Judge Blocks Bourdeaux Campaign's Effort to Reconsider Rejected Ballots
Judge Leigh May said the campaign's equal protection claim “rests on a single sentence without any detailed analysis of the complicated legal principles the Court must resolve.
November 15, 2018 at 01:11 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Atlanta has summarily rejected a request for emergency action by a Democratic candidate fighting to flip a U.S. House seat held by Republicans for more than two decades.
Trailing Republican incumbent Rob Woodall by just 533 votes, Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux on Thursday morning petitioned U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May to revisit—and expand—May's earlier temporary restraining order that imposed limits on which absentee ballots rejected by Gwinnett County election officials must be validated and counted.
The Bourdeaux campaign contended that two counties—Gwinnett and Forsyth—in Georgia's U.S. House District 7 have applied different standards in rejecting absentee ballots. The Bourdeaux campaign asked U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May Thursday morning to revisit her earlier decision to impose limits on which rejected absentee ballots could be converted to regular ballots and counted.
“Georgia citizens may not constitutionally be disenfranchised based on which side of the county-line they reside,” Bourdeaux lawyers argued in the emergency motion. The campaign is represented by a team of attorneys at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. The team includes Marc Elias, Bruce Spiva, Brian Marshall, Aria C. Branch and K'Shaani Smith.
May denied the Bourdeaux campaign's request hours after it was filed. She called it “inappropriate” and an attempt to “simply repackage prior arguments that a voter's address and signature are not required to determine whether he or she is qualified to vote.”
May said the campaign's equal protection claim “rests on a single sentence without any detailed analysis of the complicated legal principles the Court must resolve. … Without more, the Court will not again enjoin the certification of Gwinnett County's election results at this late date.”
The emergency motion contended that Forsyth County election officials do not reject absentee ballots solely because of missing information on the envelope containing the ballot, including the voter's address or signature. Forsyth County election officials also attempt to contact voters by phone and email to help them resolve any inconsistencies that might otherwise cause a ballot to be rejected.
Gwinnett County, on the other hand, rejects absentee ballots with inconsistencies or missing information on the return envelope and does not proactively attempt to reach voters to resolve the issues, the motion said. Gwinnett officials only notify voters by mail if an absentee ballot is rejected before Election Day, “leaving voters at risk of receiving notice too late,” the motion said.
The motion contended that the federal Civil Rights Act prohibits the denial of the right to vote in an election because of an error or omission, “if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified to vote in that election.”
Bourdeaux's campaign said that Forsyth County rejected only 28 absentee ballots, while Gwinnett rejected more than 1,500.
On Tuesday, May ordered Gwinnett to validate all absentee ballots the county rejected because of a missing or erroneous birth year—her second temporary restraining order addressing how Gwinnett County rejected absentee ballots. The judge's Oct. 23 order barred the county from rejecting absentee ballot applications over alleged signature mismatches without first giving voters a chance to contest the decision and confirm their identities.
The Gwinnett County Board of Elections was scheduled to certify the county's vote totals at a 5 p.m meeting Thursday.
Bryan Tyson, an attorney with Strickland Brockington Lewis who is defending the Gwinnett County elections board, referred a request for comment to Gwinnett County spokesman Joe Sorenson. The Daily Report has contacted Sorenson and is awaiting a reply.
But in a formal response filed Thursday, Tyson argued a voter's signature swearing to his or her residence address for voting purposes “is necessary to determine the qualifications of the voter, because it is the only method of determining whether a signature matches at this point.”
Georgia law, he added, has “clear requirements… that a ballot shall be rejected if the elector has failed to sign the oath.”
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 All'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute read'Paragraph V Displaced Lathrop': High Court Mulls Sovereign Immunity Waiver Disputes
7 minute read11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency Practices Stand to Gain from Trump Election
- 2Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
- 3Fighting Injustice: Son Secures Father's Honorable Discharge From U.S. Air Force
- 4'A Giant in the Legal Community': a Fulton County Judge Has Died
- 5Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
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