article: <b>NOTE: This case is being tracked in close to real time by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project. So for more current information, see <a href="https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/"> their tracker</a>.</b> COVID 19 Summary: The League of Women Voters of Virginia and three individual voters filed a suit against the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove Virginia’s witness requirement. The parties reached a partial agreement, which the court approved in a consent decree, to remove the requirement for the June 23, 2020 elections. On August 5, the parties came to an agreement to stop enforcement of the witness requirement for the November 3 General Election and collectively sought approval of a partial consent judgment, which the court approved on August 21. The case is ongoing. <hr> On April 17, 2020, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and three individual voters filed a complaint against the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove Virginia’s witness requirement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Virginia, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, 52 U.S.C. § 10302 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, they alleged that requiring absentee ballots to be marked in the presence of a witness was contrary to social distancing guidelines and that forcing voters to comply amid the COVID-19 pandemic unduly burdened the fundamental right to vote by forcing voters to choose between their safety and right to vote. Additionally, they alleged that the requirement disproportionately discriminated against elderly voters, African American voters, and voters with disabilities who face a heightened risk of illness from COVID-19. The case was assigned to Judge Norman K. Moon. On April 21, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction that would: (1) prohibit the defendants from enforcing the witness requirement for the June 23 primary and all subsequent elections; (2) order the defendants to issue guidance instructing city and county election officials to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing a witness signature for the June 23 primary election; (3) order the defendants to conduct a public campaign informing Virginia voters about the elimination of the requirement. On April 23, a group of three individuals filed a motion to intervene as defendants. The next day, the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) and another group of three voters also filed a motion to intervene. The following day, all of the individuals' requests to intervene were denied because they would unnecessarily expand the scope of the litigation and detract from timely resolution. 2020 WL 2090679. However, the RPV’s motion to intervene was granted. 2020 WL 2090678. On April 27, the parties filed a joint motion for a partial consent decree, agreeing to withdraw the preliminary injunction motion in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to forego enforcement of the witness requirement for the June Primary. On May 5, Judge Moon approved the partial consent decree. 2020 WL 2158249. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for all nondispositive pretrial motions and issues. On June 19, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with one of the named plaintiffs removed. On July 17, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with three additional plaintiffs who were at higher risk from COVID-19 due to underlying medical conditions. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction for the upcoming November 3 election and other subsequent elections affected by COVID-19 on July 23. On August 5, the parties came to an agreement to stop enforcement of the witness requirement for the November 3 General Election and collectively sought approval of a partial consent judgment. The district court approved the second consent judgment and decree on August 21, finding that the same reasons for the previous consent decree carried even more force, as the pandemic has resurged. 2020 WL 4927524. A bench trial is scheduled for May 19-21, 2021. The case is ongoing.
summary: On April 17, 2020, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and three individual voters filed a complaint against the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove Virginia’s witness requirement at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The plaintiffs alleged that the enforcement of the witness requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as requiring the absentee ballot to be marked in the presence of a witness, was contrary to social distancing guidelines by risking voter health if forced to comply amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs further alleged that the requirement unduly burdened their fundamental right to vote by forcing voters to choose between their safety and right to vote. Additionally, they alleged that the requirement disproportionately discriminated against elderly voters, African American voters, and voters with disabilities who face a heightened risk of illness from COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin Virginia’s witness requirement for the upcoming June and subsequent elections, to count otherwise valid ballots missing witness signatures for the June elections, and to conduct a public information campaign informing voters on the elimination of the witness requirement. Ahead of the June 23 election, both parties filed a joint motion for a partial consent decree agreeing to withdraw the preliminary injunction motion in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to forego enforcement of the witness requirement for the June Primary. On May 5, the joint motion for the consent judgment and decree was approved. On August 5, the parties came to an agreement to stop enforcement of the witness requirement for the November 3 General Election and collectively sought approval of a partial consent judgment, which was approved on August 21. The case is ongoing.