Voter suppression lawsuits Harry W. MacDougald worked on
| Name | Filed On | Court | Finalized | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson v. Kemp (Certification) | 11/25/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Wood v. Raffensperger I (Electors) | 11/13/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
People are saying
"[T]he burden is on the Plaintiffs, and the relief that they seek is extraordinary. And although they make allegations of tremendous worldwide improprieties regarding the Dominion voting machines, those allegations are supported by precious little proof." -
Judge Timothy C. Batten
"Wood’s arguments reflect a basic misunderstanding of what mootness is. He argues that the certification does not moot anything 'because this litigation is ongoing' and he remains injured. But mootness concerns the availability of relief, not the existence of a lawsuit or an injury." -
Chief Judge William Pryor
"In this case, the district court issued an emergency temporary restraining order at the plaintiffs’ request, worked at a breakneck pace to provide them an opportunity for broader relief, and was ready to enter an appealable order on the merits of their claims immediately after its expedited hearing on December 4, 2020. But the plaintiffs would not take the district court’s 'yes' for an answer. They appealed instead. And, because they appealed, the evidentiary hearing has been stayed and the case considerably delayed. For our part, the law requires that we dismiss the appeal and return the case to the district court for further proceedings" -
Judge Andrew L. Brasher
"Wood seeks an extraordinary remedy: to prevent Georgia's certification of the votes cast in the General Election, after millions of people had lawfully cast their ballots. To interfere with the result of an election that has already concluded would be unprecedented and harm the public in countless ways." -
Judge Steven D. Grimberg
"Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing." -
Judge Steven D. Grimberg
". . . [R]ather than changing the rules on the eve of an election, [Wood] wants the rules for the already concluded election declared unconstitutional and over one million absentee ballots called into question. Beyond merely causing confusion, Wood's requested relief could disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate and erode the public's confidence in the electoral process." -
Judge Steven D. Grimberg
". . . [T]he Court notes the futility of Wood's standing argument is particularly evident in that his sole relied-on authority -- [1993 11th Circuit case] -- is no longer good law." -
Judge Steven D. Grimberg
". . . Wood believes he suffered a[n] . . . injury because his preferred candidates -- to whom he has contributed money -- did not prevail in the General Election. This argument has been squarely rejected by the Eleventh Circuit." -
Judge Steven D. Grimberg