People First of Ala. v. Merrill
Decision Date | 15 June 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-00619-AKK |
Citation | 467 F.Supp.3d 1179 |
Parties | PEOPLE FIRST OF ALABAMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John MERRILL, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Caren Elaine Short, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, GA, Jenny R. Ryan, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Deuel Ross, Pro Hac Vice, Liliana Zaragoza, Pro Hac Vice, Natasha Merle, Pro Hac Vice, Steven Lance, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., New York, NY, Mahogane D. Reed, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., Washington, DC, Nancy G. Abudu, Pro Hac Vice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiffs People First of Alabama, Howard Porter, Jr., Annie Carolyn Thompson, Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama State Conference of the NAACP.
Caren Elaine Short, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, GA, Jenny R. Ryan, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Deuel Ross, Pro Hac Vice, Natasha Merle, Pro Hac Vice, Steven Lance, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., New York, NY, Mahogane D. Reed, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., Washington, DC, Nancy G. Abudu, Pro Hac Vice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiff Robert Clopton.
Caren Elaine Short, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, GA, Jenny R. Ryan, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Deuel Ross, Steven Lance, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., New York, NY, Mahogane D. Reed, Pro Hac Vice, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., Washington, DC, Nancy G. Abudu, Pro Hac Vice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiff Eric Peebles.
James W. Davis, Winfield J. Sinclair, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Brenton Merrill Smith, Jeremy Stone Weber, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants John Merrill, Kay Ivey.
James W. Davis, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Brenton Merrill Smith, Jeremy Stone Weber, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant State of Alabama (The).
Jay M. Ross, Aubrey Patrick Dungan, Adams and Reese LLP, Mobile, AL, Todd David Engelhardt, Robert F. Dyar, Adams and Reese, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant Alleen Barnett.
Donald McKinley Carroll, Theodore A. Lawson, II, Jefferson County Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants Jacqueline Anderson-Smith, Karen Dunn Burks.
Brandon Keith Essig, Robert Jackson Sewell, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant Mary B. Roberson.
1 One group that consistently exercises this right at higher rates of participation is persons 65 or older.2 It is also a group that is at substantially higher risk during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The individual plaintiffs in this case are generally over 65,3 have underlying medical conditions, and qualify as individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs assert that Alabama's election laws—specifically, the requirement that a notary or two witnesses must sign absentee ballots, the requirement that absentee voters must submit a copy of their photo ID, and the state's de facto ban on curbside voting—run afoul of the fundamental right to vote and violate federal law in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure that the individual plaintiffs and those similarly situated to them can continue to exercise their fundamental political right to vote without jeopardizing their health during this pandemic, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on May 1 seeking relief.
COVID-19 is a novel respiratory disease that can cause severe complications, including respiratory failure and death, and it has spread rapidly around the world, resulting in more than 115,000 deaths in the United States alone and leading to numerous restrictions ordered by states to try to curb this extraordinary public health crisis. Although COVID-19 presents risks to the entire population, people who have underlying medical conditions, such as diabetes
or hypertension, or who are over 65, African-American, or disabled have substantially higher risk of developing severe cases or dying of COVID-19. The individual plaintiffs are in those high-risk groups, and to protect their health, these plaintiffs have complied with relevant public health guidelines by self-isolating or limiting their interactions with others to reduce their exposure to COVID-19. The plaintiffs contend that the challenged election laws force them and similarly-situated voters to choose between jeopardizing their health by leaving their homes and engaging in person-to-person contact they would not otherwise have or sacrificing their right to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, because we are in the middle of a pandemic that, at least at this juncture, has no end in sight, the plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from enforcing these requirements so that they can exercise their right to vote by absentee ballot or by curbside voting from the safety of their cars in those jurisdictions, if any, that are willing to implement this practice.
On the other hand, the defendants contend that the challenged laws are necessary to preserve the legitimacy of upcoming elections by preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence. But, the plaintiffs have shown that Alabama has other election law provisions that are effective at preventing fraud and safeguarding voter confidence, including laws requiring all absentee voters to identify themselves by providing a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number and to submit an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury verifying their identity. And, Alabama already waives the photo ID requirement for absentee voters 65 or older who also have a physical infirmity that renders them unable to access their assigned polling place. As to the photo ID requirement, the individual plaintiffs who are 65 or older or who suffer from a disabling condition seek only to be included in this exemption and to allow them to vote by absentee ballot without providing a copy of their photo ID with their absentee ballot applications.
The plaintiffs seek relief that the state already affords to certain individuals (waiver of the photo ID requirement), or, as the defendants acknowledge, is not prohibited by state law (barring enforcement of the de facto ban on curbside voting), or that, in light of other provisions of state election law, will not undermine the state's interest in preventing voter fraud (waiver of the witness requirement). Therefore, because the plaintiffs have shown that the challenged laws will likely dissuade some citizens from voting and "even one disenfranchised voter ... is too many,"4 the court finds that the burdens imposed by the challenged election laws on voters at high risk of severe complications or death from COVID-19 are not justified by the state's interests in enforcing the laws.
