DCCC v. Ziriax
| Citation | 487 F.Supp.3d 1207 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-CV-211-JED-JFJ |
| Parties | DCCC; Oklahoma Democratic Party, Plaintiffs, v. Paul ZIRIAX, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Ariel Brynne Glickman, John M. Devaney, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, Charles Grant Curtis, Jr., David Lee Anstaett, Sopen B. Shah, Will McDonell Conley, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, Frank W. Frasier, III, Frasier Frasier & Hickman, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs.
Bryan Cleveland, Mithun S. Mansinghani, Thomas R. Schneider, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.
The plaintiffs, DCCC and Oklahoma Democratic Party, filed the operative complaint in this action on June 11, 2020, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief relating to various requirements imposed upon their constituents and members who choose to vote by absentee ballot in the upcoming November, 2020 election. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs assert claims under the First, Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendants, who are the Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board and Members of that Board, oppose the relief requested.
On August 19, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 47). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), the Court conducted a hearing on August 26, 2020 on the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction and, with the parties’ consent, advanced the trial on the merits and consolidated it with the injunction hearing. The Court admitted into evidence Plaintiffs’ Exhibits (PX) 1 through 26. In addition, at the request of the parties and without objection, the Court admitted as exhibits the attachments to the parties’ briefing (Doc. 47 and 48), which include numerous witness declarations and documentary exhibits. (See 8/26/2020 Transcript (Tr.). at 5).
The Court also considered the live hearing testimony of Dr. Catherine Troisi, plaintiffs’ expert in epidemiology and infectious disease, Dr. Marc Meredith, a political scientist from the University of Pennsylvania who has written extensively about election laws, and Ronald Stroman, the former Deputy Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service (USPS), the second highest-ranking USPS official, who served in that position from 2011 until June 1, 2020. The Court has also considered the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), the defendants’ Answer (Doc. 46), and the parties’ arguments in writing as well as the oral arguments presented during the injunction trial.
Pursuant to Rules 52(a)(1), (2) and 65(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon consideration of the evidence admitted at trial, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified live, the Court makes the following findings of fact and enters the following conclusions of law.1 This Opinion and Order shall also serve as the statement of reasons for the Court's ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive and declaratory relief, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(A).
The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) needs little introduction. COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently reports that there have been over 6,000,000 cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Much of the country nearly shut down due to the virus during parts of the last 6 months, schools in many states have remained closed or delayed, and state and federal government offices have been impacted. Since March, 2020, this Court has entered numerous General Orders regarding courthouse access and functions in light of the pandemic. (See General Order Nos. 20-05 et seq.). In the latest General Order regarding courthouse operations, the Court again continued all civil and criminal hearings and trials scheduled on or before September 30, 2020, with telephonic or video hearings possible at the discretion of each judge. (General Order No. 20-24). Because of the pandemic, the United States Supreme Court has conducted oral arguments by remote audio means, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is continuing to conduct oral arguments this month via video conference.
The reason for these unprecedented precautions is clear. COVID-19 continues to be a dangerous threat to Americans and is still rapidly spreading in many areas of the country, including Oklahoma. At the time the Court's first General Order was entered six months ago on March 17, 2020, the CDC had confirmed a total of 4,226 cases in the United States, and the State of Oklahoma had a total of 19 positive cases. Today, the CDC reports over 6,500,000 cases, and the Oklahoma Department of Health reports over 71,000 positive cases in the State of Oklahoma. Over 900 Oklahomans, and nearly 200,000 people in the United States, have died from COVID-19.
The State of Oklahoma has a case fatality rate of over 1% and a high test-positivity rate, which indicate that "the virus is not under control" here. (Trial Transcript [Tr.] at 18). There is no vaccine and no prophylactic medication. (Id. at 19). As a result, the only methods of preventing spread of the virus include avoiding contact with others, masking, physically distancing six feet or more, frequent environmental sanitation, and limiting circumstances where crowds can gather. (Id. ). Oklahoma does not have a statewide mask mandate. (Id. at 19). The Oklahoma Solicitor General confirmed that Oklahoma voters will not be turned away from the polls for not wearing a mask:
(Id. at 174:12-24).
Scientific data indicates that the virus can be transmitted from a person who is asymptomatic or before symptoms are exhibited. (Id. at 23). Although the risks of severe complications and death are possible for persons of any age, certain people, including those over 65, those who have diabetes
, heart disease, or cancer, or who are obese or immunocompromised, appear to be more susceptible to serious or deadly outcomes. (Id. at 23-24). Excluding age, an estimated 57 percent of people in the United States have a risk factor for severe COVID-19 illness. (Id. ). The virus is spread through the mouth or nose, from coughs, sneezes, talking, singing, and shouting, which can spread droplets or aerosols not visible to the human eye, and through contact with surfaces infected with the virus. (See id. at 26-27).
There is scientific consensus that COVID-19 will continue to spread throughout the United States through the November 2020 general election (see PX 1 ¶¶ 22, 29), heightening concerns about in-person voting risks. Against this backdrop, and in the context of the upcoming November, 2020 general election, the plaintiffs filed this case due to legitimate concerns about the safety of in-person voting during the pandemic and what they view as voting barriers imposed by Oklahoma's absentee ballot laws. The plaintiffs challenge several provisions of Oklahoma law, which they claim will unreasonably burden voters who wish to vote by absentee ballot in order to avoid standing in line with numerous others to vote in-person, in potentially crowded spaces.
Plaintiff DCCC is the national congressional committee of the Democratic Party. (PX 24, ¶ 2). Its mission is to elect Democrats to Congress, including to Oklahoma's five congressional districts. Id. Accordingly, DCCC and the Democratic candidates it supports, including incumbent Democratic members of Congress, have an interest in ensuring that Democratic voters in Oklahoma have an opportunity to express their will regarding Democratic Party candidates running for elections. (Id. )
To achieve its mission, DCCC makes expenditures for, and contributions to, Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress and assists state parties throughout the country, including in Oklahoma. (Id. ¶ 3). During the 2018 election cycle, DCCC spent tens of millions of dollars across the country for this purpose. Id. DCCC has made and will make similar expenditures for the 2020 election cycle in Oklahoma. Id. DCCC has budgeted significant resources for its efforts in Oklahoma because it has as one of its highest priorities the election of an Oklahoma incumbent in a competitive seat. (See id. ).
DCCC's efforts are focused particularly on supporting specific subsets of voters, including lower-income voters, elderly voters, and other voters who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 and who may thus have greater concerns about in-person voting. (See id. ¶ 5). DCCC represents that it has diverted resources to deal with the absentee ballot provisions.
Plaintiff Oklahoma Democratic Party (ODP) is an Oklahoma political party consisting of all registered voters in Oklahoma who declare themselves Democrats. (See PX 25 ¶¶ 2-3). The ODP has approximately 2.1 million members in Oklahoma. (Id. ¶ 3). The mission of ODP is to elect Democrats to office at the federal, state, and local levels, and to educate voters. (Id. ). As a result, ODP has an interest in ensuring that its voters, members, and constituents have an opportunity to express their will regarding Democratic Party candidates running for elections, as well as ballot measures and initiatives those individuals support. (Id. ).
ODP expends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Restoring the Proper Role of the Courts in Election Law: Toward a Reinvigoration of the Political Question Doctrine
...66. Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 190 (2008). 67. Id. at 204 (Scalia, J., concurring). 68. See DCCC v. Ziriax, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1236 (N.D. Okla. 2020). 69. See A. Philip Randolph Inst. of Ohio v. LaRose, 493 F. Supp. 3d 596, 609 (N.D. Ohio 2020). 70. Planned Pare......