334 F. Supp. 3d 1303
N.D. Ga.2018Background
- Georgia used Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) touchscreen machines linked to county and a central GEMS server; the DREs used outdated, unsupported software and produced no voter‑verifiable paper ballot or independent audit trail.
- Cybersecurity researchers (including Dr. Alex Halderman and others) demonstrated vulnerabilities: malware can be introduced via removable memory cards or servers to alter vote records undetectably; the State's Kennesaw State University Center for Election Services (CES) server was accessible and contained sensitive voter and election files.
- CES was contracted by the Secretary of State to maintain the central server until December 2017; security researchers accessed and reported the vulnerabilities in 2016–2017, FBI later seized the server, and relevant server data were subsequently destroyed.
- Two plaintiff groups (Curling Plaintiffs and Coalition for Good Governance) brought § 1983 claims alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations from Georgia’s continued use of insecure, unverifiable DREs; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief (including barring DRE use and requiring paper ballots and post‑election audits) and filed motions for preliminary injunction before the November 2018 election.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity; the court held a hearing, denied dismissal in part, found jurisdiction appropriate under Ex Parte Young, and considered plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring federal §1983 claims | Plaintiffs: actual and imminent injury from insecure DREs (past breaches, risk of vote alteration, privacy breaches); organizational associational standing for CGG | Defendants: injuries speculative; harms (if any) result from illegal third‑party hacking not state action; state merely implements law; CGG lacks associational standing | Court: Plaintiffs alleged concrete past intrusions, ongoing risk, causal link to state implementation/support of DREs, and redressability by injunctive relief; standing found for at least one plaintiff in each group and for CGG associationally |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity / Ex Parte Young | Plaintiffs: seek prospective injunctive relief against state officers to prevent ongoing constitutional violations as‑applied to DRE use | Defendants: Eleventh Amendment bars suit; Ex Parte Young inapplicable because plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of state law rather than challenge it, and relief implicates state sovereignty | Court: Ex Parte Young applies to as‑applied challenges and prospective relief here; Eleventh Amendment does not bar the federal claims |
| Likelihood of success on merits of constitutional claims | Plaintiffs: DRE system burdens fundamental voting rights (due process, equal protection) because unverifiable DREs risk vote alteration/ dilution compared to paper ballots; evidence shows vulnerabilities and lack of effective audits | Defendants: state regulatory interests justify DRE use; claims are speculative or insufficiently shown; procedural and practical obstacles weaken plaintiffs’ case | Court: On preliminary record, plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on at least some constitutional claims (risk of debasement/dilution of vote), though findings are cautious and further discovery/hearing warranted |
| Preliminary injunction — irreparable harm, balance, public interest, timing | Plaintiffs: imminent risk votes will be miscounted; only injunctive relief (paper ballots + audits) can prevent irreparable harm | Defendants: sudden statewide switch to paper/scanners weeks before election would disrupt elections, degrade access, cause chaos, and impose fiscal/administrative burdens | Held: Court finds irreparable risk but denies emergency statewide preliminary injunction for the 2018 election because plaintiffs failed to meet burden given eleventh‑hour timing and severe disruption risk; court warns defendants to remedy system before future elections |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (standing requirements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (balancing test for election‑law burdens)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (equal protection: vote weight/debasement principle)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Eleventh Amendment exception for prospective relief)
- Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (voter standing re: voting technology risk)
- Wexler v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 1226 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of recount/manual review claims)