GA Democratic Party V Raffensperger Cv-05028-WMR Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 1 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA,

INC., DSCC, and DCCC,
Plaintiffs, Civil Action File No.
v.
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official
capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE OF
GEORGIA; REBECCA N. SULLIVAN,
DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH HARP, and
ANH LEE, in their official capacities as
Members of the Georgia State Election
Board; and STEPHEN DAY, JOHN
MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN
SATTERFIELD, and BEAUTY
BALDWIN, in their official capacities as
Members of the Gwinnett County Board of
Registration and Elections,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., DSCC aka
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, and DCCC aka the
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, through the
undersigned attorneys, file this COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF against Defendants, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; REBECCA N. SULLIVAN,
DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH HARP and ANH LEE, in their official capacities as
Members of the Georgia State Election Board; and STEPHEN DAY, JOHN
MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY
BALDWIN, in their official capacities as Members of the Gwinnett County Board
of Registration and Elections. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege
as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice
in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must
live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to protect
this right and to prevent the disenfranchisement of Georgia voters whose absentee
by-mail (“absentee”) ballots have been rejected for missing or mismatched
-2-
signatures. The cause of this disenfranchisement is Georgia’s standardless procedure
for notifying absentee voters that their signatures are either missing or inconsistent,
which fails to provide Georgia voters with a meaningful ability to cure their ballots
within the prescribed timeframe. This disenfranchisement disproportionately
impacts African-American and other minority voters and has a particularly
detrimental impact on minority voters in Gwinnett County, who are further burdened
by Gwinnett County’s poorly designed, confusing absentee ballot envelope, which
places these voters at a heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without
properly completing the signature requirement. Because of Georgia’s standardless
procedure, and Gwinnett County’s confusing absentee ballot envelope design,
hundreds of Georgia voters have had their ballots rejected and their votes have not
been counted, and hundreds more face the same fate in the 2020 election without
intervention from this Court.
2. Absentee voting is extraordinarily popular among Georgia voters and
has grown in popularity over time. Applications for absentee ballots surged in
advance of the 2018 general elections, with over 281,000 Georgia voters requesting
absentee ballots. And, despite the fact that turnout has historically been lower in
midterm elections than in presidential elections, the total number of returned
absentee ballots in the 2018 midterm election⸺nearly 284,393⸺was greater than
-3-
the number cast in the 2016 presidential election, 246,621.
3. Georgia also routinely rejects a significant number of absentee ballots.
Of the combined 531,014 absentee ballots cast in the past two general elections,
6,681 have been rejected for technical reasons wholly unrelated to the voter’s
qualifications, including failing to sign the oath on the back of the absentee ballot
envelope or having a mismatched signature. During the 2016 general election,
Georgia County Election Officials rejected 580 absentee ballots for missing or
inaccurate oath information, including missing and mismatched signatures. And, in
the 2018 general election, County Election Officials rejected 454 ballots for the same
reason. One county—Gwinnett—rejected far more absentee ballots, 117, for missing
or mismatched signatures than any other county.
4. The number of absentee ballots rejected for a missing or mismatched
signature is significant, especially when evaluated in context. Saucedo v. Gardner,
335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 217 (D.N.H. 2018) (“[t]he overall rates of rejection due to a
signature mismatch have been low in recent general elections. But those rates should
be put into perspective.”). Recently, elections in Georgia have been decided by small
margins. For example, the Democratic candidate in the 2018 gubernatorial race, who
received a substantial majority of the votes cast by absentee ballots (137,616 out of
the 223,576 absentee ballots cast), lost by under 55,000 votes (1.3 percentage
-4-
points). And in an even closer race, the Democratic candidate for Georgia’s 7th
Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives, who received
57 percent of the absentee ballot votes (10,466 out of 18,217 absentee ballots cast),
lost by just 419 votes (.14 percentage points). Georgia’s arbitrary rejection of
absentee ballots not only disenfranchises individual voters, but it also leads to
election results that may not reflect the will and intent of Georgia’s electorate.
5. Because such a significant number of absentee ballots have been
rejected in Georgia, the State has seen a flood of litigation since the 2018 general
election aimed at ending the disenfranchisement caused by the absentee voting
regime. In a series of opinions, courts in this district have repeatedly found that
outright rejection of absentee ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information
violates the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).
See Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (N.D. Ga.
2018); Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2018); Martin v. Kemp,
341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
6. As a result, the Georgia General Assembly amended the absentee
voting scheme in an attempt to prevent absentee ballots from being rejected for
technical reasons, including for missing or mismatched signatures. Specifically, the
General Assembly modified the language of the oath on the absentee ballot envelope
-5-
to remove requests for certain technical information. And, adding to the existing
requirement that election officials “promptly notify” the voter of a missing or
mismatched signature, it required that election officials give a voter until three days
after the date of the election to cure a signature before rejecting an absentee ballot
for a missing or mismatched signature. O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C), -419(c).
7. These reforms, however, do not remedy the flaws in Georgia’s
absentee ballot regime and will not end the unconstitutional disenfranchisement of
voters. Most glaringly, the law still does not provide any timeliness standard for
election officials to “promptly” notify voters of missing or mismatched signatures;
nor does it provide any standard for the form of notice required. As a result, counties
interpret “prompt” notice differently and use inconsistent methods to inform voters
of the need to cure their absentee ballots. For example, some counties send letters
by first-class mail, while others call or email voters. And some counties provide
notification up to three days after identifying the missing signature. Such an
interpretation is problematic for voters whose absentee ballots are submitted on or
close to election day, as they are sent letters three days later and are not notified with
sufficient time to cure during the three-day post-election period. Thus, depending on
where the voter lives, she may not receive notice in time to cure and her ballot will
be rejected outright, directly contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the rulings of
-6-
courts in this district.
8. Without a uniform standard for the timing for election officials to
provide notice to voters about missing or mismatched signatures or the method of
notification, practices will continue to vary widely across the state, with each of
Georgia’s 159 counties establishing its own deadline and method. This hodgepodge
approach unduly burdens absentee voters’ right to vote.
9. These burdens are exacerbated in Gwinnett County, whose high volume
