Case: Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp

1:21-cv-01284 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Filed Date: March 29, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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…

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:

  • Violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10301) for intentional racial discrimination and discriminatory results.
  • Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for intentional race discrimination.
  • Violation of the Fifteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for intentional race discrimination in voting. This claim would ultimately be removed in plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
  • Violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for an undue burden on the right to vote.
  • Violation of the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for unconstitutionally burdening plaintiffs’ first Amendment rights of speech and expression.

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.

  • Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC §12131) for discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local government entities.
  • Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC §794) for discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance.
  • Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (52 USC §10101) for denying the right to vote in an election on the basis of an error or omission on any record that is immaterial to determining whether the person is qualified to vote. For example, SB 202 permitted election officials to deny absentee ballot requests solely on the basis of an inadvertently omitted date of birth.

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: 

  • New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger (1:21-cv-01229-JPB) (hereinafter “NGP”)
  • Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger (1:21-cv-01259-JPB) (hereinafter “GA NAACP”) which was also litigated in part by the League of Women Voters.
  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Atlanta v. Raffensperger (1:21-cv-01333-JPB)
  • Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta v. Raffensperger (1:21-cv-01728-JPB) which was litigated in part by numerous religious organizations and the Advancement Project, a nonprofit focused on racial justice issues.
  • U.S. v. Georgia (1:21-cv-02575-JPB), This was a challenge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, citing a single claim for discriminatory intent under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

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)

Related Cases

United States v. The State of Georgia, Northern District of Georgia (2021)

People

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/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Abudu, Nancy Gbana (Georgia)

Adegbile, Debo P. (Georgia)

Aden, Leah C. (Georgia)

Ameri, Mana (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

AliKhan, Loren L. (Georgia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Abudu, Nancy Gbana (Georgia)

Adegbile, Debo P. (Georgia)

Aden, Leah C. (Georgia)

Ameri, Mana (Georgia)

Banks, Marques (Georgia)

Beausoleil, William (Georgia)

Belichick, Joseph S. (Georgia)

Bennette, Matletha N. (Georgia)

Campbell-Harris, Dayton (Georgia)

Cramer, Raisa M. (Georgia)

Cusick, John Spencer (Georgia)

Davis, Britton Dale (Georgia)

DeThomas, Courtney Turco (Georgia)

Dianis, Judith Browne (Georgia)

Dimmick, Brian Lawrence (Georgia)

Evans, Rachel Renae (Georgia)

Faransso, Tania Christine (Georgia)

Farrell, Gregory (Georgia)

Feldsherov, Ilya (Georgia)

Fortier, Lucas L. (Georgia)

Garabadu, Rahul (Georgia)

Gossett, David Morris (Georgia)

Greenbaum, Jon M. (Georgia)

Groves, Angela A. (Georgia)

Hamilton, Brittni Abra (Georgia)

Hasselberg, Emily A. (Georgia)

Hayes, Vilia (Georgia)

Heard, Bradley Erik (Georgia)

Henseler, James (Georgia)

Herren, Thomas Christian (Georgia)

Hill, Laura (Georgia)

Ho, Dale E. (Georgia)

Houk, Julie Marie (Georgia)

Hoyos, Luis G. (Georgia)

Hughes, Aileen Bell (Georgia)

Isaacson, Cory (Georgia)

Jahangiri, Mahroh (Georgia)

Jasrasaria, Jyoti (Georgia)

Jedreski, Matthew R. (Georgia)

Jhaveri, Sejal (Georgia)

Johnson, Melinda K. (Georgia)

Jr, Halsey G. (Georgia)

Kanu, Nkechi (Georgia)

Kastorf, Kurt G. (Georgia)

Kennedy, Kate (Georgia)

Khan, Sabrina S. (Georgia)

Kim, Danielle Eun (Georgia)

Klein, Spencer W. (Georgia)

Koorji, Alaizah (Georgia)

Lakin, Sophia Lin (Georgia)

Lam, Leo L. (Georgia)

Lauridsen, R. Adam (Georgia)

Lee, Theresa J. (Georgia)

Leigh, Daniel H. (Georgia)

Leung, Kimberly (Georgia)

Lewis, Joyce Gist (Georgia)

Li, Hillary (Georgia)

Lyons, Webb (Georgia)

Ma, Eileen Jean (Georgia)

May, Caitlin Felt (Georgia)

McCandless, Spencer (Georgia)

McCord, Catherine Harding (Georgia)

McFarland, Ernest Alan (Georgia)

Melcher, Molly (Georgia)

Meng, Tina Yazhuo (Georgia)

Minnis, Terry Ao (Georgia)

Mizner, Susan (Georgia)

Mocine-McQueen, Marcos (Georgia)

Morrison, Tina Meng (Georgia)

Murchie, Laura Jean (Georgia)

Nemeth, Miriam R. (Georgia)

Nercessian, Armen Nercess (Georgia)

Newkirk, Zachary J. (Georgia)

Nguyen, Candice Mai (Georgia)

Nguyen, Phi U. (Georgia)

Nkwonta, Uzoma (Georgia)

Nwachukwu, Jennifer (Georgia)

O'Connor, Maura Eileen (Georgia)

Olm, Rylee Kercher (Georgia)

Oxford, Neil J. (Georgia)

Pant, Shontee (Georgia)

Parker, Warrington S. (Georgia)

Porter, Megan (Georgia)

Powell, Laura (Georgia)

Pulgram, Laurence F. (Georgia)

Ramahi, Zainab Omar (Georgia)

Rich, James Eric (Georgia)

Richardson, Jasmyn Gabrielle (Georgia)

