Angela Craig v. Steve Simon, 980 F.3d 614

Adam Charles Weeks, the Legal Marijuana Now Party candidate for MN-02, died on Sept. 21, 2020; LMN is a Minnesota "major political party."
Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 204B.13) required the general-election ballot to remain unchanged if a major-party candidate dies within 79 days of the election, barred certification of the vote for that office, and directed a special election in February 2021.
Federal law fixes the date for House elections (2 U.S.C. § 7) and authorizes states to set times to fill vacancies (2 U.S.C. § 8(a)), including vacancies caused by a "failure to elect." The parties dispute whether canceling the November election constitutes a permitted filling-of-vacancy scheme.
Plaintiffs (incumbent Angela Craig and voter Jenny Winslow Davies) obtained a preliminary injunction ordering Minnesota to give legal effect to ballots cast on Nov. 3, 2020; district court concluded the State likely could not cancel the November election absent an exigent circumstance.
Unofficial Nov. 3 results showed Craig first, Kistner second, and posthumous Weeks receiving ~5.83% of the vote; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the injunction, finding the State’s statute likely preempted and that death alone was not the requisite exigency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnesota's statute is preempted by federal law fixing the date of House elections	Kistner: federal law preempts any state attempt to cancel the uniform Nov. election date	State: §8(a) lets states set times to fill vacancies when a failure to elect occurs, so statute is permissible	Court: Likely preempted; State cannot refuse the Nov. election absent true exigency
Whether a candidate's death after the deadline creates a "failure to elect" allowing a postponed special election	Kistner: death does not automatically create a failure to elect; Nov. balloting must stand	State: Weeks' death prevents a valid election result and triggers §8(a) vacancy authority	Court: Death alone is not the kind of exigent circumstance that permits canceling the Nov. election
Appropriateness of a preliminary injunction (irreparable harm, balance, public interest)	Plaintiffs: denying enforcement injures voters and leaves district unrepresented—irreparable harm	State: enforcement of injunction would disrupt state election procedures	Court: Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm; balance and public interest favor injunction, especially given likelihood of success
Motion to intervene on appeal by Paula Overby	Overby: sought to intervene to defend state statute	Appellees: intervention untimely and not justified	Court: Intervention denied as untimely

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013) (Elections Clause can preempt state election rules)
Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) (distinguishing state mechanics from federally fixed congressional election timing)
Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982) (discussing exigent circumstances permitting deviation from normal election timing)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (preliminary injunction factors)
Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 1998) (likelihood of success is the most important Dataphase factor)
McKinney ex rel. NLRB v. S. Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2015) (standards of review for injunctions)
Craig v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2020) (prior Eighth Circuit decision addressing stay and related issues)