (Me. Sup. Ct.) |
||
| Case Summary | Petitioners appeal the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction, which sought to extend the deadline to recieve mail-in ballots from a receive-by date to a postmarked-by date. Petitioners claim that the receive-by deadline for mail in ballots violates constitutional rights under the constraints of the pandemic and also claim that the ongoing delay in US Postal Service delivery will prejudice voters if the deadlines are not extended. | |
| Filed | 06/24/2020 | |
| State | Maine | |
| Type of Court | State | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 11/04/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Mail Voting Deadlines (for Applying, Receiving, Postmark)) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 10/23/2020: Order/Ruling, The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the finding of the trial court that petitioners do not meet their burden to prove a likelihood of success on the merits nor that the voters will be prejudiced by the current laws and deadlines. | |
