The Constitution Party of Virginia et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al., No. 3:2020cv00349 - Document 51 (E.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 7/15/2020. (sbea,)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Constitution Party of Virginia et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. Doc. 51 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 891 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division THE CONSTITUTION PARTY OF VIRGINIA, et al. Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-349 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,et al., Defendants. OPINION In Virginia, independent and minor party candidates seeking national office must collect by petition a certain number of signatures from qualified voters to appear on the general election ballot. In this case, the plaintiffs—^the Constitution Party of Virginia, Libertarian Party of Virginia, Green Party of Virginia, and Independent Green Party of Virginia, their candidates seeking to appear on the November, 2020 general election ballot, and some of the parties' members—^have sued the Virginia State Board of Elections and its officials, seeking to suspend the petition signature requirements for the November, 2020 general election. They contend that the combination ofthe outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019(COVID-19)and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's response to the outbreak have made it impossible for them to satisfy the signature requirements. Thus,they allege that Virginia's petition signature requirements as applied to them for this election cycle violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held a bench trial in this case on July 13, 2020. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court concludes that Virginia's signature requirements impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as applied to this election cycle. Thus, the Court analyzes the signature requirement under strict scrutiny. In light of COVID-19 and the Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 892 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID# 893 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID# 894 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID# 895 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID# 896 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID# 897 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID# 898 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID# 899 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID# 900 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID# 901 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID# 902 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID# 903 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID# 904 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID# 905 Case 3:20-cv-00349-JAG Document 51 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID# 906
]]>
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.
