Doe v. Walker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115457

Plaintiffs allege Maryland's absentee voting procedure for the November 2, 2010 election burdens absent uniformed services and overseas voters in violation of UOCAVA, MOVE Act, and Maryland law.
Move Act amended UOCAVA to require 45-day ballot transmittal and electronic ballot requests; UOCAVA applies to federal offices only.
Maryland mailed federal-only ballots on Sept. 18, 2010, but state ballots were not certified until Sept. 27, 2010, delaying full state-ballot availability.
Absentee ballots for state offices must be mailed by election day and received by 10 a.m. on the second Friday after the election under Maryland rules; many ballots could not meet that timeline.
Plaintiffs sought a ten-day extension for ballot receipt; court ultimately treats UOCAVA claims as moot but finds a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm without extension.
Court grants partial preliminary injunctive relief to count late-arriving absentee ballots from absent uniformed services and overseas voters received by Nov. 22, 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are UOCAVA claims moot?	Doe/MVPP argue UOCAVA violations occurred.	Defendants contend timely federal ballots complied with UOCAVA.	UOCAVA claims moot; dismissed.
Do Maryland law claims conflict with UOCAVA and are preempted?	State-law rules violated by federal-only ballots and nonconformity with state ballot forms.	UOCAVA preempts conflicting state law; Maryland law cannot thwart federal requirements.	Count II dismissed; Maryland-law claims preempted.
Do Equal Protection claims survive?	Disparate treatment burdens military/overseas voters.	No proof of discriminatory intent; no remedy without showing burden-based violation.	Count IV dismissed.
Did the state substantially burden the fundamental right to vote of absent uniformed services and overseas voters?	Deadline of November 12, 2010 creates severe burden given mail transit times and overseas deployment.	Deadline necessary for finality; extension would disrupt election process.	Yes, burden is severe; extension warranted to protect fundamental right.
Should a preliminary injunction be granted pending merits?	Without relief, votes may be disenfranchised; irreparable harm possible.	State interests in finality and certifying results justify current deadlines.	A narrowly tailored injunction is warranted; extend deadline and count late ballots.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 S. Ct. 1064 (1886) (voting is a fundamental right; irreducible protection against discriminatory obstacles)
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) (state cannot impose burdens on voting without justification)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balancing test for burdens on the right to vote; strict scrutiny for severe burdens)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (restrictive voting regulations must be narrowly tailored to compelling interests when burdens are severe)
McDonald v. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 394 U.S. 802 (1969) (recognition that absentee voting is not a fundamental right itself; restrictions may burden it)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (importance of voting rights in a free society)
Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (criteria for evaluating preliminary injunctive relief)
Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting framework for election laws)