California Council of the Blind v. County of Alameda
985 F. Supp. 2d 1229
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Five blind registered Alameda County voters and California Council of the Blind sued Alameda County and the Interim Registrar of Voters alleging accessible voting machines at multiple polling sites were not operable on Election Day, forcing plaintiffs to vote with third‑party assistance.
- Plaintiffs allege systemic failures: inadequate poll worker training, insufficient pre‑opening testing and maintenance, poor troubleshooting/technical support, and delayed or unavailable replacement machines.
- Plaintiffs assert violations of Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California Elections Code § 19227, and California Government Code § 11135.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing the ADA/Rehabilitation Act do not guarantee a right to private, independent voting and that providing third‑party assistance satisfied obligations; they also challenged the state‑law claims.
- The magistrate judge held the motion partly granted and partly denied: federal disability claims and the § 11135 claim survive; the § 19227 claim is dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead required implementing rules and available funding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II/§504 require private, independent voting as part of "meaningful access" | ADA/Rehab Act require reasonable modifications (auxiliary aids) to provide blind voters equal opportunity to vote privately and independently | ADA/Rehab Act do not create a freestanding right to secret/independent voting; providing third‑party assistance satisfies access | Court: Private, independent voting is a central feature/benefit of voting; plaintiffs plausibly allege denial of meaningful access and the claims survive dismissal |
| Whether providing an accessible machine at each polling place is a "reasonable modification" or an undue burden/fundamental alteration | Plaintiffs: technology makes such accommodations feasible; failure to maintain/operate machines is unlawful | Defendants: no courts have held ADA requires accessible machines at every site; argue HAVA handles detailed requirements | Court: Defendants bear burden to plead undue burden/fundamental alteration; they did not. Reasonableness is a merits issue; allegations suffice to proceed |
| Whether providing third‑party assistance meets "effective communication" and privacy requirements of 28 C.F.R. §35.160 | Plaintiffs: third‑party assistance compromises privacy/independence and is not equivalent to effective auxiliary aids | Defendants: assistance allows communication of vote and thus effective access (citing DOJ examples and some cases) | Court: Regulation requires aids preserve privacy and independence; third‑party assistance can be insufficient; plaintiffs plausibly allege violations |
| Whether plaintiffs state claims under California law (§11135 and §19227) | §11135 adopts ADA protections; §19227 requires accessible units at each polling place per Secretary of State rules and available funding | Defendants: federal dismissal defeats §11135; §19227 not plead because no Secretary of State rules alleged and funding element missing | Court: §11135 claim survives because ADA claim survives; §19227 dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege required implementing regulations and available funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinreich v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997) (elements for ADA Title II/Rehab Act claim)
- Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (broad construction of "services, programs, or activities")
- K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013) (Chevron deference to DOJ Title II regs; meaningful access framework)
- American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Rehab Act requires access that promotes independence; reliance on third parties insufficient)
- American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Harris, 647 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding voting machines are not "facilities" under certain ADA regs and finding no violation where third‑party assistance permitted)
- American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Shelley, 324 F.Supp.2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (denying injunctive relief where election integrity concerns outweighed claimed need for independent voting)