Election 2020 Legal Update

On Behalf of Lurie|Strupinsky, LLP • October 15, 2020

2020 Election – Voting News Throughout the Country

In the most contentious presidential election year in American history, admits a global pandemic, voting is in the spotlight. Here is what you need to know:

Arizona

An Arizona District Court issued an order extending Arizona’s voter registration deadline to October 23 due to the impact of COVID-19. On October 2, two non-profit organizations sought an emergency motion against Arizona Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, to extend the original October 5 deadline. Plaintiffs argued that if court enforced the October 5 deadline, it would burden their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Hon. Steven Logan, U.S.D.J. granted a preliminary injunction, extending the registration deadline to October 23. Judge Logan found that Plaintiffs demonstrated a significant burden because voter registration dropped-off during the more restricted months of the pandemic. Because of the pandemic, the organizations could not reach the same quantity of voters as in a normal election year and Plaintiffs suffered the harm of not registering possibly tens of thousands of voters. Judge Logan stated, “a core tenet of democracy is to be ruled by a government that represents the population.” In a swing state, this injunction is critical for the voice of the American people to be heard.

New Jersey

Second, President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign lost its challenge to New Jersey’s remote voting plan due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A New Jersey district court ruled that federal election law does not prohibit officials from counting ballots before and after Election Day. The campaign argued that the rule violates the U.S. Constitution’s election clause setting a specific voting date and cites to Foster v. Love in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that an election may not be consummated before Election Day. Yet, Hon. Michael Shipp, U.S.D.J., disagreed in saying, “[c]anvassing ballots before Election Day does not consummate the election because that cannot occur before the polls close on Election Day and election officials run a final tabulation report.”

The judge subsequently rejected the campaign’s unsupported argument that New Jersey’s remote voting system is vulnerable to voter fraud. New Jersey’s Attorney General said in a statement, “[d]espite unprecedented conditions, New Jersey is committed to having fair and safe elections this November. We’re grateful that today a federal court recognized what we’ve said all along: New Jersey’s approach to this year’s election is lawful, and any arguments trying to undermine our election are simply misguided. We will continue to defend New Jersey’s elections rules against any court challenge.”

South Carolina

Third, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated South Carolina’s witness requirement for mail-in ballots. A witness requirement means that all mail-in ballots must include a witness – a person with first-hand knowledge of an event that testifies to that knowledge – signature to be counted. But, importantly, the Court also ruled that South Carolina must still count ballots without signatures received prior to this decision.

The South Carolina Democratic Party challenged the witness requirement in district court as it increased the risk of persons with underlying medical conditions, the disabled, and racial and ethnic minorities to contract COVID-19. Yet, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s injunction because 1) the court should defer public health and safety needs to the state and 2) the court should avoid altering election rules close to an election.

If you have are voting by mail, you must have a witness’s signature!

Iowa

Forth, an Iowa Judge blocks an order that barred counties from sending absentee ballots with applicants’ personal information already filled in. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Iowa Democratic Party challenged this “Emergency Election Directive”, arguing that the Iowa Secretary of State, Paul Pate, did not have sufficient authority to issue such an order. The directive provided that the “County Auditors shall distribute only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form.”

The Plaintiffs further argue that “if a registered voter submits an application on a sheet of paper no smaller than three by five inches in size that includes all of the information required in this section, the prescribed form is not required.” Iowa Code § 53.2(2)(a) (emphasis added). The Iowa judge said that the directive would cause substantial burden on plaintiffs, by forcing them to redirect their funds to educate voters and to mitigate the disproportionate impact on young and minority voters.New Paragraph

Newer Post >

Filing for Bankruptcy: Where to Begin

By Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. • March 27, 2026

Learn how to begin filing for bankruptcy with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY. Get professional legal guidance for your financial future.

When to Consider Mediation vs. Litigation in Business Disputes

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 19, 2026

Explore when businesses in Brooklyn and New York, NY should choose mediation or litigation with guidance from Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., experienced in dispute resolution.

What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 16, 2026

Discover what bankruptcy can and cannot do for your finances. Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C. in Brooklyn and New York, NY provides tailored legal guidance for your situation.

The Legal Side of Co‑op and Condo Transfers in NYC

By Eugene Strupinsky • March 12, 2026

Learn about the legal complexities of co-op and condo transfers in NYC with Khalifeh & Strupinsky, P.C., serving Brooklyn and New York, NY. Contact us for legal advice.

Are Communications with AI Privileged?: Judge Rakoff delivers opinion in United States v. Heppner

By Kayla Gaisi • March 10, 2026

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, it continues to raise legal questions that courts can no longer ignore. This month, the question of whether communications between criminal defendants and public AI are protected from government inspection was answered by Judge Jed Rakoff. That answer was an unequivocal 'no.' In the case at hand, defendant Bradely Heppner was charged with fraud and arrested a month later, in November 2025. When the FBI executed a search warrant at his home, they seized documents containing communications between him and the public AI platform Claude AI. According to Heppner's counsel, these communications reflected a defense strategy Heppner had generated in anticipation of potential indictment. Heppner asserted that these documents were either protected under attorney-client privilege or by the work product doctrine, arguing that he had used Claude for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and had shared these outputs with his attorneys. However, Judge Rakoff rejected both arguments. Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications between a client and a professional who owes them fiduciary duties and is subject to discipline. It is a socially valuable human relationship. Regardless of how advanced an AI systems is, it cannot meet this definition. Claude is not a human attorney and does not have an attorney-client relationship with its users, so communications with it cannot qualify for attorney-client privilege. Aside from this, Rakoff listed other reasons why Heppner's communications with Claude are not considered confidential. Firstly, Claude is a public AI system whose privacy policy discloses that communications can be shared with third parties including "governmental regulatory authorities." Secondly, as his counsel admitted, Heppner sought legal advice from Claude on his own volition, not at their direction. Even if Heppner received legal advice and later shared that with his counsel, that does not render the initially unprivileged communication privileged. The related work product doctrine fared no better for Heppner. This doctrine protects materials prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing parties. Here, the AI-generated documents were not prepared by or at the behest of counsel and did not reflect counsel's strategy. Thus, they fell outside the scope of the doctrine. Judge Rakoff's ruling matters because it maintains the narrowness of evidentiary privileges that is necessary for protecting the judicial system's truth-seeking function. Extending privilege to communications with public AI systems could create a dangerous loophoole, one where parties could shield discoverable information by filtering it through a chatbot. But given Rakoff's ruling, the main takeaway here is that attorneys should explicitly advise their clients not to share personal or legal information with public AI systems. Despite how routine it has now become for many to ask public AI personal questions, these communications are not confidential, and may ultimately be used as evidence in court.