Filed Date: July 20, 2020
Closed Date: Sept. 27, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This case was filed on July 17, 2020 by three nonprofit advocacy groups and two individual plaintiffs in Alaska, seeking injunctive relief enjoining the state from only sending mail absentee applications to voters over 65 years old for the 2020 federal elections and a declaration that the state's policy was unconstitutional. On September 3, 2020, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot in August 2021. The parties stipulated to a dismissal in September 2021. The case is now closed.
This case is a challenge to Alaska's decision to only send mail absentee ballot applications to registered Alaska voters over the age of 65, while excluding all other registered voters. The Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples Action Community Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, and two individual plaintiffs filed this action in the Alaska Superior Court for the Third Judicial District on July 17, 2020. The plaintiffs, represented by Equal Citizens and private counsel, sued the Lieutenant Governor and the Division of Elections, arguing that the state's absentee voting application procedure violated the First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, various provisions of the Alaska Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and several forms of injunctive relief. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on July 20.
This case is about the decision by the Alaska Lieutenant Governor to send registered Alaskan voters over the age of 65 an absentee ballot application. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment's prohibition on the abridgment of voting rights for eligible voters. The plaintiffs argued that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prohibits all practices by a government that makes it more difficult for one group to exercise their right to vote compared with another group, if the competing groups are defined by age. Similarly, the plaintiffs argued that the Alaska Constitution's provision granting an equal right to vote was violated in this case.
The plaintiffs also argued that the mailing of absentee ballot applications violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They asserted that the right to vote is fundamental and that any infringement on that right can only survive scrutiny if the state establishes a compelling interest and that its action is closely tailored to effectuate that interest and it the least onerous path to achieve the objective. The plaintiffs concluded that any interest by the state in avoiding additional costs of expanding the mailing to all voters was outweighed by the burden to younger voters.
Lastly, the plaintiffs argued that the state's absentee voting application policy violated their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs claimed that the state's policy would discriminate against voters with disabilities under the age of 65. They argued that a reasonable accommodation under the ADA would require mailing an absentee ballot application to every Alaskan with a disability, regardless of age. The plaintiffs also claimed that the state's deadline for absentee ballot requests violated the Voting Rights Act because the state's deadline was set three days before the deadline set in the federal Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs sought declarations that the state's policy was unconstitutional and injunctive relief requiring the state to send absentee ballot applications to all qualified voters regardless of age and requiring the state to accept all absentee ballot applications up to seven days before the election, according to the Voting Rights Act. The case was assigned to Judge Joshua M. Kindred.
On July 22, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 3, 2020, Judge Kindred denied the motion. 484 F. Supp. 3d 693. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the public interest is favored by their requested injunction. The court noted that the state had already extended the ability to vote by mail for all voters and that it was not clear that providing written absentee applications to all voters would be in the public interest. Likewise, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the balance of the equities tips in their favor. The court noted that it must give deference to the states in their chosen approach to conducting elections.
In determining whether the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case, the court again cited the deference paid to states when conducting elections and concluded that the burden imposed by the defendants' policies did not warrant strict scrutiny by the court. The court found that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was not implicated in this case because the right to vote was not abridged by any of the defendants' policies. In addition, the court found that the defendants' policies did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state's policies did not restrict mail-in voting to any particular age group or otherwise restrict the right to vote. The court also found that the defendants' actions could not be described as unfair, irrational, or arbitrary and were therefore likely to survive a rational basis review and were unlikely to be found to violate the plaintiffs' substantive due process. Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs' requested injunction would actually increase the likelihood that Alaska's voters would be irreparably harmed due to increased administrative burdens caused by an increased volume of vote-by-mail applications.
On September 4, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending the appeal in the district court. The plaintiffs made a similar emergency motion before the Ninth Circuit, requesting a preliminary injunction pending the appeal. Both the district and appellate courts denied the motions in September 2020.
The district court directed the parties on December 17, 2020, to confer and file a joint status report by January 15, 2021. The parties engaged in oral argument in the before the Ninth Circuit in August 2021. On August 24, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction as moot. 857 Fed. App'x. 284 (Mem). The court stated that since the 2020 election had passed, they could no longer grant any effective relief sought by the motion for a preliminary injunction and left further proceedings to the district court. On September 27, 2021, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case with prejudice. The district court dismissed the case the same day. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (10/28/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17365882/parties/disability-law-center-of-alaska-v-meyer/
Bade, Bridget Shelton (Arizona)
Christen, Morgan (Alaska)
Baker, Keri-Ann (Alaska)
Donofrio, Michael (Louisiana)
Amodio, Thomas P (Alaska)
Bade, Bridget Shelton (Arizona)
Christen, Morgan (Alaska)
Kindred, Joshua Michael (Alaska)
Miller, Eric David (Washington)
O'Scannlain, Diarmuid Fionntain (Oregon)
Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)
Wardlaw, Kim McLane (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17365882/disability-law-center-of-alaska-v-meyer/
Last updated March 30, 2024, 3:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Alaska
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 20, 2020
Closing Date: Sept. 27, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples Action Community Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, and two individual residents of Alaska
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
Lieutenant Governor of Alaska (Juneau, Juneau), State
Division of Elections, State of Alaska (Juneau, Juneau), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Voting:
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
COVID-19: