Filed Date: May 1, 2020
Closed Date: Oct. 23, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: On May 1, 2020, Self Advocacy Solutions N.D., League of Women Voters of North Dakota, and an individual plaintiff filed a complaint against the Secretary of State of North Dakota and the County Auditor of Grand Forks County to challenge the absence of notice and cure procedures for the state’s signature matching requirement. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction on May 11, which the court granted on June 3. On August 28, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction.
On May 1, 2020, Self Advocacy Solutions N.D., League of Women Voters of North Dakota, and an individual plaintiff filed a complaint against the Secretary of State of North Dakota and the County Auditor of Grand Forks County to challenge the absence of notice and cure procedures for the state’s signature matching requirement. The plaintiffs brought this as a declaratory action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and as an injunctive action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the signature verification procedures, and to afford voters notice and opportunity to confirm the validity of their ballots prior to rejection based on the signature match. The plaintiffs also sought attorney fees and were represented by the Campaign Legal Center and private attorneys. The case was filed at the District Court for the District of North Dakota and assigned to Chief Judge Peter D. Welte and referred to Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal.
On March 26, Governor Burgum announced that all voters in North Dakota were required to vote by mail for the June 9 primaries. To authenticate the ballots, Dakota voting law required election officials to match the signature on the voter’s mail-in ballot to the signature the voter provided in their absentee voting applications. If the election officials determined a discrepancy, the ballot was rejected with no opportunity for the voter to verify their ballot. The plaintiffs alleged that North Dakota’s failure to provide mail-in voters with notice and opportunity to cure posed an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote and violated due process against the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
On May 11, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and also filed a motion to expedite the briefing schedule the following day, which was granted. The defendants submitted a motion in opposition to the preliminary injunction on May 22. They argued that the court should not interfere with the election last-minute, as it is already in progress. They also argued that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because they lack standing, have no injury-in-fact and cannot mount a successful facial challenge. On June 1, a hearing was held on the preliminary motion. The court granted the preliminary injunction on June 3, finding that the signature-matching requirement is likely facially unconstitutional, and therefore the plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural due process claim. 2020 WL 2951012.
On August 27, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits and moved for a permanent injunction and final judgment on the merits. The plaintiffs asked that all absentee ballots with mismatched signatures received before or on election day be given six days to be cured by voters in-person or over the phone. The plaintiffs also requested that all absentee ballots received after election day but postmarked before election day be given the same amount of time to be cured. The plaintiffs also requested that all recipients of absentee ballots be notified that their signatures will be subject to signature matching.
On August 28, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions from the previous day. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from rejecting any mail-in ballot on the basis of a signature mismatch absent notice and cure procedures. The court provided that the proposed injunction by the plaintiffs would remain in effect as long as North Dakota relies on signature matching for absentee ballot verification unless legislation is enacted to change the notice and curing procedures. On October 23, 2020, the court ordered the defendants to pay $97,500 to the plaintiffs for attorneys' fees.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Averyn Lee (8/12/2020)
Nicholas Gillan (4/9/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17221282/parties/self-advocacy-solutions-nd-v-jaeger/
Senechal, Alice R. (North Dakota)
Welte, Peter David None (North Dakota)
Braaten, Derrick L. (North Dakota)
Gaber, Mark P. (District of Columbia)
Goetz, Carey A. (North Dakota)
Lang, Danielle (District of Columbia)
Lang [inactive], Danielle Marie (District of Columbia)
Mulji, Aseem (District of Columbia)
Paikowsky, Dana (District of Columbia)
Vogel, Sarah (North Dakota)
Senechal, Alice R. (North Dakota)
Welte, Peter David None (North Dakota)
Braaten, Derrick L. (North Dakota)
Gaber, Mark P. (District of Columbia)
Goetz, Carey A. (North Dakota)
Lang, Danielle (District of Columbia)
Lang [inactive], Danielle Marie (District of Columbia)
Mulji, Aseem (District of Columbia)
Paikowsky, Dana (District of Columbia)
Vogel, Sarah (North Dakota)
Phillips, David R. (North Dakota)
Sagsveen, Matthew (North Dakota)
Swanson, Howard D. (North Dakota)
Mohammed, Linton A (North Dakota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17221282/self-advocacy-solutions-nd-v-jaeger/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: North Dakota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 1, 2020
Closing Date: Oct. 23, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two non-profit organizations and an individual plaintiff
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County Auditor of Grand Forks County (Grand Forks), County
Secretary of State of North Dakota, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: 97,500
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Voting: