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
Paher v. Cegavske
Closed
Paher v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-00243 (D. Nev.), 2020 WL 2089813 |
||
| Case Summary | Plaintiffs claim that a universal mail voting plan violates the right to vote (1st and 14th Amendments). They further claim that the plan violates the Purcell principle, violates Article I, § 4 of the Constitution, and violates Article IV, § 4 as well as the Nevada Constitution. State constitutional claims: The universal mail voting plan violates the right to vote (article 2, §1; art. 1, §§ 8,9) Amendments). The court rejected the request for a preliminary injunction against an all-mail election for the upcoming June 9, 2020 Nevada primary. Specifically, the court held that the Plaintiffs had no standing, but that even if they established standing, Defendants’ interests in protecting the health and safety of Nevada’s voters outweigh any burden on the plaintiffs’ right to vote, especially when that burden is premised on a speculative claim of voter fraud resulting in dilution of votes. | |
| Filed | 04/22/2020 | |
| State | Nevada | |
| Type of Court | Federal | |
| Circuit | Ninth Circuit | |
| Status | Closed () | |
| Last Updated | 09/07/2020 | |
| Issue Tag(s) | Vote-by-Mail (Claim that Mail Voting Leads to Fraud and/or Vote Dilution) In-Person Voting COVID Concern (Suspension of In-Person Voting) Other Purcell Principle, Guarantee Clause |
|
| Complaint(s) | 04/22/2020: Complaint filed. | |
| 05/12/2020: Complaint, Am. Complaint filed. | ||
| Dispositive Ruling(s) | 04/30/2020: Order/Ruling, Finding that Plaintiffs had failed to allege a sufficiently particularized injury to establish standing, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. | |
| 05/27/2020: Order/Ruling, Again finding that Plaintiffs had failed to allege a sufficiently particularized injury to establish standing, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court additionally held that the Purcell principle provided a further basis to deny the motion, and that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary injunction to be granted. | ||
| 07/31/2020: Order/Ruling, Case dismissed as moot since primary already happened. | ||
