857 F. Supp. 2d 1236
M.D. Ala.2012Background
- United States filed suit Feb 24, 2012 against Alabama and Secretary of State to enforce UOCAVA for the March 13, 2012 federal primary.
- Court granted TRO and preliminary injunction Mar 7, 2012, requiring steps to comply with UOCAVA and to report on transmission at the county level.
- Court announced an opinion explaining the March 7 injunction by Mar 12; subsequently issued the opinion discussed here.
- Court applies four-factor test for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest.
- Alabama failed to transmit 45-day UOCAVA ballots; 47 counties received valid requests but none transmitted by Jan 28 deadline; Secretary Chapman extended deadline by eight days, but the extension did not cover all late ballots.
- Court concludes Alabama’s eight-day extension is inadequate, finds likelihood of irreparable harm, and issues six-part tailored injunction addressing ballot receipt deadline, conflict resolution, notice, post-election reporting, runoff transmission, and other 2012 elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama violated UOCAVA by failing to transmit ballots 45 days before federal elections | Alabama bears state-wide responsibility to transmit ballots timely. | Local counties administer elections; responsibility may flow through local officials. | Yes; the State bears ultimate responsibility and failed to meet 45-day deadline. |
| Whether the eight-day extension remedy fully remedies the violation | Extension insufficient; need ex ante notice and compliance with 45-day window. | Election plan and extension attempted to mitigate delays. | Eight-day extension inadequate and ex post remedy risks disenfranchisement. |
| Whether irreparable harm supports injunctive relief | Failure to provide full 45-day window and late ballots cause irreparable harm to UOCAVA voters. | Secretary intends to count late ballots; no irreparable harm if remedied. | Irreparable harm likely due to inadequate remedy and ongoing non-compliance. |
| What relief is appropriately tailored to the circumstances | Court should craft robust, ex ante measures to ensure compliance in 2012 elections. | Remedies should be minimally invasive and respect state processes. | Six large categories of relief, including extended deadlines, runoffs planning, notice, and reporting, tailored to the facts. |
| Whether the public interest favors enforcement of UOCAVA | Protecting military and overseas voters is critical to democratic participation. | State autonomy and administrative burdens must be weighed. | Public interest supports injunctive relief to prevent disenfranchisement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 238 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc; public-interest and irreparable-harm considerations)
- Bush v. Hillsborough County Canvassing Bd., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Fla. 2000) (voting rights and preliminary injunction context)
- Doe v. Walker, 746 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Md. 2010) (federal voting rights and preventive measures for elections)