977 F.3d 566
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (five voter-outreach organizations and one Tennessee voter) challenged Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-115(b)(7), which bars voters who registered by mail or online from voting absentee in their first election after registration.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on June 12, 2020; the district court granted the injunction on September 9, 2020 enjoining enforcement of the first-time voter restriction and ordered notice to the public.
- Defendants (Tennessee election officials) filed a notice of appeal on October 5, 2020 and an emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction on October 9, 2020.
- Between the district-court order and the stay briefing, absentee and early in-person voting began and state and third parties publicized that first-time, mail-registered voters could vote absentee.
- The Sixth Circuit denied the stay request, emphasizing (1) the equities given reliance on the injunction and the risk of election confusion from disrupting rules already publicized and in effect, (2) minimal showing of irreparable harm to the State, and (3) defendants’ failure to make a strong showing of likelihood of success on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction should issue pending appeal | Injunction should remain in place because the public and voters have relied on it and reinstating the law would cause confusion and harm to orderly elections | A stay should issue because the State will likely succeed on appeal and must not have its statute enjoined during an election period | Denied: equities, reliance, and minimal state harm outweigh defendants’ chances; stay not warranted |
| Standing at time of filing | Association (Tennessee NAACP) represents members (e.g., Sweet) who had standing when claim was filed | State contends plaintiffs lack standing based on later-changed circumstances of named members | Held for plaintiffs: standing assessed at complaint filing date; defendants did not show likely success on standing challenge |
| Mootness | Claims remain live; association standing survives even if a named member’s circumstances change; injury may be capable of repetition yet evade review | State argues claims are moot because circumstances changed and named member may no longer qualify for absentee voting | Denied: defendants failed to meet heavy burden to show mootness; repetition-evading-review principle applies |
| Merits (Anderson-Burdick analysis; burden and state interest in fraud prevention) | The first-time voter requirement imposes at least a moderate burden on voting and fails under Anderson–Burdick because the State has not shown that the rule prevents fraud more than existing ID-by-mail procedures | The requirement places only a minimal burden (no constitutional right to absentee voting) and is justified by sovereign interest in preventing fraud | Denied (for stay): defendants did not make a strong showing they would prevail on the merits; district court reasonably applied Anderson–Burdick and found state justification unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay-pending-appeal standard and four-factor test)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (warning against changing election rules close to an election)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for election-law burdens)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (stay factors and equitable considerations)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (association standing requirements)
- Cleveland Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Parma, 263 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2001) (standing determined at time of filing)
- Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 769 F.3d 385 (6th Cir. 2014) (status-quo change and election injunctive relief)
- Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1991) (stay factors as interrelated considerations)
- Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 900 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2018) (standing and likelihood-to-succeed relation)
- A.C.L.U. of Ohio, Inc. v. Taft, 385 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2004) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)