Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Greater Georgia Amicus Brief
Greater Georgia Amicus Brief
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:21-CV-02575-JPB
Defendants,
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.
(1) The undersigned counsel for Amici, Greater Georgia Action, Inc.,
certifies that the following is a full and complete list of all parties in this
action, including any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation
ii
(2) The undersigned further certifies that the following is a full and
iii
xii. Brian Field: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of Georgia.
xiii. Erik Scott Jaffe: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of Georgia.
xiv. Gene C. Schaerr: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of Georgia.
xvi. Joshua J. Prince: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of Georgia.
iv
xix. Bryan P. Tyson: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of Georgia.
xx. Loree Anne Paraside: Attorney for the Defendant, The State of
Georgia.
xxi. Brian Field: Attorney for the Defendant, The Georgia State Election
Board.
xxii.Erik Scott Jaffe: Attorney for the Defendant, The Georgia State
Election Board.
vi
vii
viii
lii. John E. Hall, Jr.: Attorney for the Intervenor Defendant, National
Republican Senatorial Committee.
ix
Greater Georgia has a vital interest in the outcome of this matter and
can assist this court in addressing core issues in the case. First, this court’s
important goals of advocating for and supporting election law reforms, such
as Georgia Senate Bill 202 known as the “Election Integrity Act of 2021”
and uniformity. Second, Greater Georgia can assist this court in addressing
communities.
(hereinafter, the “Complaint”) are not only demonstrably false and not based
in reality, but even if true, fail to state a valid claim under §2 of the Voting
1No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; and no party,
party’s counsel, or person (other than amicus or its counsel) contributed
money to fund this brief’s preparation or submission.
Rights Act of 1965 (hereinafter, the “VRA”). Plaintiff further lacks standing
to bring its claims directly under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
Nat’l Comm., 594 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021), is directly on point,
binding upon this court and requires the dismissal of the Complaint. In
Brnovich the Supreme Court, for the first time, addressed a challenge under
§ 2 of the VRA to state regulations that govern how ballots are collected and
counted. Id. at *1. The challenges asserted against the Arizona laws in
The Brnovich Court held that a valid claim under §2 of the VRA
protected class “in that its members have less opportunity than other
made clear that “the mere fact that there is some disparity in impact,” even if
this case would have a violation of §2 of the VRA “turn almost entirely on one
Plaintiff further lacks standing to bring this suit directly under the
ARGUMENT
Even if this court were to review the merits of the Complaint, there is
no case here. Georgia law, including the changes made by the Act, is “equally
open” and makes it very easy to vote. The Election Integrity Act of 2021 is
Georgia has one of the most open and accessible voting systems in the
country and none of Georgia’s existing laws are outside of the mainstream.
In fact, many of the reforms contained in the challenged Act expand voters’
Plaintiff asks this court to apply a different standard in order to achieve the
Plaintiff does not (and cannot) allege that the Act creates a system that
the VRA. Section 2 of the VRA is violated only if there is a showing that a
of the relevant protected group ‘in that its members have less opportunity
(quoting 52 U.S.C. §10301 (§2(b) of the VRA)). The “mere fact that there is
requirement that voters cast ballots at the correct precinct and a common
restriction on collecting absentee ballots. Id. at *9. Specifically, the DNC, like
of the electorate the Court rejected all of the DNC’s claims—establishing that
that several provisions of the Act will have a disparate impact on Black
Complaint at ¶162.
Plaintiff does not, and cannot, point to any aspect of any challenged
provisions that is not equally and uniformly applied to the entire electorate
electoral process. Like Arizona, Georgia law makes it very easy to vote and
The Act expands early and absentee voting in several different ways
The Georgia Legislature set forth express findings and the important
and strong state interests that the Act addresses. Following the 2018 and
Georgia has grown on both sides of the political spectrum. Moreover, the
and exposed a lack of uniformity and lack of adequate safeguards in place for
absentee and early voting. Dkt. #1; Ex. 1 at 4:76-83. The lack of uniformity
days of weekend voting including Sundays, whereas over 100 counties never
of the coronavirus pandemic, but such “rules” had no statutory framework for
ballots were a creation of temporary emergency rules for 2020 and have
since expired. Id. at 5:113-118. Claims that the Act directly causes a
its enactment no drop boxes were allowed in any county—the Act actually
Gwinnett County from zero to about six and in DeKalb and Cobb Counties
State, Greater Georgia connects with voters daily who feel left out of the
political process and lack trust in the administration of elections and the
throughout all 159 counties, Greater Georgia has seen the confusion and
elections. The Act addresses these issues in a way that maintains the equal
For the first time in Georgia’s history the challenged Act codifies the
ability of counties to provide drop boxes for the collection of absentee ballots
—increasing voter access. The Act importantly sets forth safeguards and
creates uniformity in how counties may utilize drop boxes. In 2020, only as
a result of emergency rules, drop boxes were utilized in masse without any
use of drop boxes contributed to a lack of trust in the election process in 2020.
