Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Disability Rights Groups Sue Alabama Over SB 1’s Extreme Anti-Voter Restrictions and Penalties

Date
Body

Montgomery, Ala. — Today, a coalition of civil rights, voting rights and disability rights organizations sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Alabama’s 42 District Attorneys, and Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen to block Alabama’s recently enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). This law directly targets, drastically restricts, and severely penalizes basic nonpartisan civic engagement efforts that enable all Alabamians to access their right to vote.

The law, among the most restrictive of its kind ever passed, would criminalize most forms of helping voters apply for absentee ballots, with felony penalties ranging up to 20 years in prison. SB 1’s cruel and unlawful restrictions harm voters who need assistance with their absentee ballot applications — particularly Black voters, elderly voters, incarcerated voters, voters with disabilities, and low-literacy voters — as well as nonpartisan civic engagement groups, including churches, working to help Alabamians participate in the political process. This extreme law is the latest development in Alabama’s long history of restricting the political engagement of Black voters and other marginalized communities.

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP (Alabama NAACP), Greater Birmingham Ministries (GBM), League of Women Voters of Alabama (LWVAL), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU-AL), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) in their suit against the anti-voter law.

“SB1 takes Alabama backwards as it violates the law, restricts our basic Constitutional Amendment rights, obliterates freedom of speech,” said Benard Simelton, president of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. “It marginalizes voters' access to the ballot box.”

“SB1 represents the latest assault on Alabama voters who simply want their voices heard and their choices counted regardless of differing abilities, health status and unpredictable work schedules that require their voter participation be by absentee ballot and often with the support of friends, family, and civic organizations,” said Scott Douglas, executive director of Greater Birmingham Ministries.  “There is no ‘voter integrity’ in penalizing those who assist those who must vote absentee, only voter suppression.”

“Voters who vote by absentee ballot have the right to access the ballot fairly and equitably,” said Kathy Jones, president of the League of Women Voters of Alabama. “Many Alabama voters with disabilities rely on the help of neighbors, caregivers, or voter services organizations to successfully cast their absentee ballots. The League of Women Voters of Alabama will continue to fight unjust laws like SB1 because our state should be making it easier for people to vote, not building barriers to suppress the vote.”

“SB1 is part of a concerning trend of anti-voter state legislatures restricting equal access to the ballot for voters with disabilities,” said Celina Stewart, chief counsel at the League of Women Voters of the United States. “These laws specifically target the individuals and organizations that voters with disabilities depend on to access, complete, and cast an absentee ballot. The League of Women Voters is actively challenging these laws and is committed to fighting voter suppression nationwide."

“For many voters with disabilities, absentee voting may be the only practical option to be heard and have their voices counted,” said William Van Der Pol, Jr., senior trial counsel for Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. “SB1 poses additional barriers to this critical right that are neither necessary nor legal.”

"SB 1 is an egregious attack on Alabama’s voters and those working tirelessly to help folks access our democracy," said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “This law takes us backwards and attacks a fundamental aspect of our sacred freedom of speech — violating the Constitution and hurting Alabamians who rely on nonpartisan, good-government groups to help make their voices heard at the ballot box. We look forward to fighting alongside our partners against this extreme anti-voter law."

"Rather than helping Alabamians exercise their right to vote, lawmakers passed SB1 to criminalize them," said Alison Mollman, legal director at the ACLU of Alabama. "This extreme and unnecessary law makes it a Class B felony for a person or organization to assist someone with their absentee ballot application. In Alabama, other Class B felony offenses include manslaughter, statutory rape, and first-degree theft of property. SB1 is unconstitutional and the ACLU of Alabama is proud to stand alongside our clients to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected.

“SB1 is a cruel manifestation of the rapid, unceasing attacks on the tenets of our democracy that have unfolded across the country,” said Anuja Thatte, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “The criminalization of those who assist voters and help strengthen our political process is unpatriotic and undermines our nation’s promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, inclusive democracy. LDF is proud to join our clients and partners to continue the fight to protect the fundamental right to vote - the people of Alabama and the United States deserve no less.”

“The march for voting rights started in Alabama and continues today as we face one of the most restrictive bills this state has seen in recent memory,” said Jess Unger, senior staff attorney for voting rights at Southern Poverty Law Center. “Together, with our partners and clients, we will protect the fundamental right to vote and — no matter what barriers are put in place — to ensure every voice in Alabama is heard.”

The lawsuit filed today challenges SB 1 as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Learn more about the lawsuit here.
 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Nonpartisan Civic Engagement Organizations in Alabama from Steep Criminal Penalties (Alabama NAACP v. Marshall)

At a Glance

Alabama enacted a law that severely limits the ability of third parties to assist voters with absentee ballot applications, threatening those third parties with criminal liability for their assistance. CLC, SPLC, ACLU-AL, LDF, and ADAP represent several organizations who assist voters with absentee ballot applications in challenging this vague and punitive law. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

On March 20, 2024, Alabama enacted a new law imposing some of the nation’s most punitive restrictions on absentee ballot application assistance. This law, S.B. 1, criminalizes giving and receiving a “payment or gift” for “distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering a voter’s absentee ballot application,” without defining what constitutes such “payments or gifts.” The restriction carries a Class B Felony penalty, such that people could face a sentence of up to 20 years. This restriction harms both nonpartisan civic engagement groups and voters who need assistance with their absentee ballot applications – particularly incarcerated voters, voters with disabilities, and low-literacy voters – and is the latest development in Alabama’s long history of restricting the political engagement of Black voters and other marginalized communities.  

