Greater Birmingham Ministries et al v. State of Alabama et al

Filing 267

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 1/10/2018. (PSM)

FILED
2018 Jan-10 PM 03:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREATER BIRMINGHAM
MINISTRIES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN MERRILL, in his official
capacity as the Alabama Secretary of
State,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-02193-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
I.

INTRODUCTION
This case addresses the voting rights claims of Plaintiffs Greater Birmingham

Ministries, the Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (“the Alabama NAACP”), Giovana Ambrosio,
Shameka Harris, and Elizabeth Ware, against John Merrill in his official capacity as
Alabama’s Secretary of State (“Secretary Merrill”). In this action, Plaintiffs
challenge Alabama’s Photo Voter Identification Law, House Bill 19 of 2011,
codified at Ala. Code § 17-9-30 (1975) (“the Photo ID Law”), which requires
absentee and in-person voters to show photo identification in order to cast a regular

Page 1 of 69

ballot, subject to some exceptions. Plaintiffs allege that the law has a racially
discriminatory purpose and effect that violates the Voting Rights Act and the
United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Photo ID Law
violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, Section 201 of the
Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10501, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments. Based on their claims, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the enforcement of the Photo ID Law. Secretary Merrill denies
Plaintiffs’ allegations and contends that the law was passed for valid and nondiscriminatory purposes, that nearly every eligible voter in Alabama has an
acceptable photo ID, and that anyone who does not have an acceptable photo ID
can easily obtain one.
Presently before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment filed by
all parties. Specifically, Secretary Merrill has filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment seeking the dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. 236.) Plaintiffs
have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking a judgment in their
favor on one of their claims and on one discrete issue. (Doc. 234.) For the reasons

Page 2 of 69

that follow, Secretary Merrill’s motion is due to be granted and this action
dismissed in its entirety. 1
II.

FACTS 2
A.

Historical and Contemporaneous Background

Penalties for voter fraud have existed in Alabama since the 1850s. While
cases of proven in-person voter fraud in Alabama are extremely rare, there are
some documented cases of absentee voter fraud in Alabama in recent history. For
example, a July 1996 article in The Birmingham News discussed the types of voter
fraud allegedly occurring in Alabama: “Since 1994, affidavits and courtroom
testimony have established the following abuses: (1) absentee ballots cast in the
names of dead people and people who have long since moved out of the county; (2)
absentee ballots mailed to unregistered voters; (3) voter brokers following mail
trucks and removing absentee ballots from mailboxes; (4) intimidation of poor and
elderly voters who are made to fear a cutoff of their governmental assistance from
Also pending are three “Motions in Limine” filed by Secretary Merrill seeking to limit or
exclude the scope of anticipated expert testimony by three of Plaintiffs’ experts. (Docs. 215, 216,
& 217.) For reasons contained herein, these motions are due to be denied as moot.
1

2

These facts are taken from the parties’ “Undisputed Material Facts” section of their
Joint Status Report, which was filed on December 22, 2017. (Doc. 265.) While the parties dispute
the relevance and materiality of some of the facts contained herein, they agree that they are
undisputed. The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party on
each summary judgment motion. Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896, 899
(11th Cir. 2012).
Page 3 of 69

local politicians if they do not cooperate by handing over their absentee ballots; (5)
pressuring and solicitation of nursing home patients; (6) vote buying at $5 and $10
a piece; (7) bulk mailing of hundreds of absentee ballots by just a few individuals in
some counties . . . .” The State and federal governments worked together to
investigate and prosecute voter fraud in absentee voting in places like Greene and
Wilcox counties. Various citizen groups formed to spread the word about the need
for a photo ID law to combat voter fraud, such as the bi-racial Honest Elections
Coalition.
In 1995, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 went into effect,
allowing persons to register to vote at motor vehicle and public welfare agencies or
by mailing in easily-available voter registration forms. See 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq.
The Act led to 180,000 new, disproportionately Black and low-income people
becoming registered voters in 1995 in Alabama.
Although some in the Legislature tried, voter ID bills failed in the Legislature
in the nineties. In 1998, Governor Fob James, Attorney General Bill Pryor, and
Secretary of State Jim Bennett were unified in fighting for a voter ID law. An article
reported that then-Attorney General Bill Pryor “believes honest elections would
restore voter confidence and increase turnout. He said critics who claim there’s no
vote fraud need to check the record. State and federal prosecutors have won
Page 4 of 69

convictions in several counties against officials and citizens who illegally cast
ballots.”
By 2000, fourteen other states requested some kind of ID in order to vote. In
2003, Alabama passed a voter ID law that allowed the use of both photo and nonphoto ID. See Ala. Act No. 2003-381. The law was the result of a deal that
Democrat Legislators would support the bill as long as Republican Legislators
would support a bill that would restore the voting rights of certain felons once they
were released from prison and paid their fines. Acceptable forms of identification
under the 2003 law included (1) a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government
check, paycheck, or other document with the voter’s address, (2) a valid Alabama
hunting or fishing license, (3) a valid Alabama concealed carry permit, (4) a valid
pilot’s license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, (5) a certified birth
certificate, (6) a valid social security card, (7) certified naturalization
documentation, (8) a certified copy of court records showing adoption or name
change, (9) a valid Medicare, Medicaid, or electronic benefits transfer card, and
(10) a valid voter registration card. In addition, a voter could cast a ballot if he or
she was “positively identified by two election officials.” At that time, the Voting
Rights Act required Alabama to seek preclearance for any change in voting
requirements from either the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge court in the
Page 5 of 69

United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Shelby Cty. v. Holder,
133 S. Ct. 2612, 2620 (2013). The U.S. Attorney General precleared Alabama’s
2003 voter ID law, including the positively identify provision, and the law remained
in effect until 2014.
In 2005, the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former
President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, issued a
report encouraging States to move towards requiring voters to present photo IDs
before being allowed to cast a ballot. See Report of the Commission on Federal
Election Reform, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections § 2.5 (Sept. 2005) (“the
Carter-Baker Report”). The Carter-Baker Report found that even in the absence of
extensive voter fraud, the use of photo IDs would inspire public confidence in the
voting process and act as a deterrent to fraud. See id. (“In the old days and in small
towns where everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify
themselves. But in the United States, where 40 million people move each year, and
in urban areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own
apartment building let alone their precinct, some form of identification is
needed. . . . Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal
buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.”).

Page 6 of 69

In 2008, Indiana’s photo ID law was challenged, and it was upheld by the
United States Supreme Court. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181
(2008). The next year, the Eleventh Circuit upheld Georgia’s photo ID law.
Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009).
Between 1995 and 2011, Black legislators and other individuals in Alabama
argued at length about how requiring photo ID would disfranchise voters who lack
access to vehicles and specifically about the anticipated effect of such requirements
on Black voters. In the 2008 presidential election, Black voter turnout and political
engagement increased significantly as compared to prior elections. However, the
2010 elections produced a Republican landslide and supermajorities in both the
Alabama House and Senate, for the first time in 136 years. There was racially
polarized voting in both the 2008 and 2010 elections. White Republicans’ defeat of
white Democrats led to a partisan divide in the Alabama Legislature. Prior to the
2010 election, the House had 60 Democrats, 34 of them white and 26 Black. After
the 2010 election, there were 36 Democrats—ten white, 26 Black. In the Senate,
the number of Black Democrats remained seven; white Democrats fell from 13 to
four. There were no non-white Republicans. Thus, after 2010, 67% of the remaining
Democrats were Black Legislators who represented Black districts.

Page 7 of 69

In 2011, one of the priorities of the newly elected Alabama Legislature was
the enactment of a bill that required photo ID to vote either in-person or absentee.
House Bill 19 was pre-filed in the Alabama House of Representatives for the 2011
Legislative Session on February 25, 2011. The bill was considered by the House
Standing Committee on Constitution, Campaigns, and Elections, which acted
favorably on it and recommended a substitute and an amendment. On March 22,
2011, the House considered whether to approve the substitute and the amendment;
the substitute was adopted and the amendment was rejected. The House passed
House Bill 19 by a largely party-line vote of 64-31. Some Black Legislators were
vocal in their warnings that it would allegedly suppress voting by seniors and poor
people who don’t have easy access to transportation and decried it as “a step back
to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests.”
The Senate’s Rules Committee added House Bill 19 to the “special order”
calendar for June 9, 2011, the last day of the 2011 Legislative Session. On June 9,
the Senate invoked cloture, a procedure used by the majority in a legislative
assembly for ending debate and taking a vote, and passed the bill on a straight
party-line vote. All Black Senators who were present voted against the bill. The
Senate used cloture more frequently in 2011, 36 cloture votes in fact, once the
Republicans had a supermajority allowing them to utilize it.
Page 8 of 69

Governor Robert Bentley signed House Bill 19 into law on June 15, 2011. At
that time, Alabama was still a “covered” State under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act and thus could not enforce the law without first obtaining preclearance from
the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal three-judge court. By its terms, the
Photo ID Law was not to become operative until the first statewide primary in June
2014. Republican Representative Kerry Rich was quoted as anticipating a “lengthy
court battle and review by the U.S. Justice Department to see if the legislation
complies with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”
In the 2011 Legislative Session, Republican Senator Scott Beason was the
chair of the Senate Rules Committee and had influence over setting the legislative
agenda. On June 17, 2011, just after the 2011 Legislative session concluded, Senator
Beason’s comments referring to Black voters as “aborigines” became publicly
known through the trial testimony in United States v. McGregor. See 824 F. Supp. 2d
1339, 1345 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2011). His comment was made in conversations
unrelated to the Photo ID Law that were recorded by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in its efforts to obtain evidence of legislative bribery. On November
15, 2011, Senator Beason was stripped of his position on the Senate Rules
Committee before the 2012 Legislative Session.

