Georgia Democratic Party v. Raffensperger Amended Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 30 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA,

INC., DSCC, and DCCC,
Plaintiffs, Civil Action File No.
1:19-cv-5028-WMR
v.
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official
capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE OF
GEORGIA; REBECCA N. SULLIVAN,
DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH HARP, and
ANH LEE, in their official capacities as
Members of the Georgia State Election
Board; and STEPHEN DAY, JOHN
MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN
SATTERFIELD, and BEAUTY
BALDWIN, in their official capacities as
Members of the Gwinnett County Board of
Registration and Elections,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., DSCC aka
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, and DCCC aka
the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, through
the undersigned attorneys, file this COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF against Defendants, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in
his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; REBECCA N.
SULLIVAN, DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH HARP and ANH LEE, in their
official capacities as Members of the Georgia State Election Board; and
STEPHEN DAY, JOHN MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN
SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY BALDWIN, in their official capacities as
Members of the Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections. Based
upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice
in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must
live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to protect
this right and to prevent the disenfranchisement of Georgia voters whose absentee
by-mail (“absentee”) ballots have been rejected for missing or mismatched
-2-
signatures. The cause of this disenfranchisement is two-fold. First, voters harmed
by Georgia’s standardless and unreliable signature matching procedure, under which
untrained county election officials acting without any state guidance are required to
compare voters’ signatures on absentee ballots and reject ballots where they perceive
a signature mismatch. Second, they are harmed by Georgia’s standardless procedure
for notifying absentee voters that their signatures are either missing or mismatched,
which fails to provide Georgia voters with a meaningful ability to cure their ballots
within the prescribed timeframe. These deficient procedures disproportionately
impact African-American and other minority voters and have a particularly
detrimental impact on minority voters in Gwinnett County, who are further burdened
by Gwinnett County’s poorly designed, confusing absentee ballot envelope, which
places these voters at a heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without
properly completing the signature requirement. Because of Georgia’s standardless
signature match and notifications procedures, and Gwinnett County’s confusing
absentee ballot envelope design, hundreds of Georgia voters’ absentee ballots have
gone uncounted, and hundreds more face the same fate in the 2020 election without
intervention from this Court.
2. Absentee voting is extraordinarily popular among Georgia voters
and has grown in popularity over time. Applications for absentee ballots surged
-3-
in advance of the 2018 general elections, with over 281,000 Georgia voters
requesting absentee ballots. And, despite the fact that turnout has historically been
lower in midterm elections than in presidential elections, the total number of
returned absentee ballots in the 2018 midterm election⸺nearly 284,393⸺was
greater than the number cast in the 2016 presidential election, 246,621.
3. Georgia also routinely rejects a significant number of absentee ballots.
Of the combined 531,014 absentee ballots cast in the past two general elections,
6,681 have been rejected for technical reasons wholly unrelated to the voter’s
qualifications, including failing to sign the oath on the back of the absentee ballot
envelope or having a mismatched signature. During the 2016 general election,
Georgia County Election Officials rejected 580 absentee ballots for missing or
inaccurate oath information, including missing and mismatched signatures, 145
and 435, respectively. And, in the 2018 general election, County Election
Officials rejected 454 ballots for the same reasons, rejecting 227 absentee ballots
for each. One county—Gwinnett—rejected far more absentee ballots, 118, for
missing or mismatched signatures than any other county, 103 and 15,
respectively.
4. The number of absentee ballots rejected for a missing or mismatched
signature is significant, especially when evaluated in context. Saucedo v. Gardner,
-4-
335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 217 (D.N.H. 2018) (“[t]he overall rates of rejection due to a
signature mismatch have been low in recent general elections. But those rates should
be put into perspective.”). Recently, elections in Georgia have been decided by small
margins. For example, the Democratic candidate in the 2018 gubernatorial race, who
received a substantial majority of the votes cast by absentee ballots (137,616 out of
the 223,576 absentee ballots cast), lost by under 55,000 votes (1.3 percentage
points). And in an even closer race, the Democratic candidate for Georgia’s 7th
Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives, who received
57 percent of the absentee ballot votes (10,466 out of 18,217 absentee ballots cast),
lost by just 419 votes (.14 percentage points). Georgia’s arbitrary rejection of
absentee ballots not only disenfranchises individual voters, but it also leads to
election results that may not reflect the will and intent of Georgia’s electorate.
5. Because such a significant number of absentee ballots have been
rejected in Georgia, the State has seen a flood of litigation since the 2018 general
election aimed at ending the disenfranchisement caused by the absentee voting
regime. In a series of opinions, courts in this district have repeatedly found that
outright rejection of absentee ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information
violates the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).
See Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1324 (N.D. Ga.
-5-
2018); Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2018); Martin v. Kemp,
341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
6. As a result, the Georgia General Assembly amended the absentee
voting scheme in an attempt to prevent absentee ballots from being rejected for
technical reasons, including for missing or mismatched signatures. Specifically,
the General Assembly modified the language of the oath on the absentee ballot
envelope to remove requests for certain technical information. And, adding to
the existing requirement that election officials “promptly notify” the voter of a
missing or mismatched signature, it required that election officials give a voter
until three days after the date of the election to cure a signature before rejecting
an absentee ballot for a missing or mismatched signature. Id. at §§ 21-2-
386(a)(1)(C), -419(c).
7. These reforms, however, do not remedy the flaws in Georgia’s
absentee ballot regime and will not end the unconstitutional disenfranchisement
of voters. Most glaringly, the law still does not provide any timeliness standard
for election officials to “promptly” notify voters of missing or mismatched
signatures; nor does it provide any standard for the form of notice required.
8. As a result, counties interpret “prompt” notice differently and use
inconsistent methods to inform voters of the need to cure their absentee ballots.
-6-
For example, some counties send letters by first-class mail, while others call or
email voters. And some counties provide notification up to three days after
identifying the missing or mismatched signature. Such an interpretation is
problematic for voters whose absentee ballots are submitted on or close to
election day, as they are sent letters three days later and are not notified with
sufficient time to cure during the three-day post-election period. Thus,
depending on where the voter lives, she may not receive notice in time to cure
and her ballot will be rejected outright, directly contrary to the U.S. Constitution
and the rulings of courts in this district.
9. And County Election Officials are left to their own devices when
determining whether a signature matches on an absentee ballot in the first place,
as the law wholly lacks any standards for election officials to follow when
comparing signatures, fails to require any training in signature examination, and
is not supported by any significant oversight to monitor signature match errors
and prevent the disenfranchisement of eligible, qualified voters.
10. Indeed, studies have shown that signature matching conducted by
laypersons results in a high rate of error that skews toward the over-rejection of
legitimate signatures. This high risk of error, combined with the absence of any
uniform standards or criteria for signature matching, all but ensures unlawful
