## Facts

- Alabama’s election rules for the November 3, 2020 general election required absentee voters to: (1) obtain either two witness signatures or a notary on the absentee affidavit, and (2) provide a photocopy of qualifying photo identification.
- State election guidance also prevented counties from offering curbside (drive-up) voting, including as a disability accommodation.
- Plaintiffs included disability-rights and civic organizations and individual voters with disabilities or heightened COVID-19 risk; defendants included the Alabama Secretary of State and certain county election officials.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that high-risk voters could face serious health consequences if forced to vote in person or to interact with others to secure witnesses/notarization or obtain photocopies.
- The State justified the challenged measures as advancing election integrity, fraud prevention, voter confidence, and orderly administration.
- After earlier preliminary relief related to a prior election, the case proceeded to a bench trial on the merits for the general election.

## Issues

1. Whether the absentee-witness/notary requirement and the absentee photo-ID photocopy requirement, as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether those absentee requirements produced a race-based denial or abridgment of voting opportunity in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
3. Whether a statewide prohibition on curbside voting violated Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying reasonable modifications for voters with disabilities.

## Decision

- The court granted permanent injunctive relief in part and denied relief in part.
- The court enjoined enforcement of the absentee witness/notary requirement for certain voters at heightened COVID-19 risk, concluding that the requirement imposed a severe burden in those circumstances that outweighed the State’s interests.
- The court provided limited, tailored relief from the photo-ID photocopy requirement for certain high-risk voters where obtaining a copy would require risky exposure; it did not broadly invalidate Alabama’s photo-ID regime.
- The court held that the statewide curbside-voting prohibition violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and enjoined the Secretary of State from blocking counties that wished to offer curbside voting as an accommodation; it did not require any county to implement curbside voting.
- The court’s relief was framed as narrow and tied to pandemic-era conditions and defined voter categories; portions of the injunction were later stayed by the Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Anderson–Burdick framework, courts weigh the character and magnitude of voting burdens against the state interests asserted and the necessity of the challenged rules to serve those interests.
- A voting regulation that is usually modest can become a severe burden when compliance creates a substantial health risk, and the State must justify that burden with sufficiently weighty, supported interests.
- Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is violated when, under the totality of circumstances, a voting practice interacts with social and historical conditions to give minority voters less opportunity than others to participate in the political process.
- Voting is a service, program, or activity covered by Title II of the ADA; public entities must provide reasonable modifications to avoid disability-based exclusion unless the modification would fundamentally alter the program or impose undue burdens.
- A state policy that prohibits local election officials from offering a feasible disability accommodation can violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Act when it denies equal access for qualified voters with disabilities.

## Conclusion

The court held that Alabama’s absentee-voting requirements, as applied to certain high-risk voters during the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted narrow constitutional and VRA-based relief, and that a statewide curbside-voting prohibition unlawfully denied reasonable disability accommodations under federal disability law, though later appellate action limited the practical effect of parts of the injunction.


People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 491 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (N.D. Ala. 2020)