Case: VoteAmerica v. Raffensperger

1:21-cv-01390 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Filed Date: April 7, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case challenging three provisions contained in Georgia Senate Bill 202 (SB 202) that allegedly made absentee voting more difficult. On April 7, 2021, VoteAmerica, the Voter Participation Center, and the Center for Voter Information filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State of Georgia, as well as several state election board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Campaign Legal Center…

This is a case challenging three provisions contained in Georgia Senate Bill 202 (SB 202) that allegedly made absentee voting more difficult. On April 7, 2021, VoteAmerica, the Voter Participation Center, and the Center for Voter Information filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State of Georgia, as well as several state election board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Campaign Legal Center and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

The plaintiffs challenged three specific provisions of the bill:

  • The disclaimer provision: This provision required organizations registering voters for absentee ballots to use the form provided by the Secretary of State, but to include language that indicated it was not an official government publication and was not provided by a government entity. The plaintiffs argued this was confusing and misleading because the Secretary of State provided the form.
  • The prefilling prohibition: This provision prohibited the plaintiffs from sending any absentee ballot applications that were "prefilled" with the voter's required information, even where that information was provided by the voters themselves.
  • The mailing list restriction: The bill restricted the mailing of duplicate absentee ballot applications. The language of the bill provided that “[a]ll persons or entities, other than [election officials] that send applications for absentee ballots to electors in a primary, election, or runoff shall mail such applications only to individuals who have not already requested, received, or voted an absentee ballot in the primary, election, or runoff.” SB 202 imposed a $100 penalty per duplicate application sent to a voter who had already requested an absentee ballot.

The plaintiffs claimed that SB 202 violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association and that the bill was impermissibly overbroad and vague. The plaintiffs first argued that SB 202 burdened their core political speech, which included communications and activities encouraging voters to participate in politics through absentee voting. They further argued that the bill also restricted the plaintiffs' "expressive conduct in sharing their belief in the capacity of the popular will to shape the composition and direction of the government." Next, the plaintiffs asserted that SB 202 impermissibly burdened their freedom of association by decreasing opportunities for the plaintiffs to “associate with potential voters and jointly participate in meaningful civic activities." The plaintiffs also asserted that SB 202 unconstitutionally compelled speech by forcing the plaintiffs to make a disclaimer that they would not have otherwise made. In arguing that the bill was substantially overbroad, the plaintiffs asserted that the challenged provisions regulated a sweeping amount of noncommercial political speech and constitutionally protected expressive conduct. Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that SB 202's failure to define several key words like "send" and "mail" meant that it failed to give reasonable notice of what constituted prohibited conduct to civic organizations and persons that participated in First Amendment protected activities concerning absentee ballot applications, and was therefore unconstitutionally vague. 

On April 8, 2021, the case was reassigned to Judge J. P. Boulee. On April 14, 2021 the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Georgia Republican Party submitted a motion to intervene as defendants. They alleged that the defendants did not "share their distinct interests in conserving their resources and helping Republican candidates and voters" and that the resolution of the questions posed in the case would have significant implications on the work they do. 

On May 17, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and, even if they did have standing, had failed to state a claim. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact. The defendants addressed each of the three alleged injuries the plaintiffs pleaded in their complaint. As to the plaintiffs’ claim that they needed to divert resources internally in order to comply with SB 202, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to make the required showing of the activities they were forced to divert funds from. As to the plaintiffs’ claim that they were injured by the risk of incurring fines for inadvertently sending absentee ballot applications to individuals who had already requested or submitted one, the defendants argued that the risk was entirely speculative. They also argued that SB 202 contained a safe harbor provision for those who relied on the information provided by the Secretary of State when sending absentee ballots applications, if the information turned out to be incorrect. As to the plaintiffs’ claim that they were harmed by a decrease in the efficacy of two direct mailing programs by the prohibition on sending pre-filled applications, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had pointed to no authority that such an alleged decrease resulted in an injury and that such injury could be attributable to the defendants. Lastly, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege an injury stemming from the disclaimer provision. For these reasons the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Next, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, again addressing each of the plaintiffs' claims. As to the free speech claim, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs were wrong to allege that the provisions were subject to strict scrutiny because there was no support for the argument that the provisions posed a severe burden on the plaintiffs. As to the free association claim, the defendants argued that the challenged provisions did not impede the plaintiffs from associating with voters to express their similarly held views. Rather, "all they do is place reasonable regulations around solicitation activity-to reduce voter confusion, make the absentee ballot process more manageable, and protect the integrity of the election." As to compelled speech, the defendants alleged that the disclaimer provision did not alter the content of the plaintiffs' speech and did not stop them from conveying to voters their chosen message, but rather only required them to make clear that the content came from a private entity and not the government. 

On the issue of overbreadth, the defendants argued that the disclaimer provision was not overly broad because it had a legitimate sweep and only required private entities to disclaim that they, not the government, were mailing the absentee ballot application. Next, they argued that, in regards to the prefilling provision, the plaintiffs had only pleaded one situation where the law would infringe on First Amendment rights, but that there was no evidence that this situation would affect a significant number of voters. Finally, they argued that the anti-duplication provision did not block the plaintiffs from any protected activities. On the issue of vagueness, the defendants argued that the words the plaintiffs had argued were vague were properly defined in the context in which they were placed.  

On June 4, 2021, the court granted the motion to intervene by the various Republican organizations. 2021 WL 2450647. On June 21, 2021, the defendant-intervenors filed a motion to dismiss. 

On December 9, 2021, the court denied all of the pending motions to dismiss. The court first determined that VoteAmerica had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact because they claimed they would need to divert resources to efforts to comply with the new requirements imposed by SB 202. Even though the diversion had not yet occurred and was only "reasonably anticipated," the court found the alleged diversion of staff hours and limited program and financial resources sufficient to show an injury for standing purposes. The court therefore determined that VoteAmerica had standing to challenge the bill. As to the free speech, free association, and expressive conduct claims, the court determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated plausible claims that the provisions affected their speech. The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding type of protection, requisite burden, and category of speech, finding they were not appropriate issues for a motion to dismiss. In declining to dismiss the plaintiffs’ overbreadth claim, the court found that the plaintiffs had made out a plausible claim, and that “answering the question of whether the conduct regulated by the challenged provisions implicates a constitutional interest requires analysis of facts outside the complaint, which is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss.” Similarly, the court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ vagueness claim, finding that some of the challenged words and provisions could be ambiguous and would not have provided fair notice of what conduct was prohibited. 

On December 16, 2021, the court stayed the case to consider whether to consolidate several pending suits involving substantially similar facts and legal issues, as well as several identical defendants (New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger, 1:21-cv-01229; Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Raffensperger, 1:21-cv-01259; Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 1:21-cv-01284; Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Atlanta v. Raffensperger, 1:21-cv-01333; Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta v. Raffensperger, 1:21-cv-01728; Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, 1:21-cv-02070; and United States v. Georgia, 1:21-cv-02575). On December 23, 2021, the court decided to consolidate only the consenting cases, of which this case was not one. 

On April 26, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. They asserted that as they prepared for the upcoming 2022 general election cycle, "the Ballot Application Restrictions [were] directly stymieing" their "ability to speak and engage in Georgia." They alleged that they would be forced to decrease their messaging to potential Georgia voters, alter their communications in a way that would lead to a decrease in their effectiveness, and include a misleading and confusing disclaimer. 

On June 30, 2022, after a hearing, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court first addressed the categories of speech at issue and the protections available to those categories. The court determined that the plaintiffs' application distribution program did not constitute core political speech, because the distribution of forms “[did] not require the type of interactive debate and advocacy” the Supreme Court had ruled implicated political speech in prior cases. For this reason, the plaintiffs had not shown the ballot provisions restricted core political speech. Next, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the act of sending ballot application packages was expressive conduct falling under First Amendment protections. The court then turned to the associational claims. While recognizing that the plaintiff organizations engaged in advocacy work, the court found that sending application forms to strangers did not rise to the level of the type of two-way engagement required to assert associational rights. Finally, the court did find that the disclaimer constituted compelled speech, but that it simply presented information designed to decrease confusion regarding absentee ballot applications and said nothing regarding the pro-absentee voting message the plaintiff organizations wished to convey.

The court then determined what level of scrutiny to apply to the provisions. Given that the plaintiffs had not shown that the prefilling and anti-duplication provisions restricted speech, the court found that those provisions were more appropriately categorized as rules governing the “mechanics of the electoral process.” Based on this finding, the court applied the Anderson-Burdick framework, which requires the court to weigh the "relative interests of the state in imposing election-related regulations against the alleged constitutional injury and the extent to which it is necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.” The court found the same framework applied to the disclaimer provision. Even though the disclaimer constituted compelled speech, it did not directly regulate speech (it didn’t prohibit the plaintiffs from conveying their message), and therefore also constituted a regulation governing the mechanics of the electoral process.

