Chief U.S. District Judge David Proctor recently issued a preliminary injunction blocking a portion of a new Alabama law that restricted assistance with absentee ballot applications, citing violations of the Voting Rights Act. The injunction specified that the ban on gifts and payments for aiding with an absentee ballot application is not enforceable for voters who are blind, disabled, or illiterate, as it hinders their right to choose who can assist them with obtaining and returning an absentee ballot.
Judge Proctor’s ruling deemed that Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) disproportionately burdens the rights of Section 208 voters. While the injunction only pertains to a specific aspect of the law, the majority of the legislation, which had faced opposition from voter outreach organizations, remains in effect. Alabama is among several states with Republican leadership that have recently implemented restrictive measures concerning voter assistance.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office has filed an appeal in response to the court’s decision. The disputed law, initially designated as SB 1, prohibits the distribution of prefilled absentee ballot applications and the exchange of gifts or payments related to assisting with absentee ballots. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, the Legal Defense Fund, and others had filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of voter outreach groups, expressing concerns that their staff and volunteers aiding disabled voters could face legal consequences for their services.
The advocates emphasized that inclusivity and participation are vital aspects of a functioning democracy, celebrating the injunction as a safeguard against disenfranchising blind, disabled, and low-literacy voters. In seeking to overturn the injunction, Marshall’s office contended that the restriction on payments or gifts for assistance may hamper the efforts of paid operatives who collect numerous absentee votes. They argued that while individuals can still assist disabled voters, monetary exchanges should not be involved for the process to remain lawful. The state asserted that allowing the injunction to stand would compromise the security of Alabama’s elections and weaken the voting rights of the state’s most vulnerable populations.
