Georgia Long Lines

Anderson v. Raffensperger

We sued Georgia’s Secretary of State, members of the Georgia State Election Board and all the County Board of Registration and Elections members over their persistent closure and consolidation of polling locations leading to long lines. On behalf of the DSCC and the Democratic Party of Georgia ,we asked the court to require that Georgia provide a sufficient number and equitable distribution of polling places and other election resources to prevent long lines on Election Day.

Read the complaint here.

Georgia COVID-19 Election Relief

New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger

We challenged Georgia’s failure to provide prepaid postage, Election Day Receipt Deadline, voter assistance ban, and lack of standards for notifying voters with incomplete absentee ballot applications. On behalf of the New Georgia Project and individual voters, we argue that these restrictions pose an undue burden on the right to vote generally and particularly in the upcoming election as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.

Read the complaint here.

Georgia Ballot Order

S.P.S. ex rel Short v. Raffensperger

Constitutional challenge to Georgia’s ballot order statute, which requires that candidates of the political party of the Governor be listed first on the ballot in all elections. Expert analysis shows that the first listed candidate on the ballot receives a certain percentage of additional votes solely due to their ballot position. We contend that the statute unduly burdens the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and treats similarly situated candidates differently without sufficient justification, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read the complaint here.

Georgia Congressional Redistricting

 Dwight v. Raffensperger, No. 1:18-cv-02869 (N.D. Ga. 2018)

Challenge to Georgia’s 2011 congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act on behalf of African American voters. The challenged congressional map cracks and displaces cohesive African American communities from the 12th congressional district (CD 12) in central-southeast Georgia—where African Americans had previously elected their preferred candidates—and submerges them in surrounding majority-white districts where they can no longer elect their candidates of choice. Plaintiffs have argued that the current plan significantly reduces the African American voting age population in CD 12, and, in conjunction with the high levels of racially polarized voting and historical legacy of discrimination in Georgia, denies African American voters in central-southeast Georgia an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Read the amended complaint here.


Georgia Absentee Ballot Affidavit Rejection

Georgia Dem Party v. Raffensperger

Sued and obtained settlement against Georgia’s failure to ensure that voters receive prompt notification of their rejected absentee ballots in time to cure a missing or mismatched signature, and to Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope design. Georgia law requires that election officials reject absentee ballots for missing or mismatched signatures on absentee ballot envelopes, but until this settlement failed to provide any uniform standards for notifying voters of the alleged signature defects. Thus, the absentee voting laws allowed election officials across the state to use differing procedures, some of which ultimately fail to provide voters sufficient notice and opportunity to cure their ballots. In addition, Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design, which included text that is barely legible and difficult to understand, invited errors and imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. We obtained a favorable settlement of both claims.

Read the settlement with the Georgia Secretary of State here.

Read the settlement with the Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections here.

Read the State Elections Director’s guidance on the cure period for late absentee ballots cure notices.

Georgia Absentee Ballot-Immaterial Omission

Martin v. Crittenden

Successfully represented a congressional campaign and a voter as intervenors in a challenge to Gwinett County’s rejection of absentee ballots for missing immaterial information. The Attorney General issued several guidance letters informing election officials that dates of birth and addresses were not necessary for determining whether an individual is eligible to vote and that rejection of their ballots for omitting such information was likely unlawful under both federal and state law. On November 11, 2018, soon after the 2018 mid-term elections, we challenged Gwinett County’s policy of rejecting absentee ballots cast for missing dates of birth, addresses, and signatures in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, particularly given that a neighboring county did not reject such ballots outright. The court granted our request to stop the rejection of the ballots for missing or incorrect birth years, finding that it violated the Civil Rights Act, but denied the request as to other categories of missing information.

Read the order here.