## Facts

- Pennsylvania allowed absentee and mail-in voting through completion and mailing of paper ballots.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commonwealth encouraged use of absentee and mail-in voting.
- Joseph Drenth, a blind registered voter, and the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania alleged that paper-only absentee and mail-in ballots prevented blind voters from voting privately and independently from home, requiring reliance on sighted assistance.
- Plaintiffs sought an electronically accessible remote ballot compatible with screen-reader technology.
- Plaintiffs proposed adapting the existing UOCAVA ballot used for military and overseas voters as the accessible option for blind voters.
- The Commonwealth argued UOCAVA could not be implemented in time for the June 2, 2020 primary and proposed alternatives: a Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) and an Accessible Write-In Ballot (AWIB).
- Evidence indicated UOCAVA, FWAB, and AWIB could be made electronically fillable, but UOCAVA required substantially more time to convert; plaintiffs asserted FWAB and AWIB required error-prone transfer of information between documents.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on May 21, 2020 seeking emergency and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act with the primary election roughly 12 days away.

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania’s paper-only absentee and mail-in voting system denied blind voters meaningful access to vote privately and independently, in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
2. If a violation was likely, what preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate given the proximity of the June 2, 2020 primary—ordering an accessible UOCAVA ballot as requested by plaintiffs or requiring an alternative (AWIB) proposed by the Commonwealth.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the Commonwealth to make the AWIB available to eligible blind voters for the June 2, 2020 primary and the 2020 general election.
- The court declined to order implementation of the UOCAVA ballot at the preliminary-injunction stage because it could not be implemented within the time remaining before the primary.
- In a later memorandum on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that claims seeking relief for the November 2020 general election and subsequent elections were moot because plaintiffs had obtained the requested relief; the court granted defendants summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit public entities from denying qualified individuals with disabilities meaningful access to public programs, including voting processes.
- Public entities must provide reasonable modifications and auxiliary aids when necessary to avoid disability-based exclusion, unless doing so would be infeasible or otherwise not required under the statutes.
- In crafting preliminary injunctive relief affecting election administration on an expedited timeline, a court may order an interim accommodation that materially improves access while accounting for imminent election deadlines and implementation constraints.
- When plaintiffs obtain the relief sought and no live controversy remains, claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief may become moot, warranting judgment without reaching further merits issues.

## Conclusion

The court found a substantial ADA and Rehabilitation Act access problem in a paper-only absentee and mail-in system for blind voters and ordered an interim accessible remedy (AWIB) that could be implemented before the imminent primary; later, once the requested prospective accessibility relief had been provided for future elections, the remaining claims were dismissed as moot on summary judgment.


Drenth v. Boockvar, No. 1:20-CV-00829, 2020 WL 2745729 (M.D. Pa. May 27, 2020)