Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RNC v. DNC Response To Stay Application
RNC v. DNC Response To Stay Application
19A1016
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.
Applicants,
v.
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.,
Respondents.
___________________________
THE WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE,
Applicants,
v.
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.
Respondents.
SEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NOS. 20-1538 AND 20-1539
___________________________
DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH,
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
Charles G. Curtis, Jr. Marc E. Elias
Sopen B. Shah Counsel of Record
PERKINS COIE LLP Bruce V. Spiva
One East Main Street, Suite 201 John Devaney
Madison, WI 53703 Amanda R. Callais
(608) 663-7460 Zachary J. Newkirk
[email protected] PERKINS COIE LLP
[email protected] 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Ste. 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 654-6200
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Respondents Democratic National Committee and
Democratic Party of Wisconsin
(additional counsel on next page)
Douglas M. Poland Tamara B. Packard
David P. Hollander Lester A. Pines
Rathje Woodward LLC Pines Bach LLP
10 E Doty Street, Suite 507 122 West Washington Ave, Suite 900
Madison, WI 53703 Madison, WI 53703
(608) 960-7430 (telephone) (608) 251-0101 (telephone)
(608) 960-7460 (facsimile) (608) 251-2883 (facsimile)
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
SEIU Wisconsin State Council; and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin have no
interest in them.
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
II. The balance of potential harms and the public interest strongly favor denial
of the application. ................................................................................................. 18
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 20
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983) ................................................................................................ 11
Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428 (1992) ................................................................................................ 11
Purcell v. Gonzalez,
549 U.S. 1 (2006) .................................................................................... 4, 16, 17, 18
Reynolds v. Sims,
377 U.S. 533 (1964) ................................................................................................ 12
Thompson v. Freeman,
648 F.2d 1144 (8th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................ 14
Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886) ................................................................................................ 12
STATUTES
-iii-
TO THE HONORABLE BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF
INTRODUCTION
organizations, individual Wisconsin voters, 1 and the SEIU Wisconsin State Council.,
Wisconsin. They are all of the plaintiffs in two of three cases consolidated in the
Wisconsin law does not impose a postmark deadline for absentee ballots, but
instead provides that all such ballots, no matter when they are postmarked, “shall be
returned so [they are] delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m. on election
day.” Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6). Ballots arriving after this deadline “may not be counted.”
Id. Respondents brought suit on March 18, 2020 to enjoin the strict enforcement of
this deadline during the COVID-19 pandemic, which, as discussed in the Statement
1 The first named plaintiff case no. 20-cv-284, Reverend Greg Lewis, subsequent to the filing
of that action, was hospitalized for a Covid-19 infection and is on a ventilator. On page ii of
their Emergency Application, Applicants erroneously assert that the Respondents include
the “League of Women Voters.” That is incorrect; the League of Women Voters of the US
(“LWVUS”) – the League of Women Voters national organization – is not a party to the
consolidated actions. Rather, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin (“LWVWI”), which
is a state affiliate of LWVUS, is a party to two of the consolidated cases in the district court,
nos. 20-cv-278-wmc and 20-cv-284.
-1-
of the Case, has wreaked havoc on Wisconsin’s upcoming April 7 election, driving poll
workers and voters away from the polls, dramatically escalating the number of
deadline for receipt of absentee ballots that were postmarked on or before April 7.
But it quickly became apparent that thousands, if not tens of thousands of voters
would not even receive their timely requested absentee ballots until on or after April
7, so respondents expanded their initial request for relief to include all absentee
agreed, setting April 13 as the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots regardless of
Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Legislature―have now agreed with the initial relief that
day, even if received later. They now concede “it is understandable that the district
court wanted to ensure that voters who can complete their ballots by election day,
but—due to mail delays and safety concerns about physically bringing their ballot to
the polling place—could not deliver them by election day” will still have their ballots
counted. App. at 17-18. Applicants therefore seek only a “partial stay” of the district
court’s injunction, opposing only respondents’ expanded request for relief. Id. at 20
(emphasis added). But as the district court recognized, that expanded relief is
-2-
The district court granted relief only to the limited extent necessary to address
the “severe” burdens “faced by voters who, through no fault of their own, will be
given that “even the most diligent voter may be unable to return his or her ballot in
time to be counted.” Id. at 38-39. Part of that relief includes requiring the counting
the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC), which is charged with the weighty
pandemic, has no objection to this relief and believes it will “not impact the ability to
grounds. First, they claim that “no party asked the court to grant such extraordinary
relief, nor submitted any evidence justifying that remedy.” Op. at 1. As shown below,
that claim is baseless; respondents requested this specific relief and introduced
thousands of voters may not even receive their requested absentee ballots by election
day.
