Voting Rights and Democracy

In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202

In In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying the right to vote over paperwork errors that are immaterial to a voter’s qualifications to vote, applies to vote-by-mail paperwork.

Case Summary

The Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits states from denying the right to vote over paperwork errors or omissions that are immaterial to a voter’s qualifications to vote. In 2021, Georgia passed an omnibus election law, known as S.B. 202, that requires voters mailing in an absentee ballot to write their birthdate on the envelope (“the Birthdate Requirement”). If a voter makes an error or fails to include the date altogether, Georgia law mandates that her ballot be rejected. 

The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held that the Birthdate Requirement likely violated the Materiality Provision. On appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Georgia and Intervenors are arguing that the Materiality Provision only applies to voter registration materials and does not cover paperwork required to vote by mail. 

In September 2024, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of those challenging the Birthdate Requirement. As the text and history of the Civil Rights Act make clear, the Materiality Provision unambiguously includes papers related to voting by mail. And as the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment make clear, Congress had the authority to enact the Provision. 

The Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress sweeping power to enforce the Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination in voting. The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” To make the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee a reality, the Framers explicitly provided that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Its authors explained that this Enforcement Clause gives Congress a broad “affirmative power” to secure the right to vote. 

Despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s broad prohibition of racial discrimination in voting, states devised novel procedures to prevent Black citizens from voting. Congress used its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and strengthen federal civil rights protections. Its authors were specifically concerned about arbitrary practices that disenfranchised voters with “irrelevantly strict” requirements. As one Congressman succinctly put it, “the failure to insert a period or a comma may not be used to” disenfranchise Black voters. 

The Materiality Provision’s plain text unambiguously prohibits the denial of the “right to vote” due to an “error or omission” on “any record or paper” required to “cast[] a ballot.” The statutory definition of “vote” makes clear that the Provision encompasses any paperwork necessary for a voter to make her “vote effective.” The broad language in this definition includes all stages of voting, including registration, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted. Therefore, the plain text of the provision clearly encompasses the absentee ballot envelope at issue in this case. Georgia’s and Intervenors’ arguments that the Materiality Provision’s inclusion of vote-by-mail paperwork threatens the Provision’s constitutionality under the Fifteenth Amendment are meritless. 

The Eleventh Circuit should reject Georgia’s unlawful attempt to disenfranchise voters and affirm the District Court’s decision enjoining the enforcement of the Birthdate Requirement. 

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
October 3, 2024

Arizona opinion: Minor paperwork errors shouldn’t cost anyone the right to vote

Arizona Daily Star
Everyone makes mistakes, but Arizona has passed a law that disenfranchises voters for the simple...
By: Anna Jessurun
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 20, 2024

“Will the Supreme Court Revive the Dangerous Fringe Election Theory It Just Rejected?”

Election Law Blog
Anna Jessurun in Slate: As several scholars predicted, ISLT proponents have now seized on the language in Moore to...
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Revive the Dangerous Fringe Election Theory It Just Rejected?

Slate
From troubling election denialism to rampant misinformation about voter fraud, there are already multiple respects...
By: Anna Jessurun
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 10, 2024

Table Talk: Absentee ballots improve elections, reinforce democracy

The Post Athens
Absentee ballots rose to popularity during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although absentee voting...
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 8, 2024

Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review

66 B.C. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
By: David H. Gans, Brianne J. Gorod, Anna Jessurun
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 5, 2024

“Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review”

Election Law Blog
David Gans, Brianne Gorod, and Anna Jessurun have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review)....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans, Anna Jessurun, Rick Hasen