CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/27/2023 1

No Relief from State-Court Judgment 

Allowing Ballot-Petition Signers 

to Withdraw Their Signatures 

Davis v. Stapleton 

(Dana L. Christensen, D. Mont. 6:20-cv-62) 

A state court vacated certification of a minor political party for a 

general-election ballot after ballot-petition signers withdrew their 

signatures when they found out that they were collected by a different political party. Ostensible minor-party candidates and voters 

were denied relief in federal court from the state-court judgment, 

because allowing signers to withdraw their signatures was not obviously improper. 

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

getting on the ballot; matters for state courts; party procedures; 

primary election; intervention; interlocutory appeal; Covid-19. 

An August 11, 2020, federal complaint filed in the District of Montana by 

two Green Party candidates and two Green Party primary-election voters 

challenged an August 7 state-court ruling vacating Montana’s March 6 qualification of the Green Party for the November 3 general-election ballot on a 

finding that enough signers of the party’s ballot petition had withdrawn their 

support to yield an insufficient number of remaining signatures.1

 With their 

complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and 

a preliminary injunction.2

On the following day, Judge Dana L. Christensen ordered a response to 

the motion by August 17.3

The state’s Democratic Party, the plaintiff in the state-court action, 

moved to intervene in the federal case on Thursday, August 13.4 Judge Christensen granted the motion on the next day.5

 On Monday, Judge Christensen 

granted a motion by the Republican Party to appear as an amicus curiae.6

Judge Christensen denied the plaintiffs immediate relief on August 19.7

He found that the signatures were collected by agents of the Republican Par1. Complaint, Davis v. Stapleton, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 1; Davis 

v. Stapleton, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1102 (D. Mont. 2020). 

2. Motion, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 11, 2020), D.E. 3; Davis, 480 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1102. 

3. Order, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 12, 2020), D.E. 6. 

4. Intervention Motion, id. (Aug. 13, 2020), D.E. 8; Davis, 480 F. Supp. 3d at 1102. 

5. Order, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2020), D.E. 11; Davis, 480 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1102. 

6. Order, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 17, 2020), D.E. 13; see Motion, id. (Aug. 

17, 2020), D.E. 12; see Davis, 480 F. Supp. 3d at 1102. 

7. Davis, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1099. 
No Relief from State-Court Judgment 

Allowing Ballot-Petition Signers to Withdraw Their Signatures 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/27/2023 

ty and not the Green Party.8 Allowing voters to withdraw their signatures 

was not obviously improper: 

Before this case, there was no clear procedure by which signers supporting 

ballot access could withdraw their signatures, likely because there was no 

precedent for a situation in which signers would seek to withdraw their signatures en masse. Voters did not reasonably rely on the absence of a procedure for signature withdrawal as decisive proof that signatures cannot be 

withdrawn.9

Both Judge Christensen10 and the court of appeals11 denied the plaintiffs 

an injunction pending appeal. The court of appeals ordered briefing complete as late as November 4.12 By the end of September, both courts had 

granted the plaintiffs voluntary dismissals.13

8. Id. at 1104–05. 

9. Id. at 1107–08. 

10. Order, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Aug. 20, 2020), D.E. 24. 

11. Order, Davis v. Stapleton, No. 20-35734 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020), D.E. 20. 

12. Id. 

13. Order, id. (Aug. 22, 2020), D.E. 20; Order, Davis, No. 6:20-cv-62 (D. Mont. Sept. 18, 

2020), D.E. 32.