CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 1

Voter Interference 

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National 

Committee (Dickinson R. Debevoise and John Michael 

Vazquez, D.N.J. 2:81-cv-3876), Arizona Democratic Party 

v. Arizona Republican Party (John J. Tuchi, D. Ariz. 

2:16-cv-3752), Nevada State Democratic Party v. Nevada 

Republican Party (Richard F. Boulware II, D. Nev. 

2:16-cv-2514), Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican 

Party (James S. Gwin, N.D. Ohio 1:16-cv-2645), 

Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Republican Party 

of Pennsylvania (Paul S. Diamond, E.D. Pa. 2:16-cv-5664), 

North Carolina Democratic Party 

v. North Carolina Republican Party 

(Catherine C. Eagles, M.D.N.C. 1:16-cv-1288), and 

Michigan Democratic Party v. Michigan Republican Party 

(Mark A. Goldsmith, E.D. Mich. 2:16-cv-13924) 

In 2004, a voter in Ohio moved to intervene in a 1981 District of 

New Jersey case, complaining that widespread voter-registration 

challenges in Ohio violated a consent decree between the two major 

political parties in the New Jersey case. On the day before the election, the district court in New Jersey granted injunctive relief. A 

panel of the court of appeals, over a dissent, denied the defendants a 

stay, but the full court ordered en banc review on election day. Because the plaintiff was allowed to vote, the appeal was subsequently 

declared moot. In 2016, a suit was again filed in the District of New 

Jersey to enforce and extend the consent decree. Related actions 

were filed in six other states, plaintiffs were denied immediate relief 

there, and the actions were dismissed voluntarily after the election. 

A little more than one year later, the consent decree was terminated. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Registration challenges; 

intervention; enforcing orders; laches; case assignment. 

A consent decree issued as a result of 1981 litigation between the two major 

parties was litigated in advance of the 2004, 2008, and 2016 general elections. 

The consent decree was terminated on January 8, 2018.1

Ohio 2004 

Five days before the 2004 general election, two Ohio voters filed a motion in 

the District of New Jersey to reopen and intervene in a 1981 case, alleging 

1. Consent-Decree Termination Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l 

Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2018), D.E. 213, aff’d, Opinion, No. 18-1215 (3d 

Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) [hereinafter Consent Decree Termination Affirmance], 2019 WL 117555. 
Voter Interference 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

that widespread voter-registration challenges in Ohio violated consent decrees in the New Jersey case.2

 With their intervention motion, the plaintiffs 

filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.3

Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise was the presiding judge in the New Jersey 

case.4 The consent decrees arose from concerns that ballot-security initiatives, which are efforts to prevent or remedy voter fraud, were used to suppress minority voting.5

 The consent decrees only covered actions by the national parties, but frequently during election cycles Judge Debevoise was 

called upon to determine whether the national parties engaged in activities in 

cooperation with local parties in violation of the decrees.6

Judge Debevoise heard the intervention motion at 2:00 p.m. on October 

28, the day that it was filed, and he granted the motion as to one of the two 

voters.7 

On November 1, Judge Debevoise heard and granted the preliminaryinjunction motion.8

 He observed that Judge Susan J. Dlott in the Southern 

District of Ohio had issued a temporary restraining order on October 27 

against administrative proceedings on the Republican Party’s widespread 

registration challenges.9 Judge Debevoise enjoined the Republican National 

Committee “from using or permitting to be used a challenger list originally 

containing 3500 names prepared by the Republican Party in the State of 

Ohio for use at the November 2, 2004 election.”10

2. Motion, id. (Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 1; Intervention Complaint, id. (Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 6; 

Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d 192, 198 (3d Cir. 2012); 

Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 582 (D.N.J. 

2009). 

3. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. 

Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 5. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (Dec. 14, 1981) [hereinafter D.N.J. Docket Sheet]; Democratic Nat’l 

Comm., 673 F.3d at 196 n.1. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Debevoise for this report by telephone on August 14, 

2012. 

5. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d at 196–98; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 

2d at 578–81. See generally Richard L. Hasen, Election Meltdown 108–12 (2020). 

6. Interview with Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, Aug. 14, 2012. 

7. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 17; 

Minutes, id. (Oct. 28, 2004), D.E. 11; see John P. Martin, Fight in A Battleground Lands in 

Newark Court, Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 29, 2004, at 1. 

8. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2004), D.E. 25 

[hereinafter Nov. 1, 2004, D.N.J. Order]; Minutes, id. (Nov. 1, 2004), D.E. 24; Democratic 

Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d at 198–99; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 582–83; see

Lisa A. Abraham, Federal Judges Issue Stay of 2 Earlier Rulings, Akron Beacon J., Nov. 2, 

2004, at A1; Amy Klein, GOP Dealt Setback on Ohio Voter Challenges, N.J. Record, Nov. 2, 

2004, at A1; John P. Martin, Judge Bars GOP Poll Challenges, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 2, 

2004, at 9; Greg B. Smith, GOP Wins Early Legal Skirmish in Ohio, N.Y. Daily News, Nov. 2, 

2004, at 4. 

9. Transcript at 2, 73, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2004, 

filed Nov. 12, 2004), D.E. 29; see Temporary Restraining Order, Miller v. Blackwell, No. 

1:04-cv-735 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 11. 

10. Nov. 1, 2004, D.N.J. Order, supra note 8. 
Voter Interference 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 3

The Republican Party immediately appealed.11 Over the dissent of one 

judge, a panel of the court of appeals denied the party a stay of Judge Debevoise’s order, finding “ample support for the factual findings of the District 

Court.”12 On the morning of election day, however, the court of appeals ordered en banc rehearing.13 Because the intervenor was allowed to vote on 

election day, the court of appeals later dismissed the appeal as moot.14

Judge Debevoise approved a stipulated dismissal of his case on February 

3, 2005.15

2008 

On the day before the 2008 general election, the Democratic National Committee moved to reopen the case again.16 After extensive litigation, on December 1, 2009, Judge Debevoise denied the Republican Party’s motion to 

vacate the consent decrees, but he agreed to modify applicable particulars, 

including the addition of a presumptive expiration date of eight years 

hence.17 The court of appeals affirmed his decision on March 8, 2012.18

The 2016 Presidential Election 

Thirteen nights before the 2016 general election, alleging an effort “to intimidate and discourage minority voters,” the Democratic National Committee 

filed a motion in the District of New Jersey to enforce the consent decree.19

11. Docket Sheet, Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., No. 04-4186 (3d 

Cir. Nov. 1, 2004); Democratic Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d at 199; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 

F. Supp. 2d at 582. 

12. Opinion, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 04-4186 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2004), filed as Opinion, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2004), D.E. 32; Democratic 

Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d at 199; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 583; see Martin, 

supra note 7. 

13. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 04-4186 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2004), filed as Order, 

Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2004), D.E. 34; Democratic Nat’l 

Comm., 673 F.3d at 199; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 583; see Daniel P. Tokaji, Early Returns on Election Reform: Discretion, Disenfranchisement, and the Help America 

Vote Act, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1206, 1237–38, 1245 (2005).

14. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 04-4186 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2004), filed as Order, 

Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2004), D.E. 36; Democratic Nat’l 

Comm., 673 F.3d at 199; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 583. 

15. Dismissal, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Feb. 3, 2005), D.E. 37. 

16. Letter, id. (Nov. 3, 2008), D.E. 38; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d at 199; Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 581. 

17. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575. 

18. Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 673 F.3d 192 (3d Cir.), cert. 

denied, 568 U.S. 1138 (2013); see Daniel P. Tokaji, HAVA in Court: A Summary and Analysis 

of Litigation, 12 Election L.J. 203, 208 (2013). 

19. Motion, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2016), D.E. 95; 

Transcript at 3, 5, id. (Oct. 27, 2016, filed Jan. 17, 2017), D.E. 150 [hereinafter Oct. 27, 2016, 

D.N.J. Transcript]; see Jonathan D. Salant, DNC Accuses GOP of Trying to Intimidate Voters 

in N.J., Newark Star-Ledger, Oct. 28, 2016, at 3. 
Voter Interference 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

Because Judge Debevoise died in 2015,20 the court reassigned the case to 

Judge John Michael Vazquez,21 who scheduled a telephone conference for the 

afternoon of October 27, the day after the motion was filed.22 At the conference, Judge Vazquez denied the committee immediate relief:23 “I believe right 

now the way the Court’s looking at it is that it’s teed-up as an issue over concerns that are going to occur on election day, as opposed to what’s going on 

at the present time.”24

Judge Vazquez set a schedule for a discovery motion and set additional 

telephonic proceedings for October 31 and November 2.25 “[T]ruthfully, I’d 

like to have full discovery, because it allows me to make a decision with a full 

record. That being said, we’re under serious time constraints here.”26 Following these two proceedings, he ordered some discovery.27

He denied28 an October 31 motion to intervene by a California attorney 

and his wife who alleged that the political parties “are both parties to the long 

term conspiracy to permanently overthrow the duly elected government of 

the United States.”29

On November 4, Judge Vazquez denied the enforcement motion and deferred until after the election the question of whether the consent decree 

should be extended past 2017.30 He found that the consent decree governed 

20. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges 

[hereinafter FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/judges (noting Judge Debevoise’s death on August 14, 2015). 

21. D.N.J. Docket Sheet, supra note 4 (D.E. 99). 

Judge Vazquez resigned on September 8, 2023. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 

20. 

22. D.N.J. Docket Sheet, supra note 4 (D.E. 100); see Oct. 27, 2016, D.N.J. Transcript, supra note 19; id. at 5 (noting that the case was assigned to Judge Vazquez on the morning of 

the conference). 

23. Oct. 27, 2016, D.N.J. Transcript, supra note 19, at 18–21. 

24. Id. at 20–21. 

25. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2016), D.E. 102; 

D.N.J. Docket Sheet, supra note 4 (D.E. 115); see Transcript, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 

2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2016, filed Jan. 17, 2017), D.E. 149 [hereinafter Nov. 2, 2016, 

D.N.J. Transcript]; Transcript, id. (Oct. 31, 2016, filed Jan. 17, 2017), D.E. 147. 

26. Oct. 27, 2016, D.N.J. Transcript, supra note 19, at 24. 

27. Order, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2016), D.E. 118; 

Order, id. (Oct. 31, 2017), D.E. 113; see Transcript, id. (Jan. 4, 2017, filed Apr. 28, 2017), D.E. 

156; see also Jonathan D. Salant, Judge Orders RNC, Trump to Disclose Poll Watcher Sites, 

Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 3, 2016, at 3; Jonathan D. Salant, Judge Wants to Know if Trump 

Campaign Worked with RNC, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 2, 2016, at 3; see also DNC Seeks 

Order on RNC Push, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 5, 2016, at 6; Thomas Moriarty, Judge to 

Hear Arguments Today on Voter-Monitoring Challenge, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 4, 2016, 

at 2. 

28. Opinion, Kaighn v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:16-cv-8107 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 

2016), D.E. 5, 2016 WL 6542830. 

29. Motion, id. (Oct. 31, 2016), D.E. 1; see Nov. 2, 2016, D.N.J. Transcript, supra note 25, 

at 3 (Judge Vazquez’s summarizing the intervention motion: “the long and short is that the 

Illuminati control the election”). 

30. Opinion, Democratic Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 138 
Voter Interference 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 5

the national Republican Party but not its presidential candidate, Donald 

Trump, “unless the [Trump Campaign] acted as an agent or representative of 

the [party].”31 The quick discovery permitted by the tight time frame did not 

result in evidence of coordination between the party and the campaign on 

ballot-security measures.32

Citing the consent decree, state Democratic Parties in Arizona,33 Michigan,34 Nevada,35 North Carolina,36 Ohio,37 and Pennsylvania38 filed federal 

voter-intimidation complaints from October 30 to November 4 against defendants that included state Republican Parties and the Donald Trump presidential campaign.39 A third defendant was Roger Stone, an alleged “vocal 

proselytizer of Trump’s false voter fraud claims and his calls for vigilante action.”40 The fourth defendant was Stop the Steal, Inc., an organization alleg-

[hereinafter Nov. 4, 2016, D.N.J. Opinion], 2016 WL 6584915; see Transcript, id. (Nov. 4, 

2016, filed Jan. 17, 2017), D.E. 148; see also Federal Judge Rejects Voter Intimidation Arguments, Miami Herald, Nov. 6, 2016, at 16A; Brent Kendall, Courts Rule Quickly on Campaign 

Procedures, Wall St. J., Nov. 7, 2016, at A8. 

31. Nov. 4, 2016, D.N.J. Opinion, supra note 30, at 24. 

32. Id. at 26–27. 

33. Complaint, Ariz. Democratic Party v. Ariz. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-3752 (D. 

Ariz. Oct. 31, 2016), D.E. 1. 

34. Complaint, Mich. Democratic Party v. Mich. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-13924 

(E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 1; see Tresa Baldas, Dems Sue Trump Campaign to Ward Off 

Intimidation, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 5, 2016, at A10; Michael Gerstein, Dems Accuse GOP, 

Trump of Voter Intimidation, Detroit News, Nov. 5, 2016, at A13. 

35. Complaint, Nev. State Democratic Party v. Nev. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-2514 

(D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2016), D.E. 1. 

36. Complaint, N.C. Democratic Party v. N.C. Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-1288 

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2016), D.E. 1; Motion, id. (Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 4. 

37. Complaint, Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-2645 

(N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2016), D.E. 1 [hereinafter N.D. Ohio Complaint]; see Jessie Balmert, 

Democrats Sue Trump, GOP, to Head Off Voter Intimidation, Cincinnati Enquirer, Nov. 2, 

2016, at A6; Eric Heisig, Democrats’ Fears of Intimidation of Voters to Be Aired, Cleveland 

Plain Dealer, Nov. 4, 2016, at A16; Eric Heisig, Trump Campaign Lawyer Defends “Poll 

Watching” Targeted in Lawsuit, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 3, 2016, at A3. 

38. Complaint, Pa. Democratic Party v. Republican Party of Pa., No. 2:16-cv-5664 (E.D. 

Pa. Oct. 30, 2016), D.E. 1; see Chris Brennan, PA Democrats Ask Judge to Bar Trump’s Polling Place Observers, Phila. Inquirer, Nov. 1, 2016, at A4; Tracie Mauriello, Lawsuits Charge 

Voter Intimidation, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 1, 2016, at A4; Daniel Simmons-Ritchie, 

Suit Accuses Trump of Intimidation, Harrisburg Patriot News, Nov. 1, 2016, at A15. 

39. See Mark Berman & William Wan, Lawsuits Allege Voter Intimidation in 4 States, 

Wash. Post, Nov. 2, 2016, at A6. 

40. E.g., N.D. Ohio Complaint, supra note 37, at 5. 

“Roger J. Stone Jr., the onetime political consultant and full-time provocateur, has been 

one of the few constants—a loyalist and self-proclaimed ‘dirty trickster’ who nurtured the 

dream of a presidential run by the developer-turned-television-star for 30 years.” Maggie 

Haberman, Early Loyalist for Trump Finds Spotlight Turned on Him, N.Y. Times, Mar. 22, 

2017, at A12. 

Stone was arrested on January 25, 2019, on a federal indictment for obstruction, false 

statements, and witness tampering related to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. See

Devlin Barrett, Rosalind S. Helderman, Lori Rozsa & Manuel Roig-Franzia, Stone Hit with 
Voter Interference 

6 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

edly “devoted to promoting [the third defendant’s] conspiracy theories regarding voter fraud, and to using fears of a ‘rigged’ election to organize and 

recruit poll watchers to harass and intimidate perceived Democratic voters 

on Election Day.”41

Ohio 

On November 1, Northern District of Ohio Judge James S. Gwin ordered a 

defense response by the following day.42 Following a November 4 hearing43

on a November 3 motion for a temporary restraining order,44 Judge Gwin 

issued an injunction against defendants other than the Republican Party 

against engaging in voter-intimidation activity.45 “While ‘obey the law’ injunctions are generally disfavored, this motion for injunctive relief does not 

fit in that category. . . . [W]here there is a legitimate possibility that particular 

laws may be imminently violated, ordering compliance with those laws is appropriate.”46 On Sunday, November 6, the court of appeals issued an emergency stay of Judge Gwin’s order, “conclud[ing] that the Plaintiff did not 

demonstrate before the district court a likelihood of success on the merits.”47

The Supreme Court declined to interfere, and Justice Ginsburg noted “that 

Ohio law proscribes voter intimidation.”48

Arizona 

“In light of the absence of a request for a hearing and considering the little 

time left for the Court to resolve Plaintiff’s claims, [District of Arizona Judge 

Charges of Lying, Obstruction, Wash. Post, Jan. 26, 2019, at A1; Rosalind S. Helderman, Indictment Portrays Stone as Campaign-WikiLeaks Link, Wash. Post, Jan. 26, 2019, at A7; 

Mark Mazzetti, Eileen Sullivan & Maggie Haberman, President’s Ally Facing 7 Counts, N.Y. 

Times, Jan. 26, 2019, at A1; Aruna Viswanatha, Rebecca Balhaus & Shelby Holliday, Stone Is 

Charged in Russia Inquiry, Wall St. J., Jan. 26, 2019, at A1; see also Docket Sheet, United 

States v. Stone, No. 1:19-cr-18 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2019). 

41. E.g., N.D. Ohio Complaint, supra note 37, at 5.

42. Docket Sheet, Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-2645 

(N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2016); see Eric Heisig, GOP, Trump Ordered to Respond to Dems’ 

Claims, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 2, 2016, at A13. 

43. Transcript, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 1:16-cv-2645 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2016, filed 

Nov. 6, 2016), D.E. 30 (noting that the hearing lasted from 10:06 a.m. to 12:41 p.m.); 

Minutes, id. (Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 26. 

44. Motion, id. (Nov. 2, 2016), D.E. 8. 

45. Order, id. (Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 27 [hereinafter Nov. 4, 2016, N.D. Ohio Order], 2016 

WL 6542486; see Eric Heisig, Judge’s Order Aims to Head Off Voter Intimidation, Cleveland 

Plain Dealer, Nov. 5, 2016, at A10; Kendall, supra note 30; Michael Wines, Judge’s Ruling 

Preserves Voting Rights for Thousands in North Carolina, N.Y. Times, Nov. 5, 2016, at A13. 

46. Nov. 4, 2016, N.D. Ohio Order, supra note 45, at 2. 

47. Order, Ohio Democratic Party v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 16-4268 

(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2016), D.E. 18; see Kendall, supra note 30. 

The parties later agreed to dismiss the appeal. Order, Ohio Democratic Party, No. 16-

4268 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2016), D.E. 36. 

