Wood v. Raffensperger

• Decision Date: 20 November 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG
• Citation: 501 F.Supp.3d 1310
• Parties: L. Lin WOOD, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Brad RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; Rebecca N. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the Georgia State Election Board; David J. Worley, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board; Matthew Mashburn, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board; and Anh Le, in her official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

501 F.Supp.3d 1310

L. Lin WOOD, Jr., Plaintiff,

v.Brad RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; Rebecca N. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the Georgia State Election Board; David J. Worley, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board; Matthew Mashburn, in his official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board; and Anh Le, in her official capacity as a Member of the Georgia State Election Board, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed November 20, 2020

Ray Stallings Smith, III, Smith & Liss, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Charlene S. McGowan, Russell D. Willard, Office of the Georgia Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Steven D. Grimberg, United States District Court Judge

This matter is before the Court on a motion for temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff L. Lin Wood, Jr. [ECF 6]. For the following reasons, and with the benefit of oral argument, Wood's motion is DENIED .

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2020, the United States conducted a general election for various federal, state, and local political offices (the General Election).¹ However, the voting process in Georgia began in earnest before that date. On September 15, 2020, local election officials began mailing absentee ballots for the General Election to eligible voters.² On October 12, 2020, Georgia's in-person, early voting period started.³ This entire process played out amidst the throes of a global health pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2—colloquially known as COVID-19. Due in large part to the threat posed by COVID-19, an overwhelming number of Georgia voters—over 1 million of the 5 million votes cast by November 3—participated in the General Election through the use of absentee ballots.⁴

Wood, a registered voter in Fulton County, Georgia, believes Defendants—the elected officials tasked with conducting elections in the state—performed their roles in an unconstitutional manner. As such, Wood initiated this action on November 13, 2020, ten days after the conclusion of the General Election.⁵ On November 16, Wood filed an Amended Complaint, asserting three claims against Defendants—all in their official capacities—for violation of: the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I); the Electors and Elections Clause of the Constitution (Count II); and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count III).⁶

Counts I and II seek extraordinary relief:

As a result of Defendants’ unauthorized actions and disparate treatment of defective absentee ballots, this Court should enter an order, declaration, and/or injunction that prohibits Defendants from certifying the results of the 2020 general election in Georgia on a statewide basis.

Alternatively, this Court should enter an order, declaration, and/or injunction prohibiting Defendants from certifying the results of the General Election which include the tabulation of defective absentee ballots, regardless of whether said ballots were cured.

Alternatively, this Court should enter an order, declaration, and/or injunction that the results of the 2020 general election in Georgia are defective as a result of the above-described constitutional violations, and that Defendants are required to cure said deficiencies in a manner consistent with federal and Georgia law, and without the taint of the procedures described in the Litigation Settlement.⁷

For Count III, Wood requests an order, declaration, and/or injunction requiring Defendants to perform a myriad of activities, including ordering a second recount prior to the certification of the election results and permitting monitors designated by the Republican Party to have special access to observe all election activity.⁸

On November 17, 2020, Wood filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.⁹ Two sets of parties subsequently sought permission to intervene as defendants (collectively, the Intervenors): (1) the Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. (DPG), DSCC, and DCCC; and (2) the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (Georgia NAACP) and Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda (GCPA).¹⁰ On November 19, Defendants and Intervenors filed separate responses in opposition to Wood's motion for a temporary restraining order.¹¹ The Court held oral argument on Wood's motion the same day. At the conclusion of the oral argument, the Court denied Wood's request for a temporary restraining order. This Order follows and supplements this Court's oral ruling.

a. Georgia Statutory Law Regarding Absentee Ballots.

Georgia law authorizes any eligible voter to cast his or her absentee ballot by mail without providing a reason. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-380(b). To initiate the absentee-voting process, a prospective voter must submit an application to the applicable registrar's or absentee ballot clerk's office. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A). Upon receipt of a timely absentee ballot request, a registrar or absentee ballot clerk must enter the date the office received the application and compare the prospective voter's information and signature on the application with the information and signature on file in the registrar's or clerk's office. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b)(1). If the prospective voter's eligibility is confirmed, the registrar or clerk must mail the voter an absentee ballot. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(b)(2)(A).

An absentee voter receives two envelopes along with the absentee ballot; the completed ballot is placed in the smaller envelope, which is then placed in the larger envelope, which contains the oath of the elector and a signature line. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(b). Upon receipt of a timely absentee ballot, a registrar or clerk is required to compare the identifying information and signature provided in the oath with the information and signature on file in the respective office. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B). If the information and signature appear to match, the registrar or clerk signs his or her name below the voter's oath. Id. If the information or signature is missing or does not appear to match, the registrar or clerk is required to write "Rejected" across the envelope and provide the reason for the rejection. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C). The board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk is required to "promptly notify" the elector of the rejection, who then has until the end of the period for verifying provisional ballots to cure the issue that resulted in the rejection. Id.

Secretary of State Raffensperger is "the state's chief election official." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(b). See also Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2005-3 (Apr. 15, 2005) ("Just as a matter of sheer volume and scope, it is clear that under both the Constitution and the laws of the State the Secretary is the state official with the power, duty, and authority to manage the state's electoral system. No other state official or entity is assigned the range of responsibilities given to the Secretary of State in the area of elections."). In this role, Raffensperger is required to, among other things, "promulgate rules and regulations so as to obtain uniformity in the practices and proceedings of superintendents, registrars, deputy registrars, poll officers, and other officials" and "formulate, adopt, and promulgate such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(1)-(2).

b. The Settlement Agreement

Wood does not challenge the underlying constitutionality of the absentee ballot framework enacted by the Georgia General Assembly. The genesis of his claims instead derive from a lawsuit filed over one year ago by the DPG against Raffensperger, the then-Members of the Georgia State Election Board, and the then-Members of the Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections.¹² In that action, the DPG, DSCC, and DCCC challenged several aspects of the process for rejecting absentee ballots based on a missing or mismatched signature.¹³

On March 6, 2020, the DPG, DSCC, DCCC, Raffensperger, and the Members of the Georgia State Election Board executed—and filed on the public docket—a "Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release" (Settlement Agreement).¹⁴ As part of the Settlement Agreement, Raffensperger agreed to issue an Official Election Bulletin containing certain procedures for the review of signatures on absentee ballot envelopes by county election officials for the March 24, 2020 Presidential Primary Election and subsequent General Election. In relevant part, the procedures stated:

When reviewing an elector's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope, the registrar or clerk must compare the signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope to each signature contained in such elector's voter registration record in eNet and the elector's signature on the application for the mail-in absentee ballot. If the registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the voter's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope does not match any of the voter's signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballot application, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk must seek review from two other registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks. A mail in absentee ballot shall not be rejected unless a majority of the registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks reviewing the signature agree that the signature does not match any of the voter's signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballot application. If a determination is made that the elector's signature on the mail-in absentee ballot envelope does not match any of the voter's signatures on file in eNet or on the absentee ballot application, the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall write the names of the three elections officials who conducted the signature review across the face of the

...