218 F. Supp. 3d 396
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Republican Party of Pennsylvania and eight registered electors) sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin 25 P.S. § 2687(b), which requires poll watchers to be qualified electors of the county where they serve, so poll watchers could serve anywhere in Pennsylvania.
- Section 2687(b) permits appointment of party/candidate poll watchers with limited powers (outside enclosed counting space; may challenge applicants but not interrogate under oath); overseers (different statutory role) have broader powers.
- Plaintiffs argued the county-residency restriction violates the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection) and the First Amendment (speech and association); they asked the court to effectively adopt legislation (H.B. 29) that would remove the county restriction.
- Plaintiffs filed 18 days before the election; the court found the delay unreasonable and emphasized the strong interest in avoiding last-minute changes to election rules.
- The court applied the Winter preliminary-injunction factors and concluded plaintiffs failed each: they are unlikely to succeed on the merits, failed to show irreparable harm, the balance of equities disfavors them, and an injunction would not serve the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2687(b) violates Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection / due process) by restricting poll watchers to their county | County restriction dilutes votes and arbitrarily denies some voters the ability to serve as poll watchers; merits at least intermediate or strict scrutiny | Restriction does not burden the right to vote or choices in the ballot box; statute is rationally related to Pennsylvania’s county-based election administration | No likelihood of success; statute does not burden voting rights and survives rational-basis review |
| Whether § 2687(b) violates First Amendment (speech and association) by limiting party representatives and core political speech | Poll watching is political speech/association; county rule restricts parties’ and watchers’ expressive and associational rights and should trigger strict scrutiny | Poll watching is a state-created, regulated role, not core political speech; reporting violations is a public/state function; restrictions are reasonable | Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail; poll watching not core First Amendment protected activity here |
| Whether plaintiffs established irreparable harm warranting immediate injunction | Constitutional violations presumed to cause irreparable harm; inability to serve outside county is irreparable | Plaintiffs’ claims speculative; harm largely of their own making due to late filing; alternative remedies exist | No clear showing of immediate, irreparable injury; factor not satisfied |
| Whether equity/public interest favor injunction altering election law days before election | Need for poll watchers to protect ballot integrity justifies intervention | Last-minute injunction would disrupt election administration, burden county officials, and implicate federalism/comity concerns | Balance and public interest favor defendant; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (states have broad but limited authority to regulate elections and courts must assess burdens on voting and political rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (election regulations imposing reasonable, nondiscriminatory burdens are subject to balancing test; severe burdens trigger strict scrutiny)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction; burden on movant to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (vote-dilution theory and protection of the right to vote under Equal Protection Clause)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholding state election-law restrictions against associational challenges where state interests justify burdens)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials enforcing unconstitutional state laws)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limits on federal-court adjudication of state-law claims against state officials under Eleventh Amendment)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial challenges to election laws require more than speculative harms; courts must consider statutory text and evidence)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (speculative assertions of voter confusion or disenfranchisement insufficient without record support)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (political speech is central to First Amendment protection)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (core political speech includes advocacy and interactive communication concerning political change)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech because it involves interactive political persuasion)