CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 1

Discrepancies Between the Residence Address 

and the Registration Address 

of a Ballot-Petition Signer 

Schintzius v. Showalter 

(John A. Gibney, Jr., E.D. Va. 3:16-cv-740 and 3:16-cv-741) 

A case removed to federal court in September sought to get a plaintiff 

candidate on the November ballot for mayor, claiming that plaintiff 

ballot-petition signers were wrongfully disqualified because they 

gave their residence addresses instead of their registration addresses 

under circumstances in which the plaintiffs claimed that the signers 

could lawfully vote using the old addresses. The district judge denied 

immediate relief. 

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

removal. 

A prospective candidate for mayor of Richmond, Virginia, and six voters filed 

a complaint and petition for mandamus relief in Richmond’s circuit court on 

August 23, 2016, alleging that the voters’ ballot-petition signatures were 

wrongfully rejected because the signers listed their residence addresses instead 

of their registration addresses, causing the candidate to fall short in the number of signatures required for a place on the November ballot.1

 Under certain 

circumstances, a voter could remain registered at a previous residence for a 

time.2

Defendant election officials for Richmond and Virginia removed the case 

to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Wednesday, 

September 7.3 Also on September 7, the defendants removed an August 23 circuit-court motion by the same plaintiffs for a temporary injunction.4

On September 8, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., “had a conference call with all 

counsel [he] could reach in these cases. The Court was unable to reach counsel 

for the plaintiffs.”5 Following the call, Judge Gibney consolidated the two cases 

1. Complaint, Schintzius v. Showalter, No. CL16-3874-8 (Va. Cir. Ct. Richmond Aug. 23, 

2016), attached to Notice of Complaint Removal, Schintzius v. Showalter, No. 3:16-cv-740 

(E.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2016), D.E. 1; see Ned Oliver, Schintzius Suing to Get Name on Ballot, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aug. 24, 2016, at 1B. 

2. See Transcript at 12, Schintzius v. Showalter, No. 3:16-cv-741 (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 2016, 

filed Sept. 13, 2016), D.E. 31 (argument by the plaintiffs’ attorney); id. at 62–63 (argument by 

a defense attorney). 

3. Notice of Complaint Removal, supra note 1; see Ned Oliver, Richmond Mayoral Hopeful’s Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 9, 2016, at 7A. 

4. Notice of Injunction Removal, Schintzius, No. 3:16-cv-741 (E.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2016), D.E. 

1, attaching Temporary-Injunction Motion, Schintzius v. Showalter, No. CL16-3875-1 (Va. 

Cir. Ct. Richmond Aug. 23, 2016). 

5. Order at 1, id. (Sept. 8, 2016), D.E. 2 [hereinafter Temporary-Restraining-Order–Hearing Order]. 
Discrepancies Between the Residence Address and the Registration Address 

of a Ballot-Petition Signer 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 

under the second case number and set the case for hearing on Monday, September 12.6

Judge Gibney asked the plaintiff’s attorney to address the attorney’s and 

the attorney’s law firm’s ability to represent the plaintiff while the attorney was 

also a mayoral candidate.7 At the hearing, an attorney different from the one 

with the potential conflict, but from the same firm, appeared for the plaintiff.8

“I don’t think there is any conflict whatsoever,” he said.9 Following Judge Gibney’s explanation that there was at least a potential appearance of conflict,10

the candidate submitted a hand-written waiver.11

At the hearing, Judge Gibney denied the plaintiffs immediate relief without an opinion.12

I think that the requirement that has been imposed here is more than reasonable. It is that somebody provide a valid registration address and—sorry, a 

valid residence address and use that as a proxy for the registration address. 

They require people to re-register promptly when they move. So I think they 

are entitled to assume that the residence and registration are the same address. 

And it is a more than reasonable way of insuring that the people who sign 

the petition are the people who are folks who are allowed to do so.13

Judge Gibney ordered answers filed by the following day and set the case 

for trial two days after that.14 He informed the election officials that although 

immediate relief had been denied, the defendants were still potentially subject 

to an injunction putting the plaintiff candidate on the ballot: 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, one thing, if I can clarify. Are we 

permitted to print the ballots today? 

THE COURT: You are permitted to do whatever you want to today, because there is no [temporary restraining order], but if you lose on Thursday, 

you better be prepared to have yourself in gear. 

. . . 

THE COURT: . . . . You may have to pay some more, but if it turns out 

you lose this case, you are going to have to change the ballot.15

6. Id. at 2; see Minutes, id. (Sept. 12, 2016), D.E. 20. 

7. Temporary-Restraining-Order–Hearing Order, supra note 5; see also Oliver, supra note 

3 (reporting that the attorney also had been disbarred by the district court for insufficient 

truthfulness). 

8. Transcript, supra note 2; see Ned Oliver, Federal Trial Set for Thursday in Richmond 

Mayoral Ballot Appeal, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 13, 2016, at 2B (reporting that the 

candidate “was originally represented by his would-be opponent . . . , who is also a lawyer. But 

at the request of the defendants, the case was moved to federal court, where [the lawyer] is 

barred from practicing law.”). 

9. Transcript, supra note 2, at 5. 

10. Id. at 5–8. 

11. Waiver, Schintzius, No. 3:16-cv-741 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2016), D.E. 21. 

12. Order, id. (Sept. 12, 2016), D.E. 22 [hereinafter Trial Order]; Transcript, supra note 2, 

at 76–78. 

13. Transcript, supra note 2, at 78. 

14. Trial Order, supra note 12; id. at 80, 82. 

15. Transcript, supra note 2, at 82–83. 
Discrepancies Between the Residence Address and the Registration Address 

of a Ballot-Petition Signer 

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 3

At trial, Judge Gibney granted judgment to the defendants.16

16. Minutes, Schintzius, No. 3:16-cv-741 (E.D. Va. Sept. 15, 2016), D.E. 33; see Frank 

Green, Court Rejects Bid by Schintzius to Appear on City Mayoral Ballot, Richmond TimesDispatch, Sept. 16, 2016, at 5A (reporting that Judge Gibney “said he could not find that [the 

candidate’s] rights were violated and said the requirements for making the ballot were not 

overly burdensome”).