Unique and Important “Case Study” Database of Emergency Election Litigation Created by Federal Judicial Center

Back in 2012, I first noted this resource under development. This database at the Federal Judicial Center has now grown to over 340 cases, and is a treasure trove of data. For some of the cases, it gives some information not available elsewhere, such as a judge’s reasoning not in any written opinion but contained only in a transcript.

Here’s another example, from the write-up on the Purcell v. Gonzalez case (which is the origin of the controversial Purcell Principle on timing of emergency election litigation).  One of the issues in the case is that the district court denied a request for a preliminary injunction of Arizona’s voter id law, pending a trial on the merits, without immediately giving written reasons for denying the stay. Plaintiffs then sought a stay from the Ninth Circuit, which issued the stay of the law, also without giving reasons. The case ended up at the Supreme Court with the Court reversing the Ninth Circuit, which criticized the courrts for not giving reasons.

Here’s a very fascinating tidbit from the write up:

On September 11, Judge Silver declined to interfere with the next day’s primary election and denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction.17 She issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 12.18 On interlocutory appeal, however, a motions panel of the court of appeals enjoined application of proposition 200 on October 5.19 The Supreme Court vacated the injunction on October 20.20 In its per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court scolded the district court for not providing the court of appeals with findings of fact and conclusions of law more promptly: “These findings were important because resolution of legal questions in the Court of Appeals required evaluation of underlying factual issues.”21

Following a tradition in the Ninth Circuit, where district judges are encouraged to bring misunderstandings to the attention of appellate judges, Judge Silver wrote the Chief Justice in an effort to explain the difficulties of striking a balance between quick action and a complete record.22 (my emphasis)

Wow.

Share this: