Previous 3 / 5 Next

Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting et al. as Amici Curiae 1–3. The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom COVID– 19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal. If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person, they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings. See ___ F. Supp. 3d, at ___, 2020 WL 5814455, *8. On May 1, 2020, several at-risk Alabama voters and associated organizations sued to enjoin that ban, along with other restrictive voting laws not at issue here. The District Court expedited discovery and held a trial from September 8 to 18. Id., at *2. Based on the trial evidence, the District Court concluded, in relevant part, that the secretary’s ban on curbside voting violated the ADA and that a policy allowing, but not requiring, counties to implement curbside voting was a reasonable accommodation. The Eleventh Circuit upheld that portion of the District Court’s injunction. See People First of Ala. v. Secretary of State for Ala., 2020 WL 6074333, *1 (CA11, Oct. 13, 2020). The secretary, among others, now seeks a stay of that decision. I would deny the stay. The secretary has not shown any legal error below. We should not substitute the District Court’s reasonable, record-based findings of fact with our own intuitions about the risks of traditional in-person voting during this pandemic or the ability of willing local officials to implement adequate curbside voting procedures. The District Court for good reason found that the secretary’s ban deprives disabled voters of the equally effective “opportunity to participate in” the “benefit” of in-person voting. 28 CFR §35.130(b)(1)(ii) (2019). The secretary does not meaningfully dispute that the plaintiffs have disabilities, that COVID–19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal to these plaintiffs, and that traditional in-person voting will meaningfully increase their risk of exposure. He argues only that the relevant “benefit” under the ADA is voting

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Merrill v. People First of Alabama

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Alabama Secretary of State’s prohibition on curbside voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments by denying reasonable accommodations to voters with disabilities during the pandemic.

Alleged Acts: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant illness and death in Alabama, presenting particularly severe risks for individuals with underlying chronic health conditions. The Alabama Secretary of State instituted a policy strictly prohibiting counties from offering curbside voting. Because of the statewide ban, vulnerable voters who wished to vote in person were forced to wait inside among crowds where face coverings were not mandated, thereby risking unnecessary exposure to the virus. Alternatively, vulnerable voters could vote by absentee ballot, but this required satisfying distinct burdens not present for in-person voting, such as obtaining witnesses, notaries, and copies of photo IDs.

Procedural history: On September 30, 2020, a federal court ruled that Alabama voters would not need a witness or notary to vote by mail if they have an underlying medical condition and provide a statement. Additionally, the decision stipulated that voters 65 and older with an underlying medical condition would not need an ID so long as they provide other identifying information such as their driver’s license number or last four digits of their Social Security number. Finally, the decision ordered the state to allow counties to implement curbside voting, concluding that the ban on curbside voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring voters with disabilities, who have a higher risk of serious complications or death from the virus, to cast their ballots in person and therefore increase their exposure to the virus. However, on October 13, 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and reinstated the witness and photo ID requirements, while maintaining the lift on the curbside voting ban. The State of Alabama went to the Supreme Court, who, in a one-paragraph order, granted the request by Alabama election officials to allow them to ban curbside voting.

Summary: This case arose from the COVID-19 pandemic and centered on whether Alabama's ban on curbside voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying voters with disabilities equal access to in-person voting.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court granted the stay in an unsigned per curiam opinion, effectively reinstating Alabama's ban on curbside voting for the November 2020 election.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Americans with Disabilities Act, First Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Oct 21, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a67_3e04.pdf

Primary Documents

Merrill v. People First of Alabama.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Merrill v. People First of Alabama

Primary Documents

Notifications