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
Kishore v. Whitmer
Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Voluntary Dismissal)
Kishore v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-11605 (E.D. Mich.), 2020 WL 3819125 |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs filed action challenging Michigan's ballot-access requirements for independent candidates for President of the United States. The plaintiffs had filed to run for President/Vice-President with the FEC but did not file the qualifying petition or collect the requisite signatures under Michigan law. Plaintiffs claim that Michigan's enforcement of the in-person signature gathering requirements and deadline for ballot access against them violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because, due to the COVID pandemic, the requirements created an absolute bar to ballot access for them. Plaintiffs argued that under the Anderson-Burdick test, strict scrutiny should apply. Defendants argue, under Anderson-Burdick, that strict scrutiny should not apply because the plaintiffs did not make efforts to collect signatures and so were not diligent in exercising their rights. | |
| Filed | 06/18/2020 | |
| State | Michigan | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Sixth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed. Settled and/or Withdrawn (Voluntary Dismissal) | |
| Last Updated | 10/22/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, Deadline/Time to Collect, E-signatures) | |
| Complaint(s) | 06/18/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 07/08/2020: Order/Ruling, PI was denied because the court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to be successful on the merits. The Anderson-Burdick test creates a sliding scale of review such that laws that are more burdensome are reviewed using strict scrutiny and those that are less are reviewed using intermediate scrutiny or rational basis. Here, the court applied intermediate scrutiny because it found that the plaintiffs had numerous opportunities to still fulfill the signature and filing requirements both before and after Michigan's stay-at-home order. In addition, court noted that 1st Amendment claims require state action and the plaintiffs had stopped campaign events before the stay-at-home order so its decision to forgo ballot-access initiatives cannot be held against the state. Thus the burden was not severe, and intermediate scrutiny was applied. The court found that the state interest in preventing frivolous candidates, avoiding voter confusion, and easing administrative burdens on elections officials was sufficient to justify the burden on plaintiffs. | |
| 09/09/2020: Other, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims. | ||
Kishore v. Whitmer, No. 20-1661 (6th Cir.) |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs filed action challenging Michigan's ballot-access requirements for independent candidates for President of the United States. The plaintiffs had filed to run for President/Vice-President with the FEC but did not file the qualifying petition or collect the requisite signatures under Michigan law. Plaintiffs claim that Michigan's enforcement of the in-person signature gathering requirements and deadline for ballot access against them violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because, due to the COVID pandemic, the requirements created an absolute bar to ballot access for them. Plaintiffs argued that under the Anderson-Burdick test, strict scrutiny should apply. Defendants argue, under Anderson-Burdick, that strict scrutiny should not apply because the plaintiffs did not make efforts to collect signatures and so were not diligent in exercising their rights. | |
| Filed | 07/15/2020 | |
| State | Michigan | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Sixth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 09/05/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Candidate Signature Requirement (Threshold Number, Deadline/Time to Collect, E-signatures) | |
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 08/24/2020: Order/Ruling, Order below denying preliminary injunction is affirmed. | |
