| Welcome to the September 14 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. There’s less than a month to go before the Supreme Court begins its new term! We know you are as excited as we are. In the meantime, follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for all the latest information. |
 The court will begin its 2020-2021 term on October 5. So far, the justices have agreed to hear 31 cases. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019 term but were delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ 2020-2021 term. The Supreme Court finished its 2019-2020 term on July 9. The court agreed to hear arguments in 74 cases, but heard arguments in only 61 cases due to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ 2019-2020 term. Upcoming SCOTUS datesHere are the upcoming dates of interest in September and October:
|
 |
The Federal Vacancy Count tracks vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts in a one-month period. This month’s edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from August 3 to September 1. Highlights
Vacancy count for September 1, 2020A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies on the federal courts, click here.
*Though the United States territorial courts are named as district courts, they are not Article III courts. They are created in accordance with the power granted under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for more information. New vacanciesNo judges have left active status, creating Article III life-term judicial vacancies, since the previous vacancy count. The president must make a nomination to fill vacant Article III judicial positions. Nominations are subject to confirmation on the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacanciesSeventeen U.S. Court of Appeals judgeships were vacant when President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Today, there are no U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacancies. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, no U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges have announced their intent to leave active judicial status during the remainder of Trump’s current term. This is the first time there have been no federal appeals court vacancies since at least 1977. Between January 1, 1977, and January 1, 2019, an average of 9.6% of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judgeships were vacant. U.S. District Court vacanciesThe following map displays U.S. District Court vacancies as of September 1.
New nominationsPresident Trump has announced five new nominations since the previous report.
The president has announced 267 Article III judicial nominations since taking office January 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017, 92 in 2018, and 77 in 2019. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here. New confirmationsBetween August 3 and September 1, the Senate confirmed one of the president’s nominees to an Article III court.
Between January 2017 and September 1, 2020, the Senate confirmed 203 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—146 district court judges, 53 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and two Supreme Court justices. Trump is tied with President Bill Clinton (D) for the second-most Article III judicial appointments through September 1 of his fourth year of all presidencies since Jimmy Carter (D). The Senate confirmed 248 of Carter’s federal judicial appointees at this point in his presidency.
The average number of confirmed presidential judicial appointees through September 1 of a president’s fourth year in office is 191. The median number of U.S. Court of Appeals appointees is 35. Carter appointed the most with 54, while Reagan appointed the least with 28. Trump’s 53 appointments make up 30% of the 179 federal appellate court judgeships. Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees. Or, if you prefer, we also maintain a list of individuals the president has nominated. |
 
In the next several Bold Justice editions, we’re taking a closer look at the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices. Today, we’re learning about Chief Justice John Roberts.Roberts has been chief justice since September 29, 2005. President George W. Bush (R) originally nominated Roberts on July 19, 2005, to be an associate justice succeeding Sandra Day O’Connor. President Bush withdrew his nomination after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005. On September 6, the president renominated Roberts to be the 17th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate confirmed Roberts by a 78-22 vote on September 29, 2005. Before joining the U.S. Supreme Court, Roberts was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before that, he worked in private practice and for the U.S. Department of Justice. After law school, Roberts was a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Roberts was born in Buffalo, N.Y., on January 27, 1955. He is a practicing Roman Catholic. He attended private schools as a child and graduated from La Lumiere School, an all-boys Roman Catholic boarding school in LaPorte, Indiana, as class valedictorian in 1973. Roberts earned an undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from Harvard University in 1976. He wrote his thesis on British liberalism in the early 20th century. Roberts also earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1979. During his legal studies, Roberts served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. In the 2019-2020 term, Roberts wrote the following opinions:
|
 We’ll be back October 5 with a new edition of Bold Justice. |
Bloomberg pledges $100 million to help Biden in Florida
 |
| September 14, 2020: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed at least $100 million to help Joe Biden’s campaign in Florida. Donald Trump held his first indoor rally in three months in Henderson, Nevada, on Sunday.
The Cook Political Report updated its race ratings on September 10, 2020:
Sabato’s Crystal Ball also updated its race ratings on September 10, 2020:
|
Click here to learn more.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery: September 11, 2020
Welcome to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery, where we track the status of reopening in all 50 states. Today we look at a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on in-person instruction in Dane County, schools in California receiving in-person education waivers, travel restrictions, and more. Want to know what happened yesterday? Click here.
The next 72 hoursWhat is changing in the next 72 hours?
Since our last editionWhat is open in each state? For a continually updated article on reopening status in all 50 states, click here.