Rosborough, Davin M. (Georgia)

Rosenberg, Ezra D (Georgia)

Russ, John A (Georgia)

Ryan, Elizabeth M. (Georgia)

Sachdeva, Niharika Simran (Georgia)

Segarra, Esperanza (Georgia)

Sells, Bryan Ludington (Georgia)

Shah, Niyati (Georgia)

Shelly, Jacob D (Georgia)

Sieff, Adam (Georgia)

Smith, Casey Katharine (Georgia)

Solh, Chahira (Georgia)

Sparks, Adam Martin (Georgia)

Sung, Connie P. (Georgia)

Syed, Ihaab (Georgia)

Szilagyi, Heather Jean (Georgia)

Thatte, Anuja Diwakar (Georgia)

Thomas, Ethan Michael (Georgia)

Thompson, Grace Katherine (Georgia)

Topaz, Jonathan (Georgia)

Tucker, William (Georgia)

Unger, Jess (Georgia)

Varghese, George P. (Georgia)

Vasquez, Jorge Luis (Georgia)

Wang, Emily Lu (Georgia)

Ward-Packard, Samuel T. (Georgia)

Weber, Gerald R. (Georgia)

Wilberforce, Nana (Georgia)

Williams, Gilda Rae (Georgia)

Winichakul, Pichaya Poy (Georgia)

Yoon, Meredyth L (Georgia)

Young, Sean Jengwei (Georgia)

Zatz, Clifford (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Ausburn, Deborah Ann (Georgia)

Banter, James F. (Georgia)

Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (Georgia)

Begakis, Steven Christopher (Georgia)

Bell, Jordan (Georgia)

Bloodworth, Kristin K (Georgia)

Boone, Annika M. (Georgia)

Bowman, Brad M. (Georgia)

Broder, Karl Patrick (Georgia)

Bryan, Bennett Davis (Georgia)

Burwell, Kaye Woodard (Georgia)

Carver, William Bradley (Georgia)

Cathey, Thomas L. (Georgia)

Dasgupta, Riddhi (Georgia)

Davenport, Jennifer R. (Georgia)

Denmark, Emilie Omer (Georgia)

Drennon, Baxter D. (Georgia)

Els, Irene B. (Georgia)

Evans, James Cullen (Georgia)

Falk, Donald M. (Georgia)

Field, Brian (Georgia)

Green, Tyler R. (Georgia)

Hall, John E. (Georgia)

Hancock, Jack Reynolds (Georgia)

Hart, Ralph Jonathan (Georgia)

Jacoutot, Bryan Francis (Georgia)

Jaffe, Erik Scott (Georgia)

Jaugstetter, Patrick D. (Georgia)

Joiner, Amelia Michele (Georgia)

Kaufman, Alex Benjamin (Georgia)

Keogh, William J. (Georgia)

Kucharz, Kevin T. (Georgia)

LaRoss, Diane Festin (Georgia)

Lin, Stephanie (Georgia)

Lowman, David R. (Georgia)

Mack, Rachel Nicole (Georgia)

Martin, Grace Simms (Georgia)

McCarthy, Thomas (Georgia)

McGowan, Charlene S (Georgia)

Milord, Sandy (Georgia)

Momo, Shelley Driskell (Georgia)

Noland, William H. (Georgia)

Norris, Cameron T. (Georgia)

Paradise, Loree Anne (Georgia)

Prince, Joshua J. (Georgia)

Ringer, Cheryl (Georgia)

Rosenberg, Steven E. (Georgia)

Sabzevari, Arash A. (Georgia)

Schaerr, Gene C. (Georgia)

Scott, William K. (Georgia)

Sowell, Gregory C. (Georgia)

Sr, Tobias C. (Georgia)

Stephens, Michael Van (Georgia)

Tyson, Bryan P. (Georgia)

Vaughan, Elizabeth Marie (Georgia)

Weigel, Daniel H (Georgia)

White, Daniel Walter (Georgia)

White, William Dowdy (Georgia)

Wilborn, Eric P. (Georgia)

Williams, Tuwanda Rush (Georgia)

Wilson, Melanie Felicia (Georgia)

Wilson, Jacob Colby (Georgia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

21-cv-01229

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

The New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger

March 25, 2021

March 25, 2021

Complaint
1

21-cv-01259

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger

March 28, 2021

March 28, 2021

Complaint
1

1:21-cv-01284

Complaint

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church) v. Kemp

March 29, 2021

March 29, 2021

Complaint
1

21-cv-01333

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta v. Raffensperger

April 1, 2021

April 1, 2021

Complaint
29

1:21-cv-01284

Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation for Cases Proceeding Before the Honorable J. P. Boulee

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church) v. Kemp

April 5, 2021

April 5, 2021

Order/Opinion
1

21-01728

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

The Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta v. Raffensperger

April 27, 2021

April 27, 2021

Complaint
83

1:21-cv-01284

First Amended Complaint

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church) v. Kemp

May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

Complaint
1

21-cv-02575

Complaint

United States v. The State of Georgia

June 25, 2021

June 25, 2021

Complaint
110

1:21-cv-01284

Order

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME Church) v. Kemp

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

Order/Opinion

574 F.Supp.3d 1260

1

21-55555

Order

Dec. 23, 2021

Dec. 23, 2021

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

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.

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Disability Rights

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

Southern Poverty Law Center

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Georgia, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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):

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Findings Letter/Report

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

Disability and Disability Rights:

Disability, unspecified

P&A Associational Standing

Voting:

Election administration

Voter ID

Voting: General & Misc.

Voting: Physical/Effective Access