Patsy Wise v. Damon Circosta, 978 F.3d 93

Background

North Carolina State Board of Elections to extended absentee ballot receipt deadline from 3 days after Election Day to 9 days (via a state-court Consent Judgment approved Oct. 2, 2020). All ballots still had to be mailed/postmarked by Election Day.
Legislative leaders (Speaker Moore, President Pro Tem Berger) and individual voters sued in federal court challenging the extension and related Board memoranda; plaintiffs sought emergency injunctions to restore the statutory 3‑day receipt deadline and witness requirements.
A federal district judge granted a TRO (Oct. 3) enjoining implementation; the district court later denied a preliminary injunction (Oct. 14). The state appellate court stayed and then lifted its stay; the ballot‑receipt extension went into effect Oct. 19.
The Fourth Circuit considered only plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal as to the receipt‑deadline extension (plaintiffs explicitly limited their request to the receipt‑deadline relief).
The en banc Fourth Circuit denied the requested injunction, citing Purcell-related concerns, likelihood of success on the merits, standing, and Pullman abstention; a vigorous dissent would have granted the injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s extension of the absentee‑ballot receipt deadline violates Equal Protection (arbitrary/disparate treatment)	The deadline change, made after many votes cast, arbitrarily treats earlier voters differently and dilutes votes (Bush v. Gore theory).	The rule is uniform: all ballots must be mailed by Election Day and will be counted if received within 9 days; no unequal valuation of ballots.	Denied injunction: court found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on this novel Equal Protection theory and saw no arbitrary/disparate treatment warranting relief.
Whether plaintiffs may enjoin the extension under the Elections Clause (state‑law/delegation)	Legislative leaders argue Board’s changes usurped the General Assembly’s exclusive Elections/Electors Clause authority.	Board contends it had statutory emergency authority; status‑quo and state action support the change.	Court held plaintiffs lack standing on the Elections Clause claim (as presented) and in any event Pullman abstention counsels federal courts to allow state courts to resolve the state‑law delegation issue.
Application of Purcell/status‑quo doctrine to late changes in election rules	Plaintiffs: Purcell should block last‑minute changes by state agencies or courts that upend legislature’s rules and thus supports an injunction.	Defendants: Andino and Purcell counsel against federal intervention; the state‑court Consent Judgment (Oct. 2) established the status quo, so federal courts should not enjoin it.	Denied injunction: the majority applied Purcell/Andino to bar federal intervention at this late stage and treated the state action as the operative status quo.
Whether Pullman abstention or state preclusion required deference to state proceedings on delegation/interpretation of state law	Plaintiffs: federal court can adjudicate federal constitutional claims now.	Defendants: state courts should resolve unsettled state‑law delegation questions first; resolving state law could moot federal claims.	Court abstained (Pullman) or found lack of standing for Elections Clause; it declined to grant emergency relief and left state courts to resolve state‑law issues.

Key Cases Cited

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (Equal Protection limits on post hoc, disparate ballot‑counting procedures)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (per curiam) (federal courts should ordinarily not change election rules close to an election)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (one‑person, one‑vote and vote‑dilution principles)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing test for burdens on the right to vote)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (legislative standing and the role of state lawmaking processes under the Elections Clause)
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (interpretation of the term "legislature" in Elections Clause)
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (Electors Clause and state legislature authority)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (standing doctrine for voters alleging individualized injury)
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (Equal Protection concerns about diluting illegal ballots)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat) 304 (federal courts resolving federal questions arising from state‑law claims)