ORG for Black Struggle v. John Ashcroft, 978 F.3d 603

Background

In June 2020 Missouri enacted SB 631 (temporary through Dec. 31, 2020) creating a statewide mail-in ballot option while expanding absentee eligibility to include COVID-19 at-risk voters.
Key statutory difference: absentee ballots may be returned by mail or in person (by voter or a close relative); mail-in ballots must be returned only through USPS and be received by 7:00 p.m. on election day.
Plaintiffs challenged this differential treatment under the Equal Protection Clause, arguing the mail-only return requirement risks disenfranchisement due to USPS delays.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction ordering Missouri to allow mail-in ballots to be returned by the same methods available for absentee ballots; the Secretary of State appealed and obtained a temporary administrative stay.
The Eighth Circuit considered the Secretary’s motion for a stay pending appeal, applying the four-factor stay test (likelihood on the merits, irreparable harm, injury to others, and public interest).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Missouri’s mail-only return rule for mail-in ballots violates voters’ rights under Anderson-Burdick	The mail-only rule imposes a meaningful risk of total disenfranchisement (USPS delays) and lacks a reasonable justification for treating similar remote voters differently	The rule imposes only a minimal burden; during a pandemic limiting in-person returns for mail-in ballots is a rational, nondiscriminatory exercise of the State’s authority	Majority: stay granted—State showed a strong likelihood of success because the burden is minimal under Anderson-Burdick and the rule is rational in light of pandemic concerns; Dissent: would deny stay, finding a substantial risk of disenfranchisement and inadequate justification for disparate treatment
Whether the Secretary demonstrated irreparable harm absent a stay	Injunction prevents enforcement of duly enacted election statute and disrupts legislative authority (harm to voters not emphasized)	State will be irreparably harmed if enjoined from applying its enacted election procedures	Majority: yes—enjoining a duly enacted election statute causes irreparable harm to the State; supports granting stay
Whether a stay would substantially injure other parties or the public interest	Injunction prevents disenfranchisement risk for mail-in voters and promotes equal access to ballot-return options	A stay preserves the status quo, reduces last-minute rule changes, and protects election administration and public confidence	Majority: injury to others/public interest outweighed by other factors (stay preserves legislative rule and avoids altering rules on eve of election); Dissent: public interest favors enabling more voters to have ballots counted, so no stay

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applies Anderson balancing to election regulations)
Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (lesser burdens require only reasonable, nondiscriminatory state interests)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (four-factor stay test: likelihood on merits, irreparable harm, injury to others, public interest)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (standard for preliminary injunction factors in Eighth Circuit)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution against altering election rules close to an election)
Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (even slight burdens on voting must be justified by sufficient state interests)
Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (injunctions that bar a State from enforcing statutes can cause irreparable harm to the State)