11 F.4th 1227
11th Cir.2021Background
- Georgia law allows absentee voting either by returning ballots in person, using county drop boxes, or mailing them; Georgia and counties are not required to pay postage for mailed absentee ballots.
- Plaintiffs (Black Voters Matter Fund, Penelope Reid, Megan Gordon) sued state and county election officials claiming that requiring voters to pay postage to mail absentee ballots is a poll tax in violation of the Twenty‑Fourth Amendment and an unconstitutional fee under the Equal Protection Clause; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding postage is not a poll tax or unconstitutional fee; plaintiffs appealed.
- USPS has a policy instructing employees to deliver election mail even if postage is insufficient, but the courts found that policy does not resolve the constitutional questions here.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding postage is payment for a postal service (not a government tax or penalty) and incidental voting costs (like stamps) do not amount to an unconstitutional poll tax or unequal electoral standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring voters to pay postage for mailed absentee ballots constitutes a "poll tax" under the Twenty‑Fourth Amendment | Postage is a tax/monetary exaction that abridges the right to vote if the state does not pay it | Postage is payment for USPS services, not a state‑imposed tax or revenue raising exaction; voters may vote in person or use drop boxes without paying | Not a Twenty‑Fourth Amendment violation: postage is a service cost, not a government tax or penalty; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Georgia’s absentee framework violates Equal Protection by making payment an electoral standard or discriminating among absentee voters | Failure to provide postage conditions absentee voting on payment and discriminates against those who cannot/choose not to vote in person | Georgia does not condition the franchise on payment; mailing is optional and in‑person/drop‑off options avoid any payment requirement; offering mail voting expands access | No Equal Protection violation: Georgia did not make affluence or payment an electoral qualification; incidental costs do not create an unconstitutional fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965) (states may not condition the federal franchise on payment of a poll tax)
- Jones v. Governor of Fla., 975 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (distinguishing taxes from penalties and other government exactions)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (clarifies taxing power and characteristics of a tax)
- United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568 (1931) (defines a tax as an enforced contribution for government support)
- Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (Equal Protection forbids making affluence or payment an electoral standard)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality) (discusses burdens on voting and relevant Equal Protection analysis)
- American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (discusses arbitrary denial of absentee voting to classes of qualified voters)
- O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524 (1974) (related to absentee‑voting equal protection principles)
- Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) (recognizes that voting rules impose incidental burdens and frames modern vote‑dilution analysis)
- Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec’y of State for State of Ala., 992 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that providing additional options can increase voting opportunities rather than create an unconstitutional test)