Case: People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno

6:20-cv-01053 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: June 30, 2020

Closed Date: June 10, 2021

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about the constitutionality of Oregon’s signature requirements for ballot initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, five Oregon nonprofit organizations and one Oregon resident who was the chief petitioner for the ballot initiative, proposed to amend the Oregon Constitution in 2019 and started gathering the required signatures needed to get the proposal on the ballot for the November 2020 general election. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, filed their c…

This case is about the constitutionality of Oregon’s signature requirements for ballot initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, five Oregon nonprofit organizations and one Oregon resident who was the chief petitioner for the ballot initiative, proposed to amend the Oregon Constitution in 2019 and started gathering the required signatures needed to get the proposal on the ballot for the November 2020 general election. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, filed their complaint on June 30, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, against the Secretary of State of Oregon. The plaintiffs sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the state constitution’s signature requirement, as applied during the pandemic and the related public health executive orders, imposed severe burdens on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by making it nearly impossible to obtain a spot on the ballot for their initiative. The plaintiffs requested an extension to the signature deadline of July 2, 2020, and a lowered signature requirement, in addition to a declaration that the application of the signature requirement was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff’s specific initiative. The case was assigned to Judge Michael J. McShane.

On the same day that they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order requesting the court to enjoin the signature requirement and deadlines for the plaintiffs’ ballot initiative. In a July 2 scheduling order, Judge McShane stated that the court would treat the motion for a temporary restraining order as a motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 10, the court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction during a video motion hearing. 472 F. Supp. 3d 890. The court gave the defendant until July 13 to either allow the plaintiffs’ initiative on the ballot or to lower the required signature threshold from 149,360 to 58,789 and extend the deadline from July 2 to August 17 for signatures.

The court stated that, based on Ninth Circuit precedent, restrictions on the ballot initiative process will burden core 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 initiative on the ballot. The court found that the Governor’s executive orders, which were issued to limit the spread of COVID-19, prevented any one-on-one contact between petition circulators and Oregon voters. The court also found that the defendant’s refusal to make reasonable accommodations during the pandemic made it less likely for the plaintiffs to get enough signatures to place their initiative on the ballot.

After establishing that the state’s restrictions on the ballot initiative process, as applied during the pandemic, burdened core political speech, the court then had to decide which form of review to use for analyzing the defendant’s conduct. 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. The court found that the plaintiffs in the present case had submitted sufficient evidence reflecting that they would have gathered the required signatures prior to the July 2 deadline if not for the COVID-19 restrictions. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had managed to gather 60,000 signatures while adhering to the Governor’s orders. Based on these facts, the court found that the plaintiffs had acted with reasonable diligence in their attempt to meet the ballot requirements. The court also found that the pandemic-related restrictions had significantly inhibited the plaintiffs’ ability to place their initiative on the ballot. Based on the conclusions that the restrictions on the ballot initiative here burdened core political speech and that strict scrutiny would be applied, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

The court also found that, in absence of the requested preliminary relief, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm because their initiative would not appear on the November 2020 ballot. The court then analyzed the balance of the equities, noting that First Amendment rights outweigh concerns about election administration. The court also concluded that the public interest leaned in favor of granting the preliminary injunction because it would protect the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Since the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, a likelihood of irreparable harm in absence of the requested relief, and that the balance of the equities and public interest leaned in their favor, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

On July 13, the defendant filed a notice in response to the court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. In the notice, the defendant objected to the court’s ruling and its order that the defendant select among remedies as inappropriate and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. The defendant declined to place the plaintiff’s initiative on the ballot without the submission of the required signatures under the Oregon Constitution. On the same day, the court issued a minute order adopting the plaintiffs’ requested remedy of a 58,789-signature requirement. On July 15, the defendant appealed the granting of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit (USCA Case Number 20-35630) and filed a motion in the appellate court to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. On July 23, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion, with Circuit Judge Callahan dissenting. On July 30, the defendant submitted an application for a stay to Justice Kagan. The application was granted by the Supreme Court on August 11 and the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction was therefore stayed pending the appeal in the Ninth Circuit. 141 S.Ct. 206. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have denied the application for a stay.

On September 1, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum remanding the case to the district court with instructions. 826 Fed. App’x. 581. The court first pointed out that, since the Supreme Court had stayed the injunction and the deadline to place the initiative on the November 2020 ballot was September 3, the case was likely moot as to the 2020 election cycle. The court found that, since the parties had not had an opportunity to brief regarding the possibility of the same controversy recurring in the lead up to the November 2022 election, the district court would be better positioned to decide whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over the likely moot case. Circuit Judge Nelson filed a dissenting opinion, stating that he would vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss the action.

Back in the district court, little action was taken on the case until the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on February 24, 2021. The defendant then moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on March 3, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims are either moot or barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court stayed discovery, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, pending resolution of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On June 10, 2021, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court analyzed whether the plaintiffs’ claim, which was moot as to the 2020 election cycle, fell within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the requirement that a case or controversy must be live for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The court stated that the “capable of repetition” exception only applies where (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that a plaintiff will face it again. The court found that the idea that the circumstances leading to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit would recur in 2022 was highly speculative. The court noted that, based on Oregon’s vaccination numbers, it was likely that most of the health and safety restrictions would be lifted by the 2022 election. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs would be in a different position in the 2022 election than they were in the 2020 election, since they would have more time to adjust their signature-collecting methods and would have a better understanding of how to adjust to the pandemic. Since the court declined to find that there was a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs would face the challenged action again, the “capable of repetition” exception did not apply and the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Nicholas Gillan (12/23/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17312014/parties/people-not-politicians-oregon-v-clarno/


Judge(s)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)

Kagan, Elena (District of Columbia)

McShane, Michael Jerome (Oregon)

Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

Nelson, Ryan Douglas (District of Columbia)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Sotomayor, Sonia (District of Columbia)

Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Montana)

Judge(s)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)

Kagan, Elena (District of Columbia)

McShane, Michael Jerome (Oregon)

Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

Nelson, Ryan Douglas (District of Columbia)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Sotomayor, Sonia (District of Columbia)

Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Montana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Elzinga, Stephen (Oregon)

Gutman, Benjamin N. (Oregon)

Meek, Daniel W. (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Beatty-Walters, Christina L. (Oregon)

Marshall, Brian Simmonds (District of Columbia)

Morgan, Shaunee V. (Oregon)

Other Attorney(s)

Anderson-Dana, Lydia (Oregon)

Berman, Steven C. (Oregon)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:20-cv-01053

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Docket
2

6:20-cv-01053

Plaintiffs’ Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Memorandum In Support

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

6:20-cv-01053

Complaint

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Complaint
23

6:20-cv-01053

Opinion and Order

472 F.Supp.3d 890

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Order/Opinion
24

6:20-cv-01053

Defendant's Notice In Response To Court Order

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
11763820

6:20-cv-01053

0:20-35630

Order

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

Order/Opinion

Order in Pending Case

Clarno v. People Not Politicians Oregon

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

Order/Opinion
11809257

6:20-cv-01053

0:20-35630

Memorandum

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

826 Fed.Appx. 581

Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

Order/Opinion
53

6:20-cv-01053

Opinion and Order

2020 WL 2386118

June 10, 2021

June 10, 2021

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17312014/people-not-politicians-oregon-v-clarno/

Last updated July 29, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $400 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-6919967 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by People Not Politicians Oregon, C. Norman Turrill, Common Cause, NAACP of Eugene/Springfield, Independent Party of Oregon, League of Women Voters of Oregon against Bev Clarno. (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Clearinghouse
2

Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elzinga, Stephen) Modified on 7/2/2020 per order 12 (cp). (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Clearinghouse
3

Declaration of Ted Blaszak in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

RECAP
4

Declaration of Candalynn Johnson in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

PACER
5

Declaration of C. Norman Turrill in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

PACER
6

Civil Cover Sheet regarding Complaint, 1 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
7

Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Michael J. McShane and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 10/29/2020. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 11/30/2020. Pretrial Order is due by 11/30/2020. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (bd) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
8

Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed by All Defendants. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
9

Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed by All Defendants. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
10

Notice of Appearance of Christina L. Beatty-Walters appearing on behalf of Beverly Clarno Filed by on behalf of Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

RECAP
11

Notice of Appearance of Brian Simmonds Marshall appearing on behalf of Beverly Clarno Filed by on behalf of Beverly Clarno. (Marshall, Brian) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
12

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane regarding Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 . Based upon the communications from the parties, the Court will treat the pending motion 2 as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court also adopts the parties proposed briefing schedule. Defendant's Response is due by 01:00PM on 7/8/2020. The Court will hold Oral Argument on 7/9/2020 at 03:00PM in Eugene by telephone before Judge Michael J. McShane. The Court will provide the parties with the conference call-in number by separate email. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

PACER

1 - Scheduling

July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

PACER
13

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane: Based upon the request of the parties, the Oral Argument set for 7/9/2020 regarding Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 is reset for 7/10/2020 at 02:00PM in Eugene by telephone before Judge Michael J. McShane. Sur-Response is due by 7/9/2020. The parties are to use the previously emailed conference call-in number. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

