Filed Date: Dec. 14, 2020
Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged changes to absentee and mail-in voting requirements made due to the Coronavirus pandemic, with specific focus on permitted ballot drop-off procedures.
On December 14, 2020, a campaign committee filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Plaintiff sued the New Mexico Secretary of State, the Electors of New Mexico, and the State Canvassing Board of New Mexico. Plaintiff alleged violations of U.S. Constitution Article I, section 4 (Elections Clause) and Article II, section 1, clause 2 (Electors Clause). Represented by private counsel, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction delaying certification of votes for President and Vice President in the 2020 general election, the canvassing and investigation of drop boxes for depositing absentee ballots, and potential invalidation of votes based on that investigation. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary’s determination that absentee ballots could be returned to drop boxes located outside polling places (instead of handed to the presiding judge) was a non-legislative change to state election law. According to plaintiff, the U.S. Constitution only permits the state legislature to set rules governing elections and the appointment of electors. In the alternative, plaintiff sought summary disposition in its favor, the vacation of the appointment and certification of New Mexico presidential electors, and remand for the state legislature to allocate electors through constitutional means that did not rely on 2020 election results that have invalid ballots. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Martha Vazquez and United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter.
On December 15, 2020, the Court ordered an expedited briefing schedule and declined to issue a TRO on an ex parte basis, finding plaintiff did not certify efforts made to provide notice to defendants or why notice should not be required. The Court also found that, given plaintiff filed more than a month after the election, it had not shown immediate or irreparable injury would result to it before defendants are permitted to respond.
On December 22, 2020, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding allegations that results from Dominion voting machines cannot be certified, citing an expert report from a separate Michigan lawsuit that alleged inaccuracies from Dominion software and equipment used in that state. The amended complaint also added in the prayer for relief a request for emergency confiscation and preservation of all Dominion voting machines and software in New Mexico and the forensic examination and analysis of the machines.
On January 5, 2021, defendants filed a response and motion to dismiss. Defendants asserted the drop box guidance was issued pursuant to authority granted by the legislature and was consistent with the election code. They also noted that the Republican Party of New Mexico filed a lawsuit before the election seeking to enforce the use of drop boxes pursuant to the Secretary’s guidance (or discontinue use of the drop boxes if not). Defendants also asserted that plaintiff waited to see who won the election before filing the lawsuit, and this “game-playing is precisely why the doctrine of laches not only exists, but is particularly strictly enforced in the elections context.” Plaintiff’s delay allegedly prejudiced defendants and voters, and also rendered the lawsuit moot because New Mexico electors had already voted, certified, and submitted their votes to federal officials. Also, defendants noted that plaintiff’s challenges to the Dominion machines were based solely on a challenge to use of the machines in Michigan that had already been rejected by a Michigan federal court, and failed to state any claim. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff had no standing because alleged generalized failures to comply with law were not countenanced, the relief requested would not redress the alleged harm. Lastly, Defendants argued that the Electors Clause claim, if it existed, belonged to the legislature.
On January 11, 2021, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice and later filed a motion to dismiss, stating the decision is “[b]ased on events that have transpired since the inception of this lawsuit ….” By Order dated February 2, 2021, the Court concluded the notice of dismissal was self-executing and, thus, the motion to dismiss was moot. The case was dismissed without prejudice and closed.
Summary Authors
Kelly Tsai (6/5/2024)
Madilynn O'Hara (9/25/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18740703/parties/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-toulouse-oliver/
Caruso, Mark J (New Mexico)
Brailey, Emily (New Mexico)
Calderon, Melissa Elise (New Mexico)
Elias, Marc E (New Mexico)
Gordon, Matthew (New Mexico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18740703/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-toulouse-oliver/
Last updated March 7, 2026, 5:10 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 14, 2020
Closing Date: Feb. 2, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., a campaign committee for the reelection of Trump in the 2020 general election.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Electors of New Mexico
Secretary of State of New Mexico
State Canvassing Board of New Mexico
Case Details
Other Dockets:
District of New Mexico 1:20-cv-01289
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Donald J. Trump For President, v. Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44479/ (last updated 9/25/2024).