-7-
disenfranchisement of absentee voters, and creates a regime in which the fate of
an absentee ballot often depends on whichever arbitrary standard is employed
by the county in which the voter resides, or the specific County Election Official
charged with reviewing the voter’s signatures.
11. Without a uniform standard for the timing for election officials to
provide notice to voters about missing or mismatched signatures or the method
of notification or without standard procedures and training for determining a
signature match, practices will continue to vary widely across the state, with
each of Georgia’s 159 counties establishing its own deadline and method for
notification as well as its own standardless and untrained determination of
signature matching. This hodgepodge approach unduly burdens absentee voters’
right to vote.
12. These burdens are exacerbated in Gwinnett County, whose high
volume of absentee ballots with missing or mismatched signatures and
corresponding high rejection rate is tied not only to Georgia’s standardless
signature-matching and notification procedures, but directly to the confusing and
opaque design of its absentee ballot envelope, which often prevents voters from
even realizing that their signatures are required. Because Gwinnett County must
include the oath in both English and Spanish on the envelope, it uses small,
-8-
nearly illegible type in approximately 6.5-point font.1 By way of example, this text is in
size 6.5-point font .
13. Given the deficient design of the Gwinnett County absentee ballot
envelope, the county rejected more absentee ballots for missing or mismatched
signatures than any other county during the 2018 general election (118 of the
454 rejected ballots). The recent changes to the language in the oath on the ballot
envelope do not address the design flaws; Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot
envelope remains lengthy and cramped, and voters will continue to find it
indiscernible. As such, Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design,
coupled with the County’s arbitrary signature match process and inadequate
notification procedures under Georgia’s standardless notification system, will
continue to create an unusually high risk that voters who vote absentee will have
their votes ultimately rejected for missing or mismatched signatures and be
disenfranchised.
14. Additionally, the continued rejection of absentee ballots for
mismatched or missing signatures will have a disproportionate effect on
1
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2006,
Determinations Under Section 203, 81 Fed. Reg. 233, 87535 (Dec. 5, 2016),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-05/pdf/2016-28969.pdf (requiring Gwinnett
County to provide voting material in both English and Spanish given its large Hispanic
population).
-9-
minority voters, who were twice as likely to have their absentee ballots rejected
in 2018. This disparity is particularly acute in Gwinnett County, where people
of color make up nearly 45 percent of registered voters. African-American and
Latino voters make up over 35 percent of Gwinnett County’s active voting
population, and they accounted for 49 percent of rejected absentee ballots during the
2018 general election.
15. Absent judicial intervention, voters who submit absentee ballots in
Gwinnett County and other areas of the state will continue to have their votes
thrown out in future elections due to the arbitrary, unreliable procedure for
comparing signatures in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, and due to the standardless procedure for notifying voters of
missing or mismatched signatures in clear violation of the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Absentee voters in Gwinnett
County will have their right to vote further burdened by the County’s poorly
designed ballot envelope in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress
the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States
Constitution.
- 10 -
17. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy
arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in
their official capacity only.
19. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this
judicial district.
20. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to
provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
PARTIES
21. Plaintiff DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., (“DPG”)
is a state committee, as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101(15), dedicated to electing
candidates of the Democratic Party to public office throughout the State of
Georgia. DPG has members and constituents from across Georgia, including
many eligible voters who regularly support and vote for candidates affiliated
with the Democratic Party. As discussed infra, members and constituents of the
Democratic Party risk having their right to vote burdened and/or denied due to
- 11 -
the absentee voting scheme. DPG brings these claims on their behalf, as well as
in its own right.
22. DPG is directly harmed by the Georgia’s standardless absentee
signature matching and notification processes and Gwinnett County’s deficient
absentee ballot envelope because each frustrates its mission and efforts to elect
Democratic Party candidates in Georgia, undermining DPG’s efforts to successfully
help elect Democratic candidates to office. In recent elections, for example, absentee
voters have disproportionately voted for Democratic candidates. For example, in the
2018 general election, the majority of absentee voters supported the Democratic
candidate for governor (137,616 out of the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5
percent). Thus, Georgia’s standardless signature matching and notification
procedures and Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design
disproportionately impacts and undermines DPG’s efforts to successfully help elect
candidates of the Democratic Party to office.
23. Further, as part of DPG’s get-out-the-vote efforts, it engages in a robust
absentee voter contact program designed to: (i) inform thousands of voters statewide
of their ability to cast absentee ballots; (ii) explain the rules and deadlines governing
vote by mail; and (iii) encourage voters to utilize vote by mail. Georgia’s laws
regarding missing and mismatched signatures decrease overall confidence in the
- 12 -
absentee voting processes, and Georgia’s voting scheme generally, thereby directly
undermining the efforts of DPG to encourage voters to utilize absentee ballots and
to assist them in exercising their right to vote. Because of Georgia’s flawed absentee
voting notification procedure and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot
envelope design, DPG will have to divert resources to provide support for voters to
help them avoid disenfranchisement and overcome the burdens they face as a result
of these flawed laws, procedures, and absentee voting materials⸺resources it
otherwise would use to educate voters about issues and individual candidates.
24. Plaintiff DSCC is a Democratic political committee established and
maintained by a national political party, as defined by and used in 11 C.F.R. §
110.2(c)(2)(iii) and provided for in 52 U.S.C. § 30116(h). DSCC’s mission is to
elect candidates of the Democratic Party to the U.S. Senate, including in Georgia,
where there will be a competitive Senate election in 2020. DSCC works to
accomplish its mission by, among other things, contributing money to
Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, making expenditures on behalf of
Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, and assisting state parties throughout the
country, including in Georgia, in the development and implementation of
programs benefiting Democratic candidates for Senate and other federal, state,
and local offices, such as get-out-the-vote and generic party efforts undertaken
- 13 -
on behalf of the Democratic ticket. In 2018, DSCC made contributions and
expenditures in the tens of millions of dollars to persuade and mobilize voters to
support Democratic Senate candidates. In 2020, Georgia voters will be electing
two U.S. Senators and DSCC intends to make substantial contributions and
expenditures to support Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate in Georgia in
2020. DSCC also intends to provide assistance to the state party.
25. DSCC is directly harmed by Georgia’s standardless signature matching
and notification processes and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope
because each frustrates its mission and efforts to elect Democratic Party candidates
in Georgia to the Senate. In recent elections, for example, absentee voters have
disproportionately voted for Democratic candidates. For example, in the 2018
general election, the majority of absentee voters supported the Democratic candidate
for governor (137,616 out of the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5 percent).
Thus, Georgia’s standardless signature matching and notification procedures and
Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope disproportionately impacts
and undermines DSCC’s efforts to successfully help Democratic U.S. Senate
candidates to office. In an election year in which Georgia is projected to have two
closely-watched Senate races, it is crucial that every single eligible voter’s vote is
counted. But because Georgia’s absentee ballot regime consistently disenfranchises
- 14 -
Georgia voters—and particularly Democratic voters—DSCC will have to divert
resources to provide support for voters, resources it otherwise would use to educate
voters about issues and individual candidates.
26. DCCC is the national congressional committee of the Democratic
Party as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 30101(14). DCCC’s mission is electing
Democratic candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives from across the
United States, including from Georgia’s 14 congressional districts. DCCC works
to accomplish its mission by, among other things, making expenditures for, and
contributions to, Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress and assisting state
parties throughout the country, including in Georgia. For 2020, DCCC will
expend significant resources to support Democratic candidates in a number of
targeted races in Georgia’s 14 congressional districts, including the 7th
Congressional District, which includes parts of Gwinnett County. Overall, in
2020, DCCC expects to make contributions and expenditures in the millions of
dollars to persuade and mobilize voters to support Democratic candidates in
congressional elections around the country. DCCC also provides assistance to
the state Democratic parties in the development and implementation of programs
benefiting Democratic candidates for federal, state, and local office, including
get-out-the-vote initiatives and other initiatives designed to increase turnout by
- 15 -
Democratic voters.
27. DCCC is directly harmed by Georgia’s standardless signature matching
and notification processes and Gwinnett County’s deficient absentee ballot envelope
because each frustrates its mission and efforts to elect candidates to the U.S. House
of Representatives in Georgia. In recent elections, for example, absentee voters have
disproportionately voted for Democratic candidates. For example, in the 2018
general election, the majority of absentee voters supported the Democratic candidate
for governor (137,616 out of the 223,576 absentee ballots cast—or 61.5 percent).
Thus, Georgia’s standardless signature matching and notification procedures and
Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope disproportionately impacts and
undermines DCCC’s efforts to successfully help elect Democratic congressional
candidates to office. Just as in 2018, where the DCCC supported candidates who lost
by mere hundreds of votes, the 2020 Georgia congressional elections are expected
to be close and it is increasingly important to ensure that every vote counts. But
because Georgia’s absentee ballot regime consistently disenfranchises Georgia
voters—and particularly Democratic voters—DCCC will have to divert resources to
provide support for voters, resources it otherwise would use to educate voters about
issues and individual candidates.
28. Defendant BRAD RAFFENSPERGER is sued for declaratory and
- 16 -
injunctive relief in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia
(hereinafter “Raffensperger” or the “Secretary”). The Secretary of State is a state
official subject to suit in his official capacity because his office “imbues him with
the responsibility to enforce the law or laws at issue in the suit,” Grizzle v. Kemp,
634 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011), i.e., the election laws in the State of Georgia.
Specifically, the Secretary is the chief elections officer of the State and is therefore
responsible for the administration of the state laws affecting voting, including the
absentee voting system. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(b). The Secretary is responsible for
“furnish[ing] . . . oaths of assisted electors, . . . [and] envelopes and instruction sheets
for absentee ballots,” and other supplies. Id. at § 21-2-50(a)(5). The Secretary also
determines the content of the oath on the back the ballot envelopes. See id. at § 21-
2-384(b), (c). The Secretary serves as the Chair of the State Election Board, which
is the body responsible for ensuring uniform election practice in Georgia.
29. Defendants REBECCA N. SULLIVAN, DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH
HARP, and ANH LEE (hereinafter, “State Election Board” or “State Election Board
Members”), are members of the State Election Board in Georgia, responsible for
“promulgat[ing] rules and regulations so as to obtain uniformity in the practices and
proceedings of superintendents, registrars, deputy registrars, poll officers, and other
officials, as well as the legality and purity in all primaries and elections.” Id. at § 21-
- 17 -
2-31(1). The State Election Board Members are responsible for “formulat[ing],
adopt[ing], and promulgat[ing] such rules and regulations, consistent with law, as
will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections;
and, upon the adoption of each rule and regulation, the board shall promptly file
certified copies thereof with the Secretary of State and each superintendent.” Id. at
§ 21-2-31(2). The State Election Board Members, personally and through the
conduct of their employees, officers, agents, and servants, acted under color of state
law at all times relevant to this action, and are sued for declaratory and injunctive
relief in their official capacities.
30. The Secretary of State and the State Election Board have the authority
to direct the officials in each county who are responsible for administering elections
(that is, the county elections board or the superintendent of elections) (collectively
“the County Election Officials”).
31. Defendants STEPHEN DAY, JOHN MANGANO, ALICE
O’LENICK, BEN SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY BALDWIN are sued for
declaratory and injunctive relief in their official capacities as members of the
Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections (hereinafter, collectively,
“Gwinnett Board Members” or “Gwinnett Board”). The Gwinnett Board has the
authority to exercise the powers and duties of a county election superintendent with
- 18 -
respect to conducting elections in Gwinnett County, see O.C.G.A. § 21-2-70 to -77.
The Gwinnett Board is required “[t]o make and issue such rules, regulations, and
instructions, consistent with law, including the rules and regulations promulgated by
the State Election Board, as he or she may deem necessary for the guidance of poll
officers, custodians, and electors in primaries and elections,” id. at § 21-2-70(7), and
“[t]o conduct all elections . . . and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed
by law,” id. at § 21-2-70(13). The Gwinnett Board is responsible for preparing,
obtaining, and delivering the absentee ballot and ballot envelopes to voters, and for
“print[ing] the form of the oath of the elector and the oath for persons assisting
electors . . . and the penalties . . . for violations of the oaths” on the back of the
envelopes. Id. at § 21-2-384(a)(1), (b).
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW
The Absentee Ballot Stage
32. Georgia law authorizes any eligible voter to cast his or her absentee
ballot by mail. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-380(b). To obtain an absentee ballot, the voter must
submit a written application containing the voter’s name, registration address,
mailing address (if different), the election the voter wishes to participate in, and the
name and relationship of the person requesting the ballot if other than the elector. Id.
at § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A), (C). The voter may submit the application by mail, facsimile,
- 19 -
email, or in person. Id. at § 21-2-381(a)(1)(A). The application can be submitted as
early as 180 days and as late as the Friday before Election Day. Id. at §§ 21-2-
381(a)(1)(A); 21-2-384(a)(2).
33. If the board of registrars or the absentee ballot clerk verifies that the
voter is eligible to vote and verifies the voter’s signature the registrar or clerk mails
out the absentee ballot within three business days of receiving the application. Id. at
§ 21-2-381(b)(1)-(2); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 183-1-14-.11. Such ballots are mailed
from 49 days before Election Day up to the Friday before Election Day. O.C.G.A. §
21-2-384(a)(2).
34. When an absentee voter receives an official absentee ballot, he or she
receives two envelopes. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(b). The voter must place the
completed absentee ballot in the smaller of the two envelopes. Id. The smaller
envelope must then be placed in the larger envelope, which contains the oath of the
voter⸺referred to as an “elector” in the oath⸺and a line for the voter’s signature on
the back of the envelope. Id. at § 21-2-384(b)-(c).
35. The form of the oath is specified by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1), which
states that: The oaths referred to in subsection (b) of this Code section shall be in
substantially the following form:
I, the undersigned, do swear (or affirm) that I am a citizen of the United

States and of the State of Georgia; that I possess the qualifications of
- 20 -
an elector required by the laws of the State of Georgia; that I am entitled

to vote in the precinct containing my residence in the primary or
election in which this ballot is to be cast; that I am eligible to vote by
absentee ballot; that I have not marked or mailed any other absentee
ballot, nor will I mark or mail another absentee ballot for voting in such
primary or election; nor shall I vote therein in person; and that I have
read and understand the instructions accompanying this ballot; and that
I have carefully complied with such instructions in completing this
ballot. I understand that the offer or acceptance of money or any other
object of value to vote for any particular candidate, list of candidates,
issue, or list of issues included in this election constitutes an act of voter
fraud and is a felony under Georgia law.
________________________
Signature or Mark of Elector
________________________
Printed Name of Elector
36. The ballot envelope must also include an oath for those who are
assisting absentee voters, in substantially the following form:2
Oath of Person Assisting Elector (if any):
I, the undersigned, do swear (or affirm) that I assisted the above-named

elector in marking such elector's absentee ballot as such elector
personally communicated such elector's preference to me; and that such
elector is entitled to receive assistance in voting under provisions of
subsection (a) of Code Section 21-2-409.
This, the ______ day of _________, _________.
2
Before the General Assembly amended the law in April 2019, the oath required the voter include
the county in which they reside, residential address, and birth year. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1)
(July 2017).
- 21 -
__________________________________
Signature of Person Assisting Elector
Reason for assistance (Check appropriate square):
Elector is unable to read the English language.
Elector requires assistance due to physical disability. . . .
Georgia law provides that any person who knowingly falsifies

information so as to vote illegally by absentee ballot or who illegally
gives or receives assistance in voting, as specified in Code Section 21-
2-568 or 21-2-573, shall be guilty of a felony.
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1).
37. Upon completing the absentee ballot, the voter must secure the ballot
in the small envelope, enclose it in the larger envelope, sign the oath on the back of
the envelope, and return it to the board of registrars or absentee clerk by mail or in
person. Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1).
38. All absentee ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day to
be counted. Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(F).
39. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B), “[u]pon receipt of each
ballot,” the registrar or clerk must inspect the information on the oath, including the
voter’s signature, and compare the signature to the signature on the voter’s
registration card or absentee ballot application to determine whether they match.
40. If a signature is missing from the oath on the absentee ballot envelope
- 22 -
or “does not appear to be valid,” (i.e. mismatched), the clerk must “write across the
face of the envelope ‘Rejected,’ giving the reason therefor. . . . [and] shall promptly
notify the elector of such rejection.” Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C).
41. Absentee ballots that have been marked “Rejected” for missing or
mismatched signatures will only be counted only if: (1) the voter submits “an
affidavit to the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk” along with a copy of an
accepted form of identification no later than three days following the election, id. at
§§ 21-2-386(a)(1)(C), -417(c), -419(c); (2) the affidavit is in the proper form such
that it “affirm[s] that the ballot was submitted by the elector, is the elector’s ballot,
and that the elector is registered and qualified to vote in the primary, election, or
runoff in question, id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C); and (3) “the board of registrars or
absentee ballot clerk finds the affidavit and identification to be sufficient,” id.
42. Voters whose absentee ballots have been marked “Rejected” must
submit the cure affidavit and a copy of an accepted ID no later than three days after
the day of the election to cure the missing or mismatched signature. O.C.G.A. §§ 21-
2-386(a)(1)(C), -419(c).
The Signature Match Process
43. Georgia does not provide the registrars or clerks tasked with conducting
signature matching with any uniform, statewide standard or training for evaluating
- 23 -
signatures.
44. County Election Officials are not required to undergo any type of
handwriting analysis or signature matching training before comparing signatures and
determining whether to reject absentee ballots due to perceived mismatches. As a
result, County Election Officials have no basis by which to evaluate stylistic
differences that might suggest that two signatures were made by different
individuals, as opposed to one individual whose signatures merely show natural
variations for reasons unrelated to their authenticity.
45. Because Georgia’s signature matching process involves untrained
human reviewers, it is highly error-prone. Studies conducted by experts in the field
of handwriting analysis have repeatedly found that signature verification by
laypersons is inherently unreliable, and non-experts are significantly more likely to
misidentify authentic signatures as forgeries.
46. In one study, for instance, laypersons falsely declared authentic
signatures to be inauthentic at least 26 percent of the time, despite having access to
six authentic reference signatures for comparison. K. Gummadidala, Signature
authentication by forensic document examiners, J. FORENSIC SCI., 46(4) 884-88
(2001).
47. Rejecting hundreds of absentee ballots based on a perceived signature
- 24 -
mismatch, given the absence of sufficient training or consistent standards applied
across counties, is particularly problematic because handwriting can change—and
quickly—for a variety of reasons.
48. Factors that can affect a person’s handwriting include physical factors
such as age, illness, injury, medication, eyesight, alcohol, and drugs; mechanical
factors, such as pen type, ink, writing surface and position, and paper quality; and
psychological state of mind. See, e.g., Tomislav Fotak, et al., Handwritten signature
identification using basic concepts of graph theory, 7 WSEAS Transactions on
Signal Processing 145 (2011).
49. It is, therefore, inevitable that Georgia election officials will
erroneously determine voters’ signatures are mismatched, leading to wrongful
rejection of legitimate ballots and the disenfranchisement hundreds of eligible
voters.
50. Moreover, signature matching laws are particularly problematic for
racial and ethnic minority voters; young, first-time voters; voters with disabilities;
and senior citizen voters, all of whom are more likely to have variations in their
signatures, or voters who may require assistance from others to enter a signature.
See Caligiuri, supra (concluding that the “advanced age of a writer likely contributes
to uncertainty and reduced reliability in the document examiner’s judgment of
- 25 -
authenticity”). And this is true in Georgia, where the signatures of racial and ethnic
minority voters are often flagged for signature mismatch. As one federal court found,
the absence of any standards or training to differentiate between natural signature
variation and signature mismatches results in “a crazy quilt of conflicting and
diverging procedures.” Fla. Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16-cv-607, 2016
WL 6090943, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016). This is particularly true in Georgia.
where counties use different signature matching procedures for absentee ballots.
Indeed, some counties provide election officials with minimal instructions on
reviewing signatures, though they do not provide any specific signature matching
criteria. While other counties do not provide election officials with any instructions,
procedures, or guidelines for conducting signature match at all.
51. The absence of adequate training, guidance, and uniform standards has
resulted in significant variations in absentee ballot application and ballot rejection
rates for signature mismatch across Georgia’s 159 counties. For example, during the
2018 general election, Gwinnett County Election Officials rejected 56 absentee
ballot applications for mismatched signatures, over 6 percent of the total rejected
applications statewide (905). Meanwhile, Dekalb County Election Officials rejected
31 applications for signature mismatch (40 percent of the county’s 77 rejected
applications) and Forsyth County Election Officials did not reject any absentee
- 26 -
ballot applications for signature mismatch.
52. The same variation occurred for absentee ballots. During the 2018
general election, Henry County Election Officials rejected 25 absentee ballots for
signature mismatch, 11 percent of the ballots rejected statewide for that reason. And
of the 30,214 absentee ballots cast in Gwinnett County, County Election Officials
rejected 15 for mismatched signatures. In Cobb County, election officials rejected
just 11 out of the 30,877 absentee ballots received for mismatched signatures (less
than 2 percent of the 662 absentee ballots rejected in the county). And in Fulton
County, the most populous county in Georgia, County Election Officials rejected
just 1 out of the 23,201 absentee ballots cast for a mismatched signature.
53. Given the lack of uniformity among the counties, the risk of
disenfranchisement will continue to be dependent on where a voter lives and how
that county chooses to review signatures under the current law. There is no sufficient
justification for this standardless signature match requirement.
The Notification Process
54. As described above, Georgia law does not define “prompt” notification;
nor does it specify the method of notification a board of registrars or absentee clerk
must use. And, neither the Secretary nor the State Election Board has issued rules or
regulations defining or identifying the proper form of prompt notification.
- 27 -
55. As a result, counties inconsistently interpret the promptness of the
notice required and employ varying methods of contacting voters. For example,
during the 2018 general election Gwinnett County sent notice by mail within three
days of marking the absentee ballot “Rejected.” Thus, voters whose absentee ballots
arrived on election day did not receive notice until the cure period had ended. These
voters were ultimately disenfranchised. Likewise, voters whose absentee ballots
were received and reviewed within two days of the election were given only one or
two days to cure their absentee ballot.
56. Given that absentee ballots are valid if received by 7:00 p.m. on
Election Day, id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(F), and that voters have three days after the day
of the election to cure a missing or mismatched signature, id. at §§ 21-2-
386(a)(1)(C), -419(c), had voters received sufficient notice, there is no reason that
they could not have cured their absentee ballots as the law contemplates.
57. By contrast, during the 2018 general election, election officials in
Forsyth and Bulloch Counties first attempted to call and/or email voters to inform
them that their signatures were “invalid” or missing from their absentee ballots and
to encourage them to cure their ballots, meaning that these voters were informed of
the defect nearly instantaneously and, solely because of where they lived, were given
a meaningful opportunity to cure.
- 28 -
58. The impact of Georgia’s standardless notification procedure is
demonstrated by the varying rejection rates across the state. Of the 30,214 absentee
ballots cast in Gwinnett County during the 2018 general election, County Election
Officials rejected 118 of them for missing or mismatched signatures, which accounts
for nearly 7 percent of the total absentee ballots rejected in Georgia (1,690). Of the
30,877 absentee ballots received in Cobb County, election officials rejected just
twenty for missing or mismatched signatures (3 percent of the 662 absentee ballots
rejected in the county). In Forsyth County, officials rejected 99 out of the 5,228
absentee ballots cast (1.9 percent); 25 of those ballots were rejected for missing or
mismatched signatures (25 percent of the rejected ballots). Given the lack of
uniformity among the counties, the risk of disenfranchisement will continue to be
dependent on where a voter lives and how that county chooses to contact the voter
under the current law.
Gwinnett County’s Absentee Ballot Envelope Design
59. While the standardless process for signature matching and notifying
absentee voters of missing or mismatched signatures leaves all absentee voters
across Georgia at risk of disenfranchisement, the burden is exacerbated in Gwinnett
County due to the deficient design of the County’s absentee ballot envelope. This is
particularly concerning because more than 44.5 percent of the registered vote of
- 29 -
Gwinnett County are people of color, with black or African-American voters making
up one-third (27 percent) of Gwinnett County’s active voting population, and the
Hispanic/Latino population making up 8.7 percent of active voters. Gwinnett County
also has the largest number of active American Indian or Alaskan Native voters,
Asian or Pacific Islander voters, and Hispanic/Latino voters in the State. During the
2018 general election, ballots cast by African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos
made up 49 percent of rejected absentee ballots in the County.
60. Georgia law provides that each county superintendent must design the
absentee ballot envelope to include the oath specified by the Secretary and described
in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1). See id. § 21-2-384(a)(1), (b), (c).
61. The ballot envelope designs, however, can vary based on county-
specific needs. For example, Gwinnett County is the only county in the State
required under federal mandate to provide all voting materials in both English and
Spanish, given its large Hispanic/Latino population. Thus, as described above,
Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design differs from other counties’
envelopes.
62. As a result, unlike the simpler and easier to read absentee ballot
envelopes in Fulton or Dekalb Counties, Gwinnett County’s ballot is nearly illegible.
The oath is printed on absentee ballot envelopes in small, approximately 6.5-point
- 30 -
font in both English and Spanish. At the top of the envelope, the English and Spanish
oaths are on top of each other; but on the bottom, the English and Spanish oaths for
assisting electors are on the left and right side, respectively. The envelope’s poor
design is cramped and difficult for voters to read and understand. By way of
example, below is the back of the absentee ballot envelope used during the
November 2018 general election:
- 31 -
- 32 -
63. At least one study has shown that rejection of absentee ballots for
technical errors such as failing to sign the absentee envelope is caused by poorly
designed and unusable absentee ballot envelopes. Brennan Center, Better Design,
Better Elections at 30-33, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-
08/Report_Better_Design_ Better_Elections.pdf (last visited, Nov. 4, 2019). And
when the envelopes are redesigned to be clearer and more readable, the number of
unsigned ballots significantly decreases. Id.
64. Though the 2019 amendments to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384(c)(1) ensure that
the voter’s address and birth year will be removed from the oath above, because the
oath contains largely the same language as before, it is anticipated that Gwinnett
County’s updated absentee ballot envelope will be substantially similar to the format
set out above, meaning that it will continue to be dense and unreadable, confusing
voters and making it difficult for them to properly complete their absentee ballot
envelope.
65. Given the poor design of Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope,
and the grossly inadequate signature matching and notification procedures described
supra, the County unsurprisingly rejects absentee ballots at an alarmingly higher rate
than other counties for missing or mismatched signatures. During the 2018 general
election, even after multiple lawsuits prohibiting election officials from rejecting
- 33 -
absentee ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information and permitting absentee
voters to cure mismatched signatures on their absentee ballots, Gwinnett County still
ultimately rejected 118 absentee ballots for missing or mismatched signatures.
66. Meanwhile other counties rejected a lower number of ballots for
missing or mismatched signatures. For example, in Dekalb County during the 2018
general election, election officials rejected only 15 absentee ballots for missing or
mismatched signatures. And in Fulton County, the most populous county in Georgia,
election officials rejected just 2 ballots for a missing or mismatched signature.
Indeed, Gwinnett County had a significantly higher rate of rejecting absentee voters
than any other county in the state during the 2018 general election. This high
rejection rate is particularly significant because Gwinnett County comprises
approximately 8 percent of active voters in Georgia, the second largest number of
active voters out of every county in the State. And the high absentee ballot rejection
rate within Gwinnett County disproportionately impacts racial, ethnic, and language
minorities.
67. The wide disparity in rejection rates between Gwinnett County and
other counties in the state demonstrates that the deficient design, dense language,
and small type of the oath on Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelopes has
caused voters to submit their ballots without properly completing the signature
- 34 -
requirement. And, as described above, even with changes to the oath for future
elections as compared to the oath in 2018, the Gwinnett County absentee ballot
envelope will continue to be confusing and illegible for voters.
COUNT I
Equal Protection
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Guarantee of Equal Protection by Defendants Raffensperger and State Election
Board Members
68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all prior paragraphs of
this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though set forth fully
herein.
69. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution prohibits a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. This
constitutional provision requires “that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburn Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
70. And this applies to voting. “Having once granted the right to vote on
equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one
person’s vote over that of another.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000).
71. Georgia’s standardless and error-prone signature matching process
- 35 -
subjects similarly situated absentee voters to differing standards under each county’s
application of the provisions, resulting in some voters being wholly disenfranchised
based solely on where they live.
72. Defendants Raffensperger and the State Election Board Members have
failed to ensure that Georgia absentee voters are treated equally regardless of the
county in which they reside. Due to this disparate treatment, certain absentee voters
who cast ballots in the upcoming 2020 election will face burdens and infringements
on their fundamental right to vote that other, similarly situated voters will not face
due solely to the county in which they vote.
73. The signature matching requirements do not further any legitimate state
interest, much less a compelling state interest, that is sufficiently weighty to justify
the disparate treatment of voters.
74. Based on the foregoing, Defendants Raffensperger and the State
Election Board Members, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will
continue to deprive Plaintiffs, their constituents, and other Georgia voters of equal
protection under the law secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 36 -
COUNT II
First Amendment and Equal Protection

U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Undue Burden on the Right to Vote by Defendants Raffensperger and State
Election Board Members
herein.
76. Under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, a state cannot utilize election practices that unduly burden
the right to vote. A court considering a challenge to a state election law must
carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights that a plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put
forward by the state for the burdens imposed by the rule. See Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983).
“However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it must be justified by relevant and
legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Crawford v.
Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 191 (2008) (Stevens, J., controlling opinion)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
77. Here, the signature matching laws imposes a severe burden—outright
disenfranchisement—on the right to vote.

- 37 -
78. This burden is not outweighed by any legitimate, much less compelling,
state interest in the law, and countless eligible, registered Georgia voters will suffer
direct and irreparable injury if Defendants fail to ensure that a uniform standard for
signature comparison is applied in each county. Without relief from this Court, these
voters will be deprived of their right to vote in upcoming elections.
Election Board Members, acting under color of law, will deprive Plaintiffs, their
members, constituencies, and the voters who support them, the rights secured to
them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and protected
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT III
Due Process
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Denial of Procedural Due Process by Defendants Raffensperger and State
herein.
81. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the
states from depriving “any person of …liberty…without due process of law.” U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This due process principle protects the fundamental right
- 38 -
to vote. And “[h]aving induced voters to vote by absentee ballot, the State must
provide adequate process to ensure that voters’ ballots are fairly considered and, if
eligible, counted.” Saucedo, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 217.
82. Due process requires that all voters in Georgia be afforded a meaningful
notice and an opportunity to cure missing or mismatched signatures before a voter’s
ballot is permanently rejected. The current “prompt notification” law set out in
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) fails to provide such process and, as a result, voters’
ballots are not fairly considered and counted, even where the voter is wholly eligible
to vote and, with proper notice, could have cured his or her absentee ballot.
83. As numerous other courts have found, a state’s failure to ensure that all
absentee ballots are not rejected before a voter is notified and provided a meaningful
opportunity to be heard violates a voter’s procedural due process rights. See, e.g.,
Saucedo, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 222; Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1339–40;
Zessar v. Helander, No. 1:05-cv-1917, 2006 WL 642646, at *6˗10 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
13, 2006), vacated as moot sub. nom. Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008);
Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1357˗58 (D.
Ariz. 1990).
84. Because voting is a fundamental right, the risk that even one person will
be disenfranchised for failure to include a signature or for a mismatched signature
- 39 -
given the differing interpretations and procedures for prompt notice is too significant
for Georgia to justify depriving absentee voters a uniform pre-rejection notice that
ensures a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
COUNT IV
Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Guarantee of Equal Protection by Defendants Raffensperger and State Election
Board Members
herein.
86. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution prohibits states from “deny[ing] to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This
constitutional provision requires “that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439; see also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 104–
05 (“Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later
arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another[,]”
and holding Equal Protection Clause applies to “the manner of [the] exercise [of
voting].”).
- 40 -
87. The varied county by county interpretations of “promptly notify” under
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) subject similarly situated absentee voters to differing
standards under each county’s application of the provision, resulting in some voters
being wholly disenfranchised and/or having less time to cure their absentee ballots
than other voters solely based on where they live.
88. Defendants Raffensperger and the State Election Board Members have
failed to ensure that Georgia absentee voters are treated equally regardless of the
county in which they reside. Due to this disparate treatment, certain absentee voters
who cast ballots in the upcoming 2020 election will face burdens and infringements
on their fundamental right to vote that other, similarly situated voters will not face
due solely to the county in which they vote.
89. Defendants’ unequal treatment of these voters is not justified by, and is
not necessary to promote, any substantial or compelling state interest that cannot be
accomplished by other, less restrictive means.
Election Board Members, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will
continue to deprive Plaintiffs, their constituents, and other Georgia voters of equal
protection under the law secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 41 -
COUNT V

Undue Burden on the Right to Vote by Defendants Raffensperger and State
herein.
92. Under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must
carefully balance the character and magnitude of the injury to First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put
forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the rule. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at
434; Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. “However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it
must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to
justify the limitation.” Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191 (Stevens, J., controlling opinion)
93. The counties’ standardless interpretations of “promptly notify” under
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) impose a severe burden on the right to vote for
absentee voters across the state, leaving them at risk of being wholly disenfranchised
due to the disparate process for notice applied by each county.

- 42 -
94. This burden is not outweighed by any legitimate, much less compelling,
state interest in the law, and countless eligible, registered Georgia voters will suffer
direct and irreparable injury if Defendants fail to ensure that a uniform standard for
prompt notice is applied in each county. Without relief from this Court, these voters
will be deprived of their right to vote in upcoming elections.
Election Board Members, acting under color of law, will deprive Plaintiffs, their
members, constituencies, and the voters who support them, the rights secured to
them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and protected
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT VI

Undue Burden on the Right to Vote by Defendant Gwinnett Board Members
herein.
97. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
the First Amendment, a state cannot utilize election practices that unduly burden the
right to vote. A court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully
- 43 -
balance the character and magnitude of the injury to First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put
forward by the State for the burdens imposed by the rule. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at
434; Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. “However slight th[e] burden may appear, . . . it
must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to
justify the limitation.” Crawford, 553 U.S. at 191 (Stevens, J., controlling opinion)
98. The deficient absentee ballot design created by the Defendant Gwinnett
Board Members will impose a burden on Plaintiffs, their constituents, and other
Georgia voters in Gwinnett County.
99. The Gwinnett County absentee ballot envelope is a densely-worded,
poorly designed form, with instructions alternating in English and Spanish, printed
in approximately size 6.5-point font and provides no clear notice that a signature is
mandatory. As a result, the form is confusing to voters and makes it far more likely
that they will be unable to properly complete the signature requirement for absentee
ballots. This burden is particularly severe for African-Americans and Latinos, who
make up over 35 percent of Gwinnett County’s active voting population, and 49
percent of rejected absentee ballots during the 2018 general election.
100. Further, the threat of disenfranchisement in Gwinnett County is
- 44 -
particularly high given Gwinnett’s ineffective notice procedures for absentee ballots.
101. Without action from this Court, a significant number of voters will have
their right to vote burdened, if not wholly denied, in upcoming elections due to
Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope design, which places these voters at a
heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without properly completing the
signature requirement and increase the risk that their ballots will be rejected.
102. The use of a densely-worded and confusing absentee ballot envelope,
exposing voters to the risk of having their ballots rejected for missing or mismatched
signatures, for the reasons discussed herein, is not supported by any material or
important government interest (indeed, other counties are able to use absentee ballot
envelopes that are much easier to understand). Moreover, any benefits are plainly
outweighed by the severe burden on voters.
103. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant Gwinnett Board Members,
acting under color of law, will deprive absentee voters residing in the county, the
rights secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 45 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:
a) Declaring that the portions of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) that
require election officials to reject absentee ballots based on
signature mismatch violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
b) Declaring that the portions of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) that
require election officials to reject absentee ballots based on
signature mismatch are unduly burdensome in violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution;
c) Declaring that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution because the “shall promptly notify” standard
fails to provide all Georgia voters with notice and a meaningful
opportunity to contest the status of their absentee ballot and cure
their ballots before rejecting them;
- 46 -
d) Declaring that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386(a)(1)(C) violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution because it fails to provide a uniform standard
by which election officials “shall promptly notify” Georgia
citizens of their rejected ballots;
e) Declaring that the lack of uniform standards for providing notice
to Georgia voters regarding their rejected absentee ballots is
unduly burdensome in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution;
f) Declaring that the Gwinnett County’s absentee ballot envelope
design is unduly burdensome in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
g) Requiring the Secretary and the State Election Board to instruct
County Election Officials to notify voters of missing or
mismatched signatures by telephone, email, and/or text message
within one day of receiving the absentee ballot;
h) Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Secretary and the
State Election Board from enforcing the portions of O.C.G.A. §
21-2-386(a)(1)(C) that require election officials to reject
- 47 -
absentee ballots based on a signature mismatch;
i) Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Gwinnett Board
from creating, preparing, and distributing absentee ballot
envelopes with a confusing, illegible design;
j) Awarding Plaintiffs costs, disbursements, and reasonable
attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and granting such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
- 48 -
Dated: December 27, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
Marc Erik Elias

Marc Erik Elias*
Bruce V. Spiva*
John Devaney*
Amanda R. Callais*
K’Shaani Smith*
Emily R. Brailey*
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
MElias@perkinscoie.com
BSpiva@perkinscoie.com
JDevaney@perkinscoie.com
ACallais@perkinscoie.com
KShaaniSmith@perkinscoie.com
EBrailey@perkinscoie.com
Halsey G. Knapp, Jr.

Georgia Bar No. 425320
Joyce Gist Lewis
Georgia Bar No. 296261
KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC
One Atlantic Center
1201 W. Peachtree St., NW, Suite 3250
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 888-9700
Facsimile: (404) 888-9577
hknapp@khlawfirm.com
jlewis@khlawfirm.comp
Counsel for Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
- 49 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief has been prepared in accordance with the font type
and margin requirements of L.R. 5.1, using font type of Times New Roman and a
point size of 14.
Dated: December 27, 2019 Marc Erik Elias

- 50 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of December 2019, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will
automatically send email notification of such filing to parties in this action.
Dated: December 27, 2019 Marc Erik Elias

- 51 -

Georgia Democratic Party v. Raffensperger Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georgia Democratic Party v. Raffensperger Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cv-05028-WMR Document 30 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

Plaintiffs, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC., DSCC aka

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, and DCCC aka

the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE, through

the undersigned attorneys, file this COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

DECLARATORY RELIEF against Defendants, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in

his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia; REBECCA N.

SULLIVAN, DAVID J. WORLEY, SETH HARP and ANH LEE, in their

official capacities as Members of the Georgia State Election Board; and

STEPHEN DAY, JOHN MANGANO, ALICE O’LENICK, BEN

SATTERFIELD and BEAUTY BALDWIN, in their official capacities as

Members of the Gwinnett County Board of Registration and Elections. Based

upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

by-mail (“absentee”) ballots have been rejected for missing or mismatched

signatures. The cause of this disenfranchisement is two-fold. First, voters harmed

by Georgia’s standardless and unreliable signature matching procedure, under which

a signature mismatch. Second, they are harmed by Georgia’s standardless procedure

within the prescribed timeframe. These deficient procedures disproportionately

impact African-American and other minority voters and have a particularly

by Gwinnett County’s poorly designed, confusing absentee ballot envelope, which

places these voters at a heightened risk of returning an absentee ballot without

properly completing the signature requirement. Because of Georgia’s standardless

signature match and notifications procedures, and Gwinnett County’s confusing

intervention from this Court.

2. Absentee voting is extraordinarily popular among Georgia voters

lower in midterm elections than in presidential elections, the total number of

returned absentee ballots in the 2018 midterm election⸺nearly 284,393⸺was

3. Georgia also routinely rejects a significant number of absentee ballots.

envelope or having a mismatched signature. During the 2016 general election,

inaccurate oath information, including missing and mismatched signatures, 145

4. The number of absentee ballots rejected for a missing or mismatched

signature is significant, especially when evaluated in context. Saucedo v. Gardner,

Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives, who received

5. Because such a significant number of absentee ballots have been

election aimed at ending the disenfranchisement caused by the absentee voting

outright rejection of absentee ballots for missing or inaccurate oath information

341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018).

6. As a result, the Georgia General Assembly amended the absentee

technical reasons, including for missing or mismatched signatures. Specifically,

envelope to remove requests for certain technical information. And, adding to

missing or mismatched signature, it required that election officials give a voter

an absentee ballot for a missing or mismatched signature. Id. at §§ 21-2-

7. These reforms, however, do not remedy the flaws in Georgia’s

for election officials to “promptly” notify voters of missing or mismatched

8. As a result, counties interpret “prompt” notice differently and use

identifying the missing or mismatched signature. Such an interpretation is

problematic for voters whose absentee ballots are submitted on or close to

sufficient time to cure during the three-day post-election period. Thus,

and the rulings of courts in this district.

determining whether a signature matches on an absentee ballot in the first place,

comparing signatures, fails to require any training in signature examination, and

is not supported by any significant oversight to monitor signature match errors

and prevent the disenfranchisement of eligible, qualified voters.

10. Indeed, studies have shown that signature matching conducted by

disenfranchisement of absentee voters, and creates a regime in which the fate of

an absentee ballot often depends on whichever arbitrary standard is employed

charged with reviewing the voter’s signatures.

provide notice to voters about missing or mismatched signatures or the method

of notification or without standard procedures and training for determining a

notification as well as its own standardless and untrained determination of