rights” while the State’s interest in requiring all ballots to be postmarked by election
entirely ignore the plight of voters who timely requested their absentee ballots but
-3-
will not receive those ballots until after April 7, and their claim that the injunction
will “cast[ ] a cloud of illegitimacy over the entire election” is contrived and
demonstrably false.
district court’s “last-minute” injunction prior to the election, even though they do not
deadline to April 13, which they concede is “understandable” given the electoral crisis
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Op. at 17. But Purcell deals with last-minute
election process. Here, the chaos and confusion are being caused by the pandemic,
and the district court’s order seeks to alleviate that chaos and confusion and ensure
Finally, applicants’ claim that their potential injuries somehow outweigh the
especially since their claimed injuries are fabricated. The public interest will be best
served by denying the stay, which will ensure that voters receiving their requested
absentee ballots after election day because of delays in county clerks’ offices resulting
from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will not forfeit their votes.
The State of Wisconsin, unlike nearly a dozen other States, has decided to
proceed with its April 7, 2020 election in the midst of the worst national health
emergency since at least the Great Influenza of 1918-20. As of today (April 5) there
-4-
have died from it. https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/map.htm. The numbers
of infections and deaths continue to grow alarmingly by the day. The application only
with COVID-19.” App. at 1, 3 n.1. It only once mentions the “pandemic,” and only
once refers to “public health.” Id. at 2, 17. And it fails to acknowledge―let alone
the pandemic on the orderly conduct, safety, and integrity of the upcoming election.
These include:
at 9-11. This has led to a substantial backlog of requests for absentee ballots
and long delays in sending out ballots. “[D]espite diligent efforts, as of April
• These delays are being compounded because the U.S. Postal Service “is
• These backlogs and delays will disenfranchise voters, in the absence of any
ballots. The City Clerks for Milwaukee and Madison have concluded there
is “no practical way” that scores of thousands of voters from these two
-5-
municipalities alone who have not yet received their absentee ballots will
be able to vote and return their ballots by the deadline, which is now
that were requested in a timely manner “will be received after the receipt
see also id. at 38 (“the evidence … demonstrates that even the most diligent
real time a method to proceed safely and effectively with in-person voting
in the face of increasing COVID-19 risks, loss of poll workers due to age,
reported they do not have “the capacity to staff even one polling place.” Id.
at 19. The Milwaukee City Clerk has reported that his city “likely will be
unable to conduct in-person voting in its 327 wards on April 7.” Id. at 20
• The crisis has been compounded even further because “[i]n-person absentee
-6-
• One of the “most likely consequences” of this situation will be “a dramatic
person voters, poll workers and, ultimately, the general population in the
State.” Id. at 3.