Page 9 of 69

From the 1990s until his retirement in 2010, Republican Senator Larry
Dixon sponsored photo ID bills like House Bill 19. In 1996 he made a comment to
the effect that Alabama’s lack of a photo ID law was “beneficial to the Black power
structure” and “benefits Black elected leaders.” In 2011, comments he made
referring to Black voters as “illiterates,” during the same recorded conversations
that Senator Beason was involved in, also became publicly known through the trial
testimony in United States v. McGregor. Senator Dixon was not in the Legislature
when House Bill 19 was passed in 2011.
Several days before the Photo ID Law was passed, the same Legislature
passed House Bill 56, a wide-ranging anti-immigration bill. Many of the same
Legislators sponsored both bills. Black Legislators voted overwhelmingly in
opposition to the anti-immigration bill. It contained a proof of citizenship
requirement for voter registration. Anyone already registered was not required to
provide proof of citizenship. Several of the Republican Legislators made prejudiced
comments conflating Latinos with illegal immigrants in connection with promoting
the bill, including Rep. Rich and Sen. Beason. Much of House Bill 56 was later
invalidated by Federal courts. See, e.g., United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269
(11th Cir. 2012).

Page 10 of 69

In 2012, the same Legislature that passed the Photo ID Law passed a state
legislative redistricting plan. In 2017, a three-judge court ruled that twelve
majority-Black districts violated federal law and that the Legislature’s redistricting
was predominately motivated by race. Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 231 F.
Supp. 3d 1026, 1033 (M.D. Ala. 2017).
Alabama’s Secretary of State, then Jim Bennett, did not issue administrative
rules, educate the public, train election officials, issue photo ID cards, or otherwise
implement the Photo ID Law before June 25, 2013. Taking some of those actions
before that date would have violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County,
declaring unconstitutional Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which is the
coverage provision of Section 5 of the Act. 133 S. Ct. at 2622-28. The Shelby County
decision resulted in Alabama no longer being subject to preclearance before
implementing a change such as that contained in the Photo ID Law. Thus, on June
29, 2013, Secretary Bennett issued proposed administrative rules for
implementation of the Photo ID Law, and on October 22, 2013, issued final
administrative rules for the law generally. On April 16, 2014, Secretary Bennett
issued supplemental emergency administrative rules governing the positively
identify provision of the law at the urging of some of the plaintiffs and their counsel
Page 11 of 69

and others. When those groups then objected to the rules that were promulgated
because they believed the rules did not address the concerns raised in their
objections, Secretary Bennett allowed the emergency administrative rules to expire
without replacing them.
B.

Alabama’s Photo ID Law—Its Provisions and Operation

Alabama’s Photo ID Law requires voters to present a valid photo ID to vote.
Ala. Code § 17-9-30(a). It applies to in-person and absentee voters. Id. § 17-9-30(b).
Voters voting absentee are required to include a photocopy of their photo IDs, in a
separate envelope, when they mail in their absentee ballots. Id. Pursuant to the
positively identify provision of the Photo ID Law, an in-person voter without the
required photo ID can still cast a regular ballot if two election officials present at
the polling place positively identify that person as a person who is eligible to vote
and they each sign a sworn affidavit so stating. Id. § 17-9-30(e). Voters without the
required photo ID can also cast a provisional ballot. Id. § 17-9-30(d). Law already in
effect at the time of the Photo ID Law’s passage states that a provisional ballot for
an in-person voter is counted if the voter returns to the appropriate Board of
Registrars with the required photo ID by the deadline, generally the Friday after
Election Day. Voters entitled to vote absentee by federal law, including the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq.,
Page 12 of 69

and provisions concerning voting accessibility for elderly and/or handicapped
voters, are not required to show or provide a copy of photo ID to vote. Ala. Code §
17-9-30(c).
The Photo ID Law lists seven specific categories of valid photo ID:
(1) A valid Alabama driver’s license or nondriver identification card
which was properly issued by the appropriate state or county
department or agency.
(2) A valid Alabama photo voter identification card issued under
subsection (f) or other valid identification card issued by a branch,
department, agency, or entity of the State of Alabama, any other state,
or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification,
provided that such identification card contains a photograph of the
elector.
(3) A valid United States passport.
(4) A valid employee identification card containing the photograph of
the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of
the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality,
board, authority, or other entity of this state.
(5) A valid student or employee identification card issued by a public
or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional
school located within the state, provided that such identification card
contains a photograph of the elector.
(6) A valid United States military identification card, provided that
such identification card contains a photograph of the elector.
(7) A valid tribal identification card containing a photograph of the
elector.
Id. § 17-9-30(a).
Page 13 of 69

In addition to Alabama driver’s licenses and nondriver IDs, Alabama allows
voters to use driver’s licenses and nondriver IDs issued by other States. The
Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (“ALEA”), formerly the Alabama Department
of Public Safety, handles initial issuances of driver’s licenses and nondriver IDs,
but renewals and duplicates are available in every county in Alabama from a Judge
of Probate, a License Commissioner, or a Revenue Commissioner. Renewals and
duplicates are also available from Self-Service Kiosks or the Alabama Online Driver
License Issuance System. A grace period of 60 days after expiration of a driver’s
license exists for the purpose of driver’s license renewal and the driver’s license
remains valid during that time. Under certain conditions, a driver’s license that has
been expired for three years or less can be renewed without going to an ALEA
office. Persons 62 and older may obtain a “lifetime” nondriver ID that does not
expire. There is a fee to obtain a driver’s license. In addition to paying a fee for the
driver’s license, a person must present various forms of documentation to receive a
driver’s license, and some of those have fees.
ALEA also requires documentation to obtain a nondriver ID, such as birth
and marriage certificates. However, and although not required by the Photo ID
Law, Secretary Merrill has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) with ALEA, whereby if a person seeks an ALEA nondriver ID for the
Page 14 of 69

purposes of voting, the fee for the nondriver ID will be paid by the Secretary. As of
the fall of 2017, ALEA had invoiced the Secretary for 33 voters who requested a
nondriver ID for voting purposes. Another MOU was reached between the
Secretary and the State’s Department of Public Health (“ADPH”) whereby the
ADPH will perform searches for birth and marriage certificates for ALEA when a
person requests a nondriver ID to vote but does not have a copy of the necessary
underlying documentation and bill the Secretary for the search.
The Photo ID Law also provides for the Secretary to issue free photo voter
ID cards specifically for the purposes of voting. Ala. Code § 17-9-30(f). Because
they cost money to print, these cards are only meant for registered voters who do
not have one of the other forms of photo ID accepted under the Photo ID Law. See
id. § 17-9-30(g). To obtain a photo voter ID card, voters must sign a form, under
penalty of perjury, that they do not currently possess any form of valid photo ID.
Id. § 17-9-30(i). Any falsification or fraud in making the application is a Class C
felony. Id. These photo voter ID cards may be obtained at Board of Registrars’
offices located in every Alabama county, the Secretary of State’s office at the State
Capitol in Montgomery, or from the Secretary of State’s mobile ID unit. The
Board of Registrars for each county is responsible for maintaining voter rolls. Most

Page 15 of 69

counties have one office for the Board of Registrars, but a few have more than one
office.
In order to obtain a free photo voter ID card, the voter must present
(1) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity
document is acceptable if the document includes both the person’s full
legal name and date of birth.
(2) Documentation showing the person’s date of birth.
(3) Documentation showing the person is registered to vote in this
state.
(4) Documentation showing the person’s name and address as
reflected in the voter registration record.
Id. § 7-9-30(j). While there is no existing list of all forms of documents that could
be used to get a photo voter ID card, non-photo ID documents that can be used
include a birth certificate, social security document, hospital or nursing home
record, marriage record, census record, military record, Medicare or Medicaid
document, certificate of citizenship, official school record or transcript, and a
selective service card or documentation. Indeed, the mobile ID unit has issued free
photo voter ID cards based upon the presentation of a wide variety of documents,
including voter registration forms, registration update forms, arrest records, bank
documents, Birmingham Housing Authority ID cards, expired county employee
IDs, court paternity documents, fishing licenses, EBT cards, pay stubs, Sam’s Club
Page 16 of 69

cards, and a ticket issued by a municipality. There may be fees to obtain documents
that may be used to obtain a photo voter ID card. For example, a birth certificate
and a marriage license, both documents that would confirm a voter’s name and
date of birth, cost $15.00 each. However, the Secretary of State has entered into
another MOU with the ADPH providing that an official issuing a photo voter ID
card can request a copy of a voter’s Alabama birth or marriage certificate, for
purposes of issuing the ID, at no cost to the voter. Pursuant to the MOUs, the
ADPH processed 164 requests for free birth or marriage certificates between
March 2014 and September 2014; 87 in Fiscal Year 2015 (October 2014 through
September 2015); 89 in Fiscal Year 2016; and 78 for October 2016 through July
2017.
Another way for a voter to meet the requirements to obtain a photo voter ID
card is simply to complete a voter registration form or a voter registration update
form and sign the same in front of an election official under penalty of perjury.
Persons already registered to vote may submit a voter registration update form,
even if nothing needs updating, and prove their identity with that update form
alone. Voters in Alabama are currently required to update their registration when
they move. Voter registration cuts off on the fifteenth day before each election, but
the Boards of Registrars offices are required to stay open during the 14-day period
Page 17 of 69

leading to each election and on Election Days. Photo voter IDs are available to the
voter at the Boards of Registrars’ offices on Election Days, but are not available at
polling places on Election Days.
Secretary Merrill contracted with Police & Sheriff’s Press, Inc. (“PASP”) to
produce the photo voter ID cards at $8.00 each. When a voter applies for a photo
voter ID card, a temporary card is issued on the spot at no cost to the voter. The
permanent card is mailed to the voter, normally within ten business days. PASP
began printing Alabama photo voter ID cards in February 2014. PASP printed
5,294 Alabama photo voter ID cards in 2014, another 2,316 cards in 2015, another
4,429 in 2016, and 1,403 in 2017 (through June 30). As of June 30, 2017, Alabama
had issued 13,442 free photo voter ID cards to voters, and the Secretary of State
had paid more than $280,000 to PASP for card-printing and other services and
equipment related to the photo voter ID program.
In 2014, then-Secretary of State Bennett first implemented the mobile ID
unit program, the schedule for which was developed after contacting every mayor’s
office in the State. While he was Secretary of State, the mobile ID unit went to
every county in the State, and it went to some counties more than once. It was
stationed at a variety of locations, including churches, libraries, and malls.
Secretary of State Merrill continued with the mobile ID unit when he was elected
Page 18 of 69

