Gabriel v. Weber
- Lucy Koh
- 5:21-cv-05605
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gabriel v. Weber, Judge Koh denied Gabriel’s second request to pause California’s recall election and require measures for write-in candidates.
Michael Lynn Gabriel’s request for emergency changes to California’s recall-election procedures was denied; Shirley N. Weber was not required to delay the election, accept write-in candidates, or publish their statements.
What happened
Michael Lynn Gabriel v. Shirley N. Weber concerned Gabriel’s second request for a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit alleging voting-rights violations. He asked the court to delay California’s September 14, 2021 recall election, accept write-in candidates, and publish their statements.
The court had rejected Gabriel’s first request because he had not shown why Weber could not be heard first and had not shown that Weber received notice. For the second request, Gabriel provided a declaration and proof that Weber had been served, so the court considered the request.
Judge Lucy Koh denied the second request. She found that Gabriel had not shown likely irreparable harm, likely success, or that the requested order would serve the public interest. The court also concluded that his failure to obtain the required 65 signatures made his alleged injury self-inflicted and that changing the election rules shortly before the election could harm the public interest.
The detailed version
- Gabriel v. Weber · No. 5:21-cv-05605
- Lucy Koh
- Aug. 6, 2021
Background
Michael Lynn Gabriel, representing himself, sued Shirley N. Weber, identified in the opinion as California’s Secretary of State, over alleged voting-rights violations. The order addressed Gabriel’s second motion for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the situation temporarily while a case proceeds.
Gabriel’s first motion sought to act on behalf of the United States and asked the court to delay California’s September 14, 2021 recall election to October 14, require Weber to accept write-in candidates, and require publication of statements from write-in candidates. The court denied that motion because Gabriel had not provided the required specific facts showing immediate and irreparable harm before Weber could respond, and he had not shown that he had given Weber notice.
Gabriel filed the second motion on August 3, 2021. It was substantially similar to the first, but included another declaration and proof of service showing that Weber had been served on August 2, 2021. Weber’s counsel opposed the motion, and Gabriel filed a reply.
Court’s analysis
Because Gabriel appeared to have served Weber, the court considered the second motion on its merits under the temporary-restraining-order standard. That standard is comparable to the standard for a preliminary injunction. The relevant factors included likely irreparable injury, likely success on the merits, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. The court also noted that courts should be especially cautious about interfering with state voting procedures shortly before an election.
The court found that Gabriel failed to show likely irreparable injury, likely success, or that the requested relief would serve the public interest. Gabriel claimed harm because he was a write-in candidate whose name was not on the ballot. He acknowledged, however, that he had failed to obtain the 65 signatures required to qualify as a regular candidate. The court characterized that injury as self-inflicted and concluded that it could not establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. Without standing, Gabriel could not show likely success on the merits or irreparable harm.
The court separately determined that the requested relief would not serve the public interest. It relied on the principle that a state may require candidates to make a preliminary showing of substantial support before appearing on the ballot, and found that California’s 65-signature requirement reflected that authority. The court concluded that stopping or changing the recall-election procedures as Gabriel requested would harm the public interest, particularly so close to the election.
Disposition
Judge Lucy Koh denied Gabriel’s second motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion did not decide the underlying voting-rights claims; it decided only that Gabriel had not met the requirements for the requested emergency relief.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.