ATLANTA (CN) — A federal judge in Georgia issued three rulings Friday pertaining to voting law restrictions that the state passed after the 2020 presidential election and were soon challenged by multiple civil rights groups.
S.B. 202, also known as the "Election Integrity Act of 2021," was signed into law by Republican Governor Brian Kemp in 2021 and enacted new voting restrictions that spanned from voter ID requirements to curbing the ability of churches and others to hand out food and water to voters waiting in long lines.
But U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee on Friday granted two motions for preliminary injunctions, with one blocking the provision of the law that prohibited the distribution of food, drinks or gifts to voters waiting in line within 150 feet of polling precincts.
The Trump-appointed judge was unpersuaded by the state's concerns that the ban aimed to protect election efficiency and ruled that it violated the First Amendment and rights to freedom of speech.
"State defendants seem to contend that because multiple messages may be perceived from plaintiffs’ line relief activities, those efforts cannot be considered expressive conduct. This contention is at odds with binding precedent holding that conduct is expressive where a 'reasonable person would interpret [the conduct] as some sort of message,' not where 'an observer would necessarily infer a specific message.'" Boulee wrote in his ruling using precedent from Holloman v. Harland.
The judge added that state election representatives testified having lines in the December 2022 senate runoff elections that extended beyond the buffer zones, with many voters waiting over an hour.
"The court finds that the issue of long lines is sufficiently likely to continue in the 2024 elections such that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction," Boulee wrote.
Another provision of Georgia's voting law requires absentee voters to print their date of birth on the outer envelope of an absentee ballot. But Boulee granted an injunction request, ruling that the requirement is not necessary in validating a voter's eligibility.
As his ruling explains, the determination of whether an individual is qualified to vote occurs through the absentee ballot application process that is verified by a clerk and is therefore complete before a voter ever receives an absentee ballot.
The civil rights organizations that filed the challenges to the voting law, argued that the birthdate requirement violates a section of the civil rights act known as the “Materiality Provision,” which prohibits denying the right to vote based on errors or omissions that are not material in determining voter eligibility. The Materiality Provision was enacted to counteract state and local government tactics of using burdensome registration requirements to disenfranchise African-Americans.
"The court is not convinced that state defendants’ alleged harms are significant. As an initial matter, a voter’s identity can be verified without the birthdate requirement. In fact, voters are required to provide their social security number and the number from their driver’s license or state identification card on the outer envelope. State defendants fail to adequately explain why these verification methods are not sufficient to identify a voter," Boulee wrote.
"Moreover, state defendants did not present any evidence that absentee ballots rejected for failure to comply with the birthdate requirement were fraudulent ballots. Given the evidence presented, the court is simply not persuaded that eliminating the birthdate requirement risks introducing fraudulent ballots or threatens election integrity."
Boulee did, however, turn down a request to block enforcement of two provisions of the law related to how absentee ballots are returned. These provisions required that absentee ballot drop boxes be placed inside, instead of outside, advanced voting locations and limited their hours for access. They also made it a felony for an unauthorized individual to return an absentee ballot for another person. Individuals who are authorized to return an absentee ballot for another person are family members, household members and caregivers.
While the state argued that the provisions were passed over concerns of "ballot harvesting," or third parties gathering absentee ballots from voters, the groups challenging the law argued that they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying disabled voters, who rely heavily on absentee voting, equal access to voting in Georgia.
Their suit claimed that the law created confusion by failing to adequately define the term "caregiver" and that its felony penalties deter potential assistors from returning ballots and discourage voters with disabilities from seeking assistance. They further asserted that voters with mobility or sensory disabilities, who could previously return their ballots to outdoor drop boxes, now find it difficult or impossible to physically access indoor drop boxes, and that the reduced hours in which they are accessible makes delivering absentee ballots more challenging for disabled voters facing transportation barriers.
But Boulee was ultimately unpersuaded by their arguments, concluding alternative methods of absentee voting remain available under the law and that they failed to propose any modifications to the challenged provisions that would curb their impact on voters with disabilities.
Multiple civil rights groups filed the federal lawsuit on March 30, 2021, arguing Georgia's voting law makes it much harder for all Georgians to vote, particularly voters of color, new citizens, and religious communities.
It was brought on behalf of the 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.
The groups argued that elected officials’ passed the new voting restrictions in response to the record turnout of voters, particularly among Black voters, in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election and the 2021 runoff elections for two seats to the U.S. Senate.
"The elections were celebrated not just for their turnout, but also for their integrity, with Georgia officials praising them as safe and secure. But rather than act to expand participation in the political process, Georgia leaders responded by doing what they have done many times in the state’s history: they placed burdensome, unjustified, and unnecessary restrictions on voters, particularly voters of color and other historically disenfranchised communities," American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a press release on the lawsuit.
The court weighed their arguments previously, but concluded that it was too close to an upcoming election at the time to grant any injunctive relief. A renewed motion was filed on April 24, 2023.
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
GOP sues Nevada over late mail-in ballots May 3, 2024