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/fjreds0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Reductions in Signatures Required to Get
on the Ballot in Maryland Because of a Pandemic
Maryland Green Party v. Hogan
(Ellen Lipton Hollander, 1:20-cv-1253) and
Ivey v. Lamone (1:20-cv-1995) and Dhillon v. Wobensmith
(1:20-cv-2197) (Richard D. Bennett) (D. Md.)
Two district judges in the District of Maryland issued consent de-
crees relaxing ballot petition signature requirements for the Novem-
ber 3, 2020, general election in light of social distancing made neces-
sary by a pandemic. A third case seeking further modifications was
unsuccessful.
Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot;
COVID-19; case assignment; attorney fees.
Three cases in the District of Maryland sought modifications to ballot petition
signature requirements in light of a global infectious pandemic. The first two
resulted in consent decrees, but the third asked for more than the court was
willing to provide.
Minor Political Parties
Two minor parties and their chairs filed in the District of Maryland a federal
complaint against Maryland's election officials on May 19, 2020, seeking dam-
ages for the governor and the administrator of elections' refusal to adequately
adjust the ballot petition signature requirements in light of social distancing
made necessary by the global COVID-19 infectious pandemic.1 With their
complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and
a preliminary injunction modifying the signature requirement.2
On the next day, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander observed that the tempo-
rary restraining motion should not proceed without evidence of sufficient no-
tice to the defendants.3 The plaintiffs conferred with the defendants and sub-
mitted an agreement to brief an injunction motion by June 3.4 Judge Hollander
set the case for a telephone conference on May 22.5
At the conference, Judge Hollander agreed to the proposed briefing sched-
ule and set the case for another telephone conference on June 8 and a hearing
on June 12.6 I cannot yet determine whether [the hearing] will be in court, via
telephone, or via Zoom, Judge Hollander observed.7
1. Complaint, Md. Green Party v. Hogan, No. 1:20-cv-1253 (D. Md. May 19, 2020), D.E. 1.
2. Motion, id. (May 19, 2020), D.E. 2.
3 Order, id. (May 20, 2020), D.E. 6.
4. Letter, id. (May 20, 2020), D.E. 7
5. Docket Sheet, id. (May 19, 2020) (D.E. 8).
6. Order, id. (May 22, 2020), D.E. 13.
7. Id.
Federal Judicial Center 11/15/2020
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjreds0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)