July 7, 2020

July 7, 2020

PACER

1 - Scheduling

July 7, 2020

July 7, 2020

PACER
14

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane: The Oral Argument regarding Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 set for 7/10/2020 at 02:00PM will be by videoconference before Judge Michael J. McShane. The Court will provide the parties the videoconference information by separate email. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
15

Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

RECAP
16

Declaration of Summer S. Davis in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
17

Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative Appear as Amici Curiae. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Becca Uherbelau, Our Oregon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Becca Uherbelau and Our Oregons Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Becca Uherbelau, # 3 Exhibit C - Declaration of Ben Unger, # 4 Exhibit D - Declaration of Elizabeth Kaufman) (Anderson-Dana, Lydia) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

1 Exhibit A - Becca Uherbelau and Our Oregons Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Becca Uherbelau

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit C - Declaration of Ben Unger

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit D - Declaration of Elizabeth Kaufman

View on RECAP

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

RECAP
18

Corrected Response (with Table of Authorities Added) to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

RECAP
19

Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
20

Supplemental Declaration of Ted Blaszak in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave 19 .) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER

1 - Scheduling

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
21

Corrected Motion for Leave File Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction) (Elzinga, Stephen) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
22

MINUTES of Proceedings: Video Motion Hearing Held. Witnesses sworn and evidence adduced. Witnesses: Edward Blaszak; Normal Turrill; Candalynn Johnson; Elizabeth Kaufman; Summer Davis. Order Granting Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 2 as stated on the record. Formal order in writing to follow. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative Appear as Amici Curiae 17 to the extent that movants are allowed to appear as amici curiae. Order Denying defendant's oral Motion for Stay. Stephen Elzinga present as counsel for plaintiffs. Christina Beatty-Walters; Brian Marshall present as counsel for defendant. Steven Berman; Lydia Anderson-Dana present as counsel for amici curiae. (Court Reporter Deborah Cook.) Judge Michael J. McShane presiding. (plb) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER

Order on Motion to Intervene AND Motion Hearing Held AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 11, 2020

July 11, 2020

PACER

Motion Hearing Held AND Order on Motion to Intervene AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 11, 2020

July 11, 2020

PACER

Motion Hearing Held AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion to Intervene

July 11, 2020

July 11, 2020

PACER

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion to Intervene AND Motion Hearing Held

July 11, 2020

July 11, 2020

PACER
23

Opinion and Order: The Secretary of State has a vital interest in regulating the petition processes. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). It is also important that the federal courts not take it upon themselves to rewrite state election rules, particularly on the eve of an election. Republican Natl Comm., 140 S. Ct at 1207. But when these rules collide with unprecedented conditions that burden First Amendment access to the ballot box, their application must temper in favor of the Constitution. Because the right to petition the government is at the core of First Amendment protections, which includes the right of initiative, City of Cuyahoga Falls, 538 U.S. at 196, the current signature requirements in Oregon law are unconstitutional as applied to these specific Plaintiffs seeking to engage in direct democracy under these most unusual of times. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for emergency injunctive relief 2 . Signed on 7/13/2020 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Clearinghouse
24

Notice re Opinion and Order,,,, 23 in Response to Court Order Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Related document(s): Opinion and Order,,,, 23 .) (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

Clearinghouse
25

Order: Based on the Defendant's Notice 24 regarding the Court's Opinion and Order 23, the Court issues this Minute Order clarifying how it came to the reduced signature number. The Court adopts Plaintiffs' requested remedy of 58,789 signatures. 58,789 required signatures is equal to 50% of the number of signatures required for a constitutional initiative to qualify the 2018 General Election, rather than the 2020 General Election because of the large jump in voter turnout. See Pl.'s Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. 33-34 2 . Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

PACER

Order

July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

PACER
26

Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Filing fee $505 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-6987259. Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Gutman, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

RECAP

USCA Case Number

July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

PACER
27

Transcript Designation and Order Form for the hearing held on July 10, 2020 before Judge Michael J. McShane. Court Reporter: Deborah Cook. regarding Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 Expedited. Filed by Beverly Clarno. Transcript is due by 8/14/2020. (Gutman, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

RECAP

USCA Case Number and Notice confirming Docketing Record on Appeal re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . Case Appealed to 9th Circuit Case Number 20-35630 assigned. (bd)

July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

PACER
28

Order from USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 20-35630 re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . We expedite this appeal. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. No written motions for extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The Clerk shall place this case on the calendar for August 2020. (bd) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

July 22, 2020

July 22, 2020

RECAP
29

Order from USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 20-35630 re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . Appellant's motion to stay the district court's July 13, 2020 order pending appeal is denied. (bd) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

RECAP
30

Joint Status Report . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

PACER
31

Order by the Supreme Court, SC Order No. 20A21, received by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, USCA # 20-35630 re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . (bd) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

RECAP
32

Order from USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 20-35630 re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . (bd) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

RECAP
33

Answer to 1 Complaint, . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

Aug. 31, 2020

Aug. 31, 2020

PACER
34

USCA Memorandum for the 9th Circuit, USCA #20-35630, re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . The decision of the District Court is: REMANDED with instructions. (bd) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

Sept. 1, 2020

Sept. 1, 2020

RECAP
35

OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Oral Argument held on 7-10-2020 before Judge McShane, Court Reporter Deborah Cook, telephone number 503-550-8545. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter Deborah Cook, telephone number 503-550-8545 before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER. See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 9/25/2020. Redaction Request due 10/9/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/17/2020. (dc) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

Sept. 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2020

PACER
36

MANDATE Issued regarding USCA Memorandum for the 9th Circuit 34, USCA #20-35630, re Notice of Appeal - Preliminary Injunction 26 . The decision of the District Court is: REMANDED with instructions. (bd) (Entered: 09/23/2020)

Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

PACER
37

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane: The parties are ordered to confer and file a joint status report by 10/5/2020 based on the 9th Circuit's Mandate 36 . Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

Sept. 28, 2020

Sept. 28, 2020

PACER

1 - Scheduling

Sept. 28, 2020

Sept. 28, 2020

PACER
38

Joint Status Report . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

Oct. 5, 2020

Oct. 5, 2020

PACER
39

Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Daniel W. Meek is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Stephen Elzinga Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

Oct. 23, 2020

Oct. 23, 2020

PACER
40

Notice of Appearance of Shaunee Vanessa Morgan appearing on behalf of Beverly Clarno Filed by on behalf of Beverly Clarno. (Morgan, Shaunee) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

PACER
41

Motion for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2021)

Feb. 24, 2021

Feb. 24, 2021

RECAP
42

Declaration of Daniel W. Meek . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 41 .) (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2021)

Feb. 24, 2021

Feb. 24, 2021

PACER
43

Declaration of C. Norman Turrill . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 41 .) (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2021)

Feb. 24, 2021

Feb. 24, 2021

PACER
44

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . Oral Argument requested. Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Morgan, Shaunee) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

March 3, 2021

March 3, 2021

RECAP
45

Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane: Briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment 41 is stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss 44 . Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

March 5, 2021

March 5, 2021

PACER

1 - Scheduling

March 5, 2021

March 5, 2021

PACER
46

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 44 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 03/11/2021)

March 11, 2021

March 11, 2021

PACER
47

Joint Motion for Stay of Discovery. Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Beatty-Walters, Christina) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

March 12, 2021

March 12, 2021

PACER
48

ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 46 to File Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 44 . Plaintiffs' Response is due by 3/29/2021. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 03/15/2021)

March 15, 2021

March 15, 2021

PACER
49

ORDER: Granting Motion for Stay 47 . All discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 44 . If the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 44 is denied, the Parties are ordered to file a Joint Case Management Plan within 14 days of the Court's order proposing a schedule to allow the parties to complete discovery before Defendant responds to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 41 . Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 03/15/2021)

March 15, 2021

March 15, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion

March 15, 2021

March 15, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Stay

March 15, 2021

March 15, 2021

PACER
50

Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 44 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 03/29/2021)

March 29, 2021

March 29, 2021

PACER
51

Reply in Support to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 44 . Filed by Beverly Clarno. (Morgan, Shaunee) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER
52

Second Declaration of Daniel W. Meek . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 50 .) (Meek, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

April 27, 2021

April 27, 2021

PACER
53

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 44 is granted and this action is dismissed. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed on 6/10/2021 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) Modified on 6/10/2021 to add the word "Opinion", resent NEF(cp). (Entered: 06/10/2021)

June 10, 2021

June 10, 2021

RECAP
54

JUDGMENT: Based on the record, this action is dismissed. Signed on 6/10/2021 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

June 10, 2021

June 10, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Oregon

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 30, 2020

Closing Date: June 10, 2021

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Five Oregon non-profit political organizations and an individual resident

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Secretary of State (Oregon), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

None

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Voting

Voting:

Candidate qualifications