People First of Alabama et al v. Merrill et al

Filing 251

FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION ORDER-Consistent with the contemporaneously-entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, 250 , the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, 229 , is DENIED, and Judge Don Davis and JoJo Schwarzauers motions for judgment on partial findings, 231 , 233 , are MOOT. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of the defendants AND plaintiffs claims as set out herein. The court ORDERS the State and Secretary Merrill to take all reasonable steps to inform county probate judges, circuit clerks, and absentee elections managers about this injunction as quickly as possible. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 09/30/2020. (AKD)

FILED

Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 251 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 5

2020 Sep-30 PM 12:20
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PEOPLE FIRST OF ALABAMA, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN MERRILL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
2:20-cv-00619-AKK

)

FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTON ORDER
Consistent with the contemporaneously-entered findings of fact and
conclusions of law, doc. 250, the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, doc. 229, is
DENIED, and Judge Don Davis’s and JoJo Schwarzauer’s motions for judgment on
partial findings, docs. 231, 233, are MOOT. Based upon the court’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law, doc. 250:
A.

JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of the defendants on the

following claims:
1.

The claims asserted against Judge Davis challenging the photo
ID requirement and the curbside voting ban;

2.

Eric Peebles’s, Howard Porter, Jr.’s, Annie Carolyn
Thompson’s, and Teresa Bettis’s claims challenging the curbside
voting ban;

3.

Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute’s (“BVM’s”)
claims in Count II challenging the photo ID requirement and the
curbside voting ban under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”);

Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 251 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 5

4.

The plaintiffs’ claims in Count II presenting a facial challenge to
the curbside voting ban under the ADA;

5.

Ms. Thompson’s claim in Count II challenging the photo ID
requirement under the ADA;

6.

The plaintiffs’ claims in Count III challenging the curbside
voting ban under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and

7.

The plaintiffs’ claims in Count V.

B.

JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of the plaintiffs on the following

claims:
1.

Dr. Peebles’s, Ms. Bettis’s, Ms. Thompson’s, BVM’s, People
First of Alabama, the Alabama Conference of the NAACP’s, and
Greater Birmingham Ministries’ 1 claims asserted in Count I
against Judge Davis and Ms. Schwarzauer challenging the
witness requirement as applied in the COVID-19 pandemic;

2.

Ms. Thompson’s and the organizational plaintiffs’ claims
asserted in Count I against Ms. Schwarzauer challenging the
photo ID requirement as applied in the COVID-19 pandemic;

3.

Ms. Threadgill-Matthews’s and the organizational plaintiffs’
claims asserted in Count I against Secretary Merrill challenging
the curbside voting ban as applied in the COVID-19 pandemic;

4.

People First’s, the Alabama NAACP’s, and GBM’s claims
asserted in Count II against Ms. Schwarzauer and the State
challenging the photo ID requirement under the ADA;

5.

Ms. Threadgill-Matthews’s, the Alabama NAACP’s, and GBM’s
claims asserted in Count II against Secretary of State John
Merrill challenging the curbside voting ban under the ADA; and

6.

Ms. Bettis’s, Ms. Thompson’s, and the organizational plaintiffs’
claims asserted in Count III against Judge Davis, Ms.

1

The court refers to BVM, the Alabama NAACP, People First, and GBM collectively as the
“organizational plaintiffs.”

2

Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 251 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 5

Schwarzauer, and the State challenging the witness requirement
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Consistent with the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court
DECLARES:
1.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic to voters who are
particularly susceptible to COVID-19, the requirement under
Ala. Code §§ 17-11-7, 17-11-9, and 17-11-10 that absentee
ballot affidavits be witnessed and signed by a notary public or
two adult witnesses violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.

2.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic to voters who are
particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications because
they are either age 65 or older or disabled or have underlying
medical conditions that make them susceptible to COVID-19
complications, the requirement under Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b),
(d), and 17-11-9 that absentee voters provide a copy of their
photo identification with their absentee ballot applications
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

3.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic to voters who are
particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications, the
curbside voting ban violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.

4.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic to voters with
disabilities who cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID, the
requirement under Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), (d), and 17-11-9
that absentee voters provide a copy of their photo identification
with their absentee ballot applications violates the ADA.

5.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic to voters with
disabilities, the curbside voting ban violates the ADA.

6.

As applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, the requirement
under Ala. Code §§ 17-11-7, 17-11-9, and 17-11-10 that
absentee ballot affidavits be witnessed and signed by a notary
public or two adult witnesses violates the Voting Rights Act.

3

Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 251 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 5

Therefore, the court ORDERS that, as to the November 3, 2020 general
election:
1.

Judge Don Davis, JoJo Schwarzauer, and the State of Alabama
are ENJOINED 2 from enforcing the requirement under Ala.
Code §§ 17-11-7, 17-11-9, and 17-11-10 that absentee ballot
affidavits be witnessed and signed by a notary public or two adult
witnesses for any qualified voters who provide a written
statement that they have an underlying medical condition that
puts them at a heightened risk from COVID-19, and, thus, they
cannot safely satisfy that requirement due to the COVID-19
pandemic;

2.

Ms. Schwarzauer and the State are ENJOINED from enforcing
the requirement under Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), (d), and 17-119 that absentee voters provide a copy of their photo identification
with their absentee ballot applications for absentee voters over
65, or those under 65 who cannot safely obtain a copy of their
photo ID during the COVID-19 pandemic due to an underlying
medical condition that makes them particularly susceptible to
COVID-19 complications, and who provide other required
identifiers with their absentee ballot applications, such as their
driver’s license number and last four digits of their social security
number; and

3.

Secretary Merrill is ENJOINED from prohibiting counties from
establishing curbside voting procedures that otherwise comply
with state and federal election law.

The court ORDERS the State and Secretary Merrill to take all reasonable
steps to inform county probate judges, circuit clerks, and absentee elections
managers about this injunction as quickly as possible.

2

For defendants Judge Davis and Ms. Schwarzauer, the probate judge and circuit clerk of Mobile
County, respectively, this injunction order applies only in Mobile County.

4

Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 251 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 5

As the prevailing parties, the plaintiffs are entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees.
The court will defer this issue until after the resolution of any appeal of this judgment
and order.
DONE the 30th day of September, 2020.

_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5