Daily feature: Travel restrictionsEvery Friday, we take a closer look at the restrictions governors and state agencies have placed on interstate travelers, including a recap of the week’s travel-related news. To see our full coverage of travel restrictions enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic, click here. OverviewTo date, 25 states issued at least one executive order restricting interstate travel. Of the 25 executive orders governors or state agencies issued restricting out-of-state visitors, at least 14 have been rescinded. Eleven states have active travel restrictions. Weekly recapConnecticut, New Jersey, and New York – On Sept. 8, Govs. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.), Phil Murphy (D-N.J.), and Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced that Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia had been added to the joint travel advisory list. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were removed from the list. |
Additional activityIn this section, we feature examples of other federal, state, and local government activity, private industry responses, and lawsuits related to the pandemic.
|
Class-action lawsuits over repaying public-sector union fees rejected
Third Circuit rejects class-action lawsuits over repaying public-sector union fees
On Aug. 28, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed two lower court rulings that public-sector unions cannot be held liable for repaying fees collected from non-members before Janus v. AFSCME.
Who are the parties to the suit?
The Third Circuit issued a joint ruling on two separate, but related, lawsuits:
Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association
The plaintiffs are Arthur Diamond, Jeffrey Schawartz, Sandra H. Ziegler, Matthew Shively, Matthew Simkins, Douglas R. Kase, and Justin Barry, all current or former public school teachers in Pennsylvania. The defendants are the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the Chestnut Ridge Education Association, the National Education Association, and several individuals in their official state capacities.
Wenzig v. Service Employees International Union Local 668
The plaintiffs are Janine Wenzig and Catherine Kioussis, two Pennsylvania state employees. The defendant is the Services Employees International Union Local 668.
What is at issue?
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees they represent to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities. To do so, the court determined, would constitute a violation of employees’ First Amendment rights.
Janus overturned the court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Education Association. In Abood, the court ruled that public-sector unions could require non-members to pay fees to support union activities that benefitted them (e.g., collective bargaining). These fees are generally referred to as either fair-share or agency fees.
After Janus, the plaintiffs in both Diamond and Wenzig petitioned for reimbursement for the agency fees they, and those similar to them, paid before Janus. On July 8, 2019, Judge Kim Gibson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Diamond, ruling that the union had collected the fees in good faith given then-prevailing law. On Dec. 10, 2019, Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a similar dismissal for Wenzig.
Both the Diamond and Wenzig plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit, which consolidated the two suits. Oral argument occurred on April 24.
How did the court rule?
The appellate panel voted 2-1 to affirm the lower court decisions. Judge Marjorie Rendell, a Bill Clinton (D) appointee, wrote the court’s opinion. Rendell cited similar recent decisions by other federal appellate courts.
We are not the first court of appeals to rule on this question, and we join a growing consensus of our sister circuits who, in virtually identical cases, have held that because the unions collected the fair-share fees in good faith reliance on a governing state statute and Supreme Court precedent, they are entitled to a good faith defense that bars Appellants’ claims for monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
42 U.S.C. §1983 “creates a cause of action for plaintiffs who are injured by a person who, acting ‘under the color of any statute … of any State,’ causes the plaintiff to suffer ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Rendell, pointing to unclear Supreme Court precedent on the question of whether “private parties may assert a good faith defense to §1983 liability,” cited a Third Circuit precedent to that effect:
In Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, we held that a ‘good faith defense is available’ to private parties who act under color of state law and are sued for monetary liability under §1983. We stated our ‘basic agreement’ that ‘private defendants should not be held liable under §1983 absent a showing of malice and evidence that they either knew or should have known of the state’s constitutional infirmity.’
Judge D. Michael Fisher, a George W. Bush (R) appointee, wrote a separate opinion concurring in the court’s judgment but dissenting from Rendell’s reading of 42 U.S.C. §1983:
[The] Supreme Court has … read immunities and defenses into § 1983, but it has done so principally on the conceit that they were available at common law in 1871, and implicitly incorporated into the statute. While this approach certainly limits the scope of liability, it also constrains judges from straying too far from the statutory text.
Judge Peter Phipps, a Donald Trump (R) appointee, dissented from the judgment, writing:
The central question presented in these consolidated cases, which seek recovery of agency fees garnished from the wages of non-union members, is whether a good faith affirmative defense exists to a First Amendment compelled speech claim under §1983. I do not see a valid basis for recognizing such a defense. A good faith affirmative defense was not firmly rooted in the common law in 1871 when § 1983 was enacted, and nothing else compels recognition of such a defense today.
