CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 1

A Campaign Manager’s Suit 

to Get His Candidate on the Ballot 

Woodard v. Allegheny County Board of Elections 

(Nora Barry Fischer, W.D. Pa. 2:12-cv-535) 

The campaign manager for a special-election candidate for the state 

legislature filed a pro se federal complaint seeking relief from the 

disqualification of the candidate’s ballot-petition signatures. At 4:00 

p.m. on the day that the complaint was filed, the district judge conducted a forty-five-minute telephonic hearing. The judge dismissed 

the complaint because of the plaintiff’s lack of standing to pursue 

his candidate’s case and because the case sought relief from disappointing rulings already issued by the commonwealth’s courts in 

contravention of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that 

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

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

se party; matters for state courts. 

The campaign manager for an April 24, 2012, special-election candidate for 

the state legislature filed a pro se federal complaint in the Western District of 

Pennsylvania on April 23 seeking relief from the disqualification of the candidate’s ballot-petition signatures.1

 Defendants included election officials and 

signature challengers.2

 With the complaint, the manager filed a motion for a 

temporary restraining order.3

At 4:00 p.m. on the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Nora Barry 

Fischer conducted a forty-five-minute telephonic hearing.4 Her chambers 

notified counsel for the election officials of the hearing.5 One attorney was 

not notified because his voicemail was full, but he learned of the hearing and 

was able to dial in before it was over.6 It is Judge Fischer’s practice to have a 

court reporter record proceedings with a pro se party.7

1. Complaint, Woodard v. Allegheny Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 2:12-cv-535 (W.D. Pa. 

Apr. 23, 2012), D.E. 4; see Marc Levy, Pa. High Court Orders 6 House Elections to Be Held, 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 1, 2012, at B3; Timothy McNulty, Two Elections Set April 24 

for District Voters to Decide Who Will Replace Outgoing Rep. Chelsa Wagner, Pittsburgh 

Post-Gazette, Apr. 9, 2012, at B1. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Woodard, No. 2:12-cv-535 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 

2012), D.E. 6. 

4. Minutes, id. (Apr. 23, 2012), D.E. 2. 

For this report, Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Fischer and her law clerk Tony Kovalchick by telephone on October 23, 2013. 

5. Minutes, supra note 4. 

6. Interview with Hon. Nora Barry Fischer and her law clerk Tony Kovalchick, Oct. 23, 

2013; Minutes, supra note 4. 

7. Interview with Hon. Nora Barry Fischer and her law clerk Tony Kovalchick, Oct. 23, 

2013. 
A Campaign Manager’s Suit to Get His Candidate on the Ballot 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 

Judge Fischer dismissed the complaint because of the plaintiff’s lack of 

standing to pursue his candidate’s case and because the case sought relief 

from disappointing rulings already issued by the commonwealth’s courts in 

contravention of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that among federal courts only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court 

proceedings.8

8. Opinion, Woodard, No. 2:12-cv-535 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2012), D.E. 3; Minutes, supra

note 4; see D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 

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

3d ed. 2014); see also Adam Brandolph, Lunny No Longer in Race, but Name Will Be on Ballot, Pittsburgh Trib. Rev., Apr. 14, 2012.