CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 1

No Additional Polling Place in Washington, 

D.C.’s Ward 8 During the Covid-19 Pandemic 

Robinson v. Board of Elections 

(Dabney L. Friedrich, D.D.C. 1:20-cv-1364) 

Because of poor mail service in the ward and health risks resulting 

from the Covid-19 global infectious pandemic, two plaintiffs sought 

an order requiring the establishment of an additional polling location in their ward. The district judge denied immediate relief. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Poll locations; Covid-19. 

Two voters filed a federal complaint in the district court for the District of 

Columbia on Thursday, May 21, 2020, seeking an order that election officials 

prepare by May 26—the day after Memorial Day—another polling location 

in their ward.1

 The complaint noted the closing of fourteen out of seventeen 

polling places in the ward because of the Covid-19 global infectious pandemic and residents’ not receiving mail-in ballots because of poor mail service in 

the ward.2 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order and a preliminary injunction.3

On Friday, the parties stipulated a briefing schedule: the board would file 

a summary-judgment motion by 8:00 Saturday night, the plaintiffs would 

reply by 8:00 Sunday night, and the hearing would be held on Tuesday following the three-day weekend.4

 Judge Dabney L. Friedrich set the hearing for 

4:00 p.m.5

On the holiday, Judge Friedrich noted that the parties had not prepared 

summary-judgment materials properly and ordered additional briefing.6 The 

parties agreed to additional briefing by June 1.7 Judge Friedrich instead ordered briefing completed by 8:00 p.m. on May 27 and held a telephonic hearing at noon on May 28.8

 Members of the public were permitted to listen.9

Judge Friedrich began the hearing ready to rule.10 She denied the plaintiffs immediate relief “[f]or the reasons stated on the record.”11 Because of the 

1. Complaint, Robinson v. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:20-cv-1364 (D.D.C. May 21, 2020), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Id. at 1. 

3. Motion, id. (May 21, 2020), D.E. 2. 

4. Joint Consent Scheduling Motion, id. (May 22, 2020), D.E. 7. 

5. Docket Sheet, id. (May 21, 2020). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Friedrich for this report by telephone on October 8, 2020. 

6. Docket Sheet, supra note 5 (D.E. 11). 

7. Joint Status Report, Robinson, No. 1:20-cv-1364 (D.D.C. May 26, 2020), D.E. 14; see

Transcript at 4–5, id. (May 28, 2020, filed Dec. 17, 2020), D.E. 27. 

8. Transcript, supra note 7; see id. at 2 (noting the court’s requirement that civil proceedings be held remotely or postponed because of the Covid-19 pandemic). 

9. Interview with Hon. Dabney L. Friedrich, Oct. 8, 2020; see Transcript, supra note 7, at 

2 (“And just as a reminder, in accordance with the rules of this court, recordings of this 

hearing, audio or otherwise, are not permitted.”). 

10. Transcript, supra note 7, at 4. 
No Additional Polling Place in Washington, D.C.’s Ward 8 During the Covid-19 Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 

pandemic, the district allowed voting anywhere in the district and encouraged absentee voting, and the plaintiffs supported their claims with limited 

demographic data.12

Judge Friedrich approved a voluntary dismissal of the case on June 30.13

11. Order, Robinson, No. 1:20-cv-1364 (D.D.C. May 21, 2020), D.E. 20. 

12. Transcript, supra note 7. 

13. Docket Sheet, supra note 5.