People First of Ala. v. Merrill
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action Number 2:20-cv-00619-AKK |
| Citation | 479 F.Supp.3d 1200 |
| 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, Maia Fleischman, Pro Hac Vice, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Randall C. Marshall, American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama Foundation, Inc., Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Davin Rosborough, American Civil Liberties Union, 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., Sarah Brannon, American Civil Liberties Union, 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, Maia Fleischman, Pro Hac Vice, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Randall C. Marshall, American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama Foundation, Inc., Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Davin Rosborough, American Civil Liberties Union, 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., Sarah Brannon, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Nancy G. Abudu, Pro Hac Vice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiff Eric Peebles.
Caren Elaine Short, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, GA, Jenny R. Ryan, Maia Fleischman, Pro Hac Vice, William Van Der Pol, Jr., Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, Randall C. Marshall, American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama Foundation, Inc., Sara M. Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, Alora Thomas-Lundborg, Davin Rosborough, American Civil Liberties Union, 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., Sarah Brannon, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, Nancy G. Abudu, Pro Hac Vice, Southern Poverty Law Center, Decatur, AL, for Plaintiffs Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Teresa Bettis, Sheryl Threadgill-Matthews.
James W. Davis, Andrew Reid Harris, Winfield J. Sinclair, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Alexander Barrett Bowdre, Brenton Merrill Smith, Jeremy Stone Weber, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant John Merrill.
James W. Davis, Winfield J. Sinclair, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Brenton Merrill Smith, Jeremy Stone Weber, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Kay Ivey.
James W. Davis, Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Alexander Barrett Bowdre, Brenton Merrill Smith, Jeremy Stone Weber, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant State of Alabama.
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.
Todd David Engelhardt, Robert F. Dyar, Adams and Reese, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Aubrey Patrick Dungan, Jay M. Ross, Adams and Reese, LLP, Mobile, AL, for Defendant JoJo Schwarzauer.
Jamie Helen Kidd, Kendrick E. Webb, John Mark Cowell, Webb & Eley PC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants James Majors, Johnnie Mae King, Carolyn Davis-Posey, Bill English, Lashandra Myrick, Britney Jones-Alexander.
Thomas T. Gallion, III, Constance C. Walker, Haskell Slaughter Gallion & Walker, LLC, Tyrone Carlton Means, Norbert H. Williams, Means Gillis Law LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants Gina Jobe Ishman, JC Love, III.
David J. Canupp, Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendants Debra Kizer, Frank Barger.
Kendrick E. Webb, Jamie Helen Kidd, John Mark Cowell, Webb & Eley PC, Montgomery, AL, Jerry L. Thornton, Law Offices of Jerry L. Thornton, Hayneville, AL, for Defendant Ruby Jones Thomas.
Jerome E. Speegle, Jennifer S. Holifield, Speegle, Hoffman, Holman & Holifield, LLC, Lee Louis Hale, Mobile, AL, for Defendant Don Davis.
Before the court are several motions to dismiss. First, the State of Alabama and Secretary of State John Merrill ("the State Defendants") move to dismiss the claims against them for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Doc. 112. Next, Lashandra Myrick, Britney Jones-Alexander, Don Davis, and J.C. Love, III, the probate judges, respectively, for Lowndes County, Wilcox County, Mobile County, and Montgomery County ("the Probate Judges"), move to dismiss the claims against them for lack of standing. Docs. 129, 130, 136, 140. Finally, Ruby Jones-Thomas, the circuit clerk for Lowndes County, moves to dismiss the claims against her as an improper party. Doc. 138. For the reasons explained below, the State Defendants’ motion is due to be granted in part, the Probate Judges’ motions are due to be denied, and Jones-Thomas’ motion is due to be granted in part.
The court has already addressed the circumstances of this case, see doc. 58, and will not retread that ground here. However, because the plaintiffs have since amended their complaint, doc. 75, the court will briefly review the claims asserted.
The plaintiffs challenge four election practices in Alabama: (1) the requirement that voters provide an excuse to vote absentee ("the excuse requirement"), Ala. Code § 17-11-3 ; (2) the requirement that a notary or two witnesses must sign the absentee ballots ("the witness requirement"), Ala. Code § 17-11-7(b) ; (3) the requirement that absentee voters must submit a copy of their photo ID ("the photo ID requirement"), Ala. Code § 17-9-30(b) ; and (4) the State's de facto ban on curbside voting ("the curbside voting ban").
The plaintiffs organize their claims challenging these election practices in five counts. Each count is asserted by all plaintiffs against all defendants.1 In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that, as-applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, all four of the challenged practices violate the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and that the excuse requirement, the witness requirement, and the curbside voting ban are facial violations of the right to vote under the same amendments. Doc. 75 at 66–68. In Count II, the plaintiffs allege that, as-applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, all four of the challenged practices violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. , and that the curbside voting ban is a facial violation of the ADA. Doc. 75 at 68–71. In Count III, the plaintiffs allege that, as-applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, the excuse requirement, the witness requirement, and the curbside voting ban violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 10301, and that the curbside voting ban is a facial violation of § 2 of the VRA. Doc. 75 at 71–74. In Count IV, the plaintiffs allege that the witness requirement violates § 201 of the VRA, 52 U.S.C. § 10501.2 Doc. 75 at 74–76. Finally, in Count V, the plaintiffs allege that the witness requirement is an unconstitutional poll tax under the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and that it unconstitutionally conditions the right to vote on a person's wealth in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 75 at 76–77.
The relevant changes in the amended complaint include: adding the challenge to the excuse requirement; adding the State as a defendant to the constitutional claims in Count I; adding the facial challenges to the curbside voting ban in Counts II and III; and adding the claims under the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in Count V. Compare doc. 1 at 43–52 with doc. 75 at 66–77. The plaintiffs also added a number of defendants in the amended complaint, all sued in their official capacities as absentee election managers ("AEMs"), circuit clerks, or probate judges for their respective counties. Doc. 75 at 27.
The motions before the court move to dismiss both for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court will address each contention for dismissal, beginning with the jurisdictional issues.
A Rule 12(b)(1) challenge for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may take the form of a facial or factual attack on the complaint. Lawrence v. Dunbar , 919 F.2d 1525, 1528–29 (11th Cir. 1990). When deciding a facial attack, the court takes the allegations of the complaint as true. Id. at 1529. When deciding a factual attack, the court may decide the factual issues that bear on jurisdiction, and no presumption of truthfulness applies to the plaintiff's allegations. Morrison v. Amway Corp. , 323 F.3d 920, 925 (11th Cir. 2003).
The State Defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the excuse requirement is moot. Doc. 112 at 11–12. A Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cty. , 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004). The plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Ziriax
...best, that the Governor might reimpose the ten-person restriction or a similar one."); People First of Ala. v. Merrill , No. 2:20-CV-00619-AKK, 479 F.Supp.3d 1200, 1208 n.5 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 17, 2020) (regarding argument that restrictions imposed by the pandemic are capable of repetition, yet......