Drenth v. Boockvar (2020)

By Leilani Acosta

Overview 

Drenth v. Boockvar is a case that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic that threatened communities with chronic or pre-existing conditions. While mail-in ballots were in place ahead of the 2020 elections, blind community members argued that the existing ballots were inaccessible and made it more difficult to vote. This case addresses the current accessibility of mail-in ballots for the blind community and the flaws of it. 

Summary 

In Pennsylvania, both mail-in ballots and in person voting were offered for the 2020 elections. Joseph Drenth, a blind voter registered in Pennsylvania, sued and found that mail-in ballots were inaccessible because he needed a third party to help mark his ballot, and therefore violated his right to vote independently and privately [3]. While in person voting was still available, there were concerns about infection. Three different types of ballots were proposed as replacements: The federal write-in ballot (FWAB), the accessible write-in ballot (AWIB), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting ballot (UOCAVA) [3]. The court found that all three ballots would be available in electronic form, but the plaintiff argued that UOCAVA was the most accessible because FWAB and AWIB had formatting issues that could hinder their ability to vote. At the time, the state was preparing for its primary elections that were taking place a week after the ruling, ultimately deciding that UOCAVA would be too difficult to implement within a short time frame [1]. Instead, the court decided to offer a preliminary injunction to use the AWIB ballot as a remedy for both the primary and general elections. Two months after the hearing, the claims made by the defendant were dismissed because the state offered a permanent remedy [2]. 

Impact 

The ruling of this case helps us understand how injunctions can be helpful for quick and effective actions, especially for accessibility. The court originally agreed with Drenth that the UOCAVA was the most accessible, but because of a time consuming electronic transfer, AWIB was chosen for the injunction. After the case exposed flaws within all three mail-in ballots, the question arises of how do we define accessibility. During a time like the COVID-19 pandemic that affected voting, it made individuals like Joseph Drenth realize these flaws and join this case. In the end, a permanent solution was created and the case was never moved to trial. Even without a trial, this case shows the importance of accommodations like mail-in ballots and the inclusion of all community members in important events like voting and civic engagement. 

Court Documents 

Drenth v. Bookvar, Pennsylvania, 2020 WL (2745729)

Citations 

Drenth v. Boockvar. Civil No. 1:20‑cv‑00829‑JPW, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 27 May 2020. GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS‑pamd‑1_20‑cv‑00829/pdf/USCOURTS‑pamd‑1_20‑cv‑00829‑0.pdf.

“Drenth v. Boockvar, No. 1:20‑cv‑00829 (M.D. Pa.), COVID‑Related Election Litigation Tracker, Stanford‑MIT Healthy Elections Project, 18 Aug. 2020, healthyelections‑case‑tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=114.”

Hager‑DeMyer, Alexander, author. Drenth v. Boockvar, 2020 WL 2745729 (2020): Case Brief Summary. Quimbee, https://www.quimbee.com/cases/drenth-v-boockvar.