Filed Date: June 30, 2020
Closed Date: Sept. 17, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case was about the constitutionality of the Governor of Oregon’s COVID-19 executive orders and the signature requirements for ballot initiatives for the 2020 general election. The plaintiff, an Oregon registered voter and president of an Oregon nonprofit organization, “Move Oregon’s Border,” filed this complaint pro se in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on June 30, 2020, against the Governor and Secretary of State of Oregon, in addition to seventeen county clerks in the state. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the state’s laws requiring large numbers of in-person signatures, combined with COVID-19 and the Governor’s orders regarding the pandemic, amounted to a violation of the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The plaintiff stated that the state’s ballot-access requirements violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing a burden on his ability to advocate for ballot initiatives and by limiting his ability to earn a place for his nonprofit organization’s ballot initiatives on the 2020 ballot. The plaintiff also stated that Oregon’s ballot-access requirements violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff requested preliminary and permanent relief prohibiting the enforcement of state and local laws mandating a minimum number of signatures for verification, qualification, and certification of county ballot initiatives in Oregon for the November 2020 election. The plaintiff also requested that the court direct the defendants to certify as a county measure for the election ballot any petitions that had been filed by an agent of Move Oregon’s Border approved by August 5, 2020, without requiring the signatures from voters. The plaintiff also asked for a declaration that Oregon’s signature requirements for the qualification of county ballot initiatives are unconstitutional as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic and the stay-at-home executive orders. The case was assigned to Judge Michael J. McShane.
On July 6, 2020, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. On July 20, the court denied the motion for preliminary relief. 2020 WL 4059698. The court first pointed out that the requested relief relates to Move Oregon’s Border, rather than the plaintiff individually. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not appear to be a licensed attorney and therefore could not represent Move Oregon’s Border in the proceeding. Putting this issue aside, the court also found that the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in collecting the required signatures showed that he was not likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
The court stated that the right to petition the government is at the core of the First Amendment’s protections, which includes the right to present ballot initiatives. The court stated that restrictions on the initiative process will be found to burden political speech if: (1) the regulations restrict one-on-one communication between petition circulators and voters; or (2) the regulations make it less likely that proponents can obtain the necessary signatures to place the initiatives on the ballot. If the court decides that the restrictions burden political speech, the next step is to decide which level of scrutiny to apply to the restrictions. The court stated that it applies strict scrutiny when: (1) the proponents of the initiative have been reasonably diligent as compared to other initiative proponents; and (2) when the restrictions significantly inhibit the proponents’ ability to place an initiative on the ballot. However, if the plaintiff fails to meet either of these prongs, the court will apply a lesser form of scrutiny. Here, the court found that the plaintiff had not described steps taken to gather signatures and therefore failed to show reasonable diligence compared with other initiative proponents and therefore applied rational basis review. Finding that the defendants had a significant regulatory interest in maintaining the initiative requirements and ensuring that each initiative had sufficient support in order to be placed on the ballot, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits and denied the requested preliminary relief.
On July 22, the plaintiff filed another motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff argued that he should not need to show that he is more diligent than other initiative proponents but rather that his petitions are attractive enough to the people of Oregon that they would have gained all of the required signatures under normal conditions. In the alternative, the plaintiff requested that the number of signatures required be lowered to one fifth of the normal requirement based on the obstacles posed by the pandemic.
In early August 2020, three of the defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. On August 19, Judge McShane issued a scheduling order again highlighting the fact that the plaintiff appeared to be suing on behalf of Move Oregon’s Border and that the plaintiff did not appear to be a licensed attorney. Judge McShane stated that the action would be dismissed unless the organization filed a notice of representation by a licensed attorney within 14 days and stayed all pending motions until the filing of the notice. On September 17, 2020, the court dismissed the case without prejudice due to Move Oregon’s Border’s failure to file a notice of representation by a licensed attorney. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (12/22/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17309916/parties/mccarter-v-brown/
Bailey, James E. (Oregon)
Beatty-Walters, Christina L. (Oregon)
Benton, Joel C. (Oregon)
Carollo, Dominic M. (Oregon)
Cloran, William F. (Oregon)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17309916/mccarter-v-brown/
Last updated Dec. 13, 2025, 3:56 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2020
Closing Date: Sept. 17, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The president of an Oregon nonprofit political organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 6:20-cv-01048
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: