Governor Bullock opposes the plaintiffs' motion to expedite the briefing schedule. The summary argues that:
1) The plaintiffs waited nearly a month after the Governor's directive on mail-in voting to file their lawsuit, despite being aware of the directive for months.
2) Granting the expedited schedule would provide the Governor with insufficient time, only 3 working days, to fully respond considering the Labor Day holiday weekend.
3) Expediting the schedule would risk throwing the election into chaos since counties have already implemented plans for expanded mail-in voting.
Governor Bullock opposes the plaintiffs' motion to expedite the briefing schedule. The summary argues that:
1) The plaintiffs waited nearly a month after the Governor's directive on mail-in voting to file their lawsuit, despite being aware of the directive for months.
2) Granting the expedited schedule would provide the Governor with insufficient time, only 3 working days, to fully respond considering the Labor Day holiday weekend.
3) Expediting the schedule would risk throwing the election into chaos since counties have already implemented plans for expanded mail-in voting.
Governor Bullock opposes the plaintiffs' motion to expedite the briefing schedule. The summary argues that:
1) The plaintiffs waited nearly a month after the Governor's directive on mail-in voting to file their lawsuit, despite being aware of the directive for months.
2) Granting the expedited schedule would provide the Governor with insufficient time, only 3 working days, to fully respond considering the Labor Day holiday weekend.
3) Expediting the schedule would risk throwing the election into chaos since counties have already implemented plans for expanded mail-in voting.
Governor Bullock opposes the plaintiffs' motion to expedite the briefing schedule. The summary argues that:
1) The plaintiffs waited nearly a month after the Governor's directive on mail-in voting to file their lawsuit, despite being aware of the directive for months.
2) Granting the expedited schedule would provide the Governor with insufficient time, only 3 working days, to fully respond considering the Labor Day holiday weekend.
3) Expediting the schedule would risk throwing the election into chaos since counties have already implemented plans for expanded mail-in voting.
Case 6:20-cv-00066-DLC Document 18 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 6
RAPHAEL GRAYBILL Chief Legal Counsel Office of the Governor PO Box 200801 Helena, MT 59620-0801 T: (406) 444-3179 Raphael.Graybill@mt.gov
Attorney for Governor Steve Bullock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR Case No. CV 20-00066-H-DLC
PRESIDENT, INC., REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR BULLOCK’S RESPONSE SENATORIAL COMMITTEE; and BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MONTANA REPUBLICAN STATE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CENTRAL COMMITTEE, EXPEDITE BRIEFING
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVE BULLOCK, in his official
capacity as governor of Montana, and CORY STAPLETON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State,
Defendants.
As a common placard on many office desks reads, “your lack of planning is
not my emergency.” Plaintiffs are not entitled to truncate Governor Bullock’s
opportunity to respond to their motion—a cookie-cutter effort to discredit voting
1 Case 6:20-cv-00066-DLC Document 18 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 6
by mail1—simply because they chose to wait nearly a month after Governor’s
August 6, 2020, mail-ballot elections directive2 to take action. Governor Bullock
issued a nearly identical directive for Montana’s primary election nearly six
months ago.3 By public letter dated July 24, 2020, a bipartisan group of county
election administrators formally requested the local option to conduct the 2020
general election by mail. And yet, Plaintiffs chose to wait until after dozens of
counties already decided whether to offer expanded early voting and mail-ballot
elections, only one day before the deadline for submitting mail-ballot election
plans to the Secretary of State, see Mont. Code Ann. § 13-19-205(1), and after
county plans for expanded early voting and mail-ballot elections are already well
underway.
Instructive on this point is Truth about Proposition #2 v. Cox, 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 172881, 2018 WL 4855269 (D. Utah Oct. 5, 2018). In Cox, opponents
1 Plaintiffs, or some iteration thereof, have brought similar claims in many cases, as the RNC’s “protect the vote” website proclaims. See http://protectthevote.com. 2 The Directive is available at: https://covid19.mt.gov/Portals/223/Documents/2020-08-06_Directive%20- %20November%20Elections.pdf?ver=2020-08-06-112431-693. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ characterization, the Directive does not permit Montana counties to conduct an “all mail” election; rather, it permits counties to elect to expand both early voting opportunities and the availability of mail ballots while still allowing voters the option of voting in person at certain designated locations. 3 The primary election Directive is available at: https://covid19.mt.gov/Portals/223/Documents/Directive%20on%20Elections.pdf? ver=2020-03-25-152812-903.
2 Case 6:20-cv-00066-DLC Document 18 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 6
of a measure on the November 2018 general election ballot waited until October 3,
2018, to move for a preliminary injunction, accompanied by a motion to shorten
the time for filing an opposition to five days. Cox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172881,
at *4–*5. The court denied the motion to shorten time, noting that the plaintiffs
were aware the measure would be on the ballot for months, but nevertheless waited
until days before mail ballots were to be sent to seek a preliminary injunction. The
district court refused to reward this dilatory tactic, noting that “[t]he need for an
expedited briefing schedule could have easily been avoided if the Plaintiffs had
filed their Motion sooner.” Id. at *8. This alone, the court held, justified denial of
the motion to shorten time. Id.
As an independent ground for denial, the court in Cox indicated that the
request came too late, and after certain ballots had already been mailed. Id. at *8–
*9. This echoes recent Supreme Court decisions indicating that Court’s disfavor of
injunctions that upend the status quo close to an election. See Republican Nat’l
