CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/21/2023 1

Enjoining Signature Matching 

Not Provided by State Law 

Shernoff v. Andino 

(Richard Mark Gergel, D.S.C. 2:20-cv-3654) 

An emergency action seeking an injunction against disqualification 

of absentee ballots if the ballot signatures did not match signatures 

in other records without an opportunity to resolve mismatches 

turned out to be unnecessary because the district court provided the 

requested relief in another pending case. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Signature matching; 

absentee ballots; Covid-19; intervention. 

A federal complaint filed on October 18, 2020, in the District of South Carolina by a voter and the Democratic Party’s senatorial committee sought injunctive relief requiring South Carolina election officials to provide absentee 

voters with notices and opportunities to cure defects in their absentee ballots, 

including possible mismatches between ballot signatures and signatures in 

other records.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

On the following day, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate hearing of their 

motion with a pending preliminary-injunction hearing set for October 21 in 

a case filed on October 2.3

Judge Richard Mark Gergel issued a preliminary injunction in the other 

case on October 27, enjoining “the State and any of its affiliate county boards 

from utilizing signature matching procedures to disqualify otherwise validly 

submitted absentee ballots unless affected voters are provided timely notice 

of the disqualified ballot and a timely procedure to contest that determination before a neutral tribunal.”4

On the same day, Judge Gergel denied the October 18 plaintiffs immediate relief because it would be duplicative to the injunction already issued.5

Informing his decision was a survey of county boards of elections by the 

executive director of South Carolina’s election commission: 

In response to that survey, nine county boards responded that they were using or planning to use signature matching to reject otherwise valid absentee 

ballots; five county boards declined to respond; one county board stated 

that it tried to use signature matching but could not keep pace with the 

number of ballots received; and one county board indicated only that it 

would [follow South Carolina law]. Thirty county boards responded that 

1. Complaint, Shernoff v. Andino, No. 2:20-cv-3654 (D.S.C. Oct. 18, 2020), D.E. 1; see

Amended Complaint, id. (Oct. 20, 2020), D.E. 24. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Oct. 18, 2020), D.E. 4. 

3. Motion, id. (Oct. 19, 2020), D.E. 15; see Docket Sheet, League of Women Voters of S.C. 

v. Andino, No. 2:20-cv-3537 (Oct. 2, 2020), D.E. 1. 

4. League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, 497 F. Supp. 3d 59, 78 (D.S.C. 2020). 

5. Order, Shernoff, No. 2:20-cv-3654 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2020), D.E. 31. 
Enjoining Signature Matching Not Provided by State Law 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/21/2023 

they did not use signature matching to disqualify absentee ballots. . . . [The 

executive director then] instructed county boards to cease signature matching because the practice was not permitted by South Carolina law.6

Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the court of appeals issued a partial stay of Judge Gergel’s injunction on October 29; it left in place the injunction against signature matching and stayed the possibility of signature 

matching with notice and an opportunity to resolve mismatches.7 The appellate court remanded the case on March 11, 2021, for a determination of 

mootness.8 It was dismissed voluntarily on April 23.9

The October 18 case was dismissed voluntarily on December 17, 2020.10

6. League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, 849 F. App’x 39, 42 (4th Cir. 2021); see

League of Women Voters of S.C., 497 F. Supp. 3d at 67–68. 

7. Order, League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, No. 20-2167 (4th Cir. Oct. 29, 

2020), D.E. 24, 2020 WL 6395498; League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, 849 F. App’x at 

42. 

8. League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, 849 F. App’x 39. 

9. Stipulation, League of Women Voters of S.C. v. Andino, No. 2:20-cv-3537 (D.S.C. Apr. 

23, 2021), D.E. 97. 

10. Notice, Shernoff, No. 2:20-cv-3654 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2020), D.E. 37.