of absentee ballots with missing or mismatched signatures and corresponding high
rejection rate is tied not only to Georgia’s standardless notification regime, but
directly to the confusing and opaque design of its absentee ballot envelope, which
often prevents voters from even realizing that their signatures are required. Because
Gwinnett County must include the oath in both English and Spanish on the envelope,
it uses small, nearly illegible type in approximately 6.5-point font.1 By way of
example, this text is in size 6.5-point font.
10. Given the deficient design of the Gwinnett County absentee ballot
1
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Voting Rights Act Amendments
of 2006, Determinations Under Section 203, 81 Fed. Reg. 233, 87535 (Dec. 5, 2016),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-05/pdf/2016-28969.pdf
(requiring Gwinnett County to provide voting material in both English and Spanish
given its large Hispanic population).
-7-
envelope, the county rejected more absentee ballots for missing or mismatched
signatures than any other county during the 2018 general election (117 of the 454
rejected ballots). The recent changes to the language in the oath on the ballot
envelope do not address the design flaws; Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot
envelope remains lengthy and cramped, and voters will continue to find it
indiscernible. As such, Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design, coupled
with the county’s inadequate notification procedures under Georgia’s standardless
notification system, will continue to create an unusually high risk that voters who
vote absentee will have their votes ultimately rejected for missing or mismatched
signatures and be disenfranchised.
11. Additionally, the continued rejection of absentee ballots for missing
signatures will have a disproportionate effect on minority voters, who were twice as
likely to have their absentee ballots rejected in 2018. This disparity is particularly
acute in Gwinnett County, where people of color make up nearly 45 percent of
registered voters. African-American and Latino voters make up over 35 percent of
Gwinnett County’s active voting population, and they accounted for 49 percent of
rejected absentee ballots during the 2018 general election.
12. Absent judicial intervention, voters who submit absentee ballots in
Gwinnett County and other areas of the state will continue to have their votes thrown
-8-
out in future elections due to the standardless procedure for notifying voters of
missing or mismatched signatures in clear violation of the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Absentee
voters in Gwinnett County will have their right to vote further burdened by the
County’s poorly designed ballot envelope in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress
the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States
Constitution.
14. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy
arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in
their official capacity only.
16. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this
judicial district.
17. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to
-9-
provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
PARTIES
18. Plaintiff DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., (“DPG”) is a
state committee, as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101(15), dedicated to electing
candidates of the Democratic Party to public office throughout the State of Georgia.
DPG has members and constituents from across Georgia, including many eligible
voters who regularly support and vote for candidates affiliated with the Democratic
Party. As discussed infra, members and constituents of the Democratic Party risk
having their right to vote burdened and/or denied due to the absentee voting scheme.
DPG brings these claims on their behalf, as well as in its own right.
19. DPG is directly harmed by the Georgia’s standardless absentee
notification process and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope
because each frustrates its mission and efforts to elect Democratic Party candidates
in Georgia, undermining DPG’s efforts to successfully help elect Democratic
candidates to office. In recent elections, for example, absentee voters have
disproportionately voted for Democratic candidates. For example, in the 2018
general election, the majority of absentee voters supported the Democratic candidate
for governor (137,616 out of the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5 percent).
- 10 -
Thus, Georgia’s standardless notification process and Gwinnett County’s absentee
ballot envelope design disproportionately impacts and undermines DPG’s efforts to
successfully help elect candidates of the Democratic Party to office.
20. Further, as part of DPG’s get-out-the-vote efforts, it engages in a robust
absentee voter contact program designed to: (i) inform thousands of voters statewide
of their ability to cast absentee ballots; (ii) explain the rules and deadlines governing
vote by mail; and (iii) encourage voters to utilize vote by mail. Georgia’s laws
regarding missing and mismatched signatures decrease overall confidence in the
absentee voting processes, and Georgia’s voting scheme generally, thereby directly
undermining the efforts of DPG to encourage voters to utilize absentee ballots and
to assist them in exercising their right to vote. Because of Georgia’s flawed absentee
voting notification procedure and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot
envelope design, DPG will have to divert resources to provide support for voters to
help them avoid disenfranchisement and overcome the burdens they face as a result
of these flawed laws, procedures, and absentee voting materials⸺resources it
otherwise would use to educate voters about issues and individual candidates.
21. Plaintiff DSCC is a Democratic political committee established and
maintained by a national political party, as defined by and used in 11 C.F.R. §
110.2(c)(2)(iii) and provided for in 52 U.S.C. § 30116(h). DSCC’s mission is to
- 11 -
elect candidates of the Democratic Party to the U.S. Senate, including in Georgia,
where there will be a competitive Senate election in 2020. DSCC works to
accomplish its mission by, among other things, contributing money to Democratic
candidates for U.S. Senate, making expenditures on behalf of Democratic candidates
for U.S. Senate, and assisting state parties throughout the country, including in
Georgia, in the development and implementation of programs benefiting Democratic
candidates for Senate and other federal, state, and local offices, such as get-out-the-
vote and generic party efforts undertaken on behalf of the Democratic ticket. In 2018,
DSCC made contributions and expenditures in the tens of millions of dollars to
persuade and mobilize voters to support Democratic Senate candidates. In 2020,
Georgia voters will be electing two U.S. Senators and DSCC intends to make
substantial contributions and expenditures to support Democratic candidates for U.S.
Senate in Georgia in 2020. DSCC also intends to provide assistance to the state party.
22. DSCC is directly harmed by Georgia’s standardless notification process
and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope because each frustrates its
mission and efforts to elect Democratic Party candidates in Georgia to the Senate.
In recent elections, for example, absentee voters have disproportionately voted for
Democratic candidates. For example, in the 2018 general election, the majority of
absentee voters supported the Democratic candidate for governor (137,616 out of
- 12 -
the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5 percent). Thus, Georgia’s standardless
notification process and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope
disproportionately impacts and undermines DSCC’s efforts to successfully help
Democratic U.S. Senate candidates to office. In an election year in which Georgia is
projected to have a closely-watched Senate race, it is crucial that every single eligible
voter’s vote is counted. But because Georgia’s absentee ballot regime consistently
disenfranchises Georgia voters—and particularly Democratic voters—DSCC will
have to divert resources to provide support for voters, resources it otherwise would
use to educate voters about issues and individual candidates.
23. DCCC is the national congressional committee of the Democratic Party
