Filed: Jul. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING LETTER BRIEFING IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND MEDIATION EFFORTS CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . The California Council for the Blind and two named Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") move under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants San Mateo County (the "County") and the State of California to make an electronic ballot marking tool available to Plaintiffs for use in the November 2016 election. See Preliminary Injunction Motion (dk
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING LETTER BRIEFING IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND MEDIATION EFFORTS CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . The California Council for the Blind and two named Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") move under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants San Mateo County (the "County") and the State of California to make an electronic ballot marking tool available to Plaintiffs for use in the November 2016 election. See Preliminary Injunction Motion (dkt..
More
ORDER REQUESTING LETTER BRIEFING IN LIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND MEDIATION EFFORTS
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
The California Council for the Blind and two named Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") move under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants San Mateo County (the "County") and the State of California to make an electronic ballot marking tool available to Plaintiffs for use in the November 2016 election. See Preliminary Injunction Motion (dkt. 47). The Court held a hearing on this matter on July 1, 2016.
After considering the submissions, oral argument, and relevant authorities, including Hindel v. Husted, No. 2:15-CV-3061, 2016 WL 2735935 (S.D. Ohio May 11, 2016) and Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016), the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. See Hearing Transcript (dkt. 64). As the Court noted at the hearing, Plaintiffs have made a showing that California Elections Code § 19205 is preempted by the ADA to the extent it bars blind and visually-impaired voters from using electronic ballot marking tools. See id. The Court further concludes that Defendants have shown a strong likelihood that implementation of the voting tool requested by Plaintiffs—on Plaintiff's abbreviated timeline—would be a fundamental alteration of the absentee voting program. See id.
At the July 1 hearing on this matter, the state noted that the California legislature has passed a bill that would potentially allow Plaintiffs to use the voting software they have requested here. See id. The parties also informed the Court that (a) they are scheduled to attend mediation and (b) they are willing to submit additional letter briefs to the Court following that mediation and following action from the governor on the bill. See id.
The Court thus ORDERS the parties to submit letter briefs to the Court addressing (1) whether a further hearing on the feasibility of implementing a new electronic ballot marking tool on Plaintiffs' timeline is necessary; (2) whether further action from the Court is required given recent legislative action;1 and (3) whether the parties have been able to successfully resolve this matter through mediation. The parties are ORDERED to submit these letter briefs as soon as possible, but not later than August 1, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