• “[T]here is no doubt that the rapidly approaching election date in the midst
of the COVID-19 pandemic means that citizens will face serious, and
The applicants have not acknowledged, let alone attempted to refute, the
district court’s detailed findings about the numerous severe, and in some instances
insurmountable burdens that the challenged provisions are imposing on the right to
vote in Wisconsin. Rather than disputing any of these detailed findings, applicants
The application claims in its opening sentence that “no party asked the court
to grant” an extension of the mailing deadline, “nor submitted any evidence justifying
that remedy.” App. at 1. These allegations are repeated throughout the application:
respondents, we are told, “never requested” such relief (id. at 2); “sought only to
-7-
ensure that ballots postmarked by election day … would be counted” (id.); “never
showed that there would be any burden on voting rights for Respondents to put their
ballots in the mail on or before election day” (id. at 14, emphasis in original); and “did
not provide any evidence to justify allowing voters to mail in their ballots after
election day, since they were never even asking for this relief” (id. at 19, emphasis in
original). Applicants insist that “the district court’s decision to grant a form of
extraordinary relief that Respondents never requested below itself supports the
granting of a stay.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added); see also id.at 7 (district court’s order
more sweeping authorization for post-election day voting”); id. at 8 (criticizing district
None of these claims is true. Respondents specifically asked the district court
not only to extend the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots, but to allow ballots to
be postmarked after election day given the growing evidence that many voters who
have timely requested absentee ballots will probably not even receive their ballots
until after the election. Respondents argued that, given the “significant backlog” in
requests for absentee ballots and ongoing mail delays, it is “probable” that “tens of
thousands” of requested absentee ballots may not be received by voters until after
April 7. Preliminary Injunction Transcript (Tr.) at 98, 101. Given that backlog,
respondents asked the court to extend the ballot-receipt deadline to April 13 “and not
worry about the postmark.” Id. at 102 (emphasis added); see also id. at 103 (“let’s
-8-
make [April 13] a receipt deadline and not worry about the postmark”). Respondents
argued this would “be much more enfranchising,” would resolve the problem of voters
receiving their requested absentee ballots “on the eve of the election” or thereafter,
and “would go a long way toward taking care of the problem we’re wrestling with
right now.” Id. at 102-03. The court acknowledged the “backlog” in absentee ballot
requests and that “maybe it is true that the ballots just aren’t going to arrive in time
for individuals to vote.” Id. at 101-02; see also id. at 98-99 (court’s acknowledgment
that “if we continue to see these tremendous requests for absentee ballots” and if “the
clerks’ offices across the state haven’t been able to send out the absentee ballots,” it
may be necessary to “let people know you could continue … to mail them in, have the
postmarked by Tuesday the 7th. That evidence shows that, as of Thursday the 2nd,
there was a backlog of 21,590 requested ballots that had not even been mailed out
yet. Op. at 11; see also id. at 39. Even assuming that all of these requested ballots
were mailed out on Friday the 3rd―which did not happen 2―it is currently taking up
to a full week or more for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail in Wisconsin due to
the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tr. at 18-19 (testimony by WEC
2 Far from eliminating this backlog since last Thursday, the WEC website reported
that as of today, April 5, there is still a backlog of 12,113 absentee ballot requests that have
not yet been processed according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission website.
https://elections.wi.gov/node/6814. Even if all of these requested ballots are mailed out
tomorrow (Monday the 6th), it will be impossible for them to be delivered, used, and
postmarked by the next following day.
-9-
Executive Director); see also Witzel-Behl Decl., ECF No. 77 ¶ 13; Wolfe Decl., ECF
No. 106, ¶ 11; Morse Decl., ECF No. 72 ¶ 7; Wilson Decl., ECF No. 75 ¶ 6. Thus,
many if not most of these backlogged absentee ballots will not even be received by
voters until after election day, even though all voters who requested them did so
The on-the-ground realities have not improved as of today, Sunday the 5th.
Respondents are submitting with this opposition declarations from election officials
in Wisconsin’s largest cities that establish the insurmountable challenges the cities
are facing and the imminent risk of broad disenfranchisement of their citizens. The
absentee ballots have been sent to voters and only 31,674 have been
returned. Albrecht explains that given the flood of absentee ballots and delays in the
mail, thousands of Milwaukee voters will be unable to return their absentee ballots
until after April 7. The City Clerk of Madison, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, similarly
reports that as of this morning, her office had issued 87,323 absentee ballots, of which
only 46,902 have been returned. She states that nearly 10,000 voters likely will not
receive their absentee ballots until after April 7 and that more than 38,000 ballots
The situation is no different in Green Bay and Racine. The declaration from
Green Bay’s City Clerk, Kris Teske, explains that the Clerk’s office has a backlog of
4,000 unfilled requests for absentee ballots. For all of those voters, it will be virtually
impossible to comply with a deadline of April 7, as most will not receive their ballots
-10-
by that date. And, in Racine, the City Clerk, Tara Coolidge, reports that the Clerk’s
office has mailed more than 11,000 absentee ballots and has received less than half
that number—5,338—back from voters. She also reports that Racine has a backlog
of more than 100 requests for absentee ballots, that those ballots will not be mailed
until tomorrow, April 6, and that she is concerned large numbers of Racine voters will
framework. Op. at 12-18; see Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Burdick v.
Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). They contend that respondents failed to “introduce any
evidence to support a claim that post-election day absentee voting would be necessary
to avoid unduly burdening anyone’s right to vote,” Op. at 14, and that the State has
voters might strategically cast ballots after election day results are announced,” id.
by an April 7 postmark requirement, and they are simply wrong in claiming that
3 These issues are not limited to these municipalities. For instance, Diane Coenen,
Oconomowoc’s clerk and president of the Wisconsin Municipal City Clerks’ Association has
said “Am I confident those people will get their ballots by Monday, by Tuesday? No.” Doug
Schneider, ‘Nightmare’: Clerks working overtime, but some Wisconsin voters may not get
ballots filed by Election Day, GREEN BAY PRESS GAZETTE (Apr. 1, 2020), available at
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2020/04/01/wisconsins-local-clerks-
scramble-ensure-no-one-shut-out-vote/5105915002/.
-11-
absentee voters will have knowledge of the preliminary election results when they
As for the severe burdens on voters, the evidence establishes that a minimum
of tens of thousands of voters who have requested absentee ballots will probably not
receive those ballots in time to mail them back on or before election day. If an
disenfranchisement of all these voters through no fault of their own. The “right to
vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society,
and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.”
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964); see also Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,
enfranchisement and ensuring that qualified voters’ exercise of their right to vote is
successful.” Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436-37 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted); see also U.S. Student Ass’n Found. v. Land, 546 F.3d 373, 388-89 (6th Cir.
2008). Thus, even if a state burden on voting is “slight,” it must still “be justified by
relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.”
Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181,191 (2008) (citation and quotation
omitted). Here, of course, the burdens are not “slight” but “severe.” Op. at 31, 39.
What are the state interests supposedly justifying these “severe” burdens?
Applicants claim that absentee voters casting their ballots after April 7 will know the
election day results already and be able to vote “strategically,” which will “cast[] a
-12-
cloud of illegitimacy over the entire election” and undermine Wisconsin’s “‘compelling
San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 231 (1989)). This
too is a fabrication. Applicants only barely acknowledge that the district court
ordered that “[d]efendants (the Wisconsin Election Commissioners) and any inspector
appointed under Wis. Stat. § 7.30(a)(b) are ENJOINED from releasing any unofficial
results until April 13, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as votes can be
tabulated.” April 3, 2020 Order, ECF No. 179 at 2. Applicants claim it is “doubtful
and unrealistic” to believe this part of the order will be obeyed, and that “widespread
leaks” will allow voters and political parties to game the system, but their arguments
are baseless. App. at 17. They are wrong for many reasons.
First, applicants incorrectly claim that the district court would have needed to
enjoin the municipal clerks themselves to prevent the release of unofficial election
results until April 13; “municipal clerks are not parties to these lawsuits and
therefore not subject to the court’s powers.” App. at 16. Under Wis. Stat. § 7.51(4)(b),
however, inspectors must report the election results to municipal clerks before the
clerks can release those results. The district court’s order enjoins those “inspector[s],”
municipal clerks and any others charged with publicly announcing election results.
As Smith v. Bayer acknowledged, there are “discrete exceptions to the general rule
against binding nonparties.” 564 U.S. 299, 308 (2011). This Court “explained that
-13-
the power of a court to bind a nonparty to the provisions of an injunctive order derives
‘from the common-law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the . . .
defendant[s] but also those identified with them in interest, in privity with them,
represented by them or subject to their control.’” See Thompson v. Freeman, 648 F.2d
1144, 1147 (8th Cir. 1981) (quoting Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14
(1945)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). As applicants themselves acknowledge, App.
control.” See Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14; Wis. Stat. § 5.05(1) (“The elections
commission shall have the responsibility for the administration of chs. 5 to 10 and 12
and other laws relating to elections and election campaigns . . . .”); id. § 5.05(3g) (“The
commission administrator shall serve as the chief election officer of this state.”). At
the very least, elections officials are “identified with” WEC Commissioners “in
interest” and/or “represented by them.” See Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14. Notably,
the Wisconsin Election Commission itself has nowhere suggested that the district
court’s injunction against “releasing any unofficial results until April 13” might be
unenforceable.
