Jeffrey Short v. Edmund Brown, Jr.
893 F.3d 671
9th Cir.2018Background
- California enacted the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) to increase turnout by allowing counties to implement an all-mailed-ballot system (ballots mailed to every registered voter) and to use ballot drop-off locations and vote centers.
- The VCA authorized 14 counties to opt in beginning 2018 and permitted other counties to opt in later; five counties had opted in by the time of litigation.
- Appellants (Short, Heter, Sacramento Valley Lincoln Club) sued alleging the VCA violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating voters differently based on county of residence and sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement in opted-in counties.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding appellants raised serious questions but that injunction would not be in the public interest; the denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit held the VCA does not severely burden the right to vote, that county-based phased implementation is a permissible incremental experiment in election administration, and affirmed denial of preliminary relief given both merits and the Winter/Purcell injunction considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VCA’s county-by-county rollout unconstitutionally dilutes votes under Equal Protection | The phased, county-based rollout treats voters differently by county and dilutes votes in non-opted counties; triggers strict scrutiny | VCA does not change representation or prevent voting; it eases voting for some but leaves others’ access unchanged; differential rollout is permissible experimentation | Court held no vote-dilution comparable to Reynolds/Gray; county distinction does not trigger heightened scrutiny |
| Whether VCA imposes a severe burden on the fundamental right to vote (Anderson/Burdick framework) | The differential treatment creates a burdensome disparity warranting strict scrutiny | Any burden is minimal: non-opted counties retain prior vote-by-mail options; VCA makes voting easier for some, not harder for others | Court held burden is at most minimal/limited, not severe, so no strict scrutiny; deferential review applies |
| Whether preliminary injunction was warranted considering Winter factors and Purcell (election timing) | Injunction needed to prevent alleged unequal treatment and preserve status quo | Injunction would disrupt election administration, cause confusion and substantial costs in counties already implementing VCA; Purcell cautions against last-minute changes | Court affirmed denial: appellants failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable public-interest harm favoring injunction; disruption concerns supported denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework balancing burden on voting rights against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (standard that severity of burden dictates level of review)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (courts should be cautious about altering election rules close to an election)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote principle and invalidation of apportionment schemes that dilute votes)