CLOSED,LEAD CASE
U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:20−cv−00308−SDD−RLB

Clark et al v. Edwards et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick Referred to: Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/19/2020 Date Terminated: 06/22/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Telisa Clark

represented by Danielle Elizabeth Davis Southern Poverty Law Center 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−486−8982 Email: danielle.davis@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caren E Short Southern Poverty Law Center 150 East Ponce De Leon Ave Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−221−5868 Email: caren.short@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cecilia L. Aguilera Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Ste 450 Washington Washington, DC 20006 202−248−5344 Email: caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Freedman Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20001 PRO HAC VICE

Jon Sherman Fair Elections Legal Network 1825 K St. NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20006 202−248−5346 Email: jsherman@fairelectionsnetwork.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle E. Kanter Cohen Fair Elections Center 1825 K Street NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20006 202−248−5347

Plaintiff Lakeshia Barnett
Plaintiff Martha Christian Green

Email: mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy G. Abudu Southern Poverty Law Center P. O. Box 1287 Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30031 404−221−4062 Email: nancy.abudu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caren E Short (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecilia L. Aguilera (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Jon Sherman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle E. Kanter Cohen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy G. Abudu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caren E Short (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecilia L. Aguilera (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman

Plaintiff Crescent City Media Group
Plaintiff League of Women Voters Louisiana

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Jon Sherman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle E. Kanter Cohen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy G. Abudu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caren E Short (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecilia L. Aguilera (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Jon Sherman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle E. Kanter Cohen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy G. Abudu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caren E Short (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecilia L. Aguilera (See above for address)

Plaintiff − Consolidated Power Coalition for Equity and Justice

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Freedman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Jon Sherman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle E. Kanter Cohen (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy G. Abudu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson 701 Poydras Street Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−525−4361 Fax: 504−525−4380 Email: cabral2@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20008 202−216−2727 Email: cmeza@naacpldf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris NAACP Legal Defense Fund 40 Rector Street 5th Floor 10006 New York, NY 10006 212−965−2200 Email: zmorris@naacpldf.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez Covington & Burling LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105−2533 415−591−7062 Email: jgonzalez@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff − Consolidated Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP
Plaintiff − Consolidated Jane Chandler

Morgan Lewis Covington & Burling LLP 415 Mission Street Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105−2533 415−591−7098 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram Covington & Burling LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−591−6000 Fax: 415−591−6091 Email: rfram@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morgan Lewis (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris (See above for address)

Plaintiff − Consolidated Jennifer Harding
Plaintiff − Consolidated Edith Gee Jones

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morgan Lewis (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morgan Lewis (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez

Plaintiff − Consolidated Jasmine Pogue
V. Defendant John Bel Edwards in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morgan Lewis (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Lawrence Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Meza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Z. Morris (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Gonzalez (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morgan Lewis (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D. Fram (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew F. Block Office of the Governor Louisiana State Capitol 900 North Third Street Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 342−7015 Email: matthew.block@la.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Charles Walsh Office of the Governor of Louisiana 900 N Third St Governor''s Office Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225−342−0312

Defendant Kyle Ardoin in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana
Defendant Jeff Landry in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana

Email: john.walsh@la.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Celia R. Cangelosi Celia R. Cangelosi, Attorney at Law 5551 Corporate Blvd. Suite 101 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 225−231−1453 Fax: 225−231−1456 Email: celiacan@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angelique Duhon Freel Louisiana Department of Justice − B.R. P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9005 225−326−6000 Fax: 225−326−6098 Email: duhona@ag.state.la.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dallin B. Holt Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 North Hill Drive Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 540−341−8808
Jason B. Torchinsky Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 North Hill Drive Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 540−341−8808 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Lienhard Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 North Hill Drive Suite 100 Warrenton Warrenton, VA 20186 540−341−8808 Email: jlienhard@hvjt.law ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip Michael Gordon Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 North Hill Dr. Ste. 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 540−341−8808 Email: pgordon@hvjt.law

Defendant Rhonda R. Rogers in her official capacity as Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters/Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors TERMINATED: 06/18/2020
Defendant Charlene Meaux Menard in her official capacity as Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters/Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors TERMINATED: 06/18/2020
Defendant − Consolidated Steve Raborn TERMINATED: 06/18/2020

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carey T. Jones Carey T. Jones, Attorney 356 St. Charles Street Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225−960−3577 Fax: 225−960−3579 Email: JonesCar@ag.louisiana.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Edmond Wheeler Louisiana Department of Justice Office of Attorney General Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225−326−6000 Fax: 225−326−6098 Email: wheelera@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeddie Smith , Jr. Office of the Attorney General, State of Louisiana 1885 N. Third Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225−326−6019 Email: smithda@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Michael Wale Louisiana Department of Justice 1885 N. Third St. Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 326−6040 Email: walej@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carey T. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Edmond Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeddie Smith , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Michael Wale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carey T. Jones (See above for address)

Defendant − Consolidated Sandra L. Wilson TERMINATED: 06/18/2020
Intervenor State Of Louisiana by and through Attorney General Jeff Landry

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Edmond Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeddie Smith , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Michael Wale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carey T. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alicia Edmond Wheeler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeddie Smith , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Michael Wale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason B. Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phillip Michael Gordon (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/19/2020
05/20/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Kyle Ardoin, John Bel Edwards, Jeff Landry, Charlene Meaux Menard, Rhonda Rogers ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ALAMDC−2115758.), filed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Civil Coversheet, # 2 Attachment Summons, # 3 Attachment Summons, # 4 Attachment Summons, # 5 Attachment Summons, # 6 Attachment Summons)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
2 Summons Issued as to Kyle Ardoin, John Bel Edwards, Jeff Landry, Charlene Meaux Menard, Rhonda R. Rogers. (NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve both the summons and all attachments in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.) (KMW) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/20/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/22/2020
05/26/2020
05/26/2020 05/27/2020 05/27/2020 05/27/2020

3 MOTION for Caren E. Short to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116296) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Caren E. Short, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 3 MOTION for Caren E. Short to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116296). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (LT) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
4 MOTION for John A. Freedman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116752) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John A. Freedman, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
5 MOTION for Jon Sherman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116756) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jon Sherman, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
6 MOTION for Cecilia L. Aguilera to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116757) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Cecilia L. Aguilera, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
7 MOTION for Michelle E. Kanter Cohen to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116758) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Michelle E. Kanter Cohen, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. This motion was originally filed in 20−283 and is moved to 20−308 for case management purposes; see doc in 20−283−14 to view image of document. (LT) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 7 MOTION for Michelle E. Kanter Cohen to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116758), 4 MOTION for John A. Freedman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116752), 5 MOTION for Jon Sherman to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116756), 6 MOTION for Cecilia L. Aguilera to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2116757). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
8 ORDER granting 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorneys Caren E. Short, John A. Freedman, Jon Sherman, Cecilia L. Aguilera, and Michelle E. Kanter Cohen are enrolled as pro hac vice co−counsel for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/26/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
9 MOTION for Nancy G. Abudu to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2118009) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Nancy G. Abudu, # 2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 9 MOTION for Nancy G. Abudu to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2118009). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (EDC) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. Rhonda R. Rogers waiver sent on 5/22/2020, answer due 7/21/2020. (Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. Charlene Meaux Menard waiver sent on 5/22/2020, answer due 7/21/2020.

05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 06/01/2020
06/03/2020
06/04/2020 06/04/2020

(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/27/2020)
12 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Nancy G. Abudu is enrolled as pro hac vice co−counsel for plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/28/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (SGO) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. John Bel Edwards waiver sent on 5/27/2020, answer due 7/27/2020. (Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. Jeff Landry waiver sent on 5/22/2020, answer due 7/21/2020. (Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Martha Christian Green, Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. Kyle Ardoin waiver sent on 5/28/2020, answer due 7/27/2020. (Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
MOTION for Expedited Hearing on MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. This motion was originally filed in 20−283 and is moved to 20−308 for case management purposes; see doc in 20−293−16 to view image of document. (LT) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings to Complaint by Kyle Ardoin. This motion was originally filed in 20−283 and is moved to 20−308 for case management purposes; see doc in 20−283−18 to view image of document. (LT) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings by John Bel Edwards. This motion was originally filed in 20−283 and is moved to 20−308 for case management purposes; see doc in 20−283−20 to view image of document. (LT) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
16 MOTION for Leave to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Excess of the Page Limit by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Attachment Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Caren E. Short, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray, # 5 Exhibit Power Coalition for Equity & Justice v. Edwards, Mem. L. Supp. Pls.' Mot. Prelim. Inj., # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Sekou Franklin, # 7 Exhibit First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, # 8 Exhibit Emergency Election Plan, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Telisa Clark, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Lakeshia Barnett, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Martha Christian Green, # 12 Exhibit Declaration of Trupania Bonner, # 13 Exhibit Declaration of Hilda Walker Thomas, # 14 Attachment Proposed Order)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/2/2020 to edit the docket text (SWE). (Entered: 06/01/2020)
17 ORDER: It is ordered that defendant's motion to consolidate (20−cv−283) is granted. It is further ordered that the matter captioned Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al v. Edwards, et al., Civil Action No. 20−00283−BAJ−EWD is hereby transferred to Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick and consolidated with the matter captioned Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al., Civil Action No. 20−cv−00308−SDD− RLB for all purposes and until otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/3/2020. (LT) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
18 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/4/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
19 ORDER granting [RD18, Consolidated matter 20cv283] Motion for Extension of Time to File by Defendant Kyle Ardoin. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/4/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020 06/04/2020
06/04/2020 06/04/2020
06/04/2020 06/05/2020
06/05/2020 06/05/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020 06/08/2020
06/08/2020 06/08/2020

20 ORDER granting [RD20, Consolidated matter 20cv283] Motion for Extension of Time to File by John Bel Edwards. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/4/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
21 NOTICE of TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: Telephone Status Conference before the Chief District Judge Shelly D. Dick set for 6/8/2020 at 10:00 a.m. CST. Counsel participating in the Conference shall call 877−402−9753 using access code 9040606 five minutes prior to conference. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(BKA) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Kyle Ardoin answer due 6/24/2020; John Bel Edwards answer due 6/24/2020. (LLH) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, Martha Christian Green, League of Women Voters Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12) Pursuant to record document number 18.(LT) (Attachment 3 replaced on 6/12/2020) (EDC). Modified on 6/12/2020 in accordance with record document 34. (EDC). (Entered: 06/05/2020)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference before the District Judge set for 6/8/2020 at 10:00 AM before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick. (NLT) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
24 MOTION to Intervene by State Of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading; Motion to Dismiss, # 4 Memorandum in Support Motion to Dismiss, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Answer)(KMW) Modified on 6/9/2020 This document was originally filed in the member case by counsel (KMW). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
25 MOTION for Jason Brett Torchinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State Of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit)(ELW) Modified on 6/11/2020 This document was originally filed in the member case by counsel.(ELW). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
26 MOTION for Phillip M. Gordon to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State Of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading;, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit)(ELW) Modified on 6/8/2020 to correct file date (ELW). Modified on 6/11/2020 This document was originally filed in the member case by counsel.(ELW). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
23 ORDER granting Motion for Philip M. Gordon to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/8/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 24 MOTION to Intervene. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
27 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Jason B. Torchinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/8/2020. (LT) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/8/2020. The court discussed and granted the pending Motion to Intervene and Motions for Jason Torchinsky and Phillip M. Gordon to appear pro hac vice. The Court and counsel discuss jurisdictional motions, and Court sets deadline of 72 hours for opposition briefs to any jurisdictional motions filed, with Replies (without the necessity of request for leave) due within 24 hours of any oppositions filed. A hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for 6/24/2020 through noon on 6/26/2020 by video before the District Judge. Opposition briefs due by 6/22/2020 with replies but by close of business on 6/23/2020. The court vacates the FRCP 26(f) Order. (LT) Modified on 6/10/2020 to edit the text (NLT). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
29 MOTION to Dismiss by State Of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Attachment Order, # 3 Attachment Answer)(LT) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
30 MOTION to Amend the Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Amended Expert Declaration Dr. Megan Murray, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/8/2020 to edit the docket

06/08/2020
06/10/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020
06/12/2020 06/12/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/15/2020 06/16/2020 06/16/2020 06/16/2020 06/17/2020

text (KMW). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
31 First MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) by Charlene Meaux Menard, Steve Raborn, Rhonda R. Rogers, Sandra L. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading;, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I)(Wale, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/10/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/08/2020)
32 Joint MOTION for Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdictional Arguments in State's and Parish Registrars' Motions to Dismiss in Excess of the Page Limit by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Proposed Order)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/11/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/10/2020)
33 ORDER granting 32 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/11/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
34 ORDER granting 30 Motion to Amend. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/11/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
35 MOTION to Dismiss by Jeff Landry. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
36 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Jurisdictional Arguments in 31 First MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7), 29 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint, Fla. Dem. Party v. Scott, # 2 Exhibit Complaint, Ga. Coal. for People's Agenda v. Deal, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/12/2020 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 06/11/2020)
37 MEMORANDUM in REPLY to 36 Memorandum in Opposition to 31 First MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) filed by Charlene Meaux Menard, Steve Raborn, Rhonda R. Rogers, Sandra L. Wilson. (Wale, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/12/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/12/2020)
38 REPLY to Joint Memorandum in Opposition to 35 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana. (Torchinsky, Jason) Modified on 6/15/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/12/2020)
39 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 35 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Short, Caren) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
40 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Emergency Rule)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
41 Joint MOTION to Amend the 28 Court's Pre−Hearing Order by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. (Gonzalez, Joshua) Modified on 6/16/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/15/2020)
42 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 41 Joint MOTION to Amend 28 Court's PPre−Hearing Order filed by Charlene Meaux Menard, Steve Raborn, Rhonda R. Rogers, Sandra L. Wilson. (Wale, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/16/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/16/2020)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition to 41 Joint MOTION to Amend 28 Telephone Conference filed by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana. (Torchinsky, Jason) Modified on 6/16/2020 to edit text (ELW). (Entered: 06/16/2020)
44 Joint MEMORANDUM Regarding the Admissibility of Expert and Fact Declarations filed by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. (Gonzalez, Joshua) Modified on 6/17/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/16/2020)
45 MOTION to Dismiss by Kyle Ardoin. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading; Order of Dismissal)(Cangelosi, Celia) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

06/17/2020
06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020
06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/18/2020

46 ORDER denying 41 Motion to Amend. The parties are urged to meet and confer regarding stipulations of fact and the use of declarations in lieu of live testimony, where practical, and in consideration of the prevailing evidentiary standards applicable to actions for injunctive relief. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/17/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
47 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kyle Ardoin, John Bel Edwards, Jeff Landry, filed by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana.(Short, Caren) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
48 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Part of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana re 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Short, Caren) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
49 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kyle Ardoin, John Bel Edwards, State Of Louisiana, Jeff Landry filed by Consolidated Plaintiffs (Meza, Catherine) Modified on 6/18/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/18/2020)
50 NOTICE of Amended Complaints by Lakeshia Barnett, Jane Chandler, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, League of Women Voters Louisiana, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (Morris, John) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
51 Notice to Counsel: In preparation for the Preliminary Injunction Hearing set to commence at 9:30 am CST on 6/24/2020 via video teleconference in this matter, Counsel and interested participants are to consult the Middle Districts website where there is a dedicated section under the Courtroom Technology tab labeled ZOOM. All necessary information and instructions are provided therein. Participating Counsel are expected to have reviewed and become familiar with all necessary material regarding presentation of evidence and to make special note of the confidentiality and security admonitions outlined by the Court.
Evidence, in electronic format, shall be provided in accordance with Local Rule 79 and Administrative Procedures.
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
52 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel are hereby advised that the Court has implemented the use of a Judicial Evidence Recording System (JERS). Electronic evidence files (an Electronic Bench Book) shall be provided, by each party, using the Court's Electronic Evidence Online submission tool through CM/ECF (Utilities / Evidence Upload) on or before 6/22/2020. (BKA) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
53 Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Exhibit List)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
54 Witness List by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana. (For your free look at document, enter your Individual PACER login and pw to confirm your right to view). (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Witness List)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
55 Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Kyle Ardoin.. (Cangelosi, Celia) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
56 Witness List by Kyle Ardoin. (For your free look at document, enter your Individual PACER login and pw to confirm your right to view). (Cangelosi, Celia) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
57 Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice.. (Fram, Robert) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
58 Witness List by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. (For your free look at document, enter your Individual PACER login and pw to confirm your right to view). (Fram, Robert) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/19/2020 06/19/2020 06/19/2020 06/19/2020 06/19/2020 06/19/2020
06/19/2020 06/20/2020 06/20/2020 06/20/2020 06/21/2020 06/22/2020
06/22/2020

59 MOTION for Dallin Holt to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2129950) by Jeff Landry. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Affidavit)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
60 MOTION for Jonathan Lienhard to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2129953) by Jeff Landry. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading; Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
MOTION(S) REFERRED: 59 MOTION for Dallin Holt to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2129950), 60 MOTION for Jonathan Lienhard to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $100.00, Receipt Number ALAMDC−2129953). This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (KMW) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
61 Joint STIPULATION as to the Admission of Certain Facts by Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Jasmine Pogue, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. (Meza, Catherine) Modified on 6/19/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/19/2020)
62 Supplemental Declaration/Exhibit List for Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana.. (Short, Caren) Modified on 6/22/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/19/2020)
63 ORDER finding as moot 31 Motion to Dismiss. In light of Plaintiffs Amended Complaints, which remove the Parish Registrars of Voters as Defendants (See Rec. Doc. No 50), the Registrars Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/19/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
64 MOTION for Extension of Time Response to Pls' Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and to Resechedule Hearing for Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj. by Jeff Landry, State Of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
65 JOINT Opposition to 64 MOTION to Continue the Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. (Aguilera, Cecilia) Modified on 6/22/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/20/2020)
66 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Dallin Holt to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/20/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 06/20/2020)
67 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Jonathan Lienhard to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/20/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (Dick, Shelly) (Entered: 06/20/2020)
68 MOTION to Amend the Declaration of Telisa Clark to 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Amended Declaration of Telisa Clark, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/22/2020 to edit text. (EDC). (Entered: 06/21/2020)
69 RULING granting 35 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Because the dismissal is on standing grounds, the Court does not reach the Attorney General's 12(b)(6) argument, his argument for required joinder under 12(b)(7), or his argument that Plaintiffs' suit is barred by political question doctrine. The hearing on the Motions for Preliminary Injunction set to begin 6/24/2020 is hereby CANCELED. Denying as moot 64 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/22/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 06/22/2020)
70 JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs claims aredismissed with prejudice.. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/22/2020. (KMW)

06/22/2020
06/25/2020 06/30/2020 06/30/2020

(Entered: 06/22/2020)
71 GENERAL ORDER: All pleadings and other papers filed under seal in civil and criminal actions shall be maintained under seal for thirty days following final disposition of the action. After that time, all sealed pleadings and other papers shall be placed in the case record unless a District Judge or Magistrate Judge, upon motion and for good cause shown, orders that the pleading or other paper be maintained under seal.
The deadline for filing any motions regarding the unsealing of any document shall be within thirty days of the final disposition of any action and shall contain a concise statement of reasons for maintaining the pleading or other paper under seal.
ATTENTION: If a motion to retain documents under seal is NOT filed, all documents shall be placed in the public case record, unless specifically identified in the attached General Order
. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 07/08/2019. (KMW) (Entered: 06/22/2020)
72 MOTION to Amend Judgment by Lakeshia Barnett, Telisa Clark, Crescent City Media Group, League of Women Voters Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend Judgment, # 2 Attachment Proposed Order)(Short, Caren) Modified on 6/25/2020 to edit the docket text (KMW). (Entered: 06/25/2020)
73 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/30/2020. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (BKA) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
74 AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants Governor John Bel Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and Kyle Ardoin. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/30/2020. (EDC) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 1 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOUISIANA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; JEFF LANDRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana; CHARLENE MEAUX MENARD, in her official capacity as Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters/Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors; and RHONDA R. ROGERS, in her official capacity as Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters/Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors,
Defendants.

Case No.: _________________
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group, and League of Women Voters Louisiana (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action for immediate injunctive and declaratory relief against Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin and Attorney General Jeff Landry, Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters Charlene Meaux Menard, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters Rhonda R. Rogers, for failing to protect the fundamental right to vote ahead of the 2020 elections—including elections

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 2 of 49
on July 11, August 15, November 3, and December 5—during Louisiana’s COVID-19 public health crisis.
2. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge to our nation, threatening the lives, livelihood, and health of millions of Americans and severely straining health care systems, the economy, and all levels and branches of government.
3. COVID-19 is wreaking havoc across all sectors and causing massive disruptions in election administration during this presidential election year. With its high transmission and mortality rates, COVID-19 poses a significant risk to in-person voters, especially to those voters at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19. The pandemic has decimated voter registration drive activity, makes it unreasonably dangerous and burdensome to comply with certain requirements for mail-in absentee voting, and threatens massive withdrawals by volunteer poll workers who justifiably fear contracting the disease.
4. The United States has recorded more than 1.2 million confirmed cases1—more than one-third of the global total.2 As of May 18, 2020, Louisiana had reported 34,709 cases and 2,440 deaths.3
5. In the face of this rapidly escalating public health emergency, Defendant Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency4 and issued a stay-at-home order.5 He also twice postponed
1 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Cases in the U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html#accordion-1-collapse-3 (last updated May 18, 2020). 2 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Situation Report – 108, World Health Org. 1 (May 7, 2020), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200507covid-19-sitrep108.pdf?sfvrsn=44cc8ed8_2. 3 Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, La. Dept. of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated May 18, 2020). 4 Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, § 1, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/25-JBE-2020Public-Health-Emergency-COVID-19.pdf. 5 Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, § 3, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/33-JBE-2020Public-Health-Emergency-COVID.pdf.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 3 of 49
the primary and municipal elections,6 and later extended the state’s stay-at-home order to May 15.7 Even with the stay-at-home order partially lifted as of May 15, Louisianans are still required
to stay at home as much as possible; the types of businesses allowed to open may only do so with
strict social distancing, required mask use for employees helping the public, and only at 25 percent total occupancy.8
6. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency
election plan that would have substantially reduced the risk of voters being exposed to COVID-19
by suspending certain aspects of Louisiana election law that require person-to-person interactions,
including in-person voting by large categories of individuals. In declaring his support for Secretary
Ardoin’s plan, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”9
7. Secretary Ardoin’s original plan was blocked by the Louisiana legislature. Instead,
on April 27, 2020, the Legislature adopted an alternative emergency election plan for the July 11
Presidential Preference Primary and Municipal Primary Election (“July election”) and the August
15 Municipal General Election (“August election”), developed and submitted by Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin (the “Emergency Election Plan”).10 As described
herein, the alternative Emergency Election Plan failed to suspend a number of aspects of Louisiana
6 Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19-Postponement.pdf; Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/46-JBE-2020-Elections.pdf. 7 Proclamation No. 52 JBE 2020, § 15, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-2020-Stay-atHome-Order.pdf. 8 Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020, § 15 (May 14, 2020) § 2A, 2C, 2D, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf. 9 Id. 10 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, Sec’y of State (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised%20Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 4 of 49
election law that will unnecessarily expose voters to risk of contracting COVID-19 and place an undue burden on the right to vote. The Emergency Election Plan also does not apply to the November 3 Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election (“November election”) or the December 5 Congressional and Open General Election (“December election”).11
8. Louisiana law limits absentee voting by mail to voters who satisfy one of fifteen excuses (“Excuse Requirement”). See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303. The Emergency Election Plan creates an additional COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application, which extends the ability to vote by mail to five narrow categories of voters with COVID-19–related restrictions.12 The Emergency Election Plan fails to protect other categories of voters who need protection from COVID-19.
9. The Emergency Election Plan leaves in place the requirement that voters who cast their ballots by mail find a witness to observe the signing of their absentee ballot affidavit and then sign the certificate envelope (the “Witness Requirement”). See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)– (b). This rule will require voters who qualify to vote by mail and who live on their own to risk infection to have their ballots counted.
10. Louisiana law fails to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mailin absentee ballot requests and their mail-in absentee ballots and deprives them of an opportunity to cure such problems so that their votes may be counted (“Cure Prohibition”). See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. Louisiana also provides no mechanism for tracking whether one’s absentee ballot has been received, accepted, or counted.
11. Epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists have already concluded that there will very likely be a COVID-19 resurgence in the United States this fall. Dr. Anthony Fauci,
11 See id. at 2. 12 Emergency Election Plan, supra note 10, at 8.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 5 of 49
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said a second wave of infections in the United States is “inevitable.”13 Furthermore, experts from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics warned that, to avoid exceeding hospital critical care capacities, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022.14
12. The Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) will unnecessarily deprive Louisiana voters of their right to vote in 2020 elections in light of COVID-19.
13. Both together and separately, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement needlessly burden Louisiana voters’ fundamental right to vote in the 2020 elections in light of COVID-19. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement directly contradict the specific guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) concerning safe voting practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other measures, the CDC recommends that states and jurisdictions “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”15
14. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement create significant risks to the health and lives of Plaintiffs, as well as the Organizational Plaintiffs’ members and thousands of other Louisiana voters who want to vote in the July, August, November, and/or December 2020 elections.
13 Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trumpvice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/. 14 Stephen M. Kissler et al., Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period, Science, Apr. 14, 2020, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/24/science.abb5793. 15 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated March 27, 2020).
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 6 of 49
15. The risk of disenfranchisement from the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement fall more heavily on Black citizens in Louisiana, who are more likely than white Louisianans to live alone or with young children, more likely to have underlying health conditions that put them at severe risk from COVID-19, and who are afflicted by and die from COVID-19 at shockingly disproportionate rates. Black Louisianans comprise nearly 57% of COVID-19–related deaths despite making up just 33% of the state’s total population. Black Louisianans are also more likely to live alone, making the Witness Requirement more burdensome than for white Louisianans. Louisiana’s history of racial discrimination in various areas, such as voting, education, employment, and healthcare, interact with these provisions to hinder Black people’s ability to participate effectively in the political process in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
16. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, separately and together, unduly burden the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters for the 2020 elections.
17. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, separately and together, violate Louisiana voters’ fundamental right to bodily integrity by requiring them to take a severe risk to their health in order to exercise their right to vote.
18. The Cure Prohibition will deprive Louisiana voters of their liberty interests in requesting and casting mail-in absentee ballots and exercising their fundamental right to vote by denying them notice of and an opportunity to cure defects.
19. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to enjoin the Challenged Provisions and declare them unconstitutional for the duration of the 2020 election cycle. Given that epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are predicting a highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall, and given the inexorable timeline of election administration
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 7 of 49
procedures that must be completed to print mail-in ballots with certificate envelopes and instructions and to educate the electorate about revised voting procedures, Plaintiffs, who all seek to vote in November, must be granted relief now.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), and is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and authorized under 52 U.S.C. § 10302 to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of constitutional and statutory rights under color of state law. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each is sued in their official capacity as a state official, and the violations complained of concern their conduct in such capacities. 22. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 23. Venue in the Middle District of Louisiana is proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendants are state officials working in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
III. PARTIES 24. Plaintiff TELISA CLARK is a 55-year-old event planner and civil rights activist. She is a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a registered voter in Louisiana. She is African-American and lives in Houma, Louisiana. Ms. Clark lives at home with her husband, Kevin Clark, who is 58 years old. Several family members live with Ms. Clark and her husband at their home. Ms. Clark, her husband, and many members of her household have health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and potentially dying from COVID-19. Ms. Clark has hypertension
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 8 of 49
and other serious heart conditions. Her husband is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Ms. Clark’s daughter Kevon Barnett is currently seven months pregnant and suffers from hypertension. And Ms. Clark’s grandson Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, Ms. Clark, her husband, her daughter Kevon, her grandson Matthew, and other family members have been limiting their outside activity and avoiding personto-person contact. When they must go out in public, Ms. Clark and her husband wear gloves, masks, and coverings on their clothes. Both Ms. Clark and her husband are lifelong, regular voters. Ms. Clark prefers to vote in-person on election day. She voted early in-person recently after her husband was diagnosed with cancer. Ms. Clark plans to vote in the July, August, November, and December elections in Houma. Because of the severe risk that voting in person at her polling place or at an early voting site poses to her health, her husband’s health, and the health of family members living in her household, Ms. Clark needs to vote by absentee ballot for all upcoming 2020 elections. Ms. Clark understands that for the July and August elections, she will qualify to request an absentee ballot through the COVID-19 Emergency Application as someone at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC. Ms. Clark understands, however, that for the November and December elections, she does not qualify to request an absentee ballot and must decide whether to vote in person—risking her health and the health of her family—and not voting at all.
25. Plaintiff LAKESHIA BARNETT is 26 years old, a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a registered voter in Louisiana. She is African-American and lives in Houma, Louisiana. Ms. Barnett lives with her parents, Telisa and Kevin Clark, and several other family members, at her parents’ home. Many of her family
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 9 of 49
members in her home—including her parents—suffer from health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. Ms. Clark has hypertension and other serious heart conditions. Mr. Clark is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Ms. Barnett’s sister Kevon Barnett is currently seven months pregnant and suffers from hypertension. And Ms. Barnett’s nephew Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, Ms. Barnett, her parents, sister, nephew, and other family members have been limiting their outside activity and avoiding personto-person contact except when necessary. Ms. Barnett currently works two jobs. One employer, Target, recently reduced her hours to zero, and she has not worked there since late April. She also works at the U.S. Postal Service. At her job, Ms. Barnett rarely interacts with members of the public and always wears protective gear. Ms. Barnett relies on her job to pay her living expenses and for health insurance. At this job, she does not have the option to work from home or take time off because she is worried about infecting her family members who are at higher risk from COVID19. If she took too much time off from work, she would lose her job. Ms. Barnett registered to vote when she turned 18 and has voted regularly since then. She intends to vote in each election in 2020. She prefers to vote in person, but because of the risks voting in person would pose to her family, Ms. Barnett needs to vote by absentee ballot in the July, August, November, and December elections. Ms. Barnett understands that she needs an excuse to qualify for an absentee ballot in Louisiana and that she does not qualify for any excuse under Louisiana law. Therefore, if Ms. Barnett wants to vote in any election in 2020, she understands that she would have to vote in person, which would require her to engage in the person-to-person contact she has been avoiding
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 10 of 49
to protect the health of her high-risk family members. If forced to vote in person, Ms. Barnett would have to choose between her vote and her family’s health.
26. Plaintiff MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN is a 52-year-old scholar and researcher working in the fields of law and religion. She is a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a registered voter in Louisiana. She is white, and lives in Lafayette, Louisiana. Ms. Green is also a member of the Lafayette chapter of the League of Women Voters and a Board member for the League of Women Voters of Louisiana. Ms. Green lives with and cares for her mother, Martha, who is 80 years old and suffers from several health conditions that make her higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications— including death—from COVID-19. Ms. Green prefers not to reveal her mother’s specific medical information because of privacy concerns, but she does suffer from hypertension, and her most recent hospitalization was due to her high blood pressure. To protect her mother’s health and minimize the risk of her mother contracting COVID-19, Ms. Green has been taking all necessary precautions to limit her own person-to-person contact. Aside from time spent at her office where she is away from other people and running necessary errands, including to the grocery store and pharmacy, Ms. Green has been staying at home and away from members of the public. When she is away from home and encountering other people and surfaces others may have touched, Ms. Green wears a mask and uses disinfecting wipes to reduce her risk of infection. Ms. Green is a lifelong voter and so is her mother. Both Ms. Green and her mother prefer to vote in person either on election day or by early voting, but because of the risks to Ms. Green’s mother’s health, both need to vote by mail during the 2020 elections. Ms. Green’s mother qualifies to request an absentee ballot under Louisiana law that allows voters over the age of 65 to vote by mail. Ms. Green understands that she needs an excuse to vote by mail in upcoming 2020 elections, but she does not
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 11 of 49
qualify for any excuses, including the excuses provided under the Emergency Election Plan in place for the July and August elections. Although early voting has been extended in Louisiana for the July and August elections, early in-person voting is not a practical option for Ms. Green because Lafayette has limited early voting locations, and Ms. Green would have to engage in the person-to-person contact she has been avoiding to safeguard her mother’s health. If she cannot vote by mail during the 2020 elections, Ms. Green will have to choose between her vote and endangering her mother’s health.
27. Plaintiff CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP (“CCMG”) is a community engagement and media production agency based in New Orleans, Louisiana. CCMG was founded to address disparities in civic engagement and political education in communities of color in Louisiana. CCMG works on a wide range of projects including civic engagement trainings, voter registration campaigns, census education, mutual aid and direct service, and voter education.
28. CCMG leads the “Louisiana Counts 2020” complete count committee and began preparations for this public education campaign in 2018. CCMG prepared and disseminated media toolkits, organizer trainings, social media campaigns, factual reports, and other resources for community stakeholders across Louisiana to use in their census education work. CCMG also invested significant time and energy into developing their “Census and Redistricting Initiative,” a community education initiative focused on preparing communities for the 2020 Census and 2021 redistricting cycle. The program would have taught Louisiana residents the basics of the redistricting process. In addition to its specific census and redistricting work, CCMG conducts various voter education and policy advocacy training programs such as the Democracy and Power Institute, which was founded in 2016 and teaches students and community leaders how to draft legislation and lobby local governments.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 12 of 49
29. Much of CCMG’s planned work has been put on hold as it must now expend its limited resources to respond to the state’s Emergency Election Plan and preparing for the upcoming 2020 elections, in which thousands of voters of color will be forced to risk their health by voting in person at their polling place. CCMG is now using its limited resources to acquire and produce masks and other personal protective materials to provide to voters who will be forced to cast a ballot in person this year because they do not qualify for an absentee ballot under the Excuse Requirement. During early voting and on election day, CCMG will provide direct support at polling places by handing out hand sanitizer and information on social distancing. CCMG is also now educating voters about the Emergency Election Plan, explaining and training voters on the Excuse Requirement, including the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application. CCMG will be helping voters navigate the absentee ballot process, including the Witness Requirement for voters who live alone by doing radio and television public service announcements about what voters can do to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection while complying with the Witness Requirement. The resources and staff time spent on these activities would have been spent on CCMG’s community education activities relating to the Census, voter registration drivers, and redistricting. But for the Challenged Provisions, CCMG would otherwise be spending these resources, time, and staff hours on its core mission activities.
30. Plaintiff LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOUISIANA (“LWVLA”) is the Louisiana affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “LWVUS”). LWVLA is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana. The mission of LWVLA is to be a recognized, trusted, and knowledgeable volunteer, grassroots community resource with the flexibility and sustainable capacity to ensure a strong, active, and participatory democracy for all persons. The LWVLA is dedicated to ensuring that all eligible voters—
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 13 of 49
particularly those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including firsttime voters, non-college youth, new citizens, minorities, the elderly, and low-income Americans— have the opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. The local Leagues are active in voter registration, especially of new citizens and high school and college youths, while the state League works with the Secretary of State’s office to increase voter participation in elections.
31. Because of the restrictions on absentee ballots under Louisiana law during the COVID-19 pandemic, LWVLA has been forced to divert time and resources away from its regular activities. Specifically, LWVLA will be conducting public education on the passage of the Emergency Election Plan with its complicated and vague Excuse Requirement, the current absentee ballot laws—including the Witness Requirement—and how voters can stay safe while complying with the law and voting. LWVLA member volunteers will be sending newsletters, writing letters to the editor, engaging in voter outreach, responding to voter contacts, and conducting voter education events to ensure that members and the Louisiana electorate are educated on how they can vote during the 2020 elections without endangering their health or the health of their loved ones or the community. Because the LWVLA has limited financial and human resources, the resources and member time they will have to spend on these efforts would have been spent on the following LWVLA efforts: voter registration efforts, education around the 2020 Census and redistricting, and “Get Out the Vote” efforts during the 2020 election cycle.
32. The LWVLA has six local Leagues across the state and 287 members and membersat-large. Many of the members of the LWVLA are over the age of 60. Some of its members live in senior living facilities. Many members include registered voters age 60-65 who are at higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19. Voting in person
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 14 of 49
would therefore put the health of these voters at significant risk because of the person-to-person contact at the polling place. But these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan.
33. LWVLA members include registered voters who live with, care for, or come into regular contact with loved ones who are at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications—including death—from COVID-19; yet, these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. These members must choose between their vote and risking the health of their loved one by voting in-person at their polling place.
34. Defendant John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana and is being sued in his official capacity. Under the Louisiana Constitution, he is “the chief executive officer of the state,” and must “faithfully support the constitution and laws of the state and of the United States,” as well as ensure that “the laws are faithfully executed.” La. Const. art. IV, § 5(A). Defendant Governor Edwards is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as part of the execution of his gubernatorial duties and responsibilities. 4 U.S.C. § 101. In his capacity as “chief executive officer of the state,” Defendant Governor Edwards is empowered to suspend or delay “any qualifying of candidates, early voting, or elections” “upon issuance of an executive order declaring a state of emergency or impending emergency.” Id. § 18:401.1. The Governor does so “upon the certification of the secretary of state that a state of emergency exists. Id. Defendant Governor Edwards is also responsible for approving, along with a majority of the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, an Emergency Election Plan submitted by the Secretary of
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 15 of 49
State “for the holding of elections impaired as a result of such an emergency or disaster.” Id. § 18:401.3.
35. Defendant Kyle Ardoin is the Secretary of State of Louisiana, and he is sued in his official capacity. The Secretary of State is the state’s chief election officer. LA Const. art. IV, § 7. In that capacity, he is responsible for, among other things, administering election laws, preparing and certifying the ballots for all elections, and promulgating all election returns. Id. The Secretary of State is also responsible for preparing absentee by mail ballots, envelopes, instructions, certificates, and “all other matters pertaining to absentee by mail and early voting ballots shall be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to approval as to content by the attorney general.” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(A)(1); see also id § 18:1306(B)(1).
36. Defendant Jeff Landry is Louisiana’s Attorney General and is being sued in his official capacity. As Attorney General, Defendant Landry is the “chief legal officer of the state,” charged with asserting or protecting the rights or interests of Louisiana. La. Const. art. IV, § 8. Defendant Landry is empowered to approve the content of various materials related to absentee ballots. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(A)(1); see also id § 18:1306(B)(2). Like other executive officers of the State, Defendant Attorney General Landry is required to support the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to it, before executing his duties as Attorney General. 4 U.S.C. § 101.
37. Defendant Charlene Meaux Menard is the Registrar of Voters for Lafayette Parish and a member of the Lafayette Parish Board of Election Supervisors and is being sued in her official capacity. As registrar and a member of the parish board of election supervisors, Defendant Menard has the duty to supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 16 of 49
Lafayette Parish, and is charged with processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, and tabulating and counting absentee by-mail ballots. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313.
38. Defendant Rhonda R. Rogers is the Registrar of Voters for Terrebonne Parish and a member of the Terrebonne Parish Board of Election Supervisors and is being sued in her official capacity. As registrar and a member of the parish board of election supervisors, Defendant Rogers has the duty to supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in Terrebonne Parish, and is charged with processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, and tabulating and counting absentee by-mail ballots. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Transmission of COVID-19 and Public Health Guidelines 39. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus was detected, now named SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes became known as COVID-19; it has now spread throughout the world, including to every state in the United States. 40. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that it had become a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump proclaimed a National Emergency concerning COVID-19. 41. On March 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency,16 and issued a stay at home order17 on March 22, which was revised on May 15.18 He has also twice
16 Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, § 1. 17 Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, § 3. 18 Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020, § 15 (May 14, 2020) § 2A, 2C, 2D, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 17 of 49
postposed the presidential preference primary and municipal elections as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.19
42. The novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 continues to spread at an
unprecedented pace around the world and within the United States. There are currently 1.48
million confirmed cases in the United States, and there have been 89,407 deaths nationwide.
43. COVID-19 is highly contagious and lethal. According to an article published in
Science Magazine, produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the virus acts like no pathogen humanity has ever seen.”20
44. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), older adults
and those who have underlying health conditions and diseases, such as chronic lung diseases,
moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, serious heart conditions, and others that suppress immune systems like HIV/AIDS, are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19.21 The CDC’s
website, relying upon research from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory
Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases, notes that immunocompromised individuals are at
severe risk from COVID-19: “Many conditions can cause a person to be immunocompromised,
including cancer treatment, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly
controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications.”22 Severe COVID-19 cases can lead to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress
19 Ashley Dean, Louisiana's Elections Are Postponed Another 3 Weeks, New Orleans Public Radio, Apr. 14, 2020, https://www.wwno.org/post/louisianas-elections-are-postponed-another-3-weeks. 20 Meredith Wadman et al., How does coronavirus kill? Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes, Science Magazine, Apr. 17, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-doescoronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes#. 21 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, People who are at higher risk for severe illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/people-at-higher-risk.html (last updated May 14, 2020). 22 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/underlying-conditions.html (last updated Apr. 6, 2020).
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 18 of 49
syndrome, requiring hospitalization; in critical cases, some patients need to be intubated and put
on a ventilator.
45. Younger people have also contracted severe cases of COVID-19 and been
hospitalized; many of them have died. In Louisiana, patients under the age of 50 have accounted for about six percent of COVID-19 related deaths in the state,23 a rate far higher than in New York and New Jersey,24 even though these states have seen approximately nine times and four times the
number of deaths as Louisiana, respectively. As of May 9, 2020, about 30 percent of all hospitalizations from COVID-19 in the United States have been of people less than 50 years old.25
Young, healthy Americans have suffered debilitating and even, in certain cases, fatal strokes from
COVID-19, underscoring how little is known about how this particular virus actually attacks the
human body. Finally, and significantly, even if a person ultimately recovers from COVID-19, it
may leave their lungs and other organs severely damaged or weakened, leading to lifelong respiratory deficiencies or problems.26
46. The CDC has noted that asymptomatic COVID-19-positive individuals can transmit the disease to others.27 As a result, the disease can spread before individuals know that
they have contracted COVID-19, facilitating the rapid contagion.
23 La. Dept. of Health, Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, Cases/Deaths by Age Group, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated May 19, 2020). 24 N.Y. St. Dept. of Elections, Fatalities, Fatalities by Age Group, https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYSCOVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n (last updated May 19, 2020); State of New Jersey Dept. of Health, COVID-19 Deaths by Age Group, New Jersey COVID-19 Dashboard, https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/topics/covid2019_dashboard.shtml (last updated May 19, 2020). 25 COVID-19 Laboratory-Confirmed Hospitalizations, COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations by Age, https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html (last updated Apr. 25, 2020). 26 Robin Young & Samantha Raphelson, As Patients Recover From Coronavirus, Doctors Wonder About LongTerm Health Impacts, WBUR, Apr. 28, 2020, https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/04/28/coronavirus-recoverychallenges. 27 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): How to Prepare, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html (last updated Mar. 4, 2020).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 19 of 49
47. Louisiana has been especially hard-hit by COVID-19, experiencing the fastest two-
week spread of COVID-19 compared to other U.S. states and other countries.28 As of May 18,
2020, Louisiana reported 34,498 COVID-19 cases and 2,491 deaths.29 Louisiana ranks ninth in the
nation in the number of deaths, and it has lost more residents to COVID-19 than more populous
states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington, and Maryland.30
B. Louisiana’s Elections During the COVID-19 Pandemic
48. COVID-19 will have an unprecedented impact on the nation’s upcoming elections.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Brookings Institution predicted that “turnout in 2020 could
break all records and test our election machinery as it has never been tested before.”31 Other experts
also anticipate record-breaking turnout in the 2020 presidential election.32 Louisiana’s own turnout
statistics reflect voters’ increasing participation and interest. The 2019 gubernatorial election saw
a turnout of 51.05 percent,33 compared to 40.19 percent in 2015.34 In the 2016 general election,
over 67.79 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.35
28 Andrew Capps, Louisiana experiences fastest COVID-19 case increase in the world in first weeks, Lafayette Daily Advertiser, Mar. 24, 2020, https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2020/03/24/covid-19-caseslouisiana-coronavirus-spreading-faster-than-anywhere-world/2907504001/. 29 Cases in the U.S., Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/casesupdates/cases-in-us.html (last updated May 14, 2020). 30 CDC, Cases in U.S., supra note 1. 31 William A. Galston, What does high voter turnout tell us about the 2020 elections? Brookings Institution (Nov. 20, 2019), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/11/20/what-does-high-voter-turnout-tell-us-about-the-2020elections/. 32 See, e.g., Susan Milligan, Preparing for a Voter Surge, U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 20, 2019, https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-09-20/experts-predict-huge-turnout-in-2020; Nate Cohn, Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit? N.Y. Times, July 15, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turnout-analysis.html; Ronald Brownstein, Brace for a Voter-Turnout Tsunami, The Atlantic, June 13, 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/. 33 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 16, 2019), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2019_1116_sta.pdf. 34 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 21, 2015), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2015_1121_sta.pdf. 35 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 8, 2016), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2016_1108_sta.pdf.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 20 of 49
49. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency
election plan that would have expanded access to absentee ballots during the July primary and
August municipal elections, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Specifically, the first emergency
plan expanded the reasons to request an absentee ballot to registered voters who are:
• Sixty years of age or older;
• At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease);
• Subject to a stay-at-home, quarantine, or isolation order;
• Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
• Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
• Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19;
• Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay-at-home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or
• Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the childcare provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID19 concerns.
50. The first proposed emergency election plan also stated that failure to comply with
the Witness Requirement would not be a reason to challenge or reject returned absentee ballots for
the July and August elections.
51. The plan was blocked by the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, which cited concerns of “voter fraud.”36 After the first emergency election plan was
36 Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11eab67e-73d2172ba20b.html.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 21 of 49
blocked, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”37 To the senators’ concerns about Louisiana voters using the COVID-19 crisis to engage in fraudulent behavior, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin stated: “I think some of their concerns are not steeped in all the facts that were presented to them today. I’m hoping over time there can be some clarity.”38
52. On April 20, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin presented a substantially revised emergency election plan. Unlike the initial proposal, the revised Emergency Election Plan included far fewer categories of voters eligible to cast absentee ballots and failed to waive the Witness Requirement for absentee ballots during the July and August elections. The Emergency Election Plan forces voters to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.
53. The Emergency Election Plan was approved, ironically, by the Louisiana legislature mailing in their votes.39
54. Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin is now implementing the Emergency Election Plan. There is no emergency election plan in place for the November or December elections.
55. Even with the Emergency Election Plan in place, several provisions of Louisiana law, as well as the Emergency Election Plan itself, now pose direct and severe obstacles to voting in Louisiana’s 2020 elections and having one’s vote counted. These provisions are: (1) the Excuse Requirement: the requirement to satisfy a specific excuse on the COVID-19 emergency application for absentee ballots, provided in the Emergency Election Plan passed pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3 and the requirement to satisfy a specific excuse to vote by absentee ballot, as provided in
37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Tierney Sneed, The Irony: LA Legislature Votes By Mail To Approve Plan Limiting Vote-By-Mail, TPM, May 4, 2020, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/voting-rights-primer-pandemic-age-flashpoint-voting.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 22 of 49
La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(B); (2) the Witness Requirement: the requirement that voters obtain a witness signature on their mail-in absentee ballot, pursuant to La. Stat. Rev. § 18:1306(E)(2)(a); and (3) the Cure Prohibition: the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their absentee ballot request forms or their mail-in absentee ballots and an opportunity to cure such problems so that their votes may be counted.
56. According to Louisiana law, the following categories of voters may vote by mail: • Members of the United States Service, their spouses, and dependents; • Students, instructors, or professors at institutions located outside their parish of residence, their spouses, and dependents; • Ministers, priests, rabbis, or other members of the clergy assigned to a religious post outside their parish of registration, their spouses, and dependents; • Those who will be or expect to be outside their parish of registration during the early voting period and on Election Day; • Those involuntarily confined to a mental health institution; • Voters located outside the United States; • Jurors sequestered on Election Day; • Voters hospitalized during the early voting period and on Election Day; • Those employed on state waters during the early voting period and on Election Day; • Incarcerated voters not confined pursuant to a felony conviction; • Participants in the Department of State Address Confidentiality Program; • Voters with disabilities; • Voters aged sixty-five years and older;
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 23 of 49
• The Secretary of State and his or her employees; and
• People employed by a registrar of voters outside of their parish of registration.
See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303.
57. The Emergency Election Plan extends the ability to vote by mail to voters:
• At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications);
• Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19;
• Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
• Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or
• Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.40
58. The Emergency Election Plan leaves untouched the requirement that voters who
cast their ballots by mail, other than military and overseas voters, obtain a witness signature for
their ballots to count. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over half a million Louisianans live in a single-member household.41
59. The Emergency Election Plan also fails to address the failure to provide absentee
voters with notice of problems with their mail-in ballots and an opportunity to cure such problems
so that their votes may be counted. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313.
40 Emergency Election Plan, supra note 10, at 8. 41 Table S2501, Occupancy Characteristics, Amer. Community Survey 2014-2018, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S2501&tid=ACSST5Y2018.S2501&hidePreview=true&g=0400000US22.
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 24 of 49
C. The Impact of COVID-19 on Black Louisianans given Past and Present Discrimination
60. COVID-19 has devastated Black communities across the country. A recent study
showed that counties with disproportionate numbers of Black residents account for more than half of COVID-19 diagnoses and nearly 60 percent of COVID-19 deaths nationally.42 Socioeconomic
factors such as access to health care and employment status, as well as disproportionate rates of
underlying health conditions, contribute to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the Black community.43
61. In Louisiana, Black residents have been especially hard-hit by the COVID-19
pandemic. On April 6, Louisiana released racial impact data for COVID-19 deaths: while making up only 33% of the state’s population, Black residents accounted for 70% of COVID-19 deaths.44 And by mid-May, nearly 57% of people who had died from COVID-19 in Louisiana were Black.45
Put differently, Black Louisianans are dying at a rate 2.65 times higher than other races in the state.46
62. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on Black Louisianans reflects systemic
inequality and discrimination in healthcare, education, housing, employment, access to
42 Laura Barron-Lopez, A new study shows just how badly black Americans have been hit by Covid-19, Politico, May 5, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/05/black-counties-disproportionately-hit-by-coronavirus237540. 43 Vanessa Williams, Disproportionately black counties account for over half of coronavirus cases in the U.S. and nearly 60% of deaths, study finds, Wash. Post., May 6, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/06/study-finds-that-disproportionately-black-counties-accountmore-than-half-covid-19-cases-us-nearly-60-percent-deaths/; Colleen Walsh, COVID-19 Targets Communities of Color, Harvard Gazette, Apr. 14, 2020, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/04/health-care-disparities-inthe-age-of-coronavirus/. 44 Weekend Edition Sunday, 7 Out Of 10 Patients Killed By COVID-19 In Louisiana Were African American, NPR, Apr. 12, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/04/12/832682489/7-out-of-10-patients-killed-by-covid-19-in-louisianawere-african-american. 45 Louisiana Dep’t of Health, COVID-19 (last updated May 11, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/. 46 Id.
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 25 of 49
transportation, and other socioeconomic factors.47 Black people are less likely to have health
insurance48 and are disproportionately medically underserved.49
63. Black residents are more likely to suffer and die from the underlying health
conditions that make COVID-19 infection more likely and more deadly. On April 8, a CDC study
suggested that about 90 percent of the most serious COVID-19 cases involve underlying health
conditions that are more common and more deadly in Black Americans and strike at younger ages,
including hypertension and cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.50
According to the CDC, the rate of diabetes is 66 percent higher in Black Americans than in white
Americans and the rate of hypertension is 49 percent higher.51
64. The combined effects of discrimination in healthcare, employment, education,
housing, and other areas of life create a perfect storm that puts Black Louisianans at
disproportionate risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19. Black Americans are, for example,
more likely to be part of the essential “front line” workforce than white Americans. In Louisiana,
the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (“ACS”) shows
that 29.9% of Black people and just 14.8% of white people over age 16 work in service
occupations.52 Similarly, 16.3% of Black people and just 11.3% of white people work in
47 Sheba Turk, Racial disparities in Louisiana's COVID-19 death rate reflect systemic problems, WWLTV, Apr. 7, 2020, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/racial-disparities-in-louisianas-covid-19-death-ratereflect-systemic-problems/289-bd36c4b1-1bdf-4d07-baad-6c3d207172f2. 48 Heeju Sohn, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Insurance Coverage: Dynamics of Gaining and Losing Coverage over the Life-Course 4-5, Population Research Policy Rev. (April 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370590/pdf/nihms823497.pdf. 49 Asad El Malik, The Color of a Pandemic: COVID-19, Poverty, and Race in New Orleans, Big Easy Magazine, Mar. 28, 2020, https://www.bigeasymagazine.com/2020/03/28/the-color-of-a-pandemic-covid-19-poverty-and-racein-new-orleans/; Andre M. Perry, et al. Mapping racial inequity amid COVID-19 underscores policy discriminations against Black Americans, Brookings, Apr. 16, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/theavenue/2020/04/16/mapping-racial-inequity-amid-the-spread-of-covid-19/. 50 Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of Covid-19 in America, NY Times, Apr. 29, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-covid-19.html. 51 Id. 52 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 26 of 49
production, transportation, or material moving occupations.53 By contrast, 39.3% of white people versus only 24.7% of Black people in Louisiana hold management or professional occupations— i.e., “white collar” jobs that are much more likely to allow employees to continue to work safely at home.54 Further, because 15.8% of Black households and only 4.7% of white households lack a vehicle,55 Black Louisianans are at higher risk of exposure to COVID-19 both at their job and getting to their job using public transit.
65. The CDC has acknowledged that racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 due to economic and social conditions caused by institutional racism and systemic inequalities in healthcare, among other factors.56 According to the ACS, in Louisiana, 7.9% of Black people and 6.2% of white people lack health insurance; 39.6% of Black people and 37.8% of white people over age 65 have a disability; 16.0% of Black people and 12.5% of white people age 18 to 64 have a disability; 19% of Black people and only 10.8% of white people lack a high school degree; 9.9% of Black people and 4.5% of white people over age 16 are unemployed; 25.2% of Black households and 8.1% of white households in general live below the poverty line; 22.9% of Black people over 65 versus 8.7% of white people over 65 also live in poverty; 31% of Black households and just 17.9% of white households lack broadband internet; 28.1% of Black households and 8.7% of white households use SNAP/food stamps; and Black median family income ($37,048) is half that of white families ($76,800).57
53 Id. 54 See id. 55 Id. 56 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (last visited May 8, 2020). 57 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 27 of 49
66. And given underlying inequalities, Black people in Louisiana are more likely to have the underlying health conditions that put them at increased risk for contracting and dying from COVID-19. The Louisiana Department of Health reports that Black Louisianans have higher rates of death from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer than white residents.58 Black adults in Louisiana also report higher rates of asthma than white adults.59
D. The Challenged Provisions Unreasonably Burden the Voting Rights of Louisiana Voters and Impose an Unconstitutional Condition on the Right to Vote. 1. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will force thousands of voters to risk exposure to COVID-19 by voting in person during 2020 elections.
67. Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s requirement to have an excuse to vote by mail in upcoming 2020 elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though the emergency plan adds five additional excuses on the COVID-19 emergency application for absentee ballot (“emergency application”) for voters who seek to vote by mail in the July primary or August municipal elections, the Excuse Requirement will burden thousands of Louisiana voters who do not qualify for an absentee ballot, but cannot risk voting in person because of the risks of person-to-person contact. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic and its likely resurgence in the fall, the state’s failure to provide an option to vote by absentee ballot in November and December in particular for high-risk voters, those caring for or living with high-risk spouses, children, or near relatives, and many others, places these voters in the untenable position of choosing between their vote and their health or the health of a spouse, child, or near relative.
58 Louisiana Dep’t of Health, Minority Health Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672 (last visited May 8, 2020). 59 Id.
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 28 of 49
68. By requiring every voter who wishes to safeguard their health—or the health of a spouse, child, or near relative—to have an excuse to vote by mail, Louisiana imposes an undue burden on their fundamental right to vote.
69. The burden of the Excuse Requirement will fall more heavily on Black voters in Louisiana, who—due to longstanding socioeconomic discrimination and inequity—are more likely to contract and die from COVID-19 than voters of other races.
70. For the July and August elections, the Excuse Requirement threatens to disenfranchise many thousands of voters, like Plaintiffs Barnett, Green, and LWVLA members, who are living with or caring for loved ones who are at increased risk from COVID-19 and do not want to risk exposing their loved one to infection by voting in person. The Excuse Requirement also poses an unreasonable obstacle to voters like LWVLA members who are between 60-65 years old and whose age makes them more susceptible to COVID-19. And although voters who satisfy one of excuses on the expanded emergency list, like Plaintiff Clark, can vote by absentee ballot in the July and August elections, there is still no option for them to vote by mail in November and December. The burden placed on these voters—including voters who are at severe risk of contracting and suffering complications and dying from COVID-19 is unnecessary. Given epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are predicting a highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall and given the inexorable timeline of election administration procedures that must be completed to print mail-in ballots with instructions and to educate the electorate about revised voting procedures, the Excuse Requirement must be enjoined now.
71. Plaintiffs LWVLA and Plaintiff CCMG will expend their limited resources to educate Louisiana voters about whether they qualify to apply for an absentee ballot and how to
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 29 of 49
stay safe while voting for those voters who are ineligible for an absentee ballot but need to take specific precautions while voting in person to protect their health or the health of a loved one. Plaintiff CCMG will also spend staff time at selected polling locations to provide hand sanitizer and information on best practices on social distancing to voters who are forced to vote in person but need to stay safe while doing so. These resources are diverted away from Plaintiff LWVLA’s and Plaintiff CCMG’s regular activities which, for both organizations, include engaging with Louisiana residents on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and the 2020 redistricting cycle.
72. The Excuse Requirement does not advance any valid government interest. Indeed, the first emergency election plan proposed by Defendant Ardoin allowed broader categories of voters to qualify for an emergency application, including anyone “unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19,” among other reasons.60 In defending the first emergency election plan, Defendant Ardoin stated that it was drafted “in direct response to an unprecedented health event” and, noting the state had already reached 1000 deaths, he hoped it would not “take another 600 [deaths] for people to realize it is not wise to proceed with elections as if nothing is wrong.”61
73. Further, many other provisions in Louisiana law already safeguard the integrity of the absentee ballot process. For example, the state’s election code requires absentee ballot envelopes to include an affidavit and a line for the voter’s signature, “certifying that the statements made by [the voter] are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making a false statement therein, which penalties shall be stated on the certificate,” id. § 18:1306(E.)(1)(f); and permits commissioners, watchers, and qualified voters to challenge an
60 See supra ¶ 49. 61 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs 9:17 to 9:48 (Apr. 15, 2020).
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 30 of 49
absentee ballot on the grounds that the voter is not qualified to vote in the election or precinct, or that the voter is not the person listed on the precinct register, id. § 18:1315(A.)(2)(a); id. § 18:565(A.)(1)–(3). Voters are also required to sign the following statement on their absentee ballot request form on penalty of law: “I CERTIFY that the statements made herein by me are true and correct and I may be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both, for knowingly making false statements.”62
74. Additionally, given projected voter turnout for the November 2020 election and the highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall, the Excuse Requirement does not meaningfully advance any valid state interest for the November and December elections. The state has already concluded that the July and August elections need an expanded list of absentee voting excuses for the July and August elections, conceding that these pandemic conditions require a modification of the existing restrictions on voting by mail.
75. In addition to Louisiana, only 15 other states require an excuse to vote by mail— half of these states have already waived their excuse requirements in response to COVID-19.63 That demonstrates that such requirements are not necessary to ensure election integrity. And even if the Excuse Requirement created a marginal benefit to a valid state interest, such benefit would be greatly outweighed by the risk of widespread disenfranchisement.
76. Therefore, in the context of this highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the Excuse Requirement, which requires a significant number of voters to cast their ballots in person in
62 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f; Disabled Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/DisabledApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.p df. 63 Max Feldman, et al., Brennan Center for Justice, Covid-19 Should Be a Legitimate ‘Excuse’ to Vote by Mail (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/covid-19-should-be-legitimate-excusevote-mail.
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 31 of 49
violation of social distancing directives and/or guidelines, violates the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). Additionally, by requiring some voters to cast their ballots in person during this lethal pandemic, the Excuse Requirement also conditions voters’ exercise of the franchise on the surrender of their fundamental right to bodily integrity, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2. Louisiana’s Witness Requirement will deny large numbers of eligible voters the right to vote without meaningfully advancing any valid state interest.
67. Plaintiffs also challenge Louisiana’s requirement that voters who cast a ballot by mail obtain a witness signature. Under state law, the absentee ballot envelope flap must contain a line for the handwritten signature of one witness and a line for the printed name of the witness. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). The voter must sign their absentee ballot affidavit in the presence of this witness, who then signs the envelope. Id.
77. In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, the Witness Requirement imposes an unreasonably dangerous and burdensome hurdle to thousands of voters who live alone and, because of their age or underlying health conditions, are strictly limiting person-to-person contact to protect their health. These voters cannot risk contracting COVID-19, and Louisiana cannot require them to do so to vote. Plaintiff LWVLA and Plaintiff CCMG will expend their limited resources to educate Louisiana voters who live alone but qualify for absentee ballots on how to comply with the Witness Requirement while protecting their own health. Plaintiff CCMG will be spending money on media advertisements to reach voters who live alone and will be voting absentee to ensure that if they are forced to find a witness, they have the information they need to do so in the safest manner possible. These resources are diverted away from Plaintiff LWVLA’s
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 32 of 49
and Plaintiff CCMG’s regular activities which, for both organizations, include engaging with Louisiana residents on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and the 2020 redistricting cycle.
68. On May 1, 2020, Louisiana had over 2.9 million registered voters.64 In the November 2019 general election, over 1.5 million Louisianans voted.65 And in the 2016 presidential election, over 2 million Louisiana voters cast ballots.66
69. According to the ACS, 14.9% of Louisiana adults live alone.67 If the November 2020 election has similar voter turnout to November 2016, nearly 300,000 Louisiana voters (i.e., 14.9% of 2 million voters) could be forced to choose between risking their health by voting inperson, leaving their homes and violating social distancing directives to find witnesses for their absentee ballots, or not voting at all. Many of them will be forced not to vote to protect their health and their community.
70. This burden on the right to vote will fall more heavily on older voters, voters with disabilities, and Black voters, among others. According to the ACS, of the 532,003 Louisianans of voting age who live alone, 35.89% (190,943) are 65 and older.68 Around 27.51% of Louisianans 18 and older who live alone have a disability, and 43.69% of Louisianans 65 and older who live alone have a disability.69
71. Of all Black households (i.e., homes with all their occupants, regardless of number, treated as one unit), 38.70% contain people who live alone, per the ACS.70 Of all white households,
64 Louisiana Sec’y of State, Registration Statistics – Statewide (last visited May 14, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/RegistrationStatisticsStatewide.aspx. 65 Louisiana Sec’y of State, Geaux Vote, Election Results (select Sat Nov 16 2019 from menu), https://voterportal.sos.la.gov/graphical. 66 Id. (select Tues Nov 6 2018 from menu). 67 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP02, https://tinyurl.com/y89tlwwt. 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use Microdata Sample, Custom Table, https://tinyurl.com/y9xng3b2.
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 33 of 49
31.30% contain people who live alone.71 And 14.9% of all Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with their children under 18 (i.e., people who are not legally competent witnesses) versus just 4.9% of similar white households.72
72. The Witness Requirement imposes a severe burden on many voters and is not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in preventing or detecting electoral fraud. The Witness Requirement is simply not an effective enough deterrent or method of detecting and prosecuting fraud to outweigh the severe risks and burdens it imposes on voters, particularly at-risk voters who are living alone, during this pandemic. Indeed, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s first Emergency Election Plan waived the Witness Requirement to ensure that it would not prevent voters from casting an absentee ballot without incurring an unreasonable risk to their health or the health of loved ones. Several other provisions of Louisiana law safeguard the integrity of absentee voting without putting voters’ lives at risk. In fact, Louisiana is one of only 12 states that require a voter submitting an absentee ballot to have their ballot witnessed or notarized.73
73. In the context of this highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the Witness Requirement imposes an undue burden on the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, unconstitutionally conditions exercise of the right to vote on the surrender of the fundamental right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and denies Black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.
71 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use Microdata Sample, Custom Table, https://tinyurl.com/ya7j57b5. 72 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3. 73 See Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07, 203B.121; Minn. R. 8210.2450; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 1720-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15-220, 7-15-230; VA Code Ann. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 34 of 49
3. Louisiana’s failure to provide absentee voters notice and an opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballot request forms and their absentee ballots so they may be counted will disenfranchise Louisiana voters.
74. Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA also challenge Louisiana’s failure to provide voters who qualify to vote by absentee ballot any notice of or opportunity to correct deficiencies in their absentee ballot request forms and absentee ballots so that their ballot can be counted.
75. In the 2016 general election, 3.7% of Louisiana voters received an absentee ballot, and 2.9% of voters returned them.74 The rejection rate was nearly 3% for absentee ballots in 2016—2,271 voters had their absentee ballots rejected without any notice or opportunity to address deficiencies under Louisiana law.75
76. Louisiana is about to experience a substantially higher level of absentee mail-in voting than prior to the pandemic, for several reasons. For example, elderly voters ages 65 and up already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses but now that they are at severe risk from COVID-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for the first time. With all these first-time absentee voters requesting ballots and voting them remotely, this will inevitably yield a higher error rate.
77. Even under the limited expanded eligibility of the Emergency Election Plan, Louisiana officials expect an increase in voters—especially older voters—seeking to vote by mail for the first time in this year’s elections. Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin acknowledged this reality in defending the first emergency election plan, noting that even if no plan was implemented, the state was likely to see an influx of absentee ballot requests during the COVID-19 pandemic.76
74 U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, The Election Administration & Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report 23 tbl.2 (2016), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf. 75 Id. 76 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs at 23:45 (Apr. 15, 2020).
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 35 of 49
Indeed, Plaintiff Clark is a lifelong in-person voter, but must vote by absentee ballot because of the risk in-person voting poses to her health and the health of her family. And Plaintiff Green’s mother—at 80 years old—always prefers to vote in person, but because of the risks that COVID19 poses to her health, she will be requesting an absentee ballot this year.
78. Under Louisiana law, local election officials may reject an absentee ballot for a perceived failure to comply with a legal requirement. Without notice of or an opportunity to fix any deficiencies, thousands of voters will be denied their fundamental right to vote and likely more than in prior presidential election years.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(All Plaintiffs) Violation of the Fundamental Right to Vote 42 U.S.C. § 1983, First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution 75. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 76. Eligible individuals have a fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude of the injury to the rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). 77. Unless Plaintiffs are granted the requested relief, thousands of Louisiana voters’ right to vote, including Plaintiffs’, will be severely burdened—if not entirely denied—in the July, August, November, and December elections.
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 36 of 49
78. First, Plaintiffs Barnett and Green do not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or the Emergency Election Plan, which requires an excuse to vote by mail. But because they live with family members who are at increased risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19, they cannot vote in person in the July, August, November, or December elections without endangering the health of their loved ones. And Plaintiff Clark, although she qualifies for an absentee ballot under the Emergency Election Plan for the July and August elections, she does not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat § 18:1303 for the November or December elections. Because Plaintiff Clark is at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19, she cannot vote in person without endangering her health. The Excuse Requirement imposes a severe burden on many voters, including Plaintiffs Barnett, Green, and Clark, which are not sufficiently tailored to the state’s interest, and, as such, these laws unduly burden Plaintiffs’ right to vote.
79. Second, even though many voters qualify to vote by mail in upcoming elections, the fact that they live alone means that they will have to interact with someone from outside their household to satisfy the Witness Requirement. Otherwise, their only option is to vote in person. Due to their age and preexisting health conditions, such contact could result in severe illness or even death. The Witness Requirement is unreasonably dangerous for absentee voters and imposes a severe burden on many such voters, including but not limited to those who live alone and/or who have an underlying health condition that puts them at heightened risk. The burdens of the Witness Requirement are not sufficiently tailored to the state’s anti-fraud interest, and, as such, these laws unduly burden Plaintiffs’ right to vote. The Witness Requirement unduly burdens their right to vote in the July, August, November and/or December elections. Both Plaintiff LWVLA and Plaintiff CCMG are injured by the Witness Requirement, in that they will divert resources and
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 37 of 49
time to educating voters on how to comply safely with the Witness Requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA) Unconstitutional Condition on Right to Vote Compelling Forfeiture of Right to Bodily
Integrity 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 80. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 81. Voting is protected by the First Amendment as a means of political association and political expression. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288–90 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787–89, 806 (1983); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56–58 (1973); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30–31 (1968). 82. Under the unconstitutional condition doctrine, the government may not require an individual to forfeit one constitutional right in order to exercise another. See Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394 (1968); Howard v. Walker, 406 F.3d 114, 129 (2d Cir. 2005); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004); Green v. Brigano, 123 F.3d 917, 921 (6th Cir. 1997). 83. When the government places a condition on the exercise of a right or receipt of a government-created benefit that interferes with a constitutional right, courts will apply the same level of scrutiny to the condition as it would to a law that directly regulates the constitutional right. See Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 415 U.S. 250, 261–62 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638 (1969). Government actions that threaten the right to bodily integrity will survive only if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a
37

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 38 of 49
compelling state interest. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997); Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 (6th Cir. 1998).
84. The Supreme Court has invalidated voting requirements or conditions that require the forfeiture of another fundamental right. See Blumstein, 405 U.S. at 346, 353 (1972) (finding that durational residency requirement for voter registration placed unconstitutional condition on fundamental right to interstate travel).
85. There is a constitutionally recognized fundamental right to bodily integrity. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 777–78 (1997); Alton v. Tex. A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1999). “[I]ndividuals possess a constitutional right to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest.” Guertin v. State, 912 F.3d 907, 919 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Reg. v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012)). This right is violated if government officials are deliberately indifferent to the violation of the plaintiff’s bodily integrity. See M.D. by Strukenberg v. Abbot, 907 F.3d 237, 248 (5th Cir. 2018); Guertin, 912 F.3d at 919. “To act with deliberate indifference, a state actor must consciously disregard a known and excessive risk to the victim’s health and safety.” M.D. by Stukenberg, 907 F.3d at 252 (quoting Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex. Dept. of Prot. & Regulatory Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 880 (5th Cir. 2004)). The state “must be both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [it] must also draw that inference.” Id. (quoting Hernandez, 380 F.3d 872, at 881) (alteration in original). “Involuntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 921–22.
38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 39 of 49
86. By requiring Plaintiffs to vote in person or obtain a witness signature, both of which cannot be safely and reasonably accomplished throughout 2020 and during the COVID-19 emergency in Louisiana, Defendants force Plaintiffs to forfeit their right to bodily integrity in order to exercise their right to vote. Should Plaintiffs exercise their right to vote under these circumstances, Defendants will have knowingly and unreasonably subjected Plaintiffs to significant risk of exposure to a highly contagious and highly lethal pathogen, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, without a therapeutic basis or Plaintiffs’ consent. As reflected by Defendant Governor Edwards’ stay-at-home order, the Emergency Election Plan, and Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s failed attempts to waive the Witness Requirement for the July and August elections, Defendants are aware of the dangers posed by COVID-19 to voters generally and specifically if voters are forced to comply with the Excuse and Witness Requirements and risk contracting or causing illness, death, and lasting injury.
87. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by requiring them to forfeit their right to bodily integrity in order to exercise their right to vote.
88. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the right to be free of unconstitutional conditions on their rights to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and Barnett) Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 89. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 40 of 49
90. Section 2 of the VRA provides in part that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a).
91. The “essence of a [Section] 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). Section 2 prohibits both vote denial and vote dilution. See id. at 45 n.10.
92. The Fifth Circuit has adopted a two-part test for determining liability on a claim of vote denial under Section 2:
[1] [T]he challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that members of the protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, [and] [2] [T]hat burden must in part be caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have or currently produce discrimination against members of the protected class. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 244 (5th Cir. 2016). 93. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement—separately and together— will result in Black voters in Louisiana having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement will result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote for Black voters in Louisiana. 94. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement—separately and together— impose a discriminatory burden on Black voters in Louisiana. 95. The Excuse Requirement, if not enjoined, will severely burden the right to vote and will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana. Because of longstanding and pervasive
40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 41 of 49
discrimination in healthcare, housing, education, employment, and other socioeconomic areas, Black voters are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, suffering serious complications and dying than white voters if required to vote in person. Accordingly, Black voters are disproportionately burdened by the Excuse Requirement.
96. The Witness Requirement, if not enjoined, will severely burden the right to vote and will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana. Black voters are more likely to live alone than white voters in Louisiana. And because of longstanding and pervasive discrimination in healthcare, housing, education, employment, and other socioeconomic areas, Black voters are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, suffering serious complications and dying than white voters if required to break self-quarantine to find a witness signature on their absentee ballot. Accordingly, Black voters are disproportionately burdened by the Witness Requirement.
97. The discriminatory results of the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement are directly linked to social and historical conditions. Louisiana has a long history of voting-related discrimination, including recent polling place closures, discriminatory lack of early voting sites and days, and at-large election systems. From 1965 to 2013, Louisiana was covered by the preclearance provisions of the VRA. During that time, the U.S. Department of Justice objected to dozens of Louisiana’s proposed voting changes because of their potentially discriminatory purpose or effect.
98. Black Louisianans continue to face discrimination in other areas of life, including healthcare, health, education, employment, and housing, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Such discrimination results in Black Louisianans suffering disproportionately from health conditions that put them at higher-risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19. See supra ¶¶ 60-66. This heightened and disproportionate risk from
41

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 42 of 49
COVID-19 exacerbates the difficulties Louisiana’s Black voters face in participating effectively in the political process and electing representatives of their choice.
99. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement interact with social and historical conditions to deny and abridge the right to vote of Black people in Louisiana. Because of the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, Black people in Louisiana will have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA)
Denial of Plaintiffs’ Right to Procedural Due Process in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
100. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
101. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. A liberty interest that is governed by due process can be created by the Constitution or “may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Courts analyze whether a statutory entitlement existed prior to the notice and process afforded and prior to the deprivation.
102. “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of Coushatta, 930 F.2d 1122, 1130 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
103. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 43 of 49
their objections.” Triplett v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 26 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
104. Under Mathews, the determination of what process is due rests on the balance between (1) the interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the current procedures, and the “probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the state’s interest, including the “fiscal and administrative burdens” additional procedures would entail. 424 U.S. at 335.
105. Absent exigent circumstances, due process requires pre-deprivation procedures. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“We have described ‘the root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause as being ‘that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original)); Sciolino, 480 F.3d at 653 (“An opportunity to clear your name after it has been ruined by dissemination of false, stigmatizing charges is not ‘meaningful.’”).
106. Louisiana law gives registered Louisiana voters who meet certain criteria statutory rights to request and cast a mail-in absentee ballot that will be processed and counted, thereby vesting them with liberty interests. Eligible, registered voters enjoy an “individual and personal” right to vote under Louisiana law. Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 (1964)).
107. Yet Defendants do not afford mail-in absentee voters any notice of or opportunities to cure material defects in their absentee ballot requests and their absentee ballots that will result in rejection, thereby depriving Plaintiff Clark and other registered Louisiana voters eligible to vote
43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 44 of 49
by absentee ballot of their liberty interests in requesting and casting mail-in absentee ballots and exercising their fundamental right to vote.
108. Louisiana is about to experience a substantially higher level of absentee mail-in voting than prior to the pandemic. Many elderly voters ages 65 and up already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses but now that they are at severe risk from COVID-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for the first time. With all these first-time absentee voters requesting ballots and voting them remotely, this will inevitably yield a higher error rate.
109. The risk of erroneous deprivation is high, as these eligible, registered Louisiana voters are entitled by law to vote an absentee ballot either under the provisions set forth under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or under the Emergency Election Plan and, therefore, must be provided with an opportunity to timely cure any defect that would cause the absentee ballot request form’s rejection or the absentee ballot’s rejection.
110. Defendants cannot advance any interests that outweigh the risk of erroneous deprivation. Any increased administrative burden in affording voters an opportunity to cure their absentee ballot defects is far outweighed by the threat of disenfranchising Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members eligible to vote by absentee ballot. Defendants’ interest in conducting fair election administration and preserving election integrity would not be compromised in the slightest, and they would satisfy their weighty interest in abiding by federal constitutional requirements.
111. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated and will continue to violate Plaintiffs’ and their members’ federal constitutional rights to procedural due process.
112. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 45 of 49
113. Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and their members of their right to adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard to cure deficiencies with their absentee ballot requests and their absentee ballots. This wholly fails to meet these minimum requirements of procedural due process, as guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court provide the following relief:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action; b. Declare that the Excuse Requirement, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(B) and La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3, and the Witness Requirement, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1307(A), violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as undue burdens on the fundamental right to vote, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they unconstitutionally condition the right to vote upon the forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity, and violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020; c. Declare that the Cure Prohibition, as found generally in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA members their right to procedural due process. d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that order relief including:
1. Prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement for all voters during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020;
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 46 of 49
2. Prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirement for all voters during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020;77
3. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local, city, and parish election officials to modify election materials, including absentee ballots, envelopes, instructions, and other materials, to reflect the enjoining of the Challenged Provisions, and conduct a public information campaign informing Louisiana voters about the enjoining of the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirement, and the Cure Prohibition, in coordination with parish and local officials before and during the absentee balloting period;
4. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all parish and local election officials to process all valid absentee ballot applications, regardless of whether the applicant has provided an excuse, for all elections in Louisiana in 2020;
5. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all parish and local election officials to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing the signature of a witness for all elections in Louisiana in 2020;
6. Ordering Defendants to provide absentee voters notice and an opportunity to cure any defects in their absentee ballots during, at
77 Alternatively, Defendants must offer voters the opportunity to sign a sworn affirmation on the absentee ballot’s certificate envelope that states the voter could not reasonably and safely complete the Witness Requirement and count all absentee ballots with that signed, sworn attestation.
46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 47 of 49 least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020 that do not require the voter to appear anywhere in person;
e. Award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in this action; f. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit; g. Order such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate; and h. Retain jurisdiction to enforce the Judgment.
47

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 48 of 49

DATED this 19th day of May, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Danielle E. Davis Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Motion for pro hac vice admission forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
48

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1 05/19/20 Page 49 of 49 49

-65HY Case3:20-cv-00308-S&D,D9-,R/LB&29D(oc5um6+en(t 1(-71 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHQRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJVRURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDV SURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKH SXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

, D 3/$,17,))6 CLARK, TELISA; BARNETT, LAKESHIA; GREEN, MARTHA CHRISTIAN; CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP; and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOUISIANA,
E&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII Terrebonne
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
F$WWRUQH\V(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Danielle E. Davis, Southern Poverty Law Center, P.O. Box 57089, New Orleans, LA 70157; 504-376-7085

'()(1'$176 EDWARDS, JOHN BEL, Governor of Louisiana; ARDOIN, KYLE, Louisiana Secretary of State; LANDRY, JEFF, Louisiana Attorney General; ROGERS, RHONDA, Terrebonne Parish Registrar, et al.,
&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW East Baton Rouge
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 127( ,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)
7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9(' 
$WWRUQH\V(If Known)

,,%$6,62)-85,6',&7,21(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

u  86*RYHUQPHQW 3ODLQWLII

u  )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ (U.S. Government Not a Party)

,,,&,7,=(16+,32)35,1&,3$/3$57,(6 (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) 37) '()

and One Box for Defendant) 37) '()

&LWL]HQRI7KLV6WDWH

u  u  ,QFRUSRUDWHGor3ULQFLSDO3ODFH RI%XVLQHVV,Q7KLV6WDWH

u  u

u  86*RYHUQPHQW 'HIHQGDQW

u  'LYHUVLW\ (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH

u  u  ,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH

u  u

,91$785(2)68,7(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

&2175$&7

72576

&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID

u

)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\

)25)(,785(3(1$/7<

u  )RUHLJQ1DWLRQ

u  u

&OLFNKHUHIRU1DWXUHRI6XLW&RGH'HVFULSWLRQV

%$1.5837&<

27+(567$787(6

u ,QVXUDQFH

3(5621$/,1-85< 3(5621$/,1-85< u 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUH

u $SSHDO86&

u 0DULQH

u $LUSODQH

u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\

RI3URSHUW\86& u :LWKGUDZDO

u 0LOOHU$FW

u $LUSODQH3URGXFW

3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

u 2WKHU

86&

u 1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW

/LDELOLW\

u +HDOWK&DUH

u 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW u $VVDXOW/LEHO

3KDUPDFHXWLFDO

3523(57<5,*+76

 (QIRUFHPHQWRI-XGJPHQW

6ODQGHU

3HUVRQDO,QMXU\

u &RS\ULJKWV

u 0HGLFDUH$FW

u )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV¶

3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

u 3DWHQW

u 5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG

/LDELOLW\

u $VEHVWRV3HUVRQDO

u 3DWHQW$EEUHYLDWHG

6WXGHQW/RDQV

u 0DULQH

,QMXU\3URGXFW

1HZ'UXJ$SSOLFDWLRQ

([FOXGHV9HWHUDQV

u 0DULQH3URGXFW

/LDELOLW\

u 7UDGHPDUN

u 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW

/LDELOLW\

3(5621$/3523(57<

/$%25

62&,$/6(&85,7<

RI9HWHUDQ¶V%HQHILWV

u 0RWRU9HKLFOH

u 2WKHU)UDXG

u )DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV

u +,$II

u 6WRFNKROGHUV¶6XLWV

u 0RWRU9HKLFOH

u 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ

$FW

u %ODFN/XQJ

u 2WKHU&RQWUDFW

3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO

u /DERU0DQDJHPHQW

u ',:&',::J

u &RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO

3URSHUW\'DPDJH

5HODWLRQV

u 66,'7LWOH;9,

u )UDQFKLVH

,QMXU\

u 3URSHUW\'DPDJH

u 5DLOZD\/DERU$FW

u 56,J

u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\

3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

u )DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO

0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH

/HDYH$FW

5($/3523(57<

&,9,/5,*+76

35,621(53(7,7,216 u 2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ

)('(5$/7$;68,76

u /DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ

u 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV

+DEHDV&RUSXV

u (PSOR\HH5HWLUHPHQW

u 7D[HV863ODLQWLII

u )RUHFORVXUH

u 9RWLQJ

u $OLHQ'HWDLQHH

,QFRPH6HFXULW\$FW

RU'HIHQGDQW

u 5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW u (PSOR\PHQW

u 0RWLRQVWR9DFDWH

u ,56²7KLUG3DUW\

u 7RUWVWR/DQG

u +RXVLQJ

6HQWHQFH

86&

u 7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

$FFRPPRGDWLRQV

u *HQHUDO

u $OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\ u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV u 'HDWK3HQDOW\

,00,*5$7,21

(PSOR\PHQW

2WKHU

u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ

u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU u 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ

2WKHU

u &LYLO5LJKWV

$FWLRQV

u (GXFDWLRQ

u 3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQ

u &LYLO'HWDLQHH

&RQGLWLRQVRI

&RQILQHPHQW

u )DOVH&ODLPV$FW
u 4XL7DP86& D
u 6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW u $QWLWUXVW u %DQNVDQG%DQNLQJ u &RPPHUFH u 'HSRUWDWLRQ u 5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHGDQG
&RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQV u &RQVXPHU&UHGLW
86&RU u 7HOHSKRQH&RQVXPHU
3URWHFWLRQ$FW u &DEOH6DW79 u 6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV
([FKDQJH u 2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
u $JULFXOWXUDO$FWV
u (QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV
u )UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
$FW u $UELWUDWLRQ u $GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH
$FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI
$JHQF\'HFLVLRQ u &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI
6WDWH6WDWXWHV

925,*,1(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

u  2ULJLQDO 3URFHHGLQJ

u  5HPRYHGIURP 6WDWH&RXUW

u  5HPDQGHGIURP $SSHOODWH&RXUW

u  5HLQVWDWHGRU 5HRSHQHG

u  7UDQVIHUUHGIURP $QRWKHU'LVWULFW

(specify)

u  0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ 7UDQVIHU

u 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ 'LUHFW)LOH

&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJ(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

9,&$86(2)$&7,21

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; 52 U.S.C. § 10302
%ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIFDXVH

Claims to protect the right to vote under the 1st and 14th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

9,,5(48(67(',1 &203/$,17

u &+(&.,)7+,6,6$&/$66$&7,21
81'(558/()5&Y3

'(0$1'

&+(&.<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW

-85<'(0$1'

u <HV u 1R

9,,,5(/$7('&$6(6

,)$1<

(See instructions): -8'*( Honorable Brian A. Jackson

'2&.(7180%(5 2:20-cv-283-BAJ-EWD

'$7(
05/19/2020
)252)),&(86(21/<

6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'

5(&(,37

$02817

$33/<,1*,)3

-8'*(

0$*-8'*(

-65HYHUVH5HY Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-1 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2
,16758&7,216)25$77251(<6&203/(7,1*&,9,/&29(56+((7)250-6
$XWKRULW\)RU&LYLO&RYHU6KHHW

7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHVQRUVXSSOHPHQWVWKHILOLQJVDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJRURWKHUSDSHUVDV UHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDVSURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULV UHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKHSXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW&RQVHTXHQWO\DFLYLOFRYHUVKHHWLVVXEPLWWHGWRWKH&OHUNRI &RXUWIRUHDFKFLYLOFRPSODLQWILOHG7KHDWWRUQH\ILOLQJDFDVHVKRXOGFRPSOHWHWKHIRUPDVIROORZV

,D E F

3ODLQWLIIV'HIHQGDQWV(QWHUQDPHVODVWILUVWPLGGOHLQLWLDORISODLQWLIIDQGGHIHQGDQW,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\XVH RQO\WKHIXOOQDPHRUVWDQGDUGDEEUHYLDWLRQV,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDQRIILFLDOZLWKLQDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\LGHQWLI\ILUVWWKHDJHQF\DQG WKHQWKHRIILFLDOJLYLQJERWKQDPHDQGWLWOH &RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFH)RUHDFKFLYLOFDVHILOHGH[FHSW86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\ZKHUHWKHILUVWOLVWHGSODLQWLIIUHVLGHVDWWKH WLPHRIILOLQJ,Q86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\LQZKLFKWKHILUVWOLVWHGGHIHQGDQWUHVLGHVDWWKHWLPHRIILOLQJ127(,QODQG FRQGHPQDWLRQFDVHVWKHFRXQW\RIUHVLGHQFHRIWKHGHIHQGDQWLVWKHORFDWLRQRIWKHWUDFWRIODQGLQYROYHG $WWRUQH\V(QWHUWKHILUPQDPHDGGUHVVWHOHSKRQHQXPEHUDQGDWWRUQH\RIUHFRUG,IWKHUHDUHVHYHUDODWWRUQH\VOLVWWKHPRQDQDWWDFKPHQWQRWLQJ LQWKLVVHFWLRQVHHDWWDFKPHQW

,, -XULVGLFWLRQ7KHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQLVVHWIRUWKXQGHU5XOHD)5&Y3ZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKDWMXULVGLFWLRQVEHVKRZQLQSOHDGLQJV3ODFHDQ; LQRQHRIWKHER[HV,IWKHUHLVPRUHWKDQRQHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQSUHFHGHQFHLVJLYHQLQWKHRUGHUVKRZQEHORZ 8QLWHG6WDWHVSODLQWLII-XULVGLFWLRQEDVHGRQ86&DQG6XLWVE\DJHQFLHVDQGRIILFHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDUHLQFOXGHGKHUH 8QLWHG6WDWHVGHIHQGDQW:KHQWKHSODLQWLIILVVXLQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLWVRIILFHUVRUDJHQFLHVSODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[ )HGHUDOTXHVWLRQ7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHMXULVGLFWLRQDULVHVXQGHUWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQDPHQGPHQW WRWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDQDFWRI&RQJUHVVRUDWUHDW\RIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV,QFDVHVZKHUHWKH86LVDSDUW\WKH86SODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWFRGHWDNHV SUHFHGHQFHDQGER[RUVKRXOGEHPDUNHG 'LYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLS7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHSDUWLHVDUHFLWL]HQVRIGLIIHUHQWVWDWHV:KHQ%R[LVFKHFNHGWKH FLWL]HQVKLSRIWKHGLIIHUHQWSDUWLHVPXVWEHFKHFNHG6HH6HFWLRQ,,,EHORZ127(IHGHUDOTXHVWLRQDFWLRQVWDNHSUHFHGHQFHRYHUGLYHUVLW\ FDVHV

,,, 5HVLGHQFHFLWL]HQVKLSRI3ULQFLSDO3DUWLHV7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVWREHFRPSOHWHGLIGLYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLSZDVLQGLFDWHGDERYH0DUNWKLV VHFWLRQIRUHDFKSULQFLSDOSDUW\

,9 1DWXUHRI6XLW3ODFHDQ;LQWKHDSSURSULDWHER[,IWKHUHDUHPXOWLSOHQDWXUHRIVXLWFRGHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHFDVHSLFNWKHQDWXUHRIVXLWFRGH WKDWLVPRVWDSSOLFDEOH&OLFNKHUHIRU1DWXUHRI6XLW&RGH'HVFULSWLRQV

9 2ULJLQ3ODFHDQ;LQRQHRIWKHVHYHQER[HV 2ULJLQDO3URFHHGLQJV&DVHVZKLFKRULJLQDWHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGLVWULFWFRXUWV 5HPRYHGIURP6WDWH&RXUW3URFHHGLQJVLQLWLDWHGLQVWDWHFRXUWVPD\EHUHPRYHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWVXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ 5HPDQGHGIURP$SSHOODWH&RXUW&KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHPDQGHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWIRUIXUWKHUDFWLRQ8VHWKHGDWHRIUHPDQGDVWKHILOLQJ GDWH 5HLQVWDWHGRU5HRSHQHG&KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHLQVWDWHGRUUHRSHQHGLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW8VHWKHUHRSHQLQJGDWHDVWKHILOLQJGDWH 7UDQVIHUUHGIURP$QRWKHU'LVWULFW)RUFDVHVWUDQVIHUUHGXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQD'RQRWXVHWKLVIRUZLWKLQGLVWULFWWUDQVIHUVRU PXOWLGLVWULFWOLWLJDWLRQWUDQVIHUV 0XOWLGLVWULFW/LWLJDWLRQ±7UDQVIHU&KHFNWKLVER[ZKHQDPXOWLGLVWULFWFDVHLVWUDQVIHUUHGLQWRWKHGLVWULFWXQGHUDXWKRULW\RI7LWOH86& 6HFWLRQ 0XOWLGLVWULFW/LWLJDWLRQ±'LUHFW)LOH&KHFNWKLVER[ZKHQDPXOWLGLVWULFWFDVHLVILOHGLQWKHVDPHGLVWULFWDVWKH0DVWHU0'/GRFNHW
3/($6(127(7+$77+(5(,6127$125,*,1&2'(2ULJLQ&RGHZDVXVHGIRUKLVWRULFDOUHFRUGVDQGLVQRORQJHUUHOHYDQWGXHWR FKDQJHVLQVWDWXH

9, &DXVHRI$FWLRQ5HSRUWWKHFLYLOVWDWXWHGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRWKHFDXVHRIDFWLRQDQGJLYHDEULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHFDXVH'RQRWFLWHMXULVGLFWLRQDO VWDWXWHVXQOHVVGLYHUVLW\([DPSOH86&LYLO6WDWXWH86&%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ8QDXWKRUL]HGUHFHSWLRQRIFDEOHVHUYLFH

9,, 5HTXHVWHGLQ&RPSODLQW&ODVV$FWLRQ3ODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[LI\RXDUHILOLQJDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU5XOH)5&Y3 'HPDQG,QWKLVVSDFHHQWHUWKHDFWXDOGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGRULQGLFDWHRWKHUGHPDQGVXFKDVDSUHOLPLQDU\LQMXQFWLRQ -XU\'HPDQG&KHFNWKHDSSURSULDWHER[WRLQGLFDWHZKHWKHURUQRWDMXU\LVEHLQJGHPDQGHG

9,,, 5HODWHG&DVHV7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVXVHGWRUHIHUHQFHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLIDQ\,IWKHUHDUHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLQVHUWWKHGRFNHW QXPEHUVDQGWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJMXGJHQDPHVIRUVXFKFDVHV

'DWHDQG$WWRUQH\6LJQDWXUH'DWHDQGVLJQWKHFLYLOFRYHUVKHHW

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-2 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____M__id_d_l_e_DDisitsrtircitctoof fL_o_u_is_i_a_n_a___

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOUISIANA Plaintiff(s) v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) John Bel Edwards Governor of the State of Louisiana 900 North 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Danielle E. Davis
Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-2 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-3 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____M__id_d_l_e_DDisitsrtircitctoof fL_o_u_is_i_a_n_a___

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOUISIANA Plaintiff(s) v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Kyle Ardoin Secretary of State of Louisiana 8585 Archives Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70809

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Danielle E. Davis
Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-3 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-4 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____M__id_d_l_e_DDisitsrtircitctoof fL_o_u_is_i_a_n_a___

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOUISIANA Plaintiff(s) v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Jeff Landry Attorney General of Louisiana 1885 N 3rd St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Danielle E. Davis
Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-4 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-5 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____M__id_d_l_e_DDisitsrtircitctoof fL_o_u_is_i_a_n_a___

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOUISIANA Plaintiff(s) v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Rhonda R. Rogers Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters 8026 Main Street, Suite 101 Houma, LA 70360-3407

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Danielle E. Davis
Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-5 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-6 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
____M__id_d_l_e_DDisitsrtircitctoof fL_o_u_is_i_a_n_a___

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
LOUISIANA Plaintiff(s) v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana, et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address) Charlene Meaux Menard Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters 1010 Lafayette St., Suite 313 Lafayette, LA 70501-6885

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Danielle E. Davis
Southern Poverty Law Center P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 1-6 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16 06/01/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN EXCESS OF THE PAGE LIMIT
Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek leave to file a Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in excess of the Court’s 25-page limit for initial memoranda under Local Rule 7(g). In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs challenge aspects of Louisiana’s absentee ballot law that fail to protect their fundamental right to vote in Louisiana’s upcoming elections during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge for all upcoming 2020 elections (1) the requirement to qualify for an excuse to vote by absentee ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) the requirement to have another person witness the absentee voter’s signature and then sign the absentee ballot envelope (the “Witness Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b); and (3) the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects in

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16 06/01/20 Page 2 of 4
their mail-in absentee ballot and opportunity to cure such defects so that their votes may be counted (the “Cure Prohibition”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. 2. Plaintiffs intend to seek a preliminary injunction on behalf of all voters for the upcoming 2020 elections against the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirement, and the Cure Prohibition (the “Challenged Provisions”). 3. Plaintiffs include two organizations and three individuals, all of whom are impacted in distinct ways by the Challenged Provisions. 4. Plaintiffs bring pressing constitutional claims to protect Louisiana voters’ fundamental right to vote during a global pandemic, which Plaintiffs believe requires providing the Court with comprehensive facts relating to the Covid-19 pandemic, its impact on Louisiana, and the state’s failed response to protect voters like Plaintiffs, as well as fully explaining their legal arguments. 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted counsel for Defendants on Saturday, May 30, to determine whether they would oppose this Motion, but as of filing have not received any response. 6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek leave to file a memorandum in support of their motion for preliminary injunction that does not exceed 40 pages so as to allow each party to address the issues adequately and assist the Court in deciding the forthcoming motion.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16 06/01/20 Page 3 of 4

DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16 06/01/20 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing motion with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to counsel of record who are registered participants of the Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that I sent the foregoing document by electronic mail to counsel of record who are not CM/ECF participants.
/s/ Caren E. Short Counsel for Plaintiffs
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move for a preliminary injunction restraining Defendants for all upcoming 2020 elections from enforcing (1) the requirement to qualify for an excuse to vote by absentee ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) the requirement to have another person witness the absentee voter’s signature and then sign the absentee ballot envelope (the “Witness Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b); and (3) the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballot and an opportunity to cure such defects so that their votes may be counted (the “Cure Prohibition”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. The United States and Louisiana are facing an unprecedented global pandemic that epidemiologists predict will continue into the fall, when the general election in November is expected to draw high voter turnout. As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, Louisiana election officials, including Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin have already

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 2 of 6
concluded that the state’s voting rules must change to protect voters and ensure safe, free, fair, and equal elections during the pandemic. They simply have not adequately alleviated the burdens of voting during a pandemic. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their claims that the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition violate their constitutional rights.
First, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Excuse Requirement on behalf of all Louisiana voters during 2020 elections. Despite the Emergency Election Plan expanding eligibility for absentee voting for the July and August elections, voters like Plaintiffs Barnett and Green and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, who live in the same household with family members who have health conditions that make them high risk for COVID-19, do not qualify for an excuse for any 2020 election. These voters must vote in person, which requires them to choose between voting and the health of their family. And voters like Plaintiff Clark, who qualify to vote by absentee ballot for the July and August election because of her health condition under the Emergency Election Plan, must vote in person in the November and December elections because the Emergency Election Plan does not extend past August. Plaintiff Clark and voters like her must therefore choose between her health and her right to vote. The Excuse Requirement creates a severe burden on all voters’ fundamental right to vote and, for voters like Plaintiff Clark, creates an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity.
Second, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Witness Requirement for all voters in 2020 elections. By requiring voters—especially high-risk voters—to break their isolation or recommended social distancing guidelines to sign their absentee ballot in the presence of a witness who then signs the absentee ballot envelope in turn, the Witness Requirement creates an unreasonable burden on
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 3 of 6
absentee voters’ fundamental right to vote under the U.S. Constitution and creates an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity.
The Witness Requirement and Excuse Requirement frustrate the missions of Plaintiffs CCMG and LWVLA and cause them to divert limited resources to mitigate the harm caused by requiring voters to risk exposure to COVID-19 by voting in person or finding a witness for an absentee ballot.
Finally, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Cure Prohibition for all absentee voters in 2020 elections. Louisiana law provides absentee voters no notice of or opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballot so that it may be counted. For Plaintiff Clark, Plaintiff LWVLA members eligible to vote by absentee ballot, and voters like them, the Cure Prohibition violates their right to procedural due process during the absentee ballot process. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to implement a process by which voters may cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted.
Unless the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement are enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between exercising their fundamental right to vote and protecting their health or the health of their loved ones. If the Cure Prohibition is not enjoined and a process is not implemented for voters to cure material defects in their returned absentee ballot, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, like many Louisiana voters who will be voting by mail for the first time, will be denied their right to procedural due process and risk losing their right to vote.
Plaintiffs are also entitled to relief because they will suffer irreparable harm absent relief and traditional legal remedies will not adequately protect their rights. Further, the harm to Plaintiffs and other Louisiana voters outweighs any putative harm to the Defendants. Finally, the relief sought by Plaintiffs is clearly in the public interest.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 4 of 6 To protect their rights, their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and the rights and lives of Louisianans like them during the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter a preliminary injunction for the July, August, November, and December 2020 elections that (1) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirement, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)– (b); (3) orders Defendants to implement a process by which voters are given notice of and an opportunity to cure any material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted; and (4) orders Defendants to educate all voters about the injunction, in coordination with parish and local officials.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 5 of 6

DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-1 06/01/20 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing motion with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to counsel of record who are registered participants of the Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that I sent the foregoing document by electronic mail to counsel of record who are not CM/ECF participants.
/s/ Caren E. Short Counsel for Plaintiffs
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 2 of 37
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Defendants Governor Edwards, Secretary of State Ardoin, Attorney General Landry and the Louisiana Legislature have already conceded that voting rules must change to facilitate safe, free, fair, and equal voting during the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic. But the state’s emergency election plan fails to address the burdens, gaps, and inequities of the state’s restrictive mail-in voting system and does not apply to the general election in November, which is expected to draw high turnout and when the transmission of Covid-19 will likely continue to endanger voters. As a result, provisions of Louisiana’s absentee ballot law pose direct and severe obstacles to voting: (1) the requirement to qualify for an excuse to vote by absentee ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) the requirement to have another person witness the absentee voter’s signature and then sign the absentee ballot envelope (the “Witness Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b); and (3) the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballots and opportunity to cure such defects so that their votes may be counted (the “Cure Prohibition”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement for all voters in 2020 elections because they violate the fundamental right to vote under the U.S. Constitution, and create an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the Cure Prohibition because it violates their right to procedural due process by failing to provide notice of and an opportunity to cure material defects
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 3 of 37
during the absentee ballot process. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to implement a process by which voters may cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted.
If the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement are not enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between exercising their fundamental right to vote and protecting their health or the health of their loved ones. If the Cure Prohibition is not enjoined and a process put in place for voters to cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, like many Louisiana voters who will be voting by mail for the first time, will be denied their right to procedural due process and risk losing their right to vote. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to enjoin these provisions.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS1
A. The Covid-19 Pandemic
“SARS-CoV-2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19).” Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray, attached as Ex. 2 (“Murray Decl.”) ¶ 6. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared Covid-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.2 On March 11, 2020, WHO declared that it had become a pandemic.3 It has now spread throughout the world, including to
1 The Court can take judicial notice of census data, voting statistics, public health reports, and newspapers. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Alexander, No. CR 14-126-JWD-EWD, 2020 WL 2468773, at *7 (M.D. La. May 13, 2020); Gen. Elec. Co. v. W. Feliciana Par. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, No. CV 16-449-JWD-RLB, 2016 WL 7007504, at *14 (M.D. La. Nov. 29, 2016); Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011); Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997, 1000 n.4 (5th Cir. 1981). 2 World Health Organization, Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (Jan. 30, 2020), https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-healthregulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov). 3 World Health Organization, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on Covid-19, (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefingon-Covid-19---11-march-2020.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 4 of 37
every state in the United States. There are currently 1,787,680 confirmed cases in the United States,
and 104,396 deaths nationwide.4 As of May 31, 2020, the Louisiana Department of Health had
confirmed 40,341 positive cases of coronavirus and 2,690 deaths in Louisiana.5
As Dr. Megan Murray, an epidemiologist with the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health
and its Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, explains in her declaration:
Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. It has also been shown that Covid-19 can be transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air.
Id. ¶ 8. As a result, individuals can spread the disease before realizing they are infected and self-
quarantining. Id. ¶ 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has also noted that
asymptomatic Covid-19-positive individuals can transmit the disease to others.6
According to the CDC, individuals are at higher risk of severe complications and death
from Covid-19 if they are 65 years old or older or have underlying health conditions and diseases,
including chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, severe
obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher), diabetes, chronic kidney disease undergoing
dialysis, liver disease, and other health conditions that suppress immune systems like HIV/AIDS.7
The CDC also notes that immunocompromised individuals are at severe risk from Covid-19.8
4 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Cases in U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/casesupdates/cases-in-us.html (last updated Jun. 1, 2020). 5 La. Dept. of Health, Louisiana Coronavirus (Covid-19) Information, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated Jun. 1, 2020). 6 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19): How to Prepare, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html (last updated Mar. 4, 2020). 7 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, People who are at higher risk for severe illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/people-at-higher-risk.html (last updated May 14, 2020). 8 Id.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 5 of 37
“Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with comorbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease.” Id. ¶ 20. Dr. Murray explains in her declaration that “[i]n addition to age, other risk factors for severe disease and death include hypertension, heart disease, lung diseases (e.g., asthma, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]), diabetes mellitus, obesity, and chronic kidney disease.” Id. ¶ 21.
Though Covid-19 typically begins with “a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath,” id. ¶ 14, some people “develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise due to pneumonia that can be gradual or sudden.” Id. ¶ 15. The major complication in patients with severe disease is acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”). Id. ¶ 16. Many patients who develop ARDS must be put on a ventilator. Id. The Covid19 disease can cause a wide variety of clinical manifestations, including pneumonia, kidney failure, liver failure, strokes, heart attacks, cardiac inflammation, pulmonary embolisms, and gastrointestinal infections. Id. ¶ 17. People who develop severe complications and require mechanical ventilation to survive ARDS or who suffer a stroke “are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function” or “long term neurological deficits from these events,” respectively. Id. ¶ 19. In critical cases, Covid-19 can be fatal. Id. ¶¶ 16, 20. Even young individuals, including children, are at risk of severe complications and death from Covid19. Id.
“The CDC has documented that 36.8 percent of Louisiana residents are obese and an additional 32.7 percent are overweight; 39 percent have a diagnosis of high blood pressure and 13.9 percent have diagnosed diabetes mellitus.” Id. ¶ 46. 15.4 percent of the population is 65 years old or over. Id. Using data from the CDC’s 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (“BRFSS”), the Kaiser Family Foundation has “estimated the total number of at-risk adults by
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 6 of 37
state . . . who are at higher risk of serious illness if they get infected with coronavirus.” Id. ¶ 48. Based on their analysis of state-specific data on relevant factors such as age, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uncontrolled asthma, diabetes, and a BMI greater than 40, “42.1% of adults over age 18 in Louisiana are at risk for serious Covid-19 cases with older adults making up 48.4% of those at high risk.” Id. According to another risk assessment study, “Louisiana scored an 88 out of 100 when 100 is the most vulnerable.” Id. ¶¶ 49-50. Dr. Murray concludes that “[t]hese data suggest that in the event of further spread of Covid-19, Louisiana may experience higher levels of disease, disability and death than other states experiencing the same amount of transmission.” Id. ¶ 50.
Covid-19 is highly communicable and poses a severe threat to voters. As Dr. Murray testifies, “[b]ecause voting takes place in public buildings where people congregate and given the risks of infection and disease in the Louisiana population, voting at a polling station in November entails a substantial risk of infection with Covid-19 that could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death.” Id. ¶ 32. Polling places create a risk to voters where they are “crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth.” Id. Additionally, “if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk . . . [because] poorly ventilated areas where crowding may take place pose risk to those using these facilities” from aerosol transmission. Id. “The probability that a person who is exposed to Covid-19 in [a polling place] will go on to develop severe Covid-19 disease or to die depends on the age of that person and his/her underlying health status.” Id.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 7 of 37
B. Covid-19’s Impact on Black Louisianans Plaintiffs incorporate the discussion of Covid-19’s disproportionate impact on Black Louisianans in the Memorandum of Law filed by the Power Coalition plaintiffs, Section II.A.2.9 Mem. L. Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., Power Coalition for Equity & Justice v. Edwards, No. 3:20cv-00283, ECF No. 14-1 (May 21, 2020), attached as Ex. 3 (“Power Coalition brief”). In further support, Dr. Sekou Franklin, Associate Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee University, testifies in his expert declaration that as the Black population in a county increases— a proxy for determining whether race is a predictor of a certain factor—residents are more likely to live in high-poverty areas and live in economic distress, less likely to have an automobile, and more likely to have worse health outcomes. Expert Declaration of Dr. Sekou Franklin, attached as Ex. 4 (“Franklin Decl.”) ¶ 7. Each of these factors make Black Louisianans more susceptible to contracting and suffering complications or dying from Covid-19. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. As recognized in the Power Coalition brief, the CDC has both acknowledged the disparate impact of Covid-19 on Black Americans rooted in systemic discrimination and recommended that racial and ethnic minority groups “take extra precautions to protect themselves from Covid-19.”10
C. The Covid-19 Pandemic and Louisiana’s 2020 Elections Covid-19’s impact on the November general election and other 2020 elections will be unprecedented. In response to Covid-19, many states will likely see an increase in vote-by-mail in the general election. For example, in Wisconsin’s April 7, 2020 election, nearly 1.3 million
9 On May 26, 2020, Defendants in Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, et al. v. Edwards, et al., 3:20-cv-00283, filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the instant case with their case. Plaintiffs in this case did not oppose the motion to consolidate. 10 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Covid-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (last visited May 30, 2020).
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 8 of 37
registered voters requested an absentee ballot, the most in the state’s history.11 Voters submitted
an unprecedented total of 1,239,611 absentee ballot requests to municipal clerks, clerks issued 1,282,097 absentee ballots, and voters cast and returned 1,157,599 of them.12 Eighty-three percent
or 964,433 of the 1,157,599 absentee ballots were mail-in absentee ballots, comprising nearly 62 percent of the total turnout.13 This absentee ballot use was a dramatic increase from the 2016
presidential primary election, in which mail-in absentee ballots constituted just 4.8 percent of total ballots cast.14 See also Power Coalition Brief at 5-7 (further detail regarding the course of
coronavirus pandemic in Louisiana).
The Excuse Requirement: The Louisiana Constitution requires the legislature to establish
an absentee voting system. La. Const. art. XI, § 2 (“The legislature shall provide a method for absentee voting.”). Louisiana is one of only 16 states that require an excuse to vote by mail.15
Louisiana statute limits absentee voting by mail to voters who satisfy one of fifteen excuses. See
La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303. Only limited categories of voters may vote by mail, including voters with
documented disabilities, voters aged 65 years and older, military and overseas voters, and voters
who will be out of the parish of residence, among others. Id. Plaintiffs here incorporate the
discussion of the excuse requirement in Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.1 and related penalties,
Section II.B.3.
11 Absentee Ballot Report - April 7, 2020 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary, Wis. Elections Comm’n (Apr. 16, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/node/6856. 12 Absentee Ballot Report - April 7, 2020 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary (updated Apr. 21, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/node/6862; see Wisconsin Elections Commission, April 7, 2020 Absentee Voting Report, at 4 (Table 2), 5 (Table 3) (May 15, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/202005/April%202020%20Absentee%20Voting%20Report.pdf. 13 See Absentee Voting Report, supra note 11, at 6 (Table 4); id. at 4 (Table 1). 14 Id. at 6 (Table 4). 15 See Ala. Code § 17-11-3; Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-402; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-135; Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, § 5502; Ind. Code § 3-11-10-24; Ky. Rev. Stat. § 117.085; La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 86; Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-715; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.277; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 657:1; N.Y. Elec. § 8-400; S.C. Code Ann. § 7-15-320; Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-6-201; Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 82.001, 82.002, 82.003, 82.004, 82.005, 82.006, 82.007; W. Va. Code § 3-3-1.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 9 of 37
The Witness Requirement: Louisiana law also requires voters who vote by mail to obtain a witness signature, verifying the voter’s identity, for their ballot to count. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). The voter must sign their absentee ballot affidavit in the presence of this witness, who then signs the envelope. Id. The law does not specify who may serve as a witness. Louisiana is one of only 12 states to require voters to obtain at least one witness signature on their absentee mail-in ballot.16
Dr. Franklin testifies that according to the American Community Survey (“ACS”), 30.6% of households in Louisiana are headed by a person who identifies as “living alone.” Franklin Decl. ¶ 3 & tbl.2. And 11.6% of Louisiana households are a person living alone who is 65 years old or older. Id.
Dr. Franklin explains that as the Black population increases at the county level in Louisiana, residents of voting age (18 and above) are more likely to live alone. Franklin Decl. ¶¶ 7, 19-22. Of all Black households (i.e., homes with all their occupants, regardless of number, treated as one unit), 37% contain people who live alone compared to 28.2% of white households. Id. ¶ 13. And nearly 15% of all Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with children under 18 versus just 5.1% percent of similar white households. Id. Plaintiffs here incorporate the discussion of Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.2 and related penalties, Section II.B.3.
The Cure Prohibition: Louisiana law fails to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballots and deprives them of an opportunity to cure such
16 See Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07, 203B.121; Minn. R. 8210.2450; Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 1720-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15-220, 7-15-230; Va. Code Ann. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 10 of 37
problems so that their votes may be counted. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. Louisiana also provides no mechanism for tracking whether one’s absentee ballot has been received, accepted, or counted.
Plaintiffs here incorporate the discussion of the absentee ballot review and counting process in the Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.4. Louisiana law requires that an absentee ballot be rejected and not counted if a majority of the parish board of election supervisors determines that the ballot is invalid, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313(F)(5), or the ballot contains a “distinguishing mark.” Id. § 18:1316(A). But it does not require election officials to notify voters that their ballots have been deemed invalid or how to correct the defect or error with their ballot. Additionally, if an absentee ballot is challenged by a “commissioner, watcher, or qualified voter” under § 18:1315(A)(1), § 18:565(A)(1)–(3), or § 18:1315(B), the registrar must notify the voter that his or her ballot has been challenged, although such notice is sent only after the challenge is sustained and the ballot rejected with no opportunity for the voter to cure. Id. § 18:1315(C)(2), (3)(a).
D. Emergency Election Plans On April 15, 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency election plan that would have expanded access to absentee ballots during the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (“July election”) and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections (“August election”), pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Specifically, the First Proposed Emergency Plan would have expanded the list of registered voters who could request an absentee ballot, most importantly, those who are at high risk of contracting and suffering complications from the disease, are subject to a quarantine or isolation order or caring for such an individual, those caring for children whose school or childcare is closed, and most broadly, those who are “unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of Covid-19.” See First Proposed Emergency Election Plan (Apr. 13, 2020), attached as Ex. 5 (“First Proposed Emergency Election Plan”) at 8.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 11 of 37
Under the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, returned ballots could not have been rejected for lack of a witness signature for the July and August elections. Id. at 9. But the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee blocked the plan, citing unspecified concerns of “voter fraud.”17 Subsequently, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”18 In response to senators’ concerns about Louisiana voters using the Covid-19 crisis to engage in fraudulent behavior, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin stated: “I think some of their concerns are not steeped in all the facts that were presented to them today. I’m hoping over time there can be some clarity.”19
On April 20, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin presented a revised emergency election plan that significantly limits access to absentee ballots and fails to waive witness requirements for absentee ballots during the July and August elections. See Revised Emergency Election Plan (Apr. 20, 2020), attached as Ex. 6 (“Emergency Election Plan”). Neither the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan nor the Emergency Election Plan resolves any burdens voters will face in November general election (“November election”) or December 5, 2020 Congressional and open general election (“December election”) from Louisiana’s absentee voting laws during the Covid-19 pandemic.
17 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs (Apr. 15, 2020); see also Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html. 18 Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11eab67e-73d2172ba20b.html. 19 Id.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 12 of 37
Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin is now implementing the Emergency Election Plan that was approved, ironically, by the Louisiana legislature mailing in their votes. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3(D).20
The Emergency Election Plan extends the ability to vote by mail to voters: • At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications); • Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19; • Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; • Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or • Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.
Emergency Election Plan at 8. Plaintiffs herein refer to the “Excuse Requirement” as embracing this list of additional, but temporary, excuses for the July and August elections.
Further, the Emergency Election Plan does not remove the Witness Requirement and does not outline a cure process for returned ballots that contain material defects resulting in rejection. See generally id.
20 Tierney Sneed, The Irony: LA Legislature Votes By Mail To Approve Plan Limiting Vote-By-Mail, TPM, May 4, 2020, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/voting-rights-primer-pandemic-age-flashpoint-voting.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 13 of 37
E. The Danger to Voters this Fall The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to produce steady or increased transmission in the United States through the fall, as voters seek to cast their ballots on or before Election Day. Dr. Murray explains in her declaration that “[e]pidemiologists have projected a number of future Covid-19 epidemic trajectories based on a range of different possible scenarios but all of these scenarios are similar in that they predict that it is highly likely that Covid-19 will continue to circulate at its current level or at an even higher level than currently in October and November of 2020.” Murray Decl. ¶ 33. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said a second wave of infections in the United States is “inevitable,” and CDC Director Robert Redfield has said that wave may “be even more difficult than the one we just went through.”21 Due to the relaxation of social distancing measures, the corresponding increase in social contacts, and seasonal changes, “it is reasonable to expect that, like other beta-coronaviruses, [COVID-19] may transmit somewhat more efficiently in winter than summer.” Id. ¶¶ 37-39. The projected persistent or increased risk of transmission in the fall and winter is, in part, due to seasonal factors, including “differences in the ways people congregate,” as “people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation and less personal space than they do in the summer.” Id. ¶ 39. Citing one study that “drew lessons from previous influenza pandemics to predict the future trajectory of Covid-19,” id. ¶ 40, Dr. Murray notes that the “most likely scenario” is that “the current first wave of Covid-19 will be followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and
21 Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House, Mar. 25, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trumpvice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/; Zack Budryk, CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus might be ‘more difficult,’ The Hill, Apr. 21, 2020, https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/493973cdc-director-warns-second-wave-of-coronavirus-might-be-more-difficult.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 14 of 37
one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021,” id. ¶ 41, and that “most epidemiologists expect that incidence will increase in the fall/winter months of 2020-2021.” Id. ¶ 42. “In the period prior to the widespread use of an effective vaccine, this spread will continue to lead to serious disease and death in at-risk groups.” Id. ¶ 44. Finally, progress towards herd immunity and vaccine development and production are unlikely to advance sufficiently quickly to significantly alter the trajectory of the COVID-19 outbreak. Id. ¶¶ 50-53.
III. ARGUMENT A preliminary injunction is warranted if Plaintiffs show “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the injury outweighs any harm to the other party, and (4): that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Brock Servs., LLC v. Rogillio, 936 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015)). “In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs readily meet these requirements.
A. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition, which violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement separately and together, are wholly incompatible with the public health measures necessary to protect individuals from Covid-19 and unduly burden Plaintiffs’ rights to vote. Unless these requirements are waived for the remainder of the 2020 elections, they will force thousands of Louisiana voters to decide between exposing themselves or their family members to a deadly virus by voting in person or surrendering their right to vote to protect their own and their
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 15 of 37
families’ health. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from compelling this choice. Finally, to prevent disenfranchisement and conform with the requirements of procedural due process, Defendants must also establish a cure process.
1. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement Impose an Undue Burden on Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Right to Vote. a. The Excuse Requirement
The Excuse Requirement unduly burdens qualified Louisianans’ right to vote. For Plaintiffs Clark, Barnett, and Green, the Excuse Requirement wholly prevents voting because they or their cohabitants live with health conditions that put them at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, making in-person voting unreasonably dangerous for them and their loved ones during this pandemic. Declaration of Telisa Clark, attached as Ex. 7 (“Clark Decl.”), ¶¶ 7, 10-12; Declaration of Lakeshia Barnett, attached as Ex. 8 (“Barnett Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 11; Declaration of Martha Christian Green, attached as Ex. 9 (“Green Decl.”), ¶¶ 9, 15-18. The Excuse Requirement will also seriously undermine Plaintiffs LWVLA and Crescent City’s missions and ongoing efforts to increase civic engagement and participation in this year’s elections and require them to divert limited resources in response, as thousands of registered Louisiana voters find themselves in the same predicament as the individual Plaintiffs here. Declaration of Crescent City Media Group, attached as Ex. 10 (“CCMG Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-13; Declaration of League of Women Voters Louisiana, attached as Ex. 11 (“LWVLA Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 14. Further, Plaintiff LWVLA’s members include voters who need to vote by absentee ballot to protect themselves or a household member in upcoming elections, but because of the Excuse Requirement, they do not qualify to vote by mail under Louisiana law. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-13.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 16 of 37
Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any burden on the right to vote must be balanced against the degree to which the requirement furthers the state’s interest in enacting that requirement. The Supreme Court has set forth the following test:
[T]he rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to “severe” restrictions, the regulation must be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” But when a state election law provision imposes only “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, “the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify” the restrictions. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Strict scrutiny is also appropriate where the effect of a challenged provision bears more heavily on a specific group like racial minorities, younger or older voters, or voters with disabilities. See League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1216 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (“Disparate impact matters under Anderson-Burdick.” (citing Crawford v. Marion Cty. Elec. Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 216 (2008)); see also Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795, 822 (2020); Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1264 (N.D. Ga. 2018). While in general, voters do not have a constitutional right to vote by absentee ballot, see McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802, 808–09 (1969), such a right does arise when an absentee ballot constitutes the only means for a qualified, registered voter to cast a ballot. See Thomas v. Andino, No. 3:20-cv-01552-JMC, --- F.Supp.3d ---- , 2020 WL at 2617329, at *17 n.20 (D.S.C. May 25, 2020) (finding that in Covid-19 pandemic, absentee voting impacts voters’ fundamental right to vote where “it is relatively difficult to vote in person without risking the possibility of infection, especially for those who are more susceptible to the ravaging harms of COVID-19” and “during this pandemic, absentee voting is the safest tool through which voters can use to effectuate their fundamental right to vote”); cf. McDonald, 394 U.S.. id. at 807–08
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 17 of 37
(noting that “absentee [voting] statutes . . . are designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls”). In this case, for as long as novel coronavirus continues to pose a threat to public health, the Excuse Requirement prevents Plaintiffs Clark, Barnett, and Green from voting because they cannot vote in person without incurring a substantial risk to their own or their loved ones’ health.
The burden on voters’ rights is extremely severe. Since Plaintiffs Clark, Bennett, and Green cannot safely vote in person and cannot vote in all 2020 elections due to the Excuse Requirement, they are effectively disenfranchised. Due to Plaintiff Clark’s existing health conditions, which put her at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, she qualifies to vote by mail under the Emergency Election Plan in the July and August elections. Clark Decl. ¶ 11. But she does not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303, and the Election Emergency Plan does not extend to the November and December elections. She must vote in person for those latter elections, thereby exposing herself, her husband, her daughter, and grandson to serious danger. Clark Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12. Similarly, Plaintiffs Barnett and Green do not qualify to vote by absentee ballot under either La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or the Emergency Election Plan. Barnett Decl. ¶ 11; Green Decl. ¶ 17. As a result, they cannot vote in any of this year’s four remaining elections without endangering vulnerable members of their households. Barnett Decl. ¶ 11; Green Decl. ¶ 18.
The burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement will disproportionately fall on Black voters in Louisiana like Plaintiffs Clark and Barnett who—due to longstanding socioeconomic discrimination and inequity—are more likely to suffer from or live with a family member who has preexisting health conditions that make a person more susceptible to contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from Covid-19. See Franklin Decl. ¶¶ 24-38.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 18 of 37
Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions center on facilitating voter participation, pursuant to their goals of promoting democratic values, increasing civic engagement, and advancing their public policy goals through the democratic process. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; CCMG Decl. ¶ 5. They have already diverted funds and staff resources away from planned work to educate and help voters comply with the complex Excuse Requirement, made more complicated by the Emergency Election Plan. LWVLA Decl. ¶ 14; CCMG Decl. ¶¶ 8-13. If the Excuse Requirement is not enjoined, LWVLA and CCMG Plaintiffs will be forced to continue to divert funds and staff time and resources away from planned work on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and redistricting to educate voters who do not qualify for an absentee ballot and must risk their health by voting in person. Id. Such diversion of resources will increase if the Excuse Requirement remains in place for the November 2020 election, which will draw high turnout. Organizational plaintiffs’ core missions are greatly harmed if voters cannot vote because in-person voting requirements force them to risk contracting the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
Because the Excuse Requirement will disenfranchise individual Plaintiffs and require organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources to respond to its impact, it imposes a severe burden on the right to vote that can only survive if Defendants can show that it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992). They cannot. The Excuse Requirement is not supported by a legitimate interest, let alone a compelling one. Absentee voting laws with excuse requirements simply express a preference for voters to vote in person, and while the excuses recognize that some voters simply cannot vote in person, this preference does not turn the excuse requirement into a law enforcement tool. It does not help deter, prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute electoral fraud.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 19 of 37
If Defendants are going to argue that carving up the electorate into voters who may cast absentee ballots and voters who may not advances an anti-fraud interest, they would have to produce a modicum of evidence supporting that argument. Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105, 1132 (10th Cir. 2020) (observing that “the Secretary points to no concrete evidence that ‘[its] interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights’ in this case”). Here, Defendants would have to demonstrate that the groups they have allowed to vote absentee are less prone to commit fraud or are less vulnerable to the kind of fraudulent manipulation or undue influence strictly outlawed in every election code in the country. See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1461.7(A)(3) (“No person shall knowingly, willfully, or intentionally: . . . When assisting a voter in voting, fail to mark the ballot or vote in the manner dictated by the voter.”). No such evidence exists. To the contrary, senior citizens are generally thought to be more vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation or undue influence and are in greater need of assistance with voting, and yet anyone aged 65 years or older is allowed to cast an absentee ballot. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(J). The Excuse Requirement is not an antifraud measure.
Furthermore, during the Louisiana Legislature’s hearings on the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin repeatedly defended the plan against claims it would open the election up to fraud.22 In contrast to the total lack of evidence that the Excuse Requirement is an effective tool to safeguard election integrity, health officials have confirmed several thousands of Covid-19 cases and deaths in Louisiana, underscoring the very real and substantial threat and severe burden voters face now and will continue to face for the foreseeable future.
22 See Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs (Apr. 15, 2020).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 20 of 37
The Excuse Requirement is also not narrowly drawn to the goals of preventing, detecting, and prosecuting fraud. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have implemented methods for safeguarding election integrity without restricting access to absentee ballots, including instituting barcode systems and requiring voters to provide identifying information like driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers on their absentee ballot request forms.23 Louisiana’s absentee ballot request forms use similar safeguards, requiring voters to provide their mother’s maiden name and giving them the option of providing a driver’s license number, ID number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.24 La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1307(A)(6). There are also restrictions on where a voter’s absentee ballot may be sent. “If the address [listed on the voter’s absentee ballot request form] is within the parish or an adjacent parish, such address shall only be the address at which the applicant is registered to vote, his mailing address on file with the registrar of voters, or an address at which he regularly receives mail.” Id. § 18:1307(A)(3).
As in other states, Louisiana law already requires voters to sign an affidavit printed on their absentee ballot envelopes, allows for the challenging of absentee ballots, and establishes criminal penalties for people who engage in election-related fraud. See La. Rev. Stat. § § 18:1306(E.)(1)(f); id. § 18:1315(A.)(2)(a); id. § 18:565(A.)(1)–(3); id. § 18:1461.2. The Emergency Election Plan also authorizes the Department of State to contract with the U.S. Postal Service to develop a tracking system for absentee mail-in ballots. Emergency Election Plan at 9. By working to verify
23 Nat’l Conf. State Legislatures, Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options (select “Qualifying for an Absentee Ballot” tab), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-andcampaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx. 24 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f; Disabled Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/DisabledApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.p df.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 21 of 37
a voter’s identity, develop a documented chain of custody, and providing criminal penalties for fraud, these requirements are far more careful and effective at preventing the casting of fraudulent ballots than the Excuse Requirement. The latter disqualifies entire categories of voters from voting by absentee ballot without regard to the burden in-person voting may impose on individual voters within those categories.
Given the severe burden imposed on voters during the Covid-19 pandemic, the lack of concrete evidence supporting a legitimate state interest, and the effective alternatives to prevent, detect, and prosecute fraud, Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement presents a classic undue burden in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
b. The Witness Requirement The Witness Requirement imposes a severe burden on voters who are self-isolating, particularly on at-risk voters, while failing to serve as a minimally effective anti-fraud measure. Absentee voters are required to sign their ballot in the presence of a witness, exposing themselves to the risks of surface contamination and transmission of Covid-19 via the dispersion of respiratory droplets and aerosolization. Murray Decl. ¶¶ 8, 24. This requirement is a very weak anti-fraud measure and, therefore, at least in the face of a highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the state’s interests do not outweigh the substantial burdens voters face in securing a witness signature on the absentee ballot certificate envelope. The risk of transmission by respiratory droplets in close quarters and the risk of transmission via a contaminated paper ballot passed between a voter and a witness will be unreasonably high for certain voters who are at higher risk due to age and underlying health conditions. This burden is severe and must be justified by and narrowly drawn to a compelling interest that animates the law; for all other voters, the burden is moderate but must still be tailored to the state’s interest.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 22 of 37
The burdens imposed by the Witness Requirement will disproportionately fall on already vulnerable populations, including elderly and Black voters. As noted above, 30.6% percent of Louisianans households are those of people who live alone and 11.6% of Louisiana households are people 65 or older who live alone. See supra at II.C. Black Louisianans are also more likely to live alone than white Louisianans. Id. Black Louisianans are also more likely than white Louisianans to live only with children. Id.
The Witness Requirement will have the same effect on many of Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who live alone and are self-isolating, as they will be unable to cast their absentee mailin ballots without risking contracting Covid-19. See Thomas, 2020 WL at 2617329, at *16-21; see also League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (enjoining absentee ballot notary requirement); Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-CV-2112, 2020 WL 1951687, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020) (enjoining portions of signature requirement for potential candidate ballot eligibility because they presented “insurmountable hurdle” during pandemic).
Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions center on facilitating voter participation, pursuant to their goals of promoting democratic values, increasing civic engagement, and advancing their public policy goals through the democratic process. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; CCMG Decl. ¶ 5. They have already diverted funds and resources away from planned work to mitigate the harm caused by the Witness Requirement and help voters navigate it. LWVLA Decl. ¶ 14; CCMG Decl. ¶¶ 813. As with the Excuse Requirement, if the Witness Requirement is not enjoined, Plaintiffs LWVLA and CCMG will continue to divert funds and resources away from work on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and redistricting to educate voters who qualify for an absentee ballot, but must risk their health by finding and engaging a witness to sign their ballots. Such diversion
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 23 of 37
of resources will increase if the Witness Requirement remains in place for the November 2020 election, which will draw very high turnout and increased use of absentee ballots. Organizational Plaintiffs’ core missions will be greatly harmed if voters cannot vote because the Witness Requirement forces them to risk contracting the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
State interests proffered in resisting Anderson-Burdick claims must be rational and legitimate, at a minimum; bald assertions will not suffice. In the recent decision enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement in light of the pandemic, the court stated that “[w]hile states certainly have an interest in protecting against voter fraud and ensuring voter integrity, the interest will not suffice absent ‘evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights.’” Thomas, 2020 WL at 2617329, at *20 (quoting Fish, 957 F.3d at 1133). The court placed particular emphasis on evidence from the state’s election commission that wholly undermined the asserted need for a witness requirement. On March 30, Defendant Marci Andino, in her capacity as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Election Commission, wrote to several elected officials, including the Governor, to relay concerns about Covid-19’s impact on the upcoming elections. In that letter, she urged consideration of emergency changes to the electoral process, including rescinding the witness requirement, and pointedly noted that “the witness signature offers no benefit to election officials as they have no ability to verify the witness signature.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In another challenge to a witness requirement, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently approved a consent decree suspending the law’s enforcement in the June primary election. League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, No. 6:20-CV-00024, 2020 WL 2158249 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020). The court explained that:
In ordinary times, Virginia’s witness signature requirement may not be a significant burden on the right to vote. But these are not ordinary times. In our current era of
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 24 of 37
social distancing-where not just Virginians, but all Americans, have been instructed to maintain a minimum of six feet from those outside their household-the burden is substantial for a substantial and discrete class of Virginia’s electorate. During this pandemic, the witness requirement has become “both too restrictive and not restrictive enough to effectively prevent voter fraud.”
On the one hand, the measure is too restrictive in that it will force a large class of Virginians to face the choice between adhering to guidance that is meant to protect not only their own health, but the health of those around them, and undertaking their fundamental right-and, indeed, their civic duty-to vote in an election. The Constitution does not permit a state to force such a choice on its electorate.
Id. at *8 (internal citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, Louisiana is twice an outlier in its strict absentee ballot rules by
requiring both an excuse and a witness certification, despite employing numerous, more effective
methods for preventing vote-by-mail fraud. These requirements are not narrowly tailored to protect
election integrity and the burdens they impose in light of the Covid-19 pandemic far outweigh any
perceived benefits to election officials and law enforcement. The challenged requirements
therefore constitute undue burdens on the right to vote during this pandemic—forcing voters,
including Plaintiffs and their members to choose their health over voting this summer and fall—
and must be enjoined as violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Louisiana’s Excuse and Witness Requirements Create an Unconstitutional Condition on the Right to Vote Compelling Forfeiture of the Right to Bodily Integrity.
The challenged requirements are also unconstitutional because they require voters to forfeit
their fundamental right to bodily integrity as a condition of exercising their right to vote. Such
state-sponsored coercion violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Here, a condition is imposed on the exercise of the right to vote, which is protected by the
First Amendment as a means of political association and political expression. Cal. Democratic
Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Norman, 502 U.S. at 288–90; Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780, 787–89, 806 (1983); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56–58 (1973); Williams v. 23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 25 of 37
Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30–31 (1968). Similarly, courts recognize a constitutional right to bodily integrity. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 777–78 (1997); Alton v. Tex. A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1999); Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1981).
Under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government may not require an individual to forfeit one constitutional right in order to exercise another. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968), presented a classic violation of this doctrine, where a criminal defendant was effectively forced to incriminate himself in establishing his standing to move to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court noted that the defendant “was obliged either to give up what he believed, with advice of counsel, to be a valid Fourth Amendment claim or, in legal effect, to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 394. The Supreme Court found “it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Id. at 394. The doctrine has also been invoked to prohibit the imposition of conditions on First Amendment-protected activities that require the forfeiture of other rights. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) (holding that New York law unconstitutionally required political party leaders to provide unimmunized testimony before grand jury, forcing leaders to choose between First Amendment right of association and Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (“This case presents an especially malignant unconstitutional condition because citizens are being required to surrender a constitutional right—freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures—not merely to receive a discretionary benefit but to exercise two other fundamental rights—freedom of speech and assembly.”).
Most directly relevant to this case, the Supreme Court has invalidated voting requirements or conditions that require the forfeiture of another fundamental right. In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 26 of 37
U.S. 330 (1972), the Court held that a one-year durational residency requirement for voter registration placed an unconstitutional condition on the fundamental right to interstate travel. Id. at 346, 353. The Court explained that “such laws force a person who wishes to travel and change residences to choose between travel and the basic right to vote.” Id. at 342. Notably, when First Amendment-protected rights such as the right to vote are at stake, it is irrelevant whether the government intended to coerce the voter into forfeiting a constitutional right. See Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1324–25 (“[T]he very purpose of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine is to prevent the Government from subtly pressuring citizens, whether purposely or inadvertently, into surrendering their rights.” (emphasis added)).
Courts evaluate these claims by looking to the constitutional standard for the right that Plaintiffs are being coerced into surrendering. “[W]hen a condition on a government benefit burdens a constitutional right, it generally triggers the same scrutiny as a direct penalty would.” McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994). In Dunn, for instance, the durational residency requirement for voter registration was subjected to strict scrutiny because fundamental voting and interstate travel rights were implicated: “In the present case, whether we look to the benefit withheld by the classification (the opportunity to vote) or the basis for the classification (recent interstate travel) we conclude that the State must show a substantial and compelling reason for imposing durational residence requirements.” 405 U.S. at 335; see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 638 (1969), rev’d in part on other grounds, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670 (1974) (invalidating Connecticut’s one-year durational residency requirement for welfare eligibility as impermissible penalty on individuals who exercised their right to interstate travel) (“Since the classification here touches on the fundamental right of interstate movement, its
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 27 of 37
constitutionality must be judged by the stricter standard of whether it promotes a compelling state interest.”).
“[I]ndividuals possess a constitutional right to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest.” Guertin v. State, 912 F.3d 907, 919 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Reg. v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012)). Government actions that threaten the right to bodily integrity must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. See Washington, 521 U.S. at 721; Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 (6th Cir. 1998). In the Flint water crisis case, Guertin, the Court articulated the following standard: “Involuntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.” 912 F.3d at 921–22; cf. id. at 921 (“[A] government actor violates individuals’ right to bodily integrity by knowingly and intentionally introducing life-threatening substances into individuals without their consent, especially when such substances have zero therapeutic benefit.”).
As discussed above, Plaintiff Clark is at risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19 and therefore cannot vote in person in the November and December elections without jeopardizing her health. Clark Decl. ¶ 7, 12. Many of Plaintiff LWVLA’s members are also at-risk and will also be required to break vital self-isolation measures to vote in person in the November and December elections. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12. And other Louisiana voters who do qualify to vote by mail but are at high risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19 will be required to break vital self-isolation measures to satisfy the Witness Requirement in the July, August, November, and December elections.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 28 of 37
In this case, the challenged requirements place an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote because they coerce Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s at-risk members into sacrificing their fundamental right to bodily integrity to exercise their constitutional right to vote in the November and December elections. Requiring voters to make this sacrifice is not a narrowly drawn means for achieving the State’s asserted interest in preventing voter fraud. Although states have an interest in protecting election integrity, discussed supra, Section III.A.1.a, that interest is less than compelling here. Even if it were compelling, Louisiana already employs more narrowly drawn methods for accomplishing its ends than exposing voters to risk of serious illness or death by going to a polling place or through the witnessing process; for example, Louisiana requires voters to provide personal identifiers on their absentee ballot request forms, restricts where ballots may be sent, imposes criminal penalties for fraud, and authorizes the implementation of a ballot tracking system.
Here, parish election officials will violate voters’ right to bodily integrity by denying them absentee ballots and forcing them to come into contact with novel coronavirus at their polling places or through the witnessing process. This violation is directly attributable to Defendants. Louisiana law tasks state and parish election officials with protecting the safety of voters in casting their ballots. Indeed, the statute authorizing the Secretary of State to develop the Emergency Election Plan expressly grants the Secretary this power “to ensure maximum citizen participation in the electoral process and provide a safe and orderly procedure for persons seeking to qualify or exercise their right to vote, to minimize to whatever degree possible a person’s exposure to danger during declared states of emergency, and to protect the integrity of the electoral process . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.1(A); id. § 18:401.3(A). It further requires that “[i]f a polling place is
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 29 of 37
destroyed, inaccessible, or unsafe, efforts should be made . . . to permit the orderly establishment of a new polling place.” Id. § 18:401.1(D)(1). Furthermore,
a police jury is required to exercise reasonable care in establishing a polling place to locate it in a building which affords each qualified voter an opportunity to exercise his right of voting and access with reasonable safety and convenience free from unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious discrimination based on age or physical condition. Burgess v. City of Shreveport, 471 So.2d 690, 693 (La. 1985). In this case, Defendants and their subordinates will have breached their duty to voters by maintaining the challenged requirements during a prolific, deadly, and fast-moving pandemic. State officials can no more require voters to cast their ballots in polling places potentially contaminated with the novel coronavirus than they could require them to vote in a polling place that is dilapidated, flooded with sewage or putrid storm water, or experiencing a carbon monoxide or other gas leak. Indeed, in defending the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan and its expanded protections for voters, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin compared the Covid-19 pandemic to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, explaining that such protections were needed now “in direct response to an unprecedented health event” and, noting the state had already reached 1000 deaths, he hoped it would not “take another 600 [deaths] for people to realize it is not wise to proceed with elections as if nothing is wrong.”25 For voters like Plaintiff Clark, every polling place denies reasonable safety because their physical health conditions require them to self-isolate away from the public during the pandemic. By forcing Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members to vote in person or to obtain witness signatures, the challenged requirements will be directly responsible for them coming into contact with a virus they have taken significant efforts to avoid; but for the challenged requirements, they
25 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs 9:17 to 9:48 (Apr. 15, 2020).
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 30 of 37
will have otherwise eschewed crowded spaces and contact with persons outside of their households. See Clark Decl. ¶ 8. It does not matter that these voters could also contract the virus outside of the voting process, because the right to bodily integrity is violated when the government “[i]nvoluntarily subject[s] nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . .” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 921–22. By failing to keep voters safe and instructing their subordinates to move forward with enforcing these requirements, Defendants are liable for needlessly exposing voters to infection.
For these reasons, the Excuse and Witness Requirements place an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote, impermissibly compelling forfeiture of the fundamental right to bodily integrity.
3. The Cure Prohibition Violates Plaintiffs’ Right to Procedural Due Process by Failing to Provide Opportunity to Cure.
By failing to provide voters notice of and a process by which to cure deficiencies in their returned ballots, Defendants Secretary of State Ardoin, Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters Meaux Menard, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters Rogers also violate the procedural due process rights of Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who qualify to vote by mail. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. A liberty interest that is governed by due process can be created by the Constitution or “may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Courts analyze whether a statutory entitlement existed prior to the notice and process afforded and prior to the deprivation.
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of Coushatta, 930
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 31 of 37
F.2d 1122, 1130 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Triplett v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 26 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent exigent circumstances, due process requires pre-deprivation procedures. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“We have described ‘the root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause as being ‘that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original)); Jabari v. McCollough, 686 F. App’x 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2017); Sciolino v. City of Newport News, Va., 480 F.3d 642, 653 (4th Cir. 2007) (“An opportunity to clear your name after it has been ruined by dissemination of false, stigmatizing charges is not ‘meaningful.’”).
Determining what process is due rests on the balance between (1) the interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the current procedures, and the “probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the state’s interest, including the “fiscal and administrative burdens” additional procedures would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Louisiana law provides multiple grounds for rejecting a ballot but provides voters with no pre-deprivation notice of and opportunity to cure such defects. See La. Rev. Stat. §§ 18:1313, 18:1315, 18:1316. This lack of notice necessarily fails the Mathews test.
First, the law vests Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who qualify to vote by absentee ballot with a liberty interest in casting an absentee ballot and having it counted. The
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 32 of 37
right to vote enjoys protection under both the U.S. Constitution and the Louisiana constitution. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1964) (“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”); La. Const. art. I, § 10(A). Under Louisiana law, voters who meet certain statutory qualifications may cast an absentee ballot, see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303, and the Legislature has approved additional qualifications in the Emergency Election Plan, adopted pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Having satisfied these statutory requirements and/or the requirements provided in the Emergency Election Plan, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s qualifying members have a right to vote by mail and have their ballots counted.
Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation remains high. Defendants do not afford voters any notice or opportunity to cure defects or challenges to their absentee ballots, thereby depriving qualifying voters of their liberty interests of having their absentee ballots counted. Because voters cannot vote in person after casting an absentee ballot, even a faulty one, the lack of cure process also deprives them of their fundamental right to vote. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1305. This risk of wrongful deprivation rises significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, during which Louisiana will experience a substantially higher level of absentee voting than in past elections. Many voters ages 65 and older have already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses, but now that they are at severe risk from Covid-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for the first time. Indeed, Plaintiff Clark and her husband and Plaintiff Green and her mother are all lifelong voters who prefer to vote in person, even when they would have qualified to vote by absentee ballot in the past, but because of Covid-19, voting in person poses too great a risk to their health or their loved one’s health, so they need to vote by absentee ballot.
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 33 of 37
Clark Decl. ¶¶ 6-12; Green Decl. ¶¶ 12-18. Having so many first-time absentee voters will inevitably yield a higher error rate. It is therefore critical that Defendants provide absentee voters an opportunity to correct any errors that will result in their ballots’ rejection and voters’ resulting disenfranchisement.
Third, Defendants cannot advance any interests that outweigh the risk of erroneous deprivation. The threat of disenfranchising Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members eligible to vote by absentee ballot far outweighs any increased administrative burden in affording voters an opportunity to cure any absentee ballot defects. Defendants’ interest in conducting fair elections and preserving election integrity would not be compromised in the slightest, and they would satisfy their weighty interest in abiding by federal constitutional requirements and increasing the public’s faith in election systems. Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their procedural due process claim.
B. Failure to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief will cause irreparable injury. Failure to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will either disenfranchise Plaintiffs or force them to surrender their fundamental right to bodily integrity to cast their ballots. Movants satisfy the irreparable injury prong when they can show irreparable injury is likely to occur. Winter, 555 U.S. at 375; United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001). “The ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.’” Palmer ex rel. Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)); see also Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 34 of 37
347 (1976)). This principle applies equally to the First Amendment protected right to vote. “A restriction on the fundamental right to vote therefore constitutes irreparable injury.” Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs face irreparable harm if Defendants are permitted to enforce the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement and continue the Cure Prohibition—rejecting returned ballots without providing voters notice of and an opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballots. Despite qualifying to vote by mail in the July and August elections because she is at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, Plaintiff Clark will be required to vote in person in the November and December elections because the Emergency Election Plan does not apply to this fall’s elections and because she does not meet any of the statutory excuses to vote absentee. She will therefore have to risk exposure to the virus to cast her ballots in the November and December elections, or forego voting altogether. And even though she may vote by mail in July and August elections, she may still be disenfranchised without notice of and an opportunity to correct issues resulting in rejection.
Plaintiff LWVLA’s members face the same the predicament. Some will be required to vote in person in the November and December elections, or all remaining elections in 2020, because they do not qualify to vote under La. Rev. Stat. 18:1313 or the Emergency Election Plan.
Because they do not satisfy the Excuse Requirement, Plaintiffs Barnett and Green and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members in similar situations will be required to vote in person in all of the 2020 elections, forcing them to engage in personal contacts they have worked to avoid to protect at-risk family members, thereby endangering their loved ones. Faced with such an untenable choice, they will effectively be disenfranchised.
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 35 of 37
In these ways, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if their Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
C. Plaintiffs’ injuries far outweigh any harm to Defendants and their agents and granting their request relief is in the public interest.
Plaintiffs can also show that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor granting their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. “In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Winter, 555 U.S. at 376 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gamble, 480 U.S. 531 (1987)). Courts should also “‘pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Id. at 376–77 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982))).
In this case, Defendants cannot identify any harm that outweighs the constitutional injuries Plaintiffs will experience if Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. As discussed above, supra Section III.A.1., proponents of the challenged requirements have not advanced any evidence of voter fraud in Louisiana, and most states have successfully implemented secure voteby-mail systems without requiring an excuse or witness signature. Additionally, the speed with which Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin drafted two emergency election plans and ushered them through the approval process shows that Defendants and their agents will experience minimal inconvenience in developing a cure process for absentee ballot defects.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction also aligns with the public interest. Louisianans have a constitutional right to a republican form of government, see U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4; La. Const. art. I, § 10; La. Rev. Stat. § 18:512(A), a right that is undermined by laws and practices that impose unnecessary burdens on qualified voters seeking to register and vote. They
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 36 of 37 also unquestionably have an interest in mitigating the spread of novel coronavirus, as reflected in Defendant Edwards’s multiple proclamations to protect public health during the Covid-19 pandemic. Enforcement of the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition during the duration of the pandemic will harm that interest by requiring voters to interact in ways that facilitate the virus’s proliferation, as voters congregate in crowded precincts to vote and atrisk voters living in single-member households break critical self-isolation measures to obtain witness signatures. The balance of the equities therefore favors granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have met their burden and respectfully request that this Court to grant their Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-2 06/01/20 Page 37 of 37

DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-3 06/01/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-3 06/01/20 Page 2 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF CAREN E. SHORT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Caren E. Short, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I am an attorney for Plaintiffs. I am barred in Alabama and New York and have been admitted pro hac vice before this Court in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration on behalf of Plaintiffs to provide true and correct copies of certain listed exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray, dated May 29, 2020. 3. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, et al. v. Edwards, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00283, ECF No 14-1 (May 21, 2020). 4. Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Dr. Sekou Franklin, dated June 1, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-3 06/01/20 Page 3 of 3
5. Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, dated April 13, 2020. 6. Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s Emergency Election Plan, dated April 20, 2020. 7. Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Telisa Clark, dated May 29, 2020. 8. Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lakeshia Barnett, dated May 31, 2020. 9. Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Martha Christian Green, dated May 26, 2020. 10. Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Trupania Bonner, dated May 27, 2020. 11. Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Hilda Walker Thomas, dated May 26, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 1, 2020

______________________________________ Caren E. Short

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 1 of 95
EXHIBIT 2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 2 of 95

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308

DECLARATION OF DR. MEGAN MURRAY 1. I am the Ronda Stryker and William Johnston Professor of Global Health in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at the Harvard Medical School, a Professor of Epidemiology at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, a faculty member of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health and an associate Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I obtained my BA from Dartmouth College in 1980, after which I worked for the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration (now IOM) heading up a public health screening program for refugees being resettled from refugee camps in Thailand. I obtained my MD from Harvard Medical School in 1990 and my ScD (doctorate in science) in Epidemiology from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. I completed a residency in internal medicine in 1993 and a fellowship in the subspecialty of Infectious Diseases in 1995, both at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. 2. Over the past 20 years, I have worked in the field of infectious disease dynamics and epidemiology, teaching and conducting research in emerging infectious diseases and in tuberculosis epidemiology and control. At the Harvard Chan SPH, I taught the basic epidemiology
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 3 of 95
course Infectious Disease Dynamics between 2000 and 2016, and I have directly supervised the research of over 40 graduate students and post-doctoral fellows in these fields. Attached here as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference to this declaration is a copy of my curriculum vitae.
3. I have conducted research and have published on the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-1 in 2003, the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti, and on the 2015 Ebola outbreak, although most of my research is in the field of tuberculosis. I have published over 200 research articles. My work includes dynamic modeling of epidemics (TB, Cholera, Ebola, SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2); cohort studies on host and pathogen specific determinants of disease transmission and the development of novel diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. I have been funded by the National Institute of Infectious Disease and Allergy since 1995 and have led, and currently lead, several major consortium projects on tuberculosis funded by this agency.
4. At the Harvard Medical School, I lead the Global Health Research Core of the Harvard Medical School, which conducts research in more than ten countries on a range of topics including emerging infectious diseases. I head up research at the Division of Global Health Equity at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and also direct research at the non-governmental organization, Partners in Health. I have served as an associate editor of the European Journal of Epidemiology, the Journal of the International Union against TB and Lung Disease and of PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine. I am the co-lead of the Epidemiology working group of the Massachusetts Consortium for Pathogen Readiness.
5. I am currently collaborating on research concerning SARS-CoV-2 and its incidence, as well as serving on Covid-19 advisory groups for multiple organizations, including the State of Massachusetts and Harvard University. My research in this area includes, but is not limited to, modeling and estimating the number of hospital beds that will be required in the US
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 4 of 95
and elsewhere, developing methods on syndromic surveillance for Covid-19 for low and middleincome countries, identification of risk factors for poor outcomes and the use of the vaccine, BCG, to prevent Covid-19 disease. To date (May 11, 2020), I have published two papers in this area and have three others under review.
OVERVIEW 6. SARS-CoV-2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19). SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in an asymptomatic infection or in symptomatic disease which ranges from mild to severe. Most people who develop symptomatic Covid-19 have a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath. A subset of people who are infected will go on to develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Other serious manifestations of Covid-19 have included cardiac problems: arrhythmias, acute cardiac injury, and shock. 7. Because Covid-19 is a new disease, it is too early to know the full extent of longterm medical consequences of the infection. However, some information can be inferred from the courses of diseases with similar manifestations. Patients who develop ARDS and/or are mechanically ventilated are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function [1]. Patients who end up in ICUs or on mechanical ventilation for extended periods often develop post-ICU syndrome which prolonged physical debilitation, muscle atrophy, neurocognitive impairments and emotional/psychiatric responses that are similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with co-morbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 5 of 95
8. Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. It has also been shown that Covid-19 can be transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air.
9. Control of SARS-CoV-2 spread is particularly difficult relative to some other viral infections because people can transmit the infection even when they do not have symptoms of the disease. This means that the practice of isolating patients with symptomatic disease will not be enough by itself to control epidemic spread. In contrast, infections like smallpox and SARS-CoV-1 were not infectious until symptoms had developed so isolation of ill people had a substantial impact on epidemic control. In the absence of a vaccine or pharmaceutical interventions that interrupt transmission, infection control can only be achieved by reducing the number of contacts between infectious individuals (including those who are asymptomatic) and susceptible people.
10. Infectious disease epidemiologists have developed projections of the future trajectory of Covid-19 incidence based on modeling the epidemic and possible interventions. Although these models differ in terms of specifics, they consistently show that it is highly likely that the relaxation of social distancing measures that will occur with the end of “lock-down” will increase the number of social contacts that people make and that the incidence of infection will increase accordingly In particular, these models predict that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will continue or increase in the fall and winter, leading to further morbidity and mortality from this disease.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 6 of 95
11. There is a substantial risk that an infection with Covid-19 acquired during voting at a poll booth in Louisiana in the fall of 2020 could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death. The risk of an individual being infected during voting at a polling booth in fall 2020 depends on the number of infectious people in that community at that time point and the number of physical, fomite-mediated and near contacts one makes during that process. To the extent that polling places are crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth, they constitute a risk to voters. Similarly, if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk. Louisiana has relatively high rates of the co-morbidities that predispose people to poor outcomes from Covid-19.
12. I was asked to describe the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19. SARS-CoV2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) [1]. It is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Coronavirus family. Previously identified coronaviruses are known to infect a wide range of hosts including wild and domestic animals and birds as well as humans. Six human coronaviruses have been identified over the past 60 years; four of them (OC43, 229E, NL63, and HKU1) cause mild cold-like symptoms and/or gastrointestinal tract infections. Two that have caused more serious illness include the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) that emerged in China in 2003 and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) that was first identified in humans in Saudi Arabia in 2012. SARS- and MERS-CoVs are believed to have originated in bats and transferred to humans through intermediary hosts, possibly palm civets for SARS or dromedary camels for MERS. The coronaviruses that are most similar to SARS-CoV-2 are those identified in horseshoe
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 7 of 95
bats – these share 96 percent of their genetic material with SARS-CoV-2 while the earlier SARS virus shared 80 percent and cold viruses mentioned above share about 50 percent [2].
13. Like SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 infiltrates human cells by binding to the receptor for ACE2 (angiotensin converting enzyme) and then being taken up by these cells, where it directs the production of new virus particles (virions) using the host’s genetic machinery [3]. Like other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 virions consist of a “core” which contains the genetic material, a “capsid” which is a protein coat and a lipid envelope. Upon assembly in the host cell, newly-produced virions are released from the host cell and go on to infect new host cells. To some extent, the clinical manifestations of the disease are related to the types of cells that have the receptor to which the virus binds and to the inflammatory responses that are induced by the host immune response to the infection. While ACE2 receptors were well-known to be present on vascular endothelial cells (blood vessels) and renal tubular cells (kidney), they have also been found to be abundant on alveolar epithelial cells (lung), enterocytes (gut), heart cells, brain cells and in cells in the inner lining of the nose [4]. This diverse distribution helps explain the wide constellation of symptoms and syndromes that are increasingly being recognized as part of Covid-19 disease.
14. I was asked to characterize clinical features of Covid-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in an asymptomatic infection or in symptomatic disease which ranges from mild to severe. The term Covid-19 refers to the illness that is caused by SARS-CoV-2. Most people who develop symptomatic Covid-19 have a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath. As clinicians have gained more experience with the disease, it is now becoming clear that the initial presentation of the disease can also include a variety of other symptoms including gastrointestinal issues such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, loss of a sense of taste and/or smell, headache and muscle pain and in some cases, particularly in the elderly,
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 8 of 95
altered neurological states such as confusion, lethargy and reduced responsiveness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recently expanded their list of symptoms associated with Covid-19 from fever, shortness of breath and cough to include chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat and new loss of taste or smell [5]. On average, among those who present with these symptoms, fever persists for around 12 days, shortness of breath for 13 days and cough for about 19 days. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), recovery time appears to be around two weeks for mild infections and three to six weeks for severe disease [6].
15. A subset of people who are infected will go on to develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise due to pneumonia that can be gradual or sudden. Some patients who initially reported only mild symptoms may progress to severe disease over the course of a week. In one study of 138 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China for pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, dyspnea (severe shortness of breath) developed approximately five days after the onset of symptoms, and hospital admission occurred after around seven days after the onset of symptoms [7].
16. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the major complication in patients with severe disease. In the study cited above, ARDS developed in 20 percent of hospitalized patients around eight days after the onset of symptoms and 12.3 percent of this group required mechanical ventilation [7]. In another study of 201 hospitalized patients with Covid-19 in Wuhan, 41 percent developed ARDS [8]. Some patients with severe Covid-19 have an overactive inflammatory response, sometimes termed a “cytokine storm” – which is characterized by persistent fevers and laboratory abnormalities including high levels of inflammatory markers and elevated proinflammatory cytokines. People with these types of laboratory abnormalities are those most likely to have critical or fatal illness.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 9 of 95
17. Other serious manifestations of Covid-19 have included cardiac problems: arrhythmias, acute cardiac injury, and shock [9-11] which occurred in 17, 7, and 9 percent of hospitalized patients, respectively [7]. In a case series of 21 severely ill patients admitted to a US ICU, one-third developed cardiomyopathy (injury to the heart muscle) [12]. An alarming recent finding has been the association of Covid-19 with thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism and stroke) that have been reported among patients in younger age groups and without known risk factors [13-15]. In one US-based case series, a single health facility reported on five Covid-19 patients with acute stroke who were seen over a two-week period, all of these people were under 50 years of age [14]. This incidence is more than seven times the rate reported in that age group prior to the pandemic. In one series of ICU patients, ischemic stroke was also noted observed in 3.7 percent of the patients [15].
18. Other rarer manifestations of Covid-19 include Guillain-Barré syndrome which can occur five to ten days after initial symptoms [16]. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare neurological syndrome characterized by an inflammation of nerve cells outside the brain. In serious cases, it can lead to paralysis which usually resolves after six months but which can be permanent in some cases. Another rare inflammatory syndrome that has been reported in Covid-19 occurs in children who have developed symptoms consistent with toxic shock syndrome and Kawasaki disease [17].
19. Because Covid-19 is a new disease, it is too early to know the full extent of longterm medical consequences of the infection. However, some information is already available, and some can be inferred from the courses of diseases with similar manifestations. Patients who develop ARDS and/or are mechanically ventilated are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function. [18]. In addition, patients who end up in ICUs or on mechanical ventilation for extended periods often develop post-ICU syndrome which includes a
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 10 of 95
constellation of findings such as prolonged physical debilitation, muscle atrophy, neurocognitive impairments and emotional/psychiatric responses that are similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome [19]. Patients that suffer strokes in the context of Covid-19 are very likely to experience long-term neurological deficits from these events.
20. Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with co-morbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease. Accurate case fatality rates are hard to obtain in the context of limited testing since we do not always know who actually has the infection. However, a compilation of the death rates across countries shows that older people are consistently more likely to die if they have detectable Covid-19 disease than are younger people [20]. The table below shows that the risk of death rises with each additional decade after age 50. Table 1. Case Fatality rate by age groups. From Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to Covid-19 in Italy. JAMA. 2020;323 [18].
21. In addition to age, other risk factors for severe disease and death include hypertension, heart disease, lung diseases (e.g., asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), diabetes mellitus, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. In one recent study of 5700 Covid-19 patients identified in New York City, 56.6 percent had pre-existing hypertension, 41.7
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 11 of 95
percent were obese (body mass index > 30) and 33.8 percent had diabetes mellitus in contrast to a national prevalence of hypertension of 30 percent, of diabetes mellitus of 10 percent and of obesity of 42.2 percent [21]. Risk factors for death among patients with Covid-19 were recently ascertained in another study of 5,683 Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom [22]. In this report, men were twice as likely to die as women; people with obesity 2.3 times as likely to die as those of normal weight; people with uncontrolled diabetes 2.36 times than non-diabetics, people with organ transplants 4.3 times than their healthy counterparts. In both Britain and the US, there are marked disparities in deaths by race: 33 to 42 percent of deaths in the US have reportedly occurred in African Americans, while only 12 to 13 percent of the total US population is African American [23]. Figure 2 provides comparative death rates from Covid-19 from the APM research lab (https://www.apmresearchlab.org/). Table 2 Covid-19 Death Rate by ethnic group. (From APM Research Lab) https://www.apmresearchlab.org/
22. Although the Covid-19 case fatality rates are low in young individuals, it is important to note that multiple seroprevalence studies (studies that detect previous infection in
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 12 of 95
people) in several countries show that infection (as distinct from severe disease) is more common in people younger than 50, probably because they have more frequent social contacts than older people. Furthermore, the proportion of people in the US population under 50 years of age is 66%, meaning that even though the absolute risk for a young person is lower than for someone over 50, deaths among people under 50 will not be uncommon as the epidemic progresses over time.
23. I was asked to explain how Covid-19 is transmitted and to describe interventions that could interrupt transmission. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in multiple ways, through respiratory droplets emitted during talking, singing, sneezing and coughing, via objects on which viral particles have been deposited, and through air. Importantly, the virus can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic as well as by those who are demonstrably ill.
24. Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking [50]. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. These objects then become “fomites,” defined as inanimate objects that can transfer infection between people. A recent study documented the stability of SARS-CoV2 on a series of different surfaces over time [24]. The virus was found to be more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard with viable virus detectable for up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces although the virus titer was steadily reduced over those periods. On cardboard, viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured for 24 hours. Notably, this study also evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-1 – the causative virus of the 2003 SARS epidemic – and found that it was very similar to SARS-CoV-2 despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has much more capacity to spread widely than SARS-CoV-1. The authors conclude that the “differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 13 of 95
upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic.” [24]
25. It is also possible that Covid-19 is transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air. The study cited above also assessed the stability of aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 over time. To do this, they used a nebulizer to generate aerosols that would be similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of the three-hour experiment, suggesting that aerosol spread of SARSCoV-2 is indeed possible. These findings are consistent with case reports of Covid-19 patients who were infected in settings in which they did not have direct contact with others. In one case, 45 people were diagnosed with Covid-19 after attending a choir practice in Washington State in early March although they had no direct physical contact with each other [25]. The findings are also consistent with a report in the journal, Nature, where researchers found viral RNA in aerosols sampled in February and March at two hospitals in Wuhan, China. The levels of airborne viral RNA in well-ventilated patient rooms were relatively low but there were higher levels in some of the patients’ toilet areas, presumably aerosolized by the flushing mechanism.
26. High levels of viral RNA were also found in areas where medical workers remove their protective equipment and in locations near the hospitals where people tended to congregate. The authors concluded: “Our study and several other studies proved the existence of SARS-CoV2 aerosols and implied that SARS-CoV-2 aerosol transmission might be a non-negligible route from infected carriers to someone nearby.”
27. The transmissibility of any infectious agent depends on several things: the probability of an infection event given a contact between a susceptible person and an infectious
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 14 of 95
person; the duration of infectiousness – or number of days that a person can transmit – and the number of contacts that an infectious person has per unit time. This means that the transmissibility can vary in different settings and will depend on things like crowding, which increases the number of contacts. Based on a summary of multiple studies, each infectious person with Covid-19 is expected to infect between 2 and 3 people on average [26]. But this term – “on average” – obscures the substantial variability observed in different people. Some people are much more infectious than others and other people do not transmit at all. Like many other respiratory infections, SARSCoV-2 follows the 20/80 rule – meaning that most transmission is associated with 20 percent of the infectious people while the other 80 percent infect relatively few people. The factors that lead to this kind of “super-spreading” are not clear and it is thus not possible to identify in advance those people who are likely to infect a large number of other people.
28. Control of SARS-CoV-2 spread is also made more difficult because people can transmit the infection even when they do not have symptoms of the disease. This can happen in two ways. Many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection have few if any symptoms – as more and more seroprevalence studies are being conducted to identify who has been infected, it is estimated that 50-60 percent of infected people never develop symptoms of the disease. (Seroprevalence surveys are studies that look for the presence of antibodies to an infection in a blood sample; these are only present in people who have been exposed to the infection and have mounted an immune response.) Secondly, people who develop Covid-19 disease experience a “pre-symptomatic” period during which they are infected but do not yet have symptoms. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were similarly high in four different symptom groups; people with typical symptoms of Covid-19, people with atypical symptoms, people who were pre-symptomatic, and those who remained asymptomatic [27].
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 15 of 95
Notably, 71 percent of the samples taken from pre-symptomatic persons had viable virus for one to six days before the development of symptoms. Because viral load is an accepted proxy for infectiousness, these data imply that a significant proportion of transmission events originate from persons who do not have detectable infection.
29. What kinds of interventions are currently available that could interrupt or reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2? In the absence of a vaccine or pharmaceutical interventions that reduce the probability of transmission, there are a limited number of approaches to infection control, all of which involve restricting people’s physical and social interactions. One can isolate people with symptomatic disease to try to prevent them from infecting others, but this will only be completely effective if people are diagnosed with the disease at or before the time that they become infectious. As noted above, in people who are infectious before they have symptoms or in infectious people who never develop symptoms at all, transmission can take place in the absence of symptoms. For diseases like this one, with significant asymptomatic spread, quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movements of people without signs of illness who may have been exposed to an infectious case so that they do not infect others during that period. Another approach is social distancing – this can range from asking people to stay at home or to avoid congregate settings such as schools, workplaces, or large gatherings. The purpose of social distancing is to reduce the number of person-to-person contacts one makes so that one is less likely to encounter an infectious person. Polls show that US adults practicing social distancing have 90% fewer contacts per day than those who are not social distancing. Those who completely or mostly isolate themselves generate about five contacts per day, compared with an average of 52 for those not attempting to isolate themselves [28].
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 16 of 95
30. It is challenging to directly measure the actual efficacy of the non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the spread of an infection because these interventions are not randomly assigned to individuals and then evaluated in a head-to-head comparison of what happens to people in intervention and non-intervention groups. One approach to estimating the impact of social distancing measures is to conduct studies that screen entire communities to determine who is actively infected at the time of screening. The researchers then correlate various characteristics of the people screened with the likelihood that they have been infected. Few such studies have been conducted to date but one that is informative was conducted in the Mission District of San Francisco. The research team offered free Covid-19 testing to all persons ages four years and older in an area that includes approximately 5,700 people (29). Of nearly 3,000 residents and workers in a Mission District census tract who were tested in late April for active infection with the novel coronavirus, 62 individuals (2.1 percent) have tested positive. Table 3 Viral test positivity in Mission District of San Francisco [29]
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 17 of 95
31. The question of the efficacy of quarantine, isolation and social distancing depends on when in the course of the infection most transmission is taking place. If most transmission occurs during the asymptomatic period – as it does, say, for HIV – isolation of patients with disease will have little impact. If on the other hand, most transmission takes place when people have identified themselves as ill (as it did for SARS-CoV-1 in 2002), isolation can be a very effective way to reduce spread. The benefits of quarantine – restricting the movements of people who are known to be in contact with an infectious case – depend on how effectively one can identify all contacts and prevent them from mixing with the general public. For obvious reasons, this can be very challenging and can have unintended consequences if quarantined people are housed together and become infected in that setting. Social distancing cannot prevent all transmission but could have a substantial impact on delaying transmission since contact rates are often much higher in congregate settings such as schools, prisons and other residential facilities. None of these measures is likely to lead to complete control of an epidemic since transmission is expected to resume once these are discontinued. But they may delay spread and give health systems time to develop better responses to the disease, whether those are new drugs, vaccines or simply improved efficiency of supportive care.
32. I was asked to address the likelihood that voting at polling stations could lead to SARS-CoV-2 transmission and Covid-19 disease. Because voting takes place in public buildings where people congregate and given the risks of infection and disease in the Louisiana population, voting at a polling station in November entails a substantial risk of infection with Covid-19 that could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death. The risk of an individual being infected during a community event in a public place depends on the number of infectious people in that community at any particular time point and the number of physical, fomite-mediated and
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 18 of 95
near contacts one makes during that process. To the extent that polling places are crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth, they constitute a risk to voters. Similarly, if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk. The data supporting some aerosol transmission of Covid-19 provides evidence that poorly ventilated areas where crowding may take place pose risk to those using these facilities. The probability that a person who is exposed to Covid-19 in this setting will go on to develop severe Covid-19 disease or to die depends on the age of that person and his/her underlying health status. Given the relatively high prevalence of relevant co-morbidities (obesity, hypertension, diabetes), the proportion of the population over 60, and the fact that older people are more likely to vote than younger people (on a nationwide basis, 66 percent of over 65 years compared to 35.6 percent of 18-29 years in the 2018 national mid-term elections as documented in https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-electionturnout.html), there is a substantial risk that an infection with Covid-19 in Louisiana could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death.
33. I was asked to address the likelihood of a persistent or increased risk of transmission of Covid-19 in the fall in the weeks/months leading up to November 3, 2020. Epidemiologists have projected a number of future Covid-19 epidemic trajectories based on a range of different possible scenarios but all of these scenarios are similar in that they predict that it is highly likely that Covid-19 will continue to circulate at its current level or at an even higher level than currently in October and November of 2020. The likelihood of continued transmission of Covid-19 in the fall 2020 can be estimated by modeling the epidemic process. Mathematical
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 19 of 95
models simulate epidemics under a variety of scenarios using “parameters” obtained from empirical (data-driven) studies. Typically, a model uses estimates of the relative transmissibility of an infectious agent, the average number of contacts people in different age groups make and the duration of infectiousness of the virus to reproduce the epidemic trajectory that has been observed. Then modelers introduce assumptions about the impact of interventions, for example, the number of social contacts that occur when social distancing measures are in place and re-run the model with these hypothetical parameters to determine what effect these changes will have. Over the past several months, multiple modeling teams have developed these kinds of models, and while they often obtain different results depending on various differences in the assumptions made, all show that reducing the number of social contacts, especially in the presence of asymptomatic infection, will “flatten” or reduce the epidemic curve. For example, one such model, reported in Emerging Infectious Diseases this week, investigated the effectiveness of social distancing interventions in a mid-sized city. Modeled interventions included reducing the number of contacts made by adults greater than 60 years of age, adults 20–59 years of age, and children under 19 years of age for six weeks. The modelers found that these interventions delay or flatten the epidemic curve and that even modest reductions of contacts could reduce the number of new cases and deaths by 20 percent. Notably, however, when interventions ended, the epidemic rebounded [50].
34. The expected future trajectory of Covid-19 depends on a number of factors including the level of “herd immunity” that has already been achieved by the circulating of the infection, the extent of social mixing that occurs, and the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will be more transmissible in cooler, drier weather.
35. First, herd immunity is achieved when enough people in a population have been infected and developed immunity so that the likelihood that an infectious person will come into
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 20 of 95
contact with a susceptible person is low. This concept is illustrated in the graphic below. When an infectious person encounters only susceptible people, he or she can infect all of them but when most of the people an infectious person encounters are immune, relatively few people will be infected by that infectious case. Table 4 Herd Immunity (From https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/17/905244/whatis-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/)
36. A general rule of thumb is that herd immunity can only be achieved when the proportion of people in a population who are immune is equal to 1-(1/R0), where R0 refers to the basic reproductive number of an infectious disease. This term is defined as the number of people who, on average, will be infected by a single infectious person in an entirely susceptible population. The basic reproductive number of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated between two and three, with an average of about 2.6. This means that about 60 percent of the population would need to be immune before we see Covid-19 cases level out (in the absence of interventions such as social distancing). At present, it is unclear what proportion of the US population is seropositive (in other words, has evidence of an immune response to the infection), but no study conducted in the US to date has suggested that more than 20-30 percent of any specific community is immune and most studies suggest that the number is closer to 2-3 percent. A recent study from Spain, one of the countries that has been most affected by the epidemic, found that only 2 percent of the population
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 21 of 95
was immune [30]. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that, short of a catastrophic increase in circulating virus, herd immunity will be achieved by November 2020. Furthermore, the lack of herd immunity is in part due to social distancing that has taken place to date and this means that as a population, we remain highly vulnerable to epidemic spread.
37. Secondly, it is highly likely that with the relaxation of social distancing measures and the end of “lock-down” the number of social contacts that people make will increase and that, therefore, the incidence of infection will increase accordingly. There is a linear relationship between the average number of social contacts individuals make and the reproductive number of the infection; as social contacts increase, the incidence of infection will increase proportionately.
38. Third, epidemic spread in the fall and winter could be driven by potential worsening of the epidemic due to changes in temperature or humidity that may be associated with higher viral stability with cooler and drier conditions, seasonal changes in host immunity and/or changes in human behavior (e.g., spending more time indoors). In the fall and winter, the outdoor air is colder, and the air is drier both indoors and out. For influenza, laboratory experiments have shown that absolute humidity — the amount of water vapor in the air — strongly affects viral transmission, with drier conditions being more favorable [31]. Lab studies on SAR-CoV-1 have also confirmed that viruses are stable for longer periods in cooler, drier environments [32]. However, multiple recent studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 transmission is possible in many different climates [33, 34].
39. Seasonal differences in transmission are also affected by differences in the ways people congregate in different seasons. In the fall and winter, people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation and less personal space than they do in the summer. Schools have been identified as the sites of much transmission of respiratory viruses including those that cause
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 22 of 95 measles, chicken pox and influenza. [35, 36]. However, to date, the role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not clear and the relevance of the timing of school openings is not known. Finally, it is likely that host immunity is affected by seasonal changes. One hypothesis has focused on melatonin which has some immune effects and is modulated by the photoperiod [37], which varies seasonally. Vitamin D levels have also been associated with improved human immune responses - these levels depend in part on ultraviolet light exposure which is higher in summer. There is strong evidence for the possible role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the incidence of acute respiratory infection, as documented in a meta-analysis of randomized trials [38]. To summarize the evidence for seasonal trends in SARS-CoV-2, it is reasonable to expect that, like other beta-coronaviruses, it may transmit somewhat more efficiently in fall and winter than summer.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 23 of 95 Table 5 Possible Covid-19 scenarios [38]
40. These considerations have guided most of the modeling projections on the expected future trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 spread. The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy recently published a document where they drew lessons from previous influenza pandemics to predict the future trajectory of Covid-19 [39]. They summarize three different possible scenarios as illustrated in the relevant figure. In the first scenario, the first spring wave of Covid-19 that is currently underway will be followed by a series of repetitive smaller waves that occur through the summer and then consistently over a one- to two-year period, gradually diminishing sometime in
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 24 of 95
2021. These waves would be expected to vary geographically depending on what interventions are in place and how and when they are relaxed. Depending on the height of the peaks, this could lead to periodic re-implementation and interruption of social distancing measures over the next one to two years.
41. In the second and most likely scenario, the current first wave of Covid-19 will be followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021.
42. This pattern is what was seen with the 1918-19 influenza pandemic in which a small wave began in March 1918 but transmission leveled off during the summer months. This was followed by a much larger peak which occurred in the fall of 1918 and a third peak which occurred during the winter and spring of 1919. The 1957-58 and 2009-2010 influenza pandemics followed a similar pattern, with a smaller spring wave followed by a much larger fall wave [40]. Given the many similarities between how SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are spread, it is expected that Covid19 will behave in a similar way, and most epidemiologists expect that incidence will increase in the fall and winter months of 2020-2021.
43. In the third scenario proposed by the CIDRAP team, the first wave of Covid-19 in spring 2020 would be followed by persistent ongoing transmission and disease incidence without a clear wave pattern. This third scenario might not lead to the reinstitution of mitigation measures, although cases and deaths will continue to occur especially in areas where risk factors for disease and death are common.
44. Whichever scenario the pandemic follows, it is highly likely that Covid-19 activity will continue for at least another 18 to 24 months, with hot spots arising periodically in diverse geographic areas. In the period prior to the widespread use of an effective vaccine, this spread will
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 25 of 95
continue to lead to serious disease and death in at-risk groups As the pandemic wanes, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to circulate at lower levels in the human population and will synchronize to a seasonal pattern with diminished severity over time, as other coronaviruses, such as the beta-coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1, [41] and past pandemic influenza viruses have done.
45. I was asked to describe the Covid-19 situation in Louisiana. To date (5/27/20), Louisiana has reported 38,497 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 2,617 deaths from the disease, placing it 6th in the nation in terms of deaths per million people (580/1,000,000). The data also demonstrate that the state is ahead of many others in the amount of testing being done, having received test results to date on 341,026 people for a testing rate of 73.45 per 1000, (ie. ranking of 6rd out of 50 states). As shown in the following figure, the distribution of cases is not uniform across the state, with more densely populated areas having higher rates [42].
Table 6 Parish-specific Covid-19 prevalence for Louisiana by May 27, 2020. (from Louisiana State Health Department).
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 26 of 95
46. To assess the risk of serious disease given a Covid-19 infection, we can turn to the existing data on the prevalence of specific risk factors in the state. The CDC has documented that 36.8 percent of Louisiana residents are obese and an additional 32.7 percent are overweight; 39 percent have a diagnosis of high blood pressure; and 13.9 percent have diagnosed diabetes mellitus [43, 44, 45]. 15.4 percent of the population is 65 years old and over [46]. Louisiana has a life expectancy of 76.0 compared to 78.7 nationally, making it 43rd out of the 50 states (https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/life-expectancy/). Table 7. Rates of hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease Nationally. From (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058248v1)
47. It is useful to compare the prevalence of different co-morbidities associated with poor outcomes in Louisiana to other states. The figures below give county-level rates of hospitalizations for coronary heart disease and hypertension demonstrating that Louisiana has comparatively high rates of these diseases and the age distribution of the population.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 27 of 95
48. The Kaiser Family Foundation has developed a method to estimate the proportion of a state’s population at elevated risk for serious Covid-19 illness [47]. Using data from the CDC’s 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), they estimated the total number of atrisk adults by state, based on the revised definition from the CDC of adults who are at higher risk of serious illness if they get infected with coronavirus. The relevant factors include ages 65 or older, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uncontrolled asthma, diabetes, and a BMI greater than 40. Based on this analysis, 42.1% of adults over age 18 in Louisiana are at risk for serious disease with older adults making up 48.4% of those at high risk. Table 8 CCVI Score components [48]
49. In another nation-wide assessment of risk, the Surgo Foundation has developed a Covid-19 community vulnerability index (the CCVI) to identify communities at especially high risk of being affected by Covid-19 [48]. The CCVI combines indicators specific to Covid-19 with the CDC’s social vulnerability index, which measures the expected negative impact of any type of disaster. The indicators are based on the themes listed below.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 28 of 95
50. On this scale, Louisiana scored an 88 out of 100 when 100 is the most vulnerable. It ranked seventh among the states on this measure, mostly because its high (poor) score in the area of epidemiologic risk factors. These data suggest that in the event of further spread of Covid19, Louisiana may experience higher levels of disease, disability and death than other states experiencing the same amount of transmission.
51. I was asked if herd immunity, progress in vaccine development or the development of drugs to treat Covid-19 will alter the expected course of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States and specifically Louisiana. To date, the proportion of the population that is likely to be immune is far less than that that required to achieve herd immunity. This is unlikely to change significantly before November. Although recent studies of the temporal trajectories of the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies show that most people who are infected with the virus do develop an antibody-mediated immune response, it is not yet clear whether this response is adequate to protect people from future infection or for how long it might be protective. Other coronaviruses, such as those that cause colds, are known to provide protection for periods of approximately one year and this experience has led most Covid-19 experts to accept the “educated guess” that after being infected with SARS-CoV-2, most individuals will have an immune response which will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline. Until there is empirical evidence of how well-protected previously infected people are in the future, there is no way to confirm or deny the existence of long-term immunity.
52. An effective vaccine is extremely unlikely to have been developed, tested and widely distributed before November. Vaccine development has proceeded at an unprecedented pace. More than 110 candidate vaccines are under development. A number of companies and
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 29 of 95
research teams already have candidate vaccines that are either in human trials (eight have started) or close to ready to trial in humans. The most advanced of these seems to be the ChAdOx1 nCoV19 vaccine being developed by a group in Oxford, England. The speed with which these vaccines are being developed is partly due to the fact that a great deal of work was done on a SARS-CoV1 vaccine after the 2002 epidemic and some of that work can be applied to this organism.
53. Despite this extraordinarily rapid progress, it is important to realize that the usual time frame from development to widespread use of a vaccine is over ten years. New vaccines require a complex set of trials to establish safety, immunogenicity, optimal dosing, etc. Phase 1 trials are usually conducted in small groups of healthy volunteers and are designed to establish whether serious adverse effects occur with escalating doses of the agent and whether the vaccine produces the expected immune response. Phase 2 trials are designed to replicate Phase 1 results in a more diverse population of volunteers, to assess whether the expected immune response is generated, and to test different vaccine schedules. Once safety, immunogenicity and optimal dosing are established, Phase 3 studies are conducted to determine vaccine efficacy. Phase 3 studies are usually much larger than phase 1 or 2 studies and are conducted in people at risk for the infection in question. So the time frame of these trials depends on the actual incidence of infection and is expected to be shorter in regions with very high rates of disease. The completion of all three steps is required for a vaccine to be approved by the FDA. Once a vaccine is approved, it must then be manufactured at a scale that will provide adequate coverage for a large population.
54. The White House has recently announced an initiative, “Operation Warp Speed,” to expedite the development of a vaccine that will be available to the US population. Although many scientists question the timeline proposed by the project, the goal is to speed up the development and production of a vaccine so that 100 million doses are available in November of
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 30 of 95
2020 and the remaining 200 million doses needed to vaccinate the US population are ready by early 2021. Thus, even in the most optimistic scenario, it is highly unlikely that a vaccine will have been distributed and had time to induce an immune response in a significant number of Americans by November 3, 2020.
55. Although new and repurposed drugs are being tested and some may be found to be helpful in treating severe Covid-19, this is unlikely to have a major impact on the transmission of the virus and the risk of severe disease or death by November 2020. A number of antiviral drugs are currently being developed and other existing drugs are being “repurposed” as potential therapies for Covid-19. The hope is that these drugs will reduce the rate of death and severe disease in people who are treated with them. As of mid-April, the FDA website had listed 72 active and 211 planned Covid-19 drug trials and almost 1000 drug-development proposals have been submitted to the agency. To date, only Remdesivir has been shown in a major, randomized control trial to reduce the duration of illness in Covid-19 patients. In that study, Remdesivir reduced the median time to recovery in hospitalized patients with advanced Covid-19 disease and lung involvement from 15 days for those who received placebo to 11 days for patients treated with Remdesivir [49]. The researchers also noted a survival benefit (which was not “statistically significant”) with the Remdesivir group experiencing an 8.0 percent mortality rate compared to 11.6 percent for the placebo group. This suggests that even with the approval of the drugs that have been found to be effective in clinical trials, people with severe Covid-19 are at risk for death as well as the long-term effects of lung damage and other sequelae of infection detailed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 29th day of May, 2020.
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 31 of 95 Megan Murray, MD, MPH, ScD
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 32 of 95
REFERENCES
1. Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5(4):536‐544. doi:10.1038/s41564020-0695-z
2. Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV2. Nat Med 26, 450–452 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9
3. Zhang, H., Penninger, J.M., Li, Y. et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med 46, 586–590 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9
4. https://doi.org/10.1002//path.5471. 5. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html 6. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1 7. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With
2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061–1069. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585 8. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 13]. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;e200994. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994 9. Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study [published correction appears in BMJ. 2020 Mar 31;368:m1295]. BMJ. 2020;368:m1091. Published 2020 Mar 26. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1091 10. Arentz M, Yim E, Klaff L, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of 21 Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in Washington State [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 19]. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1612‐1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4326 11. Cao J, Tu WJ, Cheng W, et al. Clinical Features and Short-term Outcomes of 102 Patients with Corona Virus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 2]. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa243. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa243 12. Basu-Ray I, Soos MP. Cardiac Manifestations Of Coronavirus (COVID-19) [Updated 2020 Apr 12]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556152/ 13. Danzi GB, Loffi M, Galeazzi G, Gherbesi E. Acute pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 pneumonia: a random association?. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(19):1858. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa254 14. Zhang Y, Xiao M, Zhang S, et al. Coagulopathy and Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(17):e38. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2007575 15. Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 10]. Thromb Res. 2020;S0049-3848(20)30120-1. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013 16. Bridwell R, Long B, Gottlieb M. Neurologic complications of COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 16]. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.024. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.024
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 33 of 95
17. Alunno A, Carubbi F, Rodríguez-Carrio J. Storm, typhoon, cyclone or hurricane in patients with COVID-19? Beware of the same storm that has a different origin. RMD Open. 2020;6(1):e001295. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001295
18. Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review of Imaging Findings in 919 Patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 14]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;1‐7. doi:10.2214/AJR.20.23034
19. Stam HJ, Stucki G, Bickenbach J. Covid-19 and Post Intensive Care Syndrome: A Call for Action. J Rehabil Med. 2020;52(4):jrm00044. Published 2020 Apr 15. doi:10.2340/16501977-2677
20. Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to COVID-19 in Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1775–1776. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4683
21. Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. Published online April 22, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6775
22. The OpenSafely Collaborative. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v1
23. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html
24. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564‐1567. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2004973
25. Hamner L, Dubbel P, Capron I, et al. High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice - Skagit County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(19):606‐610. Published 2020 May 15. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6919e6
26. Park M, Cook AR, Lim JT, Sun Y, Dickens BL. A Systematic Review of COVID-19 Epidemiology Based on Current Evidence. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):967. Published 2020 Mar 31. doi:10.3390/jcm9040967
27. Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 24]. N Engl J Med. 2020;NEJMoa2008457. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2008457
28. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/308444/americans-social-contacts-during-covidpandemic.aspx
29. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417356/initial-results-mission-district-covid-19testing-announced
30. Personal communication from Miguel Hernan of the Epicos study. 31. Eriko Kudo, Eric Song, Laura J. Yockey, Tasfia Rakib, Patrick W. Wong, Robert J.
Homer, Akiko Iwasaki. Low ambient humidity impairs barrier function and innate resistance against influenza infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 13, 2019; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902840116 32. Miyu Moriyama, Walter J. Hugentobler, Akiko Iwasaki, Seasonality of Respiratory Viral Infections. Annual Review of Virology 2020 7:1
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 34 of 95
33. Luo w, Majumder MS, Liu D, Poirier C, ] Mandl KD, Lipsitch M, Mauricio Santillana, The role of absolute humidity on transmission rates of the COVID-19 outbreak, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022467v1
34. Xie J, Zhu Y. Association between ambient temperature and COVID-19 infection in 122 cities from China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;724:138201. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138201
35. Jackson C, Vynnycky E, Mangtani P. The Relationship Between School Holidays and Transmission of Influenza in England and Wales. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):644‐651. doi:10.1093/aje/kww083
36. Luca, G.D., Kerckhove, K.V., Coletti, P. et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: a data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis 18, 29 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3
37. Silvestri, M., Rossi, G.A. Melatonin: its possible role in the management of viral infections-a brief review. Ital J Pediatr 39, 61 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1824-728839-61
38. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. Published 2017 Feb 15. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
39. Covid-19. The Cidrap View. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap-covid19viewpoint-part1_0.pdf
40. Saunders-Hastings PR, Krewski D. Reviewing the History of Pandemic Influenza: Understanding Patterns of Emergence and Transmission. Pathogens. 2016;5(4):66. Published 2016 Dec 6. doi:10.3390/pathogens5040066
41. Kissler SM, Tedijanto C, Goldstein E, Grad YH, Lipsitch M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science. 2020;368(6493):860‐868. doi:10.1126/science.abb5793
42. http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ 43. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html 44. https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/maps_data.htm 45. http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/PDFs/Advocacy/burden-of-diabetes/louisiana.pdf 46. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/LA/PST045219 47. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-
address-coronavirus/ 48. https://precisionforcovid.org/ccvi 49. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -
Preliminary Report [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 22]. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 50. The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARSCoV-2 transmission. Valentyn Stadnytskyi, Christina E. Bax, Adriaan Bax, Philip Anfinrud. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2020, 202006874; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2006874117
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 35 of 95

Harvard Medical School/Harvard School of Dental Medicine Curriculum Vitae

Date Prepared: Name: Office Address:
Home Address:
Work Phone: Work Email: Work FAX: Place of Birth:

May 2020
MEGAN MURRAY Harvard Medical School 641 Huntington Avenue, 4A07 Boston, MA 02115 21 Prince Street Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 432-2781 megan_murray@hms.harvard.edu (617) 432-2565 Minnesota

Education 1980

AB Magna cum laude

Philosophy

Dartmouth College, Dartmouth, NH

1990

MD

Medicine

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

1997

MPH

Public Health

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

2001

ScD

Postdoctoral Training 1990-1991 Internship

Epidemiology (James Robins)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

Internal Medicine

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

1991-1993 Residency

Internal Medicine

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 36 of 95

1993-1997 Fellowship

Infectious Disease

Faculty Academic Appointments 1997-2006 Instructor in Medicine Medicine

1999-2000 Research Associate

Epidemiology

2001-2007 Assistant Professor

Epidemiology

2004-

Associate

2006-2009 Assistant Professor 2007-2013 Associate Professor

Medicine Epidemiology

2009-2012 Associate Professor

Medicine

20122013-

Professor Professor

Global Health and Social Medicine
Epidemiology

2017-

Ronda Stryker and William Johnston Professor of Global Health

Global Health and Social Medicine

Appointments at Hospitals/Affiliated Institutions

01/98-09/02 Clinical Assistant in Medicine

Dept. of Internal Medicine

09/02-09/06 Assistant in Medicine Dept. of Internal Medicine

09/06-02/08 Assistant Physician

Dept. of Internal Medicine

35

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Harvard Medical School Harvard School of Public Health Harvard School of Public Health Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA Harvard Medical School Harvard School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Harvard Medical School
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts General Hospital

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 37 of 95

02/08-09/10 Consultant (Medicine Dept. of Internal Medicine Services)

Massachusetts General Hospital

36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 38 of 95

Other Professional Positions

Year

Position Title

1980-1984 Refugee Camp Coordinator

Institution

Level of effort

Intergovernmental Committee for

Migration, Phanat Nikhom, Thailand

1984

Public Health Educator

Matanyok Rural Training Project, Rift Valley, Kenya

2004-

Research Director

Partners In Health, Boston

36 days per year

Major Administrative Leadership Positions

Local
2007-

Director of Research

2010-

Director

2012-2013 Member

Committee Service
Local
1986-1990 Curriculum Committee

Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners In Health, Boston, MA Research Core, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Executive Leadership Team, Global Health Delivery Partnership, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners In Health, Boston, MA
Harvard Medical School Member

2001-

Infectious Disease-Epidemiology Graduate Harvard School of Public Health

Admissions Committee

Member

2003-2005 Faculty Council

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2004-

Steering Committee for the Residency in Global Health

Brigham and Women’s Hospital Member

2005-

Human Subjects Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2005

Task Force on Women in Sciences and Engineering

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Member

2006

President’s Task Force on Avian Influenza 37

Harvard University

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 39 of 95

Member

2006

Search Committee for Dean of Educational Harvard School of Public Health

Programs

Member

2007

Epidemiology Curriculum Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2007

Search Committee for Compliance Officer Harvard School of Public Health Member

2007

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Brigham and Women’s Hospital the Division of Social Medicine and Health Member Inequalities

2008

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Harvard School of Public Health

Infectious Disease Epidemiology

Member

2009

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Harvard School of Public Health

Infectious Disease Epidemiology

Chair

2010

Global Health Epidemiology Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2010-2011 Strategic Leadership Team

Brigham and Women’s Hospital Member (Co-Chair Community Engagement Mission Area)

2012

Ad Hoc Committee to Evaluate Professorial Harvard Medical School

Candidate

Member

2012-2016 Professor of Population Medicine Search Committee

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute Member

2012

Ad Hoc Evaluation of Professorial Appointment Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2012

Global Health Instructor Search Committee Harvard Medical School Co-chair

2014-2016 Pershing Square Professorship in Global Health Search Committee

Harvard Medical School Chair

2015

Search Committee for Professor of Biomedical Informatics

Harvard Medical School Member

38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 40 of 95

2016-

Department of Biomedical Informatics Executive Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2016-

Committee on Promotions, Reappointments, Harvard Medical School

and Appointments (P&R)

Member

2018-2019 Dean’s Innovation Grants Review Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2018-2019 Therapeutics Planning Foundry Committee Harvard Medical School Member

2019-

Center for Computational Biomedicine (CCB) Advisory Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2019-

Faculty Council

Harvard Medical School/Harvard School of Dental Medicine Member

2020-

Ariadne Spark Grant Review Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2020-

Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR) Working Group on Epidemiology

Harvard Medical School Co-Lead

National and International
2005-2007 Committee on Infectious Diseases among Gulf War Veterans

Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC Member

2006-2010 IHR Roster of Experts in Modeling Analytical Epidemiology

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

2007-2009 Global Task on XDR Tuberculosis

World Health Organization

2007

External Review Committee for TB Program Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Montreal, Canada Member

2008-2011 STAG (Strategic and technical advisory group) TB

World Health Organization Member

2008

39th Union World Conference 2008

International Union TB and Lung Disease

Drug Resistance /MDR-TB management II Paris, France, Coordinator

39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 41 of 95

2009 2009-2010

Panel to Review the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence for Biomedical TB Research
Expert Panel on Tuberculosis and Diabetes

National Research Foundation, Pretoria, South Africa, Convener
Union of TB and Lung Disease and World Diabetes Federation Member

2010-2015 Advisory Group to Fogarty Grant

Member Public Health Research Institute New Jersey

2010-

Working Group on New Diagnostics

Member, Stop TB Partnership Geneva, Switzerland

2013-2014 Millennium Villages Project Independent Expert Group Meetings

Member Earth Institute, Columbia University Millennium Development Goals Centre West and Central Africa Dakar, Senegal

2013-2014 External Advisory Committee on Tuberculosis

Member Gates Foundation New York City, NY

2016-

Critical Path to TB Drug Regimens (CPTR) Member Initiative

Professional Societies

1995-

Infectious Disease Society of America

1997-

Society for Epidemiologic Research

2007-

International Union of TB and Lung Disease

2007-

Global Health Council

2009-

American Society for Tropical Medicine

Member Member Member
Member Member

Grant Review Activities

40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 42 of 95

2004

Fogarty International Center/NIH Study Section ZRG1 ICP-3(03)

NIH, Bethesda, MD Member

2005

Improving Tuberculosis Control in Africa; Mathematical Modeling of Intervention Trials

Wellcome Trust Review London, England Member

2008

Postdoctoral Program Review for Indonesian PhDs

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Holland Referee

2008

Center for AIDS Research Scholar and

Harvard School of Public Health

Feasibility Scientific Reviewer Committee Member

2009, 2010 Center for Scientific Review/NIH study section l ZRG1 IDM-P 50 R

NIH Ad hoc Member

2009-2016

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section on Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases (CRFS)

NIH Permanent Member

2009

Wellcome Trust London, England

Ad hoc Reviewer

2010

National Science Foundation South Africa

Ad hoc Reviewer

2012 2015 2017
2018
2019

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 AARR-K (52)
Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 IMST-K (50)S
Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZAI1 LG-M (M1) NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01/R01)

NIH Ad-hoc Member
NIH Ad-hoc Member
NIH Ad-hoc Member

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases [CRFS] Study Section ZRG1 IDM-R (02)

NIH Ad-hoc Member

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 IDM-R (50)
41

NIH Ad-hoc Member

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 43 of 95
Editorial Activities Ad hoc Reviewer
Science Nature Medicine New England Journal Medicine Lancet Lancet Infectious Diseases Lancet Pulmonary Medicine Epidemiology American Journal of Epidemiology International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases British Medical Journal British Medical Journal, Global Health Emerging Infectious Diseases PLoS Medicine PLoS Pathogens PLoS One Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease Journal of the American Medical Association American Journal Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Journal of Clinical Microbiology Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) Bulletin of the World Health Organization Clinical Infectious Disease Journal Infectious Disease Annals of Internal Medicine American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Royal Society Proceedings B BMC Medicine BMC Genomics BMC Public Health BMC Biology BMC Health Services Interface Epidemics Royal Society Open Science mBio
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 44 of 95

Other Editorial Roles

2004-

Member of Editorial Board

2005-2012 Associate Editor

2009-

Associate Editor

European Journal of Epidemiology
International Journal of TB and Lung Disease
PLOS Medicine

Honors and Prizes

1980

Dartmouth General Fellowship

1990

Aesculupian Society

1990

Paul Dudley White Fellowship

1996

Howard Hughes PostDoctoral Research Fellowship

1997

Tapplin Fellowship Award

2001

Teaching Award

2002

Teaching Award

2004 2008

Ellison Senior Scholar Recognition Award

2010 2010-11

Nominated for Mentorship Award
Landolt Chair

Dartmouth College
Harvard Medical School Harvard Medical School
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Harvard School of Public Health School of Public Health, Boston University Harvard School of Public Health Ellison Medical Foundation Harvard School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Report of Funded and Unfunded Projects

43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 45 of 95

Funding Information

Past

1997-2003

Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis NIH/NIAID 1K08AI001430-01 PI This study explored the use of molecular epidemiologic data for epidemiologic inference and evolutionary studies of M. tuberculosis.

2000-2003

Population-based investigations of tuberculosis NIH R01AI046669 Co-investigator In this project, population-based genetic studies of human specimens were used to determine the clinical consequences of mutations in genes associated with bacterial antibiotic resistance and virulence.

2002-2005

Transmissibility and fitness of drug-resistant TB, Sverdlovsk WHO T9-181-270 PI This project assessed epidemiologic risk factors for TB drug resistance, identified locally prevalent drug-resistance profiles, used molecular epidemiological analyses to measure association between clustering and specific drug-resistance mutations, and assessed demographic distribution of drug resistance in prison and local community, evaluating extent of transmission between the two groups.

2003-2005

INH resistance in Beijing/W Isolates of M. tuberculosis NIH R21 AI055800 Co-investigator This project sought to identify risk factors associated with Isoniazid resistance which may be pathogen and/or host- specific and which may lead to acquisition of MDR-TB, after controlling for compliance.

2003-2005

Decision analysis for TB control Bill Melinda Gates Foundation Co-investigator This project developed a decision-analytic model that could be used with data from different countries to assess the potential benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the full range of policy options for dealing with MDR-TB, including preventive therapy, active case finding, diagnostic testing and treatment.

2004-2009

Curriculum in Emerging Infectious Diseases NIH/NIGMS K073000-04 PI ($363,933)

44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 46 of 95

This project aimed to develop and implement a core course in transmission dynamics of emerging infectious diseases, taking an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates casebased seminars and short courses.

2005-2007

Evaluation of a community based HIV-TB adherence support program in a government ARV-rollout site in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Harvard University Center for AIDS Research Co-investigator This study evaluated the feasibility of community-based adherence support program designed to improve HIV/AIDS and TB outcomes among a cohort of HIV patients in a government ARV treatment program.

2006-2007

Ferroportin Polymorphisms and Tuberculosis Susceptibility William F. Milton Fund/Harvard Medical School PI This study assessed the association between Ferroportin (FPN1) mutations, iron intake and TB susceptibility in South Africa.

2006-2010

Macrophage Iron Metabolism and Tuberculosis Infection NIH/NIAID R21 AI068077-01 PI ($271,375) We elucidated the role of host macrophage iron status on the growth of M. tuberculosis and explored the impact of iron and ferroportin status on cellular immune function.

2006-2011

Epidemiology of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Peru NIH/NIAID R01 A1057786-01A2 Co-investigator The goal of this project is to provide new knowledge about the transmission dynamics of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high TB-burden area in Peru and will measure withinhousehold transmission of various strains of TB, assess the impact of socio-demographic and clinical confounders and risk modifiers, and measure associations between specific resistance mutations and phenotypes.

2007-2009

A Postmortem Study of the Burden of MDR and XDR Tuberculosis Among Adult Inpatient in KZN Deaths Occurring at Edendale Hospital Kwazulu-Natal South Africa Massachusetts General Hospital PI ($60,050) This study estimated the burden of tuberculosis among seriously ill individuals in KZN and measured the proportion of TB among these patients which is drug-resistant by conducting postmortem tests at Edendale Hospital KZN.

2007-2014

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics of MDR/XDR Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID U19 A1076217 PI ($13,422,751) We conducted a series of linked interdisciplinary research projects focused on the emergence and transmission of multidrug and extensively drug resistant TB: a cohort
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 47 of 95

study of host and microbial factors associated with MDR and XDR TB in Lima, Peru; a study characterizing M. tuberculosis strain diversity and its contribution to the emergence and spread of MDR; and a study using epidemic and individual predictive models to support public health policy and clinical decision-making for MDR and XDR TB.

2009

Systematic Reviews of Diabetes and Tuberculosis Interactions PI ($25,000) International Union of TB and Lung Disease We evaluated the links between TB and diabetes by conducting a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

2009-2012

Bioaerosols Production and Influenza Study Pulmatrix Inc. PI ($348,393) The project measured the particle production in persons diagnosed with active influenza, measured the quantity and size distribution of influenza virus particles generated and exhaled by persons infected with influenza during normal tidal breathing, and measured the secondary attack rate of influenza within their households.

2009-2013

Treat TB: Technology, Research, Education and Technical Assistance for TB USAID (subcontract through International Union against TB and Lung Disease) Co-investigator The subproject aims were to develop a modeling tool to assist national policy-makers in selecting the appropriate tests and strategies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in specific types of epidemiological settings, with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries, taking into account a variety of modifying factors including drug resistance and HIV.

2009-2014

Strengthening and Studying Community Based Integrated Primary Health Care Systems in Rural Rwanda Doris Duke Foundation Co-investigator The PHIT Partnership strengthened integrated primary health care delivery in Rwanda. The Partnership deployed a care-based intervention, conduct implementation research to generate data for ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and quality improvement of the intervention.

2009-2014

MIDAS Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics NIH/NIGMS U54 GM088558-01 Co-investigator This project advanced the quantitative study of communicable diseases through training/education, transdisciplinary research, and public health policy and will develop statistical and novel modeling methods, train mathematical modelers, perform outreach, and develop software for the analysis of communicable disease data.

2012-2013

Identification of GyrA/B Mutations that Predict Fluoroquinolone Resistant TB 46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 48 of 95

Harvard University Center for AIDS Research Co-investigator This project evaluated the correlation between newly-developed molecular genetic probes that can detect mutations in the gryA and gryB genes of tuberculosis which may render them more resistant to first and later generation quinolones.

2013-2014

African Health Facility Capacity to Roll Out Technological Interventions Gates Foundation PI ($17,232) This project summarized the following outcomes across Rwanda health facilities: the percent and number of health facilities with electricity currently; estimate percent of health clinics with electricity within five years; percent and number of facilities with rapid HIV testing available; and the distribution of HIV testing staffing.

Current

2014-2020

Integrated discovery and development of innovative TB Diagnostics NIH/NIAID CETR U19AI109755 PI ($29,218,333) This multi-disciplinary collaboration is designed to enable the discovery of new biomarkers of Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug resistance, identify optimal clinical sampling strategies directed toward detection of Mtb DNA and develop and test a sensitive micro-array based rapid diagnostic. Our long-term goal is to develop a diagnostic strategy that will improve the diagnosis of childhood and DR TB and stem the further spread of the disease. This grant is in a no cost extension phase.

2015-2022

Metabolic Factors that Control the Spectrum of Human Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID TBRU U19AI111224 Co-PI ($19,815,180) This consortium project focuses on the link between host immune and metabolic factors and their impact on progression and persistence of tuberculosis. Teams focusing on human subjects, bio-informatics, and metabolomics work in parallel to identify targets including pathways linking human metabolism and immune response, T cells involved in Mtb response, pathogen determinants of drug resistance and pathogen-shed markers of clinical TB phenotypes. Each project includes validation of these targets in the guinea pig model.

2018-

Metabolic Factors that Control the Spectrum of Human Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID TBRU U19AI111224-04 Supplement Co-PI ($200,000) This supplement to the TBRU consortium project is a new collaborative, multi-disciplinary effort that conducted a genome-to-genome approach aimed at the identification of
47

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 49 of 95

interacting molecular patterns in Mtb and the human host. The same approach and new methods will be adaptable and easily applicable to other populations being studied within the TBRU program.

2019-2024

Bacterial Determinants of Treatment Response in Mycobacteria Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID U19AI142793-01 PI ($14,633,712) This study will focus on the discovery of the genetic determinants of drug tolerance and resistance in mycobacteria tuberculosis both through mechanistic bench studies and through a genome wide association study of treatment failure in TB patients.

2019-2021

Randomised trial of an intervention to increase tuberculosis notifications by private practitioners in Indonesia, plus sequencing and susceptibility sub studies CRDF Global u/d USDA (59-0210-06-004) DAA3-19-64909-2 United States Research Leader ($99,917) This study will evaluate whether a tailored intervention package increases notifications of tuberculosis (TB) by private practitioners in Bandung, Indonesia.

2020-2023

Are TB neighbourhoods a high risk population for active intervention? CRDF Global u/d NIAID United States Research Leader ($99,999) This study will confirm whether neighborhoods around known, routinely diagnosed TB index cases are high risk sub-populations which may warrant active intervention to enhance TB control.

Unfunded Projects

2003

Transmission dynamics of SARS (Co-leader) I co-led a team that developed a mathematical model of the transmission dynamics of SARS. (Lipsitch et al. Science 2003)

2005-2011

TB Genome Project (Collaborator) Whole genome sequencing of sets of drug resistant M. tuberculosis isolates. I led a collaboration with the Broad Institute to identify, sequence and analyze progressively resistant isolates of M. tuberculosis to identify drug resistance mutations and to characterize compensatory or enabling mutations. We currently have one manuscript under review and several in preparation.

2006

Cost-effectiveness of testing the blood supply for West Nile Virus (Supervisor) I supervised a doctoral student in the development of a combined transmission/costeffectiveness model on West Nile Virus. (Korves et al. PLoS Med 2006; Korves et al. Clin Infect Dis 2006)

48

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 50 of 95

2006-2010

Determinants of tuberculosis (Advisor) I supervised two doctoral students to carry out epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses of the associations between determinants (smoking and diabetes mellitus) and tuberculosis and to use the parameters thus obtained to construct mathematical models assessing the impact interventions directed at these determinants. (Jeon et al. PLoS Med 2008; Jeon et al, Trop Med and Int Health 2010; Lin et al. Lancet 2008; Lin et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009, Murray M et al, IJTLD 2010, Baker M et al. BMC Medicine 2011, Lin et al. IJTLD 2011). I supervised Dr. Olivia Oxlade on work that is a further extension of this project.

2007-2009

Timing of ART in patients co-infected with HIV and TB in Rwanda: an observational approach (Initiator) I initiated this project and supervised a doctoral student in the collection and analysis of the data. This work led to a paper published in PLoS Medicine (Franke M et al. PLoS Med 2011).

2007-2009

Metabolic modeling of M. tuberculosis (Collaborator) I collaborated with a team of bio-informaticists on a project to fit a metabolic flux model to M. tuberculosis expression data to mycolic acid production. (Colijn et al. PLoS Computational Biology, 2009)

2008-2009

Structural analysis of M. tuberculosis “resistome” (Collaborator) I collaborated with George Church on a project to define the structural basis of drug resistance in M. tuberculosis using sequence data. We published one paper together (Sandgren et al. PLoS Med 2009).

2008-2010

M. tuberculosis isoniazid and quinolone mono-resistance in South Africa (Mentor) I supervised two trainees who are investigating the frequency and outcomes of monoresistance in M. tuberculosis in South Africa. We published two papers in this area. (Jeon C et al, 2010, Jacobson K et al, 2011).

2008-2010

ART Outcomes in Rwanda for 1000 HIV patients (Co-investigator) I provided technical support and supervised the data collection and analysis team. We have published a paper on this topic (Rich et al, 2011).

2009-2010

Within host dynamics of TB and the evolution of drug resistance. (Initiator) I collaborated with my former trainees, Ted Cohen and Caroline Colijn, on a project to model the within-host evolution of drug resistance (Colijn C et al, PLoS One, 2011).

2009-2011

Sex trafficking and HIV transmission in India (Advisor) I supervised a doctoral student in the analysis of data and construction of a mathematical model of HIV transmission among trafficked sex workers in India. We published several papers together.

2010-2012

Cholera transmission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Haiti. (Collaborator and Adviser). I worked with a team including hydraulogists and infectious disease
49

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 51 of 95

modelers on the transmission routes by which cholera spreads. We published three papers (Rinaldo et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2012; Bompangue et al, PLoS Curr 2012; Bompangue et al, Lancet, 2012).

2012-

Poverty traps in under-resourced settings (Collaborator) I collaborate with Matthew Bonds on a range of studies to understand the role of infectious diseases in creating poverty traps in Rwanda and other under-resourced settings.

2014-2015 MDR TB in India I worked with a Fulbright fellow to assess the burden of MDR TB in India.

2013-2016

Ebola Diagnostics, Asymptomatic Infection and Modeling (Initiator and Collaborator) I worked with the Partners in Health clinical teams in Sierra Leone to evaluate two point of care diagnostic tests and supervised Gene Richardson in a study of asymptomatic Ebola infections and Ibrahim Diakite on a study of dynamic modeling of Ebola vaccination strategies.

2012-

Impact of Health Research Capacity Building (Team Leader) I lead a team focused on the implementation and assessment of Health Research Capacity Building in Africa.

2014-

Yaws epidemiology and impact of mass drug administration (Collaborator) I work with my former student, Eric Mooring, on the evaluation of data collected during a mass drug administration campaign in Papua, New Guinea.

2014-

Health System Strengthening in Madagascar (Collaborator) I work on developing methods to evaluate the impact of health system strengthening in Madagascar and other implementation sites.

2018-2019

Investigation of Services delivered for TB by External care system – especially the Private sector (INSTEP) (Collaborator) I worked on quantitative measure of health seeking pathways and delays, diagnostic and treatment behaviors of private providers and qualitative (or mixed methods) analysis of provider behaviors and the reasons behind them as assessed via direct interviews.

Training Grants and Mentored Trainee Grants

1990-2011

Multidisciplinary AIDS Training Grant NIH NIAID T32AI007387 Mentor (PI: Martin Hirsch) The major goal was to provide in depth laboratory experience in a specific research area of virology, immunology, molecular biology, oncology, epidemiology molecular genetics, or molecular therapeutics to selected postdoctoral candidates.

50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 52 of 95

1992-2022

Program for AIDS Clinical Research Training (PACRT) NIH NIAID T32 AI007433 Mentor (PI: Kenneth Freedberg) The major goal is to provide training in quantitative research methodologies with a focus on HIV clinical research to pre-doctoral PhD students and physicians at formative stages in their careers.

1998-2020

Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases NIH NIAID T32 AI007535 Mentor (PI: George Seage) The major goal is to increase the number of graduates who will be capable of drawing on diverse tools – including sophisticated approaches to causal inference, transmissiondynamic modeling, model fitting, population genomics and phylogenetics – in a knowledgeable way to meet the infectious disease threats of a new generation.

2004-2009

Molecular Approaches for Understanding TB Dynamics NIH NIAID K08 5K08AI055985 Co-Mentor to Ted Cohen The major goal of this five-year training program K award focused on the development of new analytic tools to evaluate molecular data from tuberculosis patients.

2009

AMSTH Postdoctoral Fellowship in Tropical Infectious Diseases Mentor to Karen Jacobson The major goal was to fund to conduct research focused on infectious diseases of low and low-middle income countries.

2010-2013

Predicting the impact and cost-effectiveness of technical and non-technical approaches to TB control in low and middle income countries CIHR (Canadian Institute for Health Research) Fellowship MFE106987 Mentor to Olivia Oxlade The goal was to predict, in 3 low and middle income countries, the epidemiologic impact and cost effectiveness of a technical approach to TB control (using improved diagnostic tests for earlier diagnosis of active TB disease) versus a non-technical population level intervention designed to reduce tobacco use and alcohol consumption.

2010-2014

The Economic Impacts of Community-Based Integrated Health Care Systems in Rural Rwanda NIH Fogarty K01 TW008773 Mentor to Matthew Bonds The major goal of this K award was to measure the specific economic consequences of expanded community-based integrated primary healthcare in Rwanda by measuring the partial effects of malnutrition, disease, schooling and socioeconomic status on each other.

51

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 53 of 95

2011

Modifiable risk factors for tuberculosis disease in children Parker B. Francis Fellowship in Pulmonary Research Mentor to Molly Franke The major goal was to identify modifiable risk factors for TB in children.

2011-2016

Geospatial Clustering and Molecular and Social Epidemiology of Drug Resistant TB NIH Fogarty K01 5K01TW009213 Co-Mentor to Karen Jacobson The major goal of this K award was to estimate the burden of drug resistant TB and assess the heterogeneity of disease burden in different geographic locations, to examine the association of host risk factors and population determinants with regions of high drug resistant TB burden, and to describe the spatial and molecular clustering of strains of drug resistant TB in this province. My role was to mentor Karen Jacobson in research in molecular and social epidemiology of TB.

2012-2013 US-Italy Fulbright Scholarship Mentor to Anna Odone

2012-2016

The Role of Development Assistance for Health in Reducing Child Mortality NIH NICHD 4K01HD071929-05 Epidemiology mentor to Chunling Lu The major goal of this K award was to obtain background knowledge of epidemiology so as to understand the disease profiles of under-five children of different age groups in developing countries.

2013-2014

Controlling Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (TB): A Review of Literature and an Attempt for Designing Innovative Approaches in Indian Setting Core Fulbright Visiting Scholar Research Grant Mentor to Sachin Atre

2013-2015

Gene Mutations and Tuberculosis Resistance American Lung Association Research Award Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal was to investigate the genetic sequences of known and candidate resistant genes for a large panel of TB drugs, to determine which mutations predict the extent of resistance, and if specific combinations of mutations interact to affect this resistance level. The information will be used to guide the development of a much needed rapid diagnostic test for drug resistant TB.

2014

Genetic determinants of drug resistance in mycobacterium tuberculosis Parker B. Francis Fellowship in Pulmonary Research Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal was to investigate the genetic sequences of known and candidate resistance genes for a large panel of TB drugs to determine which mutations predict the
52

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 54 of 95

extent of resistance and use this information to guide the development of improved diagnostic tests for resistance.

2014-2017

Integrating Pediatric Care Delivery in Rural Healthcare Systems NIH NICHD 5DP5OD019894 Mentor (PI: Duncan Maru) The major goal was to increase the timely engagement in acute care for children to receive evidence-based World Health Organization protocols aimed at reducing child mortality and to implement a Chronic Care Model for pediatric patients under the age of twenty suffering from a chronic disease.

2014-2019

Infectious Disease and Basic Microbiological Mechanisms NIH NIAID T32 2T32AI007061 Mentor (PI: Marcia Goldberg) The major goal is to train scientists who have a career goal of solving medically relevant problems and who elect rigorous laboratory or epidemiologic training in any of the Harvard adult infectious disease programs or other Harvard-based institutions participating in this program.

2015-2017

New Tools for the Interpretation of Pathogen Genomic Data with a Focus on Mycobacterium Tuberculosis NIH Fogarty K01 5K01ES026835 Principal Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal of this K award was to develop a web-based public interface to several analysis tools, to develop and study an MTB gene-gene network, and to study the performance of methods in current use for the association of genotype and phenotype in pathogens, and develop a generalizable power calculator for the best performing method.

2016-2017

Genetic Determinants of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium Tuberculosis NIH URM Supplement U19AI109755-03S1 PI & Mentor to Ibrahim Diakite (Total direct costs $82,633) The major goal of this supplement was to develop and validate a prediction model that will define the optimal set of mutations to be assessed to improve the performance of rapid molecular diagnostics.

Report of Local Teaching and Training
Teaching of Students in Courses Boston University
53

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 55 of 95

1998-2001

SPH EB755: Infectious Disease Epidemiology 34 students of public health

Boston University School of Public Health 2.5-hr sessions per week for 15 weeks

Harvard School of Public Health

2001-2003

ID293: Inference in Infectious Disease Epidemiology 15 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2001-2004

EPI225: Infectious Disease Dynamics 5 medical students, 50 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2002

ID267: Infectious Disease Epidemiology Seminar 2 medical students, 8 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

2002-2003

ID229: Epidemiology of Infectious Disease Harvard School of Public Health

Developing Countries

2-hr session

50 students of public health

2002

EPI269: Epidemiological Research in Obstetrics and Gynecology 30 advanced students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 1-hr session

2003-2006

IMI202: Tuberculosis 10 medical students, 10 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr sessions

2003-2004

ID287: Bioterrorism: Public Health Preparedness and Response 30 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 1-hr session

2004-2007 EPI285: Infectious Disease Dynamics 50 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 5-hr per week for 16 weeks

2008-2015 EPI501: Dynamics of Infectious Diseases 50 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2008-2010

GHP539: The Social, Political and Economic Dimensions of Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries 20 medical and graduate students of public health
54

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 56 of 95

2008

IMI 227: Genetics and Genomics of Infectious Diseases: Tuberculosis, Malaria 25 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2008-2015

ID269: Respiratory Epidemiology 18 medical and graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public 2-hr sessions

2009-2011

IMI202: Tuberculosis the Host, the Organism and the Global 9 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2015, 2017, Epi225

2019

Epidemiology of HIV

30 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2016 -

Epi502: Biology and Epidemiology of Antibiotic Resistance 20 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

Harvard University/FAS

2004

FAS Freshman Seminar 24p: How

Epidemics Happen

12 undergraduate students

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 3-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

2005-2006

FAS Freshman Seminar 25m: Epidemics as Harvard College

a Metaphor

2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

12 undergraduate students

2006-2007

FAS Freshman Seminar 25m: What Epidemics Mean: Infectious Disease in a Social Context 12 undergraduate students

Harvard College 2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

Formal Teaching of Residents, Clinical Fellows and Research Fellows (post-docs)

2003

The Transmission Dynamics of M. tuberculosis: Models and Molecular

Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology

Epidemiology

Harvard School of Public Health

One-hour lecture

2004

Transmission of TB in the Community Invited Lecture
55

Infectious Disease Society of America Boston, MA One-hour lecture

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 57 of 95

2007

Genetic Heterogeneity in M. tuberculosis

Department of Genetics and Complex Diseases Harvard School of Public Health One-hour lecture

Clinical Supervisory and Training Responsibilities
1996-2007 Attending and supervision of clinical infectious disease fellows/Massachusetts General Hospital

Daily supervision for 6 weeks per year

Laboratory and Other Research Supervisory and Training Responsibilities
2002-2004 Supervision of Julia E. Aledort, doctoral Weekly mentorship for 18 months research fellow/Harvard School of Public Health

2002-2006 Supervision of Stephen Resch, doctoral Weekly mentorship for 18 months research fellow/Harvard School of Public Health

2004-2006 Supervision of Johanna Daily, Master's student /Harvard School of Public Health

Monthly mentorship for 24 months

2007-2008 Supervision of Preetika Muthukrishnan, Weekly mentorship for 24 months Master’s student/Harvard School of Public Health

2009

Supervision of Daniel Pletzer, Undergraduate intern/Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Hagenberg, Austria

Daily laboratory mentorship for 3 months

2010

Supervision of Matsie Mphahlele, doctoral candidate at Stellenbosch University, Visiting Fogarty scholar

Weekly mentorship for 3 months

2010

Supervision of Laurence Laser, visiting Master’s student from Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Weekly mentorship for 9 months

56

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 58 of 95

2018

Supervision of Junkun Ren, Master’s student in epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Mentorship for 3 months

Formally Supervised Trainees and Faculty
1999-2004 Caroline Korves, ScD / Epidemiologist, Analysis Group, Inc. I was Dr. Korves’s doctoral supervisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Published two research papers together, one in PLoS Medicine and Clinical Infectious Disease.

2001-2006

Theodore Cohen, MD, MPH, DPH / Professor, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Yale University I was Dr. Cohen's DPH advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health and his primary mentor on his NIH K08 grant. Published 36 research papers together, including one in Science, one in Nature Medicine, and one in PNAS.

2003-2005

Anson Wright, MSc / WASH Advisor, Millennium Villages Project I supervised Ms. Wright’s master’s thesis on preparedness for a Yersinia pestis bioterrorism attack.

2004-2006

Kristina Wallengren, PhD, MPH / Executive Director and Founder, THINK (Tuberculosis and HIV Investigative Network) I was Dr. Wallengren's post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published three papers together.

2004-2010

Molly Franke, ScD / Assistant Professor, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Franke's doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health and continue to mentor her in her role at HMS. We have published 18 research papers together.

2005-2010

Erin Johnson, PhD / Associate Professor, Department of Biology, John Carroll University I was Dr. Johnson’s post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published two papers together in FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology and Infection and Immunity.

2005-2009

Hsien-Ho Lin, MD, MPH, ScD / Associate Professor in Epidemiology, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Public Health I was Dr. Lin's advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published nine research papers together, including in PLoS Medicine, the Lancet, and American Journal Respiratory Critical Care Medicine.

57

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 59 of 95

2005-2011

Meghan Baker, MD / Instructor, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute I was Dr. Baker's advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. We have published five papers together.

2006-2009

Andreas Sandgren, MSc, PhD / Deputy Head, ReAct Europe I was Dr. Sandgren’s post-doctoral research advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published three research papers together, including one in PLoS Medicine.

2006-2010

Christie Jeon, MSc, ScD / Assistant Professor, Cedars-Sinai Division of Hematology/Oncology and Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health I was Dr. Jeon’s doctoral advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. We published ten research papers together including one in PLoS Medicine.

2006-2011

Kathleen Wirth, ScD / Research Scientist, Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health I was Dr. Wirth’s doctoral advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. We published two papers together, including one in Epidemiology.

2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2008-2013 2008-2010 2009-2015

Caroline Colijn, PhD / Professor, Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University I was Dr. Colijn’s post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published twelve research papers together, including one in American Journal Respiratory Critical Care Medicine and one in PLoS Computational Biology.
Gape Machao, MSc / Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, UNICEF Botswana I supervised Mr. Machao’s master’s thesis on rapid diagnostic testing for TB in Botswana.
Ellen Brooks-Pollock, MSc, PhD / Lecturer, Veterinary Public Health, Bristol Veterinary School I was Dr. Pollock’s post-doctoral research advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published two papers together.
Karen Jacobson, MD / Assistant Professor of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston University School of Medicine I was Dr. Jacobson’s research mentor for her infectious disease post-doctoral research fellowship. We published nine papers together.
Tsering Pema Lama, MSc. Postdoctoral Fellow / Consultant, The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health I supervised Ms. Lama’s master’s thesis.
Matthew Bonds, PhD / Assistant Professor, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School

58

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 60 of 95

I was Dr. Bonds’ mentor on his K award on poverty traps and currently mentor him in his role in my department. We have published five papers and two book chapters together.

2009-2012

Razvan Sultana, MD, PhD / Computational Biologist, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine
I co-supervised Dr. Sultana’s doctoral thesis in Bio-informatics at Boston University on genomic analysis of drug resistant TB. We have published three papers together.

2010-2016

Hanna Guimaraes, MA, PhD / Postdoctoral Researcher, RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment I was Ms. Guimaraes’ doctoral adviser while she conducted research for her degree from Portugal. We published four papers together.

2010-2016

Maha Farhat, MD, MSc / Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Farhat’s postdoctoral mentor and supervised her analysis of whole genome sequence data on M. tuberculosis for the identification of novel mutations associated with drug resistance. We have published 12 papers together.

2010

Joanne Salmon, MD, MPH / Clinical Instructor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia I supervised Dr. Salmon’s master’s thesis on community health workers and impact on TB treatment outcomes: a multi-country proposal.

2010-2014 Chuan-Chin Huang, MS, ScD / Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Huang’s doctoral adviser. We have published eight papers together.

2010-2014

Olivia Oxlade, PhD / Epidemiologist and Modeler, McGill International TB Centre I was Dr. Oxlade’s postdoctoral research supervisor in her work on modeling the determinants of TB. We published three papers together.

2010-2016

MaryCatherine Arbour, MD / Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I mentored this junior faculty member at the Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in her work on education and health outcomes in a cluster randomized trial of school-based interventions in Santiago, Chile. We published two papers together.

2011

Devra Barter, MS / Emerging Infections Epidemiologist, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
I co-supervised Ms. Barter’s master’s thesis on out-of-pocket expenses during TB treatment which is published in BMC Public Health.

2011-2013

Silvan Vesenbeckh, MD / Senior Registrar, Infectious Diseases, Groote Schuur Hospital 59

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 61 of 95

I supervised Dr. Vesenbeckh’s postdoctoral work on cholera transmission in the DRC and Haiti. We published three papers together.

2011-2015

Philips Loh, MS / Doctoral candidate, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health I supervised Mr. Loh’s master’s thesis and served as his doctoral adviser.

2012-2013

Alexis Krumme, MS, ScD / Research Specialist, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital I supervised Ms. Krumme’s master’s thesis. We published one paper together.

2012-2015 Xeno Acharya, MPH / Senior Consultant, Healthcare AI, PA Consulting I was Mr. Acharya’s doctoral adviser. We have published one paper.

2013-2014

Anna Odone, MD, MPH, PhD / Associate Professor of Public Health, Università VitaSalute San Raffaele
I was Ms. Odone’s postdoctoral research supervisor for her work on socioeconomic risk factors for acquired and primary MDR-TB in Lima, Peru. We published one paper together.

2013-2014

Sachin Atre, PhD / Study Coordinator, Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Global Health Education I supervised Dr. Atre’s work on MDR-TB management and policy in India, and the effective use of information technology in TB control. We published one paper together.

2013-2015 Emilia Ling, MS / Medical Student, Stanford University I supervised Ms. Ling’s master’s thesis at HSPH. We published one paper together.

2013-2016

Assumpta Mukabutera, PhD / Instructor, University of Rwanda School of Public Health I supervised Dr. Mukabutera’s doctoral thesis on rainfall and child health outcomes. We published three papers together.

2014-2016 Rebecca Butler, MS / Biostatistician, Kaiser Permanente I supervised Ms. Butler’s master’s thesis.

2014-2016

Gustavo Velasquez, MD, MPH / Research Associate, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I supervised Dr. Velasquez’s postdoctoral work examining the relationship between phenotypic pyrazinamide resistance and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment outcomes. We published four papers together.

2014-2017

Ibrahim Diakite, PhD / Associate Scientist in Modeling & Meta-Analysis, Pharmerit International
60

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 62 of 95

I supervised Dr. Diakite’s postdoctoral project that aimed to advance the quantitative study of communicable diseases especially the Mycobacterium Tuberculosis by using a combination of different mathematical techniques such as differential equations, stochastic process, branching process, and mathematical game theory. We published two papers together.

2014-2018

Omowunmi Aibana, MD, MPH / Assistant Professor, General Internal Medicine, University of Texas McGovern Medical School I supervised Dr. Aibana’s work on Tuberculosis in Ukraine through a T32 mechanism based at Brown Medical School. We published five papers together.

2014-2019

Eric Mooring, MPhil, ScD / Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention I was Dr. Mooring’s doctoral adviser. We have published three papers together.

2014-2020

Ruoran Li, MPhil / Doctoral Student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. I was Dr. Li’s doctoral adviser. We have published one paper together.

2016-2018

Silvia Chiang, MD / Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Brown Alpert Medical School I supervised Dr. Chiang in her postdoctoral study of adolescent tuberculosis. We have published two papers together and have one under review.

2017-2018

Katrin Sadigh, MD / Fogarty Global Health Fellow, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I supervised Dr. Sadigh in her clinical research as part of the Department of Infectious Disease, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Massachusetts General Hospital combined program.

2017-2019

Taylor Chin, BA / Master’s student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I supervised Ms. Chin’s master’s thesis.

2017-2019

Tori Cowger, MPH / Doctoral Student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I was Ms. Cowger’s doctoral adviser.

2017-

Alexander Chu, MPH / Post-baccalaureate premedical candidate, Harvard Extension School.

2017-

Annelies Mesman, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I supervised Annelies Mesman in her postdoctoral study of tuberculosis. We have published two papers together.
61

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 63 of 95

2019

Gerson Galdos Cardenas, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

2019-

Kamela Ng, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

2019-

Qi Tan, MD, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

Presentations
Invited Presentations and Courses Local, Regional, National, and International Invited Presentations and Courses

Local Invited Presentations

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001

Styblo's Rule revisited

Freeman Symposium Research Seminar

Department of Epidemiology

Harvard School of Public Health

2002-2003

Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Invited Lecture Hot Topics Series Harvard School of Public Health

2003

The transmission dynamics of M. Tuberculosis: Models and Molecular Epidemiology Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health

2003

Inferring the evolution of M. Tuberculosis from comparative genomics Research Seminar Infectious Disease Unit Harvard Medical School

2003

The epidemiology of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Invited lecture Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

2003

Transmission dynamics, epidemiology and SARS Research Seminar
62

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 64 of 95

2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007

Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Modeling the molecular epidemiology of TB Freeman Symposium Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Molecular epidemiology and the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
The epidemiology of SARS Hot Topic Series Harvard School of Public Health
Epidemiology of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis Grand Rounds Massachusetts General Hospital
Iron metabolism and M. Tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
Natural variation in M. Tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
Avian influenza Department of Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health
Three epidemics and how they happened Department of Epidemiology Seminar Harvard School of Public Health
Transmission dynamics of drug sensitive and resistant tuberculosis infectious disease Research Seminar Partners Infectious Disease Boston, MA
Genetic heterogeneity in M. Tuberculosis Department of Genetics and Complex Diseases Harvard School of Public Health
Epidemiology of HIV and tuberculosis 63

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 65 of 95

2008 2008 2008
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011

Department of Epidemiology Seminar Harvard School of Public Health
A multi-disciplinary approach to MDR and XDR tuberculosis Department of Epidemiology Seminar Series Harvard School of Public Health
Making multidisciplinary research work: the example of MDR tuberculosis Seminar Series Department of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Conducting research in international settings Best Practices in International Scientific Collaboration (Panel discussion) 2nd annual New England Tuberculosis Retreat Harvard Initiative for Global Health Harvard Medical School
Genomic epidemiology of MDR and XDR tuberculosis The Broad Institute
A multi-disciplinary approach to XDR tuberculosis Grand Rounds Department of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Social justice and the effort to address MDR TB Symposium on an Idea of Justice Harvard University and the China Research Council
The evolution of drug resistant tuberculosis Grand Rounds Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital
Overview of Murray research team Freeman Symposium Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Deans’ Research Update Harvard School of Public Health
Innovation in global health Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine Bicentennial Reunion
64

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 66 of 95

2013 2014 2015 2015 2015 2017 2017 2017 2018 2020

Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital
TB in the 21st century: the convergence of the infectious and metabolic diseases Seventh Annual New England Tuberculosis Symposium The Broad Institute
Ebola and the research equity agenda Global Health Advisory Council Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
Ebola Update Global Health Advisory Council Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
HIV and TB co-infection Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Boston, MA
Burke Global Health Fellowship Symposium Harvard Global Health Institute Cambridge, MA
Host and bacterial determinants of TB infection and disease: a longitudinal cohort study Spring Seminar Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Host and bacterial determinants of TB infection and disease: insights from a large cohort study IDMP Seminar Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
Tuberculosis and the vitamin A connection Talks at 12 Harvard Medical School
How to write an NIH grant Training to Teachers Mongolia Harvard Medical School
SARS-CoV-2: Assessing the risks Environmental Health Risk: Analysis and Applications (RISK0320) Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
65

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 67 of 95

2020 2020 2020 2020

The epidemiology of COVID-19: Evaluation of Treatment and Response GHSM Seminar - Social Medicine: Response to COVID-19 Harvard Medical School
The Epidemiology of COVID-19 MassCPR webinar
BCG and innate immune responses Pathogenesis Working group MassCPR webinar
The transmission dynamics of COVID-19 BCMP Seminar Harvard Medical School

Regional

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001

Genetics and phenotypic variability within M. Tuberculosis

Invited lecture

Boston University

2001

Problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Research Seminar Massachusetts State Laboratory Institute (MSLI), Boston, MA

2006

Three epidemics Kay Stratton Lecture Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

2015

Converging epidemics: tuberculosis and diabetes Oxford Immunotec Marlborough, MA

National

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2004

Transmission of TB in the community

Infectious Disease Society of America, Boston, MA

2006

Modeling MDR tuberculosis National Partners Meeting on MDR Tuberculosis, Atlanta, GA

2006

Transmission dynamics of Drug Resistant tuberculosis Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, CA
66

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 68 of 95

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Host iron metabolism genes Workshop on Biofilms, Iron and Drug Refractory TB Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
The impact of strains diversity and mechanisms of strains competition on the Potential Performance of New TB Vaccines Microbial Diseases Lecture Series Yale School of Public Health, Hartford, CT
The role of mathematical modeling in evaluating interventions to control epidemics: the example of tuberculosis Howard Hughes Medical Institute California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
An interdisciplinary approach to extensively drug resistant tuberculosis Howard Hughes Medical Institute California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Number of MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients receiving treatment today: Successes/Failures/Consequences Forum on Drug Discovery, Development and Translation Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington, DC
The evolution of XDR-TB in M. tuberculosis Seminar Series Biology Department Williams College, Williamstown, MA
The evolution of XDR-TB in M. tuberculosis: a multidisciplinary approach Grand Rounds Presentation Division of Infectious Diseases Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
Mathematical modeling Infectious Diseases Clinical Cases Conference Division of Infectious Diseases Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
The evolution of XDR-TB: a multidisciplinary approach 2009 National TB Conference-TB Elimination-“It Takes a Village” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
The Gates Project overview Mycobacteriology Laboratory Branch (MLB) Division of Tuberculosis Elimination Seminar Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
67

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 69 of 95

2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2015

Social, economic and biological determinants of tuberculosis Taskforce for Disease Eradication Carter Center Atlanta, Georgia
Estimating the impact of social and biological determinants on TB and modeling their modification Texas School of Public Health Brownsville, Texas
The evolution of XDR tuberculosis Mary Hitchcock Hospital Hanover, New Hampshire
Molecular methods to detect drug resistance in M. tuberculosis Workshop on TB and HIV Diagnostics in Adult and Pediatric Populations National Institutes of Health Washington, DC
Understanding the transmission dynamics of drug resistant tuberculosis: a multidisciplinary approach Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students St. Louis, Missouri
Evolution of drug resistance World TB Day Symposium Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
High throughput sequencing of drug resistance targets for Mycobacterium tuberculosis National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Sponsored meeting Washington, DC
Genetic determinants of drug resistance in Mtb World TB Day Symposium Weill Cornell Medical College New York City, New York
Tuberculosis and diabetes The Comstock Lecture Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
68

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 70 of 95

2016 2017 2017 2018 2019 2019

Baltimore, Maryland
Tuberculosis and diabetes 20th Annual Conference of Union-North America Region/National TB Controllers Association Joint Meeting Denver, Colorado
Risk factors for TB disease progression: evidence from a cohort study in Peru 9th Annual CEND (Center for Emerging and Neglected Diseases) Symposium: Deconstructing TB: Insights from Fundamental Research University of California, Berkeley, California
Public health and the environment: interdisciplinary research and emerging infectious disease Ecology & Evolution of Infectious Diseases UC Santa Barbara, California
Women in science 2018 Women in Science Symposium Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado
Who gets TB infection and disease in Lima, Peru Epidemiology Grand Rounds Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health New York, New York
Who gets TB infection and disease in Lima, Peru UPGG Tuesday Seminar Series Duke University Durham, North Carolina

International No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001 2002

Determinants of cluster distribution in M. tuberculosis Research Seminar University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
Pathogenesis of tuberculosis Invited Lecture Peruvian Thoracic Society, Lima, Peru
69

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 71 of 95

2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008

Problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Research Seminar Karolinski Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
The fitness of MDR-TB: what do we know Invited Lecture World Health Organization, Tallin, Estonia
Molecular epidemiology of TB in Sverdlosk, Russia Invited Lecture International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUTLD) Meeting Moscow, Russia
The fitness of MDR-TB strains Invited Lecture Desmond Tutu Center for Tuberculosis Research University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa
The current and future status of Multi-Drug Resistant TB Invited Lecture Novartis Symposium on TB Drug Development, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
XDR-TB surveillance Task Force on XDR-TB World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Mathematical models of population effects of potential TB vaccines Keystone Symposium of Challenges of Global Vaccine Development Cape Town, South Africa
Modeling vaccine effects Modeling Symposium at the 38th Union World Conference on Lung Health Cape Town, South Africa
Genomic epidemiology of infectious diseases: a new science US-Japan Meeting Hainan, China
The molecular evolution of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis Keystone Symposium of Pathogenesis and Control of Emerging Infections and Drug-Resistant Organisms Bangkok, Thailand
TB Drug Resistance Mutation Database 39th Union World Conference 2008
70

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 72 of 95

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010

International Union of TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
The evolution of multi-drug resistance in M. tuberculosis Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Workshop on the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance Imperial College, London, England
The evolution of multi-drug resistance in M. tuberculosis School of Biosciences Seminar Series University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England
Diagnosis of drug resistant TB Fondation Mérieux International Scientific Conference on Latest Approaches to HIV Infection Management: A Focus on HIV, TB and HIV/Hepatitis Co-Infection New Delhi, India
Tuberculosis and diabetes: interactions between two epidemics TB/DM Expert Meeting International Union of TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
Differences between epidemiology of TB in rich and poor countries Union World Conference of Lung Health Cancun, Mexico
Modeling the potential impact of changing risk factors and social determinants Union World Conference of Lung Health Cancun, Mexico
The evolution of drug resistance in TB Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland
Identification of drug resistance mutations in M. tuberculosis Fondation Mérieux Annecy, France
Guidelines for management of tuberculosis and diabetes World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland
Data for developing diagnostics for MDR TB Christian Medical College Vellore, India
71

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 73 of 95

2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013
2013

Beyond labs and pills for improved tuberculosis control: what role for TB programmes? 41st Union World Conference on Lung Health Berlin, Germany
Iron transport polymorphisms and TB susceptibility Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland
Evaluating health interventions using DHS oversamples Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Population Health Implementation Training Partnership Grantee Meeting Ifakara, Tanzania
Overview: Transmission dynamics and epidemiology of drug resistant TB Lima, Peru
The transmission dynamics of drug resistant TB Harvard China Fund Shanghai, China
Understanding the epidemic dynamics of drug resistant TB Keystone Symposia Conference – Drug Resistance and Persistence in Tuberculosis Kampala, Uganda
The social, environmental and biologic determinants of tuberculosis TB Day in Braga: From the hospital to the bench and back. Braga, Portugal
Studying the link between nutrition and TB Risk: problems and strategies International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
TB and diabetes: what we know, what we don’t know International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Genetic diversity of DR TB: implication for future diagnostics Institute of Medicine and Chinese Academy of Sciences Workshop The Global Crisis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis and the Leadership of the BRICS Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Beijing, China
Evolution of drug-resistance in TB genomes 72

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 74 of 95

2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017

International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
The genetics and pathogenesis of MDR and XDR TB drug resistance Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) Boston, MA
Genetic basis for transmission of MDR-TB 9th International Conference on the Pathogenesis of Mycobacterial Infections Stockholm, Sweden
Issues in the management and prevention of drug resistant and sensitive TB Invited Lecture Bogomolets National Medical University Kiev, Ukraine
TB and diabetes mellitus outcomes 19th Annual Conference of the Union-North America Region Vancouver, BC, Canada
The transmissibility of drug resistant TB RePort Consortium Meeting Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
The TB drug resistance database 46th Union World Conference on Lung Health Cape Town, South Africa
Diabetes and environmental co‐morbidities with TB Keystone Symposia Conference - Tuberculosis Co-Morbidities and Immunopathogenesis Keystone, Colorado
Enabling next generation whole genome sequencing readouts directly from sputum samples and in the clinic: hype or hope? 47th Union World Conference on Lung Health Liverpool, United Kingdom
Infectiousness and transmission of tuberculosis American Thoracic Society 2017 International Meeting Washington, DC
Recent insights in the meaning of latency in tuberculosis 30th Annual Doctor Dorothy Wiselberg Seminar
73

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 75 of 95

2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019
2020 2020

McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada
Next generation whole genome sequencing for tuberculosis: ready for clinical practice? 48th Union World Conference on Lung Health Guadalajara, Mexico
Estimating the adolescent tuberculosis burden in the 30 high-TB burden countries 48th Union World Conference on Lung Health Guadalajara, Mexico
Insights into TB from a longitudinal cohort study in Lima, Peru National TB program Lima, Peru
Insights into TB from a longitudinal cohort study in Lima, Peru Otago University Dunedin, New Zealand
Grant Writing Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Bacterial determinants of TB progression 50th Union World Conference on Lung Health Hyderabad, India
Genetic variations of mycobacterium tuberculosis that are associated with tuberculosis transmission 50th Union World Conference on Lung Health Hyderabad, India
The COVID-19 Research Agenda Partners in Health
SARS-CoV-2 Partners in Health

Report of Clinical Activities and Innovations

Current Licensure and Certification

1996

Licensed in Medicine in Massachusetts

74

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 76 of 95

1996 1997

Board Certified in Internal Medicine Board Certified in Infectious Disease

Practice Activities

1998 – 2007

Attending Physician

Infectious Disease Consult Services, MGH, Boston, MA

3-5 new consults, 2030 follow-ups per day 3-6 weeks per year

The unit provides consults on infectious disease issues to all medical, surgical and other specialty

wards. I saw patients referred to the specialty unit in conjunction with a team that includes an

infectious disease fellow and rotating medical students and residents. In addition to this bedside

clinical teaching, I also participated in weekly clinical conferences and seminars that are

designed to maximize teaching.

Report of Scholarship
Peer reviewed publications in print or other media
Research investigations
1. Murray MJ, Murray NJ, Murray AB, Murray MB. Refeeding-malaria and hyperferraemia. Lancet 1975;1:653-4.
2. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Somali food shelters in the Ogaden famine and their impact on health. Lancet 1976 Jun 12;1:1283-5.
3. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Parotid enlargement, forehead edema, and suppression of malaria as nutritional consequences of ascariasis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Dec;30(12):2117-21.
4. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Diet and cerebral malaria: the effect of famine and refeeding. Am J Clin Nutr. 1978 Jan;31(1):57-61.
5. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Serum cholesterol, triglycerides and heart disease of nomadic and sedentary tribesmen consuming isoenergetic diets of high and low fat content. Br J Nutr. 1978 Jan;39(1):159-63.
6. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. The effect of iron status of Nigerien mothers on that of their infants at birth and 6 months, and on the concentration of Fe in breast milk. Br J Nutr. 1978 May;39(3):627-30.
7. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. The adverse effect of iron repletion on the course of certain infections. Br Med J 1978 Oct 21;2:1113-5.
8. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Molluscum contagiosum and herpes simplex in Maasai pastoralists; refeeding activation of virus infection following famine? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1980;74(3):371-4.
75

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 77 of 95
9. Murray JM, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Rarity of planar warts in Cushite nomads: antiviral effect of milk? Lancet. 1980 Jul 19;2(8186):143-4.
10. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Infections during severe primary undernutrition and subsequent refeeding: paradoxical findings. Aust N Z J Med. 1995 Oct;25(5):507-11.
11. Murray M, Rasmussen Z. Measles Outbreak in a Northern Pakistani village: epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness. Am J Epidemiology 2000;1:811-9.
12. Piatek A, Telenti A, Murray M, El-Hajj H, Jacobs WR Jr, Kramer FR, Alland D. Genotypic analysis of M. tuberculosis in two distinct populations using molecular beacons: implications for rapid susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;1:103-10.
13. Murray MB, Determinants of cluster distribution in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb; 99:1538-43.
14. Murray MB, Alland D. Methodological problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Am. J. Epidemiology 2002;155: 565-71.
15. Murray MB. Sampling bias in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2002 Apr; 4:363-9.
16. Hughes A, Friedman R, Murray M. Genomewide pattern of synonymous nucleotide substitution in two complete genomes of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2002 Nov;8:1342-6.
17. Murray MB. Molecular epidemiology and the dynamics of tuberculosis transmission among foreign-born people. CMAJ 2002;167:355-6.
18. Lipsitch M, Murray MB. Multiple equilibria: Tuberculosis transmission require unrealistic assumptions. Theor Popul Biol 2003 Mar; 63:169-7.
19. Alland D, Whittam T, Murray M, Cave DM, Hazbon M, Dix K, Kokoris M, Duesterhoeft A, Eisen JA, Fraser CM, Fleischmann RD. Modeling bacterial evolution with comparativegenome based marker systems. Application to M. tuberculosis evolution and pathogenesis. J Bacteriol 2003;185:3392-9.
20. Lipsitch M, Cohen T, Cooper B, Robins JM, Ma S, James L, Gopalakrishna G, Chew SK, Tan CC, Fisman D, Samore M, Murray M. Transmission dynamics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science 2003; 300:1966-70.
21. Kudva IT, Griffin RW, Murray M, John M, Perna NT, Barrett TJ, and Calderwood SB. Insertions, deletions and single nucleotide polymorphisms at rare restriction enzyme sites enhance discriminatory power of polymorphic amplified typing sequences, a novel strain typing system for escherichia coli O157:H7. J Clin Microbiol 2004 Jun;42:2388-97.
22. Cohen T**, Becerra MC, Murray MB. Isoniazid resistance and the future of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Microb Drug Resist 2004;10:280-5.
23. Cohen T**, Murray M. Modeling epidemics of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis of heterogeneous fitness. Nat Med 2004 Oct;10:1117-21.
24. Becerra MC, Pachao-Torreblanca IF, Bayona J, Celi R, Shin S, Kim JY, Farmer P, Murray M. Expanding tuberculosis case detection by screening household contacts. Public Health Rep 2005;120:271-7.
25. Cohen T**, Murray M. Incident tuberculosis among recent US immigrants and exogenous reinfection. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:725-8.
76

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 78 of 95
26. Korves C**, Goldie S, Murray M. Cost-effectiveness of alternative blood screening strategies for West Nile Virus in the United States. PLoS Med 2006; 3:0211-21.
27. Louw GE, Warren RM, Donald PR, Murray MB, Bosman M, Van Helden PD, Young D, Victor TC. Frequency and implications of pyrazinamide resistance in managing previously treated tuberculosis patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006 Jul;10:802-7.
28. Cohen T**, Lipsitch M, Walensky R, Murray M. Beneficial and perverse effects of isoniazid preventive therapy for latent tuberculosis infection in HIV-TB co-infected populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006 May 2;103:7042-7.
29. Resch S, Salomon J, Murray M, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness of treating multidrugresistant tuberculosis. PLoS Med 2006 Jul;3:1302-9.
30. Mathew TA, Shin SS, Ovsynakova TN, Gelmanova I, Balbuena D, Atwood S, Peremetin GG, Strelis AK, Murray M. Causes of death during TB treatment in Tomsk Oblast, Russia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006; 10:857-63.
31. Korves C**, Goldie S, Murray M. Blood screening for the West Nile virus: the costeffectiveness of a real-time trigger-based strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2006 Aug 15;43:490-3.
32. Hazbón MH, Brimacombe M, Bobadilla del Valle M, Cavatore M, Guerrer MI, Varma-Basil M, Billman-Jacobe H, Lavender B, Fyfe J, García-García L, León C, Bose M, Chaves G, Murray M, Eisenach KD, Sifuentes-Osornio J, Cave MD, Ponce de León A, Alland D. Population genetics study of isoniazid resistance mutations and evolution of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:2640-9.
33. Johnson R, Warren R, Strauss OJ, Jordaan AM, Falmer AA, Beyers N, Schaaf HS, Cloete K, Murray M, van Helden PD, Victor TC. An outbreak of drug resistant tuberculosis caused by a Beijing strain in the Western Cape, South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:1412-4.
34. Lipsitch M, Cohen T, Murray M, Levin BR. Antiviral resistance and the control of pandemic influenza. PLoS Med 2007 Jan;4:0111-21.
35. Lin HH**, Ezzati M, Murray M. Tobacco smoke, indoor air pollution and tuberculosis – A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2007: 0173-89.
36. Gelmanova I, Keshavjee S, Golubchikova VT, Berezina VI, Sterlis AK, Yanova GV, Atwood S, Murray M. Barriers to successful tuberculosis treatment in Tomsk, Russia: Non-adherence, default and the acquisition of multi-drug resistance. Bull WHO 2007;85:703-11.
37. Victor TC, Streicher EM, Kewley C, Jordaan AM, van der Spuy GD, Bosman M, Louw H, Murray M, Young D, van Helden PD, Warren RM. Spread of an emerging Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug-resistant strain in the Western Cape of South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2007;11:195-201.
38. Colijn C**, Cohen T, Murray M. Emergent heterogeneity in tuberculosis epidemics. J Theor Biol 2007 Aug 21;247:765-74.
39. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Wright A, Zignol M, Pym A, Murray M. Challenges in estimating the total burden of drug resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008 Jun 15; 177:1302-6.
40. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Finklea B, Murray M. Exogenous re-infection and the dynamics of tuberculosis epidemics: local effects in a network model of transmission. J R Soc Interface 2007 Jun 22;4:523-31.
77

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 79 of 95
41. Franke MF**, Appleton SC, Bayona J, Arteaga F, Palacios E, Llaro K, Shin SS, Becerra MC, Murray MB, Mitnick CD. Risk factors and mortality associated with default from multidrugresistant tuberculosis treatment. Clin Infect Dis 2008 June 15;46:1844-51.
42. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Finklea B, Wright A, Zignol M, Pym A, Murray M. Are survey based estimates of the burden of drug resistant TB too low?: Insight from a simulation study. PLoS One 2008;3:e2363.
43. Jeon CY**, Murray M. Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of active tuberculosis: A systematic review of 13 observational studies. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e152.
44. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Murray M. Modeling the effects of strain diversity and mechanisms of strain competition on the potential performance of new tuberculosis vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 21;105(42):16302-7.
45. Lin HH**, Murray M, Cohen T, Colijn C, Ezzati M. Integrated analysis of respiratory diseases and risk factors in China: The effects of smoking and solid fuel use on COPD, lung cancer, and tuberculosis. Lancet 2008; 372:1473-83.
46. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Murray M. Latent coinfection and maintenance of strain diversity. Bull Math Biol 2009;71:247-63.
47. Sandgren A**, Strong M, Muthukrishnan P, Weiner BK, Church GM, MB Murray. Tuberculosis drug resistance mutation database. PLoS Med 2009;6:e2.
48. Uys PW, Warren R, van Helden PD, Murray M, Victor TC. Potential of rapid diagnosis for controlling drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis in communities where Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections are highly prevalent. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:148490.
49. Lin HH**, Ezzati M, Chang HY, Murray M. Association between tobacco smoking and active tuberculosis in Taiwan: prospective cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009 Sep 1;180(5):475-80.
50. Colijn C**, Brandes A, Zucker J, Lun DS, Weiner B, Farhat MR, Cheng TY, Moody DB, Murray M, Galagan JE. Interpreting expression data with metabolic flux models: predicting Mycobacterium tuberculosis mycolic acid production. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(8):e1000489.
51. Brooks-Pollock E**, Cohen T, Murray M. The impact of realistic age structure in simple models of tuberculosis transmission. PLoS One. 2010 Jan 7;5(1):e8479.
52. Johnson EE**, Srikanth C, Sandgren A, Harrington L, Trebicka E, Wang L, Borregaard N, Murray M, Cherayil B. Siderocalin inhibits the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophages. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2010 Feb;58(1):138-45.
53. Harries AD, Murray MB, Jeon CY, Ottmani S, Lonnroth K, Barreto, ML, Billo N, Brostron R, Bygbjerg IC, Fisher-Hock S, Mori T, Ramaiya K, Roglic G, Stransgaard H, Unwin N, Viswanathan V, Whiting D, Kapur A. Defining the research agenda to reduce the joint burden of disease from Diabetes Mellitus and Tuberculosis. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15(6):659-63.
54. Calver AD, Falmer AA, Murray M, Strauss OJ, Streicher EM, Hanekom M, Liversage M, Masibi M, van Helden PD, Warren RM, Victor TC. Emergence of increased resistance and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis despite treatment adherence, South Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 Feb;16(2):264-71.
78

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 80 of 95
55. Cohen T**, Murray M, Wallengren K, Samuel L, Wilson D. The prevalence of drug sensitive and drug resistant tuberculosis among patients dying in hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a postmortem study. PLoS Med. 2010;7(6):e1000296.
56. Jacobson KR**, Tierney DB, Jeon CY, Mitnick CD, Murray M. Treatment outcomes among patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Jul 1;51(1):6-14.
57. Becerra MC, Appleton SC, Franke MF, Chalco K, Bayona J, Murray M, Mitnick CD. Recurrence after treatment for pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Sep 15;51(6):709-11.
58. Wirth KE**, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Murray M. Adjustment for missing data in complex surveys using doubly robust estimation: Application to commercial sexual contact among Indian men. Epidemiology. 2010 Nov;21(6):863-71.
59. Jeon CY**, Harries AD, Baker MA, Hart JA, Gooneskera S, Murray MB. Bi-directional screening for tuberculosis and diabetes: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Nov;15(11):1300-14.
60. Ottmani S, Murray MB, Jeon CY**, Baker MA**, Kapur A, Lonnroth K, Harries AD. Consultation: Meeting on Tuberculosis and Diabetes Mellitus: Meeting summary and recommendations. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010 Dec;14(12):1513-7.
61. Johnson EE**, Sandgren A, Cherayil BJ, Murray M, Wessling-Resnick M. The role of ferroportin in macrophage-mediated immunity. Infect Immun. 2010 Dec;78(12):5099-106.
62. Jeon CY**, Calver AD, Victor TC, Warren RM, Shin SS, Murray MB. Use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics leads to tuberculosis treatment delay in a South African gold mining community. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Jan;15(1):77-83.
63. Cohen T**, Wilson D, Wallengren K, Samuel EY, Murray M. Mixed strain M. tuberculosis infections among patients dying in hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(1):385-8.
64. Becerra MC, Appleton SC, Franke MF, Chalco F, Arteaga F, Bayona J, Murray M, Atwood SS, Mitnick CD. Tuberculosis burden in households of patients with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. Lancet. 2011 Jan 8;377(9760):14752.
65. Colijn C**, Cohen T, Ganesh A, Murray M. Spontaneous emergence of multiple drug resistance in TB before and during therapy. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 30;6(3):e18327.
66. Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Jeon CY, Cohen T, Murray MB. Diabetes mellitus and tuberculosis in countries with high tuberculosis burdens: individual risks and social determinants. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;40(2):417-28.
67. Franke MF**, Robins JM, Mugabo J, Kaigamba F, Cain LE, Fleming JG, Murray M. Effectiveness of early Antiretroviral Therapy initiation to improve survival among HIVinfected adults with tuberculosis: a retrospective study. PLoS Med. 2011 May;8(5):e1001029.
68. Murray M, Oxlade O, Lin HH. Modeling social, environmental, and biological determinants of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Jun;15 S 2:64-70.
79

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 81 of 95
69. Brooks-Pollock E**, Becerra M, Goldstein E, Cohen T, Murray M. Epidemiological inference from the distribution of tuberculosis cases in households in Lima, Peru. J Infect Dis. 2011 Jun 1;203(11):1582-9.
70. Cohen T**, Murray M, Abubakaar I, Zhang A, Sloutsky A, Arteaga F, Chalco K, Franke F, Becerra MC. Multiple introductions of multidrug resistant tuberculosis into households. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Jun;17(6):969-75.
71. Baker MA**, Harries A, Lonnroth K, Murray M. The impact of diabetes on tuberculosis treatment outcome: A systematic review. BMC Med. 2011 Jul 1;9(1):81.
72. Louw GE, Warren RM, Gey van Pittius NC, Leon R, Jimenez A, Pando RH, McEvoy CR, Grobbelaar M, Murray M, van Helden PD, Victor TC. Rifampicin Reduces Susceptibility to Ofloxacin in Rifampicin Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis through Efflux. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Jul 15;184(2):269-76.
73. Lin H**, Langley I, Mwenda R, Doulla B, Egwaga S, Millington KA, Mann GH, Murray M, Squire SB, Cohen T. A modelling framework to support the selection and implementation of new tuberculosis diagnostic tools. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Aug;15(8):996-1004.
74. Jacobson KR**, Theron D, Victor TC, Streicher EM, Warren R, Murray M. Treatment outcomes of Isoniazid-Resistant Tuberculosis patients, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;53(4):369-72.
75. Izu A, Mitnick C, Cohen T, Murray M, DeGruttola V. Bayesian methods of identifying and comparing branching tree structures: An application to development of resistant TB strains. Stat Med. 2011 Sep 30;30(22):2708-20.
76. Franke MF**, Murray MB, Muñoz M, Hernández-Díaz S, Sebastián JL, Atwood S, Caldas A, Bayona J, Shin S. Food insufficiency is a risk factor for suboptimal Antiretroviral Therapy adherence among HIV-Infected adults in urban Peru. AIDS Behav. 2011 Oct;15(7):1483-9.
77. Harries AD, Lin Y, Satyanarayana S, Lönnroth K, Li L, Wilson N, Chauhan LS, Zachariah R, Baker MA, Jeon CY**, Murray MB, Maher D, Bygbjerg IC, Enarson DA, Billo NE, Kapur A. The looming epidemic of diabetes-associated tuberculosis - learning lessons from HIVassociated tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Nov;15(11):1436-44.
78. Jeon CY**, Kang H, Kim M, Murray MB, Kim H, Cho EH, Park YK. Clustering of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from foreign-born patients in Korea. J Med Microbiol. 2011 Dec;60(Pt 12):1835-40.
79. Layre E, Sweet L, Hong S, Madigan CA, Desjardins D, Young DC, Cheng TY, Annand JW, Kim K, Shamputa IC, McConnell MJ, Debono CA, Behar SM, Minnaard, AJ, Murray M, Barry CE 3rd, Matsunaga I, Moody BD. A comparative lipidomics platform for chemotaxonomic analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Chem Biol. 2011 Dec 23;18(12):1537-49.
80. Weiner B, Gomez J, Victor TC, Warren RB, Sloustky A, Plikyatis BB, Posey J, van Helden P, van Pittius, NG, Koerhsen M, Sisk P, Stolte C, While J, Gagneux S, Birren B, Hung D, Murray M, Galagan J. Independent Large Scale Duplications in Multiple M. tuberculosis Lineages Overlapping the Same Genomic Region. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e26038.
81. Rich M, Miller AC, Niyigena, P, Franke M, Niyonzima JB, Socci A, Drobac P, Hakizamungu, Mayfield A, Ruhayisah R, Epino H, Stulac S, Cancedda C, Karamaga A, Niyonzima S, Yarbrough C Fleming J, Amoroso C, Mukherjee J, Murray M, Farmer P, Binagwaho A. Excellent Clinical Outcomes and High Retention in Care Among Adults in a Community-
80

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 82 of 95
based HIV Treatment Program in Rural Rwanda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 Mar 1;59(3):e35-42. 82. Baker M**, Lin HH, Chang HY, Murray M. The risk of tuberculosis disease among people with diabetes, a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):818-25. 83. Baker MA**, Wilson D, Wallengren K, Sandgren A, Iartchouk O, Broodie N, Goonesekera S, Sabeti P, Murray M. Polymorphisms in the gene encoding the iron transport protein ferroportin 1 influence susceptibility to tuberculosis. J Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;205(7):1043-7. 84. Bompangue D, Vesenbeckh SM, Giraudoux P, Castro M, Muyembe Tamfun J, Kebela Ilunga B, Murray M. Cholera ante portas – The re-emergence of cholera in Kinshasa after a tenyear hiatus. Version 2. PLoS Curr. 2012 Feb 17 [revised 2012 Mar 12];4:RRN1310. 85. Rinaldo A, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Blokesch M, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Murray M, Vesenbeckh S, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. Reassessment of the 2010-2011 Haiti cholera outbreak and multi-season projections. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Apr 24;109(17):6602-7. 86. Lu C**, Chin B, Lewandowski JL, Basinga P, Hirschhorn LR, Hill K, Murray M, Binagwaho A. Towards universal health coverage: an evaluation of Rwanda Mutuelles in its first eight years. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39282. 87. Sergeev R, Colijn C, Murray M, Cohen T. Modeling the dynamic relationship between HIV and the risk of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Sci Transl Med. 2012 May 23;4(135):135ra67. 88. Jeon CY, Murray MB, Baker MA. Managing tuberculosis in patients with diabetes mellitus: why we care and what we know. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 Aug;10(8):8638. 89. Arbour M**, Murray KA, Atwood SS, Murray M, Angel Cordero Vega M. Choosing the Best Child Assessment Instrument for a Specific Context: A Methodology for Engaging Local Experts Applied in Chile. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2012 Oct;33(8):666-675. 90. Lin HH**, Dowdy D, Dye C, Murray M, Cohen T. The impact of new tuberculosis diagnostics on transmission: why context matters. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Oct 1;90(10):739747A. 91. Oxlade O**, Murray M. Tuberculosis and Poverty: Why Are the Poor at Greater Risk in India? PLoS One 2012; 7(11): e47533. 92. Kudva I. Griffin RW, Murray M, John M, Hovda CJ, Calderwood SB. Polymorphic Amplified Typing Sequences and Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis Yield Comparable Results in the Strain Typing of a Diverse Set of Bovine Escherichia coli O157:H7 Isolates. Int J Microbiol. 2012;2012:140105. 93. Menzies NA, Cohen T, Lin H-H, Murray M, Salomon JA. Population Health Impact and CostEffectiveness of Tuberculosis Diagnosis with Xpert MTB/RIF: A Dynamic Simulation and Economic Evaluation. PLoS Med 2012; 9(11): e1001347. 94. Fraser HS, Thomas D, Tomaylla J, Garcia N, Lecca L, Murray M, Becerra MC. Adaptation of a web-based, open source electronic medical record system platform to support a large study of tuberculosis epidemiology. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 7;12:125. 95. Barter DM**, Agboola SO, Murray MB, Bärnighausen T. Tuberculosis and poverty: the contribution of patient costs in sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012 Nov 14; 12(1):980.
81

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 83 of 95
96. Jacobson KR**, Theron D, Kendall EA, Franke MF, Barnard M, van Helden PD, Victor TC, Streicher EM, Murray MB, Warren RM. Implementation of GenoType MTBDRplus Reduces Time to Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Therapy Initiation in South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Feb;56(4):503-8.
97. Wirth KE**, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Silverman JG, Murray MB. How does sex trafficking increase the risk of HIV Infection? An observational study from Southern India. Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb 1;177(3):232-41.
98. Franke MF**, Appleton SC, Mitnick CD, Furin JJ, Bayona J, Chalco K, Shin SS, Murray MB, Becerra MC. Aggressive Regimens for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Reduce Recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;56(6):770-6.
99. Kato-Maeda M, Ho C, Passarelli B, Banaei N, Grinsdale J, Flores L, Anderson J, Murray M, Rose G, Kawamura LM, Pourmand N, Tariq MA, Gagneux S, Hopewell PC. Use of Whole Genome Sequencing to Determine the Microevolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during an Outbreak. PLoS One. 2013 Mar 15;8(3): e58235.
100.Reeves AZ, Campbell PJ, Sultana R, Malik S, Murray M, Plikaytis BB, Shinnick TM, Posey JE. Aminoglycoside Cross-Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Due to Mutations in the 5' Untranslated Region of whiB7. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Apr;57(4):1857-65.
101.Drobac PC, Basinga P, Condo J, Farmer PE, Finnegan KE, Hamon JK, Amoroso C, Hirschhorn LR, Kakoma JB, Lu C, Murangwa Y, Murray M, Ngabo F, Rich M, Thomson D, Binagwaho A. Comprehensive and integrated district health systems strengthening: the Rwanda Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnership. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S5.
102.Galea JT, Contreras C, Lecca L, Shin S, Lobatón R, Zhang Z, Calderón R, Murray M, Becerra MC. Rapid home-based HIV testing to reduce costs in a large tuberculosis cohort study. Public Health Action. 2013 Jun 21;3(2):172-174.
103.Ford CB, Shah RR, Maeda MK, Gagneux S, Murray MB, Cohen T, Johnston JC, Gardy J, Lipsitch M, Fortune SM. Mycobacterium tuberculosis mutation rate estimates from different lineages predict substantial differences in the emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Nat Genet. 2013 Jul;45(7):784-90.
104.Farhat MR**, Shapiro BJ, Kieser KJ, Sultana R, Jacobson KR, Victor TC, Warren RM, Streicher EM, Calver A, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Posey JE, Plikaytis B, Oggioni MR, Gardy JL, Johnston JC, Rodrigues M, Tang PK, Kato-Maeda M, Borowsky ML, Muddukrishna B, Kreiswirth BN, Kurepina N, Galagan J, Gagneux S, Birren B, Rubin EJ, Lander ES, Sabeti PC, Murray M. Genomic analysis identifies targets of convergent positive selection in drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Genet. 2013 Oct; 45(10):1183-9.
105.Lin HH**, Chiang YT, Chuang JH, Yang SL, Chang HY, Ezzati M, Murray M. Exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of tuberculosis: prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 25;8(10):e77333.
106.Kudva IT, Smole S, Griffin RW, Garren J, Kalia N, Murray M, John M, Timperi R, Calderwood SB. Polymorphic Amplified Typing Sequences (PATS) Strain Typing System Accurately Discriminates a Set of Temporally and Spatially Disparate Escherichia coli O157 Isolates Associated with Human Infection. Open Microbiol J. 2013 Oct 31;7:123-9.
82

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 84 of 95
107.Kendall EA, Theron D, Franke MF, van Helden P, Victor TC, Murray MB, Warren RM, Jacobson KR. Alcohol, hospital discharge, and socioeconomic risk factors for default from multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment in rural South Africa: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 13;8(12):e83480.
108.Johnson AD, Thomson DR, Atwood S, Alley I, Beckerman JL, Koné I, Diakité D, Diallo H, Traoré B, Traoré K, Farmer PE, Murray M, Mukherjee J. Assessing Early Access to Care and Child Survival during a Health System Strengthening Intervention in Mali: A Repeated Cross Sectional Survey. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e81304.
109.Franke MF, Del Castillo H, Pereda Y, Lecca L, Cárdenas L, Fuertes J, Murray MB, Bayona J, Becerra MC. Modifiable Factors Associated with Tuberculosis Disease in Children: A CaseControl Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014 Jan;33(1):109-11.
110.Franke MF, Del Castillo H, Pereda Y, Lecca L, Fuertes J, Cárdenas L, Becerra MC, Bayona J, Murray M. Parasite Infection and Tuberculosis Disease among Children: A Case-Control Study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Feb;90(2):279-82.
111.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, Jacobson KR, Farhat MR, Murray MB. Systematic review of allelic exchange experiments aimed at identifying mutations that confer drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Feb;69(2):331-42.
112.Huang CC**, Tchetgen ET, Becerra M, Cohen T, Hughes KC, Zhang Z, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Galea J, Lecca L, Murray M. The effect of HIV-related immunosuppression on the risk of tuberculosis transmission to household contacts. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Mar;58(6):765-74.
113.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin and isoniazid preventive therapy protect contacts of tuberculosis patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Apr 1;189(7):8539.
114.Ngonghala CN, Pluciński MM, Murray MB, Farmer PE, Barrett CB, Keenan DC, Bonds MH. Poverty, disease, and the ecology of complex systems. PLoS Biol. 2014 Apr 1;12(4):e1001827.
115.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, Borgdorff MW, Murray MB, van Soolingen D. A Novel Approach - The Propensity to Propagate (PTP) Method for Controlling for Host Factors in Studying the Transmission of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2014 May 21;9(5):e97816.
116.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Age-Specific Risks of Tuberculosis Infection from Household and Community Exposures and Opportunities for Interventions in a High-Burden Setting. Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Oct 15;180(8):853-61.
117.Langley I, Lin HH, Egwaga S, Doulla B, Ku CC, Murray M, Cohen T, Squire SB. Assessment of the patient, health system, and population effects of Xpert MTB/RIF and alternative diagnostics for tuberculosis in Tanzania: an integrated modelling approach. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Oct;2 (10):e581-91.
118.Farhat MR**, Shapiro BJ, Sheppard SK, Colijn C, Murray M. A phylogeny-based sampling strategy and power calculator informs genome-wide associations study design for microbial pathogens. Genome Med. 2014 Nov 15;6(11):101.
83

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 85 of 95
119.Menzies NA, Cohen T, Murray M, Salomon JA. Effect of empirical treatment on outcomes of clinical trials of diagnostic assays for tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):16-7.
120.Krumme AA, Kaigamba F, Binagwaho A, Murray MB, Rich ML, Franke MF. Depression, adherence and attrition from care in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Mar;69(3):284-9.
121.Ivers LC, Hilaire IJ, Teng JE, Almazor CP, Jerome JG, Ternier R, Boncy J, Buteau J, Murray MB, Harris JB, Franke MF. Effectiveness of reactive oral cholera vaccination in rural Haiti: a casecontrol study and bias-indicator analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Mar;3(3):e162-8. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70368-7.
122.Farhat MR**, Mitnick CD, Franke MF, Kaur D, Sloutsky A, Murray M, Jacobson KR. Concordance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis fluoroquinolone resistance testing: implications for treatment. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Mar;19(3):339-41.
123.Childs LM, Abuelezam NN, Dye C, Gupta S, Murray MB, Williams BG, Buckee CO. Modelling challenges in context: lessons from malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis. Epidemics. 2015 Mar;10:102-7.
124.Oxlade O**, Huang CC, Murray M. Estimating the impact of reducing under-nutrition on the tuberculosis epidemic in the central eastern states of India: a dynamic modeling study. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 5;10(6):e0128187.
125.Broadhurst MJ, Kelly JD, Miller A, Semper A, Bailey D, Groppelli E, Simpson A, Brooks T, Hula S, Nyoni W, Sankoh AB, Kanu S, Jalloh A, Ton Q, Sarchet N, George P, Perkins MD, Wonderly B, Murray M, Pollock NR. ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test kit for point-of-care and laboratorybased testing for Ebola virus disease: a field validation study. Lancet. 2015 Aug 29;386(9996):867-74.
126.Odone A**, Calderon R, Becerra MC, Zhang Z, Contreras CC, Yataco R, Galea J, Lecca L, Bonds, MH, Mitnick CD, Murray MB. Acquired and Transmitted Multidrug Resistant Tuberculosis: The Role of Social Determinants. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 14;11(1):e0146642.
127.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Manjourides J, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Identifying Hotspots of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Transmission Using Spatial and Molecular Genetic Data. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jan 15;213(2):287-94.
128.Velásquez GE, Cegielski JP, Murray MB, Yagui MJ, Asencios LL, Bayona JN, Bonilla CA, Jave HO, Yale G, Suárez CZ, Sanchez E, Rojas C, Atwood SS, Contreras CC, Santa Cruz J, Shin SS. Impact of HIV on mortality among patients treated for tuberculosis in Lima, Peru: a prospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 1;16:45.
129.Farhat MR**, Jacobson KR, Franke MF, Kaur D, Sloutsky A, Mitnick CD, Murray M. Gyrase mutations are associated with variable levels of Fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Mar;54(3):727-33.
130.Semper AE, Broadhurst MJ, Richards J, Foster GM, Simpson AJ, Logue CH, Kelly JD, Miller A, Brooks TJ, Murray M, Pollock NR. Performance of the GeneXpert Ebola assay for diagnosis of Ebola virus disease in Sierra Leone: a field evaluation study. PLoS Med. 2016 Mar;13(3):e1001980.
131.Miller AC, Murray MB, Thomson DR, Arbour MC. How consistent are associations between stunting and child development? Evidence from a meta-analysis of associations between
84

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 86 of 95
stunting and multidimensional child development in fifteen low- and middle-income countries. Public Health Nutr. 2016 Jun;19(8):1339-47. 132.Lahiri N, Shah RR, Layre E, Young D, Ford C, Murray MB, Fortune SM, Moody DB. Rifampin Resistance mutations are associated with broad chemical remodeling of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Biol Chem. 2016 Jul 1;291(27):14248-56. 133.Atre SR**, Murray MB. Management and control of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDRTB): Addressing policy needs for India. J Public Health Policy. 2016 Aug 37:277-299. 134.Mukabutera A**, Thomson D, Murray M, Basinga P, Nyirazinyoye L, Atwood S, Savage KP, Ngirimana A, Hedt-Gauthier BL. Rainfall variation and child health: effect of rainfall on diarrhea among under 5 children in Rwanda, 2010. BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 5;16:731. 135.Diakite I**, Mooring EQ, Velasquez GE, Murray MB. Novel Ordered Stepped-Wedge Cluster Trial Designs for Detecting Ebola Vaccine Efficacy Using a Spatially Structured Mathematical Model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Aug 10;10(8):e0004866. 136.Farhat MR**, Sultana R, Iartchouk O, Bozeman S, Galagan J, Sisk P, Stolte C, NebenzahlGuimaraes H, Jacobson K, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Posey J, Kreiswirth BN, Kurepina N, Rigouts L, Streicher EM, Victor TC, Warren RM, van Soolingen D, Murray M. Genetic Determinants of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Their Diagnostic Value. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep 1;194(5):621-30. 137.Thomson DR, Semakula M, Hirschhorn LR, Murray M, Ndahindwa V, Manzi A, Mukabutera A, Karema C, Condo J, Hedt-Gauthier B. Applied statistical training to strengthen analysis and health research capacity in Rwanda. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Sep 29;14(1):73. 138.Cancedda C, Davis SM, Dierberg KL, Lascher J, Kelly JD, Barrie MB, Koroma AP, George P, Kamara AA, Marsh R, Sumbuya MS, Nutt CT, Scott KW, Thomas E, Bollbach K, Sesay A, Barrie A, Barrera E, Barron K, Welch J, Bhadelia N, Frankfurter RG, Dahl OM, Das S, Rollins RE, Eustis B, Schwartz A, Pertile P, Pavlopoulos I, Mayfield A, Marsh RH, Dibba Y, Kloepper D, Hall A, Huster K, Grady M, Spray K, Walton DA, Daboh F, Nally C, James S, Warren GS, Chang J, Drasher M, Lamin G, Bangura S, Miller AC, Michaelis AP, McBain R, Broadhurst MJ, Murray M, Richardson ET, Philip T, Gottlieb GL, Mukherjee JS, Farmer PE. Strengthening Health Systems While Responding to a Health Crisis: Lessons Learned by a Nongovernmental Organization During the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic in Sierra Leone. J Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 15;214(suppl 3):S153-S163. 139.Velasquez GE**, Calderon RI, Mitnick CD, Becerra MC, Huang CC, Zhang Z, Contreras CC, Yataco RM, Galea JT, Lecca LW, Murray MB. Pyrazinamide Resistance Assays and TwoMonth Sputum Culture Status in MDR-TB Patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Nov;60(11):6766-6773. 140.Aibana O**, Acharya X, Huang CC, Becerra MC, Galea JT, Chiang SS, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Velasquez GE, Tintaya K, Jimenez J, Lecca L, Murray MB. Nutritional Status and Tuberculosis Risk in Adult and Pediatric Household Contacts. PLoS One. 2016 Nov 11;11(11):e0166333. 141.Richardson ET**, Kelly JD, Barrie MB, Mesman AW, Karku S, Quiwa K, Marsh RH, Koedoyoma S, Daboh F, Barron KP, Grady M, Tucker E, Dierberg KL, Rutherford GW, Barry M, Jones JH, Murray MB, Farmer PE. Minimally Symptomatic Infection in an Ebola 'Hotspot': A Cross-Sectional Serosurvey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Nov 15;10(11):e0005087.
85

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 87 of 95
142.Miller AC, Ramananjato RH, Garchitorena A, Rabeza VR, Gikic D, Cripps A, Cordier L, Rahaniraka Razanadrakato HT, Randriamanambintsoa M, Hall L, Murray M, Safara Razanavololo F, Rich ML, Bonds MH. Baseline population health conditions ahead of a health system strengthening program in rural Madagascar. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1329961.
143.Aibana O**, Bachmaha M, Krasiuk V, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Murray MB. Risk factors for poor multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine. BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 7;17(1):129.
144.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, van Laarhoven A, Farhat MR, Koeken VACM, Mandemakers JJ, Zomer A, van Hijum SAFT, Netea MG, Murray M, van Crevel R, van Soolingen D. Transmissible Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains share genetic markers and immune phenotypes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun 1;195(11):1519-1527.
145.Garchitorena A, Miller AC, Cordier LF, Ramananjato R, Rabeza VR, Murray M, Cripps A, Hall L, Farmer P, Rich M, Orlan AV, Rabemampionona A, Rakotozafy G, Randriantsimaniry D, Gikic D, Bonds MH. In Madagascar, use of health care services increased when fees were removed: lessons for universal health coverage. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Aug 1;36(8):1443-1451.
146.Aibana O**, Franke MF, Huang CC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Smith ER, Ronnenberg AG, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Murray MB. Impact of Vitamin A and Carotenoids on the Risk of Tuberculosis Progression. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 15;65(6):900909.
147.Rodriguez CA, Smith ER, Villamor E, Zaveleta N, Respicio-Torres G, Contreras C, Perea S, Jimenez J, Tintaya K, Lecca L, Murray MB, Franke MF. Development and validation of a food frequency questionnaire to estimate intake among children and adolescents in urban Peru. Nutrients. 2017 Oct 14;9(10).
148.Farhat MR**, Jacobson KR, Franke MF, Kaur D, Murray M, Mitnick CD. Fluoroquinolone resistance mutation detection is equivalent to culture-based drug sensitivity testing for predicting multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcome: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 15;65(8):1364-1370.
149.Aibana O, Slavuckij A, Bachmaha M, Krasiuk V, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Murray MB. Patient predictors of poor drug sensitive tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine. F1000Research 2017 Oct 23;6:1873.
150.Nathavitharana RR, Shi CX, Chindelevitch L, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Galea JT, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Becerra MC, Murray MB, Cohen T. Polyclonal Pulmonary Tuberculosis Infections and Risk for Multidrug Resistance, Lima, Peru. Emerg Infect Dis 2017 Nov;11:1883-86.
151.Mukabutera A, Thomson DR, Hedt-Gauthier BL, Atwood S, Basinga P, Nyirazinyoye L, Savage KP, Habimana M, Murray M. Exogenous factors matter when interpreting the results of an impact evaluation: a case study of rainfall and child health programme intervention in Rwanda. Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Dec;22(12):1505-1513.
152.Miotto P, Tessema B, Tagliani E, Chindelevitch L, Starks AM, Emerson C, Hanna D, Kim PS, Liwski R, Zignol M, Gilpin C, Niemann S, Denkinger CM, Fleming J, Warren RM, Crook D, Posey J, Gagneux S, Hoffner S, Rodrigues C, Comas I, Engelthaler DM, Murray M, Alland D,
86

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 88 of 95
Rigouts L, Lange C, Dheda K, Hasan R , Ranganathan UDK, McNerney R, Ezewudo M, Cirillo DM, Schito M, Köser CU, Rodwell TC. A standardised method for interpreting the association between mutations and phenotypic drug-resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Eur Respir J. 2017 Dec 28;50(6). 153.Aibana O**, Franke MF, Huang CC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Smith ER, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Murray MB. Vitamin E Status is inversely associated with risk of incident tuberculosis disease among household contacts. J Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;148(1):56-62. 154.Zelner J, Murray M, Becerra M, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Cohen T. Protective effects of household-based TB interventions are robust to neighbourhood-level variation in exposure risk in Lima, Peru: a model-based analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):185-192. 155.Linger Y, Knickerbocker C, Sipes D, Golova J, Franke M, Calderon R, Lecca L, Thakore N, Holmberg R, Qu P, Kukhtin A, Murray MB, Cooney CG, Chandler DP. Genotyping Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Primary Sputum and Decontaminated Sediment with an Integrated Microfluidic Amplification Microarray Test. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). Print 2018 Mar. 156.Wun KS, Reijneveld JF, Cheng TY, Ladell K, Uldrich AP, Le Nours J, Miners KL, McLaren JE, Grant EJ, Haigh OL, Watkins TS, Suliman S, Iwany S, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Tamara KL, Leon SR, Murray MB, Mayfield JA, Altman JD, Purcell AW, Miles JJ, Godfrey DI, Gras S, Price DA, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB, Rossjohn J. T cell autoreactivity directed toward CD1c itself rather than toward carried self lipids. Nat Immunol. 2018 Apr;19(4):397-406. 157.Thomson DR, Amoroso C, Atwood S, Bonds MH, Rwabukwisi FC, Drobac P, Finnegan KE, Farmer DB, Farmer PE, Habinshuti A, Hirschhorn LR, Manzi A, Niyigena P, Rich ML, Stulac S, Murray MB, Binagwaho A. Impact of a health system strengthening intervention on maternal and child health outputs and outcomes in rural Rwanda 2005-2010. BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Apr 9;3(2):e000674. 158.Garchitorena A, Miller AC, Cordier L, Rabeza VR, Randriamanambintsoa M, Razanadrakato HR, Hall L, Haruna J, Randrianambinina A, Thomson DR, Atwood S, Murray MB, Ratsirarson J, Ouenzar MA, Bonds MH. Early changes in intervention coverage and mortality rates following the implementation of an integrated health system intervention in Madagascar: a cohort study. BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jun 4;3(3):e000762. 159.Thakore N, Norville R, Franke M, Calderon R, Lecca L, Villanueva M, Murray MB, Cooney CG, Chandler DP, Holmberg RC. Automated TruTip nucleic acid extraction and purification from raw sputum. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 5;13(7):e0199869. 160.McIntosh AI, Jenkins HE, White LF, Barnard M, Thomson DR, Dolby T, Simpson J, Streicher EM, Kleinman MB, Ragan EJ, van Helden PD, Murray MB, Warren RM, Jacobson KR. Using routinely collected laboratory data to identify high rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden communities in the Western Cape Province, South Africa: A retrospective spatiotemporal analysis. PLOS Med. 2018 Aug 21;15(8):e1002638. eCollection 2018 Aug. 161.Miller AC, Garchitorena A, Rabeza V, Randriamanambintsoa M, Rahaniraka Razanadrakato HT, Cordier L, Ouenzar MA, Murray MB, Thomson DR, Bonds MH. Cohort Profile: Ifanadiana Health Outcomes and Prosperity longitudinal Evaluation (IHOPE). Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Oct 1;47(5):1394-1395e.
87

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 89 of 95
162.CRyPTIC Consortium and the 100,000 Genomes Project, Allix-Béguec C, Arandjelovic I, Bi L, Beckert P, Bonnet M, Bradley P, Cabibbe AM, Cancino-Muñoz I, Caulfield MJ, Chaiprasert A, Cirillo DM, Clifton DA, Comas I, Crook DW, De Filippo MR, de Neeling H, Diel R, Drobniewski FA, Faksri K, Farhat MR, Fleming J, Fowler P, Fowler TA, Gao Q, Gardy J, Gascoyne-Binzi D, Gibertoni-Cruz AL, Gil-Brusola A, Golubchik T, Gonzalo X, Grandjean L, He G, Guthrie JL, Hoosdally S, Hunt M, Iqbal Z, Ismail N, Johnston J, Khanzada FM, Khor CC, Kohl TA, Kong C, Lipworth S, Liu Q, Maphalala G, Martinez E, Mathys V, Merker M, Miotto P, Mistry N, Moore DAJ, Murray M, Niemann S, Omar SV, Ong RT, Peto TEA, Posey JE, Prammananan T, Pym A, Rodrigues C, Rodrigues M, Rodwell T, Rossolini GM, Sánchez Padilla E, Schito M, Shen X, Shendure J, Sintchenko V, Sloutsky A, Smith EG, Snyder M, Soetaert K, Starks AM, Supply P, Suriyapol P, Tahseen S, Tang P, Teo YY, Thuong TNT, Thwaites G, Tortoli E, van Soolingen D, Walker AS, Walker TM, Wilcox M, Wilson DJ, Wyllie D, Yang Y, Zhang H, Zhao Y, Zhu B. Prediction of Susceptibility to First-Line Tuberculosis Drugs by DNA Sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 11;379(15):1403-1415.
163.Mooring EQ**, Mitjà O, Murray MB. Spatial-temporal clustering analysis of yaws on Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea to enhance planning and implementation of eradication programs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Oct 29;12(10):e0006840.
164.Hedt-Gauthier B, Airhihenbuwa CO, Bawah AA, Burke KS, Cherian T, Connelly MT, Hibberd PL, Ivers LC, Jerome JG, Kateera F, Manabe YC, Maru D, Murray M, Shankar AH, Shuchman M, Volmink J. Academic promotion policies and equity in global health collaborations. Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1607-1609.
165.Gupta N, Hirschhorn LR, Rwabukwisi FC, Drobac P, Sayinzoga F, Mugeni C, Nkikabahizi F, Bucyana T, Magge H, Kagabo DM, Nahimana E, Rouleau D, VanderZanden A, Murray M, Amoroso C. Causes of death and predictors of childhood mortality in Rwanda: a matched case-control study using verbal social autopsy. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 17;18(1):1378.
166.Farhat MR, Freschi L, Calderon R, Ioerger T, Snyder M, Meehan CJ, de Jong B, Rigouts L, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Sunyaev S, van Soolingen D, Shendure J, Sacchettini J, Murray M. GWAS for quantitative resistance phenotypes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis reveals resistance genes and regulatory regions. Nat Commun. 2019 May 13;10(1):2128.
167.Farhat MR, Sixsmith J, Calderon R, Hicks ND, Fortune SM, Murray M. Rifampicin and rifabutin resistance in 1003 Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Jun 1;74(6):1477-1483.
168.Mesman AW**, Soto M, Coit J, Calderon R, Aliaga J, Pollock NR, Mendoza M, Mestanza FM, Mendoza CJ, Murray MB, Lecca L, Holmberg R, Franke MF. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pediatric stool samples using TruTip technology. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):563.
169.Bellerose M, Baek SH, Huang CC, Moss C, Koh EI, Proulx M, Smith C, Baker R, Lee J, Eum S, Shin SJ, Cho SN, Murray M, Sassetti C. Common variants in the glycerol kinase gene reduce tuberculosis drug efficacy. mBio. 2019 Jul 30;10(4).
170.Ezran C, Bonds MH, Miller AC, Cordier LF, Haruna J, Mwanawabenea D, Randriamanambintsoa M, Razanadrakato HR, Ouenzar MA, Razafinjato BR, Murray M, Garchitorena A. Assessing trends in the content of maternal and child care following a health system strengthening initiative in rural Madagascar: a longitudinal cohort study. PLoS Med. 2019 Aug 20;16(8):e1002869.
88

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 90 of 95
171.Luo Y, Suliman S, Asgari S, Amariuta T, Calderon R, Lecca L, León SR, Jimenez J, Yataco R, Contreras C, Galea JT, Becerra M, Nejentsev S, Martínez-Bonet M, Nigrovic PA, Moody DB, Murray MB, Raychaudhuri S. Early progression to active tuberculosis is a highly heritable trait driven by 3q23 in Peruvians. Nat Commun. 2019 Aug 21;10(1):3765.
172.Buter J, Cheng TY, Ghanem M, Grootemaat AE, Raman S, Feng X, Plantijn AR, Ennis T, Wang J, Cotton RN, Layre E, Ramnarine AK, Mayfield J, Young DC, Martinot A, Siddiqi N, Wakabayashi S, Botella H, Calderon R, Murray M, Ehrt S, Snider BB, Reed MB, Oldfield E, Tan S, Rubin EJ, Behr MA, van der Wel NN, Minnaard AJ, Moody DB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis releases an antacid that remodels phagosomes. Nat Chem Biol. 2019 Sep;15(9):889-899.
173.Aibana O, Huang CC, Aboud S, Arnedo-Pena A, Becerra MC, Bellido-Blasco JB, Bhosale R, Calderon R, Chiang S, Contreras C, Davaasambuu G, Fawzi WW, Franke MF, Galea JT, Garcia-Ferrer D, Gil-Fortuño M, Gomila-Sard B, Gupta A, Gupte N, Hussain R, IborraMillet J, Iqbal NT, Juan-Cerdán JV, Kinikar A, Lecca L, Mave V, Meseguer-Ferrer N, Montepiedra G, Mugusi FM, Owolabi OA, Parsonnet J, Roach-Poblete F, Romeu-García MA, Spector SA, Sudfeld CR, Tenforde MW, Togun TO, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Murray MB. Vitamin D status and risk of incident tuberculosis disease: A nested case-control study, systematic review, and individual-participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019 Sep 11;16(9):e1002907.
174.Becerra MC, Huang CC, Lecca L, Bayona J, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Galea J, Zhang Z, Atwood S, Cohen T, Mitnick CD, Farmer P, Murray M. Transmissibility and potential for disease progression of drug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Oct 24;367:l5894.
175.Reinink P, Shahine A, Gras S, Cheng TY, Farquhar R, Lopez K, Suliman SA, Reijneveld JF, Le Nours J, Tan LL, León SR, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Lecca L, Murray MB, Rossjohn J, Moody DB, Van Rhijn I. A TCR β-Chain Motif Biases toward Recognition of Human CD1 Proteins. J Immunol. 2019 Dec 15;203(12):3395-3406.
176.Li R**, Nordio F, Huang CC, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Galea JT, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Lecca L, Murray MB. Two clinical prediction tools to improve tuberculosis contact investigation. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print]
177.Aibana O, Dauria E, Kiriazova T, Makarenko O, Bachmaha M, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Becker AE, Murray MB. Patients' perspectives of tuberculosis treatment challenges and barriers to treatment adherence in Ukraine: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 2;10(1):e032027.
178.Lopez K, Iwany SK, Suliman S, Reijneveld JF, Ocampo TA, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Lecca L, Murray MB, Moody DB, Van Rhijn I. CD1b tetramers broadly detect T cells that correlate with mycobacterial exposure but not tuberculosis disease state. Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 14;11:199.
179.Huang CC, Chu AL, Becerra MC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Contreras C, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Lecca L, Murray MB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis Beijing lineage and the risk of tuberculosis in child household contacts. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Mar;26(3):568-578.
180.Martinez L, Cords O, Horsburgh CR, Andrews JR; Pediatric TB Contact Studies Consortium. The risk of tuberculosis in children after close exposure: a systematic review and individualparticipant meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):973-984.
181.Kukhtin A, Norville R; Bueno A, Qu P, Parrish N, Murray M, Chandler D, Holmberg R, Cooney C. A benchtop automated sputum-to-genotype system using a Lab-on-a-Film
89

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 91 of 95
assembly for detection of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Anal Chem. 2020 Apr 7;92(7):5311-5318. 182.Suliman S, Gela A, Mendelsohn SC, Iwany SK, Tamara KL, Mabwe S, Bilek N, Darboe F, Fisher M, Corbett AJ, Kjer-Nielsen L, Eckle SBG, Huang CC, Zhang Z, Lewinsohn DM, McCluskey J, Rossjohn J, Hatherill M, León SR, Calderon RI, Lecca L, Murray M, Scriba TJ, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB; South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI) Clinical Immunology Team. Peripheral blood mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in tuberculosis patients and healthy Mycobacterium tuberculosis-exposed controls. J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] 183.Penn-Nicholson A, Mbandi SK, Thompson E, Mendelsohn SC, Suliman S, Chegou NN, Malherbe ST, Darboe F, Erasmus M, Hanekom WA, Bilek N, Fisher M, Kaufmann SHE, Winter J, Murphy M , Wood R, Morrow C, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB, Murray M, Andrade BB, Sterling TR, Sutherland J, Naidoo K, Padayatchi N, Walzl G, Hatherill M, Zak D, Scriba TJ, and the Adolescent Cohort Study team, GC6-74 Consortium, the SATVI Clinical and Laboratory Team, The ScreenTB and AE-TBC teams, CAPRISA IMPRESS team, RePORT Brazil Consortium and Peruvian Household Contacts Cohort study group. RISK6, a 6-gene transcriptomic signature of TB disease risk, diagnosis and treatment response. Sci Rep. 2020. In press. 184.Li R**, Rivers C, Tan Q, Murray MB, Toner E, Lipsitch M. Estimated Demand for US Hospital Inpatient and Intensive Care Unit Beds for Patients With COVID-19 Based on Comparisons with Wuhan and Guangzhou, China. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 6;3(5):e208297. 185.Sonenthal PD, Masiye J, Kasomekera N, Marsh RH, Wroe EB, Scott KW, Li R, Murray MB, Bukhman A, Connolly E, Minyaliwa T, Katete M, Banda G, Nyirenda M, Rouhani SA. SARS-CoV-2 preparedness in Malawi: results of a national facility-based critical care assessment. Lancet Glob Health. 2020. In press. 186.Asgari, S., Luo, Y., Akbari, A, Belbin GM, Li X, Harris DN, Selig M, Bartell E, Calderon R, Slowikowski K, Contreras C, Yataco R, Galea JT, Jimenez J, Coit JM, Farroñay C, Nazarian RM, O’Connor TD, Dietz HC, Hirschhorn JN, Guio H, Lecca L, Kenny EE, Freeman EE, Murray MB, Raychaudhuri S. A positively selected FBN1 missense variant reduces height in Peruvian individuals. Nature. 2020 May 13.
(** = mentee)
Other peer-reviewed publications
1. Logigian EL, Murray MB. Case 42-1994— A 19-year-old man with rapidly progressive lowerextremity weakness and dysesthesias after a respiratory tract infection. NEJM 1994;331:1437-44.
2. Murray M, Nardell E. Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis: achievements and challenges to current knowledge. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(6):477-82.
3. Brickner PW, Vincent RL, First M, Nardell E, Murray M, Kaufman W. The application of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation to control transmission of airborne disease: bioterrorism countermeasure. Public Health Rep 2003;118:99-114.
90

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 92 of 95
4. Cohen T**, Sommers B, Murray M. The effect of drug resistance on the fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2003;3:13-21.
5. Gessler D, Dye C, Farmer P, Murray M, Navin T, Reves R, Shinnick T, Small PM, Yates T, Simpson G. Public health. A national tuberculosis archive. Science 2006 Mar 3;311:1245-6.
6. Murray M. The epidemiology of SARS. In: Kleinman A, Watson JL, editors. SARS in China; prelude to pandemic? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2006. p. 17-30.
7. Colijn C, Cohen T, Murray M. Mathematical models of tuberculosis: accomplishments and future challenges. Proceedings of BIOMAT 2006 - International Symposium on Mathematical and Computational Biology; 2006 Nov 27-30, Manaus, Brazil. World Scientific Publishing Co. 2007.
8. Cohen T, Colijn C, Murray M. Mathematical modeling of tuberculosis transmission dynamics. In: Handbook of Tuberculosis: Clinics, Diagnostics, Therapy, and Epidemiology. Kaufman SH, van Helden P, eds. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2008.
9. Cohen T**, Dye C, Colijn C, Williams B, Murray M. Mathematical models of the epidemiology and control of drug-resistant TB. Expert Rev Resp Med. 2009;3:67-9.
10. Harries AD, Murray MB, Jeon CY, Ottmani SE, Lonnroth K, Kapur A. Response to letter from Sarah Bailey and Peter Godfrey-Faussett. Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Jul 15(11):1402.
11. Boulle A, Clayden P, Cohen K, Cohen T, Conradie F, Dong K, Gelfen N, Grimwood A, Hurtado R, Kenyon C, Lawn S, Maartens G, Meindjes G, Mandelson M, Murray M, Sanne I, Spencer D, Taljaand J, Vanieva E, Venter F, Wilson D. Prolonged deferral of antiretroviral therapy in the SAPIT trial: did we need a clinical trial to tell us that this would increase mortality? S Afr Med J. 2010 Sep 7;100(9):566, 568, 570-1.
12. Rinaldo A, Blokesch M, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Murray M, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. A transmission model of the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Sep 20;155(6):403-4.
13. Nahid P, Kim PS, Evans CA, Alland D, Barer M, Diefenbach J, Ellner J, Hafner R, Hamilton CD, Iademarco M, Ireton B, Kimerling M, Lienhardt C, Mackenzie W, Murray M, Perkins MD, Posey J, Roberts T, Sizemore S, Stevens WS, Via L, Williams SD, Yew WW, Swindells S. Clinical research and development of tuberculosis diagnostics: moving from silos to synergy. J Infect Dis. 2012 May 15; 205(Suppl 2): S159–S168.
14. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Gandhi NR, Murray M, Theron G, Udwadia Z, Migliori GB, Warren R. Global control of tuberculosis: from extensively drug-resistant to untreatable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Apr;2(4):321-338.
15. Ferrara G, Murray M, Winthrop K, Centis K, Sotgiu G, Migliori GB, Maeurer M, Zumla A. Risk factors associated with pulmonary tuberculosis: smoking, diabetes and anti-TNF-α drugs. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2012 May;18(3):233-40.
16. Jeon CY**, Murray MB, Baker MA. Managing tuberculosis in patients with diabetes mellitus: why we care and what we know. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 Aug;10(8):863-8.
17. Andrews JR., Basu S, Dowdy DW, Murray MB. The epidemiological advantage of preferential targeting of tuberculosis control at the poor. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Apr;19(4):375-80. Review. Erratum in: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Aug;19(8):1000.
91

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 93 of 95
18. Velasquez GE**, Aibana O, Ling EJ, Diakite I, Mooring EQ, Murray MB. Time from infection to disease and infectiousness for Ebola virus disease, a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 1;61(7):1135-40.
19. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Maartens G, Dooley KE, McNerney R, Murray M, Furin J, Nardell EA, London L, Lessem E, Theron G, van Helden P, Niemann S, Merker M, Dowdy D, Van Rie A, Siu GK, Pasipanodya JG, Rodrigues C, Clark TG, Sirgel FA, Esmail A, Lin HH, Atre SR, Schaaf HS, Chang KC, Lange C, Nahid P, Udwadia ZF, Horsburgh CR Jr, Churchyard GJ, Menzies D, Hesseling AC, Nuermberger E, McIlleron H, Fennelly KP, Goemaere E, Jaramillo E, Low M, Jara CM, Padayatchi N, Warren RM. The epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, diagnosis, and management of multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant, and incurable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2017 Mar 15. pii: S2213-2600(17)30079-6. Review.
20. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Maartens G, Dooley KE, Murray M, Furin J, Nardell EA, Warren RM; Lancet Respiratory Medicine drug-resistant tuberculosis Commission group. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission: 2019 update: epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, diagnosis, and management of multidrug-resistant and incurable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep;7(9):820-826.
(** = mentee)
Research publications without authorship
1. TB Sequencing Consortium, A first for tuberculosis research in South Africa: whole genome sequence of the South African Mycobacterium tuberculosis strain F11 released. South African Journal of Science 2005;101:393-5. (*Principal Investigator)
Non-peer reviewed scientific or medical publications/materials in print or other media
1. Kim JY, Mitnick C, Bayona J, Blank R, Nardell E, Mukherjee J, Rich M, Farmer P, Becerra M, Murray M. Examining assumptions about multi-drug resistant TB control : round table discussion / Jim Yong Kim ...[et al.]. Bull WHO 2002; 80:498.
2. Ryan ET, Murray M. Epidemiology and biostatistics. In: Guerrant RL, Walker DH, Weller PF, editors. Tropical Infectious Diseases: Principles, Pathogens, and Practice. Second Edition. New York: Elsevier; 2005. p. 11-16.
3. Cave DM, Nardell E, Murray M. Molecular epidemiology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In: Jacobs W, Cole ST, editors. Tuberculosis. Washington DC: ASM Press 2005.
4. Murray M and King G. The effects of International Monetary Fund loans on health outcomes. PLoS Med 2008;5:e162.
5. Murray M and Cohen T. Extensively drug resistant tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. In: Kaufmann, SHE, Walker, BD, editors. AIDS-TB: A Deadly Liaison, Weinheim. Wiley-VCH; 2009.
6. Murray M. Epidemiology of tuberculosis. In: Raviglione, MC, editor. Tuberculosis: Fourth Edition, The Essentials. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. 2009. p. 23-59.
92

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 94 of 95
7. Murray M, How Epidemics Happen. Nature Medicine 2010:16: 159. Book review. 8. Farmer PE, Murray M, Hedt-Gauthier B. Clinical Trials and Global Health Equity. The Lancet
Global Health Blog; 8 July 2013. Available at: http://globalhealth.thelancet.com/2013/07/08/clinical-trials-and-global-health-equity 9. Bonds MH, Garchitorena A, Cordier L, Miller AC, McCarty M, Andriamihaja B, Ratsirarson J, Randrianambinina A, Rabeza VR, Finnegan K, Gillespie T, Wright PA, Farmer PE, Loyd T, Murray MB, Herrnstein RM, Herrnstein JR, PIVOT Impact Team, Gikic D, Ouenzar MA, Hall L, Rich ML. Advancing a Science for Sustaining Health: Establishing a Model Health District in Madagascar. BioRxiv [Preprint]. [posted 2017 May 30]. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/141549 10. Bloom BR, Atun R, Cohen T, Dye C, Fraser H, Gomez GB, Knight G, Murray M, Nardell E, Rubin E, Salomon J, Vassall A, Volchenkov G, White R, Wilson D, Yadav P. Tuberculosis. In: Holmes KK, Bertozzi S, Bloom BR, Jha P, editors. Major Infectious Diseases. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Nov 3. 11. Buckee C, Hedt-Gauthier B, Mahmud A, Martinez P, Tedijanto C, Murray M, Khan R, Menkir T, Suliman S, Fosdick B, Cobey S, Rasmussen A, Popescu S, Cevik M, Dada S, Fowkes F, Clapham H, Mordecai E, Hampson K, Majumder M, Wesolowski A, Kuppalli K, Rodriguez Barraquer I, Smith TC, Hodcroft E, Christofferson RC, Cormier SA, Gerardin J, Cowley L, Childs L, Keegan LT, Pitzer V, Oldenburg C. Women in science are battling COVID-19 and patriarchy at the same time. Times Higher Ed. 15 May 2020.
Thesis
Murray, MB. Problems in the Molecular Epidemiology of Tuberculosis [Dissertation]. Boston (MA): Harvard School of Public Health; 2001.
Narrative
To date, my career has focused on two main areas: advancing progress in tuberculosis management and control and developing research capacity in low and middle-income countries.
My work on tuberculosis has shifted over the past twenty years from a focus on dynamical modeling of TB epidemics to field studies on the bacterial and host determinants of TB infection and disease. Between 2008-2013, I led a multi-disciplinary consortium that studied the impact of drug resistance of the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis in Lima, Peru. This project followed over 18000 people for TB-associated outcomes and has generated data that has allowed my team to also address a range of host and environmental factors that contribute to the transmission and disease burden of TB. More recently, our work in this area has centered on the links between host metabolic and immune function as determinants of the outcome of TB infection. This work, which is funded through an NIH consortium grant which I co-lead with
93

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-4 06/01/20 Page 95 of 95
Dr. Branch Moody, is another multi-disciplinary collaboration, this time among immunologists, epidemiologists, geneticists and veterinary pathologists.
My work on drug resistant tuberculosis has also led me to use targeted and whole genome sequencing to study “genomic epidemiology” and to elucidate the genetic basis of drug resistance phenotypes. To date, we have sequenced over 1500 TB strains and have created an innovative data interface tool that allows us to use whole genome data in epidemiologic studies. Currently, we are funded by NIH to identify, collect, archive, sequence and analyze the drug resistance genes in M. tuberculosis strains from around the world. These data are then passed to our collaborators who attempt to validate our findings by generating and phenotyping Mtb variants and to our industry partners who are developing point of care diagnostic tests to detect drug resistance. I am the PI of this collaborative project which is funded through an NIH Center for Excellence in Translational Research.
In addition to my roles on my grant-funded projects, I am the research director for the Division of Global Health Equity in the Department of Medicine at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the non-governmental organization, Partners In Health (PIH). In that capacity, I support the research mission of the Global Health Delivery Partnership by building research infrastructure and mentoring junior faculty interested in research careers. At HMS, I lead the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine’s “research core,” a team of eight epidemiologists, biostatisticians and programmers in the task of identifying and developing research opportunities in affiliation with PIH and other NGO’s clinical field sites. Much of this work focuses on developing methods to evaluate the health interventions implemented in these sites and in designing and carrying out studies to conduct such evaluations. Increasingly, our mission has encompassed the training and development of independent researchers from the countries in which we work.
Almost all my academic work has been conducted in the context of training graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. I have directly supervised 39 graduate students or post-doctoral fellows, almost all of whom have published with me. Fourteen of my former trainees have gone on to tenure track faculty positions and six have joined international and non-governmental organizations focused on global health. Among many committee assignments, I am particularly proud of my contribution to the Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering which made recommendations that I believe have improved the working lives of many women in science at Harvard. I have served on the Human Subjects Committee at HSPH, co-chaired the Community Engagement Mission of the Strategic Leadership Team at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and led a number of junior and senior faculty searches.
94

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-5 06/01/20 Page 1 of 48
EXHIBIT 3

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 21 ooff 4487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE; LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; JANE CHANDLER, JENNIFER HARDING, EDITH GEE JONES, and JASMINE POGUE

Plaintiffs, v.

Case. No. 3:20-cv-00283 BAJ-EWD

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; STEVE RABORN, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors; and SANDRA L. WILSON, in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 32 ooff 4487
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2
A. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic ................................................................ 2 1. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana...................................................... 5 2. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black People in Louisiana..................................................................................................... 7 3. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting...................................................... 10
B. Louisiana’s Absentee-By-Mail Ballot Requirements ........................................... 14 1. The Excuse Requirement .......................................................................... 14 2. The Witness Requirements ....................................................................... 15 3. Penalties Related to Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements .................................................. 16 4. The Absentee Ballot Review and Counting Process................................. 17
C. The Emergency Election Plan............................................................................... 18 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 23
A. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Constitutional Claims Against the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements. ........... 23 1. The Excuse Requirement Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. .......................... 26 2. The Witness Requirements Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. .......................... 31
B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if an Injunction is Not Granted .............. 36 C. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Favor a Preliminary
Injunction. ............................................................................................................. 39 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 41
i

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 43 ooff 4487
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983).................................................................................................................. 24 Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428 (1992).................................................................................................................. 24 Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker,
453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 37 Common Cause Ga. v. Kemp,
347 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Ga. 2018) ..................................................................................... 38 Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson,
327 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (S.D. Ind. 2018) ..................................................................................... 38 Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd.,
553 U.S. 181 (2008)............................................................................................................ 24, 29 Daniels Health Scis., LLC v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC,
710 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 23 Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites by Carlson,
No. 16-cv-1037, 2016 WL 4400498 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) ............................................... 40 Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).................................................................................................... 37, 39 Esshaki v. Whitmer,
No. 2:20-cv-10831-TGB, 2020 WL 1910154 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2020) .............................. 25 Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott,
215 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (N.D. Fla. 2016)..................................................................................... 25 G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n,
23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 40 Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Deal,
214 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (S.D. Ga. 2016)................................................................................ 25, 41 Garbett v. Herbert,
No. 2:20-cv-245-RJS, 2020 WL 2064101 (D. Utah Apr. 29, 2020)......................................... 24 Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason,
303 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 41 Homans v. Albuquerque,
264 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.2001) ................................................................................................. 39 Hoover v. Morales,
164 F. 3d 221 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 23 Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A.,
804 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir.1986) ................................................................................................... 36 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier,
760 F. 3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 23 LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
917 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 38 League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning,
863 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (N.D. Fla. 2012)..................................................................................... 40
ii

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 54 ooff 4487
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (N.D. Fla. 2018)..................................................................................... 40
League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. N. Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 37
League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348 (Okla. May 4, 2020).............................................................. 36
League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. Of Elec., No. 6:20-cv-0024, _F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 2158249 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) .. 24, 31, 34, 35
Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-2112, 2020 WL 1951687 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020)................................................. 24
N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-1034, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2019 WL 7372980 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 2019) .................. 38
Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.2003) ..................................................................................................... 40
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992).................................................................................................................. 24
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 36
Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 37, 40
OCA Greater Houston v. Texas, No. 1:15-CV-679-RP, 2016 WL 4597636 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016) ..................................... 37
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 36
Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 40
Price v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................... 31
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) .................................................................................................................. 37
Taylor v. Louisiana., 419 U.S. 522 (1975).................................................................................................................. 41
Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 39
Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott., No. SA-20-CA-438-FB, 2020 WL 2541971 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020)................................. 24
Texas Indep. Party v. Kirk, 84 F.3d 178 (5th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 24, 29, 34
Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-480, 2020 WL 1671563 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) .............................................. 38
United States v. Georgia, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2012) ..................................................................................... 41
Wash. St. Tammany Elec. Coop. v. La. Generating, No. 08-430-JJB-DLD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135876 (M.D. La. July 30, 2008)................... 23
Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323 (2d Cir.1986)....................................................................................................... 37
iii

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 65 ooff 4487
Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ...................................................................................................................... 39
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).................................................................................................................. 37
Statutes La. R.S. 1306(E)(2)(b) ................................................................................................................. 35 La. R.S. 1308(B)-(C) .................................................................................................................... 35 La. R.S. 18:1303 ................................................................................................................. 2, 16, 41 La. R.S. 18:1303(B) ...................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(C)–(G) .............................................................................................................. 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(D)...................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(I) ....................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(J) ....................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)...................................................................................................................... 16 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)-(E) ............................................................................................................... 35 La. R.S. 18:1306(E) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) ....................................................................................................... 15, 17 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(b) ............................................................................................................. 16 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) ......................................................................................................... 2, 41 La. R.S. 18:1307 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 15 La. R.S. 18:1307(I) ....................................................................................................................... 16 La. R.S. 18:1307A(2)–(B) ............................................................................................................ 15 La. R.S. 18:1308 ........................................................................................................................... 14 La. R.S. 18:1308(B) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1308(C) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1311(C) ...................................................................................................................... 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(A)...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1313(F) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(2).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:401.3 .................................................................................................................... 18, 19
iv

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 76 ooff 4487
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”), Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“Louisiana NAACP”), Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, and Jasmine Pogue (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana, Kyle Ardoin, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana, Steve Raborn, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, and Sandra L. Wilson, in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors (collectively “Defendants”), to take immediate action to remove the barriers that place undue burdens on Louisianans’ fundamental right to vote in connection with the July 11, 2020 Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal Elections. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented crises throughout the country. To date, the virus has infected over a million people in the U.S. Louisiana has been particularly hard hit with 35,000 reported COVID-19 cases and over 2,400 reported deaths during the past three months. In early March, in response to the spread of COVID-19, Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency in Louisiana and took a number of steps, including banning public gatherings, closing public schools, and closing “non-essential” businesses, that led up to a statewide Stay-atHome order directing all Louisiana residents to stay home unless performing an essential activity and follow social distancing protocols. In light of the need for social distancing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, multiple provisions of Louisiana law will impose severe and undue burdens on the right to vote
1

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 87 ooff 4487
during the 2020 July Primary Election and August Municipal Election, including: (1) the requirement that a voter must qualify under a limited list of excuses in order to be eligible to vote through absentee ballot, La. R.S. 18:1303 (the “Excuse Requirement”); (2) the requirement that a voter sign an absentee by mail ballot certificate in the presence of a witness and also obtain the signature of the witness on the ballot, La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) (the “Ballot Witness Requirement”); and (3) the requirement that absentee ballot applications certified with a mark also be signed by a witness, La. R.S. 18:1307 (the “Application Witness Requirement”; together with the “Ballot Witness Requirement” the “Witness Requirements”).
In the context of COVID-19, these restrictive voting requirements will severely and unduly burden Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Unless the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are soon enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between either losing their right to vote to avoid virus exposure, on the one hand, or exercising their right to vote at risk to their personal safety and the public health, on the other. This scenario presents an unconstitutional threat to the protected rights of all Louisiana voters.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic As this Court is aware, COVID-19 is now a global pandemic. The virus is highly infectious and leads to serious and sometimes deadly complications. As of May 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) estimate that there are 1,528,235 total cases of COVID-19 in the United States, resulting in more than 91,644 confirmed deaths.1 According to
1 See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”), Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the U.S., CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, (last visited May 21, 2020).
2

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 98 ooff 4487
experts, even this figure substantially undercounts the virus’s actual reach.2 There is no vaccine, and no certainty of when one will be available. Decl. of Dr. Arthur L. Reingold ¶¶ 16-17 (hereinafter “Reingold Decl.” attached as Ex. 1). Further, there is no evidence that those who develop an immune response to the virus after an infection—known as antibodies—are safe from reinfection, nor is there sufficient data about how long any immunity to the virus would last. Reingold Decl. ¶ 12.
COVID-19 is extremely contagious; it spreads from person to person through respiratory droplets via coughing and sneezing, close personal contact, and contact with contaminated surfaces and objects. 3 Id. ¶ 8. The coronavirus can lead to dangerous symptoms and complications. Id. ¶ 7. The virus can cause severe damage to the lungs, brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and other organs, sometimes leading to permanent loss of respiratory capacity, cardiovascular disease, strokes, seizures, and other ailments. Id. ¶ 7. Persons of any age are at risk of developing severe and lifethreatening complications. Id. ¶ 11. And while the risks for severe or deadly symptoms increase with each decade of a person’s life, Id. ¶ 11, data from the CDC show that as of March, half of those people in the United States who were in intensive care because of the coronavirus were under the age of 65.4 Id. ¶ 11.
2 Emma Brown et al., U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to COVID19, Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-deathtoll-undercounted/?arc404=true. 3 See CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html, (last visited May 1, 2020). The World Health Organization (“WHO”) suggests the COVID-19 virus can survive “for up to 72 hours on plastic and stainless steel,” up to “4 hours on copper,” and up to 24 hours on cardboard.” WHO, Q&A On Coronaviruses (COVID-19), World Health Org. (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses. 4 See Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., Coronavirus and COVID-19: Younger Adults Are at Risk, Too, Johns Hopkins Med., https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-andcovid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too, (last visited Apr. 24, 2020).
3

CCaassee33::2200--ccvv--0000320883--SBDADJ--ERWLBD DDooccuummeenntt1164--51 0065/0/211/2/200 PPaaggee190ooff4478
As Dr. Reingold testifies, “[d]ue to the ease of transmission, the high risk to certain parts of the population, and the fact that [the virus] will continue to surge unless and until widespread vaccination and/or herd immunity is achieved, individuals will need to continue to take steps to prevent infection.” Id. ¶ 23. It is unlikely that an FDA-approved vaccine will be available before the summer or fall of 2021; and further, because there is currently no vaccine, there has been no confirmation that those who have the virus develop immunity, and the vast majority of the population remains susceptible, it is unlikely that herd immunity will help to prevent the spread of the virus any time in the near future. Id. ¶ ¶ 17, 19.
Among the only currently available effective measures to mitigate the spread of COVID19 are self-isolation, social distancing, wearing a face mask, frequent hand washing with soap and warm water, using hand sanitizer, and cleaning shared surfaces and objects. Id. ¶ 16. Selfisolation and social distancing measures—maintaining at least six feet between persons—are aimed at keeping infected individuals far enough from other individuals that they are unlikely to transmit the virus to others. Id. ¶ 16. Social distancing is so important to preventing the spread of COVID-19 that stay-at-home orders and similar guidelines have been implemented in over 42 states and the District of Columbia at some point during the surge of the virus.5 In total, over 95% of the United States population was at one time under instruction to stay home.6
Fatalities related to COVID-19 are expected to continue through the summer months even if appropriate preventive measures remain in place. Id. ¶ 18. There will likely be a resurgence in
5 See Sarah Mervosh, et al., Which States and Cities have Told Residents to Stay at Home, N.Y. Times (last updated Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html. 6 Jack Brewster, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Stay-At-Home Restrictions, New Poll Finds, Forbes (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/04/22/americans-overwhelmingly-support-stay-at-homerestrictions-new-poll-finds.
4

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1110 ooff 4487
number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as states, like Louisiana, begin to roll back protective measures and if social distancing guidelines are not followed. Id. ¶ 22.
1. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana COVID-19 has had an outsized impact on the state of Louisiana. Louisiana’s current death rate from the virus is, per capita, the sixth highest in the fifty states and U.S. territories7 As of May 21, 2020, over 35,000 cases have been reported in Louisiana and over 2,400 Louisianans had died from COVID-19.8 On March 11, 2020 Governor John Bel Edwards declared a State of Emergency.9 According to the Governor, this step was essential to “slow the spread [of the virus] so we don’t overwhelm our capacity for healthcare.”10 Among other things, the declaration imposed limits on the travel of state employees and empowered state agencies “to thoroughly prepare for any eventuality related to public health needs and deploy additional resources to assist local authorities.”11
7 Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times (last updated May 21, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#states 8 La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020). 9 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 10 Greg Hilburn, Louisiana’s Coronavirus Death Toll Rises to 46; Governor Implores Residents to Stay Home, New Star (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2020/03/24/louisiana-coronavirus-death-toll-rises46-stay-home-governor-says/2906648001/. 11 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf.
5

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1121 ooff 4487
On March 12, Governor Edwards closed all public schools through April 13,12 which he later extended to the remainder of the academic year.13 On March 16, Governor Edwards closed or limited the operations of certain, “non-essential” businesses,14 a list which he expanded on March 22.15
Recognizing that despite having taken “aggressive measures to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19 and flatten the curve,” the actions already taken had not been enough, on March 22
Governor Edwards issued a statewide Stay-at-Home order banning public gatherings of more than
10 individuals and directing all Louisianans to remain at home unless engaging in an “essential activity.”16 On April 30, the Governor extended the Stay-at-Home order until May 15 in order to continue to slow the spread of the disease.17
On March 13, after Secretary of State Ardoin certified to the Governor that the State of
Emergency would impact upcoming elections, the Governor issued an executive order postponing
the April 4 Presidential Preference Primary Election and the May 9 Municipal General Election to
12 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/27-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 13 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 47 JBE 2020 (Apr. 15, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/47-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID-19Education.pdf. 14 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30 (Mar. 16, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/30-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID19.pdf. 15 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 33 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf. 16 Id.; Press Release Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Issues Statewide Stay at Home Order to Further Fight the Spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/order/. 17 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation 52 JBE 2020 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-20-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf; see also Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Will Extend Stay at Home Order Until May 15 to Continue Flattening the Curve and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19 (Apr. 27, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/home-order-extendedmay15/.
6

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1132 ooff 4487
June 20 and July 25, respectively.18 Following this same process, the elections were postponed a second time on April 14. As of today, the Presidential Preference Primary Election will occur on July 11, 2020 (“the July election”), and the Municipal General Election will take place August 15, 2020 (“the August election”).
On May 15, the Governor issued an order stating that the State would remain in a state of emergency and a statewide public health emergency as it enters phase one of lifting the Stay-atHome order.19 The order instructs Louisianans to “stay at home as much as possible to avoid unnecessary exposure to COVID-19,” and orders individuals who are at higher risk from severe illness from COVID-19 to stay at home, unless travelling outside the home for an essential activity, such as obtaining food or medicine.20 Under the phase one order, certain businesses, including restaurants, salons and barbershops, and shopping malls will be allowed to open with strict social distancing and enhanced sanitation in place; however, businesses deemed nonessential, such as amusement parks and entertainment venues, will remained closed.21
2. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black People in Louisiana The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on Black people throughout the country.22 Decl. of Dr. Camara P. Jones ¶ 24 (hereinafter “Jones Decl.” attached as Exhibit 2). As of May 21, demographic data reported by the CDC on the number of
18 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28-JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19Postponement.pdf. 19 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020 (May, 15, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Reis Thebault, et al., The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate, Washington Post (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infectingkilling-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true&itid=lk_inline_manual_3
7

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1143 ooff 4487
COVID-19 cases for which race was available nationwide (48.1% of the 1.2 million cases analyzed) showed that Black people make up 27% of the reported COVID-19 cases although they only make up 13% of the total U.S. population.23
The stark racial disparities in rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths have been particularly acute in Louisiana. Jones Decl. ¶ 25. Data reported by the Louisiana Department of Health indicates that Black Louisianans are dying from COVID-19 at disproportionately higher rates, making up 32% of the total population of the state but over 55% of coronavirus deaths.24 Reingold Decl. ¶ 11; see also, Decl. of William S. Cooper (hereinafter “Cooper Decl.” attached as Exhibit 3), Exhibit A-2 p. 1.
The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Black community, including the disparate death rates, reflects longstanding and systemic discrimination and socioeconomic inequities in Louisiana that have made Black people more susceptible to the virus’s risks. Jones Decl. ¶¶ 24-31. According to the most recent data from the American Community Survey, in Louisiana nearly one third (30.1%) of Black residents live in poverty compared to 12.2% of white residents; the unemployment rate is 9.9% for Black residents compared to 4.5% for white residents; per capita income for Black residents is $17,491 compared to $33,856 for white residents; nearly one-fifth (19%) of Black residents have not completed high school compared to 10.8% of white residents; and for Black residents ages 25 and over, only 15.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 28.5% of white residents ages 25 and older. Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.
23 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the U.S.: Cases by Race &Age, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited May 21, 2020). 24 La. Dep’t of Health, COVID-19 Updated, Additional Data on COVID-19 Deaths in Louisiana, http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 20, 2020).
8

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1154 ooff 4487
Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Camara Phyllis Jones, explains that the racial disparities in health outcomes—including higher risk of illness and death due to COVID-19—are inextricably linked to social and economic factors, such as quality of housing, availability of healthy foods, air quality, access to clean water, quality of schools, availability of work, transportation options, and proximity to polluting industries. Jones Decl. ¶ 12, 30. As a result of housing segregation, for example, Black people are less likely to live close to medical facilities and supermarkets stocked with nutritious food. Factors giving rise to chronic illness and comorbidities also include racial inequalities in access to healthcare and medical insurance, where 7.8% of Louisiana’s Black residents lack medical insurance compared to 4.7% of white residents. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(f); Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 11. Indeed, the Louisiana State Health Department reports that asthma and obesity are more prevalent among Black residents, and further, that they are more likely to die from conditions such as heart disease and diabetes,25 all of which are medical conditions that the CDC has acknowledged make racial and ethnic minority groups especially vulnerable to COVID-19.26 Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, 30.
In addition, social and economic conditions related to occupational settings and access to transportation make it more difficult for Black people to take measures to mitigate the risks posed by COVID-19. Id. ¶ 27. For instance, 29.9% of employed Black people ages 16 and over work in service industry occupations compared to 14.8% of whites, and only 24.7% are in management and business positions compared to 39.3% of whites, limiting the option to work from home. Also, 15.8% of Black Louisiana residents lack a vehicle compared to 4.7% white residents, and 12.5%
25 La. Dep’t of Health, Community Partnerships & Health Equity, Minority Health Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672 26 CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, Others at Risk, Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html (last updated Apr. 22, 2020).
9

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1165 ooff 4487
of Black residents carpool or take public transportation to work compared to 7.7% of white residents. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(c); (g).
Notably, the CDC has identified racial and ethnic minority groups among “people who need to take extra precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19,” expressly acknowledging that “[h]ealth differences in between racial and ethnic groups are often due to economic and social conditions that are more common among some racial and ethnic minorities than whites.”27
3. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting The CDC has issued guidance specifically addressing election safety in the context of COVID-19. The CDC’s guidance recommends that election officials “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”28 The CDC lists “mail-in methods of voting” first among its recommendations to reduce person-to-person contacts and congestion at polling sites.29 COVID-19 spreads rapidly in environments where a large number of individuals are in close proximity, like at congested polling sites. Reingold Decl. ¶ 23. There is no evidence that the virus spreads through the mail. Id. ¶ 26. In addition, the U.S. Postal Service has also implemented policies to reduce contacts between mail carriers and members of the businesses and households they serve.30 Polling places have already been sources for exposure to the coronavirus. In Chicago, Revall Burke, a Marine and father of six, died of COVID-19 after volunteering as a poll worker
27 Id. 28 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim Guidance to Prevent Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020) [hereinafter CDC, Interim Guidance]. 29 Id. 30 Press Release, United States Postal Service, Media Statement – COVID-19 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/statements/usps-statement-on-coronavirus.htm (citing guidance from World Health Organization, CDC, and Surgeon General).
10

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1176 ooff 4487
on March 17.31 Other poll workers and in-person voters who were asymptomatic on Election Day later became ill and tested positive for COVID-19.32 Just weeks later, in-person voting proceeded in Wisconsin with large crowds and long lines.33 Following that election, health officials identified
at least 52 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 after either voting in person or working at a polling site.34 This does not include individuals who may have contracted the virus but were
not tested, or those who may have unknowingly contracted the virus and become asymptomatic
carriers. Reingold Decl. ¶ 24.
While voting by mail is the safest and most effective option for reducing the spread of the
virus during an election, early voting and other options that mitigate risk during in-person voting
are also critical. The CDC guidance on conducting safe elections also recommends the use of
early voting, specifically because crowds may be smaller throughout the day and early voting
minimizes the number of other people a voter may come into contact with while at a polling
31 See Mary Ann Ahern, Poll Worker at Chicago Voting Site Dies of Coronavirus, Election Officials Say, NBC Chicago (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/poll-worker-at-chicago-votingsite-dies-of-coronavirus-election-officials-say/2255072/. 32 Id.; see also Cate Cauguiran, Chicago election worker who staffed March primary dies after contracting COVID19, ABC (Apr. 13, 2020), https://abc7chicago.com/coronavirus-deaths-fatalities-polling-worker-illinoischicago/6100339/. 33 Devi Shastri, In-person voting was likely a “disaster” for Wisconsin’s efforts to flatten coronavirus curve, national experts say, Milwaukee J. Sentinel (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/08/coronavirus-wisconsin-election-likely-hurteffort-flatten-curve/2961718001/ (quoting Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm); Primary Recap: Voters Forced to Choose Between Their Health and Their Civic Duty, NY Times (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/politics/wisconsin-primary-election.html. 34 Nolan D. McCaskill, Wisconsin health dept.: 36 people positive for coronavirus after primary vote, Politico (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/wisconsin-tested-positive-coronavirus-election-211495; see also The Latest: 52 Positive Cases Tied to Wisconsin Election, The Associated Press (Apr. 28, 2020), https://apnews.com/b1503b5591c682530d1005e58ec8c267; see also, Chad Cotti, et al., The Relationship Between In-Person Voting, Consolidated Polling Locations, and Absentee Voting on COVID-19: Evidence from the Wisconsin Primary (May 10, 2020), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3597233
11

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1187 ooff 4487
location.35 Smaller crowds at voting sites enable poll workers to enact the CDC’s best practices for in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, which include sanitizing surfaces and maintaining six feet of distance between individuals.36 Because some voters need or prefer to vote in person, including people who are homeless, visually impaired, have limited English proficiency, or are illiterate and need accessible voting machines and personal assistance, it remains necessary to provide safe and accessible in-person voting options.37
The majority of states are providing absentee voting-by-mail for all voters during upcoming elections. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia already offer all eligible voters a vote-by-mail ballot option; that is, no specific excuse or justification is required to be eligible to vote absentee.38 Of the 16 states that require an excuse to vote absentee-by-mail, several have made clear that concerns regarding transmission of COVID-19 will serve as a legitimate excuse.
35 McCaskill, supra note 34. 36 See CDC, Interim Guidance, supra note 28. 37 See, e.g., Ian Millhiser, How to make sure everyone can vote during the coronavirus pandemic, Vox (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21185184/vote-by-mail-coronavirus-pandemic-elections. 38 The Brennan Center for Justice, Research & Reports, Preparing Your State for an Election Under Pandemic Conditions, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preparing-your-state-election-underpandemic-conditions (last updated Apr. 27, 2020).
12

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 1198 ooff 4487
For example, Arkansas,39 Alabama,40 Delaware,41 Massachusetts,42 New Hampshire,43 South
Carolina,44 Virginia,45 and West Virginia46 have expanded the scope of existing state election laws
establishing absentee ballot eligibility for illness, injury, or disability to now include all qualified
voters concerned about or taking preventative measures because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
39 Governor of Arkansas, Exec. Order No. 20-08, (Mar. 20, 2020), https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-08._.pdf. 40 Ala. Legis. Servs. Agency, Absentee Voting During State of Emergency, 17-11-3(e) (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/SOS%20Emergency%20Rule%20820-2-3-.06-.01ER.pdf; see also Press Release, Alabama Secretary of State, 100 Days Left to Apply for Absentee Ballot for the Primary Runoff Election (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/100-days-left-apply-absentee-ballot-primaryrunoff-election; Ala. Code § 17-11-3(a)(2). 41 See Governor of Delaware, Exec. Dep’t, Sixth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of Delaware Due to a Public Health Threat (Mar. 24, 2020), https://governor.delaware.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/24/2020/03/Sixth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03242020.pdf (Delaware executive order providing that for upcoming primary and special elections “the qualification of ‘sick or physically disabled’ [in Delaware vote-by-mail provisions] shall apply to and include any such voter who is asymptomatic of COVID-19 . . . and who herself or himself freely chooses to use such qualification to vote by absentee ballot.”). 42 An Act Granting Authority to Postpone 2020 Municipal Elections in the Commonwealth and Increase Voting Option in Response to the Declaration of Emergency to Respond to COVID-19, 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., ch. 45 (2020), https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter45 (new Massachusetts law clarifying that “any person taking precaution related to COVID-19 in response to a declared state of emergency or from guidance from a medical professional, local or state health official, or any civil authority shall be deemed to be unable by reason of physical disability to cast their vote in person,” which is one of the reasons set forth in the state constitution that permits a Massachusetts voter to vote by mail). 43 Memorandum from the Sec’y of State and Att’y General to New Hampshire Election Officials re: Elections Operations During the State of Emergency at 2 (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press2020/documents/20200410-absentee-voting.pdf. 44 S635, (RAT#0138) Act to Amend Section 7-13-35, Code of Laws of South Carolina, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=635&session=123&summary=B. 45 Absentee Voting, Va. Dep’t of Elections, https://www.elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/ (last visited May 6, 2020) (Virginia Department of Elections statement clarifying that “[v]oters may choose reason ‘2A My disability or illness’” to vote absentee in upcoming elections due to COVID-19). 46 W. Va. Sec’y of State Mac Warner, Admin. Law Div., Notice Of An Emergency Rule (Mar. 20, 2020), http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=53039&Format=PDF.
13

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2109 ooff 4487
Courts have similarly removed the burdens of witness and notary requirements for absentee ballots within the context of the pandemic.47
B. Louisiana’s Absentee-By-Mail Ballot Requirements At least four major elections are scheduled to take place in Louisiana before the end of the calendar year, including statewide and federal elections. The first two elections—currently scheduled to take place on July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020—will be subject to Louisiana election laws as modified by the Revised Emergency Plan. See infra, Part II.C. As of now, the November 3, 2020 (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election) (“the November Election”), and December 5, 2020 (Congressional and Open General Election) (“the December Election”) will take place in accordance with state election laws, as described below, and are not affected by the Revised Emergency Plan.48
1. The Excuse Requirement Only voters who meet one of the specific excuses enumerated in Louisiana’s state election code and can provide the required documentation are eligible to apply for and vote by absenteeby-mail ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1308. Individuals who can vote absentee by mail include the following five categories of voters:
47 See League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, F. Supp. 3d, No. 6:20-cv-00024, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (“LWVV”) (approving order enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to mitigate the risks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded from exercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee ballots). 48 See 2020 Elections Calendar, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/ElectionsCalendar2020.pdf (last visited May 20, 2020).
14

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2210 ooff 4487
1. Voters who expect to be out of the parish in which they would be qualified to vote in person on Election Day, such as service members, students, clergy members, and overseas citizens. La. R.S. 18:1303(B).
2. Voters who remain incarcerated pre-trial or sequestered as a jury member during the election. La. R.S. 18:1303(C)–(G).
3. Eligible disabled voters who submit certain identification or documentation of a qualifying disability. La. R.S. 18:1303(I).
4. Voters who are 65 years of age and older. La. R.S. 18:1303(J). 5. Voters who were unable to participate in early voting and will be unable to vote on
Election Day due to hospitalization. La. R.S. 18:1303(D). Absentee ballot applications may be returned by mail, fax, or hand delivery, or through the state’s online voter portal, and must include the reason for the request and any necessary supporting documentation. La. R.S. 18:1307A(2)–(B). Unless the applicant is a member of the United States Service, living outside the United States, or is hospitalized, an application must be received by the registrar by 4:30 p.m. four days prior to the election for which the ballot is requested. La. R.S. 18:1307.
2. The Witness Requirements Absentee ballot applicants who are unable to sign their name and instead use a mark to sign their application must obtain the signature of two third-party witnesses on their application (“Application Witness Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1307. All voters using an absentee-by-mail ballot must insert the ballot in the accompanying envelope and sign the certificate printed on the flap of envelope in the presence of one witness, who must also sign the envelope (“Ballot Witness Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) (collectively, the “Witness Requirements”). Members
15

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2221 ooff 4487
of the United States Service or voters residing outside the U.S. are not required to sign the certificate in front of a witness. La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(b).
Louisiana is only one of eleven states with a witness requirement for absentee ballots.49 3. Penalties Related to Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements
Absentee-by-mail ballot applications list in bold font that false certifications may subject the applicant to a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for 2 years.50 If the registrar of voters has reason to believe that an applicant’s eligibility to vote by mail pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1303 is based upon false or fraudulent information, they must “immediately notify the parish board of election supervisors.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I). If, after the applicant has been provided a hearing and opportunity to be heard, the parish board of election supervisors finds that the voter’s eligibility to vote absentee-by-mail was based upon false or fraudulent information, “the board shall inform the appropriate district attorney and the registrar of voters who shall not allow the voter to vote absentee by mail.” Id.
Every ballot is mailed in an envelope with the following on its face in red bold face type: “VIOLATION OF ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR EARLY VOTING LAWS VOIDS BALLOT AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES” and “VOTING AT POLLS AFTER VOTING ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR DURING EARLY VOTING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES.” La. R.S. 18:1306(D).
49 See Chart, “Verifying Authenticity of Absentee/Mailed Ballots,” Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, AllMail and other Voting at Home Options, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx; 50 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec. of State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f. (last visited May 20, 2020).
16

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2232 ooff 4487
As described, the envelope also includes a “Certificate” with an affidavit to be signed by the voter, certifying that they “applied for the ballot, marked the enclosed ballot(s) [themselves] or that they were marked for [the voter] according to [the voter’s] instructions and in [the voters] presence”; that the voter is entitled to vote at the precinct they name; that the parish board of election supervisors is authorized to open the envelope and count their ballot; and that the statements made by the voter are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making false statements therein. La. R.S. 18:1306(E). The voter’s certificate also “shall be made under penalty of perjury for providing false or fraudulent information.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a).
4. The Absentee Ballot Review and Counting Process Absentee ballots must be returned to the registrar by the U.S. Postal Service, a commercial courier, or by hand delivery. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). Under most circumstances, absentee ballots must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the day before Election Day in order to be counted. La. R.S. 18:1308(C). If an absentee ballot is delivered by someone other than the voter, a commercial courier, or the U.S. Postal Service, the registrar must have the person delivering the absentee ballot sign a statement certifying that they have the authorization and consent of the voter to hand deliver the marked absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). No person except the immediate family of the voter may hand deliver more than one marked absentee ballot to the registrar. Id. Parish boards of election supervisors conduct the counting and tabulation of all absenteeby-mail and early voting ballots in the parish. La. R.S. 18:1313(A). During the process of counting absentee-by-mail ballots, several steps are taken to validate each ballot. La. R.S. 18:1313(F). First, a member of the board announces the name of each absentee-by-mail voter and the ward and precinct where they are registered to vote. Then, the board must compare the name on the certificate or on the flap of the envelope containing the absentee-by-mail ballot with the names on
17

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2243 ooff 4487
the absentee-by-mail voter report, which is a listing of all voters from whom the registrar has received an absentee by mail ballot before election day. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(2). The absenteeby-mail report is printed from the state voter registration system, certified by the parish registrar for correctness, and delivered to the parish board of election supervisors on election day for use in the tabulation and counting of absentee by mail ballots.. La. R.S. 18:1311(C).
Next, the board will consider any properly filed challenges to the ballot. If the board determines that an absentee-by-mail ballot is valid, the ballot certificate must be signed by two board members. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6). But, if a majority of the members of the board determine that an absentee-by-mail ballot is invalid, the members must leave the envelope sealed, and a board member must write the word “rejected,” together with the reasons for rejecting the ballot, and their initials. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5). Rejected absentee-by-mail ballots and certificates must be placed in the special absentee-by-mail and early voting ballot envelope or container. Id. No rejected absentee-by-mail ballot is counted. Id.
C. The Emergency Election Plan Under Louisiana law, after the Governor declares a state of emergency, the Secretary of State may certify that the state of emergency will impact upcoming elections. See La. R.S. 18:401.3. The Secretary of State must then present an “Emergency Plan” to the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs (“the Senate Committee”), and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs (“the House Committee”) for approval before the plan may be voted on and approved by the full legislature. See id.
18

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2254 ooff 4487
On March 13, 2020, Louisiana Secretary of State Ardoin certified that the statewide COVID-19 emergency would impair the upcoming elections.51 See La. R.S. 18:401.3. On April 14, 2020, he presented an emergency plan (“the First Emergency Plan”) detailing procedures to safely hold the 2020 July and August elections to the Senate Committee and the House Committee for their approval. 52
The First Emergency Plan recognized the threat COVID-19 posed to the health and safety of voters, poll workers, volunteers, and others should Louisiana push forward with in-person voting for both the July and August elections.53 Among its measures to allow Louisianans to vote safely, the First Emergency Plan would have made eligible to vote by absentee ballot any voters who are “[u]nable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID19.”54 In other words, the First Emergency Plan would have ensured that any voter could vote absentee-by-mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The First Emergency Plan also would have reduced the number of witness signatures required on an absentee ballot application where the applicant is unable to sign their own name (and uses a mark) from two witnesses to one witness, provided polling locations and election
51 See La. Exec. Dep’t: Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/46-JBE-2020-Elections.pdf. 52 See Sam Karlin, Louisiana Republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f4411ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html; see also Melinda Deslatte, Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Emergency Summer Elections Plan, U.S. News (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-0428/louisiana-lawmakers-approve-emergency-summer-elections-plan. 53 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2020) [hereinafter “First Emergency Plan”], https://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2020/Apr_2020/Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20PPP%20and%20 Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-13.pdf. 54 Id.
19

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2265 ooff 4487
workers with supplies to prevent against the spread of the virus, and expanded early voting from seven to thirteen days prior to Election Day.55
The First Emergency Plan failed after the Senate Committee refused to bring it to a vote.56 Splitting on partisan lines, the majority of the Committee refused to certify that there was a state of emergency and deferred consideration of the First Emergency Plan—effectively rejecting it.57 Although numerous studies show that mail-in ballot fraud is very rare and no Committee member presented evidence that such fraud had occurred or was likely to occur in Louisiana, members of the Committee asserted they were deferring consideration of the plan primarily based on concerns about voter fraud.58 For example, Sen. Barry Milligan (R-Shreveport) stated the plan was “extremely broad and basically covers everyone in Louisiana,” and claimed: “There is not an election cycle that goes through that we wake up to the news that votes are found in somebody’s garage or somebody’s truck.”59
In contrast, during the hearing at which the First Emergency Plan was considered, when asked whether voter fraud was something he had seen in Louisiana, the Secretary of State replied that voter fraud was rare, and also asserted that he would rank Louisiana among the top five in comparison to other states when it came to election integrity and election security.60
55 See id. 56 See Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Election Plan, supra note 52; see also Deslatte, Lawmakers Approve Election Plan, supra note 52. 57 See id. 58 See Wendy R. Weiser & Harold Ekeh, The False Narrative of Vote-By-Mail Fraud, Brennan Center for Justice (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud (“Mail ballot fraud is incredibly rare, and legitimate security concerns can be easily addressed.”). 59 Fritz Esker, La. Legislature Approves Emergency Election Plan, The Louisiana Weekly (May 4, 2020), http://www.louisianaweekly.com/la-legislature-approves-emergency-election-plan/. 60 Video, Louisiana House Committee on Governmental Affairs, Hearing to Consider the Emergency Election Plan, Apr. 15, 2020; 18:25-21:00, https://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/VideoArchivePlayer?v=house/2020/apr/0415_20_HG.
20

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2276 ooff 4487
After again certifying that the pandemic posed risks for the upcoming election, Secretary Ardoin released a second, revised emergency election plan on April 20, 2020 (“the Revised Emergency Plan”).61 Following hearings on April 22, 2020, both the Senate Committee and the House Committee approved the plan.62 On April 27, 2020, it was approved by the full Legislature and the Governor.63 With the approval process complete, the Revised Emergency Plan now has the force of law.
The Revised Emergency Plan omits or scales back many of the protections included in the First Emergency Plan, purportedly to appease the unsupported concerns of the Senate Committee Members who opposed its first iteration.64 Critically, the plan no longer allows voters with a “concern of exposure” to COVID-19 to request an absentee by mail ballot. It also removes previously proposed absentee ballot eligibility for voters aged over 60 but under 65, as well as voters caring for a child or grandchild whose school or daycare is closed and/or where alternative childcare is not available due to COVID-19 concerns.
Under the Revised Emergency Plan, voters may only qualify for an emergency absentee ballot if they are:
61 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020) [hereinafter “Revised Emergency Plan”], https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised%20Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf. 62 See Esker, supra note 59. 63 See Louisiana Secretary of State: Get Election Information (last visited May 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetElectionInformation/Pages/default.aspx (“[T]he Secretary of State's Emergency Election Plan . . . [was] approved by the Governor and the Louisiana Legislature on Monday, April 27, 2020 . . . .”). 64 David Jacobs, Louisiana legislative committees approve COVID-19 voting plan; full bodies will vote by mail, The Center Square (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/louisiana-legislative-committeesapprove-covid-19-voting-plan-full-bodies-will-vote-by-mail/article_7ce4de16-84c0-11ea-9a98-cbff2bfdb2ea.html.
21

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2287 ooff 4487
 “At a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications)”;
 “Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID19”;
 “Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns”;  “Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis”; and/or  “Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine
or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.”65 The Revised Emergency Plan does not explain how its most central elements will be enforced. For instance: the Revised Emergency Plan does not define or explain qualifying terms such as “medically necessary,” and “moderate to severe.”66 Likewise, the Emergency Plan does not provide guidance on what qualifies as being “advised by a health care provider” or “seeking a medical diagnosis.”67 The absentee ballot application created by the state does not provide voters with any additional guidance on how to interpret these terms or what evidence they must provide to show they meet one of the COVID-19 related excuse requirements.68
65 See Secretary of State Emergency, Revised Emergency Plan, supra note 61; State of Louisiana, Official COVID19 Emergency Ballot Application [hereinafter “Emergency Ballot Application”], https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/COVID19%20VR2%20Absentee%20by%20Mail%20Application%20(Rev.%204-20)%20Ver.%201.pdf. 66 Id. 67 Id.
22

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 2298 ooff 4487
III. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F. 3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hoover v. Morales, 164 F. 3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs here satisfy each of these requirements. A. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Constitutional Claims
Against the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements. To demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs “must present a prima facie case” that they are likely to succeed, “but need not prove that [they are] entitled to summary judgment.” Daniels Health Scis., LLC v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC, 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Wash. St. Tammany Elec. Coop. v. La. Generating, No. 08-430-JJB-DLD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135876, at *5–*6 (M.D. La. July 30, 2008) (“[C]ourts agree that the plaintiff ‘must present a prima facie case but need not show that he is certain to win.’”). Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that, in the context the COVID-19 pandemic, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements impose undue burdens on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those
23

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3209 ooff 4487
interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); see also Texas Indep. Party v. Kirk, 84 F.3d 178, 182 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). When the restriction on the right to vote is a severe burden, then it is subject to strict scrutiny. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008). Strict scrutiny requires the restriction to be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434CH (quoting Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992)).
During the course of the pandemic, courts engaging in the Anderson-Burdick analysis have applied strict scrutiny to similar absentee ballot witness requirements and ballot access laws given the unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances brought about by COVID-19. See, e.g., Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott., No. SA-20-CA-438-FB, 2020 WL 2541971, at *32 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (applying the Anderson-Burdick framework and finding that under strict scrutiny, Defendants were “unable to supply any legitimate or reasonable interest” to justify denying absentee voting opportunities to voters under 65 years of age during the COVID-19 pandemic and would fail even if rational basis review was alternatively applied); League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. Of Elec., No. 6:20-cv-0024, _F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 2158249, at *7-8 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (“LWVV”) (finding that a witness requirement’s “substantial” burdens outweighed any countervailing state interests and approving a consent decree enjoining it); Garbett v. Herbert, No. 2:20-cv-245-RJS, 2020 WL 2064101, at *43 (D. Utah Apr. 29, 2020) (finding that, as applied in the “unforeseen, extraordinary circumstances” of COVID-19, a state ballot access framework imposed a severe burden on the right to vote and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest); Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-2112, 2020 WL 1951687, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020) (finding that, when assessing state-imposed burden within the
24

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3310 ooff 4487
context of “the extraordinary circumstances arising from COVID-19, . . . the combined effect of . . . Illinois’ stay-at-home order and the usual in-person signature requirements [created] a nearly insurmountable hurdle”); Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-10831-TGB, 2020 2020 WL 1910154, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2020) (finding strict scrutiny analysis appropriate where “unprecedented . . . restrictions imposed on daily life by the Stay-at-Home Order, when combined with the ballot access requirements . . . created a severe burden”). Courts have also applied strict scrutiny in non-pandemic emergencies burdening the right to vote. See also Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1257 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (holding that where Hurricane Matthew “foreclosed the only methods of registering to vote” in the final week of voter registration, the State’s statutory deadline “amount[ed] to a severe burden on the right to vote”); Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Deal, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1345-46 (S.D. Ga. 2016) (acknowledging that “[a]n individual’s ability to participate in local and national elections is arguably the most cherished right enshrined in our constitution,” and granting an injunction that extended a voter registration deadline in the wake of a hurricane).
In the context of the ongoing and significant health risks posed by COVID-19, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements will severely burden the right to vote for many thousands of Louisiana voters, forcing them to choose between exposing themselves and others to the serious risk of contracting COVID-19 by voting in-person or obtaining a witness signature, or foregoing their right to vote altogether. As Plaintiffs demonstrate, this constitutes effective disenfranchisement, an unequivocally severe and undue burden on the right to vote that Defendants cannot justify by any compelling state interest. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims.
25

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3321 ooff 4487
1. The Excuse Requirement Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Amid the public health crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, Louisiana’s requirement that voters must qualify under one of a limited list of allowable excuses in order to be eligible to even request an absentee-by-mail ballot deprives the State’s voters of the opportunity to safely vote in the upcoming elections and constitutes a severe and undue burden on the right to vote. Because the Excuse Requirement forces voters to take on what has the potential to be a lifeor-death risk in order to cast their ballot and have it count, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that enforcement of the requirement imposes an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Constitution.
As of May 21, 2020, over 35,000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported in Louisiana, and over 2,400 people have died.69 Even where COVID-19 infection is not fatal, it threatens severe symptoms, hospitalization, lasting physical damage, and unknowing asymptomatic transmission. Reingold Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11. Despite these circumstances and the dire risks posed by COVID-19, the Excuse Requirement would compel several thousands of qualified Louisiana voters to engage in conduct that has been identified by the CDC and public health officials as potentially unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic.70 Specifically, voters not eligible to vote using an absentee-bymail ballot pursuant to the Excuse Requirement will only have the option of voting in-person and will have to leave the safety of their homes, congregate in public spaces with unknown individuals, and touch shared public surfaces. Reingold Decl. ¶ 8 (opining that such activities increase the risk of transmission).
69 See La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020). 70 See CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Prevent Getting Sick – Social Distancing, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html (last visited May 21, 2020).
26

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3332 ooff 4487
While all of the State’s residents are susceptible to the risks posed by COVID-19, the undue burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement in the face of the pandemic will fall with particular severity on vulnerable categories of voters. For instance, older voters are at increased risk of infection, where the age group with the highest number of all COVID-19 cases reported in Louisiana are individuals ages 50–59 (19%), yet only voters age 65 and older are eligible to vote by absentee ballot without an additional excuse.71 Moreover, qualified voters with known medical conditions that place them at increased risk of complications from COVID-19, but who do not qualify to request an absentee mail in ballot under any of the existing excuses or the Revised Emergency Plan’s COVID-19-related excuses, will be more severely burdened by the Excuse Requirement. The Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden Black voters, who face heightened risk of death and infection from COVID-19 due to the compounding effects of longstanding institutional racism and social and economic disparities, see Jones Decl. ¶¶ 24-32; supra Part II.A.2; see also Decl. of Michael W. McClanahan ¶¶ 5-6 (hereinafter “McClanahan Decl.” attached s Exhibit 4).
The Revised Emergency Plan does not adequately address nor remedy the severe and undue burdens posed by the Excuse Requirement. The five COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan are restrictive and vague, as described supra Part II.C, and do not, for instance, apply to voters who have underlying medical conditions that put them at greater risk of COVID19 infection but do not qualify as “moderate to severe”, or older voters who are not 65 and over. Most notably, the COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan do not apply to the many thousands of voters who reasonably fear exposure to or transmission of COVID-19.
71 See La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020)
27

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3343 ooff 4487
Although Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue has been diagnosed with asthma and has a history of upper respiratory infections, she would not qualify for vote absentee under the Revised Emergency Plan’s COVID-19-related excuses. Decl. of Jasmine Pogue ¶¶ 5, 8 (hereinafter “Pogue Decl.” attached as Exhibit 5). Ms. Pogue has severe difficulty breathing and requires an inhaler when experiencing an attack but does not require asthma medication on a habitual basis. Id ¶¶ 6-7. She does not believe her diagnosis qualifies as “moderate to severe,” as listed among the “serious underlying medical conditions” on the COVID-19 emergency absentee application as a qualifying comorbidity to vote absentee. Id. ¶¶ 7, 11. She reasonably fears that voting in person would pose severe and potentially fatal risk to her and will be disenfranchised if provided no opportunity to vote by mail in July or August. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12, 15. These reasonable fears are shared by Black voters throughout Louisiana. McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.
Plaintiff Jennifer Harding, who is healthy, has been engaging in strict social distancing from non-family members due to fear of unknowingly exposing her family to COVID-19. Harding Decl. of Jennifer Harding ¶¶ 4, 8 (hereinafter “Harding Decl.” attached as Exhibit 6). Ms. Harding is a fulltime caretaker for her 10-year-old son and provides assistance for her elderly parents and grandmother who live close by and require help with basic tasks, like taking out the trash. Id. ¶ 6. Her father has Parkinson’s disease, her mother has limited mobility due to post-polio syndrome, and her grandmother has been diagnosed with dementia. Id. Because Ms. Harding does not provide live-in or full-time caretaking for her parents and grandmother, she does not believe she qualifies to vote under the Revised Emergency Elections Plan’s COVID-19 excuse related to “caring for” an individual in a medically necessary quarantine. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. Ms. Harding will be disenfranchised in the July and August elections if the Excuse Requirement remains in place or, at a minimum, forced to make a devastating choice between her right to vote and risking her family’s
28

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3354 ooff 4487
health. Id. ¶ 16. The scope of the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement is broad, threatening to
prevent several thousands of eligible Louisiana voters who are concerned about the effects of COVID-19 and are ineligible to vote by absentee ballot from participating in the upcoming elections. To begin, Louisiana currently has 2.9 million registered voters.72 According to statistics reported by the Louisiana Secretary of State, for the 2018 primary election, total turnout was 240,941 (20.22%),73 and for the 2018 municipal elections it was 121,329 (10.24%).74 Yet, without the option of absentee mail in voting, it is likely that for the upcoming July primary election and August municipal election many voters who would have otherwise participated in the elections will be forced to forfeit their right to vote in order to protect their health and the health of their families and communities. Burdens on the right to vote “are severe if they go beyond the merely inconvenient.” Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008) (Scalia, J., concurring). Enduring a credible risk of virus exposure exceeds mere inconvenience.
Even where an election law “imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” the State must still justify those restrictions with “important regulatory interests.” Texas Indep. Party, 84 F.3d at 182. As Plaintiffs demonstrate, while the severity of the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement calls for the application of strict scrutiny, even under a more relaxed threshold Defendants cannot identify an important regulatory interest in blocking expanded access to
72 Registration Statistics, La. Secretary of State,https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Statistics/Statewide/2020_0501_sta_comb.pdf. 73 Post Election Statistics, La. Secretary of State, https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2018_0324_sta.pdf 74 Id.
29

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3365 ooff 4487
absentee-by-mail voting in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and putting voters and their families
at risk.
When the First Emergency Election Plan was rejected, opponents of the plan articulated the concern that increased absentee voting would enable voter fraud.75 However, there is no
evidence to support this alleged concern, and Louisiana officials, including Secretary of State Ardoin, have repeatedly stated that voter fraud in the State’s elections is not a significant concern.76
See supra at 20. Instances of election fraud via absentee voting are extremely rare in the United States, and are minimal to nonexistent in Louisiana.77 Louisiana has robust mechanisms in place
to ensure that election fraud does not occur for absentee voting, including: review of absentee
voting eligibility by the registrar of voters, supra at 16, strict requirements for voter attestation and
verification under penalty of perjury, supra at 17, specific criminal penalties for violation of
absentee voting laws with notice of such penalties highlighted on every absentee ballot, supra at
16, and ballot-by-ballot review of each absentee ballot by parish boards of election supervisors to
75 See Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Election Plan, supra note 52; see also Deslatte, Lawmakers Approve Election Plan, supra note 52. 76 Video, Louisiana House Committee on Governmental Affairs, supra note 60; Dede Willis, Elections chief says no evidence of voter fraud in Louisiana, KNOE News (Jan. 26, 2017), http://www.knoe.com/content/news/Electionschief-says-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-Louisiana-411805135.html (Secretary of State announced that “Louisiana did not have any widespread irregularities or allegations of fraud” during the 2016 presidential election); Amber Phillips, Trump’s Voting Commission was doomed from the start, Wash. Post (Jan. 4, 2018) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/04/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-was-doomed-fromthe-start/ (Secretary of State denying that significant voter fraud exists in Louisiana); Amber Phillips, Why Louisiana is refusing to hand over voter registration data to Trump’s election probe, Wash. Post (Jul. 7, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/06/why-louisiana-is-refusing-to-hand-over-voterregistration-data-to-trumps-election-probe/ (Secretary of State denying that significant voter fraud exists in Louisiana. 77 Even the Heritage Foundation, an organization dedicated to “[p]reventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud,” https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud, has not identified a single case of election fraud via absentee voting in Louisiana. See Heritage Foundation, Election Fraud Cases, https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=LA&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 (last visited May 20, 2020). See also Weiser and Ekeh, supra note 58.
30

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3376 ooff 4487
identify ballots that must be rejected and not counted, supra at 17-18. The plain absence of absentee voting election fraud in Louisiana and the array of mechanisms already in place to ensure the integrity of each absentee ballot indicate no risk in expanded access to absentee voting, and demonstrates that the State has no distinct compelling interest in foreclosing such access during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Excuse Requirement imposes an undue and severe burden on the right to vote that is not justified by any significant state interest.
2. The Witness Requirements Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Even for those voters who satisfy the Excuse Requirement and are eligible to vote through absentee-by-mail ballot, Louisiana’s requirements that voters obtain a witness signature on an absentee ballot and on an absentee ballot application where the applicant is unable to sign their own name (and uses a mark) (the “Witness Requirements”) will impose an undue burden on voters who live alone or without any other adult in their household who can act as a witness. In light of the COVID-19 public health emergency, these voters will be forced to choose between putting themselves at risk of infection and severe illness through contact with a third party or foregoing their right to vote.
The character and magnitude of the burden imposed by the Witness Requirements warrant the application of strict scrutiny. See LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (order recognizing that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden imposed by the enforcement of a similar witness requirement “is substantial”); cf. Price v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101, 107 n.8 (2d Cir. 2008) (stating that “for voters who are . . . housebound” the burden of lack of access to absentee voting “could be quite significant”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed in
31

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3387 ooff 4487
showing that enforcement of the Witness Requirements imposes an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Constitution.
Despite guidance from public health officials and the Governor instructing all Louisiana residents to minimize person-to-person contact, avoid gathering in public, and keep six feet of distance between themselves and another person in order to avoid the risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19, the Witness Requirements require those voters who are able to obtain an absentee ballot to engage in person-to-person contact in order for their votes to be counted. This uniquely burdens voters who live alone or who do not have access to a witness by making them deviate from protective measures in order to have someone witness and sign their ballot envelope. According to Dr. Reingold, not only would this place individuals “at increased risk of infection” it would also “be particularly risky for those who are at a greater risk of complications and death from COVID-19.” Reingold Decl. ¶ 27.
The Ballot Witness Requirement has the potential to affect tens of thousands voters. According to data from the Election Assistance Commission for the 2018 election—an election not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic—approximately 43,000 (3%) of the 1,519,552 voters who turned out for the November 2018 election voted by absentee mail-in ballot.78 Of those absentee ballots, 1,218 voters or approximately 3%, were rejected for a witness signature deficiency.79 With the addition of voters who will be eligible to vote by absentee mail-in ballot under the COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan, and factoring in the risks of voting in person, there will likely be a significant increase in the number of requests for absenteeby-mail ballots for the July primary and August municipal elections. Correspondingly, under the
78 See Exhibit 7, Data from 2018 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys 79 Id.
32

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 3398 ooff 4487
Revised Emergency Plan, there will also be a significant increase in the number of voters disenfranchised by the Witness Requirements, as compared to 2018.
Additionally, considering the number of Louisiana residents who live alone, the burden imposed by forcing voters who cannot readily obtain a witness signature on their absentee mail in ballot or application (if the voter uses a mark) to make a bleak calculation between their health, the health of their families and communities, and their right to vote, will be significant. According to data from the 2018 ACS 1-Year estimates, approximately 15% (or 532,678 individuals) of the 3,560,000 Louisiana residents of voting age live alone. Cooper Decl. ¶ 7.
While people of any age are susceptible to contracting COVID-19, and any voter required to leave their home to obtain a witness signature will necessarily take on risk to their health during the pandemic, voters who are older, who have underlying medical conditions and disabilities, and Black voters will be put at even more extreme risk. Reingold Decl. ¶ 11. Of Louisiana residents who live alone, 35.8% are over 65 years old. Cooper Decl. ¶ 7. Of Louisiana residents who live alone, 27.5% are disabled. Id. ¶ 8. Of Louisiana residents 65 and older living alone, 44% are disabled. Id. ¶ 8. Black voters as a group are also put at heightened risk by the Witness Requirements. Approximately 18.1% of Black people of voting age in Louisiana live alone, as compared to 14.9% of white people of voting age. Id ¶ 9-10.
Plaintiffs’ individual circumstances highlight how the Witness Requirements impose a significant burden on voters. Plaintiff Jane Chandler, who is 76 years old and lives alone, plans to request an absentee ballot for the upcoming elections because she suffers from a lung condition that is a comorbidity of COVID-19 and believes the risk of exposure to the virus at her polling site is too severe to vote in person. Decl. of Jane Chandler ¶¶ 8-9 (hereinafter “Chandler Decl.” attached as Exhibit 8). To guard her health, she has engaged in extreme social distancing since
33

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4309 ooff 4487
mid-March by not inviting people into her house and limiting all trips she makes outside of her home. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff Chandler is concerned that she would endanger her life by unnecessarily disrupting her self-isolation to have her absentee ballot witnessed by a signatory. Id. ¶ 14.
Even eligible voters who do not live alone may not live with someone capable of serving as a witness, which may disproportionately impact Black voters. Approximately 14.9% of Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with their children under 18, as compared to only 4.9% of white households. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(d). For vulnerable and concerned voters who will rely on absentee voting to evade potential virus exposure and transmission via inperson voting, the Witness Requirement threatens to completely nullify such preventative action. See McClanahan Decl. ¶ 6. As Dr. Reingold states, “[r]equiring individuals to have one or more people who they are not otherwise being exposed to come into close enough proximity to witness their ballot would place them at increased risk for infection.” Reingold Decl. ¶ 27.
Given the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, including loss of life and the threat of serious illness, the character and magnitude of the Witness Requirements demonstrate a particularly severe burden on the right to vote, requiring the application of strict scrutiny. LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *7. However, even if the Court were to apply a more relaxed level of scrutiny, the intensity of the burden imposed by the Witness Requirement within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic outweighs any “important regulatory interests” identified by the State. Texas Indep. Party, 84 F.3d at 182.
The State’s interest in maintaining the integrity of its elections will not be materially enhanced by enforcement of the Witness Requirements. Current State law already requires voters to certify their absentee ballot application, as well as their ballots, under penalty of perjury and
34

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4410 ooff 4487
subjects them to criminal penalties for false certifications.80 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)-(E). Notably, Louisiana exempts voters in the military or those residing outside of the United States who submit absentee ballots from the witness signature requirement, allowing their certificate to be made under penalty of perjury. La. R.S. 1306(E)(2)(b). Considering these attestation requirements and criminal penalties together with the number of processes the State has in place to verify and protect the integrity of absentee ballots, including existing methods for accepting, handling, tabulating, and counting absentee mail-in ballots, supra at Part II.B.3-4, the Witness Requirements do not add any sound protection against fraud. La. R.S. 1308(B)-(C); 1313; see LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *9 (“For the fraudster who would dare to sign the name of another qualified voter at the risk of being charged with [a felony], writing out an illegible scrawl on an envelope to satisfy the witness requirement would seem to present little to no additional obstacle.”).
For the State’s upcoming elections administered amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no discernible additional protection that the Witness Requirements will provide to the integrity of an absentee ballot, as supported by the fact that Louisiana is only one of eleven remaining states with a witness or notarization requirement.81 Notably, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have removed the burdens of witness and notary requirements for absentee ballots, see, e.g., Id. at *8 (order approving consent decree enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to
80 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, Louisiana Secretary of State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f. 81 See Chart, “Verifying Authenticity of Absentee/Mailed Ballots,” Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, AllMail and other Voting at Home Options, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx; cf. Ala. Code §§ 17-930(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-20-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15- 220, 7-15-230; Va. Stat. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707, 24.2-711.1; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)(1).
35

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4421 ooff 4487
mitigate the risks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded from exercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee ballots); and in comparable non-pandemic circumstances, see, e.g., Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612, 632 (6th Cir. 2016) (invalidating law rejecting absentee ballot envelopes with technical errors given that burden on even a few voters with rejected ballots outweighed State’s purported interest in combating voter fraud given the State’s failure to present compelling evidence or argument that the measure was necessary to prevent alleged fraud.).
The Witness Requirements impose a severe and undue burden on Plaintiffs’ right to vote that is not outweighed by the State’s interest; thus, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Witness Requirements violate the Constitution.
B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if an Injunction is Not Granted To demonstrate the irreparable harms they will endure if the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are not enjoined, Plaintiffs “need show only a significant threat of injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm.” Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A., 804 F.2d 1390, 1394 (5th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). Where “an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
36

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4432 ooff 4487
Individual plaintiffs will face an irreversible loss if forced to forego voting to maintain strict social distancing practices during the July and August elections. Chandler Decl. ¶ 14; Harding Decl. ¶ 16; Pogue Decl. ¶ 15. See also McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. The right to vote is a “fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Indeed, ‘[t]he right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561–62 (1964). Encroachment on this most fundamental of constitutional rights “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Therefore, invariably, a “restriction on the fundamental right to vote . . . constitutes irreparable injury.” Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 326 (2d Cir.1986) (finding that the denial of the right to vote is “irreparable harm”)).
Injunctive relief is urgent and appropriate because “money damages are not adequate” to remedy a constitutional violation. See Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006) (reversing denial of preliminary injunction on complaint alleging First Amendment claims). Put simply, “it is not possible to pay someone for having been denied the right to vote.” OCA Greater Houston v. Texas, No. 1:15-CV-679-RP, 2016 WL 4597636, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016). Absent injunction, Plaintiffs will lose all means to have their voices heard equally in Louisiana’s July and August elections because once an election occurs, “there can be no do-over and no redress.” League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. N. Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiffs, and indeed all Louisianans, face a substantial and enduring health threat if COVID-19 is spread through avoidable in-person contacts made upon voting. There “can be no injury more irreparable” than “serious, lasting illness or death.” Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-480,
37

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4443 ooff 4487
2020 WL 1671563, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020). “[T]he denial of injunctive relief after a district court has found a risk of imminent and substantial danger to public health or to the environment should be rare.” LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co., 917 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2019). Courts have already established that “COVID-19 constitutes an irreparable harm” that supports the grant of preliminary relief. Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *7. An injunction thus provides the only effective means to protect both the rights and safety of Louisiana voters.
Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”) and the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“LA NAACP”) also face irreparable harm. A voting rights organization is “irreparably harmed when the right to vote is wrongfully denied or abridged— whether belonging to its membership or the electorate at large.” N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-1034, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2019 WL 7372980, at *24-25 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 2019) (noting that organizational plaintiffs demonstrated diversion of resources from other votereducation efforts to respond to challenged law, that they would continue this diversion if the law was not enjoined, that this diversion compromised their overall mission, and that the voters they represent were at risk of being deprived of their right to vote); see also Common Cause Ga. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (finding plaintiff organization’s harm “to its organizational interests is coterminous with the harms suffered by its citizen members” where voting was made more difficult); Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1154 (S.D. Ind. 2018), aff’d 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar). Moreover, the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements irreparably harm the organizational missions of ensuring that all qualified voters can successfully register and securely cast a ballot. McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 8; Decl. of Ashley Shelton ¶¶ 4-5, 16 (hereinafter “Shelton Decl.” attached as Exhibit 9). Absent injunction, both PCEJ and the LA NAACP will be forced to use their limited resources to help
38

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4454 ooff 4487
their target constituencies overcome the burdens and confusion caused by the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements, thus diverting time from other critical registration and voter mobilization efforts. Shelton Decl. ¶¶ 15, 17; McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 8. For some members, such burdens will be insurmountable.
C. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Favor a Preliminary Injunction.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must “establish . . . that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). No interest of the broader public will be compromised by enjoining the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements. Louisiana’s absentee ballots and ballot applications make explicit the strict criminal penalties associated with falsifying voting information, and there is no evidence that limiting absentee voting or requiring a witness signature offer any additional deterrent to those who would act to undermine the process. By contrast, the epidemiological and testimonial evidence presented herein show that the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements threaten public health and burden the franchise. These avoidable outcomes strike at the core of a robust democracy.
Among the most essential of public interests, the protection of fundamental constitutional rights is tantamount. See, e.g., Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.2006)) (“‘injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest.’”); see also Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”); Homans v. Albuquerque, 264 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir.2001) (“[W]e believe that the public interest is better served by . . . protecting [ ] core First Amendment right [s]”); Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d
39

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4465 ooff 4487
249, 261 (4th Cir.2003) (“Surely, upholding constitutional rights serves the public interest.”); G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights.”); League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (“The vindication of constitutional rights . . . serve[s] the public interest almost by definition,” including specifically when the right at issue is the right to vote). An injunction would protect Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to vote and the health of the public at large by enabling voting opportunities that do not require unnecessary and unsafe in-person interactions.
An injunction would favor the public interest by “permitting as many qualified voters to vote as possible.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 437; see also League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1224 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (“Quite simply, allowing for easier and more accessible voting for all segments of society serves the public interest.”.). Enjoining the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements also promotes “the public interest in . . . safeguarding public health.” Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 331 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites by Carlson No. 16-cv-1037, 2016 WL 4400498, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) (“The public interest is clearly in remedying dangerous or unhealthy situations and preventing the further spread of disease.”). Yet in the converse, if these restrictive voting requirements remain intact, the sacred interests of both the franchise and the public health will be put in unavoidable conflict. A preliminary injunction would ensure they are both equally protected.
Defendants risk no irreparable harm nor substantial burden if the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are enjoined. A “state is in no way harmed by the issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional.
40

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4476 ooff 4487
If anything, the system is improved by such an injunction.’” Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002). While Defendants and their agents will be tasked with facilitating expanded absentee voting opportunities and educating voters on their rights, these duties already fall within the purview of their offices and, more so, “administrative convenience” cannot justify limiting voters’ access to their fundamental rights. Taylor v. Louisiana., 419 U.S. 522, 535 (1975). The increased administrative burden of “disseminating information” and “training [election workers] . . . is minimal compared to the potential loss of a right to vote.” Ga. Coal. for People’s Agenda, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. In sum, any potential hardships to Defendants and their agents are “minor when balanced against the right to vote, a right that is essential to an effective democracy.” United States v. Georgia, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a preliminary injunction that: (1) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement, La. R.S. 18:1303, for absentee-by-mail voting for the 2020 July primary election and the August municipal election; and (2) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirements, La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) and 1307, for an absentee-by-mail application and in order to vote by absentee-by-mail ballot for all Louisiana voters for the 2020 July primary election and the August municipal election.
41

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 1164--51 0065//0211//2200 PPaaggee 4487 ooff 4487

DATED this 21st day of May 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Z. Morris John Z. Morris* NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel.: (212) 965-2200 zmorris@naacpldf.org
/s/ Catherine Meza Catherine Meza* NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-1300 cmeza@naacpldf.org

/s/ Ronald L. Wilson Ronald L. Wilson, (LSBN 13575) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel.: (504) 525-4361 cabral2@aol.com
/s/ Robert D. Fram Robert D. Fram* Morgan Lewis* Joshua González* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com MELewis@cov.com jgonzalez@cov.com
John Fraser** Covington & Burling LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Tel: (212) 841-1000 JFraser@cov.com

* Pro Hac Vice ** Pro Hac Vice Motion forthcoming Attorneys for Plaintiffs

42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 1 of 50
EXHIBIT 4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 2 of 50

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF DR. SEKOU FRANKLIN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Dr. Sekou Franklin, declare as follows: 1. I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. I have also taught courses at Williams College (Williamstown, Massachusetts), University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and Howard University. I received a B.S. in Political Science at Santa Clara University, an M.A. in Political Science at San Francisco State University, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Howard University. I have conducted election analyses since 2002, which includes published works of elections in Tennessee, California, Georgia, and the District of Columbia. I received expert preparation from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice’s Community Census and Redistricting Institute and received training from the Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS) Summer Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. 2. I previously provided expert witness reports for two voting rights cases, one in Tennessee and the other in North Carolina, as well as testified before the National Commission on Voting Rights Regional Hearing in 2014. I have also investigated numerous disputes for civil rights

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 3 of 50 2
organizations on issues such as legislative redistricting, voter purges, and the racial impact of photo identification laws. In 2016, I co-coordinated the Tennessee Election Protection Network in collaboration with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In 2019, I testified before and submitted written testimony to the Advisory Task Force on the Composition of Judicial Districts. I have also taught voting rights and civil rights policy courses at MTSU for a decade.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 3. I was asked to examine the risks that Louisianans face in the COVID-19 (also called the coronavirus) era, with particularly considerations to race and African Americans/Blacks.1 It addresses racial disparities and related vulnerabilities among Louisiana residents given the nationwide discussions about the significant risks to in-person voters in the 2020 elections. 4. The coronavirus disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable communities. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans make up the larger share of hospitalizations and deaths from the coronavirus. By mid-March 2020, a month after the outbreak of the pandemic, reports around the country revealed that people of color were contracting COVID-19 at significantly higher rates than Whites. This occurred in the South in places such as the Mississippi Delta, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina, as well as the non-South.2 In Louisiana, Blacks fluctuated between 57-70% of COVID-19 deaths in the month of April despite comprising only one-third of the state population.3 5. There are many reasons why African Americans are more vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. Less access to health services, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions, disproportionate location in essential work economies, differential living conditions, and disparate economic distress are some of the reasons. Notwithstanding race, COVID-19 impacts the most

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 4 of 50 3
vulnerable populations, who are unable to work from home, required to work in the service and industrial food economies, and are responsible for taking care of sick family members. 6. The attorneys for the plaintiffs asked me to review the socioeconomic and demographic factors—or social determinants of health—that relate to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of Louisiana allows seniors (65 years and older), disabled persons, and other classes of voters (e.g. clergy, offshore workers, juror, hospitalized, nursing home residents, etc.) to cast absentee ballots. In total, 15 categories of voters are potentially eligible for an “excuse requirement” that allows them access to mail-in voting.4 Yet, most voters do not qualify for this requirement. 7. As described in detail below, my analysis reveals these key statistical findings:
• Living Alone: As the Black population increases in counties, residents 18 years and above are more likely to live alone.
• Living w/Relatives: Counties with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to consist of households of extended family members.
• Crowded Environments: In the most “vulnerable” communities (census tracts), people of color and particularly African Americans are more likely to live in crowded environments.
• Economic Distress: Areas with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to have higher poverty rates. Economic distress (poverty, unemployment, lower education) is higher in census tracts largely comprised of people of color.
• Mobility: As the percentage of African Americans (and people of color) increase in counties and census tracts, there is a greater likelihood that people will not have automobiles.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 5 of 50 4
• Health Status: Health insurance coverage of African Americans improved in recent years. But, when measured at the micro-level (census tracts), neighborhoods comprised of people of color and particularly African Americans have higher uninsured populations. Furthermore, the overall health status and social determinants of health are much worse in areas with larger Black populations.
8. In the remainder of this declaration, I highlight the statistically significant findings drawing from several datasets. The findings indicate that race influences a wide range of social determinants related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
DATA AND METHODS 9. My analysis uses t-tests and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess public health and socio-demographic factors at the intersection of race in Louisiana. Data for the analyses are drawn from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) One-Year Estimates administered by the United States Census. Louisiana’s 64 counties have an average White population of 64% and Black population of 32%. Fourteen (14) counties have at least a 45% Black population. 10. The racial composition of the counties is used as a proxy to determine if racial background and counties with larger percentages of African Americans intersect with social determinants that may put people at risk of contracting COVID-19. Using this proxy or similar proxies is fairly common when relying upon census data in scholarly activities.5 Additional data for counties comes from the County Health Rankings report developed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.6 The study reports on social determinants and health status (see description later in this declaration) and ranks each county using ACS data compiled between 2010 and 2018.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 6 of 50 5
11. In addition, my analysis includes analyses at the census tract level using 2018 datasets from the Socially Vulnerability Index (SVI) compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). SVI was established by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 that Congress passed after Hurricane Katrina. The CDC/ATSDR defines social vulnerability as: “A number of factors, including poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing [that] may weaken a community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss in a disaster.”7 The index relies on 15 variables drawn from the ACS to evaluate the vulnerability of communities at the county and census tract levels. 12. The sociodemographic distribution is outlined in Table 1. African Americans made up 32% and Whites comprised 64% across the 64 Louisiana counties. In the 14 counties with the highest percentage of Blacks, their average population was 53% compared to 45% of Whites. Forty-five (45%) percent of people of color resided in the SVI census tracts. (SVI refers to this group as “Minorities”.) The larger Black counties had higher percentages of people living alone, living in crowded environments, living with extended family members, living in poverty, and those with no automobiles. Furthermore, the uninsured population and diabetics, percentage of children in households per county, those living with nonfamily members, income inequality, and unemployment status were relatively the same in the 64 and 14-county datasets. The SVI census tracts had a lower uninsured population than the other two datasets, yet the poverty rate was larger than the 64-county dataset.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 7 of 50 6

Geographic Jurisdictions
Sociodemographic Variables/Factors Blacks

Table 1. Select Population Characteristics of Louisiana

Mean % in All Mean % in Counties with Mean % in Socially

Counties

Large Black Populations Vulnerable Census

Tracts

Mean S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean S.D.

32

14.4

53

7.7

_______ ________

Whites Minorities/Nonwhites (SVI Data) Disabled Population Disabled Population (18-64) Living Alone No Automobile

64 ____
16.3 14.3
30 8.2

13.8 ____
3.2 3.5
5 3.2

45 ____
15.3 12.8
32 11.1

7.9 ______
2.9 2.8
6 4.1

45.1

29.4

15.5

5.8

_______ _______

10.3

10.2

Poverty (18 Years+) Poverty (Total)

19.1 ____

5.9 _____

22.1 ____

8.3 ______

______ _________

21.4

13.4

Children Household 31.3

2.7

31.6

3.1

______ _______

Living w/Extended Family Living w/Nonfamily Members Single-Parent Households Total Uninsured Crowded Environment Uninsured Adults

8.3
4.8
_____
14.3 .78 18.5

1.8
1.7
_____
1.9 .68 2.4

9.9
4.4
_____
14.1 1.1 18.2

2
1.6
_______
2.1 .55 2.7

______ ________

_______ _________

11

6.9

11.2

5.6

2.3

2.3

_______ ________

Diabetics

13

1.5

13

1.4

_______ ________

Income Inequality

5.6

.86

5.9

.95

_______ ________

Unemployed No HS Diploma

7 _____

1.6 _____

7.4 _____

2 ______

7.5

5

16.1

9.2

N=64
Source: 2018 ACS, US Census

N=14
Source: 2018 ACS, US Census

N=1140
Source: CDC/ATSDR SVI, 2018

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 8 of 50 7

13. It is important to note that Louisiana has a significantly high number of people living by

themselves, including senior citizens. As indicated in Table 2, 30.6% of the households (a total of

1,737,220 households that comprise of 4,659,978 persons) are headed by a person identified as

“living alone”. Among African Americans, a person lives alone in 37% of the households

compared to 28.2% of the White households. Nearly 15% of the Black households are headed by

women with children under 18 years of age compared to 5.1% of White households.

Table 2. Living Alone Status and Households

Total Population

4,659,978

Total Households

1,737,220

Percentage of Households with Person Living

30.6% Live Alone

Alone

Percentage of Households with Person Living

11.6% of Households

Alone 65 Years and Older

Percentage of Black Households with Someone Living 37% of Households Alone*

Percentage of White Households with the Person Living Alone*

28.2%

What percentage of Black households in Louisiana

14.9 %

Headed by Women Living Alone with Children Under

18 years of Age?

What percentage of White households in Louisiana

5.1%

Headed by Women Living Alone with Children Under

18 years of Age?

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census.

14. For this analysis, I developed three methods to assess how sociodemographic backgrounds and public health come together. First, I analyze trends at the county level using independent sample t-tests. T-test is a statistical measure used to compare means between two groups of cases.8 The tests are evaluated at a p<.05 level, in which scores below this measure are statistically significant and scores above the p-value are statistically insignificant. The racial composition of counties (Blacks and Whites) is the independent variable. The dependent variables are the percentage of the residents that have health insurance; adults without health insurance; people with

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 9 of 50 8
diabetes; those experiencing unemployment; an income inequality scale developed by the County Health Rankings report; a variable measuring racial segregation developed by the County Health Rankings report; disabled populations (total population and 18 to 64 year-olds); female-headed houses with children; those living alone and in crowded spaces (1.5+ people per housing unit); those with no automobiles; those living with relatives other than immediate family members; those living in households with nonrelatives; and impoverished individuals 18 years and above. Other variables from the County Health Rankings report rank the counties based on health outcomes, health factors, quality of life, life expectancy, and health behaviors. Higher scores indicate more vulnerability (or worse outcomes) in the ranking measures.9 Regression analysis is used to determine if race impacts “living alone” status. 15. The second model provides a closer look at the vulnerabilities facing counties with larger Black communities. Fourteen counties had populations with a 45% or greater population of Blacks. The methodology for evaluating these counties replicates what is used in the first model. This model allows for intra-group comparisons between counties with sizeable and majority/supermajority Black populations. 16. The third model gives exclusive attention to 1,140 census tracts in Louisiana experiencing severe stress in the SVI dataset—what are referred to as socially vulnerable communities. Data collection by census tract and race is difficult. Thus, the indices combine people of color (official called “Minorities” in SVI) instead of disaggregating them by individual racial/ethnic background. Additional variables look at crowded areas, poverty, education, people with no automobiles, senior citizens, disabled persons, and uninsured populations. 17. In all the models, I am concerned with how race converges with social determinants that are associated with high COVID-19 infection rates. Inaccessibility to social distancing

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 10 of 50 9
environments, dependence on family members and close friends, health risks and medical preconditions, quality of life, disability, no health care, and economic distress exacerbate infections. Race is measured by the percentage of Blacks and Whites in each county and census tract. As mentioned earlier, Blacks make up 32% of the population in the 64 counties, whereas Whites comprise of 64%. They make up 53% in model 2 (14 counties with the largest Black populations). 18. T-tests require the independent variables (also called grouping variables) to be set at dichotomous, nominal, or cut values. I chose two cut values for Blacks and Whites: cut points at the mean for each group (e.g. 32% for Blacks and 64% for Whites in the county-based analyses; 53% for Blacks in the analyses of 14 counties with sizeable Black populations; and 45% for minorities in SVI of census tracts); and additional t-tests that set the cut point of 50% for Blacks and Whites in the county-level datasets. The t-tests provide compare findings above and below the mean/average population for each racial group across the counties and allow for comparative analyses above and below a mid-point of 50% population for each group. Collectively, the methodological approaches provide different entry points for assessing the same dynamic – how race intervenes with public health dilemmas, and how other social determinants of COVID-19 infections are present in Louisiana.
RACE, VULNERABILITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH 19. Next, I examine race and public health in the following areas: a) Living Status, Mobility, and Economic Distress; b) Health Status, Health Care, and Quality of Life; and c) Micro-Level Analysis of Race and Public Health. As a reminder, data are measured across 64 counties, 14 counties with the highest percentage of Blacks, and 1,140 “vulnerable” census tracts. A partial set of statistically significant (p<.05) findings are reported for each area as bar charts under each topic. The complete list of findings is in the Appendix section. (See Tables A1-A5.)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 11 of 50 10
Living Status, Mobility, and Economic Distress 20. The findings reveal interesting results. Counties with larger Black populations were more likely to have residents living alone. As exhibited in Figures 1 and 2, 33.8% of the people in majority Black counties (greater than 50% Black population) lived alone compared to 7.4% in non-majority Black counties. Statistical significance was found in counties that compared residents above and below the mean average of Blacks (comparisons between counties with Black populations below and greater than 32%). The percentage of people living alone, 31.1%, was greater in counties with more Black residents compared to 27.1% in counties with fewer than 32% of Blacks. Statistically significant differences are also found when examining living status in White majority (50% and above) and supermajority (64% and above) counties. As exhibited in Figures 1 and 2, fewer residents “lived alone” in the counties with the largest percentages of Whites. (See Table A1-A5 in the Appendix for a full listing of results.)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 12 of 50 11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 13 of 50 12

21. Race is correlated with living status when comparing residents in Black and White

counties. Yet interestingly, within 14 counties that have large Black populations, there is no

statistical significance between counties above and below the average Black population (53%). In

other words, the racial composition of the county does not impact living status between counties

on the lower end (45-52%) and those on the upper end (53% and above). (See Table A3.)

22. These results tell us that residents are more likely to live alone in counties that have larger

Black populations compared to those living in counties with larger White populations. I conducted

a secondary analysis of OLS regression to confirm the connection with race. Table 3 reports the

findings. It shows that as the Black population increased across all counties, so does the likelihood

that a larger percentage of residents live by themselves. Similarly, as poverty increased in counties,

residents were more likely to live alone.

Table 3. Ordinary Least Square Regression (OLS) Analysis Living Status

Sociodemographic Factors

Living Alone

Black Population

.11 (.04)*

Living in Poverty (18 years+)

.37 (.11)*

Uninsured Adults

.36 (.27)

Rural

.001 (.02)

Unemployed

-.48 (.39)

Segregation in Counties

-.002 (.04)

Income Inequality

.34 (.60)

Constant

13.2 (5.6)*

R-Square

.43

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings and Roadmap Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

Note: The T-tests measures significance (*) at p<.05.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

23. Regarding mobility, there is statistical significance in all t-test models. Counties with greater shares of Black and Minority residents had higher numbers of people with no automobiles (see Figures 1 and 2 and Tables A1-A6) compared to majority White counties. In all the models in Tables A1-A6, poverty was a statistically significant factor that is shaped race. Counties with

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 14 of 50 13
more African Americans had higher poverty rates. Counties with more Whites had lower poverty rates. 24. Race and living status are bidirectional in Louisiana. Familial contact/distance was evaluated by “living alone” and whether people resided in households with someone else: children, other relatives outside of their spouses and children, and nonrelatives. Noticeable racial differences were found in one of the three categories. It is an important finding. Counties with higher percentages of African Americans were significantly more likely to have relatives living with them outside of their immediate families compared to counties with larger shares of Whites. 25. The finding is revealing because it shows that extended family life is an important component of family culture in areas where African Americans reside. Between 9-10% of the families have relatives living with them. Once counties exceed 45% of Blacks, statistical differences disappear between counties on the lower end of the threshold (45-52% of Blacks) and those at the higher end (more than 53% of Blacks). 26. Overall, there is considerable evidence race shapes living status. A person living alone is more likely to live in a county with more Blacks. Furthermore, as the Black population increases— or inversely as the White population decreases—there is a greater chance that voters live with relatives. Health Status, Health Care, and Quality of Life 27. Next, I examine the relationship between race and health status. The ACS provides data on disability status and the uninsured populations. As referenced earlier, additional data are drawn from the 2018 County Health Rankings. These measures and the uninsured population—total population (adults and children) and adults 18 years and above—identify groups that are the most vulnerable to infection by COVID-19. They further identify people living in communities beset

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 15 of 50 14
by pre-existing medical conditions, food insecurity, inadequate prenatal care, emotional and physical distress, less access to doctors and dentists, housing insecurity, and other factors. 28. The racial composition of counties (a proxy for race) is statistically significant across several categories. Counties exceeding 50% Black majorities have a fewer uninsured adult population (16.8) and fewer uninsured people (children and adults) than those below 50%. No statistical differences are found in the other t-test models (comparisons between counties with Black populations below and greater than 32%, comparisons between counties with White populations below and above 50% population, comparisons between counties with White populations below and above 64% of the population). (See Tables A1-A5.) The findings reveal a recent phenomenon in Louisiana since 2016—the close of the racial gap in terms of health insurance coverage. A study by the Commonwealth Fund confirmed this finding. The authors found that the expansion of Medicaid in the state reduced the overall uninsured population and closed the racial gap in terms of access to health insurance.10 29. Yet, uninsured status does not convey the complete picture of race and health in Louisiana. Table 4 outlines five additional measures of social determinants of health in Louisiana based upon layered data in the County Health Rankings report. The first is “life expectancy” or premature deaths. Second, “quality of life” ranks the counties based on low birthweight and physical and mental health. Diet and exercise, drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual activity is a third evaluation measure of “health behaviors”. Fourth, “health outcomes” look at the combined impact of mortality (adult, child, infant), mental and physical health, and the prevalence of chronic diseases. Fifth, “health factors” assess food insecurity, drug overdoses, health care costs, the uninsured population, poverty, segregation, and disconnected youth.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 16 of 50 15

Table 4. Measures of Public Health County Health Rankings

Life Expectancy

Premature Death

Quality of Life

Poor or Fair Health, Poor Physical Health Days, Poor Mental Health Days,

Low Birthweight

Health Behaviors

Diet and Exercise, Alcohol and Drug Use, Sexual Activity

Health Outcomes

Age-adjusted Mortality, Infant Mortality, Child Mortality, Physical and

Mental Distress, Prevalence of Diabetes and HIV

Health Factors

Food Insecurity, Insufficient Sleep, Drug Overdoses, Lack of Insurance,

High Health Care Costs, Firearm Deaths, Segregation, Poverty, and

Disconnected Youth

Source: 2018 County Health Rankings report, A collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2018,

https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/key_measures_report/2018C

HR_KFR_0.pdf, pp. 14-16.

30. The differences between majority Black counties and majority White counties are staggering. In counties exceeding 50% Blacks, the mean ranking score is 50.1 for health outcomes compared to 30.0 for non-majority Black counties as displayed in Figure 3 (higher scores indicate worsening health outcomes). Majority White counties, on the other hand, have a mean score of 29.9 compared to counties comprised of people of color (45.1 mean rank score).

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 17 of 50 16
31. Statistically significant differences exist in these counties for health factors at 17.3, quality of life at 20.2, and health behaviors at 17.1, with public health measures worsening as the Black population increases in counties. Similar differences emerge when comparing counties below and above the overall average (32%) Black population per county. In the five ranking scales (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behaviors), counties with more Blacks fare worse. The gap between counties ranges from 12 to 21 points. (See Table A2 in the Appendix.) 32. In addition, majority White counties fair better than counties in which Blacks and/or people of color are the majority. The statistically significant results are only found in the health outcomes (see Figure 3) and quality of life rankings. The other rankings (life expectancy, health behaviors, health factors) produced no measurable differences. Yet, racial gaps emerged between homogeneous White counties and counties that have a shrinking White population—above and below the average percentage of Whites per county set at 64%—ranging from 10-20 points on the rank scales. (See Tables A4, A5.) 33. An interesting finding is revealed in the intra-group comparisons in counties with larger shares of Blacks. In counties exceeding the 45% Black population mark, the health status of residents is troublesome, but significant differences disappear. In other words, the health status in these counties (counties with a Black population between 45-52% compared to counties where Blacks make up 53% and more of the population) are nearly the same (see Table A3). This suggests that health outcomes are more divergent along racial lines—that is when relying on the racial composition of a county as a proxy—than it is within homogenous Black counties. 34. The results reveal, that in most cases, those living in counties with significant Black populations have worse health conditions despite the recent gains in expanded health insurance.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 18 of 50 17
These residents experience health vulnerabilities—based on an exhaustive list of measures in the County Health rankings—that make them particularly vulnerable to infections in high-risk environments. Counties with more Blacks had worse health outcomes such as low birthweight, chronic illnesses such as diabetes and HIV, and physical and mental distress. Health factors including limited options to healthy food, poverty, drug overdoses, food insecurity, insufficient sleep, and higher health costs were more prevalent in Black communities. Quality of life was also worse in majority Black counties as measured by low birthweight as well as physical and mental health. And, health behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, sexual activity, poor diet, and infrequent exercise were more prevalent in these communities. Micro-Level Analysis of Race and Public Health 35. The last category analyzes overlapping concerns about race and public health at the census tract levels. ACS census-tract data are more limited than county-level data, regarding year-to-year collections on racial/ethnic data. The SVI developed by the CDC/ATSDR offers useful information at the census tract level. However, the data aggregates Minority populations (e.g. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.). Even still, most of the people of color/Minorities in this group are African Americans. Thus, comparisons between Minorities and Whites provide a window into how race, particularly regarding Blacks, intersect with social determinants underlying COVID-19 infections.11 36. The SVI identified 1,140 “vulnerable” or high-risk census tracts in Louisiana. The t-test compared vulnerability between census tracts above and below the average Minority population in the census tracts across different variables/factors: poverty rate, unemployment, education (less than a high school education), disability, seniors (above 65 years of age), single-parent households, crowded neighborhoods, no automobiles, and uninsured populations.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 19 of 50 18
37. The findings point to statistical evidence of differential outcomes. Minority census tracts had higher economic distress, less health insurance, and lived in more crowded households than Whites who lived in vulnerable communities. That is, when isolating all “vulnerable” census tracts, Minorities are more at risk than Whites as demonstrated in Figure 4 and Table A6 (see Appendix).
38. The findings reveal that race, vulnerability, and public health are interrelated at the microlevel. Minority census tracts above 45% compared to majority White census tracts have a higher poverty rate (29.9% to 14.7%), more unemployed residents (10% to 5.6%), and live in households with no automobiles (16.5% to 5.5%). Although the Blacks-Whites uninsured gap seemed to close when measured at the county-level, at the micro-level, Minority census tracts have a higher uninsured population (13.5% to 9.3%), The only divergence in the SVI dataset is among seniors, in which more reside in majority White census tracts.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 20 of 50 19
CONCLUSION 39. For this analysis, I examined race and social determinants that make communities vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. Race shapes several outcomes regarding living status and mobility. First, as the Black population increases in counties and in Minority census tracts, individuals are more likely to live alone. Other persons not living alone are more likely to have extended family members in their households and more likely to live in crowded units. Moreover, counties and census tracts with more African Americans and Minorities, respectively, are comprised of more people without automobiles. 40. Second, economic distress is influenced by the racial composition of counties and census tracts. Counties with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to have higher poverty rates. Minority census tracts have higher poverty rates, unemployment, and lower education. 41. Third, notwithstanding the recent improvements in health coverage for African Americans, their overall health status appears to be much worse than Whites. There are significant gaps in the health status between majority Black and majority White counties on a wide spectrum of measures such as chronic illnesses, access to healthy food options, physical and mental stress, quality of life, and higher costs of higher health care. 42. My findings are statistically significant. They offer a window into how race and particularly the Black-White divide are shaped by the social determinants of health related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 21 of 50 20
I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 1, 2020

____________________________________ Dr. Sekou Franklin

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 22 of 50 21

Appendix

Table A1. High-Risk and Racial Composition of Counties/Parishes

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 50% Black Population)

Black Pop > 50% Blacks <50%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t DF

Disabled Population

15.5 3.3

16.4 3.2 -3.3,1.5 .-74 62

Disabled Population (18- 12.4 2.9

14.5 3.5 -4.7, .414 -1.7 62

64)

Living Alone*

33.8 7.4

8

4.3 1.4, 8.6 2.8 62

No Automobile*

13.0 4.3

7.5

2.4 1.9, 9.1 3.5 7.6

Poverty (18 Years+)*

25.9 8.4

18.1 4.8 .75, 14.9 2.6 7.7

Children Household

1.6 .52

1.6

.48 -.39, .35 -.10 62

Living w/Extended

10.0 2.1

8.0

1.7 .51, 3.1 2.8 62

Family*

Living w/Nonfamily

4.8 1.7

4.8

3.2 -1.3, 1.2 -.06 62

Members

Crowded Housing

1.4 1.7

.69

.37 -.74, 2.1 1.1 7.1

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults*

16.8 2.6

18.8 2.3 -3.8, -.22 -2.2 62

Diabetics

13.1 1.5

13.1 1.5 -2.1, .18 -1.7 62

Income Inequality

5.9 1.1

5.9

.83 -.37, .94 .88 62

Unemployed

6.4 1.9

7.1

1.6 -2.0, .52 -1.2 62

Total Uninsured*

12.9 1.9

14.5 1.8 -2.93, - -2.4 62

.23

Health Outcomes Rank* 50.1 14.2

30.0 17.9 6.9, 33.4 3.0 62

Health Factors Rank*

47.4 18.8

30.1 17.8 3.5, 30.1 2.5 62

Life Expectancy Rank 43.1 17.7

30.1 18.4 -1.7, 26.0 1.8 62

Quality of Life Rank* 50.1 15.3

29.9 17.7 7.4, 33.8 3.1 62

Health Behaviors Rank* 47.5 18.5

30.4 17.8 3.7, 30.6 2.5 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 23 of 50 22

Table A2. High-Risk and Racial Composition of Counties/Parishes (Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 32% Black Population)

Factors/Variables Disabled Population
Disabled Population (18-64)
Living Alone* No Automobile* Poverty (18 Years+)* Children Household Living w/Extended Family*

Black Pop >32% Black Pop <32%

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

C.I. T DF

15.9 2.9

16.6 3.4

-2.3, .88 -.86 62

13.7 3.3

14.7 3.6

-2.7, .72 -.1.2 62

31.1 5.5 9.8 3.4 21.6 6.6 1.6 .50 9.2 1.7

27.1 3.7 6.7 2.3 16.8 4.1 1.7 .46 7.5 1.5

1.7, 6.4 3.5 62 1.7, 4.5 4.3 62 2.0, 7.6 3.5 47.5 -.38, .10 -1.2 59.3 .92, 2.5 4.3 62

Living w/Nonrelatives

4.7 2.1

4.8 1.2

-.96, .74 -.21 44.3

Crowded Housing

.91 .94

.61 .35

-.12, .62 1.4 36

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.5 2.1

18.5 2.8

-1.2, 1.3 .10 62

Diabetics

13.0 1.4

12.9 1.6

-.67, .85 .23 62

Income Inequality

5.6 .93

5.6 .82

-.42, .45 .07 62

Unemployed

7.4 1.9

6.7 1.4

-.12, 1.5 1.7 62

Total Uninsured

14.3 1.6

14.3 2.1

-.93, .93 .004 62

Health Outcomes Rank*

41.2 15.3

24.5 17.8

8.7,

4.1 62

25.4

Health Factors Rank*

38.8 18.1

26.9 17.5

3.02, 2.7 62

20.8

Life Expectancy Rank*

38.9 16.6

26.8 18.7

3.2,

2.7 62

21.0

Quality of Life Rank*

43.6 15.0

22.7 15.9

13.1, 5.4 62

28.7

Health Behaviors Rank*

39.1 18.1

26.7 17.3

3.5,

2.8 62

21.2

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 24 of 50 23

Table A3. High-Risk in 14 Counties w/High Black Populations (Cutoff Value of Mean Comparisons is 53% Black Population)

Black Pop>53%

Black Pop,

45-53%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

95% T

DF

C.I.

Disabled Population

13.8 1.8

16.1 3.2

-5.7, 1.1 -1.4 12

Disabled Population

11.2 2.3

13.7 2.8

-5.7, .76 -1.7 12

(18-64)

Living Alone

34.8 9.1

30.4 3.1

-2.7, 1.3 12

11.4

No Automobile*

14.6 4.9

9.2 2.0

1.4, 9.4 2.9 12

Poverty (18 Years+)*

28.4 9.6

18.6 5.3

1.3,

2.5 12

18.4

Children Household

31.2 1.6

31.9 3.8

-4.6, 3.2 -.39 12

Living w/Extended

9.8 2.8

10.0 1.7

-2.8, 2.3 -.17 12

Family

Living w/Nonrelatives 5.2 1.9

4.0 1.3

-.68, 3.1 1.4 12

Crowded Housing

2

1.9

.64 .45

-.99, 3.7 1.6 4.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

16.8 2.6

19.0 2.5

-5.3, .87 -1.6 12

Diabetics

12.2 1.3

13.4 1.3

-2.9, .36 -1.7 12

Income Inequality

6.0 1.2

5.8 .83

-.97, 1.4 .41 12

Unemployed

6.4 1.3

7.9 2.2

-3.9, .89 -1.4 12

Total Uninsured

12.8 1.6

14.8 2.0

-4.3, .31 -1.9 12

Health Outcomes Rank 49.4 18.4

41.7 18.1

-14.4, .76 12

29.9

Health Factors Rank

46.7 22.9

36.9 22.7

-18.0, .77 12

37.4

Life Expectancy Rank 43.8 17.0

38.2 20.0

-17.6, .53 12

28.7

Quality of Life Rank

49.6 19.3

42.8 16.3

-14.3, .70 12

28.0

Health Behaviors Rank 46.2 23.1

37.9 22.1

-18.9, .67 12

35.5

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=14 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 25 of 50 24

Table A4. High-Risk in Majority-White Counties

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 50% White Population)

White Pop White Pop

>50% <50%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t

DF

Disabled Population

16.4 3.2 15.7 3.1 -1.5, 2.8 .63 62

Disabled Population (18- 14.6 3.4 12.9 3.2 -.63, 3.9 1.4 62

64)

Living Alone*

28.3 4.3 32.1 6.8 -6.9, -.60 -2.4 62

No Automobile*

7.4 2.4 11.8 4.2 -7.3, -1.5 -3.7 11.4

Poverty (18 Years+)*

18.3 4.8 22.8 8.8 -10.6, 1.4 -1.7 11.3

Children Household

1.6 .49 1.7

.47 -.42, .22 -.65 62

Living w/Extended

7.9 1.5 10.2 2.2 -3.4, -1.2 -4.3 62

Family*

Living w/nonrelatives

4.8 1.7 16.4 3.2 -1.0, 1.2 .12 62

Crowded Housing

.70 .38 1.1

1.4 -1.4, .55 -.98 10.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.7 2.4 17.6 2.6 -.45, 1.2 1.4 62

Diabetics

13 1.5 12.7 1.4 -.73, 2.8 .54 62

Income Inequality

5.6 .82 5.9

1.0 -.91, .23 -1.2 62

Unemployed

7.0 1.7 6.8

1.6 -.88, 1.3 .40 62

Total Uninsured

14.4 1.8 13.6 2.0 -.34, 2.1 1.4 62

Health Outcomes Rank* 29.9 18.3 45.1 15.2 -27, -3.4 -2.6 62

Health Factors Rank

31 17.8 39.9 21.6 -21.2, 3.3 -1.5 62

Life Expectance Rank

30.1 18.7 40.1 16.5 -22.0, 2.4 -1.6 62

Quality of Life Rank*

29.9 18.1 45.2 16.0 -27.1, -3.5 -2.6 62

Health Behaviors Rank

30.9 17.8 40.1 21.7 -21.4, 3.0 -1.5 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 26 of 50 25

Table A5. High-Risk in Supermajority White Counties

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 64% White Population)

White Pop White Pop

>64%

<64%

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t

DF

Disabled Population

16.6 3.3

15.8 3.0 .79, 2.4

1.02 62

Disabled Population (18- 14.7 3.5

13.7 3.4 -.69, 2.8 1.2 62

64)

Living w/Family*

27.2 3.6

31.3 5.6 -6.5, -1.6 -3.5 62

No Automobile*

6.8 2.3

9.9 3.5 -4.6, -1.6 -4.1 44.1

Poverty (18 Years+)*

17.0 4.1

21.7 6.7 -7.6, -1.8 -3.2 42.2

Children Household

1.7 .47

1.6 .50 -.12, .37 1.0 62

Living w/Extended

7.6 1.5

9.2 1.8 -2.5, -.84 -4.0 62

Family*

Living w/nonrelatives 4.8 2.1

16.6 3.3 -.91,.90

-.02 39.5

Crowded Housing

.65 .34

.93 .97 -.67, .11 -1.5 10.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.5 2.7

18.5 2.1 -1.2, 1.2 .00 62

Diabetics

12.9 1.6

13.0 1.5 -.91, .62 -.38 62

Income Inequality

5.7 .95

6.7 1.4 -.53, .34 -.44 62

Unemployed

6.7 1.3

7.4 1.9 -1.6, .12 -1.7 62

Total Uninsured

14.3 2.1

14.2 1.6 -.85, 1.03 .20 62

Health Outcomes Rank* 25.7 18.2

41.3 15.5 -24.2, -7.0 -3.6 62

Health Factors Rank*

27.5 18.0

39.0 17.7 -20.1, -2.5 -2.6 62

Life Expectance Rank* 28.2 19.1

38.1 16.7 -19.0, -.79 -2.2 62

Quality of Life Rank* 23.83 16.5

43.6 15.1 -27.8, -11.8 -4.9 62

Health Behaviors Rank* 27.3 17.8

39.2 17.8 -20.9, -3.0 -2.7 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

Note: The T-tests measures significance (*) at p<.05.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 27 of 50 26

Table A6. Comparisons Between Socially Vulnerable Communities

(Cutoff Value is 45% Minority/Nonwhite Population)

Minority >45% Minority <45%

Indicators of Social Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

95% C.I. T

Vulnerability

Poverty*

30

13.4

14.7 8.5

13.9, 16,6 21.9

Unemployed*

10.0 5.5

5.6 3.6

3.9, 5.0 15.7

No HS Diploma*

20.2 8.5

12.8 8.4

6.4, 8.4 14.8

Over 65 Years Old* 13.7 5.0

16.0 6.1

-2.9, -1.6 -6.9

Disabled* Population 16.7 5.9

14.5 5.5

1.6, 2.9 6.5

Single Parent*

14.7 7.6

8.1 5.0

5.9, 7.3 17.2

Households

Crowded*

2.9 2.6

1.9 2.0

.74, 1.3 7.4

No Automobile*

16.5 11.9

5.5 4.8

9.8, 12.1 19.4

Uninsured*

13.5 5.7

9.3 4.7

3.6, 4.8 13.4

Population

p<.05, p<.10

Source: CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index, 2018, N= 1140 Census Tracks

DF
795 808 1067 1134 1034 769
917 627 956

Notes
1 Both terms, Blacks and African Americans, are used interchangeably in this declaration. 2 VPM News, “African Americans Make Up All of Richmond Coronavirus Deaths,” VPM News, https://vpm.org/news/articles/12538/african-americans-make-up-all-of-richmondcoronavirus-deaths, April 15, 2020; “In Poverty Stricken Mississippi Delta, Coronavirus Fight Has Added Challenges,” Washington Post, April 18, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/in-poverty-stricken-mississippi-deltacoronavirus-fight-has-added-challenges/2020/04/18/991053b8-59ac-4a16-9f6297e79c8e7849_video.html, April 18, 2020; Associated Press, “Milwaukee's Black Community Hit Hard by Coronavirus,” March 27, 2020, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/newyork/articles/2020-03-27/milwaukees-black-community-hit-hard-bycoronavirus?context=amp&src=usn_tw&__twitter_impression=true; Lonnae O'Neal, “Public Health Expert Says African Americans Are at Greater Risk of Death from Coronavirus,” March 13, 2020, https://theundefeated.com/features/public-health-expert-says-african-americans-are-atgreater-risk-of-death-from-coronavirus/; Joseph P. Williams, “Black Americans Face an Uphill Battle Against the Coronavirus,” March 26, 2020,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 28 of 50
27
https://www.miamitimesonline.com/covid-19_hub/black-americans-face-an-uphill-battleagainst-the-coronavirus/article_be29b2b4-6f69-11ea-b1a2-4b5b09550f0f.html; Deborah Barfield Berry, “Health Issues for Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans May Cause Coronavirus to Ravage Communities,” March 30, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/30/coronavirus-cases-could-soar-blackslatinos-and-native-americans/2917493001/; Akilah Johnson and Talia Buford, “Early Data Shows African Americans Have Contracted and Died of Coronavirus at an Alarming Rate,” April 3, 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/early-data-shows-african-americans-havecontracted-and-died-of-coronavirus-at-an-alarming-rate/amp?__twitter_impression=true. 3 Melinda Deslatte, “Louisiana Data: Virus Hits Blacks, People With Hypertension, April 7, 2020, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-04-07/louisiana-datavirus-hits-blacks-people-with-hypertension; Jeff Adelson, Youssef Rdadd, and Robert Faimon, “It’s disturbing’: Coronavirus kills black residents at dramatic rates across Louisiana, April 21, 2020, https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_107fec9c-8408-11ea-9d9bdf1bbbef7d77.html. 4 Louisiana Vote By Mail, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteByMail/Pages/default.aspx. 5 It is common for researchers to develop different proxies for race using the American Community Survey data. See John D. Landis, “Black-White and Hispanic Segregation Magnitudes and Trends from the 2016 American Community Survey,” Cityscape vol. 21, no. 1 (2019): 63-86; Themis Chronopoulos, “ Race, Class, and Gentrification in Harlem Since 1980,” in eds. Andrew M. Fearnley and Daniel Matlin. Race Capital? Harlem as Setting and Symbol (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018), 243-266; Sean F. Reardon, Lindsay Fox, and Joseph Townsend, “Neighborhood Income Composition by Household Race and Income, 19902009,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 660 (July 2015): 78-97; Carrie E. Henning-Smith, “Rural Counties With Majority Black Or Indigenous Populations Suffer The Highest Rates Of Premature Death In The US,” Rural Health vol. 38, no. 12 (December 2019): 2019-2026. 6 2018 County Health Rankings report, A collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2018, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/key_measures_report/ 2018CHR_KFR_0.pdf, pp. 14-16. 7 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (also called the CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), Geospatial Research Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, https://svi.cdc.gov/Documents/FactSheet/SVIFactSheet.pdf, Accessed on May 18, 2020. Also, see Barry E. Flanagan, et al., “Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index,” Journal of Environmental Health vol. 80, no. 10, (Jun 2018): 34-36. 8 Kim, Tae Kyun. “T Test as a Parametric Statistic,” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology vol. 68,6 (2015): 540-546. 9 Louisiana 2018 County Health Rankings Report, 13-16. 10 Jesse C. Baumgarter, et al., How the Affordable Care Act Has Narrowed Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Health Care, Data Brief, January 2020, p. 9.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 29 of 50 28
11 Flanagan, et al., “Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards. Also, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5m0Lb3B4UY&feature=youtu.be; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKFHOryflA&feature=youtu.be.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 30 of 50 1

VITA

NAME:

Sekou M. Franklin, Ph.D.

HOME ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 282482 Nashville, TN 37228-8516

WORK ADDRESS

Middle Tennessee State University Department of Political Science 1301 East Main Street P.O. Box 29 Murfreesboro, TN 37132

PHONE/EMAIL:

615-252-8080 (home) 615-904-8232 (work) sekoufranklin@gmail.com Sekou.Franklin@mtsu.edu

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Post-doctoral Fellowship, University of Illinois’ African American Studies and Research Program, August-2001-August 2002.

Ph.D. Howard University, Political Science, May 2001.

Masters of Arts, San Francisco State University, Political Science, 1996.

Bachelor of Science, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, 1994.

Doctoral Dissertation, “Mobilization and the Struggle for Leadership: A Study of the Black Student Leadership Network,” May 2001.

Masters Thesis, “An Analysis of the NAACP During the Post-Civil Rights Era,” May 1996.

Additional Education/Training:

Graduate of the South Asian Regional Institute on the Study and Practice of Strategic Nonviolent Action/International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, Dhulikhel, Nepal, March 3-9, 2019.

The Community Census and Redistricting Institute’s Expert Preparation and Community Education Program (Training for Expert Witnessing in Racial Redistricting Court Cases, Southern Coalition for Social Justice), Duke University, Summer 2010.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 31 of 50
2
University of Dayton Chautauqua Short Course, “Energy Sustainability: What Every Faculty Member Should Know,” University of Dayton, May 17-19, 2010.
Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems Summer Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Summer 2009.
Interuniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research short-course, “Introduction to Social Network Analysis,” University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, Summer 2007.
Global Exchange Reality Tour, “Afro-Venezuela: The San Juan Cultural Festival,” Summer 2007.
International Faculty Development Seminar, “Brazil: Societal and Economic Perspectives,” Council for International Educational Exchange, May 31-June 9, 2005.
Completed eight-week summer program at the University of Michigan's Interuniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research in Quantitative Methods, 1997.
AREAS OF CONCENTRATION:
American Politics, Pressure Groups, Urban Politics, African-American Politics, Racial/Ethnic Politics, American and Comparative Social Movements and Citizen Participation, and Civil Rights Policy and Politics.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Middle Tennessee State University, August 2003-Present. Williams College, September 2002-June 2003. University of Illinois, January 2002-May 2002 Howard University, August 1999-May 2000
COURSES (*New Course Developed for MTSU):
*“Race and the Criminal Justice System,” Middle Tennessee State University
“U.S. Presidency,” Middle Tennessee State University
“Democratic Participation and Civic Advocacy,” Middle Tennessee State University
*“Sustainable Development in the Cities,” Middle Tennessee State University

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 32 of 50 3
*“Race, Democracy, and Elections,” Middle Tennessee State University
*“Comparative Social Movements,” Middle Tennessee State University
“*Civil Rights Policy and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“Municipal Government and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“African American Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“American Government and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“The Politics of U.S. Social Movements in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries,” Williams College, Spring 2003
“Theories of Community Organizing and Citizen Participation,” Williams College, Spring 2003
“Power, Politics, and Democracy” (Intro to American Government), Two Sections, Williams College, Fall 2002
“Black Political Participation in the United States,” Williams College, Fall 2002
“Pedagogy of African-American Student/Youth Politics and Socio-Political Action,” University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana Campus), Spring 2002
“American Politics and Government,” Junior Statesmen Association (Stanford University site), Junior Statesmen Foundation, Stanford, CA, Summer 2001
“Introduction to Black Politics,” Howard University, Spring 2000
“Introduction to Black Politics,” Howard University, Fall 1999
“Understanding Politics” (a course in American Politics), Teaching Assistant, San Francisco State University, Fall 1994
PUBLICATIONS:
(Books/Monographs)
Losing Power: African Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics (University of Georgia Press, 2020)
After the Rebellion: Social Movement Action and Popular Mobilization among the PostCivil Rights Generation (New York University Press, 2014).
Editor, State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee, Sponsored by the Urban League of Middle

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 33 of 50
4
Tennessee, In Partnership with the Center for Community Change and the Urban EpiCenter, Nashville, TN, December 2010/January 2011.
(Articles/Book Chapters)
Dowe, Pearl K., Sekou Franklin and Niambi Carter. “Policy Symmetry and Cross-Racial Linked Fate in the Early Years of the Obama Presidency,” Politics, Groups and Identities, April 2018.
“The Politics of Race and Medicaid Disenrollment in Tennessee,” Social Sciences, January 2017.
“In Whom Do We Trust? Racial Trust in the Early Years of Barack Obama’s Presidency” (co-authored w/ Pearl Dowe) in Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2016.
Book Review of Daniel Q. Gillion’s The Political Power of Protest: Minority Activism and Shifts in Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2013), Journal of Politics, April 2016.
“Black Youth at the Forefront of Social Movement Activism,” Black History Bulletin (BHB) Special Issue on Youth Empowerment: Hope, Action and Freedom, vol. 79 (1) 2015, 5-14.
“Race, class and green jobs in low-income communities in the US: challenges for community development, in Class, Inequality and Community Development, Editors, Mae Shaw and Marjorie Mayo, Policy Press, 2016.
“Race, Class, and Community Organizing in Support of Economic Justice Initiatives in the Twenty-First Century,” Community Development Journal, 2013.
“The Elasticity of Anti-Civil Rights Discourse: Albert Gore, Sr., Richard Russell, and Constituent Relations in the 1950s and 1960s,” Social Identities Journal, 2013.
“The Effects of Concentrated Poverty on Black and White Participation in the Southern Black Belt,” (co-authored with Sharon Wright Austin and Angela Lewis), National Political Science Review, 2013.
Lewis, Angela K., Pearl K. Ford Dowe, Sekou Franklin. “African Americans and Obama’s Domestic Policy Agenda: A Closer Look at Deracialization, the Federal Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Health Care Act, ” Polity, 2012.
“The Social and Political Status of Hurricane Katrina’s Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia,” in Pearl Ford, ed. African Americans in Georgia: Politics and Policy, A Reflection of the New South (Mercer University Press, 2010).
“Barack Obama and the Presidential Election in Georgia: Symbolic Racism, Electoral Mobilization, and Campaign Contributions (co-authored with Pearl Ford) in Pearl Ford, ed. African Americans in Georgia: Politics and Policy, A Reflection of the New South (Mercer University Press, 2010).
“African-Americans, Transnational Contention, and Cross-National Politics in the United States and Venezuela”African Americans and Transnational Alliances with Venezuela,” in Michael Clemons, ed., African Americans and Global Affairs: Process, Power, and Impact (University Press of New England, 2010).
“Frank G. Clement and the Death Penalty in Tennessee,” in Amy Staples (ed.) The New Abolitionists (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2010).
“Style, Substance, and Situational Deracialization: Racial Polarization and

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 34 of 50
5
the Tennessee Senate Race,” Whose Black Politics, edited by Andra Gillespie, (Routledge, 2009) “Southern Racial Etiquette and the 2006 Tennessee Senate Race: The Racialization of Harold Ford’s Deracialized Campaign,” National Political Science Review, Fall 2008. (Co-authored with Richard Middleton). Book Review of Wilbur C. Rich, David Dinkins and New York City Politics: Race, Images, and the Media (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007). American Politics Research, Spring/Summer 2008. “The Black Student Leadership Network Summer Freedom School Program,” in Teach Freedom: The African American Tradition of Education For Liberation, Charles Payne and Carol Strickland, eds. (Williston, VT: Teachers College Press, 2008). “Political Triangulation in the Left Coast City: The Electoral and Governance Strategies of Mayor Willie Brown,” in John Davis (ed.) Perspectives in Black Politics and Black Leadership (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007). “Symbolic Linkages and the Congressional Black Caucus,” Co-authored with Richard Seltzer and John Davis, in John Davis (ed.) Perspectives in Black Politics and Black Leadership (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007). “Race, Preemption, and Autonomy in the District of Columbia,” National Political Science Review, Spring 2007. (Co-authored with Richard Seltzer) “Black Political Development in Tennessee: From Reconstruction- 2006,” Wornie Reed (ed.) Blacks in Tennessee: Past and Present (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2008). “Conflicts in the Coalition: Challenges to Black and Latino Political Alliances,” Co-authored with Richard Seltzer, Western Journal of Black Studies, Summer 2002 vol. 26, no. 2. “Social and Political Attitudes on the Black Predicament: Data from the Million Man March,” Co-authored with Joseph P. McCormick (First Author) Alice M. Jackson and Maurice C. Woodard (eds.) American Government and Politics: A Multicultural Perspective: A Supplemental Reader (Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002). “Black Organizational Development and the Black Student Leadership Network,” National Political Science Review vol. 8 (2001): 206-220. “Expressions of Racial Consciousness: Data from the Million Man March,” Coauthored with Joseph P. McCormick II (First Author), in Yvette Alex-Assensoh and Lawrence Hanks (eds.) Black Politics in Multiracial America (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 315-336. “Black Information Sources and the Million Women March,” Government & Politics Journal (A Journal of Howard University’s Department of Political Science) vol. 2, no. 6 (Spring 2002): 78-83. “Graduate Program in Political Science at Howard University: 1967-1996,” Government & Politics Journal (A Journal of Howard University’s Department of Political Science) vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1997-Spring 1998): 95-100.
Encyclopedia Articles
Laura Finley (ed.) Encyclopedia on Juvenile Violence (Greenwood Press, 2006).