as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101(14). DCCC’s mission is electing Democratic
candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives from across the United States,
including from Georgia’s 14 congressional districts. DCCC works to accomplish its
mission by, among other things, making expenditures for, and contributions to,
Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress and assisting state parties throughout the
country, including in Georgia. For 2020, DCCC will expend significant resources to
support Democratic candidates in a number of targeted races in Georgia’s 14
congressional districts, including the 7th Congressional District, which includes
parts of Gwinnett County. Overall, in 2020, DCCC expects to make contributions
- 13 -
and expenditures in the millions of dollars to persuade and mobilize voters to support
Democratic candidates in congressional elections around the country. DCCC also
provides assistance to the state Democratic parties in the development and
implementation of programs benefiting Democratic candidates for federal, state, and
local office, including get-out-the-vote initiatives and other initiatives designed to
increase turnout by Democratic voters.
24. DCCC is directly harmed by Georgia’s standardless notification
process and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope because each
frustrates its mission and efforts to elect candidates to the U.S. House of
Representatives in Georgia. In recent elections, for example, absentee voters have
disproportionately voted for Democratic candidates. For example, in the 2018
general election, the majority of absentee voters supported the Democratic candidate
for governor (137,616 out of the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5 percent).
Thus, Georgia’s standardless notification process and Gwinnett County’s absentee
ballot envelope disproportionately impacts and undermines DCCC’s efforts to
successfully help elect Democratic congressional candidates to office. Just as in
2018, where the DCCC supported candidates who lost by mere hundreds of votes,
the 2020 Georgia congressional elections are expected to be close and it is
increasingly important to ensure that every vote counts. But because Georgia’s
- 14 -
absentee ballot regime consistently disenfranchises Georgia voters—and
particularly Democratic voters—DCCC will have to divert resources to provide
support for voters, resources it otherwise would use to educate voters about issues
and individual candidates.
25. Defendant BRAD RAFFENSPERGER is sued for declaratory and
injunctive relief in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia
(hereinafter “Raffensperger” or the “Secretary”). The Secretary of State is a state
official subject to suit in his official capacity because his office “imbues him with
the responsibility to enforce the law or laws at issue in the suit,” Grizzle v. Kemp,
634 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011), i.e., the election laws in the State of Georgia.
Specifically, the Secretary is the chief elections officer of the State and is therefore
responsible for the administration of the state laws affecting voting, including the
absentee voting system. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(b). The Secretary is responsible for
“furnish[ing] . . . oaths of assisted electors, . . . [and] envelopes and instruction sheets
for absentee ballots,” and other supplies. Id. at § 21-2-50(a)(5). The Secretary also
determines the content of the oath on the back the ballot envelopes. See id. at § 21-
2-384(b), (c). The Secretary serves as the Chair of the State Election Board, which
is the body responsible for ensuring uniform election practice in Georgia.
26. Defendants REBECCA N. SULLIVAN, DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH
- 15 -
HARP, and ANH LEE (hereinafter, “State Election Board” or “State Election Board
Members”), are members of the State Election Board in Georgia, responsible for
“promulgat[ing] rules and regulations so as to obtain uniformity in the practices and
proceedings of superintendents, registrars, deputy registrars, poll officers, and other
officials, as well as the legality and purity in all primaries and elections.” Id. at § 21-
2-31(1). The State Election Board Members are responsible for “formulat[ing],
adopt[ing], and promulgat[ing] such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as
will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections;
and, upon the adoption of each rule and regulation, the board shall promptly file
certified copies thereof with the Secretary of State and each superintendent.” Id. at
§ 21-2-31(2). The State Election Board Members, personally and through the
conduct of their employees, officers, agents, and servants, acted under color of state
law at all times relevant to this action, and are sued for declaratory and injunctive
relief in their official capacities.
27. The Secretary of State and the State Election Board have the authority
to direct the officials in each county who are responsible for administering elections
(that is, the county elections board or the superintendent of elections) (collectively
“the County Election Officials”).
28. Defendants STEPHEN DAY, JOHN MANGANO, ALICE
- 16 -
O’LENICK, BEN SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY BALDWIN are sued for
declaratory and injunctive relief in their official capacities as members of the
Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections (hereinafter, collectively,
“Gwinnett Board Members” or “Gwinnett Board”). The Gwinnett Board has the
authority to exercise the powers and duties of a county election superintendent with
respect to conducting elections in Gwinnett County, see O.C.G.A. § 21-2-70 to -77.
The Gwinnett Board is required “[t]o make and issue such rules, regulations, and
instructions, consistent with law, including the rules and regulations promulgated by
the State Election Board, as he or she may deem necessary for the guidance of poll
officers, custodians, and electors in primaries and elections,” id. at § 21-2-70(7), and
“[t]o conduct all elections . . . and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed
by law,” id. at § 21-2-70(13). The Gwinnett Board is responsible for preparing,
obtaining, and delivering the absentee ballot and ballot envelopes to voters, and for
“print[ing] the form of the oath of the elector and the oath for persons assisting
electors . . . and the penalties . . . for violations of the oaths” on the back of the
envelopes. Id. at § 21-2-384(a)(1), (b).
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW
29. Georgia law authorizes any eligible voter to cast his or her absentee
ballot by mail. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-380(b). To obtain an absentee ballot, the voter must
- 17 -
submit a written application containing the voter’s name, registration address,
mailing address (if different), the election the voter wishes to participate in, and the
name and relationship of the person requesting the ballot if other than the elector. Id.
at § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A), (C). The voter may submit the application by mail, facsimile,
email, or in person. Id. at § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A).
30. If the board of registrars or the absentee ballot clerk verifies that the
voter is eligible to vote and verifies the voter’s signature, the registrar or clerk mails
out the absentee ballot within three business days of receiving the application. Id. at
§ 21-2-381(b)(1)-(2); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 183-1-14-.11.
31. When an absentee voter receives an official absentee ballot, he or she
receives two envelopes. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(b). The voter must place the
completed absentee ballot in the smaller of the two envelopes. Id. The smaller
envelope must then be placed in the larger envelope, which contains the oath of the
voter⸺referred to as an “elector” in the oath⸺and a line for the voter’s signature on
the back of the envelope. Id. at § 21-2-384(b)-(c).
32. The form of the oath is specified by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1), which
states that: The oaths referred to in subsection (b) of this Code section shall be in
substantially the following form:
I, the undersigned, do swear (or affirm) that I am a citizen of the United

States and of the State of Georgia; that I possess the qualifications of
- 18 -
an elector required by the laws of the State of Georgia; that I am entitled

to vote in the precinct containing my residence in the primary or
election in which this ballot is to be cast; that I am eligible to vote by
absentee ballot; that I have not marked or mailed any other absentee
ballot, nor will I mark or mail another absentee ballot for voting in such
primary or election; nor shall I vote therein in person; and that I have
read and understand the instructions accompanying this ballot; and that
I have carefully complied with such instructions in completing this
ballot. I understand that the offer or acceptance of money or any other
object of value to vote for any particular candidate, list of candidates,
issue, or list of issues included in this election constitutes an act of voter
fraud and is a felony under Georgia law.
________________________
Signature or Mark of Elector
________________________
Printed Name of Elector
33. The ballot envelope must also include an oath for those who are
assisting absentee voters, in substantially the following form:2
Oath of Person Assisting Elector (if any):
I, the undersigned, do swear (or affirm) that I assisted the above-named

elector in marking such elector's absentee ballot as such elector
personally communicated such elector's preference to me; and that such
elector is entitled to receive assistance in voting under provisions of
subsection (a) of Code Section 21-2-409.
This, the ______ day of _________, _________.
2
Before the General Assembly amended the law in April 2019, the oath required the
voter include the county in which they reside, residential address, and birth year.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1) (July 2017).
- 19 -
__________________________________
Signature of Person Assisting Elector
Reason for assistance (Check appropriate square):
Elector is unable to read the English language.
Elector requires assistance due to physical disability. . . .
Georgia law provides that any person who knowingly falsifies

information so as to vote illegally by absentee ballot or who illegally
gives or receives assistance in voting, as specified in Code Section 21-
2-568 or 21-2-573, shall be guilty of a felony.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1).
34. Upon completing the absentee ballot, the voter must secure the ballot
in the small envelope, enclose it in the larger envelope, sign the oath on the back of
the envelope, and return it to the board of registrars or absentee clerk by mail or in
person. Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1).
35. All absentee ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day to
be counted. Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(F).
36. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B), “[u]pon receipt of each
ballot,” the registrar or clerk must inspect the information on the oath, including the
voter’s signature, and compare the signature to the signature on the voter’s
registration card or absentee ballot application to determine whether they match.
37. If a signature is missing from the oath on the absentee ballot envelope
- 20 -
or “does not appear to be valid,” (i.e. mismatched), the clerk must “write across the
face of the envelope ‘Rejected,’ giving the reason therefor. . . . [and] shall promptly
notify the elector of such rejection.” Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C).
38. Absentee ballots that have been marked “Rejected” for missing or
mismatched signatures will only be counted only if: (1) the voter submits “an
affidavit to the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk” along with a copy of an
accepted form of identification no later than three days following the election, id. at
§§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C),-417(c), -419(c); (2) the affidavit is in the proper form such
that it “affirm[s] that the ballot was submitted by the elector, is the elector’s ballot,
and that the elector is registered and qualified to vote in the primary, election, or
runoff in question, id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C); and (3) “the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk finds the affidavit and identification to be sufficient,” id.3
39. Voters whose absentee ballots have been marked “Rejected” must
submit the cure affidavit and a copy of an accepted ID no later than three days after
3
Though the law now provides voters with an opportunity to cure a missing
signature, Georgia regulations inconsistently provide that “[i]f the board of registrars
or absentee ballot clerk rejects” an absentee ballot for a missing signature, the voter
“shall be provided the opportunity to vote in the [given election] either by applying
for a second absentee ballot prior to the day before such [election] or by voting in
person at the [voter’s] polling place on the day of the [election].” Ga. Comp. R. &
Regs. 183-1-14-.09 (emphasis added).
- 21 -
the day of the election to cure the missing or mismatched signature. O.C.G.A. §§ 21-
2-386(a)(1)(C), -419(c).
40. As described above, the law does not define “prompt” notification; nor
does it specify the method of notification a board of registrars or absentee clerk must
use. And, neither the Secretary nor the State Election Board has issued rules or
regulations defining or identifying the proper form of prompt notification.
41. As a result, counties inconsistently interpret the promptness of the
notice required and employ varying methods of contacting voters. For example,
during the 2018 general election Gwinnett County sent notice by mail within three
days of marking the absentee ballot “Rejected.” Thus, voters whose absentee ballots
arrived on election day did not receive notice until the cure period had ended. These
voters were ultimately disenfranchised. Likewise, voters whose absentee ballots
were received and reviewed within two days of the election were given only one or
two days to cure their absentee ballot.
42. Given that absentee ballots are valid if received by 7:00 p.m. on
Election Day, id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(F), and that voters have three days after the day
of the election to cure a missing or mismatched signature, id. at §§ 21-2-
386(a)(1)(C), -419(c), had voters received sufficient notice, there is no reason that
they could not have cured their absentee ballots as the law contemplates.
- 22 -
43. By contrast, during the 2018 general election, election officials in
Forsyth and Bulloch Counties first attempted to call and/or email voters to inform
them that their signatures were “invalid” or missing from their absentee ballots and
to encourage them to cure their ballots, meaning that these voters were informed of
the defect nearly instantaneously and, solely because of where they lived, were given
a meaningful opportunity to cure.
44. The impact of Georgia’s standardless notification procedure is
demonstrated by the varying rejection rates across the state. Of the 30,214 absentee
ballots cast in Gwinnett County during the 2018 general election, County Election
Officials rejected 117 of them for missing signatures, which accounts for nearly 7
percent of the total absentee ballots rejected in Georgia (1,690). Of the 30,877
absentee ballots received in Cobb County, election officials rejected just twenty for
missing or mismatched signatures (3 percent of the 662 absentee ballots rejected in
the county). In Forsyth County, officials rejected 99 out of the 5,228 absentee ballots
cast (1.9 percent); 25 of those ballots were rejected for missing or mismatched
signatures (25 percent of the rejected ballots). Given the lack of uniformity among
the counties, the risk of disenfranchisement will continue to be dependent on where
a voter lives and how that county chooses to contact the voter under the current law.
45. While the standardless process for notifying absentee voters of missing
- 23 -
or mismatched signatures leaves all absentee voters across Georgia at risk of
disenfranchisement, the burden is exacerbated in Gwinnett County due to the
deficient design of the County’s absentee ballot envelope. This is particularly
concerning because more than 44.5 percent of the registered vote of Gwinnett