As a result, and for the reasons explained below, the court will grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part, and, as to the July 14 runoff election, the court will enjoin: (1) the witness requirement for absentee ballots for voters who cannot safely obtain the signatures of two witnesses or a notary public due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) the photo ID requirement for absentee voters who are over the age of 65 or disabled and who cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) the state's de facto ban on curbside voting to permit jurisdictions willing to implement such a practice, if any, to do so.
This opinion is divided as follows. Part I briefly outlines the impact of COVID-19 and the plaintiffs’ claims. Part II addresses the defendants’ contentions related to standing, sovereign immunity, mootness, and justiciability. After determining that the issue is properly before the court, Part III turns to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and addresses the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of each of their claims. In Part IV, the court addresses the remaining requirements for an injunction. Finally, Part V concludes and describes the injunctive relief the court will grant at this juncture.
Alabama has seen over 25,000 confirmed cases, and more than 700 deaths, from COVID-19. Doc. 16-4 at 3; Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) , https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, (last visited June 15, 2020). "At this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine." S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 207 L.Ed.2d 154 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
All persons are susceptible to contracting the virus, and people of all demographics have endured severe cases, but some groups have a substantially higher risk of developing complications and dying from COVID-19. Doc. 16-4 at 3–4. Older patients "are at the greatest risk" of experiencing "severe cases, long-term impairment, and death" from the virus. Id. at 3. Additionally, those with pre-existing conditions, such as hypertension
, certain heart conditions, lung diseases, diabetes, and obesity, "are at high risk of a life-threatening COVID-19 illness."5
Id. at 4. Available evidence also shows that, if infected, "racial and ethnic minority populations, especially African-Americans, are at a substantially elevated risk of developing life-threatening COVID-19 illnesses"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fay v. Merrill
...minimal levels of effectiveness in advancing the state's interest in preventing election fraud. See People First of Alabama v. Merrill , 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1211–19 (N.D. Ala. 2020), appeal dismissed, United States Court of Appeals, Docket No. 20-12184-GG, 2020 WL 5543717 (11th Cir. July ......
-
Middleton v. Andino
...challenge to North Carolina's one witness requirement for absentee voting) (citing People First of Ala. v. Merrill , Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00619-AKK, 467 F.Supp.3d 1179, 1198, (N.D. Ala. June 15, 2020) (finding standing for plaintiffs’ challenge to Alabama's two witness requirement for a......
-
Fay v. Merrill
... ... Congress for Connecticut's First and Second Congressional ... Districts, [ 4 ] appealed directly pursuant to General ... ‘‘recommended that people with mild symptoms ... consistent with COVID-19 be assumed to be infected with the ... See People First of Alabama v. Merrill , 467 ... F.Supp.3d 1179, 1211-19 (N.D. Ala. 2020), appeal dismissed, ... United States Court of Appeals, Docket No. 20-12184-GG (11th ... ...
-
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Lee
...of discrimination, they must then propose a facially reasonable modification to the challenged provision. People First of Ala. v. Merrill , 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1216 (N.D. Ala. 2020). But a defendant may then point to evidence that the request, although reasonable, would cause an "undue bu......
-
Reviving the Prophylactic VRA: Section 3, Purcell, and the New Vote Denial.
...no good reason to prefer a deferred injunction over a declaratory judgment. (273.) People First of Ala. v. Merrill (People First I), 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1193 (N.D. Ala. 2020). One argument against using this example--or really any example involving COVID restrictions--is that failing to g......
-
THE "ESSENTIAL" FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
...468 F. Supp. 3d 725, 737 (M.D. La. 2020) (voters challenging expansion of absentee ballots). (212.) People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179,1193 (N.D. Ala. 2020), appeal dismissed, No. 20-12184-GG, 2020 WL 5543717 (11th Cir. July 17, 2020) (finding that some voting restriction......
-
ABUSING EMERGENCY POWERS: HOW THE SUPREME COURT DEGRADED VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR ABUSE OF STATE POWER.
...Id. at 1211. (254.) See Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 190 (2020) (mem.). (255.) See People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 467 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1195-96 (N.D. Ala. (256.) See id. at 1209. (257.) See id. at 1225-21. (258.) See People First of Ala. v. Sec'y of State for Ala., 815 F. A......
-
VOTING IN A PANDEMIC: THE EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON AMERICA'S ELECTIONS.
...BOARD (Nov. 17, 2016), https://www.oklahoma.gov/elcctions/support/2016/20161108-scb.html. (107.) People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 467 F.Supp. 3d 1179 (N.D. Ala. (108.) Id. at 1192. (109.) Id at 1193. (110.) Id. at 1206-27. (111.) Id at 1226-27. (112.) People First Ala. v. Scc'y of State for......