Wood v. Raffensperger (Steven D. Grimberg, 1:20-cv-4651) and Pearson v. Kemp (1:20-cv-4809) and Wood v. Raffensperger (1:20-cv-5155) (Timothy C. Batten, Sr.) (N.D. Ga.)
Ten days after the 2020 general election, a voter alleged that a settlement agreement reached in another case the previous March would result in too few invalidations of absentee ballots. The district judge determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the other parties’ settlement agreement, the action had been brought too late for equitable relief, and the claims had no merit. The court of appeals agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing. Three weeks and a day after the general election, the voter in the earlier case acted as counsel for plaintiffs in a case challenging how absentee ballots and voting machines were used in the election. Relief was denied because the claims belonged in state court, the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring them, and they brought them too late for equitable relief. In a third action, the plaintiff in the first case and attorney in the second case brought a pro se challenge to Georgia’s election procedures for a pending runoff election, but both the district judge and the court of appeals determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring his claims.
Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Enjoining certification; absentee ballots; voting technology; signature matching; laches; interlocutory appeal; intervention; matters for state courts; Electoral College; Covid-19; pro se party.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.