CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 1

Challenge to Removal from Ballot 

Singleton v. Alabama Democratic Party 

(Mark E. Fuller, M.D. Ala. 2:04-cv-1027) 

A candidate filed a federal action because a state court had removed 

her name from the ballot. The federal court denied her relief because she had not filed the action until after absentee voting had 

begun and because under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only the 

Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

laches; matters for state courts; section 5 preclearance; three-judge 

court; enjoining elections; enjoining certification. 

One week before the 2004 general election, a Democratic candidate for trial 

judge in Alabama’s district courts filed a federal action to have her name restored to the ballot.1

 The candidate’s name was removed as a result of statecourt action arising from a challenge based on her contributing $150 to the 

Republican incumbent.2 The federal complaint, which also included two voters as plaintiffs, included an application for a temporary restraining order 

against proceeding with the election for the office.3 Judge Mark E. Fuller denied the application on the day that it was filed, because the plaintiffs had not 

provided notice to the defendants.4

On October 28, after the plaintiffs had provided the defendants with notice, Judge Fuller held a telephone conference.5

 Again, on the day before the 

election, Judge Fuller denied the candidate immediate injunctive relief, because she had not filed the action to enjoin the election until after absentee 

voting had begun.6

A week after the election, the candidate moved for a temporary restraining order against certification of the election,7

 which Judge Fuller denied on 

1. Complaint, Singleton v. Ala. Democratic Party, No. 2:04-cv-1027 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 26, 

2004), D.E. 1. 

2. Opinion at 3–10, id. (Mar. 30, 2005), D.E. 30 [hereinafter Mar. 30, 2005, Opinion]; 

Order at 1, id. (Nov. 1, 2004), D.E. 11 [hereinafter Nov. 1, 2004, Order]; see Robert K. Gordon, Democrats Disqualify Judicial Candidate, Birmingham News, Sept. 22, 2004. 

3. Complaint, supra note 1. 

4. Order, Singleton, No. 2:04-cv-1027 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 26, 2004), D.E. 2. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Fuller for this report by telephone on May 30, 2012. Judge 

Fuller resigned on August 1, 2015. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article 

III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Nov. 1, 2004, Order, supra note 2, at 2. 

The election at issue was for an office in Jefferson County, Complaint, supra note 1, 

which is approximately one hundred miles north of Judge Fuller’s court. Interview with 

Hon. Mark E. Fuller, May 31, 2012. 

6. Nov. 1, 2004, Order, supra note 2, at 2–3. 

7. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Singleton, No. 2:04-cv-1027 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 9, 

2004), D.E. 13. 
Challenge to Removal from Ballot 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 

the following day.8 On March 30, 2005, after full briefing, Judge Fuller dismissed the case.9

Judge Fuller considered very carefully whether the case should be heard 

by a three-judge district court.10 The plaintiffs’ claim that the procedure for 

removing her from the ballot had not been precleared pursuant to section 5 

of the Voting Rights Act,11 however, was rebutted by undisputed evidence to 

the contrary,12 so a three-judge court was not needed.13 Judge Fuller also 

carefully considered application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,14 which 

states that among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings.15

On April 13, 2006, the court of appeals affirmed Judge Fuller’s dismissal.16

8. Order, id. (Nov. 10, 2004), D.E. 14. 

9. Mar. 30, 2005, Opinion, supra note 2. 

10. Interview with Hon. Mark E. Fuller, May 31, 2012. 

11. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437, § 5, 439, as amended, 

52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions 

with a certified history of discrimination and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard 

by a three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

12. Mar. 30, 2005, Opinion, supra note 2, at 18. 

13. Id. at 17. 

14. Interview with Hon. Mark E. Fuller, May 31, 2012; Mar. 30, 2005, Opinion, supra

note 2, at 11–13. 

15. D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 

413 (1923); see Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 

3d ed. 2014). 

16. Order, Singleton v. Ala. Democratic Party, No. 05-13045 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2006), 

2006 WL 952335.