ATLANTA — A long-running lawsuit brought by the Stacey Abrams-founded voting rights group Fair Fight Action after her 2018 election loss in Georgia has been rejected in federal court.
U.S. District Court Judge Steve C. Jones issued a ruling Friday in the lawsuit - which, when it was filed, sought to force Georgia to change many of its election practices - in favor of the state.
"Although Georgia's election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the (Voting Rights Act)," Jones wrote in his ruling. "As the Eleventh Circuit notes, federal courts are not 'the arbiter[s] of disputes' which arise in elections; it [is] not the federal court's role to 'oversee the administrative details of a local election.'"
Jones stipulated, though, that, "this Order should not be construed to mean that Georgia's election procedures are flawless," citing testimony from both sides to state, essentially, that no election process will be perfect.
On Twitter, Gov. Brian Kemp reacted to the ruling, saying: "Today, Stacey Abrams and her organization lost in court - on all counts. From day one, Abrams has used this lawsuit to line her pockets, sow distrust in our democratic institutions, and build her own celebrity."
Fair Fight Action, in a statement, said the lawsuit nonetheless made history as the "longest voting rights trial on record in the Eleventh Circuit, and put real voters at the center of conversation about voting rights in Georgia."
The federal lawsuit initially called for a broad overhaul of Georgia’s election system. Fair Fight said the suit "built an unprecedented and lasting record demonstrating the suppressive effects of the state’s election practices."
The scope of the suit was considerably narrowed when some allegations were addressed by changes in state law and others were dismissed by the court.
When Abrams ended her 2018 bid to become governor, she said that under the watch of her victorious Republican opponent, former Secretary of State Brian Kemp, “democracy failed Georgia.”
Kemp wrote on Twitter: "Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals. In Georgia, it is easy to vote and hard to cheat - and I’m going to continue working to keep it that way."
In a statement, Abrams' campaign pulled points from the ruling.
“While the Court’s actions are not the preferred outcome, the conduct of this trial and preceding cases and legislative actions represent a hard-won victory for voters who endured long lines, burdensome date of birth requirements and exact match laws that disproportionately impact Black and Brown voters.
As the judge states in his ruling,‘The Court finds that the Senate Factors weigh in favor of finding a Section 2 violation. History of discrimination, racially polarized voting, discrimination in other areas, racial appeals in campaigns, and success of minority candidates all weigh in favor of finding a Section 2 violation. Although these factors weigh in favor of a violation, the Court finds that these factors are more generalized indicators of the status of minority life in Georgia."
Read the full statement at the bottom of this story.
During her opening statement, Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, an attorney for Fair Fight and the other plaintiffs, evoked the image of U.S. Rep. John Lewis marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in 1965 to fight for voting rights.
“Voting is also a bridge. It is the most basic path to democracy,” she said. Because of the actions of state election officials, she said, “eligible voters in Georgia face roadblock after roadblock as they try to get to that path.”
State lawyer Josh Belinfante told the AP back at the start of the trial that Fair Fight's claims did not stand up to scrutiny.
He predicted they would fall short of proving their argument in part because they overlook “the hard work of everyday Georgians” - the election workers who toil under difficult conditions and “just want to get it right,” he said.
The lawsuit initially said state election officials “grossly mismanaged” the 2018 election in a way that disenfranchised some citizens, particularly low-income people and people of color.
The issues remaining for the trial had to do with the state's “exact match” policy, the statewide voter registration list and in-person cancellation of absentee ballots.
Statement from Stacey Abrams:
“While the Court’s actions are not the preferred outcome, the conduct of this trial and preceding cases and legislative actions represent a hard-won victory for voters who endured long lines, burdensome date of birth requirements and exact match laws that disproportionately impact Black and Brown voters.
As the judge states in his ruling,‘The Court finds that the Senate Factors weigh in favor of finding a Section 2 violation. History of discrimination, racially polarized voting, discrimination in other areas, racial appeals in campaigns, and success of minority candidates all weigh in favor of finding a Section 2 violation. Although these factors weigh in favor of a violation, the Court finds that these factors are more generalized indicators of the status of minority life in Georgia.’
The work of the past decade has been to advance fairness in our democracy that is no longer linked to ‘the status of minority life in Georgia.’ The plaintiffs and the numerous witnesses have the lived experience of voter suppression in Georgia under Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, and this 288-page order spells out in grave detail the exhausting cost of their actions. The court’s order explicitly lays out the hazards of a system rife with barriers that disproportionately impacted Black and Brown people. Imperfection is no excuse for discriminatory practices we saw from the Secretary of State’s office in the 2018 elections.
This case and the public engagement on these issues have had measurable results: the reinstatement of over 22,000 ballots, substantive changes to voting laws, and a platform for voters of color to demand greater equity in our state. During this suit, more than 3000 voters shared their stories, creating an unprecedented and lasting record of voter testimony, which highlighted the suppressive effects of the Secretary of State’s actions on vulnerable voters.
Moreover, advocates identified and advocated for common-sense, pro-voter solutions to the elections system problems challenged in the case, many of which Defendants conceded are ‘good ideas.’ The work continues as we defend voters against the newest iteration of voter suppression created by SB 202, and I am determined to fight against the ‘generalized indicators of the status of minority life in Georgia’ that a robust democracy is designed to improve. As governor, I will expand the right to vote, not attack voters as they exercise the prerogatives of citizenship. I will defend minority voters, not bemoan their increased power or grow ‘frustrated’ by their success. This case demonstrates that the 2022 election will be a referendum on how our state treats its most marginalized voices.
Over the past four years, Fair Fight and its allies have exposed a deeply flawed and problematic system. As the judge says in his first sentence, “This is a voting rights case that resulted in wins and losses for all parties.” However, the battle for voter empowerment over voter suppression persists, and the cause of voter access endures. We will not stop fighting to ensure every vote can be cast, every ballot is counted and every voice is heard.”