Case: Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger
1:21-cv-02070 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Filed Date: May 17, 2021
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about whether Georgia Senate Bill 202 (“SB 202”) violated the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10301, et seq.). On March 25, 2021, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 202 into law. The bill regulated election-related processes and activities ranging from absentee ballot voting to election monitoring. SB 202 had seven key provisions:
- The “Observation Rule,” which prohibited a person from “intentionally observ[ing] an elector while casting a ballot in a manner that would allow such person to see for whom or what the elector is voting.”
- The “Photography Rules,” which proscribed the use of photography to record electronic ballot markers or voted ballots.
- The “Communication Rule,” which precluded election monitors and observers from communicating information on the processing of absentee ballots to anyone other than an election official.
- The “Tally Rules,” which prohibited persons from tallying absentee ballots cast prior to polls closing on the day of a primary, election, or runoff.
- The “Ballot Application Rule,” which provided that an application for an absentee ballot must be submitted “not earlier than 78 days or less than 11 days prior to the date of the primary or election, or runoff of either.”
- The “Suspension Rule,” which allowed the State Election Board (“SEB”) to “suspend the [local election] superintendent or board of registrars” for specified conduct, such as committing three violations of SEB rules.
- The “Voter ID Rule,” which eliminated a signature matching requirement for absentee ballots and permitted a registrar or absentee ballot clerk to verify a voter’s identity based on the voter’s name, date of birth and Georgia driver’s license or identification card number.
On May 17, 2021, a group of non-profit organizations, county election board members, members of political parties, voters, election volunteers, advocates, and journalists brought a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and the Georgia State Election Board in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case was assigned to Judge J.P. Boulee. The complaint challenged the above rules on the grounds of procedural and substantive due process, undue burden on the right to vote, equal protection, voter intimidation, and abridgment of free speech. The plaintiffs brought their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sought declaratory relief finding that the challenged provisions of SB 202 violated the U.S. Constitution and/or the Voting Rights Act, injunctive relief prohibiting SEB Members from enforcing the challenged provisions, and the payment of attorneys’ fees.
On June 3, 2021, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Georgia Republican Party all filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the case. The proposed intervenors stated that there was good cause to include them as defendants, since the lawsuit concerned a dispute over election rules.
On June 11, 2021, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. The amended complaint further fleshed out the factual allegations and added Governor Kemp as a named defendant in the lawsuit in his official capacity. On June 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 15, 2021, Judge Boulee stated that he would consider the motion on an expedited basis. On June 21, 2021, Judge Boulee granted the proposed intervenors’ (the “Intervenor-Defendants”) motion to intervene in the case as defendants.
Judge Boulee held a hearing on the preliminary injunction on July 1, 2021. On July 7, 2021, Judge Boulee denied the motion. In his order, Judge Boulee held that the proposed injunction would change the election administration rules for elections that were already underway and to be held on July 13, 2021.
On July 26, 2021, the State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The Intervenor-Defendants filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2021, Judge Boulee partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Specifically, Judge Boulee enjoined the State Defendants from enforcing the part of the Photography Rule that prohibited the use of photography to record voted ballots, on the basis that the rule violated the First Amendment and was overbroad. Judge Boulee also held, however, that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims challenging the other rules on the grounds of vagueness, the First Amendment, and an undue burden on the right to vote.
On December 9, 2021, Judge Boulee denied State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Boulee found that at least some of the plaintiffs had standing in the case, and that the plaintiffs properly pled procedural due process violations, substantive due process violations, undue burden on the right to vote claims, void for vagueness claims, unlawful voter intimidation claims under the Voting Rights Act, First Amendment claims, and equal protection clause violations.
Additionally, on December 9, 2021, Judge Boulee alerted the parties that he was considering consolidating (at least for discovery purposes) this case with eight other cases that “involve[d] virtually identical defendants and mostly the same facts and legal issues.” Judge Boulee directed the parties to provide statements regarding consolidation. On December 23, 2021, Judge Boulee consolidated the case with six other cases that had consented to consolidation.
The State Defendants filed their answer to the first amended complaint on January 21, 2022, and the parties submitted a Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan on January 26, 2022. Judge Boulee held a status conference on January 31, 2022. On February 1, 2022, Judge Boulee issued a scheduling order for the case.
On February 7, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion to again amend their complaint. Plaintiffs sought to include an additional count alleging that the Tally Rules violated the First Amendment. Previously, plaintiffs had only challenged the Tally Rules on Due Process void-for-vagueness grounds. The State Defendants state on February 22, 2022, that they did not oppose this request.
On April 21, 2022, Judge Boulee issued an amended order of his previous order denying State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the amended order, Judge Boulee clarified that the Court was satisfied with the traceability and redressability requirements for standing, even though State Defendants had not raised the issue in their briefing.
On September 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the case, citing that plaintiffs’ counsel did not have “the time and resources necessary to prosecute this case.” Judge Boulee denied this motion, but he ordered a forty-five day extension of discovery in the case.
On October 22, 2022, plaintiffs moved for a permanent injunction and final judgment on the part of the Photography Rule claim for the recording of voting ballots. Plaintiffs additionally moved to voluntarily dismiss the rest of their claims without prejudice, citing “a lack of attorney staffing resources to prosecute this case.” Plaintiffs requested to extend discovery until 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the October 22 motion.
On April 6, 2023, Judge Boulee denied plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and denied their request to voluntarily dismiss the rest of the claims. Judge Boulee cited the fact that defendants had not been given adequate notice for a final decision without a hearing. Additionally, Judge Boulee noted that he could only dismiss the “action” without prejudice, not individual claims. Judge Boulee extended discovery through May 8, 2023.
On April 22, 2023, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which contained the First Amendment claim against the Tally Rules. On May 8, 2023, Judge Boulee again extended the discovery period, this time through June 16, 2023. Additionally, on May 8, 2023, the State Defendants and the Intervenor-Defendants filed their answers to the second amended complaint.
Discovery in the case continued through June 2023. On July 17, 2023, the State Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition on August 24, 2023. While the motion was pending, the parties submitted statements and responses regarding the status of material facts identified by the parties and whether such facts were in dispute or not.
On March 29, 2023, Judge Boulee issued an order deferring judgment on the motion for summary judgment until after oral argument. Judge Boulee noted that the Court was concerned with the issue of standing based on “the arguments that were raised for the first time in Defendants’ reply brief.”
On July 2, 2024, the court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. As of August 1, 2024, the motion is still pending and the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Muiz Wani (5/1/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59914812/parties/coalition-for-good-governance-v-raffensperger/
Abudu, Nancy Gbana (Georgia)
Adegbile, Debo P. (Georgia)
Aden, Leah C. (Georgia)
Ameri, Mana (Georgia)
AliKhan, Loren L. (Georgia)
America, United States (Georgia)
Appel, Rachel Susanne (Georgia)
Belichick, Joseph S. (Georgia)
Bennette, Matletha N. (Georgia)
Campbell-Harris, Dayton (Georgia)
Cusick, John Spencer (Georgia)
D'Ambrosio, Katherine Leigh (Georgia)
DeThomas, Courtney Turco (Georgia)
Dianis, Judith Browne (Georgia)
Dimmick, Brian Lawrence (Georgia)
Faransso, Tania Christine (Georgia)
Fogelson, Matthew A. (Georgia)
Gossett, David Morris (Georgia)
Hamilton, Brittni Abra (Georgia)
Hasselberg, Emily A. (Georgia)
Hecht, Gregory Keith (Georgia)
Herren, Thomas Christian (Georgia)
Jedreski, Matthew R. (Georgia)
Lapinig, Christopher Myron (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)
Richardson, Valencia (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)
LaRoss, Diane Festin (Georgia)
Momo, Shelley Driskell (Georgia)
Paradise, Loree Anne (Georgia)
Rosenberg, Steven E. (Georgia)
Sherrill, Miranda Cherkas (Georgia)
Stephens, Michael Van (Georgia)
Vaughan, Elizabeth Marie (Georgia)
White, Daniel Walter (Georgia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59914812/coalition-for-good-governance-v-raffensperger/
Last updated June 30, 2026, 6:52 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 17, 2021
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A group of non-profit organizations, county election board members, members of political parties, voters, election volunteers, advocates, and journalists in the state of Georgia.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Georgia
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-02070
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01229
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01259
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01284
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01333
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01390
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-01728
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-02575
Northern District of Georgia 1:21-MI-55555
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting:
Voting: Physical/Effective Access
Case Summary of Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44145/ (last updated 5/1/2024).