Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama; February 16, 2016; Federal District Court
The memorandum outlines the legal context surrounding a case brought by Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, which seeks to invalidate Alabama's voter identification law requiring photo ID for voting. The plaintiffs argue for a preliminary injunction to modify the "positively identify" provision, allowing registered voters without photo ID to vote if they present certain non-photo identification. They do not challenge the overall photo ID requirement but seek to circumvent it without proving it imposes an undue burden. The court highlights the importance of ensuring votes are counted while balancing this against preventing fraudulent voting. Alabama has mandated voter ID since 2003, initially requiring non-photo or photo ID, with provisions for identification by election officials. The current voter ID law was enacted in 2011, replacing the earlier law and requiring photo ID, which received preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The court concludes that the motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
The Voter ID law in Alabama, enacted in 2011, postponed its enforcement until the 2014 statewide elections to allow for public education on the photo ID requirement and for voters to obtain necessary IDs. Prior voter identification rules remained in effect for elections before 2014. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which eliminated the preclearance requirement, plaintiffs claimed Alabama only enforced the law post-decision to bypass preclearance. However, the delay in enforcement was predetermined in the legislation. Alabama's Voter ID Law aligns with similar laws in at least ten other states, aimed at preventing voter fraud and enhancing electoral integrity. The requirements for photo ID are supported by recommendations from the American University’s Commission on Federal Election Reform, which advocated for photo ID usage to boost public confidence in voting. Numerous legal rulings, including Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, confirmed the constitutionality of such laws in states like Indiana, Georgia, and Wisconsin, indicating that Alabama’s law is comparable to theirs. Alabama requires voters to present ID at polling places, with provisions for provisional ballots if ID is not available, and mandates the inclusion of ID copies with absentee ballots. Accepted IDs include driver's licenses, passports, military IDs, and tribal IDs, with Alabama and Wisconsin allowing student IDs. All four states offer free photo IDs to voters without them, with Alabama uniquely providing additional identification verification by election officials. The Secretary of State's office issues free photo voter ID cards to registered voters lacking an ID, available at designated locations.
Every county in Alabama has a registrar’s office, and the Secretary of State's office operates a mobile unit that provides photo voter IDs, having visited most counties at least once during former Secretary Bennett's term. By September 2015, the unit had reached all but fifteen counties and had plans to visit eight more, even going to an individual voter's home on occasion. Since 2014, over 7,800 photo voter ID cards have been issued. Voters without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot, which will only count if proper identification is provided by 5:00 PM on the Friday following the election. Alternatively, they can vote if two election officials positively identify them from the poll list and sign a sworn affidavit.
The Secretary of State has not issued new regulations interpreting the positively identify provision for upcoming elections but had previously adopted emergency regulations requiring personal acquaintance for identification. These regulations were partly in response to a request from the Plaintiffs urging for objective criteria. Although the emergency regulations were implemented before the June 3, 2014, primary election, no new regulations were created after their expiration.
Prior to the 2014 primary election, Secretary Bennett launched a public education campaign about the photo ID requirement, which included an "Alabama Voter ID Guide" detailing accepted IDs and how to obtain a free voter ID. This campaign involved substantial resources for advertisements and personal outreach by Deputy Secretary Marsal. Current Secretary John Merrill continues these efforts with a dedicated website and media interviews. The Plaintiffs, Greater Birmingham Ministries and the NAACP, focus on increasing voter turnout among African Americans and Latinos. They cite the example of a Latina woman named G.A., who turned eighteen in December 2015, was not registered to vote at the time of the complaint, lacked a photo ID, and faced transportation challenges due to her parents’ work schedules.
Plaintiffs argue that G.A. exemplifies individuals potentially harmed by Alabama's Voter ID Law, prompting their legal challenge. They estimate that approximately 280,000 registered voters lack a photo ID, equating to about 9.3% of Alabama's electorate, based on a 2014 estimate from the Secretary of State. However, this estimate is criticized as outdated, given it predates significant educational outreach by the Secretary of State and fails to accurately account for non-driver photo IDs. The plaintiffs presented data indicating that only 630 voters were unable to vote in the June and November 2014 elections due to lacking a photo ID, suggesting the larger estimate is inflated. Despite being aware of the estimate's unreliability, the plaintiffs relied on it in their motion, ignoring the Secretary of State's offer to obtain more accurate data for their own analysis. The court notes that the plaintiffs have not substantiated the claim regarding the number of voters who could utilize the positively identify provision, leaving the court with no basis to determine this figure. While their complaint disputes the entirety of the Voter ID Law under various constitutional provisions, the motion specifically seeks a preliminary injunction to enforce the positively identify provision. This provision would allow voters without an acceptable photo ID to cast ballots by asserting a reasonable impediment and meeting specific identification criteria, requiring election officials to accept alternative identification unless they have valid reasons to contest it.