Under the Anderson-Burdick framework, the court found that the defendants needed only to show that the prefilling and anti-duplication provisions—since they did not implicate the First Amendment—were reasonable and supported by important regulatory interests. The court found that the defendants’ stated interests in addressing voter confusion and relieving the administrative burden on election officials were important regulatory interests and that the provisions were “reasonable and nondiscriminatory methods of achieving the state’s goals.” Next, the court applied the disclaimer provision. The court held that there was not enough evidence of significant harm to outweigh the state's compelling interests in avoiding voter confusion and ensuring the smooth administration of its elections. For these reasons, the court determined that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and declined to issue an injunction. 609 F.Supp.3d 1341.

On September 26, 2022, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of plaintiff VoteAmerica as a party to the action after the parties determined that VoteAmerica’s web-based application that partially completed applications for voters was not prohibited by the challenged provisions. The court approved the stipulation three days later.

On December 13, 2022, the defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that (1) the prefilling and anti-duplication provisions did not restrict protected speech and would therefore survive any level of scrutiny, (2) the disclaimer provision caused the plaintiffs no harm while supporting the state’s interest in minimizing voter confusion and ensuring efficient elections, (3) the challenged provisions did not implicate the plaintiff organizations’ associational rights, and (4) the meaning of each of the challenged provisions was clear.

The court ruled on the defendants’ summary judgment motion on September 27, 2023, denying and granting the motion in part. 2023 WL 6296928. The parties had already stipulated that any claims relating to the disclaimer provision were moot. In addition, the plaintiffs were no longer pursuing neither their vagueness claim, nor their claim that the anti-duplication provision was overbroad. The only claims before the court, therefore, concerned whether the prefilling and anti-duplication provisions violated the plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and freedom of association, and whether the prefilling provision was unconstitutionally overbroad.

For the purposes of the motion, the court found that the plaintiffs’ conduct (prefilling applications or sending multiple absentee ballot applications) was protected by the First Amendment. Because the law burdened protected speech, the court concluded that the appropriate standard would be strict scrutiny. The court held that both provisions at issue were both underinclusive and overinclusive; as such, they were not narrowly tailored enough to justify impeding the plaintiffs’ right to free speech, and the defendants’ were denied summary judgment on this claim. 

The court denied the plaintiffs’ claim that these provisions impeded their freedom of association. The court found that the plaintiffs’ practice of sending absentee ballot applications with a cover letter to voters constituted associational activity. As such, the plaintiffs’ activities received First Amendment protections, but the court nevertheless granted the defendants’ summary judgment on the claim. It held that both provisions furthered the state’s compelling interests in decreasing voter confusion, combatting complaints of fraud, and increasing election integrity while minimally infringing plaintiffs’ associational activities. Finally, the court also found for the defendants’ on the plaintiffs’ overbreadth claim; it held that the plaintiffs’ failed to show that the prefilling provision penalized a substantial amount of speech that was constitutionally protected.

As of October 2023, litigation remains ongoing.

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (3/25/2023)

Simran Takhar (10/16/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59805866/parties/voteamerica-v-raffensperger/


Judge(s)

Boulee, Jean-Paul (Georgia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

D'Ambrosio, Katherine Leigh (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Bartolomucci, H. Christopher (Georgia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Begakis, Steven Christopher (Georgia)

Carver, William Bradley (Georgia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:21-cv-01390

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

April 7, 2021

April 7, 2021

Complaint
57

1:21-cv-01390

Order

Dec. 9, 2021

Dec. 9, 2021

Order/Opinion
179

1:21-cv-01390

Order

Sept. 27, 2023

Sept. 27, 2023

Order/Opinion

2023 WL 2023

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59805866/voteamerica-v-raffensperger/

Last updated March 10, 2024, 4:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT filed by Voter Participation Center, VoteAmerica, Center for Voter Information. (Filing fee $402.00, receipt number AGANDC-10885359) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit -1 -Absentee Ballot Application, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(eop) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

