VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RICHMOND CITY

DCCC,
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
v. DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
The Virginia State Board of Elections; PETITION
Robert H. Brink in his official capacity as
Chair of the Virginia State Board of
Elections; John O’Bannon in his official
capacity as Vice Chair of the Virginia State
Board of Elections; Jamilah D. LeCruise in At Law No. _________________
her official capacity as Secretary of the
Virginia State Board of Elections; the
Virginia Department of Elections;
Defendants.

Plaintiff DCCC, by and through the undersigned attorneys, for its Verified
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. As the Supreme Court of Virginia has long recognized, “the perpetuity of our
institutions and the preservation of the liberty of the people depend upon honest and fair
elections; and the highest public policy requires that the laws should be so framed and
administered as to secure fair elections.” Booker v. Donohoe, 95 Va. 359, 367-68, 28 S.E.
584, 587 (1897). Ballot access laws serve important state interests and ensure the integrity
of the ballot. See El-Amin v. State Bd. of Elections, 717 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Va. 1989).
This includes Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503, which requires that, to qualify for inclusion on
the general election ballot, candidates must file written statements of qualification by 7:00
p.m. on the second Tuesday in June (the “Deadline”). This year, the Deadline fell on June
9, 2020. Although the law provides the Virginia State Board of Elections (the “Board”)
with authority to grant a limited extension of that Deadline, both the history and text of the
Statute make clear that discretion is not unfettered.
2. Neither Nick Freitas nor Bob Good, both prospective Republican
congressional candidates, met the Deadline or sought an extension—at least not until after
it had already passed. In Mr. Freitas’ case, this was the second election in a row that he has
failed to comply with the Deadline. More than a full month after the Deadline came and
went, the Board voted 2-1 on July 7 to excuse this violation of law and qualify Mr. Freitas
and Mr. Good. In permitting these candidates to flout these clear and unequivocal
requirements to qualify to run for office in Virginia, the Board exceeds its statutory
authority and upends the Commonwealth’s clear and important election laws, effectively
waiving the Deadline without any legal authority to do so. Urgent action is needed to ensure
that only qualified candidates are included on Virginia’s ballots in the November 3 general
election. 1
3. Plaintiff DCCC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to do just that.
Specifically, DCCC asks the Court to: (i) declare that the July 7 extension exceeded the
Board’s statutory authority and was therefore invalid; (ii) declare that neither Mr. Freitas
nor Mr. Good met the statutory requirements to appear on the general election ballot; and
(iii) enjoin the Board and the Virginia Department of Elections, as well as the Board’s and
Department’s agents, officers, and employees, and any person who acts in concert with
either, from including either Mr. Freitas or Mr. Good as candidates on Virginia ballots for
the general election.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Virginia Declaratory Judgment Act, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-184, which authorizes the
Court to declare rights, status, and other legal relations among the parties and to issue

1
All references herein to the “general election” refer to the upcoming November 3, 2020
general election.

-2-
injunctive relief as necessary to effectuate the judgment. See also Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-
186 (authorizing further relief based on a declaratory judgment “whenever necessary or
proper”). The Court also has jurisdiction under Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-513.
5. Venue is appropriate under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-261(2) because this is an
action “against one or more officers of the Commonwealth in an official capacity,” each of
whom has official offices in Richmond, Virginia.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff DCCC is the national congressional committee of the Democratic
Party as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101(14). Its mission is to elect Democrats to Congress,
including to Virginia’s eleven congressional districts. DCCC works to accomplish its
mission by, among other things, making expenditures for, and contributions to, Democratic
candidates for U.S. Congress and assisting state parties throughout the country, including
in Virginia. In 2020, DCCC is making contributions and expenditures in the tens of
millions of dollars nationwide to persuade and mobilize voters to support Democratic
congressional candidates, including in Virginia. If the two prospective candidates whose
qualification is the subject of this action—neither of whom has met applicable
requirements for ballot qualification under Virginia law—are listed on the ballot in
November, DCCC and its affiliated candidates must expend limited resources competing
against candidates who did not actually qualify for the ballot, a concrete and direct injury.
See Letter Op. Democratic Party of Va. v. Piper, No. CL 18-4061 (Sept. 6, 2018 Richmond
Cir. Ct.) (holding Democratic Party of Virginia would experience concrete injury and
irreparable harm if forced to expend resources competing against candidate who had not
legitimately qualified for inclusion on the ballot); see also Mont. Tavern Ass’n v. State,
2005 ML 144, 6 (Mont. Dist. Ct. 2005) (holding entity had standing to contest unfair
competition resulting in economic harm); Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d
582, 585 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding Texas Democratic Party had direct standing to challenge
Republican Party candidate’s qualifications for elected office); Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d

