Jim Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of PA, 980 F.3d 336

Background:

In 2019 Pennsylvania enacted Act 77, authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting and requiring mail ballots to be received by 8:00 P.M. on Election Day.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, citing COVID-19 and USPS delays, ordered a three-day extension: ballots postmarked by Election Day and received by 5:00 P.M. three days later (Nov. 6) would be counted; ballots with missing/illegible postmarks would be presumed timely unless proven otherwise.
Plaintiffs (four in‑person voters and congressional candidate Jim Bognet) sued in federal court seeking to enjoin counting of ballots received during the extension, alleging violations of the Elections Clause, Electors Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.
The district court denied emergency injunctive relief; Plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit on an expedited schedule shortly before Election Day.
The Third Circuit panel affirmed, holding Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to press Elections/ Electors Clause claims and most Equal Protection theories, and alternatively upholding denial of relief under the Purcell principle against changing election rules on the eve of an election.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge state-court Deadline Extension under Elections Clause/Electors Clause	Bognet: extension usurps legislature’s power and injures his right to run under federal election rules	Boockvar: plaintiffs assert a generalized institutional grievance and are not the state legislature; county officials support the rule	No standing — private plaintiffs cannot sue to vindicate the legislature’s institutional interests; claims are generalized grievances
Equal Protection — vote dilution by counting ballots received after Election Day	Voters: counting extended-receipt ballots unlawfully dilutes in-person voters’ votes	Defs: timing/counting procedures are state-law matters; other states allow post‑Election Day receipt; no differential weighting of votes	No standing — alleged dilution is not a concrete, particularized injury and is a generalized grievance
Equal Protection — arbitrary/disparate treatment (Presumption of Timeliness creates preferred class)	Voters: presumption favors mail-in voters and creates unequal treatment relative to in-person voters	Defs: extension applies to all who timely mail; choice to vote by mail is voluntary; alleged risk of illegal late voting is speculative	No standing — no legally cognizable preferred class shown; any harm from postmarked/untimely ballots is speculative and not certainly impending
Emergency injunctive relief on eve of election (Purcell)	Plaintiffs: immediate injunction needed to prevent unlawful counting	Defs: injunction would upend settled rules and voter reliance shortly before election	Even if standing existed, denial of TRO/preliminary injunction was proper under Purcell because late change would cause voter confusion and disrupt settled expectations

Key Cases Cited

Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) (states have primary authority to regulate election mechanics under Elections Clause)
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880) (ballot‑box stuffing discussed as injury to right to vote)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (federal courts ordinarily should not alter election rules close to an election)
Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (private plaintiffs lack standing to vindicate institutional legislative interests under Elections Clause)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened injury must be certainly impending; speculative chains insufficient)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (Equal Protection concern where voting procedures value one person’s vote over another)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote and discussion of dilution and weight of votes)
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) (third‑party/state‑sovereignty arguments recognized in Tenth Amendment context but limited)
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) (state authority to prescribe complete procedures for congressional elections)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (individual members of a legislature lack standing to sue for institutional injury)