NOTE: This case is being tracked in close to real time by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project. So for more current information, see their tracker. This suit was filed on April 25, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit was brought by two individual plaintiffs, each blind, against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. The lawsuit argued that the system for administering absentee ballots was insufficient for blind people, especially regarding the lack of privacy and independence. This was especially important as Secretary of State Benson sent absentee ballot applications to all eligible Michigan voters amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The suit alleged this insufficiency constituted a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Moreover, a regulation pursuant to the ADA required any aid administered to protect the privacy and independence of people with disabilities. The plaintiffs also sued under Michigan state law, citing the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. This act prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities on the basis of that disability with regard to public services. They sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, requiring defendants to create a more accessible form of absentee voting, and declaratory relief. They also sought attorney's costs and fees.
The plaintiffs simultaneously submitted a motion for a preliminary injunction. In addition to the claims made in the complaint, they also added that failure to provide adequate absentee voting systems would result in spread of the virus. The plaintiffs added that the balance of equities weighs in their favor and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the relief.
The case was assigned to District Judge Gershwin A. Drain and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk.
Three days later, on April 28, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, which left the claims more or less the same, but added the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan as a plaintiff.
On May 1, in response to a motion for a temporary restraining order, the parties entered into a consent order which would make Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballots eligible to voters who swore to be blind or severely disabled. Voters were given until May 5 to register. However, by May 15, the parties agreed to a more comprehensive and longer-lasting consent order. The order required that defendants establish a remote accessible vote-by-mail system (RAVBM) by the August primary elections. If this were to become impracticable, defendants would have to inform the plaintiffs immediately and expand the (UOCAVA) system. The order lasted 30 months after the effective date.
On June 29, the defendants submitted a status report which said that they found that implementing a RAVBM system by the time of the election would have been impracticable. Instead, they opted for expansion of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act system.
However, this was not satisfactory to the plaintiffs. On the same day, they filed a motion to hold the defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt and to enforce the consent order. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had not made a good-faith effort to implement the RAVBM system, they failed to offer online absentee voting applications in an equal manner, and by failing to issue a timely press release.
Regarding the failure to implement the RAVBM system, on July 13 the judge ordered defendants to continue with the UOCAVA system, to modify the online absentee ballot request system in order to make it more accessible, and to continue implementation of the RAVBM system. While the schedule for the last item would not make the RAVBM system ready by the primary election, it was to be fully implemented by September 10, 2020, well ahead of the November general election. The court did not rule on the motion to hold defendants in civil contempt in this order.
The case is ongoing as of July 28, 2020.
Jack Hibbard - 07/28/2020
compress summary
