1:20-cv-02189
N.D. Ill.May 18, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Illinois voters and a ballot-initiative committee) sought to qualify a proposed Illinois constitutional amendment and an Evanston local referendum for the Nov. 3, 2020 ballot and moved for emergency relief to relax petition rules (handwritten signatures, circulator-witness affidavit, filing/binding rules), extend deadlines, and reduce signature thresholds because of COVID-19 and the Governor’s stay-at-home order.
- Under Illinois law Plaintiffs needed 363,813 signatures filed with the Secretary of State by May 3, 2020 for the constitutional amendment and 2,800 signatures filed with the Evanston City Clerk by Aug. 3, 2020 for the local referendum.
- At filing and in subsequent briefing Plaintiffs produced little or no evidence of signatures collected; only one plaintiff (Morgan) had begun efforts and produced no concrete signature totals; most plaintiffs had not acted for much of the 18-month collection window.
- Defendants (Secretary of State, Evanston City Clerk, Cook County Clerk, and State Board of Elections members) explained limited roles and statutory duties (e.g., petition handling, signature verification, statewide publication and pamphlet mailings) and warned delay would disrupt time-sensitive election processes.
- The district court denied Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for reconsideration, finding serious standing/traceability problems, that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against freezing or altering statutory timetables.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Causation | Governor’s COVID orders effectively prevented petitioning; defendants enforcing election laws caused injury | Plaintiffs had 18 months pre-pandemic, defendants named lack authority to impose stay-at-home; Plaintiffs delayed and produced no evidence of collection | Court doubted traceability and standing: plaintiffs failed to show injury caused by named defendants rather than pandemic or their own delay |
| First Amendment challenge to signature and witness requirements | Handwritten signatures and in-person-witness affidavit make circulation impossible under COVID and severely burden core political speech | Requirements protect integrity and are ordinary, neutral election regulations; pandemic is the cause of hardship, not the laws themselves | Court: plaintiffs not likely to succeed; burden largely stems from pandemic and plaintiffs’ delay; no severe burden shown that was caused by state law |
| Request to extend May 3 deadline / reduce signature threshold for constitutional amendment | Extend deadline and reduce signatures so initiative can qualify for Nov. 3 ballot despite COVID | Extension would disrupt statutorily mandated preparatory tasks (verification, objections, translation, pamphlets, UOCAVA deadlines) and impair election administration | Court denied relief: plaintiffs missed the deadline and injunction would impede statutory duties and public-interest protections |
| Balance of harms / public interest | Injunction protects First Amendment and ballot access in a pandemic | Injunction would impair election administration, risk election integrity, and interfere with publication/pamphlet and military-voting timelines | Balance favors defendants and public interest in orderly election administration; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech; restrictions that significantly inhibit circulation require strict scrutiny)
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (states have leeway to protect integrity of initiative process; severe burdens trigger strict review)
- Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 892 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2018) (distinction between ballot-access rules and speech restrictions; rational-basis review for neutral ballot-access rules)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunctions are extraordinary and movant bears heavy burden)
- Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 896 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2018) (preliminary injunction factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest)
- Stone v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for City of Chicago, 750 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2014) (diligence requirement for meeting ballot-access rules)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (court should be cautious about judicial changes to election rules close to an election)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (distinguishing regulations of mechanics of elections from pure speech restrictions)