About the Third Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is a federal court that hears appeals from the district courts in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The court has 14 authorized judicial posts and no current vacancies. The chief judge is Brooks Smith, a George W. Bush appointee. Of the court’s 14 active judges, six were appointed by Democrats and eight by Republicans. Appeals are heard in the James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
What comes next?
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have not said whether they intend to appeal the decision. The case names and numbers are Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association (19-2812) and Wenzig v. Service Employees International Union Local 668 (19-3906).
What we’re reading
- Illinois Economic Policy Institute, “The State of the Unions 2020: A Profile of Unionization in Chicago, in Illinois, and in the United States,” Sept. 7, 2020
- Altoona Mirror, “Unions won’t repay fair share dues: Appeals court upholds decision to dismiss class action lawsuits,” Sept. 7, 2020
- Brookings, “Essential workers during COVID-19: At risk and lacking union representation,” Sept. 3, 2020
- USA Facts, “1 in 10 American employees are in a labor union, just over half the rate of 1983,” Sept. 1, 2020
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state
We are currently tracking 102 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)
Recent legislative actions
No legislative actions have been taken on relevant bills since our last issue.
Biden, Trump travel to Pennsylvania for 9/11 memorial
|
|
| September 11, 2020: Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both traveling to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to commemorate September 11. Howie Hawkins can stay on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Kanye West is blocked from the ballot in Ohio.
“Should any [election law] cases make their way to the Supreme Court, it’s not clear how the justices would rule — especially without knowing the precise nature of the dispute. In the few disputes related to voting and Covid-19 that the court has ruled on to date, it has delivered a mixed bag of outcomes. In one illustration of the court’s unpredictability, last month it rejected an effort by Republicans opposing eased vote-by-mail rules in Rhode Island that were supported by state officials. The month before, it blocked a court ruling that would have imposed similar eased rules in Alabama. In both cases, and in several other similar ones, the court has shown more of a reluctance to second-guess state officials than support for any particular voting rules.” – Tucker Higgins, CNBC Election Updates
What We’re Reading
Flashback: September 11, 2016 Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both visited Ground Zero in New York City to commemorate September 11. |
Click here to learn more.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery: September 10, 2020
| Welcome to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery, where we track the status of reopening in all 50 states. Today we look at Louisiana’s next phase of reopening, a California coronavirus bill providing paid sick leave, an update to a lawsuit over Arizona’s bar closure, and more. Want to know what happened yesterday? Click here. |
Since our last editionWhat is open in each state? For a continually updated article on reopening status in all 50 states, click here.
Daily feature: Featured lawsuitOnce a week, we take a closer look at a noteworthy lawsuit involving governmental responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. We define a noteworthy lawsuit as one that has garnered significant media attention, involves major advocacy groups, or deals with unique legal questions. This week, we look at a lawsuit involving COVID-19 restrictions in Arizona. Aguila v. DuceyOn Sept. 8, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pamela Gates declined to block Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s (R) COVID-19 business restrictions, which close bars while allowing restaurants to remain open and serve alcohol. What is at issue?In their complaint, which was originally filed in the state supreme court, a group of Arizona bar owners argued they were discriminated against because of their on their liquor license series. They said bars with “series 6 or 7 liquor licenses are subject to closure orders in Executive Order 2020-43,” while roughly 5,000 restaurant bars, hotel bars, microbreweries, wineries, private clubs, distilleries, tasting rooms, which have different series liquor licenses, remained open. They said Ducey’s restrictions were an unconstitutional delegation of authority; exceeded statutory rulemaking authority granted by Arizona law; arbitrarily discriminated against plaintiffs and deprive them of their property, in violation of the state constitution; and violated the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. How did the court rule?Citing the “unrelenting spread of the novel coronavirus,” Gates found that “the public interest is overwhelmingly in favor of the continuation of” Ducey’s orders. Gates ruled there is “no inherent right in a citizen to … sell intoxicating liquors by retail,” and further, the governor’s restrictions “are rationally related to expert data and guidance on minimizing the spread of COVID-19.” What are the reactions, and what comes next?Attorney Ilan Wurman, representing the bar owners, acknowledged the likelihood of failure on the merits, saying he hoped to “get a summary judgment ruling quickly and just move on to the appeal.” |
Trump, RNC raise $210 million in August, trail Biden and DNC’s fundraising total
|
Click here to learn more.
Zuckerberg, Chan donate $300 million for state, local election administration efforts
On Sept. 1, Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, announced they would donate a combined total of $300 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the Center for Election Innovation and Research in a bid “to promote safe and reliable voting in states and localities during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
About the Center for Tech and Civic Life and the Center for Election Innovation and Research
The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) describes itself as “a nonpartisan nonprofit that uses technology to improve the way local governments and communities interact.” The nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) says its mission is “to build voter trust and confidence, increase voter participation, and improve the efficiency of election administration.”
