Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 19 of 153 conduct their own elections on DREs regarding the burden of switching to a paper ballot system before the scheduled elections.16 The Court finds that joining all of Georgia’s counties and municipalities into this action is not feasible and is not required to provide relief to Plaintiffs where the State’s Chief Election Officer charged with implementation and enforcement of the State’s election system is a party.17 See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-50(b) (referring to the Secretary of State as “the state’s chief election official”). Defendants are not advocating that the Court needs to join the Georgia counties In response to a request by the Court for an updated list of scheduled elections in 2019, State Defendants offered the Declaration of Melisa Arnold, the City Clerk and Elections Superintendent for the City of Snellville in Gwinnett County and the Declaration of James E. Elliott, Jr., the former City Attorney for Warner Robins. (See Doc. 537-1; 537-2.) The City of Snellville does not contract with Gwinnett County to conduct its municipal elections. (Doc. 5371 ¶ 4.) Rather, Snellville conducts elections using hand-marked paper ballots tabulated by an optical scan machine at a single precinct location. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 14.) The City of Snellville owns two (2) AccuVote ES 2000 optical scan machines for tabulating the paper ballots for use by voters at the precinct for scanning of their ballots. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Ms. Arnold opines in her “experience in conducting elections with paper ballots” that she has “serious concerns regarding the implementation of a new method to conduct elections at this time,” based on expenses associated with procuring new equipment, certifying equipment, training poll workers, and educating voters. (Id. ¶ 22.) The Court struggles to see the relevance of Ms. Arnold’s opinion, as Snellville currently uses the exact paper ballot voting method Plaintiffs seek in this case. Mr. Elliott is not an election superintendent in Warner Robins. Rather, in his former role as City Attorney, Mr. Elliott “advise[d] the City Officials on all legal matters as General Counsel, including zoning, licensing, and elections issues.” (Doc. 537-2 ¶ 3.) Mr. Elliott does not offer any actual opinion on the burden or feasibility of a change by Warner Robins from DREs to paper ballots. (See id.) Instead, the purpose of his declaration appears to be to offer this Court his legal opinions on the interpretation of Georgia’s election code. (See id. ¶ 11 (“Based on the framework of the law surrounding municipal elections, it is unclear how various municipalities may be affected by the relief requested by Plaintiffs in this case.”). 17 See Advisory Committee Notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (“Even if the court is mistaken in its decision to proceed in the absence of an interested person, it does not by that token deprive itself of the power to adjudicate as between the parties already before it through proper service of process. But the court can make a legally binding adjudication only between the parties actually joined in the action. It is true that an adjudication between the parties before the court may on occasion adversely affect the absent person as a practical matter, or leave a party exposed to a later inconsistent recovery by the absent person. These are factors which should be considered in deciding whether the action should proceed, or should rather be dismissed; but they do not themselves negate the court’s power to adjudicate as between the parties who have been joined.”) 16 19