An appeals court has blocked parts of an Alabama law limiting assistance to blind, disabled, and illiterate voters with absentee ballots.
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that blocks a portion of a new Alabama law that limits the type of assistance voters can receive when completing mail-in ballot applications.
Supporters of the law say it would bolster election integrity by limiting opportunities for ballot harvesting, while critics said it unfairly targets voters who are blind, disabled, or unable to read or write.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order on Oct. 11 that denies Alabama’s request to overturn a lower court’s injunction issued in September, thereby preventing the state from enforcing those parts of Senate Bill 1 (
SB1) that prohibited blind, disabled, or illiterate voters from getting help with absentee ballot application in exchange for compensation. The appeals court ruling also upholds the lower court’s decision to block criminal penalties against individuals assisting these voters by prefilling or submitting their mail-in ballot applications.
The three-judge appeals panel ruled that lifting the lower court’s injunction would “injure” ballot access for vulnerable voters and go against the public interest.
“We conclude that the appellant has not made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, the appellant (and thereby the state) will not be irreparably harmed if a stay is denied, the issuance of a stay would injure the plaintiffs (and other Section 208 voters),” the appeals court judges wrote.
The ruling leaves most of SB1 intact, however, allowing Alabama to continue enforcing other provisions that supporters say help prevent election fraud.
SB1, enacted earlier in 2024, criminalizes the payment or provision of gifts to individuals who distribute, order, request, collect, prefill, complete, obtain, or deliver absentee ballot applications. The law also prohibits individuals from submitting completed mail-in ballot applications on behalf of others, even if no payment or gifts are involved.
A coalition of voter outreach and rights groups, including the Alabama NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Alabama, and the Alabama Disability Advocates Program (ADAP),
sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and other officials to block the law. The plaintiffs argued in their
complaint that SB1 criminalizes constitutionally protected speech and disproportionately harms vulnerable populations who rely on assistance to vote, such as disabled and low-literacy voters.
The plaintiffs contended that SB1’s restrictions would have a chilling impact on voter engagement by turning routine acts of civic participation, like helping a neighbor or family member submit an absentee ballot, into serious criminal offenses. They also argued that SB1 violates federal protections under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which guarantees that voters who are blind, disabled, or illiterate can receive assistance from a person of their choice, excluding only their employer or union representative.
In September, a lower court sided with some of the plaintiff’s claims, ruling that SB1 imposed new restrictions that went beyond what was allowed under Section 208 of the VRA. The court determined that barring compensation for assistance and prohibiting the prefilling and submission of absentee ballot applications on behalf of others contravened the federal law when it applied to disabled, blind, or illiterate voters. The appeals court upheld this ruling, keeping the injunction in place for these voters, while allowing the rest of SB1 to remain enforceable.
The League of Women Voters praised the ruling,
stating, “The court’s decision recognizes that many vulnerable voters would be unable to vote if Alabama were allowed to enforce the blocked law (Senate Bill 1 or SB 1), which imposes significant criminal sanctions on civic groups, like Plaintiffs, who Section 208 voters look to for help. Because of this decision, disabled and low-literacy voters are free to receive help from anyone of their choice throughout the voting process.”
A request for comment sent to the Alabama Attorney General’s office was not immediately returned.
In a prior
motion seeking to lift the injunction, Marshall’s office argued that the court’s decision defies “common sense” and said that disabled voters could still receive help, “just not in exchange for cash or gifts.”
The office also stated that, “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.”
