Polls end at different times across the country: 6 p.m. in Kentucky, 7 p.m. in Arizona, 7:30 p.m. in Ohio and West Virginia, 8 p.m. in Maryland, and 9 p.m. (latest) in New York.

But regardless of the scheduled end time, someone in some state will petition to keep polling places open later during the election cycle. For example, in November 2024, petitioners sought extensions to voting hours in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

For Texas’ March primary election, the Dallas County Democratic Party sought to extend the county’s voting deadline by two hours from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., citing confusion when the county switched from its previous Republican-led vote-anywhere model to precinct-based polling locations. The Dallas County District Court initially granted the requested emergency relief, but the Texas Supreme Court subsequently stayed the district court’s decision and reimposed the 7 p.m. deadline.

The time is ripe for an extension request ahead of the upcoming November midterm elections. Numerous new ballot measures have been proposed at both the federal and state levels. Some states still haven’t completed their maps after a tumultuous redistricting in mid-decade. President Trump and his allies have teased sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling places. Voter intimidation remains a real possibility, and there is also the potential for increased pressure on election officials, leading to administrative errors.

The United States has more than 8,000 election jurisdictions across 50 state election laws, and each election is a special snowflake. The judge must assess the situation and issue a decision quickly. These lawsuits are typically filed and decided within hours without detailed orders. Nevertheless, all courts appear to use some form of the test established in 2008. Winter vs. NRDC To evaluate emergency requests for extensions to voting hours.

winter Evaluate 4 factors. First, the judge evaluates the plaintiff’s chances of success based on the merits of the case. Courts place great importance on whether voters are being denied the ability to vote, rather than “just” being inconvenienced by things like long lines. Second, we look at whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Because voting is a “fundamental issue in a free and democratic society,” courts typically treat denials of the right to vote as inherently irreversible. Third, we ask whether the balance of fairness and hardship favors the plaintiff. Courts will weigh the potential harm to voters against the potential burden on election officials from extending the time. Finally, it is important to consider whether the injunction is in the public interest. Courts value voter participation, but balance this with the interest of establishing firm rules that are fair to all candidates and voters.

The above is a little vague. For example, what does “public interest” mean in these situations? To help clarify, we’ve identified six specific considerations that judges often cite.

Were voters disenfranchised or merely inconvenienced?

Parties that successfully seek extensions usually indicate that voters have been or will be denied the right to vote. For example, the Mississippi Democratic Party successfully requested an extension to 2023 after establishing that a lack of ballots in Hinds County would prevent voting. The Trump campaign also successfully requested in November 2020 that polling places be extended by an hour in Clark County, Nevada, citing “immediate and irreparable injury” that would result in voters losing their right to vote.

Conversely, in November 2024, a Kentucky judge denied a Democratic Party’s request to continue voting locations in Jefferson County. That’s because the party did not show any actual disenfranchisement, as the affected voters had a chance to vote later in the day after the county resolved the technical issue by mid-morning.

Are treatments proportionate and customized?

For example, if a voting issue affects voters at five polling places, a judge would prefer a proposed remedy that extends voting hours only at those five polling places rather than the entire county.

In November 2024, two polling places in Gwinnett County, Georgia were shut down for 58 minutes due to a bomb threat. In response, the judge granted a specific and separate request to extend voting in just those two locations by 58 minutes. Similarly, an Idaho judge granted relief requests at five polling places, finding that the plaintiffs had properly targeted their relief requests.

Conversely, in the 2024 Kentucky case cited above, Democrats claimed there were problems with voting at 12 polling places and asked a judge to extend voting hours by two hours. all polling places within the county. The judge ruled that “the relief sought by the plaintiff is wholly disproportionate to the full range of events that have occurred.”

Did the government cause the problem?

In Hinds County, Mississippi in 2023 and St. Clair County, Alabama in 2024, judges granted relief claims for missing ballots and defective ballot printing, respectively. Similar considerations may have been at play in 2024 when a judge granted a request to extend voting hours in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, after a countywide software glitch prevented voters from scanning their ballots.

Unless there is a mistake on the part of the government, the petitioners are facing an uphill battle. In 2024, a Wisconsin judge dismissed a petition based on long lines even though election officials had not made any obvious errors, there were sufficient staff and the precincts were properly run.

Did the election official himself file the petition?

While judges don’t necessarily dislike emergency requests filed by partisans, they tend to look favorably on requests filed by election officials, something two of the successful extensions mentioned above had in common. In the case of St. Clair County’s misprinted ballots, it was county election officials who discovered the error on the ballots and requested an extension. Similarly, it was the county’s Board of Elections that successfully filed a petition for an extension of time in the Cambria County case.

Will this mandate be effectively disseminated and implemented?

When granting relief, judges often consider whether the order can be disseminated and enforced before voting officially ends. For example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 2022, a judge said in a hearing just before the 7 p.m. polls closed that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could not be passed on to the Board of Elections and enforced before polls closed. Similarly, in deciding to deny the University of Wisconsin-Stout relief request in 2024, the justices likely considered that reopening polling places that were already closed would place a significant burden on election officials.

Notably, however, in a similar case filed in Walworth County, Wisconsin in 2024, the judge did not seem to care that the application for relief was filed after voting had closed, choosing to grant the requested emergency relief.

Did the petitioner make an appropriately expedited request?

Similar to deliberations regarding the timing of implementation, judges may consider whether the request for relief was filed too close to the voting deadline, particularly if there was ample opportunity to seek relief earlier in the day. The 2022 Maricopa County case was similar. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ late filing of the petition waived their right to file a complaint because the problem was known as of 9 a.m., but the petition was filed near the end of the voting period. In the 2020 presidential primary, a California judge used a similar argument to deny relief to Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

• • •

After all, no matter how well-prepared election officials are, potentially devastating issues often surface on election day. There are no strict national rules governing how requests for extended voting times are considered when such issues arise. But Election Day case law indicates that potential or actual harm to voters, the ability to issue and time to implement remedies tailored to the circumstances, who is seeking relief, and who has caused the complication are factors judges consider when deciding when to keep polling place doors open past scheduled closing times.

Stephen Richer is a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, CEO of Republic Affairs, and former Maricopa County Recorder.

Adam Ginsburg is a New York University law student who previously worked in the areas of voting rights and election administration policy.

Recommended citation: Stephen Richer and Adam Pinsburg, How courts will evaluate Election Day requests to continue counting votes until late on Election DaySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 11, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-courts-evaluate-election-day-requests-keep-polls-open-late