-3-
1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding political party has standing and suffered injury in fact
because, “[o]n account of the decision by the Indiana officials to allow the two major
political parties on the ballot, New Alliance faced increased competition which . . .
required additional campaigning and outlays of funds”).
7. Defendant Virginia State Board of Elections (the “Board”), is responsible
for, among other things, “supervis[ing] and coordinat[ing] the work of the county and city
electoral boards and of the registrars to obtain uniformity in their practices and proceedings
and legality and purity in all elections.” Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-103. The Board’s duties
include, inter alia, considering the propriety of, and where appropriate, granting or denying
requested extensions “of any deadline for filing either or both written statements” within
certain parameters. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503; id. at § 24.2-505(A). The Board’s principal
offices are in Richmond, Virginia.
8. Defendants Robert H. Brink, John O’Bannon, and Jamilah D. LeCruise are
named in their official capacities as members of the Board.
9. Defendant Virginia Department of Elections (the “Department of Elections”
or “Department”) is responsible for, among other things, approving the final list of
candidates who have qualified to be included on Virginia’s ballots. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-
612 (stating that county general registrars should send proposed lists of qualified
candidates to the Department of Elections, who shall “promptly advise the general registrar
of the accuracy of the list”). The Department’s principal offices are in Richmond, Virginia.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. A general election will take place in Virginia on November 3, 2020.
11. In the general election, Bob Good intends to be the Republican nominee for
Virginia’s 5th congressional district. Nick Freitas intends to be the Republican nominee
for Virginia’s 7th congressional district.

-4-
 12. Virginia law provides, in relevant part, that candidates for U.S. Congress
must file written statements of qualification by 7:00 p.m. on the second Tuesday in June.
Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503.
13. In 2020, the second Tuesday in June—and thus, the Deadline—fell on June
9, 2020.
14. The Deadline was clear, unequivocal, and well-publicized, including in the
Candidate Bulletin published by the Department of Elections for prospective candidates
for the U.S. House of Representatives who seek to obtain access to the ballot in Virginia.
15. The Deadline applied not just to candidates for U.S. Congress but also for a
wide variety of other offices. See Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503 (proscribing other deadlines
for certain candidates in specific offices and stating the June deadline applies to “all other
candidates”).
16. Hundreds of candidates for these offices were able to comply with the
Deadline, filing their papers on time and without incident.
17. Mr. Good and Mr. Freitas were among the rare exceptions: neither filed the
requisite paperwork by the Deadline. Nor did they file it the next day, or the next.
18. Mr. Good and Mr. Freitas appear to have first learned that they had missed
the Deadline on June 12, 2020, when a journalist named Brandon Jarvis reported on Twitter
that the Department of Elections had confirmed that both had failed to comply with the
Deadline.
19. Only then did Mr. Good or Mr. Freitas begin to take action to comply with
the Deadline.
20. Mr. Freitas submitted his paperwork in full on June 12, but Mr. Good did not
complete his submission until three days later, on June 15.
21. On June 12, the Republican Party of Virginia publicly released a letter that
they apparently submitted via e-mail to Defendants Chairman Brink, Vice-Chair
O’Bannon, and Secretary LeCruise (the “June 12 Letter”).

-5-
 22. In the June 12 Letter, the Republican Party requested that the Board exercise
their authority under Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503 to extend the Deadline for filing the
statements “for all candidates” whose filing deadline was June 9 (emphasis added).
23. The June 12 Letter offered no reason why either Mr. Good or Mr. Freitas
failed to comply with the Deadline; in fact, it did not mention either of them by name at
all.
24. Instead, the June 12 Letter asserted that the Deadline should be broadly
extended for all candidates because Governor Northam had extended the primary election
until June 23, and that the deadline for the Republican Party to nominate their candidates
by a non-primary method had been extended until July 28.
25. The June 12 Letter did not explain why the separate decision by the Governor
to move these other deadlines meant that candidates should be excused from complying
with the Deadline at issue, nor did it explain why the Republican Party (or any of its
candidates) failed to even raise this issue until days after the Deadline had already passed.
26. On June 30, a full 21 days after the deadline had already passed, counsel for
Mr. Good sent a letter to the Board, explicitly requesting that it extend the deadline for Mr.
Good specifically.
27. On information and belief, there is no indication that Mr. Freitas, either
individually or through counsel, ever requested an extension of the Deadline.
28. Rather than call a special meeting to consider either the blanket extension
request made by the Republican Party in the June 12 Letter, or to consider Mr. Good’s
counsel’s belated request to extend the Deadline specifically as it related to him, the Board
chose to wait until its next regularly scheduled meeting of July 7 to even consider the
requests. 2

2
The delay between meetings does not appear to have been caused by restrictions on in-
person gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as records reflect that the Board met

-6-
 29. On July 6, counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to the Board urging them to reject
the extension requests and explaining why granting them at that late stage—more than a
month after the Deadline had passed—would exceed the Board’s statutory authority.
30. On July 7, the Board held a public meeting and considered both the
Republican Party’s and Mr. Good’s extension requests.
31. During the meeting, Mr. Good admitted that his failure to comply with the
Deadline was an oversight and that he had no legitimate excuse.
32. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board voted 2-1 to extend the Deadline.
33. The extension granted by the Board applied to all candidates whose filing
deadline was June 9 and granted an additional ten days from the date of the Board’s
decision to grant the extension for affected candidates to complete their paperwork.
34. Thus, under the terms of the extension granted by the Board, the Deadline
was extended for candidates for countless offices until July 17, 2020—a full 38 days after
the statutory deadline.
35. The Board lacked statutory authority to grant the extension requests.
36. Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503 provides in relevant part:

The State Board may grant an extension of any deadline for

filing either or both written statements [statement of economic
interests and/or statement of candidate qualification] and shall
notify all candidates who have not filed their statements of the
extension. Any extension shall be granted for a fixed period of
time of ten days from the date of the mailing of the notice of
the extension.

regularly throughout the spring of 2020 via electronic means. See Virginia Regulatory
Town Hall, Meetings and Public Hearings,
https://townhall.virginia.gov/L/Meetings.cfm?BoardID=151&time=PastYear (detailing
eight separate meetings held in March, April, and May of 2020). At least three of those
meetings appear to have been convened on an emergency basis. Id.; see also Va. Code
Ann. § 2.2-3701(permitting Board to convene meetings on an emergency basis).

-7-
 37. Under this provision, the Board has wide discretion to deny extension
requests (as indicated by the word “may” in the first sentence), but only a limited ability to
grant them (as indicated by the use of the word “shall” in the first and second sentences).
38. Under the plain text of the Statute, the Board only has authority to grant
extensions of the Deadline where: (1) it notifies all candidates who have not filed their
statements, and (2) any extension must be for ten days from the date of the mailing of the
notice of the extension—no more, no less.
39. The statutory history of the Statute further makes clear that the only
reasonable reading of it is to give the Board limited authority to grant politically-neutral
extensions contemporaneously with the statutorily-fixed Deadline.
40. Prior to 1988, the Board had unfettered discretion to grant extensions of the
Deadline. Va. Code Ann. § 24.1–167 (1987); see also El-Amin, 717 F. Supp. at 1139.
41. In 1988, the Legislature amended the law to eliminate the Board’s authority
to grant (or deny) extensions of the Deadline. Va. Code Ann. § 24.1–167 (1988); El-Amin,
717 F. Supp. at 1139.
42. The 1988 amendment was meant to curb the potential for “abuse, favoritism
and caprice” that the Statute had previously given to the Board, based on the concern it
would allow the Board “to permit late entries by favored candidates.” El Amin, 717 F.
Supp. at 1142-43.
43. The Statute was later amended again in 1993 to give the Board authority to
grant extensions under limited circumstances, “provid[ing] a bright-line, fixed rule that
applies equally to all candidates and [which] cannot be manipulated.” Id.
44. To interpret the Statute as the Board has in this case, to allow it to grant a
ten-day extension of the Deadline beginning on any date—even long after the Deadline
had already passed—would effectively give back to the Board the unfettered discretion that
the Legislature intentionally took away, permitting members of the Board to manipulate
the Deadline to enable favored candidates to break the rules and enter the race late.

-8-
 45. If the Board’s actions in this case are lawful—where it waited over a month
after the Deadline had passed to even consider the request for an extension, and then
granted an extension of 38 days after the statutory deadline—nothing would stop the Board
from granting extensions up to the eve of elections. Because the ten-day extension period
only begins to run after the notice is mailed, the Board could alternately grant limitless
extensions by indefinitely delaying the mailing of notices.
46. Neither scenario could possibly be what the Legislature intended when it
limited the Board’s extension powers to a fixed ten-day period in order to curb the
opportunity for abuse and ensure that the pool of candidates is set sufficiently in advance
of the election to ensure that the public has a fair opportunity to learn about them as they
make the crucially important decision as to who to support for public office. El Amin, 717
F. Supp. at 1142-43.
47. Had the Legislature intended the Board to be able to grant what is effectively
a five-week extension, it could have reenacted the prior version of the Statute and granted
the Board unfettered discretion to issue any extension at any point in time. It did not do so.
48. There is no precedent for the Board to grant such an expansive and late
extension request.
49. Research has not revealed any other instances in which the Board has granted
an extension request that effectively grants several additional weeks to candidates to
complete the statutory requirements.
50. On the contrary, the Board appears to typically grant requests only on or very
near the statutory deadline.
51. In 2018, the Board granted an extension request for candidates to file their
Certificate of Candidate Qualification and/or Statement of Economic Interests in relation
to the December 18, 2018 special election for House of Delegates District 24. The request
for extension was made just 51 minutes after the deadline and the extension was granted

-9-
the following day; documents were thus due by November 30, 2018 instead of the previous
deadline of November 19, 2018.
52. The circumstances there—where the extension request was granted after the
candidate made a good faith effort to meet the deadline, in close proximity to the deadline
(one day later)—are consistent with the Statute’s text and legislative history. But those
circumstances are not present here.
53. Even assuming that the Board does possess the authority to grant the
extension under circumstances present here (and it does not), it would have had no
reasonable basis to do so.
54. Neither Mr. Good nor Mr. Freitas even argued that they had attempted to
meet the Deadline. Neither showed that they had made good faith efforts to comply with
the Deadline. Neither offered any legitimate excuse as to their failure.
55. In its general request for an extension in the June 12 Letter, the Republican
Party broadly blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for unnamed candidates’ failure to comply
with the Deadline, but even after a lengthy hearing in which the Board debated the matter,
no evidence has come to light that would indicate that either Mr. Good’s or Mr. Freitas’
ability (or rather, inability) to submit a simple set of forms by the Deadline was in any way
impacted by COVID-19. Indeed, as noted, plenty of other candidates were able to comply.
56. For Mr. Freitas, moreover, it was not even the first instance in which he failed
to comply with the Deadline. He has repeatedly disregarded Virginia’s filing requirements,
and was excluded from the partisan ballot in 2019 after he failed to timely file his
paperwork for a different candidacy. He nonetheless went on to win the election as a write-
in candidate.
57. In granting the extension at issue here, the Board exceeded its statutory
authority. Va. Code. Ann. § 24.2-503 gives only very limited authority to the Board to
grant extensions; both the statutory text and legislative history make clear that the Board

- 10 -
may only grant ten-day extensions and does not have unfettered authority to grant those
extensions whenever it desires.
58. By waiting a full month to grant a ten-day extension, the Board effectively
extended the Deadline by more than five weeks, far beyond the limited time period
contemplated by the Statute.
59. The Board is the gatekeeper of Virginia’s democratic process and has an
obligation to ensure that only statutorily qualified candidates appear on Virginia’s ballots.
It did not have authority to belatedly grant the extension requests at issue here, nor was
there any legitimate reason for it to do so.
60. Immediate injunctive relief is appropriate and necessary to protect the DCCC
from serious, irreparable harm. Specifically, unless the Board’s illegitimate extension is
enjoined, Mr. Good and Mr. Freitas will appear on the November ballot as candidates to
represent Virginia in Congress, despite having failed to comply with the qualifications set
forth under Virginia law to access the ballot. The deadline for printing ballots is fast
approaching, and immediate relief is therefore necessary and appropriate to safeguard the
fairness of Virginia’s democratic process. 3
COUNT ONE
Violation of Va. Code. Ann. § 24.2-503
61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
62. Under Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503, the Board may grant ten-day extensions
under limited circumstances. The plain text of the statute, the legislative history, and the

