CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/13/2023 1

Poll Watchers and Substitute Ballots 

Parnell v. Allegheny County Board of Elections 

(J. Nicholas Ranjan, W.D. Pa. 2:20-cv-1570) 

A federal complaint alleged that poll watchers were wrongfully excluded from election locations established to accommodate the 

Covid-19 infectious pandemic and the issuing of corrected ballots 

to mail-in voters created the possibility of invalid votes. The district 

judge denied relief on the poll watchers, and the parties consented 

to relief on the substitute ballots. 

Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Early voting; election 

errors; absentee ballots; intervention; ballot segregation; Covid-19; 

poll locations; class action. 

Two congressional candidates filed a federal class-action complaint in the 

Western District of Pennsylvania on October 16, 2020, against Allegheny 

County election officials, alleging that poll watchers were wrongfully excluded from satellite voting locations established because of the Covid-19 infectious pandemic.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order.2

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan set the case for a telephonic status conference 

on October 20, posting contact information in the docket sheet.3 He ordered 

briefing on the motion complete by October 22 and set the case for a possible 

videoconference hearing on October 27.4

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two poll watchers as 

plaintiffs5

 and an amended motion for a temporary restraining order6 on October 22. Judge Ranjan set the case for another telephonic status conference 

on October 23, again posting contact information.7 Also on October 22, 

Judge Ranjan granted motions to intervene by persons and organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party.8

At the status conference, Judge Ranjan denied the plaintiffs a temporary 

restraining order.9

1. Complaint, Parnell v. Allegheny Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 

16, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Oct. 16, 2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (Oct. 16, 2020) (Order, Oct. 19, 2020, D.E. 7); see Transcript, id. (Oct. 

20, 2022, filed Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 54; Minutes, id. (Oct. 20, 2020), D.E. 10. 

4. Docket Sheet, supra note 3 (Order, Oct. 21, 2020, D.E. 17). 

5. Amended Complaint, Parnell, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 28. 

6. Amended Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 32. 

7. Docket Sheet, supra note 3 (Order, Oct. 22, 2020); see Minutes, Parnell, No. 2:20-cv1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2020), D.E. 44. 

8. Docket Sheet, supra note 3 (Order, Oct. 22, 2020, D.E. 34); see Intervention Motions, 

Parnell, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 22, 25. 

9. Transcript at 8, Parnell, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2020, filed Oct. 26, 2020), 

D.E. 55 [hereinafter Oct. 23, 2020, Transcript]. 
Poll Watchers and Substitute Ballots 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/13/2023 

Given how late all this has unfolded, frankly, I don’t have time to write an 

opinion on this so what I would like to do is explain the basis for my decision on the record here. 

I’ll issue just a short order after this hearing referring to the transcript, 

and the purpose for that would be obviously that the plaintiffs or any party, 

if they so wish, can have my decision in a written form in an expeditious 

manner in order to file any type of emergency appeal if the plaintiffs decide 

to proceed in that manner. 

. . . 

. . . [T]here is no individual constitutional right to serve as a poll watcher. State law, not the federal constitution, grants individuals the ability to 

serve as poll watchers and state law gives that right to the parties and candidates the authority to select those individuals. 

There is no constitutional right to be a poll watcher at all. There is no 

right to be a poll watcher in a specific location. 

I also find that not allowing poll watchers at satellite offices doesn’t really interfere with the exercise of the right to vote. It doesn’t limit voters’ right 

to choices and not permitting poll watchers at these locations do not make 

the actual active casting a vote any harder.10

A remaining claim concerned 28,879 voters who received incorrect absentee and mail-in ballots, followed by election officials issuing revised ballots, and “a dilemma on how to treat the ballots cast by electors who used 

erroneous ballots, if those electors do not utilize the replacement ballots.”11

Judge Ranjan signed a consent order on October 26 stating that for voters 

who cast only initial ballots, the ballots would be counted for any offices on 

the ballots that the voters were eligible to vote for.12

10. Id. at 8–11. 

11. Amended Complaint, supra note 5, at 12–13; see Oct. 23, 2020, Transcript, supra note 

9, at 15. 

12. Consent Order, Parnell, No. 2:20-cv-1570 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 57, 2020 WL 

6276845.