County are people of color, with black or African-American voters making up one-
third (27 percent) of Gwinnett County’s active voting population, and the
Hispanic/Latino population making up 8.7 percent of active voters. Gwinnett County
also has the largest number of active American Indian or Alaskan Native voters,
Asian or Pacific Islander voters, and Hispanic/Latino voters in the State. During the
2018 general election, ballots cast by African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos
made up 49 percent of rejected absentee ballots in the County.
46. Georgia law provides that each county superintendent must design the
absentee ballot envelope to include the oath specified by the Secretary and described
in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1). See id. § 21-2-384(a)(1), (b), (c).
47. The ballot envelope designs, however, can vary based on county-
specific needs. For example, Gwinnett County is the only county in the State
required under federal mandate to provide all voting materials in both English and
Spanish, given its large Hispanic/Latino population. Thus, as described above,
Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design differs from other counties’
- 24 -
envelopes.
48. As a result, unlike the simpler and easier to read absentee ballot
envelopes in Fulton or Dekalb Counties, Gwinnett County’s ballot is nearly illegible.
The oath is printed on absentee ballot envelopes in small, approximately 6.5-point
font in both English and Spanish. At the top of the envelope, the English and Spanish
oaths are on top of each other; but on the bottom, the English and Spanish oaths for
assisting electors are on the left and right side, respectively. The envelope’s poor
design is cramped and difficult for voters to read and understand. By way of
example, below is the back of the absentee ballot envelope used during the
November 2018 general election:
- 25 -
- 26 -
49. At least one study has shown that rejection of absentee ballots for
technical errors such as failing to sign the absentee envelope is caused by poorly
designed and unusable absentee ballot envelopes. Brennan Center, Better Design,
Better Elections at 30-33, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-
08/Report_Better_Design_ Better_Elections.pdf (last visited, Nov. 4, 2019). And
when the envelopes are redesigned to be clearer and more readable, the number of
unsigned ballots significantly decreases. Id.
50. Though the 2019 amendments to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1) ensure that
the voter’s address and birth year will be removed from the oath above, because the
oath contains largely the same language as before, it is anticipated that Gwinnett
County’s updated absentee ballot envelope will be substantially similar to the format
set out above, meaning that it will continue to be dense and unreadable, confusing
voters and making it difficult for them to properly complete their absentee ballot
envelope.
51. Given the poor design of Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope,
and the grossly inadequate notification procedures described supra, the County
unsurprisingly rejects absentee ballots at an alarmingly higher rate than other
counties for missing or mismatched signatures. During the 2018 general election,
even after multiple lawsuits prohibiting election officials from rejecting absentee
- 27 -
ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information and permitting absentee voters to
cure mismatched signatures on their absentee ballots, Gwinnett County still
ultimately rejected 117 absentee ballots for missing or mismatched signatures.
52. Meanwhile other counties rejected a lower number of ballots for
missing or mismatched signatures. For example, in Dekalb County during the 2018
general election, election officials rejected only 15 absentee ballots for missing or
mismatched signatures. And in Fulton County, the most populous county in Georgia,
election officials rejected just two ballots for a missing or mismatched signature.
Indeed, Gwinnett County had a significantly higher rate of rejecting absentee voters
than any other county in the state during the 2018 general election. This high
rejection rate is particularly significant because Gwinnett County comprises
approximately 8 percent of active voters in Georgia, the second largest number of
active voters out of every county in the State. And the high absentee ballot rejection
rate within Gwinnett County disproportionately impacts racial, ethnic, and language
minorities.
53. The wide disparity in rejection rates between Gwinnett County and
other counties in the state demonstrates that the deficient design, dense language,
and small type of the oath on Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelopes has
caused voters to submit their ballots without properly completing the signature
- 28 -
requirement. And, as described above, even with changes to the oath for future
elections as compared to the oath in 2018, the Gwinnett County absentee ballot
envelope will continue to be confusing and illegible for voters.
COUNT I
Due Process
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Procedural Due Process by Defendants Raffensperger and State
Election Board Members
54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though set forth fully
herein.
55. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the
states from depriving “any person of …liberty…without due process of law.” U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This due process principle protects the fundamental right
to vote. And “[h]aving induced voters to vote by absentee ballot, the State must
provide adequate process to ensure that voters’ ballots are fairly considered and, if
eligible, counted.” Saucedo, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 217.
56. Due process requires that all voters in Georgia be afforded a meaningful
notice and an opportunity to cure missing or mismatched signatures before a voter’s
ballot is permanently rejected. The current “prompt notification” law set out in
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) fails to provide such process and, as a result, voters’