3
“The general registrar shall make printed ballots available for absentee voting not later
than 45 days prior to any election or within three business days of the receipt of a properly
completed absentee ballot application, whichever is later.” Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-612.
Similarly, under federal law, all validly requested ballots to UOCAVA voters must be
transmitted to voters no later than 45 days before an election for federal office (September
22, 2018). See 52 U.S.C. § 20302(a)(8)(A).

- 11 -
decision in El-Amin made clear that the extension must be granted on or very near the
statutory deadline.
63. Here, the extension requests came a meaningful time after the Deadline had
already passed, and the Board waited several more weeks before granting the extension.
As a final result, the new filing deadline is a full 38 days—over five full weeks—after the
statutory Deadline. That extension far exceeds the ten-day extension period that the Board
is empowered to grant.
64. Because the Board effectively gave a 38-day extension when it was only
permitted to grant a ten-day extension, the Board violated Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-503.

COUNT TWO
Violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 24.2-504; 24.2-506

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
66. Virginia law clearly provides that candidates for the U.S. House of
Representatives who wish to appear on the ballot for the upcoming general election must
have filed qualifying paperwork by June 9, 2020. Va. Code. Ann. § 24.2-506(A)(2).
67. Va. Code. Ann. § 24.2-504 further specifies that “[o]nly a person fulfilling
all the requirements of a candidate shall have his name printed on the ballot for the
election.”
68. Here, however, neither Mr. Good nor Mr. Freitas filed their required
paperwork by the statutory Deadline. Neither has offered any legitimate reason for their
failure to do so.
69. Because neither Mr. Good nor Mr. Freitas met the statutory requirements to
qualify for the ballot, Virginia law requires that each must be disqualified from appearing
on the ballot for the general election.

- 12 -
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court hear this action
pursuant to Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-186, 17.1-131, and 17.1-513, and issue preliminary and
permanent declaratory and injunctive relief:
a. declaring that the Board exceeded its statutory authority when it granted the
extension request and imposed a new deadline of July 17, 2020;
b. declaring that the Board’s July 7 notice of extension of deadline was therefore
invalid;
c. declaring that neither Mr. Good nor Mr. Freitas fulfilled the statutory
requirements of Va. Code. Ann. § 24.2-506(A)(2) because they failed to
submit the required paperwork by the statutory deadline and no valid extension
was granted;
d. enjoining Defendants from qualifying Mr. Good and Mr. Freitas for inclusion
on the general election ballot;
e. enjoining Defendants and their agents, officers, and employees, and any person
who acts in concert therewith, from printing the names of either Mr. Good or
Mr. Freitas on ballots for the general election.

- 13 -
Dated: July 14, 2020 By:
Aria Branch, VA Bar No. 83682
Marc E. Elias, WDC Bar No. 442007*
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: 202.654.6200
Facsimile: 202.654.6211
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sarah Gonski (AZ Bar No. 032567)*
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite
2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Telephone: (602) 351-8000
Facsimile: (602) 648-7000
[email protected]
*Pro hac vice applications to be filed

Attorneys for Plaintiff

- 14 -
 VERIFICATION
Pursuant to VA. CODE §8.01-4.3, I verify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

07/14/2020
_______________________ __________________________
Date Signature of Affiant

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
State of Florida
) ss:
Hillsborough
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________ )

Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this 14th

___ day of July, 2020.
Online notarization. Produced ID: Driver's License

_________________________________________
Amy Patrick
Notary Public

GG 921064
Notary Registration Number: _________________
10/08/2023
My Commission Expires: ____________________
Notarized online using audio-video communication

- 15 -