489 F.Supp.3d 433
E.D.N.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: four blind individual North Carolina registered voters and three organizations (North Carolina Council of the Blind; Governor Morehead School Alumni Association; Disability Rights North Carolina) sued the North Carolina State Board of Elections and its officials under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging the absentee ballot program is inaccessible to blind voters.
- North Carolina mails standard‑print paper absentee ballots to any requester; blind/low‑vision voters cannot complete these privately and independently. The state provides an electronic voting portal (Democracy Live) only for UOCAVA (military/overseas) voters.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction requiring the BOE to provide an accessible absentee option (ultimately seeking access to the Democracy Live portal) in time for the November 3, 2020 election.
- The BOE acknowledged Democracy Live is used for UOCAVA voters and estimated it could be adapted and go live by Oct. 19, 2020 if ordered, but raised timing and security concerns about expanding access.
- The court held a hearing (Sept. 23, 2020), found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, irreparably harmed, and that the public interest and balance of equities favored relief, and granted a preliminary injunction ordering the BOE to open Democracy Live to blind voters for the Nov. 3 election.
- The court waived any bond requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on ADA/Section 504 claims | Blind voters are qualified individuals denied meaningful access to absentee voting; a reasonable modification (accessible electronic ballot/Democracy Live) exists | State provides absentee program to all voters (paper ballots); expansion is not required if unreasonable or unduly burdensome | Court: plaintiffs likely to succeed; absentee voting is a public service and denying private, independent absentee voting violates ADA/Section 504 absent reasonable modification (Lamone standard) |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm without injunction | Loss of the right to cast a private/secret ballot is irreparable; monetary damages cannot remedy loss | Harm speculative (COVID risk) and can be avoided by voting in person | Court: irreparable harm shown—denial of private ballot is fundamental and not compensable by money; pandemic heightens (but is not the sole) concern |
| Whether balance of equities/public interest favor relief and timing before election | Public interest favors maximizing private voting access; Democracy Live can be adapted in time and provides meaningful accommodation | Implementing changes close to election is burdensome and raises ballot security concerns | Court: public interest and equities favor plaintiffs; BOE had notice and adaptation timeline workable; security concerns do not outweigh rights or impose undue burden |
| Whether plaintiffs must post bond under Rule 65(c) | Plaintiffs asked bond be waived | BOE did not request bond; but Rule 65(c) permits court to require security | Court: waived bond as nominal security unnecessary given circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four‑factor preliminary injunction standard)
- Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. W. Pocahontas Props. Ltd. P'ship, 918 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2019) (all four Winter elements must be satisfied)
- Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016) (requiring reasonable modifications when disabled absentee voters lack meaningful access)
- League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) (restrictions on fundamental voting rights constitute irreparable injury)
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (elements for ADA/Section 504 claims)
- Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 1999) (nominal bond may suffice under Rule 65(c))