Both CTCL and CEIR are organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which exempts charitable, religious, and educational organizations from federal income tax. These and other nonprofits are required to submit regular financial disclosure reports to the Internal Revenue Service. According to CTCL’s 2019 disclosure, the group had $1,414,981 in revenues and spent $1,119,630 in 2018. CEIR, meanwhile, had $890,647 revenues and spent $515,837 in 2017 (the most recent year for which information is available).
About the donation
Zuckerberg and Chan donated $250 million to CTCL, which will in turn “regrant funds to local election jurisdictions across the country to help ensure that they have the staffing, training, and equipment necessary so that this November every eligible voter can participate in a safe and timely way and that their vote is counted.” These grants will be used to support:
- Poll worker recruitment, training, and hazard pay
- Polling place rental
- Temporary staffing
- Drive-through voting
- Ballot processing equipment
- Personal protective equipment for poll workers
- Nonpartisan voter education
The press release announcing the grant said that Zuckerberg and Chan’s $50 million donation to CEIR would be used in “helping election officials across the nation reach their voters with critical information about voter registration, mail voting, early voting, polling locations and hours, and the vote-counting process.”
In a Facebook post, Zuckerberg said, “Priscilla and I are personally supporting [these] two non-partisan organizations that are working to make sure every voter’s voice can be heard this November.” He added, “This is in addition to the work that Facebook is doing to run the largest voting registration campaign in American history — with a goal of helping more than 4 million people register to vote and providing authoritative information about topics like how to vote by mail in each state.”
What are the reactions?
Support
- In a Newsweek op-ed, the Brennan Center’s Wendy Weiser and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, said: “[The] pandemic poses a national emergency impacting the very foundation of our democracy, and the Senate adjourned until Labor Day without giving states and local officials the funding they need to run safe and fair elections this fall. … We have reached an extraordinary point where we have no choice but to look to civil society—the business community and other private groups and organizations—to help fill the breach.”
- Frank LaRose (R), Ohio’s secretary of state, said, “In a time when so much is changing around us, Americans need to know now more than ever how to make their voice heard in this fall’s election. That requires getting them the information they need from trusted sources, and these dollars are going to go a long way to making that happen.”
Criticism
- Robert Reich, U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton (D), said, “Mark Zuckerberg has raked in $40,800,000,000 since the pandemic began. That’s 136 times the $300 million donation he hopes will distract us from all the ways he’s allowed fascism and misinformation to erode our democracy.”
- Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, said that CTCL staffers are former Democratic Party operatives whose goal is to improve Democrats’ electoral prospects: “Can you imagine if the Charles Koch Foundation were to become involved with election officials? It would be front page news in The New York Times.”
Absentee/mail-in voting modifications since our last issue
Since our Aug. 26 edition, we’ve tracked the following absentee/mail-in voting modifications:
- Georgia: On Aug. 31, Judge Eleanor L. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order extending the return deadlines for absentee ballots in the general election. Ross ordered officials to accept as valid any absentee ballots postmarked Nov. 3 and received by 7:00 p.m., Nov. 6.
- Maine: On Aug. 27, Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed an executive order extending the mail-in voter registration deadline from Oct. 13 to Oct. 19.
- Mississippi: On Sept. 2, Judge Denise Owens of the Hinds County Chancery Court ordered Mississippi officials to expand absentee voting eligibility in the general election to individuals with “pre-existing conditions that cause COVID-19 to present a greater risk of severe illness or death.”
- New Jersey: On Aug. 28, Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed three bills into law making a number of modifications to the state’s absentee/mail-in voting procedures for the general election. Among these changes is an extension of the receipt deadline for ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to Nov. 9).
- New York: On Sept. 2, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced the launch of an online absentee ballot request portal for the general election.
- Oklahoma: On Aug. 28, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) issued an executive order extending Oklahoma’s state of emergency by 30 days. This triggered the implementation of several modifications to Oklahoma’s absentee ballot procedures. Among these changes is the suspension of the notarization requirement, provided the voter submits a copy of his or her identification.
- Utah: On Aug. 31, Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed into law legislation making several changes to administration procedures for the general election. Among these changes is the requirement that counties provide some form of in-person Election Day and early voting).
