MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A federal court this week narrowly halted Alabama’s new law targeting ballot harvesting saying it is a likely a violation of Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. U.S. District Judge David Proctor granted the plaintiffs in a suit against the state a limited injunction to prevent the enforcement of certain components of the law as it would apply to disabled voters ahead of the upcoming election.
Having gone into effect earlier this year, Senate Bill 1 makes it a Class B felony to pay another person for assistance with an absentee ballot application, and a Class C felony to receive payment.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman, championed the legislation as a tool to combat ballot harvesting, whereas state Democratic lawmakers and civic groups decried the bill as an infringement on voting rights.
A number of advocacy groups, including the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the ACLU, soon filed suit after the bill’s passage to challenge the law in court, and later asked that a judge halt its enforcement ahead of the upcoming election.
Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge David Proctor granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the new law, but only as it pertains to disabled, blind and low-literacy voters.
“The court easily concludes, after reviewing its language, that SB1 unduly burdens the rights of Section 208 voters to make a choice about who may assist them in obtaining and returning an absentee ballot,” the ruling reads.
“The requested injunction will serve to ensure certain disabled, blind, and illiterate voters are not disenfranchised.”
In his ruling, however, Proctor denied the plaintiffs’ request to halt the new law in its entirety. The ruling for the state to halt the law’s enforcement on disabled, blind and illiterate voters also remains a temporary order while the case continues to be litigated.
In a joint statement released Wednesday, the plaintiffs championed the ruling as a victory for voting rights, and vowed to continue to challenge the law in court.
“We’re glad that the district court has sided with the rights of the voters and is committed to promoting voting accessibility,” the statement read.
“Our democracy works best when everybody can participate in it, and this ruling prevents the enforcement of a cruel law that would have suppressed the voices of blind, disabled, and low-literacy voters. We’re proud of this victory, and we will continue to fight to ensure that all Alabamians can easily exercise their right to vote.”
Upon its passage, the law saw a number of civic groups halt their voter outreach efforts across the state, such as the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, both of which cited fears of prosecution.
As written, the ballot harvesting law already includes language that excludes those with disabilities or the inability to read or write from criminal culpability, but only for the provision that prohibits absentee ballot assistance without payment.
In a request to stay the injunction, Marshall’s office wrote that the decision does not follow “common sense.” They argued anyone could help a disabled voter, but “just not in exchange for cash or gifts.” The state had argued the prohibitions are needed to stop paid operatives from corralling large numbers of absentee votes.
“Alabama’s elections will be less secure and the voting rights of the State’s most vulnerable voters less protected if SB1’s injunction remains in place,” Marshall’s office wrote.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.