in 2015. He solicited input on the mobile ID unit’s schedule from the Judges of
Probate, as well as from members of the Alabama House and Senate. Secretary
Merrill issued press releases informing voters about the photo ID requirement and
announcing the mobile ID unit’s upcoming locations. Poverty, household wealth,
and racial demographics were not factors considered when scheduling locations for
mobile ID unit visits. Secretary Merrill has said he tries to get the mobile ID unit to
festivals and events throughout the State that are high traffic areas, and he tries not
to have the unit go to the same places every year. For instance, the mobile ID unit
has been to the Chilton County Peach Festival in Clanton, the Peanut Butter
Festival in Brundidge in Pike County, the Peanut Festival in Dothan in Houston
County, the Magic City Classic in Birmingham where Alabama State and Alabama
A&M play football every year, the Tomato Festival in Slocomb in Geneva County,
and the Rattlesnake Rodeo in Opp in Covington County. The mobile ID unit has
made more than 350 visits across the State since 2014 and issued more than 850
photo voter IDs. As of April 12, 2017, 85% of mobile ID unit locations were more
than a mile from a Board of Registrars’ office. As of April 12, 2017, on average,
mobile ID unit locations were open for 3.6 hours a day.
Voters may also request, through the Secretary of State’s website, that the
mobile ID unit come to their home or group to issue a photo voter ID card. The
Page 19 of 69

number of home visits actually made to date is fewer than ten. One of the mobile
unit home visits came about from a member of the Legislature contacting Secretary
Merrill to assist a constituent. Another was made for a plaintiff in this litigation.
The Secretary has implemented a protocol whereby the voter is asked questions
about his or her transportation options before a home visit is scheduled.
Nonetheless, Secretary Merrill has made clear that if the voter says he has no one
to give him a ride, the voter is taken at his word: “Now, if they choose not to be
honest, then we’ll accept it.” He emphasized that “we’re not going to—nobody is
ever going to be denied a voter ID.”
As noted, a voter without a photo ID may also cast a regular ballot if two
election officials positively identify him or, if not, a provisional ballot. There are at
least four election officials at each polling place, and sometimes more than four.
For election officials to positively identify a voter, they must be personally
acquainted with the voter. Under the Secretary’s interpretation, there is no
requirement that the poll workers affirmatively inform voters about the positively
identify provision. However, a sign posted in polling places lists examples of the
valid forms of photo ID, and states, “If you do not have any of the above listed
forms of identification, you will be permitted to vote by either of the following two
ways: . . . 2. The Voter is positively identified by two election officials as a voter on
Page 20 of 69

the poll list and the election officials sign an Affidavit for Identifying Elector.” The
Secretary instructs poll officials not to positively identify voters whom they do not
personally know.
In 2014, Jerome Gray, a member of Plaintiff Alabama NAACP, assisted two
Black voters who lacked an acceptable photo ID, but knew two of their poll
officials. However, the white chief inspector (who is the head of the polling place)
refused to let them vote at all and insisted that everyone had to show photo ID. In
response, Mr. Gray called the Secretary’s office. The Secretary’s office instructed
this chief inspector that people could use the positively identify provision to vote.
These individuals were allowed to vote.
Former plaintiff Edna Williams, who is Black and lacked the required photo
ID, voted by using the positively identify provision. Jewel Castophney is a Black
voter who regularly votes using the positively identify provision. She stated that she
knows all of her poll workers, they are always the same people (though one died
this year), and they are all Black. Ms. Castophney was not issued a photo voter ID
card at a mobile ID unit visit because the Secretary of State erroneously believed
that she already possessed a nondriver ID that could be used for voting. In any
event, Ms. Castophney applied again for a free photo voter ID on November 1,
2017, and her application was pending at the time of her deposition. She also
Page 21 of 69

testified that she did not want it to vote and did not realize it was intended for this
purpose only; she routinely uses the positively identify provision to vote. She
wanted a State-issued ID for other purposes and she testified that she would not
have applied for one if she had understood that it was only for voting.
Josh Wahl is a white registered voter who, for religious reasons, lacks an
acceptable photo ID. In the 2014 primary and runoff and 2016 general elections,
Mr. Wahl was able to vote a regular ballot because two poll officials, including a
longtime neighbor, positively identified him. However, in the 2014 general and
2016 primary and runoff elections, Mr. Wahl and four of his family members were
denied the right to vote because those same poll officials refused to positively
identify them again. However, Secretary Merrill personally intervened and worked
out a situation where Mr. Wahl and his family members could vote.
Secretary Bennett’s Deputy Secretary of State, Emily T. Marsal, testified
that his office met with citizens and groups to explain the requirements and
implementation of the Photo ID Law and “spent substantial time and resources”
on an education program that included billboards and radio and television
advertisements. After taking office, Secretary Merrill determined to budget roughly
$350,000 for advertising per election, which represented a cut to approximately
one third of previous administration’s expenditures. Nonetheless, between
Page 22 of 69

October 2013 and January 2017, the Secretary of State’s office has spent more than
$2.6 million advertising the Photo ID Law. For example, in January 2017, Secretary
Merrill mailed a postcard to the address on file for every registered voter. In part,
the post card said: “Remember, you need a valid photo ID to vote, unless exempt
by law. If you do not have one, you may obtain a free photo voter ID at any Board of
Registrars’ office. To learn more, please visit our website at alabamavoterid.com,
or contact your registrars.”
Secretary Merrill has not offered any advertisements or publications related
to the Photo ID Law in Spanish. However, he has provided Spanish translation of
some materials upon request. Secretary Merrill’s chief of staff is MexicanAmerican and speaks Spanish, and his mother has translated some of the materials
for voters.
On September 30, 2015, the Governor and the Secretary of ALEA
announced that ALEA would permanently close 31 part-time ALEA driver’s
license-issuing offices, including offices in eight of eleven contiguous counties in
the so-called “Black belt”—a string of counties where more than 130,000 eligible
voters reside, nearly half of whom are Black, and where the Black poverty rate is
41%. On October 2, 2015, Plaintiffs Greater Birmingham Ministries and the
Alabama NAACP wrote to notify the Governor, Secretary of ALEA, and the
Page 23 of 69

Secretary of State that they believed that “[b]y closing the[ ] [ALEA] offices, the
State will drastically reduce the number of sites where potential voters can obtain
photo ID, creating a substantial and disproportionate burden on African
Americans’ ability to participate in the political process in Alabama.” The
Governor announced on October 16, 2015, that, rather than close completely, the
31 affected ALEA offices would remain open one day per month. Secretary Merrill
publicly denied that any change in office hours prevented any person from voting.
The hours of the offices of the Boards of Registrars, where voters may obtain a free
photo ID for voting, were not affected by changes in ALEA office hours.
C.

The Parties
1.

Plaintiff Greater Birmingham Ministries

Plaintiff Greater Birmingham Ministries, founded in 1969, is a multi-faith,
multi-racial organization that provides emergency services for people in need in the
greater Birmingham, Alabama area. A central goal of Greater Birmingham
Ministries is the pursuit of social justice in the governance of Alabama. Greater
Birmingham Ministries actively opposes state laws, policies, and practices that it
believes result in the exclusion of vulnerable groups or individuals from the
democratic process. Toward that end, Greater Birmingham Ministries regularly
engages in efforts to register, educate, and increase turnout among Black and
Page 24 of 69

Latino voters, as well as low-income voters in general. Greater Birmingham
Ministries has participated in lawsuits intended to vindicate these principles.
2.

Plaintiff Alabama NAACP

Plaintiff Alabama NAACP is a state subsidiary of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. The Alabama NAACP is the oldest
and one of the most significant civil rights organizations in Alabama, and it works to
ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of Black citizens and
all citizens. Two central goals of the Alabama NAACP are to eliminate racial
discrimination in the democratic process and to enforce federal laws and
constitutional provisions securing voting rights. Toward those ends, the Alabama
NAACP has participated in numerous lawsuits intended to protect the right to
vote, regularly engages in efforts to register and educate Black voters, and
encourages Black citizens to engage in the political process by turning out to vote
on Election Day.
3.

Plaintiff Giovana Ambrosio

Giovana Ambrosio is a lawfully registered Latina voter, U.S. citizen, and
resident of Franklin County, Alabama. Ms. Ambrosio was a high school senior
when she became a plaintiff. She rode the bus to school and several days a week
stayed after school for extracurricular activities. She also worked during the
Page 25 of 69

summer while off of school. Ms. Ambrosio was registered to vote prior to the
March 1, 2016 primary, but Secretary Merrill maintains that she was not registered
in time to vote in that election. Ms. Ambrosio went to the polls for the March 1,
2016 primary. She was not personally acquainted with the election officials at her
polling place that day, nor did she possess any of the types of photo ID required to
vote.
For the entirety of 2016, the closest driver’s license-issuing ALEA office to
Ms. Ambrosio’s home was only open one day per month, during the hours that Ms.
Ambrosio typically spent in classes or in school-sponsored and school-supervised
extracurricular activities. The next closest ALEA office to Ms. Ambrosio is located
in Sheffield, which is an approximately 45-mile drive roundtrip. The Sheffield
office is open from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm on weekdays. At the time of her August
2016 deposition, Ms. Ambrosio did not own a car or know how to drive one.
Although her parents have access to vehicles, both parents work full-time and were
unable to drive her to Sheffield during the ALEA office’s normal hours. For
example, her father leaves for work as early as 4:00 am and works up to twelve
hours or more per day. Ms. Ambrosio’s mother begins her work shift at 4:00 pm
and also works until late in the evening. To the best of Ms. Ambrosio’s knowledge,
there is no public transportation from Franklin County to Sheffield. However, the
Page 26 of 69

Board of Registrars’ office at the Franklin County courthouse is approximately one
mile from Ms. Ambrosio’s home.
Ms. Ambrosio started classes at Northwest Shoals Community College in
the fall of 2016. Before classes begin, students register and pay for classes at the
cashier’s office. They are told then to go across the hall to the Student Success
Center to get their picture taken for their student ID. The college sends new
student information to the vendor to print and mail the student ID. If the picture
has been taken, it should appear on the student ID. Otherwise, the card will come
without a picture on it and a message that reads “needs photo see ID office.” In
late August 2016, Ms. Ambrosio had her picture taken for her student ID, but the
ID was delayed in arriving, and eventually it arrived without a photo. Shortly before
the November 2016 general election, Ms. Ambrosio’s sister drove her to the
courthouse to get a photo voter ID card from the Board of Registrars’ office; she
left with a temporary paper ID and she received a permanent ID in the mail a few
weeks later. Ms. Ambrosio used the temporary photo voter ID to vote in the
November 2016 general election. Ms. Ambrosio followed up with Northwest
Shoals Community College and got a student ID with a photo. That ID is also
accepted under the Photo ID Law. Ms. Ambrosio also knew about the mobile ID
unit.
Page 27 of 69

4.

