Bethea v. Deal, et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 10/19/16. (jrb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
J'MARI BETHEA, individually;
JOSHUA LATTIMORE,
individually; WICKFORCE, as
an organization; and GEORGIA
STATE CONFERENCE OF THE
NAACP, as an organization;
Plaintiffs,
V
CASE NO. CV216-140
.
NATHAN DEAL, in his official
capacity as Governor of
Georgia, and BRIAN P. KEMP,
in his official capacity as
Secretary of State for the
State of Georgia,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 2.) The Court heard oral
argument from the parties on the morning of October 19,
2016. In the motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court
require Defendants to accept delivery of voter registration
applications for an additional six days from the date of
this order. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion
is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The voter registration deadline in Georgia was October
11, 2016. However, several Board of Elections ("BOE")
offices throughout the coastal counties were closed on
October 6 or 7 due to Governor Deal's mandatory evacuation'
order ahead of Hurricane Matthew. While all other counties
were able to open their BOE offices prior to the
registration deadline, 2 the Chatham County BOE office did
not reopen until October 12, 2016. On that date, Plaintiff
Georgia State Conference of the NAACP ("NAACP") and 2 other
organizations filed suit in this Court seeking to extend
the voter registration deadline for Chatham County until
October 18, 2016. At a hearing on that motion, counsel for
the plaintiffs stated that they were seeking an extension
only in Chatham County because the other counties "were
able to get their board of elections up and running at
least on the last day of the registration." On October 14,
2016, this Court granted a request for a preliminary
1
Six counties were affected by the mandatory evacuation
order: Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Glynn, Liberty, and
McIntosh.
2
McIntosh County was open on October 10 and October 11,
2016. Glynn County was open for half of the day on October
6 and all day on October 11. Liberty County was open on
October 6 and October 11. Bryan County was open for half of
the day October 10 and all day on October 11. Camden County
was open for half the day on October 6 and all day on
October 11.
injunction in that case and extended the voter registration
deadline to October 18 only in Chatham County due to the
complete closure of its local BOE office during the last
days of the registration period. See Ga. Coal. for the
Peoples' Agenda, Inc. v. Deal, 4:16-cv-269 (S.D. Ga. Oct.
14, 2016) (unpublished)
Four days after that order, Plaintiffs in this case
filed a new request for a statewide preliminary injunction.
In support of their request, Plaintiffs argue that the
mandatory evacuation prevented potential voters throughout
the state from registering to vote. Specifically,
Plaintiffs contend that individuals in the six coastal
counties affected by the evacuation order were prevented
from voting because of BOE office closures, power outages,
and transportation concerns. Plaintiffs maintain that post
office closures and the suspension of mail service during
this period also potentially prevented individuals from
submitting their registration applications. Finally, many
individuals were potentially unable to register, either in
person or electronically, due to evacuation or recovery
efforts.
For example, two of the Plaintiffs in this case—J'Mari
Bethea and Joshua Lattimore—are high school students who
reside in Glynn County. These students left Glynn County
3
pursuant to the mandatory evacuation order and returned on
October 11, 2016 to neighborhoods without power. Plaintiffs
NAACP and WickFORCE were unable to hold voter registration
drives in many of the counties affected by the mandatory
evacuation order and hurricane. Plaintiffs NAACP and
WickFORCE were also unable to submit completed voter
registration cards for the same reasons. Given these
events, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' failure to extend
the voter registration deadline creates an undue burden on
the right to vote in violation of the 14th Amendment; the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a); and Section 8
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C.
§ 20507 (a) (1)
In response, Defendants contend that extending the
registration deadline an additional 6 days will create a
significant burden for BOE officials as in-person early
voting commenced on October 17. Defendants maintain that
such an extension would be difficult to implement as it
would require county officials to simultaneously register
voters and administer early voting. Defendants also explain
that an extension would require the counties to utilize
multiple voter lists during the voting period. These
multiple voter lists could potentially increase the chance
4
of human error and unnecessary provisional ballots.
Moreover, Defendants argued that county resources are
stretched further as the election date nears because more
locations become available for early voting.
Defendants also argue that voters in most of the
coastal counties affected by the mandatory evacuation were
able to register at their local BOE offices. Specifically,
Defendants note that—with the exception of Chatham County—
the BOE offices in the five other counties affected by the
mandatory evacuation had reopened for at least one day
prior to the registration deadline. Finally, Defendants
argue that the impacts of Hurricane Matthew did not
preclude individuals from registering electronically or by
mail.
ANALYSIS
The Court may grant injunctive relief only where the
moving party established that
(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be
suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the
threatened injury to the movant outweighs
whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause
the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the
injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest.
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).
Because this case involves the right to vote, the Court
5
assumes that Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury
should they be denied injunctive relief. After careful
consideration, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs
have failed to establish any of the three remaining
factors.
I.
SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' decision not to
extend the voter registration deadline in the five counties
impermissibly burdens the right to vote, fails to provide
equal protection as guaranteed in the 14 th Amendment, and
violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This argument,
however, relies on the unsupported notion that Defendants'
decision not to extend the deadline was some sort of action
that created an impediment to the right to vote. Both this
Court and Plaintiffs have been unable to locate any
precedent that would constitutionally or statutorily
mandate that Defendants provide an extension in the absence
of any actual government action that burdens an
individual's right to vote.
What happened in this case is that a natural disaster
coincided with Georgia's constitutionally valid voter
registration deadline. This natural event made it
difficult, but not impossible, for certain residents of the
five counties to properly register to vote prior to the
N
.
October 11 deadline. The Court recognizes that individuals
possibly returned to the area to find their homes damaged
and without electricity. It is entirely understandable that
these individuals gave little consideration to registering
to vote prior to the October 11 deadline. However, these
circumstances are not impediments created by the State of
Georgia that require it to provide an extension to the
voter registration deadline.
Even assuming the applicability of the AndersonBurdick test, see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434
(1992) (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789
(1983)), the burden imposed by refusing an extension is not
so severe as to outweigh the State of Georgia's interest in
enforcing its own registration deadline. Unlike Chatham
County, the local BOE office was open in each of the five
counties by at least October 11, 2016. Moreover, the BOE
offices were closed in the five counties only between two
to three business days because of the weekend and Columbus
Day Holiday.
In the Court's opinion, these burdens are slight when
compared to the State of Georgia's interest in conducting a
smooth statewide election. Defendants have submitted a
declaration from the Director of Elections for the State
Elections Division of the Office of Secretary of State.
7
This declaration outlines in some detail the administrative
and technological difficulties that local BCE officials
would face should the voter registration deadline be
extended. As of today, Georgia's in-person early voting
period is in its third day. The Court is satisfied that
extending the deadline six days from the date of this order
places severe burdens on both state and local election
officials that outweigh those placed on individuals by
failing to extend the registration deadline.
II. IRREPARABLE INJURY BALANCED AGAINST DAMAGE CAUSED BY
AN INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that their injury
outweighs whatever damage would be caused by the
injunction. As noted above, Georgia began its early voting
period on October 17, 2016. The requested extension would
require local BOE officials to both conduct early voting
and continue to register voters until October 25, 2016.
While Plaintiffs describe this as a mere administrative
inconvenience, it is much more than that.
For better or worse, Georgia's electoral machinery has
been arranged to accept registrations until October 11,
transition to in-person early voting by October 17, and
conclude with in-person voting on Election Day. The
requested extension throws a sizable wrench into that
machinery. In short, Georgia's electoral system is simply
not arranged to handle registration past the deadline and
certainly ill equipped to handle it once early voting has
commenced. Perhaps local BOE officials would ultimately be
able to handle simultaneous registration and early voting.
Like Plaintiffs, the Court places great faith in these
local officials. What is clear to this Court, however, is
that the potential for damage to Georgia's electoral
machinery resulting from the requested deadline is severe
and significant such that it outweighs the burden placed on
individuals by not granting the injunction.
III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Plaintiffs have also failed to show that the
injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The
Court recognizes that the public has a general interest in
having citizens participate in the electoral process.
However, the public also has an interest in preserving the
integrity of that process. As noted above, Georgia's
electoral machinery is simply not equipped to handle the
situation that would result should this Court grant
Plaintiffs' motion. At some point, Georgia's
constitutionally valid voter registration deadline must be
respected. Otherwise, Georgia's ability to conduct
efficient and accurate elections at the local, state, and
EO
national level becomes irrevocably compromised. Determining
the precise location of that line is certainly difficult.
Wherever it is, however, it is clear to this Court that the
requested extension falls on the wrong side of that line.
IV. THE CHATHAM COUNTY EXTENSION
The Court notes that the facts involved in this case
are fundamentally different than when it granted an
extension to Chatham County. First, Chatham County BOE
offices were closed from October 6 through October 12,
2016, which obviously included the October 11 deadline. The
local BOE office in each of the remaining five counties was
open by at least the October 11 deadline. Second, the
Chatham County extension did not significantly burden local
BOE officials because that extension was ordered prior to
the commencement of early voting and extended voter
registration until October 18, 2016, only one day into
early voting. In this case, Plaintiffs' request would
burden unprepared, local BOE officials by requiring them to
immediately reallocate resources to voter registration and
continue registering voters eight days into the early
voting period. Unlike the earlier request for an extension
in Chatham County, the late hour of Plaintiffs' request
exponentially increases the disruption to Georgia's
10
electoral process and potentially impairs Georgia's ability
to guarantee the integrity of its elections.
CONCLUSION
This Court fully recognizes the fundamental importance
of an individual's right to participate in our democracy
and this Court's role in safeguarding that right. Any
decision that may encroach upon that right is not taken
lightly. However, the current circumstances surrounding
Plaintiffs' request lead the Court to conclude that
injunctive relief is not warranted. For the foregoing
reasons, Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this
1
0"
day of October 2016.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
11
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?