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 35 of 50
6
(Six Entries) - African Americans and Juvenile Violence - Public Health - Mentoring - Urban Juvenile Violence - 1980-1989 - 1990-1999 John Vile (ed.) Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (Congressional Quarterly Press, 2008) - American Friends Service Committee - NAACP v. Alabama (1958) - NAACP v. Button (1963)
Research Reports and Related Activities
“Fair Chance Hiring: A Policy Proposal for Metro Nashville,” Submitted to the Civil Service Commission, Prepared for the Democracy Nashville Group, August 2015.
Bus Rapid Transit System: Transportation Equity and North Nashville, September 2012 (Prepared for the North Nashville Interest Group).
Civic and Political Literacy (CPL) Schools: A Mini-Proposal for Increasing Political Participation and Social Activism in Economically Distressed Communities (Prepared for the Urban EpiCenter).
Clean Energy and Sustainability Zones (CESZ): A Proposal for Participatory Development in Economically Distressed Communities (Submitted to the “Beloved Community” Revitalization Initiative and Tennessee Citizen Action).
Co-authored the “Green-Collar Jobs Task Force Equitable Flood Recovery Recommendations.”
Co-author “Green Jobs Act” (Tennessee General Assembly, HB 3654, Co-Sponsored by Representative Mike Stewart and Senator Andy Berke) (Approved in Subcommittee, but rejected by the Full Standing Committee.)
Co-authored Resolution 2009-866 by the Nashville & Davidson County Metropolitan Council (Approved in July 2009.)
The Green Jobs Corps of Nashville-Davidson County (Prepared for the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County), June 2009.
Green Pathways Out of Poverty: A Training Guide for Activists, Advocates and Organizers Concerned About Equity and Green Jobs (Prepared for the GreenCollar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County), March 2009.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 36 of 50 7
Driving Toward Poverty: Taxi Drivers in the Athens of the South, August 2008. (A preliminary submitted report to the Nashville-Davidson County’s Transportation and Licensing Commission, August 2008.)
Coalition Building and Formation, Report to the Nashville Black Covenant Coalition, April 5, 2007.
Reinsurance or Risk-Insurance: Health Care, the Uninsurable, and Tennessee’s Working-Poor (An examination of cost-sharing reinsurance plans; prepared for the TennCare Saves Lives Coalition), March 2006.
Green-Collar Jobs Presentation Series (Prepared and conducted for the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County and the Committee for Green Jobs in Tennessee).
(Lectures on Sustainable Development and Green Jobs)
- Green Jobs, Sustainable Development, and Equity in Tennessee, Prepared for Vanderbilt University Divinity School, December 1, 2010.
- Green Jobs in Tennessee, Tennessee Alliance for Progress Compass VII Conference, Nashville, TN, October 8-9, 2010.
- Sustainable Development and Green Jobs, Tennessee NAACP Conference, Chattanooga, TN, September 30, 2010.
- Public Sector Weatherization Programs, Green Jobs Breakfast Meeting, Sponsored by the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County, June 23, 2010.
- 21st Century Lawn and Garden Show, Nashville, TN, March 4, 2010.
- “Financial Committee for the Unemployed,” Franklin, TN, March 3, 2010.
- Race Relations Summit, NAACP State Conference, Jackson, TN, February 27, 2010.
- Compass VI Conference, Tennessee Alliance for Progress, Nashville, TN, December 45, 2009.
- Guyasuta Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, November 21, 2009.
- Tennessee Labor Management Conference, Nashville, TN, August 12, 2009

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 37 of 50
8
- Black Youth and Green Jobs, HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, July 2009.
- Peer-to-Peer Funders CommitteeGathering, Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009
- Tennessee Black Legislative Caucus Meeting, Nashville, TN, April 21, 2009.
- American Baptist College’s Shalom Leadership Course, April 2009.
- Community Forum on Green-Collar Jobs, Sponsored by the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County, 15th Avenue Baptist Church, Nashville, TN, April 20, 2009.
- Center for Community Change Southeast Regional Meeting, Nashville, TN, March 28, 2009.
- Southeast Regional Conference, A. Philip Randolph Institute, Memphis, TN, March 15, 2009.
Newspaper/Newsletter Essays
Opinion Essay, “The next Metro Nashville Council will have a redistricting fight on its hands,” The Tennessean, August 2, 2019.
Opinion Essay, “Learning from the Watts Rebellion, 50 Years Later, Boston Review, August 31, 2015, Accessed at http://bostonreview.net/us/sekou-franklin-wattsrebellion-50-years-later.
Op-Ed, “There Are Better Southern Legacies to Celebrate than Dixie, and There Are Bigger Battles to Fight than the Rebel Flag,” July 9, 2015, Nashville Scene, Accessed at http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/there-are-better-southernlegacies-to-celebrate-than-dixie-and-there-are-bigger-battles-to-fight-than-therebel-flag/Content?oid=5274365.
“Amp Debate Leaves Out Race, Class Discussion,” Tennessean, 2013.
“Nashville’s Race, Class Inequities Overlooked in Campaigns,” The Tennessean, August 1, 2011.
“Police Need Holistic Approach to Crime Reduction,” The Tennessean, April 25, 2010.
“Green Jobs Are in America’s Best Interest,” The Tennessean, November 28, 2009.
“Outing of Black Non-Voters,” Nashville Scene, November 16, 2006.
“Hustle and Flow: The Failure of Black Leadership,” The Real Deal (Fall 2005): 1.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 38 of 50
9
“TennCare is a Civil Rights Issue,” Alternatives vol. 5, no. 2 (March/April 2005): 5.
CONFERENCE/PAPER PRESENTATIONS/ROUNDTABLES/LECTURES:
Lecture, “The 15th Amendment and African American Voter Justice,” Middle Tennessee State University, Honors College Lecture Series, September 9, 2019.
Paper Presentation, “Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Intellectual Roots of Nonviolent Resistance in Black Politics,” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., August 28-September 1, 2019.
Panel Presentation, “Voting Rights & Why Voter Justice Matters,” Tennessee Alliance for Black Lawyers, Tennessee Bar Association Annual Convention, Renaissance Hotel, Nashville, June 12-15, 2019.
Panel Presentation, “Nashville and the Fight for a Community Oversight Board,” National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Regional Training, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN, May 17, 2019.
Keynote Address, Tennessee Civic Campus Summit, Vanderbilt University, March 29, 2019.
Keynote Address, National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Baton Rouge, LA, March 15, 2019.
Presentation, “Policing the Police: Nashville and the Fight for a Community Oversight Board,” Fisk University, Nashville, TN, September 2018.
Paper Presentation, “The Radical Politics of Nonviolent Resistance and the Poor People’s Campaign,” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, August 29-September 2, 2018.
Paper Presentation,“The Political Underpinnings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Citizenship Education,” 49th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Chicago, IL, March 14-17, 2018.
Roundtable Plenary Panel, “Preparing Expert Witnesses in an Era of Retrenchment Against Black Political Power,” 49th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Chicago, IL, March 14-17, 2018.
Guest Classroom Lecture, Community Healthcare, Vanderbilt University Medical School, March 9, 2018
Roundtable, “Strategies for Moving from Protest to the Ballot Box, 2018 Race Relations/Advocacy Summit, Tennessee NAACP State Conference, Jackson, TN, March 2-3, 2018.
Lecture, “African Americans, Democratic Participation, and the Civil Rights Movement's Citizenship Education Program, 1957-1970,” American Values Honors College Lecture Series, MTSU, February 12, 2018.
Panelist, “Transitions in Social Justice Activism,” Disasters, Displacement, and Human Rights Conference, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, February 9-11, 2018.
Paper Presentation, “Growth and Opposition to New Jim Crow Laws in Tennessee: Controversies and Conflicts over Sentencing Policies and the Death Penalty,” Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association Conference, Hyattt, New Orleans, January 4-6, 2018.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 39 of 50
10
Presentation, “Why Voter Justice Matters: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond,” The New American Electorate Beyond the Voting Booth: Building an Inclusive Democracy, Ohio State University, November 30-December 1, 2017.
Guest Classroom Lecture, African American Politics, University of Arkansas, October 2, 2017.
Three-Part Lecture, “The Role of Scholar-Activism: Teaching Resistance and Social Change in the New Millennium, Fisk University, September 30, 2017.
Chair/Moderator, Panel on Criminal Justice Reform in Tennessee, Tennessee NAACP State Conference Annual Convention, Nashville, TN, September 21-23, 2017.
Keynote Lecture, “Resistance When Your Back Is Against the Wall,” United Campus Workers-Annual Convention IBEW Hall – Nashville, TN, September 16, 2017.
Roundtable Presentation, Roundtable-Symposium Black Politics in the Trump Era, American Political Science Association, Hilton Hotel, San Francisco, CA August 30-September 3, 2017.
Paper Presentation, “The Role of Scholar-Activism: How Social Scientists Can Bolster Resistance Movements,” Paper presentation at the 47th Annual Urban Affairs Association Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 19-22, 2017.
Presentation, “Perspectives on Racial and Social Justice in Nashville's Criminal Justice Community,” Leadership Nashville – Criminal Justice Day, Sun Trust Bank, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2017.
Lecture, The Moving 13th and Criminal Justice Policy, A. Philip Randolph Southeastern Regional Conference, Hotel Preston, Nashville, TN, April 1, 2017.
Roundtable Panelist, Closing Luncheon & Plenary Session: Black Political Activism In the Trump Era: Action Steps and Moving Forward, Paper presentation at the 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 15-18, San Diego, California.
Panelist, The Boundaries of Racial Politics in Tennessee: The Legislative Behavior of Tennessee’s Black Lawmakers, 2003-2012, 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, San Diego, California, March 15-18, 2017.
Paper Presentation, Immigration and the New Tennesseans, 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 15-18, San Diego, California, March 15-18, 2017.
Panelist, “Black Lives Matter, Social Activism and the Carceral State,” Sewanee, Monteagle, Tennessee, February 10, 2017.
Lecture, Voting Rights & Criminal Justice Reform: Expectations After the 2016 Presidential Elections, Southeast Tennessee Paralegal Association, Chattanooga, TN, January 17, 2017.
Lecture, Voting Rights and Election Protection: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond, Black Googlers Network, Nashville, TN, January 13, 2017.
Panelist, 13th Amendment Film, No Exceptions/Conscious Conversations, November 13, 2016.
Lecture, Why Voter Justice Matters: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond, Volunteer State College, October 26, 2016.
Panelist, Reconstructing SC’s Radical Roots – Lessons from the Southern Negro Youth Congress,South Carolina Progressive Network 20th Annual Conference &

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 40 of 50
11
University of South Carolina, October 22, 2016. Lecture, Racial Polarization and Electoral Realignment in Tennessee during the
21st Century, Brown Bag Series Lecture, MTSU, Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, October 12, 2016. Panelist, Erasing Barriers to Rehabilitation: A Discussion on the Ban the Box Movement, Tennessee Conference of the NAACP Statewide Meeting, Dickson, TN, September 22-24, 2017. Lecture, 2016 Presidential Elections, Faculty Breakfast Club, Nashville, TN, September 18, 2016. Panelist, “NAACP Get H.Y.P.E. & Courageous Together Tour,” Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 19, 2016. Lecture, “Black Youth Activism and the Reconstruction of America: Leaders, Organizations, and Tactics in the 20th Century and Beyond, Shannon Lecture Series,” Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2016. Lecture, “African Americans, Transnational Contention, and Cross-National Politics in the U.S. and Venezuela,” Africana Studies Program, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2016. Roundtable Presentation, “Arrested Democracy: The Political Implications of Mass Incarceration,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Roundtable Chair, Film – This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer, National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Panel Discussant, “Moral Mondays and the Impact of Fusion Politics in the 21st Century,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Panelist, We Too Sing America in Nashville: Book Talk and Community Conversation with Deepa Iyer,” Nashville Public Library, February 17, 2016. Lecture, “Erasing Barriers to Rehabilitation: A Discussion on the Ban the Box Movement,” Vanderbilt Black Law Students Association, Nashville, TN, February 17, 2016. Paper Presentation, “Race, Electoral Realignment, and Polarization,” Southern Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 8-10, 2016. Panel Presentation, “Reflections on Voting Rights in the South in the Age of Shelby v. Holder, Southern Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 8-10, 2016. Panel Presentation, “Transportation Equity and Civil Rights,” Transportation Innovation Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, December 9, 2015. Panel Presentation, “Race, Policing, and Social Justice: From Ferguson to Baltimore and Beyond,” Emory University, James Weldon Johnson Institute for the Study of Race and Difference, Atlanta, Georgia, December 3, 2015. Panel Presentation, “Nashville’s Government and Media Day,” Leadership Nashville, First Amendment Center, Nashville, Tennessee, November 5, 2015. Lecture, “Ban the Box Nashville,” MTSU NAACP Chapter, October 20, 2015. Panelist/Panel Organizer, “Voting Rights Act, 1965-2015: Commemorating 50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 41 of 50
12
Years,” 24th Annual Undergraduate Social Science Symposium, Middle Tennessee State University, October 28, 2015. Panelist/Panel Organizer, “Advocacy Forum/Legislative Update,” Tennessee NAACP State Conference, 69th Annual State Convention and Civil Rights Advocacy Conference, September 19, 2015. Presentation, “Spirit of Youth and the City: Teenagers, Rebellion, and Social Change,” Washington, D.C., May 30, 2015. Presentation at the Joint Conference of the Working-Class History Association and the Working-Class Studies Association. Presentation, “A Defining Moment for Jefferson Street,” Nashville, TN, April 30, 2015. Presentation at a town hall meeting sponsored by the Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship. Presentation, “A Formula for Change: Advocacy in the Courts, the Legislature, and the Streets,” Nashville, TN, April 19, 2015. Presentation at the Re-Visioning Justice in America Conference, Vanderbilt University. Plenary Panel Presentation, “Black Politics in the Aftermath of Ferguson and Staten Island,” Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. Paper Presentation, “Racial Hierarchy, Second-Order Devolution, and Medicaid Reform Before ObamaCare, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Presentation, “Nashville and the New Jim Crow,” Nashville, TN, February 23, 2015. Presentationto the Davidson County Democratic Party Executive Committee. Presentation, “Nashville and the New Jim Crow, Nashville, TN, November 8, 2014. Presentation to the L-Club. Presentation, “Social Justice Activism,” Conference at the State Convention of the Tennessee NAACP State Conference, Nashville, TN, September 18-20, 2014. Presentation, “Spirit of Youth and the City: Teenagers, Rebellion, and Social Change,” Presentation at the Joint Conference of the Working-Class History Association and the Working-Class Studies Association, Washington, D.C., May 30, 2015. Presentation, “A Formula for Change: Advocacy in the Courts, the Legislature, and the Streets,” Re-Visioning Justice in America Conference, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, April 19, 2015. Plenary Panel Presentation, “Black Politics in the Aftermath of Ferguson and Staten Island,” Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Paper Presentation, “Racial Hierarchy, Second-Order Devolution, and Medicaid Reform Before ObamaCare, Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Presentation, “Life in the Academy: The Transition from Assistant to Associate,” Panel presentation, National Conference of Black Political Science Annual Meeting, Wilmington, Delaware, March 13-15, 2014. Presentation, “Author Meets Critics: A Review of Daniel Gillon’s Political Power of Protest,” Panel presentation, National Conference of Black Political Science Annual Meeting, Wilmington, Delaware, March 13-15, 2014. Presentation, “African Americans and Legislative Politics in the Tennessee General Assembly,” Tennessee NAACP State Conference Day on the Hill, Nashville, TN,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 42 of 50
13
February 11, 2014. Presentation, “Transit Equity and the AMP,” IMF General Meeting,” Nashville, TN,
February 5, 2014. Paper Presentation, “Social Movements, Inclusion, and the Politics of Redistribution in Southern Municipalities,” the Southern Political Science Association Annual
Meeting, Hyatt, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 9-11, 2014 Presentation, “Just Growth or Just Growth?” Nashville Organized for Action and Hope
(NOAH) Summit, September 28, 2013. Presentation, “Pilgrimage for Jobs, Equity, and Fairness,” State Conference of the
Tennessee State Conference of NAACP Chapters, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 27, 2013. Presentation, “Transportation Equity and North Nashville,” Neighborhood Resource Center Transportation Conference, Nashville, September 21, 2013. Panel Chair and Organizer, “Grassroots Organizing and Community Organizing among African-American Women in Middle Tennessee,” MTSU Women’s Studies Conference, April 5, 2013. Presentation, “The Racial Politics of TennCare and What it Means for the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, March 25, 2013. Paper presentation, “Race, Realignment, and Polarization in Tennessee in the 21st Century,,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2013. Presentation, “Bus Rapid Transit North Nashville Corridor, Empowerment Congress Leadership Institute, Co-Presentation with the Nashville Music City Team, January 18, 2013. Lecture, “The Long Range Impact of the 2012 Elections and How it Affects Middle Tennessee,” Horizon Group, Murfreesboro, TN, January 12, 2013. Lecture, State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee, Nashville NAACP, December 13, 2012. Panel Presentation, “United Campus Workers, Neoliberalism, & Tennessee Public Higher Education, Association for Humanist Sociology Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, November 7-11, 2012. Lecture, “African-Americans and Civic Engagement in Tennessee,” Horizon Group, Murfreesboro, TN, July 2012. Lecture, “Localizing Green Equity and Climate Justice in Municipal-Jobs Programs, 5th Annual Ethnic Studies Distinguished Alumni Speaker Series, Santa Clara University, May 17, 2012. Lecture, “Transnational Contention, African-Americans, and Afro-Venezuelans,” May 16, UC Santa Cruz, 2012. Panel Chair, “Moving from the Margins: Political Attitudes, Inequality, and Community Based Advocacy,” (Undergraduate Research Section), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2012. Panel Presentation, “African Americans and Obama’s Domestic Policy Agenda: A Closer Look at Deracialization, the Federal Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Health Care Act,” (co-authored with Angela K. Lewis and Pearl K. Dowe), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 43 of 50
14
March 2012. Panel Presentation, “In Whom Do We Trust? Racial Trust, Feedback Loops, and the
Impact of President Barack Obama,” (co-authored with Peark K. Dowe), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2012. Panel Presentation, “Gerrymandering and Redistricting, League of Women Voters and First Amendment Center “Redistricting: Map It Out! Panel, Belcourt Theatre, October 6, 2011. Panel Presentation, “Electoral Boundaries and Voting Trends in Tennessee, 2001-2011,” State Conference of the Tennessee State Conference of NAACP Chapters, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, September 23, 2011. Paper Presentation, “The Green For All Movement’s Struggle for Green Jobs and Equitable Green Procurement Policies in Municipalities,” 69th Annual Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, March 31April 3, 2011. Paper Presentation, “Frank Clement and the Death Penalty,” Tennessee Conference on Historians, Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tennessee, September 10, 2010. State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee Lectures (These lectures are for the State of Blacks and Middle Tennessee report, 2010) - HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, July 15, 2010. - Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship Meeting, Nashville, TN, May 2010. - National Urban League Strategic Discussion, Renaissance Hotel, Nashville, TN, April 20, 2010. Presentation, “Political Strategies to Environmental Change, “Creating the Beloved Community Conference: Environmental Justice and the City,” Pittsburgh (PA) Theological Seminary Metro-Urban Institute, April 8-10, 2010 Lecture, “The Green For All Movement,” Buhl Lecture Series, University School of Nashville, April 28, 2009. Paper Presentation, “Race, TennCare, and Perspectives on Health Care,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, March 18-22, 2009. Roundtable Presentation, “How Will President Obama’s Economic Recovery Bill Affect the African American Community?” Sponsored by the Urban Resource Center, Clarksville, TN, March 5, 2009. Paper Presentation, “The Politics of Hurricane Katrina’s Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia,” Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 7-10, 2009. Roundtable Presentation, “Gender, Race, and Politics,” Women Studies Program, KUC Theater, MTSU, October 27, 2008. Lecture, “Between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama: Race Management, Electoral Populism, and Presidential Politics,” Honors College, October 20, 2008. Paper Presentation, “Black Political Development in Tennessee,” Symposium, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Africana Studies Program, April 24, 2008. Paper Presentation, Before the “Jena 6” Protest: The Juvenile Justice Reform Movement in the 1990s and 2000,” National Association of Black Political Scientists’

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 44 of 50
15
Annual Conference, March 19-22, 2008, Chicago, Illinois. Panel Presentation, “Blacks and Social Justice in Tennessee,” NAACP Labor and
Industry statewide meeting, January 16, 2008, Columbia, Tennessee. “Situational Deracialization, Harold Ford, Jr., and the 2006 Senate Race in Tennessee,”
Transforming Race Conference, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University, November 30-December 1, 2007. Presentation, “The Evolution, Demolition, and Revitalization of Public Housing,” in the United States, Middle Tennessee State University, Bilateral Conference on Urban Land Use Resources, Middle Tennessee State University, November 19, 2007. Panel Presenter, Shadow Government: Race, Class, and Illness-based Bias in Healthcare,” United Methodist Church Women’s Conference, August 13, 2007. Panel Chair/Presenter, “Election 2008,” Tennessee Alliance for Progress, Compass IV Conference, Nashville, TN, April 14, 2007. Paper Presentation, “Style, Substance, and Situational Deracialization: Racial Polarization and the Tennessee Senate Race,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference,” San Francisco, California, March 21-25, 2007. Three Lectures for the Shalom Leadership Class, American Baptist College in the Spring 2007 Academic Year: a) “Grassroots Organizing: TennCare as a Case Study” (January 16, 2007) b) “Youth Organizing and Generational Politics” (February 13th, 2007) c) “Pathways to Black Leadership” (March 27, 2007) Lecture, “Black Youth and Social Movement Participation,” NAACP ACT-SO Plenary Meeting, David Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, January 27, 2007. Lecture, “Incarcerated Persons’ Role in Today’s Social Justice Movement,” Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, December 16, 2006. Lecture, “Race and Social Policy,” University of Tennessee Department of Social Work, November 20, 2006. Panelist, “Reclaiming Our Youth: Movement Activism and Grassroots Lobbying for Juvenile Justice Reform,” Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, January 2006. Organizer, “TennCare on the Front Lines,” Matthew Walker Clinic, Nashville, Tennessee, September 29, 2005. Panelist, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile (In) Justice,” Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 9, 2005. Panelist, “African Americans the Race for the American South, 1954-1968,” American Politics Group Annual Conference, Canterbury Christ Church University College, Canterbury, England, January 6-8, 2005. Lecture, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” Middle Tennessee State University Honors College, November 2004. Panelist, “We Are Labor Too: African American Young Adult Participation in the Labor Movement,” Southwest Labor Studies Association Conference, April 30, 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Panelist, “After the Rebellion: Movement Activism Among the Post-Civil Rights Generation,” Popular Culture Association Conference, April 9, 2004, San Antonio, TX.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 45 of 50
16
Lecture, “Campus Racism and Activism,” University Mentoring Program, Middle Tennessee State University, October 28, 2003.
Panelist, “From Student Apathy to Student Activism,” Emerging Leaders Public Service Seminar Sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Leadership Institute, June 2003.
Panel Presentation, “New Intergroup Realities and the Decline of African American ‘Minority’ Status: Rethinking African American Methods and Modes of Struggle,” 26th Annual Black Studies Conference, Olive-Harvey College, African American Studies Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 23-26, 2003.
Lecture, “Black Youth Activism in New Haven,” College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York, March 2003.
Panel Presentation, “Black Political Thought and the Vote: Saliency, Interpretation, and Utility,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Oakland, California, March 13-15, 2003.
Panel Presentation, “Organizing as a Political Strategy in the Post-Black Power Era: Intergenerational Politics and Sociopolitical Movements in New Haven,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Oakland, California, March 13-15, 2003.
Presenter, “Cynthia McKinney and the 2002 Mid-Term Elections,” Conference, Elections 2002 – Implications for an Inclusive Politics, Williams College, November 15-16, 2002.
Presenter, “Moving Beyond the Talented Tenth,” Emerging Scholars Interdisciplinary Network Working Group, University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 13-15, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “The Paradoxes of Enclave Federalism: Political Culture, Home Rule, and Statehood, in the District of Columbia.” Midwest Political Science Association, April 2002.
Lecture, “Community Organizing and Citizen Participation in Post-Black Power Politics and the Era of Globalization,” Albion College, Albion, Michigan, April 17, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “Community Organizing and Strategy in Post-Black Power Era,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 8, 2002.
Roundtable Panelist, “You Came `Here’ to Leave: Negotiating the Graduate Studies Process Each Step of the Way,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 8, 2002.
Roundtable Chair and Panelist, “Making the Transition from Graduate School to the Academia,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 7, 2002.
Presentation, “Blacks and the Suffrage,” Sponsored by Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. and Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Inc., University of Illinois, March 6, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “The Black Freedom Movement and New Social Movement Theories,” (Reading Group) Afro-American Studies and Research Program (University of Illinois), January 31, 2002.
Lecture, “Political Generations and Black Student/Youth Social Movement Participation at the End of the Twentieth Century,” Wesleyan University,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 46 of 50
17
November 29, 2001. Lecture, “The World Beyond the Campus: Youth Organizing and the
Black Student Leadership Network,” University of Illinois Afro-American Studies and Research Program, November 12, 2001. Keynote Address, “Justice and the American Political Community.” Junior Statesman Association Summer Program, July 2001. Panel Presentation, “Mobilization and the Struggle for Leadership,” Dissertation Colloquium, Howard University’s Department of Political Science, Washington, DC, April 23, 2001. Panel Presentation, “The Culture of Black Student and Youth Political Activity,” School of Education Conference on Culturally Appropriate Teaching In An Urban Setting,” Howard University, Washington, D.C., March 7-8, 2001. Panel Chair, “Social Change and the Relevancy of Political Science to Communities of Color,” American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August-September, 2000. Panel Presentation, “The Origins of the Institutionalization of Police Brutality/Police Repression, Pre-1970," Crisis America: Police Brutality Symposium, Amnesty International at Howard University, March 2000. Panel Presentation, “Patron-Client Relations and Dilemmas in Black Student and Youth Socio-Political Organizations,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., March 2000. Panel Chair, “Community Politics and Black Youth Heading Into the 21st Century: Coalitions, Leadership, and Economic Development," Congressional Black Associates and Potential Unlimited, Inc., Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., September 1999. Panel Chair, “The Status of Graduate Political Science Students of Color at Predominantly White Institutions,” American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1999. Panel Presentation, “HBCU’s and Community Development,” Howard University Graduate Symposium Conference, Washington, D.C., April 1999. Panel Presentation, “Social and Political Attitudes Towards the Black Predicament: Data from the Million Man March,” Co-authored with Joseph McCormick, II (Lead author), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, March 1999. Panel Presentation, "Expressions of Racial Consciousness Among Black Men at The Million Man March," Co-authored with Joseph P. McCormick, II (Lead author), American Political Science Association's Annual Conference, Boston, MA, September 1998. Panel Chair, "The Role of Black Political Scientists, In Transition Heading Into the Twenty-First Century" National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black Organizational Development and the Black Student Leadership Network: An Examination of Local-Level Black Organizations and the Community Mobilization Activities in the Post-Civil Rights Era," National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 47 of 50
18
April 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black and Latino Race Relations in the Western and
Southwestern Regions of the United States," Race Relations in the Next Millennium, Howard University, Washington, D.C, February 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black Political Opinion Towards California's Voter Initiatives: a closer look at Propositions 13, 187, and 209," Northeast Conference Political Science Association's Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, November 1997. Panel Presentation, “The San Jose NAACP chapter in the Post-Civil Rights Era,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Savannah, GA, March 1996.
PROFESSIONAL/RESEARCH/WORK/VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES:
President of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 2019-Present.
Facilitator/Trainer, James Lawson Institute for Nonviolent, July 2018 – Present.
I was also appointed to the Tennessee Advisory Committee of the US Civil Rights Commission.
Coordinated the Tennessee Election Protection Network with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, November 2016.
Planning Committee of the Tennessee Caucus of Black Legislators’ Town Hall Forum on Criminal Justice Reform (Middle Tennessee cluster, June 12, 2016).
Program Co-Chair of the Annual Meeting of the National Black Political Scientists’ 47th Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016.
I taught a three-hour short course at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, “The Role of Scholar Activism: How Political Scientists Can Bolster Resistance Movements,” San Francisco, CA, September 2, 2015.
Panelist and assisted with organizing the Nashville Convening of the Solidarity Summit – II with the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, Open Society Foundation, and the Proteus Foundation, Caza Azafran, Nashville, Tennessee, August 26-28, 2015.
Coordinating Committee of Democracy Nashville (Assisted with the Adoption of Banthe-Box in Nashville), http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/10/metro-adopts-banbox-policy-most-city-jobs/75515562/.
I served as the Co-Chair of the Black History Month program for MTSU.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 48 of 50
19
I served on the Faculty Search Committee for American Government and Politics.
I served on the Graduate Program Committee for the Department of Political Science.
In the summer 2006, I visited Venezuela to collect data and research for two projects: 1) “African Americans, Venezuela, and Transnational Alliances”; 2) a project that looks at the socio-political development of Afro-Venezuelans.
In the summer 2006, I took a course entitled, “Social Network Analysis,” at the Interuniversity Consortium of Social and Political Research (the satellite campus at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).
I received a Faculty Research and Activity Grant for the Spring-Summer 2007 to research the socio-political development of Afro-Venezuelans.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Urban EpiCenter, Nashville, Tennessee.
Board Member, Tennessee Alliance for Progress (TAP), September 2005-2006.
TennCare Saves Lives Coalitions, Coordinating Committee Member, August 2005Present.
Ad Hoc Committee for Equity (Nashville), Working Committee, Advise on Organizing Initiatives, August 2005-Present.
Trainer, Nashville Peace and Justice Center Leadership Institute, “Training for Community Organizing,” 2005.
Board Member, Tennessee Alliance for Progress, November 2005- Present . Lead Teacher, “A Ten-Week Teach-In of the Civil Rights and Social Justice
Movements,” Tennessee Citizen Action Voter/Electoral Organizing Project, Summer 2004. Board Member, Tennessee Citizen Action, 2004-2005. Board Member, Human Values for Transformative Action, Inc., June 2003-June 2005. Emerging Young Scholars Interdisciplinary Network, Working Committee, School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania, November 2000-Present. Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana Campus) Afro-American Studies and Research Program, August 2001-August 2002. Instructor, Junior Statesmen Association Summer School Program, Stanford University Site, Summer 2001. Curriculum Committee Coordinator, Potential Unlimited InTECHgration Enterprise and Career Development Institute, Washington, D.C., November 2000-August 2001. I was the Curriculum Development Coordinator for Potential Unlimted, Inc.’s InTECHgration Enterprise and Career Development Institute. The Institute attempted to develop an adult education school in collaboration with the State Education Agency Adult Division at the University of the District of Columbia, the Telecommunication Development Corporation, Xerox, and the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. Consultant, National Center for Bioethics, Tuskegee, Alabama, April 2001May 2001. Consultant, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial, Youth Against Racism Project, Washington,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 49 of 50
20
D.C., March-May 2001. Graduate Intern/Assistant, National League of Cities Race and Ethnic Relations
Program, Washington, DC, June 2000-February 2001. The National League of Cities is the lobby and research public sector firm for municipal officials (city council members and mayors) and municipal state leagues. The National League of Cities has an on-going Campaign to Promote Racial Justice, that was led by Dr. Lorna Gonsalves-Pinto, who coordinated anti-racism initiatives with over 200 municipal officials. Chair of the Committee on Graduate Issues, Race and Ethnicity Section, American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1998-2000. Political Researcher, Wilmer Leon Show (Political Talk Show), WOL, September 1999-May 2001. Co-Principal Investigator, 1999 Howard University Political Survey: PreElection, 1999. Survey Analyst, Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, D.C., 1999. Teaching Intern, LISTEN, Inc., Washington, D.C., Summer 1999. Graduate Research Associate, Center for Urban Progress, Howard University, 1998-1999. National Research Council Graduate/Postdoctorate Internship, National Academy Sciences, 1998. President, Graduate Political Science Association, Howard University, Washington, D.C., 1998-1999. Community Outreach Coordinator, Election Committee for Ward One City Council Candidate, Baruti Jahi, Washington, D.C., 1999. Vice-President, Graduate Political Science Association, Howard University, Washington, D.C., 1997-1998. Survey Analyst, 1997 Million Women March Survey, Department of Political Science, Howard University. Survey Analyst, D.C. Council for Court Excellence, D.C. Jury Behavior Project, Washington, DC, 1997. GRANTS
Awarded a Faculty Development Grant to attend Carnegie Mellon’s Summer Institute on Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 2009.
Awarded a Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant for the project: "After the Rebellion: Social Movement Activism and Popular Mobilization among the PostCivil Rights Generation,” Spring 2009.
Awarded Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant, “The Socio-Political Development of Afro Venezuelans under the Bolivarian Experiment, 2006-2007.
Faculty Development Grant to attend the Social Network Analysis course sponsored by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of North Carolina, July 31-August 4, 2006.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-6 06/01/20 Page 50 of 50
21
Awarded Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” Summer Salary Grant, 2004.
Awarded W.T. Grant Foundation, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” (Grant Number: 2561), 2003-2004 (See Final Report), $4,750.
Grants Written for Community Groups:
Clean Energy and Sustainability Zones: A Proposal for Sustainable Practices in LowIncome Communities, AmeriCorps Grant.
National Training and Information Center , Community Organizing Grant (Awarded $6,000 to the Urban EpiCenter).
Center for Community Change’s Campaign for Community Values Grant (Awarded $20,000 to the Urban EpiCenter
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
National Conference of Black Political Scientists Southern Political Science Association American Political Science Association
AWARDS
a) President’s Award, Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP b) Young Professionals Award, Rutherford County, Murfreesboro Magazine c) Green Hero Award, Tennessee Alliance for Progress d) Advocate of the Year, Tennessee Citizen Action e) John Pleas Faculty Award, Middle Tennessee State University f) Greater Nashville Alliance of Black School Educators Award g) NAACP Benjamin L. Hooks Keeper of the Flame Award

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 2 of 16
DRAFT
April 13, 2020
SECRETARY OF STATE EMERGENCY ELECTION PLAN FOR THE JULY 11, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY AND AUGUST 15, 2020
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
I. AUTHORITY
After the governor declares a statewide emergency, should the secretary of state determine that such emergency impairs an election that may otherwise be held except for technical, mechanical, or logistical problems with respect to the relocation or consolidation of polling places within the parish, potential shortages of commissioners and parish board commissioners, or shortages of voting machines, La. R.S. 18:401.3 authorizes the secretary to certify to the governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs that the emergency impairs the election and that an emergency election plan is necessary.
Upon concurrence by the governor and a majority of each of the two committees that such a plan is necessary, the secretary of state shall develop an emergency plan in writing that proposes a resolution to the technical, mechanical, or logistical problems that impair the election. The written emergency plan shall then be submitted to the Senate and Governmental Affairs and House and Governmental Affairs committees and the governor.
If a majority of the members of each Committee approve the emergency plan, the plan shall be submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval. If a majority of each house of the legislature and the governor approve the emergency plan, the secretary of state shall take all steps necessary to implement the plan and all officials of the state and of any political subdivision shall cooperate with and provide assistance to the secretary of state as necessary to implement the plan.
II. PURPOSE
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic.
Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 was signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on March 11, 2020, declaring a statewide public health emergency as a result of the imminent threat posed to Louisiana citizens by COVID-19, which has created emergency conditions that threaten the lives and health of the citizens of the State. The emergency conditions created by COVID-19, as well as the efforts necessary to contain its spread, will affect all 2,988,813 of Louisiana’s registered voters as well as the 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the State.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 3 of 16
Governor Edwards signed Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 on March 13, 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020. On April 13, 2020, the governor signed Proclamation No. ______ to reschedule the presidential preference primary election to July 11, 2020 and the municipal general election to August 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, imposing a general stay-at-home order on all individuals within the State and limiting all public gatherings to ten people or less in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19. All individuals were directed to stay home unless performing an essential activity until April 13, 2020. This order was extended to April 30, 2020 by 41 JBE 2020, signed by the governor on April 2, 2020.
The July 11, 2020 presidential preference primary election is a statewide federal election. This election also includes state and local party office races in 47 parishes, and local and municipal races and propositions in 24 parishes. The August 15, 2020 municipal general election includes local and municipal runoffs and propositions in 51 parishes. Five of the 51 parishes have no propositions on the ballot and only have potential run-offs from the July 11, 2020 primary.
COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The purpose of this emergency plan is to provide a means of conducting these elections in the wake of this unprecedented pandemic. In order to fully implement this plan, due to supply chain issues, the Department must order all equipment and material resources for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than April 24, 2020.
III. DUTIES OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
The secretary of state is the chief election officer of the State and administers the laws of the Election Code.
The State Board of Election Supervisors has the powers and duties granted to it by La. R.S. 18:24 to oversee Louisiana election laws. The State Board consists of the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general, the commissioner of elections, a representative of the Registrars of Voters Association, a representative of the Clerks of Court Association, a governor’s appointee, and a representative of the Police Jury Association.
Registrars of voters have many duties to perform before and during elections, including: registering voters, processing voter registration applications, processing requests for absentee by mail ballots, conducting early voting in the parish, and preparing the precinct registers for election day voting.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 4 of 16
Clerks of court are the chief election officers of each parish. For each election, the clerk of court trains the commissioners who work at the polling places on election day, takes responsibility for delivering the voting machines to and from the polling locations, and tabulates and transmits election results on election night.
Parish boards of election supervisors supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish. They are responsible for selecting election day commissioners, consolidating polling places, issuing commissions to watchers, counting absentee by mail and early voting ballots on election day, and selecting commissioners to aid in counting the absentee by mail and early voting ballots. The parish boards also seal the voting machines before election day, inspect the machines after the election, and conduct requested recounts.
Parish governing authorities have specific duties to perform during election cycles, including changing any polling places which are no longer available for use because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changing polling places includes giving adequate notice of the change to each voter in the affected precincts and to each candidate to be voted on at that polling place, posting a sign at the former polling place, directing voters to the new polling place, advertising the changes in the official journal of the parish and in any other newspaper of general circulation in the affected precincts, and other reasonable steps necessary or desirable to inform voters and candidates of the change in location.
IV. VOTING MACHINES
The secretary of state has sufficient voting machines to conduct early voting and election day voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The voting machines used on election day are Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines, which have a large-format printed paper ballot fastened to the front of each machine. These paper ballots have already been printed and fastened to the front of the AVC machines for the April 4, 2020 election date. Prolonged storage in the humidity and heat of the Department’s un-air conditioned warehouses will cause the paper ballots to warp and curl, therefore it is recommended that paper ballots for all AVC machines used in the July 11, 2020 election be reprinted.
V. POLLING PLACES FOR IN-PERSON EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY VOTING
A. Early Voting
Early voting is conducted for seven days in each parish by the registrar of voters. There are currently 102 early voting sites statewide. Most are in registrars of voters offices, but some are in voting machine warehouses, public libraries, and other public facilities.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 5 of 16
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election is currently scheduled for June 26 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sunday, June 27, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election is currently scheduled for August 1 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sunday, August 2, 2020).
This plan will expand the days of early voting from seven to thirteen days. Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election will be held June 18 through July 2, 2020 (excluding Sundays, June 21, 2020 and June 28, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election will be held July 25 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sundays, July 26, 2020 and August 2, 2020). Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
One of the two early voting sites in Ouachita Parish is located at the West Ouachita Senior Center, 1800 North 7th Street, West Monroe. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seniors are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. The Department of State will choose another location for this early voting site. The Ouachita Parish Registrar of Voters will conduct early voting at the registrar’s main office, 1650 Desiard Street, Suite 125, Monroe, Louisiana 71201, and at the second site (location to be determined).
If any other early voting sites become unavailable for early voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVID-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish registrar of voters and parish governing authority to relocate the early voting site. If a sufficient temporary early voting site cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used for early voting.
B. Election Day Voting
Election day voting is normally conducted in 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the state. Polling places are established for each precinct by the parish governing authority. Polling places must be equipped with proper electric current, fixtures, and outlets necessary to operate voting machines and otherwise conduct the election. The polling places must also have sufficient sanitary facilities. To the extent possible, the parish governing authority must locate multiple precincts in one polling location in public buildings. If a suitable public building is not available, precincts may be located on private property.
Due to the Governor’s stay-at-home order, the limitation on gatherings of more than ten people at a time, and the rapid rise of COVID-19 cases in Louisiana, there may be limitations on the availability of polling places for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections. Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
The Department will work with the clerks of court and parish governing authorities to relocate polling places located in senior citizen centers and nursing homes (these polling places must be relocated). Polling places located in the following may be relocated, depending on the facility:
● Council on aging offices; ● Residential facilities or private homes; and
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 6 of 16

● Non-public buildings if the owners do not want to hold the election on their property due to conditions caused by COVID-19.
Polling places that must be relocated will need to be identified by April 22, 2020. If any other election day polling places become unavailable to conduct voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVD-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish clerk of court and parish governing authority to relocate the precinct to another polling place. If a desirable temporary polling place cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used as a polling place for one or more precincts.
Signs will be posted at all former polling places, updated voter registration cards will be sent to the voters reflecting their new polling place, and notice of the new polling places will be published, as time permits, to inform the voters of changes in polling places.
Currently, the secretary of state has identified the following polling places that should be relocated for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections:

PARISH ALLEN
AVOYELLES

POLLING LOCATION PRECINCTS REGISTERED VOTERS

Oberlin Senior Citizen Building

01-03

290

Marksville Senior Citizen Building

02-07

471

Bunkie Council on Aging

10-03A

433

BEAUREGARD

Council on Aging

00-26

936

CATAHOULA IBERVILLE

Catahoula Council on Aging

01-02

St. Gabriel Community Center

9 & 10

Iberville Council on Aging

19, 19A, 20 & 23

187 2413 1465

5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 7 of 16

JEFFERSON LAFOURCHE

Summerville Assisted Living Center
Westminster Towers
Harahan Senior Citizens Center
Metairie Manor
Metairie Senior Citizen Center
Dorothy B. Watson Center
George Edmond Activity Center
Marrero Senior Community Center
Terrytown Golden Age Center

K003 K025 H009
70 82, 85, 86 & 87
104 & 108 154
173, 179B & 181 227 & 229

Wilbert Tauzin Senior Citizen Center

6/2

MADISON

Madison Council on Aging

12

NATCHITOCHES

Natchitoches Council on Aging

01-02

ORLEANS

Mater Dolorosa Church Basement
Woldenberg Village Nazareth Inn
Guste High Rise

Ward 17 Pct 2-7 15/14G 09/44A
02/04

OUACHITA

West Ouachita Senior Center

34/47

1409 1274 627 831 3505 1569 1304 2596 1976
1289
478
1361
3574 1494 756 832
1046

ST. JAMES

Lutcher Senior Center

04,05,06

1669

6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 8 of 16

ST. MARY ST. TAMMANY
VERNON WASHINGTON

St. Mary Council Building

44

Health Unit

38

AARP Senior Center

45

Avanti Senior Living Center

115

Slagle Senior Citizens Center
Hornbeck Senior Citizens Center

08/01 02/03,03A

Bogalusa Senior Citizens Center

04/05,06,05B

596 499 609 1,058 440 955 1000

VI. IN-PERSON VOTING UNDER THE NURSING HOME PROGRAM
The program for in-person voting by voters residing in nursing homes, as provided in La. R.S. 18:1333, is suspended for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, except for the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1333(G)(4)(a). Voters currently enrolled in the Nursing Home Program will be mailed an absentee by mail ballot and allowed to vote the ballot according to the procedures in La. R.S. 18:1301-1319. However, if restrictions on visitation remain in place, voters enrolled in the Nursing Home Program may receive assistance from an employee of the nursing home for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
VII. ABSENTEE BY MAIL VOTING
The Election Code requires voters to have one of several listed reasons to be eligible to vote by mail. These reasons are specified by law.
A registered voter can request an absentee by mail ballot until four days before election day and must return their ballot to the registrar of voters no later than 4:30 p.m. on the day before the election, with special exceptions for deployed military, overseas citizens, and hospitalized or sequestered voters.
A. Voters Requesting an Absentee by Mail Ballot
The deadlines to request an absentee by mail ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:

7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 9 of 16
● July 7, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 10, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
The deadlines to request an absentee by mail ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 11, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 14, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
All requests to vote absentee by mail must be in writing under the voter’s signature and must specify the reason for the request. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or online through the secretary of state’s website at GeauxVote.com.
This plan will expand the reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and are:
● Sixty years of age or older; ● At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical
conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease); ● Subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order; ● Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; ● Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; ● Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID19; ● Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to selfquarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or ● Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID-19 concerns.
All regular requests for absentee by mail ballots will continue to be accepted.
All requests shall be verified by the registrar of voters by comparison with the registration records on file in the registrar’s office. The secretary proposes to deputize his staff to assist the registrars, if needed, to process the increased number of absentee by mail requests, mail absentee ballots to voters, and process absentee ballots returned by voters.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 10 of 16
La. R.S. 18:115(F) requires voters that registered by mail and who have not previously voted in their parish to vote in person the first time. This requirement will be waived for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
This plan will require the development and use of a temporary application for absentee by mail ballot requests due to COVID-19. This application will be available to voters in addition to the other absentee by mail applications currently in use.
The COVID-19 reasons for request may be submitted online through the GeauxVote online portal in addition to the statutory reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot. Programming by the Department’s IT Division will be required to add the COVID-19 reasons to the online portal and may take up to a month to implement due to time required for development, testing, and cybersecurity concerns.
Voters may otherwise submit an application by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
The requirement for two witness signatures in La. R.S. 18:1307(A) will be waived for absentee by mail ballot requests due to COVID-19. If a voter makes a mark or is otherwise unable to sign their name, the application must be signed by only one witness.
This plan may require special training for election officials to conduct the elections under this emergency plan.
B. Voters Receiving an Absentee by Mail Ballot
Under usual circumstances, a voter submits a request to the registrar of voters to receive an absentee by mail ballot, and the registrar of voters sends the absentee by mail ballot to the voter.
This plan may require the Department of State to assist the registrars of voters in carrying out the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1308 regarding absentee voting by mail.
The Department will assist the registrars, as needed, to mail an absentee by mail ballot to a voter who timely submits a request.
The Department may contract with the United States Postal Service to create a tracking system to track all absentee by mail ballots mailed to and from voters under this emergency plan, should cost and circumstances permit.
Voters who submit a request under this plan to receive an absentee ballot by mail must provide the address to which the absentee ballot shall be sent. If the address is within the parish, such address shall only be the voter’s registration address or a mailing address on file with the registrar of voters.
In addition to requesting to receive an absentee ballot by mail, voters may alternatively request to receive an absentee ballot by fax (with waiver of right to secret ballot), by email (for deployed military, overseas, and voters with physical disabilities, with waiver of right to secret ballot), or
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 11 of 16
by hand delivery to an immediate family member of a hospitalized voter. (Voters hospitalized with COVID-19 may cause unique problems as such patients are currently not allowed visitors, nor are visitors allowed in hospitals.)
Instructions on completing the absentee by mail ballot are included with the ballot. The instructions include how to vote the ballot, return the ballot, sign the envelope, request a replacement ballot for a spoiled ballot if necessary, and specify the deadline to return the ballot.
All voters who received and returned an absentee by mail ballot prior to approval of this emergency plan will receive a letter from the Department informing them that their returned ballot remains valid for the July 11, 2020 election date.
C. Voters Returning Voted Ballots
The deadlines to return a voted absentee by mail ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 11, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
The deadlines to return a voted absentee by mail ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 14, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 15, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
Voters can return a voted absentee by mail ballot by hand delivery, by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for deployed military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, the requirement in La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) for a witness signature on the absentee by mail ballot envelope flap shall not be a reason to challenge an absentee by mail ballot for cause under La. R.S. 18:1315(B).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, if ballots cannot be returned in-person because registrar of voters offices remain closed to the public, voters may still return absentee ballots by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for deployed military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
D. Receipt of Voted Ballots by Registrars of Voters
All voted ballots must be received no later than the deadlines outlined above.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 12 of 16
When the registrar receives ballots, voter records are updated each day in ERIN to reflect which voters have returned voted ballots. The registrars verify ballots received from voters by comparison with the registration records on file in ERIN. The lists of absentee by mail voters who have returned a voted ballot are made public daily by the registrars of voters and are also available on the Secretary of State website.
The Department anticipates a larger than usual number of returned absentee ballots for both elections. (For the 2016 presidential preference primary election, 63,000 voted absentee by mail ballots were returned to the registrars.) There are 2,479,420 voters currently eligible for the July 11, 2020 election. The Department estimates receiving 375,000 or more voted absentee by mail ballots. Around 30,000 voted absentee by mail ballots have already been received by registrars of voters.
The number of voted absentee by mail ballots returned to registrars of voters may exceed 375,000 ballots for the July 11, 2020 election. This far exceeds the number of ballots usually returned by voters for a similar election.
The registrar of voters will continue to accept all voted ballots returned by voters and the registrar of voters will store all absentee by mail ballots until the parish board of election supervisors begins tabulation on election day.
With the anticipated increased number of voted ballots returned to registrars, in addition to an increase in the number of days registrars will conduct early voting, registrars may need to hire additional early voting commissioners or part time employees to handle the increased workload.
E. Tabulating Ballots
The parish board of election supervisors is responsible for overseeing all elections in the parish and for preparing, verifying, tabulating, and counting absentee by mail ballots as provided in La. R.S. 18:1313. It may utilize parish board commissioners under the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1314, and may also designate additional commissioners to assist with the duties required under La. R.S. 18:1313.
Before tabulation begins, the board must reconcile the names of voters who submitted an absentee ballot against the number of absentee by mail ballots in hand. This may require a large number of parish board commissioners.
Larger, high speed scanners must be acquired and will be necessary to scan and tabulate the increased number of absentee by mail ballots. Prior to use of these scanners in any election in this state, they must receive certification by the secretary of state that they meet the Department’s durability, accuracy, efficiency, and capacity standards. Each individual scanner must also be acceptance tested by the Department before being delivered for use by the parishes.
The fourteen largest parishes will require additional computer stations with ERIN access, spaced at least six feet apart, for the parish boards and parish board commissioners to scan
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 13 of 16
ballots. During the scanning process, additional computer stations, with at least two people per station, will be required to adjudicate ambiguous ballots to determine voter intent.
The process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots will begin two weeks prior to election day. Tabulating and counting the absentee by mail ballots will begin on election day and is estimated to require not longer than two weeks for completion.
Unofficial election results may not be available or reported on election night. No unofficial election results will be reported until all scanning and tabulation of absentee by mail ballots is complete, not longer than two weeks after election day. Every effort will be made to withhold all returns until all parishes are able to transmit unofficial results to the secretary of state. Once all unofficial results are transmitted, they will be reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards, registrars of voters, clerks of court, and any election officials or staff shall not make public any unofficial election results until all results are reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards will receive compensation for meetings held on additional days at the rate set forth in La. R.S. 18:423(E).
F. Deadlines
The deadlines and time intervals in the following statutes will be calculated beginning on the date that unofficial election results are reported by the secretary of state:
● La. R.S. 18:566.2 ● La. R.S. 18:572 ● La. R.S. 18:573 ● La. R.S. 18:574
The following deadlines after the election are changed as follows: ● An action contesting any election involving election to office shall be instituted not later than 4:30 p.m. of the ninth day after the unofficial results are reported by the secretary of state. The deadline in La. R.S. 18:1376, to release machines used in the July 11, 2020 election on the tenth day after the election, shall not be extended. ● Written requests for recounts of absentee by mail and early voting ballots shall be filed by 4:30 p.m. on the third calendar day after the unofficial results are reported by the secretary of state and recounts shall be held at a time and day set by the secretary of state, in conjunction with the registrars of voters and the clerks of court.
VIII. COST
Cost estimates for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections will be provided.
IX. COMMISSIONERS
A. Early Voting and Election Day Commissioners
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 14 of 16
The Department will work with registrars of voters and clerks of court to assess the need for additional commissioners for early voting and for precinct voting on election day.
The secretary will assist in recruiting national guard, secretary of state employees, other possible state employees, and any other available labor sources, provided these individuals receive the minimum training necessary to serve as a commissioner. Available additional commissioners from surrounding parishes may also be used. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
Additional funding will be required to recruit additional commissioners.
New commissioners must attend a general course of instruction to receive certification prior to serving as a commissioner. Part of the course of instruction may be conducted remotely, if possible, but hands-on training on voting machines will require part of the course to be conducted in person.
All early voting commissioners will need to receive training specific to conducting early voting for the July 11, 2020 election no later than June 4, 2020.
All election day commissioners, including those who have served as a commissioner before, must attend a pre-election school for the July 11, 2020 election not less than four days prior to election day. The pre-election school covers the procedures to be used for the federal presidential preference primary election (e.g., provisional voting and lockouts based on party affiliation).
B. Parish Board Commissioners
The Department will work with parish boards of election supervisors to train and provide the necessary number of parish board commissioners. This number will include Department staff, other state and parish employees, and members of the Louisiana National Guard, as necessary. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
X. ELECTION RESULTS
This plan will require the Department to establish a method as close to the current process as possible to upload election results. Absentee by mail results are not able to be reported by precinct, as in-person election day results are.
The process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots will begin two weeks prior to election day. Tabulating and counting the absentee by mail ballots will begin on election day and is estimated to require not longer than two weeks for completion.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 15 of 16
Unofficial election results may not be available or reported on election night. No unofficial election results will be reported until all scanning and tabulation of absentee by mail ballots is complete, not longer than two weeks after election day. Every effort will be made to withhold all returns until all parishes are able to transmit unofficial results to the secretary of state. Once all unofficial results are transmitted, they will be reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards, registrars of voters, clerks of court, and any election officials or staff shall not make public any unofficial election results until all results are reported by the secretary of state.
XI. OUTREACH
The Department will conduct a media campaign to notify the public of the deadline to return voted absentee by mail ballots. Possible media outlets include:
1. Official parish journals, as time permits; 2. Sunday edition of major metropolitan newspapers, as time permits; 3. Secretary of State website and Geaux Vote Mobile App; 4. Social media; 5. Radio stations; 6. Press releases to statewide media outlets; 7. Posting signs at all polling locations; 8. Posting informational signs with the toll-free secretary of state telephone number in high
traffic thoroughfares if necessary; and 9. Any other reasonable means of communication as determined by the Department.
This will require the Department to identify and train additional staff to man the Secretary of State 1-800 hotline to answer an anticipated high volume of calls. (After Hurricane Katrina, for example, the hotline logged over 27,000 calls for voting information.)
XII. SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES
To the extent possible, the Department will assist the parishes to implement the CDC’s Recommendations for Election Polling Locations. It is imperative to supply all phases of the entire election cycle with the appropriate preventative measures.
The Department proposes to supply all polling places, tabulation and meeting areas, and any other area related to the election process with preventative supplies, including hand sanitizer and gloves for commissioners and staff, all as recommended by the CDC. The Department will determine the number of protective gear and sanitary items (hand sanitizer, gloves, masks, etc.) necessary for the daily process of updating ballots, for ballot tabulation, and for in-person early and election day voting.
All election officials, including watchers present at polling places on election day, will follow recommendations from the CDC for wearing protective gear and for cleaning and disinfecting the room and all areas (including bathrooms) related to the election process.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-7 06/01/20 Page 16 of 16
Draymen will also follow all CDC recommendations for wearing protective gear and social distancing while delivering voting machines to and from polling places.
Tape, cones, protective gear, sanitary items, cleaning supplies, and all other supplies necessary to adhere to CDC cleaning and social distancing guidelines must be purchased as soon as possible.
A. Supplies for Election Day Precincts and Early Voting Sites
Each precinct and each early voting site in the state will receive a bag of sanitization supplies.
Each bag will contain the following: 1. Instructions on the setup and use of each item in the bag; 2. Hand sanitizer (for voters and election officials); 3. Gloves for commissioners; 4. Masks for commissioners; 5. Protective clothing/disposable gown for commissioners; 6. Brightly colored flat discs or cones to mark the CDC 6 feet social distancing minimum requirement for polling places; 7. Disinfectant wipes to clean each voting machine between voters; 8. Disinfectant wipes to clean pens and pencils after use by voters; and 9. For early voting, disinfectant wipes to clean voter cards after use by voters.
The supplies must be ordered, delivered, and packed in the bags no later than May 22, 2020 for the July 11, 2020 election and as soon as possible following the July 11, 2020 election for the August 15, 2020 election.
The Department will work with the parishes to implement and adhere to social distancing requirements.
XIII. SPECIAL NOTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2020 ELECTION
A. To be held using the same process as outlined above for the July 11, 2020 election. B. Absentee ballots must be mailed no later than 13 days before election day (La. R.S.
18:1306(B)(3)), that is, by August 2, 2020. C. The rescheduled elections will overlap with qualifying for the November 3, 2020
presidential election. Legislation has been offered to move qualifying for the presidential election to August 19-21, 2020.
R. KYLE ARDOIN SECRETARY OF STATE
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 2 of 16
April 20, 2020
SECRETARY OF STATE EMERGENCY ELECTION PLAN FOR THE JULY 11, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY AND AUGUST 15, 2020
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
I. AUTHORITY
After the governor declares a statewide emergency, should the secretary of state determine that such emergency impairs an election that may otherwise be held except for technical, mechanical, or logistical problems with respect to the relocation or consolidation of polling places within the parish, potential shortages of commissioners and parish board commissioners, or shortages of voting machines, La. R.S. 18:401.3 authorizes the secretary to certify to the governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs that the emergency impairs the election and that an emergency election plan is necessary.
Upon concurrence by the governor and a majority of each of the two committees that such a plan is necessary, the secretary of state shall develop an emergency plan in writing that proposes a resolution to the technical, mechanical, or logistical problems that impair the election. The written emergency plan shall then be submitted to the Senate and Governmental Affairs and House and Governmental Affairs committees and the governor.
If a majority of the members of each Committee approve the emergency plan, the plan shall be submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval. If a majority of each house of the legislature and the governor approve the emergency plan, the secretary of state shall take all steps necessary to implement the plan and all officials of the state and of any political subdivision shall cooperate with and provide assistance to the secretary of state as necessary to implement the plan.
II. PURPOSE
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic.
Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 was signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on March 11, 2020, declaring a statewide public health emergency as a result of the imminent threat posed to Louisiana citizens by COVID-19, which has created emergency conditions that threaten the lives and health of the citizens of the State. The emergency conditions created by COVID-19, as well as the efforts necessary to contain its spread, will affect all 2,988,813 of Louisiana’s registered voters as well as the 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the State.
Governor Edwards signed Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 on March 13, 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020. On April 14, 2020, the governor
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 3 of 16
signed Proclamation No. 46 to reschedule the presidential preference primary election to July 11, 2020 and the municipal general election to August 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, imposing a general stay-at-home order on all individuals within the State and limiting all public gatherings to ten people or less in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19. All individuals were directed to stay home unless performing an essential activity until April 13, 2020. This order was extended to April 30, 2020 by 41 JBE 2020, signed by the governor on April 2, 2020.
The July 11, 2020 presidential preference primary election is a statewide federal election. This election also includes state and local party office races in 47 parishes, and local and municipal races and propositions in 24 parishes. The August 15, 2020 municipal general election includes local and municipal runoffs and propositions in 51 parishes. Five of the 51 parishes have no propositions on the ballot and only have potential run-offs from the July 11, 2020 primary.
COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The purpose of this emergency plan is to provide a means of conducting these elections in the wake of this unprecedented pandemic. In order to fully implement this plan, due to supply chain issues, the Department must order all equipment and material resources for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than April 24, 2020.
III. DUTIES OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
The secretary of state is the chief election officer of the State and administers the laws of the Election Code.
The State Board of Election Supervisors has the powers and duties granted to it by La. R.S. 18:24 to oversee Louisiana election laws. The State Board consists of the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general, the commissioner of elections, a representative of the Registrars of Voters Association, a representative of the Clerks of Court Association, a governor’s appointee, and a representative of the Police Jury Association.
Registrars of voters have many duties to perform before and during elections, including: registering voters, processing voter registration applications, processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, conducting early voting in the parish, and preparing the precinct registers for election day voting.
Clerks of court are the chief election officers of each parish. For each election, the clerk of court trains the commissioners who work at the polling places on election day, takes responsibility
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 4 of 16
for delivering the voting machines to and from the polling locations, and tabulates and transmits election results on election night.
Parish boards of election supervisors supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish. They are responsible for selecting election day commissioners, consolidating polling places, issuing commissions to watchers, counting absentee and early voting ballots on election day, and selecting commissioners to aid in counting the absentee and early voting ballots. The parish boards also seal the voting machines before election day, inspect the machines after the election, and conduct requested recounts.
Parish governing authorities have specific duties to perform during election cycles, including changing any polling places which are no longer available for use. Changing polling places includes giving adequate notice of the change to each voter in the affected precincts and to each candidate to be voted on at that polling place, posting a sign at the former polling place, directing voters to the new polling place, advertising the changes in the official journal of the parish and in any other newspaper of general circulation in the affected precincts, and other reasonable steps necessary or desirable to inform voters and candidates of the change in location.
IV. VOTING MACHINES
The secretary of state has sufficient voting machines to conduct early voting and election day voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The voting machines used on election day are Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines, which have a large-format printed paper ballot fastened to the front of each machine. These paper ballots have already been printed and fastened to the front of the AVC machines for the April 4, 2020 election date. Prolonged storage in the humidity and heat of the Department’s un-air conditioned warehouses will cause the paper ballots to warp and curl, therefore it is recommended that paper ballots for all AVC machines used in the July 11, 2020 election be reprinted.
V. POLLING PLACES FOR IN-PERSON EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY VOTING
A. Early Voting
Early voting is conducted for seven days in each parish by the registrar of voters. There are currently 102 early voting sites statewide. Most are in registrars of voters offices, but some are in voting machine warehouses, public libraries, and other public facilities.
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election is currently scheduled for June 26 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sunday, June 28, 2020 and Friday, July 3, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election is currently scheduled for August 1 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sunday, August 2, 2020).
This plan will expand the days of early voting from seven to thirteen days.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 5 of 16
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election will be held June 20 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sundays, June 21, 2020 and June 28, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election will be held July 25 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sundays, July 26, 2020 and August 2, 2020).
Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
One of the two early voting sites in Ouachita Parish is located at the West Ouachita Senior Center, 1800 North 7th Street, West Monroe. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seniors are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. The Department of State will choose another location for this early voting site. The Ouachita Parish Registrar of Voters will conduct early voting at the registrar’s main office, 1650 Desiard Street, Suite 125, Monroe, Louisiana 71201, and at the second site (location to be determined).
If any other early voting sites become unavailable for early voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVID-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish registrar of voters and parish governing authority to relocate the early voting site. If a sufficient temporary early voting site cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used for early voting.
B. Election Day Voting
Election day voting is normally conducted in 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the state. Polling places are established for each precinct by the parish governing authority. Polling places must be equipped with proper electric current, fixtures, and outlets necessary to operate voting machines and otherwise conduct the election. The polling places must also have sufficient sanitary facilities. To the extent possible, the parish governing authority must locate multiple precincts in one polling location in public buildings. If a suitable public building is not available, precincts may be located on private property.
Due to the Governor’s stay-at-home order, the limitation on gatherings of more than ten people at a time, and the rapid rise of COVID-19 cases in Louisiana, there may be limitations on the availability of polling places for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections. Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
The Department will work with the clerks of court and parish governing authorities to relocate polling places located in senior citizen centers and nursing homes (these polling places must be relocated). Polling places located in the following may be relocated, depending on the facility:
● Council on aging offices; ● Residential facilities or private homes; and ● Non-public buildings if the owners do not want to hold the election on their property
due to conditions caused by COVID-19.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 6 of 16

Polling places that must be relocated will need to be identified as soon as possible. If any other election day polling places become unavailable to conduct voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVD-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish clerk of court and parish governing authority to relocate the precinct to another polling place. If a desirable temporary polling place cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used as a polling place for one or more precincts.
Signs will be posted at all former polling places, updated voter registration cards will be sent to the voters reflecting their new polling place, and notice of the new polling places will be published, as time permits, to inform the voters of changes in polling places.
Currently, the secretary of state has identified the following polling places that should be relocated for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections:

PARISH ALLEN
AVOYELLES

POLLING LOCATION PRECINCTS REGISTERED VOTERS

Oberlin Senior Citizen Building

01-03

290

Marksville Senior Citizen Building

02-07

471

Bunkie Council on Aging

10-03A

433

BEAUREGARD

Council on Aging

00-26

936

CATAHOULA IBERVILLE JEFFERSON

Catahoula Council on Aging

01-02

St. Gabriel Community Center

9 & 10

Iberville Council on Aging
Summerville Assisted Living Center
Westminster Towers

19, 19A, 20 & 23
K003 K025

187
2413
1465 1409 1274

5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 7 of 16

LAFOURCHE

Harahan Senior Citizens Center
Metairie Manor
Metairie Senior Citizen Center
Dorothy B. Watson Center
George Edmond Activity Center
Marrero Senior Community Center
Terrytown Golden Age Center

H009 70
82, 85, 86 & 87 104 & 108 154
173, 179B & 181 227 & 229

Wilbert Tauzin Senior Citizen Center

6/2

MADISON

Madison Council on Aging

12

NATCHITOCHES

Natchitoches Council on Aging

01-02

ORLEANS

Mater Dolorosa Church Basement
Woldenberg Village Nazareth Inn
Guste High Rise

Ward 17 Pct 2-7 15/14G 09/44A
02/04

OUACHITA

West Ouachita Senior Center

34/47

627 831 3505 1569 1304 2596 1976
1289
478
1361
3574 1494 756 832
1046

ST. JAMES ST. MARY

Lutcher Senior Center

04,05,06

St. Mary Council Building

44

Health Unit

38

1669
596 499

6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 8 of 16

ST. TAMMANY VERNON
WASHINGTON

AARP Senior Center

45

Avanti Senior Living Center

115

Slagle Senior Citizens Center
Hornbeck Senior Citizens Center

08/01 02/03,03A

Bogalusa Senior Citizens Center

04/05,06,05B

609 1,058 440 955 1000

VI. IN-PERSON VOTING UNDER THE NURSING HOME PROGRAM
The program for in-person voting by voters residing in nursing homes, as provided in La. R.S. 18:1333, is suspended for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, except for the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1333(G)(4)(a). Voters currently enrolled in the Nursing Home Program will be mailed an absentee ballot and allowed to vote the ballot according to the procedures in La. R.S. 18:1301-1319. However, if restrictions on visitation remain in place, voters enrolled in the Nursing Home Program may receive assistance from an employee of the nursing home for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
VII. ABSENTEE VOTING
Present law requires voters to have one of several listed reasons to be eligible to vote absentee. These reasons are specified in the Election Code.
A registered voter can request an absentee ballot until four days before election day and must return their ballot to the registrar of voters no later than 4:30 p.m. on the day before the election, with special exceptions for military, overseas citizens, and hospitalized or sequestered voters.
A. Voters Requesting an Absentee Ballot
The deadlines to request an absentee ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 7, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 10, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.

7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 9 of 16
The deadlines to request an absentee ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 11, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 14, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
All requests to vote absentee must be in writing under the voter’s signature and must specify the reason for the request. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or electronically through the secretary of state’s website at GeauxVote.com.
This plan will expand the reasons to request an absentee ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and are:
● At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications);
● Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19; ● Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; ● Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or ● Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine
or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.
All requests made under current law for absentee ballots will continue to be accepted.
All requests shall be verified by the registrar of voters by comparison with the registration records on file in the registrar’s office. The secretary proposes to deputize his staff to assist the registrars, if needed, to process the increased number of absentee requests, send absentee ballots to voters, and receive absentee ballots returned by voters.
La. R.S. 18:115(F) and 115.1(F) require voters that registered by mail or electronically and who have not previously voted in their parish to vote in person the first time. This requirement will be temporarily waived for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections for voters who request and receive an absentee ballot based on the COVID-19 reasons for request. However, any voter subject to the provisions of La. R.S. 18:115(F) or 115.1(F) who utilizes the COVID19 reasons to request an absentee ballot to vote in the July 11, 2020 or the August 15, 2020 shall be subject to the requirements of La. R.S. 18:115(F) and 115.1(F) in the first election the voter chooses to vote in subsequent to August 15, 2020.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 10 of 16
This plan will require the development and use of a temporary application form for absentee ballot requests due to COVID-19. This application will be available to voters in addition to the other absentee application forms currently in use.
The COVID-19 reasons for request may be submitted electronically through the GeauxVote online portal. These reasons will be temporarily added to the list of statutory reasons to request an absentee ballot currently available to submit through the online portal. Programming by the Department’s IT Division will be required to add the COVID-19 reasons to the online portal and may take up to a month to implement due to time required for development, testing, and cybersecurity concerns.
Voters may otherwise submit an absentee application by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
La. R.S. 18:1307(A) currently requires voters who make a mark, or are otherwise unable to sign their name, to obtain two witness signatures on their request to vote absentee. For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, this requirement will be reduced to one witness signature on absentee ballot requests submitted by voters who make a mark or are otherwise unable to sign their name.
This plan may require special training for election officials to conduct the elections under this emergency plan.
B. Voters Receiving an Absentee Ballot
Under usual circumstances, a voter submits a request to the registrar of voters to receive an absentee ballot, and the registrar of voters sends the ballot to the voter.
This plan may require the Department of State to assist the registrars of voters in carrying out the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1308 regarding absentee voting. The Department will assist the registrars, as needed, to mail an absentee ballot to a voter who timely submits a request.
The Department may contract with the United States Postal Service to create a tracking system to track all absentee ballots mailed to and from voters under this emergency plan, should cost and circumstances permit.
Voters who submit a request under this plan to receive an absentee ballot by mail must provide the address to which the absentee ballot shall be sent. If the address is within the parish, such address shall only be the voter’s registration address or a mailing address on file with the registrar of voters.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 11 of 16
In addition to receiving an absentee ballot by mail, current law also allows voters to alternatively receive an absentee ballot by:
• Fax (with waiver of right to secret ballot); • Email (for military, overseas, and voters with physical disabilities, with waiver of right
to secret ballot); or • Hand delivery to an immediate family member of a hospitalized voter. (Voters
hospitalized with COVID-19 may cause unique problems as such patients are currently not allowed visitors, nor are visitors allowed in hospitals.)
Instructions are included with the ballot on completing the certificate on the ballot envelope flap and voting the absentee ballot. The instructions also include how to return the ballot and how to request a replacement ballot for a spoiled ballot, if necessary.
All voters who received and returned an absentee ballot prior to approval of this emergency plan will receive a letter from the Department informing them that their returned ballot remains valid for the July 11, 2020 election date.
C. Voters Returning Voted Ballots
The deadlines to return a voted absentee ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 11, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
The deadlines to return a voted absentee ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 14, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 15, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
Current law allows voters to return a voted absentee ballot by hand delivery, by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, if ballots cannot be returned in-person because registrar of voters offices remain closed to the public, voters may still return absentee ballots by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 12 of 16
D. Receipt of Voted Ballots by Registrars of Voters
All voted ballots must be received no later than the deadlines outlined above.
When the registrar receives ballots, voter records are updated each day in ERIN to reflect which voters have returned voted ballots. The registrars verify ballots received from voters by comparison with the registration records and signatures on file in ERIN. The lists of absentee voters who have returned a voted ballot are made public daily by the registrars of voters and are also available on the Secretary of State website.
The registrars of voters will continue to accept and securely store all voted ballots returned by voters until election day.
Registrars may need to hire additional early voting commissioners or part time employees to handle the increased workload of sending and receiving absentee ballots at the same time as conducting an additional week of early voting.
E. Tabulating Ballots
The parish board of election supervisors is responsible for overseeing all elections in the parish and for preparing, verifying, tabulating, and counting absentee ballots as provided in La. R.S. 18:1313. It may utilize parish board commissioners under the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1314, and may also designate additional commissioners to assist with the duties required under La. R.S. 18:1313.
Before tabulation begins, the board must reconcile the names of voters who submitted an absentee ballot against the number of absentee ballots in hand. This may require a large number of parish board commissioners.
Larger, high speed scanners must be acquired and will be necessary to scan and tabulate the increased number of absentee ballots. Prior to use of these scanners in any election in this state, they must receive certification by the secretary of state that they meet the Department’s durability, accuracy, efficiency, and capacity standards. Each individual scanner must also be acceptance tested by the Department before being delivered for use by the parishes.
The fourteen largest parishes will require additional computer stations with ERIN access, spaced at least six feet apart, for the parish boards and parish board commissioners to scan ballots. During the scanning process, additional computer stations, with at least two people per station, will be required to adjudicate ambiguous ballots to determine voter intent.
For parishes that have received 2,000 or more absentee ballots, the process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots may begin two days before election day. These parish boards will tabulate and count the absentee ballots on election day. All other parishes will prepare, verify, tabulate, and count the absentee ballots on election day.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 13 of 16
Parish boards will receive compensation for meetings held on additional days at the rate set forth in La. R.S. 18:423(E).
VIII. COMMISSIONERS
A. Early Voting and Election Day Commissioners
The Department will work with registrars of voters and clerks of court to assess the need for additional commissioners for early voting and for precinct voting on election day.
The secretary will assist in recruiting national guard, secretary of state employees, other possible state employees, and any other available labor sources, provided these individuals receive the minimum training necessary to serve as a commissioner. Available additional commissioners from surrounding parishes may also be used. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
Additional funding will be required to recruit additional commissioners.
New commissioners must attend a general course of instruction to receive certification prior to serving as a commissioner. Part of the course of instruction may be conducted remotely, if possible, but hands-on training on voting machines will require part of the course to be conducted in person.
All early voting commissioners will need to receive training specific to conducting early voting for the July 11, 2020 election no later than June 4, 2020.
All election day commissioners, including those who have served as a commissioner before, must attend a pre-election school for the July 11, 2020 election not less than four days prior to election day. The pre-election school covers the procedures to be used for the federal presidential preference primary election (e.g., provisional voting and lockouts based on party affiliation).
B. Parish Board Commissioners
The Department will work with parish boards of election supervisors to train and provide the necessary number of parish board commissioners. This number will include Department staff, other state and parish employees, and members of the Louisiana National Guard, as necessary. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 14 of 16
IX. ELECTION RESULTS
This plan will require the Department to establish a method as close to the current process as possible to upload election results. Absentee results are not able to be reported by precinct, as in-person election day results are.
For parishes that have received 2,000 or more absentee ballots, the process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots may begin two days before election day. These parish boards will tabulate and count the absentee ballots on election day. All other parishes will prepare, verify, tabulate, and count the absentee ballots on election day.
X. OUTREACH
The Department will conduct a media campaign to notify the public of the deadline to return voted absentee ballots. Possible media outlets include:
1. Official parish journals, as time permits; 2. Sunday edition of major metropolitan newspapers, as time permits; 3. Secretary of State website and Geaux Vote Mobile App; 4. Social media; 5. Radio stations; 6. Press releases to statewide media outlets; 7. Posting signs at all polling locations; 8. Posting informational signs with the toll-free secretary of state telephone number in high
traffic thoroughfares if necessary; and 9. Any other reasonable means of communication as determined by the Department.
This will require the Department to identify and train additional staff to man the Secretary of State 1-800 hotline to answer an anticipated high volume of calls. (After Hurricane Katrina, for example, the hotline logged over 27,000 calls for voting information.)
XI. SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES
To the extent possible, the Department will assist the parishes to implement the CDC Recommendations for Election Polling Locations. It is imperative to supply all phases of the entire election cycle with the appropriate preventative measures.
The Department proposes to supply all polling places, tabulation and meeting areas, and any other area related to the election process with preventative supplies, including hand sanitizer and gloves for commissioners and staff, all as recommended by the CDC. The Department will determine the number of protective gear and sanitary items (hand sanitizer, gloves, masks, etc.) necessary for the daily process of updating ballots, for ballot tabulation, and for in-person early and election day voting.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 15 of 16
All election officials, including watchers present at polling places on election day, will follow recommendations from the CDC for wearing protective gear and for cleaning and disinfecting the room and all areas (including bathrooms) related to the election process.
Draymen will also follow all CDC recommendations for wearing protective gear and social distancing while delivering voting machines to and from polling places.
Tape, cones, protective gear, sanitary items, cleaning supplies, and all other supplies necessary to adhere to CDC cleaning and social distancing guidelines must be purchased as soon as possible.
A. Supplies for Election Day Precincts and Early Voting Sites
Each precinct and each early voting site in the state will receive a bag of sanitization supplies.
Each bag will contain the following: 1. Instructions on the setup and use of each item in the bag; 2. Hand sanitizer (for voters and election officials); 3. Gloves for commissioners; 4. Masks for commissioners; 5. Protective clothing/disposable gown for commissioners; 6. Brightly colored flat discs or cones to mark the CDC 6 feet social distancing minimum requirement for polling places; 7. Disinfectant wipes to clean each voting machine between voters; 8. Disinfectant wipes to clean pens and pencils after use by voters; and 9. For early voting, disinfectant wipes to clean voter cards after use by voters.
The supplies must be ordered, delivered, and packed in the bags no later than May 22, 2020 for the July 11, 2020 election and as soon as possible following the July 11, 2020 election for the August 15, 2020 election.
The Department will work with the parishes to implement and adhere to social distancing requirements.
XII. SPECIAL NOTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2020 ELECTION
A. To be held using the same process as outlined above for the July 11, 2020 election. B. Absentee ballots must be mailed no later than 13 days before election day (La. R.S.
18:1306(B)(3)), that is, by August 2, 2020. C. The rescheduled elections will overlap with qualifying for the November 3, 2020
presidential election. Qualifying for the November 3, 2020 election will need to be moved from July 15-17, 2020 to: • July 22-24, 2020 for candidates who qualify with the secretary of state, including
United States Senator, United States Representative, Associate Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Judges of Courts of Appeal, and Public Service Commissioners; and
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-8 06/01/20 Page 16 of 16 • August 19-21, 2020 for candidates who qualify with clerks of court, including
Judges (except for the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal), District Attorneys, and local and municipal offices. The department is requesting an amendment to pending legislation to move the qualifying dates for the 2020 fall elections in the manner provided above, and an emergency certification under La. R.S. 18:401.1 will also be sent to the governor, requesting a proclamation to reschedule qualifying.
R. KYLE ARDOIN SECRETARY OF STATE
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-9 06/01/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-9 06/01/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF TELISA CLARK Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Telisa Clark, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 55 years old and live in Houma, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a Black woman. I am registered to vote in Houma, Louisiana. 5. I am an event planner and civil rights activist. I am the president of the Houma district of Black Wall Street, a national movement establishing districts across the country in the spirit of the first Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Black Wall Street districts are urban areas that are a thriving center of business, industry, and culture and have one commercial strip that is 50%-70% or more Black-owned businesses.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-9 06/01/20 Page 3 of 5
6. I live at home with my husband, Kevin Clark, who is 58 years old. Several family members live with us at our home, including my daughter Lakeshia, my daughter Kevon Barnett, and her son (my grandson) Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter. 7. Many members of my household, including my husband, my daughter Kevon, my grandson Matthew, and myself have health conditions that put us at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and potentially dying from COVID-19. I have hypertension and other serious heart conditions. My husband is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. My daughter Kevon suffers from hypertension. And my grandson Matthew has severe asthma. 8. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to our health, my husband, my daughter Kevon, my grandson Matthew, other family members who live in our house, and I have been limiting our outside activity and avoiding person-to-person contact. When we must go out in public, my husband and I wear gloves, masks, and coverings on our clothes. 9. My husband and I are lifelong, regular voters. I prefer to vote in-person on election day. I voted early in-person recently after my husband was diagnosed with cancer. 10. I plan to vote in the July, August, November, and December elections in Houma. Because of the severe risk that voting in person at my polling place or at an early voting site poses to my health, my husband’s health, and the health of family members living in my household, I need to vote by absentee ballot for all upcoming 2020 elections. 11. I understand that for the July and August elections, I will qualify to request an absentee ballot through the COVID-19 Emergency Application as someone at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-9 06/01/20 Page 4 of 5
12. I understand, however, that for the November and December elections, I do not qualify to request an absentee ballot. If I am unable to vote by absentee ballot, I will have to decide whether to vote in person—risking my health and the health of my family—or not vote at all. 13. Voting is incredibly important to me. As a Black American, I know that so many of our forefathers fought, bled, and died so that we could exercise our right to vote. Without one’s vote, a person is unable to voice their opinion. If I am unable to vote in November or December, I will feel my voice is being cancelled out.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 60C6Ea5s87e8-3C:62C0F--4c3v25--0B063320-583D-S11DBAD37-2R36LB Document 16-9 06/01/20 Page 5 of 5

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 29th day of May 2020.

_______________________________________
Telisa Clark

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-10 06/01/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC70aFsDe7013-A:2A0CE-c-4v1-E0D0-937A088-9-1SBD1FD17-7R11LAB9 Document 16-10 06/01/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF LAKESHIA BARNETT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Lakeshia Barnett, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 26 years old and live in Houma, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a Black woman. I am registered to vote in Houma, Louisiana. 5. I live with my parents, Telisa and Kevin Clark, and several other family members, at my parents’ home. My mother Telisa Clark is also a Plaintiff in this case. 6. Many of my family members in our home—including my parents—suffer from health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. My mother has hypertension and other serious heart conditions. My father is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC70aFsDe7013-A:2A0CE-c-4v1-E0D0-937A088-9-1SBD1FD17-7R11LAB9 Document 16-10 06/01/20 Page 3 of 4
complications from COVID-19. My sister Kevon Barnett suffers from hypertension. And my nephew Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. 7. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to the health of my family members, my parents, sister, nephew, other family members in our household, and I have been limiting our outside activity and avoiding person-to-person contact except when necessary. We practice safe social distancing and sanitary practices when we must go out. 8. I currently have two jobs. One employer, Target, recently reduced my hours to zero, and I have not worked there since late April. I also work at the U.S. Postal Service. At this job, I rarely interact with members of the public and always wears protective gear. I rely on my job to pay my living expenses and for health insurance. I do not have the option to work from home or take time off at my job with the U.S. Postal Service. If I took too much time off from work, I would lose my job. 9. I registered to vote when I turned 18 and have voted regularly since then. I intend to vote in each election in 2020. 10. I prefer to vote in person, but because of the risks voting in person would pose to my high-risk family members, I need to vote by absentee ballot in the July, August, November, and December elections. 11. I understand that I need an excuse to qualify for an absentee ballot in Louisiana and that I do not qualify for any excuse under Louisiana law. Therefore, if I want to vote in any election in 2020, I understand that I would have to vote in person, which would require me to engage in the person-to-person contact I have been avoiding to protect the health of my high-risk family members. If forced to vote in person, I would have to choose between my vote and my family’s health.

DocuSign Envelope ID: CC70aFsDe7013-A:2A0CE-c-4v1-E0D0-937A088-9-1SBD1FD17-7R11LAB9 Document 16-10 06/01/20 Page 4 of 4

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 31st day of May 2020.

_______________________________________ Lakeshia Barnett

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-11 06/01/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-11 06/01/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Martha Christian Green, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 52 years old and a resident of Lafayette, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a white woman. I live in my home in Lafayette, Louisiana with my mother, Martha Goff Green. 5. I am registered to vote in Lafayette, Louisiana. 6. I am a scholar and researcher working in the fields of law and religion. 7. I am a member of the Lafayette chapter of the League of Women Voters of Louisiana (“LWVLA”) and also a board member of the LWVLA. 8. I was born in New Orleans, and my family has lived in Lafayette since 1977. I have lived in other parts of the country during my life, but I have lived permanently in Lafayette since 2014.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-11 06/01/20 Page 3 of 5
9. I currently live with and care for my mother, who is 80 years old. My mother suffers from several health conditions that make her higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. I prefer not to share my mother’s exact medical conditions out of concern for her privacy, but she does suffer from hypertension and her mostrecent hospitalization was due to her high blood pressure. 10. Because of my mother’s increased risk of contracting and having complications from COVID-19, I have been taking significant precautions to ensure that I do not contract the disease and expose her to it. Since Governor Edwards issued the stay-at-home order in mid-March, I have been practicing recommended social distancing and staying home except for necessary errands and work. When I come into contact with people or surfaces, I protect myself by wearing a mask, disinfecting surfaces, and washing my hands. 11. When my father was near the end of his life in 2011, I moved back to Louisiana to care for him. I take my role as my parents’ caretaker very seriously. I am trying to protect my mother’s health in every way that I can. 12. I always prefer to vote in person and have done so in past elections. I have also taken my mother to vote in person in past elections, even though she qualifies to vote by mail because of her age. 13. I plan to vote in the 2020 elections in Louisiana, including the July, August, November, and December elections. 14. I understand that my mother qualifies to vote by absentee ballot in Louisiana because she is over the age of 65. I understand she plans to vote by absentee ballot because of the risks to her health she faces by voting in person.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-11 06/01/20 Page 4 of 5
15. I would prefer to vote in person for upcoming 2020 elections. But because of my mother’s increased risk of contracting and having severe complications and dying from COVID19, I am unable to vote in person for the remainder of the 2020 elections without posing a severe risk to my mother’s health and life. 16. The option of early in-person voting for me does not mitigate the risks to my mother’s health because it still requires me to engage in the person-to-person contact I am avoiding to protect my mother’s health. Additionally, there is only one early voting site in Lafayette Parish, and I understand that I would be required to wait in line around other people before voting, including riding in the notoriously small and often-malfunctioning elevator or standing in the narrow stairwell. This activity would expose me to COVID-19 infection, and I am not willing to take the risk to my mother’s health. 17. For the 2020 elections, I need to vote by mail to protect my mother’s health. I understand that to vote by absentee ballot in the 2020 elections, I must have an excuse. I understand that I do not currently qualify for any of the excuses under law, including the excuses related to COVID19 for the July and August elections. I understand that because my mother is not under a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order, I do not qualify under the COVID-19 Emergency Application excuse for voters caring for those individuals. 18. If I cannot vote by absentee ballot in the 2020 elections, I will be forced to choose between voting and protecting my mother’s health. 19. Voting has always been important to me and my family. My father took me to register to vote when I turned 18. I have a strong family legacy of voting—almost genetic. I believe it is my civic duty to protect the right to vote of my fellow citizens.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-11 06/01/20 Page 5 of 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this __26th__ day of __May__ 2020.
M.Christian Green

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-12 06/01/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-12 06/01/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF TRUPANIA BONNER ON BEHALF OF CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Trupania Bonner, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this
declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”) is a plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am the founder and Managing Director of CCMG. In my capacity as Managing Director of CCMG I am familiar with, and receive frequent updates and proposals for, the activities of CCMG. 4. CCMG is a community engagement and media production agency based in New Orleans, Louisiana. 5. CCMG was founded to address disparities in civic engagement and political education in communities of color in Louisiana. We work on a wide range of projects including civic

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-12 06/01/20 Page 3 of 5
engagement trainings, voter registration campaigns, census education, mutual aid and direct service, and voter education. 6. CCMG leads the “Louisiana Counts 2020” complete count committee and began preparations for this public education campaign in 2018. CCMG prepared and disseminated media toolkits, organizer trainings, social media campaigns, factual reports, and other resources for community stakeholders across Louisiana to use in census education work. We also invested significant time and energy into developing the “Census and Redistricting Initiative,” a community education initiative focused on preparing communities for the 2020 Census and 2021 redistricting cycle. The program would have taught Louisiana residents the basics of the redistricting process. 7. In addition to our specific census and redistricting work, CCMG conducts various voter education and policy advocacy training programs such as the Democracy and Power Institute, which was founded in 2016 and teaches students and community leaders how to draft legislation and lobby local governments. 8. Much of CCMG’s planned work has been put on hold as we must now expend our limited resources to respond to the state’s Emergency Election Plan and preparing for the upcoming 2020 elections, in which thousands of voters of color will be forced to risk their health by voting in person at their polling place. 9. CCMG is now using our limited resources to acquire and produce masks and other personal protective materials to provide to voters who will be forced to cast a ballot in person this year because they do not qualify for an absentee ballot under the Excuse Requirement.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-12 06/01/20 Page 4 of 5
10. During early voting and on election day, CCMG will provide direct support at polling places by handing out hand sanitizer, masks, and information on social distancing.
11. We are also now educating voters about the Emergency Election Plan, explaining and training voters on the Excuse Requirement, including the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application.
12. CCMG will be helping voters navigate the absentee ballot process, including the Witness Requirement for voters who live alone by doing radio and television public service announcements about what voters can do to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection while complying with the Witness Requirement.
13. The resources and staff time spent on these activities would have been spent on CCMG’s community education activities relating to the Census, voter registration drives, and redistricting. But for the Challenged Provisions, CCMG would otherwise be spending these resources, time, and staff hours on its core mission activities.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-12 06/01/20 Page 5 of 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

27th

May

Executed this ______ day of ______ 2020.

______________________________ Trupania Bonner

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF HILDA WALKER THOMAS ON BEHALF OF LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Hilda Walker Thomas, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. The League of Women Voters of Louisiana (“LWVLA”) is a plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am the President of LWVLA. In my capacity as President of LWVLA I am familiar with, and receive frequent updates and proposals for, the activities of LWVLA. 4. LWVLA is the Louisiana affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “LWVUS”). 5. LWVLA is comprised of two entities: (a) the League of Women Voters of Louisiana Education Fund, which is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana, and a tax-exempt charitable organization pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (b) the League of Women Voters of Louisiana Fund, a nonpartisan, not-for-

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 3 of 6
profit social welfare organization organized under the laws of Louisiana, and a tax-exempt organization pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 6. The LWVLA is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The mission of the LWVLA is to be a recognized, trusted, and knowledgeable volunteer, grassroots community resource with the flexibility and sustainable capacity to ensure a strong, active, and participatory democracy for all persons. 7. The LWVLA is dedicated to ensuring that all eligible voters—particularly those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including first-time voters, noncollege youth, new citizens, minorities, the elderly, and low-income Americans—have the opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. The local Leagues are active in voter registration, especially of new citizens and high school and college youths, while the state League works with the Secretary of State’s office to increase voter participation in elections. 8. The LWVLA has six local Leagues across the state and one unit that is in process of becoming a chapter with 287 members and members at-large. The LWVLA is diverse, inclusive, and equitable. We have committees the following committees: Criminal Justice, Education, Environmental, Healthcare, Voter Services, Women’s Issues, and a Nominating Committee. 9. Many of the members of the LWVLA are over the age of 60. Some of our members live in senior living facilities. 10. To ensure the public is educated about voting rights, the LWVLA will participate in the “People Powered Fair Maps Campaign” for redistricting. We will also work with LWVUS on the purging of voter rolls in four specific parishes, on pledge to be counted, and to educate the

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 4 of 6
community about the importance of the 2020 Census by writing letters to the editor(s), and to provide voter guides and questions for candidates. 11. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the way LWVLA serves as an educational resource for the public has changed. We have had to adapt to using social media and technology more as a tool to educate the public. 12. Many of our members include registered voters age 60-65 who are at higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19. Voting in person would therefore put the health of these voters at significant risk because of the person-to-person contact at the polling place. But these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. 13. LWVLA members also include registered voters who live with, care for, or come into regular contact with loved ones who are at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications—including death—from COVID-19; yet, these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. These members must choose between their vote and risking the health of their loved one by voting in-person at their polling place. 14. Because of the restrictions on absentee ballots under Louisiana law during the COVID-19 pandemic, LWVLA has been forced to divert time and resources away from its regular activities. Specifically, LWVLA will be conducting public education on the passage of the Emergency Election Plan with its complicated and vague Excuse Requirement, the current absentee ballot laws—including the Witness Requirement—and how voters can stay safe while complying with the law and voting. LWVLA member volunteers will be sending newsletters, writing letters to the editor, engaging in voter outreach, responding to voter contacts, and conducting voter

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 5 of 6
education events to ensure that members and the Louisiana electorate are educated on how they can vote during the 2020 elections without endangering their health or the health of their loved ones or the community. Because the LWVLA has limited financial and human resources, the resources and member time they will have to spend on these efforts would have been spent on the following LWVLA efforts: voter registration efforts, education around the 2020 Census and redistricting, and “Get Out the Vote” efforts during the 2020 election cycle. 15. The LWVLA is part of this lawsuit because our mission is to have a strong, engaged, participatory electorate, and current Louisiana law and the Emergency Election Plan will disenfranchise thousands of Louisiana voters—including many LWVLA members—if it is not changed to allow voters to safely vote by mail and have their votes counted. We believe that no voter should be put in the position of choosing between voting and protecting their own health or the health of a loved one.

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 16-13 06/01/20 Page 6 of 6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 26th day of May 2020.

______________________________ Hilda Walker Thomas

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 16-14 06/01/20 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

ORDER Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek leave to file a Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in excess of the Court’s 25-page limit for initial memoranda under Local Rule 7(g). Plaintiffs seek to file a memorandum not to exceed 40 pages in length.
For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

DONE this ____ day of June, 2020.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully move for a preliminary injunction restraining Defendants for all upcoming 2020 elections from enforcing (1) the requirement to qualify for an excuse to vote by absentee ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) the requirement to have another person witness the absentee voter’s signature and then sign the absentee ballot envelope (the “Witness Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b); and (3) the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballot and an opportunity to cure such defects so that their votes may be counted (the “Cure Prohibition”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. The United States and Louisiana are facing an unprecedented global pandemic that epidemiologists predict will continue into the fall, when the general election in November is expected to draw high voter turnout. As a result of the COVID-19 crisis, Louisiana election officials, including Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin have already

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 2 of 6
concluded that the state’s voting rules must change to protect voters and ensure safe, free, fair, and equal elections during the pandemic. They simply have not adequately alleviated the burdens of voting during a pandemic. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their claims that the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition violate their constitutional rights.
First, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Excuse Requirement on behalf of all Louisiana voters during 2020 elections. Despite the Emergency Election Plan expanding eligibility for absentee voting for the July and August elections, voters like Plaintiffs Barnett and Green and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, who live in the same household with family members who have health conditions that make them high risk for COVID-19, do not qualify for an excuse for any 2020 election. These voters must vote in person, which requires them to choose between voting and the health of their family. And voters like Plaintiff Clark, who qualify to vote by absentee ballot for the July and August election because of her health condition under the Emergency Election Plan, must vote in person in the November and December elections because the Emergency Election Plan does not extend past August. Plaintiff Clark and voters like her must therefore choose between her health and her right to vote. The Excuse Requirement creates a severe burden on all voters’ fundamental right to vote and, for voters like Plaintiff Clark, creates an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity.
Second, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Witness Requirement for all voters in 2020 elections. By requiring voters—especially high-risk voters—to break their isolation or recommended social distancing guidelines to sign their absentee ballot in the presence of a witness who then signs the absentee ballot envelope in turn, the Witness Requirement creates an unreasonable burden on
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 3 of 6
absentee voters’ fundamental right to vote under the U.S. Constitution and creates an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity.
The Witness Requirement and Excuse Requirement frustrate the missions of Plaintiffs CCMG and LWVLA and cause them to divert limited resources to mitigate the harm caused by requiring voters to risk exposure to COVID-19 by voting in person or finding a witness for an absentee ballot.
Finally, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Cure Prohibition for all absentee voters in 2020 elections. Louisiana law provides absentee voters no notice of or opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballot so that it may be counted. For Plaintiff Clark, Plaintiff LWVLA members eligible to vote by absentee ballot, and voters like them, the Cure Prohibition violates their right to procedural due process during the absentee ballot process. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to implement a process by which voters may cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted.
Unless the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement are enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between exercising their fundamental right to vote and protecting their health or the health of their loved ones. If the Cure Prohibition is not enjoined and a process is not implemented for voters to cure material defects in their returned absentee ballot, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, like many Louisiana voters who will be voting by mail for the first time, will be denied their right to procedural due process and risk losing their right to vote.
Plaintiffs are also entitled to relief because they will suffer irreparable harm absent relief and traditional legal remedies will not adequately protect their rights. Further, the harm to Plaintiffs and other Louisiana voters outweighs any putative harm to the Defendants. Finally, the relief sought by Plaintiffs is clearly in the public interest.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 4 of 6 To protect their rights, their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and the rights and lives of Louisianans like them during the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter a preliminary injunction for the July, August, November, and December 2020 elections that (1) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirement, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)– (b); (3) orders Defendants to implement a process by which voters are given notice of and an opportunity to cure any material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted; and (4) orders Defendants to educate all voters about the injunction, in coordination with parish and local officials.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 5 of 6

DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22 06/04/20 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing motion with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to counsel of record who are registered participants of the Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that I sent the foregoing document by electronic mail to counsel of record who are not CM/ECF participants.
/s/ Caren E. Short Counsel for Plaintiffs
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 2 of 37
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Defendants Governor Edwards, Secretary of State Ardoin, Attorney General Landry and the Louisiana Legislature have already conceded that voting rules must change to facilitate safe, free, fair, and equal voting during the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic. But the state’s emergency election plan fails to address the burdens, gaps, and inequities of the state’s restrictive mail-in voting system and does not apply to the general election in November, which is expected to draw high turnout and when the transmission of Covid-19 will likely continue to endanger voters. As a result, provisions of Louisiana’s absentee ballot law pose direct and severe obstacles to voting: (1) the requirement to qualify for an excuse to vote by absentee ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; (2) the requirement to have another person witness the absentee voter’s signature and then sign the absentee ballot envelope (the “Witness Requirement”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a)–(b); and (3) the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballots and opportunity to cure such defects so that their votes may be counted (the “Cure Prohibition”), see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement for all voters in 2020 elections because they violate the fundamental right to vote under the U.S. Constitution, and create an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote compelling forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the Cure Prohibition because it violates their right to procedural due process by failing to provide notice of and an opportunity to cure material defects
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 3 of 37
during the absentee ballot process. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to implement a process by which voters may cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots so that they may be counted.
If the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement are not enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between exercising their fundamental right to vote and protecting their health or the health of their loved ones. If the Cure Prohibition is not enjoined and a process put in place for voters to cure material defects in their returned absentee ballots, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members, like many Louisiana voters who will be voting by mail for the first time, will be denied their right to procedural due process and risk losing their right to vote. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to enjoin these provisions.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS1
A. The Covid-19 Pandemic
“SARS-CoV-2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19).” Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray, attached as Ex. 2 (“Murray Decl.”) ¶ 6. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared Covid-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.2 On March 11, 2020, WHO declared that it had become a pandemic.3 It has now spread throughout the world, including to
1 The Court can take judicial notice of census data, voting statistics, public health reports, and newspapers. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Alexander, No. CR 14-126-JWD-EWD, 2020 WL 2468773, at *7 (M.D. La. May 13, 2020); Gen. Elec. Co. v. W. Feliciana Par. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, No. CV 16-449-JWD-RLB, 2016 WL 7007504, at *14 (M.D. La. Nov. 29, 2016); Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2011); Terrebonne v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 997, 1000 n.4 (5th Cir. 1981). 2 World Health Organization, Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (Jan. 30, 2020), https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-healthregulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov). 3 World Health Organization, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on Covid-19, (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefingon-Covid-19---11-march-2020.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 4 of 37
every state in the United States. There are currently 1,787,680 confirmed cases in the United States,
and 104,396 deaths nationwide.4 As of May 31, 2020, the Louisiana Department of Health had
confirmed 40,341 positive cases of coronavirus and 2,690 deaths in Louisiana.5
As Dr. Megan Murray, an epidemiologist with the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health
and its Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, explains in her declaration:
Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. It has also been shown that Covid-19 can be transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air.
Id. ¶ 8. As a result, individuals can spread the disease before realizing they are infected and self-
quarantining. Id. ¶ 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has also noted that
asymptomatic Covid-19-positive individuals can transmit the disease to others.6
According to the CDC, individuals are at higher risk of severe complications and death
from Covid-19 if they are 65 years old or older or have underlying health conditions and diseases,
including chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, severe
obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher), diabetes, chronic kidney disease undergoing
dialysis, liver disease, and other health conditions that suppress immune systems like HIV/AIDS.7
The CDC also notes that immunocompromised individuals are at severe risk from Covid-19.8
4 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Cases in U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/casesupdates/cases-in-us.html (last updated Jun. 1, 2020). 5 La. Dept. of Health, Louisiana Coronavirus (Covid-19) Information, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated Jun. 1, 2020). 6 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19): How to Prepare, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html (last updated Mar. 4, 2020). 7 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, People who are at higher risk for severe illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/people-at-higher-risk.html (last updated May 14, 2020). 8 Id.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 5 of 37
“Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with comorbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease.” Id. ¶ 20. Dr. Murray explains in her declaration that “[i]n addition to age, other risk factors for severe disease and death include hypertension, heart disease, lung diseases (e.g., asthma, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]), diabetes mellitus, obesity, and chronic kidney disease.” Id. ¶ 21.
Though Covid-19 typically begins with “a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath,” id. ¶ 14, some people “develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise due to pneumonia that can be gradual or sudden.” Id. ¶ 15. The major complication in patients with severe disease is acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”). Id. ¶ 16. Many patients who develop ARDS must be put on a ventilator. Id. The Covid19 disease can cause a wide variety of clinical manifestations, including pneumonia, kidney failure, liver failure, strokes, heart attacks, cardiac inflammation, pulmonary embolisms, and gastrointestinal infections. Id. ¶ 17. People who develop severe complications and require mechanical ventilation to survive ARDS or who suffer a stroke “are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function” or “long term neurological deficits from these events,” respectively. Id. ¶ 19. In critical cases, Covid-19 can be fatal. Id. ¶¶ 16, 20. Even young individuals, including children, are at risk of severe complications and death from Covid19. Id.
“The CDC has documented that 36.8 percent of Louisiana residents are obese and an additional 32.7 percent are overweight; 39 percent have a diagnosis of high blood pressure and 13.9 percent have diagnosed diabetes mellitus.” Id. ¶ 46. 15.4 percent of the population is 65 years old or over. Id. Using data from the CDC’s 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (“BRFSS”), the Kaiser Family Foundation has “estimated the total number of at-risk adults by
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 6 of 37
state . . . who are at higher risk of serious illness if they get infected with coronavirus.” Id. ¶ 48. Based on their analysis of state-specific data on relevant factors such as age, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uncontrolled asthma, diabetes, and a BMI greater than 40, “42.1% of adults over age 18 in Louisiana are at risk for serious Covid-19 cases with older adults making up 48.4% of those at high risk.” Id. According to another risk assessment study, “Louisiana scored an 88 out of 100 when 100 is the most vulnerable.” Id. ¶¶ 49-50. Dr. Murray concludes that “[t]hese data suggest that in the event of further spread of Covid-19, Louisiana may experience higher levels of disease, disability and death than other states experiencing the same amount of transmission.” Id. ¶ 50.
Covid-19 is highly communicable and poses a severe threat to voters. As Dr. Murray testifies, “[b]ecause voting takes place in public buildings where people congregate and given the risks of infection and disease in the Louisiana population, voting at a polling station in November entails a substantial risk of infection with Covid-19 that could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death.” Id. ¶ 32. Polling places create a risk to voters where they are “crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth.” Id. Additionally, “if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk . . . [because] poorly ventilated areas where crowding may take place pose risk to those using these facilities” from aerosol transmission. Id. “The probability that a person who is exposed to Covid-19 in [a polling place] will go on to develop severe Covid-19 disease or to die depends on the age of that person and his/her underlying health status.” Id.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 7 of 37
B. Covid-19’s Impact on Black Louisianans Plaintiffs incorporate the discussion of Covid-19’s disproportionate impact on Black Louisianans in the Memorandum of Law filed by the Power Coalition plaintiffs, Section II.A.2.9 Mem. L. Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., Power Coalition for Equity & Justice v. Edwards, No. 3:20cv-00283, ECF No. 14-1 (May 21, 2020), attached as Ex. 3 (“Power Coalition brief”). In further support, Dr. Sekou Franklin, Associate Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee University, testifies in his expert declaration that as the Black population in a county increases— a proxy for determining whether race is a predictor of a certain factor—residents are more likely to live in high-poverty areas and live in economic distress, less likely to have an automobile, and more likely to have worse health outcomes. Expert Declaration of Dr. Sekou Franklin, attached as Ex. 4 (“Franklin Decl.”) ¶ 7. Each of these factors make Black Louisianans more susceptible to contracting and suffering complications or dying from Covid-19. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. As recognized in the Power Coalition brief, the CDC has both acknowledged the disparate impact of Covid-19 on Black Americans rooted in systemic discrimination and recommended that racial and ethnic minority groups “take extra precautions to protect themselves from Covid-19.”10
C. The Covid-19 Pandemic and Louisiana’s 2020 Elections Covid-19’s impact on the November general election and other 2020 elections will be unprecedented. In response to Covid-19, many states will likely see an increase in vote-by-mail in the general election. For example, in Wisconsin’s April 7, 2020 election, nearly 1.3 million
9 On May 26, 2020, Defendants in Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, et al. v. Edwards, et al., 3:20-cv-00283, filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the instant case with their case. Plaintiffs in this case did not oppose the motion to consolidate. 10 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Covid-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (last visited May 30, 2020).
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 8 of 37
registered voters requested an absentee ballot, the most in the state’s history.11 Voters submitted
an unprecedented total of 1,239,611 absentee ballot requests to municipal clerks, clerks issued 1,282,097 absentee ballots, and voters cast and returned 1,157,599 of them.12 Eighty-three percent
or 964,433 of the 1,157,599 absentee ballots were mail-in absentee ballots, comprising nearly 62 percent of the total turnout.13 This absentee ballot use was a dramatic increase from the 2016
presidential primary election, in which mail-in absentee ballots constituted just 4.8 percent of total ballots cast.14 See also Power Coalition Brief at 5-7 (further detail regarding the course of
coronavirus pandemic in Louisiana).
The Excuse Requirement: The Louisiana Constitution requires the legislature to establish
an absentee voting system. La. Const. art. XI, § 2 (“The legislature shall provide a method for absentee voting.”). Louisiana is one of only 16 states that require an excuse to vote by mail.15
Louisiana statute limits absentee voting by mail to voters who satisfy one of fifteen excuses. See
La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303. Only limited categories of voters may vote by mail, including voters with
documented disabilities, voters aged 65 years and older, military and overseas voters, and voters
who will be out of the parish of residence, among others. Id. Plaintiffs here incorporate the
discussion of the excuse requirement in Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.1 and related penalties,
Section II.B.3.
11 Absentee Ballot Report - April 7, 2020 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary, Wis. Elections Comm’n (Apr. 16, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/node/6856. 12 Absentee Ballot Report - April 7, 2020 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary (updated Apr. 21, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/node/6862; see Wisconsin Elections Commission, April 7, 2020 Absentee Voting Report, at 4 (Table 2), 5 (Table 3) (May 15, 2020), https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/202005/April%202020%20Absentee%20Voting%20Report.pdf. 13 See Absentee Voting Report, supra note 11, at 6 (Table 4); id. at 4 (Table 1). 14 Id. at 6 (Table 4). 15 See Ala. Code § 17-11-3; Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-402; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-135; Del. Code Ann. tit. 15, § 5502; Ind. Code § 3-11-10-24; Ky. Rev. Stat. § 117.085; La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 86; Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-715; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.277; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 657:1; N.Y. Elec. § 8-400; S.C. Code Ann. § 7-15-320; Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-6-201; Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 82.001, 82.002, 82.003, 82.004, 82.005, 82.006, 82.007; W. Va. Code § 3-3-1.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 9 of 37
The Witness Requirement: Louisiana law also requires voters who vote by mail to obtain a witness signature, verifying the voter’s identity, for their ballot to count. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). The voter must sign their absentee ballot affidavit in the presence of this witness, who then signs the envelope. Id. The law does not specify who may serve as a witness. Louisiana is one of only 12 states to require voters to obtain at least one witness signature on their absentee mail-in ballot.16
Dr. Franklin testifies that according to the American Community Survey (“ACS”), 30.6% of households in Louisiana are headed by a person who identifies as “living alone.” Franklin Decl. ¶ 3 & tbl.2. And 11.6% of Louisiana households are a person living alone who is 65 years old or older. Id.
Dr. Franklin explains that as the Black population increases at the county level in Louisiana, residents of voting age (18 and above) are more likely to live alone. Franklin Decl. ¶¶ 7, 19-22. Of all Black households (i.e., homes with all their occupants, regardless of number, treated as one unit), 37% contain people who live alone compared to 28.2% of white households. Id. ¶ 13. And nearly 15% of all Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with children under 18 versus just 5.1% percent of similar white households. Id. Plaintiffs here incorporate the discussion of Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.2 and related penalties, Section II.B.3.
The Cure Prohibition: Louisiana law fails to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mail-in absentee ballots and deprives them of an opportunity to cure such
16 See Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07, 203B.121; Minn. R. 8210.2450; Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 1720-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15-220, 7-15-230; Va. Code Ann. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 10 of 37
problems so that their votes may be counted. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. Louisiana also provides no mechanism for tracking whether one’s absentee ballot has been received, accepted, or counted.
Plaintiffs here incorporate the discussion of the absentee ballot review and counting process in the Power Coalition brief, Section II.B.4. Louisiana law requires that an absentee ballot be rejected and not counted if a majority of the parish board of election supervisors determines that the ballot is invalid, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313(F)(5), or the ballot contains a “distinguishing mark.” Id. § 18:1316(A). But it does not require election officials to notify voters that their ballots have been deemed invalid or how to correct the defect or error with their ballot. Additionally, if an absentee ballot is challenged by a “commissioner, watcher, or qualified voter” under § 18:1315(A)(1), § 18:565(A)(1)–(3), or § 18:1315(B), the registrar must notify the voter that his or her ballot has been challenged, although such notice is sent only after the challenge is sustained and the ballot rejected with no opportunity for the voter to cure. Id. § 18:1315(C)(2), (3)(a).
D. Emergency Election Plans On April 15, 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency election plan that would have expanded access to absentee ballots during the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (“July election”) and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections (“August election”), pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Specifically, the First Proposed Emergency Plan would have expanded the list of registered voters who could request an absentee ballot, most importantly, those who are at high risk of contracting and suffering complications from the disease, are subject to a quarantine or isolation order or caring for such an individual, those caring for children whose school or childcare is closed, and most broadly, those who are “unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of Covid-19.” See First Proposed Emergency Election Plan (Apr. 13, 2020), attached as Ex. 5 (“First Proposed Emergency Election Plan”) at 8.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 11 of 37
Under the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, returned ballots could not have been rejected for lack of a witness signature for the July and August elections. Id. at 9. But the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee blocked the plan, citing unspecified concerns of “voter fraud.”17 Subsequently, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”18 In response to senators’ concerns about Louisiana voters using the Covid-19 crisis to engage in fraudulent behavior, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin stated: “I think some of their concerns are not steeped in all the facts that were presented to them today. I’m hoping over time there can be some clarity.”19
On April 20, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin presented a revised emergency election plan that significantly limits access to absentee ballots and fails to waive witness requirements for absentee ballots during the July and August elections. See Revised Emergency Election Plan (Apr. 20, 2020), attached as Ex. 6 (“Emergency Election Plan”). Neither the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan nor the Emergency Election Plan resolves any burdens voters will face in November general election (“November election”) or December 5, 2020 Congressional and open general election (“December election”) from Louisiana’s absentee voting laws during the Covid-19 pandemic.
17 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs (Apr. 15, 2020); see also Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html. 18 Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11eab67e-73d2172ba20b.html. 19 Id.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 12 of 37
Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin is now implementing the Emergency Election Plan that was approved, ironically, by the Louisiana legislature mailing in their votes. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3(D).20
The Emergency Election Plan extends the ability to vote by mail to voters: • At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications); • Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19; • Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; • Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or • Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.
Emergency Election Plan at 8. Plaintiffs herein refer to the “Excuse Requirement” as embracing this list of additional, but temporary, excuses for the July and August elections.
Further, the Emergency Election Plan does not remove the Witness Requirement and does not outline a cure process for returned ballots that contain material defects resulting in rejection. See generally id.
20 Tierney Sneed, The Irony: LA Legislature Votes By Mail To Approve Plan Limiting Vote-By-Mail, TPM, May 4, 2020, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/voting-rights-primer-pandemic-age-flashpoint-voting.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 13 of 37
E. The Danger to Voters this Fall The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to produce steady or increased transmission in the United States through the fall, as voters seek to cast their ballots on or before Election Day. Dr. Murray explains in her declaration that “[e]pidemiologists have projected a number of future Covid-19 epidemic trajectories based on a range of different possible scenarios but all of these scenarios are similar in that they predict that it is highly likely that Covid-19 will continue to circulate at its current level or at an even higher level than currently in October and November of 2020.” Murray Decl. ¶ 33. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said a second wave of infections in the United States is “inevitable,” and CDC Director Robert Redfield has said that wave may “be even more difficult than the one we just went through.”21 Due to the relaxation of social distancing measures, the corresponding increase in social contacts, and seasonal changes, “it is reasonable to expect that, like other beta-coronaviruses, [COVID-19] may transmit somewhat more efficiently in winter than summer.” Id. ¶¶ 37-39. The projected persistent or increased risk of transmission in the fall and winter is, in part, due to seasonal factors, including “differences in the ways people congregate,” as “people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation and less personal space than they do in the summer.” Id. ¶ 39. Citing one study that “drew lessons from previous influenza pandemics to predict the future trajectory of Covid-19,” id. ¶ 40, Dr. Murray notes that the “most likely scenario” is that “the current first wave of Covid-19 will be followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and
21 Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House, Mar. 25, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trumpvice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/; Zack Budryk, CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus might be ‘more difficult,’ The Hill, Apr. 21, 2020, https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/493973cdc-director-warns-second-wave-of-coronavirus-might-be-more-difficult.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 14 of 37
one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021,” id. ¶ 41, and that “most epidemiologists expect that incidence will increase in the fall/winter months of 2020-2021.” Id. ¶ 42. “In the period prior to the widespread use of an effective vaccine, this spread will continue to lead to serious disease and death in at-risk groups.” Id. ¶ 44. Finally, progress towards herd immunity and vaccine development and production are unlikely to advance sufficiently quickly to significantly alter the trajectory of the COVID-19 outbreak. Id. ¶¶ 50-53.
III. ARGUMENT A preliminary injunction is warranted if Plaintiffs show “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the injury outweighs any harm to the other party, and (4): that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Brock Servs., LLC v. Rogillio, 936 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015)). “In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs readily meet these requirements.
A. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition, which violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement separately and together, are wholly incompatible with the public health measures necessary to protect individuals from Covid-19 and unduly burden Plaintiffs’ rights to vote. Unless these requirements are waived for the remainder of the 2020 elections, they will force thousands of Louisiana voters to decide between exposing themselves or their family members to a deadly virus by voting in person or surrendering their right to vote to protect their own and their
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 15 of 37
families’ health. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from compelling this choice. Finally, to prevent disenfranchisement and conform with the requirements of procedural due process, Defendants must also establish a cure process.
1. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement Impose an Undue Burden on Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Right to Vote. a. The Excuse Requirement
The Excuse Requirement unduly burdens qualified Louisianans’ right to vote. For Plaintiffs Clark, Barnett, and Green, the Excuse Requirement wholly prevents voting because they or their cohabitants live with health conditions that put them at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, making in-person voting unreasonably dangerous for them and their loved ones during this pandemic. Declaration of Telisa Clark, attached as Ex. 7 (“Clark Decl.”), ¶¶ 7, 10-12; Declaration of Lakeshia Barnett, attached as Ex. 8 (“Barnett Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 11; Declaration of Martha Christian Green, attached as Ex. 9 (“Green Decl.”), ¶¶ 9, 15-18. The Excuse Requirement will also seriously undermine Plaintiffs LWVLA and Crescent City’s missions and ongoing efforts to increase civic engagement and participation in this year’s elections and require them to divert limited resources in response, as thousands of registered Louisiana voters find themselves in the same predicament as the individual Plaintiffs here. Declaration of Crescent City Media Group, attached as Ex. 10 (“CCMG Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-13; Declaration of League of Women Voters Louisiana, attached as Ex. 11 (“LWVLA Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 14. Further, Plaintiff LWVLA’s members include voters who need to vote by absentee ballot to protect themselves or a household member in upcoming elections, but because of the Excuse Requirement, they do not qualify to vote by mail under Louisiana law. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-13.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 16 of 37
Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any burden on the right to vote must be balanced against the degree to which the requirement furthers the state’s interest in enacting that requirement. The Supreme Court has set forth the following test:
[T]he rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to “severe” restrictions, the regulation must be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” But when a state election law provision imposes only “reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions” upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, “the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify” the restrictions. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Strict scrutiny is also appropriate where the effect of a challenged provision bears more heavily on a specific group like racial minorities, younger or older voters, or voters with disabilities. See League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1216 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (“Disparate impact matters under Anderson-Burdick.” (citing Crawford v. Marion Cty. Elec. Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 216 (2008)); see also Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795, 822 (2020); Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1264 (N.D. Ga. 2018). While in general, voters do not have a constitutional right to vote by absentee ballot, see McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802, 808–09 (1969), such a right does arise when an absentee ballot constitutes the only means for a qualified, registered voter to cast a ballot. See Thomas v. Andino, No. 3:20-cv-01552-JMC, --- F.Supp.3d ---- , 2020 WL at 2617329, at *17 n.20 (D.S.C. May 25, 2020) (finding that in Covid-19 pandemic, absentee voting impacts voters’ fundamental right to vote where “it is relatively difficult to vote in person without risking the possibility of infection, especially for those who are more susceptible to the ravaging harms of COVID-19” and “during this pandemic, absentee voting is the safest tool through which voters can use to effectuate their fundamental right to vote”); cf. McDonald, 394 U.S.. id. at 807–08
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 17 of 37
(noting that “absentee [voting] statutes . . . are designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls”). In this case, for as long as novel coronavirus continues to pose a threat to public health, the Excuse Requirement prevents Plaintiffs Clark, Barnett, and Green from voting because they cannot vote in person without incurring a substantial risk to their own or their loved ones’ health.
The burden on voters’ rights is extremely severe. Since Plaintiffs Clark, Bennett, and Green cannot safely vote in person and cannot vote in all 2020 elections due to the Excuse Requirement, they are effectively disenfranchised. Due to Plaintiff Clark’s existing health conditions, which put her at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, she qualifies to vote by mail under the Emergency Election Plan in the July and August elections. Clark Decl. ¶ 11. But she does not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303, and the Election Emergency Plan does not extend to the November and December elections. She must vote in person for those latter elections, thereby exposing herself, her husband, her daughter, and grandson to serious danger. Clark Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12. Similarly, Plaintiffs Barnett and Green do not qualify to vote by absentee ballot under either La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or the Emergency Election Plan. Barnett Decl. ¶ 11; Green Decl. ¶ 17. As a result, they cannot vote in any of this year’s four remaining elections without endangering vulnerable members of their households. Barnett Decl. ¶ 11; Green Decl. ¶ 18.
The burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement will disproportionately fall on Black voters in Louisiana like Plaintiffs Clark and Barnett who—due to longstanding socioeconomic discrimination and inequity—are more likely to suffer from or live with a family member who has preexisting health conditions that make a person more susceptible to contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from Covid-19. See Franklin Decl. ¶¶ 24-38.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 18 of 37
Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions center on facilitating voter participation, pursuant to their goals of promoting democratic values, increasing civic engagement, and advancing their public policy goals through the democratic process. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; CCMG Decl. ¶ 5. They have already diverted funds and staff resources away from planned work to educate and help voters comply with the complex Excuse Requirement, made more complicated by the Emergency Election Plan. LWVLA Decl. ¶ 14; CCMG Decl. ¶¶ 8-13. If the Excuse Requirement is not enjoined, LWVLA and CCMG Plaintiffs will be forced to continue to divert funds and staff time and resources away from planned work on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and redistricting to educate voters who do not qualify for an absentee ballot and must risk their health by voting in person. Id. Such diversion of resources will increase if the Excuse Requirement remains in place for the November 2020 election, which will draw high turnout. Organizational plaintiffs’ core missions are greatly harmed if voters cannot vote because in-person voting requirements force them to risk contracting the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
Because the Excuse Requirement will disenfranchise individual Plaintiffs and require organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources to respond to its impact, it imposes a severe burden on the right to vote that can only survive if Defendants can show that it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. See Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992). They cannot. The Excuse Requirement is not supported by a legitimate interest, let alone a compelling one. Absentee voting laws with excuse requirements simply express a preference for voters to vote in person, and while the excuses recognize that some voters simply cannot vote in person, this preference does not turn the excuse requirement into a law enforcement tool. It does not help deter, prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute electoral fraud.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 19 of 37
If Defendants are going to argue that carving up the electorate into voters who may cast absentee ballots and voters who may not advances an anti-fraud interest, they would have to produce a modicum of evidence supporting that argument. Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105, 1132 (10th Cir. 2020) (observing that “the Secretary points to no concrete evidence that ‘[its] interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights’ in this case”). Here, Defendants would have to demonstrate that the groups they have allowed to vote absentee are less prone to commit fraud or are less vulnerable to the kind of fraudulent manipulation or undue influence strictly outlawed in every election code in the country. See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1461.7(A)(3) (“No person shall knowingly, willfully, or intentionally: . . . When assisting a voter in voting, fail to mark the ballot or vote in the manner dictated by the voter.”). No such evidence exists. To the contrary, senior citizens are generally thought to be more vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation or undue influence and are in greater need of assistance with voting, and yet anyone aged 65 years or older is allowed to cast an absentee ballot. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(J). The Excuse Requirement is not an antifraud measure.
Furthermore, during the Louisiana Legislature’s hearings on the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin repeatedly defended the plan against claims it would open the election up to fraud.22 In contrast to the total lack of evidence that the Excuse Requirement is an effective tool to safeguard election integrity, health officials have confirmed several thousands of Covid-19 cases and deaths in Louisiana, underscoring the very real and substantial threat and severe burden voters face now and will continue to face for the foreseeable future.
22 See Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs (Apr. 15, 2020).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 20 of 37
The Excuse Requirement is also not narrowly drawn to the goals of preventing, detecting, and prosecuting fraud. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have implemented methods for safeguarding election integrity without restricting access to absentee ballots, including instituting barcode systems and requiring voters to provide identifying information like driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers on their absentee ballot request forms.23 Louisiana’s absentee ballot request forms use similar safeguards, requiring voters to provide their mother’s maiden name and giving them the option of providing a driver’s license number, ID number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.24 La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1307(A)(6). There are also restrictions on where a voter’s absentee ballot may be sent. “If the address [listed on the voter’s absentee ballot request form] is within the parish or an adjacent parish, such address shall only be the address at which the applicant is registered to vote, his mailing address on file with the registrar of voters, or an address at which he regularly receives mail.” Id. § 18:1307(A)(3).
As in other states, Louisiana law already requires voters to sign an affidavit printed on their absentee ballot envelopes, allows for the challenging of absentee ballots, and establishes criminal penalties for people who engage in election-related fraud. See La. Rev. Stat. § § 18:1306(E.)(1)(f); id. § 18:1315(A.)(2)(a); id. § 18:565(A.)(1)–(3); id. § 18:1461.2. The Emergency Election Plan also authorizes the Department of State to contract with the U.S. Postal Service to develop a tracking system for absentee mail-in ballots. Emergency Election Plan at 9. By working to verify
23 Nat’l Conf. State Legislatures, Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options (select “Qualifying for an Absentee Ballot” tab), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-andcampaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx. 24 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f; Disabled Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/DisabledApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.p df.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 21 of 37
a voter’s identity, develop a documented chain of custody, and providing criminal penalties for fraud, these requirements are far more careful and effective at preventing the casting of fraudulent ballots than the Excuse Requirement. The latter disqualifies entire categories of voters from voting by absentee ballot without regard to the burden in-person voting may impose on individual voters within those categories.
Given the severe burden imposed on voters during the Covid-19 pandemic, the lack of concrete evidence supporting a legitimate state interest, and the effective alternatives to prevent, detect, and prosecute fraud, Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement presents a classic undue burden in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
b. The Witness Requirement The Witness Requirement imposes a severe burden on voters who are self-isolating, particularly on at-risk voters, while failing to serve as a minimally effective anti-fraud measure. Absentee voters are required to sign their ballot in the presence of a witness, exposing themselves to the risks of surface contamination and transmission of Covid-19 via the dispersion of respiratory droplets and aerosolization. Murray Decl. ¶¶ 8, 24. This requirement is a very weak anti-fraud measure and, therefore, at least in the face of a highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the state’s interests do not outweigh the substantial burdens voters face in securing a witness signature on the absentee ballot certificate envelope. The risk of transmission by respiratory droplets in close quarters and the risk of transmission via a contaminated paper ballot passed between a voter and a witness will be unreasonably high for certain voters who are at higher risk due to age and underlying health conditions. This burden is severe and must be justified by and narrowly drawn to a compelling interest that animates the law; for all other voters, the burden is moderate but must still be tailored to the state’s interest.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 22 of 37
The burdens imposed by the Witness Requirement will disproportionately fall on already vulnerable populations, including elderly and Black voters. As noted above, 30.6% percent of Louisianans households are those of people who live alone and 11.6% of Louisiana households are people 65 or older who live alone. See supra at II.C. Black Louisianans are also more likely to live alone than white Louisianans. Id. Black Louisianans are also more likely than white Louisianans to live only with children. Id.
The Witness Requirement will have the same effect on many of Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who live alone and are self-isolating, as they will be unable to cast their absentee mailin ballots without risking contracting Covid-19. See Thomas, 2020 WL at 2617329, at *16-21; see also League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (enjoining absentee ballot notary requirement); Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-CV-2112, 2020 WL 1951687, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020) (enjoining portions of signature requirement for potential candidate ballot eligibility because they presented “insurmountable hurdle” during pandemic).
Organizational Plaintiffs’ missions center on facilitating voter participation, pursuant to their goals of promoting democratic values, increasing civic engagement, and advancing their public policy goals through the democratic process. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; CCMG Decl. ¶ 5. They have already diverted funds and resources away from planned work to mitigate the harm caused by the Witness Requirement and help voters navigate it. LWVLA Decl. ¶ 14; CCMG Decl. ¶¶ 813. As with the Excuse Requirement, if the Witness Requirement is not enjoined, Plaintiffs LWVLA and CCMG will continue to divert funds and resources away from work on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and redistricting to educate voters who qualify for an absentee ballot, but must risk their health by finding and engaging a witness to sign their ballots. Such diversion
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 23 of 37
of resources will increase if the Witness Requirement remains in place for the November 2020 election, which will draw very high turnout and increased use of absentee ballots. Organizational Plaintiffs’ core missions will be greatly harmed if voters cannot vote because the Witness Requirement forces them to risk contracting the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
State interests proffered in resisting Anderson-Burdick claims must be rational and legitimate, at a minimum; bald assertions will not suffice. In the recent decision enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement in light of the pandemic, the court stated that “[w]hile states certainly have an interest in protecting against voter fraud and ensuring voter integrity, the interest will not suffice absent ‘evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights.’” Thomas, 2020 WL at 2617329, at *20 (quoting Fish, 957 F.3d at 1133). The court placed particular emphasis on evidence from the state’s election commission that wholly undermined the asserted need for a witness requirement. On March 30, Defendant Marci Andino, in her capacity as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Election Commission, wrote to several elected officials, including the Governor, to relay concerns about Covid-19’s impact on the upcoming elections. In that letter, she urged consideration of emergency changes to the electoral process, including rescinding the witness requirement, and pointedly noted that “the witness signature offers no benefit to election officials as they have no ability to verify the witness signature.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In another challenge to a witness requirement, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently approved a consent decree suspending the law’s enforcement in the June primary election. League of Women Voters of Virginia v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, No. 6:20-CV-00024, 2020 WL 2158249 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020). The court explained that:
In ordinary times, Virginia’s witness signature requirement may not be a significant burden on the right to vote. But these are not ordinary times. In our current era of
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 24 of 37
social distancing-where not just Virginians, but all Americans, have been instructed to maintain a minimum of six feet from those outside their household-the burden is substantial for a substantial and discrete class of Virginia’s electorate. During this pandemic, the witness requirement has become “both too restrictive and not restrictive enough to effectively prevent voter fraud.”
On the one hand, the measure is too restrictive in that it will force a large class of Virginians to face the choice between adhering to guidance that is meant to protect not only their own health, but the health of those around them, and undertaking their fundamental right-and, indeed, their civic duty-to vote in an election. The Constitution does not permit a state to force such a choice on its electorate.
Id. at *8 (internal citations omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, Louisiana is twice an outlier in its strict absentee ballot rules by
requiring both an excuse and a witness certification, despite employing numerous, more effective
methods for preventing vote-by-mail fraud. These requirements are not narrowly tailored to protect
election integrity and the burdens they impose in light of the Covid-19 pandemic far outweigh any
perceived benefits to election officials and law enforcement. The challenged requirements
therefore constitute undue burdens on the right to vote during this pandemic—forcing voters,
including Plaintiffs and their members to choose their health over voting this summer and fall—
and must be enjoined as violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Louisiana’s Excuse and Witness Requirements Create an Unconstitutional Condition on the Right to Vote Compelling Forfeiture of the Right to Bodily Integrity.
The challenged requirements are also unconstitutional because they require voters to forfeit
their fundamental right to bodily integrity as a condition of exercising their right to vote. Such
state-sponsored coercion violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Here, a condition is imposed on the exercise of the right to vote, which is protected by the
First Amendment as a means of political association and political expression. Cal. Democratic
Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Norman, 502 U.S. at 288–90; Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780, 787–89, 806 (1983); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56–58 (1973); Williams v. 23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 25 of 37
Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30–31 (1968). Similarly, courts recognize a constitutional right to bodily integrity. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 777–78 (1997); Alton v. Tex. A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1999); Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1981).
Under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government may not require an individual to forfeit one constitutional right in order to exercise another. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968), presented a classic violation of this doctrine, where a criminal defendant was effectively forced to incriminate himself in establishing his standing to move to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court noted that the defendant “was obliged either to give up what he believed, with advice of counsel, to be a valid Fourth Amendment claim or, in legal effect, to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 394. The Supreme Court found “it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Id. at 394. The doctrine has also been invoked to prohibit the imposition of conditions on First Amendment-protected activities that require the forfeiture of other rights. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) (holding that New York law unconstitutionally required political party leaders to provide unimmunized testimony before grand jury, forcing leaders to choose between First Amendment right of association and Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (“This case presents an especially malignant unconstitutional condition because citizens are being required to surrender a constitutional right—freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures—not merely to receive a discretionary benefit but to exercise two other fundamental rights—freedom of speech and assembly.”).
Most directly relevant to this case, the Supreme Court has invalidated voting requirements or conditions that require the forfeiture of another fundamental right. In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 26 of 37
U.S. 330 (1972), the Court held that a one-year durational residency requirement for voter registration placed an unconstitutional condition on the fundamental right to interstate travel. Id. at 346, 353. The Court explained that “such laws force a person who wishes to travel and change residences to choose between travel and the basic right to vote.” Id. at 342. Notably, when First Amendment-protected rights such as the right to vote are at stake, it is irrelevant whether the government intended to coerce the voter into forfeiting a constitutional right. See Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1324–25 (“[T]he very purpose of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine is to prevent the Government from subtly pressuring citizens, whether purposely or inadvertently, into surrendering their rights.” (emphasis added)).
Courts evaluate these claims by looking to the constitutional standard for the right that Plaintiffs are being coerced into surrendering. “[W]hen a condition on a government benefit burdens a constitutional right, it generally triggers the same scrutiny as a direct penalty would.” McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994). In Dunn, for instance, the durational residency requirement for voter registration was subjected to strict scrutiny because fundamental voting and interstate travel rights were implicated: “In the present case, whether we look to the benefit withheld by the classification (the opportunity to vote) or the basis for the classification (recent interstate travel) we conclude that the State must show a substantial and compelling reason for imposing durational residence requirements.” 405 U.S. at 335; see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 638 (1969), rev’d in part on other grounds, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670 (1974) (invalidating Connecticut’s one-year durational residency requirement for welfare eligibility as impermissible penalty on individuals who exercised their right to interstate travel) (“Since the classification here touches on the fundamental right of interstate movement, its
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 27 of 37
constitutionality must be judged by the stricter standard of whether it promotes a compelling state interest.”).
“[I]ndividuals possess a constitutional right to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest.” Guertin v. State, 912 F.3d 907, 919 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Reg. v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012)). Government actions that threaten the right to bodily integrity must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. See Washington, 521 U.S. at 721; Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 (6th Cir. 1998). In the Flint water crisis case, Guertin, the Court articulated the following standard: “Involuntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.” 912 F.3d at 921–22; cf. id. at 921 (“[A] government actor violates individuals’ right to bodily integrity by knowingly and intentionally introducing life-threatening substances into individuals without their consent, especially when such substances have zero therapeutic benefit.”).
As discussed above, Plaintiff Clark is at risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19 and therefore cannot vote in person in the November and December elections without jeopardizing her health. Clark Decl. ¶ 7, 12. Many of Plaintiff LWVLA’s members are also at-risk and will also be required to break vital self-isolation measures to vote in person in the November and December elections. LWVLA Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12. And other Louisiana voters who do qualify to vote by mail but are at high risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19 will be required to break vital self-isolation measures to satisfy the Witness Requirement in the July, August, November, and December elections.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 28 of 37
In this case, the challenged requirements place an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote because they coerce Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s at-risk members into sacrificing their fundamental right to bodily integrity to exercise their constitutional right to vote in the November and December elections. Requiring voters to make this sacrifice is not a narrowly drawn means for achieving the State’s asserted interest in preventing voter fraud. Although states have an interest in protecting election integrity, discussed supra, Section III.A.1.a, that interest is less than compelling here. Even if it were compelling, Louisiana already employs more narrowly drawn methods for accomplishing its ends than exposing voters to risk of serious illness or death by going to a polling place or through the witnessing process; for example, Louisiana requires voters to provide personal identifiers on their absentee ballot request forms, restricts where ballots may be sent, imposes criminal penalties for fraud, and authorizes the implementation of a ballot tracking system.
Here, parish election officials will violate voters’ right to bodily integrity by denying them absentee ballots and forcing them to come into contact with novel coronavirus at their polling places or through the witnessing process. This violation is directly attributable to Defendants. Louisiana law tasks state and parish election officials with protecting the safety of voters in casting their ballots. Indeed, the statute authorizing the Secretary of State to develop the Emergency Election Plan expressly grants the Secretary this power “to ensure maximum citizen participation in the electoral process and provide a safe and orderly procedure for persons seeking to qualify or exercise their right to vote, to minimize to whatever degree possible a person’s exposure to danger during declared states of emergency, and to protect the integrity of the electoral process . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.1(A); id. § 18:401.3(A). It further requires that “[i]f a polling place is
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 29 of 37
destroyed, inaccessible, or unsafe, efforts should be made . . . to permit the orderly establishment of a new polling place.” Id. § 18:401.1(D)(1). Furthermore,
a police jury is required to exercise reasonable care in establishing a polling place to locate it in a building which affords each qualified voter an opportunity to exercise his right of voting and access with reasonable safety and convenience free from unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious discrimination based on age or physical condition. Burgess v. City of Shreveport, 471 So.2d 690, 693 (La. 1985). In this case, Defendants and their subordinates will have breached their duty to voters by maintaining the challenged requirements during a prolific, deadly, and fast-moving pandemic. State officials can no more require voters to cast their ballots in polling places potentially contaminated with the novel coronavirus than they could require them to vote in a polling place that is dilapidated, flooded with sewage or putrid storm water, or experiencing a carbon monoxide or other gas leak. Indeed, in defending the First Proposed Emergency Election Plan and its expanded protections for voters, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin compared the Covid-19 pandemic to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, explaining that such protections were needed now “in direct response to an unprecedented health event” and, noting the state had already reached 1000 deaths, he hoped it would not “take another 600 [deaths] for people to realize it is not wise to proceed with elections as if nothing is wrong.”25 For voters like Plaintiff Clark, every polling place denies reasonable safety because their physical health conditions require them to self-isolate away from the public during the pandemic. By forcing Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members to vote in person or to obtain witness signatures, the challenged requirements will be directly responsible for them coming into contact with a virus they have taken significant efforts to avoid; but for the challenged requirements, they
25 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs 9:17 to 9:48 (Apr. 15, 2020).
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 30 of 37
will have otherwise eschewed crowded spaces and contact with persons outside of their households. See Clark Decl. ¶ 8. It does not matter that these voters could also contract the virus outside of the voting process, because the right to bodily integrity is violated when the government “[i]nvoluntarily subject[s] nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . .” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 921–22. By failing to keep voters safe and instructing their subordinates to move forward with enforcing these requirements, Defendants are liable for needlessly exposing voters to infection.
For these reasons, the Excuse and Witness Requirements place an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote, impermissibly compelling forfeiture of the fundamental right to bodily integrity.
3. The Cure Prohibition Violates Plaintiffs’ Right to Procedural Due Process by Failing to Provide Opportunity to Cure.
By failing to provide voters notice of and a process by which to cure deficiencies in their returned ballots, Defendants Secretary of State Ardoin, Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters Meaux Menard, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters Rogers also violate the procedural due process rights of Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who qualify to vote by mail. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV. A liberty interest that is governed by due process can be created by the Constitution or “may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Courts analyze whether a statutory entitlement existed prior to the notice and process afforded and prior to the deprivation.
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of Coushatta, 930
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 31 of 37
F.2d 1122, 1130 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Triplett v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 26 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent exigent circumstances, due process requires pre-deprivation procedures. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“We have described ‘the root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause as being ‘that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original)); Jabari v. McCollough, 686 F. App’x 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2017); Sciolino v. City of Newport News, Va., 480 F.3d 642, 653 (4th Cir. 2007) (“An opportunity to clear your name after it has been ruined by dissemination of false, stigmatizing charges is not ‘meaningful.’”).
Determining what process is due rests on the balance between (1) the interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the current procedures, and the “probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the state’s interest, including the “fiscal and administrative burdens” additional procedures would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Louisiana law provides multiple grounds for rejecting a ballot but provides voters with no pre-deprivation notice of and opportunity to cure such defects. See La. Rev. Stat. §§ 18:1313, 18:1315, 18:1316. This lack of notice necessarily fails the Mathews test.
First, the law vests Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members who qualify to vote by absentee ballot with a liberty interest in casting an absentee ballot and having it counted. The
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 32 of 37
right to vote enjoys protection under both the U.S. Constitution and the Louisiana constitution. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1964) (“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”); La. Const. art. I, § 10(A). Under Louisiana law, voters who meet certain statutory qualifications may cast an absentee ballot, see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303, and the Legislature has approved additional qualifications in the Emergency Election Plan, adopted pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Having satisfied these statutory requirements and/or the requirements provided in the Emergency Election Plan, Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s qualifying members have a right to vote by mail and have their ballots counted.
Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation remains high. Defendants do not afford voters any notice or opportunity to cure defects or challenges to their absentee ballots, thereby depriving qualifying voters of their liberty interests of having their absentee ballots counted. Because voters cannot vote in person after casting an absentee ballot, even a faulty one, the lack of cure process also deprives them of their fundamental right to vote. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1305. This risk of wrongful deprivation rises significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, during which Louisiana will experience a substantially higher level of absentee voting than in past elections. Many voters ages 65 and older have already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses, but now that they are at severe risk from Covid-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for the first time. Indeed, Plaintiff Clark and her husband and Plaintiff Green and her mother are all lifelong voters who prefer to vote in person, even when they would have qualified to vote by absentee ballot in the past, but because of Covid-19, voting in person poses too great a risk to their health or their loved one’s health, so they need to vote by absentee ballot.
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 33 of 37
Clark Decl. ¶¶ 6-12; Green Decl. ¶¶ 12-18. Having so many first-time absentee voters will inevitably yield a higher error rate. It is therefore critical that Defendants provide absentee voters an opportunity to correct any errors that will result in their ballots’ rejection and voters’ resulting disenfranchisement.
Third, Defendants cannot advance any interests that outweigh the risk of erroneous deprivation. The threat of disenfranchising Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members eligible to vote by absentee ballot far outweighs any increased administrative burden in affording voters an opportunity to cure any absentee ballot defects. Defendants’ interest in conducting fair elections and preserving election integrity would not be compromised in the slightest, and they would satisfy their weighty interest in abiding by federal constitutional requirements and increasing the public’s faith in election systems. Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their procedural due process claim.
B. Failure to grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief will cause irreparable injury. Failure to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will either disenfranchise Plaintiffs or force them to surrender their fundamental right to bodily integrity to cast their ballots. Movants satisfy the irreparable injury prong when they can show irreparable injury is likely to occur. Winter, 555 U.S. at 375; United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001). “The ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.’” Palmer ex rel. Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)); see also Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 34 of 37
347 (1976)). This principle applies equally to the First Amendment protected right to vote. “A restriction on the fundamental right to vote therefore constitutes irreparable injury.” Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs face irreparable harm if Defendants are permitted to enforce the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement and continue the Cure Prohibition—rejecting returned ballots without providing voters notice of and an opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballots. Despite qualifying to vote by mail in the July and August elections because she is at increased risk of severe illness or death from Covid-19, Plaintiff Clark will be required to vote in person in the November and December elections because the Emergency Election Plan does not apply to this fall’s elections and because she does not meet any of the statutory excuses to vote absentee. She will therefore have to risk exposure to the virus to cast her ballots in the November and December elections, or forego voting altogether. And even though she may vote by mail in July and August elections, she may still be disenfranchised without notice of and an opportunity to correct issues resulting in rejection.
Plaintiff LWVLA’s members face the same the predicament. Some will be required to vote in person in the November and December elections, or all remaining elections in 2020, because they do not qualify to vote under La. Rev. Stat. 18:1313 or the Emergency Election Plan.
Because they do not satisfy the Excuse Requirement, Plaintiffs Barnett and Green and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members in similar situations will be required to vote in person in all of the 2020 elections, forcing them to engage in personal contacts they have worked to avoid to protect at-risk family members, thereby endangering their loved ones. Faced with such an untenable choice, they will effectively be disenfranchised.
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 35 of 37
In these ways, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if their Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
C. Plaintiffs’ injuries far outweigh any harm to Defendants and their agents and granting their request relief is in the public interest.
Plaintiffs can also show that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor granting their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. “In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Winter, 555 U.S. at 376 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gamble, 480 U.S. 531 (1987)). Courts should also “‘pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Id. at 376–77 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982))).
In this case, Defendants cannot identify any harm that outweighs the constitutional injuries Plaintiffs will experience if Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. As discussed above, supra Section III.A.1., proponents of the challenged requirements have not advanced any evidence of voter fraud in Louisiana, and most states have successfully implemented secure voteby-mail systems without requiring an excuse or witness signature. Additionally, the speed with which Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin drafted two emergency election plans and ushered them through the approval process shows that Defendants and their agents will experience minimal inconvenience in developing a cure process for absentee ballot defects.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction also aligns with the public interest. Louisianans have a constitutional right to a republican form of government, see U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4; La. Const. art. I, § 10; La. Rev. Stat. § 18:512(A), a right that is undermined by laws and practices that impose unnecessary burdens on qualified voters seeking to register and vote. They
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 36 of 37 also unquestionably have an interest in mitigating the spread of novel coronavirus, as reflected in Defendant Edwards’s multiple proclamations to protect public health during the Covid-19 pandemic. Enforcement of the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition during the duration of the pandemic will harm that interest by requiring voters to interact in ways that facilitate the virus’s proliferation, as voters congregate in crowded precincts to vote and atrisk voters living in single-member households break critical self-isolation measures to obtain witness signatures. The balance of the equities therefore favors granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have met their burden and respectfully request that this Court to grant their Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-1 06/04/20 Page 37 of 37

DATED this 1st day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-2 06/04/20 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-2 06/04/20 Page 2 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF CAREN E. SHORT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Caren E. Short, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I am an attorney for Plaintiffs. I am barred in Alabama and New York and have been admitted pro hac vice before this Court in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration on behalf of Plaintiffs to provide true and correct copies of certain listed exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Dr. Megan Murray, dated May 29, 2020. 3. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, et al. v. Edwards, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00283, ECF No 14-1 (May 21, 2020). 4. Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Dr. Sekou Franklin, dated June 1, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-2 06/04/20 Page 3 of 3
5. Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s First Proposed Emergency Election Plan, dated April 13, 2020. 6. Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s Emergency Election Plan, dated April 20, 2020. 7. Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Telisa Clark, dated May 29, 2020. 8. Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lakeshia Barnett, dated May 31, 2020. 9. Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Martha Christian Green, dated May 26, 2020. 10. Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Trupania Bonner, dated May 27, 2020. 11. Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Hilda Walker Thomas, dated May 26, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 1, 2020

______________________________________ Caren E. Short

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 1 of 94

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308

AMENDED DECLARATION OF DR. MEGAN MURRAY 1. I am the Ronda Stryker and William Johnston Professor of Global Health in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at the Harvard Medical School, a Professor of Epidemiology at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, a faculty member of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health and an associate Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I obtained my BA from Dartmouth College in 1980, after which I worked for the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration (now IOM) heading up a public health screening program for refugees being resettled from refugee camps in Thailand. I obtained my MD from Harvard Medical School in 1990 and my ScD (doctorate in science) in Epidemiology from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. I completed a residency in internal medicine in 1993 and a fellowship in the subspecialty of Infectious Diseases in 1995, both at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. 2. Over the past 20 years, I have worked in the field of infectious disease dynamics and epidemiology, teaching and conducting research in emerging infectious diseases and in tuberculosis epidemiology and control. At the Harvard Chan SPH, I taught the basic epidemiology
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 2 of 94
course Infectious Disease Dynamics between 2000 and 2016, and I have directly supervised the research of over 40 graduate students and post-doctoral fellows in these fields. Attached here as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference to this declaration is a copy of my curriculum vitae.
3. I have conducted research and have published on the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-1 in 2003, the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti, and on the 2015 Ebola outbreak, although most of my research is in the field of tuberculosis. I have published over 200 research articles. My work includes dynamic modeling of epidemics (TB, Cholera, Ebola, SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2); cohort studies on host and pathogen specific determinants of disease transmission and the development of novel diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. I have been funded by the National Institute of Infectious Disease and Allergy since 1995 and have led, and currently lead, several major consortium projects on tuberculosis funded by this agency.
4. At the Harvard Medical School, I lead the Global Health Research Core of the Harvard Medical School, which conducts research in more than ten countries on a range of topics including emerging infectious diseases. I head up research at the Division of Global Health Equity at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and also direct research at the non-governmental organization, Partners in Health. I have served as an associate editor of the European Journal of Epidemiology, the Journal of the International Union against TB and Lung Disease and of PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine. I am the co-lead of the Epidemiology working group of the Massachusetts Consortium for Pathogen Readiness.
5. I am currently collaborating on research concerning SARS-CoV-2 and its incidence, as well as serving on Covid-19 advisory groups for multiple organizations, including the State of Massachusetts and Harvard University. My research in this area includes, but is not limited to, modeling and estimating the number of hospital beds that will be required in the US
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 3 of 94
and elsewhere, developing methods on syndromic surveillance for Covid-19 for low and middleincome countries, identification of risk factors for poor outcomes and the use of the vaccine, BCG, to prevent Covid-19 disease. To date (May 11, 2020), I have published two papers in this area and have three others under review.
OVERVIEW 6. SARS-CoV-2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19). SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in an asymptomatic infection or in symptomatic disease which ranges from mild to severe. Most people who develop symptomatic Covid-19 have a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath. A subset of people who are infected will go on to develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Other serious manifestations of Covid-19 have included cardiac problems: arrhythmias, acute cardiac injury, and shock. 7. Because Covid-19 is a new disease, it is too early to know the full extent of longterm medical consequences of the infection. However, some information can be inferred from the courses of diseases with similar manifestations. Patients who develop ARDS and/or are mechanically ventilated are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function [1]. Patients who end up in ICUs or on mechanical ventilation for extended periods often develop post-ICU syndrome which prolonged physical debilitation, muscle atrophy, neurocognitive impairments and emotional/psychiatric responses that are similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with co-morbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 4 of 94
8. Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. It has also been shown that Covid-19 can be transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air.
9. Control of SARS-CoV-2 spread is particularly difficult relative to some other viral infections because people can transmit the infection even when they do not have symptoms of the disease. This means that the practice of isolating patients with symptomatic disease will not be enough by itself to control epidemic spread. In contrast, infections like smallpox and SARS-CoV-1 were not infectious until symptoms had developed so isolation of ill people had a substantial impact on epidemic control. In the absence of a vaccine or pharmaceutical interventions that interrupt transmission, infection control can only be achieved by reducing the number of contacts between infectious individuals (including those who are asymptomatic) and susceptible people.
10. Infectious disease epidemiologists have developed projections of the future trajectory of Covid-19 incidence based on modeling the epidemic and possible interventions. Although these models differ in terms of specifics, they consistently show that it is highly likely that the relaxation of social distancing measures that will occur with the end of “lock-down” will increase the number of social contacts that people make and that the incidence of infection will increase accordingly In particular, these models predict that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will continue or increase in the fall and winter, leading to further morbidity and mortality from this disease.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 5 of 94
11. There is a substantial risk that an infection with Covid-19 acquired during voting at a poll booth in Louisiana in the fall of 2020 could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death. The risk of an individual being infected during voting at a polling booth in fall 2020 depends on the number of infectious people in that community at that time point and the number of physical, fomite-mediated and near contacts one makes during that process. To the extent that polling places are crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth, they constitute a risk to voters. Similarly, if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk. Louisiana has relatively high rates of the co-morbidities that predispose people to poor outcomes from Covid-19.
12. I was asked to describe the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19. SARS-CoV2 is a newly identified coronavirus that is the causative agent involved in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) [1]. It is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Coronavirus family. Previously identified coronaviruses are known to infect a wide range of hosts including wild and domestic animals and birds as well as humans. Six human coronaviruses have been identified over the past 60 years; four of them (OC43, 229E, NL63, and HKU1) cause mild cold-like symptoms and/or gastrointestinal tract infections. Two that have caused more serious illness include the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) that emerged in China in 2003 and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) that was first identified in humans in Saudi Arabia in 2012. SARS- and MERS-CoVs are believed to have originated in bats and transferred to humans through intermediary hosts, possibly palm civets for SARS or dromedary camels for MERS. The coronaviruses that are most similar to SARS-CoV-2 are those identified in horseshoe
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 6 of 94
bats – these share 96 percent of their genetic material with SARS-CoV-2 while the earlier SARS virus shared 80 percent and cold viruses mentioned above share about 50 percent [2].
13. Like SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 infiltrates human cells by binding to the receptor for ACE2 (angiotensin converting enzyme) and then being taken up by these cells, where it directs the production of new virus particles (virions) using the host’s genetic machinery [3]. Like other viruses, SARS-CoV-2 virions consist of a “core” which contains the genetic material, a “capsid” which is a protein coat and a lipid envelope. Upon assembly in the host cell, newly-produced virions are released from the host cell and go on to infect new host cells. To some extent, the clinical manifestations of the disease are related to the types of cells that have the receptor to which the virus binds and to the inflammatory responses that are induced by the host immune response to the infection. While ACE2 receptors were well-known to be present on vascular endothelial cells (blood vessels) and renal tubular cells (kidney), they have also been found to be abundant on alveolar epithelial cells (lung), enterocytes (gut), heart cells, brain cells and in cells in the inner lining of the nose [4]. This diverse distribution helps explain the wide constellation of symptoms and syndromes that are increasingly being recognized as part of Covid-19 disease.
14. I was asked to characterize clinical features of Covid-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in an asymptomatic infection or in symptomatic disease which ranges from mild to severe. The term Covid-19 refers to the illness that is caused by SARS-CoV-2. Most people who develop symptomatic Covid-19 have a flu-like illness that starts out with fever, cough, sore throat and shortness of breath. As clinicians have gained more experience with the disease, it is now becoming clear that the initial presentation of the disease can also include a variety of other symptoms including gastrointestinal issues such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, loss of a sense of taste and/or smell, headache and muscle pain and in some cases, particularly in the elderly,
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 7 of 94
altered neurological states such as confusion, lethargy and reduced responsiveness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recently expanded their list of symptoms associated with Covid-19 from fever, shortness of breath and cough to include chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat and new loss of taste or smell [5]. On average, among those who present with these symptoms, fever persists for around 12 days, shortness of breath for 13 days and cough for about 19 days. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), recovery time appears to be around two weeks for mild infections and three to six weeks for severe disease [6].
15. A subset of people who are infected will go on to develop much more serious illness, characterized by respiratory compromise due to pneumonia that can be gradual or sudden. Some patients who initially reported only mild symptoms may progress to severe disease over the course of a week. In one study of 138 patients hospitalized in Wuhan, China for pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, dyspnea (severe shortness of breath) developed approximately five days after the onset of symptoms, and hospital admission occurred after around seven days after the onset of symptoms [7].
16. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the major complication in patients with severe disease. In the study cited above, ARDS developed in 20 percent of hospitalized patients around eight days after the onset of symptoms and 12.3 percent of this group required mechanical ventilation [7]. In another study of 201 hospitalized patients with Covid-19 in Wuhan, 41 percent developed ARDS [8]. Some patients with severe Covid-19 have an overactive inflammatory response, sometimes termed a “cytokine storm” – which is characterized by persistent fevers and laboratory abnormalities including high levels of inflammatory markers and elevated proinflammatory cytokines. People with these types of laboratory abnormalities are those most likely to have critical or fatal illness.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 8 of 94
17. Other serious manifestations of Covid-19 have included cardiac problems: arrhythmias, acute cardiac injury, and shock [9-11] which occurred in 17, 7, and 9 percent of hospitalized patients, respectively [7]. In a case series of 21 severely ill patients admitted to a US ICU, one-third developed cardiomyopathy (injury to the heart muscle) [12]. An alarming recent finding has been the association of Covid-19 with thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism and stroke) that have been reported among patients in younger age groups and without known risk factors [13-15]. In one US-based case series, a single health facility reported on five Covid-19 patients with acute stroke who were seen over a two-week period, all of these people were under 50 years of age [14]. This incidence is more than seven times the rate reported in that age group prior to the pandemic. In one series of ICU patients, ischemic stroke was also noted observed in 3.7 percent of the patients [15].
18. Other rarer manifestations of Covid-19 include Guillain-Barré syndrome which can occur five to ten days after initial symptoms [16]. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare neurological syndrome characterized by an inflammation of nerve cells outside the brain. In serious cases, it can lead to paralysis which usually resolves after six months but which can be permanent in some cases. Another rare inflammatory syndrome that has been reported in Covid-19 occurs in children who have developed symptoms consistent with toxic shock syndrome and Kawasaki disease [17].
19. Because Covid-19 is a new disease, it is too early to know the full extent of longterm medical consequences of the infection. However, some information is already available, and some can be inferred from the courses of diseases with similar manifestations. Patients who develop ARDS and/or are mechanically ventilated are likely to develop lung scarring that may permanently impair their pulmonary function. [18]. In addition, patients who end up in ICUs or on mechanical ventilation for extended periods often develop post-ICU syndrome which includes a
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 9 of 94
constellation of findings such as prolonged physical debilitation, muscle atrophy, neurocognitive impairments and emotional/psychiatric responses that are similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome [19]. Patients that suffer strokes in the context of Covid-19 are very likely to experience long-term neurological deficits from these events.
20. Although Covid-19 has been reported in people of all ages, older people and those with co-morbidities (concurrent illnesses) are most likely to develop severe disease. Accurate case fatality rates are hard to obtain in the context of limited testing since we do not always know who actually has the infection. However, a compilation of the death rates across countries shows that older people are consistently more likely to die if they have detectable Covid-19 disease than are younger people [20]. The table below shows that the risk of death rises with each additional decade after age 50. Table 1. Case Fatality rate by age groups. From Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to Covid-19 in Italy. JAMA. 2020;323 [18].
21. In addition to age, other risk factors for severe disease and death include hypertension, heart disease, lung diseases (e.g., asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), diabetes mellitus, obesity, and chronic kidney disease. In one recent study of 5700 Covid-19 patients identified in New York City, 56.6 percent had pre-existing hypertension, 41.7
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 10 of 94
percent were obese (body mass index > 30) and 33.8 percent had diabetes mellitus in contrast to a national prevalence of hypertension of 30 percent, of diabetes mellitus of 10 percent and of obesity of 42.2 percent [21]. Risk factors for death among patients with Covid-19 were recently ascertained in another study of 5,683 Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom [22]. In this report, men were twice as likely to die as women; people with obesity 2.3 times as likely to die as those of normal weight; people with uncontrolled diabetes 2.36 times than non-diabetics, people with organ transplants 4.3 times than their healthy counterparts. In both Britain and the US, there are marked disparities in deaths by race: 33 to 42 percent of deaths in the US have reportedly occurred in African Americans, while only 12 to 13 percent of the total US population is African American [23]. Figure 2 provides comparative death rates from Covid-19 from the APM research lab (https://www.apmresearchlab.org/). Table 2 Covid-19 Death Rate by ethnic group. (From APM Research Lab) https://www.apmresearchlab.org/
22. Although the Covid-19 case fatality rates are low in young individuals, it is important to note that multiple seroprevalence studies (studies that detect previous infection in
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 11 of 94
people) in several countries show that infection (as distinct from severe disease) is more common in people younger than 50, probably because they have more frequent social contacts than older people. Furthermore, the proportion of people in the US population under 50 years of age is 66%, meaning that even though the absolute risk for a young person is lower than for someone over 50, deaths among people under 50 will not be uncommon as the epidemic progresses over time.
23. I was asked to explain how Covid-19 is transmitted and to describe interventions that could interrupt transmission. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in multiple ways, through respiratory droplets emitted during talking, singing, sneezing and coughing, via objects on which viral particles have been deposited, and through air. Importantly, the virus can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic as well as by those who are demonstrably ill.
24. Covid-19 is a respiratory virus which is spread through respiratory droplets, meaning drops of fluid from the nose or mouth that are emitted during coughs, sneezes or even talking [50]. Some of the viral particles emitted this way end up on surfaces (door handles, coins) where they can remain viable. These objects then become “fomites,” defined as inanimate objects that can transfer infection between people. A recent study documented the stability of SARS-CoV2 on a series of different surfaces over time [24]. The virus was found to be more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard with viable virus detectable for up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces although the virus titer was steadily reduced over those periods. On cardboard, viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured for 24 hours. Notably, this study also evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-1 – the causative virus of the 2003 SARS epidemic – and found that it was very similar to SARS-CoV-2 despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has much more capacity to spread widely than SARS-CoV-1. The authors conclude that the “differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 12 of 94
upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic.” [24]
25. It is also possible that Covid-19 is transmitted as an aerosol – in other words, through the airborne route, i.e., direct inhalation of virus suspended in the air. The study cited above also assessed the stability of aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 over time. To do this, they used a nebulizer to generate aerosols that would be similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of the three-hour experiment, suggesting that aerosol spread of SARSCoV-2 is indeed possible. These findings are consistent with case reports of Covid-19 patients who were infected in settings in which they did not have direct contact with others. In one case, 45 people were diagnosed with Covid-19 after attending a choir practice in Washington State in early March although they had no direct physical contact with each other [25]. The findings are also consistent with a report in the journal, Nature, where researchers found viral RNA in aerosols sampled in February and March at two hospitals in Wuhan, China. The levels of airborne viral RNA in well-ventilated patient rooms were relatively low but there were higher levels in some of the patients’ toilet areas, presumably aerosolized by the flushing mechanism.
26. High levels of viral RNA were also found in areas where medical workers remove their protective equipment and in locations near the hospitals where people tended to congregate. The authors concluded: “Our study and several other studies proved the existence of SARS-CoV2 aerosols and implied that SARS-CoV-2 aerosol transmission might be a non-negligible route from infected carriers to someone nearby.”
27. The transmissibility of any infectious agent depends on several things: the probability of an infection event given a contact between a susceptible person and an infectious
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 13 of 94
person; the duration of infectiousness – or number of days that a person can transmit – and the number of contacts that an infectious person has per unit time. This means that the transmissibility can vary in different settings and will depend on things like crowding, which increases the number of contacts. Based on a summary of multiple studies, each infectious person with Covid-19 is expected to infect between 2 and 3 people on average [26]. But this term – “on average” – obscures the substantial variability observed in different people. Some people are much more infectious than others and other people do not transmit at all. Like many other respiratory infections, SARSCoV-2 follows the 20/80 rule – meaning that most transmission is associated with 20 percent of the infectious people while the other 80 percent infect relatively few people. The factors that lead to this kind of “super-spreading” are not clear and it is thus not possible to identify in advance those people who are likely to infect a large number of other people.
28. Control of SARS-CoV-2 spread is also made more difficult because people can transmit the infection even when they do not have symptoms of the disease. This can happen in two ways. Many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection have few if any symptoms – as more and more seroprevalence studies are being conducted to identify who has been infected, it is estimated that 50-60 percent of infected people never develop symptoms of the disease. (Seroprevalence surveys are studies that look for the presence of antibodies to an infection in a blood sample; these are only present in people who have been exposed to the infection and have mounted an immune response.) Secondly, people who develop Covid-19 disease experience a “pre-symptomatic” period during which they are infected but do not yet have symptoms. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were similarly high in four different symptom groups; people with typical symptoms of Covid-19, people with atypical symptoms, people who were pre-symptomatic, and those who remained asymptomatic [27].
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 14 of 94
Notably, 71 percent of the samples taken from pre-symptomatic persons had viable virus for one to six days before the development of symptoms. Because viral load is an accepted proxy for infectiousness, these data imply that a significant proportion of transmission events originate from persons who do not have detectable infection.
29. What kinds of interventions are currently available that could interrupt or reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2? In the absence of a vaccine or pharmaceutical interventions that reduce the probability of transmission, there are a limited number of approaches to infection control, all of which involve restricting people’s physical and social interactions. One can isolate people with symptomatic disease to try to prevent them from infecting others, but this will only be completely effective if people are diagnosed with the disease at or before the time that they become infectious. As noted above, in people who are infectious before they have symptoms or in infectious people who never develop symptoms at all, transmission can take place in the absence of symptoms. For diseases like this one, with significant asymptomatic spread, quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movements of people without signs of illness who may have been exposed to an infectious case so that they do not infect others during that period. Another approach is social distancing – this can range from asking people to stay at home or to avoid congregate settings such as schools, workplaces, or large gatherings. The purpose of social distancing is to reduce the number of person-to-person contacts one makes so that one is less likely to encounter an infectious person. Polls show that US adults practicing social distancing have 90% fewer contacts per day than those who are not social distancing. Those who completely or mostly isolate themselves generate about five contacts per day, compared with an average of 52 for those not attempting to isolate themselves [28].
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 15 of 94
30. It is challenging to directly measure the actual efficacy of the non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the spread of an infection because these interventions are not randomly assigned to individuals and then evaluated in a head-to-head comparison of what happens to people in intervention and non-intervention groups. One approach to estimating the impact of social distancing measures is to conduct studies that screen entire communities to determine who is actively infected at the time of screening. The researchers then correlate various characteristics of the people screened with the likelihood that they have been infected. Few such studies have been conducted to date but one that is informative was conducted in the Mission District of San Francisco. The research team offered free Covid-19 testing to all persons ages four years and older in an area that includes approximately 5,700 people (29). Of nearly 3,000 residents and workers in a Mission District census tract who were tested in late April for active infection with the novel coronavirus, 62 individuals (2.1 percent) have tested positive. Table 3 Viral test positivity in Mission District of San Francisco [29]
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 16 of 94
31. The question of the efficacy of quarantine, isolation and social distancing depends on when in the course of the infection most transmission is taking place. If most transmission occurs during the asymptomatic period – as it does, say, for HIV – isolation of patients with disease will have little impact. If on the other hand, most transmission takes place when people have identified themselves as ill (as it did for SARS-CoV-1 in 2002), isolation can be a very effective way to reduce spread. The benefits of quarantine – restricting the movements of people who are known to be in contact with an infectious case – depend on how effectively one can identify all contacts and prevent them from mixing with the general public. For obvious reasons, this can be very challenging and can have unintended consequences if quarantined people are housed together and become infected in that setting. Social distancing cannot prevent all transmission but could have a substantial impact on delaying transmission since contact rates are often much higher in congregate settings such as schools, prisons and other residential facilities. None of these measures is likely to lead to complete control of an epidemic since transmission is expected to resume once these are discontinued. But they may delay spread and give health systems time to develop better responses to the disease, whether those are new drugs, vaccines or simply improved efficiency of supportive care.
32. I was asked to address the likelihood that voting at polling stations could lead to SARS-CoV-2 transmission and Covid-19 disease. Because voting takes place in public buildings where people congregate and given the risks of infection and disease in the Louisiana population, voting at a polling station in November entails a substantial risk of infection with Covid-19 that could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death. The risk of an individual being infected during a community event in a public place depends on the number of infectious people in that community at any particular time point and the number of physical, fomite-mediated and
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 17 of 94
near contacts one makes during that process. To the extent that polling places are crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth, they constitute a risk to voters. Similarly, if voters or poll workers use toilets that are also used by others, they can be put at risk. The data supporting some aerosol transmission of Covid-19 provides evidence that poorly ventilated areas where crowding may take place pose risk to those using these facilities. The probability that a person who is exposed to Covid-19 in this setting will go on to develop severe Covid-19 disease or to die depends on the age of that person and his/her underlying health status. Given the relatively high prevalence of relevant co-morbidities (obesity, hypertension, diabetes), the proportion of the population over 60, and the fact that older people are more likely to vote than younger people (on a nationwide basis, 66 percent of over 65 years compared to 35.6 percent of 18-29 years in the 2018 national mid-term elections as documented in https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-electionturnout.html), there is a substantial risk that an infection with Covid-19 in Louisiana could result in symptomatic disease, hospitalization or death.
33. I was asked to address the likelihood of a persistent or increased risk of transmission of Covid-19 in the fall in the weeks/months leading up to November 3, 2020. Epidemiologists have projected a number of future Covid-19 epidemic trajectories based on a range of different possible scenarios but all of these scenarios are similar in that they predict that it is highly likely that Covid-19 will continue to circulate at its current level or at an even higher level than currently in October and November of 2020. The likelihood of continued transmission of Covid-19 in the fall 2020 can be estimated by modeling the epidemic process. Mathematical
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 18 of 94
models simulate epidemics under a variety of scenarios using “parameters” obtained from empirical (data-driven) studies. Typically, a model uses estimates of the relative transmissibility of an infectious agent, the average number of contacts people in different age groups make and the duration of infectiousness of the virus to reproduce the epidemic trajectory that has been observed. Then modelers introduce assumptions about the impact of interventions, for example, the number of social contacts that occur when social distancing measures are in place and re-run the model with these hypothetical parameters to determine what effect these changes will have. Over the past several months, multiple modeling teams have developed these kinds of models, and while they often obtain different results depending on various differences in the assumptions made, all show that reducing the number of social contacts, especially in the presence of asymptomatic infection, will “flatten” or reduce the epidemic curve. For example, one such model, reported in Emerging Infectious Diseases this week, investigated the effectiveness of social distancing interventions in a mid-sized city. Modeled interventions included reducing the number of contacts made by adults greater than 60 years of age, adults 20–59 years of age, and children under 19 years of age for six weeks. The modelers found that these interventions delay or flatten the epidemic curve and that even modest reductions of contacts could reduce the number of new cases and deaths by 20 percent. Notably, however, when interventions ended, the epidemic rebounded [51].
34. The expected future trajectory of Covid-19 depends on a number of factors including the level of “herd immunity” that has already been achieved by the circulating of the infection, the extent of social mixing that occurs, and the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will be more transmissible in cooler, drier weather.
35. First, herd immunity is achieved when enough people in a population have been infected and developed immunity so that the likelihood that an infectious person will come into
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 19 of 94
contact with a susceptible person is low. This concept is illustrated in the graphic below. When an infectious person encounters only susceptible people, he or she can infect all of them but when most of the people an infectious person encounters are immune, relatively few people will be infected by that infectious case. Table 4 Herd Immunity (From https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/17/905244/whatis-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/)
36. A general rule of thumb is that herd immunity can only be achieved when the proportion of people in a population who are immune is equal to 1-(1/R0), where R0 refers to the basic reproductive number of an infectious disease. This term is defined as the number of people who, on average, will be infected by a single infectious person in an entirely susceptible population. The basic reproductive number of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated between two and three, with an average of about 2.6. This means that about 60 percent of the population would need to be immune before we see Covid-19 cases level out (in the absence of interventions such as social distancing). At present, it is unclear what proportion of the US population is seropositive (in other words, has evidence of an immune response to the infection), but no study conducted in the US to date has suggested that more than 20-30 percent of any specific community is immune and most studies suggest that the number is closer to 2-3 percent. A recent study from Spain, one of the countries that has been most affected by the epidemic, found that only 2 percent of the population
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 20 of 94
was immune [30]. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that, short of a catastrophic increase in circulating virus, herd immunity will be achieved by November 2020. Furthermore, the lack of herd immunity is in part due to social distancing that has taken place to date and this means that as a population, we remain highly vulnerable to epidemic spread.
37. Secondly, it is highly likely that with the relaxation of social distancing measures and the end of “lock-down” the number of social contacts that people make will increase and that, therefore, the incidence of infection will increase accordingly. There is a linear relationship between the average number of social contacts individuals make and the reproductive number of the infection; as social contacts increase, the incidence of infection will increase proportionately.
38. Third, epidemic spread in the fall and winter could be driven by potential worsening of the epidemic due to changes in temperature or humidity that may be associated with higher viral stability with cooler and drier conditions, seasonal changes in host immunity and/or changes in human behavior (e.g., spending more time indoors). In the fall and winter, the outdoor air is colder, and the air is drier both indoors and out. For influenza, laboratory experiments have shown that absolute humidity — the amount of water vapor in the air — strongly affects viral transmission, with drier conditions being more favorable [31]. Lab studies on SAR-CoV-1 have also confirmed that viruses are stable for longer periods in cooler, drier environments [32]. However, multiple recent studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 transmission is possible in many different climates [33, 34].
39. Seasonal differences in transmission are also affected by differences in the ways people congregate in different seasons. In the fall and winter, people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation and less personal space than they do in the summer. Schools have been identified as the sites of much transmission of respiratory viruses including those that cause
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 21 of 94 measles, chicken pox and influenza. [35, 36]. However, to date, the role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not clear and the relevance of the timing of school openings is not known. Finally, it is likely that host immunity is affected by seasonal changes. One hypothesis has focused on melatonin which has some immune effects and is modulated by the photoperiod [37], which varies seasonally. Vitamin D levels have also been associated with improved human immune responses - these levels depend in part on ultraviolet light exposure which is higher in summer. There is strong evidence for the possible role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing the incidence of acute respiratory infection, as documented in a meta-analysis of randomized trials [38]. To summarize the evidence for seasonal trends in SARS-CoV-2, it is reasonable to expect that, like other beta-coronaviruses, it may transmit somewhat more efficiently in fall and winter than summer.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 22 of 94 Table 5 Possible Covid-19 scenarios [38]
40. These considerations have guided most of the modeling projections on the expected future trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 spread. The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy recently published a document where they drew lessons from previous influenza pandemics to predict the future trajectory of Covid-19 [39]. They summarize three different possible scenarios as illustrated in the relevant figure. In the first scenario, the first spring wave of Covid-19 that is currently underway will be followed by a series of repetitive smaller waves that occur through the summer and then consistently over a one- to two-year period, gradually diminishing sometime in
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 23 of 94
2021. These waves would be expected to vary geographically depending on what interventions are in place and how and when they are relaxed. Depending on the height of the peaks, this could lead to periodic re-implementation and interruption of social distancing measures over the next one to two years.
41. In the second and most likely scenario, the current first wave of Covid-19 will be followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021.
42. This pattern is what was seen with the 1918-19 influenza pandemic in which a small wave began in March 1918 but transmission leveled off during the summer months. This was followed by a much larger peak which occurred in the fall of 1918 and a third peak which occurred during the winter and spring of 1919. The 1957-58 and 2009-2010 influenza pandemics followed a similar pattern, with a smaller spring wave followed by a much larger fall wave [40]. Given the many similarities between how SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are spread, it is expected that Covid19 will behave in a similar way, and most epidemiologists expect that incidence will increase in the fall and winter months of 2020-2021.
43. In the third scenario proposed by the CIDRAP team, the first wave of Covid-19 in spring 2020 would be followed by persistent ongoing transmission and disease incidence without a clear wave pattern. This third scenario might not lead to the reinstitution of mitigation measures, although cases and deaths will continue to occur especially in areas where risk factors for disease and death are common.
44. Whichever scenario the pandemic follows, it is highly likely that Covid-19 activity will continue for at least another 18 to 24 months, with hot spots arising periodically in diverse geographic areas. In the period prior to the widespread use of an effective vaccine, this spread will
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 24 of 94
continue to lead to serious disease and death in at-risk groups As the pandemic wanes, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to circulate at lower levels in the human population and will synchronize to a seasonal pattern with diminished severity over time, as other coronaviruses, such as the beta-coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1, [41] and past pandemic influenza viruses have done.
45. I was asked to describe the Covid-19 situation in Louisiana. To date (5/27/20), Louisiana has reported 38,497 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 2,617 deaths from the disease, placing it 6th in the nation in terms of deaths per million people (580/1,000,000). The data also demonstrate that the state is ahead of many others in the amount of testing being done, having received test results to date on 341,026 people for a testing rate of 73.45 per 1000, (ie. ranking of 6rd out of 50 states). As shown in the following figure, the distribution of cases is not uniform across the state, with more densely populated areas having higher rates [42].
Table 6 Parish-specific Covid-19 prevalence for Louisiana by May 27, 2020. (from Louisiana State Health Department).
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 25 of 94
46. To assess the risk of serious disease given a Covid-19 infection, we can turn to the existing data on the prevalence of specific risk factors in the state. The CDC has documented that 36.8 percent of Louisiana residents are obese and an additional 32.7 percent are overweight; 39 percent have a diagnosis of high blood pressure; and 13.9 percent have diagnosed diabetes mellitus [43, 44, 45]. 15.4 percent of the population is 65 years old and over [46]. Louisiana has a life expectancy of 76.0 compared to 78.7 nationally, making it 43rd out of the 50 states (https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/life-expectancy/).
47. It is useful to compare the prevalence of different co-morbidities associated with poor outcomes in Louisiana to other states. The figures below give county-level rates of hospitalizations for coronary heart disease and hypertension demonstrating that Louisiana has comparatively high rates of these diseases and the age distribution of the population. Table 7. Rates of hypertension and Coronary Heart Disease Nationally. From (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058248v1)
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 26 of 94
48. The Kaiser Family Foundation has developed a method to estimate the proportion of a state’s population at elevated risk for serious Covid-19 illness [47]. Using data from the CDC’s 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), they estimated the total number of atrisk adults by state, based on the revised definition from the CDC of adults who are at higher risk of serious illness if they get infected with coronavirus. The relevant factors include ages 65 or older, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uncontrolled asthma, diabetes, and a BMI greater than 40. Based on this analysis, 42.1% of adults over age 18 in Louisiana are at risk for serious disease with older adults making up 48.4% of those at high risk.
49. In another nation-wide assessment of risk, the Surgo Foundation has developed a Covid-19 community vulnerability index (the CCVI) to identify communities at especially high risk of being affected by Covid-19 [48]. The CCVI combines indicators specific to Covid-19 with the CDC’s social vulnerability index, which measures the expected negative impact of any type of disaster. The indicators are based on the themes listed below. Table 8 CCVI Score components [48]
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 27 of 94
50. On this scale, Louisiana scored an 88 out of 100 when 100 is the most vulnerable. It ranked seventh among the states on this measure, mostly because its high (poor) score in the area of epidemiologic risk factors. These data suggest that in the event of further spread of Covid19, Louisiana may experience higher levels of disease, disability and death than other states experiencing the same amount of transmission.
51. I was asked if herd immunity, progress in vaccine development or the development of drugs to treat Covid-19 will alter the expected course of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States and specifically Louisiana. To date, the proportion of the population that is likely to be immune is far less than that that required to achieve herd immunity. This is unlikely to change significantly before November. Although recent studies of the temporal trajectories of the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies show that most people who are infected with the virus do develop an antibody-mediated immune response, it is not yet clear whether this response is adequate to protect people from future infection or for how long it might be protective. Other coronaviruses, such as those that cause colds, are known to provide protection for periods of approximately one year and this experience has led most Covid-19 experts to accept the “educated guess” that after being infected with SARS-CoV-2, most individuals will have an immune response which will offer some protection over the medium term — at least a year — and then its effectiveness might decline. Until there is empirical evidence of how well-protected previously infected people are in the future, there is no way to confirm or deny the existence of long-term immunity.
52. An effective vaccine is extremely unlikely to have been developed, tested and widely distributed before November. Vaccine development has proceeded at an unprecedented pace. More than 110 candidate vaccines are under development. A number of companies and
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 28 of 94
research teams already have candidate vaccines that are either in human trials (eight have started) or close to ready to trial in humans. The most advanced of these seems to be the ChAdOx1 nCoV19 vaccine being developed by a group in Oxford, England. The speed with which these vaccines are being developed is partly due to the fact that a great deal of work was done on a SARS-CoV1 vaccine after the 2002 epidemic and some of that work can be applied to this organism.
53. Despite this extraordinarily rapid progress, it is important to realize that the usual time frame from development to widespread use of a vaccine is over ten years. New vaccines require a complex set of trials to establish safety, immunogenicity, optimal dosing, etc. Phase 1 trials are usually conducted in small groups of healthy volunteers and are designed to establish whether serious adverse effects occur with escalating doses of the agent and whether the vaccine produces the expected immune response. Phase 2 trials are designed to replicate Phase 1 results in a more diverse population of volunteers, to assess whether the expected immune response is generated, and to test different vaccine schedules. Once safety, immunogenicity and optimal dosing are established, Phase 3 studies are conducted to determine vaccine efficacy. Phase 3 studies are usually much larger than phase 1 or 2 studies and are conducted in people at risk for the infection in question. So the time frame of these trials depends on the actual incidence of infection and is expected to be shorter in regions with very high rates of disease. The completion of all three steps is required for a vaccine to be approved by the FDA. Once a vaccine is approved, it must then be manufactured at a scale that will provide adequate coverage for a large population.
54. The White House has recently announced an initiative, “Operation Warp Speed,” to expedite the development of a vaccine that will be available to the US population. Although many scientists question the timeline proposed by the project, the goal is to speed up the development and production of a vaccine so that 100 million doses are available in November of
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 29 of 94
2020 and the remaining 200 million doses needed to vaccinate the US population are ready by early 2021. Thus, even in the most optimistic scenario, it is highly unlikely that a vaccine will have been distributed and had time to induce an immune response in a significant number of Americans by November 3, 2020.
55. Although new and repurposed drugs are being tested and some may be found to be helpful in treating severe Covid-19, this is unlikely to have a major impact on the transmission of the virus and the risk of severe disease or death by November 2020. A number of antiviral drugs are currently being developed and other existing drugs are being “repurposed” as potential therapies for Covid-19. The hope is that these drugs will reduce the rate of death and severe disease in people who are treated with them. As of mid-April, the FDA website had listed 72 active and 211 planned Covid-19 drug trials and almost 1000 drug-development proposals have been submitted to the agency. To date, only Remdesivir has been shown in a major, randomized control trial to reduce the duration of illness in Covid-19 patients. In that study, Remdesivir reduced the median time to recovery in hospitalized patients with advanced Covid-19 disease and lung involvement from 15 days for those who received placebo to 11 days for patients treated with Remdesivir [49]. The researchers also noted a survival benefit (which was not “statistically significant”) with the Remdesivir group experiencing an 8.0 percent mortality rate compared to 11.6 percent for the placebo group. This suggests that even with the approval of the drugs that have been found to be effective in clinical trials, people with severe Covid-19 are at risk for death as well as the long-term effects of lung damage and other sequelae of infection detailed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of June, 2020.
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 30 of 94 Megan Murray, MD, MPH, ScD
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 31 of 94
REFERENCES
1. Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5(4):536‐544. doi:10.1038/s41564020-0695-z
2. Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV2. Nat Med 26, 450–452 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9
3. Zhang, H., Penninger, J.M., Li, Y. et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med 46, 586–590 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9
4. https://doi.org/10.1002//path.5471. 5. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html 6. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1 7. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With
2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061–1069. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585 8. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 13]. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;e200994. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994 9. Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study [published correction appears in BMJ. 2020 Mar 31;368:m1295]. BMJ. 2020;368:m1091. Published 2020 Mar 26. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1091 10. Arentz M, Yim E, Klaff L, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of 21 Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in Washington State [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 19]. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1612‐1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4326 11. Cao J, Tu WJ, Cheng W, et al. Clinical Features and Short-term Outcomes of 102 Patients with Corona Virus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 2]. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;ciaa243. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa243 12. Basu-Ray I, Soos MP. Cardiac Manifestations Of Coronavirus (COVID-19) [Updated 2020 Apr 12]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556152/ 13. Danzi GB, Loffi M, Galeazzi G, Gherbesi E. Acute pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 pneumonia: a random association?. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(19):1858. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa254 14. Zhang Y, Xiao M, Zhang S, et al. Coagulopathy and Antiphospholipid Antibodies in Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(17):e38. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2007575 15. Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 10]. Thromb Res. 2020;S0049-3848(20)30120-1. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013 16. Bridwell R, Long B, Gottlieb M. Neurologic complications of COVID-19 [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 16]. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.024. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.024
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 32 of 94
17. Alunno A, Carubbi F, Rodríguez-Carrio J. Storm, typhoon, cyclone or hurricane in patients with COVID-19? Beware of the same storm that has a different origin. RMD Open. 2020;6(1):e001295. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001295
18. Salehi S, Abedi A, Balakrishnan S, Gholamrezanezhad A. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review of Imaging Findings in 919 Patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 14]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;1‐7. doi:10.2214/AJR.20.23034
19. Stam HJ, Stucki G, Bickenbach J. Covid-19 and Post Intensive Care Syndrome: A Call for Action. J Rehabil Med. 2020;52(4):jrm00044. Published 2020 Apr 15. doi:10.2340/16501977-2677
20. Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S. Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to COVID-19 in Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1775–1776. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4683
21. Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. Published online April 22, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6775
22. The OpenSafely Collaborative. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999v1
23. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html
24. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564‐1567. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2004973
25. Hamner L, Dubbel P, Capron I, et al. High SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate Following Exposure at a Choir Practice - Skagit County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(19):606‐610. Published 2020 May 15. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6919e6
26. Park M, Cook AR, Lim JT, Sun Y, Dickens BL. A Systematic Review of COVID-19 Epidemiology Based on Current Evidence. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4):967. Published 2020 Mar 31. doi:10.3390/jcm9040967
27. Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 24]. N Engl J Med. 2020;NEJMoa2008457. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2008457
28. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/308444/americans-social-contacts-during-covidpandemic.aspx
29. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417356/initial-results-mission-district-covid-19testing-announced
30. Personal communication from Miguel Hernan of the Epicos study. 31. Eriko Kudo, Eric Song, Laura J. Yockey, Tasfia Rakib, Patrick W. Wong, Robert J.
Homer, Akiko Iwasaki. Low ambient humidity impairs barrier function and innate resistance against influenza infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 13, 2019; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902840116 32. Miyu Moriyama, Walter J. Hugentobler, Akiko Iwasaki, Seasonality of Respiratory Viral Infections. Annual Review of Virology 2020 7:1
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 33 of 94
33. Luo w, Majumder MS, Liu D, Poirier C, ] Mandl KD, Lipsitch M, Mauricio Santillana, The role of absolute humidity on transmission rates of the COVID-19 outbreak, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022467v1
34. Xie J, Zhu Y. Association between ambient temperature and COVID-19 infection in 122 cities from China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;724:138201. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138201
35. Jackson C, Vynnycky E, Mangtani P. The Relationship Between School Holidays and Transmission of Influenza in England and Wales. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(9):644‐651. doi:10.1093/aje/kww083
36. Luca, G.D., Kerckhove, K.V., Coletti, P. et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: a data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis 18, 29 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3
37. Silvestri, M., Rossi, G.A. Melatonin: its possible role in the management of viral infections-a brief review. Ital J Pediatr 39, 61 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1824-728839-61
38. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583. Published 2017 Feb 15. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6583
39. Covid-19. The Cidrap View. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/cidrap-covid19viewpoint-part1_0.pdf
40. Saunders-Hastings PR, Krewski D. Reviewing the History of Pandemic Influenza: Understanding Patterns of Emergence and Transmission. Pathogens. 2016;5(4):66. Published 2016 Dec 6. doi:10.3390/pathogens5040066
41. Kissler SM, Tedijanto C, Goldstein E, Grad YH, Lipsitch M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science. 2020;368(6493):860‐868. doi:10.1126/science.abb5793
42. http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ 43. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html 44. https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/maps_data.htm 45. http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/PDFs/Advocacy/burden-of-diabetes/louisiana.pdf 46. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/LA/PST045219 47. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-
address-coronavirus/ 48. https://precisionforcovid.org/ccvi 49. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 -
Preliminary Report [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 22]. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 50. The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARSCoV-2 transmission. Valentyn Stadnytskyi, Christina E. Bax, Adriaan Bax, Philip Anfinrud. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2020, 202006874; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2006874117 51. Matrajt L, Leung T. Evaluating the effectiveness of social distancing interventions to delay or flatten the epidemic curve of coronavirus disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020 Aug. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2608.201093
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 34 of 94

Harvard Medical School/Harvard School of Dental Medicine Curriculum Vitae

Date Prepared: Name: Office Address:
Home Address:
Work Phone: Work Email: Work FAX: Place of Birth:

May 2020
MEGAN MURRAY Harvard Medical School 641 Huntington Avenue, 4A07 Boston, MA 02115 21 Prince Street Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 432-2781 megan_murray@hms.harvard.edu (617) 432-2565 Minnesota

Education 1980

AB Magna cum laude

Philosophy

Dartmouth College, Dartmouth, NH

1990

MD

Medicine

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

1997

MPH

Public Health

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

2001

ScD

Postdoctoral Training 1990-1991 Internship

Epidemiology (James Robins)

Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA

Internal Medicine

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

1991-1993 Residency

Internal Medicine

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 35 of 94

1993-1997 Fellowship

Infectious Disease

Faculty Academic Appointments 1997-2006 Instructor in Medicine Medicine

1999-2000 Research Associate

Epidemiology

2001-2007 Assistant Professor

Epidemiology

2004-

Associate

2006-2009 Assistant Professor 2007-2013 Associate Professor

Medicine Epidemiology

2009-2012 Associate Professor

Medicine

20122013-

Professor Professor

Global Health and Social Medicine
Epidemiology

2017-

Ronda Stryker and William Johnston Professor of Global Health

Global Health and Social Medicine

Appointments at Hospitals/Affiliated Institutions

01/98-09/02 Clinical Assistant in Medicine

Dept. of Internal Medicine

09/02-09/06 Assistant in Medicine Dept. of Internal Medicine

09/06-02/08 Assistant Physician

Dept. of Internal Medicine

35

Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Harvard Medical School Harvard School of Public Health Harvard School of Public Health Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA Harvard Medical School Harvard School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Harvard Medical School
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts General Hospital Massachusetts General Hospital

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 36 of 94

02/08-09/10 Consultant (Medicine Dept. of Internal Medicine Services)

Massachusetts General Hospital

36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 37 of 94

Other Professional Positions

Year

Position Title

1980-1984 Refugee Camp Coordinator

Institution

Level of effort

Intergovernmental Committee for

Migration, Phanat Nikhom, Thailand

1984

Public Health Educator

Matanyok Rural Training Project, Rift Valley, Kenya

2004-

Research Director

Partners In Health, Boston

36 days per year

Major Administrative Leadership Positions

Local
2007-

Director of Research

2010-

Director

2012-2013 Member

Committee Service
Local
1986-1990 Curriculum Committee

Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners In Health, Boston, MA Research Core, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Executive Leadership Team, Global Health Delivery Partnership, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Partners In Health, Boston, MA
Harvard Medical School Member

2001-

Infectious Disease-Epidemiology Graduate Harvard School of Public Health

Admissions Committee

Member

2003-2005 Faculty Council

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2004-

Steering Committee for the Residency in Global Health

Brigham and Women’s Hospital Member

2005-

Human Subjects Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2005

Task Force on Women in Sciences and Engineering

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Member

2006

President’s Task Force on Avian Influenza 37

Harvard University

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 38 of 94

Member

2006

Search Committee for Dean of Educational Harvard School of Public Health

Programs

Member

2007

Epidemiology Curriculum Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2007

Search Committee for Compliance Officer Harvard School of Public Health Member

2007

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Brigham and Women’s Hospital the Division of Social Medicine and Health Member Inequalities

2008

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Harvard School of Public Health

Infectious Disease Epidemiology

Member

2009

Search Committee for Assistant Professor in Harvard School of Public Health

Infectious Disease Epidemiology

Chair

2010

Global Health Epidemiology Committee

Harvard School of Public Health Member

2010-2011 Strategic Leadership Team

Brigham and Women’s Hospital Member (Co-Chair Community Engagement Mission Area)

2012

Ad Hoc Committee to Evaluate Professorial Harvard Medical School

Candidate

Member

2012-2016 Professor of Population Medicine Search Committee

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute Member

2012

Ad Hoc Evaluation of Professorial Appointment Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2012

Global Health Instructor Search Committee Harvard Medical School Co-chair

2014-2016 Pershing Square Professorship in Global Health Search Committee

Harvard Medical School Chair

2015

Search Committee for Professor of Biomedical Informatics

Harvard Medical School Member

38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 39 of 94

2016-

Department of Biomedical Informatics Executive Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2016-

Committee on Promotions, Reappointments, Harvard Medical School

and Appointments (P&R)

Member

2018-2019 Dean’s Innovation Grants Review Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2018-2019 Therapeutics Planning Foundry Committee Harvard Medical School Member

2019-

Center for Computational Biomedicine (CCB) Advisory Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2019-

Faculty Council

Harvard Medical School/Harvard School of Dental Medicine Member

2020-

Ariadne Spark Grant Review Committee

Harvard Medical School Member

2020-

Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR) Working Group on Epidemiology

Harvard Medical School Co-Lead

National and International
2005-2007 Committee on Infectious Diseases among Gulf War Veterans

Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC Member

2006-2010 IHR Roster of Experts in Modeling Analytical Epidemiology

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

2007-2009 Global Task on XDR Tuberculosis

World Health Organization

2007

External Review Committee for TB Program Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Montreal, Canada Member

2008-2011 STAG (Strategic and technical advisory group) TB

World Health Organization Member

2008

39th Union World Conference 2008

International Union TB and Lung Disease

Drug Resistance /MDR-TB management II Paris, France, Coordinator

39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 40 of 94

2009 2009-2010

Panel to Review the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence for Biomedical TB Research
Expert Panel on Tuberculosis and Diabetes

National Research Foundation, Pretoria, South Africa, Convener
Union of TB and Lung Disease and World Diabetes Federation Member

2010-2015 Advisory Group to Fogarty Grant

Member Public Health Research Institute New Jersey

2010-

Working Group on New Diagnostics

Member, Stop TB Partnership Geneva, Switzerland

2013-2014 Millennium Villages Project Independent Expert Group Meetings
2013-2014 External Advisory Committee on Tuberculosis

Member Earth Institute, Columbia University Millennium Development Goals Centre West and Central Africa Dakar, Senegal
Member Gates Foundation New York City, NY

2016-

Critical Path to TB Drug Regimens (CPTR) Member Initiative

Professional Societies

1995-

Infectious Disease Society of America

1997-

Society for Epidemiologic Research

2007-

International Union of TB and Lung Disease

2007-

Global Health Council

2009-

American Society for Tropical Medicine

Member Member Member
Member Member

Grant Review Activities

40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 41 of 94

2004

Fogarty International Center/NIH Study Section ZRG1 ICP-3(03)

NIH, Bethesda, MD Member

2005

Improving Tuberculosis Control in Africa; Mathematical Modeling of Intervention Trials

Wellcome Trust Review London, England Member

2008

Postdoctoral Program Review for Indonesian PhDs

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, Holland Referee

2008

Center for AIDS Research Scholar and

Harvard School of Public Health

Feasibility Scientific Reviewer Committee Member

2009, 2010 Center for Scientific Review/NIH study section l ZRG1 IDM-P 50 R

NIH Ad hoc Member

2009-2016

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section on Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases (CRFS)

NIH Permanent Member

2009

Wellcome Trust London, England

Ad hoc Reviewer

2010

National Science Foundation South Africa

Ad hoc Reviewer

2012 2015 2017
2018
2019

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 AARR-K (52)
Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 IMST-K (50)S
Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZAI1 LG-M (M1) NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01/R01)

NIH Ad-hoc Member
NIH Ad-hoc Member
NIH Ad-hoc Member

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Clinical Research and Field Studies of Infectious Diseases [CRFS] Study Section ZRG1 IDM-R (02)

NIH Ad-hoc Member

Center for Scientific Review/NIH Study Section ZRG1 IDM-R (50)
41

NIH Ad-hoc Member

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 42 of 94
Editorial Activities Ad hoc Reviewer
Science Nature Medicine New England Journal Medicine Lancet Lancet Infectious Diseases Lancet Pulmonary Medicine Epidemiology American Journal of Epidemiology International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases British Medical Journal British Medical Journal, Global Health Emerging Infectious Diseases PLoS Medicine PLoS Pathogens PLoS One Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease Journal of the American Medical Association American Journal Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Journal of Clinical Microbiology Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) Bulletin of the World Health Organization Clinical Infectious Disease Journal Infectious Disease Annals of Internal Medicine American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Royal Society Proceedings B BMC Medicine BMC Genomics BMC Public Health BMC Biology BMC Health Services Interface Epidemics Royal Society Open Science mBio
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 43 of 94

Other Editorial Roles

2004-

Member of Editorial Board

2005-2012 Associate Editor

2009-

Associate Editor

European Journal of Epidemiology
International Journal of TB and Lung Disease
PLOS Medicine

Honors and Prizes

1980

Dartmouth General Fellowship

1990

Aesculupian Society

1990

Paul Dudley White Fellowship

1996

Howard Hughes PostDoctoral Research Fellowship

1997

Tapplin Fellowship Award

2001

Teaching Award

2002

Teaching Award

2004 2008

Ellison Senior Scholar Recognition Award

2010 2010-11

Nominated for Mentorship Award
Landolt Chair

Dartmouth College
Harvard Medical School Harvard Medical School
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Harvard School of Public Health School of Public Health, Boston University Harvard School of Public Health Ellison Medical Foundation Harvard School of Public Health Harvard Medical School
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Report of Funded and Unfunded Projects
43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 44 of 94

Funding Information

Past

1997-2003

Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis NIH/NIAID 1K08AI001430-01 PI This study explored the use of molecular epidemiologic data for epidemiologic inference and evolutionary studies of M. tuberculosis.

2000-2003

Population-based investigations of tuberculosis NIH R01AI046669 Co-investigator In this project, population-based genetic studies of human specimens were used to determine the clinical consequences of mutations in genes associated with bacterial antibiotic resistance and virulence.

2002-2005

Transmissibility and fitness of drug-resistant TB, Sverdlovsk WHO T9-181-270 PI This project assessed epidemiologic risk factors for TB drug resistance, identified locally prevalent drug-resistance profiles, used molecular epidemiological analyses to measure association between clustering and specific drug-resistance mutations, and assessed demographic distribution of drug resistance in prison and local community, evaluating extent of transmission between the two groups.

2003-2005

INH resistance in Beijing/W Isolates of M. tuberculosis NIH R21 AI055800 Co-investigator This project sought to identify risk factors associated with Isoniazid resistance which may be pathogen and/or host- specific and which may lead to acquisition of MDR-TB, after controlling for compliance.

2003-2005

Decision analysis for TB control Bill Melinda Gates Foundation Co-investigator This project developed a decision-analytic model that could be used with data from different countries to assess the potential benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the full range of policy options for dealing with MDR-TB, including preventive therapy, active case finding, diagnostic testing and treatment.

2004-2009

Curriculum in Emerging Infectious Diseases NIH/NIGMS K073000-04 PI ($363,933)

44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 45 of 94

This project aimed to develop and implement a core course in transmission dynamics of emerging infectious diseases, taking an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates casebased seminars and short courses.

2005-2007

Evaluation of a community based HIV-TB adherence support program in a government ARV-rollout site in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Harvard University Center for AIDS Research Co-investigator This study evaluated the feasibility of community-based adherence support program designed to improve HIV/AIDS and TB outcomes among a cohort of HIV patients in a government ARV treatment program.

2006-2007

Ferroportin Polymorphisms and Tuberculosis Susceptibility William F. Milton Fund/Harvard Medical School PI This study assessed the association between Ferroportin (FPN1) mutations, iron intake and TB susceptibility in South Africa.

2006-2010

Macrophage Iron Metabolism and Tuberculosis Infection NIH/NIAID R21 AI068077-01 PI ($271,375) We elucidated the role of host macrophage iron status on the growth of M. tuberculosis and explored the impact of iron and ferroportin status on cellular immune function.

2006-2011

Epidemiology of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Peru NIH/NIAID R01 A1057786-01A2 Co-investigator The goal of this project is to provide new knowledge about the transmission dynamics of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high TB-burden area in Peru and will measure withinhousehold transmission of various strains of TB, assess the impact of socio-demographic and clinical confounders and risk modifiers, and measure associations between specific resistance mutations and phenotypes.

2007-2009

A Postmortem Study of the Burden of MDR and XDR Tuberculosis Among Adult Inpatient in KZN Deaths Occurring at Edendale Hospital Kwazulu-Natal South Africa Massachusetts General Hospital PI ($60,050) This study estimated the burden of tuberculosis among seriously ill individuals in KZN and measured the proportion of TB among these patients which is drug-resistant by conducting postmortem tests at Edendale Hospital KZN.

2007-2014

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics of MDR/XDR Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID U19 A1076217 PI ($13,422,751) We conducted a series of linked interdisciplinary research projects focused on the emergence and transmission of multidrug and extensively drug resistant TB: a cohort
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 46 of 94

study of host and microbial factors associated with MDR and XDR TB in Lima, Peru; a study characterizing M. tuberculosis strain diversity and its contribution to the emergence and spread of MDR; and a study using epidemic and individual predictive models to support public health policy and clinical decision-making for MDR and XDR TB.

2009

Systematic Reviews of Diabetes and Tuberculosis Interactions PI ($25,000) International Union of TB and Lung Disease We evaluated the links between TB and diabetes by conducting a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

2009-2012

Bioaerosols Production and Influenza Study Pulmatrix Inc. PI ($348,393) The project measured the particle production in persons diagnosed with active influenza, measured the quantity and size distribution of influenza virus particles generated and exhaled by persons infected with influenza during normal tidal breathing, and measured the secondary attack rate of influenza within their households.

2009-2013

Treat TB: Technology, Research, Education and Technical Assistance for TB USAID (subcontract through International Union against TB and Lung Disease) Co-investigator The subproject aims were to develop a modeling tool to assist national policy-makers in selecting the appropriate tests and strategies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in specific types of epidemiological settings, with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries, taking into account a variety of modifying factors including drug resistance and HIV.

2009-2014

Strengthening and Studying Community Based Integrated Primary Health Care Systems in Rural Rwanda Doris Duke Foundation Co-investigator The PHIT Partnership strengthened integrated primary health care delivery in Rwanda. The Partnership deployed a care-based intervention, conduct implementation research to generate data for ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and quality improvement of the intervention.

2009-2014

MIDAS Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics NIH/NIGMS U54 GM088558-01 Co-investigator This project advanced the quantitative study of communicable diseases through training/education, transdisciplinary research, and public health policy and will develop statistical and novel modeling methods, train mathematical modelers, perform outreach, and develop software for the analysis of communicable disease data.

2012-2013

Identification of GyrA/B Mutations that Predict Fluoroquinolone Resistant TB 46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 47 of 94

Harvard University Center for AIDS Research Co-investigator This project evaluated the correlation between newly-developed molecular genetic probes that can detect mutations in the gryA and gryB genes of tuberculosis which may render them more resistant to first and later generation quinolones.

2013-2014

African Health Facility Capacity to Roll Out Technological Interventions Gates Foundation PI ($17,232) This project summarized the following outcomes across Rwanda health facilities: the percent and number of health facilities with electricity currently; estimate percent of health clinics with electricity within five years; percent and number of facilities with rapid HIV testing available; and the distribution of HIV testing staffing.

Current

2014-2020

Integrated discovery and development of innovative TB Diagnostics NIH/NIAID CETR U19AI109755 PI ($29,218,333) This multi-disciplinary collaboration is designed to enable the discovery of new biomarkers of Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug resistance, identify optimal clinical sampling strategies directed toward detection of Mtb DNA and develop and test a sensitive micro-array based rapid diagnostic. Our long-term goal is to develop a diagnostic strategy that will improve the diagnosis of childhood and DR TB and stem the further spread of the disease. This grant is in a no cost extension phase.

2015-2022

Metabolic Factors that Control the Spectrum of Human Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID TBRU U19AI111224 Co-PI ($19,815,180) This consortium project focuses on the link between host immune and metabolic factors and their impact on progression and persistence of tuberculosis. Teams focusing on human subjects, bio-informatics, and metabolomics work in parallel to identify targets including pathways linking human metabolism and immune response, T cells involved in Mtb response, pathogen determinants of drug resistance and pathogen-shed markers of clinical TB phenotypes. Each project includes validation of these targets in the guinea pig model.

2018-

Metabolic Factors that Control the Spectrum of Human Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID TBRU U19AI111224-04 Supplement Co-PI ($200,000) This supplement to the TBRU consortium project is a new collaborative, multi-disciplinary effort that conducted a genome-to-genome approach aimed at the identification of
47

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 48 of 94

interacting molecular patterns in Mtb and the human host. The same approach and new methods will be adaptable and easily applicable to other populations being studied within the TBRU program.

2019-2024

Bacterial Determinants of Treatment Response in Mycobacteria Tuberculosis NIH/NIAID U19AI142793-01 PI ($14,633,712) This study will focus on the discovery of the genetic determinants of drug tolerance and resistance in mycobacteria tuberculosis both through mechanistic bench studies and through a genome wide association study of treatment failure in TB patients.

2019-2021

Randomised trial of an intervention to increase tuberculosis notifications by private practitioners in Indonesia, plus sequencing and susceptibility sub studies CRDF Global u/d USDA (59-0210-06-004) DAA3-19-64909-2 United States Research Leader ($99,917) This study will evaluate whether a tailored intervention package increases notifications of tuberculosis (TB) by private practitioners in Bandung, Indonesia.

2020-2023

Are TB neighbourhoods a high risk population for active intervention? CRDF Global u/d NIAID United States Research Leader ($99,999) This study will confirm whether neighborhoods around known, routinely diagnosed TB index cases are high risk sub-populations which may warrant active intervention to enhance TB control.

Unfunded Projects

2003

Transmission dynamics of SARS (Co-leader) I co-led a team that developed a mathematical model of the transmission dynamics of SARS. (Lipsitch et al. Science 2003)

2005-2011

TB Genome Project (Collaborator) Whole genome sequencing of sets of drug resistant M. tuberculosis isolates. I led a collaboration with the Broad Institute to identify, sequence and analyze progressively resistant isolates of M. tuberculosis to identify drug resistance mutations and to characterize compensatory or enabling mutations. We currently have one manuscript under review and several in preparation.

2006

Cost-effectiveness of testing the blood supply for West Nile Virus (Supervisor) I supervised a doctoral student in the development of a combined transmission/costeffectiveness model on West Nile Virus. (Korves et al. PLoS Med 2006; Korves et al. Clin Infect Dis 2006)

48

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 49 of 94

2006-2010

Determinants of tuberculosis (Advisor) I supervised two doctoral students to carry out epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses of the associations between determinants (smoking and diabetes mellitus) and tuberculosis and to use the parameters thus obtained to construct mathematical models assessing the impact interventions directed at these determinants. (Jeon et al. PLoS Med 2008; Jeon et al, Trop Med and Int Health 2010; Lin et al. Lancet 2008; Lin et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009, Murray M et al, IJTLD 2010, Baker M et al. BMC Medicine 2011, Lin et al. IJTLD 2011). I supervised Dr. Olivia Oxlade on work that is a further extension of this project.

2007-2009

Timing of ART in patients co-infected with HIV and TB in Rwanda: an observational approach (Initiator) I initiated this project and supervised a doctoral student in the collection and analysis of the data. This work led to a paper published in PLoS Medicine (Franke M et al. PLoS Med 2011).

2007-2009

Metabolic modeling of M. tuberculosis (Collaborator) I collaborated with a team of bio-informaticists on a project to fit a metabolic flux model to M. tuberculosis expression data to mycolic acid production. (Colijn et al. PLoS Computational Biology, 2009)

2008-2009

Structural analysis of M. tuberculosis “resistome” (Collaborator) I collaborated with George Church on a project to define the structural basis of drug resistance in M. tuberculosis using sequence data. We published one paper together (Sandgren et al. PLoS Med 2009).

2008-2010

M. tuberculosis isoniazid and quinolone mono-resistance in South Africa (Mentor) I supervised two trainees who are investigating the frequency and outcomes of monoresistance in M. tuberculosis in South Africa. We published two papers in this area. (Jeon C et al, 2010, Jacobson K et al, 2011).

2008-2010

ART Outcomes in Rwanda for 1000 HIV patients (Co-investigator) I provided technical support and supervised the data collection and analysis team. We have published a paper on this topic (Rich et al, 2011).

2009-2010

Within host dynamics of TB and the evolution of drug resistance. (Initiator) I collaborated with my former trainees, Ted Cohen and Caroline Colijn, on a project to model the within-host evolution of drug resistance (Colijn C et al, PLoS One, 2011).

2009-2011

Sex trafficking and HIV transmission in India (Advisor) I supervised a doctoral student in the analysis of data and construction of a mathematical model of HIV transmission among trafficked sex workers in India. We published several papers together.

2010-2012

Cholera transmission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Haiti. (Collaborator and Adviser). I worked with a team including hydraulogists and infectious disease
49

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 50 of 94

modelers on the transmission routes by which cholera spreads. We published three papers (Rinaldo et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2012; Bompangue et al, PLoS Curr 2012; Bompangue et al, Lancet, 2012).

2012-

Poverty traps in under-resourced settings (Collaborator) I collaborate with Matthew Bonds on a range of studies to understand the role of infectious diseases in creating poverty traps in Rwanda and other under-resourced settings.

2014-2015 MDR TB in India I worked with a Fulbright fellow to assess the burden of MDR TB in India.

2013-2016

Ebola Diagnostics, Asymptomatic Infection and Modeling (Initiator and Collaborator) I worked with the Partners in Health clinical teams in Sierra Leone to evaluate two point of care diagnostic tests and supervised Gene Richardson in a study of asymptomatic Ebola infections and Ibrahim Diakite on a study of dynamic modeling of Ebola vaccination strategies.

2012-

Impact of Health Research Capacity Building (Team Leader) I lead a team focused on the implementation and assessment of Health Research Capacity Building in Africa.

2014-

Yaws epidemiology and impact of mass drug administration (Collaborator) I work with my former student, Eric Mooring, on the evaluation of data collected during a mass drug administration campaign in Papua, New Guinea.

2014-

Health System Strengthening in Madagascar (Collaborator) I work on developing methods to evaluate the impact of health system strengthening in Madagascar and other implementation sites.

2018-2019

Investigation of Services delivered for TB by External care system – especially the Private sector (INSTEP) (Collaborator) I worked on quantitative measure of health seeking pathways and delays, diagnostic and treatment behaviors of private providers and qualitative (or mixed methods) analysis of provider behaviors and the reasons behind them as assessed via direct interviews.

Training Grants and Mentored Trainee Grants

1990-2011

Multidisciplinary AIDS Training Grant NIH NIAID T32AI007387 Mentor (PI: Martin Hirsch) The major goal was to provide in depth laboratory experience in a specific research area of virology, immunology, molecular biology, oncology, epidemiology molecular genetics, or molecular therapeutics to selected postdoctoral candidates.

50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 51 of 94

1992-2022

Program for AIDS Clinical Research Training (PACRT) NIH NIAID T32 AI007433 Mentor (PI: Kenneth Freedberg) The major goal is to provide training in quantitative research methodologies with a focus on HIV clinical research to pre-doctoral PhD students and physicians at formative stages in their careers.

1998-2020

Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases NIH NIAID T32 AI007535 Mentor (PI: George Seage) The major goal is to increase the number of graduates who will be capable of drawing on diverse tools – including sophisticated approaches to causal inference, transmissiondynamic modeling, model fitting, population genomics and phylogenetics – in a knowledgeable way to meet the infectious disease threats of a new generation.

2004-2009

Molecular Approaches for Understanding TB Dynamics NIH NIAID K08 5K08AI055985 Co-Mentor to Ted Cohen The major goal of this five-year training program K award focused on the development of new analytic tools to evaluate molecular data from tuberculosis patients.

2009

AMSTH Postdoctoral Fellowship in Tropical Infectious Diseases Mentor to Karen Jacobson The major goal was to fund to conduct research focused on infectious diseases of low and low-middle income countries.

2010-2013

Predicting the impact and cost-effectiveness of technical and non-technical approaches to TB control in low and middle income countries CIHR (Canadian Institute for Health Research) Fellowship MFE106987 Mentor to Olivia Oxlade The goal was to predict, in 3 low and middle income countries, the epidemiologic impact and cost effectiveness of a technical approach to TB control (using improved diagnostic tests for earlier diagnosis of active TB disease) versus a non-technical population level intervention designed to reduce tobacco use and alcohol consumption.

2010-2014

The Economic Impacts of Community-Based Integrated Health Care Systems in Rural Rwanda NIH Fogarty K01 TW008773 Mentor to Matthew Bonds The major goal of this K award was to measure the specific economic consequences of expanded community-based integrated primary healthcare in Rwanda by measuring the partial effects of malnutrition, disease, schooling and socioeconomic status on each other.

51

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 52 of 94

2011

Modifiable risk factors for tuberculosis disease in children Parker B. Francis Fellowship in Pulmonary Research Mentor to Molly Franke The major goal was to identify modifiable risk factors for TB in children.

2011-2016

Geospatial Clustering and Molecular and Social Epidemiology of Drug Resistant TB NIH Fogarty K01 5K01TW009213 Co-Mentor to Karen Jacobson The major goal of this K award was to estimate the burden of drug resistant TB and assess the heterogeneity of disease burden in different geographic locations, to examine the association of host risk factors and population determinants with regions of high drug resistant TB burden, and to describe the spatial and molecular clustering of strains of drug resistant TB in this province. My role was to mentor Karen Jacobson in research in molecular and social epidemiology of TB.

2012-2013 US-Italy Fulbright Scholarship Mentor to Anna Odone

2012-2016

The Role of Development Assistance for Health in Reducing Child Mortality NIH NICHD 4K01HD071929-05 Epidemiology mentor to Chunling Lu The major goal of this K award was to obtain background knowledge of epidemiology so as to understand the disease profiles of under-five children of different age groups in developing countries.

2013-2014

Controlling Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (TB): A Review of Literature and an Attempt for Designing Innovative Approaches in Indian Setting Core Fulbright Visiting Scholar Research Grant Mentor to Sachin Atre

2013-2015

Gene Mutations and Tuberculosis Resistance American Lung Association Research Award Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal was to investigate the genetic sequences of known and candidate resistant genes for a large panel of TB drugs, to determine which mutations predict the extent of resistance, and if specific combinations of mutations interact to affect this resistance level. The information will be used to guide the development of a much needed rapid diagnostic test for drug resistant TB.

2014

Genetic determinants of drug resistance in mycobacterium tuberculosis Parker B. Francis Fellowship in Pulmonary Research Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal was to investigate the genetic sequences of known and candidate resistance genes for a large panel of TB drugs to determine which mutations predict the
52

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 53 of 94

extent of resistance and use this information to guide the development of improved diagnostic tests for resistance.

2014-2017

Integrating Pediatric Care Delivery in Rural Healthcare Systems NIH NICHD 5DP5OD019894 Mentor (PI: Duncan Maru) The major goal was to increase the timely engagement in acute care for children to receive evidence-based World Health Organization protocols aimed at reducing child mortality and to implement a Chronic Care Model for pediatric patients under the age of twenty suffering from a chronic disease.

2014-2019

Infectious Disease and Basic Microbiological Mechanisms NIH NIAID T32 2T32AI007061 Mentor (PI: Marcia Goldberg) The major goal is to train scientists who have a career goal of solving medically relevant problems and who elect rigorous laboratory or epidemiologic training in any of the Harvard adult infectious disease programs or other Harvard-based institutions participating in this program.

2015-2017

New Tools for the Interpretation of Pathogen Genomic Data with a Focus on Mycobacterium Tuberculosis NIH Fogarty K01 5K01ES026835 Principal Mentor to Maha Farhat The major goal of this K award was to develop a web-based public interface to several analysis tools, to develop and study an MTB gene-gene network, and to study the performance of methods in current use for the association of genotype and phenotype in pathogens, and develop a generalizable power calculator for the best performing method.

2016-2017

Genetic Determinants of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium Tuberculosis NIH URM Supplement U19AI109755-03S1 PI & Mentor to Ibrahim Diakite (Total direct costs $82,633) The major goal of this supplement was to develop and validate a prediction model that will define the optimal set of mutations to be assessed to improve the performance of rapid molecular diagnostics.

Report of Local Teaching and Training
Teaching of Students in Courses Boston University
53

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 54 of 94

1998-2001

SPH EB755: Infectious Disease Epidemiology 34 students of public health

Boston University School of Public Health 2.5-hr sessions per week for 15 weeks

Harvard School of Public Health

2001-2003

ID293: Inference in Infectious Disease Epidemiology 15 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2001-2004

EPI225: Infectious Disease Dynamics 5 medical students, 50 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2002

ID267: Infectious Disease Epidemiology Seminar 2 medical students, 8 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

2002-2003

ID229: Epidemiology of Infectious Disease Harvard School of Public Health

Developing Countries

2-hr session

50 students of public health

2002

EPI269: Epidemiological Research in Obstetrics and Gynecology 30 advanced students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 1-hr session

2003-2006

IMI202: Tuberculosis 10 medical students, 10 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr sessions

2003-2004

ID287: Bioterrorism: Public Health Preparedness and Response 30 students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 1-hr session

2004-2007 EPI285: Infectious Disease Dynamics 50 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 5-hr per week for 16 weeks

2008-2015 EPI501: Dynamics of Infectious Diseases 50 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 4-hr sessions per week for 8 weeks

2008-2010

GHP539: The Social, Political and Economic Dimensions of Infectious Diseases in Developing Countries 20 medical and graduate students of public health
54

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 55 of 94

2008

IMI 227: Genetics and Genomics of Infectious Diseases: Tuberculosis, Malaria 25 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2008-2015

ID269: Respiratory Epidemiology 18 medical and graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public 2-hr sessions

2009-2011

IMI202: Tuberculosis the Host, the Organism and the Global 9 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2015, 2017, Epi225

2019

Epidemiology of HIV

30 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

2016 -

Epi502: Biology and Epidemiology of Antibiotic Resistance 20 graduate students of public health

Harvard School of Public Health 2-hr session

Harvard University/FAS

2004

FAS Freshman Seminar 24p: How

Epidemics Happen

12 undergraduate students

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 3-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

2005-2006

FAS Freshman Seminar 25m: Epidemics as Harvard College

a Metaphor

2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

12 undergraduate students

2006-2007

FAS Freshman Seminar 25m: What Epidemics Mean: Infectious Disease in a Social Context 12 undergraduate students

Harvard College 2-hr sessions per week for 16 weeks

Formal Teaching of Residents, Clinical Fellows and Research Fellows (post-docs)

2003

The Transmission Dynamics of M. tuberculosis: Models and Molecular Epidemiology

Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health One-hour lecture

2004

Transmission of TB in the Community Invited Lecture
55

Infectious Disease Society of America Boston, MA One-hour lecture

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 56 of 94

2007

Genetic Heterogeneity in M. tuberculosis

Department of Genetics and Complex Diseases Harvard School of Public Health One-hour lecture

Clinical Supervisory and Training Responsibilities
1996-2007 Attending and supervision of clinical infectious disease fellows/Massachusetts General Hospital

Daily supervision for 6 weeks per year

Laboratory and Other Research Supervisory and Training Responsibilities
2002-2004 Supervision of Julia E. Aledort, doctoral Weekly mentorship for 18 months research fellow/Harvard School of Public Health

2002-2006 Supervision of Stephen Resch, doctoral Weekly mentorship for 18 months research fellow/Harvard School of Public Health

2004-2006 Supervision of Johanna Daily, Master's student /Harvard School of Public Health

Monthly mentorship for 24 months

2007-2008 Supervision of Preetika Muthukrishnan, Weekly mentorship for 24 months Master’s student/Harvard School of Public Health

2009

Supervision of Daniel Pletzer, Undergraduate intern/Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Hagenberg, Austria

Daily laboratory mentorship for 3 months

2010

Supervision of Matsie Mphahlele, doctoral candidate at Stellenbosch University, Visiting Fogarty scholar

Weekly mentorship for 3 months

2010

Supervision of Laurence Laser, visiting Master’s student from Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Weekly mentorship for 9 months

56

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 57 of 94

2018

Supervision of Junkun Ren, Master’s student in epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Mentorship for 3 months

Formally Supervised Trainees and Faculty 1999-2004 Caroline Korves, ScD / Epidemiologist, Analysis Group, Inc.
I was Dr. Korves’s doctoral supervisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Published two research papers together, one in PLoS Medicine and Clinical Infectious Disease.

2001-2006

Theodore Cohen, MD, MPH, DPH / Professor, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Yale University I was Dr. Cohen's DPH advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health and his primary mentor on his NIH K08 grant. Published 36 research papers together, including one in Science, one in Nature Medicine, and one in PNAS.

2003-2005

Anson Wright, MSc / WASH Advisor, Millennium Villages Project I supervised Ms. Wright’s master’s thesis on preparedness for a Yersinia pestis bioterrorism attack.

2004-2006

Kristina Wallengren, PhD, MPH / Executive Director and Founder, THINK (Tuberculosis and HIV Investigative Network) I was Dr. Wallengren's post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published three papers together.

2004-2010

Molly Franke, ScD / Assistant Professor, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Franke's doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health and continue to mentor her in her role at HMS. We have published 18 research papers together.

2005-2010

Erin Johnson, PhD / Associate Professor, Department of Biology, John Carroll University I was Dr. Johnson’s post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published two papers together in FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology and Infection and Immunity.

2005-2009

Hsien-Ho Lin, MD, MPH, ScD / Associate Professor in Epidemiology, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Public Health I was Dr. Lin's advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published nine research papers together, including in PLoS Medicine, the Lancet, and American Journal Respiratory Critical Care Medicine.

57

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 58 of 94

2005-2011

Meghan Baker, MD / Instructor, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute I was Dr. Baker's advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. We have published five papers together.

2006-2009

Andreas Sandgren, MSc, PhD / Deputy Head, ReAct Europe I was Dr. Sandgren’s post-doctoral research advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published three research papers together, including one in PLoS Medicine.

2006-2010

Christie Jeon, MSc, ScD / Assistant Professor, Cedars-Sinai Division of Hematology/Oncology and Department of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health I was Dr. Jeon’s doctoral advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. We published ten research papers together including one in PLoS Medicine.

2006-2011

Kathleen Wirth, ScD / Research Scientist, Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health I was Dr. Wirth’s doctoral advisor at the Harvard School of Public Health. We published two papers together, including one in Epidemiology.

2006-2008

Caroline Colijn, PhD / Professor, Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University I was Dr. Colijn’s post-doctoral advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. Published twelve research papers together, including one in American Journal Respiratory Critical Care Medicine and one in PLoS Computational Biology.

2007-2009 Gape Machao, MSc / Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, UNICEF Botswana I supervised Mr. Machao’s master’s thesis on rapid diagnostic testing for TB in Botswana.

2008-2010

Ellen Brooks-Pollock, MSc, PhD / Lecturer, Veterinary Public Health, Bristol Veterinary School I was Dr. Pollock’s post-doctoral research advisor at Harvard School of Public Health. We published two papers together.

2008-2013

Karen Jacobson, MD / Assistant Professor of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston University School of Medicine I was Dr. Jacobson’s research mentor for her infectious disease post-doctoral research fellowship. We published nine papers together.

2008-2010

Tsering Pema Lama, MSc. Postdoctoral Fellow / Consultant, The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health I supervised Ms. Lama’s master’s thesis.

2009-2015 Matthew Bonds, PhD / Assistant Professor, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School

58

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 59 of 94

I was Dr. Bonds’ mentor on his K award on poverty traps and currently mentor him in his role in my department. We have published five papers and two book chapters together.

2009-2012

Razvan Sultana, MD, PhD / Computational Biologist, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine
I co-supervised Dr. Sultana’s doctoral thesis in Bio-informatics at Boston University on genomic analysis of drug resistant TB. We have published three papers together.

2010-2016

Hanna Guimaraes, MA, PhD / Postdoctoral Researcher, RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment I was Ms. Guimaraes’ doctoral adviser while she conducted research for her degree from Portugal. We published four papers together.

2010-2016

Maha Farhat, MD, MSc / Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Farhat’s postdoctoral mentor and supervised her analysis of whole genome sequence data on M. tuberculosis for the identification of novel mutations associated with drug resistance. We have published 12 papers together.

2010

Joanne Salmon, MD, MPH / Clinical Instructor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia I supervised Dr. Salmon’s master’s thesis on community health workers and impact on TB treatment outcomes: a multi-country proposal.

2010-2014 Chuan-Chin Huang, MS, ScD / Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School I was Dr. Huang’s doctoral adviser. We have published eight papers together.

2010-2014

Olivia Oxlade, PhD / Epidemiologist and Modeler, McGill International TB Centre I was Dr. Oxlade’s postdoctoral research supervisor in her work on modeling the determinants of TB. We published three papers together.

2010-2016

MaryCatherine Arbour, MD / Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I mentored this junior faculty member at the Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in her work on education and health outcomes in a cluster randomized trial of school-based interventions in Santiago, Chile. We published two papers together.

2011

Devra Barter, MS / Emerging Infections Epidemiologist, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
I co-supervised Ms. Barter’s master’s thesis on out-of-pocket expenses during TB treatment which is published in BMC Public Health.

2011-2013 Silvan Vesenbeckh, MD / Senior Registrar, Infectious Diseases, Groote Schuur Hospital 59

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 60 of 94

I supervised Dr. Vesenbeckh’s postdoctoral work on cholera transmission in the DRC and Haiti. We published three papers together.

2011-2015

Philips Loh, MS / Doctoral candidate, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health I supervised Mr. Loh’s master’s thesis and served as his doctoral adviser.

2012-2013

Alexis Krumme, MS, ScD / Research Specialist, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital I supervised Ms. Krumme’s master’s thesis. We published one paper together.

2012-2015 Xeno Acharya, MPH / Senior Consultant, Healthcare AI, PA Consulting I was Mr. Acharya’s doctoral adviser. We have published one paper.

2013-2014

Anna Odone, MD, MPH, PhD / Associate Professor of Public Health, Università VitaSalute San Raffaele
I was Ms. Odone’s postdoctoral research supervisor for her work on socioeconomic risk factors for acquired and primary MDR-TB in Lima, Peru. We published one paper together.

2013-2014

Sachin Atre, PhD / Study Coordinator, Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Global Health Education I supervised Dr. Atre’s work on MDR-TB management and policy in India, and the effective use of information technology in TB control. We published one paper together.

2013-2015 Emilia Ling, MS / Medical Student, Stanford University I supervised Ms. Ling’s master’s thesis at HSPH. We published one paper together.

2013-2016

Assumpta Mukabutera, PhD / Instructor, University of Rwanda School of Public Health I supervised Dr. Mukabutera’s doctoral thesis on rainfall and child health outcomes. We published three papers together.

2014-2016 Rebecca Butler, MS / Biostatistician, Kaiser Permanente I supervised Ms. Butler’s master’s thesis.

2014-2016

Gustavo Velasquez, MD, MPH / Research Associate, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School I supervised Dr. Velasquez’s postdoctoral work examining the relationship between phenotypic pyrazinamide resistance and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment outcomes. We published four papers together.

2014-2017

Ibrahim Diakite, PhD / Associate Scientist in Modeling & Meta-Analysis, Pharmerit International
60

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 61 of 94

I supervised Dr. Diakite’s postdoctoral project that aimed to advance the quantitative study of communicable diseases especially the Mycobacterium Tuberculosis by using a combination of different mathematical techniques such as differential equations, stochastic process, branching process, and mathematical game theory. We published two papers together.

2014-2018

Omowunmi Aibana, MD, MPH / Assistant Professor, General Internal Medicine, University of Texas McGovern Medical School I supervised Dr. Aibana’s work on Tuberculosis in Ukraine through a T32 mechanism based at Brown Medical School. We published five papers together.

2014-2019

Eric Mooring, MPhil, ScD / Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention I was Dr. Mooring’s doctoral adviser. We have published three papers together.

2014-2020

Ruoran Li, MPhil / Doctoral Student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. I was Dr. Li’s doctoral adviser. We have published one paper together.

2016-2018

Silvia Chiang, MD / Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Brown Alpert Medical School I supervised Dr. Chiang in her postdoctoral study of adolescent tuberculosis. We have published two papers together and have one under review.

2017-2018

Katrin Sadigh, MD / Fogarty Global Health Fellow, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I supervised Dr. Sadigh in her clinical research as part of the Department of Infectious Disease, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Massachusetts General Hospital combined program.

2017-2019

Taylor Chin, BA / Master’s student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I supervised Ms. Chin’s master’s thesis.

2017-2019

Tori Cowger, MPH / Doctoral Student, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health I was Ms. Cowger’s doctoral adviser.

2017-

Alexander Chu, MPH / Post-baccalaureate premedical candidate, Harvard Extension School.

2017-

Annelies Mesman, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I supervised Annelies Mesman in her postdoctoral study of tuberculosis. We have published two papers together.
61

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 62 of 94

2019

Gerson Galdos Cardenas, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

2019-

Kamela Ng, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

2019-

Qi Tan, MD, PhD / Postdoctoral Research fellow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

Presentations
Invited Presentations and Courses Local, Regional, National, and International Invited Presentations and Courses

Local Invited Presentations

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001

Styblo's Rule revisited

Freeman Symposium Research Seminar

Department of Epidemiology

Harvard School of Public Health

2002-2003

Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Invited Lecture Hot Topics Series Harvard School of Public Health

2003

The transmission dynamics of M. Tuberculosis: Models and Molecular Epidemiology Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health

2003

Inferring the evolution of M. Tuberculosis from comparative genomics Research Seminar Infectious Disease Unit Harvard Medical School

2003

The epidemiology of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Invited lecture Kennedy School of Government Harvard University

2003

Transmission dynamics, epidemiology and SARS Research Seminar
62

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 63 of 94

2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007

Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Modeling the molecular epidemiology of TB Freeman Symposium Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Molecular epidemiology and the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
The epidemiology of SARS Hot Topic Series Harvard School of Public Health
Epidemiology of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis Grand Rounds Massachusetts General Hospital
Iron metabolism and M. Tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
Natural variation in M. Tuberculosis Research Seminar The Broad Institute
Avian influenza Department of Environmental Health Harvard School of Public Health
Three epidemics and how they happened Department of Epidemiology Seminar Harvard School of Public Health
Transmission dynamics of drug sensitive and resistant tuberculosis infectious disease Research Seminar Partners Infectious Disease Boston, MA
Genetic heterogeneity in M. Tuberculosis Department of Genetics and Complex Diseases Harvard School of Public Health
Epidemiology of HIV and tuberculosis 63

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 64 of 94

2008 2008 2008
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011

Department of Epidemiology Seminar Harvard School of Public Health
A multi-disciplinary approach to MDR and XDR tuberculosis Department of Epidemiology Seminar Series Harvard School of Public Health
Making multidisciplinary research work: the example of MDR tuberculosis Seminar Series Department of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Conducting research in international settings Best Practices in International Scientific Collaboration (Panel discussion) 2nd annual New England Tuberculosis Retreat Harvard Initiative for Global Health Harvard Medical School
Genomic epidemiology of MDR and XDR tuberculosis The Broad Institute
A multi-disciplinary approach to XDR tuberculosis Grand Rounds Department of Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Social justice and the effort to address MDR TB Symposium on an Idea of Justice Harvard University and the China Research Council
The evolution of drug resistant tuberculosis Grand Rounds Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital
Overview of Murray research team Freeman Symposium Research Seminar Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health
Deans’ Research Update Harvard School of Public Health
Innovation in global health Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine Bicentennial Reunion
64

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 65 of 94

2013 2014 2015 2015 2015 2017 2017 2017 2018 2020

Department of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital
TB in the 21st century: the convergence of the infectious and metabolic diseases Seventh Annual New England Tuberculosis Symposium The Broad Institute
Ebola and the research equity agenda Global Health Advisory Council Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
Ebola Update Global Health Advisory Council Harvard Medical School Boston, MA
HIV and TB co-infection Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Boston, MA
Burke Global Health Fellowship Symposium Harvard Global Health Institute Cambridge, MA
Host and bacterial determinants of TB infection and disease: a longitudinal cohort study Spring Seminar Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Host and bacterial determinants of TB infection and disease: insights from a large cohort study IDMP Seminar Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
Tuberculosis and the vitamin A connection Talks at 12 Harvard Medical School
How to write an NIH grant Training to Teachers Mongolia Harvard Medical School
SARS-CoV-2: Assessing the risks Environmental Health Risk: Analysis and Applications (RISK0320) Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
65

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 66 of 94

2020 2020 2020 2020

The epidemiology of COVID-19: Evaluation of Treatment and Response GHSM Seminar - Social Medicine: Response to COVID-19 Harvard Medical School
The Epidemiology of COVID-19 MassCPR webinar
BCG and innate immune responses Pathogenesis Working group MassCPR webinar
The transmission dynamics of COVID-19 BCMP Seminar Harvard Medical School

Regional

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001

Genetics and phenotypic variability within M. Tuberculosis

Invited lecture

Boston University

2001

Problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Research Seminar Massachusetts State Laboratory Institute (MSLI), Boston, MA

2006

Three epidemics Kay Stratton Lecture Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

2015

Converging epidemics: tuberculosis and diabetes Oxford Immunotec Marlborough, MA

National

No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2004

Transmission of TB in the community

Infectious Disease Society of America, Boston, MA

2006

Modeling MDR tuberculosis National Partners Meeting on MDR Tuberculosis, Atlanta, GA

2006

Transmission dynamics of Drug Resistant tuberculosis Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, CA
66

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 67 of 94

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Host iron metabolism genes Workshop on Biofilms, Iron and Drug Refractory TB Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
The impact of strains diversity and mechanisms of strains competition on the Potential Performance of New TB Vaccines Microbial Diseases Lecture Series Yale School of Public Health, Hartford, CT
The role of mathematical modeling in evaluating interventions to control epidemics: the example of tuberculosis Howard Hughes Medical Institute California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
An interdisciplinary approach to extensively drug resistant tuberculosis Howard Hughes Medical Institute California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Number of MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients receiving treatment today: Successes/Failures/Consequences Forum on Drug Discovery, Development and Translation Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington, DC
The evolution of XDR-TB in M. tuberculosis Seminar Series Biology Department Williams College, Williamstown, MA
The evolution of XDR-TB in M. tuberculosis: a multidisciplinary approach Grand Rounds Presentation Division of Infectious Diseases Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
Mathematical modeling Infectious Diseases Clinical Cases Conference Division of Infectious Diseases Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
The evolution of XDR-TB: a multidisciplinary approach 2009 National TB Conference-TB Elimination-“It Takes a Village” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
The Gates Project overview Mycobacteriology Laboratory Branch (MLB) Division of Tuberculosis Elimination Seminar Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
67

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 68 of 94

2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2015

Social, economic and biological determinants of tuberculosis Taskforce for Disease Eradication Carter Center Atlanta, Georgia
Estimating the impact of social and biological determinants on TB and modeling their modification Texas School of Public Health Brownsville, Texas
The evolution of XDR tuberculosis Mary Hitchcock Hospital Hanover, New Hampshire
Molecular methods to detect drug resistance in M. tuberculosis Workshop on TB and HIV Diagnostics in Adult and Pediatric Populations National Institutes of Health Washington, DC
Understanding the transmission dynamics of drug resistant tuberculosis: a multidisciplinary approach Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students St. Louis, Missouri
Evolution of drug resistance World TB Day Symposium Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
High throughput sequencing of drug resistance targets for Mycobacterium tuberculosis National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Sponsored meeting Washington, DC
Genetic determinants of drug resistance in Mtb World TB Day Symposium Weill Cornell Medical College New York City, New York
Tuberculosis and diabetes The Comstock Lecture Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
68

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 69 of 94

2016 2017 2017 2018 2019 2019

Baltimore, Maryland
Tuberculosis and diabetes 20th Annual Conference of Union-North America Region/National TB Controllers Association Joint Meeting Denver, Colorado
Risk factors for TB disease progression: evidence from a cohort study in Peru 9th Annual CEND (Center for Emerging and Neglected Diseases) Symposium: Deconstructing TB: Insights from Fundamental Research University of California, Berkeley, California
Public health and the environment: interdisciplinary research and emerging infectious disease Ecology & Evolution of Infectious Diseases UC Santa Barbara, California
Women in science 2018 Women in Science Symposium Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado
Who gets TB infection and disease in Lima, Peru Epidemiology Grand Rounds Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health New York, New York
Who gets TB infection and disease in Lima, Peru UPGG Tuesday Seminar Series Duke University Durham, North Carolina

International No presentations below were sponsored by outside entities

2001 2002

Determinants of cluster distribution in M. tuberculosis Research Seminar University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
Pathogenesis of tuberculosis Invited Lecture Peruvian Thoracic Society, Lima, Peru
69

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 70 of 94

2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008

Problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis Research Seminar Karolinski Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
The fitness of MDR-TB: what do we know Invited Lecture World Health Organization, Tallin, Estonia
Molecular epidemiology of TB in Sverdlosk, Russia Invited Lecture International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUTLD) Meeting Moscow, Russia
The fitness of MDR-TB strains Invited Lecture Desmond Tutu Center for Tuberculosis Research University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa
The current and future status of Multi-Drug Resistant TB Invited Lecture Novartis Symposium on TB Drug Development, Bagamoyo, Tanzania
XDR-TB surveillance Task Force on XDR-TB World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Mathematical models of population effects of potential TB vaccines Keystone Symposium of Challenges of Global Vaccine Development Cape Town, South Africa
Modeling vaccine effects Modeling Symposium at the 38th Union World Conference on Lung Health Cape Town, South Africa
Genomic epidemiology of infectious diseases: a new science US-Japan Meeting Hainan, China
The molecular evolution of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis Keystone Symposium of Pathogenesis and Control of Emerging Infections and Drug-Resistant Organisms Bangkok, Thailand
TB Drug Resistance Mutation Database 39th Union World Conference 2008
70

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 71 of 94

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010

International Union of TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
The evolution of multi-drug resistance in M. tuberculosis Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Workshop on the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance Imperial College, London, England
The evolution of multi-drug resistance in M. tuberculosis School of Biosciences Seminar Series University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England
Diagnosis of drug resistant TB Fondation Mérieux International Scientific Conference on Latest Approaches to HIV Infection Management: A Focus on HIV, TB and HIV/Hepatitis Co-Infection New Delhi, India
Tuberculosis and diabetes: interactions between two epidemics TB/DM Expert Meeting International Union of TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
Differences between epidemiology of TB in rich and poor countries Union World Conference of Lung Health Cancun, Mexico
Modeling the potential impact of changing risk factors and social determinants Union World Conference of Lung Health Cancun, Mexico
The evolution of drug resistance in TB Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland
Identification of drug resistance mutations in M. tuberculosis Fondation Mérieux Annecy, France
Guidelines for management of tuberculosis and diabetes World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland
Data for developing diagnostics for MDR TB Christian Medical College Vellore, India
71

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 72 of 94

2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013
2013

Beyond labs and pills for improved tuberculosis control: what role for TB programmes? 41st Union World Conference on Lung Health Berlin, Germany
Iron transport polymorphisms and TB susceptibility Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland
Evaluating health interventions using DHS oversamples Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Population Health Implementation Training Partnership Grantee Meeting Ifakara, Tanzania
Overview: Transmission dynamics and epidemiology of drug resistant TB Lima, Peru
The transmission dynamics of drug resistant TB Harvard China Fund Shanghai, China
Understanding the epidemic dynamics of drug resistant TB Keystone Symposia Conference – Drug Resistance and Persistence in Tuberculosis Kampala, Uganda
The social, environmental and biologic determinants of tuberculosis TB Day in Braga: From the hospital to the bench and back. Braga, Portugal
Studying the link between nutrition and TB Risk: problems and strategies International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
TB and diabetes: what we know, what we don’t know International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Genetic diversity of DR TB: implication for future diagnostics Institute of Medicine and Chinese Academy of Sciences Workshop The Global Crisis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis and the Leadership of the BRICS Countries: Challenges and Opportunities Beijing, China
Evolution of drug-resistance in TB genomes 72

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 73 of 94

2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017

International Conference of the Union for TB and Lung Disease Paris, France
The genetics and pathogenesis of MDR and XDR TB drug resistance Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) Boston, MA
Genetic basis for transmission of MDR-TB 9th International Conference on the Pathogenesis of Mycobacterial Infections Stockholm, Sweden
Issues in the management and prevention of drug resistant and sensitive TB Invited Lecture Bogomolets National Medical University Kiev, Ukraine
TB and diabetes mellitus outcomes 19th Annual Conference of the Union-North America Region Vancouver, BC, Canada
The transmissibility of drug resistant TB RePort Consortium Meeting Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
The TB drug resistance database 46th Union World Conference on Lung Health Cape Town, South Africa
Diabetes and environmental co-morbidities with TB Keystone Symposia Conference - Tuberculosis Co-Morbidities and Immunopathogenesis Keystone, Colorado
Enabling next generation whole genome sequencing readouts directly from sputum samples and in the clinic: hype or hope? 47th Union World Conference on Lung Health Liverpool, United Kingdom
Infectiousness and transmission of tuberculosis American Thoracic Society 2017 International Meeting Washington, DC
Recent insights in the meaning of latency in tuberculosis 30th Annual Doctor Dorothy Wiselberg Seminar
73

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 74 of 94

2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019
2020 2020

McGill University Montreal, QC, Canada
Next generation whole genome sequencing for tuberculosis: ready for clinical practice? 48th Union World Conference on Lung Health Guadalajara, Mexico
Estimating the adolescent tuberculosis burden in the 30 high-TB burden countries 48th Union World Conference on Lung Health Guadalajara, Mexico
Insights into TB from a longitudinal cohort study in Lima, Peru National TB program Lima, Peru
Insights into TB from a longitudinal cohort study in Lima, Peru Otago University Dunedin, New Zealand
Grant Writing Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Bacterial determinants of TB progression 50th Union World Conference on Lung Health Hyderabad, India
Genetic variations of mycobacterium tuberculosis that are associated with tuberculosis transmission 50th Union World Conference on Lung Health Hyderabad, India
The COVID-19 Research Agenda Partners in Health
SARS-CoV-2 Partners in Health

Report of Clinical Activities and Innovations

Current Licensure and Certification

1996

Licensed in Medicine in Massachusetts

74

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 75 of 94

1996 1997

Board Certified in Internal Medicine Board Certified in Infectious Disease

Practice Activities

1998 – 2007

Infectious Disease Attending Physician Consult Services,

3-5 new consults, 2030 follow-ups per day

MGH, Boston, MA 3-6 weeks per year

The unit provides consults on infectious disease issues to all medical, surgical and other specialty

wards. I saw patients referred to the specialty unit in conjunction with a team that includes an

infectious disease fellow and rotating medical students and residents. In addition to this bedside

clinical teaching, I also participated in weekly clinical conferences and seminars that are

designed to maximize teaching.

Report of Scholarship
Peer reviewed publications in print or other media
Research investigations
1. Murray MJ, Murray NJ, Murray AB, Murray MB. Refeeding-malaria and hyperferraemia. Lancet 1975;1:653-4.
2. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Somali food shelters in the Ogaden famine and their impact on health. Lancet 1976 Jun 12;1:1283-5.
3. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Parotid enlargement, forehead edema, and suppression of malaria as nutritional consequences of ascariasis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977 Dec;30(12):2117-21.
4. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Diet and cerebral malaria: the effect of famine and refeeding. Am J Clin Nutr. 1978 Jan;31(1):57-61.
5. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Serum cholesterol, triglycerides and heart disease of nomadic and sedentary tribesmen consuming isoenergetic diets of high and low fat content. Br J Nutr. 1978 Jan;39(1):159-63.
6. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. The effect of iron status of Nigerien mothers on that of their infants at birth and 6 months, and on the concentration of Fe in breast milk. Br J Nutr. 1978 May;39(3):627-30.
7. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. The adverse effect of iron repletion on the course of certain infections. Br Med J 1978 Oct 21;2:1113-5.
8. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Molluscum contagiosum and herpes simplex in Maasai pastoralists; refeeding activation of virus infection following famine? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1980;74(3):371-4.
75

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 76 of 94
9. Murray JM, Murray AB, Murray MB, Murray CJ. Rarity of planar warts in Cushite nomads: antiviral effect of milk? Lancet. 1980 Jul 19;2(8186):143-4.
10. Murray MJ, Murray AB, Murray NJ, Murray MB. Infections during severe primary undernutrition and subsequent refeeding: paradoxical findings. Aust N Z J Med. 1995 Oct;25(5):507-11.
11. Murray M, Rasmussen Z. Measles Outbreak in a Northern Pakistani village: epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness. Am J Epidemiology 2000;1:811-9.
12. Piatek A, Telenti A, Murray M, El-Hajj H, Jacobs WR Jr, Kramer FR, Alland D. Genotypic analysis of M. tuberculosis in two distinct populations using molecular beacons: implications for rapid susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;1:103-10.
13. Murray MB, Determinants of cluster distribution in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb; 99:1538-43.
14. Murray MB, Alland D. Methodological problems in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Am. J. Epidemiology 2002;155: 565-71.
15. Murray MB. Sampling bias in the molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2002 Apr; 4:363-9.
16. Hughes A, Friedman R, Murray M. Genomewide pattern of synonymous nucleotide substitution in two complete genomes of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2002 Nov;8:1342-6.
17. Murray MB. Molecular epidemiology and the dynamics of tuberculosis transmission among foreign-born people. CMAJ 2002;167:355-6.
18. Lipsitch M, Murray MB. Multiple equilibria: Tuberculosis transmission require unrealistic assumptions. Theor Popul Biol 2003 Mar; 63:169-7.
19. Alland D, Whittam T, Murray M, Cave DM, Hazbon M, Dix K, Kokoris M, Duesterhoeft A, Eisen JA, Fraser CM, Fleischmann RD. Modeling bacterial evolution with comparativegenome based marker systems. Application to M. tuberculosis evolution and pathogenesis. J Bacteriol 2003;185:3392-9.
20. Lipsitch M, Cohen T, Cooper B, Robins JM, Ma S, James L, Gopalakrishna G, Chew SK, Tan CC, Fisman D, Samore M, Murray M. Transmission dynamics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science 2003; 300:1966-70.
21. Kudva IT, Griffin RW, Murray M, John M, Perna NT, Barrett TJ, and Calderwood SB. Insertions, deletions and single nucleotide polymorphisms at rare restriction enzyme sites enhance discriminatory power of polymorphic amplified typing sequences, a novel strain typing system for escherichia coli O157:H7. J Clin Microbiol 2004 Jun;42:2388-97.
22. Cohen T**, Becerra MC, Murray MB. Isoniazid resistance and the future of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Microb Drug Resist 2004;10:280-5.
23. Cohen T**, Murray M. Modeling epidemics of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis of heterogeneous fitness. Nat Med 2004 Oct;10:1117-21.
24. Becerra MC, Pachao-Torreblanca IF, Bayona J, Celi R, Shin S, Kim JY, Farmer P, Murray M. Expanding tuberculosis case detection by screening household contacts. Public Health Rep 2005;120:271-7.
25. Cohen T**, Murray M. Incident tuberculosis among recent US immigrants and exogenous reinfection. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:725-8.
76

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 77 of 94
26. Korves C**, Goldie S, Murray M. Cost-effectiveness of alternative blood screening strategies for West Nile Virus in the United States. PLoS Med 2006; 3:0211-21.
27. Louw GE, Warren RM, Donald PR, Murray MB, Bosman M, Van Helden PD, Young D, Victor TC. Frequency and implications of pyrazinamide resistance in managing previously treated tuberculosis patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006 Jul;10:802-7.
28. Cohen T**, Lipsitch M, Walensky R, Murray M. Beneficial and perverse effects of isoniazid preventive therapy for latent tuberculosis infection in HIV-TB co-infected populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006 May 2;103:7042-7.
29. Resch S, Salomon J, Murray M, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness of treating multidrugresistant tuberculosis. PLoS Med 2006 Jul;3:1302-9.
30. Mathew TA, Shin SS, Ovsynakova TN, Gelmanova I, Balbuena D, Atwood S, Peremetin GG, Strelis AK, Murray M. Causes of death during TB treatment in Tomsk Oblast, Russia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006; 10:857-63.
31. Korves C**, Goldie S, Murray M. Blood screening for the West Nile virus: the costeffectiveness of a real-time trigger-based strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2006 Aug 15;43:490-3.
32. Hazbón MH, Brimacombe M, Bobadilla del Valle M, Cavatore M, Guerrer MI, Varma-Basil M, Billman-Jacobe H, Lavender B, Fyfe J, García-García L, León C, Bose M, Chaves G, Murray M, Eisenach KD, Sifuentes-Osornio J, Cave MD, Ponce de León A, Alland D. Population genetics study of isoniazid resistance mutations and evolution of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:2640-9.
33. Johnson R, Warren R, Strauss OJ, Jordaan AM, Falmer AA, Beyers N, Schaaf HS, Cloete K, Murray M, van Helden PD, Victor TC. An outbreak of drug resistant tuberculosis caused by a Beijing strain in the Western Cape, South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:1412-4.
34. Lipsitch M, Cohen T, Murray M, Levin BR. Antiviral resistance and the control of pandemic influenza. PLoS Med 2007 Jan;4:0111-21.
35. Lin HH**, Ezzati M, Murray M. Tobacco smoke, indoor air pollution and tuberculosis – A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2007: 0173-89.
36. Gelmanova I, Keshavjee S, Golubchikova VT, Berezina VI, Sterlis AK, Yanova GV, Atwood S, Murray M. Barriers to successful tuberculosis treatment in Tomsk, Russia: Non-adherence, default and the acquisition of multi-drug resistance. Bull WHO 2007;85:703-11.
37. Victor TC, Streicher EM, Kewley C, Jordaan AM, van der Spuy GD, Bosman M, Louw H, Murray M, Young D, van Helden PD, Warren RM. Spread of an emerging Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug-resistant strain in the Western Cape of South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2007;11:195-201.
38. Colijn C**, Cohen T, Murray M. Emergent heterogeneity in tuberculosis epidemics. J Theor Biol 2007 Aug 21;247:765-74.
39. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Wright A, Zignol M, Pym A, Murray M. Challenges in estimating the total burden of drug resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008 Jun 15; 177:1302-6.
40. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Finklea B, Murray M. Exogenous re-infection and the dynamics of tuberculosis epidemics: local effects in a network model of transmission. J R Soc Interface 2007 Jun 22;4:523-31.
77

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 78 of 94
41. Franke MF**, Appleton SC, Bayona J, Arteaga F, Palacios E, Llaro K, Shin SS, Becerra MC, Murray MB, Mitnick CD. Risk factors and mortality associated with default from multidrugresistant tuberculosis treatment. Clin Infect Dis 2008 June 15;46:1844-51.
42. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Finklea B, Wright A, Zignol M, Pym A, Murray M. Are survey based estimates of the burden of drug resistant TB too low?: Insight from a simulation study. PLoS One 2008;3:e2363.
43. Jeon CY**, Murray M. Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of active tuberculosis: A systematic review of 13 observational studies. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e152.
44. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Murray M. Modeling the effects of strain diversity and mechanisms of strain competition on the potential performance of new tuberculosis vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 21;105(42):16302-7.
45. Lin HH**, Murray M, Cohen T, Colijn C, Ezzati M. Integrated analysis of respiratory diseases and risk factors in China: The effects of smoking and solid fuel use on COPD, lung cancer, and tuberculosis. Lancet 2008; 372:1473-83.
46. Cohen T**, Colijn C, Murray M. Latent coinfection and maintenance of strain diversity. Bull Math Biol 2009;71:247-63.
47. Sandgren A**, Strong M, Muthukrishnan P, Weiner BK, Church GM, MB Murray. Tuberculosis drug resistance mutation database. PLoS Med 2009;6:e2.
48. Uys PW, Warren R, van Helden PD, Murray M, Victor TC. Potential of rapid diagnosis for controlling drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis in communities where Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections are highly prevalent. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:148490.
49. Lin HH**, Ezzati M, Chang HY, Murray M. Association between tobacco smoking and active tuberculosis in Taiwan: prospective cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009 Sep 1;180(5):475-80.
50. Colijn C**, Brandes A, Zucker J, Lun DS, Weiner B, Farhat MR, Cheng TY, Moody DB, Murray M, Galagan JE. Interpreting expression data with metabolic flux models: predicting Mycobacterium tuberculosis mycolic acid production. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(8):e1000489.
51. Brooks-Pollock E**, Cohen T, Murray M. The impact of realistic age structure in simple models of tuberculosis transmission. PLoS One. 2010 Jan 7;5(1):e8479.
52. Johnson EE**, Srikanth C, Sandgren A, Harrington L, Trebicka E, Wang L, Borregaard N, Murray M, Cherayil B. Siderocalin inhibits the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophages. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2010 Feb;58(1):138-45.
53. Harries AD, Murray MB, Jeon CY, Ottmani S, Lonnroth K, Barreto, ML, Billo N, Brostron R, Bygbjerg IC, Fisher-Hock S, Mori T, Ramaiya K, Roglic G, Stransgaard H, Unwin N, Viswanathan V, Whiting D, Kapur A. Defining the research agenda to reduce the joint burden of disease from Diabetes Mellitus and Tuberculosis. Trop Med Int Health. 2010;15(6):659-63.
54. Calver AD, Falmer AA, Murray M, Strauss OJ, Streicher EM, Hanekom M, Liversage M, Masibi M, van Helden PD, Warren RM, Victor TC. Emergence of increased resistance and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis despite treatment adherence, South Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 Feb;16(2):264-71.
78

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 79 of 94
55. Cohen T**, Murray M, Wallengren K, Samuel L, Wilson D. The prevalence of drug sensitive and drug resistant tuberculosis among patients dying in hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a postmortem study. PLoS Med. 2010;7(6):e1000296.
56. Jacobson KR**, Tierney DB, Jeon CY, Mitnick CD, Murray M. Treatment outcomes among patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Jul 1;51(1):6-14.
57. Becerra MC, Appleton SC, Franke MF, Chalco K, Bayona J, Murray M, Mitnick CD. Recurrence after treatment for pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Sep 15;51(6):709-11.
58. Wirth KE**, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Murray M. Adjustment for missing data in complex surveys using doubly robust estimation: Application to commercial sexual contact among Indian men. Epidemiology. 2010 Nov;21(6):863-71.
59. Jeon CY**, Harries AD, Baker MA, Hart JA, Gooneskera S, Murray MB. Bi-directional screening for tuberculosis and diabetes: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Nov;15(11):1300-14.
60. Ottmani S, Murray MB, Jeon CY**, Baker MA**, Kapur A, Lonnroth K, Harries AD. Consultation: Meeting on Tuberculosis and Diabetes Mellitus: Meeting summary and recommendations. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010 Dec;14(12):1513-7.
61. Johnson EE**, Sandgren A, Cherayil BJ, Murray M, Wessling-Resnick M. The role of ferroportin in macrophage-mediated immunity. Infect Immun. 2010 Dec;78(12):5099-106.
62. Jeon CY**, Calver AD, Victor TC, Warren RM, Shin SS, Murray MB. Use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics leads to tuberculosis treatment delay in a South African gold mining community. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Jan;15(1):77-83.
63. Cohen T**, Wilson D, Wallengren K, Samuel EY, Murray M. Mixed strain M. tuberculosis infections among patients dying in hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(1):385-8.
64. Becerra MC, Appleton SC, Franke MF, Chalco F, Arteaga F, Bayona J, Murray M, Atwood SS, Mitnick CD. Tuberculosis burden in households of patients with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. Lancet. 2011 Jan 8;377(9760):14752.
65. Colijn C**, Cohen T, Ganesh A, Murray M. Spontaneous emergence of multiple drug resistance in TB before and during therapy. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 30;6(3):e18327.
66. Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Jeon CY, Cohen T, Murray MB. Diabetes mellitus and tuberculosis in countries with high tuberculosis burdens: individual risks and social determinants. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;40(2):417-28.
67. Franke MF**, Robins JM, Mugabo J, Kaigamba F, Cain LE, Fleming JG, Murray M. Effectiveness of early Antiretroviral Therapy initiation to improve survival among HIVinfected adults with tuberculosis: a retrospective study. PLoS Med. 2011 May;8(5):e1001029.
68. Murray M, Oxlade O, Lin HH. Modeling social, environmental, and biological determinants of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Jun;15 S 2:64-70.
79

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 80 of 94
69. Brooks-Pollock E**, Becerra M, Goldstein E, Cohen T, Murray M. Epidemiological inference from the distribution of tuberculosis cases in households in Lima, Peru. J Infect Dis. 2011 Jun 1;203(11):1582-9.
70. Cohen T**, Murray M, Abubakaar I, Zhang A, Sloutsky A, Arteaga F, Chalco K, Franke F, Becerra MC. Multiple introductions of multidrug resistant tuberculosis into households. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Jun;17(6):969-75.
71. Baker MA**, Harries A, Lonnroth K, Murray M. The impact of diabetes on tuberculosis treatment outcome: A systematic review. BMC Med. 2011 Jul 1;9(1):81.
72. Louw GE, Warren RM, Gey van Pittius NC, Leon R, Jimenez A, Pando RH, McEvoy CR, Grobbelaar M, Murray M, van Helden PD, Victor TC. Rifampicin Reduces Susceptibility to Ofloxacin in Rifampicin Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis through Efflux. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Jul 15;184(2):269-76.
73. Lin H**, Langley I, Mwenda R, Doulla B, Egwaga S, Millington KA, Mann GH, Murray M, Squire SB, Cohen T. A modelling framework to support the selection and implementation of new tuberculosis diagnostic tools. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Aug;15(8):996-1004.
74. Jacobson KR**, Theron D, Victor TC, Streicher EM, Warren R, Murray M. Treatment outcomes of Isoniazid-Resistant Tuberculosis patients, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;53(4):369-72.
75. Izu A, Mitnick C, Cohen T, Murray M, DeGruttola V. Bayesian methods of identifying and comparing branching tree structures: An application to development of resistant TB strains. Stat Med. 2011 Sep 30;30(22):2708-20.
76. Franke MF**, Murray MB, Muñoz M, Hernández-Díaz S, Sebastián JL, Atwood S, Caldas A, Bayona J, Shin S. Food insufficiency is a risk factor for suboptimal Antiretroviral Therapy adherence among HIV-Infected adults in urban Peru. AIDS Behav. 2011 Oct;15(7):1483-9.
77. Harries AD, Lin Y, Satyanarayana S, Lönnroth K, Li L, Wilson N, Chauhan LS, Zachariah R, Baker MA, Jeon CY**, Murray MB, Maher D, Bygbjerg IC, Enarson DA, Billo NE, Kapur A. The looming epidemic of diabetes-associated tuberculosis - learning lessons from HIVassociated tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Nov;15(11):1436-44.
78. Jeon CY**, Kang H, Kim M, Murray MB, Kim H, Cho EH, Park YK. Clustering of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains from foreign-born patients in Korea. J Med Microbiol. 2011 Dec;60(Pt 12):1835-40.
79. Layre E, Sweet L, Hong S, Madigan CA, Desjardins D, Young DC, Cheng TY, Annand JW, Kim K, Shamputa IC, McConnell MJ, Debono CA, Behar SM, Minnaard, AJ, Murray M, Barry CE 3rd, Matsunaga I, Moody BD. A comparative lipidomics platform for chemotaxonomic analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Chem Biol. 2011 Dec 23;18(12):1537-49.
80. Weiner B, Gomez J, Victor TC, Warren RB, Sloustky A, Plikyatis BB, Posey J, van Helden P, van Pittius, NG, Koerhsen M, Sisk P, Stolte C, While J, Gagneux S, Birren B, Hung D, Murray M, Galagan J. Independent Large Scale Duplications in Multiple M. tuberculosis Lineages Overlapping the Same Genomic Region. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e26038.
81. Rich M, Miller AC, Niyigena, P, Franke M, Niyonzima JB, Socci A, Drobac P, Hakizamungu, Mayfield A, Ruhayisah R, Epino H, Stulac S, Cancedda C, Karamaga A, Niyonzima S, Yarbrough C Fleming J, Amoroso C, Mukherjee J, Murray M, Farmer P, Binagwaho A. Excellent Clinical Outcomes and High Retention in Care Among Adults in a Community-
80

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 81 of 94
based HIV Treatment Program in Rural Rwanda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 Mar 1;59(3):e35-42. 82. Baker M**, Lin HH, Chang HY, Murray M. The risk of tuberculosis disease among people with diabetes, a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):818-25. 83. Baker MA**, Wilson D, Wallengren K, Sandgren A, Iartchouk O, Broodie N, Goonesekera S, Sabeti P, Murray M. Polymorphisms in the gene encoding the iron transport protein ferroportin 1 influence susceptibility to tuberculosis. J Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;205(7):1043-7. 84. Bompangue D, Vesenbeckh SM, Giraudoux P, Castro M, Muyembe Tamfun J, Kebela Ilunga B, Murray M. Cholera ante portas – The re-emergence of cholera in Kinshasa after a tenyear hiatus. Version 2. PLoS Curr. 2012 Feb 17 [revised 2012 Mar 12];4:RRN1310. 85. Rinaldo A, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Blokesch M, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Murray M, Vesenbeckh S, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. Reassessment of the 2010-2011 Haiti cholera outbreak and multi-season projections. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Apr 24;109(17):6602-7. 86. Lu C**, Chin B, Lewandowski JL, Basinga P, Hirschhorn LR, Hill K, Murray M, Binagwaho A. Towards universal health coverage: an evaluation of Rwanda Mutuelles in its first eight years. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39282. 87. Sergeev R, Colijn C, Murray M, Cohen T. Modeling the dynamic relationship between HIV and the risk of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Sci Transl Med. 2012 May 23;4(135):135ra67. 88. Jeon CY, Murray MB, Baker MA. Managing tuberculosis in patients with diabetes mellitus: why we care and what we know. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 Aug;10(8):8638. 89. Arbour M**, Murray KA, Atwood SS, Murray M, Angel Cordero Vega M. Choosing the Best Child Assessment Instrument for a Specific Context: A Methodology for Engaging Local Experts Applied in Chile. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2012 Oct;33(8):666-675. 90. Lin HH**, Dowdy D, Dye C, Murray M, Cohen T. The impact of new tuberculosis diagnostics on transmission: why context matters. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Oct 1;90(10):739747A. 91. Oxlade O**, Murray M. Tuberculosis and Poverty: Why Are the Poor at Greater Risk in India? PLoS One 2012; 7(11): e47533. 92. Kudva I. Griffin RW, Murray M, John M, Hovda CJ, Calderwood SB. Polymorphic Amplified Typing Sequences and Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis Yield Comparable Results in the Strain Typing of a Diverse Set of Bovine Escherichia coli O157:H7 Isolates. Int J Microbiol. 2012;2012:140105. 93. Menzies NA, Cohen T, Lin H-H, Murray M, Salomon JA. Population Health Impact and CostEffectiveness of Tuberculosis Diagnosis with Xpert MTB/RIF: A Dynamic Simulation and Economic Evaluation. PLoS Med 2012; 9(11): e1001347. 94. Fraser HS, Thomas D, Tomaylla J, Garcia N, Lecca L, Murray M, Becerra MC. Adaptation of a web-based, open source electronic medical record system platform to support a large study of tuberculosis epidemiology. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 7;12:125. 95. Barter DM**, Agboola SO, Murray MB, Bärnighausen T. Tuberculosis and poverty: the contribution of patient costs in sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012 Nov 14; 12(1):980.
81

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 82 of 94
96. Jacobson KR**, Theron D, Kendall EA, Franke MF, Barnard M, van Helden PD, Victor TC, Streicher EM, Murray MB, Warren RM. Implementation of GenoType MTBDRplus Reduces Time to Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Therapy Initiation in South Africa. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Feb;56(4):503-8.
97. Wirth KE**, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Silverman JG, Murray MB. How does sex trafficking increase the risk of HIV Infection? An observational study from Southern India. Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Feb 1;177(3):232-41.
98. Franke MF**, Appleton SC, Mitnick CD, Furin JJ, Bayona J, Chalco K, Shin SS, Murray MB, Becerra MC. Aggressive Regimens for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Reduce Recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;56(6):770-6.
99. Kato-Maeda M, Ho C, Passarelli B, Banaei N, Grinsdale J, Flores L, Anderson J, Murray M, Rose G, Kawamura LM, Pourmand N, Tariq MA, Gagneux S, Hopewell PC. Use of Whole Genome Sequencing to Determine the Microevolution of Mycobacterium tuberculosis during an Outbreak. PLoS One. 2013 Mar 15;8(3): e58235.
100.Reeves AZ, Campbell PJ, Sultana R, Malik S, Murray M, Plikaytis BB, Shinnick TM, Posey JE. Aminoglycoside Cross-Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Due to Mutations in the 5' Untranslated Region of whiB7. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Apr;57(4):1857-65.
101.Drobac PC, Basinga P, Condo J, Farmer PE, Finnegan KE, Hamon JK, Amoroso C, Hirschhorn LR, Kakoma JB, Lu C, Murangwa Y, Murray M, Ngabo F, Rich M, Thomson D, Binagwaho A. Comprehensive and integrated district health systems strengthening: the Rwanda Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnership. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S5.
102.Galea JT, Contreras C, Lecca L, Shin S, Lobatón R, Zhang Z, Calderón R, Murray M, Becerra MC. Rapid home-based HIV testing to reduce costs in a large tuberculosis cohort study. Public Health Action. 2013 Jun 21;3(2):172-174.
103.Ford CB, Shah RR, Maeda MK, Gagneux S, Murray MB, Cohen T, Johnston JC, Gardy J, Lipsitch M, Fortune SM. Mycobacterium tuberculosis mutation rate estimates from different lineages predict substantial differences in the emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Nat Genet. 2013 Jul;45(7):784-90.
104.Farhat MR**, Shapiro BJ, Kieser KJ, Sultana R, Jacobson KR, Victor TC, Warren RM, Streicher EM, Calver A, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Posey JE, Plikaytis B, Oggioni MR, Gardy JL, Johnston JC, Rodrigues M, Tang PK, Kato-Maeda M, Borowsky ML, Muddukrishna B, Kreiswirth BN, Kurepina N, Galagan J, Gagneux S, Birren B, Rubin EJ, Lander ES, Sabeti PC, Murray M. Genomic analysis identifies targets of convergent positive selection in drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Genet. 2013 Oct; 45(10):1183-9.
105.Lin HH**, Chiang YT, Chuang JH, Yang SL, Chang HY, Ezzati M, Murray M. Exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of tuberculosis: prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 25;8(10):e77333.
106.Kudva IT, Smole S, Griffin RW, Garren J, Kalia N, Murray M, John M, Timperi R, Calderwood SB. Polymorphic Amplified Typing Sequences (PATS) Strain Typing System Accurately Discriminates a Set of Temporally and Spatially Disparate Escherichia coli O157 Isolates Associated with Human Infection. Open Microbiol J. 2013 Oct 31;7:123-9.
82

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 83 of 94
107.Kendall EA, Theron D, Franke MF, van Helden P, Victor TC, Murray MB, Warren RM, Jacobson KR. Alcohol, hospital discharge, and socioeconomic risk factors for default from multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment in rural South Africa: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 13;8(12):e83480.
108.Johnson AD, Thomson DR, Atwood S, Alley I, Beckerman JL, Koné I, Diakité D, Diallo H, Traoré B, Traoré K, Farmer PE, Murray M, Mukherjee J. Assessing Early Access to Care and Child Survival during a Health System Strengthening Intervention in Mali: A Repeated Cross Sectional Survey. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e81304.
109.Franke MF, Del Castillo H, Pereda Y, Lecca L, Cárdenas L, Fuertes J, Murray MB, Bayona J, Becerra MC. Modifiable Factors Associated with Tuberculosis Disease in Children: A CaseControl Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2014 Jan;33(1):109-11.
110.Franke MF, Del Castillo H, Pereda Y, Lecca L, Fuertes J, Cárdenas L, Becerra MC, Bayona J, Murray M. Parasite Infection and Tuberculosis Disease among Children: A Case-Control Study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Feb;90(2):279-82.
111.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, Jacobson KR, Farhat MR, Murray MB. Systematic review of allelic exchange experiments aimed at identifying mutations that confer drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Feb;69(2):331-42.
112.Huang CC**, Tchetgen ET, Becerra M, Cohen T, Hughes KC, Zhang Z, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Galea J, Lecca L, Murray M. The effect of HIV-related immunosuppression on the risk of tuberculosis transmission to household contacts. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Mar;58(6):765-74.
113.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin and isoniazid preventive therapy protect contacts of tuberculosis patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Apr 1;189(7):8539.
114.Ngonghala CN, Pluciński MM, Murray MB, Farmer PE, Barrett CB, Keenan DC, Bonds MH. Poverty, disease, and the ecology of complex systems. PLoS Biol. 2014 Apr 1;12(4):e1001827.
115.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, Borgdorff MW, Murray MB, van Soolingen D. A Novel Approach - The Propensity to Propagate (PTP) Method for Controlling for Host Factors in Studying the Transmission of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. PLoS One. 2014 May 21;9(5):e97816.
116.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Age-Specific Risks of Tuberculosis Infection from Household and Community Exposures and Opportunities for Interventions in a High-Burden Setting. Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Oct 15;180(8):853-61.
117.Langley I, Lin HH, Egwaga S, Doulla B, Ku CC, Murray M, Cohen T, Squire SB. Assessment of the patient, health system, and population effects of Xpert MTB/RIF and alternative diagnostics for tuberculosis in Tanzania: an integrated modelling approach. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Oct;2 (10):e581-91.
118.Farhat MR**, Shapiro BJ, Sheppard SK, Colijn C, Murray M. A phylogeny-based sampling strategy and power calculator informs genome-wide associations study design for microbial pathogens. Genome Med. 2014 Nov 15;6(11):101.
83

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 84 of 94
119.Menzies NA, Cohen T, Murray M, Salomon JA. Effect of empirical treatment on outcomes of clinical trials of diagnostic assays for tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):16-7.
120.Krumme AA, Kaigamba F, Binagwaho A, Murray MB, Rich ML, Franke MF. Depression, adherence and attrition from care in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Mar;69(3):284-9.
121.Ivers LC, Hilaire IJ, Teng JE, Almazor CP, Jerome JG, Ternier R, Boncy J, Buteau J, Murray MB, Harris JB, Franke MF. Effectiveness of reactive oral cholera vaccination in rural Haiti: a casecontrol study and bias-indicator analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Mar;3(3):e162-8. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70368-7.
122.Farhat MR**, Mitnick CD, Franke MF, Kaur D, Sloutsky A, Murray M, Jacobson KR. Concordance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis fluoroquinolone resistance testing: implications for treatment. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Mar;19(3):339-41.
123.Childs LM, Abuelezam NN, Dye C, Gupta S, Murray MB, Williams BG, Buckee CO. Modelling challenges in context: lessons from malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis. Epidemics. 2015 Mar;10:102-7.
124.Oxlade O**, Huang CC, Murray M. Estimating the impact of reducing under-nutrition on the tuberculosis epidemic in the central eastern states of India: a dynamic modeling study. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 5;10(6):e0128187.
125.Broadhurst MJ, Kelly JD, Miller A, Semper A, Bailey D, Groppelli E, Simpson A, Brooks T, Hula S, Nyoni W, Sankoh AB, Kanu S, Jalloh A, Ton Q, Sarchet N, George P, Perkins MD, Wonderly B, Murray M, Pollock NR. ReEBOV Antigen Rapid Test kit for point-of-care and laboratorybased testing for Ebola virus disease: a field validation study. Lancet. 2015 Aug 29;386(9996):867-74.
126.Odone A**, Calderon R, Becerra MC, Zhang Z, Contreras CC, Yataco R, Galea J, Lecca L, Bonds, MH, Mitnick CD, Murray MB. Acquired and Transmitted Multidrug Resistant Tuberculosis: The Role of Social Determinants. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 14;11(1):e0146642.
127.Zelner JL, Murray MB, Becerra MC, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Contreras C, Zhang Z, Manjourides J, Grenfell BT, Cohen T. Identifying Hotspots of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Transmission Using Spatial and Molecular Genetic Data. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jan 15;213(2):287-94.
128.Velásquez GE, Cegielski JP, Murray MB, Yagui MJ, Asencios LL, Bayona JN, Bonilla CA, Jave HO, Yale G, Suárez CZ, Sanchez E, Rojas C, Atwood SS, Contreras CC, Santa Cruz J, Shin SS. Impact of HIV on mortality among patients treated for tuberculosis in Lima, Peru: a prospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 1;16:45.
129.Farhat MR**, Jacobson KR, Franke MF, Kaur D, Sloutsky A, Mitnick CD, Murray M. Gyrase mutations are associated with variable levels of Fluoroquinolone resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Mar;54(3):727-33.
130.Semper AE, Broadhurst MJ, Richards J, Foster GM, Simpson AJ, Logue CH, Kelly JD, Miller A, Brooks TJ, Murray M, Pollock NR. Performance of the GeneXpert Ebola assay for diagnosis of Ebola virus disease in Sierra Leone: a field evaluation study. PLoS Med. 2016 Mar;13(3):e1001980.
131.Miller AC, Murray MB, Thomson DR, Arbour MC. How consistent are associations between stunting and child development? Evidence from a meta-analysis of associations between
84

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 85 of 94
stunting and multidimensional child development in fifteen low- and middle-income countries. Public Health Nutr. 2016 Jun;19(8):1339-47. 132.Lahiri N, Shah RR, Layre E, Young D, Ford C, Murray MB, Fortune SM, Moody DB. Rifampin Resistance mutations are associated with broad chemical remodeling of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Biol Chem. 2016 Jul 1;291(27):14248-56. 133.Atre SR**, Murray MB. Management and control of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDRTB): Addressing policy needs for India. J Public Health Policy. 2016 Aug 37:277-299. 134.Mukabutera A**, Thomson D, Murray M, Basinga P, Nyirazinyoye L, Atwood S, Savage KP, Ngirimana A, Hedt-Gauthier BL. Rainfall variation and child health: effect of rainfall on diarrhea among under 5 children in Rwanda, 2010. BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 5;16:731. 135.Diakite I**, Mooring EQ, Velasquez GE, Murray MB. Novel Ordered Stepped-Wedge Cluster Trial Designs for Detecting Ebola Vaccine Efficacy Using a Spatially Structured Mathematical Model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Aug 10;10(8):e0004866. 136.Farhat MR**, Sultana R, Iartchouk O, Bozeman S, Galagan J, Sisk P, Stolte C, NebenzahlGuimaraes H, Jacobson K, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Posey J, Kreiswirth BN, Kurepina N, Rigouts L, Streicher EM, Victor TC, Warren RM, van Soolingen D, Murray M. Genetic Determinants of Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Their Diagnostic Value. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep 1;194(5):621-30. 137.Thomson DR, Semakula M, Hirschhorn LR, Murray M, Ndahindwa V, Manzi A, Mukabutera A, Karema C, Condo J, Hedt-Gauthier B. Applied statistical training to strengthen analysis and health research capacity in Rwanda. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Sep 29;14(1):73. 138.Cancedda C, Davis SM, Dierberg KL, Lascher J, Kelly JD, Barrie MB, Koroma AP, George P, Kamara AA, Marsh R, Sumbuya MS, Nutt CT, Scott KW, Thomas E, Bollbach K, Sesay A, Barrie A, Barrera E, Barron K, Welch J, Bhadelia N, Frankfurter RG, Dahl OM, Das S, Rollins RE, Eustis B, Schwartz A, Pertile P, Pavlopoulos I, Mayfield A, Marsh RH, Dibba Y, Kloepper D, Hall A, Huster K, Grady M, Spray K, Walton DA, Daboh F, Nally C, James S, Warren GS, Chang J, Drasher M, Lamin G, Bangura S, Miller AC, Michaelis AP, McBain R, Broadhurst MJ, Murray M, Richardson ET, Philip T, Gottlieb GL, Mukherjee JS, Farmer PE. Strengthening Health Systems While Responding to a Health Crisis: Lessons Learned by a Nongovernmental Organization During the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic in Sierra Leone. J Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 15;214(suppl 3):S153-S163. 139.Velasquez GE**, Calderon RI, Mitnick CD, Becerra MC, Huang CC, Zhang Z, Contreras CC, Yataco RM, Galea JT, Lecca LW, Murray MB. Pyrazinamide Resistance Assays and TwoMonth Sputum Culture Status in MDR-TB Patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Nov;60(11):6766-6773. 140.Aibana O**, Acharya X, Huang CC, Becerra MC, Galea JT, Chiang SS, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Velasquez GE, Tintaya K, Jimenez J, Lecca L, Murray MB. Nutritional Status and Tuberculosis Risk in Adult and Pediatric Household Contacts. PLoS One. 2016 Nov 11;11(11):e0166333. 141.Richardson ET**, Kelly JD, Barrie MB, Mesman AW, Karku S, Quiwa K, Marsh RH, Koedoyoma S, Daboh F, Barron KP, Grady M, Tucker E, Dierberg KL, Rutherford GW, Barry M, Jones JH, Murray MB, Farmer PE. Minimally Symptomatic Infection in an Ebola 'Hotspot': A Cross-Sectional Serosurvey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Nov 15;10(11):e0005087.
85

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 86 of 94
142.Miller AC, Ramananjato RH, Garchitorena A, Rabeza VR, Gikic D, Cripps A, Cordier L, Rahaniraka Razanadrakato HT, Randriamanambintsoa M, Hall L, Murray M, Safara Razanavololo F, Rich ML, Bonds MH. Baseline population health conditions ahead of a health system strengthening program in rural Madagascar. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1329961.
143.Aibana O**, Bachmaha M, Krasiuk V, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Murray MB. Risk factors for poor multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine. BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 7;17(1):129.
144.Nebenzahl-Guimaraes H**, van Laarhoven A, Farhat MR, Koeken VACM, Mandemakers JJ, Zomer A, van Hijum SAFT, Netea MG, Murray M, van Crevel R, van Soolingen D. Transmissible Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains share genetic markers and immune phenotypes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun 1;195(11):1519-1527.
145.Garchitorena A, Miller AC, Cordier LF, Ramananjato R, Rabeza VR, Murray M, Cripps A, Hall L, Farmer P, Rich M, Orlan AV, Rabemampionona A, Rakotozafy G, Randriantsimaniry D, Gikic D, Bonds MH. In Madagascar, use of health care services increased when fees were removed: lessons for universal health coverage. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Aug 1;36(8):1443-1451.
146.Aibana O**, Franke MF, Huang CC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Smith ER, Ronnenberg AG, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Murray MB. Impact of Vitamin A and Carotenoids on the Risk of Tuberculosis Progression. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Sep 15;65(6):900909.
147.Rodriguez CA, Smith ER, Villamor E, Zaveleta N, Respicio-Torres G, Contreras C, Perea S, Jimenez J, Tintaya K, Lecca L, Murray MB, Franke MF. Development and validation of a food frequency questionnaire to estimate intake among children and adolescents in urban Peru. Nutrients. 2017 Oct 14;9(10).
148.Farhat MR**, Jacobson KR, Franke MF, Kaur D, Murray M, Mitnick CD. Fluoroquinolone resistance mutation detection is equivalent to culture-based drug sensitivity testing for predicting multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcome: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 15;65(8):1364-1370.
149.Aibana O, Slavuckij A, Bachmaha M, Krasiuk V, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Murray MB. Patient predictors of poor drug sensitive tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine. F1000Research 2017 Oct 23;6:1873.
150.Nathavitharana RR, Shi CX, Chindelevitch L, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Galea JT, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Becerra MC, Murray MB, Cohen T. Polyclonal Pulmonary Tuberculosis Infections and Risk for Multidrug Resistance, Lima, Peru. Emerg Infect Dis 2017 Nov;11:1883-86.
151.Mukabutera A, Thomson DR, Hedt-Gauthier BL, Atwood S, Basinga P, Nyirazinyoye L, Savage KP, Habimana M, Murray M. Exogenous factors matter when interpreting the results of an impact evaluation: a case study of rainfall and child health programme intervention in Rwanda. Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Dec;22(12):1505-1513.
152.Miotto P, Tessema B, Tagliani E, Chindelevitch L, Starks AM, Emerson C, Hanna D, Kim PS, Liwski R, Zignol M, Gilpin C, Niemann S, Denkinger CM, Fleming J, Warren RM, Crook D, Posey J, Gagneux S, Hoffner S, Rodrigues C, Comas I, Engelthaler DM, Murray M, Alland D,
86

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 87 of 94
Rigouts L, Lange C, Dheda K, Hasan R , Ranganathan UDK, McNerney R, Ezewudo M, Cirillo DM, Schito M, Köser CU, Rodwell TC. A standardised method for interpreting the association between mutations and phenotypic drug-resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Eur Respir J. 2017 Dec 28;50(6). 153.Aibana O**, Franke MF, Huang CC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Smith ER, Contreras C, Yataco R, Lecca L, Murray MB. Vitamin E Status is inversely associated with risk of incident tuberculosis disease among household contacts. J Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;148(1):56-62. 154.Zelner J, Murray M, Becerra M, Galea J, Lecca L, Calderon R, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Cohen T. Protective effects of household-based TB interventions are robust to neighbourhood-level variation in exposure risk in Lima, Peru: a model-based analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):185-192. 155.Linger Y, Knickerbocker C, Sipes D, Golova J, Franke M, Calderon R, Lecca L, Thakore N, Holmberg R, Qu P, Kukhtin A, Murray MB, Cooney CG, Chandler DP. Genotyping Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Primary Sputum and Decontaminated Sediment with an Integrated Microfluidic Amplification Microarray Test. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). Print 2018 Mar. 156.Wun KS, Reijneveld JF, Cheng TY, Ladell K, Uldrich AP, Le Nours J, Miners KL, McLaren JE, Grant EJ, Haigh OL, Watkins TS, Suliman S, Iwany S, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Tamara KL, Leon SR, Murray MB, Mayfield JA, Altman JD, Purcell AW, Miles JJ, Godfrey DI, Gras S, Price DA, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB, Rossjohn J. T cell autoreactivity directed toward CD1c itself rather than toward carried self lipids. Nat Immunol. 2018 Apr;19(4):397-406. 157.Thomson DR, Amoroso C, Atwood S, Bonds MH, Rwabukwisi FC, Drobac P, Finnegan KE, Farmer DB, Farmer PE, Habinshuti A, Hirschhorn LR, Manzi A, Niyigena P, Rich ML, Stulac S, Murray MB, Binagwaho A. Impact of a health system strengthening intervention on maternal and child health outputs and outcomes in rural Rwanda 2005-2010. BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Apr 9;3(2):e000674. 158.Garchitorena A, Miller AC, Cordier L, Rabeza VR, Randriamanambintsoa M, Razanadrakato HR, Hall L, Haruna J, Randrianambinina A, Thomson DR, Atwood S, Murray MB, Ratsirarson J, Ouenzar MA, Bonds MH. Early changes in intervention coverage and mortality rates following the implementation of an integrated health system intervention in Madagascar: a cohort study. BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jun 4;3(3):e000762. 159.Thakore N, Norville R, Franke M, Calderon R, Lecca L, Villanueva M, Murray MB, Cooney CG, Chandler DP, Holmberg RC. Automated TruTip nucleic acid extraction and purification from raw sputum. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 5;13(7):e0199869. 160.McIntosh AI, Jenkins HE, White LF, Barnard M, Thomson DR, Dolby T, Simpson J, Streicher EM, Kleinman MB, Ragan EJ, van Helden PD, Murray MB, Warren RM, Jacobson KR. Using routinely collected laboratory data to identify high rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden communities in the Western Cape Province, South Africa: A retrospective spatiotemporal analysis. PLOS Med. 2018 Aug 21;15(8):e1002638. eCollection 2018 Aug. 161.Miller AC, Garchitorena A, Rabeza V, Randriamanambintsoa M, Rahaniraka Razanadrakato HT, Cordier L, Ouenzar MA, Murray MB, Thomson DR, Bonds MH. Cohort Profile: Ifanadiana Health Outcomes and Prosperity longitudinal Evaluation (IHOPE). Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Oct 1;47(5):1394-1395e.
87

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 88 of 94
162.CRyPTIC Consortium and the 100,000 Genomes Project, Allix-Béguec C, Arandjelovic I, Bi L, Beckert P, Bonnet M, Bradley P, Cabibbe AM, Cancino-Muñoz I, Caulfield MJ, Chaiprasert A, Cirillo DM, Clifton DA, Comas I, Crook DW, De Filippo MR, de Neeling H, Diel R, Drobniewski FA, Faksri K, Farhat MR, Fleming J, Fowler P, Fowler TA, Gao Q, Gardy J, Gascoyne-Binzi D, Gibertoni-Cruz AL, Gil-Brusola A, Golubchik T, Gonzalo X, Grandjean L, He G, Guthrie JL, Hoosdally S, Hunt M, Iqbal Z, Ismail N, Johnston J, Khanzada FM, Khor CC, Kohl TA, Kong C, Lipworth S, Liu Q, Maphalala G, Martinez E, Mathys V, Merker M, Miotto P, Mistry N, Moore DAJ, Murray M, Niemann S, Omar SV, Ong RT, Peto TEA, Posey JE, Prammananan T, Pym A, Rodrigues C, Rodrigues M, Rodwell T, Rossolini GM, Sánchez Padilla E, Schito M, Shen X, Shendure J, Sintchenko V, Sloutsky A, Smith EG, Snyder M, Soetaert K, Starks AM, Supply P, Suriyapol P, Tahseen S, Tang P, Teo YY, Thuong TNT, Thwaites G, Tortoli E, van Soolingen D, Walker AS, Walker TM, Wilcox M, Wilson DJ, Wyllie D, Yang Y, Zhang H, Zhao Y, Zhu B. Prediction of Susceptibility to First-Line Tuberculosis Drugs by DNA Sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 11;379(15):1403-1415.
163.Mooring EQ**, Mitjà O, Murray MB. Spatial-temporal clustering analysis of yaws on Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea to enhance planning and implementation of eradication programs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Oct 29;12(10):e0006840.
164.Hedt-Gauthier B, Airhihenbuwa CO, Bawah AA, Burke KS, Cherian T, Connelly MT, Hibberd PL, Ivers LC, Jerome JG, Kateera F, Manabe YC, Maru D, Murray M, Shankar AH, Shuchman M, Volmink J. Academic promotion policies and equity in global health collaborations. Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1607-1609.
165.Gupta N, Hirschhorn LR, Rwabukwisi FC, Drobac P, Sayinzoga F, Mugeni C, Nkikabahizi F, Bucyana T, Magge H, Kagabo DM, Nahimana E, Rouleau D, VanderZanden A, Murray M, Amoroso C. Causes of death and predictors of childhood mortality in Rwanda: a matched case-control study using verbal social autopsy. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 17;18(1):1378.
166.Farhat MR, Freschi L, Calderon R, Ioerger T, Snyder M, Meehan CJ, de Jong B, Rigouts L, Sloutsky A, Kaur D, Sunyaev S, van Soolingen D, Shendure J, Sacchettini J, Murray M. GWAS for quantitative resistance phenotypes in Mycobacterium tuberculosis reveals resistance genes and regulatory regions. Nat Commun. 2019 May 13;10(1):2128.
167.Farhat MR, Sixsmith J, Calderon R, Hicks ND, Fortune SM, Murray M. Rifampicin and rifabutin resistance in 1003 Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Jun 1;74(6):1477-1483.
168.Mesman AW**, Soto M, Coit J, Calderon R, Aliaga J, Pollock NR, Mendoza M, Mestanza FM, Mendoza CJ, Murray MB, Lecca L, Holmberg R, Franke MF. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pediatric stool samples using TruTip technology. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):563.
169.Bellerose M, Baek SH, Huang CC, Moss C, Koh EI, Proulx M, Smith C, Baker R, Lee J, Eum S, Shin SJ, Cho SN, Murray M, Sassetti C. Common variants in the glycerol kinase gene reduce tuberculosis drug efficacy. mBio. 2019 Jul 30;10(4).
170.Ezran C, Bonds MH, Miller AC, Cordier LF, Haruna J, Mwanawabenea D, Randriamanambintsoa M, Razanadrakato HR, Ouenzar MA, Razafinjato BR, Murray M, Garchitorena A. Assessing trends in the content of maternal and child care following a health system strengthening initiative in rural Madagascar: a longitudinal cohort study. PLoS Med. 2019 Aug 20;16(8):e1002869.
88

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 89 of 94
171.Luo Y, Suliman S, Asgari S, Amariuta T, Calderon R, Lecca L, León SR, Jimenez J, Yataco R, Contreras C, Galea JT, Becerra M, Nejentsev S, Martínez-Bonet M, Nigrovic PA, Moody DB, Murray MB, Raychaudhuri S. Early progression to active tuberculosis is a highly heritable trait driven by 3q23 in Peruvians. Nat Commun. 2019 Aug 21;10(1):3765.
172.Buter J, Cheng TY, Ghanem M, Grootemaat AE, Raman S, Feng X, Plantijn AR, Ennis T, Wang J, Cotton RN, Layre E, Ramnarine AK, Mayfield J, Young DC, Martinot A, Siddiqi N, Wakabayashi S, Botella H, Calderon R, Murray M, Ehrt S, Snider BB, Reed MB, Oldfield E, Tan S, Rubin EJ, Behr MA, van der Wel NN, Minnaard AJ, Moody DB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis releases an antacid that remodels phagosomes. Nat Chem Biol. 2019 Sep;15(9):889-899.
173.Aibana O, Huang CC, Aboud S, Arnedo-Pena A, Becerra MC, Bellido-Blasco JB, Bhosale R, Calderon R, Chiang S, Contreras C, Davaasambuu G, Fawzi WW, Franke MF, Galea JT, Garcia-Ferrer D, Gil-Fortuño M, Gomila-Sard B, Gupta A, Gupte N, Hussain R, IborraMillet J, Iqbal NT, Juan-Cerdán JV, Kinikar A, Lecca L, Mave V, Meseguer-Ferrer N, Montepiedra G, Mugusi FM, Owolabi OA, Parsonnet J, Roach-Poblete F, Romeu-García MA, Spector SA, Sudfeld CR, Tenforde MW, Togun TO, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Murray MB. Vitamin D status and risk of incident tuberculosis disease: A nested case-control study, systematic review, and individual-participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019 Sep 11;16(9):e1002907.
174.Becerra MC, Huang CC, Lecca L, Bayona J, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Galea J, Zhang Z, Atwood S, Cohen T, Mitnick CD, Farmer P, Murray M. Transmissibility and potential for disease progression of drug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Oct 24;367:l5894.
175.Reinink P, Shahine A, Gras S, Cheng TY, Farquhar R, Lopez K, Suliman SA, Reijneveld JF, Le Nours J, Tan LL, León SR, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Lecca L, Murray MB, Rossjohn J, Moody DB, Van Rhijn I. A TCR β-Chain Motif Biases toward Recognition of Human CD1 Proteins. J Immunol. 2019 Dec 15;203(12):3395-3406.
176.Li R**, Nordio F, Huang CC, Contreras C, Calderon R, Yataco R, Galea JT, Zhang Z, Becerra MC, Lecca L, Murray MB. Two clinical prediction tools to improve tuberculosis contact investigation. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print]
177.Aibana O, Dauria E, Kiriazova T, Makarenko O, Bachmaha M, Rybak N, Flanigan TP, Petrenko V, Becker AE, Murray MB. Patients' perspectives of tuberculosis treatment challenges and barriers to treatment adherence in Ukraine: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 2;10(1):e032027.
178.Lopez K, Iwany SK, Suliman S, Reijneveld JF, Ocampo TA, Jimenez J, Calderon R, Lecca L, Murray MB, Moody DB, Van Rhijn I. CD1b tetramers broadly detect T cells that correlate with mycobacterial exposure but not tuberculosis disease state. Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 14;11:199.
179.Huang CC, Chu AL, Becerra MC, Galea JT, Calderon R, Contreras C, Yataco R, Zhang Z, Lecca L, Murray MB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis Beijing lineage and the risk of tuberculosis in child household contacts. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Mar;26(3):568-578.
180.Martinez L, Cords O, Horsburgh CR, Andrews JR; Pediatric TB Contact Studies Consortium. The risk of tuberculosis in children after close exposure: a systematic review and individualparticipant meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):973-984.
181.Kukhtin A, Norville R; Bueno A, Qu P, Parrish N, Murray M, Chandler D, Holmberg R, Cooney C. A benchtop automated sputum-to-genotype system using a Lab-on-a-Film
89

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 90 of 94
assembly for detection of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Anal Chem. 2020 Apr 7;92(7):5311-5318. 182.Suliman S, Gela A, Mendelsohn SC, Iwany SK, Tamara KL, Mabwe S, Bilek N, Darboe F, Fisher M, Corbett AJ, Kjer-Nielsen L, Eckle SBG, Huang CC, Zhang Z, Lewinsohn DM, McCluskey J, Rossjohn J, Hatherill M, León SR, Calderon RI, Lecca L, Murray M, Scriba TJ, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB; South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI) Clinical Immunology Team. Peripheral blood mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in tuberculosis patients and healthy Mycobacterium tuberculosis-exposed controls. J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] 183.Penn-Nicholson A, Mbandi SK, Thompson E, Mendelsohn SC, Suliman S, Chegou NN, Malherbe ST, Darboe F, Erasmus M, Hanekom WA, Bilek N, Fisher M, Kaufmann SHE, Winter J, Murphy M , Wood R, Morrow C, Van Rhijn I, Moody DB, Murray M, Andrade BB, Sterling TR, Sutherland J, Naidoo K, Padayatchi N, Walzl G, Hatherill M, Zak D, Scriba TJ, and the Adolescent Cohort Study team, GC6-74 Consortium, the SATVI Clinical and Laboratory Team, The ScreenTB and AE-TBC teams, CAPRISA IMPRESS team, RePORT Brazil Consortium and Peruvian Household Contacts Cohort study group. RISK6, a 6-gene transcriptomic signature of TB disease risk, diagnosis and treatment response. Sci Rep. 2020. In press. 184.Li R**, Rivers C, Tan Q, Murray MB, Toner E, Lipsitch M. Estimated Demand for US Hospital Inpatient and Intensive Care Unit Beds for Patients With COVID-19 Based on Comparisons with Wuhan and Guangzhou, China. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 6;3(5):e208297. 185.Sonenthal PD, Masiye J, Kasomekera N, Marsh RH, Wroe EB, Scott KW, Li R, Murray MB, Bukhman A, Connolly E, Minyaliwa T, Katete M, Banda G, Nyirenda M, Rouhani SA. SARS-CoV-2 preparedness in Malawi: results of a national facility-based critical care assessment. Lancet Glob Health. 2020. In press. 186.Asgari, S., Luo, Y., Akbari, A, Belbin GM, Li X, Harris DN, Selig M, Bartell E, Calderon R, Slowikowski K, Contreras C, Yataco R, Galea JT, Jimenez J, Coit JM, Farroñay C, Nazarian RM, O’Connor TD, Dietz HC, Hirschhorn JN, Guio H, Lecca L, Kenny EE, Freeman EE, Murray MB, Raychaudhuri S. A positively selected FBN1 missense variant reduces height in Peruvian individuals. Nature. 2020 May 13.
(** = mentee)
Other peer-reviewed publications
1. Logigian EL, Murray MB. Case 42-1994— A 19-year-old man with rapidly progressive lowerextremity weakness and dysesthesias after a respiratory tract infection. NEJM 1994;331:1437-44.
2. Murray M, Nardell E. Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis: achievements and challenges to current knowledge. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(6):477-82.
3. Brickner PW, Vincent RL, First M, Nardell E, Murray M, Kaufman W. The application of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation to control transmission of airborne disease: bioterrorism countermeasure. Public Health Rep 2003;118:99-114.
90

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 91 of 94
4. Cohen T**, Sommers B, Murray M. The effect of drug resistance on the fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2003;3:13-21.
5. Gessler D, Dye C, Farmer P, Murray M, Navin T, Reves R, Shinnick T, Small PM, Yates T, Simpson G. Public health. A national tuberculosis archive. Science 2006 Mar 3;311:1245-6.
6. Murray M. The epidemiology of SARS. In: Kleinman A, Watson JL, editors. SARS in China; prelude to pandemic? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2006. p. 17-30.
7. Colijn C, Cohen T, Murray M. Mathematical models of tuberculosis: accomplishments and future challenges. Proceedings of BIOMAT 2006 - International Symposium on Mathematical and Computational Biology; 2006 Nov 27-30, Manaus, Brazil. World Scientific Publishing Co. 2007.
8. Cohen T, Colijn C, Murray M. Mathematical modeling of tuberculosis transmission dynamics. In: Handbook of Tuberculosis: Clinics, Diagnostics, Therapy, and Epidemiology. Kaufman SH, van Helden P, eds. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2008.
9. Cohen T**, Dye C, Colijn C, Williams B, Murray M. Mathematical models of the epidemiology and control of drug-resistant TB. Expert Rev Resp Med. 2009;3:67-9.
10. Harries AD, Murray MB, Jeon CY, Ottmani SE, Lonnroth K, Kapur A. Response to letter from Sarah Bailey and Peter Godfrey-Faussett. Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Jul 15(11):1402.
11. Boulle A, Clayden P, Cohen K, Cohen T, Conradie F, Dong K, Gelfen N, Grimwood A, Hurtado R, Kenyon C, Lawn S, Maartens G, Meindjes G, Mandelson M, Murray M, Sanne I, Spencer D, Taljaand J, Vanieva E, Venter F, Wilson D. Prolonged deferral of antiretroviral therapy in the SAPIT trial: did we need a clinical trial to tell us that this would increase mortality? S Afr Med J. 2010 Sep 7;100(9):566, 568, 570-1.
12. Rinaldo A, Blokesch M, Bertuzzo E, Mari L, Righetto L, Murray M, Gatto M, Casagrandi R, Rodriguez-Iturbe I. A transmission model of the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Sep 20;155(6):403-4.
13. Nahid P, Kim PS, Evans CA, Alland D, Barer M, Diefenbach J, Ellner J, Hafner R, Hamilton CD, Iademarco M, Ireton B, Kimerling M, Lienhardt C, Mackenzie W, Murray M, Perkins MD, Posey J, Roberts T, Sizemore S, Stevens WS, Via L, Williams SD, Yew WW, Swindells S. Clinical research and development of tuberculosis diagnostics: moving from silos to synergy. J Infect Dis. 2012 May 15; 205(Suppl 2): S159–S168.
14. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Gandhi NR, Murray M, Theron G, Udwadia Z, Migliori GB, Warren R. Global control of tuberculosis: from extensively drug-resistant to untreatable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Apr;2(4):321-338.
15. Ferrara G, Murray M, Winthrop K, Centis K, Sotgiu G, Migliori GB, Maeurer M, Zumla A. Risk factors associated with pulmonary tuberculosis: smoking, diabetes and anti-TNF-α drugs. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2012 May;18(3):233-40.
16. Jeon CY**, Murray MB, Baker MA. Managing tuberculosis in patients with diabetes mellitus: why we care and what we know. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 Aug;10(8):863-8.
17. Andrews JR., Basu S, Dowdy DW, Murray MB. The epidemiological advantage of preferential targeting of tuberculosis control at the poor. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Apr;19(4):375-80. Review. Erratum in: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Aug;19(8):1000.
91

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 92 of 94
18. Velasquez GE**, Aibana O, Ling EJ, Diakite I, Mooring EQ, Murray MB. Time from infection to disease and infectiousness for Ebola virus disease, a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 1;61(7):1135-40.
19. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Maartens G, Dooley KE, McNerney R, Murray M, Furin J, Nardell EA, London L, Lessem E, Theron G, van Helden P, Niemann S, Merker M, Dowdy D, Van Rie A, Siu GK, Pasipanodya JG, Rodrigues C, Clark TG, Sirgel FA, Esmail A, Lin HH, Atre SR, Schaaf HS, Chang KC, Lange C, Nahid P, Udwadia ZF, Horsburgh CR Jr, Churchyard GJ, Menzies D, Hesseling AC, Nuermberger E, McIlleron H, Fennelly KP, Goemaere E, Jaramillo E, Low M, Jara CM, Padayatchi N, Warren RM. The epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, diagnosis, and management of multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant, and incurable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2017 Mar 15. pii: S2213-2600(17)30079-6. Review.
20. Dheda K, Gumbo T, Maartens G, Dooley KE, Murray M, Furin J, Nardell EA, Warren RM; Lancet Respiratory Medicine drug-resistant tuberculosis Commission group. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission: 2019 update: epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, diagnosis, and management of multidrug-resistant and incurable tuberculosis. Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Sep;7(9):820-826.
(** = mentee)
Research publications without authorship
1. TB Sequencing Consortium, A first for tuberculosis research in South Africa: whole genome sequence of the South African Mycobacterium tuberculosis strain F11 released. South African Journal of Science 2005;101:393-5. (*Principal Investigator)
Non-peer reviewed scientific or medical publications/materials in print or other media
1. Kim JY, Mitnick C, Bayona J, Blank R, Nardell E, Mukherjee J, Rich M, Farmer P, Becerra M, Murray M. Examining assumptions about multi-drug resistant TB control : round table discussion / Jim Yong Kim ...[et al.]. Bull WHO 2002; 80:498.
2. Ryan ET, Murray M. Epidemiology and biostatistics. In: Guerrant RL, Walker DH, Weller PF, editors. Tropical Infectious Diseases: Principles, Pathogens, and Practice. Second Edition. New York: Elsevier; 2005. p. 11-16.
3. Cave DM, Nardell E, Murray M. Molecular epidemiology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In: Jacobs W, Cole ST, editors. Tuberculosis. Washington DC: ASM Press 2005.
4. Murray M and King G. The effects of International Monetary Fund loans on health outcomes. PLoS Med 2008;5:e162.
5. Murray M and Cohen T. Extensively drug resistant tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. In: Kaufmann, SHE, Walker, BD, editors. AIDS-TB: A Deadly Liaison, Weinheim. Wiley-VCH; 2009.
6. Murray M. Epidemiology of tuberculosis. In: Raviglione, MC, editor. Tuberculosis: Fourth Edition, The Essentials. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. 2009. p. 23-59.
92

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 93 of 94
7. Murray M, How Epidemics Happen. Nature Medicine 2010:16: 159. Book review. 8. Farmer PE, Murray M, Hedt-Gauthier B. Clinical Trials and Global Health Equity. The Lancet
Global Health Blog; 8 July 2013. Available at: http://globalhealth.thelancet.com/2013/07/08/clinical-trials-and-global-health-equity 9. Bonds MH, Garchitorena A, Cordier L, Miller AC, McCarty M, Andriamihaja B, Ratsirarson J, Randrianambinina A, Rabeza VR, Finnegan K, Gillespie T, Wright PA, Farmer PE, Loyd T, Murray MB, Herrnstein RM, Herrnstein JR, PIVOT Impact Team, Gikic D, Ouenzar MA, Hall L, Rich ML. Advancing a Science for Sustaining Health: Establishing a Model Health District in Madagascar. BioRxiv [Preprint]. [posted 2017 May 30]. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/141549 10. Bloom BR, Atun R, Cohen T, Dye C, Fraser H, Gomez GB, Knight G, Murray M, Nardell E, Rubin E, Salomon J, Vassall A, Volchenkov G, White R, Wilson D, Yadav P. Tuberculosis. In: Holmes KK, Bertozzi S, Bloom BR, Jha P, editors. Major Infectious Diseases. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Nov 3. 11. Buckee C, Hedt-Gauthier B, Mahmud A, Martinez P, Tedijanto C, Murray M, Khan R, Menkir T, Suliman S, Fosdick B, Cobey S, Rasmussen A, Popescu S, Cevik M, Dada S, Fowkes F, Clapham H, Mordecai E, Hampson K, Majumder M, Wesolowski A, Kuppalli K, Rodriguez Barraquer I, Smith TC, Hodcroft E, Christofferson RC, Cormier SA, Gerardin J, Cowley L, Childs L, Keegan LT, Pitzer V, Oldenburg C. Women in science are battling COVID-19 and patriarchy at the same time. Times Higher Ed. 15 May 2020.
Thesis
Murray, MB. Problems in the Molecular Epidemiology of Tuberculosis [Dissertation]. Boston (MA): Harvard School of Public Health; 2001.
Narrative
To date, my career has focused on two main areas: advancing progress in tuberculosis management and control and developing research capacity in low and middle-income countries.
My work on tuberculosis has shifted over the past twenty years from a focus on dynamical modeling of TB epidemics to field studies on the bacterial and host determinants of TB infection and disease. Between 2008-2013, I led a multi-disciplinary consortium that studied the impact of drug resistance of the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis in Lima, Peru. This project followed over 18000 people for TB-associated outcomes and has generated data that has allowed my team to also address a range of host and environmental factors that contribute to the transmission and disease burden of TB. More recently, our work in this area has centered on the links between host metabolic and immune function as determinants of the outcome of TB infection. This work, which is funded through an NIH consortium grant which I co-lead with
93

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-3 06/04/20 Page 94 of 94
Dr. Branch Moody, is another multi-disciplinary collaboration, this time among immunologists, epidemiologists, geneticists and veterinary pathologists.
My work on drug resistant tuberculosis has also led me to use targeted and whole genome sequencing to study “genomic epidemiology” and to elucidate the genetic basis of drug resistance phenotypes. To date, we have sequenced over 1500 TB strains and have created an innovative data interface tool that allows us to use whole genome data in epidemiologic studies. Currently, we are funded by NIH to identify, collect, archive, sequence and analyze the drug resistance genes in M. tuberculosis strains from around the world. These data are then passed to our collaborators who attempt to validate our findings by generating and phenotyping Mtb variants and to our industry partners who are developing point of care diagnostic tests to detect drug resistance. I am the PI of this collaborative project which is funded through an NIH Center for Excellence in Translational Research.
In addition to my roles on my grant-funded projects, I am the research director for the Division of Global Health Equity in the Department of Medicine at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the non-governmental organization, Partners In Health (PIH). In that capacity, I support the research mission of the Global Health Delivery Partnership by building research infrastructure and mentoring junior faculty interested in research careers. At HMS, I lead the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine’s “research core,” a team of eight epidemiologists, biostatisticians and programmers in the task of identifying and developing research opportunities in affiliation with PIH and other NGO’s clinical field sites. Much of this work focuses on developing methods to evaluate the health interventions implemented in these sites and in designing and carrying out studies to conduct such evaluations. Increasingly, our mission has encompassed the training and development of independent researchers from the countries in which we work.
Almost all my academic work has been conducted in the context of training graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. I have directly supervised 39 graduate students or post-doctoral fellows, almost all of whom have published with me. Fourteen of my former trainees have gone on to tenure track faculty positions and six have joined international and non-governmental organizations focused on global health. Among many committee assignments, I am particularly proud of my contribution to the Task Force on Women in Science and Engineering which made recommendations that I believe have improved the working lives of many women in science at Harvard. I have served on the Human Subjects Committee at HSPH, co-chaired the Community Engagement Mission of the Strategic Leadership Team at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and led a number of junior and senior faculty searches.
94

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-4 06/04/20 Page 1 of 48
EXHIBIT 3

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 21 ooff 4487

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE; LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; JANE CHANDLER, JENNIFER HARDING, EDITH GEE JONES, and JASMINE POGUE

Plaintiffs, v.

Case. No. 3:20-cv-00283 BAJ-EWD

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; STEVE RABORN, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors; and SANDRA L. WILSON, in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 32 ooff 4487
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2
A. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic ................................................................ 2 1. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana...................................................... 5 2. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black People in Louisiana..................................................................................................... 7 3. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting...................................................... 10
B. Louisiana’s Absentee-By-Mail Ballot Requirements ........................................... 14 1. The Excuse Requirement .......................................................................... 14 2. The Witness Requirements ....................................................................... 15 3. Penalties Related to Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements .................................................. 16 4. The Absentee Ballot Review and Counting Process................................. 17
C. The Emergency Election Plan............................................................................... 18 III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 23
A. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Constitutional Claims Against the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements. ........... 23 1. The Excuse Requirement Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. .......................... 26 2. The Witness Requirements Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. .......................... 31
B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if an Injunction is Not Granted .............. 36 C. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Favor a Preliminary
Injunction. ............................................................................................................. 39 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 41
i

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 43 ooff 4487
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983).................................................................................................................. 24 Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428 (1992).................................................................................................................. 24 Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker,
453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 37 Common Cause Ga. v. Kemp,
347 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (N.D. Ga. 2018) ..................................................................................... 38 Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson,
327 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (S.D. Ind. 2018) ..................................................................................... 38 Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd.,
553 U.S. 181 (2008)............................................................................................................ 24, 29 Daniels Health Scis., LLC v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC,
710 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 23 Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites by Carlson,
No. 16-cv-1037, 2016 WL 4400498 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) ............................................... 40 Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).................................................................................................... 37, 39 Esshaki v. Whitmer,
No. 2:20-cv-10831-TGB, 2020 WL 1910154 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2020) .............................. 25 Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott,
215 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (N.D. Fla. 2016)..................................................................................... 25 G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n,
23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 40 Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Deal,
214 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (S.D. Ga. 2016)................................................................................ 25, 41 Garbett v. Herbert,
No. 2:20-cv-245-RJS, 2020 WL 2064101 (D. Utah Apr. 29, 2020)......................................... 24 Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason,
303 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 41 Homans v. Albuquerque,
264 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.2001) ................................................................................................. 39 Hoover v. Morales,
164 F. 3d 221 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 23 Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A.,
804 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir.1986) ................................................................................................... 36 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier,
760 F. 3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 23 LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
917 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 38 League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning,
863 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (N.D. Fla. 2012)..................................................................................... 40
ii

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 54 ooff 4487
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (N.D. Fla. 2018)..................................................................................... 40
League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. N. Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 37
League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348 (Okla. May 4, 2020).............................................................. 36
League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. Of Elec., No. 6:20-cv-0024, _F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 2158249 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) .. 24, 31, 34, 35
Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-2112, 2020 WL 1951687 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020)................................................. 24
N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-1034, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2019 WL 7372980 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 2019) .................. 38
Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir.2003) ..................................................................................................... 40
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992).................................................................................................................. 24
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 36
Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 37, 40
OCA Greater Houston v. Texas, No. 1:15-CV-679-RP, 2016 WL 4597636 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016) ..................................... 37
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 36
Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 40
Price v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................... 31
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) .................................................................................................................. 37
Taylor v. Louisiana., 419 U.S. 522 (1975).................................................................................................................. 41
Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 39
Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott., No. SA-20-CA-438-FB, 2020 WL 2541971 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020)................................. 24
Texas Indep. Party v. Kirk, 84 F.3d 178 (5th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 24, 29, 34
Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-480, 2020 WL 1671563 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) .............................................. 38
United States v. Georgia, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2012) ..................................................................................... 41
Wash. St. Tammany Elec. Coop. v. La. Generating, No. 08-430-JJB-DLD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135876 (M.D. La. July 30, 2008)................... 23
Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323 (2d Cir.1986)....................................................................................................... 37
iii

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 65 ooff 4487
Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ...................................................................................................................... 39
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).................................................................................................................. 37
Statutes La. R.S. 1306(E)(2)(b) ................................................................................................................. 35 La. R.S. 1308(B)-(C) .................................................................................................................... 35 La. R.S. 18:1303 ................................................................................................................. 2, 16, 41 La. R.S. 18:1303(B) ...................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(C)–(G) .............................................................................................................. 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(D)...................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(I) ....................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1303(J) ....................................................................................................................... 15 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)...................................................................................................................... 16 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)-(E) ............................................................................................................... 35 La. R.S. 18:1306(E) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) ....................................................................................................... 15, 17 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(b) ............................................................................................................. 16 La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) ......................................................................................................... 2, 41 La. R.S. 18:1307 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 15 La. R.S. 18:1307(I) ....................................................................................................................... 16 La. R.S. 18:1307A(2)–(B) ............................................................................................................ 15 La. R.S. 18:1308 ........................................................................................................................... 14 La. R.S. 18:1308(B) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1308(C) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1311(C) ...................................................................................................................... 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(A)...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1313(F) ...................................................................................................................... 17 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(2).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6).................................................................................................................. 18 La. R.S. 18:401.3 .................................................................................................................... 18, 19
iv

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 76 ooff 4487
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”), Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“Louisiana NAACP”), Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, and Jasmine Pogue (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana, Kyle Ardoin, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana, Steve Raborn, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, and Sandra L. Wilson, in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters and Member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors (collectively “Defendants”), to take immediate action to remove the barriers that place undue burdens on Louisianans’ fundamental right to vote in connection with the July 11, 2020 Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal Elections. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented crises throughout the country. To date, the virus has infected over a million people in the U.S. Louisiana has been particularly hard hit with 35,000 reported COVID-19 cases and over 2,400 reported deaths during the past three months. In early March, in response to the spread of COVID-19, Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency in Louisiana and took a number of steps, including banning public gatherings, closing public schools, and closing “non-essential” businesses, that led up to a statewide Stay-atHome order directing all Louisiana residents to stay home unless performing an essential activity and follow social distancing protocols. In light of the need for social distancing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, multiple provisions of Louisiana law will impose severe and undue burdens on the right to vote
1

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 87 ooff 4487
during the 2020 July Primary Election and August Municipal Election, including: (1) the requirement that a voter must qualify under a limited list of excuses in order to be eligible to vote through absentee ballot, La. R.S. 18:1303 (the “Excuse Requirement”); (2) the requirement that a voter sign an absentee by mail ballot certificate in the presence of a witness and also obtain the signature of the witness on the ballot, La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) (the “Ballot Witness Requirement”); and (3) the requirement that absentee ballot applications certified with a mark also be signed by a witness, La. R.S. 18:1307 (the “Application Witness Requirement”; together with the “Ballot Witness Requirement” the “Witness Requirements”).
In the context of COVID-19, these restrictive voting requirements will severely and unduly burden Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Unless the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are soon enjoined, Plaintiffs will be forced to choose between either losing their right to vote to avoid virus exposure, on the one hand, or exercising their right to vote at risk to their personal safety and the public health, on the other. This scenario presents an unconstitutional threat to the protected rights of all Louisiana voters.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic As this Court is aware, COVID-19 is now a global pandemic. The virus is highly infectious and leads to serious and sometimes deadly complications. As of May 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) estimate that there are 1,528,235 total cases of COVID-19 in the United States, resulting in more than 91,644 confirmed deaths.1 According to
1 See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”), Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the U.S., CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html, (last visited May 21, 2020).
2

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 98 ooff 4487
experts, even this figure substantially undercounts the virus’s actual reach.2 There is no vaccine, and no certainty of when one will be available. Decl. of Dr. Arthur L. Reingold ¶¶ 16-17 (hereinafter “Reingold Decl.” attached as Ex. 1). Further, there is no evidence that those who develop an immune response to the virus after an infection—known as antibodies—are safe from reinfection, nor is there sufficient data about how long any immunity to the virus would last. Reingold Decl. ¶ 12.
COVID-19 is extremely contagious; it spreads from person to person through respiratory droplets via coughing and sneezing, close personal contact, and contact with contaminated surfaces and objects. 3 Id. ¶ 8. The coronavirus can lead to dangerous symptoms and complications. Id. ¶ 7. The virus can cause severe damage to the lungs, brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and other organs, sometimes leading to permanent loss of respiratory capacity, cardiovascular disease, strokes, seizures, and other ailments. Id. ¶ 7. Persons of any age are at risk of developing severe and lifethreatening complications. Id. ¶ 11. And while the risks for severe or deadly symptoms increase with each decade of a person’s life, Id. ¶ 11, data from the CDC show that as of March, half of those people in the United States who were in intensive care because of the coronavirus were under the age of 65.4 Id. ¶ 11.
2 Emma Brown et al., U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to COVID19, Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-deathtoll-undercounted/?arc404=true. 3 See CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html, (last visited May 1, 2020). The World Health Organization (“WHO”) suggests the COVID-19 virus can survive “for up to 72 hours on plastic and stainless steel,” up to “4 hours on copper,” and up to 24 hours on cardboard.” WHO, Q&A On Coronaviruses (COVID-19), World Health Org. (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses. 4 See Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., Coronavirus and COVID-19: Younger Adults Are at Risk, Too, Johns Hopkins Med., https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-andcovid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too, (last visited Apr. 24, 2020).
3

CCaassee33::2200--ccvv--0000320883--SBDADJ--ERWLBD DDooccuummeenntt2124--41 0065/0/241/2/200 PPaaggee190ooff4478
As Dr. Reingold testifies, “[d]ue to the ease of transmission, the high risk to certain parts of the population, and the fact that [the virus] will continue to surge unless and until widespread vaccination and/or herd immunity is achieved, individuals will need to continue to take steps to prevent infection.” Id. ¶ 23. It is unlikely that an FDA-approved vaccine will be available before the summer or fall of 2021; and further, because there is currently no vaccine, there has been no confirmation that those who have the virus develop immunity, and the vast majority of the population remains susceptible, it is unlikely that herd immunity will help to prevent the spread of the virus any time in the near future. Id. ¶ ¶ 17, 19.
Among the only currently available effective measures to mitigate the spread of COVID19 are self-isolation, social distancing, wearing a face mask, frequent hand washing with soap and warm water, using hand sanitizer, and cleaning shared surfaces and objects. Id. ¶ 16. Selfisolation and social distancing measures—maintaining at least six feet between persons—are aimed at keeping infected individuals far enough from other individuals that they are unlikely to transmit the virus to others. Id. ¶ 16. Social distancing is so important to preventing the spread of COVID-19 that stay-at-home orders and similar guidelines have been implemented in over 42 states and the District of Columbia at some point during the surge of the virus.5 In total, over 95% of the United States population was at one time under instruction to stay home.6
Fatalities related to COVID-19 are expected to continue through the summer months even if appropriate preventive measures remain in place. Id. ¶ 18. There will likely be a resurgence in
5 See Sarah Mervosh, et al., Which States and Cities have Told Residents to Stay at Home, N.Y. Times (last updated Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html. 6 Jack Brewster, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Stay-At-Home Restrictions, New Poll Finds, Forbes (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/04/22/americans-overwhelmingly-support-stay-at-homerestrictions-new-poll-finds.
4

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1110 ooff 4487
number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as states, like Louisiana, begin to roll back protective measures and if social distancing guidelines are not followed. Id. ¶ 22.
1. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana COVID-19 has had an outsized impact on the state of Louisiana. Louisiana’s current death rate from the virus is, per capita, the sixth highest in the fifty states and U.S. territories7 As of May 21, 2020, over 35,000 cases have been reported in Louisiana and over 2,400 Louisianans had died from COVID-19.8 On March 11, 2020 Governor John Bel Edwards declared a State of Emergency.9 According to the Governor, this step was essential to “slow the spread [of the virus] so we don’t overwhelm our capacity for healthcare.”10 Among other things, the declaration imposed limits on the travel of state employees and empowered state agencies “to thoroughly prepare for any eventuality related to public health needs and deploy additional resources to assist local authorities.”11
7 Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times (last updated May 21, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#states 8 La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020). 9 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 10 Greg Hilburn, Louisiana’s Coronavirus Death Toll Rises to 46; Governor Implores Residents to Stay Home, New Star (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2020/03/24/louisiana-coronavirus-death-toll-rises46-stay-home-governor-says/2906648001/. 11 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf.
5

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1121 ooff 4487
On March 12, Governor Edwards closed all public schools through April 13,12 which he later extended to the remainder of the academic year.13 On March 16, Governor Edwards closed or limited the operations of certain, “non-essential” businesses,14 a list which he expanded on March 22.15
Recognizing that despite having taken “aggressive measures to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19 and flatten the curve,” the actions already taken had not been enough, on March 22
Governor Edwards issued a statewide Stay-at-Home order banning public gatherings of more than
10 individuals and directing all Louisianans to remain at home unless engaging in an “essential activity.”16 On April 30, the Governor extended the Stay-at-Home order until May 15 in order to continue to slow the spread of the disease.17
On March 13, after Secretary of State Ardoin certified to the Governor that the State of
Emergency would impact upcoming elections, the Governor issued an executive order postponing
the April 4 Presidential Preference Primary Election and the May 9 Municipal General Election to
12 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/27-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 13 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 47 JBE 2020 (Apr. 15, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/47-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID-19Education.pdf. 14 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30 (Mar. 16, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/30-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID19.pdf. 15 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 33 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf. 16 Id.; Press Release Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Issues Statewide Stay at Home Order to Further Fight the Spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/order/. 17 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation 52 JBE 2020 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-20-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf; see also Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Will Extend Stay at Home Order Until May 15 to Continue Flattening the Curve and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19 (Apr. 27, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/home-order-extendedmay15/.
6

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1132 ooff 4487
June 20 and July 25, respectively.18 Following this same process, the elections were postponed a second time on April 14. As of today, the Presidential Preference Primary Election will occur on July 11, 2020 (“the July election”), and the Municipal General Election will take place August 15, 2020 (“the August election”).
On May 15, the Governor issued an order stating that the State would remain in a state of emergency and a statewide public health emergency as it enters phase one of lifting the Stay-atHome order.19 The order instructs Louisianans to “stay at home as much as possible to avoid unnecessary exposure to COVID-19,” and orders individuals who are at higher risk from severe illness from COVID-19 to stay at home, unless travelling outside the home for an essential activity, such as obtaining food or medicine.20 Under the phase one order, certain businesses, including restaurants, salons and barbershops, and shopping malls will be allowed to open with strict social distancing and enhanced sanitation in place; however, businesses deemed nonessential, such as amusement parks and entertainment venues, will remained closed.21
2. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black People in Louisiana The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on Black people throughout the country.22 Decl. of Dr. Camara P. Jones ¶ 24 (hereinafter “Jones Decl.” attached as Exhibit 2). As of May 21, demographic data reported by the CDC on the number of
18 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28-JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19Postponement.pdf. 19 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020 (May, 15, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Reis Thebault, et al., The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate, Washington Post (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infectingkilling-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true&itid=lk_inline_manual_3
7

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1143 ooff 4487
COVID-19 cases for which race was available nationwide (48.1% of the 1.2 million cases analyzed) showed that Black people make up 27% of the reported COVID-19 cases although they only make up 13% of the total U.S. population.23
The stark racial disparities in rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths have been particularly acute in Louisiana. Jones Decl. ¶ 25. Data reported by the Louisiana Department of Health indicates that Black Louisianans are dying from COVID-19 at disproportionately higher rates, making up 32% of the total population of the state but over 55% of coronavirus deaths.24 Reingold Decl. ¶ 11; see also, Decl. of William S. Cooper (hereinafter “Cooper Decl.” attached as Exhibit 3), Exhibit A-2 p. 1.
The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Black community, including the disparate death rates, reflects longstanding and systemic discrimination and socioeconomic inequities in Louisiana that have made Black people more susceptible to the virus’s risks. Jones Decl. ¶¶ 24-31. According to the most recent data from the American Community Survey, in Louisiana nearly one third (30.1%) of Black residents live in poverty compared to 12.2% of white residents; the unemployment rate is 9.9% for Black residents compared to 4.5% for white residents; per capita income for Black residents is $17,491 compared to $33,856 for white residents; nearly one-fifth (19%) of Black residents have not completed high school compared to 10.8% of white residents; and for Black residents ages 25 and over, only 15.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 28.5% of white residents ages 25 and older. Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.
23 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the U.S.: Cases by Race &Age, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited May 21, 2020). 24 La. Dep’t of Health, COVID-19 Updated, Additional Data on COVID-19 Deaths in Louisiana, http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 20, 2020).
8

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1154 ooff 4487
Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Camara Phyllis Jones, explains that the racial disparities in health outcomes—including higher risk of illness and death due to COVID-19—are inextricably linked to social and economic factors, such as quality of housing, availability of healthy foods, air quality, access to clean water, quality of schools, availability of work, transportation options, and proximity to polluting industries. Jones Decl. ¶ 12, 30. As a result of housing segregation, for example, Black people are less likely to live close to medical facilities and supermarkets stocked with nutritious food. Factors giving rise to chronic illness and comorbidities also include racial inequalities in access to healthcare and medical insurance, where 7.8% of Louisiana’s Black residents lack medical insurance compared to 4.7% of white residents. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(f); Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 11. Indeed, the Louisiana State Health Department reports that asthma and obesity are more prevalent among Black residents, and further, that they are more likely to die from conditions such as heart disease and diabetes,25 all of which are medical conditions that the CDC has acknowledged make racial and ethnic minority groups especially vulnerable to COVID-19.26 Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, 30.
In addition, social and economic conditions related to occupational settings and access to transportation make it more difficult for Black people to take measures to mitigate the risks posed by COVID-19. Id. ¶ 27. For instance, 29.9% of employed Black people ages 16 and over work in service industry occupations compared to 14.8% of whites, and only 24.7% are in management and business positions compared to 39.3% of whites, limiting the option to work from home. Also, 15.8% of Black Louisiana residents lack a vehicle compared to 4.7% white residents, and 12.5%
25 La. Dep’t of Health, Community Partnerships & Health Equity, Minority Health Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672 26 CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, Others at Risk, Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html (last updated Apr. 22, 2020).
9

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1165 ooff 4487
of Black residents carpool or take public transportation to work compared to 7.7% of white residents. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(c); (g).
Notably, the CDC has identified racial and ethnic minority groups among “people who need to take extra precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19,” expressly acknowledging that “[h]ealth differences in between racial and ethnic groups are often due to economic and social conditions that are more common among some racial and ethnic minorities than whites.”27
3. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting The CDC has issued guidance specifically addressing election safety in the context of COVID-19. The CDC’s guidance recommends that election officials “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”28 The CDC lists “mail-in methods of voting” first among its recommendations to reduce person-to-person contacts and congestion at polling sites.29 COVID-19 spreads rapidly in environments where a large number of individuals are in close proximity, like at congested polling sites. Reingold Decl. ¶ 23. There is no evidence that the virus spreads through the mail. Id. ¶ 26. In addition, the U.S. Postal Service has also implemented policies to reduce contacts between mail carriers and members of the businesses and households they serve.30 Polling places have already been sources for exposure to the coronavirus. In Chicago, Revall Burke, a Marine and father of six, died of COVID-19 after volunteering as a poll worker
27 Id. 28 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim Guidance to Prevent Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020) [hereinafter CDC, Interim Guidance]. 29 Id. 30 Press Release, United States Postal Service, Media Statement – COVID-19 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/statements/usps-statement-on-coronavirus.htm (citing guidance from World Health Organization, CDC, and Surgeon General).
10

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1176 ooff 4487
on March 17.31 Other poll workers and in-person voters who were asymptomatic on Election Day later became ill and tested positive for COVID-19.32 Just weeks later, in-person voting proceeded in Wisconsin with large crowds and long lines.33 Following that election, health officials identified
at least 52 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 after either voting in person or working at a polling site.34 This does not include individuals who may have contracted the virus but were
not tested, or those who may have unknowingly contracted the virus and become asymptomatic
carriers. Reingold Decl. ¶ 24.
While voting by mail is the safest and most effective option for reducing the spread of the
virus during an election, early voting and other options that mitigate risk during in-person voting
are also critical. The CDC guidance on conducting safe elections also recommends the use of
early voting, specifically because crowds may be smaller throughout the day and early voting
minimizes the number of other people a voter may come into contact with while at a polling
31 See Mary Ann Ahern, Poll Worker at Chicago Voting Site Dies of Coronavirus, Election Officials Say, NBC Chicago (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/poll-worker-at-chicago-votingsite-dies-of-coronavirus-election-officials-say/2255072/. 32 Id.; see also Cate Cauguiran, Chicago election worker who staffed March primary dies after contracting COVID19, ABC (Apr. 13, 2020), https://abc7chicago.com/coronavirus-deaths-fatalities-polling-worker-illinoischicago/6100339/. 33 Devi Shastri, In-person voting was likely a “disaster” for Wisconsin’s efforts to flatten coronavirus curve, national experts say, Milwaukee J. Sentinel (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/08/coronavirus-wisconsin-election-likely-hurteffort-flatten-curve/2961718001/ (quoting Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm); Primary Recap: Voters Forced to Choose Between Their Health and Their Civic Duty, NY Times (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/politics/wisconsin-primary-election.html. 34 Nolan D. McCaskill, Wisconsin health dept.: 36 people positive for coronavirus after primary vote, Politico (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/wisconsin-tested-positive-coronavirus-election-211495; see also The Latest: 52 Positive Cases Tied to Wisconsin Election, The Associated Press (Apr. 28, 2020), https://apnews.com/b1503b5591c682530d1005e58ec8c267; see also, Chad Cotti, et al., The Relationship Between In-Person Voting, Consolidated Polling Locations, and Absentee Voting on COVID-19: Evidence from the Wisconsin Primary (May 10, 2020), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3597233
11

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1187 ooff 4487
location.35 Smaller crowds at voting sites enable poll workers to enact the CDC’s best practices for in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, which include sanitizing surfaces and maintaining six feet of distance between individuals.36 Because some voters need or prefer to vote in person, including people who are homeless, visually impaired, have limited English proficiency, or are illiterate and need accessible voting machines and personal assistance, it remains necessary to provide safe and accessible in-person voting options.37
The majority of states are providing absentee voting-by-mail for all voters during upcoming elections. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia already offer all eligible voters a vote-by-mail ballot option; that is, no specific excuse or justification is required to be eligible to vote absentee.38 Of the 16 states that require an excuse to vote absentee-by-mail, several have made clear that concerns regarding transmission of COVID-19 will serve as a legitimate excuse.
35 McCaskill, supra note 34. 36 See CDC, Interim Guidance, supra note 28. 37 See, e.g., Ian Millhiser, How to make sure everyone can vote during the coronavirus pandemic, Vox (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21185184/vote-by-mail-coronavirus-pandemic-elections. 38 The Brennan Center for Justice, Research & Reports, Preparing Your State for an Election Under Pandemic Conditions, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preparing-your-state-election-underpandemic-conditions (last updated Apr. 27, 2020).
12

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 1198 ooff 4487
For example, Arkansas,39 Alabama,40 Delaware,41 Massachusetts,42 New Hampshire,43 South
Carolina,44 Virginia,45 and West Virginia46 have expanded the scope of existing state election laws
establishing absentee ballot eligibility for illness, injury, or disability to now include all qualified
voters concerned about or taking preventative measures because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
39 Governor of Arkansas, Exec. Order No. 20-08, (Mar. 20, 2020), https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-08._.pdf. 40 Ala. Legis. Servs. Agency, Absentee Voting During State of Emergency, 17-11-3(e) (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/SOS%20Emergency%20Rule%20820-2-3-.06-.01ER.pdf; see also Press Release, Alabama Secretary of State, 100 Days Left to Apply for Absentee Ballot for the Primary Runoff Election (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/100-days-left-apply-absentee-ballot-primaryrunoff-election; Ala. Code § 17-11-3(a)(2). 41 See Governor of Delaware, Exec. Dep’t, Sixth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of Delaware Due to a Public Health Threat (Mar. 24, 2020), https://governor.delaware.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/24/2020/03/Sixth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03242020.pdf (Delaware executive order providing that for upcoming primary and special elections “the qualification of ‘sick or physically disabled’ [in Delaware vote-by-mail provisions] shall apply to and include any such voter who is asymptomatic of COVID-19 . . . and who herself or himself freely chooses to use such qualification to vote by absentee ballot.”). 42 An Act Granting Authority to Postpone 2020 Municipal Elections in the Commonwealth and Increase Voting Option in Response to the Declaration of Emergency to Respond to COVID-19, 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., ch. 45 (2020), https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter45 (new Massachusetts law clarifying that “any person taking precaution related to COVID-19 in response to a declared state of emergency or from guidance from a medical professional, local or state health official, or any civil authority shall be deemed to be unable by reason of physical disability to cast their vote in person,” which is one of the reasons set forth in the state constitution that permits a Massachusetts voter to vote by mail). 43 Memorandum from the Sec’y of State and Att’y General to New Hampshire Election Officials re: Elections Operations During the State of Emergency at 2 (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press2020/documents/20200410-absentee-voting.pdf. 44 S635, (RAT#0138) Act to Amend Section 7-13-35, Code of Laws of South Carolina, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=635&session=123&summary=B. 45 Absentee Voting, Va. Dep’t of Elections, https://www.elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/ (last visited May 6, 2020) (Virginia Department of Elections statement clarifying that “[v]oters may choose reason ‘2A My disability or illness’” to vote absentee in upcoming elections due to COVID-19). 46 W. Va. Sec’y of State Mac Warner, Admin. Law Div., Notice Of An Emergency Rule (Mar. 20, 2020), http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=53039&Format=PDF.
13

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2109 ooff 4487
Courts have similarly removed the burdens of witness and notary requirements for absentee ballots within the context of the pandemic.47
B. Louisiana’s Absentee-By-Mail Ballot Requirements At least four major elections are scheduled to take place in Louisiana before the end of the calendar year, including statewide and federal elections. The first two elections—currently scheduled to take place on July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020—will be subject to Louisiana election laws as modified by the Revised Emergency Plan. See infra, Part II.C. As of now, the November 3, 2020 (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election) (“the November Election”), and December 5, 2020 (Congressional and Open General Election) (“the December Election”) will take place in accordance with state election laws, as described below, and are not affected by the Revised Emergency Plan.48
1. The Excuse Requirement Only voters who meet one of the specific excuses enumerated in Louisiana’s state election code and can provide the required documentation are eligible to apply for and vote by absenteeby-mail ballot (the “Excuse Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1308. Individuals who can vote absentee by mail include the following five categories of voters:
47 See League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, F. Supp. 3d, No. 6:20-cv-00024, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (“LWVV”) (approving order enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to mitigate the risks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded from exercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee ballots). 48 See 2020 Elections Calendar, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/ElectionsCalendar2020.pdf (last visited May 20, 2020).
14

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2210 ooff 4487
1. Voters who expect to be out of the parish in which they would be qualified to vote in person on Election Day, such as service members, students, clergy members, and overseas citizens. La. R.S. 18:1303(B).
2. Voters who remain incarcerated pre-trial or sequestered as a jury member during the election. La. R.S. 18:1303(C)–(G).
3. Eligible disabled voters who submit certain identification or documentation of a qualifying disability. La. R.S. 18:1303(I).
4. Voters who are 65 years of age and older. La. R.S. 18:1303(J). 5. Voters who were unable to participate in early voting and will be unable to vote on
Election Day due to hospitalization. La. R.S. 18:1303(D). Absentee ballot applications may be returned by mail, fax, or hand delivery, or through the state’s online voter portal, and must include the reason for the request and any necessary supporting documentation. La. R.S. 18:1307A(2)–(B). Unless the applicant is a member of the United States Service, living outside the United States, or is hospitalized, an application must be received by the registrar by 4:30 p.m. four days prior to the election for which the ballot is requested. La. R.S. 18:1307.
2. The Witness Requirements Absentee ballot applicants who are unable to sign their name and instead use a mark to sign their application must obtain the signature of two third-party witnesses on their application (“Application Witness Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1307. All voters using an absentee-by-mail ballot must insert the ballot in the accompanying envelope and sign the certificate printed on the flap of envelope in the presence of one witness, who must also sign the envelope (“Ballot Witness Requirement”). La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) (collectively, the “Witness Requirements”). Members
15

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2221 ooff 4487
of the United States Service or voters residing outside the U.S. are not required to sign the certificate in front of a witness. La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(b).
Louisiana is only one of eleven states with a witness requirement for absentee ballots.49 3. Penalties Related to Enforcement of the Absentee Ballot Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements
Absentee-by-mail ballot applications list in bold font that false certifications may subject the applicant to a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for 2 years.50 If the registrar of voters has reason to believe that an applicant’s eligibility to vote by mail pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1303 is based upon false or fraudulent information, they must “immediately notify the parish board of election supervisors.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I). If, after the applicant has been provided a hearing and opportunity to be heard, the parish board of election supervisors finds that the voter’s eligibility to vote absentee-by-mail was based upon false or fraudulent information, “the board shall inform the appropriate district attorney and the registrar of voters who shall not allow the voter to vote absentee by mail.” Id.
Every ballot is mailed in an envelope with the following on its face in red bold face type: “VIOLATION OF ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR EARLY VOTING LAWS VOIDS BALLOT AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES” and “VOTING AT POLLS AFTER VOTING ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR DURING EARLY VOTING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES.” La. R.S. 18:1306(D).
49 See Chart, “Verifying Authenticity of Absentee/Mailed Ballots,” Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, AllMail and other Voting at Home Options, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx; 50 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec. of State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f. (last visited May 20, 2020).
16