Plaintiff Shameka Harris

Plaintiff Shameka Harris is a 33-year-old lawfully registered Black voter, U.S.
citizen, and resident of Sumter County, Alabama. Although Ms. Harris has
previously voted in-person using a photo or non-photo ID under Alabama’s
previous 2003 voter ID law, her unexpired ALEA nondriver photo ID was stolen,
along with her wallet, in 2014. Ms. Harris does not own a car. She pays private
individuals to drive her anywhere that is not within the immediate walking distance
of her home. Ms. Harris lives with her boyfriend. In early 2017, he bought a car. He
uses the car to drive to his two jobs. Ms. Harris does not drive his car. Ms. Harris
lives on a fixed income.
In 2016, Ms. Harris possessed an expired nondriver photo ID, which she
could not use to vote. Ms. Harris did not attempt to vote in November 2016
because she knew that voters needed to have a photo ID and she did not have one
at the time.
Before her March 2017 deposition, and after the November 2016 election,
Ms. Harris was told by a case worker that she needed to get a photo ID in order to
receive food stamps. About two days later, she went to Livingston to update her
voter registration and then took that to the ALEA office and got a new nondriver
ID. She had to pay for the ride to Livingston.
Page 28 of 69

Ms. Harris has a copy of her birth certificate. Ms. Harris has a smart phone
with Internet access. She must pay for data to use the Internet.
Even though her Medicaid card was stolen, Ms. Harris believes that it should
be sufficient proof of her identity to vote. The Medicaid card does not have a photo
on it.
5.

Former Plaintiff Debra Silvers

Former Plaintiff Debra M. Silvers passed away in January 2017. At the time
she passed, she was a plaintiff in this lawsuit and her deposition had been taken.
Ms. Silvers was a 37-year-old lawfully registered Black voter, U.S. citizen, and
resident of Greene County, Alabama. Ms. Silvers had previously voted in person
using her ALEA-issued nondriver photo ID. In September 2015, Ms. Silvers’
ALEA-issued nondriver photo ID was destroyed in a house fire, along with her
home, birth certificate, social security card, other identity documents, and nearly
all of her possessions. Ms. Silvers attempted to get a new nondriver ID two months
after the fire but did not have the necessary forms of identification. Over the course
of several months and numerous visits to the Alabama Health Department and
Department of Human Resources in Eutaw, a 20-mile roundtrip drive from her
home, and to the Social Security Administration office in Tuscaloosa, a 90-mile
roundtrip drive from her home, Ms. Silvers acquired new birth certificates and
Page 29 of 69

social security cards for herself and her children. She would have tried to obtain a
photo ID even if she did not need it to vote because she needed it for other things.
Ms. Silvers was required to spend money on fees and transportation.
Prior to March 1, 2016, Ms. Silvers had obtained photocopies of her
nondriver ID but not a new nondriver ID. Ms. Silvers paid a private individual to
drive her to the nearest driver’s license-issuing ALEA office, which is a 20-mile
roundtrip drive from her home, to obtain a replacement nondriver photo ID. Ms.
Silvers received a hard copy of her nondriver ID between one and two months after
receiving the temporary copy. Ms. Silvers attempted to vote in the March 2016
primary election, but her expired ID was not a valid photo ID and the poll worker
“couldn’t see the picture” on the temporary new ID. Poll workers told her that she
could not vote because she lacked the required photo ID and no one was personally
acquainted with her. She was not told about a provisional ballot. Ms. Silvers voted
in the November 2016 general election. Ms. Silvers was not asked to present a
photo ID when she voted in November 2016, but she did have one. Ms. Silvers had
a smart phone with Internet access.
6.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Ware

Plaintiff Elizabeth Ware is a sixty year-old, lawfully registered Black voter,
U.S. citizen, and resident of Mobile County, Alabama. Ms. Ware’s nondriver
Page 30 of 69

photo ID was stolen in 2014. Ms. Ware lives in Prichard. The License Commission
in Mobile County issues renewals and duplicates of driver’s licenses and nondriver
IDs at five locations in Mobile County, including one in Prichard. The Prichard
office is open 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Ms.
Ware has a Medicaid card and a social security card. Ms. Ware testified that she
tried to get a photo voter ID from the Mobile County Board of Registrars’ office
and was turned away because she had previously held a nondriver ID.
Ms. Ware lives on a fixed income, does not have reliable access to
transportation, and does not own a vehicle. Her health limits her ability to walk to
the nearest bus stop, though she has walked to a polling place near her home.
Although members of Ms. Ware’s family can sometimes provide her with rides,
their work schedules often prevent her family members from giving her rides
during the day. Ms. Ware did not have a photo ID at the time of the March 1, 2016
primary election and the November 2016 general election.
At her deposition, Ms. Ware expressed interest in arranging for the mobile
unit to come to her home. On March 10, 2017, two employees of the Secretary of
State’s office traveled more than 150 miles one-way to Ms. Ware’s residence to
issue her a photo ID. Ms. Ware was unaware of the mobile ID unit home visit until
her deposition.
Page 31 of 69

7.

Defendant Secretary Merrill

Defendant John H. Merrill is being sued in his official capacity as the
Secretary of State of Alabama. The Secretary of State is Alabama’s chief election
official. He is charged with issuing photo voter ID cards and informing the public
about the Photo ID Law’s requirements. See Ala. Code § 17-9-30(f), (l), (n).
Secretary Merrill also has authority to promulgate administrative rules to
implement the Photo ID Law. Id. § 17-9-30(o).
D.

Statistical Data and Expert Testimony

According to the 2010 Census, Alabama’s total population of roughly 4.7
million people is 67% white, 26% Black, and 3% Latino. According to the 2014
American Community Survey (“ACS”), Alabama’s voting age population
(“VAP”) of 3.6 million people is 69% white, 26% Black, and 1% Latino. According
to a U.S. Census survey of Alabamians from November 2014, 41.5% of the Latino
citizen VAP, 64.6% of the Black citizen VAP, and 65.8% of the white citizen VAP
were registered to vote in Alabama. Based on the information contained in the
voter file for all active and inactive registered voters as of July 6, 2016, Black people
make up approximately 26.8% of Alabama’s registered voter population, Hispanics
make up approximately 0.8% of Alabama’s registered voter population, and whites
make up approximately 70.1% of Alabama’s registered voter population.
Page 32 of 69

According to the 2009-2013 ACS, eleven of Alabama’s 67 counties have a
majority-Black population. Each of these counties has a higher Black-alone
population than the State as a whole: Macon County (81.2%), Greene County
(80.8%), Lowndes County (74.0%), Sumter County (73.1%), Wilcox County (72.9%),
Bullock County (70.9%), Dallas County (68.8%), Perry County (68.3%), Hale
County (59.1%), Montgomery County (55.2%), and Marengo County (52.1%).
According to the 2009-2013 ACS, none of Alabama’s 67 counties has a majority
Latino population.
According to the 2015 ACS one-year estimates, statewide, 27.1% of Black and
23.6% of Hispanic households do not have a computer at home and 41.8% of Black
households and 41.2% of Hispanic households do not have a high-speed Internet
subscription. This compares to 16.2% of white households which do not have a
computer at home and 27.7% of white households without a high-speed Internet
subscription. According to the 2015 ACS one-Year Estimates, 12.9% of Latino
Alabamians, 16.4% of Black Alabamians and 26.9% of white Alabamians have
received a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Alabama does not provide state funding of public transit. Student and
government employee photo IDs are disproportionately held by racial minorities in
Alabama.
Page 33 of 69

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Bernard Siskin, analyzed whether there is a racial
disparity between white voters and voters of color in photo ID possession rates in
Alabama. To conduct his analyses, Dr. Siskin first calculated the rates at which
registered Alabama voters lack photo ID based on a comparison of voter data
available in the Secretary’s voter registration database to Alabama’s driver’s
license and non-driver ID database as of July 6, 2016. He also relied on matches
between the voter registration database and certain federal ID databases identified
by the Department of State, Department of Defense, and Veterans Administration
after these federal agencies were provided with the relevant portions of the voter
database. In his first analysis, Dr. Siskin considered a voter to “possess” acceptable
photo ID even if some of the voter’s personal information (e.g., name, age) in the
voter registration database did not perfectly match that voter’s information in an
ID database. Under this analysis, he determined that 1.37% of white, 2.44% of Black,
and 2.29% of Hispanic registered voters lack any form of acceptable photo ID.
Dr. Siskin further refined his analysis in light of a survey conducted by Dr.
David Marker, another of Plaintiffs’ experts. Dr. Marker surveyed a subset of those
voters who could not be matched in the ID databases to ask whether they possessed
any form of acceptable photo ID, as well as other questions. Of the responses that
Dr. Marker received in his survey, 80 respondents indicated that the person to
Page 34 of 69

whom the survey was addressed is deceased. In addition, 1,933 questionnaires were
returned as undeliverable, and an additional 784 persons to whom the survey was
addressed were considered ineligible because they no longer lived at the sampled
address. In any event, Dr. Marker concluded that 84.0% of white voters, 82.0% of
Black voters, and 86.3% of Hispanic voters on the no-match list have photo IDs.
Thus, in Dr. Siskin’s second analysis, he considered whether a photo ID
would be “contestable,” i.e., “potentially susceptible to rejection” by election
officials. For example, Dr. Siskin identified numerous photo IDs where both the
first and last name on the ID did not match the name in the voter registration
database. Under this approach, and applying Dr. Marker’s survey conclusions, Dr.
Siskin determined that the percentages could actually be higher: that 3.33% of
white, 5.49% of Black, and 6.98% of Hispanic registered voters have lack adequate
photo ID that could be used to vote. In the end, however, Dr. Siskin, expressed an
opinion that an estimated 50,106 (1.67%) registered voters in Alabama have no valid
photo ID that is accepted under the photo ID law, which comes out to 29,491
whites (1.37%), 20,087 Blacks (2.44%), and 528 Hispanics (2.29%). He continued to
estimate, however, that an additional 68,046 voters have IDs that have material
name discrepancies such that they may be contested at the polls.

