Fair Fight Action, Inc. v. Raffensperger
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:18-CV-5391-SCJ |
| Parties | FAIR FIGHT ACTION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This is a voting rights case that resulted in wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation and culminated in what is believed to have been the longest voting rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia. “[B]earing in mind that these circumstances involve ‘one of the most fundamental rights of . . . citizens the right to vote,'” the Court now, in accordance with applicable law, approaches this case with caution to render its Opinion and Memorandum of Decision, inclusive of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ga. State Conf of NAACP v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 775 F.3d 1336, 1343 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
1. Plaintiffs ................................................................................................... 15
2. The Named Defendants ......................................................................... 19
1. Training on Absentee Ballot Cancelations .......................................... 25
2. Exact Match ............................................................................................. 35
3. The Secretary of State's Alleged Mismanagement of Voter Rolls ... 52
4. Plaintiffs expert witnesses ..................................................................... 73
5. Other Evidence Considered .................................................................. 86
1. Standing ................................................................................................... 90
2. Political Question Doctrine ................................................................. 139
3. Mootness ................................................................................................ 142
1. Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 145
2. Issue: Absentee Ballot Cancelation Procedures ............................... 149
3. Issue: The Secretary of State's Alleged Mismanagement of the Voter Rolls ............................................................................................. 171
4. Issue: Exact Match ................................................................................ 198
1. Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 219
2. Issue and Challenged Practices: Exact Match (MIDR and Citizenship Match) ............................................................................... 222
1. Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 247
2. Racial Discrimination ........................................................................... 247
3. Geographic Discrimination ................................................................. 248
1. Analysis of the Applicable Factors and Guideposts ....................... 261
Having considered the evidence at trial, the parties' presentations (pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c)), and closing arguments, this Court makes the following findings of fact.[1]
A review of the record shows that on November 27, 2018, Fair Fight Action and Care in Action filed a Complaint in this Court for declaratory and injunctive relief in which they alleged “serious and unconstitutional flaws in Georgia's elections process.” Doc. No. [1], ¶ 2. The Complaint has since been amended twice, first as a matter of right on February 19, 2019, and again with permission of the Court on December 3, 2020. See Doc. Nos. [41]; [570]; [582]. Four faith-based organizations-Sixth Episcopal District of the A.M.E. Church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Baconton Missionary Baptist Church, and Virginia-Highland Church- subsequently joined the Amended Complaint as Plaintiffs. Doc. No. [41].[2] In the operative Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs sue Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in his official capacity.[3] Doc. No. [582]. Plaintiffs also sue the State Election Board (“SEB”) itself and members of the SEB in their official capacities. Id. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal law related to: the fundamental right to vote secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count I); the ban on racial discrimination in voting secured by the Fifteenth Amendment (Count II); violation of equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment (Count III); violation of procedural due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV);[4] and violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Count V). Id.
The Court has issued a number of substantive orders in this case. First, on May 30, 2019, the Court ruled on a Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendants. Doc. No. [68]. The Court granted the Motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the claims against the SEB premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on the Help America Vote Act (which Plaintiffs subsequently eliminated from the case with respect to all Defendants by the filing of the Second Amended Complaint). See Doc. Nos. [68], 84; [570]; [582]. The Court denied the Motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the remaining counts against all Defendants or to dismiss the Voting Rights Act claim against the SEB. Doc. No. [68], 83-84. The Court found all elements of standing were satisfied. Id. at 22.
Second, on December 27, 2019, the Court issued its decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which concerned Georgia's list maintenance process and the changing of the status of a large number of Georgia voters on the State's inactive voter list to canceled status. Doc. No. [188]. The motion initially concerned 120,561 voters; however, “[s]ubsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs' motion, the Secretary of State returned 22,000 of the 120,561 voters [at issue] to the voting roll (after review of Plaintiffs' briefing and based upon the definition of a calendar year).” Doc. No. [188], 2-3. The Court eventually denied Plaintiffs' motion on Eleventh Amendment and state sovereignty grounds. Id. at 32. At the conclusion of the order, the Court exercised its inherent authority to control the conduct of the parties and ordered Defendants to make additional diligent and reasonable efforts (through notices on the Secretary of State's website and press releases) to inform the general public of the voter list maintenance process and the need for the canceled voters to reregister to vote during the applicable registration time period. Id. at 188.
Third, on February 16, 2021, the Court issued a decision on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to jurisdictional issues. Doc. No. [612]. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims about changes in precincts and polling places on standing grounds, and it dismissed Plaintiffs' claims as they pertained to security of the voter registration database, dates of birth on absentee ballots, and failure to notify voters of absentee ballot rejections for mootness. Id. at 71-72. The standing dismissal was based largely on a recent opinion from the Eleventh Circuit, Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir.), opinion vacated and superseded, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020). The mootness dismissal was based upon the State of Georgia's significant change to its election laws in the form of HB 316 and HB 392 and cessation of the behavior on which Plaintiffs' claims were based. As stated in the Court's prior orders:
To continue reading
Request your trial