Alabama voters head to the polls at the Volunteers of America Southeast Chapter on July 14, 2020 in Mobile, Alabama. (Photo: Michael DeMocker/Getty Images)
Oct 22, 2020
Offering no explanation for their ruling, the five conservative justices who hold the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Alabama state officials Wednesday night in a decision banning curbside voting in the state.
The ruling will bar counties including Democratic-leaning Montgomery and Jefferson from allowing voters with disabilities or who are at risk of severe, potentially fatal Covid-19 infections from remaining in their cars when they go to the polls to vote in person rather than voting by mail.
Sam Spital of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose client, Howard Porter Jr., was a plaintiff in the case, called the decision an "outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk."
\u201cAn outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk. Our @NAACP_LDF client Mr. Porter, Jr., a Black man in his 70s w/asthma & Parkinson\u2019s testified: \u201c\u2018[S]o many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don\u2019t mind dying to vote, I think . . . we\u2019re past that time.\u2019\u201d\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThe conservative majority blocked a district court injunction that simply allowed Alabama counties that are willing to provide curbside voting--which is widely available throughout the country and far safer for high-risk voters--to do so.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThis decision risks the safety of Alabama voters, especially Black voters, who are disproportionately at risk for COVID complications due to systemic discrimination. And it disrespects the district court, which considered the issues in a 197 pg opinion after 2 weeks of trial.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
The counties have sought for months to allow curbside voting, in which voters would hand their ballots to a poll worker to avoid having to wait in a crowded polling place and increasing their chances of being exposed to the coronavirus.
"The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal."
--Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Secretary of State John Merrill, who has sought to ban the practice, applauded the Supreme Court ruling and called the decision a victory for "election integrity and security" and for "the people of Alabama"--but the five conservative justices did not explain in their ruling how election security might be threatened by a voter receiving assistance from a poll worker while remaining in their car instead of waiting in a crowd of people during a pandemic.
In her dissent on behalf of the three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Supreme Court has now flouted public health recommendations by the CDC, which has urged states to adopt curbside voting to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
"This is no radical recommendation," Sotomayor wrote. "The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal. If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person, they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings."
Sotomayor also noted that Merrill has never "meaningfully" disputed that forcing voters with disabilities and pre-existing health conditions to vote in person in the traditional manner could prove fatal this year.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned two lower federal court rulings which stated that Merrill's ban on curbside voting was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, granting state officials a stay of those orders.
Outraged disability rights advocates said the ruling will force people with disabilities "to choose between voting and staying alive."
\u201cDisabled people shouldn't have to choose between voting and staying alive.\u201d— Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her) (@Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her)) 1603339296
\u201cCurbside voting was the safest option for many disabled people. Today, the Supreme Court decided to block it. This is ableist! Disabled people shouldn't have to die to vote! I'm furious. #CripTheVote #Accessibility #SCOTUS #Disability #ADA #a11y #Alabama https://t.co/YqEgFvrW6d\u201d— Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf (@Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf) 1603337505
Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted that the conservative justices had ruled from the safety of their homes against voters who aim to protect themselves from severe Covid-19 infections.
\u201cBREAKING: By a 5-3 vote, Supreme Court BLOCKS a lower court order that allowed voters in Alabama to cast ballots by way of curbside voting in those localities that sought to make these accommodations available.\n\nReminder - the Supreme Court is still operating remotely. #COVID19\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1603330559
"Reminder: the Supreme Court is still operating remotely," Clarke tweeted.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Offering no explanation for their ruling, the five conservative justices who hold the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Alabama state officials Wednesday night in a decision banning curbside voting in the state.
The ruling will bar counties including Democratic-leaning Montgomery and Jefferson from allowing voters with disabilities or who are at risk of severe, potentially fatal Covid-19 infections from remaining in their cars when they go to the polls to vote in person rather than voting by mail.
Sam Spital of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose client, Howard Porter Jr., was a plaintiff in the case, called the decision an "outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk."
\u201cAn outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk. Our @NAACP_LDF client Mr. Porter, Jr., a Black man in his 70s w/asthma & Parkinson\u2019s testified: \u201c\u2018[S]o many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don\u2019t mind dying to vote, I think . . . we\u2019re past that time.\u2019\u201d\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThe conservative majority blocked a district court injunction that simply allowed Alabama counties that are willing to provide curbside voting--which is widely available throughout the country and far safer for high-risk voters--to do so.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThis decision risks the safety of Alabama voters, especially Black voters, who are disproportionately at risk for COVID complications due to systemic discrimination. And it disrespects the district court, which considered the issues in a 197 pg opinion after 2 weeks of trial.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
The counties have sought for months to allow curbside voting, in which voters would hand their ballots to a poll worker to avoid having to wait in a crowded polling place and increasing their chances of being exposed to the coronavirus.
"The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal."
--Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Secretary of State John Merrill, who has sought to ban the practice, applauded the Supreme Court ruling and called the decision a victory for "election integrity and security" and for "the people of Alabama"--but the five conservative justices did not explain in their ruling how election security might be threatened by a voter receiving assistance from a poll worker while remaining in their car instead of waiting in a crowd of people during a pandemic.
In her dissent on behalf of the three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Supreme Court has now flouted public health recommendations by the CDC, which has urged states to adopt curbside voting to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
"This is no radical recommendation," Sotomayor wrote. "The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal. If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person, they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings."
Sotomayor also noted that Merrill has never "meaningfully" disputed that forcing voters with disabilities and pre-existing health conditions to vote in person in the traditional manner could prove fatal this year.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned two lower federal court rulings which stated that Merrill's ban on curbside voting was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, granting state officials a stay of those orders.
Outraged disability rights advocates said the ruling will force people with disabilities "to choose between voting and staying alive."
\u201cDisabled people shouldn't have to choose between voting and staying alive.\u201d— Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her) (@Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her)) 1603339296
\u201cCurbside voting was the safest option for many disabled people. Today, the Supreme Court decided to block it. This is ableist! Disabled people shouldn't have to die to vote! I'm furious. #CripTheVote #Accessibility #SCOTUS #Disability #ADA #a11y #Alabama https://t.co/YqEgFvrW6d\u201d— Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf (@Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf) 1603337505
Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted that the conservative justices had ruled from the safety of their homes against voters who aim to protect themselves from severe Covid-19 infections.
\u201cBREAKING: By a 5-3 vote, Supreme Court BLOCKS a lower court order that allowed voters in Alabama to cast ballots by way of curbside voting in those localities that sought to make these accommodations available.\n\nReminder - the Supreme Court is still operating remotely. #COVID19\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1603330559
"Reminder: the Supreme Court is still operating remotely," Clarke tweeted.
Offering no explanation for their ruling, the five conservative justices who hold the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Alabama state officials Wednesday night in a decision banning curbside voting in the state.
The ruling will bar counties including Democratic-leaning Montgomery and Jefferson from allowing voters with disabilities or who are at risk of severe, potentially fatal Covid-19 infections from remaining in their cars when they go to the polls to vote in person rather than voting by mail.
Sam Spital of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose client, Howard Porter Jr., was a plaintiff in the case, called the decision an "outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk."
\u201cAn outrageous 5-3 ruling that puts Alabama voters at risk. Our @NAACP_LDF client Mr. Porter, Jr., a Black man in his 70s w/asthma & Parkinson\u2019s testified: \u201c\u2018[S]o many of my [ancestors] even died to vote. And while I don\u2019t mind dying to vote, I think . . . we\u2019re past that time.\u2019\u201d\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThe conservative majority blocked a district court injunction that simply allowed Alabama counties that are willing to provide curbside voting--which is widely available throughout the country and far safer for high-risk voters--to do so.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
\u201cThis decision risks the safety of Alabama voters, especially Black voters, who are disproportionately at risk for COVID complications due to systemic discrimination. And it disrespects the district court, which considered the issues in a 197 pg opinion after 2 weeks of trial.\u201d— Sam Spital (@Sam Spital) 1603326969
The counties have sought for months to allow curbside voting, in which voters would hand their ballots to a poll worker to avoid having to wait in a crowded polling place and increasing their chances of being exposed to the coronavirus.
"The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal."
--Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Secretary of State John Merrill, who has sought to ban the practice, applauded the Supreme Court ruling and called the decision a victory for "election integrity and security" and for "the people of Alabama"--but the five conservative justices did not explain in their ruling how election security might be threatened by a voter receiving assistance from a poll worker while remaining in their car instead of waiting in a crowd of people during a pandemic.
In her dissent on behalf of the three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Supreme Court has now flouted public health recommendations by the CDC, which has urged states to adopt curbside voting to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
"This is no radical recommendation," Sotomayor wrote. "The Department of Justice has sanctioned curbside voting as a remedy to ADA violations, and some 28 States and the District of Columbia already permit curbside voting... The Alabama secretary of state, however, has prohibited counties from offering curbside voting, even for voters with disabilities for whom Covid-19 is disproportionately likely to be fatal. If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person, they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings."
Sotomayor also noted that Merrill has never "meaningfully" disputed that forcing voters with disabilities and pre-existing health conditions to vote in person in the traditional manner could prove fatal this year.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned two lower federal court rulings which stated that Merrill's ban on curbside voting was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, granting state officials a stay of those orders.
Outraged disability rights advocates said the ruling will force people with disabilities "to choose between voting and staying alive."
\u201cDisabled people shouldn't have to choose between voting and staying alive.\u201d— Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her) (@Margaux Joffe \ud83e\udde0\u2728 (she/her)) 1603339296
\u201cCurbside voting was the safest option for many disabled people. Today, the Supreme Court decided to block it. This is ableist! Disabled people shouldn't have to die to vote! I'm furious. #CripTheVote #Accessibility #SCOTUS #Disability #ADA #a11y #Alabama https://t.co/YqEgFvrW6d\u201d— Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf (@Haben Girma\ud83d\udc69\ud83c\udfff\u200d\ud83e\uddaf) 1603337505
Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted that the conservative justices had ruled from the safety of their homes against voters who aim to protect themselves from severe Covid-19 infections.
\u201cBREAKING: By a 5-3 vote, Supreme Court BLOCKS a lower court order that allowed voters in Alabama to cast ballots by way of curbside voting in those localities that sought to make these accommodations available.\n\nReminder - the Supreme Court is still operating remotely. #COVID19\u201d— Kristen Clarke (@Kristen Clarke) 1603330559
"Reminder: the Supreme Court is still operating remotely," Clarke tweeted.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.