## Facts

- Alabama law required absentee ballots to include an accompanying affidavit that was either notarized or signed by two witnesses.
- Alabama election officials had long treated absentee ballots lacking notarization and witness signatures as invalid and excluded them from the count.
- After the 1994 general election but before final certification, an Alabama state trial court ordered election officials to count absentee ballots that did not satisfy the notarization/witness requirements.
- The disputed ballots were potentially outcome-determinative in extremely close statewide races, including the election for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
- A voter and aligned candidates filed a federal action alleging that counting previously invalid absentee ballots would violate federal constitutional protections by changing election rules after voting had occurred.
- The federal district court entered a preliminary injunction preventing election officials from counting the noncompliant absentee ballots during canvassing and certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal court properly exercised jurisdiction and could grant injunctive relief in an ongoing state election dispute, or whether abstention principles required deferral to state proceedings.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success that counting absentee ballots lacking statutory notarization/witnessing, pursuant to a post-election state-court order, would violate the Equal Protection Clause by retroactively changing the rules and diluting valid votes.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction.
- The court held that abstention was not required because the suit presented substantial federal constitutional claims rather than a routine state-law election contest.
- The court concluded plaintiffs showed a strong likelihood of success that a post-election directive to count ballots previously treated as invalid constituted an impermissible after-the-fact rule change raising serious equal protection concerns.
- The court agreed irreparable harm and the public interest favored preserving the pre-election statutory regime pending further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts generally avoid involvement in state election administration, but may intervene where extraordinary circumstances present substantial federal constitutional violations.
- Post-election alteration of ballot-counting standards that departs from clear statutory requirements and established practice can trigger equal protection concerns, including dilution of legally cast ballots.
- In evaluating preliminary injunctive relief in election disputes, courts consider likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest; maintaining stable, pre-existing election rules may justify preserving the status quo.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction barring Alabama officials from counting absentee ballots that lacked required notarization or witness signatures, reasoning that a post-election state-court order compelling their inclusion likely violated equal protection by retroactively changing vote-counting rules and diluting compliant ballots.


Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995)