Kemp Slaps Back at Judge's Absentee Ballot TRO
The move comes as the state prepares to appeal a federal judge's order barring election officials across Georgia from rejecting absentee ballots because of alleged signature discrepancies.
October 25, 2018 at 06:12 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Secretary of State Brian Kemp on Thursday asked a federal judge for an emergency stay of her temporary restraining order barring election officials across Georgia from rejecting absentee ballots because of alleged signature discrepancies.
The motion, filed by Senior Assistant Attorney General Christina Correia with the office of state Attorney General Chris Carr, sought the stay until she can appeal U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May's orders granting and implementing the TRO.
Correia sought the stay to allow a review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, contending an appeal “will ensure at least a measure of careful deliberation before upending the state's election processes in the middle of a general election.”
In announcing an intended appeal, Correia said Martin's restraining order added “brand new, untested processes ad hoc to long-established election procedures at the eleventh hour.” Correia also contended it “will introduce uncertainty and confusion under extreme time pressure at best” and “risks undermining the integrity of the state's election process.”
Correia also argued that receiving an absentee ballot and being able to vote by absentee ballot “together amount at most to a privilege and a convenience” rather than a fundamental right to vote.
The policies and procedures resulting in absentee ballot rejections not only don't burden citizens' fundamental right to vote, but “the entire mail ballot scheme expands the franchise by providing voters with an additional and convenient option for voting,” the motion said. Voters whose ballots are rejected—either because of signatures that don't match voter registrations or absentee ballot applications—can still vote in person or apply a second time for a ballot, Correia contended.
Correia also argued that securing statewide compliance with May's order would impose “significant administrative burdens,” including the manner in which some counties track absentee ballot rejections and the creation of what the state said were “new rights of appeal” by voters whose ballots were rejected.
The ACLU lawyers said they were disappointed that Kemp decided to appeal.
In granting the TRO in lawsuits brought by the ACLU on behalf of the Georgia Muslim Voter Project and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta and by a group of Georgia voters and political candidates, May directed that all absentee ballots rejected because of alleged signature discrepancies be converted to provisional ballots.
May also directed that voters be sent pre-rejection notices by mail and electronically and be given an opportunity to resolve any alleged discrepancy and to confirm their identity. May said that voters who are traveling or unable to appear in person and whose ballot signatures were questioned may send an attorney to present proper identification.
She also said absentee voters have the right to appeal a ballot rejection. Appeals will not delay certification of any election unless votes under appeal would change an election's outcome.
In a lengthy Oct. 24 order granting the TRO, Martin rejected complaints that salvaging rejected absentee ballots would be “unduly burdensome.”
“The Court does not understand how assuring that all eligible voters are permitted to vote undermines integrity of the election process,” May said. “To the contrary, it strengthens it.”
Correia also raised the specter of voter fraud, contending that allowing an attorney to confirm a voter's identity “merely by having the voter's identification plainly introduces a risk of fraud—particularly absent any kind of oath or affidavit requirement for the 'attorney' presenting the voter's identification.”
And, she argued, “There is no system or reporting requirement in place for determining whether the number of ballots subject to unresolved appeals across the state is high enough to potentially change the outcome of the election.”
Read the filing below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250