Third, applicants speculate that “given the number of clerks and other parties
involved in the counting process,” it is “doubtful and unrealistic for any court order
to prevent widespread leaks about the progress of a controversial and hotly contested
state election.” App. at 17. This speculation is unfounded; all evidence is to the
contrary. During elections in the normal course, there are just as many (if not more,
given COVID-19) clerks and other parties involved in the counting process, and
-14-
applicants have pointed to no evidence of a leak ever occurring no matter how
“controversial and hotly contested” the election. In prior elections, statutes have
permitted the tallying of absentee ballots beginning at any time after the opening of
the polls, Wis. Stat. § 7.52(1)(a), and applicants present no examples of leaks about
those ballots influencing who comes to the polls later in the day by 8 p.m.
Fourth, applicants claim that exit polling about in-person voting on election
day and the purported requirement that municipal clerks must publicize the returns
of ballots “as soon as they are counted” will “encourage[ ] absentee voters to withhold
their ballots beyond the April 7 Election Day.” App. at 11-12, 15 (citing Wis. Stat. §
7.51(4)(b), (c)). But applicants have presented no evidence that exit polling will even
be conducted; all the evidence indicates there will be no such polling in the April 7
election because of the pandemic. See Statement from the national election pool
https://www.edisonresearch.com/statement-from-the-national-election-pool-
data includes the only national and state exit polls in the U.S.”). Nor are municipal
clerks required to “immediately” publicize the results as soon as ballots are counted.
The statute requires that, “except in 1st class cities” like Milwaukee, the chief
inspector shall “immediately” report the returns of the election “to the municipal clerk
or to the school district clerk,” Wis. Stat. § 7.51(4)(b) (emphasis added), and that the
municipalities report the returns to the county clerk “no later than 2 hours after the
-15-
votes are tabulated,” id. § 7.51(4)(c). The statute does not require the clerk to
immediately make the returns public. See id. § 7.51(4)(b). Applicants simply have
no evidence that absentee voters will know which candidate is ahead or behind in the
Applicants rely heavily on Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006), in which
this Court cautioned that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections, …can themselves result
in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls,” a risk
that increases “[a]s an election draws closer.” The underlying purpose of this so-called
“Purcell principle” is to avoid “changing the electoral status quo just before the
election,” which would cause “voter confusion and electoral chaos.” Richard L. Hasen,
Reining in the Purcell Principle, 43 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 427, 428 (2016).
But in this case, the “electoral status quo” already has been upended―not by
any judicial order, but by the COVID-19 pandemic and the “voter confusion and
expected they would be able either to vote safely in person on election day or through
because of any court order, but because of the pandemic. See Op. at 39 (“election
deadlines have already been disrupted, with the evidence showing that many voters
who timely request an absentee ballot will be unable to receive, vote, and return their
-16-
Likewise, this Court in Purcell was concerned that pre-election judicial orders
might create a “consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” 549 U.S. at 5.
Here again, the “incentive to remain away from the polls” in these consolidated cases
results not from federal judicial action, but from a deadly pandemic. Voter confusion
and abstention from voting are “consequent” of COVID-19, not of anything the district
court has done. That court’s limited relief will result in more voters being able to cast
their ballots and ensure those ballots will be counted, rather than threatening to keep
voters from casting their ballots. The court’s injunction, in other words, is an effort to
mitigate the confusion and chaos caused by the pandemic that are interfering with
voters’ reasonable expectations and threatening to keep them from voting. Indeed, it
is telling that the WEC ― the body responsible for administering election ― is not
challenging the district court’s order or arguing that extending the ballot receipt
much less confusing and unfair if the district court’s order—which has received
substantial publicity and is in the process of being implemented by the WEC and
election clerks throughout Wisconsin 4—simply remains in effect rather than being
4 See, e.g., Federal Court Order Affects Spring Election – Absentee Ballot Request and
Receipt Deadlines Extended; Witness Signature Requirement Modified COVID-19, WIS.
