AM. ASS'N OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES v. Harris
647 F.3d 1093
11th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are visually/manual impaired Florida voters in Duval County asserting ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Florida-law violations based on inaccessible voting equipment after 2000.
- Duval County purchased optical scanning machines requiring third-party assistance, compromising ballot secrecy and independence for disabled voters.
- County also purchased limited numbers of touch-screen machines with audio to aid accessibility, but only a small portion were deployed county-wide.
- District court initially dismissed ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims in 2002, then allowed amended pleadings alleging § 35.151, § 35.160, and related protections.
- A 2004 district court order held voting machines were facilities subject to § 35.151(b) and ordered increased accessibility; injunctions followed on remand.
- Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling, concluding voting machines are not facilities under § 35.151(b) and remanded to dismiss with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are voting machines 'facilities' under § 35.151(b)? | Machines are facilities because movable property alters the facility. | Machines are not facilities; only permanent structures and attached elements fall within § 35.151(b). | Voting machines are not facilities under § 35.151(b). |
| If not facilities, can § 35.160 require auxiliary aids independent of § 35.151(b)? | Public entities must provide auxiliary aids to ensure equal participation. | Only § 35.151(b) governs accessibility for facilities; not applicable to voting machines. | § 35.160 still requires auxiliary aids to ensure equal participation. |
| Does HAVA preempt or moot ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims here? | HAVA does not supersede or moot ADA claims; provides separate mechanisms. | HAVA could supersede ADA claims in the voting-machine context. | HAVA does not moot or preempt the Plaintiffs' ADA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molloy v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 94 F.3d 808 (2d Cir. 1996) (facilities include permanent structures linked to a building's plant)