952 F. Supp. 2d 1318
N.D. Ga.2013Background
- US sued Georgia to enforce UOCAVA rights for overseas and uniformed services voters in federal elections, focusing on runoff absentee ballots and timing requirements under MOVE Act.
- Georgia’s runoff absentee voting scheme uses SWAB and various transmission methods, with legal disputes over 45-day transmission deadlines and whether SWAB suffices for a runoff.
- GA Secretary of State Kemp is Georgia’s chief election officer responsible for implementing election law; prior federal actions led to statutory changes (Act No. 53) and a Memorandum of Understanding.
- Georgia provided a written plan for runoff procedures and allowed FWAB/SWAB or official ballots, but UOCAVA plaintiffs contend this plan does not meet 45-day transmission requirements.
- Court granted summary judgment for the United States on the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-l(a)(8)(A) and found GA’s current practices noncompliant for future federal runoffs, ordering proposed changes within 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1973ff-l(a)(8)(A) governs federal runoff elections | United States: applies to runoff elections | Georgia: argues no runoff application | Yes, §1973ff-l(a)(8)(A) applies to runoffs |
| Whether Georgia's current runoff practices comply with §1973ff-l(a)(8)(A) | SWAB transmission fails to meet 45-day deadline with necessary information | GA argues SWAB plus plan suffices | Noncompliant; 45-day transmission not met by SWAB alone |
| Whether the SWAB is a sufficient absentee ballot under UOCAVA | SWAB is an emergency measure, not a full ballot; cannot substitute for official ballot | SWAB accompanied by plan satisfies sufficient-time requirement | SWAB insufficient to provide a meaningful vote |
| Whether a permanent injunction is warranted given UOCAVA rights | Irreparable harm absent compliance; rights protected | Remedies at law may be adequate; burdens on GA | Injunction appropriate; irreparable harm shown; public interest served |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alabama, 857 F.Supp.2d 1236 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (irreparable harm and voting rights compelled relief recognized in similar actions)
- Marchant v. N.Y. City Bd. of Elections, 815 F.Supp.2d 568 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (vote transmission rights and remedial relief considerations in election cases)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2010) (fundamental right to vote; voting rights enforcement emphasis)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (right to cast votes effectively; core voting rights principle)
- Bush v. Hillsborough Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 123 F.Supp.2d 1305 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (voting rights and absentee ballot considerations in elections)