Aaron Luciani v. VA State Board of Elections, No. 20-1866 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1866 AARON LUCIANI, Independent Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; ROBERT H. BRINK, Chairman of the State Board of Elections, in his official capacity; JOHN O’BANNON, Vicechairman of the State Board of Elections, in his official capacity; JAMILAH D. LECRUISE, Secretary of the State Board of Elections, in her official capacity; CHRISTOPHER PIPER, Commissioner of the State Board of Elections, in his official capacity; JESSICA BOWMAN, Deputy Commissioner of the State Board of Elections, in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00401-GEC) Submitted: August 21, 2020 Decided: August 26, 2020 Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Luciani, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aaron Luciani is seeking to run for the United States House of Representatives for Virginia’s Sixth Congressional District as an independent candidate. He appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend its prior order granting him an extension to August 1, 2020, to obtain the necessary qualified signatures in order to be placed on the November ballot. Luciani sought an order further extending the deadline to August 21, 2020. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Luciani v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, No. 7:20-cv-00401-GEC (W.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2020). In light of this disposition, we deny Luciani’s motion for a stay pending appeal and we deny as moot his motion to expedite a decision in this matter. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
