CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/2/2023 1

Whether Voting by Mail During a Pandemic 

Dilutes Legitimate Votes 

Paher v. Cegavske (Miranda M. Du, D. Nev. 3:20-cv-243) 

A district judge denied an injunction to voters who complained that 

extensive voting by mail during a global infectious pandemic would 

dilute legitimate votes, finding the allegation too speculative to afford 

standing or merit relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Covid-19; absentee 

ballots; intervention; primary election. 

Four voters filed a federal complaint in the District of Nevada on April 21, 

2020, alleging that Nevada’s plan to provide mail-in absentee ballots to all active registered voters for a June 9 primary election in light of the global Covid19 infectious pandemic would dilute legitimate votes.1

 With their complaint, 

the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,2 a motion to expedite 

the case,3

 and a motion to consolidate consideration of the injunction with 

resolution of the case.4

On April 22, Judge Miranda M. Du agreed to permit the plaintiffs to supplement their motion to expedite the case by 3:00 p.m. that day with an explanation for their waiting until April 21 to bring the case, when the policy they 

challenged was announced on March 24.5 The voters informed Judge Du that 

they did not learn of the policy until April 15,6

 and Judge Du agreed to expedite 

the case.7 She set the case for a telephonic hearing at 10:00 a.m. on April 29.8

The hearing was telephonic because of the Covid-19 pandemic.9 An inperson hearing would have been particularly difficult because of quarantine 

expectations for the out-of-state attorneys on the case.10

1. Complaint, Paher v. Cegavske, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2020), D.E. 1; Paher v. 

Cegavske, 457 F. Supp. 3d 919, 924 (D. Nev. 2020). 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2020), D.E. 2;

Paher, 457 F. Supp. 3d at 924. 

3. Motion to Expedite, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2020), D.E. 3; Paher, 457 

F. Supp. 3d at 924. 

4. Consolidation Motion, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2020), D.E. 4; Paher, 

457 F. Supp. 3d at 924. 

5. Docket Sheet, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2020) (minutes, D.E. 12); see 

Paher, 457 F. Supp. 3d at 924; see also James DeHaven, Nevadans to Mail Ballots for June’s 

Primary Election, Reno Gazette-J., Mar. 26, 2020, at A6; Bill Dentzer, Nevada’s Primary Election in June Will Be Conducted by Mail Only, Las Vegas Rev.-J., Mar. 25, 2020, at B1. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Du for this report by telephone on August 20, 2020. 

6. Supplement, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 22, 2020), D.E. 13. 

7. Order, id. (Apr. 22, 2020), D.E. 14. 

8. Id.; see Docket Sheet, supra note 5 (minutes, D.E. 49). 

9. Interview with Hon. Miranda M. Du, Aug. 20, 2020. 

10. Id.; Docket Sheet, supra note 5. 
Whether Voting by Mail During a Pandemic Dilutes Legitimate Votes 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/2/2023 

On April 27, Judge Du agreed to consolidate the preliminary-injunction 

motion with resolution of the case.11 On April 28, she granted an April 27 motion to intervene in opposition to the injunction motion.12

Judge Du began the April 29 hearing with awareness of the public-health 

emergency: “The fact that we have this hearing by phone because the Court is 

limiting in-person appearances, demonstrates the unusual circumstances of 

our time. So, I don’t need counsel to explain to me how COVID-19 has affected our communities. I’m well aware of that.”13

Judge Du denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction on April 30.14 Because their claims of injury would apply to any voter, their claims were not 

concrete and particularized, so the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring 

them.15 Their claims would also fail on the merits.16

The Court finds that Defendants’ interests in protecting the health and safety 

of Nevada’s voters and to safeguard the voting franchise in light of the 

COVID-19 pandemic far outweigh any burden on Plaintiffs’ right to vote, 

particularly when that burden is premised on a speculative claim of voter 

fraud resulting in dilution of votes.17

On July 31, Judge Du dismissed an amended complaint as moot.18

11. Docket Sheet, supra note 5 (minutes, D.E. 36); Paher v. Cegavske, 457 F. Supp. 3d 919, 

924 (D. Nev. 2020). 

12. Order, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 28, 2020), D.E. 39, 2020 WL 2042365; 

Intervention Motion, id. (Apr. 27, 2020), D.E. 27; Paher, 457 F. Supp. 3d at 924–25. 

13. Transcript at 4, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2020, filed May 16, 2020), 

D.E. 70. 

14. Paher, 457 F. Supp. 3d 919; see Bill Dentzer, Nevada Judge Rejects Lawsuit Opposing 

Mail-In Primary, Las Vegas Rev.-J., May 1, 2020, at B1. 

15. Paher, 457 F. Supp. 3d 922, 926. 

16. Id. at 927–35. 

17. Id. at 922. 

18. Opinion, Paher, No. 3:20-cv-243 (D. Nev. July 31, 2020), D.E. 92; see Amended Complaint, id. (May 13, 2020), D.E. 64.