Filed Date: Sept. 25, 2019
Closed Date: Jan. 30, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged state and county officials’ interpretation of Tennessee’s “100 foot zone rule” to prohibit campaign workers from entering a polling location to use the restroom. On September 25, 2019, a political organization, an African-American candidate for reelection, and two African-American campaign workers (one of whom alleged he has a disabling condition) filed this lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis. The next day, defendants filed removed the civil action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The removed lawsuit was initially filed against the Shelby County Election Commission and the Administrator of the Election Commission and the members of the Board of Elections Commissioners (in their official capacities) under the Tennessee Constitution and state statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act), and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sought a declaration that the challenged rule was unconstitutional and thus void; temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement of the challenged rule; and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Plaintiffs alleged the challenged rule infringed on their rights to free speech, equal protection, and due process because defendants failed to show use of the restrooms by campaign workers volunteering for plaintiffs (who were mostly African-Americans) would result in interference with the election process. Plaintiffs also alleged the challenged rule violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the campaign worker whose physical or mental impairments limited his life activities such as walking and breathing. Plaintiffs alleged that campaign workers would comply with the 100 foot zone rules by not carrying signs or displaying any article of clothing advocating for or against any candidate when attempting to enter to use the bathroom. The case was assigned to District Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham.
On September 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking an order preliminarily enjoining defendants from enforcing the challenged rule. Plaintiffs reiterated the allegations in their complaint and noted that, in the past, campaign workers were permitted to enter polling places to use the restrooms if they complied with the 100 foot zone rule. On September 29, 2019, defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion, asserting the motion must be denied for failing to add an indispensable party (the Tennessee Coordinator of Elections who interpreted the underlying law), lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and failure to meet the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. Defendants argued that the constitutional rights cited by plaintiffs were not implicated by restrictions on campaign workers using restrooms in polling places, the ADA only applied to access to voters with disabilities for the purpose of voting, and plaintiffs did not state any particularized harm necessary to establish standing necessary to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
On September 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment. The amended complaint added the Tennessee Secretary of State and the Tennessee Coordinator of Elections in their official capacities as defendants, and was premised on the same legal claims. The amended pleading included additional factual allegations, including that the county administrator stated in a letter that some campaign workers were permitted to enter the polling sites, but plaintiffs (who are African-Americans) were not. The challenged rule did not apply to individuals who were both poll watchers and campaign workers. Plaintiffs also alleged that the pathway one campaign worker must travel for an alternative restroom was unsafe.
On October 1, 2019, defendants filed a supplemental response stating an additional reason the motion for preliminary injunction should be denied is failure to serve or give notice to the State of Tennessee or Coordinator of Elections, who were added as defendants.
On October 2, 2019, the District Court issued an order (which was amended the same day) granting the motion and temporarily restraining defendants during the October 3, 2019 election from forbidding campaign works who are not wearing or possessing campaign materials from entering the polling place to use the restrooms or other legitimate purposes such as voting. The court determined the challenged rule violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutional under strict scrutiny because a less restrictive alternative (barring campaign workers from bringing campaign materials into the polling place) had always been the practice and there was no compelling reason to change the status quo. The remaining preliminary injunction factors also weighed in plaintiffs’ favor.
On October 7 and 23, 2019, respectively, the county and state defendants answered the amended complaint.
On January 30, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice, and the District Court ordered dismissal with prejudice and entered judgment that same day. The Clearinghouse has no information indicating why the parties agreed to a dismissal with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Kelly Tsai (4/25/2024)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16282297/robinson-v-shelby-county-election-commission/
Last updated April 23, 2024, 4:25 p.m.
State / Territory: Tennessee
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 25, 2019
Closing Date: Jan. 30, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
For-profit political organization, candidate for reelection, and two campaign workers (one with an alleged disabling condition)
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Shelby County Election Commission (Shelby), County
Administrator of Shelby County Election Commission (Shelby), Private Entity/Person
Members of Shelby County Board of Elections Commissioners (Shelby), Private Entity/Person
Tennessee Secretary of State, Private Entity/Person
Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2019 - 2019
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Voting: