484 F.Supp.3d 299
M.D. La.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (three individuals and two organizations) sued Louisiana officials challenging the State’s statutory election scheme for the November 3, 2020 general/primary elections, alleging COVID‑19–related burdens on voting after the prior Emergency Election Plan (which expanded mail and early voting for July/August 2020) is no longer in effect.
- Governor Edwards did not approve the Secretary of State’s proposed Emergency Election Plan, so no pandemic‑specific mail‑in or expanded early voting rules govern the November election; statutory absentee rules remain in force.
- Plaintiffs seek pandemic‑sensitive voting accommodations and moved for a preliminary injunction; Defendants (Secretary Ardoin and Attorney General Landry) moved to dismiss on multiple grounds.
- Defendants’ dismissal grounds included non‑justiciability (political question), lack of Article III standing, absence of state action/traceability, failure to state ADA claims (ripeness), Purcell (election timing) concerns, and failure to join parish election boards under Rule 19.
- The court denied dismissal in almost all respects (preserving the merits and injunction briefing) but granted dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs’ ADA claim for lack of ripeness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / Political question | Court can and should review whether state election rules violate voters’ constitutional rights during a pandemic. | Election regulation in pandemic presents non‑judicial political questions lacking manageable standards. | Denied dismissal — political‑question doctrine inapplicable; courts can adjudicate voting‑rights claims. |
| Article III standing — Individual plaintiffs | Individuals face concrete, imminent injury because no pandemic mail‑voting plan exists for Nov, increasing infection risk and burdens to vote in person. | Plaintiffs’ alleged risk is speculative; prior conduct (voting in person previously) undermines standing. | Denied dismissal — individuals sufficiently alleged injury‑in‑fact, traceability, and redressability. |
| Article III standing — Organizational plaintiffs | Organizations diverted resources to voter education, PPE, poll‑worker recruitment, and thus suffered mission frustration and concrete injury. | Any resource diversion is routine or attributable to the pandemic, not state action. | Denied dismissal — organizations plausibly allege diversion of resources and mission frustration. |
| State action / Traceability & Redressability | State inaction (not providing pandemic accommodations) combined with the pandemic causes plaintiffs’ injuries; relief from state officials can redress harms. | The virus, not state action, causes the injury; court relief cannot redress purely public‑health risks. | Denied dismissal — injuries are fairly traceable to state inaction and redressable by state relief. |
| ADA (reasonable accommodations for disabled voters) | ADA requires reasonable accommodations; plaintiffs with disabilities seek mail‑voting relief. | ADA claims are not ripe because statutory absentee‑by‑mail procedures exist and plaintiffs have not attempted them. | Granted dismissal (without prejudice) — ADA claim not ripe: plaintiffs must attempt statutory absentee process before suit proceeds. |
| Purcell / timing concerns | Plaintiffs need timely relief to avoid disenfranchisement and show preliminary relief can be implemented before deadlines. | Court intervention close to an election risks confusion and chaos (Purcell). | Denied dismissal — Purcell counsels caution but does not mandate dismissal given time until early voting and pending remedies. |
| Rule 19 / failure to join parish election boards | Complete relief requires state action; Secretary of State can provide relief. | Parish boards are necessary parties for complete relief. | Denied dismissal — joinder not required because Secretary of State is the chief state election officer and can afford relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (political‑question doctrine and justiciability principles)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political‑question framework)
- Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020) (federal courts may adjudicate pandemic‑era voting challenges; standards manageable)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution about court orders affecting elections close to voting)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements)
- OCA‑Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2017) (organizational standing and traceability to state officials)
- N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (organizational standing: diversion of resources)
- Jacobson v. Florida Sec’y of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020) (contrasting treatment of traceability/redressability to state officials)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (standard for evaluating burdens on voting)
- Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (framing voting as fundamental right)