CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 1

Casting Provisional Ballots in the Right Place 

Hawkins v. Blunt (Scott O. Wright and 

Richard E. Dorr, W.D. Mo. 2:04-cv-4177) 

The case concerned whether voters could cast provisional ballots at 

polling places to which they were not assigned. Claims were mooted 

by the state’s agreeing to alter its procedures for counting provisional ballots. 

Subject: Provisional ballots. Topics: Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA); provisional ballots; intervention; case assignment; 

primary election. 

Six days after Missouri’s August 3, 2004, primary elections, the state’s Democratic Party and three Missouri voters filed an action in the Western District 

of Missouri claiming that Missouri and the Kansas City Board of Election 

Commissioners had violated the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)1 and the 

U.S. Constitution by not permitting the three voters, who showed up to vote 

at incorrect polling places, to cast provisional ballots and have them counted 

as if they were cast at the correct polling places.2 The plaintiffs also filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order.3

The action was filed in the district’s Central Division, where the district 

holds court at Jefferson City, Missouri’s capital.4

 The court initially assigned 

the case to Judge Nanette K. Laughrey, whose primary chambers at the time 

were in Kansas City, where the district’s Western and St. Joseph Division 

cases are heard,5 but Judge Laughrey also heard cases filed in Jefferson City.6

Because Judge Laughrey was out of state when the action was filed,7

 Judge 

Scott O. Wright, whose primary chambers were also in Kansas City and who 

also heard cases filed in Jefferson City, handled the temporary-restrainingorder motion, which he granted on August 11.8

 Ordinarily, Judge Wright 

1. Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002), as amended, 52 U.S.C. §§ 15301–15545. See 

generally Marie Leary & Robert Timothy Reagan, The Help America Vote Act (Federal Judicial Center 2012); Symposium, HAVA @ 10, 12 Election L.J. 111 (2013). 

2. Complaint, Hawkins v. Blunt, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 2004), D.E. 1; see

James Goodwin, Democrats File Suit Against Blunt, Springfield News-Leader, Aug. 11, 2004, 

at 2B; Jo Mannies, Judge May Rule Today on Provisional Balloting, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 

Aug. 11, 2004, at B1 (“According to the secretary of state’s office, Kansas City accounted for 

the largest bloc of the 859 provisional ballots reported cast throughout Missouri on Aug. 

3.”). 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 

2004), D.E. 4. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (Aug. 9, 2004); see W.D. Mo. R. 3.2(a).2. 

5. W.D. Mo. R. 3.2(a).1. 

6. Email from Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey to Tim Reagan, May 11, 2012 (noting that at 

the time of this case District Judges Laughrey and Wright shared the Jefferson City docket 

with Magistrate Judge William A. Knox). 

Judge Laughrey’s primary chambers now are in Jefferson City. 

7. Email from Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey to Tim Reagan, May 11, 2012.

8. Temporary Restraining Order, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 11, 2004), 
Casting Provisional Ballots in the Right Place 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 

would have conducted a telephonic conference before issuing such an order, 

but he was in trial at the time, so he issued the order on the basis of the complaint.9

Judge Wright enjoined certification of the primary elections, allowed 

Missouri to prepare provisional sample ballots for the general election, and 

set an evidentiary hearing for one week later.10

The evidentiary hearing was canceled11 because the court realized that the 

case had been assigned in the regular civil draw instead of the special draw 

for certain cases naming Missouri as a defendant:12

any civil case which names the State of Missouri or any of its agencies as a 

defendant if the complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that a state law, 

regulation or rule is unconstitutional on its face or seeks to enjoin the enforcement of a state law, rule or regulation as to all persons because it is unconstitutional on its face.13

Not all judges in the district heard Jefferson City cases.14 In order to prevent judge shopping, the district assigned all of its active judges an equal 

share of some cases, regardless of where the cases were filed.15 Chief Judge 

Dean Whipple ordered the case reassigned,16 and it was reassigned to Judge 

Richard E. Dorr in Springfield.17

On August 17, five voters moved to intervene to defend Missouri’s practices,18 and Judge Dorr set a telephonic hearing on the motion for 3:00 p.m. 

three days later, with opposition papers due at noon on the day of the hearing.19 On hearing day, Judge Dorr denied intervention but permitted the voters to file briefs as amici curiae.20 Judge Dorr also established September 8 as 

the deadline for completing briefing on summary-judgment motions.21

D.E. 9; see Tim Hoover, Court Blocks Final Missouri Vote Tally, Kansas City Star, Aug. 12, 

2004, at A1; Jo Mannies, Judge Rules on Suit Over Provisional Voting, St. Louis PostDispatch, Aug. 12, 2004, at C2. 

9. Email from Hon. Scott O. Wright to Tim Reagan, May 2, 2012. 

Judge Wright died on July 11, 2016. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges [hereinafter FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/ 

judges. 

10. Temporary Restraining Order, supra note 8. 

11. Order, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 16, 2004), D.E. 14. 

12. Reassignment Order, id. (Aug. 13, 2004), D.E. 11. 

13. W.D. Mo. Admin. Directive 13, attached to Minutes, W.D. Mo. Fed. Practice Comm., 

Jan. 21, 2004, www.mow.uscourts.gov/sites/mow/files/FPC_2004-01-21_Minutes.pdf (noting that the directive was adopted on January 8, 2004). 

14. Interview with Hon. Richard E. Dorr, May 4, 2012. 

15. Id. 

16. Reassignment Order, supra note 12. 

17. Letter to Counsel, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 2004), D.E. 12. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Dorr for this report by telephone on May 4, 2012. Judge 

Dorr died on April 24, 2013. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 9. 

18. Motion to Intervene, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 17, 2004), D.E. 15. 

19. Order, id. (Aug. 19, 2004), D.E. 26; see Jo Mannies, Hearing on Suit Over Ballot Law 

Is Set Today, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 20, 2004, at C2. 

20. Order Denying Intervention, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 20, 2004), 
Casting Provisional Ballots in the Right Place 

Federal Judicial Center 10/26/2023 3

On August 27, Judge Dorr dismissed the Kansas City defendants and vacated the temporary restraining order: the Kansas City Board of Election 

Commissioners had agreed to count the plaintiffs’ votes.22

On October 12, Judge Dorr granted summary judgment to the state defendants, relying in part on representations made by them as to how provisional ballots would be counted in the future.23

D.E. 33; see Jo Mannies, Suits Over Voting Procedures Echo Nation’s Concern on Issue, St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 22, 2004, at C7. 

21. Order Denying Intervention, supra note 20. 

22. Order, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2004), D.E. 44; see Jo Mannies, Disputed Ballots from Aug. 3 Primary Will Be Counted, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 

28, 2004, at 15 (“The Kansas City Election Board has agreed to count all provisional ballots 

cast Aug. 3 by registered voters, regardless of whether the ballots were cast in the right polling place.”). 

23. Summary Judgment Order, Hawkins, No. 2:04-cv-4177 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2004), 

D.E. 65; see Jo Mannies, U.S. Judge Spells Out When They Are Valid, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 

Oct. 13, 2004, at B1.