Filed Date: June 30, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the constitutionality of California’s signature gathering requirements for ballot Independent Candidate ballot access during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was filed by two individual Plaintiffs on June 30, 2020 in the United States District Court in the Central District of California (Western Division- Los Angeles) against the Governor and Secretary of State of California in their official capacities. The Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and the case was presided over by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief to ensure their placement on California’s November 3, 2020, general election ballot.
The Plaintiffs were the 2020 Socialist Equality Party candidate for President of the United States and the 2020 Socialist Equality Party candidate for Vice President of the United States. However, to gain admission as an independent candidate in California, independent candidates were required candidates to obtain 196,964 signatures. In response to the pandemic, the Governor issued precautionary measures requiring everyone, except essential persons, to stay in their homes, not to engage in large outdoor gatherings, and not to participate in non-essential social interactions. The Plaintiffs found it nearly impossible to get the necessary signatures in the setting of possible illness, death, and violations of the precautionary orders that could result in fines or imprisonment.
On June 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Governor Newsom and Secretary of the State of California Alex Padilla in their official capacities. The Plaintiffs claimed California’s signature requirement in the setting of the pandemic was impossible to meet. They argued this violated the fundamental democratic rights of the candidates and California voters. They additionally argued their claims arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1988. Represented by private counsel, the Plaintiffs moved for declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief to ensure their placement on California’s November 3, 2020, general election ballot. The specifically sought either an extension of the filing deadline, or an injunction prohibiting California from printing November ballots unless and until the third party, independent, candidates were included.
On June 30, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order because the Court was concerned actual notice was not given to the State of California, because California requires service of summons to be made on the Attorney General when the State itself is being sued, which was not done here.
On July 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants opposed the temporary restraining order arguing emergency relief was not necessary, as the deadline was over a month away, and there was time for a preliminary injunction motion to be fully briefed by the Court. The Defendants also argued the Plaintiffs had not been diligent in seeking relief, because they had been aware of the pandemic since March and waited until the end of June to file a complaint and therefore strict scrutiny should not apply.
On July 6, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ temporary restraining order and construed the Plaintiffs’ renewed application for a temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction and set an expedited briefing and hearing schedule. 2020 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 211126.
On July 20, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The Court explained that while the Plaintiffs focused on the signature requirement for independent candidates, the Plaintiffs could have also qualified for the ballot by demonstrating about 68,000 Californians have registered as Socialist Equality Party voters. The Court reasoned that there are a lot of different ways to drum up voter registration that does not require in-person interactions, appearing in public, leaving the home, or using the mail system. Because another option in addition to getting signatures existed, the Court could not know if a reasonably diligent candidate would have succeeded with voter registration. Further, the Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs had not justified their delay in taking action to appear on the ballot which is against the issuance of relief. Finally, the Court explained that California’s regulatory interests justified its ballot access laws and stay-at-home mandates. 2020 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 211126.
On July 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal for the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On August 5, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24726.
On August 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the voluntary dismissal was granted on March 3, 2021.
Summary Authors
Lauren Kidd (1/21/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17309877/parties/joseph-kishore-v-gavin-newsom/
Eick, Charles F. (California)
Gee, Dolly Maizie (California)
Norris, Donald G. (California)
Chang, Peter H. (California)
Medley, Amie (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17309877/joseph-kishore-v-gavin-newsom/
Last updated Oct. 25, 2025, 12:05 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs include Joseph Kishore and Norissa Santa Cruz. Joseph Kishore was the 2020 presidential candidate for the Socialist Equality Party. Norissa Santa Cruz was the 2020 vice presidential candidate for the Socialist Equality Party.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, in his official capacity (Los Angeles), State
Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of California, in his official capacity (Los Angeles), State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $0.00
Issues
Voting: