An amicus brief filed by the Center for Election Confidence (CEC) in defense of a Georgia confidence-building election integrity measure was recently featured in a Law360 story.
Two advocacy groups are joining Georgia’s push for the Eleventh Circuit to overturn an injunction blocking part of a controversial Peach State election law, arguing the lower court’s ruling reimagines the Civil Rights Act to impede an absentee ballot requirement that is focused on election integrity and has nothing to do with racial discrimination.
In a pair of amicus briefs filed on Tuesday, the Center for Election Confidence and the Honest Elections Project take aim at a district court judge’s decision to temporarily block part of the law, Senate Bill 202, [also known as the Election Integrity Act of 2021] that requires voters to print their date of birth on absentee ballot return envelopes.
The groups characterize the requirement as a “commonsensical and simple rule” aimed at verifying voter identity and helping ensure the integrity of elections.
Georgia is urging the Eleventh Circuit to undo the preliminary injunction. It temporarily blocked the birthdate requirement for absentee ballot return envelopes.
Excerpts from the CEC amicus brief:
The Materiality Clause’s text limits its application to the voter registration process. Congress enacted it to prevent states from demanding information irrelevant to determining a voter’s qualifications under state law, such as the voter’s age to the month and day, misspelling a state’s name, or circling options when they should have been underlined. Congress did not intend for the Provision to apply to laws governing the vote-casting process and Supreme Court decisions reflect states’ authority to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Efforts, such as the district court’s decision, to expand the materiality provision into the vote-casting process ignore congressional limitations and endanger all state laws enacted to safeguard the integrity of the ballot box and instill public confidence in election procedures and results.
Equally concerning is what would happen to other state confidence-building and election integrity laws in states across the Eleventh Circuit if the district court’s analysis is upheld.”
Alabama, Florida and Georgia all have laws regulating the act of voting that, like those challenged in the instant litigation, have little-to-no relevance — i.e. materiality — to determining the voters’ qualifications to vote. If the district court’s opinion stands, each of these laws would automatically be suspect.