California Council of the Blind et al v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 66

ORDER REQUESTING LETTER BRIEFING IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND MEDIATION EFFORTS by Judge Charles R. Breyer (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2016).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, No. C 15-cv-05784 CRB 9 et al., ORDER REQUESTING LETTER BRIEFING IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND MEDIATION EFFORTS Plaintiff, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendant. / 14 15 The California Council for the Blind and two named Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) move 16 under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants San 17 Mateo County (the “County”) and the State of California to make an electronic ballot 18 marking tool available to Plaintiffs for use in the November 2016 election. See Preliminary 19 Injunction Motion (dkt. 47). The Court held a hearing on this matter on July 1, 2016. 20 After considering the submissions, oral argument, and relevant authorities, including 21 Hindel v. Husted, No. 2:15-CV-3061, 2016 WL 2735935 (S.D. Ohio May 11, 2016) and 22 Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016), the Court concludes that 23 Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. See 24 Hearing Transcript (dkt. 64). As the Court noted at the hearing, Plaintiffs have made a 25 showing that California Elections Code § 19205 is preempted by the ADA to the extent it 26 bars blind and visually-impaired voters from using electronic ballot marking tools. See id. 27 The Court further concludes that Defendants have shown a strong likelihood that 28 implementation of the voting tool requested by Plaintiffs—on Plaintiff’s abbreviated timeline—would be a fundamental alteration of the absentee voting program. See id. 1 At the July 1 hearing on this matter, the state noted that the California legislature has 2 passed a bill that would potentially allow Plaintiffs to use the voting software they have 3 requested here. See id. The parties also informed the Court that (a) they are scheduled to 4 attend mediation and (b) they are willing to submit additional letter briefs to the Court 5 following that mediation and following action from the governor on the bill. See id. 6 The Court thus ORDERS the parties to submit letter briefs to the Court addressing (1) 7 whether a further hearing on the feasibility of implementing a new electronic ballot marking 8 tool on Plaintiffs’ timeline is necessary; (2) whether further action from the Court is required 9 given recent legislative action;1 and (3) whether the parties have been able to successfully United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 resolve this matter through mediation. The parties are ORDERED to submit these letter 11 briefs as soon as possible, but not later than August 1, 2016. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 5, 2016 14 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 As the Court noted at the hearing, if the governor signs the recently passed bill allowing the use of electronic ballot marking tools in California elections, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood that an injunction should issue prohibiting the state from delaying certification or testing of such a tool based on the fact that the new law would not take effect until January 2017. See Hearing Transcript. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?