- 29 -
ballots are not fairly considered and counted, even where the voter is wholly eligible
to vote and, with proper notice, could have cured his or her absentee ballot.
57. As numerous other courts have found, a state’s failure to ensure that all
absentee ballots are not rejected before a voter is notified and provided a meaningful
opportunity to be heard violates a voter’s procedural due process rights. See, e.g.,
Saucedo, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 222; Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1339–40;
Zessar v. Helander, No. 1:05-cv-1917, 2006 WL 642646, at *6˗10 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
13, 2006), vacated as moot sub. nom. Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008);
Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1357˗58 (D.
Ariz. 1990).
58. Because voting is a fundamental right, the risk that even one person will
be disenfranchised for failure to include a signature or for a mismatched signature
given the differing interpretations and procedures for prompt notice is too significant
for Georgia to justify depriving absentee voters a uniform pre-rejection notice that
ensures a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- 30 -
COUNT II
Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Guarantee of Equal Protection by Defendants Raffensperger and State Election
Board Members
herein.
60. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution prohibits states from “deny[ing] to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This
constitutional provision requires “that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104–05 (2000) (“Having once granted the right to vote
on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value
one person’s vote over that of another[,]” and holding Equal Protection Clause
applies to “the manner of [the] exercise [of voting].”).
61. The varied county by county interpretations of “promptly notify” under
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) subject similarly situated absentee voters to differing
standards under each county’s application of the provision, resulting in some voters
- 31 -
being wholly disenfranchised and/or having less time to cure their absentee ballots
than other voters solely based on where they live.
62. Defendants Raffensperger and the State Election Board Members have
failed to ensure that Georgia absentee voters are treated equally regardless of the
county in which they reside. Due to this disparate treatment, certain absentee voters
who cast ballots in the upcoming 2020 election will face burdens and infringements
on their fundamental right to vote that other, similarly situated voters will not face
due solely to the county in which they vote.
63. Defendants’ unequal treatment of these voters is not justified by, and is
not necessary to promote, any substantial or compelling state interest that cannot be
accomplished by other, less restrictive means.
64. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Raffensperger and the State
Election Board Members, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will
continue to deprive Plaintiffs, their constituents, and other Georgia voters of equal
protection under the law secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 32 -
COUNT III
First Amendment and Equal Protection

U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Undue Burden on the Right to Vote by Defendants Raffensperger and State
Election Board Members
herein.
66. Under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must
carefully balance the character and magnitude of the injury to First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put
forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the rule. See Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983).
“However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it must be justified by relevant and
legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Crawford v.
Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008) (Stevens, J., controlling opinion)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
67. The counties’ standardless interpretations of “promptly notify” under
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) impose a severe burden on the right to vote for
absentee voters across the state, leaving them at risk of being wholly disenfranchised
- 33 -
due to the disparate process for notice applied by each county.
68. This burden is not outweighed by any legitimate, much less
compelling, state interest in the law, and countless eligible, registered Georgia voters
will suffer direct and irreparable injury if Defendants fail to ensure that a uniform
standard for prompt notice is applied in each county. Without relief from this Court,
these voters will be deprived of their right to vote in upcoming elections.
69. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Raffensperger and the State
Election Board Members, acting under color of law, will deprive Plaintiffs, their
members, constituencies, and the voters who support them, the rights secured to
them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and protected
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT IV
First Amendment and Equal Protection

U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Undue Burden on the Right to Vote by Defendant Gwinnett Board Members
herein.
71. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
the First Amendment, a state cannot utilize election practices that unduly burden the
- 34 -
right to vote. A court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully
balance the character and magnitude of the injury to First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put
forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the rule. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at
434; Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. “However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it
must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to
justify the limitation.” Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191 (Stevens, J., controlling opinion)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
72. The deficient absentee ballot design created by the Defendant Gwinnett
Board Members will impose a burden on Plaintiffs, their constituents, and other
Georgia voters in Gwinnett County.
73. The Gwinnett County absentee ballot envelope is a densely-worded,
poorly designed form, with instructions alternating in English and Spanish, printed
in approximately size 6.5-point font and provides no clear notice that a signature is
mandatory. As a result, the form is confusing to voters and makes it far more likely
that they will be unable to properly complete the signature requirement for absentee
ballots. This burden is particularly severe for African-Americans and Latinos, who
make up over 35 percent of Gwinnett County’s active voting population, and 49
percent of rejected absentee ballots during the 2018 general election.
- 35 -
74. Further, the threat of disenfranchisement in Gwinnett County is
particularly high given Gwinnett’s ineffective notice procedures for absentee ballots.
75. Without action from this Court, a significant number of voters will have
their right to vote burdened, if not wholly denied, in upcoming elections due to
Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design, which places these voters at a
heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without properly completing the
signature requirement and increase the risk that their ballots will be rejected.
76. The use of a densely-worded and confusing absentee ballot envelope,
exposing voters to the risk of having their ballots rejected for missing or mismatched
signatures, for the reasons discussed herein, is not supported by any material or
important government interest (indeed, other counties are able to use absentee ballot
envelopes that are much easier to understand). Moreover, any benefits are plainly
outweighed by the severe burden on voters.
77. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant Gwinnett Board Members,
acting under color of law, will deprive absentee voters residing in the county, the
rights secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 36 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:
a) Declaring that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution because the “shall promptly notify” standard
fails to provide all Georgia voters with notice and a meaningful
opportunity to contest the status of their absentee ballot and cure
their ballots before rejecting them;
b) Declaring that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution because it fails to provide a uniform standard
by which election officials “shall promptly notify” Georgia
citizens of their rejected ballots;
c) Declaring that the lack of uniform standards for providing notice
to Georgia voters regarding their rejected absentee ballots is
unduly burdensome in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution;
- 37 -
d) Declaring that the Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope
design is unduly burdensome in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
e) Requiring the Secretary and the State Election Board to instruct
County Election Officials to notify voters of missing signatures
by telephone, email, and/or text message within one day of
receiving the absentee ballot;
f) Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Gwinnett Board
from creating, preparing, and distributing absentee ballot
envelopes with a confusing, illegible design;
g) Awarding Plaintiffs costs, disbursements, and reasonable
attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and granting such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
- 38 -
Dated: November 6, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
Halsey G. Knapp, Jr.

