In view of this disagreement, the Board commenced this ac-
tion on February 22, 2019, in which it asserted, as is relevant
here, a cause of action for a declaratory judgment that the
Board had a right to enforce a rule barring MOIA interpreters
from being stationed within 100 feet of the entrance of poll
sites for the February 26, 2019 special election, as well as in
all future elections. The Board further sought a permanent
injunction barring MOIA interpreters from being stationed
within 100 feet of the entrance of polling places for the Febru-
ary 26, 2019 special election and in all future elections unless
authorized by the Board.3 At the same time, the Board moved
for a preliminary injunction barring MOIA from stationing its
interpreters within 100 feet from the polling site entrances. In
an order dated February 25, 2019, the court denied the request
for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Board had failed
to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of
success on the merits, that it would suffer irreparable harm, or
that the balance of equities weighed in its favor.
Prior to the City defendants answering, the Board served
and filed an amended complaint that significantly changed the
focus of its action against the City defendants. In this amended
complaint, the Board added allegations that the City Council
has allocated funding for MOIA’s interpreter program in fiscal
year 2017, 2018, and 2019 budgets, and emphasized that, with
each election for which MOIA has provided interpreter assis-
tance, the number of interpreters, the number of poll sites, and
3. The parties, by way of a stipulation dated February 28, 2019,
discontinued the action, with prejudice, as against defendant James O’Neill,