October, 12 2018, 12:00am EDT

Civil Rights Groups Sue Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp to Cease Discriminatory 'No Match, No Vote' Registration Protocol
Lawsuit filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and its partners on behalf of Georgia organizations
WASHINGTON
Today, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and its partners filed a major lawsuit against Secretary of State Brian Kemp over the state of Georgia's discriminatory and unlawful "exact match" voter suppression scheme. The suit alleges that Georgia's 'no match, no vote' voter registration scheme violates the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
"Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has been a driving force behind multiple voter suppression efforts throughout the years in Georgia," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "If there is one person in Georgia who knows that the 'Exact Match' scheme has a discriminatory impact on minority voters, it's Brian Kemp because we successfully sued him over a mirror policy in 2016. There exists a stark parallel between the voter suppression schemes levied by states around the country prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the insidious tactics used by Secretary Kemp to capitalize on the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County to gut the Act and its protections for African Americans and other people of color that came with it. No less than 70 percent of people impacted by 'Exact Match' are African-American. We will continue fighting voter suppression to ensure a level playing field for voters across Georgia this election cycle."
As a result of the "exact match" voter-registration protocol, which is being implemented by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, more than 53,000 voter registration applications have been placed in "pending" status one month before the midterm election. The vast majority of those pending applications are from minority voters. The federal lawsuit asks that a court prohibit the purging of any voters based on the 'exact match' protocol and ensure that all ballots cast by voters flagged as 'non-matches' are counted in future elections.
Secretary Kemp has long endorsed and repeatedly used the 'exact match' protocol, which has been previously shown to have a high error rate and a substantial, negative impact upon voting-eligible African American, Latino and Asian American Georgians. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and other civil rights organizations successfully challenged the use of 'no match, no vote' prior to the November 2016 election, resulting in the restoration of more than 40,000 voters to the rolls.
Under the Georgia law, applicants are removed from the registration rolls after 26 months if they do not cure the "no-match" result. The matching protocol delays the processing of complete and accurate voter registration applications and will cause many to be rejected after the 26-month window passes, resulting in the disenfranchisement of legitimate, voting-eligible Georgians. The notice provided by election officials is vague and often confused with junk mail, meaning that voters are frequently unaware that there is an issue with their registration status.
Voter registration application is flagged and placed in "pending" status if the information on their registration form does not exactly match information contained in the Department of Driver Services or Social Security Administration databases. A non-match can result from something as simple as an election officials switching two numbers in the applicant's driver's license number, adding or removing a hyphen from a name, or changing a voter's maiden name. The matching process also incorrectly flags U.S. citizens as non-citizens, even where the applicants submit a copy of their U.S. naturalization certificate or other evidence of their U.S. citizenship with their applications.
Nearly every other state treats failure to match a database differently than Georgia. In the case of a mismatch, the voter is still fully registered. First-time voters are required to show a form of identification at the polls when they vote for the first time. This process provides the same amount of election security and imposes less barriers to voters.
"Georgia's 'exact match' protocol has resulted in the cancellation or rejection of tens of thousands of voter registration applications in the past. The reintroduction of this practice, which is known to be discriminatory and error-ridden, is appalling," said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at CLC. "This policy adds nothing to the security of Georgia elections but causes unnecessary confusion and additional burdens for eligible citizens who wish to exercise their fundamental right to vote."
"In 2016, we helped stop Georgia's 'exact match' protocol that kicked thousands of voters off the voter rolls--some of them simply because they have uncommon Asian or Latino names that others commonly misspell," Phi Nguyen Litigation Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta. "It is unacceptable that only two years later, we are once again asking a court to step in to end an almost identical 'exact match' protocol that threatens to disenfranchise thousands more from our communities."
"I am appalled at the actions of the Secretary of State office; over 70% of the pending applicants are minorities," said Phyllis Blake, President of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP. "I hope that the Secretary of State's expeditiousness follow up to correct these pending applications, whether the problem exists within the database, SOS office, County Voter Registration office or applicant, find it and fix it to allow the voter to fulfill the precious right to vote. The NAACP, GSC will continue to monitor this situation and request full transparency in yet another GA Voter Suppression Tactic attempt."
"It's a stain on our system of democracy when less than a month before an election which could produce the first African-American female governor in our nation's history, we are seeing this type of voter suppression scheme attempted by a state official whose candidacy for the governorship produces an irremediable conflict of interest," said NAACP President and CEO, Derrick Johnson. "We are closely monitoring this situation with our Georgia State Conference President Phyllis Blake and demanding a complete investigation and full transparency prior to the election."
"The exact match process has a discriminatory impact on minority voters. It creates further barriers for U. S. citizens attempting to exercise their right to vote," said Jerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO). "We do hope the court will step in and allow these voters the right to vote while striking down this discriminatory process.
"The right to vote is central to our democracy," said Villa Hayes, Senior Pro Bono Counsel at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. "Democracy works best when all citizens can vote and we are proud to be an active participant in voter protection."
"The Exact Match law continues to be a tool of voter suppression. Every year, thousands of Georgians are denied their right to vote due to clerical/administrative errors," said Tamieka Atkins, Executive Director for Pro Georgia. "This year, 53,000 people are being negatively affected. If you are on the pending list, you can still vote. You must show photo identification at the polls that closely resembles the name you used to register to vote. If you're not sure if you're on the pending list, visit mvp.sos.ga.gov to check your status or call ProGeorgia at 4045833871 and we can assist you."
On July 18, 2018, voting rights advocates sent a notice letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, advising him that the enactment and implementation of the voter registration provisions of Georgia Act 250 (O.C.G.A. SS 21-2-220.1), which codified a 'no match, no vote' voter registration protocol, violate Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, and requesting that Secretary Kemp immediately cease enforcement of the Georgia law or risk facing a new legal challenge to the law in federal court.
Given recent news reports, it is important to note that many voters on this "pending" list for "exact match" issues are entitled to vote a regular ballot in person at the polls if they show Georgia voter photo ID. It is possible, however, that some may have to present proof of citizenship to a deputy registrar and that others will not be able to vote by mail or may have their vote by mail ballots rejected because Georgia absentee ballots do not require photo ID. Voters with questions can call Election Protection at 866-OUR-VOTE.
The Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed its lawsuit today along with its partners including Campaign Legal Center, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta and the Law Office of Bryan Sells. The suit was filed on behalf of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Atlanta, ProGeorgia State Table, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the New Georgia Project.
To read the full complaint, click here
About the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. Now in its 55th year, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is continuing its quest "Move America Toward Justice." The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting rights. For more information, please visit https://lawyerscommittee.org
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


