USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 1 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` [PUBLISH]
`
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`No. 20-14540
`
`____________________
`
`
`GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF LATINO
`ELECTED OFFICIALS, INC.,
`as an organization,
`GEORGIA COALITION FOR THE
`PEOPLE'S AGENDA, INC.,
`as an organization,
`ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
`JUSTICE - ATLANTA, INC.,
`as an organization,
`NEW GEORGIA PROJECT,
`as an organization,
`COMMON CAUSE,
`as an organization,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` [PUBLISH]
`
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`No. 20-14540
`
`____________________
`
`
`GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF LATINO
`ELECTED OFFICIALS, INC.,
`as an organization,
`GEORGIA COALITION FOR THE
`PEOPLE'S AGENDA, INC.,
`as an organization,
`ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
`JUSTICE - ATLANTA, INC.,
`as an organization,
`NEW GEORGIA PROJECT,
`as an organization,
`COMMON CAUSE,
`as an organization,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 2 of 50
`
`2
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`ALBERT MENDEZ,
`LIMARY RUIZ TORRES,
`
` Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`versus
`GWINNETT COUNTY BOARD OF
`REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS,
`JOHN MANGANO,
`STEPHEN DAY,
`BEN SATTERFIELD,
`BEAUTY BALDWIN,
`ALICE O'LENICK,
`BRAD RAFFENSPERGER,
`in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia,
`
`
` Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`____________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-01587-WMR
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 3 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`3
`
`Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA, Circuit Judge, and
`SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.
`LAGOA, Circuit Judge:
`
`Plaintiffs—five organizations and two individual voters
`from Gwinnett County, Georgia—allege that absentee ballot appli-
`cations and voting-related information should have been, but were
`not, provided in both English and Spanish to voters in Gwinnett
`County during the 2020 election cycle. This appeal asks us to de-
`termine whether Defendants—the Gwinnett County Board of Reg-
`istrations and Elections, the Board’s individual members, and
`Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—violated § 203 and
`§ 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
`
`Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10503, re-
`quires certain States and their political subdivisions to provide vot-
`ing materials in languages in addition to English. Gwinnett County
`is subject to the requirements of § 203, and Plaintiffs seek relief un-
`der that section for all limited-English proficient, Spanish-speaking
`voters in Gwinnett County. Section 4(e), 52 U.S.C. § 10303(e), pro-
`hibits States from denying individuals who were educated in
`“American-flag schools” in a language other than English the right
`to vote because of an inability to understand English. Plaintiffs
`seek relief under § 4(e) for all limited-English proficient, Spanish-
`
`
`* Honorable Harvey Schlesinger, United States Senior District Judge for the
`Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 4 of 50
`
`4
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`speaking voters in Gwinnett County who were educated in Puerto
`Rico.
`The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of ju-
`
`risdiction and for failure to state a claim, and this appeal ensued.
`After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we va-
`cate the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and we af-
`firm its dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`be granted.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A. Factual Allegations
`The individual Plaintiffs are United States citizens registered
`to vote in Gwinnett County. Plaintiff Albert Mendez is a profes-
`sional bass fisherman. He was born in New York City and raised
`in Puerto Rico, where he attended Spanish-language schools.
`Plaintiff Limary Ruiz Torres is a part-time accountant. She was
`born and raised in Puerto Rico, where she attended Spanish-lan-
`guage schools. Neither Mendez nor Ruiz Torres can read English.
`The organizational Plaintiffs are the Georgia Association of
`Latino Elected Officials, Inc. (“GALEO”), the Georgia Coalition for
`the People’s Agenda, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice–At-
`lanta, Inc., the New Georgia Project, Inc., and Common Cause.
`These organizations are engaged in “get-out-the-vote” activities
`and other voter registration efforts in Gwinnett County. The indi-
`vidual and organizational Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 5 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`5
`
`that Defendants violated § 203, 52 U.S.C. § 10503, and § 4(e), 52
`U.S.C. § 10303(e), of the Voting Rights Act during the 2020 elec-
`tion.
`
`Defendants are the Gwinnett County Board of Registrations
`and Elections and its individual members (collectively, the “Gwin-
`nett County Board of Elections”), and Georgia Secretary of State
`Brad Raffensperger (“Secretary Raffensperger” or the “Secretary”).
`The Gwinnett County Board of Elections administers elections in
`Gwinnett County, Georgia; its individual members are essentially
`election superintendents and responsible for conducting such elec-
`tions. Secretary Raffensperger is Georgia’s chief election official.
`In this capacity, Secretary Raffensperger is charged with overseeing
`and administering elections in Georgia. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50.
`The Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat.
`437, prohibits various kinds of discrimination in voting. Section
`4(e), which was enacted in 1965 as part of the original Voting Rights
`Act, provides, in relevant part:
`No person who demonstrates that he has successfully
`completed the sixth primary grade in a public school
`in, or a private school accredited by, . . . the Common-
`wealth of Puerto Rico in which the predominant
`classroom language was other than English, shall be
`denied the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local
`election because of his inability to read, write, under-
`stand, or interpret any matter in the English lan-
`guage . . . .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 6 of 50
`
`6
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`52 U.S.C. § 10303(e)(2). Plaintiffs allege that Gwinnett County has
`a substantial population of Spanish-speaking voters who were edu-
`cated in Puerto Rico and who are entitled to the protections of
`§ 4(e).
`In 1975, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to include
`§ 203. Act of Aug. 6, 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-73, § 301, 89 Stat. 400,
`402–03 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. § 10503). Section 203(b)
`provides that “no covered State or political subdivision shall pro-
`vide voting materials only in the English language.” 52 U.S.C.
`§ 10503(b)(1). A State or political subdivision is a “covered State or
`political subdivision” if the Director of the Census determines that
`certain language minority population thresholds are met and that
`“the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a
`group
`is higher
`than
`the national
`illiteracy rate.”
`
`Id.
`§ 10503(b)(2)(A). Finally, § 203(c) provides:
`
`Whenever any State or political subdivision subject to
`the prohibition of subsection (b) of this section pro-
`vides any registration or voting notices, forms, in-
`structions, assistance, or other materials or infor-
`mation relating to the electoral process, including bal-
`lots, it shall provide them in the language of the ap-
`plicable minority group as well as in the English lan-
`guage.
`
`Id. § 10503(c).
`It is undisputed that Gwinnett County is a covered political
`subdivision pursuant to Section 203(b), and that whenever
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 7 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`7
`
`Gwinnett County provides the materials or information described
`in § 203, they must be in both English and Spanish. It is also undis-
`puted that the State of Georgia is not a “covered State” under
`§ 203(b). See Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2006, Determina-
`tions Under Section 203, 81 Fed. Reg. 87,532 (Dec. 5, 2016).
`In response to the public health crisis surrounding the spread
`of COVID-19 in early 2020, Secretary Raffensperger postponed
`Georgia’s 2020 presidential primary election from March to May
`2020. After Georgia Governor Brian Kemp issued a statewide shel-
`ter-in-place order in April 2020, Secretary Raffensperger postponed
`the 2020 primary election again to June 9, 2020, in order to allow
`his office and the counties time to “shore up contingency plans, find
`and train additional poll workers, and make other preparations.”
`With the election moved to June 9 and uncertainty regarding the
`spread of COVID-19, Secretary Raffensperger issued a press release
`encouraging Georgia voters to cast absentee ballots instead of vot-
`ing in person on election day:
`Considering the health risks posed by COVID-19,
`Georgians should seriously consider submitting an
`absentee ballot by mail . . . . [T]he extra precautions
`necessary to preserve voter and poll worker health
`during the pandemic will result in long wait times and
`an increased health risk that could be avoided
`through absentee ballots . . . .
`Under normal circumstances, absentee ballot applications
`are handled by county elections officials. Due to concerns about
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 8 of 50
`
`8
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`the effect of COVID-19, Secretary Raffensperger sought to facili-
`tate the use of absentee ballots by using CARES Act1 funds to mail
`two rounds of absentee ballot applications to active Georgia vot-
`ers—the first round of approximately 6.9 million applications was
`mailed during the last week of March and a second round of ap-
`proximately 323,000 applications was mailed on or about April 21.
`These applications were provided only in English.
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations against Secretary Raffensperger are not
`limited to the two mailings of English-only absentee ballot applica-
`tions. Plaintiffs also allege that “[a]ll election materials provided by
`the Georgia Secretary of State to Gwinnett County voters are Eng-
`lish-only.” Secretary Raffensperger “issues press releases that pro-
`vide critical and substantive election-related information,” and his
`official website “contains other critical information for Gwinnett
`County voters,” which are provided only in English. While pre-
`cinct cards, which “contain critical information” like a voter’s poll-
`ing place, voting districts, and change of address processes, are
`mailed to each voter upon registration by the relevant county
`board of registration and elections, they are also available—but
`only in English—on the Secretary’s website. Further, Secretary
`Raffensperger
`is “responsible
`for providing election-related
`
`
`1 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed legislation provid-
`ing emergency relief to workers, small businesses, and states. See Coronavirus
`Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136,
`134 Stat. 281 (2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 9 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`9
`
`training for nursing homes,” as well as “supplying election-related
`instructions—including those related to absentee voting—and sup-
`plies at nursing homes.” All of the instructions and supplies pro-
`vided to nursing homes by the Secretary are only in English.
`Unable to read English, Mendez and Ruiz Torres allege that
`they mistook the Secretary’s absentee ballot applications for “junk
`mail” and could not complete them.2 They also allege that they
`cannot “read the English-only voter precinct card accessible via the
`Georgia My Voter Page, the English-only election notices and in-
`formation posted on the Georgia Secretary of State’s website, and
`other English-only election materials furnished to [them] by De-
`fendants.”
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to the Gwinnett County Board
`of Elections fall into two categories: (1) failure to translate into
`Spanish the Secretary’s English-only materials and information,
`and (2) deficiencies in the English-to-Spanish translation function
`of the Board’s own website. Regarding the first category, Plaintiffs
`allege that the Gwinnett County Board of Elections does not trans-
`late into Spanish any of the voting materials and voting-related in-
`formation provided by the Secretary to voters in Gwinnett County,
`including the absentee ballot applications the Secretary mailed in
`March and April 2020, the absentee ballot application forms
`
`
`2 After the complaint was amended to add the individual Plaintiffs, the Gwin-
`nett County Board of Elections mailed them bilingual absentee ballot applica-
`tions, which they were able to complete.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 10 of 50
`
`10
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`available on the Secretary’s website, the press releases issued by the
`Secretary, and other “critical information” posted on the Secre-
`tary’s website. Plaintiffs also allege that the Gwinnett Board of
`Elections does not post in Spanish on its own website the election
`information posted by the Secretary on his website.
`Regarding the second category, Plaintiffs allege that, while
`the Gwinnett County Board of Elections placed a bilingual absen-
`tee ballot application on its own website after this case was filed on
`April 13, 2020, “[t]o access that application, voters have to navi-
`gate” what Plaintiffs allege is “the [Board’s] English-only website.”
`Plaintiffs, however, concede that the website is not, in fact, English-
`only, as they allege that a Spanish-language computer-translated
`version of the website is accessible by clicking a box marked “Eng-
`lish >” at the bottom right-hand corner of the webpage. Plaintiffs
`allege that the website also provides a computer-generated Span-
`ish-language absentee ballot application if users click a button la-
`beled “In English.” But, Plaintiffs allege, that for limited-English
`proficiency, Spanish-speaking voters, it “would be difficult, if not
`impossible, . . . to navigate” the website, and that the English-to-
`Spanish translations themselves are “riddled with errors that could
`prevent Spanish-speaking voters from navigating the mail voting
`process.”
`Plaintiffs’ two counts seek relief against both the Secretary
`and the Gwinnett Board of Elections. Count I asserts that the Sec-
`retary and the Gwinnett Board of Elections violated § 203 because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 11 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`11
`
`the Secretary mailed two rounds of English-only absentee ballot
`applications to Gwinnett County’s voters, and “neither of the De-
`fendants mailed a bilingual or Spanish translated version of the ab-
`sentee ballot application” to any limited-English proficient, Span-
`ish-speaking voter in Gwinnett County. Count I also asserts that
`Defendants violate § 203 “on an ongoing basis by disseminating
`English-only press releases and all other election-related infor-
`mation published on the Secretary of State’s website, English-only
`voter precinct cards accessible to individuals logging on to the
`Georgia My Voter Page, and English-only election-related notices,
`instructions, and supplies to nursing homes, among other items.”
`The asserted effect of the alleged ongoing violations of § 203 is to
`“deny equal access to voting by mail” to Gwinnett County’s lim-
`ited-English proficient, Spanish-speaking voters in the 2020 pri-
`mary election and future elections. Count II asserts violations of
`§ 4(e) based on the same conduct, although this claim is limited to
`Gwinnett County voters who attended school in Puerto Rico and
`are protected by § 4(e).
`In addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, Plaintiffs seek declar-
`atory and injunctive relief. First, Plaintiffs seek declarations that
`Defendants are violating §§ 203 and 4(e) on an ongoing basis be-
`cause they are providing “absentee ballot applications, press re-
`leases and all other election-related information published on the
`Secretary of State’s website, voter precinct cards accessible to indi-
`viduals logging on to the Georgia My Voter Page, and election-re-
`lated notices, instructions, and supplies to nursing homes” only in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 12 of 50
`
`12
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`English to Gwinnett County voters (or those Gwinnett County
`voters protected by § 4(e)). Second, Plaintiffs seek an injunction
`ordering Defendants to stop “all continuing violations” of §§ 203
`and 4(e), to mail bilingual absentee ballot applications to certain
`Gwinnett County voters, and to provide “bilingual versions of
`press releases and all other election-related information published
`on the Secretary of State’s website, bilingual voter precinct cards
`accessible to Gwinnett County voters logging on to the Georgia
`My Voter Page, and bilingual election-related notices, instructions,
`and supplies to nursing homes in Gwinnett County.”
`B. Procedural Background
`In response to Secretary Raffensperger’s mailing of the ini-
`tial English-only absentee ballot applications, the organizational
`Plaintiffs sued under §§ 203 and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act.
`They subsequently filed an amended complaint adding the individ-
`ual Plaintiffs.
`
`With the 2020 presidential primary election approaching,
`Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking preliminary injunctive
`relief on April 20, 2020. The motion requested that the district
`court “[e]njoin all continuing violations” of the Voting Rights Act
`and require the mailing of “accurately translated bilingual absentee
`ballot application[s] to Gwinnett County voters who were sent
`English-only applications or, alternatively, to all Gwinnett County
`voters who self-identified as ‘Hispanic/Latino’ when they regis-
`tered to vote and all voters residing in all Gwinett County precincts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 13 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`13
`
`for which at least five percent of voters identified as Hispanic on
`their voter registration cards.” Defendants responded that Secre-
`tary Raffensperger is not subject to § 203 of the Voting Rights Act
`and that the Gwinnett Board of Elections had no duty to translate
`the materials sent by the Secretary’s office. Secretary Raffensper-
`ger further argued that § 4(e) did not require him to provide bilin-
`gual absentee ballot applications to Gwinnet County voters. The
`district court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiffs were
`not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
`
`Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint that ex-
`panded the list of challenged English-only practices and included
`new factual allegations, such as Secretary Raffensperger’s sending
`of additional English-only absentee ballot applications and alleging
`that his office “may consider providing similar services for the pri-
`mary runoff and November General Election.” In response, De-
`fendants filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
`cedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
`state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
`After the district court held a hearing on the motions to dis-
`miss but before it had ruled on them, Plaintiffs sought leave to file
`a supplemental complaint to address two new developments.
`First, Plaintiffs alleged that Secretary Raffensperger had “launched
`an English-only online absentee ballot application portal—which
`Gwinnett County election officials [were] encouraging voters to
`use through a link on the county’s website.” Second, Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 14 of 50
`
`14
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`alleged that the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners had
`voted to reject requests to mail absentee ballot applications to all
`of the county’s active registered voters for the November 2020 gen-
`eral election and, instead, “encourage[d] Gwinnett County voters
`to use the Georgia Secretary of State’s new English-only online ab-
`sentee ballot application portal.”
`On October 5, 2020, the district court granted Defendants’
`motions to dismiss. In its order, the district court found that Plain-
`tiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims because they did not suf-
`fer an injury in fact. The district court also determined that, even
`if they had suffered an injury, that injury was neither traceable to,
`nor redressable by, Defendants. Additionally, the district court
`found that Plaintiffs’ claims were moot because Secretary Raffen-
`sperger was “not likely to take the same challenged action again,
`such that it would subject Plaintiffs to the same alleged harm in the
`future.”
`
`In the alternative, the district court concluded that, even if
`Plaintiffs had standing, they failed to state a claim under Rule
`12(b)(6). In support of its conclusion, the district court explained
`that: (1) the State of Georgia is not subject to § 203 of the Voting
`Rights Act; (2) consequently, the Gwinnett Board of Elections had
`no duty to provide bilingual translations of the voting materials
`sent out by Secretary Raffensperger’s office; and (3) the Secretary’s
`actions did not violate § 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act by condition-
`ing the right to vote on the ability to read or understand English.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 15 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`15
`
`Although the district court did not rule on the pending mo-
`tion to supplement before issuing its order on the motions to dis-
`miss, it discussed the substance of the new allegations in its order
`of dismissal. And the district court found that “[n]othing in Plain-
`tiffs’ Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint alter[ed] [its] con-
`clusion.” The district court explained that § 203 applied based on
`the covered entity providing materials, “not the possibility that vot-
`ers within a covered jurisdiction may see or come across materials
`coming from outside it.”
`
`Plaintiffs timely appealed. Months later, after the parties
`filed their initial briefs to this Court, Governor Kemp signed Senate
`Bill 202 (Act 9) (2021) into law. The bill prohibits the Secretary of
`State from sending absentee ballot applications unless requested by
`the voter and, according to Plaintiffs, requires the Secretary’s office
`to provide a statewide online absentee ballot application portal.
`O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381(a)(1)(C)(i)–(ii) (effective July 1, 2021).
`II.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to
`dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
`Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir. 1998),
`and we review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to
`dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Hill v.
`White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). In our de novo review,
`we accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 16 of 50
`
`16
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Parise, 141 F.3d at
`1465; Hill, 321 F.3d at 1335.
`In the context of a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to standing, “we
`typically confine our standing analysis to the four corners of the
`complaint” but “we may look beyond it when we have before us
`facts in the record.” Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 930 F.3d 1225,
`1235 (11th Cir. 2019).
`Finally, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
`“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
`true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Establishing plausibility re-
`quires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted un-
`lawfully.” Id.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in
`dismissing their second amended complaint both for lack of stand-
`ing under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule
`12(b)(6). We address these issues in turn.
`A. Jurisdiction
`Article III of the Constitution limits the subject-matter juris-
`diction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S.
`Const. art. III, § 2. “To have a case or controversy, a litigant must
`establish that he has standing.” United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d
`967, 971 (11th Cir. 2019).
` The “irreducible constitutional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 17 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`17
`
`minimum” of standing consists of (1) an injury in fact that (2) is
`fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) is
`likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defs. of
`Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). These three elements “are
`not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of
`the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 561.
` “Standing is determined at the time the plaintiff’s complaint
`is filed,” Arcia v. Fla. Sec’ y of State, 772 F.3d 1335, 1340 (11th Cir.
`2014), but it must persist throughout a lawsuit. If a case “no longer
`presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give
`meaningful relief,” the case is moot and must be dismissed. Friends
`of Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216
`(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla.
`Dep’t of Health & Rehab Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir.
`2000)).
`
`A district court has “substantial authority. . . to weigh the
`evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear [a]
`case” when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Morrison v. Amway
`Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 925 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lawrence v.
`Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). However, if a juris-
`dictional challenge implicates the merits of the underlying claim,
`such as here where interpretation of the Voting Rights Act will de-
`termine the merits as well as whether Plaintiffs have standing,
`“[t]he proper course of action for the district court . . . is to find that
`jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 18 of 50
`
`18
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`the merits of the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 925 (omission in original)
`(quoting Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., M.D.’s, P.A., 104
`F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997)).
`
`Plaintiffs contend that each of them has standing; Defend-
`ants counter that none do. We need not parse each Plaintiff’s
`standing, however, because one—GALEO—has standing, under a
`diversion of resources theory, to assert all of the claims in the sec-
`ond amended complaint. “Because of the presence of this plaintiff,
`we need not consider whether the other individual and [organiza-
`tional] plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit.” See Village of
`Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264
`n.9 (1977).
`
`1. Injury In Fact
`To establish an injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he
`“suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘con-
`crete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural
`or hypothetical.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016)
`(quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). A “concrete” injury is one that
`actually exists—it is “real,” as opposed to “abstract.” Id. at 340
`(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 479 (9th ed. 2009); Webster’s
`Third New International Dictionary 472 (1971); and Random
`House Dictionary of the English Language 305 (1967)). Intangible
`harms, such as those created by statute, can nevertheless be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 19 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`19
`
`concrete.3 Id. at 340. The Supreme Court has “long recognized
`that a person’s right to vote is ‘individual and personal in nature’”
`and “‘voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves
`as individuals have standing to sue’” as they have alleged a concrete
`and particularized injury. Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929
`(2018) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 (1964) and
`quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 206 (1962)).
`Future injuries can also be concrete. A plaintiff seeking pro-
`spective relief to prevent future injuries must prove that their
`threatened injuries are “certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty
`Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 401 (2013). In other words, “the mere risk
`of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm—
`at least unless the exposure to the risk of future harm itself causes
`a separate concrete harm.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct.
`2190, 2210–11 (2021).
`An organization can establish standing in two ways: (1)
`through its members (i.e., associational standing) and (2) through
`its own injury in fact that satisfies the traceability and redressability
`elements. As relevant to this appeal, an organization can establish
`its own injury in fact under a diversion of resources theory. See
`Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1249–50 (11th Cir.
`
`
`3 However, “Congress’ role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does
`not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement
`whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize
`that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 341.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 20 of 50
`
`20
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`20-14540
`
`2020) (analyzing both methods of establishing an injury). Under
`this theory, an organization has standing “if the defendant’s illegal
`acts impair its ability to engage in its projects by forcing the organ-
`ization to divert resources to counteract those illegal acts.” Id. at
`1250 (quoting Fla. State Conf. of NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d
`1153, 1165 (11th Cir. 2008)). To establish standing under a diver-
`sion of resources theory, an organizational plaintiff must explain
`where it would have to “divert resources away from in order to
`spend additional resources on combating” the effects of the defend-
`ant’s alleged conduct. Id.; cf. Browning, 522 F.3d at 1166 (“These
`resources would otherwise be spent on registration drives and elec-
`tion-day education and monitoring.”); See Common Cause/Ga. v.
`Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that re-
`sources would be diverted “from ‘getting voters to the polls’ to
`helping them obtain acceptable photo identification” (alteration
`adopted)); Ga. Latino All. for Hum. Rights v. Governor of Ga., 691
`F.3d 1250, 1260 (11th Cir. 2012) (observing that an immigration or-
`ganization “cancelled citizenship classes to focus on” increased in-
`quiries about a new law).
`As alleged in the second amended complaint, GALEO was
`founded in 2003, is headquartered in Georgia, and is “one of the
`oldest, largest, and most significant organizations promoting and
`protecting the civil rights” of Georgia’s Latino community. Plain-
`tiffs also allege that a “substantial amount of GALEO’s civic en-
`gagement, voter registration and get out the vote work takes place
`in Gwinnett County.” GALEO generally alleges that it has diverted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 20-14540 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 21 of 50
`
`20-14540
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`21
`
`resources on an ongoing basis from these activities because Secre-
`tary Raffensperger and the Gwinnet County Board of Elections
`provide English-only election materials to limited-English profi-
`cient, Spanish-speaking voters in Gwinnett County. GALEO also
`specifically alleges that it “is reaching out to and educating [limited-
`English proficient,] Spanish-speaking voters about how to navigate
`the mail voting process and how to complete the application, as
`well as other aspects of the electoral process” and that “GALEO
`staff members such as Darrick Alvarez are assisting [limited-English
`proficient] voters who received English-only applications such as
`his parents and Nelson Romero with navigating the absentee vot-
`ing process.”
`
`At this procedural stage, we must accept GALEO’s allega-
`tions as true, Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest. Partners, LLC, 986 F.3d
`1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2021), and we are satisfied that those allega-
`tions sufficiently plead the injury in fact element of standing. First,
`GA
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
