U.S. Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Decision in Alabama that Made it Easier for Voters in Three Counties to vote Absentee

On the afternoon of July 2, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay an order of a U.S. District Court in Alabama that had made it easier for people to vote absentee in three counties. People First of Alabama v Merrill, 19A1063.

The case only concerns the runoff primaries being held July 14. The U.S. District Court on June 15 had enjoined state laws that say when someone applies for an absentee ballot, he or she must enclose a copy of the voter’s ID, and also must have a statement signed either by two witnesses or a notary public. It is not necessarily easy for persons without a home printer to make photocopies, while businesses and libraries are closed down. On June 25, the Eleventh Circuit had refused the state’s request for a stay, but now the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the U.S. District Court. The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain why it acted as it did. Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s one-page order.

The lower courts had also suspended the state policy that does not permit curbside voting, and had said that if county election officials want to offer curbside voting, they may do so. That lower court ruling is also now not in effect.

Sixth Circuit Refuses to Stay U.S. District Court Opinion that Gave Ballot Access Relief to Michigan Initiatives

On July 2, the Sixth Circuit issued an order in SawariMedia v Whitmer, 20-1594. This is the case over whether Michigan must give ballot access relief to initiative proponents. The U.S. District Court had said the state must either cut the number of signatures, or give substantially more time to finish the petition. Michigan asked for a stay, but the Sixth Circuit refused the state’s request.

The three judges were Eric L. Clay, a Clinton appointee; Alan E. Norris, a Reagan appointee; and Joan Larsen, a Trump appointee. Larsen was formerly on the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Sixth Circuit has been handling ballot access relief due to the health crisis differently in Michigan and Ohio. The difference is the attitude of the state government toward social distancing. Ohio had made a social-distancing exception for “First Amendment activity”; other states have not done this.

U.S. District Court in California Refuses Ballot Access Relief to the Common Sense Party

On June 26, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused injunctive relief to the Common Sense Party, which had been trying to qualify as a new party in California using the registration membership alternative. That requires approximately 68,000 party members by July 3, for a party that just wants to participate in the presidential election. The Common Sense Party v Padilla, e.d., 2:20cv-01091.

Here is the 17-page order, which says that the party could have been gaining registrations via e-mail and postal mail, so the health crisis should not have been fatal to the party’s registration drive. The party has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, case number 20-71888.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Over New Jersey Limits to Political Slogans on Primary Ballots

On July 2, two Democrats running in the New Jersey July 7 primary for U.S. House filed a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit attacks the state law that restricts political slogans that candidates can place next to their names on primary ballots. Mazo v Way, 2:20cv-8174. Here is the Complaint.

No one expects that the case will have any impact on the 2020 primary, because the primary is just a few days away. The lawsuit will have its first impact, if it wins, in the 2021 gubernatorial primary. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.