CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 1/24/2023 1

No Relief from Digital Electronic 

Voting Machines 

Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett 

(Thomas L. Parker, W.D. Tenn. 2:18-cv-2706) 

A district judge denied immediate relief from the use of digital electronic voting machines that did not provide a paper record of votes. 

The judge did not find use of such machines fundamentally unfair. 

Nearly a year later, the judge dismissed an amended complaint as no 

more than a generalized grievance. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Voting technology; early 

voting. 

On Friday, October 12, 2018, five days before early voting was to begin for a 

general election, an organization promoting voters’ interests and four individuals filed a federal complaint in the Western District of Tennessee.1

 The plaintiffs alleged that the digital electronic voting machines that would be used by 

Shelby County, which includes Memphis, 

are insecure, lack a voter-verified paper audit capacity, and fail to meet minimum statutory requirements, [so] requiring voters to use those machines 

violates the voters’ constitutional rights to have their votes recorded in a fair, 

precise, verifiable, and anonymous manner, and to have their votes counted 

and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal, and transparent process.2

On Monday, the plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order and a writ of mandamus.3

 Judge Thomas L. Parker set the case for a status 

conference the following morning4 and a hearing that afternoon.5

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Parker announced that “the Court 

is not convinced that the plaintiff has established and has overcome its burden.”6

In this case, the plaintiffs are asking this federal court to substitute its 

judgment for that of the elected officials and the election officials for the state 

of Tennessee and Shelby County. . . . 

1. Complaint, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. 

Tenn. Oct. 12, 2018), D.E. 1; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, 348 F. Supp. 

3d 764, 768 (W.D. Tenn. 2018). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 2; see Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, 947 

F.3d 977, 979 (6th Cir. 2020); Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 768. 

3. Application, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 

15, 2018), D.E. 23; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 767–68; see

Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, 947 F.3d at 980. 

4. Notice of Setting, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn. 

Oct. 16, 2018), D.E. 28. 

5. Notice of Setting, id. (Oct. 15, 2018), D.E. 24; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 

348 F. Supp. 3d at 767. 

6. Transcript at 80, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn. 

Oct. 16, 2018, filed Oct. 26, 2018), D.E. 44; see Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348 

F. Supp. 3d at 767. 
No Relief from Digital Electronic Voting Machines 

2 Federal Judicial Center 1/24/2023 

. . . 

. . . [U]nlike many temporary restraining orders, the plaintiff is not just 

asking for the status quo to be maintained.7

Judge Parker filed an opinion eight days later: “Plaintiffs here have not shown 

that Shelby County’s voting system is fundamentally unfair.”8

Judge Parker dismissed an amended complaint on September 13, 2019, 

finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs’ policy 

preferences different from government officials’.9 The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal on January 24, 2020: “The long and short of it is that the 

plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the imminence of any injury in fact, depriving 

them of Article III standing to bring this claim.”10

7. Transcript, supra note 6, at 79. 

8. Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 771. 

9. Opinion, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 13, 

2019), D.E. 140, 2019 WL 4394754; see Second Amended Complaint, id. (Apr. 16, 2019), D.E. 

104; see also Amended Complaint, id. (Jan. 11, 2019), D.E. 63. 

10. Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, 947 F.3d 977, 983 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 257 (2020).