11th Circuit skeptical of Alabama ban on paid election assistance

(CN) — A panel of judges at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals delved deeply into oral arguments Tuesday in a case over the validity of an Alabama law banning voters from receiving assistance obtaining absentee ballot applications.

The dispute centers on Alabama Senate Bill 1, enacted in 2024 amid national debates on election integrity. The law bans third-party submission of absentee ballot applications except by family, household members or caregivers, and prohibits payments or gifts for assisting with applications.

However, a lower court blocked the law in September 2024 after a group of nonprofits, including the NAACP’s Alabama conference, League of Women Voters chapters, Greater Birmingham Ministries and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, sued in April 2024. Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor, an appointee of George W. Bush, determined that SB1’s submission and payment provisions likely violate the Voting Rights Act.

Proponents of SB1 frame it as a bulwark against “ballot harvesting” fraud. As Alabama’s brief states, the law targets “election fraud, absentee voting and vulnerable voters,” citing historical risks like unauthorized collections that could coerce or manipulate ballots.

During arguments Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Alexander Barrett Bowdre said the law protects vulnerable voters from potential fraud in harmony with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. He emphasized that the law is not intended to prevent voter assistance, but to prevent third-party manipulation.

The three-judge panel pressed Bowdre about the potential for severe criminal penalties — up to 20 years in prison and $30,000 in fines — for assistants who receive any payment while helping voters.

U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum raised a specific concern about how the law might criminalize routine assistance, such as a paid health care worker helping a disabled person fill out an absentee ballot application. The Barack Obama appointee directly challenged Bowdre, questioning how such a worker would not be considered as “knowingly receiving payment” for an action that includes helping with a ballot application.

U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Lynn Brasher also explored the criminal penalty issue, asking whether the law’s restrictions on economic transactions for voter assistance might be constitutionally problematic. The Donald Trump appointee drew analogies to other rights, suggesting that preventing paid assistance could be similar to restricting paid legal counsel or paid religious services.

Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Anuja D. Thatte argued that SB1 violates the Voting Rights Act by broadly restricting assistance for disabled, blind or illiterate voters. She emphasized that Section 208 of the VRA allows voters to receive assistance from a person of their choice, and SB1’s restrictions sweep too broadly, potentially criminalizing help from home health aides, disability advocates, and family members.

“Section 208 does not allow categorical exemptions” of potential assistants, Thatte said, adding the law could potentially criminalize seemingly innocuous assistance, like a grandparent paying gas money for a grandchild to help them vote. “Fraud intimidation is patently not assistance of a voter’s choice.”

Her central argument rested on the VRA’s supremacy clause, contending that Alabama cannot override federal voting assistance protections, even if the state believes it’s preventing potential voter fraud.

Bowdre challenged the plaintiffs’ broad reading of Section 208, arguing that it would create absurd scenarios where even individuals convicted of voter fraud could assist voters. Instead, the state’s attorney maintained that the law should be read narrowly and argued the criminal provisions are designed to protect voters from nefarious third-party interventions.

While the panel appeared skeptical about the law’s clarity and potential unintended consequences, they were careful to consider its legal technicalities and practical implications.

The panel urged Thatte to define specific subsections of SB1, seeking clarification of what constitutes “assistance” and who can provide it. The judges also asked how organizations would determine if a voter is illiterate or disabled and whether assistance must be voter-initiated or can be proactively offered.

The panel, which also included Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Cagle Grant, did not indicate when it would rule on the appeal.

Follow @gabetynes