Lawmakers in Alabama have asserted – without evidence – that the law is needed to combat “ballot harvesting” but the law itself criminalizes absentee ballot application assistance and has nothing to do with casting an absentee ballot. Instead, the new law hampers the activities of civic groups seeking to mobilize and assist voters in their communities in violation of the United States Constitution and federal law.  

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), ACLU of Alabama (ACLU-AL), NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) represent Greater Birmingham Ministries, League of Women Voters of Alabama, Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Each organization’s operations will be directly impacted by the vague and punitive prohibitions on absentee ballot application assistance.

On April 4, 2024, CLC filed suit on behalf of these clients, challenging S.B. 1 as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Section  208 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

Associated Cases & Actions
Defending Civic Engagement Groups

Supporting Black Georgians in a Challenge to At-Large System of Election for Georgia’s Public Service Commission (Rose v. Raffensperger)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center, alongside other pro-democracy groups FairVote, Protect Democracy, and RepresentUs, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Rose v. Raffensperger, a challenge to Georgia’s at-large system of election for the state’s Public Service Commission under the Voting Rights Act. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In Georgia, the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) is elected on a statewide basis, even though members serve in one of five geographically-based districts.  On July 14, 2020, a group of Black voters filed a case challenging Georgia’s at-large system of election for the state’s PSC under Section 2 of the VRA. On August 5, 2022, the district court found that the PSC system of election unlawfully diluted the votes of Black Georgians.

But ultimately, on November 24, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statewide electoral structure for PSC was deliberately chosen by the legislature to further the state’s interests and that plaintiffs had failed to provide an adequate remedy at the first stage of the Gingles test that would preserve that interest.  

CLC joined with FairVote, RepresentUs, and Protect Democracy to submit an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs’ petition for the Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. The brief emphasizes the purpose and requirements of the first part of the Gingles test—clarifying that there is no requirement for plaintiffs to present an adequate remedy at the liability stage—and the range of options available to remedy vote dilution under the VRA including non-plurality at-large electoral systems. Amici are represented by Hogan Lovells in the filing of the brief.

What's at stake:

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision involved a novel misreading of the requirements to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a deeply troubling departure that could complicate future VRA litigation and does not make any sense under existing law—and altogether prevented the plaintiffs from using Section 2 to dismantle a statewide at-large system, concerningly weakening the scope of the Voting Rights Act contrary to its text and intent.  

The current system of electing the PSC dilutes the voices of Georgia’s Black voters, and CLC and our partners are calling upon the U.S. Supreme Court to consider all options to ensure that every Georgian voter can be heard in the state’s elections. 

Supporting Safe and Properly Administered Elections in Arizona (Challenges to Arizona's Election Procedures Manual)

At a Glance

Three lawsuits have been brought challenging Arizona’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual, which is a detailed guidance document outlining rules for election administration. These lawsuits make a variety of claims, including attempting to prevent hard-won, pro-voter court victories from going into effect. Campaign Legal Center is filing friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs in two of the lawsuits in support of Arizona’s Secretary of State. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Three lawsuits have been filed against Arizona’s 2023 Election Procedures Manual. The lawsuits -- brought by Arizona Republican Legislators, the Republican National Committee and the Arizona Republican Party, and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, respectively -- make a variety of claims, many of which try to thwart court decisions that protect Arizona voters.

The Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM) is a detailed guidance document that outlines the rules for election administration. The EPM spells out everything from voter registration, to how to ensure overseas military voters’ ballots are counted, to actually running a polling site on Election Day. It’s an important document for both election administrators and voters to navigate and understand Arizona’s election laws.  

CLC successfully won a lawsuit against Arizona in February 2024 striking down provisions of two new Arizona laws that severely restricted the ability of Arizonans — particularly Latino and Native Arizonans — from exercising their freedom to vote. The EPM included guidance based on this suit to ensure Arizona’s Elections were run in a nondiscriminatory way. Two of these EPM lawsuits attack CLC’s voting rights win by challenging these parts of the EPM. The third tries to circumvent federal protections against voter intimidation.  

What’s at Stake

CLC is filing friend-of-the-court briefs in two of the lawsuits in support of Arizona's Secretary of State.  

In the first friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), the San Carlos Apache Tribe (Tribe), and Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,  CLC is highlighting for the court: (1) the importance of the EPM in ensuring uniform and orderly elections and (2) the necessity for the EPM to explain how court rulings affect Arizona Election statutes.  

In the second friend-of-the-court brief, CLC, along with Protect Democracy and the League of Women Voters of Arizona, are explaining that the First Amendment does not give people a right to intimidate voters. In fact, laws prohibiting voter intimidation protect the First Amendment rights of Arizona voters by making sure every citizen’s voice is heard on Election Day. 

Associated Cases & Actions
Every Vote Counts: Combating Election Sabotage and Safeguarding Our Democracy
Subscribe to