LOGIN

A judge has declined to block parts of Georgia’s election law while legal challenges play out

by Gabriel Martinez
0 comments
Airport Protests

A federal judge in Georgia has opted not to halt the implementation of several key provisions within a comprehensive election law while legal disputes are ongoing.

In 2021, a number of voting advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and the U.S. Department of Justice initiated legal action following the swift passage of this measure by Republican state legislators, just six months after the former President, Donald Trump, narrowly lost the state. Trump had made unfounded claims about extensive election fraud.

The lawsuits contend that specific aspects of the law result in unequal access to voting for Black voters, thereby contravening the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, in a ruling issued on Wednesday, stated, “Plaintiffs have not shown, at least at this stage of the proceedings, that any of the provisions have a disparate impact on Black voters.” He further noted that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Legislature foresaw or knew that Senate Bill 202 (S.B. 202) would disproportionately affect minority voters.

The decision by Boulee has been met with disappointment from voting advocacy groups and civil rights advocates. Consequently, the challenged provisions of the law will remain in effect for the 2024 election cycle. It should be noted, however, that this ruling represents a preliminary decision, and the plaintiffs have affirmed their commitment to continue their legal battle.

Rahul Garabadu, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, commented, “The fight for voting rights in the South has never been easy, especially for Black voters. We will never stop advocating on behalf of our clients and voters across the state. We look forward to presenting our case at trial.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who has been a staunch defender of the law, hailed Boulee’s ruling. He stated, “Today, the Court confirmed what we’ve been saying all along,” emphasizing that the law “strengthens election integrity while increasing the opportunity for Georgia voters to cast a ballot.”

The plaintiffs had petitioned Boulee to halt five contested provisions of the law while the legal proceedings regarding their lawsuits progressed.

One of these provisions mandates that absentee ballot drop boxes must be located indoors, accessible only during early voting hours, and subject to constant human supervision. Another prohibits the distribution of food, beverages, and other items to individuals waiting in line at polling places. The third provision stipulates that absentee ballots can be requested no later than 11 days prior to an election.

The fourth provision specifies that provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct cannot be counted if they are submitted before 5 p.m. on Election Day. The final provision necessitates that a voter provide their driver’s license or state ID card number when requesting an absentee ballot.

In elucidating his analysis, Boulee pointed out certain measures in the state, including some outlined in the challenged election law, which enjoyed support from Democrats and facilitated easier access to the voting process.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Georgia election law litigation

What legal challenges are underway regarding Georgia’s election law?

Several voting advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and the U.S. Department of Justice have initiated legal challenges to certain provisions of Georgia’s election law.

What claims do these lawsuits make against the election law?

The lawsuits argue that specific aspects of the law deny Black voters equal access to voting and violate both the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

What was the recent decision made by the federal judge in Georgia?

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee declined to block the contested provisions of the election law while the legal disputes are ongoing. He found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated, at this stage, that the provisions had a disparate impact on Black voters or that the Legislature foresaw such an impact.

What does this decision mean for the challenged provisions of the law?

The decision means that these provisions will remain in effect for the 2024 election cycle.

Is this ruling final, or is there potential for further legal action?

This ruling is preliminary, and the plaintiffs have expressed their intention to continue fighting the legal battle.

What are some of the specific provisions within the election law that were challenged?

The challenged provisions include requirements for indoor absentee ballot drop boxes, restrictions on providing food and beverages to voters waiting in line at polling places, deadlines for requesting absentee ballots, rules concerning provisional ballots, and the necessity of providing a driver’s license or state ID card number when requesting an absentee ballot.

Are there any measures in the state that aim to make voting more accessible?

Yes, Judge Boulee mentioned that some measures in the state, including those outlined in the challenged election law, have been taken to make voting more accessible and have enjoyed support from Democrats.

More about Georgia election law litigation

You may also like

Leave a Comment

BNB – Big Big News is a news portal that offers the latest news from around the world. BNB – Big Big News focuses on providing readers with the most up-to-date information from the U.S. and abroad, covering a wide range of topics, including politics, sports, entertainment, business, health, and more.

Editors' Picks

Latest News