976 F.3d 564
5th Cir.2020Background
- Texas enacted HB 25 in June 2017, which eliminated straight‑ticket voting effective September 1, 2020; election officials had planned and printed ballots consistent with HB 25.
- Plaintiffs (Bruni, DSCC, DCCC, Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, et al.) filed suit challenging HB 25; an earlier March 2020 suit was dismissed for lack of standing and not appealed; a new suit was filed August 12, 2020.
- On September 25, 2020 (18 days before early voting), the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of HB 25, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on undue‑burden and First/14th Amendment associational claims.
- The Texas Secretary of State sought emergency relief from the Fifth Circuit, arguing the injunction unlawfully altered election rules on the eve of an election.
- Applying Nken stay factors and Supreme Court precedent cautioning against last‑minute changes to election rules, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit emphasized (1) the Purcell principle that courts should not alter election rules close to an election, (2) the State’s irreparable harm from an injunction disrupting an election already planned under a duly enacted statute, and (3) concerns about the district court’s standing analysis and factual misunderstandings about how straight‑ticket voting previously operated in Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay pending appeal should issue | Plaintiffs argued injunction appropriate because HB 25 imposes undue burden on voting/association rights | Secretary argued injunction disrupts election administration and contravenes Supreme Court guidance against changing rules on the eve of an election | Stay granted: Secretary made strong showing likelihood of success on appellate review that injunction improperly altered election rules near election |
| Applicability of Purcell principle (eve‑of‑election changes) | Plaintiffs contended their injunction would preserve the historic status quo (straight‑ticket voting) and avoid confusion | Secretary argued the true status quo is HB 25 (enacted 2017), and district court’s order altered that status quo shortly before the election | Court held Purcell principle favors staying the injunction because the district court altered the current status quo close to the election |
| Standing of plaintiffs to obtain injunction | Plaintiffs relied on claimed increased burden from eliminating straight‑ticket voting | Secretary disputed traceability/redressability and noted district court used too low a standing standard for a preliminary injunction | Circuit expressed concerns about plaintiffs’ standing and noted standing is a jurisdictional issue to be addressed on the merits panel |
| Irreparable harm & public interest balance | Plaintiffs argued harm to voters from staying the injunction (loss of preferred voting method) | Secretary argued state suffers irreparable harm when courts enjoin statutes and that logistical burdens and voter confusion would follow the injunction | Court held State would suffer irreparable harm and public interest favors stay given ballots printed and election machinery in motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (stay‑pending‑appeal factors and burden of showing need for stay)
- Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (U.S. 2020) (courts should ordinarily not change election rules on the eve of an election)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (stay of last‑minute changes to election rules)
- North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N.C., 574 U.S. 927 (U.S. 2014) (staying order changing election law shortly before election)
- Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussion of harms from altering status quo close to election)
- Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020) (staying orders that change election rules when an election is imminent)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunction showing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (standing is jurisdictional)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2013) (state suffers irreparable harm when statutes are enjoined)