Filed Date: March 29, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case was part of a challenge to Georgia Senate Bill 202 (“SB 202”) which was signed into law in March 2021. SB 202 implemented numerous new voting restrictions including a ban on aiding voters in line and restrictions on absentee voting. The case was ultimately consolidated within In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202 (1:21-mi-55555-JPB) alongside seven other cases challenging the same law. In particular these cases focus on SB 202’s effect on people of color and voters with disabilities.
On March 29, 2021, the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs were five non-profit organizations, including the Latino Community Fund of Georgia (an organization primarily focused on civic engagement). Defendants included Governor Brian Kemp along with various state and local election officials. Judge J.P. Boulee was assigned to the case.
Plaintiffs alleged that the challenged provisions of SB 202 make it more difficult for historically disenfranchised communities to vote, in particular, voters of color. These provisions included a ban on “line warming” (volunteers providing water and snacks to voters waiting in line), limits on mobile voting units, identification requirements for absentee ballots, and new restrictions on the timing and methods of voting early, absentee, or with secure drop boxes. Plaintiffs’ allegations were two-fold. First, this burdened the right to vote due to many new barriers to cast their vote, including long lines at polling places. Second, the law burdened free expression as the plaintiff organizations communicated their core political values by providing encouragement, food, and water to voters waiting in line. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ACLU Foundation of Georgia, and private counsel, plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs brought the following claims:
On May 10, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss. They argued that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing by failing to show a particularized injury. They had failed to establish either associational standing via an injury to their members or that defendants’ actions diverted the organizations’ resources. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to establish that the injuries alleged were traceable to defendants or redressable by a favorable decision.
On May 24, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Four organizations were added as plaintiffs including the Georgia Advocacy Office, the state-level affiliate of the National Disability Rights Network. Two local election officials were added as defendants. Additionally, the Fifteenth Amendment claim was removed. In its place, three new claims were added which primarily focused on the severe effect SB 202 had on voters with disabilities by limiting access to polling places and other alternatives to casting their ballot such as absentee or mobile voting units.
On June 14, 2021, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss in response to the amended complaint. It reiterated similar arguments to their earlier motion. On July 12, 2021, a third motion to dismiss was filed by defendants arguing that plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
On December 9, 2021, the court denied all three of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In regard to standing, the court found that the diversion requirement was satisfied. The court reasoned that even in the 7th Circuit case cited by the defendants (Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson, 937 F.3d 944), the diversion standard was met by showing the organization merely planned to expand voter outreach programs to counter the effects of a new law. In regards to traceability and redressability, the court cited 11th Circuit precedent (Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012) which allowed relief to be ordered against state officers, such as the governor, who is generally responsible for enforcing the state’s laws. Regarding failure to state a claim, the court found that plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient grounds to continue the case for all of the seven remaining claims. 574 F.Supp.3d 1260.
On December 23, 2021, the court ordered this case be consolidated with the below five lawsuits challenging SB 202:
The court found that each case involved “virtually identical defendants and mostly the same facts and legal issues[.]” These suits proceeded under the name “In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202” (1:21-mi-55555-JPB). A compilation of key case documents from the consolidated case could be found on DemocracyDocket.com. Two other cases had objected to consolidation and were not included. These were VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger (1:21-cv-01390-JPB) and Coalition for Good Governance v. Kemp (1:21-cv-02070-JPB). What set them apart was their lack of racial discrimination claims which predominated the other consolidated cases. As such, the court determined consolidation would possibly prejudice these two cases via burdensome discovery unrelated to their claims.
On January 6, 2022, defendants moved to reconsider the denial of their motion to dismiss. The motion was denied on April 21, 2022. The court reasoned that defendants had failed to present any newly discovered evidence, intervening developments, or a clear error of law or fact. In effect, the motion reflected mere disagreement with the court’s conclusion.
On May 25, 2022, plaintiffs in AME Church and GA NAACP moved for a preliminary injunction. It sought to block the enforcement of SB 202’s criminalization of “line warming.” The proposed scope for the injunction was for during any election that occurred before final judgment, including the upcoming November 2022 midterms. The potential for irreparable harm was great as this case was addressing foundational rights such as the right to vote and First Amendment expression. In addition, they argued the Purcell principle, which heightens the standard for changing election laws close to elections, should not apply. Not only did the rights at issue warrant special scrutiny, but U.S. Supreme Court precedent declined to apply the principle where the state could make the change without undue collateral effects. On June 3, 2022, NGP plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on the same provisions of SB 202.
On August 18, 2022, the court denied the two motions for a preliminary injunction that were filed in May and June. The court found plaintiffs had established each of the preliminary injunction factors concerning plaintiff's “line warming” activities. Specifically, the line warming activities were expressive activities entitled to First Amendment protection. However, this was overridden by the Purcell principle. The court alluded to “significant evidence” that an injunction would impair Georgia’s interest in avoiding voter confusion, promoting an orderly electoral process, and maintaining confidence in that process. The court also cited 11th Circuit precedent on the need to be cautious of unintended consequences of last-minute changes to election laws, even for those that seem relatively straightforward at first glance. 622 F.Supp.3d 1312.
