457 F.Supp.3d 919
D. Nev.2020Background
- Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, with county election officials, announced an all-mail plan for the June 9, 2020 primary to limit COVID-19 risks; active registered voters would be mailed absentee ballots and at least one physical polling place per county would remain for same-day registration.
- The Plan retained several statutory safeguards (ID/proof-of-residency rules for first-time voters, automated DMV/SSA matching, special return envelopes for unmatched voters) and relies on existing statutes authorizing mailing precincts.
- Plaintiffs (registered Nevada voters) sued seeking a preliminary injunction, alleging the Plan: (a) usurps the Legislature’s role in prescribing the manner of elections and (b) increases voter fraud leading to vote dilution and disenfranchisement.
- Defendants and intervenors argued Plaintiffs lacked standing, that the Secretary was authorized by Nevada statutes (e.g., NRS §§ 293.124, 293.213(4), 293.247) to implement the Plan, and that the Plan’s health and franchise-preservation interests justified it.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction: it concluded Plaintiffs failed to allege a particularized injury for Article III standing, applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework on the merits, and held the State’s public-health and election-integrity interests outweighed Plaintiffs’ speculative burden; Purcell did not support Plaintiffs’ requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: whether Plaintiffs have a concrete, particularized injury from alleged vote dilution | Vote dilution from increased illegal mail ballots will disenfranchise them — an individualized, severe injury | Injury is speculative and generalized (any voter could raise it); no particularized harm shown | Plaintiffs lack a concrete, particularized injury; standing fails |
| Whether all-mail Plan violates right to vote by removing safeguards and causing vote dilution (and what test applies) | All-mail removes in-person safeguards, causing severe burden; demands strict scrutiny (or Reynolds/Bush framework) | Plan preserves material safeguards; State’s health and election-integrity interests justify restrictions; Anderson–Burdick applies | Applied Anderson–Burdick; State interests (public health, preserving franchise) outweigh speculative burdens; claim fails |
| Whether Secretary exceeded legislative authority / Plan conflicts with Nevada election statutes and Article I, §4 (manner of federal elections) | Plan is not the Legislature’s chosen manner, is inconsistent/untimely under state statutes | Secretary is authorized by statutes to promulgate regulations and approve mailing precincts; Plan is a lawful directive/regulation | Plan is within Secretary’s delegated authority (NRS framework); not shown to be inconsistent; claim fails |
| Whether Purcell forbids the Plan or supports Plaintiff’s requested injunction | Purcell prohibits election‐changing actions that cause confusion and thus bars the Plan | Purcell cautions courts about altering rules on the eve of elections and does not bar states from prescribing election rules; inapposite to enjoining the State | Purcell does not support Plaintiffs’ requested injunction and is inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (balance burden on voting rights against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson balancing for election regulations)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (applied Anderson–Burdick to voting rules)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (caution about judicial changes to election rules close to an election)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (dispute over vote-dilution/remedies in close election context)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (equal protection and vote-dilution principles)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 623 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunction factors)