William Pryor

Name: Wood v. Raffensperger
Author: William Pryor

Biographical details

William Pryor published works such as Wood v. Raffensperger. These writings evoke absentee, voter and recount.

Quotes by William Pryor

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ Wood’s second theory—that Georgia “value [d] one person’s vote over that of another” through “arbitrary and disparate treatment”—fares no better. He argues that Georgia treats absentee voters as a “preferred class” compared to those who vote in person, both by the terms of the settlement agreement and in practice. In his view, all voters were bound by law before the settlement agreement, but the rules for absentee voting now run afoul of the law, while in-person voters remain bound by the law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ Wood alleged that the extant absentee-ballot and recount procedures violated Georgia law and, as a result, his federal constitutional rights. After Wood moved for emergency relief, the district court denied his motion. We agree with the district court that Wood lacks standing to sue because he fails to allege a particularized injury. And because Georgia has already certified its election results and its slate of presidential electors, Wood’s requests for emergency relief are moot to the extent they concern the 2020 election. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ And he asserts that in practice Georgia has favored absentee voters because there were “numerous irregularities” in the processing and recounting of absentee ballots. Setting aside the fact that “ [i] t is an individual voter’s choice whether to vote by mail or in person,” Bognet, 2020 WL 6686120, at *15, these complaints are generalized grievances. Even if we assume that absentee voters are favored over in-person voters, that harm does not affect Wood as an individual—it is instead shared identically by the four million or so Georgians who voted in person this November. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ Wood finally tells us that President Trump has also requested a recount, but that fact is irrelevant to whether Wood’s requests remain live.
Nor does any exception to mootness apply. True, we often review otherwise-moot election appeals because they are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ Wood’s attempts to liken his injury to those we have found sufficient in other appeals fall short. In Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, we ruled that “ [r] equiring a registered voter either to produce photo identification to vote in person or to cast an absentee or provisional ballot is an injury sufficient for standing.” 554 F.3d 1340, 1351–52 (11th Cir. 2009) . But the injury there was the burden of producing photo identification, not the existence of separate rules for in-person and absentee voters. Id. And the burden to produce photo identification affected each voter in a personal way. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ In the settlement agreement, Secretary Raffensperger and the Board agreed to issue an Official Election Bulletin regarding the review of signatures on absentee ballots. The Bulletin instructed officials to review the voter’s signature with the following process:
If the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter’s signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope does not match any of the voter’s signatures on file..., the registrar or absentee ballot clerk must seek review from two other registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ And an issue can become moot at any stage of litigation, even if there was a live case or controversy when the lawsuit began. Id. at 1189–90.
Wood asked for several kinds of relief in his emergency motion, but most of his requests pertained to the 2020 election results. He moved the district court to prohibit either the certification of the election results or certification that included the disputed absentee ballots. He also asked the district court to order a new hand recount and to grant Republican election monitors greater access during both the recount and the January runoff election. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William Pryor, Wood v. Raffensperger (2020)

“ A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations. ”

William Pryor

Biographical details

Quotes by William Pryor

Common terms

Works by William Pryor

Similar authors

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature