CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/8/2023 1

Keeping Polls Open Because They Were Moved 

with Inadequate Notice 

Idaho State Democratic Party v. Rich 

(B. Lynn Winmill, D. Idaho 1:16-cv-491) 

Five polling places in one county were moved to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. On election day, a 

political party filed a federal complaint seeking two hours of additional voting at the moved polls, alleging that voters had received 

inadequate notice of the moves. Stepping away from a trial, the district judge held a telephonic hearing at 4:07 p.m. and ruled approximately one hour later that the five polling places should be kept 

open an additional hour, which the judge determined would be 

enough time for voters who showed up at the end of voting hours at 

the wrong locations. Among the judge’s findings was a conclusion 

that the plaintiff party had not cherry-picked polling locations. 

Subject: Poll hours. Topics: Polling hours; poll locations; 

provisional ballots; ballot segregation; Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA). 

On the day of the 2008 general election, Idaho’s Democratic Party filed a federal complaint in the District of Idaho against Idaho’s secretary of state and 

Ada County’s clerk seeking a two-hour extension of voting hours at five polling places in the county, alleging that the polling places were moved without 

sufficient notice, creating voter confusion.1 With its complaint, the party 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and emergency injunctive 

relief.2

Stepping away from a trial, Judge B. Lynn Winmill held a telephonic 

hearing at 4:07 p.m.3

According to the plaintiff’s attorney, 

So the gist of the situation is this: [O]ver the summer, Ada County received notice that some of the polling locations were not [compliant with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act]. Rather than acting immediately on the 

situation, the County took no action until right before the election, which is 

happening today, to send out notices that the five polling locations had been 

moved.4

The attorney for the county clerk responded, “We actually went above and 

beyond . . . .”5

1. Complaint, Idaho State Democratic Party v. Rich, No. 1:16-cv-491 (D. Idaho Nov. 8, 

2016), D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (Nov. 8, 2016), D.E. 2. 

3. Transcript at 1, 4, 9, id. (Nov. 8, 2016, filed Dec. 19, 2016), D.E. 7; Minutes, id. (Nov. 8, 

2016), D.E. 5; see Transcript, supra, at 6, 8 (Judge Winmill’s noting the unfortunate difficulty 

of a judge’s ability to interject questions during a telephonic hearing). 

4. Transcript, supra note 3, at 5. 

5. Id. at 6. 
Keeping Polls Open Because They Were Moved with Inadequate Notice 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/8/2023 

At the hearing, Judge Winmill discussed with the parties whether ballots 

cast during the extension of polling hours would be segregated as provisional 

ballots or immediately treated as valid ballots and commingled with the ballots cast earlier.6

 The plaintiff was originally content to have voters casting 

ballots during the extension cast provisional ballots.7

 The county clerk responded that “Idaho does not have provisional ballots because we’re a sameday registration state.”8

 So the plaintiff replied, “Now, if that is something 

that’s unavailable here, we are happy to amend our complaint to allow for 

the voters that are casting ballots between 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. to have their 

votes fully counted as they should be.”9

Following a recess from 4:54 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., Judge Winmill ordered 

the five polling locations kept open an additional hour, from 8:00 p.m. to 

9:00 p.m., and ordered notices posted at the original locations by 7:00 p.m.10

I think an additional one hour would be sufficient to capture those individuals who intended on voting after work, get to the . . . polls too late to find 

out that the polling place has changed and then change the location and 

travel to the new location. 

. . . 

As I indicated, if the request had been to segregate the ballots for those 

who cast votes after 8:00 and then have an individual hearing on that to determine whether or not their right to vote was, in fact, [compromised], I 

would have kept the polling place open until 10:00.11

Among Judge Winmill’s findings was that the plaintiff had not cherrypicked polling locations; “they have selected all of the voting locations where 

[the voting location was changed late in the game].”12

Judge Winmill issued a stipulated dismissal of the action on March 31, 

2017.13

6. Id. at 10–11. 

7. Complaint, supra note 1, at 6–8; Transcript, supra note 3, at 10. 

8. Transcript, supra note 3, at 10. 

9. Id. at 11.

10. Order, Idaho State Democratic Party v. Rich, No. 1:16-cv-491 (D. Idaho Nov. 8, 

2016), D.E. 6; Transcript, supra note 3, at 11–13; Minutes, supra note 3; see Sven Berg, Judge 

Rules on Idaho Democrats’ Lawsuit to Extend Voting Hours at 5 Precincts, Idaho Statesman, 

Nov. 8, 2016. 

11. Transcript, supra note 3, at 12. 

12. Id. at 11. 

13. Order, Idaho State Democratic Party, No. 1:16-cv-491 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2017), D.E. 

10; see Stipulation, id. (Mar. 30, 2017), D.E. 9.