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/nodmnoaa0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
No Ordered Modification of Absentee Ballot
Procedures on the Night Before an Election
Williams v. DeSantis
(Robert L. Hinkle, N.D. Fla. 1:20-cv-67)
During the global infectious COVID-19 pandemic, a federal judge
declined to modify absentee ballot provisions in a presidential pri-
mary election in response to a complaint filed on the night before
election day.
Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots;
COVID-19; laches; intervention; case assignment; primary election.
A district court denied immediate relief to plaintiffs who sought modification
of absentee voting procedures on the night before election day. Continued lit-
igation over procedures for future elections did not result in court-ordered
relief.
First Case
At 9:29 p.m. on the night before Florida's March 17, 2020, presidential primary
election, three organizations and five voters-including two students who had
moved away from their polling places because of the closing of their schools
in light of the global infectious COVID-19 pandemic-filed a federal com-
plaint in the Northern District of Florida against Florida election officials seek-
ing the extension of vote-by-mail options and other accommodations at poll-
ing places because of the pandemic.1 At 11:16 p.m., the plaintiffs filed a mo-
tion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2
Judge Robert L. Hinkle denied the plaintiffs immediate relief on March
17.3
At this hour, with voting in progress, a temporary restraining order
would be adverse to the public interest. At least until the polls close, and un-
der all the circumstances, it will be in the public interest to allow the Gover-
nor, Secretary of State and Supervisors of Elections to perform their respec-
tive roles.4
1. Complaint at 2, Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020), D.E. 1;
First Temporary Restraining Order Denial at 1, id. (Mar. 17, 2020), D.E. 12 [hereinafter Wil-
liams First Temporary Restraining Order Denial], 2020 WL 6589657.
One of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed her claims on the next day. Voluntary Dismis-
sal, id. (Mar. 17, 2020), D.E. 17; Second Temporary Restraining Order Denial, id. (Mar. 18,
2020), D.E. 18, 2020 WL 6589658.
2. Motion, id. (Mar. 16, 2020), D.E. 4; Williams First Temporary Restraining Order Denial,
supra note 1, at 1.
3. Williams First Temporary Restraining Order Denial, supra note 1.
Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Hinkle for this report by telephone on August 17, 2020.
4. Williams First Temporary Restraining Order Denial, supra note 1, at 3.
Federal Judicial Center 8/11/2021
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/nodmnoaa0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)