1 Exhibit -1 -Absentee Ballot Application

View on PACER

2 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

April 7, 2021

April 7, 2021

Clearinghouse
2

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 3/9/2021. (eop) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
3

Certificate of Interested Persons by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
4

APPLICATION for Admission of Caleb Jackson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887418).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
5

APPLICATION for Admission of Hayden Johnson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887495).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
6

APPLICATION for Admission of Danielle Lang Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887515).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
7

APPLICATION for Admission of Valencia Richardson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887522).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
8

APPLICATION for Admission of Jonathan Diaz Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887572).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
9

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge J. P. Boulee for all further proceedings. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. no longer assigned to case. NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Judge designation in the civil action number assigned to this case has been changed to 1:21-cv-01390-JPB. Please make note of this change in order to facilitate the docketing of pleadings in this case. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. on 4/8/2021. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
10

PROPOSED SUMMONS filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center Anh Le (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
11

PROPOSED SUMMONS filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center Matthew Mashburn (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
12

PROPOSED SUMMONS filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center Brad Raffensperger (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
13

PROPOSED SUMMONS filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center Rebecca Sullivan (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
14

PROPOSED SUMMONS filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center David Worley (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
15

Electronic Summons Issued as to Brad Raffensperger. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
16

Electronic Summons Issued as to Rebecca Sullivan. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
17

Electronic Summons Issued as to David Worley. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
18

Electronic Summons Issued as to Matthew Mashburn. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
19

Electronic Summons Issued as to Anh Le. (tcc) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

PACER
20

NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan P. Tyson on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (Tyson, Bryan) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER
21

NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan Francis Jacoutot on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (Jacoutot, Bryan) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER

Approval of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER
22

NOTICE of Appearance by Loree Anne Paradise on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (Paradise, Loree Anne) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 8 APPLICATION for Admission of Jonathan Diaz Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887572). Attorney Jonathan Diaz added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica and Voter Participation Center (cdg)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 6 APPLICATION for Admission of Danielle Lang Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887515). Attorney Danielle M. Lang added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center (cdg)

April 12, 2021

April 12, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 7 APPLICATION for Admission of Valencia Richardson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887522). Attorney Valencia Richardson added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center (cdg)

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 5 APPLICATION for Admission of Hayden Johnson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887495). Attorney Hayden Johnson added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center (cdg)

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER

Approval of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 4 APPLICATION for Admission of Caleb Jackson Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10887418). Attorney Caleb Jackson added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center (cdg)

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER
23

Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 5/24/21, 5/25/21, 5/26/21, 5/27/21, 5/28/21, 7/22/21, 7/23/21, 9/27/21, 9/28/21, 9/29/21, 9/30/21, 10/1/21, by Bryan P. Tyson. (Tyson, Bryan) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER

Order on Application for Admission PHV

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER

ORDER granting 4 5 6 7 8 Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 4/13/21. If the applicant does not have CM/ECF access in the Northern District of Georgia already, they must request access at http://pacer.gov. If they have electronically filed in this district in a previous case, please omit this step.(bnw)

April 13, 2021

April 13, 2021

PACER
24

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tyson, Bryan) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

PACER
25

MOTION to Intervene with Brief In Support by Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Georgia Republican Party, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Answer)(Carver, William) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

1 Memo in Support of Motion

View on RECAP

2 Proposed Answer

View on RECAP

April 14, 2021

April 14, 2021

PACER
26

APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10903299).by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/15/2021)

April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

PACER
27

APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10903486).by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/15/2021)

April 15, 2021

April 15, 2021

PACER
28

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Matthew Mashburn. (Tyson, Bryan) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

April 16, 2021

April 16, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

April 16, 2021

April 16, 2021

PACER

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants' answer due 5/17/2021. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 4/16/21. (bnw)

April 16, 2021

April 16, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 26 APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10903299). to attorney for correction re: for local counsel's bar number. (cdg)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 27 APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10903486). to attorney for correction re: Local counsel's bar number. (cdg)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER
29

APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice.by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/20/2021)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER
30

APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice.by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 04/20/2021)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER

Return of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 29 APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice. to attorney for correction regarding incorrect local counsel bar number.. (nmb)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 30 APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice. to attorney for correction regarding incorrect local counsel address. (nmb)

