James Carson v. Steve Simon, 978 F.3d 1051

Background

Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. §203B.08) requires absentee ballots to be received by Election Day to be counted (different cutoffs for hand-delivery vs. mail).
The Minnesota Alliance sued Secretary of State Steve Simon in state court arguing the receipt deadline disenfranchised voters; the Secretary entered a consent decree and the state court approved it, directing counties to count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within seven days after Election Day.
The Secretary issued guidance and mailings to voters reflecting the 7-day receipt window; over a million absentee ballots were requested in Minnesota for the 2020 general election.
James Carson and Eric Lucero (certified Republican nominees for presidential electors) sued in federal court arguing the Secretary exceeded his authority under Article II (Electors Clause) and federal election-date rules; they sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin post-deadline counting.
The district court denied the injunction for lack of standing; the Eighth Circuit majority reversed, holding the Electors had Article III and prudential standing, were likely to succeed on the Electors Clause claim, and remanded with instructions to enter a limited injunction requiring segregation/preservation of ballots received after the statutory deadline. Judge Kelly dissented, disputing standing, reliance on a statutory delegation (§204B.47), and emphasizing Purcell/election-disruption concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing (Article III & prudential)	Electors are candidates under Minnesota law and suffer concrete, particularized injury from miscounted votes	Electors lack particularized injury; not traditional candidates; claim is generalized	Electors have Article III standing as candidates and prudential standing to raise claims
Electors Clause: did Secretary exceed legislative authority to set "manner" of appointing electors?	Secretary usurped Legislature by extending receipt deadline without legislative authorization	Secretary acted under state-law delegation and a state-court consent decree (and §204B.47 authorizes alternative procedures when a statute cannot be implemented due to court order)	Secretary likely violated the Electors Clause by altering statutorily mandated receipt deadline; Electors likely to succeed on merits
Purcell / timing (court should not alter election rules close to election)	Purcell protects the Legislature’s enacted status quo; Secretary upset that status quo, so a limited injunction to restore it is appropriate	Granting relief so close to election would cause voter confusion and disenfranchise voters	Purcell does not preclude limited relief here; preserving statutory rule is consistent with Purcell’s goal of preserving the legislature-set status quo
Scope of injunctive relief	Seek to enjoin implementation of post-deadline counting	Injunction would disrupt administration and confuse voters; separation of presidential votes may be impracticable	Court ordered a limited preliminary injunction: identify, segregate, and preserve absentee ballots received after the statutory deadlines so they can be removed from totals if later held invalid

Key Cases Cited

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (legislatures have exclusive authority under the Electors Clause)
Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (legislature’s role in directing the manner of appointing electors)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (federal courts should generally avoid changing election rules near an election)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys. Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (standards for preliminary injunction analysis)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing elements)
Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118 (limits on prudential standing)
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (prudential standing to challenge federal overreach)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (counting votes of questionable legality can cause irreparable harm)