Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 153 The State Defendants immediately appealed this Court’s denial of their motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and then sought a stay of this case pending the appeal.1 After the State’s appeal was denied in March 2019, the Plaintiffs filed new Motions for Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiffs’ motions seek to enjoin Defendants from using the Global Election Management System (“GEMS”) and its central Diebold AccuVote Direct Recording Electronic (“DRE”) voting mechanism. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to remedy the claimed unconstitutional gauntlet of state election system practices that continue to thwart and burden their right to vote. And they seek to require the State’s use of hand-marked paper ballots in the 2019 municipal and county elections and thereafter.2 The Plaintiffs also seek equitable relief in connection with the Secretary of State’s (“SOS”) continued use of an electronic voter registration pollbook system, which they contend is riddled with data reliability and accuracy problems that result in the unconstitutional disenfranchisement and burdening of voters’ rights to cast regular ballots that are actually counted. Plaintiffs forcefully opposed any stay of the proceedings and immediately sought a status conference to discuss an expedited schedule to move the case forward in time to address future elections. Despite having found the State Defendant’s immunity and standing arguments meritless and expressing its strong concerns regarding the need for the State to move forward to address election remedial issues, the Court nonetheless reluctantly granted the stay request pending appeal to the Eleventh Circuit due to the exceptionally high legal standard for showing of frivolousness required in this context. On an expedited appeal, the Eleventh Circuit denied and dismissed the State Defendants’ appeal of the Court’s jurisdictional rulings on immunity and standing in a decision deemed final on March 8, 2019. 2 The two sets of Plaintiffs in this case are represented by separate counsel and have sought overlapping but somewhat different equitable relief. Donna Curling, Donna Price, and Jeffrey Schoenberg are referred to as the “Curling Plaintiffs.” The Coalition for Good Governance (“CGG”), Laura Digges, William Digges III, Ricardo Davis, and Megan Missett are referred to as the “Coalition Plaintiffs.” See Section IV infra regarding the overlapping but distinct relief measures requested by the two groups of Plaintiffs. 1 4