The New Georgia Project v. Brad Raffensperger
976 F.3d 1278
11th Cir.2020Background
- Georgia law requires absentee ballots to be received by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day to be counted (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(F)); absentee voting and related processes were already underway when litigation occurred.
- Plaintiffs challenged the receipt deadline as unconstitutional in light of COVID-19 and USPS delays; the district court enjoined enforcement and ordered counting absentee ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received within three days after Election Day.
- Georgia sought a stay of that injunction pending appeal; a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel granted the stay (majority: Grant, with Lagoa concurring), concluding the district court misapplied legal standards; Judge Wilson dissented.
- Key evidentiary context: historically a small percentage of absentee ballots arrive late (e.g., ~3,500 in 2018; 7,281 in June 2020), and Georgia offers alternatives (early in-person voting, drop boxes, hand delivery, early ballot requests up to 180 days).
- The majority emphasized Anderson–Burdick balancing, the Purcell principle against altering election rules close to voting, and held Mathews procedural-due-process analysis inapplicable to the legislative deadline; the stay was granted under the Nken stay factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia’s Election-Day receipt deadline for absentee ballots imposes a "severe" burden under Anderson–Burdick | Pandemic-related mail delays will cause widespread disenfranchisement; strict scrutiny required | The deadline is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation; alternatives exist; burden not severe | Majority: district court misapplied Anderson–Burdick and erred in finding a severe burden; stay granted. Dissent: district court properly found a severe burden. |
| Whether plaintiffs may invoke Mathews v. Eldridge (procedural due process) to challenge the deadline | Voters have a protected interest in absentee voting and are entitled to heightened procedural protections | Absentee voting is not a fundamental liberty triggering Mathews; even if it were, the rule is legislative in nature so Mathews does not apply | Held: Mathews analysis was improperly applied; procedural-due-process claim rejected as duplicative or inapplicable. |
| Whether Purcell and related precedent prohibit a last-minute change to election rules | Plaintiffs: emergency relief is warranted to prevent disenfranchisement | State: Purcell counsels against changing rules mid-election; ballots already printed/mailed—status quo should remain | Majority: Purcell and related guidance support preserving the status quo; stay appropriate. |
| Whether a stay pending appeal is warranted under Nken (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) | Opposed | State: met all four Nken factors—likely success on merits, irreparable state harm, limited harm to plaintiffs, public interest in stable election rules | Held: All Nken factors satisfied; stay of the district court injunction granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishes balancing test for election-law burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (refines Anderson balancing; severity dictates scrutiny level)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholds reasonable, nondiscriminatory election regulations)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (counsels lower courts not to alter election rules close to an election)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for procedural due process balancing)
- Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915) (distinguishes legislative rules from adjudicative decisions for due process)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (election regulation analysis; no single litmus test for burden severity)
- Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005) (states retain control over elections under Elections Clause)
- Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (states have a compelling interest in preserving election integrity)
- Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2011) (reversing injunction where district court applied strict scrutiny in error)
- Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1992) (appellate correction of district court legal error)