California Council of the Blind v. Weber

Background

Plaintiffs Christopher Gray, Vita Zavoli, Russell Rawlings, California Council of the Blind, and National Federation of the Blind of California are individuals with print disabilities and organizations representing people with print disabilities. The opinion defines print disabilities as disabilities that prevent a voter from reading, marking, holding, handling, or manipulating a paper ballot privately and independently.

California allows registered voters to vote by mail. Voters with print disabilities may receive, review, and mark their vote-by-mail ballots through a certified or conditionally approved remote accessible vote-by-mail system. They are not currently authorized to sign and return those ballots electronically.

The plaintiffs’ amended complaint seeks broader relief than their earlier request for a preliminary injunction. They no longer seek changes for a specific upcoming election or participation in the system for certain military and overseas voters. Instead, they seek to require the Secretary to make California’s vote-by-mail program accessible to voters with print disabilities, including by allowing electronic ballot returns.

Motion to Dismiss

Weber moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a court remedy that could address the injury.

Weber argued that the requested relief could not redress the plaintiffs’ injury because California law prohibits using the internet to vote, counties—not the Secretary alone—perform important election functions, and the counties were not parties to the case. She also argued that she lacked authority to issue regulations or guidance contrary to state law or to require county officials to follow such measures.

Court’s Analysis

The court distinguished the current motion from the plaintiffs’ earlier motion for a preliminary injunction. The earlier request sought access to a system used by certain military and overseas voters to return ballots by facsimile. The court had denied that request after considering, among other issues, the Secretary’s authority, the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success under the Americans with Disabilities Act, election security, and the balance of equities and public interest.

On the motion to dismiss, however, the court had to accept the plaintiffs’ factual allegations and consider whether those allegations supported their position that the Americans with Disabilities Act overrides California provisions prohibiting electronic ballot returns. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail on that legal issue, the court said, California law would no longer prohibit the requested relief.

The court also noted the Secretary’s stated authority to administer and enforce California election laws, adopt regulations for uniform application of those laws, issue guidance to counties, refer county violations to a district attorney or the California Attorney General, and certify voting systems and remote accessible vote-by-mail systems. The court concluded that these powers provided a sufficient basis, at the pleading stage, for the plaintiffs to allege that their injury could be remedied through an order involving the Secretary.

The court rejected Weber’s reliance on National Federation of the Blind of Alabama v. Allen because the circumstances and the state secretary’s powers appeared materially different. The court also noted that the cited Alabama decision did not address the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on state laws prohibiting electronic voting by people with print disabilities.

The court emphasized that it might later determine that California law prohibits the requested relief or that the Secretary cannot issue effective guidance after the factual record is developed. It held only that the plaintiffs had alleged enough facts to show standing at this procedural stage.

Disposition

The court DENIED Weber’s motion to dismiss. It also DENIED the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice because the documents were unnecessary to decide the motion. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to electronic ballot returns under the Americans with Disabilities Act.