Page 35 of 69

The Secretary’s expert, Dr. M.V. Hood III, found that 0.87% of white, 1.44%
of Black, and 1.26% of Hispanic registered voters lack photo ID.
Dr. Siskin also performed an analysis of how far voters on the no-match list
live from ALEA offices and Boards of Registrars’ offices. According to Dr. Siskin’s
April 24, 2017 report, 69,704 voters without a useable photo ID live at least five
miles from an ID-issuing office. Of these voters, 20,863 (29.93%) are Black, 992
(1.42%) are Hispanic, and 47,848 (68.65%) are white. Excluding “contestable” IDs
from the analysis, the results total 27,941 registered voters who live more than five
miles away from either an ALEA office or a registrars’ office of which 17,933
(64.18%) are white, 9,672 (34.61%) are Black, and 336 (1.20%) are Hispanic.
Dr. Hood, the Secretary’s expert, took Dr. Siskin’s numbers and
demonstrated that, according to Dr. Siskin’s own data, Black and Hispanic voters
without photo IDs are actually more likely than white voters without photo IDs to
live within five miles of a Board of Registrars’ office, which offers the easiest-toobtain, and free, photo ID. Forty-four percent of Black voters, 28.1% of Hispanic
voters, and 24.0% of white voters live within five miles of a Board of Registrars’
office.
In Dr. Hood’s May 16, 2017 declaration, he removed additional categories of
voters from the no-match list, including those exempted from having to show photo
Page 36 of 69

ID to vote for various reasons, such as living in a nursing home and being disabled.
While Dr. Siskin did not agree with the removals, he conducted an additional
analysis, providing the “benefit of the doubt” to Dr. Hood regarding some (but not
all) of Dr. Hood’s assumptions, regarding who should be removed from the nomatch list and/or the study population. With those registered voters removed, Dr.
Siskin estimated that 47,997 voters without a usable photo ID live at least five miles
from either an ALEA office or a registrars’ office. Of these voters, 33,010 are white,
14,281 are Black, and 706 are Hispanic.
Estimates were also made concerning voters who neither owned a vehicle
nor had access to a vehicle. An estimate, using census tract data, indicates that 6.1%
of households in Alabama have zero vehicles in the household, 8.19% of voters
without a usable photo ID have no vehicle nor live in a household with a vehicle,
and 12.08% of Black voters without a useable photo ID have no vehicle nor live in a
household with a vehicle, compared to 5.71% of whites. The data also indicates that
2,028 white (53.6%), 1,717 Black (45.3%), and 42 Hispanic (1.1%) voters without a
usable photo ID live more than five miles from either an ALEA office or a
registrars’ office and have no vehicle or live in a household without a vehicle. Dr.
Siskin also calculated these figures excluding “contestable” IDs from the analysis.
The results total 1,597 registered voters who live more than five miles away from
Page 37 of 69

either an ALEA office or a Board of Registrars’ office of which 776 are white, 807
are Black, and 14 are Hispanic. When certain registered voters identified by Dr.
Hood are removed, Dr. Siskin found 1,403 white (54%), 1,168 Black (44.9%), and 29
Hispanic (1.1%) voters without a useable photo ID, who live at least five miles from
either an ALEA office or a registrars’ office and have no vehicle nor live in a
household with a vehicle. 3
III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment does not

differ from the standard applied when only one party files a motion, but simply
requires a determination of whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a
matter of law on the facts that are not disputed. Am. Bankers Ins. Group v. United
States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court must consider each motion
on its own merits, resolving all reasonable inferences against the party whose
motion is under consideration. Id. A motion for summary judgment is due to be
granted upon a showing that “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” remains

The parties have offered many other facts concerning topics such as the history of voter
fraud in Alabama, findings of discriminatory intent in other laws passed in Alabama over the past
fifty years, and the 2011 Legislature’s anti-immigration bill and redistricting plan, to name just a
few. The Court has not included all of the facts offered by the parties in this Memorandum of
Opinion, but it has included what it believes to be the facts that are actually relevant to the legal
issues in this case, along with other facts whose relevance is more tangential but which serve to
provide context.
3

Page 38 of 69

to be decided in the action and “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material “if, under the applicable substantive
law, it might affect the outcome of the case.” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357
F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004). A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists
where “the nonmoving party has produced evidence such that a reasonable
factfinder could return a verdict in its favor.” Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs.,
276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Alabama’s Photo ID Law Does Not Violate the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Plaintiffs claim in Counts Three and Four of the Second Amended
Complaint that the Photo ID Law violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits a State from denying any person the “equal protection of the laws.” U.S.
Const. Amend. XIV. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in the wake of the Civil
War, provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude.” U.S. Const. Amend. XV.
To prevail on both their Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claims,
Plaintiffs must show that the Alabama Legislature passed the Photo ID Law with a
Page 39 of 69

racially discriminatory intent or for a racially discriminatory purpose. See Vill. of
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1997) (“Proof of
racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause.”), citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (holding that
official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially
disproportionate impact); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S 30, 35 (1986) (“to
establish a violation . . . of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, minority
voters must prove that a contested electoral mechanism was intentionally adopted
or maintained by state officials for a discriminatory purpose”); City of Mobile v.
Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 62 (1980) (noting that the Supreme Court’s decisions
“confirm the principle that racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary
ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation”), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 35.
This is not to say, however, that Plaintiffs are absolved from any burden to
show that the Photo ID Law also actually discriminates on the basis of race. The
Supreme Court has held that an allegation of a defendant’s intent or motivation to
discriminate, standing alone, is not sufficient to state a claim under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S.
217, 224 (1971) (“[N]o case in this Court has held that a legislative act may violate
Page 40 of 69

equal protection solely because of the motivations of the men who voted for it.”),
relying upon Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87 (1810). See also Bolden, 446 U.S. at 65
(holding that the electoral system of voting in Mobile did not violate the rights of
the city’s Black voters in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment, since Black
voters in Mobile “register and vote without hindrance” and thus their “freedom to
vote has not been denied or abridged by anyone”), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 35.
The Court first turns to the task of “[p]roving discriminatory motivation
behind official action,” which the Supreme Court has described as “a problematic
undertaking.” Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 228 (1985); see also Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 636-37 (1987) (“[D]iscerning the subjective motivation of
those enacting the statute is, to be honest, almost always an impossible task. The
number of possible motivations, to begin with, is not binary, or indeed even
finite. . . . To look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look
for something that does not exist.”) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Despite these
difficulties, Plaintiffs need only prove that racial discrimination was one
“motivating” factor in the enactment of the Photo ID Law, and they may rely upon
various types of direct or circumstantial evidence in order to do so. Arlington
Heights, 429 U.S. at 265-67. “[A]n important starting point” is “[t]he impact of
Page 41 of 69

the official action whether it bears more heavily on one race than another.” Id. at
266. In rare cases, “a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race,
emerges from the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation
appears neutral on its face.” Id. But absent such a clear pattern, courts must look to
other direct or circumstantial evidence of intent, including “[t]he historical
background of the decision,” “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up [to] the
challenged decision,” “[d]epartures from the normal procedural sequence,” and
“contemporary statements by members of the [Legislature], minutes of its
meetings, or reports.” Id. at 267-68. In addition, “a strong state policy in favor of
[the challenged practice], for reasons other than race, is evidence that the [practice]
does not have a discriminatory intent. On the other hand, a tenuous explanation for
[the practice] is circumstantial evidence that the system is motivated by
discriminatory purposes.” United States v. Marengo Cty. Comm’n, 731 F.2d 1546,
1571 (11th Cir. 1984).
In support of their contention that the Alabama Legislature enacted the
Photo ID Law with the intent to discriminate against racial minorities, Plaintiffs
cite many things, among them: a history of voter discrimination in Alabama; racist
statements (referring to Black voters as “illiterates” and “aborigines”) made by
several Legislators during recorded conversations contemporaneous to the passage
Page 42 of 69

of the Photo ID Law but that did not involve the Photo ID Law; the fact that the
same Legislature that passed the Photo ID Law passed an anti-immigration bill and
a redistricting plan, parts of both which were later invalidated by courts; that the
Legislator who sponsored both the Photo ID Law and the anti-immigration bill
made various prejudiced comments about Latino citizens during his speech
introducing the anti-immigration bill; that the Legislature’s efforts to pass a photo
voter ID bill coincided with a rising increase in Black people becoming registered
voters in 1995 under the National Voter Registration Act, which allowed people to
register at motor vehicle and public welfare agencies; that the Legislature’s passage
of a 2003 voter ID law, which allowed various forms of non-photo ID to vote, was
the result of a negotiation between the Black Caucus and white Republicans in
which, in exchange for Republicans agreeing to not block a re-enfranchisement bill
for people with felonies, the Black Caucus would agree not to block a voter ID bill;
statements made in 1996 to the effect that Alabama’s lack of a photo ID law was
“beneficial to the Black power structure” and “benefits Black elected leaders” by a
Legislator who retired before the 2011 passage of the Photo ID Law; that the law’s
sponsor expected a “lengthy court battle” with the Department of Justice
regarding whether it would be precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act;
the fact that the Legislature invoked cloture and truncated debate during the
Page 43 of 69

passage of the law; that there was no voter education or release of administrative
rules with respect to the law until after the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Shelby County rendering the preclearance requirement null and void; and that there
is a lack of evidence of any significant in-person voter fraud in Alabama that would
be prevented by the Photo ID Law.
In response, Secretary Merrill argues that the Photo ID Law was not passed
with a discriminatory purpose but was passed to combat voter fraud, increase voter
confidence, and to modernize elections, all policies held by the Supreme Court to
be legitimate and furthered by a photo ID law. See Crawford, 553 U.S. at 192-97. In
further support, he cites as evidence the following: that Alabama did not act on its
own, but joined a growing national trend, in first passing a voter identification law
and later a photo ID law; that documented cases of voter fraud do exist in Alabama,
and grass-roots movements, concerned about evidence of voter fraud, engaged in
efforts to educate the public about voter fraud and to lobby for a voter identification
law; that there were publicized absentee-voter fraud prosecutions in Greene
County and Hale County in the mid-1990s; that public officials, including former
Secretary of State Jim Bennett and Attorney General Bill Pryor, pushed for voter
identification laws in the 1990s and early 2000s; that there was nothing unusual in
the way that the photo ID law was passed, including the use of cloture, and that
Page 44 of 69

while the Legislature may have heard warnings by some of an alleged
discriminatory impact, there is no evidence that Legislators supporting the law
believed that the law would have such an impact, particularly when accepting so
many forms of ID, including those disproportionately held by minorities.
In other election law cases, it has been appropriate for the trier of fact to
engage in the delicate and highly fact-sensitive consideration of the kinds of
testimony and historical facts that are summarized above. See Prejean v. Foster, 227
F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Legislative motivation or intent is a paradigmatic
fact question.”) (citing Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 549 (1999)). However,
such an undertaking is not necessary in this case. This is because, as noted,
Plaintiffs are also required to show that the law in fact discriminates. See Bolden,
446 U.S. at 65 (actual discrimination required to show a violation of the Fifteenth
Amendment), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Thornburg, 478 U.S.
at 35; Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (discriminatory impact is “a good starting
point” of the discriminatory intent analysis); Palmer, 403 U.S. at 224-26 (actual
discrimination is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Page 45 of 69

Fourteenth Amendment). 4 In this case, the Photo ID Law does not in fact
discriminate on the basis of race.
Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Bernard Siskin says there are around 50,000 registered
voters in Alabama (or 1.67% of the registered voter population) who may not have
any of the forms of photo ID that may be used for voting. 5 This means that nearly
the entire population of registered voters in Alabama already possesses a photo ID
that can be used for voting. Perhaps one reason that the law affects so few voters is
the variety of photo IDs that the Alabama Legislature decided to allow. North
Carolina and Texas’s election laws were each criticized for not accepting student
IDs, military IDs, and government employee IDs that are disproportionately held
The Palmer Court explained that racially motivated legislation violates the Equal
Protection Clause only when the challenged legislation “affect[s] blacks differently from whites.”
403 U.S. at 225. The Supreme Court has since acknowledged that this holding may seem
contrary to the requirement that a plaintiff prove discriminatory intent or motive to succeed on
an equal protection claim. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265 & n.10; Washington, 426 U.S. at
242-44. However, the Supreme Court has never invalidated Palmer and indeed, has continued to
require actual discrimination to be shown in equal protection cases. See, e.g., Washington, 426
U.S. at 238 (“The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race.”) (emphasis added).
4

Dr. Siskin also estimated that an additional 68,046 voters have what he called
“contestable” photo IDs, or IDs that have material discrepancies between the name or other
identifying information on the voter roll such that they may be contested at the polls. In total
then, Dr. Siskin estimated that 118,152 registered voters have either no photo ID or have a
“contestable” photo ID. Secretary Merrill filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Siskin’s
testimony concerning “contestable” IDs on the ground that Dr. Siskin is not qualified to express
an opinion about what photo IDs a poll worker would accept. (Doc. 215.) The motion is hereby
DENIED AS MOOT, because, as explained herein, even considering as true that Dr. Siskin’s
additional 68,046 voters have “contestable” IDs, Secretary Merrill is still entitled to a ruling in
his favor.
5

Page 46 of 69

by minorities. See N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 236
(4th Cir. 2016); Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 262 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Alabama accepts those IDs.
Also according to Dr. Siskin, 1.37% of white registered voters, 2.44% of Black
registered voters, and 2.29% of Hispanic registered voters may not currently have
an acceptable photo ID. Frankly, the discrepancy in photo ID possession rates
among white, Black, and Hispanic registered voters in Alabama is miniscule. In
other words, it appears that very few registrants of any racial group may presently
be affected by the Photo ID Law. Nonetheless, the numbers show that Black and
Latino registered voters are almost twice as likely as white voters to lack an
acceptable photo ID for voting. Although Secretary Merrill’s expert’s numbers
differ somewhat (Dr. Hood estimated that .87% of white, 1.44% of Black, and 1.26%
of Hispanic registered voters lack photo ID), Secretary Merrill does not dispute
that registered voters of color in Alabama are statistically more likely than white
voters to lack the required photo ID. It is worth noting that any conclusions
reached from this evidence must be qualified by the fact that the studies were
completed in July 2016, and the actual possession rates are certainly in flux as
voters who want them obtain photo IDs. Indeed, since the analyses were done,
there has been a Presidential election and a special election to choose Alabama’s
Page 47 of 69

U.S. Senator. Many people who may not have had ID more than a year ago could
have gotten one since, particularly if they wanted to participate in those elections.
But in the end, Dr. Siskin’s estimate does not matter. This is because a
person who does not have a photo ID today is not prevented from voting if he or
she can easily get one, and it is so easy to get a photo ID in Alabama, no one is
prevented from voting.6
Anyone without a photo ID can obtain one for the sole purpose of voting,
free of charge. These IDs can be obtained at Secretary Merrill’s office at the State
Capitol Building in Montgomery, any Board of Registrars’ office, located in each
county and open during daily business hours, or to an event where the Secretary’s
mobile ID unit is visiting. Since 2014, the Secretary’s mobile unit has appeared in
each county in Alabama at least once each year, and at various locations throughout
the county. While polling places do not offer the free voter photo IDs on Election
Day, if a person shows up to the polls on Election Day without a qualifying photo
ID, he or she may still cast a provisional ballot, obtain a free voter photo ID within
the next several days (they are available at the other locations on Election Days and
To that end, and as more fully explained herein, Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment
in their favor on this discrete issue, i.e., that Black and Hispanic voters are statistically less likely
than white voters to possess one of the required forms of photo ID to vote in Alabama (see doc.
234), is due to be denied because issuing such a ruling would be superfluous to the Court’s
holding.
6

Page 48 of 69

in the days thereafter, such as at each Board of Registrar’s office, and a temporary
ID is issued immediately), and return to cure the ballot. The Supreme Court and
the Eleventh Circuit have held that an inconvenience of this type is not a
substantial burden on the right to vote. Crawford, 553 U.S. at 198 (“For most
voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering
the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a
substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over
the usual burdens of voting.”); Common Cause/Georgia, 554 F.3d at 1354-55 (“The
ordinary burdens of producing a photo identification to vote, which the Supreme
Court described as ‘arising from life’s vagaries,’ do not ‘raise any question about
the constitutionality of’ the Georgia statute.”), quoting Crawford, 553 U.S. at 197. 7
To get a free voter photo ID, a voter must establish the following
information:

The challengers in Crawford and Common Cause/Georgia did not allege intentional race
discrimination. Rather, they mounted facial attacks on photo ID requirements as unduly
burdensome on the right to vote generally under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The
Crawford Court conducted the flexible Anderson–Burdick analysis, balancing the burden of having
to show a photo ID to vote in person against Indiana’s interests in deterring and detecting voter
fraud, correcting maladministration of the voter rolls, and safeguarding voter confidence,
concluding that the photo ID requirement “impose[d] only a limited burden on voters’ rights.”
553 U.S. at 202–03 (citing Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983) and Burdick v.
Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992)). The Eleventh Circuit in Common Cause/Georgia held
similarly.
7

Page 49 of 69

(1)

A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity
document is acceptable if the document includes both the
person’s full legal name and date of birth.

(2)

Documentation showing the person’s date of birth.

(3)

Documentation showing the person is registered to vote in this
state.

(4)

Documentation showing the person’s name and address as
reflected in the voter registration record.

Ala. Code § 17-9-30(j). A voter can satisfy these requirements by presenting, for
example, a birth or marriage certificate and something with the voter’s name and
address on it, such as a utility bill or a pay stub. 8 If the voter does not have a copy of
her birth or marriage certificate, the registrar can get a copy at no charge to the
voter, due to Secretary Merrill’s contracting with the ADPH to pay for ADHP to
perform the search.
Another, even simpler, way to satisfy the statute’s requirement is by signing
a voter registration form (which requests all of the information required above) or
updating an existing voter registration form (even if nothing needs updating), under
oath, in front of an election official, thereby confirming the voter’s identity. The
Indeed, the mobile ID unit has issued free photo voter ID cards based upon the
presentation of a wide variety of documents, including voter registration forms, registration
update forms, arrest records, bank documents, Birmingham Housing Authority ID cards, expired
county employee IDs, court paternity documents, fishing licenses, EBT cards, pay stubs, Sam’s
Club cards, and a ticket issued by a municipality.
8

Page 50 of 69

availability of this option establishes that every single registered voter in Alabama,
or potential registered voter, can obtain a photo ID in this fashion at no charge. If
someone was never issued a birth certificate, she still can get a photo ID by
attesting to her identity through a registration form or update form.
Additionally, if a voter cannot get to a registrar’s office or to an event where
the mobile ID unit is temporarily stationed, Secretary Merrill will bring the mobile
unit to the voter’s home and issue a photo ID, also at no cost to the voter. That
means that the only way the photo ID law could prevent a person from voting is if
that person is unable or unwilling to request a home visit from the mobile unit.
Plaintiffs point out that the record shows fewer than ten home visits made by the
mobile unit, one of which required a state Legislator to personally contact the
Secretary to request the visit for a constituent, and another for a plaintiff in this
case, and that while a person can request a home visit through the Secretary’s
website, such a request does not necessarily guarantee that a representative from
the Secretary’s office will make a home visit because the Secretary has
implemented a protocol whereby the voter is asked questions about his or her
transportation options. Nonetheless, Secretary Merrill has made clear that if the
voter says he has no one to give him a ride, the voter is taken at his word: (“Now, if
they choose not to be honest, then we’ll accept it.”). He emphasized that “we’re
Page 51 of 69

not going to—nobody is ever going to be denied a voter ID.” Thus, Plaintiffs have
not disputed that a voter who truly needs a home visit can get one. This fact, plus
the fact that all it takes is signing a voter registration form or update form, means
that any Alabama voter who wants one can get a photo ID.
Plaintiffs also cite to the declaration of Jewel Castophney, a Black registered
voter who was denied a free voter ID by a representative of Secretary Merrill’s
office at a mobile unit event because of the erroneous belief that she already had an
acceptable ID and therefore did not need one. Due to the cost incurred by the State
in printing the free voter ID cards, they are intended for use only by individuals
who do not already have some other form of qualifying photo ID that can be used
for voting. In any event, Ms. Castophney applied again for a free voter ID on
November 1, 2017, and her application was pending during her deposition. She also
testified that she did not want it to vote and did not realize it was intended for this
purpose only; she routinely uses the positively identify provision to vote. She
wanted a State-issued ID for other purposes and she testified that she would not
have applied for one if she had understood that it was only for voting. Plaintiffs also
cite Plaintiff Elizabeth Ware, who says she was told that she could not get a free
voter photo ID card because in the past she had possessed an ALEA-issued ID. If
she was told that, the Secretary of State assures that the registrar was mistaken, and
Page 52 of 69

the Secretary has issued guidance instructing registrars that people who used to
have an ID, who had lost an ID, or whose ID was expired, are still eligible to receive
a free ID for voting purposes. Moreover, Ms. Ware has since received a free ID.
That is, at most, several mistakes due to human error and not the law itself, and in
fact, as of June 30, 2017, Alabama had issued 13,442 free voter photo IDs to voters
(and, at $8 per card, paid more than $280,000 to the vendor for card printing and
other services and equipment related to the free ID program).
Moreover, the individual plaintiffs’ situations demonstrate that people who
want a photo ID can get one. Giovanna Ambrosio could participate in after-school
activities, go to work every day in the summer, and make a 25-30 minute trip to go
to college classes, but says she could not get to a registrars’ office that was a mile
from her house. Before the 2016 general election, she managed to make the onemile trip and got her ID. She also knew about the mobile unit and the offer to visit
any day of the week. Debra Silvers (now deceased) had an ALEA nondriver ID but
lost it in a fire. When she needed an ID for purposes other than voting, she got a
replacement ID. Shameka Harris had an ALEA nondriver ID that was stolen.
When she was told she needed an ID for certain government benefits, she got it
replaced. Elizabeth Ware had an ALEA non-driver ID and lost it. When she

Page 53 of 69

requested it, the mobile unit traveled over 150 miles one way to her home and
issued a photo ID. 9
In sum, the “impact” of the law should not be measured by how many
people lack a given ID at a given point in time, but by whether someone without an
ID can easily get one. In Alabama, the law has no discriminatory impact because it
does not prevent anyone from voting, not when free IDs are issued in every county,
or at home, under conditions that any registered voter can meet.
One test for whether the Alabama Legislature intended to discriminate is
whether it did, in fact, discriminate. As discussed above, it did not. It would serve
no purpose for this Court to further consider the other Arlington Heights factors
(the historical background of the law, contemporaneous statements made by
Legislators, departures from normal legislative procedures, etc., see 429 U.S. at
267-68) when even a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would do no more than hold that the
Alabama Legislature intended to discriminate in enacting the Photo ID Law, but
failed. 10

Although Plaintiffs introduced the issue of religious objections to photo IDs in the facts
section of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, through the anecdotal evidence
concerning Joshua Wahl, they do not bring an equal protection claim of discrimination based on
religion.
9

The Court thus need not consider Secretary Merrill’s motion in limine to exclude the
testimony of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert, Morgan Kousser, Ph.D., a historian, whose opinion

10

Page 54 of 69

Two additional points remain. First, the Court finds that Alabama had
“important regulatory interests” in enacting a photo ID requirement, namely, to
combat voter fraud, increase confidence in elections, and modernize election
procedures. See, e.g., Common Cause/Georgia, 554 F.3d at 1352. The Eleventh
Circuit, adhering to Supreme Court precedent, has held that these policies are
legitimate. See id. at 1352-53, citing Crawford, 553 U.S. at 192-97. The undisputed
facts show that voter fraud, albeit almost entirely in the context of absentee voting,
did exist in Alabama prior to the law’s enactment. In any event, the Supreme Court
has held that deterring voter fraud is a legitimate policy for a State even in the
absence of any record evidence of voter fraud occurring. Crawford, 553 U.S. at 195
(no record evidence of voter fraud in Indiana). Thus, Secretary Merrill is not
required to prove that voter fraud exists (although he has done so), that the Photo
ID Law helps deter voter fraud, or that the law increases confidence in elections.
Supreme Court precedent mandates that Alabama’s justifications for the law are
valid. See id. at 192-97. 11

concerned the Alabama Legislature’s intent in passing the Photo ID Law. (Doc. 216.) The
motion is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
To that end, the Court need not consider the opinion of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert, Dr.
Lonna Rae Atkeson, that photo ID laws do not increase voter confidence. Secretary Merrill filed
a separate motion in limine to exclude her testimony. (Doc. 217.) The motion is hereby DENIED
as MOOT.
11

Page 55 of 69

Second, the Court notes that the record in this case is very different than the
evidence before the Fourth Circuit when it held that North Carolina’s photo ID
law was passed with discriminatory intent. In McCrory, the Fourth Circuit
concluded that the North Carolina process targeted Black voters with “almost
surgical precision.” 831 F.3d at 214. For example, the court explained that, on the
day after the Supreme Court eliminated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act’s
preclearance obligations in Shelby County, under which North Carolina had
previously been covered, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee,
whose party had been rarely supported by Black voters, announced the intention of
enacting a new “omnibus” election law. Id. at 214, 216. After the announcement
but before the enactment of any law, the Legislature requested data “on the use, by
race, of a number of voting practices.” Id. at 214. And based on the data, the
Legislature, acting “swiftly,” enacted legislation “that restricted voting and
registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African
Americans.” Id. at 214, 216. Specifically, the omnibus election law not only
excluded many of the alternative photo IDs disproportionately used by Black voters
and retained only the kinds of photo IDs that whites were more likely to possess,
but also eliminated certain voting procedures that the data the Legislature had just

Page 56 of 69

collected showed were disproportionately used by Black voters. Id. at 214. For
example, early voting in North Carolina allowed any registered voter to complete
an absentee application and ballot at the same time, in person, for a two-week
period in advance of Election Day. Id. at 216-17. The new law eliminated the first
week of early voting, resulting in the elimination of one of the two “Souls to the
Polls” Sundays in which Black churches provided transportation to voters. Id. at
217. Same-day voting was a procedure allowing eligible persons to register in
person at an early voting site at the same time as casting their ballots, and which
historically provided an easy avenue to re-register for those who moved frequently,
and which allowed those with low literacy skills to receive personal assistance from
poll workers in completing a registration form. Id. Provisional voting, including outof-precinct voting, required the Board of Elections in each county to count the
provisional ballot of an Election Day voter who appeared at the wrong precinct, but
in the correct county. Id. This provision assisted those who moved frequently, or
who mistook a voting site as being in their correct precinct. Id. Preregistration
permitted 16 and 17-year-olds, when obtaining driver’s licenses or attending
mandatory high school registration drives, to identify themselves and indicate their
intent to vote. Id. at 217-18. This allowed County Boards of Elections to verify
eligibility and automatically register eligible citizens once they reached eighteen. Id.
Page 57 of 69

Preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters. Id. All of these
procedures were used disproportionately by Black voters, according to the
Legislature’s data, and all were eliminated by the new law. Id. at 214-18. Moreover,
the Fourth Circuit found that the Legislature offered “only meager justifications”
for the new provisions. Id. at 214. Equally telling, in its efforts to “rush” the
omnibus bill through the legislative process, the Legislature engaged in “unusual
procedures.” Id. at 228. As the court concluded, “the State took away minority
voters’ opportunity because they were about to exercise it . . . . [T]his bears the
mark of intentional discrimination.” Id. at 215. Here, there is no evidence that the
Alabama Legislature believed that a photo ID law would disadvantage minority
voters, particularly after providing means for people without an ID to receive one
free of charge.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Secretary Merrill is entitled to summary
judgment in his favor on Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
B.

Alabama’s Photo ID Law Does Not Violate Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act

Plaintiffs claim in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint that the
Photo ID Law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Subsection (a) of Section
2 forbids any “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in the denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of
Page 58 of 69

race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Subsection (b)—added in 1982—explains
that a violation of subsection (a) is established if “based on the totality of the
circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or
election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by
members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have
less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political
process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Id. § 10301(b). Consistent
with the statute’s focus on the “results” of a challenged voting practice, it is well
established that a violation of Section 2 can be established by proof of
“discriminatory results alone.” Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 404 (1991). In
other words, no showing of discriminatory intent or purpose is required.
The “structure or practice” identified by Plaintiffs is the Photo ID Law’s
requirement that every voter provide a photo ID either at the time of voting or
within several days thereafter. Plaintiffs argue that, because Black and Latino voters
are less likely to possess photo ID, the requirement imposes a disparate burden that
has the effect of denying them the equal opportunity to vote. The Secretary
responds that there is no evidence that any voter will be denied an equal
opportunity to vote because the law makes it so easy to obtain the necessary photo
ID. The Court agrees. The undisputed facts show that Alabama has sufficiently
Page 59 of 69

advertised the need for a photo ID and how to get one, and the law has been used in
elections in Alabama since 2014 (so that no person can reasonably claim ignorance
of the law’s provisions). To get a photo ID at no cost, a voter need only get to a
registrar’s office with a birth or marriage certificate. If he does not have a copy of
his birth certificate, the registrar will look it up, or, even easier, the voter can
simply sign a registration form or update form under oath. If someone truly has no
access to transportation, the Secretary of State will come to the voter’s home and
issue an ID. There is no person who is qualified to register to vote who cannot also
get a photo ID.
Thus, just as in Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections, “[a] complex § 2
analysis is not necessary to resolve this issue because the plaintiffs have simply
failed to provide evidence that members of the protected class have less of an
opportunity than others to participate in the political process.” 843 F.3d 592, 600
(4th Cir. 2016). In Virginia (as in Alabama), a voter can get a free photo ID without
presenting additional documentation. See id. at 594. And in Virginia, as in Alabama,
a person who shows up at the polls without a photo ID can cast a provisional ballot
that may be cured by later presenting a photo ID. Id. Under those circumstances,
the Fourth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that “as long as there is disparity in
the rates at which different groups possess acceptable identification, § 2 is
Page 60 of 69

violated.” Id. at 600. “Disparate inconveniences,” the court held, are not the same
thing as “the denial or abridgment of the right to vote” required for an actionable
Section 2 claim. Id. at 601. The court explained:
Every decision that a State makes in regulating its elections will,
inevitably, result in somewhat more inconvenience for some voters
than for others. For example, every polling place will, by necessity, be
located closer to some voters than to others. To interpret § 2 as
prohibiting any regulation that imposes a disparate inconvenience
would mean that every polling place would need to be precisely
located such that no group had to spend more time traveling to vote
than did any other. Similarly, motor-voter registration would be found
to be invalid as members of the protected class were less likely to
possess a driver’s license. Yet, courts have also correctly rejected that
hypothetical. See Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 1551 (2015).
We conclude that § 2 does not sweep away all election rules that
result in a disparity in the convenience of voting. As we noted in North
Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, 241
(4th Cir. 2016), “it cannot be that states must forever tip-toe around
certain voting provisions” that would have more effect on the voting
patterns of one group than another. Rather, § 2 asks us to evaluate
whether the Virginia process has diminished the opportunity of the
protected class to participate in the electoral process. If Virginia had
required voters to present identifications without accommodating
citizens who lacked them, the rule might arguably deprive some voters
of an equal opportunity to vote. But where, as here, Virginia allows
everyone to vote and provides free photo IDs to persons without
them, we conclude that SB 1256 provides every voter an equal
opportunity to vote and thus does not violate § 2 of the Voting Rights
Act.

Page 61 of 69

Id. at 600–01. 12
The same is true here. The issue is not who has or does not have a photo ID
at present. The issue is whether the Photo ID Law denies members of a minority
group the opportunity to reasonably get one, assuming they want one. “[A] § 2
challenge based purely on a showing of some relevant statistical disparity between
minorities and whites, without any evidence that the challenged voting qualification
causes that disparity, will be rejected.” Gonzales v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 405 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Frank v.
Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 753 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Although [facts showing that minority
voters are less likely than white voters to possess photo ID] document a disparate
outcome, they do not show a ‘denial’ of anything by Wisconsin, as § 2(a) requires;
unless Wisconsin makes it needlessly hard to get photo ID, it has not denied
anything to any voter.”); id. at 754 (“It is better to understand § 2(b) as an equaltreatment requirement (which is how it reads) than as an equal-outcome command
. . . .”).

Plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish Lee from this case fall flat. They contend that the fact
that Alabama advises applicants for a free voter ID card that they are subject to felony perjury in
swearing that they do not possess an alternate form of ID makes Alabama’s process to obtain the
free voter photo ID somehow more burdensome than Virginia’s. They also note that Lee was
decided after a trial on the merits, not at summary judgment, but the Court’s independent review
of the Lee docket reveals that Virginia did not seek a summary judgment ruling in its favor on the
plaintiffs’ Section 2 claim.
12

Page 62 of 69

Minorities do not have less opportunity to vote under Alabama’s Photo ID
law, because everyone has the same opportunity to obtain an ID. Black, Hispanic,
and white voters are equally able to sign a voter registration form or registration
form update. They have the same opportunity to get to a registrar’s office, and to
the extent there is a difference in convenience, they have the same opportunity to
request a home visit. Insofar as it is less convenient for the poor to get an ID than it
is for those who have greater means, that is as true for poor whites as it is for poor
minority voters. A Black voter and a white voter of equal means who each lack ID
and a birth certificate, and who each live an equal distance away from the
registrar’s office, are in the exact same position: They can each get a photo ID at no
charge by signing a simple form, and if they have no transportation, the mobile unit
will come to them. In sum, there cannot be a discriminatory impact on voting when
the law does not prevent anyone from voting. Secretary Merrill is entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Section 2 claim. 13

The Court also notes that although Plaintiffs do not bring a separate claim for violation of
52 U.S.C. § 10503, the Voting Rights Act’s bilingual election requirements, they do complain
that certain election materials are not available in Spanish. The bilingual requirements of the
Voting Rights Act are triggered when a language minority comprises five percent or more of the
state’s citizens of voting age. 52 U.S.C. § 10503(b)(2). Plaintiffs have not claimed that Spanish
speakers have reached that threshold in Alabama. In any event, Secretary Merrill’s Hispanic
Chief of Staff testified that when it is requested, Secretary Merrill provides Spanish language
translations of elections materials, even though it is not required.
13

Page 63 of 69

C.

The Positively Identify Provision of Alabama’s Photo ID Law
Does Not Violate Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act

In Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs attacked the
Photo ID Law’s exemption for those voters who can be “positively identified” by
two election officials. See Ala. Code § 17-9-30(e). There is no statutory or other
definition of “positively identif[y],” but the Secretary interprets the phrase to
mean that a voter who lacks photo ID may cast a regular ballot if two poll officials
will attest to the voter’s identity based solely on the poll officials’ personal
acquaintance with the voter. Plaintiffs claimed that this exemption constitutes an
illegal test or device—an outlawed “voucher” requirement—in violation of
Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10501(a).
Section 201 categorically prohibits the use of “any test or device” as a voting
qualification, stating that “[n]o citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to
comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local
election conducted in any State or political subdivision of a State.” 52 U.S.C. §
10501(a). “All literacy tests and similar voting qualifications were abolished” by
the Voting Rights Act because, “[a]lthough such tests may have been facially
neutral, they were easily manipulated to keep blacks from voting.” N.W. Austin
Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 198 (2009). Section 201 defines
the phrase “test or device” as including “any requirement that a person as a
Page 64 of 69

prerequisite for voting . . . prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered
voters or members of any other class.” 52 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(4) (emphasis added).
This per se ban on tests and devices removed the burden of demonstrating the
discriminatory application of a test that had been required under prior law. See
Briscoe v. Bell, 432 U.S. 404, 410 n.9 (1977) (“The Act suspends the operation of all
‘tests and devices’ . . . .”); Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 338 (2000)
(stating that the Voting Rights Act now “bars certain types of voting tests and
devices altogether”).
Earlier in this litigation this Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary
injunction to enjoin application of the positively identify provision, reasoning that
Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their Count Two claim because the
positively identify provision is not a requirement that must be met before voting.
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1116 (N.D. Ala.
2016). This Court explained that “obtaining a photo ID provides an objective,
guaranteed option of proving one’s identity that pre-[Voting Rights Act] voter laws
with tests and devices lacked. Alabama voters can always present a photo ID and
avoid reliance on the positively identify provision.” Id.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs now seek, as part of their Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, a legal ruling that the positively identify provision is a prohibited test or
Page 65 of 69

device within the meaning of Section 201. (See doc. 234.) They continue to argue
that the thousands of registered voters in Alabama who lack a photo ID are
“required” to use the positively identify provision as their sole means of voting.
That is simply not true: the voter can instead go to the Board of Registrars’ office
or schedule a home visit to get one.
The facts discussed in the previous two sections above related to the ease of
obtaining a photo ID show that no one in Alabama is “required” to rely on the
positively identify provision because they have the option of acquiring a photo ID
with little to no effort and no cost. Far from an outlawed voucher requirement, the
positively identify provision of the Photo ID Law offers an additional option that
allows more individuals to vote than would be able to absent the provision. Before
the Voting Rights Act was passed, Alabama and other states used literacy tests, poll
taxes, and “good morals” requirements to discriminate against minorities. In some
cases, voters were not permitted to cast a ballot unless they got a “voucher” from
one or more other voters (and when almost all registered voters were white, Black
voters were usually unable to find anyone to “vouch” for them). See generally
United States v. Logue, 344 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1965). Far from those schemes, the
positively identify provision was designed as a “fail-safe” means that allows a
person to vote if they would prefer not to vote a provisional ballot and come back
Page 66 of 69

later with a photo ID. It was part of the 2003 voter ID law, was precleared as a
“fail-safe” provision by the Department of Justice, and has been used in elections
for more than 14 years. Plaintiffs still maintain that all “alternative provisions for
qualifying to vote” are outlawed by Section 201, but the “alternative provisions”
Congress was targeting were themselves discriminatory devices, when a state, for
example, had a literacy test but allowed white voters to get around it through a
“voucher.”
Because the provision is not a requirement that must be met before voting,
the Court need not determine whether it is being used in an improper manner. 14
But the Court notes that the evidence on this record shows that it is not. Indeed,
former Plaintiff Edna Williams, a Black registered voter, testified that she used the
positively identify provision, and Jewel Castophney, a Black declarant for Plaintiffs,
stated that she had always used it to vote, that she knows all of her poll workers,
they were always the same people (although one died this year), and that they are
all Black. The evidence also shows that during an incident in 2014 when two Black
voters were not allowed to vote using the positively identify provision because the
poll worker mistakenly believed that a photo ID was still required, Secretary Merrill
To that end, the Court need not consider the opinion of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert, Dr.
Atkeson, about how many voters know their “check-in poll worker.” Secretary Merrill’s
separately-filed motion in limine also sought to exclude this opinion. (Doc. 217.) As noted
previously, the motion is moot.
14

Page 67 of 69

got involved and insisted that the poll worker follow the law and allow the voters to
cast regular ballots under the positively identify provision. The Secretary also
intervened when poll workers in Limestone County declined to positively identify
Josh Wahl, a white registered voter who, for religious reasons, lacks a photo ID,
even though they had done so in the past, saying that they said they could not be
certain whether he in fact had no photo ID with him. The Secretary personally
intervened and helped work out a solution so that Mr. Wahl could vote. The
problems in those circumstances was not with the law, but were mistakes or human
error of local officials. In addition, evidence undisputed by Plaintiffs shows that
some Black election officials support the positively identify provision, that at least
some election officials strive to ensure that the race of poll workers reflects the race
of voters in a precinct, that there are in fact many Black poll workers in Alabama,
particularly in heavily Black areas, and that minority voters are as able to use the
positively identify option as white voters.
The undisputed evidence thus confirms the Court’s previous conclusion
that the positively identify provision is not an illegal test or device within the
meaning of Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment insofar as it seeks a legal ruling to the contrary (see

Page 68 of 69

doc. 234) is due to be denied and Secretary Merrill is entitled to summary
judgment on this claim.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (doc. 234) is due to be denied and Secretary Merrill’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (doc. 236) is due to be granted and this action dismissed in its
entirety. A separate order consistent with this opinion will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.
DONE and ORDERED on January 10, 2018.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

Page 69 of 69