`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED
`
` 2020 May-01 PM 04:08
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`N.D. OF ALABAMA
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE FIRST OF ALABAMA, ROBERT
`CLOPTON, ERIC PEEBLES, HOWARD
`PORTER,
`JR., ANNIE CAROLYN
`THOMPSON, GREATER BIRMINGHAM
`MINISTRIES, and the ALABAMA STATE
`CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`Case No.: __________________
`
`INJUNCTIVE
`COMPLAINT FOR
`AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
` v.
`
`JOHN MERRILL, in his official capacity as
`the Secretary of State of Alabama, KAY
`IVEY, in her official capacity as the Governor
`of the State of Alabama, the STATE OF
`ALABAMA, ALLEEN BARNETT, in her
`official capacity as Absentee Election
`Manager of Mobile County, Alabama;
`JACQUELINE ANDERSON-SMITH, in her
`official capacity as Circuit Clerk of Jefferson
`County, Alabama; KAREN DUNN BURKS,
`in her official capacity as Deputy Circuit
`Clerk of the Bessemer Division of Jefferson
`County, Alabama;
`and MARY B.
`ROBERSON, in her official capacity as
`Circuit Clerk of Lee County, Alabama,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs People First of Alabama, Robert Clopton, Eric Peebles, Howard Porter,
`
`Jr., Annie Carolyn Thompson, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference
`
`of the NAACP, file this Complaint for immediate injunctive and declaratory relief against the
`
`Defendants Secretary of State John Merrill, Governor Kay Ivey, the State of Alabama, Mobile
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`County Absentee Election Manager Alleen Barnett, Jefferson County Circuit Clerk Jacqueline
`
`Anderson-Smith, Deputy Circuit Clerk of the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County Karen Dunn
`
`Burks, and Lee County Circuit Clerk Mary B. Roberson for failing to take adequate steps to protect
`
`the fundamental right to vote ahead of the 2020 elections, including the July 14, 2020 primary
`
`runoff election, in the midst of the unprecedented national and statewide COVID-19 public health
`
`crisis.
`
`2.
`
` The United States and the State of Alabama are in a state of emergency. COVID-
`
`19 is spreading rapidly throughout the country, infecting tens of thousands of people, including in
`
`Alabama, which has over 7,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 270 deaths. Experts estimate
`
`that, for every confirmed COVID-19 case, there could be as many as eleven unconfirmed cases.
`
`3.
`
`As a result, in early April Governor Ivey ordered Alabama residents to stay at home
`
`absent specific reasons not to, and the Alabama Department of Public Health and the Centers for
`
`Disease Control likewise advised people to remain in their homes and follow social distancing
`
`protocols. In a communal effort to slow the spread of the disease and save lives, the Governor also
`
`closed government offices, schools, and businesses, strongly urged people to limit person-to-
`
`person interactions to their family, and to avoid large gatherings.
`
`4.
`
`On April 28, 2020, Governor Ivey amended Alabama’s COVID-19 Health Order,
`
`allowing some businesses to open subject to sanitation and social-distancing guidelines, but still
`
`encouraged individuals—especially those at higher risk of death or serious illness from COVID-
`
`19 infection—to stay home and extended the prohibition on gatherings of ten or more people or
`
`where a six-foot distance could not be maintained. This crisis is likely to persist for months or
`
`longer.
`
`5.
`
`Given these extraordinary circumstances, Secretary Merrill has waived the excuse
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requirement for absentee voters for the July 14, 2020 primary runoff election.
`
`6.
`
`Nonetheless, in this unprecedented situation, multiple provisions of Alabama law,
`
`policy, and/or practice that establish requirements for voting in-person and by-mail are now posing
`
`direct and severe obstacles to voting. These provisions are: (1) the requirement that the affidavit
`
`that must be included with an absentee ballot be signed by the voter in the presence of either a
`
`notary or two adult witnesses, Ala. Code §§ 17-11-7 to 17-11-10; (2) the requirement that copies
`
`of photo identification accompany absentee ballot applications, id. § 17-9-30(b); (3) the
`
`requirement that copies of photo identification accompany certain absentee ballots, id. §§ 17-11-9
`
`and 17-11-10(c); and (4) the prohibition on curbside voting (collectively, the “Challenged
`
`Provisions”).
`
`7.
`
`First, Plaintiffs challenge Alabama’s requirement that a voter casting an absentee
`
`ballot sign it before a notary or two witnesses (the “Witness Requirement”). State law requires
`
`that, in addition to the signature of the voter, all mail-in ballots must contain a signed affidavit
`
`witnessed by either a notary public or two third-party witnesses over age 18; otherwise, the ballot
`
`goes uncounted. In the current environment, this poses an unreasonable obstacle to many
`
`thousands of vulnerable Alabamians, like Plaintiffs Thompson and Peebles, who live alone and
`
`cannot—and should not have to—risk the threat of contagion in order to vote.
`
`8.
`
`The Witness Requirement threatens to disenfranchise many thousands of voters
`
`who, like Plaintiffs Thompson and Peebles, are adhering to social distancing guidelines to protect
`
`themselves and others. Indeed, about 30% of households in Alabama constitute people living alone
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(555,330),1 including 165,582 Alabamians over age 18 with a disability2 and 95,102 persons over
`
`age 65 with a disability3—that is, two of the groups who are most vulnerable to COVID-19.
`
`9.
`
`The Witness Requirement does not meaningfully advance any valid government
`
`interest. Many other provisions of Alabama law safeguard the integrity of absentee voting without
`
`putting the lives of voters at risk. Indeed, Alabama is one of only 12 states that require an individual
`
`submitting an absentee ballot to have it be witnessed by another. Of those 12, Alabama is one of
`
`only three states that require the absentee ballot to be notarized.4
`
`10.
`
`Even if the Witness Requirement did offer some additional marginal benefit to any
`
`valid state interest, such benefit is greatly outweighed by the risk of disenfranchisement. The
`
`Witness Requirement violates the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth
`
`Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
`
`and Sections 2, 3(b), and 201 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”).
`
`11.
`
`Second, the requirements that each person who applies for an absentee ballot mail-
`
`in a copy of their photo ID, Ala. Code. § 17-9-30(b) (“ID Application Requirement”), and that
`
`
`1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics
`of the United States: Alabama (2018),
`https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=single%20person%20households&g=0400000US01&hidePreview=true&tid=
`ACSDP1Y2018.DP02&vintage=2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PY_D1&cid=DP02_0001E&moe=false (last
`visited Apr. 21, 2020).
`2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics
`of the United States: Alabama (2018)
`Samplehttps://data.census.gov/mdat/#/search?ds=ACSPUMS1Y2018&vv=AGEP(18:99)&cv=DIS&rv=ucgid&nv=
`HHT(4,6)&wt=PWGTP&g=0400000US01
`3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics
`of the United States: Alabama (2018),
`https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/search?ds=ACSPUMS1Y2018&vv=AGEP(65:99)&cv=DIS&rv=ucgid&nv=HHT(4,
`6)&wt=PWGTP&g=0400000US01.
`4 Mississippi, Missouri, and Oklahoma require the notarization of absentee ballots. Alaska, Louisiana, Minnesota,
`North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin require witness signatures. Voting Outside
`the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Apr. 14,
`2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx (select tab titled
`“Processing, Verifying, and Counting Absentee Ballots” and scroll down to the chart “Verifying Authenticity of
`Absentee/Mailed Ballots.”)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certain absentee voters must again submit another copy of their photo ID when casting their ballot,
`
`id. § 17-11-9 (“ID Ballot Requirement,” collectively with the ID Application Requirement, the
`
`“Photo ID Requirements”), create nearly insurmountable barriers to exercising the fundamental
`
`right to vote amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Many voters who are more susceptible to
`
`complications from COVID-19, like Plaintiffs Porter and Thompson, lack a reliable means of
`
`photocopying their ID without endangering their lives. Others lack a photo ID at all. The Photo ID
`
`Requirements, as applied in the current COVID-19 crisis, violate Title II of the ADA and the
`
`fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
`
`12.
`
`Third, Alabama does not offer either curbside or “drive-thru” voting, which allows
`
`voters to cast their ballots in person, but outside of a poll site without leaving the car. Many voters
`
`with disabilities are unable to access polling places or vote absentee. Other voters must vote in-
`
`person because they require assistance from poll workers. Curbside voting can significantly reduce
`
`the opportunities for COVID-19 to spread at in-person poll sites. This is particularly important to
`
`voters, like Plaintiffs Clopton and Peebles, who usually vote in-person, but who have a higher
`
`susceptibility to death or serious health problems due to COVID-19. Alabama’s prohibition on
`
`curbside voting, a reasonable accommodation provided in other states, means that significant
`
`numbers of vulnerable voters who need to vote in-person have no option for doing so because of
`
`the increased risk of infection from traditional in-person voting. This violates the First and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Section 2 of the VRA.
`
`13.
`
`Both together and separately, the Witness Requirement, Photo ID Requirements,
`
`and the Prohibition on Curbside Voting (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) needlessly
`
`force many thousands of Alabamians to choose between risking their lives or voting in 2020.
`
`14.
`
`The Challenged Provisions directly contradict the specific guidance from the
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) concerning safe voting practices during the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic. Among other things, the CDC recommends that states and jurisdictions
`
`“[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and
`
`reduce crowd size at polling stations” and that they “[e]ncourage drive-up voting for eligible
`
`voters” as a means of complying with social distancing rules and limiting personal contacts.5
`
`15.
`
`Compliance with the Challenged Provisions poses a significant risk to the lives of
`
`Plaintiffs and many thousands of other Alabama voters who are seeking a safe method of
`
`exercising their right to vote in the upcoming July 14, 2020 runoff election, the August 25, 2020
`
`municipal elections, and the November 3, 2020 general elections, (or any other elections that occur
`
`while this crisis continues).
`
`16. Without emergency intervention from this Court, tens of thousands of Alabama
`
`voters are at risk of being disenfranchised. Alabama has no early in-person voting option.
`
`Consequently, Alabama voters almost unanimously vote in-person on Election Day. In 2018, for
`
`example, only 3.4% of Alabama voters (57,832 people) cast absentee ballots out of the 1,723,694
`
`total people who voted that year. Most Alabama voters are therefore unlikely to be familiar with
`
`the absentee voting process. A significant number of Alabama’s absentee ballots are often rejected
`
`because the absentee ballots do not meet the Witness Requirement. In 2018, Alabama rejected over
`
`2.37% or 1,368 of the absentee ballots cast.6 The Witness Requirement accounts for about a quarter
`
`of those rejected absentee ballots.
`
`
`5 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to
`prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
`ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated March 27, 2020).
`6 Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey Report 27-29 (2018),
`https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2018_EAVS_Report.pdf; Election Assistance Commission,
`Election Administration and Voting Survey Report 23 (2016),
`https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf.
`6
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Contrary to the usual limitations on absentee voting in Alabama, however, for the
`
`July 14 primary runoff election, Secretary Merrill has made it clear that any registered voter is
`
`permitted to vote absentee in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alabama is expecting a large
`
`increase in absentee voting in the July 14 election, as well as other elections in 2020. Thus, if just
`
`a third of all people who voted in 2018 (or 575,000 people) switched to mail-in absentee voting in
`
`the July 14 primary runoff election, up to 34,000 voters could expect to have their ballots rejected
`
`because of the Witness Requirement alone.
`
`18.
`
` The risk of disenfranchisement from the Witness Requirement and Prohibition on
`
`Curbside Voting fall more heavily on Black voters in Alabama, who are more likely to live alone
`
`or with young children, more likely to have a disability than the white population, and who are
`
`afflicted by and die from COVID-19 at stunningly disproportionate rates. Black Alabamians are
`
`41% of COVID-19 patients and over 45% of COVID-19-related deaths despite making up just
`
`27% of its total population.7 Alabama’s history of racial discrimination in various areas, such as
`
`voting, education, employment, and healthcare, interact with these provisions to hinder Black
`
`people’s ability to participate effectively in the political process in violation of Section 2 of the
`
`VRA.
`
`19.
`
`The Challenged Provisions will each, separately and jointly, unduly burden the right
`
`to vote of Alabamians. This is certainly true for the statewide Republican and First Congressional
`
`District Democratic primary runoff elections on July 14, 2020 and, given the likelihood that the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic will persist, will also be true for the August 25 municipal and November 3
`
`general elections as well (collectively, the “2020 elections”).
`
`
`7 ADPH, Alabama Public Health Daily Case Characteristics: 4/28/20,
`http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/covid19/assets/cov-al-cases-042520.pdf.
`7
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs therefore ask that the Court enjoin the Challenged Provisions and declare
`
`them unconstitutional for the duration of the 2020 election calendar.
`
`PARTIES
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff PEOPLE FIRST OF ALABAMA (“People First”), founded in 1988, is a
`
`group of people with developmental disabilities dedicated to making their dreams happen by
`
`having choices and control over their own lives, including by having opportunities to make
`
`decisions and plans for themselves instead of having others make decisions for them. With
`
`membership chapters in communities across Alabama, People First assists its members in
`
`accessing, among other things, competitive employment, decent housing of their choosing,
`
`transportation, and full citizenship with equal rights. This work with members includes securing
`
`access to full and equal voting rights.
`
`22.
`
`Because of the Challenged Provisions, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of
`
`People First’s members—who are registered voters and plan to vote in the July 14 primary runoff
`
`election and subsequent 2020 elections—will be forced to choose between voting and protecting
`
`their health because of lack of options to cast their ballot. Specifically, People First members
`
`include voters with conditions that put them at higher risk of death or severe complications from
`
`COVID-19 and are thus required to self-quarantine. Voting in-person would therefore put the
`
`health of those voters at significant risk because of person-to-person contact. Yet, although these
`
`voters may qualify for an absentee ballot given Secretary Merrill’s emergency order for the July
`
`14 runoff, these voters—many of whom live alone or with one other adult—are unable to comply
`
`with the requirement to have their absentee ballot notarized or witnessed by two adults because
`
`those activities also require person-to-person contact.
`
`23.
`
`People First members also include voters who do not have access to printers,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`scanners, copiers, or even internet access, and thus cannot comply with the state’s photo ID
`
`requirement for absentee ballots. Finally, People First members include voters who use
`
`wheelchairs and voters with physical disabilities who are less able to access the inside of their
`
`polling place. If Alabama offered curbside or drive-thru voting—especially during the COVID-19
`
`pandemic—these voters would use such an option to safeguard their health while still voting in-
`
`person.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff ROBERT CLOPTON is 65 years old, Black, and a resident of Mobile
`
`County, Alabama. He is a U.S. citizen, and a lawfully registered Alabama voter. He is at high-risk
`
`for death or serious illness from contracting COVID-19 because of his age and underlying health
`
`conditions, including diabetes and hypertension. Mr. Clopton recently had emergency surgery. On
`
`March 3, 2020, the same day he voted in-person in Alabama’s primary election, Mr. Clopton was
`
`admitted to the hospital. He had emergency surgery on March 5. He was discharged on March 10
`
`and has been recovering at home and sheltering in place since that date. He is not expected to make
`
`a full recovery from his surgery until at least four to five months from now. Mr. Clopton is eligible
`
`to vote in the July 14, 2020 primary runoff election. He would like to vote absentee. But he only
`
`has one witness—his wife, with whom he resides. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and his health
`
`status, he would not feel safe voting in-person at a polling place for the July 14, 2020 primary
`
`runoff and November 3, 2020 general elections. If given the option, Mr. Clopton would consider
`
`curbside voting as a way vote on Election Day in compliance with social distancing rules and to
`
`minimize the threat to his health from a COVID-19 infection. If he is required to vote in-person
`
`without curbside voting or comply with the Witness Requirement to cast an absentee ballot, he
`
`will be prevented from voting because the risk to his life from a COVID-19 infection is too great.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff ERIC PEEBLES is a 38-year-old accessibility advocate who lives alone at
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`his home in Auburn, Alabama. He is white, a U.S. citizen, has never lost his right to vote by reason
`
`of a felony conviction or court order, and is a lawfully registered voter in Alabama. Mr. Peebles is
`
`at high risk for severe complications from COVID-19 because of his cerebral palsy. Respiratory
`
`illnesses, like COVID-19, can be fatal for people with his condition. Due to this elevated risk, Mr.
`
`Peebles has been self-isolating since on or around March 12—long before Alabama’s stay-at-home
`
`order took effect. He has not left his apartment complex since early March. He has been restricting
`
`all in-person contact except with his four caregivers who provide 60 hours of in-home care each
`
`week. Each caregiver works separate shifts of a few hours each and their shifts do not overlap. At
`
`Mr. Peebles’ request to protect his health, all four caregivers have been tested for COVID-19 and
`
`received negative results. Mr. Peebles typically votes in-person and did so during the March 3,
`
`2020 primary election. Mr. Peebles cannot operate the voting machines unassisted and thus brings
`
`an individual into the voting booth to assist him in filling out the ballot. Despite his preference for
`
`in-person voting, Mr. Peebles needs to vote by absentee ballot in the general election in November
`
`because of the health risks in-person voting presents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The next
`
`election in which Mr. Peebles can vote is the November 3, 2020 general election. Mr. Peebles also
`
`understands that to vote absentee he must meet the Witness Requirement. Because he lives alone
`
`and only comes into contact with his caregivers—who work separate shifts—he will not be able
`
`to comply with the Witness Requirement. Finally, Mr. Peebles understands that Alabama does not
`
`allow voters—including voters with disabilities—to vote curbside. If curbside voting were
`
`available, Mr. Peebles would choose to vote curbside, as it would allow him to avoid the person-
`
`to-person contact of voting inside at the polling place that puts his health at severe risk and the
`
`Witness Requirement for absentee voting that he is unable to satisfy.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff HOWARD PORTER, JR. is a 69-year-old Black male who resides in
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 11 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mobile County, Alabama. He is a U.S. citizen and has been a lawfully registered voter in Alabama
`
`since he was 18. Mr. Porter has Parkinson’s Disease and asthma, and it is hard for him to ambulate.
`
`He is at high-risk for contracting COVID-19 because of his age and underlying medical conditions.
`
`He has not left his home since the Governor issued the April 3 stay-at-home order. Because he is
`
`at high-risk, Mr. Porter plans to stay at home for the foreseeable future even after the “Safer at
`
`Home” or any other such order is lifted. Mr. Porter has always voted in-person, but he does not
`
`want to risk COVID-19 infection. He is eligible to vote in the July 14, 2020 primary runoff. He
`
`would feel the safest if he could vote absentee in the 2020 elections. But Mr. Clopton fears that he
`
`will be unable to comply with the Photo ID Requirements. Although he has a printer at home, Mr.
`
`Porter is retired and only receives Social Security Income. He is therefore worried that he may not
`
`be able to afford the ink or paper needed to maintain his printer through the 2020 elections. If given
`
`the option, Mr. Porter would be willing to use curbside voting rather than by entering the polling
`
`place. If he is required to vote in-person without curbside voting or to comply with the Photo ID
`
`Requirements for absentee voting, Mr. Porter will be prevented from voting because the risk to his
`
`life from a COVID-19 infection is too great.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff ANNIE CAROLYN THOMPSON is a 69-year-old retiree who lives alone
`
`at her home in Mobile, Alabama. She is Black, a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by
`
`reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a lawfully registered voter in Alabama. Ms.
`
`Thompson is at higher-risk of contracting and having severe complications from COVID-19
`
`because of her age and preexisting conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. After
`
`she retired as a cosmetologist, Ms. Thompson began working as a caretaker for people who
`
`required extra assistance in assisted living homes. She recently had to leave that job when her
`
`patient spiked a very high fever and was taken to the hospital to test for COVID-19 on or around
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 1. Fearing for her own health, Ms. Thompson received a COVID-19 test, which came back
`
`negative at that time. Although Ms. Thompson had been taking measures to protect herself, Ms.
`
`Thompson has been quarantining herself at home since April 1, 2020, restricting all in-person
`
`contact except when her daughter brings her groceries. Ms. Thompson has internet access, but
`
`does not have a printer, scanner, or copy machine at her home. She voted in-person in the March
`
`3, 2020 primary election. She is eligible to vote in the July 14 primary runoff but due to the health
`
`risks of voting in-person, she plans to vote by absentee ballot in all future 2020 elections. Because
`
`she does not have the necessary equipment to obtain a copy of her photo ID, Ms. Thompson has
`
`no way to complete the absentee ballot application without endangering her health. Public libraries
`
`in Mobile are currently closed. Ms. Thompson’s only option is to find a local business that is still
`
`open and will allow her to pay for a copy of her photo ID, or she will have to choose between not
`
`voting or endangering her health by voting in-person for the July 14, 2020 primary runoff election.
`
`Because she lives alone and only comes into contact with her daughter, Ms. Thompson also will
`
`not be able to comply with the Witness Requirement without leaving home or endangering her
`
`health.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff GREATER BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES (“GBM”) was founded in
`
`1969 in response to the urgent human rights and justice needs of the residents of the greater
`
`Birmingham, Alabama area. GBM is a multi-faith, multi-racial membership organization that
`
`provides emergency services for members and constituents in need. It engages in community
`
`efforts to create systemic change with the goal of building a strong, supportive, and politically
`
`active society that pursues justice for all people.
`
`29. A central goal of GBM is the pursuit of social justice in the governance of Alabama.
`
`GBM actively opposes state laws, policies, and practices that result in the exclusion of vulnerable
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`groups or individuals from the democratic process. Toward that end, GBM regularly engages in
`
`efforts to register, educate, and increase turnout, particularly among Black, Latinx, disabled, and
`
`low-income registered voters.
`
`30. GBM has about 5,000 members. Many of GBM’s low-income members lack access
`
`to a computer, the internet, or other videoconferencing technology. About a third of GBM’s
`
`members are senior citizens and about one fifth of all GBM members live alone. Of those members,
`
`many are Black, Latinx, disabled, or low-income registered voters who are staying home because
`
`they are at a higher risk of death or serious illness from COVID-19 due to age or preexisting
`
`medical conditions, like diabetes or hypertension. Because of the Witness Requirement and
`
`Prohibition on Curbside Voting, these members are forced to choose between risking their lives
`
`(and the lives of others) or not voting in the July 14, August 25 or November 3, 2020 elections.
`
`31. As a result of the Witness Requirement and the Prohibition on Curbside Voting,
`
`GBM is now required to divert a portion of its limited financial and organizational resources away
`
`from voter registration and turnout efforts to undertake such new activities as (1) assessing who
`
`among its members are unable to comply with the Witness Requirement amid the COVID-19
`
`pandemic; (2) increasing efforts to educate its members and constituents about the Witness
`
`Requirement; (3) advocating that Defendants permit curbside voting; and (4) investigating,
`
`responding to, mitigating, and addressing the concerns of its members and constituents impacted
`
`or who will be disenfranchised by the Witness Requirement, Prohibition on Curbside Voting, and
`
`Defendants’ inadequate efforts to protect voters from COVID-19 ahead of the 2020 elections. In
`
`absence of the Witness Requirement and Prohibition on Curbside Voting, GBM would not have
`
`engaged in these activities. As a result, GBM is limited, and will continue to be limited, in the
`
`organizational resources that it can devote to its other core goals.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 14 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff THE ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL
`
`ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (“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 African
`
`Americans and all other Americans.
`
`33.
`
`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 regularly engages in efforts to register and
`
`educate Black voters and encourages them to engage in the political process by turning out to vote
`
`on Election Day.
`
`34. Many Alabama NAACP members are senior citizens, Black, and/or have medical
`
`conditions, like diabetes or hypertension, that put them at higher risk for death or serious illness
`
`from COVID-19. Many members also live alone or with only one other adult person. These
`
`members and others are staying at home to avoid contracting COVID-19. They will be unable to
`
`meet the Witness Requirement. The difficulties already faced by the Alabama NAACP’s most
`
`vulnerable members in complying with the Witness Requirement are magnified substantially by
`
`the COVID-19 crisis. For example, one active member is in her 80s, lives alone, and has breast
`
`cancer and heart disease. She is extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. She does not have ready
`
`access to videoconferencing technology. She, and other members like her, cannot vote in-person
`
`or meet the Witness Requirement without risking her life by coming into contact with others.
`
`35. As a result of the Witness Requirement and Prohibition on Curbside Voting, the
`
`Alabama NAACP is now required to undertake such activities as (1) assessing who, among its
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Case 2:20-cv-00619-AKK Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 15 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constituency will be unable to comply with the Witness Requirement, while taking protective
`
`measures against COVID-19 infection, like staying home; (2) increasing efforts to educate Black
`
`and disabled voters, as well as the general public, about the Witness Requirement; and (3)
`
`advocating for the adoption of measures like curbside voting that would ease the burdens on voters
`
`during the pandemic. In absence of the Witness Requirement and Prohibition on Curbside Voting,
`
`the Alabama NAACP would not have had to engage in these activities.
`
`36.
`
`Thus, the Witness Requirement and Prohibition on Curbside Voting are causing,
`
`and will continue to cause, the Alabama NAACP to divert a portion of its limited financial and
`
`other organizational resources to investigating, responding to, mitigating, and addressing the
`
`concerns of its members and constituents impacted or who will be disenfranchised by the Witness
`
`Requirement, the Prohibition on Curbside Voting, and Defendants’ inadequate efforts to protect
`
`voters from COVID-19 ahead of the 2020 elections. As a result, the Alabama NAACP is limited,
`
`and will continue to be limited, in the organizational resources that it can devote to its other core
`
`goals.
`
`37. Defendant JOHN MERRILL is the Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. He
`
`is sued in his official capacity. As a constitutional officer and a member of the State’s executive
`
`department, he is Alabama’s chief election official. Ala. Const., art. V, § 112. He is charged with
`
`administering elections and enforcing the Challenged Provisions, including instructing probate
`
`judges, absentee election managers, and other officials on the proper interpretation and
`
`implementation of the Challenged Provisions, issuing related administrative rules, canvassing
`
`returns and certifying election results in a manner that is consistent with the Challenged Provisions.
`
`38. Defendant KAY IVEY is the Governor of the State of Alabama and is sued in her
`
`official capacity. The Governor of Alabama is a constitutional offic