Case: Blankenship v. Newsom
3:20-cv-04479 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: July 7, 2020
Closed Date: Aug. 19, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about California's in-person signature collection requirements for federal elections as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. On July 7, 2020, the Constitution Party's candidate for President of the United States and a registered voter in California filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the Governor of California and the Secretary of State of California. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a declaration that the ballot-access requirements are unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the filing deadline and signature requirements for the November 2020 presidential election. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction prohibiting the defendants from printing the November election presidential ballots unless an extension of the filing deadline and a decreased signature requirement was enacted. The plaintiffs asserted that the signature requirement for presidential nominees to appear on the ballot of at least 1% of the statewide registration from the last general election (in this case, 196,964 signatures) and the statutory deadline of August 7, 2020 for the signatures to be submitted, as applied during the pandemic, infringed on the plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association, equal protection, and due process. The case was assigned to Judge Richard Seeborg.
On the same day as they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs requested that the court prohibit enforcement of the filing deadline and signature requirements for the November 3 election and any substitute requirements that would violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The plaintiffs also requested that the court prohibit the printing of the general election ballot unless the defendants agree to extend the deadline and to a decreased signature requirement. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to show reasonably diligent efforts to obtain the required signatures, that other federal courts in California had previously denied preliminary relief to enjoin ballot access measures during the pandemic in other cases, and that California continues to have a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral progress even during a pandemic. The defendants also argued that the ballot access laws did not infringe on the second plaintiff-voter, since the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld politically neutral regulations that limit the field of candidates.
On August 3, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. 477 F.Supp.3d 1098. The court found that the burden on the plaintiff-nominee created by California's regulations was not severe. The court found that the nominee had done nothing to secure a place on the California ballot, including socially distanced in-person signature solicitation. The court noted that none of the analogous cases in federal courts arising during the pandemic found a severe burden absent a showing of some electoral effort on the part of the plaintiff. In light of the nominee's inaction, the court declined to attach strict scrutiny to the claims. Next, the court balanced the character and magnitude of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries against the interests of the state. Absent a strict scrutiny standard, the court noted that important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable nondiscriminatory restrictions. The court found that the state has an interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process, an interest in managing elections in an efficient way that honors the choices of its citizens, and an interest in effectuating the will of its citizens through legislation. On the other side of the balancing test, the court found that the nominee's injury was entirely abstract, since he had expended no effort to be placed on the ballot. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were outweighed by the state's democratic and electoral interests and therefore denied the motion.
On August 19, 2020, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (11/15/2021)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17327653/parties/blankenship-v-newsom/
Seeborg, Richard G. (California)
Dutta, Gautam (California)
Becerra, Xavier (California)
Beckington, Mark R. (California)
Haddad, Lara (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17327653/blankenship-v-newsom/
Last updated April 9, 2026, 5:08 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 7, 2020
Closing Date: Aug. 19, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Constitution Party's candidate for President of the United States and a registered voter in California
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Governor of California
Secretary of State of California
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:20-cv-04479
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Blankenship v. Newsom, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/17854/ (last updated 11/15/2021).