Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROY COCKRUM, SCOTT COMER, and
ERIC SCHOENBERG,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT,
INC., and ROGER STONE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1370-ESH
)
)
)
)
)
)

NOTICE OF FILING
Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Plaintiffs submit three unpublished twenty-first century
district court opinions corroborating the view that the support-and-advocacy clauses of 42 U.S.C.
1985(3)1 create causes of action against private parties, as established in Ex Parte Yarbrough,
110 U.S. 651 (1884), and Paynes v. Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967). The three cases are:

•

Arizona Democratic Party v. Arizona Republican Party et al, 2016 WL 8669978, at *5
n.4 (“ARP and the Trump Campaign argue that an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
requires a showing of racial animus and that the specific provision invoked by Plaintiff—
the “support and advocacy clause”—cannot be applied against a non-state actor. (GOP
Resp. at 17-19.) Plaintiff disagrees on both counts. (Reply to GOP at 4-8.) Again, the
plain language of the statute does not require either of the elements proposed by ARP and
the Trump Campaign.”)

1

The relevant clauses of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) were originally found in Section 2 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1871 and then codified at Section 5520 of the Revised Statutes (1877).
1

 Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 3

•

North Carolina Democratic Party v. North Carolina Republican Party et al., 1:16-CV1288 (D.N.C. 2016) at 4 (“[V]oters are entitled to cast their ballots without fear of
reprisal or threat of physical harm. See 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) (making it illegal for any
person, “whether acting under color of law or otherwise,” to “intimidate, threaten, or
coerce . . . any person for voting”); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). On Election Day, if it becomes
apparent that agents of any defendant or supporters encouraged by any defendant are
making an effort to intimidate minority voters or to further incite intimidation of voters,
the plaintiff may renew the motion.”)

•

Daschle v. Thune, CIV 04-4177 (D.S.D. November 2, 2004) (granting temporary relief
after finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of claims including a
voter-intimidation claim against a private party under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)).

The two cases in which political parties are named defendants are also brought against
other private-party defendants.

Date: May 18, 2018

/s/ Benjamin L. Berwick
BENJAMIN L. BERWICK (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0004)
United to Protect Democracy
10 Ware St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
(909) 326-2911
Ben.Berwick@protectdemocracy.org
IAN BASSIN (NY Attorney Registration No.
4683439)
United to Protect Democracy
222 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Ian.Bassin@protectdemocracy.org

2

 Case 1:17-cv-01370-ESH Document 57 Filed 05/18/18 Page 3 of 3

JUSTIN FLORENCE (D.C. Bar No. 988953)
Justin.Florence@protectdemocracy.org
ANNE TINDALL (D.C. Bar. No. 494607)
Anne.Tindall@protectdemocracy.org
United to Protect Democracy
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, #163
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 856-9191
NANCY GERTNER (MA Bar No. 190140)
Fick & Marx
100 Franklin Street, 7th floor
Boston, MA 02110
(857) 321-8360
ngertner@fickmarx.com
RICHARD PRIMUS (D.C. Bar No. 472223)
The University of Michigan Law School*
625 S. State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
(734) 647-5543
PrimusLaw1859@gmail.com
STEVEN A. HIRSCH (CA Bar No. 171825)
shirsch@keker.com
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
(415) 391-5400
* For identification purposes.

3