Filed Date: Nov. 5, 2018
Closed Date: July 24, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 5, 2018, three Plaintiffs—a non-profit organized to defeat a proposed anti-abortion amendment to the West Virginia Constitution and two individual volunteers—filed a Complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against the West Virginia Secretary of State under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief for constitutional violations. Plaintiffs alleged the volunteers had been prohibited by the Secretary of State himself from providing education about the amendment to voters anywhere on the property of a polling place during early voting, even though they complied with another statutory prohibition against electioneering within 100 feet of the outside entrance of an early voting polling location. The Complaint sought a declaration that the West Virginia statute invoked by the Secretary, which prohibited electioneering at any early voting location, was impermissibly vague, in violation of the First Amendment, and prospective injunctive relief against enforcement of the statute.
The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot because the election was over and the amendment had passed, and Plaintiffs’ claim was not “capable of repetition but evading review” because the claim related only to electioneering activities at specific satellite voting locations during the early voting period, which locations were subject to change before the next election. Plaintiffs disagreed, arguing there was a reasonable expectation the issue would arise again because the individual plaintiffs were politically active, including at the polling place at issue, which had been a polling place since at least 2016. In a second dismissal motion, the Secretary asserted the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit and Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, because the Secretary is not responsible for enforcing the challenged statute, and an injunction against him would not prevent county election officials from enforcing it. In opposition, Plaintiffs argued the Secretary oversees the election process throughout the state and Ex Parte Young allowed the federal court to enforce the US Constitution against him.
On July 24, 2019, the district court granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, finding that the action was moot because the election was over and the amendment had been approved by voters; the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness did not apply because the early voting locations for the next election were speculative, at best; Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show how the judgment requested would redress their injury, as the Secretary did not control the conduct of other election officials; and Eleventh Amendment immunity applied, and the Ex Parte Young exception did not apply, because an injunction against the Secretary would have no effect on the ability of the officials responsible for supervising absentee voting to enforce the challenged statute against Plaintiffs in the future.
The case is closed.
Summary Authors
LFAA (8/15/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8133231/parties/vote-no-on-amendment-one-inc-v-warner/
Johnston, Thomas E. (West Virginia)
Majestro, Anthony J. (West Virginia)
Stark, Loree Beth (West Virginia)
Capehart, Curtis R. (West Virginia)
Lampman, Thomas T. (West Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8133231/vote-no-on-amendment-one-inc-v-warner/
Last updated Aug. 15, 2025, 9:04 p.m.
State / Territory: West Virginia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 5, 2018
Closing Date: July 24, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Non-profit organized to defeat an anti-abortion ballot initiative and two individual volunteers
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: