487 F.Supp.3d 498
M.D. La.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (two individuals and two organizations) sued Louisiana officials seeking temporary changes to fall 2020 election procedures because no emergency election plan was implemented to mitigate COVID‑19 risks.
- Louisiana law (La. R.S. §18:1303) limits absentee-by-mail voting to certain "excuses"; a spring/summer emergency plan had expanded COVID‑19‑related excuses and provided a 13‑day early voting period, but the Governor refused to adopt the legislature’s later plan.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Excuse Requirement and a reduced early‑voting period burden the constitutional right to vote during the pandemic; Governor Edwards supported Plaintiffs; Secretary Ardoin and the Attorney General opposed relief.
- The court held an expedited evidentiary hearing, credited epidemiological testimony (Dr. Reingold) that in‑person voting raises individual risk, found Defendants’ counter‑expert less credible, and applied the Anderson‑Burdick framework to assess burdens and state interests.
- Ruling (in part): the court denied wholesale invalidation of the Excuse Requirement but ordered use of the COVID‑19 absentee ballot application used in July/August and granted a limited expansion of early voting to ten days for the November 3, 2020 general election (Oct. 16–27, excluding two Sundays); it denied Plaintiffs’ request for a 13‑day early voting period and denied expanded early voting relief for the December 5, 2020 election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. §18:1303 (the "Excuse Requirement") unlawfully burdens the right to vote during COVID‑19 | Pandemic risks and individual medical/caretaking circumstances make in‑person voting dangerous; court should lift/expand mail‑ballot excuses (or adopt prior COVID‑19 application) | Preventing fraud, preserving election integrity, avoiding voter confusion, and maintaining public confidence justify keeping statutory excuse limits | Court: Excuse Requirement imposes at least a moderate burden; state interests insufficient to justify maintaining limits unchanged — denied total invalidation but ordered reinstatement of the July/August COVID‑19 ballot application for Nov. and Dec. elections |
| Whether early voting must be expanded to 13 days (and for December) | 13 days needed to spread turnout, enable social distancing, reduce exposure | Logistical constraints, registration deadlines, administrative capacity; 13 days would conflict with registration processing | Court: denied 13‑day request; granted a ten‑day early voting period for Nov. 3 (Oct. 16–27, excluding two Sundays); denied expansion for Dec. 5 |
| Preliminary injunction factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest | Plaintiffs: meet Anderson‑Burdick showing; voting rights and health risks constitute irreparable harm; public interest favors broader access | Defendants: injunctive relief would disrupt statutes, risk fraud, cause confusion, and burden election administration | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on merits re: undue burden; irreparable injury shown; balance and public interest favor tailored relief; injunction granted in part |
| Scope of relief requested (full injunction vs. tailored remedies) | Asked for full removal of excuse limits and 13‑day early voting | Sought to preserve statute and reject broad court‑ordered changes | Court: exercised narrow tailoring — declined total statutory enjoinment but ordered limited, practicable remedies (COVID‑19 ballot application; 10‑day early voting in November) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (sets the balancing test for election‑regulation burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applies flexible scrutiny to voting restrictions and frames the Anderson‑Burdick inquiry)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (requires that even slight burdens on voting be justified by sufficiently weighty state interests)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (recognizes state interest in preventing voter fraud and cautions courts on election changes near an election)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards include public interest and balance of equities)
- Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020) (Fifth Circuit recognition of reasonable concerns about in‑person voting during the pandemic)