ATLANTA (CN) — A federal judge in Georgia Wednesday ruled against civil rights groups seeking a preliminary injunction to block voting restrictions the state enacted after the 2020 presidential election.
Multiple civil rights groups filed the federal lawsuit in March 2021, arguing that new voting restrictions under Senate Bill 202 — known as the "Election Integrity Act of 2021" and signed by Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp — discriminates against Black voters and was passed in response to their record turnout in the 2020 election.
The American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the Southern Poverty Law Center and law firms WilmerHale and Davis Wright Tremaineon brought the case on behalf of plaintiffs Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, Latino Community Fund Georgia, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
"In considering the sequence of events leading to the passage of S.B. 202, the Court recognizes that Black voters used absentee voting at a rate higher than white voters in 2020 (although not by an overwhelming margin) and that candidates preferred by Black voters, and the Democratic Party, were successful in 2020. While these two findings could potentially suggest that the Legislature acted with a discriminatory intent, the Court cannot ignore what appears to be the Legislature’s legitimate justifications for passing the law," the ruling states.
"These justifications include, but are not limited to, the State’s interest in orderly and efficient election administration, preventing fraud or the appearance of fraud and increasing voter confidence," it adds.
U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee declined to temporarily block provisions of the law as the groups' lawsuit proceeds, finding that they are not substantially likely to succeed on their claims that the law was passed with discriminatory intent or intentionally discriminates against Black voters.
The groups sought to enjoin enforcement of five provisions of the law, which govern the use and availability of drop boxes, prohibit the distribution of food, drinks and other gifts to voters waiting in line at polling places, set a deadline for submitting applications to vote absentee, prohibit out-of-precinct provisional voting before 5:00 P.M., and require absentee ballots to include the voter's driver's license or state identification card number.
According to the plaintiffs, Black voters in Georgia expanded their voter engagement efforts leading up to the 2018 election. Such efforts included offering food and water at polling places to encourage voters to stay in line.
The civil rights groups argue that the food, drink and gift ban disproportionally impacts Black voters because Black voters are more likely to wait in long lines at the polls.
The state contests that other provisions of the law address long wait times at the polls, such as requiring large precincts that experience lines on election day longer than one hour to increase the number of poll workers or obtain more equipment in subsequent elections.
Although Judge Boulee had previously granted a preliminary injunction blocking the distribution provision, on Wednesday he said the differences presented by the civil rights groups in this case are not "statistically significant enough to demonstrate that Black voters wait in longer lines at a meaningfully higher rate than white voters."
He added that even if the court were to assume that Black voters wait in longer lines than white voters, “that finding would not alone support a conclusion" that the provision has a disparate impact on Black voters.
As for the drop box provision, the state claims that even though there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Georgia involving drop boxes, these types of complaints spurred the new requirements that they must be located indoors, are only available during early voting and must be under constant surveillance by a person. The drop box provision also requires that all counties establish at least one drop box, with an additional drop box established for every 100,000 registered voters.
The civil rights groups contend that this provision disparately impacts Black voters because now there will be far fewer drop boxes in the three Georgia counties with the highest Black populations.
"The Court disagrees. Even assuming that Plaintiffs’ evidence from only three Georgia counties is sufficient to support a finding of disparate impact, the Court cannot overlook that additional evidence was presented that showed that in 133 other Georgia counties, which comprise 34.7% of the state’s black population, there was no change or an increase in the number of drop boxes in those counties," Boulee wrote.
"Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated, at least at this stage of the proceedings, a disparate impact with respect to decreases in drop box locations," he added.
Prior to the enactment of S.B. 202, Georgia voters could apply for an absentee ballot up to four days before a primary, general or runoff election — the Friday before a Tuesday election. The law now requires voters to apply for an absentee ballot no later than 11 days prior to an election.
The plaintiffs say this application deadline provision disproportionately impacts Black voters because they use absentee voting more freqeuntly than white voters.
Judge Boulee said that even if that is true, it does not necessarily mean that Black voters will be disparately affected by the law.
"Without more, generalized evidence regarding the use of absentee voting is not sufficient to show that this particular provision, pertaining to one aspect of absentee voting, is discriminatory," he wrote.
Under the provisional ballot provision, votes cast out-of-precinct are no longer counted if they are submitted before 5:00 p.m. on Election Day. The state claims that the increased use of out-of-precinct provisional ballots in recent elections led to longer ballot processing times.
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs need to provide more reliable evidence to show how this provision specifically affects Black voters, including information as to how many of those voters cast provisional ballots after 5:00 p.m. in prior elections.
"As an initial matter, the Court is concerned that the statistical evidence presented by Plaintiffs may be misleading given that such a small percentage of voters voted via provisional ballot," Boulee wrote.
"Moreover, in claiming that black voters are more likely to cast provisional ballots than white voters, Plaintiffs relied on evidence from only thirteen Georgia counties. As such, the Court is not completely convinced that black voters are more likely to cast provisional ballots."
The bill also changed identification requirements, requiring absentee voters to provide the number of their Georgia driver’s license or identification card when submitting an application for a ballot and also on the absentee ballot envelope. If a voter lacks an ID number, they may write the last four digits of their Social Security number to confirm their identity.
Judge Boulee said the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support their argument that this provision discriminates against Black voters.
He said they did not provide any evidence showing that Black registered voters failed to have other acceptable forms of identification allowed by the statute, such as utility bills, bank statements or other government documents, at a statistically higher rate than white voters.
Plainitiffs' attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
