People First of Alabama v. Merrill, 2:20-cv-00619

Background

In response to COVID‑19, Alabama expanded absentee eligibility for the July 14, 2020 primary runoff but continued to require (1) a notary or two adult witnesses on absentee ballot affidavits, (2) a copy of a photo ID with absentee applications (with limited statutory exemptions), and (3) Secretary of State Merrill’s prior actions effectively banning local curbside‑voting efforts.
Plaintiffs: four individual voters (largely elderly/disabled and at high COVID risk) and three organizations representing disabled and minority voters; they seek a preliminary injunction to (a) suspend the witness requirement, (b) suspend the photo‑ID copy requirement for elderly/disabled voters who cannot safely obtain a copy, and (c) bar enforcement of the de facto curbside‑voting prohibition for jurisdictions that wish to implement it.
Defendants: state officials (Secretary Merrill and several county absentee election managers (AEMs)) defended the rules as necessary to prevent absentee fraud and preserve electoral integrity; they disputed standing, justiciability, and scope of relief.
The district court held a preliminary‑injunction hearing limited to the July 14 runoff and found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on several as‑applied claims given COVID‑19 risks and existing Alabama safeguards against fraud.
Relief granted (limited to the July 14 runoff): (1) do not enforce the witness requirement for absentee voters who reasonably cannot safely obtain witnesses/notary and who submit a signed perjury statement about CDC‑listed high‑risk conditions; (2) do not enforce the photo‑ID copy requirement for absentee voters age 65+ or disabled who reasonably cannot safely obtain a copy and who submit a signed perjury statement; (3) do not enforce Secretary Merrill’s de facto prohibition on curbside voting (counties may implement if they comply with election law).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Justiciability	Plaintiffs (individuals/orgs) have concrete, imminent injuries (must comply with absentee rules or forgo voting) and can seek injunctive relief	Defendants claimed lack of standing, sovereign immunity, mootness, political question	Court found plaintiffs likely have standing; AEMs and Secretary Merrill proper defendants under Ex parte Young; Gov. Ivey immune; Roberson’s resignation does not moot official‑capacity claim (successor auto‑substituted).
Witness requirement (Anderson‑Burdick)	Requirement forces vulnerable voters to choose between health and voting; burden outweighs fraud deterrence as‑applied during pandemic	State: witness requirement preserves ballot integrity and deters absentee fraud	Court: plaintiffs likely to succeed as‑applied for voters who cannot safely obtain witnesses/notary; enjoined for those voters for July 14 (with perjury statement). Strict scrutiny not applied statewide.
Photo‑ID copy requirement (Anderson‑Burdick & ADA overlap)	Requiring a paper copy forces some elderly/disabled to risk exposure or forgo absentee voting; existing exemptions and other ID data (DL/SSN4) reasonably protect integrity	State: photo ID deters fraud and preserves confidence; practical alternatives exist	Court: likely success as‑applied for voters 65+ or disabled who cannot safely obtain a copy; enjoined for that limited group for July 14 (with perjury statement).
Curbside voting prohibition	Prohibiting counties from offering curbside voting denies a safe in‑person option for disabled/high‑risk voters and is unnecessary where counties can lawfully provide it	State: absentee voting is available to all; curbside raises logistical/privacy/tabulation concerns	Court: plaintiffs likely to succeed; enjoined Secretary Merrill from banning counties that wish to offer curbside voting that complies with law.
ADA Title II claims	Plaintiffs propose reasonable modifications (waive photo‑ID copy for vulnerable voters; permit curbside; allow self‑executed affidavits) to provide meaningful access	State: some rules (esp. witness requirement) are essential eligibility requirements and waivers would fundamentally alter program	Court: granted likelihood of success on ADA claims for photo‑ID exemption and curbside voting; did not find sufficient record to prevail on ADA challenge to witness rule because Alabama treats it as essential under state law.
Voting Rights Act §201 ("test or device")	Witness/notary scheme operates as a voucher/test that may deny voters the right to vote	State: witness requirement is not a prohibited voucher; witnesses only attest to witnessing signature; notary option and witness option distinguish it	Court: plaintiffs have not shown likely success on a §201 claim at this time.

Key Cases Cited

Dem. Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (voting is a fundamental right and one disenfranchised voter is too many)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for balancing burden on voting rights against state interests)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refinement of Anderson balancing test)
Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (photo‑ID legitimacy and state interest in preventing fraud)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (sovereign immunity exception for prospective equitable relief against state officers)
Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020) (limits on redressability and when state chief elections officer is a proper defendant)
Common Cause v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (standing to challenge photo‑ID voting requirements)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020) (denial of opportunity to vote is irreparable harm)
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (ADA fundamental‑alteration analysis)
Mary Jo C. v. New York State & Local Ret. Sys., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (essential‑eligibility inquiry under ADA)
Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2001) (Title II accessibility principles)