CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/20/2023 1

Unsuccessful Challenges to Procedures 

for Accepting Absentee Ballots 

in Georgia’s 2021 Senatorial Runoff Election 

Twelfth Congressional District Republican Committee 

v. Raffensperger (J. Randal Hall, S.D. Ga. 1:20-cv-180) 

and Georgia Republican Party v. Raffensperger 

(Eleanor L. Ross, N.D. Ga. 1:20-cv-5018) 

Federal judges in both the Southern District of Georgia and the 

Northern District of Georgia declined immediate relief from Georgia’s procedures for accepting absentee ballots in a 2021 runoff senatorial election. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

signature matching; laches; intervention; Covid-19. 

Federal court challenges to Georgia’s procedures for accepting absentee ballots in a January 5, 2021, runoff election for the U.S. Senate were unsuccessful in both the Southern District of Georgia and the Northern District of 

Georgia. 

Southern District Case 

A federal complaint filed in the Southern District on Wednesday, December 

9, 2020—about four weeks before a runoff senatorial election—challenged 

Georgia’s procedures for accepting absentee ballots.1 With their complaint, 

the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

The plaintiffs were affiliated with the Republican Party, and the state’s 

Democratic Party sought intervention as a defendant on Friday, December 

12.3 Judge J. Randal Hall granted intervention on Monday.4

Also on Monday, Judge Hall set the case for a videoconference hearing 

on Thursday, December 17.5 Information on public telephone access to the 

hearing was posted in the docket sheet.6 On December 16, Judge Hall granted 

intervention as defendants to two organizations and a voter.7

1. Complaint, 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-180 

(S.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2020), D.E. 1. 

“At issue are the rules for receipt and processing of absentee ballots including the use of 

drop boxes and Plaintiffs seek to halt the use of those rules in the now ongoing United States 

Senate run-off elections.” Transcript at 4, id. (Dec. 17, 2020, filed Jan. 1, 2021), D.E. 49 

[hereinafter 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. Transcript]. 

2. Motion, id. (Dec. 9, 2020), D.E. 2. 

3. Intervention Motion, id. (Dec. 11, 2020), D.E. 10. 

4. Intervention Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2020), D.E. 14. 

5. Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2020), D.E. 17; see Minutes, id. (Dec. 17, 2020), D.E. 46; see also 

Sandy Hodson & Susan McCord, Suit Challenges Ballot Procedures, Augusta Chron., Dec. 

17, 2020, at A1. 

6. Docket Sheet, 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm., No. 1:20-cv-180 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 
Unsuccessful Challenges to Procedures for Accepting Absentee Ballots 

in Georgia’s 2021 Senatorial Runoff Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/20/2023 

He began the hearing with an acknowledgment of the Covid-19 pandemic and an admonition against recording the proceeding: “Due to the continuing surge of the Corona Virus we are conducting this hearing today by video 

with nationwide audio streaming. . . . [F]ederal court rules strictly prohibit 

recording by anyone whether you’re participating by video conference or audio stream . . . any part of this hearing today.”8

Judge Hall ended the hearing by denying the plaintiffs immediate relief.9

First, the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue the case: 

[T]he individual voters’ claims represent nothing more than a general 

grievance, not particularized in any fashion. As to the claims by the committee and the two voters asserting First Amendment claims, the Court 

finds that those claims are simply based upon speculation, highly speculative—highly speculative issues in some cases—many cases—involving potential actions of conduct of independent actors. The Court has noted that 

spending money or directed resources based on some fear of a speculative 

harm simply does not establish the concrete injury required for standing.10

Second, a delay in bringing the challenge to absentee voting, which had already begun, weighed against injunctive relief.11

A notice of appeal was filed ten days after the election,12 and a voluntary 

dismissal was filed about two months later.13

Northern District Case 

The Republican Party and its candidates for U.S. Senate in the runoff election 

filed a federal complaint on December 10, 2020, in the Northern District 

against state election officials, also challenging the adequacy of procedures in 

Georgia for validating absentee ballots.14 According to the plaintiffs, “many 

counties in Georgia in the November 3, 2020 general election accepted virtually all absentee ballot signatures, rejecting impossibly low numbers of mismatched signatures, and even failing to find any missing signatures.”15 With 

2020) (D.E. 18). 

7. Intervention Order, id. (Dec. 16, 2020), D.E. 38; see Intervention Motion, id. (Dec. 15, 

2020), D.E. 31. 

8. 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. Transcript, supra note 1, at 3–4. 

9. Order, 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm., No. 1:20-cv-180 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 17, 2020), 

D.E. 47; 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. Transcript, supra note 1, at 35–36; see Susan 

McCord, Absentee Ballot Lawsuit Dismissed, Augusta Chron., Dec. 18, 2020, at A1; David 

Wickert, Judges Dismiss Suits Related to Ga. Absentee Ballot Rules, Atlanta J.-Const., Dec. 18, 

2020, at 5A. 

10. 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. Transcript, supra note 1, at 35. 

11. Id. at 35–36. 

12. Notice of Appeal, 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm., No. 1:20-cv-180 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 

15, 2021), D.E. 50. 

13. Motion, 12th Cong. Dist. Republican Comm. v. Secretary, No. 21-10183 (11th Cir. 

Mar. 17, 2021); see Order, id. (Mar. 31, 2021), 2021 WL 1567735 (dismissing the appeal). 

14. Complaint, Ga. Republican Party v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-5018 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 

10, 2020), D.E. 1. 

15. Id. at 4. 
Unsuccessful Challenges to Procedures for Accepting Absentee Ballots 

in Georgia’s 2021 Senatorial Runoff Election 

Federal Judicial Center 7/20/2023 3

their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.16

On the next day, Judge Eleanor L. Ross set the case for hearing on December 21.17 On December 14, Judge Ross granted a December 11 motion by 

the Democratic Party to intervene as a defendant in the case.18 Also on Monday, December 14, Judge Ross rescheduled the hearing from the following 

Monday to the intervening Thursday, and she rescheduled the hearing from 

in person to via videoconference, at the parties’ request.19

At the hearing, Judge Ross dismissed the case for lack of standing.20

On Sunday, December 20, the court of appeals declined to stay Judge 

Ross’s dismissal.21 Responsibility for validating absentee ballots lay with local 

election officials, not state election officials.22 The court of appeals accepted a 

voluntary dismissal of the appeal on January 4, 2021.23

16. Motion, id. (Dec. 10, 2020), D.E. 2. 

17. Order, id. (Dec. 11, 2020), D.E. 11. 

18. Intervention Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2020), D.E. 15; Intervention Motion, id. (Dec. 11, 

2020), D.E. 12. 

19. Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2020), D.E. 17; see Order, id. (Dec. 15, 2020), D.E. 23 (rescheduling the hearing from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the parties’ request). 

20. Minutes, id. (Dec. 17, 2020), D.E. 46; Opinion at 3, Ga. Republican Party v. Sec’y of 

State, No. 20-14741 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2020) [hereinafter 11th Cir. Ga. Republican Party

Opinion]; see Wickert, supra note 9. 

21. 11th Cir. Ga. Republican Party Opinion, supra note 20; see Mark Niesse, Appeals 

Court Rejects Ballot Signature Lawsuit, Atlanta J.-Const., Dec. 22, 2020, at 7A. 

22. 11th Cir. Ga. Republican Party Opinion, supra note 20, at 5–6. 

23. Order, Ga. Republican Party, No. 20-14741 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2021).