48. Ohio Democratic Party v. Donald J. Trump for President, 580 U.S. 978 (2016). 
Voter Interference 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 7

John J. Tuchi] sua sponte [set] a schedule for briefing and a [November 3] 

hearing.”49

The Democratic Party served the Republican Party on October 31, but it 

did not serve Stone or Stop the Steal until November 2,50 the day that defendants’ briefs were due.51 Judge Tuchi, therefore, accepted briefing after the 

hearing.52

At the beginning of the 1:30 p.m. hearing, Judge Tuchi announced, “I’m 

going to give each side up to two hours to use however they want, whether 

that’s presentation of argument or evidence.”53 So as to not slow down the 

case, Judge Tuchi denied the plaintiffs’ request for additional documentary 

discovery.54 The hearing concluded at 5:49.55

Although Judge Tuchi denied on November 4 a defense motion to dismiss the complaint, he also denied the Democratic Party immediate injunctive relief.56 The evidence presented did not show a likely risk of voter intimidation.57

Pennsylvania 

Three days after the complaint was filed, Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

Judge Paul S. Diamond ordered service on the defendants by the following 

day, ordered the filing of a motion for the emergency relief sought in the 

complaint, and set a hearing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for November 7.58

Following the hearing, Judge Diamond denied the Democratic Party 

immediate relief.59

Remarkably, Plaintiff did not actually move for injunctive relief until 

Thursday, November 3, after I ordered it to do so. Plaintiff has not explained this delay, which has crippled Defendants’ ability to respond, made 

49. Order, Ariz. Democratic Party v. Ariz. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-3752 (D. Ariz. 

Oct. 31, 2016), D.E. 7 [hereinafter Oct. 31, 2016, D. Ariz. Order]; see Motion, id. (Nov. 1, 

2016), D.E. 10. 

50. Proof of Service, id. (Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 26 (Stone); Proof of Service, id. (Nov. 3, 

2016), D.E. 19 (Stop the Steal). 

51. Opinion at 1–2, id. (Nov. 4, 2016), D.E. 31 [hereinafter D. Ariz. Opinion], 2016 WL 

8669978; see Oct. 31, 2016, D. Ariz. Order, supra note 49. 

52. D. Ariz. Opinion, supra note 51, at 2; Minutes, Ariz. Democratic Party, Nov. 3, 2016), 

D.E. 24. 

53. Transcript at 6, Ariz. Democratic Party, No. 2:16-cv-3752 (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2016), 

D.E. 7. 

54. Id. at 8–10. 

55. Id. at 167. 

56. D. Ariz. Opinion, supra note 51; see Howard Fischer, No Evidence That Arizona Voters Will Face Intimidation, Judge Finds, Ariz. Daily Star, Nov. 5, 2016, at C1; Wines, supra 

note 45. 

57. D. Ariz. Opinion, supra note 51.

58. Order, Pa. Democratic Party v. Republican Party of Pa., No. 2:16-cv-5664 (E.D. Pa. 

Nov. 2, 2016), D.E. 10; see Transcript, id. (Nov. 7, 2016, filed Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 49; Motion, 

id. (Nov. 3, 2016), D.E. 14. 

59. Opinion, id. (Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 47, 2016 WL 6582659. 
Voter Interference 

8 Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 

relief impracticable, and likely precluded appellate review of this Memorandum and Order before tomorrow’s election. Moreover, Plaintiff has produced no evidence of any planned voter intimidation in this District. Finally, insofar as Plaintiff asks me to enjoin conduct that is already prohibited 

by criminal statutes, such an injunction is impermissible.60

North Carolina 

Middle District of North Carolina Judge Catherine C. Eagles set her case for 

hearing on November 7.61 She also denied the Democratic Party immediate 

relief.62

While the statements of the defendant Roger Stone, the defendants’ 

presidential nominee, and the nominee’s surrogates, taken in context, may 

be susceptible to the interpretation that Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign 

are encouraging their supporters to intimidate voters, there is little evidence 

that supporters are acting on these indirect suggestions. . . . 

. . . 