While counties in the greater Atlanta region had nearly 100 drop boxes, 35
counties throughout Georgia did not have a single drop box available to
voters. Mark Niesse, Drop box use heavy in Democratic areas before Georgia
https://www.ajc.com/politics/drop-box-use-soared-in-democratic-areas-before-
georgia-voting-law/N4ZTGHLWD5BRBOUKBHTUCFVOEU/.
The Act standardizes the number of drop boxes allowed in each county,
while still allowing counties with larger populations to have more drop boxes.
Specifically, the Act requires that each county establish at least one drop box
for the delivery of absentee ballots and allows additional drop boxes based on
the Act institutes reasonable and equally applied safeguards and security
requirements for drop boxes. In 2020 drop boxes were unregulated and
lacked necessary security—the Act secures the drop boxes and the public
trust in use of drop boxes. Drop boxes must be adequately lit, under constant
guard and must be tamper proof and not allow for removal except under
The Act’s codification of ballot drop boxes will help achieve uniformity
Before the Act, the safeguard in place to verify the correct identity of an
10
is who they say they are, the Act appropriately requires valid identification.
require voters to prove they are valid electors are imperative to restoring
C. Out-of-Precinct Voting
The 2018 and 2020 elections also identified problems created by out-of-
outcomes. The Act appropriately addresses this problem by limiting the use
precinct, unless it is after 5pm (but before the closing of the polls) in which
case a voter may cast a provisional ballot. Id. at 74-75:1899-1919. This both
allows the voter to cast a non-provisional ballot in the correct precinct, but
11
also allows the casting of a provisional ballot when there is insufficient time
for the voter to vote in the correct precinct. The new requirements do not
impact the ability of any voters to cast a correct ballot, but they do
ballots generated.
the strong state interest in election integrity and restore voters’ confidence in
further expands voters’ access by increasing hours for early voting and access
tier of all states for access to early voting according to the non-partisan
Connecticut and New Hampshire have much more restrictive voting laws
requiring an excuse to vote absentee and not allowing all voters to vote early.
12
See Center for Election Innovation & Research, How Easy Is It to Vote Early
Outcome.
in effect Plaintiff is asking this Court to ignore the plain and unambiguous
language of §2, overrule both Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
and Brnovich, and instead apply a different standard in order to achieve the
voting practices . . . met stiff resistance in the Senate.” Brnovich, 594 U.S. at
13
impact standard was expressly rejected by the Senate and a compromise was
eventually reached to arrive at today’s version of §2, which does not base a
have this court ignore the plain and unambiguous text of the statute and
instead apply the standard desired by the House in 1982 and which failed to
become law. In fact, the legislative history makes clear that the Senate
effectively overturn Shelby. Plaintiff asks this court to apply the much higher
standard previously used under §§4 and 5 of the VRA. Section 4 of the VRA
that could not enact certain new election laws without obtaining
“preclearance” from Washington D.C. under §5 of the VRA. Shelby, 570 U.S.
529, 537-40 (2013). In stark contrast to §2 at issue here, the standard under
§§4 and 5 was whether or not the challenged law “will have the effect of
14
diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race
instead apply the old §5 standard to its challenge under §2 despite the
would prefer the original House version of §2 and that Shelby is overruled,
but this case and this court are not the proper forums for such political policy
written and leave the policy decisions for others.” Ga. Ass’n of Latino Elected
Officials, Inc. v. Gwinnett Cty. Bd. Of Reg. & Elections, 499 F. Supp 3d 1231,
Constitution. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶158 (asserting that the Act violates “the
15
45 (asserting that the Act violates “the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth
of the VRA. 52 U.S.C. §10308(d). However, without a valid claim under the
The “bedrock requirement” for any action in federal court is that there
“standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); Valley
State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). As this court is very familiar, a plaintiff
unlawful conduct . . .” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis
added). The Supreme Court has stressed that such injury must be
affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Raines v. Byrd, 521
16
U.S. 811, 819 (1997) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Bender v. Williamsport
Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)). Strict compliance with this
U.S. 149, 155 (1990). It is wholly insufficient for a plaintiff to raise “only a
Constitution and laws . . . does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Id.
In this case Plaintiff has not alleged any personal and/or particularized
injury. Plaintiff has simply alleged that the Act violates “the voting
Constitution the Supreme Court has consistently held does not present a
17
v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 187 (1992). Institutions formed under the
Constitution, such as the Executive in this case, are not the beneficiaries of
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court should grant the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
registered counsel.
19
20