264 So. 3d 855
Ala.2018Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit Dec. 7, 2017 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the Secretary of State (Merrill) and the Director of Elections (Packard) must require county election officials to preserve digital ballot images produced by certain voting machines.
- Plaintiffs sought emergency relief to compel preservation for the Dec. 12, 2017 special U.S. Senate election and broader relief covering elections scheduled in 2018.
- The trial court held a hearing on Dec. 11, 2017 (no evidence appears to have been admitted) and issued a preliminary injunction directing the Secretary to notify counties to set machines to save all processed images for the Dec. 12 election.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, undue last‑minute interference with elections, and for lack of authority to order county officials; they sought emergency mandamus after the injunction issued and this Court stayed enforcement.
- This Court held the injunction challenge as to Dec. 12 moot but granted mandamus to dismiss the remaining action for lack of plaintiffs’ standing because the complaint alleged only speculative, conclusory injury and did not show a concrete, particularized harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction was warranted | Plaintiffs: failure to preserve digital ballot images threatens fair and accurate elections; immediate relief needed for Dec. 12 election | Defendants: plaintiffs offered no evidence of imminent irreparable harm; paper ballots remain and Secretary lacks power to order counties; last‑minute orders would disrupt election | Moot as to Dec. 12 election (election passed); merits challenge not decided on merits here |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing (subject‑matter jurisdiction) | Plaintiffs: broad voter interest in valid elections; preservation of images protects election integrity | Defendants: Plaintiffs allege only speculative harm, no concrete injury in fact; Secretary cannot unilaterally compel counties | No standing; complaint fails to allege a concrete, particularized injury — trial court lacked jurisdiction; case dismissed |
| Whether Secretary of State can order counties to reprogram machines | Plaintiffs: sought order directing Secretary to instruct counties to preserve images | Defendants: authority is limited to providing guidance; probate judges are county election officials; Secretary cannot compel reprogramming | Court relied on lack of standing rather than resolving statutory authority; noted Secretary provides guidance while probate judges are chiefs of elections |
| Evidentiary adequacy for injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: emergency justified without extensive proof | Defendants: Rule 65 requires evidence and bond; no evidence was presented and no bond given | Court emphasized plaintiffs must present evidence for preliminary injunction and Rule 65 bond requirements; absence of evidence undermined injunction rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Colley, 160 So.3d 278 (Ala. 2014) (elements for preliminary injunction)
- Perley ex rel. Tapscan, Inc. v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1994) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Blount Recycling, LLC v. City of Cullman, 884 So.2d 850 (Ala. 2003) (some evidence required to support preliminary injunction)
- Spinks v. Automation Pers. Servs., Inc., 49 So.3d 186 (Ala. 2010) (Rule 65(c) bond exceptions require factual finding)
- Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala. 2007) (mandamus to review standing/jurisdiction)
- Town of Cedar Bluff v. Citizens Caring for Children, 904 So.2d 1253 (Ala. 2004) (need particularized allegations to establish injury from alleged invalid election)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (federal test for injury in fact informing standing analysis)
- Ex parte General Motors of Canada Ltd., 144 So.3d 236 (Ala. 2013) (mandamus standards)
- Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So.2d 1270 (Ala. 2001) (mandamus standards)