284 F. Supp. 3d 1253
N.D. Ala.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Greater Birmingham Ministries, Alabama NAACP, and individual voters) challenged Alabama’s 2011 Photo ID Law (Ala. Code § 17-9-30) alleging racially discriminatory purpose and effect under Section 2 and Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Secretary John Merrill (official capacity) defended the law.
- The law requires photo ID for in-person and absentee voting but provides alternatives: (1) free state-issued photo voter ID (available at every county Board of Registrars, Secretary’s office, or mobile ID unit; temporary IDs issued immediately); (2) provisional ballots cure period; and (3) a “positively identify” option where two election officials personally acquainted with a voter may attest to identity.
- The Secretary implemented mobile ID units, MOUs to cover printing fees and vital-record searches, and outreach/advertising; Alabama issued over 13,000 free photo voter IDs and maintains procedures for home visits and registrar assistance.
- Experts estimated a small percentage of registered voters lack acceptable photo ID (Plaintiffs’ expert ~1.67% overall; higher rates for Black and Hispanic voters but numerically small); disputed "contestable" ID estimates were larger but did not change the Court’s analysis.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; the court reviewed undisputed facts and granted Secretary Merrill summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional equal protection / Fifteenth Amendment intent | Law enacted with racially discriminatory purpose and had disparate impact on Black and Latino voters | Law enacted for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (prevent fraud, increase confidence); broad list of acceptable IDs and remediation available | Court: No actual discriminatory effect; summary judgment for Secretary Merrill — Plaintiffs failed to show law denies vote on basis of race |
| Section 2 (results) | Photo ID requirement has disparate burden because minorities are less likely to possess acceptable ID | Disparity alone insufficient where everyone has reasonable, accessible means to obtain free ID; provisional ballots and cure mechanisms available | Court: No Section 2 violation — law does not deny or abridge opportunity to vote because IDs are readily obtainable |
| Section 201 ("test or device") — positively identify provision | Positively identify option is an unlawful voucher/test because it conditions voting on others’ attestations | Provision is permissive, not prerequisite; it expands access as a fail-safe and is longstanding (precleared in 2003) | Court: Provision is not a prohibited test or device; Plaintiffs’ motion on this discrete issue denied |
| Procedural/implementation concerns (accessibility of ID issuance) | Mobile unit home visits rare; closure/reduction of ALEA offices in Black belt and practical barriers (transportation, fees) disproportionately burden minorities | State provides free IDs, MOUs to obtain vital records at no cost, mobile unit and registrars in each county; home visits available if needed | Court: Practical accommodations render burden minimal; individual anecdotal errors do not demonstrate statutory invalidity |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (invalidated Section 4(b) preclearance coverage formula) (explains preclearance context)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (photo ID laws impose at most limited burdens; deterrence of fraud and confidence are legitimate state interests)
- Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.) (upheld Georgia photo ID and recognized state interests and limited burden)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (standards for proving discriminatory intent; relevant factors for intent analysis)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (vote-denial and vote-dilution standards under VRA; intent and effect analyses)
- Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 843 F.3d 592 (4th Cir.) (Section 2 requires evidence that process reduces minorities’ opportunity to participate; mere disparate possession rates insufficient)
- North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir.) (contrasting example where court found discriminatory intent and multiple targeted provisions)