April 20, 2021

April 20, 2021

PACER
31

Return of Service Executed by Voter Participation Center, Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica. Rebecca Sullivan served on 4/12/2021, answer due 5/17/2021. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/21/2021)

April 21, 2021

April 21, 2021

PACER
32

Return of Service Executed by Voter Participation Center, Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica. Anh Le served on 4/12/2021, answer due 5/17/2021. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/21/2021)

April 21, 2021

April 21, 2021

PACER
33

Return of Service Executed by Voter Participation Center, Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica. David Worley served on 4/12/2021, answer due 5/17/2021. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/21/2021)

April 21, 2021

April 21, 2021

PACER
34

Return of Service Executed by Voter Participation Center, Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica. Brad Raffensperger served on 4/12/2021, answer due 5/17/2021. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/21/2021)

April 21, 2021

April 21, 2021

PACER
35

STANDING ORDER REGARDING CIVIL LITIGATION. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 4/22/21. (bnw) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

April 22, 2021

April 22, 2021

PACER
36

RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION to Intervene filed by Center for Voter Information. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Memoranda Comparison Results, # 2 Exhibit B - Complaint and Proposed Answer Combined, # 3 Exhibit C - Bluestein Article, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, # 4 Exhibit D - Axelrod Article, The Hill)(Remar, Robert) (Entered: 04/28/2021)

1 Exhibit A - Memoranda Comparison Results

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B - Complaint and Proposed Answer Combined

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit C - Bluestein Article, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit D - Axelrod Article, The Hill

View on RECAP

April 28, 2021

April 28, 2021

RECAP
37

NOTICE of Appearance by Charlene S McGowan on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (McGowan, Charlene) (Entered: 05/12/2021)

May 12, 2021

May 12, 2021

PACER
38

APPLICATION for Admission of Gene C. Schaerr Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10971244).by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Tyson, Bryan) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/12/2021)

May 12, 2021

May 12, 2021

PACER
39

APPLICATION for Admission of Erik Jaffe Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10971269).by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Tyson, Bryan) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/12/2021)

May 12, 2021

May 12, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 38 APPLICATION for Admission of Gene C. Schaerr Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10971244). to attorney for correction re: Parties being represented. (cdg)

May 17, 2021

May 17, 2021

PACER

Return of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

May 17, 2021

May 17, 2021

PACER

RETURN of 39 APPLICATION for Admission of Erik Jaffe Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-10971269). to attorney for correction re: Parties being represented. (cdg)

May 17, 2021

May 17, 2021

PACER
40

MOTION to Dismiss with Brief In Support by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Tyson, Bryan) (Entered: 05/17/2021)

1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

View on RECAP

May 17, 2021

May 17, 2021

PACER
41

APPLICATION for Admission of Gene C. Schaerr Pro Hac Vice.by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Tyson, Bryan) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/18/2021)

May 18, 2021

May 18, 2021

PACER
42

APPLICATION for Admission of Erik Jaffe Pro Hac Vice.by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Tyson, Bryan) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/18/2021)

May 18, 2021

May 18, 2021

PACER

Submission to District Judge

May 20, 2021

May 20, 2021

PACER

Submission of 25 MOTION to Intervene, to District Judge J. P. Boulee. (bnw)

May 20, 2021

May 20, 2021

PACER

Notification of Docket Correction

May 20, 2021

May 20, 2021

PACER

Notification of Docket Correction re 25 MOTION to Intervene . Clerk's error. Motion terminated prematurely. Motion is now reopened and submitted. (bnw)

May 20, 2021

May 20, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 41 APPLICATION for Admission of Gene C. Schaerr Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Gene C. Schaerr added appearing on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (cdg)

May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

PACER

Approval of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 42 APPLICATION for Admission of Erik Jaffe Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Erik Scott Jaffe added appearing on behalf of Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley (cdg)

May 21, 2021

May 21, 2021

PACER

Order on Application for Admission PHV

May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

PACER

ORDER granting 41 42 Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 5/24/21. If the applicant does not have CM/ECF access in the Northern District of Georgia already, they must request access at http://pacer.gov. If they have electronically filed in this district in a previous case, please omit this step.(bnw)

May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

PACER
43

APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice.by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/24/2021)

May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

PACER
44

APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice.by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 05/24/2021)

May 24, 2021

May 24, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 44 APPLICATION for Admission of Cameron Norris Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Cameron T. Norris added appearing on behalf of Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee (cdg)

May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 43 APPLICATION for Admission of Tyler Green Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Tyler R. Green added appearing on behalf of Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee (cdg)

May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021

PACER

Approval of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021

PACER

ORDER granting 43 44 Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 5/28/21. If the applicant does not have CM/ECF access in the Northern District of Georgia already, they must request access at http://pacer.gov. If they have electronically filed in this district in a previous case, please omit this step.(bnw)

May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021

PACER

Order on Application for Admission PHV

May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021

PACER
45

RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 06/01/2021)

June 1, 2021

June 1, 2021

PACER
46

APPLICATION for Admission of Robert Neil Weiner Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-11015095).by Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center. (Remar, Robert) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 06/02/2021)

June 2, 2021

June 2, 2021

PACER
47

NOTICE of Appearance by John E. Hall, Jr on behalf of Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee (Hall, John) Modified on 6/4/2021 to correct filer information (rjc). (Entered: 06/03/2021)

June 3, 2021

June 3, 2021

PACER
48

APPLICATION for Admission of Steven C. Begakis Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-11017883).by Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) Documents for this entry are not available for viewing outside the courthouse. (Entered: 06/03/2021)

June 3, 2021

June 3, 2021

PACER
49

NOTICE of Appearance by William Dowdy White on behalf of Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee (White, William) (Entered: 06/03/2021)

June 3, 2021

June 3, 2021

PACER
50

ORDER: For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Proposed Intervenors' 25 motion 1:21-cv-01390. The Clerk is DIRECTED to add Proposed Intervenors as defendants in the respective actions.See Order for more details. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 6/4/21. (bnw) (Entered: 06/07/2021)

June 4, 2021

June 4, 2021

RECAP

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 48 APPLICATION for Admission of Steven C. Begakis Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-11017883).. Attorney Steven Christopher Begakis added appearing on behalf of Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee (nmb)

June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

PACER

Order on Application for Admission PHV

June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

PACER

ORDER granting 48 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 6/7/21. If the applicant does not have CM/ECF access in the Northern District of Georgia already, they must request access at http://pacer.gov. If they have electronically filed in this district in a previous case, please omit this step.(bnw)

June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

PACER

Approval of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

PACER

APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 46 APPLICATION for Admission of Robert Neil Weiner Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number AGANDC-11015095). Attorney Robert Neil Weiner added appearing on behalf of Center for Voter Information, VoteAmerica, Voter Participation Center (cdg)

June 7, 2021

June 7, 2021

PACER

Order on Application for Admission PHV

June 8, 2021

June 8, 2021

PACER

ORDER approving 46 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 6/8/21. (bnw)

June 8, 2021

June 8, 2021

PACER

Order

June 14, 2021

June 14, 2021

PACER

ORDER: In light of the pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and the possibility that one or more claims or parties may be dismissed as a result, the Court finds that it is appropriate to stay discovery and all related deadlines in this case. The Court will confer with the parties and issue a case management order after the motion to dismiss is resolved. Signed by Judge J. P. Boulee on 6/14/21. (bnw)

June 14, 2021

June 14, 2021

PACER
51

REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Anh Le, Matthew Mashburn, Brad Raffensperger, Rebecca Sullivan, David Worley. (Schaerr, Gene) (Entered: 06/15/2021)

June 15, 2021

June 15, 2021

PACER

Submission to District Judge

June 16, 2021

June 16, 2021

PACER

Submission of 40 MOTION to Dismiss to District Judge J. P. Boulee. (rjc)

June 16, 2021

June 16, 2021

PACER
52

Certificate of Interested Persons by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Carver, William) (Entered: 06/17/2021)

June 17, 2021

June 17, 2021

PACER
53

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Brief In Support by Georgia Republican Party, Inc., National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican National Committee. (Norris, Cameron) (Entered: 06/21/2021)

June 21, 2021

June 21, 2021

PACER
54

RESPONSE re 53 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Center for Voter Information. (Remar, Robert) (Entered: 06/25/2021)

June 25, 2021

June 25, 2021

PACER

Clerks Notation for LOA/CIP

June 30, 2021

June 30, 2021

PACER

Clerks Notation re 52 and 3 Certificates of Interested Persons. (bnw)

June 30, 2021

June 30, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 7, 2021

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Several voting focused nonprofits

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Georgia, State

Georgia, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

Voting:

Voting: General & Misc.

Election administration