970 F.3d 11
1st Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Common Cause Rhode Island; League of Women Voters of Rhode Island; three individual voters) sued the Rhode Island Secretary of State and Board of Elections challenging the state requirement that mail voters mark ballots and sign ballot envelopes in the presence of two witnesses or a notary.
- The district court denied a motion to intervene by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Rhode Island but permitted them to participate; the court then entered a consent judgment/decree suspending the two-witness/notary requirements for the September and November 2020 elections.
- The Republicans appealed the denial of intervention and appealed the consent decree; they also moved in this Court to intervene for purposes of appeal and to stay the district court’s decree pending appeal.
- The First Circuit considered the Nken stay factors and the Anderson–Burdick framework for election-law burdens, noted that Rhode Island officials did not oppose (and some supported) the consent decree, and observed Rhode Island had recently held an election without the witness/notary requirement without evidence of fraud.
- The court reversed the district court’s denial of intervention only for purposes of appeal and denied the motion to stay the consent decree pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Republicans may intervene to appeal | Intervention unnecessary/untimely and would complicate proceedings | Republicans have a protectable interest in defending state election rules and should be allowed to appeal | Denied by district court; First Circuit reversed in part — intervention allowed for purposes of appeal only |
| Whether a stay of the district court's consent decree should issue pending appeal | Stay not warranted; Rhode Island officials support the decree; voters would be harmed by reinstating the rule amid COVID-19 | Stay necessary to prevent potential voter fraud and preserve election integrity | Stay denied |
| Whether the two-witness/notary requirement survives Anderson–Burdick balancing in the COVID-19 context | Requirement imposes severe, unusual burden on the right to vote during a pandemic | Requirement furthers important state interest in preventing fraud and protecting integrity | Court found burdens significant and state’s incremental interest minimal (state offered no defense); merits to be reviewed on appeal |
| Whether the Purcell principle (avoid changing election rules near an election) requires a stay | Purcell inapplicable here because (1) Rhode Island officials favor the decree, (2) state previously ran an election without the rule, and (3) instructions already reflect no witness requirement | Purcell counsels against altering rules close to elections; stay needed to avoid confusion | Purcell concerns largely inapplicable here; they weighed against granting the stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay factors for injunctions and appeals)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (factors for stays pending appeal)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (framework for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (application of Anderson balancing to election regulations)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (caution against changing election rules near an election)
- Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (application of the Purcell principle)
- Providence Journal Co. v. F.B.I., 595 F.2d 889 (First Circuit discussion of mootness and irreparable injury)