Lecky v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 285 F. Supp. 3d 908

Background

After complaints, Virginia Dept. of Elections found 384 voters mis-assigned to the wrong House districts in VERIS for the Nov. 7, 2017 election; 147 of those mis-assigned individuals voted.
Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 suit (Nov. 21, 2017) seeking a TRO to block certification of the HD 28 result; the TRO was denied and the State certified Thomas as winner by 82 votes (recount reduced margin to 73).
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege systemic negligence/inadequate safeguards by election officials and attached evidence of prior complaints and communications about assignment errors dating to 2015–2017.
Plaintiffs asserted five claims: substantive due process, procedural due process, First Amendment/Equal Protection undue burden, equal protection disparate treatment, and sought a preliminary injunction vacating certification and ordering a new election.
The court applied the Winter preliminary-injunction factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) and concluded plaintiffs failed to make the required "clear showing" of likelihood of success.
The court emphasized federalism and separation-of-powers concerns, noting state remedies (recounts, contests in the General Assembly) and reluctance to void state election results absent broad-gauged unfairness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mis-assignment of voters and distribution of incorrect ballots state a substantive due process violation	The mis-assignments and ballot distribution were so severe and known earlier that they rendered the election fundamentally unfair	Errors were clerical/innocent or negligent, not an official flawed procedure warranting federal intervention	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show broad-gauged unfairness; errors characterized as garden-variety irregularities
Whether procedural due process claim lies for election-administration mistakes	Mistakes deprived voters of voting rights without adequate pre/post-deprivation process	No clear authority that election-administration errors give rise to a procedural due process claim	Denied — plaintiffs did not make a clear showing that procedural due process applies here
Whether Equal Protection/Anderson–Burdick analysis applies to these errors	Anderson/Burdick should apply because voters were burdened and their votes diluted	Anderson/Burdick addresses state statutes/policies, not inadvertent administrative mistakes; transforming errors into a constitutional claim is improper	Denied — court declined to apply Anderson/Burdick to episodic clerical errors
Whether arbitrary or intentionally discriminatory treatment violated Equal Protection	Some HD 28 voters received correct ballots while others did not, causing disparate treatment	No allegations of intentional or invidious discrimination; evidence points to innocent human error and negligence, not arbitrary standards	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show purposeful discrimination or arbitrary, non-uniform standards

Key Cases Cited

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets the preliminary-injunction standard)
Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) (movant must make a "clear showing" of likelihood of success for preliminary relief)
Hendon v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, 710 F.2d 177 (4th Cir. 1983) (distinguishes broad-gauged unfairness from garden-variety irregularities)
Gamza v. Aguirre, 619 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1980) (severity, intent, and democratic erosion inform § 1983 election claims)
Hutchinson v. Miller, 797 F.2d 1279 (4th Cir. 1986) (counsels judicial restraint and deference to state election processes)
Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978) (officially sponsored flawed procedures can constitute broad-gauged unfairness)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (arbitrary and disparate recount standards can violate Equal Protection)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson–Burdick balancing framework for election-regulation burdens)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applies balancing test to state-imposed burdens on voting)
Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2017) (recites Winter factors for injunctions)