CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 1

No Standing to Challenge Drive-Through Voting 

Hotze v. Hollins (Andrew S. Hanen, S.D. Tex. 4:20-cv-3709) 

A district judge held that challengers to drive-through voting in a 

Texas county during the 2020 election did not have standing to 

challenge the policy in federal court. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Poll locations; early voting; 

intervention; Covid-19. 

According to an October 28, 2020, federal complaint filed in the Southern 

District of Texas against Harris County’s clerk by a member of the Texas legislature, two candidates, and an additional voter, “[b]y indiscriminately encouraging and allowing any and all Harris County registered voters to cast 

their ballots via curbside drive-thru voting, Defendant is violating both federal and state law, and Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if such ultra vires action is not stopped.”1

 Two days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a 

preliminary injunction.2

 On that day, Judge Andrew S. Hanen set the case for 

hearing on November 2,3 including an intervention motion.4

By November 2, several intervention motions had been filed, and Judge 

Hanen granted some of them: 

Before the Court are multiple motions to intervene filed on behalf of 

individual early drive through voters and political entities. The Court grants 

the motions to intervene on behalf of voters who have already voted in a 

drive through polling location and defers ruling on those made by political 

entities.5

Also on November 2, Judge Hanen dismissed the action for lack of standing.6

. . . [I]f the Court had found standing existed, it would have denied an 

injunction as to the drive-thru early voting. 

1. Complaint at 1, Hotze v. Hollins, No. 4:20-cv-3709 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 3. 

3. Order, id. (Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 6; see Transcripts, id. (Nov. 2, 2020, filed Nov. 2, 2020), 

D.E. 61, 62; see also Jasper Scherer, State Judges Allow Drive-Thru Votes; Federal Court Yet to 

Hear Bid by Republicans to Disqualify 127,000 Harris County Ballots, Houston Chron., Nov. 

2, 2020, at A3. 

4. Intervention Motion, Hotze, No. 4:20-cv-3709 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 5 [hereinafter First Intervention Motion]. 

5. Opinion, id. (Nov. 2, 2020), D.E. 59; see Intervention Motions, id. (Nov. 1 and 2, 

2020), D.E. 16, 26, 28, 40, 44, 51 (granted); First Intervention Motion, supra note 4 (granted); Intervention Motions, Hotze, No. 4:20-cv-3709 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2020), D.E. 36, 45 (not 

granted). 

6. Opinion, Hotze, No. 4:20-cv-3709 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2020), D.E. 63 [hereinafter Dismissal Opinion], 2020 WL 6437668; see Zach Despart & Samantha Ketterer, Drive-Thru 

Votes Allowed, Houston Chron., Nov. 3, 2020, at A1; Brent Kendall & Sara Randazzo, Judges 

Deny GOP Vote-Rule Challenges, Wall St. J., Nov. 3, 2020, at A3; Neena Satija, Brittney Martin & Aaron Schaffer, Judge Allows Drive-Through Votes in Texas County, Wash. Post, Nov. 

3, 2020, at A2. 
No Standing to Challenge Drive-Through Voting 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 

. . . [But for] Election Day, as opposed to early voting there is no legislative authorization for movable structures as polling places. The Election 

Code makes clear that, on Election Day, each polling place shall be located 

inside a building.7

The court of appeals also denied the plaintiffs an injunction on November 2.8

 On October 25, 2021, the court of appeals agreed that the plaintiffs 

lacked standing, and the case had become moot anyway.9

7. Dismissal Opinion, supra note 6, at 7 (quotation marks omitted). 

8. Order, Hotze v. Hollins, No. 20-20574 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020), D.E. 13, 2020 WL 

6440440. 

9. Hotze v. Hudspeth, 16 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2021); see Order, Hotze, No. 4:20-cv-3709 

(S.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021), D.E. 77 (again dismissing the case).