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/fjcsror0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Ballot Petition Signature Requirements
in Oregon During a Pandemic
People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno
(Michael J. McShane, D. Or. 6:20-cv-1053)
A district judge granted relief to proponents of an initiative with re-
spect to the number of ballot petition signatures required and the
deadline for submission. But the Supreme Court stayed the injunc-
tion. The court of appeals determined that the stay made resolution
of the case in time for the election impractical.
Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Getting on the ballot; ballot
measure; COVID-19; laches.
After an evidentiary hearing, a district judge concluded that an infectious
pandemic had prevented the qualification of a ballot initiative, so he granted
an injunction relaxing the ballot petition signature requirements. But the Su-
preme Court stayed the injunction, and the court of appeals concluded that
the stay essentially mooted the case.
Relief was denied a pro se plaintiff seeking relief on behalf of an organiza-
tion supporting another initiative, because pro se parties cannot represent
organizations and he had not shown diligent attempts to meet the signature
requirements.
A Stayed Injunction
Proponents of a November 2020 ballot initiative and other organizations
filed on June 30 in the District of Oregon a federal complaint against Ore-
gon's secretary of state seeking relief from the ballot petition signature re-
quirement and from the July 2 deadline in light of social distancing made
necessary by the global COVID-19 infectious pandemic.1 With their com-
plaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, re-
questing an expedited hearing and relief on or before July 2.2
On July 1, the court assigned the case to Judge Michael J. McShane.3 Fol-
lowing communication with the parties, Judge McShane set the case for tele-
phonic oral argument on July 9, with contact information to be provided to
the parties by email.4 Oral argument was reset for July 10 on July 7 at the re-
1. Complaint, People Not Politicians Or. v. Clarno, No. 6:20-cv-1053 (D. Or. June 30,
2020), D.E. 1; see People Not Politicians Or. v. Clarno, 472 F. Supp. 3d 890, 893 (D. Or.
2020).
2. Temporary Restraining Order Motion, People Not Politicians Or., No. 6:20-cv-1053
(D. Or. June 30, 2020), D.E. 2; see People Not Politicians Or., 472 F. Supp. 3d at 893.
3. Order, People Not Politicians Or., No. 6:20-cv-1053 (D. Or. July 1, 2020), D.E. 7.
For this report, Tim Reagan interviewed Judge McShane and his law clerks Brooks Kern
and David Svelund by telephone on September 30, 2020.
4. Docket Sheet, People Not Politicians Or., No. 6:20-cv-1053 (D. Or. June 30, 2020)
[hereinafter People Not Politicians Or. Docket Sheet] (D.E. 12).
Federal Judicial Center 1/25/2021
I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcsror0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)