Over the following months, the parties engaged in discovery. The court issued a mixed set of rulings on the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 18, 2023. On the allegedly immaterial absentee voting requirements, the court found that plaintiffs had standing to seek preliminary injunctive relief from county defendants but not state defendants because plaintiffs' injury (the rejection of absentee ballots) would not be sufficiently traceable to or redressable by state defendants because they are too removed from the process. Therefore, the portion of the law requiring voters to provide their birthdate on absentee ballot envelopes was preliminarily enjoined as to state defendants. The court found it substantially likely that the Food, Drink and Gift Ban constituted a content-based regulation of speech that failed scrutiny, enjoining defendants from enforcing it. 2023 WL 5334617. Regarding plaintiffs' allegations that certain restrictions imposed by SB 202 denied voters with disabilities meaningful access to absentee voting (for the Ballot Return Provision, failure to define "caregiver" and for discouraging people from seeking assistance; for the Drop Box Provision, that the indoor drop boxes with reduced hours were less accessible to voters with sensory or mobility disabilites), however, was denied. According to the court, plaintiffs failed to show that the challenged provisions denied voters with disabilities meaningful access to absentee voting and that even if that element was satisfied, plaintiffs were still not substantially like to show that the denial was due to a voter's disability. Thirdly, the court found that the plaintiffs' proposed modification was not facially reasonable because it would amount to a complete overhaul of the challenged provisions rather than a targeted accommodation.
The state attorney general's office filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction on September 18, 2023, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
As of October 2, 2023, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
NDRN (9/11/2022)
Eric Gripp (1/23/2023)
United States v. The State of Georgia, Northern District of Georgia (2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59778314/parties/sixth-district-of-the-african-methodist-episcopal-church-v-kemp/
Abudu, Nancy Gbana (Georgia)
Adegbile, Debo P. (Georgia)
Aden, Leah C. (Georgia)
Ameri, Mana (Georgia)
AliKhan, Loren L. (Georgia)
Belichick, Joseph S. (Georgia)
Bennette, Matletha N. (Georgia)
Campbell-Harris, Dayton (Georgia)
Cusick, John Spencer (Georgia)
DeThomas, Courtney Turco (Georgia)
Dianis, Judith Browne (Georgia)
Dimmick, Brian Lawrence (Georgia)
Faransso, Tania Christine (Georgia)
Gossett, David Morris (Georgia)
Hamilton, Brittni Abra (Georgia)
Hasselberg, Emily A. (Georgia)
Herren, Thomas Christian (Georgia)
Jedreski, Matthew R. (Georgia)
McCord, Catherine Harding (Georgia)
McFarland, Ernest Alan (Georgia)
Mocine-McQueen, Marcos (Georgia)
Nercessian, Armen Nercess (Georgia)
O'Connor, Maura Eileen (Georgia)
Parker, Warrington S. (Georgia)
Pulgram, Laurence F. (Georgia)
Richardson, Jasmyn Gabrielle (Georgia)
Rosborough, Davin M. (Georgia)
Sachdeva, Niharika Simran (Georgia)
Sells, Bryan Ludington (Georgia)
Smith, Casey Katharine (Georgia)
Szilagyi, Heather Jean (Georgia)
Thatte, Anuja Diwakar (Georgia)
Thomas, Ethan Michael (Georgia)
Thompson, Grace Katherine (Georgia)
Ward-Packard, Samuel T. (Georgia)
Ausburn, Deborah Ann (Georgia)
Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (Georgia)
Begakis, Steven Christopher (Georgia)
Bloodworth, Kristin K (Georgia)
Broder, Karl Patrick (Georgia)
Bryan, Bennett Davis (Georgia)
Burwell, Kaye Woodard (Georgia)
Carver, William Bradley (Georgia)
Davenport, Jennifer R. (Georgia)
Denmark, Emilie Omer (Georgia)
Hancock, Jack Reynolds (Georgia)
Hart, Ralph Jonathan (Georgia)
Jacoutot, Bryan Francis (Georgia)
Jaugstetter, Patrick D. (Georgia)
Joiner, Amelia Michele (Georgia)
Kaufman, Alex Benjamin (Georgia)
LaRoss, Diane Festin (Georgia)
Momo, Shelley Driskell (Georgia)
Paradise, Loree Anne (Georgia)
Rosenberg, Steven E. (Georgia)
Stephens, Michael Van (Georgia)
Vaughan, Elizabeth Marie (Georgia)
White, Daniel Walter (Georgia)
White, William Dowdy (Georgia)
Williams, Tuwanda Rush (Georgia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59778314/sixth-district-of-the-african-methodist-episcopal-church-v-kemp/
Last updated Dec. 16, 2024, 4:46 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Georgia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 29, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Nine non-profit organizations primarily focused on civic engagement.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Civil Rights Act of 1957/1960, 52 U.S.C. § 10101 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1971)
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Voting: