澳彩开奖

ATLANTA 鈥� A Georgia district court on Wednesday refused to temporarily lift restrictions to absentee voting, drop boxes and other voting methods that will make it harder for Black voters to cast a ballot for the 2024 election. Voting rights organizations had filed five motions for preliminary injunctions to lift barriers to voting as part of Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, saying these restrictions discriminated against Black communities.聽

The 澳彩开奖 (澳彩开奖), the,, the, and the law firms and (DWT) filed the preliminary injunction motions with other legal groups and the Department of Justice. Plaintiffs are the,,, and the, represented by LDF, ACLU Ga, ACLU and Wilmer Hale, as well as the,, and, represented by 澳彩开奖 and DWT.聽

鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling forces Black Georgians to endure unnecessary restrictions to voting,鈥� said Poy Winichakul, senior staff attorney for voting rights with the 澳彩开奖. 鈥淭ime after time, Black voters in Georgia have proven that they will not let barriers deter them from exercising their right to vote 鈥� and we will continue working to lift barriers so that all voters have access to the ballot and can make their voice heard.鈥澛�

鈥淭he challenged provisions were designed to dilute Black political power, " said Alaizah Koorji, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. As a result of this ruling, Black voters will face obstacles in accessing drop boxes, voting absentee, casting provisional ballots, among other restrictions. We will remain steadfast in challenging this voter suppression to ensure Georgia鈥檚 voting laws comply with the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution.聽聽

鈥淲e are disappointed that the challenged provisions of SB 202 will remain in effect during the 2024 election cycle. But our legal challenge is far from over,鈥� said Rahul Garabadu, senior voting rights attorney at the ACLU of Georgia. 鈥淭he fight for voting rights in the South has never been easy, especially for Black voters. We will never stop advocating on behalf of our clients and voters across the state. We look forward to presenting our case at trial.鈥澛犅�

鈥淲hile we are disappointed by today鈥檚 decision, we remain fully committed to this challenge on behalf of our clients and all Black voters in Georgia,鈥� said George Varghese, a partner at WilmerHale. 鈥淪B 202鈥檚 voting restrictions unmistakably discriminate against Black voters, and we will continue our efforts to lift these barriers and protect Georgians鈥� fundamental right to vote.聽

Background:聽After Georgia voters turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election and U.S. Senate elections in 2021, Georgia legislators passed S.B. 202, a sweeping unconstitutional and racially discriminatory voting law that threatened to create massive barriers to voting, particularly for voters of color.聽聽

In response, voting rights organizations filed AME v. Kemp, a case challenging multiple provisions of S.B. 202 including:聽

• A ban on 鈥渓ine relief,鈥� where volunteers provide water and snacks to people waiting in long lines to vote, a common occurrence at precincts with a large population of voters of color.聽聽
• A severe restriction on the use of mobile voting units, which have been used to address a shortage of accessible and secure polling locations that previously resulted in long lines of voters at existing and traditional polling locations. 聽

• Additional and onerous identification requirements for requesting and casting an absentee ballot.聽聽
• A compressed period for requesting absentee ballots.聽聽
• Restrictions on the use of secure ballot drop boxes.聽聽
• Disqualification of provisional ballots cast in a voter鈥檚 county of residence but outside the voter鈥檚 precinct before 5 p.m. Previously, votes for all the races to which the person was eligible to vote on that precinct鈥檚 provisional ballot were counted.聽聽
• A drastic reduction of early voting in runoff elections.聽聽

The lawsuit describes how S.B. 202 violates voter protections under the 14th and 15th Amendments, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also outlines how the 鈥渓ine relief鈥� ban violates the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.聽