ELECTIONS COMM’N (Apr. 2, 2020), available at https://elections.wi.gov/node/6807; see also
Appeals court refuses to block extended voting in Wisconsin, FOX 6 NOW (Apr. 3, 2020),
available at https://fox6now.com/2020/04/03/appeals-court-refuses-to-block-extended-voting-
in-wisconsin/; Ruth Conniff, Appeals court upholds absentee ballot extension, but restores
signatures, WIS. EXAMINER (Apr. 3, 2020), available at https://wisconsinexaminer.com/
-17-
changed less than 48 hours before the election, which would lead to yet further
confusion and uncertainty, as well as harm to voters who already have relied on the
district court’s order in planning how and when to vote. Granting a stay, in other
words, would simply create Purcell problems of its own, including by forcing voters
who had planned to vote absentee but not yet received their ballots to either vote in
person on election day and risk exposure to the coronavirus, or abstain from voting
altogether.
The balance of harms and the public interest also strongly favor denying the
application. As the district court emphasized, the potential harms to voters are
severe, if not catastrophic, and there are no adequate remedies at law. Op. at 24-25.
brief/appeals-court-upholds-absentee-ballot-extension-but-restores-signatures/; Wisconsin
limps toward Tuesday election despite virus fears (Apr. 4, 2020), available at
https://www.wjfw.com/generalnews.html?SKU=20200404162347&text
size=small; Patrick Marley, Wisconsin's election is still April 7, but a federal judge has
extended the deadline for absentee votes to be counted, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL (Apr.
2, 2020), available at https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/02/
wisconsin-election-judge-extends-absentee-voting-but-keeps-vote-date/5112276002/; Ed
Trevelan, ‘Ill-advised’ election to go on amid COVID-19 pandemic, judge says, but some
absentee ballot rules rolled back, WIS. STATE JOURNAL, (Apr. 3, 2020), available at
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/ill-advised-election-to-go-on-judge-
says-but-some-absentee-ballot-rules-rolled-back/article_8dd80672-af4b-5bc6-b25b-
f29b92a78382.html; Shawn Johnson, Despite COVID-19 Concerns, Federal Judge Won't
Postpone Wisconsin's April 7 Election, WIS. PUBLIC RADIO (Apr. 2, 2020), available at
https://www.wpr.org/despite-covid-19-concerns-federal-judge-wont-postpone-wisconsins-
april-7-election.
-18-
irreparable injury.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 436. Moreover, “[t]he public interest
A stay also could exacerbate the unfolding COVID-19 public health disaster. If
voters are not confident their absentee ballots will be counted, this will drive more
people to vote in-person on election day, thereby increasing the risks of community
spread through polling places in cities and towns throughout Wisconsin. The district
court’s narrow injunction dramatically reduces the need for person-to-person contact,
easing the “severe” burdens that Wisconsin law places on absentee voters in the
Wisconsin voters are likely to face: either they venture out to vote in person and risk
their health and the health of others, or they forfeit the right to vote through no fault
of their own.
Applicants entirely ignore these harms to voters and the public interest, simply
repeating their false claims that “Respondents did not provide any evidence to justify
allowing voters to mail in their ballots after election day, since they were never even
asking for this relief.” Op. at 19 (emphasis added). And applicants’ claims of
that voters completing their absentee ballots after April 7 will have knowledge of the
administration” of the election. Id. Respondents have refuted these claims above in
Part II-B. It is the district court’s injunction that will best promote the “integrity”
-19-
and “orderly administration” of the April 7 election by ensuring that voters who
receive their requested absentee ballots late because of the COVID-19 chaos will still
be able to cast those ballots rather than having to venture to the polls and risk
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Emergency Application for Stay should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
-20-
No. 19A1016
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
___________________________
Marc E. Elias
Counsel of Record
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 654-6200
[email protected]
-2-