Halsey G. Knapp, Jr.
Georgia Bar No. 425320
Joyce Gist Lewis
Georgia Bar No. 296261
KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC
One Atlantic Center
1201 W. Peachtree St., NW, Suite 3250
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 888-9700
Facsimile: (404) 888-9577
[email protected]
[email protected]
Marc E. Elias*
Bruce V. Spiva*
John Devaney*
Amanda R. Callais*
K’Shaani Smith*
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs
*Pro Hac Vice Applications Forthcoming
- 39 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief has been prepared in accordance with the font type and margin
requirements of L.R. 5.1, using font type of Times New Roman and a point size
of 14.
Dated: November 6, 2019 Halsey G. Knapp, Jr.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
- 40 -
Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 1-1 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 1-1 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 2

GA Democratic Party V Raffensperger Cv-05028-WMR Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GA Democratic Party V Raffensperger Cv-05028-WMR Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 1 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA,

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., DSCC aka

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, and DCCC aka the

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, through the

undersigned attorneys, file this COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

DECLARATORY RELIEF against Defendants, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his

official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; REBECCA N. SULLIVAN,

MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY

BALDWIN, in their official capacities as Members of the Gwinnett County Board

NATURE OF THE CASE

by-mail (“absentee”) ballots have been rejected for missing or mismatched

signatures. The cause of this disenfranchisement is Georgia’s standardless procedure

within the prescribed timeframe. This disenfranchisement disproportionately

impacts African-American and other minority voters and has a particularly

by Gwinnett County’s poorly designed, confusing absentee ballot envelope, which

places these voters at a heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without

properly completing the signature requirement. Because of Georgia’s standardless

procedure, and Gwinnett County’s confusing absentee ballot envelope design,

intervention from this Court.

2. Absentee voting is extraordinarily popular among Georgia voters and

midterm elections than in presidential elections, the total number of returned

absentee ballots in the 2018 midterm election⸺nearly 284,393⸺was greater than

the number cast in the 2016 presidential election, 246,621.

3. Georgia also routinely rejects a significant number of absentee ballots.

envelope or having a mismatched signature. During the 2016 general election,

inaccurate oath information, including missing and mismatched signatures. And, in

or mismatched signatures than any other county.

4. The number of absentee ballots rejected for a missing or mismatched

signature is significant, especially when evaluated in context. Saucedo v. Gardner,

Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives, who received

5. Because such a significant number of absentee ballots have been

election aimed at ending the disenfranchisement caused by the absentee voting

outright rejection of absentee ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information

341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018).

6. As a result, the Georgia General Assembly amended the absentee

technical reasons, including for missing or mismatched signatures. Specifically, the

requirement that election officials “promptly notify” the voter of a missing or

for a missing or mismatched signature. O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C), -419(c).

7. These reforms, however, do not remedy the flaws in Georgia’s

election officials to “promptly” notify voters of missing or mismatched signatures;

notification up to three days after identifying the missing signature. Such an

interpretation is problematic for voters whose absentee ballots are submitted on or

courts in this district.

8. Without a uniform standard for the timing for election officials to

provide notice to voters about missing or mismatched signatures or the method of

approach unduly burdens absentee voters’ right to vote.

9. These burdens are exacerbated in Gwinnett County, whose high volume

of absentee ballots with missing or mismatched signatures and corresponding high

it uses small, nearly illegible type in approximately 6.5-point font.1 By way of

example, this text is in size 6.5-point font.

indiscernible. As such, Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design, coupled

with the county’s inadequate notification procedures under Georgia’s standardless

signatures and be disenfranchised.

11. Additionally, the continued rejection of absentee ballots for missing

acute in Gwinnett County, where people of color make up nearly 45 percent of

registered voters. African-American and Latino voters make up over 35 percent of

rejected absentee ballots during the 2018 general election.

12. Absent judicial intervention, voters who submit absentee ballots in

Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Absentee