To date, 38 states have modified their absentee/mail-in voting procedures. These modifications can be divided into the following five broad categories. The changes may apply to primary, special, or general elections:
- Automatic mail-in ballots: Five states (California, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont) either have sent or will send mail-in ballots automatically to all eligible voters in select elections to ensure that most voting takes place by mail. These states are shaded in yellow in the map below.
- Automatic mail-in ballot applications: Seventeen states (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) either have sent or will send mail-in ballot applications automatically to all eligible voters in select elections. These states are shaded in dark blue in the map below.
- Eligibility expansions: Ten states (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) either have expanded or will expand absentee voting eligibility in select elections. These states are shaded in light blue in the map below.
- Deadline extensions: Five states (Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah) either have extended or will extend absentee/mail-in ballot application or submission deadlines in select elections. These states are shaded in dark gray in the map below.
- Other process changes: One state (North Carolina) has made other modifications to its absentee/mail-in ballot procedures in select elections. This state is shaded in gray in the map below.
Redistricting developments since our last issue
Since our Aug. 26 edition, we’ve tracked the following redistricting-related developments.
- On Sept. 5, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California temporarily enjoined U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and the U.S. Census Bureau from proceeding with plans to wind down census counting efforts. On Aug. 3, the Bureau announced its intention to suspend field data collection efforts by Sept. 30, saying it would use incentive awards and additional hires “to accelerate the completion of data collection and apportionment counts by our statutory deadline” of Dec. 30. On Sept. 3, the National Urban League, the League of Women Voters, and, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples, among others, motioned for an injunction against implementation of this plan. The plaintiffs allege that the plan’s “shortened timelines will unlawfully harm the accuracy of crucial census data.” Koh did not comment on the merits of plaintiffs’ larger claims. The injunction will remain in force until Sept. 17, when the court will conduct a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- A temporary restraining order is a short-term injunction against a challenged action (in this case, the Census Bureau’s Aug. 3 plan). It lasts only until a preliminary injunction hearing. If a preliminary injunction is granted, the challenged action will generally be enjoined for the duration of legal proceedings.
Litigation tracking
To date, we have tracked 227 lawsuits and/or court orders involving election policy issues and the COVID-19 outbreak. In each issue of The Ballot Bulletin, we shine a spotlight on what we consider one of the more interesting recent developments in this area. Click here to view the complete list of lawsuits and court orders.
This week, we turn our attention to DSCC v. Pate.
- Case name: DSCC v. Pate
- Case number: 05771 CVCV060641
- State of origin: Iowa
- Court: Polk County District Court
- Summary: On Aug. 31, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the Democratic Party of Iowa filed suit against Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate (R) and the Iowa Legislative Council in the Polk County District Court. The plaintiffs allege the defendants’ July 17 emergency election directive, which prohibits county auditors from sending voters pre-addressed absentee ballot request forms, violates the state constitution.
- Background: After state officials issued the directive, the auditors in Linn, Johnson, and Woodbury counties began mailing pre-address absentee ballot request forms to voters. State and national-level Republican groups filed suits against the three auditors, seeking injunctions “ordering each auditor to follow the directive.” On Aug. 27, a Linn County judge granted Republicans’ request for an injunction. A judge in Woodbury County did the same on Aug. 28. These actions precipitated the DSCC’s lawsuit.
- Court documents:
- Petition at Law and Equity (dated Aug. 31)
- Linn County injunction (dated Aug. 27)
- Woodbury County injunction (dated Aug. 28)
Legislation tracking
To date, we have tracked 305 bills that make some mention of both election policy and COVID-19. States with higher numbers of relevant bills are shaded in darker blue on the map below. States with lower numbers of relevant bills are shaded in lighter blue. In states shaded in white, we have tracked no relevant bills.
Pro-Trump America First Action announces $22 million ad buy in FL, PA, WI, and OH
|
Click here to learn more.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery: September 8, 2020
Welcome to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery, where we track the status of reopening in all 50 states. Today we look at upcoming expanded restaurant capacity in Pennsylvania, nursing home visitation in Delaware, school reopenings, and much more. Want to know what happened Friday? Click here.
The next 24 hoursWhat is changing in the next 24 hours?
Since our last editionWhat is open in each state? For a continually updated article on reopening status in all 50 states, click here.
Daily feature: SchoolsAll 50 states closed schools to in-person instruction at some point during the 2019-2020 academic year. Beginning in May 2020, schools in certain states began to reopen. In which states are schools allowed to open? In which states are they ordered to remain closed? The current status of school reopenings is as follows:
|
Additional activityIn this section, we feature examples of other federal, state, and local government activity, private industry responses, and lawsuits related to the pandemic.
|
