Donna Curling v. David J. Worley, 50 F.4th 1114

Background

Coalition for Good Governance and individual members challenged the 2017 Georgia Sixth District runoff and Georgia’s electronic voting systems, claiming vulnerability to hacking and other failures.
While litigation proceeded, Georgia replaced fully electronic machines with electronic ballot markers that print voter-verified paper ballots, which are then tabulated by ballot scanners.
Plaintiffs amended to seek additional relief: disable software that collects identifying data, fix mismatches between check-in PollPads and registration rolls, change the hard-copy backup (pollbook) print date to after early voting, recalibrate scanners to count/flag non‑filled ovals, and require stronger audits.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction changing the pollbook print date and directed (but did not finalize) relief on scanner sensitivity; the Eleventh Circuit stayed the injunction and heard the appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s pollbook injunction (holding plaintiffs failed to show a severe Anderson‑Burdick burden and that the State’s administrative interests are reasonable) and dismissed the appeal as to the scanner order because no concrete injunction had been entered to review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgia’s hard‑copy backup (pollbook) print date severely burdens the right to vote and justified a preliminary injunction	Outdated paper backups (printed before end of early voting) lead to long lines, unnecessary provisional ballots, and potential disenfranchisement	Print date is chosen for substantial administrative reasons (printing/distribution logistics across 159 counties); backups already contain substantially the same data; later printing is resource‑intensive	Vacated preliminary injunction: plaintiffs failed to show a severe burden under Anderson‑Burdick; State’s timing is reasonable and nondiscriminatory and justified by important administrative interests
Whether scanners must be recalibrated to count or flag checked/X‑marked ovals	Scanners should count or flag “all perceptible votes” because some voters do not fill ovals as instructed; failing to do so burdens voters	Current instructions minimize burden; changing settings risks administrative confusion and vote mishaps; technical fixes require coordination with manufacturers	Appeal dismissed as to scanner settings because the district court did not enter a sufficiently definite preliminary injunction (no concrete, reviewable directive)
Standing of the Coalition to seek injunctive relief	Advocacy organization diverts resources, trains voters, and would have to address election‑day problems — showing organizational injury	State argued lack of standing for some claims	Coalition has standing: organizational diversion and election‑day burdens suffice to invoke jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson‑Burdick balancing framework for election laws)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for assessing burdens on voters)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (lesser burdens require only reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulations)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (discussion of substantial vs. merely inconvenient voting burdens)
New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger, 976 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (application of Anderson‑Burdick and deference to reasonable state election administration)
Balt. Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176 (1955) (authorization for interlocutory appeals of injunctions)
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (requirement that at least one plaintiff have standing to confer jurisdiction)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (doctrine allowing suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers)