CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 1

No Relief from Election Officials’ Not Striking 

a Candidate from the Ballot at a Voter’s Request 

Davis v. Wayne County Election Commission 

(Sean F. Cox, E.D. Mich. 2:20-cv-11819) 

About four weeks before a primary election, a federal complaint alleged that election officials improperly declined to strike a congressional candidate from the ballot. Five months later, the court dismissed the action because the plaintiff had not shown a violation of 

federal law. 

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

matters for state courts; primary election. 

A frequent litigator and another voter filed a federal complaint in the Eastern 

District of Michigan on Monday, July 6, 2020, seeking to remove from the August 4 primary-election ballot a candidate for Congress.1

 Defendants included 

the candidate and election officials for Detroit and Wayne County.2 The complaint stated that the frequent litigator might elect to proceed pro se.3

 On the 

following day, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for summary judgment,4

 an amended summary-judgment motion,5 and a motion to expedite a 

decision.6

On Wednesday, Judge Sean F. Cox declined supplemental jurisdiction 

over state-law claims: 

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims would substantially 

expand the scope of this case beyond that necessary and relevant to the federal claims. Thus, the state-law claims would substantially predominate over 

the federal claims. The state-law claims also raise novel and complex issues 

of state law.7

Judge Cox therefore trimmed the complaint to include only three of the original seven claims, only the frequent litigator as a plaintiff, and only some city 

and county election officials as defendants.8 This eliminated from the case the 

claims on which the plaintiffs sought summary judgment.9

On August 13, the remaining plaintiff sought expedited consideration of 

his motion to file an amended complaint in advance of the August 17 due date 

1. Complaint, Davis v. Jordan, No. 2:20-cv-11819 (E.D. Mich. July 6, 2020), D.E. 1; see

Christine MacDonald, Activist Tries to Kill Jones’ Challenge of Tlaib, Detroit News, July 7, 

2020, at A5. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Id. at 2 n.1. 

4. Summary-Judgment Motion, Davis, No. 2:20-cv-11819 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2020), D.E. 5. 

5. Amended Summary-Judgment Motion, id. (July 7, 2020), D.E. 7. 

6. Motion, id. (July 7, 2020), D.E. 4. 

7. Opinion at 4–5, id. (July 8, 2020), D.E. 18, 2020 WL 3833041. 

8. Id. at 2–5. 

9. Id. at 5–6; Order, id. (July 8, 2020), D.E. 19. 
No Relief from Election Officials’ Not Striking a Candidate from the Ballot at a Voter’s Request 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 

for a response to a pending motion to dismiss the action.10 Wayne County 

election officials responded on the following day that the plaintiff’s time pressure resulted from his own delay: “the August Primary Election occurred on 

August 4, 2020. . . . Yet [the plaintiff] waited until August 13, 2020—9 days 

later—to seek the Court’s permission to file an amended complaint and to receive an expedited briefing schedule.”11

With no ruling on the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, the 

plaintiff filed—one day after his response was due—a motion for a two-day 

extension of his deadline to respond to the dismissal motion.12 On the day of 

the proposed revised deadline, a defendant argued that the plaintiff had not 

shown excusable neglect.13 Still represented by counsel, the plaintiff responded 

to the dismissal motion at approximately 1:25 a.m. on the following day—

three days after the original deadline—and filed an amended motion to adjust 

the deadline.14 Judge Cox granted the deadline motion and set the case for 

hearing by video conference on December 10.15

Judge Cox agreed to dismiss the action on December 15; the plaintiff had 

not shown that the defendants’ not removing a candidate from the ballot at 

the plaintiff’s request violated federal law.16

10. Motion, id. (Aug. 18, 2020), D.E. 24. 

11. Motion Response at 3, id. (Aug. 14, 2020), D.E. 25. 

12. Motion, id. (Aug. 18, 2020), D.E. 26. 

13. Motion Response at 1, id. (Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 27. 

14. Amended Motion, id. (Aug. 20, 2020), D.E. 29; Motion Response, id. (Aug. 20, 2020), 

D.E. 28. 

15. Notice, id. (Oct. 8, 2020), D.E 34; Docket Sheet, id. (July 6, 2020) (order, Aug. 20, 2020). 

16. Opinion, id. (Dec. 15, 2020), D.E. 35, 2020 WL 7353475.