HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjcntcd0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
None of These Candidates
Townley v. Nevada
(Robert C. Jones, D. Nev. 3:12-cv-310)
A June 8 federal complaint sought to prohibit a state from includ-
ing none of these candidates on the ballot, because state law pre-
vented that choice from prevailing. On August 22, the judge grant-
ed the plaintiffs relief, but the court of appeals stayed the injunc-
tion. Later, the court of appeals determined that the plaintiffs did
not have standing because the relief sought-elimination of the
none-of-these choice-would not redress the alleged impropriety-
not counting none-of-these votes when determining the winner.
Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Intervention; recusal; case
assignment; Electoral College.
On June 8, 2012, nine voters and two Electoral College candidates in Nevada
filed a federal complaint seeking an order prohibiting Nevada from including
none of these candidates on the 2012 general election ballot because Neva-
da law did not permit none of these candidates to win.'
On June 11, Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., recused himself in light of his de-
cision to cease presiding over cases as of September 30.2 Chief Judge Robert
C. Jones assigned the case to himself in light of the case's time pressures.'
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 20.' They moved for a
preliminary injunction on June 28.'
On July 13, a voter moved to intervene in defense of Nevada's law and his
opportunity to vote for none of these candidates.6 On August 22, Judge
Jones granted intervention and granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunc-
tion.' A preliminary question was whether Nevada's voting machines allowed
voters to skip parts of the ballot rather than select none of these candidates
based on an out-of-court representation by the judge's assistant.' Based in
part on an out-of-court representation by his mother, the attorney for Neva-
1. Complaint, Townley v. Nevada, No. 3:12-cv-310 (D. Nev. June 8, 2012), D.E. 1; Town-
ley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Notice, id. (June 11, 2012), D.E. 6; Order, id. (Sept. 5, 2012), D.E. 51 [hereinafter Sept.
5, 2012, Order].
3. Sept. 5, 2012, Order, supra note 2; Docket Sheet, id. (June 8, 2011) [hereinafter D. Nev.
Docket Sheet] (D.E. 21).
4. Amended Complaint, id. (June 20, 2012), D.E. 10.
5. Preliminary Injunction Motion, id. (June 28, 2012), D.E. 15; Townley, 722 F.3d at
1132.
6. Intervention Motion, id. (July 13, 2012), D.E. 26.
7. Transcript at 2-3, 50, id. (Aug. 22, 2012, filed Aug. 29, 2012), D.E. 46; D. Nev. Docket
Sheet, supra note 3 (D.E. 39); Townley, 722 F.3d at 1132; see Sarah Wheaton, The Protest
Vote: None Judged a Loser in Nevada, N.Y. Times, Aug. 23, 2012, at A13.
8. Transcript, supra note 7, at 3.
Federal Judicial Center 5/5/2018
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcntcd0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)