National Federation of the Blind v. Linda Lamone
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2238
4th Cir.2016Background
- Maryland offers no-excuse absentee voting; voters who download ballots must print, hand-mark, sign, and return a hardcopy ballot. Many disabled voters cannot hand-mark or independently sign absentee ballots.
- The State developed an online ballot-marking tool that lets voters mark choices electronically, print a completed ballot (with a separate signature page), sign it, and return it; the tool is compatible with many assistive technologies and was used (in non-fully accessible form) in 2012.
- Plaintiffs (National Federation of the Blind and individual disabled voters) sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction requiring use of the online tool for the 2014 general election.
- After a three-day bench trial, the district court found Maryland’s absentee voting program denied meaningful access to disabled absentee voters, that the online tool was a reasonable modification, and that requiring its use would not fundamentally alter the State’s voting program; it entered a permanent injunction.
- Maryland appealed, arguing (inter alia) the proper program-level for analysis is the entire voting system (not just absentee voting), that the tool posed security and certification problems, and that use without statutorily required certification would fundamentally alter the program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper scope of ADA review (program-level) | Focus on absentee voting program; absentee voting is the relevant service denied | Must evaluate Maryland’s entire voting program (including accessible in-person voting) | Court: absentee voting is the proper unit; defining benefit too broadly would nullify ADA protections |
| Meaningful access under Title II / Rehabilitation Act | Current absentee process denies disabled voters private, independent absentee voting | No right to private, independent absentee voting; alternatives (in-person, assistance) suffice | Court: denying private independent absentee voting is discrimination; plaintiffs were denied meaningful access |
| Reasonableness of proposed modification (online tool) | Tool is accessible, already developed, used previously, and imposes minimal burden | Tool poses security/privacy risks; not certified per state statute | Court: district court’s findings that tool is reasonably secure and accessible not clearly erroneous; tool is a reasonable modification |
| Fundamental alteration defense (statutory certification) | N/A | Requiring tool use without the supermajority certification would fundamentally alter voting program and violate state law | Court: State did not show use of the uncertified tool is so at odds with certification’s purpose as to be a fundamental alteration; federal ADA can require reasonable modifications despite state procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (discusses ADA’s remedial purpose to eliminate disability discrimination)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (benefit definition must not be so broad as to avoid discriminatory effects)
- Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections in New York, 752 F.3d 189 (public entity must provide access equal in quality, not merely some way to vote)
- Seremeth v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs Frederick Cty., 673 F.3d 333 (deference to DOJ ADA regulations)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (framework for assessing reasonable modifications)
- Jones v. City of Monroe, MI, 341 F.3d 474 (ADA can require changes to rules/policies despite procedural obstacles)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Title II can be a valid exercise of Congress’s enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment)