Rick Perry v. Charles Judd, 471 F. App'x 219

Movant Perry seeks emergency injunctive relief to appear on Virginia's Republican primary ballot or halt ballot printing/ mailing until appeal is resolved.
Virginia's election regime requires 10,000 signatures with residency for petition circulators and affidavit attestations; deadlines set by the Board.
The Board and party officials initially determined Movant and others lacked sufficient valid signatures for ballot placement by December 22-23, 2011.
District court denied relief, finding laches barred the injunction and noting disruption risk to the 45-day absentee ballot mailing schedule.
Fourth Circuit reviews for emergency relief; highlights that mandatory injunctions are disfavored and laches resolves the motion here.
Court ultimately denies Movant’s emergency motion, concluding laches bars relief and declining to reach merits of First Amendment challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether laches forecloses emergency relief	Perry asserts no timely pursuit of relief occurred; seeks merits consideration.	Board argues delayed suit prejudices administration and disrupts elections; laches bars relief.	Laches bars the motion; relief denied.
Whether movant is likely to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment challenge to circulator residency	Perry argues residency rule burdens political speech.	Board contends rule is constitutional and appropriately tailored; further analysis unnecessary due to laches.	Not reached; laches controls; relief denied.
Whether the relief sought is mandatory or prohibitory	Seeks to place name on ballot or halt printing; views as protective of status quo.	Court notes mandatory relief disfavored and extraordinary; not warranted here.	Relief denied; mandatory relief not warranted.
Whether delay prejudiced election administration	Delay did not affect ballot printing.	Delay disrupted Board’s 45-day schedule and risked costly reprinting and voter confusion.	Prejudice established; laches supported.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunctions require likelihood of irreparable harm and strong showing)
In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (disfavored mandatory preliminary relief; preserves status quo)
White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1990) (diligence requirement for equitable defenses)
Dobson v. Dunlap, 576 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Me. 2008) (election-law disruption considered in laches analysis)
Texaco P.R., Inc. v. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867 (1st Cir. 1995) (equity requires vigilant filing; late challenges hinder administration)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (state interests in orderly elections and ballot access)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury be traceable and concrete)
Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 1325 (U.S. 1976) (disruptions in election process justify denying ballot access relief)
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1968) (relief denied when it disrupts election processes)