CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 1

No Ordered Modification of Absentee-Ballot 

Procedures on the Night Before an Election 

Williams v. DeSantis 

(Robert L. Hinkle, N.D. Fla. 1:20-cv-67) 

During the global infectious Covid-19 pandemic, a federal judge declined to modify absentee-ballot provisions in a presidential primary 

election in response to a complaint filed on the night before election 

day. 

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

Covid-19; laches; intervention; case assignment; primary election. 

A district court denied immediate relief to plaintiffs who sought modification 

of absentee-voting procedures on the night before election day. Continued litigation over procedures for future elections also did not result in court-ordered relief. 

First Case 

At 9:29 p.m. on the night before Florida’s March 17, 2020, presidential primary 

election, three organizations and five voters—including two students who had 

moved away from their polling places because of the closing of their schools 

in light of the global infectious Covid-19 pandemic—filed a federal complaint 

in the Northern District of Florida against Florida election officials seeking 

“the extension of vote-by-mail options and other accommodations at polling 

places” because of the pandemic.1

 At 11:16 p.m., the plaintiffs filed a motion 

for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Robert L. Hinkle denied the plaintiffs immediate relief on March 

17.3

At this hour, with voting in progress, a temporary restraining order 

would be adverse to the public interest. At least until the polls close, and under all the circumstances, it will be in the public interest to allow the Governor, Secretary of State and Supervisors of Elections to perform their respective roles.4

1. Complaint at 2, Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020), D.E. 1; 

First Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial at 1, id. (Mar. 17, 2020), D.E. 12 [hereinafter Williams First Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial], 2020 WL 6589657. 

One of the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed her claims on the next day. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Mar. 17, 2020), D.E. 17; Second Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial, id. (Mar. 18, 

2020), D.E. 18, 2020 WL 6589658. 

2. Motion, id. (Mar. 16, 2020), D.E. 4; Williams First Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial, supra note 1, at 1. 

3. Williams First Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial, supra note 1. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Hinkle for this report by telephone on August 17, 2020. 

4. Williams First Temporary-Restraining-Order Denial, supra note 1, at 3. 
No Ordered Modification of Absentee Ballot Procedures on the Night Before an Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

The plaintiffs filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order that 

day.5

 Judge Hinkle denied it on the next day.6 Amended complaints filed on 

April 20 and May 8 by an adjusted group of four organizations and six voters 

sought relief for future elections.7

Second Case 

Meanwhile, on May 4, seven voters and three organizations filed a separate 

federal complaint in the Northern District seeking judicial review of procedures for an August 18 primary election for offices other than President and 

for the November 3 general election.8 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed 

a notice that their case was similar to the March 16 case,9 and the court assigned the second case to Judge Hinkle,10 who consolidated the cases for casemanagement purposes and set a combined preliminary-injunction hearing 

and trial to begin on July 20.11 He allowed intervention by Republican Party 

organizations12 and by five blind voters and another organization.13

As the litigation progressed, Judge Hinkle made a ruling on postage: “Requiring a voter to pay for postage to mail a registration form or ballot to a 

Supervisor of Elections is not unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Nor is 

it unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful for some counties to pay for postage 

while others do not.”14

On August 5, the litigation came to a settled conclusion.15 The parties did 

not file a detailed settlement agreement or present one to Judge Hinkle.16 Florida agreed to accommodate some of the plaintiffs’ requests.17

5. Motion, Williams, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2020), D.E. 16. 

6. Second Temporary Restraining Order Denial, id. (Mar. 18, 2020), D.E. 18. 

7. Second Amended Complaint, Dream Defenders v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla. 

May 8, 2020), D.E. 47; First Amended Complaint, id. (Apr. 20, 2020), D.E. 35; see Third 

Amended Complaint, Nielsen v. DeSantis, No. 4:20-cv-236 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2020), D.E. 

341-1. 

8. Complaint, Nielsen, No. 4:20-cv-236 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2020), D.E. 1; see Second 

Amended Complaint, id. (June 21, 2020, deemed filed June 24, 2020), D.E. 292-1; Amended 

Complaint, id. (May 20, 2020), D.E. 37; see also Jim Saunders, Lawsuit Challenges Mail-In 

Ballot Rules Amid Pandemic, Daytona Beach News-J., May 9, 2020, at D2. 

9. Notice, Nielsen, No. 4:20-cv-236 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2020), D.E. 2. 

10. Order, id. (May 5, 2020), D.E. 6. 

11. Consolidation Order, id. (May 26, 2020), D.E. 67; see State Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate, id. (May 19, 2020), D.E. 32. 

12. Intervention Order, id. (May 28, 2020), D.E. 101; see Intervention Motion, id. (May 21, 

2020), D.E. 53. 

13. Intervention Order, id. (June 10, 2020), D.E. 216; see Intervention Motion, Dream Defenders v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-67 (N.D. Fla. June 2, 2020), D.E. 121. 

14. Nielsen v. DeSantis, 469 F. Supp. 3d 1261, 1268 (N.D. Fla. 2020). 

15. Dismissal, Nielsen, No. 4:20-cv-236 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2020), D.E. 620. 

16. Docket Sheet, id. (May 4, 2020); Interview with Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, Aug. 17, 2020. 

17. See Dara Kam, State, Liberal Groups Declare Victory in Settlement, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, 

July 22, 2020, at B3. 
No Ordered Modification of Absentee Ballot Procedures on the Night Before an Election 

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 3

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts provided the court 

with a videoconference platform for conferences and hearings, and Judge Hinkle observed that the platform worked very well.18

18. Interview with Hon. Robert L. Hinkle, Aug. 17, 2020.