Hotze v. Hudspeth, 16 F.4th 1121

Plaintiffs (including voter Hotze and three 2020 candidates) sued Harris County seeking to enjoin its use of drive‑thru voting in the November 2020 election and to bar similar future use.
The district court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed.
By the time of appeal, the November 2020 election was completed, results certified, and new officeholders sworn in.
The Texas Legislature enacted S.B.1 (effective December 2, 2021), addressing drive‑thru voting; parties submitted supplemental briefs about its effect.
The Fifth Circuit majority held the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the Nov. 2020 administration was moot, found no adequate record showing recurring unlawful drive‑thru voting before S.B.1, and concluded plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims about the Nov. 2021 election; it affirmed dismissal and vacated the district court’s advisory merits discussion.
Judge Oldham dissented, arguing (1) candidate plaintiffs had Article III standing at filing, (2) Harris County’s statements that it would continue drive‑thru voting prevented mootness, and (3) Harris County’s practices likely violated the Elections Clause and state law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive relief for Nov. 2020 election	Relief requested remains relevant because unlawful practices could recur	Nov. 2020 election concluded and relief for that election is moot	Appeal moot as to Nov. 2020; injunction request for that election denied (case moot)
Prospective injunction for future elections (pre‑S.B.1 gap)	Court should enjoin future drive‑thru voting to prevent recurrence	No record showing County will repeat unlawful drive‑thru voting before S.B.1; speculative	Plaintiffs did not show a concrete threat of recurrence for elections before Dec. 2, 2021; claim moot as to elections after S.B.1
Standing of candidate plaintiffs to challenge election procedures	Candidates suffered particularized injuries from altered voting procedures and have standing	Plaintiffs’ integrity claim is generalized and insufficient for standing	Majority: plaintiffs’ integrity claim too generalized; forfeited candidate‑standing argument; no jurisdiction; Dissent: candidates had standing at filing
District court’s advisory merits discussion	Plaintiffs sought merits relief under §1983 and Elections Clause	Defendant argued lack of jurisdiction moots merits review	Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and VACATED the district court’s advisory merits discussion (no opinion on merits)

Lopez v. City of Houston, 617 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (mootness principles in election context)
Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004) (case‑or‑controversy requirement; issues must be live)
Libertarian Party v. Dardenne, 595 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2010) (recurrence/speculation and judicial review of future practices)
Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (per curiam) (generalized voter grievances insufficient for standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness exceptions and capable‑of‑repetition‑yet‑evading‑review context)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) (standard for “significant departure” from legislative scheme under Elections/Electors Clause)
Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020) (candidate standing to challenge election procedures)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2004) (forfeiture for failure to meaningfully brief an issue)