HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjcrma0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots
Martin v. Kemp (1:18-cv-4776) and Georgia Muslim Voter
Project v. Kemp (1:18-cv-4789) (Leigh Martin May)
and Democratic Party of Georgia v. Crittenden
(Steve C. Jones, 1:18-cv-5181) (N.D. Ga.)
Not quite two weeks before the 2018 general election, a district
judge ordered election officials to regard absentee ballots with sig-
natures apparently not matching signatures on file to be regarded as
provisional ballots with an opportunity for the voters to resolve dis-
crepancies. Before the election, the judge declined to order immedi-
ate relief from the rejection of absentee ballots for clerical errors.
After the election, while absentee ballots were being counted, the
judge ordered a county to not reject absentee ballots that arrived
with a missing or incorrect year of birth, because only eligible vot-
ers would have received absentee ballots. In another case with elec-
tion officials for an additional county as defendants, another judge
issued a similar order on the following day.
Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots;
early voting; signature matching; provisional ballots; class action.
Georgia voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Georgia
on Monday, October 15, 2018, seeking relief from the possible disfranchise-
ment of mail voters.' According to the complaint,
Mail ballots are frequently rejected because of a perceived signature dis-
crepancy-a determination that can be made by election staff without sig-
nature analysis training on a subjective and arbitrary basis without over-
sight of supervisors or of authorized pollwatchers appointed by political
parties and candidates.
Another common discrepancy is the unintentional voter error of dating
the oath with the current date rather than the required date of birth.2
Defendants were election officials for Georgia and Gwinnett County, a
county northeast of Atlanta.'
Four days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.'
Three days after that, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a vot-
1. Complaint, Martin v. Kemp, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2018), D.E. 1 [here-
inafter Martin Complaint]; Martin v. Crittenden, _ F. Supp. 3d _, _, 2018 WL
5917860 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (p.2 of opinion filed at N.D. Ga. No. 1:18-cv-4776, D.E. 55); see
Tyler Estep, Voting, Rights Groups Focus on Absentee Ballots, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 17,
2018, at lB.
The caption named five plaintiffs, but only four were identified in the complaint. Martin
Complaint, supra note 1, at 1, 8-10.
2. Martin Complaint, supra note 1, at 3 (paragraph numbers omitted).
3. Id. at 10-13.
4. Preliminary Injunction Motion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2018),
D.E. 4; Martin, _ F. Supp. 3d at _, 2018 WL 5917860 (p.3 of opinion filed at N.D. Ga.
No. 1:18-cv-4776, D.E. 55).
Federal Judicial Center 12/18/2018
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcrma0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)