Parties requesting a preliminary injunction must establish four criteria: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the potential for irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm to the opposing party, and (4) that the injunction serves the public interest. Preliminary injunctions are deemed extraordinary remedies and require the movant to convincingly meet these prerequisites. The primary purpose is to maintain the parties' positions until a trial occurs. However, Plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction that compels action from the Secretary of State, which courts generally hesitate to grant unless the moving party's position is clearly favored by the facts and law.
Regarding standing, the Court questions whether the Plaintiffs have adequately shown their standing to represent Alabama voters in seeking injunctive relief, despite the Defendants not challenging it. Standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue tied to the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete injury in fact caused by the defendant's actions, which is remediable by the court. Each type of relief sought must be supported by separate standing evidence. The Eleventh Circuit previously held that the NAACP had standing to challenge Georgia’s voter ID law due to the diversion of its resources to assist voters, indicating that such organizational injuries are significant. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that standing based on hypothetical future harm is insufficient. The Plaintiffs claim they have diverted resources to help voters obtain valid photo IDs, with evidence that some voters were unable to vote in 2014 due to lacking IDs, and the State intends to enforce the ID requirement in future elections.
The challenge to the Voter ID Law does not appear impacted by the Clapper decision regarding the Plaintiffs’ interests. Plaintiffs can demonstrate standing to contest the law as it relates to their own rights due to the direct link between their resource diversion and the photo ID requirement, which could be remedied by the relief sought. However, their injury may not be alleviated by a preliminary injunction concerning the "positively identify" provision since this is distinct from the photo ID requirement. Consequently, to pursue the preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must establish standing to represent the rights of voters affected by this provision. They claim associational standing, which allows organizations to seek redress for their members' injuries without needing to show harm to the organization itself. To substantiate this, the organization must prove that at least one member would have standing individually, the interests protected align with the organization’s goals, and individual member participation in the lawsuit is not necessary. The NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries identify African-American and Latino voters as constituents but have not shown specific members who lack photo IDs or confirmed membership status of individuals like G.A. Moreover, the principle that a party cannot assert the rights of others adds complexity, as it typically requires that the party asserting the claim has a significant incentive to do so. The doctrine of "third party standing" permits a party with standing to represent another's rights, provided they have a close relationship with that individual and that individual faces barriers in protecting their interests. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated third party standing to assert the rights of Alabama voters without photo IDs.
No close relationship to voters lacking photo IDs has been established, nor is there evidence showing any hindrance to these individuals pursuing their claims. Consequently, the Court will order the parties to brief the issue of standing but will assume standing for the purpose of this motion and proceed to consider its merits.
Plaintiffs contend that the "positively identify" provision infringes on section 201 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting denial based on a person’s failure to meet any "test or device." The VRA defines "test or device" to include prerequisites for voting or registration, such as demonstrating literacy, educational achievement, moral character, or obtaining the endorsement of registered voters. This prohibition was enacted to eliminate discriminatory practices that suppressed minority voter registration.
Historical context illustrates the discriminatory nature of similar requirements. For instance, prior to the case of United States v. Ward, Louisiana mandated that voters prove their identities through vouchers from two registered voters. This disproportionately affected African Americans, who often could not satisfy this requirement due to a lack of registered voters in their communities, effectively disenfranchising them. Similar circumstances were evident in Alabama's voter registration practices, which similarly required vouchers and were deemed discriminatory by the Fifth Circuit.
However, the "positively identify" provision in Alabama's Voter ID Law does not function as a prerequisite for voting; rather, it serves as an additional method for identity verification, supplementing the existing requirement of presenting a photo ID. Thus, it differs fundamentally from the historical voucher laws that were struck down for their discriminatory impact.
Pre-VRA voter registration in Alabama required minority voters to be vouched for by registered voters, which plaintiffs argue is a strict requirement rather than a mere option. They contend that this is a semantic distinction, but the court emphasizes that the availability of a photo ID offers a definitive means of identity verification that pre-VRA laws did not provide. Voters can always use a photo ID to avoid the need for positive identification by an election official. The court asserts that the positively identify provision does not constitute a prerequisite for voting, thus not violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Regarding irreparable harm, the plaintiffs, including the NAACP and Greater Birmingham Ministries, argue that the Voter ID Law forces them to reallocate resources to defend affected voters’ rights. However, the court finds this injury to be a mere loss of time and funds, which does not qualify as irreparable harm in seeking a preliminary injunction. Although the denial of the right to vote can constitute irreparable harm, the court questions the plaintiffs' standing to assert this harm on behalf of voters and finds no evidence that the positively identify provision would unlawfully deny voting rights. Since voters can present a photo ID, they can sidestep any potential adverse effects of the provision.
Voters without a photo ID can cast provisional ballots and later present valid identification for their votes to be counted. The plaintiffs' attempt to challenge only the "positively identify" requirement of Alabama's Voter ID Law is undermined by their failure to demonstrate that obtaining a valid photo ID constitutes an undue burden. The court cannot evaluate the provision in isolation, as the plaintiffs have not shown that individuals would face irreparable harm due to its enforcement, especially since alternatives exist for obtaining valid IDs. The court will not address the photo ID aspect, as it is not being challenged by the plaintiffs. Previous rulings by the Supreme Court and other circuits affirm that reasonable ID laws do not violate constitutional rights or the Voting Rights Act, provided they serve legitimate state interests. The court found no evidence of irreparable harm, negating the need to balance harms against the Secretary of State’s interests. An injunction could disrupt the electoral process, necessitating retraining of election officials and potentially causing public confusion about voting procedures, especially close to an election. The court emphasized that maintaining the status quo is crucial and that any injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs is overly broad compared to what would be necessary to address any legal violation.
Plaintiffs seek to fundamentally alter Alabama's Voter ID Law by incorporating identification requirements from a now-repealed Alabama law and allowing voters to verify their identity through mere affirmation of name and address or signing an affidavit. This request effectively aims to eliminate the photo ID requirement. The Court finds that plaintiffs have not demonstrated the photo ID requirement is likely unconstitutional and will not use indirect means to invalidate a law enacted by state officials. If the "positively identify" provision were deemed illegal, the appropriate remedy would be to remove that specific provision while maintaining the rest of the law. The Court emphasizes its constitutional limits and will not revise state law to meet constitutional standards. It notes that striking the identification provision could lead to disenfranchisement of voters without photo IDs, despite their ability to be identified. The existing law permits voters lacking photo IDs to cast provisional ballots and obtain a free ID before their votes are counted. The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable harm, thus denying their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Additionally, the plaintiffs' motion to amend their original motion is granted. Acceptable voter identification forms include various government-issued IDs and documents verifying the voter's identity and address, as specified in the law.
Certified naturalization documentation, certified copies of court records related to adoption or name changes, and valid Medicare, Medicaid, or electronic benefits transfer cards are among the acceptable forms of identification for voting in Alabama. Numerous states, including Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, mandate photo identification for voters. However, Alabama voters eligible for absentee ballots under specific federal laws are exempt from this photo ID requirement. Acceptable photo IDs in Alabama include a valid state driver's license, Alabama photo voter ID card, U.S. passport, government-issued employee ID, student or employee ID from Alabama educational institutions, military ID, and tribal ID. To obtain a photo voter ID card, applicants must provide various documents that establish their identity, birth date, voter registration, and address. The Secretary of State has an agreement with the Alabama Department of Public Health to access electronic copies of birth certificates, enhancing accessibility for voters. A guide for obtaining a free photo voter ID card is available on the Secretary of State's website, along with information on voter registration statistics, which indicate over 3 million registered voters in Alabama as of December 31, 2015. The parties involved have agreed that the Secretary of State is the sole necessary defendant for a preliminary injunction, although Plaintiffs assert that additional defendants are essential for other issues. The Eleventh Circuit adheres to the precedent set by the old Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981, and the issue of associational standing was not addressed in Common Cause/Georgia, likely due to individual plaintiffs without photo IDs being able to assert their rights.