. . . On Election Day, if it becomes apparent that agents of any defendant or supporters encouraged by any defendant are making an effort to intimidate minority voters or to further incite intimidation of voters, the 

plaintiff may renew the motion.63

Nevada 

District of Nevada Judge Richard F. Boulware II set his case for hearing on 

November 2, 3, 4, and 7.64 Because Stone and Stop the Steal promised to inform persons on their contact list about what would constitute improper 

voter interference, Judge Boulware decided that a court order was not necessary.65

Voluntary Dismissals 

On the day after the election, the state Democratic Parties voluntarily dismissed the actions in Arizona,66 Michigan,67 Nevada,68 North Carolina,69

Ohio,70 and Pennsylvania.71

60. Id. at 1. 

61. Docket Sheet, N.C. Democratic Party v. N.C. Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-1288 

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2016); see Minutes, id. (Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 27. 

62. Opinion, id. (Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 30. 

63. Id. at 2, 4. 

64. Docket Sheet, Nev. State Democratic Party v. Nev. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv2514 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2016) [hereinafter D. Nev. Docket Sheet] (D.E. 15, 17, 33, 65, 74, 75, 

76); Order, id. (Nov. 3, 2016), D.E. 47; Order, id. (Nov. 1, 2016), D.E. 16; Transcripts, id.

(Nov. 2 and 3, 2016, filed Nov. 5, 2016), D.E. 56, 57; see Motion, id. (Nov. 1, 2016), D.E. 6. 

65. See D. Nev. Docket Sheet, supra note 64 (D.E. 71, 72); Notice, Nev. State Democratic 

Party, No. 2:16-cv-2514 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2016), D.E. 70; Declaration, id. (Nov. 6, 2016), D.E. 

60; see also David Ferrara, Trump Supporter’s Group “Stop the Steal” to Inform Pollsters 

About Federal Voting Laws, Lax Vegas Rev.-J., Nov. 7, 2016. 

66. Docket Sheet, Ariz. Democratic Party v. Ariz. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-3752 (D. 

Ariz. Oct. 19, 2016) (D.E. 33); Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 32. 

67. Order, Mich. Democratic Party v. Mich. Republican Party, No. 2:16-cv-13924 (E.D. 

Mich. Nov. 17, 2016), D.E. 18; Order, id. (Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 16. 
Voter Interference 

Federal Judicial Center 10/27/2023 9

Termination of the Consent Decree 

On January 8, 2018, following additional discovery in the District of New Jersey action, Judge Vazquez terminated the consent decree because the Democratic National Committee had not shown recent violation of it.72 The court 

of appeals affirmed the termination on January 7, 2019.73

68. D. Nev. Docket Sheet, supra note 64; Notice, Nev. State Democratic Party, No. 2:16-

cv-2514 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 73. 

69. Notice, N.C. Democratic Party v. N.C. Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-1288 

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 31. 

70. Order, Ohio Democratic Party v. Ohio Republican Party, No. 1:16-cv-2645 (N.D. 

Ohio Nov. 10, 2016), D.E. 35; Notice, id. (Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 33. 

71. Notice, Pa. Democratic Party v. Republican Party of Pa., No. 2:16-cv-5664 (E.D. Pa. 

Nov. 9, 2016), D.E. 31. 

72. Consent Decree Termination Order, supra note 1; see Minutes, Democratic Nat’l 

Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., No. 2:81-cv-3876 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2018), D.E. 214; Transcript, id. (Jan. 8, 2018, filed Apr. 27, 2018), D.E. 219; see also Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh 

Dawsey & Matt Zapotosky, Trump Poll Plan Feared as Effort to Intimidate, Wash. Post, Aug. 

22, 2020, at A1. 

73. Consent Decree Termination Affirmance, supra note 1; see id. at 10 (“While it is possible that another court would have allowed further discovery or managed the cause differently, we review only for abuse of discretion.”).