Middleton v. Andino
488 F.Supp.3d 261
D.S.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (individual voters, Democratic Party entities, and candidates) sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging four South Carolina absentee-voting provisions during the COVID-19 pandemic: the witness requirement for absentee-return envelopes, the Election Day receipt cutoff (ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m.), an age-based absentee-excuse rule, and a ban on candidates/paid staff collecting completed absentee ballots.
- The General Assembly enacted temporary no-excuse absentee voting for November 2020 (H.B. 5305), which mooted the age-based claim for that election; Plaintiffs still sought relief as-applied for the witness and cutoff rules for November and a facial challenge to the collection ban beyond November.
- The court previously enjoined the witness requirement for the June 2020 primaries; no appeal was taken, setting a de facto status quo where the witness rule had been suspended in the prior election.
- Plaintiffs submitted public-health and political-science expert declarations asserting the witness requirement increases COVID-19 transmission risk and disproportionately burdens elderly and Black voters; defendants emphasized election-integrity and investigatory interests and warned about changing rules near an election (Purcell concerns).
- After briefing and a hearing, the court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction: it enjoined enforcement of the witness requirement for absentee voters for the November 2020 General Election and ordered public notice; it denied relief on the Election Day cutoff and the candidate-collection ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the absentee witness-signature requirement should be enjoined as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic | Witness requirement forces voters (esp. elderly, those living alone, minorities) to risk COVID-19 exposure to obtain a witness, burdening voting rights | Requirement aids investigation/deterrence of absentee-fraud and preserves election integrity; courts should avoid changing election rules near an election | Granted: injunction against enforcing the witness requirement for absentee voters in Nov. 2020; public notice ordered |
| Whether to extend the absentee ballot receipt deadline (Election Day cutoff) and delay result release | Postal delays disenfranchised timely-mailed voters in June; extension would prevent disenfranchisement | Changing receipt deadline and withholding results would disrupt election administration and risk confusion near election (Purcell) | Denied: court declined to enjoin the Election Day cutoff due to proximity to election and Purcell concerns |
| Whether the Candidate Collection Ban (prohibiting candidates/paid staff from returning completed absentee ballots) violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments (facial challenge) | Collecting and returning ballots is part of political speech/associational activity protected by the First Amendment; ban burdens campaigns and voter mobilization | Delivering/collecting ballots is not expressive conduct; statute rationally furthers election-integrity and fraud-prevention | Denied: Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; rational-basis review applies and the statute is rationally related to legitimate state interests |
| Jurisdictional and justiciability defenses: standing, abstention, political-question | Plaintiffs (individuals and organizations) have concrete harms and standing; federal court can adjudicate constitutional claims | State suits, pending legislative actions, and separation-of-powers concerns counsel abstention or non-justiciability | Court exercised jurisdiction, found standing for relevant plaintiffs, rejected Colorado River/Pullman/Burford abstention and political-question dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing: assess character/magnitude of burden then weigh state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (election-law review: intensity of scrutiny depends on severity of burden)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (warning against federal courts changing election rules close to an election)
- Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009) (discusses preliminary-injunction standards in Fourth Circuit)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (fundamental nature of right to vote)