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2232 ooff 4487
As described, the envelope also includes a “Certificate” with an affidavit to be signed by the voter, certifying that they “applied for the ballot, marked the enclosed ballot(s) [themselves] or that they were marked for [the voter] according to [the voter’s] instructions and in [the voters] presence”; that the voter is entitled to vote at the precinct they name; that the parish board of election supervisors is authorized to open the envelope and count their ballot; and that the statements made by the voter are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making false statements therein. La. R.S. 18:1306(E). The voter’s certificate also “shall be made under penalty of perjury for providing false or fraudulent information.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a).
4. The Absentee Ballot Review and Counting Process Absentee ballots must be returned to the registrar by the U.S. Postal Service, a commercial courier, or by hand delivery. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). Under most circumstances, absentee ballots must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the day before Election Day in order to be counted. La. R.S. 18:1308(C). If an absentee ballot is delivered by someone other than the voter, a commercial courier, or the U.S. Postal Service, the registrar must have the person delivering the absentee ballot sign a statement certifying that they have the authorization and consent of the voter to hand deliver the marked absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). No person except the immediate family of the voter may hand deliver more than one marked absentee ballot to the registrar. Id. Parish boards of election supervisors conduct the counting and tabulation of all absenteeby-mail and early voting ballots in the parish. La. R.S. 18:1313(A). During the process of counting absentee-by-mail ballots, several steps are taken to validate each ballot. La. R.S. 18:1313(F). First, a member of the board announces the name of each absentee-by-mail voter and the ward and precinct where they are registered to vote. Then, the board must compare the name on the certificate or on the flap of the envelope containing the absentee-by-mail ballot with the names on
17

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2243 ooff 4487
the absentee-by-mail voter report, which is a listing of all voters from whom the registrar has received an absentee by mail ballot before election day. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(2). The absenteeby-mail report is printed from the state voter registration system, certified by the parish registrar for correctness, and delivered to the parish board of election supervisors on election day for use in the tabulation and counting of absentee by mail ballots.. La. R.S. 18:1311(C).
Next, the board will consider any properly filed challenges to the ballot. If the board determines that an absentee-by-mail ballot is valid, the ballot certificate must be signed by two board members. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6). But, if a majority of the members of the board determine that an absentee-by-mail ballot is invalid, the members must leave the envelope sealed, and a board member must write the word “rejected,” together with the reasons for rejecting the ballot, and their initials. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5). Rejected absentee-by-mail ballots and certificates must be placed in the special absentee-by-mail and early voting ballot envelope or container. Id. No rejected absentee-by-mail ballot is counted. Id.
C. The Emergency Election Plan Under Louisiana law, after the Governor declares a state of emergency, the Secretary of State may certify that the state of emergency will impact upcoming elections. See La. R.S. 18:401.3. The Secretary of State must then present an “Emergency Plan” to the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs (“the Senate Committee”), and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs (“the House Committee”) for approval before the plan may be voted on and approved by the full legislature. See id.
18

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2254 ooff 4487
On March 13, 2020, Louisiana Secretary of State Ardoin certified that the statewide COVID-19 emergency would impair the upcoming elections.51 See La. R.S. 18:401.3. On April 14, 2020, he presented an emergency plan (“the First Emergency Plan”) detailing procedures to safely hold the 2020 July and August elections to the Senate Committee and the House Committee for their approval. 52
The First Emergency Plan recognized the threat COVID-19 posed to the health and safety of voters, poll workers, volunteers, and others should Louisiana push forward with in-person voting for both the July and August elections.53 Among its measures to allow Louisianans to vote safely, the First Emergency Plan would have made eligible to vote by absentee ballot any voters who are “[u]nable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID19.”54 In other words, the First Emergency Plan would have ensured that any voter could vote absentee-by-mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The First Emergency Plan also would have reduced the number of witness signatures required on an absentee ballot application where the applicant is unable to sign their own name (and uses a mark) from two witnesses to one witness, provided polling locations and election
51 See La. Exec. Dep’t: Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/46-JBE-2020-Elections.pdf. 52 See Sam Karlin, Louisiana Republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f4411ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html; see also Melinda Deslatte, Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Emergency Summer Elections Plan, U.S. News (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-0428/louisiana-lawmakers-approve-emergency-summer-elections-plan. 53 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2020) [hereinafter “First Emergency Plan”], https://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2020/Apr_2020/Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20PPP%20and%20 Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-13.pdf. 54 Id.
19

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2265 ooff 4487
workers with supplies to prevent against the spread of the virus, and expanded early voting from seven to thirteen days prior to Election Day.55
The First Emergency Plan failed after the Senate Committee refused to bring it to a vote.56 Splitting on partisan lines, the majority of the Committee refused to certify that there was a state of emergency and deferred consideration of the First Emergency Plan—effectively rejecting it.57 Although numerous studies show that mail-in ballot fraud is very rare and no Committee member presented evidence that such fraud had occurred or was likely to occur in Louisiana, members of the Committee asserted they were deferring consideration of the plan primarily based on concerns about voter fraud.58 For example, Sen. Barry Milligan (R-Shreveport) stated the plan was “extremely broad and basically covers everyone in Louisiana,” and claimed: “There is not an election cycle that goes through that we wake up to the news that votes are found in somebody’s garage or somebody’s truck.”59
In contrast, during the hearing at which the First Emergency Plan was considered, when asked whether voter fraud was something he had seen in Louisiana, the Secretary of State replied that voter fraud was rare, and also asserted that he would rank Louisiana among the top five in comparison to other states when it came to election integrity and election security.60
55 See id. 56 See Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Election Plan, supra note 52; see also Deslatte, Lawmakers Approve Election Plan, supra note 52. 57 See id. 58 See Wendy R. Weiser & Harold Ekeh, The False Narrative of Vote-By-Mail Fraud, Brennan Center for Justice (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud (“Mail ballot fraud is incredibly rare, and legitimate security concerns can be easily addressed.”). 59 Fritz Esker, La. Legislature Approves Emergency Election Plan, The Louisiana Weekly (May 4, 2020), http://www.louisianaweekly.com/la-legislature-approves-emergency-election-plan/. 60 Video, Louisiana House Committee on Governmental Affairs, Hearing to Consider the Emergency Election Plan, Apr. 15, 2020; 18:25-21:00, https://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/VideoArchivePlayer?v=house/2020/apr/0415_20_HG.
20

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2276 ooff 4487
After again certifying that the pandemic posed risks for the upcoming election, Secretary Ardoin released a second, revised emergency election plan on April 20, 2020 (“the Revised Emergency Plan”).61 Following hearings on April 22, 2020, both the Senate Committee and the House Committee approved the plan.62 On April 27, 2020, it was approved by the full Legislature and the Governor.63 With the approval process complete, the Revised Emergency Plan now has the force of law.
The Revised Emergency Plan omits or scales back many of the protections included in the First Emergency Plan, purportedly to appease the unsupported concerns of the Senate Committee Members who opposed its first iteration.64 Critically, the plan no longer allows voters with a “concern of exposure” to COVID-19 to request an absentee by mail ballot. It also removes previously proposed absentee ballot eligibility for voters aged over 60 but under 65, as well as voters caring for a child or grandchild whose school or daycare is closed and/or where alternative childcare is not available due to COVID-19 concerns.
Under the Revised Emergency Plan, voters may only qualify for an emergency absentee ballot if they are:
61 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020) [hereinafter “Revised Emergency Plan”], https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised%20Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf. 62 See Esker, supra note 59. 63 See Louisiana Secretary of State: Get Election Information (last visited May 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetElectionInformation/Pages/default.aspx (“[T]he Secretary of State's Emergency Election Plan . . . [was] approved by the Governor and the Louisiana Legislature on Monday, April 27, 2020 . . . .”). 64 David Jacobs, Louisiana legislative committees approve COVID-19 voting plan; full bodies will vote by mail, The Center Square (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.thecentersquare.com/louisiana/louisiana-legislative-committeesapprove-covid-19-voting-plan-full-bodies-will-vote-by-mail/article_7ce4de16-84c0-11ea-9a98-cbff2bfdb2ea.html.
21

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2287 ooff 4487
 “At a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications)”;
 “Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID19”;
 “Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns”;  “Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis”; and/or  “Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine
or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.”65 The Revised Emergency Plan does not explain how its most central elements will be enforced. For instance: the Revised Emergency Plan does not define or explain qualifying terms such as “medically necessary,” and “moderate to severe.”66 Likewise, the Emergency Plan does not provide guidance on what qualifies as being “advised by a health care provider” or “seeking a medical diagnosis.”67 The absentee ballot application created by the state does not provide voters with any additional guidance on how to interpret these terms or what evidence they must provide to show they meet one of the COVID-19 related excuse requirements.68
65 See Secretary of State Emergency, Revised Emergency Plan, supra note 61; State of Louisiana, Official COVID19 Emergency Ballot Application [hereinafter “Emergency Ballot Application”], https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/COVID19%20VR2%20Absentee%20by%20Mail%20Application%20(Rev.%204-20)%20Ver.%201.pdf. 66 Id. 67 Id.
22

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 2298 ooff 4487
III. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F. 3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hoover v. Morales, 164 F. 3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs here satisfy each of these requirements. A. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Constitutional Claims
Against the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements. To demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs “must present a prima facie case” that they are likely to succeed, “but need not prove that [they are] entitled to summary judgment.” Daniels Health Scis., LLC v. Vascular Health Scis., LLC, 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Wash. St. Tammany Elec. Coop. v. La. Generating, No. 08-430-JJB-DLD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135876, at *5–*6 (M.D. La. July 30, 2008) (“[C]ourts agree that the plaintiff ‘must present a prima facie case but need not show that he is certain to win.’”). Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that, in the context the COVID-19 pandemic, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements impose undue burdens on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those
23

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3209 ooff 4487
interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983); see also Texas Indep. Party v. Kirk, 84 F.3d 178, 182 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). When the restriction on the right to vote is a severe burden, then it is subject to strict scrutiny. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008). Strict scrutiny requires the restriction to be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434CH (quoting Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992)).
During the course of the pandemic, courts engaging in the Anderson-Burdick analysis have applied strict scrutiny to similar absentee ballot witness requirements and ballot access laws given the unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances brought about by COVID-19. See, e.g., Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott., No. SA-20-CA-438-FB, 2020 WL 2541971, at *32 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (applying the Anderson-Burdick framework and finding that under strict scrutiny, Defendants were “unable to supply any legitimate or reasonable interest” to justify denying absentee voting opportunities to voters under 65 years of age during the COVID-19 pandemic and would fail even if rational basis review was alternatively applied); League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. Of Elec., No. 6:20-cv-0024, _F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 2158249, at *7-8 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (“LWVV”) (finding that a witness requirement’s “substantial” burdens outweighed any countervailing state interests and approving a consent decree enjoining it); Garbett v. Herbert, No. 2:20-cv-245-RJS, 2020 WL 2064101, at *43 (D. Utah Apr. 29, 2020) (finding that, as applied in the “unforeseen, extraordinary circumstances” of COVID-19, a state ballot access framework imposed a severe burden on the right to vote and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest); Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-2112, 2020 WL 1951687, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020) (finding that, when assessing state-imposed burden within the
24

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3310 ooff 4487
context of “the extraordinary circumstances arising from COVID-19, . . . the combined effect of . . . Illinois’ stay-at-home order and the usual in-person signature requirements [created] a nearly insurmountable hurdle”); Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-cv-10831-TGB, 2020 2020 WL 1910154, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2020) (finding strict scrutiny analysis appropriate where “unprecedented . . . restrictions imposed on daily life by the Stay-at-Home Order, when combined with the ballot access requirements . . . created a severe burden”). Courts have also applied strict scrutiny in non-pandemic emergencies burdening the right to vote. See also Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1257 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (holding that where Hurricane Matthew “foreclosed the only methods of registering to vote” in the final week of voter registration, the State’s statutory deadline “amount[ed] to a severe burden on the right to vote”); Ga. Coal. for the People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Deal, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1345-46 (S.D. Ga. 2016) (acknowledging that “[a]n individual’s ability to participate in local and national elections is arguably the most cherished right enshrined in our constitution,” and granting an injunction that extended a voter registration deadline in the wake of a hurricane).
In the context of the ongoing and significant health risks posed by COVID-19, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirements will severely burden the right to vote for many thousands of Louisiana voters, forcing them to choose between exposing themselves and others to the serious risk of contracting COVID-19 by voting in-person or obtaining a witness signature, or foregoing their right to vote altogether. As Plaintiffs demonstrate, this constitutes effective disenfranchisement, an unequivocally severe and undue burden on the right to vote that Defendants cannot justify by any compelling state interest. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claims.
25

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3321 ooff 4487
1. The Excuse Requirement Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Amid the public health crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, Louisiana’s requirement that voters must qualify under one of a limited list of allowable excuses in order to be eligible to even request an absentee-by-mail ballot deprives the State’s voters of the opportunity to safely vote in the upcoming elections and constitutes a severe and undue burden on the right to vote. Because the Excuse Requirement forces voters to take on what has the potential to be a lifeor-death risk in order to cast their ballot and have it count, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that enforcement of the requirement imposes an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Constitution.
As of May 21, 2020, over 35,000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported in Louisiana, and over 2,400 people have died.69 Even where COVID-19 infection is not fatal, it threatens severe symptoms, hospitalization, lasting physical damage, and unknowing asymptomatic transmission. Reingold Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11. Despite these circumstances and the dire risks posed by COVID-19, the Excuse Requirement would compel several thousands of qualified Louisiana voters to engage in conduct that has been identified by the CDC and public health officials as potentially unsafe during the COVID-19 pandemic.70 Specifically, voters not eligible to vote using an absentee-bymail ballot pursuant to the Excuse Requirement will only have the option of voting in-person and will have to leave the safety of their homes, congregate in public spaces with unknown individuals, and touch shared public surfaces. Reingold Decl. ¶ 8 (opining that such activities increase the risk of transmission).
69 See La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020). 70 See CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Prevent Getting Sick – Social Distancing, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html (last visited May 21, 2020).
26

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3332 ooff 4487
While all of the State’s residents are susceptible to the risks posed by COVID-19, the undue burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement in the face of the pandemic will fall with particular severity on vulnerable categories of voters. For instance, older voters are at increased risk of infection, where the age group with the highest number of all COVID-19 cases reported in Louisiana are individuals ages 50–59 (19%), yet only voters age 65 and older are eligible to vote by absentee ballot without an additional excuse.71 Moreover, qualified voters with known medical conditions that place them at increased risk of complications from COVID-19, but who do not qualify to request an absentee mail in ballot under any of the existing excuses or the Revised Emergency Plan’s COVID-19-related excuses, will be more severely burdened by the Excuse Requirement. The Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden Black voters, who face heightened risk of death and infection from COVID-19 due to the compounding effects of longstanding institutional racism and social and economic disparities, see Jones Decl. ¶¶ 24-32; supra Part II.A.2; see also Decl. of Michael W. McClanahan ¶¶ 5-6 (hereinafter “McClanahan Decl.” attached s Exhibit 4).
The Revised Emergency Plan does not adequately address nor remedy the severe and undue burdens posed by the Excuse Requirement. The five COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan are restrictive and vague, as described supra Part II.C, and do not, for instance, apply to voters who have underlying medical conditions that put them at greater risk of COVID19 infection but do not qualify as “moderate to severe”, or older voters who are not 65 and over. Most notably, the COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan do not apply to the many thousands of voters who reasonably fear exposure to or transmission of COVID-19.
71 See La. Dep’t of Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 21, 2020)
27

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3343 ooff 4487
Although Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue has been diagnosed with asthma and has a history of upper respiratory infections, she would not qualify for vote absentee under the Revised Emergency Plan’s COVID-19-related excuses. Decl. of Jasmine Pogue ¶¶ 5, 8 (hereinafter “Pogue Decl.” attached as Exhibit 5). Ms. Pogue has severe difficulty breathing and requires an inhaler when experiencing an attack but does not require asthma medication on a habitual basis. Id ¶¶ 6-7. She does not believe her diagnosis qualifies as “moderate to severe,” as listed among the “serious underlying medical conditions” on the COVID-19 emergency absentee application as a qualifying comorbidity to vote absentee. Id. ¶¶ 7, 11. She reasonably fears that voting in person would pose severe and potentially fatal risk to her and will be disenfranchised if provided no opportunity to vote by mail in July or August. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12, 15. These reasonable fears are shared by Black voters throughout Louisiana. McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.
Plaintiff Jennifer Harding, who is healthy, has been engaging in strict social distancing from non-family members due to fear of unknowingly exposing her family to COVID-19. Harding Decl. of Jennifer Harding ¶¶ 4, 8 (hereinafter “Harding Decl.” attached as Exhibit 6). Ms. Harding is a fulltime caretaker for her 10-year-old son and provides assistance for her elderly parents and grandmother who live close by and require help with basic tasks, like taking out the trash. Id. ¶ 6. Her father has Parkinson’s disease, her mother has limited mobility due to post-polio syndrome, and her grandmother has been diagnosed with dementia. Id. Because Ms. Harding does not provide live-in or full-time caretaking for her parents and grandmother, she does not believe she qualifies to vote under the Revised Emergency Elections Plan’s COVID-19 excuse related to “caring for” an individual in a medically necessary quarantine. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. Ms. Harding will be disenfranchised in the July and August elections if the Excuse Requirement remains in place or, at a minimum, forced to make a devastating choice between her right to vote and risking her family’s
28

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3354 ooff 4487
health. Id. ¶ 16. The scope of the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement is broad, threatening to
prevent several thousands of eligible Louisiana voters who are concerned about the effects of COVID-19 and are ineligible to vote by absentee ballot from participating in the upcoming elections. To begin, Louisiana currently has 2.9 million registered voters.72 According to statistics reported by the Louisiana Secretary of State, for the 2018 primary election, total turnout was 240,941 (20.22%),73 and for the 2018 municipal elections it was 121,329 (10.24%).74 Yet, without the option of absentee mail in voting, it is likely that for the upcoming July primary election and August municipal election many voters who would have otherwise participated in the elections will be forced to forfeit their right to vote in order to protect their health and the health of their families and communities. Burdens on the right to vote “are severe if they go beyond the merely inconvenient.” Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008) (Scalia, J., concurring). Enduring a credible risk of virus exposure exceeds mere inconvenience.
Even where an election law “imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” the State must still justify those restrictions with “important regulatory interests.” Texas Indep. Party, 84 F.3d at 182. As Plaintiffs demonstrate, while the severity of the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement calls for the application of strict scrutiny, even under a more relaxed threshold Defendants cannot identify an important regulatory interest in blocking expanded access to
72 Registration Statistics, La. Secretary of State,https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Registration_Statistics/Statewide/2020_0501_sta_comb.pdf. 73 Post Election Statistics, La. Secretary of State, https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2018_0324_sta.pdf 74 Id.
29

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3365 ooff 4487
absentee-by-mail voting in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and putting voters and their families
at risk.
When the First Emergency Election Plan was rejected, opponents of the plan articulated the concern that increased absentee voting would enable voter fraud.75 However, there is no
evidence to support this alleged concern, and Louisiana officials, including Secretary of State Ardoin, have repeatedly stated that voter fraud in the State’s elections is not a significant concern.76
See supra at 20. Instances of election fraud via absentee voting are extremely rare in the United States, and are minimal to nonexistent in Louisiana.77 Louisiana has robust mechanisms in place
to ensure that election fraud does not occur for absentee voting, including: review of absentee
voting eligibility by the registrar of voters, supra at 16, strict requirements for voter attestation and
verification under penalty of perjury, supra at 17, specific criminal penalties for violation of
absentee voting laws with notice of such penalties highlighted on every absentee ballot, supra at
16, and ballot-by-ballot review of each absentee ballot by parish boards of election supervisors to
75 See Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Election Plan, supra note 52; see also Deslatte, Lawmakers Approve Election Plan, supra note 52. 76 Video, Louisiana House Committee on Governmental Affairs, supra note 60; Dede Willis, Elections chief says no evidence of voter fraud in Louisiana, KNOE News (Jan. 26, 2017), http://www.knoe.com/content/news/Electionschief-says-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-Louisiana-411805135.html (Secretary of State announced that “Louisiana did not have any widespread irregularities or allegations of fraud” during the 2016 presidential election); Amber Phillips, Trump’s Voting Commission was doomed from the start, Wash. Post (Jan. 4, 2018) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/04/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-was-doomed-fromthe-start/ (Secretary of State denying that significant voter fraud exists in Louisiana); Amber Phillips, Why Louisiana is refusing to hand over voter registration data to Trump’s election probe, Wash. Post (Jul. 7, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/06/why-louisiana-is-refusing-to-hand-over-voterregistration-data-to-trumps-election-probe/ (Secretary of State denying that significant voter fraud exists in Louisiana. 77 Even the Heritage Foundation, an organization dedicated to “[p]reventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud,” https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud, has not identified a single case of election fraud via absentee voting in Louisiana. See Heritage Foundation, Election Fraud Cases, https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?combine=&state=LA&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 (last visited May 20, 2020). See also Weiser and Ekeh, supra note 58.
30

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3376 ooff 4487
identify ballots that must be rejected and not counted, supra at 17-18. The plain absence of absentee voting election fraud in Louisiana and the array of mechanisms already in place to ensure the integrity of each absentee ballot indicate no risk in expanded access to absentee voting, and demonstrates that the State has no distinct compelling interest in foreclosing such access during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Excuse Requirement imposes an undue and severe burden on the right to vote that is not justified by any significant state interest.
2. The Witness Requirements Imposes a Severe and Undue Burden the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Even for those voters who satisfy the Excuse Requirement and are eligible to vote through absentee-by-mail ballot, Louisiana’s requirements that voters obtain a witness signature on an absentee ballot and on an absentee ballot application where the applicant is unable to sign their own name (and uses a mark) (the “Witness Requirements”) will impose an undue burden on voters who live alone or without any other adult in their household who can act as a witness. In light of the COVID-19 public health emergency, these voters will be forced to choose between putting themselves at risk of infection and severe illness through contact with a third party or foregoing their right to vote.
The character and magnitude of the burden imposed by the Witness Requirements warrant the application of strict scrutiny. See LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (order recognizing that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden imposed by the enforcement of a similar witness requirement “is substantial”); cf. Price v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101, 107 n.8 (2d Cir. 2008) (stating that “for voters who are . . . housebound” the burden of lack of access to absentee voting “could be quite significant”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed in
31

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3387 ooff 4487
showing that enforcement of the Witness Requirements imposes an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote in violation of the Constitution.
Despite guidance from public health officials and the Governor instructing all Louisiana residents to minimize person-to-person contact, avoid gathering in public, and keep six feet of distance between themselves and another person in order to avoid the risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19, the Witness Requirements require those voters who are able to obtain an absentee ballot to engage in person-to-person contact in order for their votes to be counted. This uniquely burdens voters who live alone or who do not have access to a witness by making them deviate from protective measures in order to have someone witness and sign their ballot envelope. According to Dr. Reingold, not only would this place individuals “at increased risk of infection” it would also “be particularly risky for those who are at a greater risk of complications and death from COVID-19.” Reingold Decl. ¶ 27.
The Ballot Witness Requirement has the potential to affect tens of thousands voters. According to data from the Election Assistance Commission for the 2018 election—an election not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic—approximately 43,000 (3%) of the 1,519,552 voters who turned out for the November 2018 election voted by absentee mail-in ballot.78 Of those absentee ballots, 1,218 voters or approximately 3%, were rejected for a witness signature deficiency.79 With the addition of voters who will be eligible to vote by absentee mail-in ballot under the COVID-19-related excuses in the Revised Emergency Plan, and factoring in the risks of voting in person, there will likely be a significant increase in the number of requests for absenteeby-mail ballots for the July primary and August municipal elections. Correspondingly, under the
78 See Exhibit 7, Data from 2018 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys 79 Id.
32

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 3398 ooff 4487
Revised Emergency Plan, there will also be a significant increase in the number of voters disenfranchised by the Witness Requirements, as compared to 2018.
Additionally, considering the number of Louisiana residents who live alone, the burden imposed by forcing voters who cannot readily obtain a witness signature on their absentee mail in ballot or application (if the voter uses a mark) to make a bleak calculation between their health, the health of their families and communities, and their right to vote, will be significant. According to data from the 2018 ACS 1-Year estimates, approximately 15% (or 532,678 individuals) of the 3,560,000 Louisiana residents of voting age live alone. Cooper Decl. ¶ 7.
While people of any age are susceptible to contracting COVID-19, and any voter required to leave their home to obtain a witness signature will necessarily take on risk to their health during the pandemic, voters who are older, who have underlying medical conditions and disabilities, and Black voters will be put at even more extreme risk. Reingold Decl. ¶ 11. Of Louisiana residents who live alone, 35.8% are over 65 years old. Cooper Decl. ¶ 7. Of Louisiana residents who live alone, 27.5% are disabled. Id. ¶ 8. Of Louisiana residents 65 and older living alone, 44% are disabled. Id. ¶ 8. Black voters as a group are also put at heightened risk by the Witness Requirements. Approximately 18.1% of Black people of voting age in Louisiana live alone, as compared to 14.9% of white people of voting age. Id ¶ 9-10.
Plaintiffs’ individual circumstances highlight how the Witness Requirements impose a significant burden on voters. Plaintiff Jane Chandler, who is 76 years old and lives alone, plans to request an absentee ballot for the upcoming elections because she suffers from a lung condition that is a comorbidity of COVID-19 and believes the risk of exposure to the virus at her polling site is too severe to vote in person. Decl. of Jane Chandler ¶¶ 8-9 (hereinafter “Chandler Decl.” attached as Exhibit 8). To guard her health, she has engaged in extreme social distancing since
33

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4309 ooff 4487
mid-March by not inviting people into her house and limiting all trips she makes outside of her home. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff Chandler is concerned that she would endanger her life by unnecessarily disrupting her self-isolation to have her absentee ballot witnessed by a signatory. Id. ¶ 14.
Even eligible voters who do not live alone may not live with someone capable of serving as a witness, which may disproportionately impact Black voters. Approximately 14.9% of Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with their children under 18, as compared to only 4.9% of white households. Cooper Decl. ¶ 16(d). For vulnerable and concerned voters who will rely on absentee voting to evade potential virus exposure and transmission via inperson voting, the Witness Requirement threatens to completely nullify such preventative action. See McClanahan Decl. ¶ 6. As Dr. Reingold states, “[r]equiring individuals to have one or more people who they are not otherwise being exposed to come into close enough proximity to witness their ballot would place them at increased risk for infection.” Reingold Decl. ¶ 27.
Given the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, including loss of life and the threat of serious illness, the character and magnitude of the Witness Requirements demonstrate a particularly severe burden on the right to vote, requiring the application of strict scrutiny. LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *7. However, even if the Court were to apply a more relaxed level of scrutiny, the intensity of the burden imposed by the Witness Requirement within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic outweighs any “important regulatory interests” identified by the State. Texas Indep. Party, 84 F.3d at 182.
The State’s interest in maintaining the integrity of its elections will not be materially enhanced by enforcement of the Witness Requirements. Current State law already requires voters to certify their absentee ballot application, as well as their ballots, under penalty of perjury and
34

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4410 ooff 4487
subjects them to criminal penalties for false certifications.80 La. R.S. 18:1306(D)-(E). Notably, Louisiana exempts voters in the military or those residing outside of the United States who submit absentee ballots from the witness signature requirement, allowing their certificate to be made under penalty of perjury. La. R.S. 1306(E)(2)(b). Considering these attestation requirements and criminal penalties together with the number of processes the State has in place to verify and protect the integrity of absentee ballots, including existing methods for accepting, handling, tabulating, and counting absentee mail-in ballots, supra at Part II.B.3-4, the Witness Requirements do not add any sound protection against fraud. La. R.S. 1308(B)-(C); 1313; see LWVV, 2020 WL 2158249, at *9 (“For the fraudster who would dare to sign the name of another qualified voter at the risk of being charged with [a felony], writing out an illegible scrawl on an envelope to satisfy the witness requirement would seem to present little to no additional obstacle.”).
For the State’s upcoming elections administered amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no discernible additional protection that the Witness Requirements will provide to the integrity of an absentee ballot, as supported by the fact that Louisiana is only one of eleven remaining states with a witness or notarization requirement.81 Notably, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have removed the burdens of witness and notary requirements for absentee ballots, see, e.g., Id. at *8 (order approving consent decree enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to
80 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, Louisiana Secretary of State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f. 81 See Chart, “Verifying Authenticity of Absentee/Mailed Ballots,” Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, AllMail and other Voting at Home Options, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx; cf. Ala. Code §§ 17-930(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-20-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15- 220, 7-15-230; Va. Stat. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707, 24.2-711.1; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)(1).
35

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4421 ooff 4487
mitigate the risks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded from exercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee ballots); and in comparable non-pandemic circumstances, see, e.g., Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 837 F.3d 612, 632 (6th Cir. 2016) (invalidating law rejecting absentee ballot envelopes with technical errors given that burden on even a few voters with rejected ballots outweighed State’s purported interest in combating voter fraud given the State’s failure to present compelling evidence or argument that the measure was necessary to prevent alleged fraud.).
The Witness Requirements impose a severe and undue burden on Plaintiffs’ right to vote that is not outweighed by the State’s interest; thus, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Witness Requirements violate the Constitution.
B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if an Injunction is Not Granted To demonstrate the irreparable harms they will endure if the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are not enjoined, Plaintiffs “need show only a significant threat of injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm.” Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A., 804 F.2d 1390, 1394 (5th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). Where “an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
36

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4432 ooff 4487
Individual plaintiffs will face an irreversible loss if forced to forego voting to maintain strict social distancing practices during the July and August elections. Chandler Decl. ¶ 14; Harding Decl. ¶ 16; Pogue Decl. ¶ 15. See also McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. The right to vote is a “fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Indeed, ‘[t]he right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561–62 (1964). Encroachment on this most fundamental of constitutional rights “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Therefore, invariably, a “restriction on the fundamental right to vote . . . constitutes irreparable injury.” Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323, 326 (2d Cir.1986) (finding that the denial of the right to vote is “irreparable harm”)).
Injunctive relief is urgent and appropriate because “money damages are not adequate” to remedy a constitutional violation. See Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006) (reversing denial of preliminary injunction on complaint alleging First Amendment claims). Put simply, “it is not possible to pay someone for having been denied the right to vote.” OCA Greater Houston v. Texas, No. 1:15-CV-679-RP, 2016 WL 4597636, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016). Absent injunction, Plaintiffs will lose all means to have their voices heard equally in Louisiana’s July and August elections because once an election occurs, “there can be no do-over and no redress.” League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. N. Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiffs, and indeed all Louisianans, face a substantial and enduring health threat if COVID-19 is spread through avoidable in-person contacts made upon voting. There “can be no injury more irreparable” than “serious, lasting illness or death.” Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-480,
37

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4443 ooff 4487
2020 WL 1671563, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020). “[T]he denial of injunctive relief after a district court has found a risk of imminent and substantial danger to public health or to the environment should be rare.” LAJIM, LLC v. Gen. Elec. Co., 917 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2019). Courts have already established that “COVID-19 constitutes an irreparable harm” that supports the grant of preliminary relief. Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *7. An injunction thus provides the only effective means to protect both the rights and safety of Louisiana voters.
Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”) and the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“LA NAACP”) also face irreparable harm. A voting rights organization is “irreparably harmed when the right to vote is wrongfully denied or abridged— whether belonging to its membership or the electorate at large.” N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Cooper, No. 1:18-cv-1034, _F. Supp. 3d_, 2019 WL 7372980, at *24-25 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 2019) (noting that organizational plaintiffs demonstrated diversion of resources from other votereducation efforts to respond to challenged law, that they would continue this diversion if the law was not enjoined, that this diversion compromised their overall mission, and that the voters they represent were at risk of being deprived of their right to vote); see also Common Cause Ga. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (finding plaintiff organization’s harm “to its organizational interests is coterminous with the harms suffered by its citizen members” where voting was made more difficult); Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1154 (S.D. Ind. 2018), aff’d 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar). Moreover, the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements irreparably harm the organizational missions of ensuring that all qualified voters can successfully register and securely cast a ballot. McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 8; Decl. of Ashley Shelton ¶¶ 4-5, 16 (hereinafter “Shelton Decl.” attached as Exhibit 9). Absent injunction, both PCEJ and the LA NAACP will be forced to use their limited resources to help
38

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4454 ooff 4487
their target constituencies overcome the burdens and confusion caused by the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements, thus diverting time from other critical registration and voter mobilization efforts. Shelton Decl. ¶¶ 15, 17; McClanahan Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 8. For some members, such burdens will be insurmountable.
C. The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Favor a Preliminary Injunction.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must “establish . . . that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). No interest of the broader public will be compromised by enjoining the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements. Louisiana’s absentee ballots and ballot applications make explicit the strict criminal penalties associated with falsifying voting information, and there is no evidence that limiting absentee voting or requiring a witness signature offer any additional deterrent to those who would act to undermine the process. By contrast, the epidemiological and testimonial evidence presented herein show that the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements threaten public health and burden the franchise. These avoidable outcomes strike at the core of a robust democracy.
Among the most essential of public interests, the protection of fundamental constitutional rights is tantamount. See, e.g., Texans for Free Enter. v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.2006)) (“‘injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest.’”); see also Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”); Homans v. Albuquerque, 264 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir.2001) (“[W]e believe that the public interest is better served by . . . protecting [ ] core First Amendment right [s]”); Newsom v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d
39

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4465 ooff 4487
249, 261 (4th Cir.2003) (“Surely, upholding constitutional rights serves the public interest.”); G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights.”); League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (“The vindication of constitutional rights . . . serve[s] the public interest almost by definition,” including specifically when the right at issue is the right to vote). An injunction would protect Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to vote and the health of the public at large by enabling voting opportunities that do not require unnecessary and unsafe in-person interactions.
An injunction would favor the public interest by “permitting as many qualified voters to vote as possible.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 437; see also League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc., v. Detzner, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 1224 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (“Quite simply, allowing for easier and more accessible voting for all segments of society serves the public interest.”.). Enjoining the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements also promotes “the public interest in . . . safeguarding public health.” Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 331 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Diretto v. Country Inn & Suites by Carlson No. 16-cv-1037, 2016 WL 4400498, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016) (“The public interest is clearly in remedying dangerous or unhealthy situations and preventing the further spread of disease.”). Yet in the converse, if these restrictive voting requirements remain intact, the sacred interests of both the franchise and the public health will be put in unavoidable conflict. A preliminary injunction would ensure they are both equally protected.
Defendants risk no irreparable harm nor substantial burden if the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirements are enjoined. A “state is in no way harmed by the issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional.
40

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4476 ooff 4487
If anything, the system is improved by such an injunction.’” Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002). While Defendants and their agents will be tasked with facilitating expanded absentee voting opportunities and educating voters on their rights, these duties already fall within the purview of their offices and, more so, “administrative convenience” cannot justify limiting voters’ access to their fundamental rights. Taylor v. Louisiana., 419 U.S. 522, 535 (1975). The increased administrative burden of “disseminating information” and “training [election workers] . . . is minimal compared to the potential loss of a right to vote.” Ga. Coal. for People’s Agenda, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. In sum, any potential hardships to Defendants and their agents are “minor when balanced against the right to vote, a right that is essential to an effective democracy.” United States v. Georgia, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue a preliminary injunction that: (1) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement, La. R.S. 18:1303, for absentee-by-mail voting for the 2020 July primary election and the August municipal election; and (2) enjoins Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirements, La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) and 1307, for an absentee-by-mail application and in order to vote by absentee-by-mail ballot for all Louisiana voters for the 2020 July primary election and the August municipal election.
41

CCaassee 33::2200--ccvv--0000238038--BSADJD--ERWLDB DDooccuummeenntt 2124--41 0065//0241//2200 PPaaggee 4487 ooff 4487

DATED this 21st day of May 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Z. Morris John Z. Morris* NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel.: (212) 965-2200 zmorris@naacpldf.org
/s/ Catherine Meza Catherine Meza* NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-1300 cmeza@naacpldf.org

/s/ Ronald L. Wilson Ronald L. Wilson, (LSBN 13575) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel.: (504) 525-4361 cabral2@aol.com
/s/ Robert D. Fram Robert D. Fram* Morgan Lewis* Joshua González* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com MELewis@cov.com jgonzalez@cov.com
John Fraser** Covington & Burling LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Tel: (212) 841-1000 JFraser@cov.com

* Pro Hac Vice ** Pro Hac Vice Motion forthcoming Attorneys for Plaintiffs

42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 1 of 50
EXHIBIT 4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 2 of 50

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF DR. SEKOU FRANKLIN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Dr. Sekou Franklin, declare as follows: 1. I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. I have also taught courses at Williams College (Williamstown, Massachusetts), University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and Howard University. I received a B.S. in Political Science at Santa Clara University, an M.A. in Political Science at San Francisco State University, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Howard University. I have conducted election analyses since 2002, which includes published works of elections in Tennessee, California, Georgia, and the District of Columbia. I received expert preparation from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice’s Community Census and Redistricting Institute and received training from the Center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS) Summer Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. 2. I previously provided expert witness reports for two voting rights cases, one in Tennessee and the other in North Carolina, as well as testified before the National Commission on Voting Rights Regional Hearing in 2014. I have also investigated numerous disputes for civil rights

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 3 of 50 2
organizations on issues such as legislative redistricting, voter purges, and the racial impact of photo identification laws. In 2016, I co-coordinated the Tennessee Election Protection Network in collaboration with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In 2019, I testified before and submitted written testimony to the Advisory Task Force on the Composition of Judicial Districts. I have also taught voting rights and civil rights policy courses at MTSU for a decade.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 3. I was asked to examine the risks that Louisianans face in the COVID-19 (also called the coronavirus) era, with particularly considerations to race and African Americans/Blacks.1 It addresses racial disparities and related vulnerabilities among Louisiana residents given the nationwide discussions about the significant risks to in-person voters in the 2020 elections. 4. The coronavirus disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable communities. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans make up the larger share of hospitalizations and deaths from the coronavirus. By mid-March 2020, a month after the outbreak of the pandemic, reports around the country revealed that people of color were contracting COVID-19 at significantly higher rates than Whites. This occurred in the South in places such as the Mississippi Delta, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina, as well as the non-South.2 In Louisiana, Blacks fluctuated between 57-70% of COVID-19 deaths in the month of April despite comprising only one-third of the state population.3 5. There are many reasons why African Americans are more vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. Less access to health services, the prevalence of pre-existing conditions, disproportionate location in essential work economies, differential living conditions, and disparate economic distress are some of the reasons. Notwithstanding race, COVID-19 impacts the most

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 4 of 50 3
vulnerable populations, who are unable to work from home, required to work in the service and industrial food economies, and are responsible for taking care of sick family members. 6. The attorneys for the plaintiffs asked me to review the socioeconomic and demographic factors—or social determinants of health—that relate to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of Louisiana allows seniors (65 years and older), disabled persons, and other classes of voters (e.g. clergy, offshore workers, juror, hospitalized, nursing home residents, etc.) to cast absentee ballots. In total, 15 categories of voters are potentially eligible for an “excuse requirement” that allows them access to mail-in voting.4 Yet, most voters do not qualify for this requirement. 7. As described in detail below, my analysis reveals these key statistical findings:
• Living Alone: As the Black population increases in counties, residents 18 years and above are more likely to live alone.
• Living w/Relatives: Counties with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to consist of households of extended family members.
• Crowded Environments: In the most “vulnerable” communities (census tracts), people of color and particularly African Americans are more likely to live in crowded environments.
• Economic Distress: Areas with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to have higher poverty rates. Economic distress (poverty, unemployment, lower education) is higher in census tracts largely comprised of people of color.
• Mobility: As the percentage of African Americans (and people of color) increase in counties and census tracts, there is a greater likelihood that people will not have automobiles.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 5 of 50 4
• Health Status: Health insurance coverage of African Americans improved in recent years. But, when measured at the micro-level (census tracts), neighborhoods comprised of people of color and particularly African Americans have higher uninsured populations. Furthermore, the overall health status and social determinants of health are much worse in areas with larger Black populations.
8. In the remainder of this declaration, I highlight the statistically significant findings drawing from several datasets. The findings indicate that race influences a wide range of social determinants related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
DATA AND METHODS 9. My analysis uses t-tests and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess public health and socio-demographic factors at the intersection of race in Louisiana. Data for the analyses are drawn from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) One-Year Estimates administered by the United States Census. Louisiana’s 64 counties have an average White population of 64% and Black population of 32%. Fourteen (14) counties have at least a 45% Black population. 10. The racial composition of the counties is used as a proxy to determine if racial background and counties with larger percentages of African Americans intersect with social determinants that may put people at risk of contracting COVID-19. Using this proxy or similar proxies is fairly common when relying upon census data in scholarly activities.5 Additional data for counties comes from the County Health Rankings report developed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.6 The study reports on social determinants and health status (see description later in this declaration) and ranks each county using ACS data compiled between 2010 and 2018.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 6 of 50 5
11. In addition, my analysis includes analyses at the census tract level using 2018 datasets from the Socially Vulnerability Index (SVI) compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). SVI was established by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006 that Congress passed after Hurricane Katrina. The CDC/ATSDR defines social vulnerability as: “A number of factors, including poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing [that] may weaken a community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss in a disaster.”7 The index relies on 15 variables drawn from the ACS to evaluate the vulnerability of communities at the county and census tract levels. 12. The sociodemographic distribution is outlined in Table 1. African Americans made up 32% and Whites comprised 64% across the 64 Louisiana counties. In the 14 counties with the highest percentage of Blacks, their average population was 53% compared to 45% of Whites. Forty-five (45%) percent of people of color resided in the SVI census tracts. (SVI refers to this group as “Minorities”.) The larger Black counties had higher percentages of people living alone, living in crowded environments, living with extended family members, living in poverty, and those with no automobiles. Furthermore, the uninsured population and diabetics, percentage of children in households per county, those living with nonfamily members, income inequality, and unemployment status were relatively the same in the 64 and 14-county datasets. The SVI census tracts had a lower uninsured population than the other two datasets, yet the poverty rate was larger than the 64-county dataset.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 7 of 50 6

Geographic Jurisdictions
Sociodemographic Variables/Factors Blacks

Table 1. Select Population Characteristics of Louisiana

Mean % in All Mean % in Counties with Mean % in Socially

Counties

Large Black Populations Vulnerable Census

Tracts

Mean S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean S.D.

32

14.4

53

7.7

_______ ________

Whites Minorities/Nonwhites (SVI Data) Disabled Population Disabled Population (18-64) Living Alone No Automobile

64 ____
16.3 14.3
30 8.2

13.8 ____
3.2 3.5
5 3.2

45 ____
15.3 12.8
32 11.1

7.9 ______
2.9 2.8
6 4.1

45.1

29.4

15.5

5.8

_______ _______

10.3

10.2

Poverty (18 Years+) Poverty (Total)

19.1 ____

5.9 _____

22.1 ____

8.3 ______

______ _________

21.4

13.4

Children Household 31.3

2.7

31.6

3.1

______ _______

Living w/Extended Family Living w/Nonfamily Members Single-Parent Households Total Uninsured Crowded Environment Uninsured Adults

8.3
4.8
_____
14.3 .78 18.5

1.8
1.7
_____
1.9 .68 2.4

9.9
4.4
_____
14.1 1.1 18.2

2
1.6
_______
2.1 .55 2.7

______ ________

_______ _________

11

6.9

11.2

5.6

2.3

2.3

_______ ________

Diabetics

13

1.5

13

1.4

_______ ________

Income Inequality

5.6

.86

5.9

.95

_______ ________

Unemployed No HS Diploma

7 _____

1.6 _____

7.4 _____

2 ______

7.5

5

16.1

9.2

N=64
Source: 2018 ACS, US Census

N=14
Source: 2018 ACS, US Census

N=1140
Source: CDC/ATSDR SVI, 2018

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 8 of 50 7

13. It is important to note that Louisiana has a significantly high number of people living by

themselves, including senior citizens. As indicated in Table 2, 30.6% of the households (a total of

1,737,220 households that comprise of 4,659,978 persons) are headed by a person identified as

“living alone”. Among African Americans, a person lives alone in 37% of the households

compared to 28.2% of the White households. Nearly 15% of the Black households are headed by

women with children under 18 years of age compared to 5.1% of White households.

Table 2. Living Alone Status and Households

Total Population

4,659,978

Total Households

1,737,220

Percentage of Households with Person Living

30.6% Live Alone

Alone

Percentage of Households with Person Living

11.6% of Households

Alone 65 Years and Older

Percentage of Black Households with Someone Living 37% of Households Alone*

Percentage of White Households with the Person Living Alone*

28.2%

What percentage of Black households in Louisiana

14.9 %

Headed by Women Living Alone with Children Under

18 years of Age?

What percentage of White households in Louisiana

5.1%

Headed by Women Living Alone with Children Under

18 years of Age?

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census.

14. For this analysis, I developed three methods to assess how sociodemographic backgrounds and public health come together. First, I analyze trends at the county level using independent sample t-tests. T-test is a statistical measure used to compare means between two groups of cases.8 The tests are evaluated at a p<.05 level, in which scores below this measure are statistically significant and scores above the p-value are statistically insignificant. The racial composition of counties (Blacks and Whites) is the independent variable. The dependent variables are the percentage of the residents that have health insurance; adults without health insurance; people with

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 9 of 50 8
diabetes; those experiencing unemployment; an income inequality scale developed by the County Health Rankings report; a variable measuring racial segregation developed by the County Health Rankings report; disabled populations (total population and 18 to 64 year-olds); female-headed houses with children; those living alone and in crowded spaces (1.5+ people per housing unit); those with no automobiles; those living with relatives other than immediate family members; those living in households with nonrelatives; and impoverished individuals 18 years and above. Other variables from the County Health Rankings report rank the counties based on health outcomes, health factors, quality of life, life expectancy, and health behaviors. Higher scores indicate more vulnerability (or worse outcomes) in the ranking measures.9 Regression analysis is used to determine if race impacts “living alone” status. 15. The second model provides a closer look at the vulnerabilities facing counties with larger Black communities. Fourteen counties had populations with a 45% or greater population of Blacks. The methodology for evaluating these counties replicates what is used in the first model. This model allows for intra-group comparisons between counties with sizeable and majority/supermajority Black populations. 16. The third model gives exclusive attention to 1,140 census tracts in Louisiana experiencing severe stress in the SVI dataset—what are referred to as socially vulnerable communities. Data collection by census tract and race is difficult. Thus, the indices combine people of color (official called “Minorities” in SVI) instead of disaggregating them by individual racial/ethnic background. Additional variables look at crowded areas, poverty, education, people with no automobiles, senior citizens, disabled persons, and uninsured populations. 17. In all the models, I am concerned with how race converges with social determinants that are associated with high COVID-19 infection rates. Inaccessibility to social distancing

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 10 of 50 9
environments, dependence on family members and close friends, health risks and medical preconditions, quality of life, disability, no health care, and economic distress exacerbate infections. Race is measured by the percentage of Blacks and Whites in each county and census tract. As mentioned earlier, Blacks make up 32% of the population in the 64 counties, whereas Whites comprise of 64%. They make up 53% in model 2 (14 counties with the largest Black populations). 18. T-tests require the independent variables (also called grouping variables) to be set at dichotomous, nominal, or cut values. I chose two cut values for Blacks and Whites: cut points at the mean for each group (e.g. 32% for Blacks and 64% for Whites in the county-based analyses; 53% for Blacks in the analyses of 14 counties with sizeable Black populations; and 45% for minorities in SVI of census tracts); and additional t-tests that set the cut point of 50% for Blacks and Whites in the county-level datasets. The t-tests provide compare findings above and below the mean/average population for each racial group across the counties and allow for comparative analyses above and below a mid-point of 50% population for each group. Collectively, the methodological approaches provide different entry points for assessing the same dynamic – how race intervenes with public health dilemmas, and how other social determinants of COVID-19 infections are present in Louisiana.
RACE, VULNERABILITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH 19. Next, I examine race and public health in the following areas: a) Living Status, Mobility, and Economic Distress; b) Health Status, Health Care, and Quality of Life; and c) Micro-Level Analysis of Race and Public Health. As a reminder, data are measured across 64 counties, 14 counties with the highest percentage of Blacks, and 1,140 “vulnerable” census tracts. A partial set of statistically significant (p<.05) findings are reported for each area as bar charts under each topic. The complete list of findings is in the Appendix section. (See Tables A1-A5.)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 11 of 50 10
Living Status, Mobility, and Economic Distress 20. The findings reveal interesting results. Counties with larger Black populations were more likely to have residents living alone. As exhibited in Figures 1 and 2, 33.8% of the people in majority Black counties (greater than 50% Black population) lived alone compared to 7.4% in non-majority Black counties. Statistical significance was found in counties that compared residents above and below the mean average of Blacks (comparisons between counties with Black populations below and greater than 32%). The percentage of people living alone, 31.1%, was greater in counties with more Black residents compared to 27.1% in counties with fewer than 32% of Blacks. Statistically significant differences are also found when examining living status in White majority (50% and above) and supermajority (64% and above) counties. As exhibited in Figures 1 and 2, fewer residents “lived alone” in the counties with the largest percentages of Whites. (See Table A1-A5 in the Appendix for a full listing of results.)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 12 of 50 11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 13 of 50 12

21. Race is correlated with living status when comparing residents in Black and White

counties. Yet interestingly, within 14 counties that have large Black populations, there is no

statistical significance between counties above and below the average Black population (53%). In

other words, the racial composition of the county does not impact living status between counties

on the lower end (45-52%) and those on the upper end (53% and above). (See Table A3.)

22. These results tell us that residents are more likely to live alone in counties that have larger

Black populations compared to those living in counties with larger White populations. I conducted

a secondary analysis of OLS regression to confirm the connection with race. Table 3 reports the

findings. It shows that as the Black population increased across all counties, so does the likelihood

that a larger percentage of residents live by themselves. Similarly, as poverty increased in counties,

residents were more likely to live alone.

Table 3. Ordinary Least Square Regression (OLS) Analysis Living Status

Sociodemographic Factors

Living Alone

Black Population

.11 (.04)*

Living in Poverty (18 years+)

.37 (.11)*

Uninsured Adults

.36 (.27)

Rural

.001 (.02)

Unemployed

-.48 (.39)

Segregation in Counties

-.002 (.04)

Income Inequality

.34 (.60)

Constant

13.2 (5.6)*

R-Square

.43

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings and Roadmap Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

Note: The T-tests measures significance (*) at p<.05.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

23. Regarding mobility, there is statistical significance in all t-test models. Counties with greater shares of Black and Minority residents had higher numbers of people with no automobiles (see Figures 1 and 2 and Tables A1-A6) compared to majority White counties. In all the models in Tables A1-A6, poverty was a statistically significant factor that is shaped race. Counties with

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 14 of 50 13
more African Americans had higher poverty rates. Counties with more Whites had lower poverty rates. 24. Race and living status are bidirectional in Louisiana. Familial contact/distance was evaluated by “living alone” and whether people resided in households with someone else: children, other relatives outside of their spouses and children, and nonrelatives. Noticeable racial differences were found in one of the three categories. It is an important finding. Counties with higher percentages of African Americans were significantly more likely to have relatives living with them outside of their immediate families compared to counties with larger shares of Whites. 25. The finding is revealing because it shows that extended family life is an important component of family culture in areas where African Americans reside. Between 9-10% of the families have relatives living with them. Once counties exceed 45% of Blacks, statistical differences disappear between counties on the lower end of the threshold (45-52% of Blacks) and those at the higher end (more than 53% of Blacks). 26. Overall, there is considerable evidence race shapes living status. A person living alone is more likely to live in a county with more Blacks. Furthermore, as the Black population increases— or inversely as the White population decreases—there is a greater chance that voters live with relatives. Health Status, Health Care, and Quality of Life 27. Next, I examine the relationship between race and health status. The ACS provides data on disability status and the uninsured populations. As referenced earlier, additional data are drawn from the 2018 County Health Rankings. These measures and the uninsured population—total population (adults and children) and adults 18 years and above—identify groups that are the most vulnerable to infection by COVID-19. They further identify people living in communities beset

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 15 of 50 14
by pre-existing medical conditions, food insecurity, inadequate prenatal care, emotional and physical distress, less access to doctors and dentists, housing insecurity, and other factors. 28. The racial composition of counties (a proxy for race) is statistically significant across several categories. Counties exceeding 50% Black majorities have a fewer uninsured adult population (16.8) and fewer uninsured people (children and adults) than those below 50%. No statistical differences are found in the other t-test models (comparisons between counties with Black populations below and greater than 32%, comparisons between counties with White populations below and above 50% population, comparisons between counties with White populations below and above 64% of the population). (See Tables A1-A5.) The findings reveal a recent phenomenon in Louisiana since 2016—the close of the racial gap in terms of health insurance coverage. A study by the Commonwealth Fund confirmed this finding. The authors found that the expansion of Medicaid in the state reduced the overall uninsured population and closed the racial gap in terms of access to health insurance.10 29. Yet, uninsured status does not convey the complete picture of race and health in Louisiana. Table 4 outlines five additional measures of social determinants of health in Louisiana based upon layered data in the County Health Rankings report. The first is “life expectancy” or premature deaths. Second, “quality of life” ranks the counties based on low birthweight and physical and mental health. Diet and exercise, drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual activity is a third evaluation measure of “health behaviors”. Fourth, “health outcomes” look at the combined impact of mortality (adult, child, infant), mental and physical health, and the prevalence of chronic diseases. Fifth, “health factors” assess food insecurity, drug overdoses, health care costs, the uninsured population, poverty, segregation, and disconnected youth.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 16 of 50 15

Table 4. Measures of Public Health County Health Rankings

Life Expectancy

Premature Death

Quality of Life

Poor or Fair Health, Poor Physical Health Days, Poor Mental Health Days,

Low Birthweight

Health Behaviors

Diet and Exercise, Alcohol and Drug Use, Sexual Activity

Health Outcomes

Age-adjusted Mortality, Infant Mortality, Child Mortality, Physical and

Mental Distress, Prevalence of Diabetes and HIV

Health Factors

Food Insecurity, Insufficient Sleep, Drug Overdoses, Lack of Insurance,

High Health Care Costs, Firearm Deaths, Segregation, Poverty, and

Disconnected Youth

Source: 2018 County Health Rankings report, A collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2018,

https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/key_measures_report/2018C

HR_KFR_0.pdf, pp. 14-16.

30. The differences between majority Black counties and majority White counties are staggering. In counties exceeding 50% Blacks, the mean ranking score is 50.1 for health outcomes compared to 30.0 for non-majority Black counties as displayed in Figure 3 (higher scores indicate worsening health outcomes). Majority White counties, on the other hand, have a mean score of 29.9 compared to counties comprised of people of color (45.1 mean rank score).

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 17 of 50 16
31. Statistically significant differences exist in these counties for health factors at 17.3, quality of life at 20.2, and health behaviors at 17.1, with public health measures worsening as the Black population increases in counties. Similar differences emerge when comparing counties below and above the overall average (32%) Black population per county. In the five ranking scales (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behaviors), counties with more Blacks fare worse. The gap between counties ranges from 12 to 21 points. (See Table A2 in the Appendix.) 32. In addition, majority White counties fair better than counties in which Blacks and/or people of color are the majority. The statistically significant results are only found in the health outcomes (see Figure 3) and quality of life rankings. The other rankings (life expectancy, health behaviors, health factors) produced no measurable differences. Yet, racial gaps emerged between homogeneous White counties and counties that have a shrinking White population—above and below the average percentage of Whites per county set at 64%—ranging from 10-20 points on the rank scales. (See Tables A4, A5.) 33. An interesting finding is revealed in the intra-group comparisons in counties with larger shares of Blacks. In counties exceeding the 45% Black population mark, the health status of residents is troublesome, but significant differences disappear. In other words, the health status in these counties (counties with a Black population between 45-52% compared to counties where Blacks make up 53% and more of the population) are nearly the same (see Table A3). This suggests that health outcomes are more divergent along racial lines—that is when relying on the racial composition of a county as a proxy—than it is within homogenous Black counties. 34. The results reveal, that in most cases, those living in counties with significant Black populations have worse health conditions despite the recent gains in expanded health insurance.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 18 of 50 17
These residents experience health vulnerabilities—based on an exhaustive list of measures in the County Health rankings—that make them particularly vulnerable to infections in high-risk environments. Counties with more Blacks had worse health outcomes such as low birthweight, chronic illnesses such as diabetes and HIV, and physical and mental distress. Health factors including limited options to healthy food, poverty, drug overdoses, food insecurity, insufficient sleep, and higher health costs were more prevalent in Black communities. Quality of life was also worse in majority Black counties as measured by low birthweight as well as physical and mental health. And, health behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, sexual activity, poor diet, and infrequent exercise were more prevalent in these communities. Micro-Level Analysis of Race and Public Health 35. The last category analyzes overlapping concerns about race and public health at the census tract levels. ACS census-tract data are more limited than county-level data, regarding year-to-year collections on racial/ethnic data. The SVI developed by the CDC/ATSDR offers useful information at the census tract level. However, the data aggregates Minority populations (e.g. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.). Even still, most of the people of color/Minorities in this group are African Americans. Thus, comparisons between Minorities and Whites provide a window into how race, particularly regarding Blacks, intersect with social determinants underlying COVID-19 infections.11 36. The SVI identified 1,140 “vulnerable” or high-risk census tracts in Louisiana. The t-test compared vulnerability between census tracts above and below the average Minority population in the census tracts across different variables/factors: poverty rate, unemployment, education (less than a high school education), disability, seniors (above 65 years of age), single-parent households, crowded neighborhoods, no automobiles, and uninsured populations.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 19 of 50 18
37. The findings point to statistical evidence of differential outcomes. Minority census tracts had higher economic distress, less health insurance, and lived in more crowded households than Whites who lived in vulnerable communities. That is, when isolating all “vulnerable” census tracts, Minorities are more at risk than Whites as demonstrated in Figure 4 and Table A6 (see Appendix).
38. The findings reveal that race, vulnerability, and public health are interrelated at the microlevel. Minority census tracts above 45% compared to majority White census tracts have a higher poverty rate (29.9% to 14.7%), more unemployed residents (10% to 5.6%), and live in households with no automobiles (16.5% to 5.5%). Although the Blacks-Whites uninsured gap seemed to close when measured at the county-level, at the micro-level, Minority census tracts have a higher uninsured population (13.5% to 9.3%), The only divergence in the SVI dataset is among seniors, in which more reside in majority White census tracts.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 20 of 50 19
CONCLUSION 39. For this analysis, I examined race and social determinants that make communities vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. Race shapes several outcomes regarding living status and mobility. First, as the Black population increases in counties and in Minority census tracts, individuals are more likely to live alone. Other persons not living alone are more likely to have extended family members in their households and more likely to live in crowded units. Moreover, counties and census tracts with more African Americans and Minorities, respectively, are comprised of more people without automobiles. 40. Second, economic distress is influenced by the racial composition of counties and census tracts. Counties with higher percentages of African Americans are more likely to have higher poverty rates. Minority census tracts have higher poverty rates, unemployment, and lower education. 41. Third, notwithstanding the recent improvements in health coverage for African Americans, their overall health status appears to be much worse than Whites. There are significant gaps in the health status between majority Black and majority White counties on a wide spectrum of measures such as chronic illnesses, access to healthy food options, physical and mental stress, quality of life, and higher costs of higher health care. 42. My findings are statistically significant. They offer a window into how race and particularly the Black-White divide are shaped by the social determinants of health related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 21 of 50 20
I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 1, 2020

____________________________________ Dr. Sekou Franklin

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 22 of 50 21

Appendix

Table A1. High-Risk and Racial Composition of Counties/Parishes

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 50% Black Population)

Black Pop > 50% Blacks <50%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t DF

Disabled Population

15.5 3.3

16.4 3.2 -3.3,1.5 .-74 62

Disabled Population (18- 12.4 2.9

14.5 3.5 -4.7, .414 -1.7 62

64)

Living Alone*

33.8 7.4

8

4.3 1.4, 8.6 2.8 62

No Automobile*

13.0 4.3

7.5

2.4 1.9, 9.1 3.5 7.6

Poverty (18 Years+)*

25.9 8.4

18.1 4.8 .75, 14.9 2.6 7.7

Children Household

1.6 .52

1.6

.48 -.39, .35 -.10 62

Living w/Extended

10.0 2.1

8.0

1.7 .51, 3.1 2.8 62

Family*

Living w/Nonfamily

4.8 1.7

4.8

3.2 -1.3, 1.2 -.06 62

Members

Crowded Housing

1.4 1.7

.69

.37 -.74, 2.1 1.1 7.1

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults*

16.8 2.6

18.8 2.3 -3.8, -.22 -2.2 62

Diabetics

13.1 1.5

13.1 1.5 -2.1, .18 -1.7 62

Income Inequality

5.9 1.1

5.9

.83 -.37, .94 .88 62

Unemployed

6.4 1.9

7.1

1.6 -2.0, .52 -1.2 62

Total Uninsured*

12.9 1.9

14.5 1.8 -2.93, - -2.4 62

.23

Health Outcomes Rank* 50.1 14.2

30.0 17.9 6.9, 33.4 3.0 62

Health Factors Rank*

47.4 18.8

30.1 17.8 3.5, 30.1 2.5 62

Life Expectancy Rank 43.1 17.7

30.1 18.4 -1.7, 26.0 1.8 62

Quality of Life Rank* 50.1 15.3

29.9 17.7 7.4, 33.8 3.1 62

Health Behaviors Rank* 47.5 18.5

30.4 17.8 3.7, 30.6 2.5 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 23 of 50 22

Table A2. High-Risk and Racial Composition of Counties/Parishes (Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 32% Black Population)

Factors/Variables Disabled Population
Disabled Population (18-64)
Living Alone* No Automobile* Poverty (18 Years+)* Children Household Living w/Extended Family*

Black Pop >32% Black Pop <32%

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

C.I. T DF

15.9 2.9

16.6 3.4

-2.3, .88 -.86 62

13.7 3.3

14.7 3.6

-2.7, .72 -.1.2 62

31.1 5.5 9.8 3.4 21.6 6.6 1.6 .50 9.2 1.7

27.1 3.7 6.7 2.3 16.8 4.1 1.7 .46 7.5 1.5

1.7, 6.4 3.5 62 1.7, 4.5 4.3 62 2.0, 7.6 3.5 47.5 -.38, .10 -1.2 59.3 .92, 2.5 4.3 62

Living w/Nonrelatives

4.7 2.1

4.8 1.2

-.96, .74 -.21 44.3

Crowded Housing

.91 .94

.61 .35

-.12, .62 1.4 36

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.5 2.1

18.5 2.8

-1.2, 1.3 .10 62

Diabetics

13.0 1.4

12.9 1.6

-.67, .85 .23 62

Income Inequality

5.6 .93

5.6 .82

-.42, .45 .07 62

Unemployed

7.4 1.9

6.7 1.4

-.12, 1.5 1.7 62

Total Uninsured

14.3 1.6

14.3 2.1

-.93, .93 .004 62

Health Outcomes Rank*

41.2 15.3

24.5 17.8

8.7,

4.1 62

25.4

Health Factors Rank*

38.8 18.1

26.9 17.5

3.02, 2.7 62

20.8

Life Expectancy Rank*

38.9 16.6

26.8 18.7

3.2,

2.7 62

21.0

Quality of Life Rank*

43.6 15.0

22.7 15.9

13.1, 5.4 62

28.7

Health Behaviors Rank*

39.1 18.1

26.7 17.3

3.5,

2.8 62

21.2

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 24 of 50 23

Table A3. High-Risk in 14 Counties w/High Black Populations (Cutoff Value of Mean Comparisons is 53% Black Population)

Black Pop>53%

Black Pop,

45-53%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

95% T

DF

C.I.

Disabled Population

13.8 1.8

16.1 3.2

-5.7, 1.1 -1.4 12

Disabled Population

11.2 2.3

13.7 2.8

-5.7, .76 -1.7 12

(18-64)

Living Alone

34.8 9.1

30.4 3.1

-2.7, 1.3 12

11.4

No Automobile*

14.6 4.9

9.2 2.0

1.4, 9.4 2.9 12

Poverty (18 Years+)*

28.4 9.6

18.6 5.3

1.3,

2.5 12

18.4

Children Household

31.2 1.6

31.9 3.8

-4.6, 3.2 -.39 12

Living w/Extended

9.8 2.8

10.0 1.7

-2.8, 2.3 -.17 12

Family

Living w/Nonrelatives 5.2 1.9

4.0 1.3

-.68, 3.1 1.4 12

Crowded Housing

2

1.9

.64 .45

-.99, 3.7 1.6 4.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

16.8 2.6

19.0 2.5

-5.3, .87 -1.6 12

Diabetics

12.2 1.3

13.4 1.3

-2.9, .36 -1.7 12

Income Inequality

6.0 1.2

5.8 .83

-.97, 1.4 .41 12

Unemployed

6.4 1.3

7.9 2.2

-3.9, .89 -1.4 12

Total Uninsured

12.8 1.6

14.8 2.0

-4.3, .31 -1.9 12

Health Outcomes Rank 49.4 18.4

41.7 18.1

-14.4, .76 12

29.9

Health Factors Rank

46.7 22.9

36.9 22.7

-18.0, .77 12

37.4

Life Expectancy Rank 43.8 17.0

38.2 20.0

-17.6, .53 12

28.7

Quality of Life Rank

49.6 19.3

42.8 16.3

-14.3, .70 12

28.0

Health Behaviors Rank 46.2 23.1

37.9 22.1

-18.9, .67 12

35.5

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=14 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 25 of 50 24

Table A4. High-Risk in Majority-White Counties

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 50% White Population)

White Pop White Pop

>50% <50%

Factors/Variables

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t

DF

Disabled Population

16.4 3.2 15.7 3.1 -1.5, 2.8 .63 62

Disabled Population (18- 14.6 3.4 12.9 3.2 -.63, 3.9 1.4 62

64)

Living Alone*

28.3 4.3 32.1 6.8 -6.9, -.60 -2.4 62

No Automobile*

7.4 2.4 11.8 4.2 -7.3, -1.5 -3.7 11.4

Poverty (18 Years+)*

18.3 4.8 22.8 8.8 -10.6, 1.4 -1.7 11.3

Children Household

1.6 .49 1.7

.47 -.42, .22 -.65 62

Living w/Extended

7.9 1.5 10.2 2.2 -3.4, -1.2 -4.3 62

Family*

Living w/nonrelatives

4.8 1.7 16.4 3.2 -1.0, 1.2 .12 62

Crowded Housing

.70 .38 1.1

1.4 -1.4, .55 -.98 10.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.7 2.4 17.6 2.6 -.45, 1.2 1.4 62

Diabetics

13 1.5 12.7 1.4 -.73, 2.8 .54 62

Income Inequality

5.6 .82 5.9

1.0 -.91, .23 -1.2 62

Unemployed

7.0 1.7 6.8

1.6 -.88, 1.3 .40 62

Total Uninsured

14.4 1.8 13.6 2.0 -.34, 2.1 1.4 62

Health Outcomes Rank* 29.9 18.3 45.1 15.2 -27, -3.4 -2.6 62

Health Factors Rank

31 17.8 39.9 21.6 -21.2, 3.3 -1.5 62

Life Expectance Rank

30.1 18.7 40.1 16.5 -22.0, 2.4 -1.6 62

Quality of Life Rank*

29.9 18.1 45.2 16.0 -27.1, -3.5 -2.6 62

Health Behaviors Rank

30.9 17.8 40.1 21.7 -21.4, 3.0 -1.5 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 26 of 50 25

Table A5. High-Risk in Supermajority White Counties

(Cutoff Value for Mean Comparisons is 64% White Population)

White Pop White Pop

>64%

<64%

Mean S.D.

Mean S.D. 95% C.I. t

DF

Disabled Population

16.6 3.3

15.8 3.0 .79, 2.4

1.02 62

Disabled Population (18- 14.7 3.5

13.7 3.4 -.69, 2.8 1.2 62

64)

Living w/Family*

27.2 3.6

31.3 5.6 -6.5, -1.6 -3.5 62

No Automobile*

6.8 2.3

9.9 3.5 -4.6, -1.6 -4.1 44.1

Poverty (18 Years+)*

17.0 4.1

21.7 6.7 -7.6, -1.8 -3.2 42.2

Children Household

1.7 .47

1.6 .50 -.12, .37 1.0 62

Living w/Extended

7.6 1.5

9.2 1.8 -2.5, -.84 -4.0 62

Family*

Living w/nonrelatives 4.8 2.1

16.6 3.3 -.91,.90

-.02 39.5

Crowded Housing

.65 .34

.93 .97 -.67, .11 -1.5 10.3

(1.5+ People Per Room)

Uninsured Adults

18.5 2.7

18.5 2.1 -1.2, 1.2 .00 62

Diabetics

12.9 1.6

13.0 1.5 -.91, .62 -.38 62

Income Inequality

5.7 .95

6.7 1.4 -.53, .34 -.44 62

Unemployed

6.7 1.3

7.4 1.9 -1.6, .12 -1.7 62

Total Uninsured

14.3 2.1

14.2 1.6 -.85, 1.03 .20 62

Health Outcomes Rank* 25.7 18.2

41.3 15.5 -24.2, -7.0 -3.6 62

Health Factors Rank*

27.5 18.0

39.0 17.7 -20.1, -2.5 -2.6 62

Life Expectance Rank* 28.2 19.1

38.1 16.7 -19.0, -.79 -2.2 62

Quality of Life Rank* 23.83 16.5

43.6 15.1 -27.8, -11.8 -4.9 62

Health Behaviors Rank* 27.3 17.8

39.2 17.8 -20.9, -3.0 -2.7 62

Note: The results are measured at p<.05. All the results are in percentages (%) except the ranking

scores (health outcomes, health factors, life expectancy, quality of life, health behavior). The rank

values are scored on a 1-64 scale. Higher scores indicate worse outcomes.

Source: 2018 American Community Survey, One-Year Estimates, U.S. Census; Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute 2018 County

Health Rankings Report for Louisiana, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/.

Note: The T-tests measures significance (*) at p<.05.

N=64 Counties/Parishes

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 27 of 50 26

Table A6. Comparisons Between Socially Vulnerable Communities

(Cutoff Value is 45% Minority/Nonwhite Population)

Minority >45% Minority <45%

Indicators of Social Mean S.D.

Mean S.D.

95% C.I. T

Vulnerability

Poverty*

30

13.4

14.7 8.5

13.9, 16,6 21.9

Unemployed*

10.0 5.5

5.6 3.6

3.9, 5.0 15.7

No HS Diploma*

20.2 8.5

12.8 8.4

6.4, 8.4 14.8

Over 65 Years Old* 13.7 5.0

16.0 6.1

-2.9, -1.6 -6.9

Disabled* Population 16.7 5.9

14.5 5.5

1.6, 2.9 6.5

Single Parent*

14.7 7.6

8.1 5.0

5.9, 7.3 17.2

Households

Crowded*

2.9 2.6

1.9 2.0

.74, 1.3 7.4

No Automobile*

16.5 11.9

5.5 4.8

9.8, 12.1 19.4

Uninsured*

13.5 5.7

9.3 4.7

3.6, 4.8 13.4

Population

p<.05, p<.10

Source: CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index, 2018, N= 1140 Census Tracks

DF
795 808 1067 1134 1034 769
917 627 956

Notes
1 Both terms, Blacks and African Americans, are used interchangeably in this declaration. 2 VPM News, “African Americans Make Up All of Richmond Coronavirus Deaths,” VPM News, https://vpm.org/news/articles/12538/african-americans-make-up-all-of-richmondcoronavirus-deaths, April 15, 2020; “In Poverty Stricken Mississippi Delta, Coronavirus Fight Has Added Challenges,” Washington Post, April 18, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/in-poverty-stricken-mississippi-deltacoronavirus-fight-has-added-challenges/2020/04/18/991053b8-59ac-4a16-9f6297e79c8e7849_video.html, April 18, 2020; Associated Press, “Milwaukee's Black Community Hit Hard by Coronavirus,” March 27, 2020, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/newyork/articles/2020-03-27/milwaukees-black-community-hit-hard-bycoronavirus?context=amp&src=usn_tw&__twitter_impression=true; Lonnae O'Neal, “Public Health Expert Says African Americans Are at Greater Risk of Death from Coronavirus,” March 13, 2020, https://theundefeated.com/features/public-health-expert-says-african-americans-are-atgreater-risk-of-death-from-coronavirus/; Joseph P. Williams, “Black Americans Face an Uphill Battle Against the Coronavirus,” March 26, 2020,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 28 of 50
27
https://www.miamitimesonline.com/covid-19_hub/black-americans-face-an-uphill-battleagainst-the-coronavirus/article_be29b2b4-6f69-11ea-b1a2-4b5b09550f0f.html; Deborah Barfield Berry, “Health Issues for Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans May Cause Coronavirus to Ravage Communities,” March 30, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/30/coronavirus-cases-could-soar-blackslatinos-and-native-americans/2917493001/; Akilah Johnson and Talia Buford, “Early Data Shows African Americans Have Contracted and Died of Coronavirus at an Alarming Rate,” April 3, 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/early-data-shows-african-americans-havecontracted-and-died-of-coronavirus-at-an-alarming-rate/amp?__twitter_impression=true. 3 Melinda Deslatte, “Louisiana Data: Virus Hits Blacks, People With Hypertension, April 7, 2020, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-04-07/louisiana-datavirus-hits-blacks-people-with-hypertension; Jeff Adelson, Youssef Rdadd, and Robert Faimon, “It’s disturbing’: Coronavirus kills black residents at dramatic rates across Louisiana, April 21, 2020, https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_107fec9c-8408-11ea-9d9bdf1bbbef7d77.html. 4 Louisiana Vote By Mail, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteByMail/Pages/default.aspx. 5 It is common for researchers to develop different proxies for race using the American Community Survey data. See John D. Landis, “Black-White and Hispanic Segregation Magnitudes and Trends from the 2016 American Community Survey,” Cityscape vol. 21, no. 1 (2019): 63-86; Themis Chronopoulos, “ Race, Class, and Gentrification in Harlem Since 1980,” in eds. Andrew M. Fearnley and Daniel Matlin. Race Capital? Harlem as Setting and Symbol (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018), 243-266; Sean F. Reardon, Lindsay Fox, and Joseph Townsend, “Neighborhood Income Composition by Household Race and Income, 19902009,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 660 (July 2015): 78-97; Carrie E. Henning-Smith, “Rural Counties With Majority Black Or Indigenous Populations Suffer The Highest Rates Of Premature Death In The US,” Rural Health vol. 38, no. 12 (December 2019): 2019-2026. 6 2018 County Health Rankings report, A collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2018, https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/key_measures_report/ 2018CHR_KFR_0.pdf, pp. 14-16. 7 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (also called the CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), Geospatial Research Analysis, and Services Program (GRASP) Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, https://svi.cdc.gov/Documents/FactSheet/SVIFactSheet.pdf, Accessed on May 18, 2020. Also, see Barry E. Flanagan, et al., “Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index,” Journal of Environmental Health vol. 80, no. 10, (Jun 2018): 34-36. 8 Kim, Tae Kyun. “T Test as a Parametric Statistic,” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology vol. 68,6 (2015): 540-546. 9 Louisiana 2018 County Health Rankings Report, 13-16. 10 Jesse C. Baumgarter, et al., How the Affordable Care Act Has Narrowed Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Health Care, Data Brief, January 2020, p. 9.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 29 of 50 28
11 Flanagan, et al., “Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards. Also, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5m0Lb3B4UY&feature=youtu.be; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKFHOryflA&feature=youtu.be.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 30 of 50 1

VITA

NAME:

Sekou M. Franklin, Ph.D.

HOME ADDRESS:

P.O. Box 282482 Nashville, TN 37228-8516

WORK ADDRESS

Middle Tennessee State University Department of Political Science 1301 East Main Street P.O. Box 29 Murfreesboro, TN 37132

PHONE/EMAIL:

615-252-8080 (home) 615-904-8232 (work) sekoufranklin@gmail.com Sekou.Franklin@mtsu.edu

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Post-doctoral Fellowship, University of Illinois’ African American Studies and Research Program, August-2001-August 2002.

Ph.D. Howard University, Political Science, May 2001.

Masters of Arts, San Francisco State University, Political Science, 1996.

Bachelor of Science, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, 1994.

Doctoral Dissertation, “Mobilization and the Struggle for Leadership: A Study of the Black Student Leadership Network,” May 2001.

Masters Thesis, “An Analysis of the NAACP During the Post-Civil Rights Era,” May 1996.

Additional Education/Training:

Graduate of the South Asian Regional Institute on the Study and Practice of Strategic Nonviolent Action/International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, Dhulikhel, Nepal, March 3-9, 2019.

The Community Census and Redistricting Institute’s Expert Preparation and Community Education Program (Training for Expert Witnessing in Racial Redistricting Court Cases, Southern Coalition for Social Justice), Duke University, Summer 2010.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 31 of 50
2
University of Dayton Chautauqua Short Course, “Energy Sustainability: What Every Faculty Member Should Know,” University of Dayton, May 17-19, 2010.
Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems Summer Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Summer 2009.
Interuniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research short-course, “Introduction to Social Network Analysis,” University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, Summer 2007.
Global Exchange Reality Tour, “Afro-Venezuela: The San Juan Cultural Festival,” Summer 2007.
International Faculty Development Seminar, “Brazil: Societal and Economic Perspectives,” Council for International Educational Exchange, May 31-June 9, 2005.
Completed eight-week summer program at the University of Michigan's Interuniversity Consortium of Political and Social Research in Quantitative Methods, 1997.
AREAS OF CONCENTRATION:
American Politics, Pressure Groups, Urban Politics, African-American Politics, Racial/Ethnic Politics, American and Comparative Social Movements and Citizen Participation, and Civil Rights Policy and Politics.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Middle Tennessee State University, August 2003-Present. Williams College, September 2002-June 2003. University of Illinois, January 2002-May 2002 Howard University, August 1999-May 2000
COURSES (*New Course Developed for MTSU):
*“Race and the Criminal Justice System,” Middle Tennessee State University
“U.S. Presidency,” Middle Tennessee State University
“Democratic Participation and Civic Advocacy,” Middle Tennessee State University
*“Sustainable Development in the Cities,” Middle Tennessee State University

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 32 of 50 3
*“Race, Democracy, and Elections,” Middle Tennessee State University
*“Comparative Social Movements,” Middle Tennessee State University
“*Civil Rights Policy and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“Municipal Government and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“African American Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“American Government and Politics,” Middle Tennessee State University
“The Politics of U.S. Social Movements in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries,” Williams College, Spring 2003
“Theories of Community Organizing and Citizen Participation,” Williams College, Spring 2003
“Power, Politics, and Democracy” (Intro to American Government), Two Sections, Williams College, Fall 2002
“Black Political Participation in the United States,” Williams College, Fall 2002
“Pedagogy of African-American Student/Youth Politics and Socio-Political Action,” University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana Campus), Spring 2002
“American Politics and Government,” Junior Statesmen Association (Stanford University site), Junior Statesmen Foundation, Stanford, CA, Summer 2001
“Introduction to Black Politics,” Howard University, Spring 2000
“Introduction to Black Politics,” Howard University, Fall 1999
“Understanding Politics” (a course in American Politics), Teaching Assistant, San Francisco State University, Fall 1994
PUBLICATIONS:
(Books/Monographs)
Losing Power: African Americans and Racial Polarization in Tennessee Politics (University of Georgia Press, 2020)
After the Rebellion: Social Movement Action and Popular Mobilization among the PostCivil Rights Generation (New York University Press, 2014).
Editor, State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee, Sponsored by the Urban League of Middle

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 33 of 50
4
Tennessee, In Partnership with the Center for Community Change and the Urban EpiCenter, Nashville, TN, December 2010/January 2011.
(Articles/Book Chapters)
Dowe, Pearl K., Sekou Franklin and Niambi Carter. “Policy Symmetry and Cross-Racial Linked Fate in the Early Years of the Obama Presidency,” Politics, Groups and Identities, April 2018.
“The Politics of Race and Medicaid Disenrollment in Tennessee,” Social Sciences, January 2017.
“In Whom Do We Trust? Racial Trust in the Early Years of Barack Obama’s Presidency” (co-authored w/ Pearl Dowe) in Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2016.
Book Review of Daniel Q. Gillion’s The Political Power of Protest: Minority Activism and Shifts in Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2013), Journal of Politics, April 2016.
“Black Youth at the Forefront of Social Movement Activism,” Black History Bulletin (BHB) Special Issue on Youth Empowerment: Hope, Action and Freedom, vol. 79 (1) 2015, 5-14.
“Race, class and green jobs in low-income communities in the US: challenges for community development, in Class, Inequality and Community Development, Editors, Mae Shaw and Marjorie Mayo, Policy Press, 2016.
“Race, Class, and Community Organizing in Support of Economic Justice Initiatives in the Twenty-First Century,” Community Development Journal, 2013.
“The Elasticity of Anti-Civil Rights Discourse: Albert Gore, Sr., Richard Russell, and Constituent Relations in the 1950s and 1960s,” Social Identities Journal, 2013.
“The Effects of Concentrated Poverty on Black and White Participation in the Southern Black Belt,” (co-authored with Sharon Wright Austin and Angela Lewis), National Political Science Review, 2013.
Lewis, Angela K., Pearl K. Ford Dowe, Sekou Franklin. “African Americans and Obama’s Domestic Policy Agenda: A Closer Look at Deracialization, the Federal Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Health Care Act, ” Polity, 2012.
“The Social and Political Status of Hurricane Katrina’s Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia,” in Pearl Ford, ed. African Americans in Georgia: Politics and Policy, A Reflection of the New South (Mercer University Press, 2010).
“Barack Obama and the Presidential Election in Georgia: Symbolic Racism, Electoral Mobilization, and Campaign Contributions (co-authored with Pearl Ford) in Pearl Ford, ed. African Americans in Georgia: Politics and Policy, A Reflection of the New South (Mercer University Press, 2010).
“African-Americans, Transnational Contention, and Cross-National Politics in the United States and Venezuela”African Americans and Transnational Alliances with Venezuela,” in Michael Clemons, ed., African Americans and Global Affairs: Process, Power, and Impact (University Press of New England, 2010).
“Frank G. Clement and the Death Penalty in Tennessee,” in Amy Staples (ed.) The New Abolitionists (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2010).
“Style, Substance, and Situational Deracialization: Racial Polarization and

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 34 of 50
5
the Tennessee Senate Race,” Whose Black Politics, edited by Andra Gillespie, (Routledge, 2009) “Southern Racial Etiquette and the 2006 Tennessee Senate Race: The Racialization of Harold Ford’s Deracialized Campaign,” National Political Science Review, Fall 2008. (Co-authored with Richard Middleton). Book Review of Wilbur C. Rich, David Dinkins and New York City Politics: Race, Images, and the Media (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007). American Politics Research, Spring/Summer 2008. “The Black Student Leadership Network Summer Freedom School Program,” in Teach Freedom: The African American Tradition of Education For Liberation, Charles Payne and Carol Strickland, eds. (Williston, VT: Teachers College Press, 2008). “Political Triangulation in the Left Coast City: The Electoral and Governance Strategies of Mayor Willie Brown,” in John Davis (ed.) Perspectives in Black Politics and Black Leadership (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007). “Symbolic Linkages and the Congressional Black Caucus,” Co-authored with Richard Seltzer and John Davis, in John Davis (ed.) Perspectives in Black Politics and Black Leadership (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007). “Race, Preemption, and Autonomy in the District of Columbia,” National Political Science Review, Spring 2007. (Co-authored with Richard Seltzer) “Black Political Development in Tennessee: From Reconstruction- 2006,” Wornie Reed (ed.) Blacks in Tennessee: Past and Present (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2008). “Conflicts in the Coalition: Challenges to Black and Latino Political Alliances,” Co-authored with Richard Seltzer, Western Journal of Black Studies, Summer 2002 vol. 26, no. 2. “Social and Political Attitudes on the Black Predicament: Data from the Million Man March,” Co-authored with Joseph P. McCormick (First Author) Alice M. Jackson and Maurice C. Woodard (eds.) American Government and Politics: A Multicultural Perspective: A Supplemental Reader (Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002). “Black Organizational Development and the Black Student Leadership Network,” National Political Science Review vol. 8 (2001): 206-220. “Expressions of Racial Consciousness: Data from the Million Man March,” Coauthored with Joseph P. McCormick II (First Author), in Yvette Alex-Assensoh and Lawrence Hanks (eds.) Black Politics in Multiracial America (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 315-336. “Black Information Sources and the Million Women March,” Government & Politics Journal (A Journal of Howard University’s Department of Political Science) vol. 2, no. 6 (Spring 2002): 78-83. “Graduate Program in Political Science at Howard University: 1967-1996,” Government & Politics Journal (A Journal of Howard University’s Department of Political Science) vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1997-Spring 1998): 95-100.
Encyclopedia Articles
Laura Finley (ed.) Encyclopedia on Juvenile Violence (Greenwood Press, 2006).

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 35 of 50
6
(Six Entries) - African Americans and Juvenile Violence - Public Health - Mentoring - Urban Juvenile Violence - 1980-1989 - 1990-1999 John Vile (ed.) Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (Congressional Quarterly Press, 2008) - American Friends Service Committee - NAACP v. Alabama (1958) - NAACP v. Button (1963)
Research Reports and Related Activities
“Fair Chance Hiring: A Policy Proposal for Metro Nashville,” Submitted to the Civil Service Commission, Prepared for the Democracy Nashville Group, August 2015.
Bus Rapid Transit System: Transportation Equity and North Nashville, September 2012 (Prepared for the North Nashville Interest Group).
Civic and Political Literacy (CPL) Schools: A Mini-Proposal for Increasing Political Participation and Social Activism in Economically Distressed Communities (Prepared for the Urban EpiCenter).
Clean Energy and Sustainability Zones (CESZ): A Proposal for Participatory Development in Economically Distressed Communities (Submitted to the “Beloved Community” Revitalization Initiative and Tennessee Citizen Action).
Co-authored the “Green-Collar Jobs Task Force Equitable Flood Recovery Recommendations.”
Co-author “Green Jobs Act” (Tennessee General Assembly, HB 3654, Co-Sponsored by Representative Mike Stewart and Senator Andy Berke) (Approved in Subcommittee, but rejected by the Full Standing Committee.)
Co-authored Resolution 2009-866 by the Nashville & Davidson County Metropolitan Council (Approved in July 2009.)
The Green Jobs Corps of Nashville-Davidson County (Prepared for the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County), June 2009.
Green Pathways Out of Poverty: A Training Guide for Activists, Advocates and Organizers Concerned About Equity and Green Jobs (Prepared for the GreenCollar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County), March 2009.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 36 of 50 7
Driving Toward Poverty: Taxi Drivers in the Athens of the South, August 2008. (A preliminary submitted report to the Nashville-Davidson County’s Transportation and Licensing Commission, August 2008.)
Coalition Building and Formation, Report to the Nashville Black Covenant Coalition, April 5, 2007.
Reinsurance or Risk-Insurance: Health Care, the Uninsurable, and Tennessee’s Working-Poor (An examination of cost-sharing reinsurance plans; prepared for the TennCare Saves Lives Coalition), March 2006.
Green-Collar Jobs Presentation Series (Prepared and conducted for the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County and the Committee for Green Jobs in Tennessee).
(Lectures on Sustainable Development and Green Jobs)
- Green Jobs, Sustainable Development, and Equity in Tennessee, Prepared for Vanderbilt University Divinity School, December 1, 2010.
- Green Jobs in Tennessee, Tennessee Alliance for Progress Compass VII Conference, Nashville, TN, October 8-9, 2010.
- Sustainable Development and Green Jobs, Tennessee NAACP Conference, Chattanooga, TN, September 30, 2010.
- Public Sector Weatherization Programs, Green Jobs Breakfast Meeting, Sponsored by the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County, June 23, 2010.
- 21st Century Lawn and Garden Show, Nashville, TN, March 4, 2010.
- “Financial Committee for the Unemployed,” Franklin, TN, March 3, 2010.
- Race Relations Summit, NAACP State Conference, Jackson, TN, February 27, 2010.
- Compass VI Conference, Tennessee Alliance for Progress, Nashville, TN, December 45, 2009.
- Guyasuta Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, November 21, 2009.
- Tennessee Labor Management Conference, Nashville, TN, August 12, 2009

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 37 of 50
8
- Black Youth and Green Jobs, HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, July 2009.
- Peer-to-Peer Funders CommitteeGathering, Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009
- Tennessee Black Legislative Caucus Meeting, Nashville, TN, April 21, 2009.
- American Baptist College’s Shalom Leadership Course, April 2009.
- Community Forum on Green-Collar Jobs, Sponsored by the Green-Collar Jobs Task Force of Nashville-Davidson County, 15th Avenue Baptist Church, Nashville, TN, April 20, 2009.
- Center for Community Change Southeast Regional Meeting, Nashville, TN, March 28, 2009.
- Southeast Regional Conference, A. Philip Randolph Institute, Memphis, TN, March 15, 2009.
Newspaper/Newsletter Essays
Opinion Essay, “The next Metro Nashville Council will have a redistricting fight on its hands,” The Tennessean, August 2, 2019.
Opinion Essay, “Learning from the Watts Rebellion, 50 Years Later, Boston Review, August 31, 2015, Accessed at http://bostonreview.net/us/sekou-franklin-wattsrebellion-50-years-later.
Op-Ed, “There Are Better Southern Legacies to Celebrate than Dixie, and There Are Bigger Battles to Fight than the Rebel Flag,” July 9, 2015, Nashville Scene, Accessed at http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/there-are-better-southernlegacies-to-celebrate-than-dixie-and-there-are-bigger-battles-to-fight-than-therebel-flag/Content?oid=5274365.
“Amp Debate Leaves Out Race, Class Discussion,” Tennessean, 2013.
“Nashville’s Race, Class Inequities Overlooked in Campaigns,” The Tennessean, August 1, 2011.
“Police Need Holistic Approach to Crime Reduction,” The Tennessean, April 25, 2010.
“Green Jobs Are in America’s Best Interest,” The Tennessean, November 28, 2009.
“Outing of Black Non-Voters,” Nashville Scene, November 16, 2006.
“Hustle and Flow: The Failure of Black Leadership,” The Real Deal (Fall 2005): 1.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 38 of 50
9
“TennCare is a Civil Rights Issue,” Alternatives vol. 5, no. 2 (March/April 2005): 5.
CONFERENCE/PAPER PRESENTATIONS/ROUNDTABLES/LECTURES:
Lecture, “The 15th Amendment and African American Voter Justice,” Middle Tennessee State University, Honors College Lecture Series, September 9, 2019.
Paper Presentation, “Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Intellectual Roots of Nonviolent Resistance in Black Politics,” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., August 28-September 1, 2019.
Panel Presentation, “Voting Rights & Why Voter Justice Matters,” Tennessee Alliance for Black Lawyers, Tennessee Bar Association Annual Convention, Renaissance Hotel, Nashville, June 12-15, 2019.
Panel Presentation, “Nashville and the Fight for a Community Oversight Board,” National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Regional Training, Nashville Public Library, Nashville, TN, May 17, 2019.
Keynote Address, Tennessee Civic Campus Summit, Vanderbilt University, March 29, 2019.
Keynote Address, National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Baton Rouge, LA, March 15, 2019.
Presentation, “Policing the Police: Nashville and the Fight for a Community Oversight Board,” Fisk University, Nashville, TN, September 2018.
Paper Presentation, “The Radical Politics of Nonviolent Resistance and the Poor People’s Campaign,” American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, August 29-September 2, 2018.
Paper Presentation,“The Political Underpinnings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Citizenship Education,” 49th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Chicago, IL, March 14-17, 2018.
Roundtable Plenary Panel, “Preparing Expert Witnesses in an Era of Retrenchment Against Black Political Power,” 49th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Chicago, IL, March 14-17, 2018.
Guest Classroom Lecture, Community Healthcare, Vanderbilt University Medical School, March 9, 2018
Roundtable, “Strategies for Moving from Protest to the Ballot Box, 2018 Race Relations/Advocacy Summit, Tennessee NAACP State Conference, Jackson, TN, March 2-3, 2018.
Lecture, “African Americans, Democratic Participation, and the Civil Rights Movement's Citizenship Education Program, 1957-1970,” American Values Honors College Lecture Series, MTSU, February 12, 2018.
Panelist, “Transitions in Social Justice Activism,” Disasters, Displacement, and Human Rights Conference, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, February 9-11, 2018.
Paper Presentation, “Growth and Opposition to New Jim Crow Laws in Tennessee: Controversies and Conflicts over Sentencing Policies and the Death Penalty,” Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association Conference, Hyattt, New Orleans, January 4-6, 2018.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 39 of 50
10
Presentation, “Why Voter Justice Matters: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond,” The New American Electorate Beyond the Voting Booth: Building an Inclusive Democracy, Ohio State University, November 30-December 1, 2017.
Guest Classroom Lecture, African American Politics, University of Arkansas, October 2, 2017.
Three-Part Lecture, “The Role of Scholar-Activism: Teaching Resistance and Social Change in the New Millennium, Fisk University, September 30, 2017.
Chair/Moderator, Panel on Criminal Justice Reform in Tennessee, Tennessee NAACP State Conference Annual Convention, Nashville, TN, September 21-23, 2017.
Keynote Lecture, “Resistance When Your Back Is Against the Wall,” United Campus Workers-Annual Convention IBEW Hall – Nashville, TN, September 16, 2017.
Roundtable Presentation, Roundtable-Symposium Black Politics in the Trump Era, American Political Science Association, Hilton Hotel, San Francisco, CA August 30-September 3, 2017.
Paper Presentation, “The Role of Scholar-Activism: How Social Scientists Can Bolster Resistance Movements,” Paper presentation at the 47th Annual Urban Affairs Association Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 19-22, 2017.
Presentation, “Perspectives on Racial and Social Justice in Nashville's Criminal Justice Community,” Leadership Nashville – Criminal Justice Day, Sun Trust Bank, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2017.
Lecture, The Moving 13th and Criminal Justice Policy, A. Philip Randolph Southeastern Regional Conference, Hotel Preston, Nashville, TN, April 1, 2017.
Roundtable Panelist, Closing Luncheon & Plenary Session: Black Political Activism In the Trump Era: Action Steps and Moving Forward, Paper presentation at the 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 15-18, San Diego, California.
Panelist, The Boundaries of Racial Politics in Tennessee: The Legislative Behavior of Tennessee’s Black Lawmakers, 2003-2012, 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, San Diego, California, March 15-18, 2017.
Paper Presentation, Immigration and the New Tennesseans, 48th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 15-18, San Diego, California, March 15-18, 2017.
Panelist, “Black Lives Matter, Social Activism and the Carceral State,” Sewanee, Monteagle, Tennessee, February 10, 2017.
Lecture, Voting Rights & Criminal Justice Reform: Expectations After the 2016 Presidential Elections, Southeast Tennessee Paralegal Association, Chattanooga, TN, January 17, 2017.
Lecture, Voting Rights and Election Protection: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond, Black Googlers Network, Nashville, TN, January 13, 2017.
Panelist, 13th Amendment Film, No Exceptions/Conscious Conversations, November 13, 2016.
Lecture, Why Voter Justice Matters: Past Electioneering Practices, 2016 Elections & Beyond, Volunteer State College, October 26, 2016.
Panelist, Reconstructing SC’s Radical Roots – Lessons from the Southern Negro Youth Congress,South Carolina Progressive Network 20th Annual Conference &

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 40 of 50
11
University of South Carolina, October 22, 2016. Lecture, Racial Polarization and Electoral Realignment in Tennessee during the
21st Century, Brown Bag Series Lecture, MTSU, Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, October 12, 2016. Panelist, Erasing Barriers to Rehabilitation: A Discussion on the Ban the Box Movement, Tennessee Conference of the NAACP Statewide Meeting, Dickson, TN, September 22-24, 2017. Lecture, 2016 Presidential Elections, Faculty Breakfast Club, Nashville, TN, September 18, 2016. Panelist, “NAACP Get H.Y.P.E. & Courageous Together Tour,” Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 19, 2016. Lecture, “Black Youth Activism and the Reconstruction of America: Leaders, Organizations, and Tactics in the 20th Century and Beyond, Shannon Lecture Series,” Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2016. Lecture, “African Americans, Transnational Contention, and Cross-National Politics in the U.S. and Venezuela,” Africana Studies Program, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN, April 6, 2016. Roundtable Presentation, “Arrested Democracy: The Political Implications of Mass Incarceration,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Roundtable Chair, Film – This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer, National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Panel Discussant, “Moral Mondays and the Impact of Fusion Politics in the 21st Century,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016. Panelist, We Too Sing America in Nashville: Book Talk and Community Conversation with Deepa Iyer,” Nashville Public Library, February 17, 2016. Lecture, “Erasing Barriers to Rehabilitation: A Discussion on the Ban the Box Movement,” Vanderbilt Black Law Students Association, Nashville, TN, February 17, 2016. Paper Presentation, “Race, Electoral Realignment, and Polarization,” Southern Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 8-10, 2016. Panel Presentation, “Reflections on Voting Rights in the South in the Age of Shelby v. Holder, Southern Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 8-10, 2016. Panel Presentation, “Transportation Equity and Civil Rights,” Transportation Innovation Academy, Nashville, Tennessee, December 9, 2015. Panel Presentation, “Race, Policing, and Social Justice: From Ferguson to Baltimore and Beyond,” Emory University, James Weldon Johnson Institute for the Study of Race and Difference, Atlanta, Georgia, December 3, 2015. Panel Presentation, “Nashville’s Government and Media Day,” Leadership Nashville, First Amendment Center, Nashville, Tennessee, November 5, 2015. Lecture, “Ban the Box Nashville,” MTSU NAACP Chapter, October 20, 2015. Panelist/Panel Organizer, “Voting Rights Act, 1965-2015: Commemorating 50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 41 of 50
12
Years,” 24th Annual Undergraduate Social Science Symposium, Middle Tennessee State University, October 28, 2015. Panelist/Panel Organizer, “Advocacy Forum/Legislative Update,” Tennessee NAACP State Conference, 69th Annual State Convention and Civil Rights Advocacy Conference, September 19, 2015. Presentation, “Spirit of Youth and the City: Teenagers, Rebellion, and Social Change,” Washington, D.C., May 30, 2015. Presentation at the Joint Conference of the Working-Class History Association and the Working-Class Studies Association. Presentation, “A Defining Moment for Jefferson Street,” Nashville, TN, April 30, 2015. Presentation at a town hall meeting sponsored by the Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship. Presentation, “A Formula for Change: Advocacy in the Courts, the Legislature, and the Streets,” Nashville, TN, April 19, 2015. Presentation at the Re-Visioning Justice in America Conference, Vanderbilt University. Plenary Panel Presentation, “Black Politics in the Aftermath of Ferguson and Staten Island,” Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. Paper Presentation, “Racial Hierarchy, Second-Order Devolution, and Medicaid Reform Before ObamaCare, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Presentation, “Nashville and the New Jim Crow,” Nashville, TN, February 23, 2015. Presentationto the Davidson County Democratic Party Executive Committee. Presentation, “Nashville and the New Jim Crow, Nashville, TN, November 8, 2014. Presentation to the L-Club. Presentation, “Social Justice Activism,” Conference at the State Convention of the Tennessee NAACP State Conference, Nashville, TN, September 18-20, 2014. Presentation, “Spirit of Youth and the City: Teenagers, Rebellion, and Social Change,” Presentation at the Joint Conference of the Working-Class History Association and the Working-Class Studies Association, Washington, D.C., May 30, 2015. Presentation, “A Formula for Change: Advocacy in the Courts, the Legislature, and the Streets,” Re-Visioning Justice in America Conference, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, April 19, 2015. Plenary Panel Presentation, “Black Politics in the Aftermath of Ferguson and Staten Island,” Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Paper Presentation, “Racial Hierarchy, Second-Order Devolution, and Medicaid Reform Before ObamaCare, Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, March 18-21, 2015. Presentation, “Life in the Academy: The Transition from Assistant to Associate,” Panel presentation, National Conference of Black Political Science Annual Meeting, Wilmington, Delaware, March 13-15, 2014. Presentation, “Author Meets Critics: A Review of Daniel Gillon’s Political Power of Protest,” Panel presentation, National Conference of Black Political Science Annual Meeting, Wilmington, Delaware, March 13-15, 2014. Presentation, “African Americans and Legislative Politics in the Tennessee General Assembly,” Tennessee NAACP State Conference Day on the Hill, Nashville, TN,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 42 of 50
13
February 11, 2014. Presentation, “Transit Equity and the AMP,” IMF General Meeting,” Nashville, TN,
February 5, 2014. Paper Presentation, “Social Movements, Inclusion, and the Politics of Redistribution in Southern Municipalities,” the Southern Political Science Association Annual
Meeting, Hyatt, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 9-11, 2014 Presentation, “Just Growth or Just Growth?” Nashville Organized for Action and Hope
(NOAH) Summit, September 28, 2013. Presentation, “Pilgrimage for Jobs, Equity, and Fairness,” State Conference of the
Tennessee State Conference of NAACP Chapters, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, September 27, 2013. Presentation, “Transportation Equity and North Nashville,” Neighborhood Resource Center Transportation Conference, Nashville, September 21, 2013. Panel Chair and Organizer, “Grassroots Organizing and Community Organizing among African-American Women in Middle Tennessee,” MTSU Women’s Studies Conference, April 5, 2013. Presentation, “The Racial Politics of TennCare and What it Means for the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, March 25, 2013. Paper presentation, “Race, Realignment, and Polarization in Tennessee in the 21st Century,,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2013. Presentation, “Bus Rapid Transit North Nashville Corridor, Empowerment Congress Leadership Institute, Co-Presentation with the Nashville Music City Team, January 18, 2013. Lecture, “The Long Range Impact of the 2012 Elections and How it Affects Middle Tennessee,” Horizon Group, Murfreesboro, TN, January 12, 2013. Lecture, State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee, Nashville NAACP, December 13, 2012. Panel Presentation, “United Campus Workers, Neoliberalism, & Tennessee Public Higher Education, Association for Humanist Sociology Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, November 7-11, 2012. Lecture, “African-Americans and Civic Engagement in Tennessee,” Horizon Group, Murfreesboro, TN, July 2012. Lecture, “Localizing Green Equity and Climate Justice in Municipal-Jobs Programs, 5th Annual Ethnic Studies Distinguished Alumni Speaker Series, Santa Clara University, May 17, 2012. Lecture, “Transnational Contention, African-Americans, and Afro-Venezuelans,” May 16, UC Santa Cruz, 2012. Panel Chair, “Moving from the Margins: Political Attitudes, Inequality, and Community Based Advocacy,” (Undergraduate Research Section), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2012. Panel Presentation, “African Americans and Obama’s Domestic Policy Agenda: A Closer Look at Deracialization, the Federal Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Health Care Act,” (co-authored with Angela K. Lewis and Pearl K. Dowe), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 43 of 50
14
March 2012. Panel Presentation, “In Whom Do We Trust? Racial Trust, Feedback Loops, and the
Impact of President Barack Obama,” (co-authored with Peark K. Dowe), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 2012. Panel Presentation, “Gerrymandering and Redistricting, League of Women Voters and First Amendment Center “Redistricting: Map It Out! Panel, Belcourt Theatre, October 6, 2011. Panel Presentation, “Electoral Boundaries and Voting Trends in Tennessee, 2001-2011,” State Conference of the Tennessee State Conference of NAACP Chapters, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, September 23, 2011. Paper Presentation, “The Green For All Movement’s Struggle for Green Jobs and Equitable Green Procurement Policies in Municipalities,” 69th Annual Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, March 31April 3, 2011. Paper Presentation, “Frank Clement and the Death Penalty,” Tennessee Conference on Historians, Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tennessee, September 10, 2010. State of Blacks in Middle Tennessee Lectures (These lectures are for the State of Blacks and Middle Tennessee report, 2010) - HBCU Wellness Project, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, July 15, 2010. - Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship Meeting, Nashville, TN, May 2010. - National Urban League Strategic Discussion, Renaissance Hotel, Nashville, TN, April 20, 2010. Presentation, “Political Strategies to Environmental Change, “Creating the Beloved Community Conference: Environmental Justice and the City,” Pittsburgh (PA) Theological Seminary Metro-Urban Institute, April 8-10, 2010 Lecture, “The Green For All Movement,” Buhl Lecture Series, University School of Nashville, April 28, 2009. Paper Presentation, “Race, TennCare, and Perspectives on Health Care,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, March 18-22, 2009. Roundtable Presentation, “How Will President Obama’s Economic Recovery Bill Affect the African American Community?” Sponsored by the Urban Resource Center, Clarksville, TN, March 5, 2009. Paper Presentation, “The Politics of Hurricane Katrina’s Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia,” Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 7-10, 2009. Roundtable Presentation, “Gender, Race, and Politics,” Women Studies Program, KUC Theater, MTSU, October 27, 2008. Lecture, “Between Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama: Race Management, Electoral Populism, and Presidential Politics,” Honors College, October 20, 2008. Paper Presentation, “Black Political Development in Tennessee,” Symposium, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Africana Studies Program, April 24, 2008. Paper Presentation, Before the “Jena 6” Protest: The Juvenile Justice Reform Movement in the 1990s and 2000,” National Association of Black Political Scientists’

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 44 of 50
15
Annual Conference, March 19-22, 2008, Chicago, Illinois. Panel Presentation, “Blacks and Social Justice in Tennessee,” NAACP Labor and
Industry statewide meeting, January 16, 2008, Columbia, Tennessee. “Situational Deracialization, Harold Ford, Jr., and the 2006 Senate Race in Tennessee,”
Transforming Race Conference, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University, November 30-December 1, 2007. Presentation, “The Evolution, Demolition, and Revitalization of Public Housing,” in the United States, Middle Tennessee State University, Bilateral Conference on Urban Land Use Resources, Middle Tennessee State University, November 19, 2007. Panel Presenter, Shadow Government: Race, Class, and Illness-based Bias in Healthcare,” United Methodist Church Women’s Conference, August 13, 2007. Panel Chair/Presenter, “Election 2008,” Tennessee Alliance for Progress, Compass IV Conference, Nashville, TN, April 14, 2007. Paper Presentation, “Style, Substance, and Situational Deracialization: Racial Polarization and the Tennessee Senate Race,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference,” San Francisco, California, March 21-25, 2007. Three Lectures for the Shalom Leadership Class, American Baptist College in the Spring 2007 Academic Year: a) “Grassroots Organizing: TennCare as a Case Study” (January 16, 2007) b) “Youth Organizing and Generational Politics” (February 13th, 2007) c) “Pathways to Black Leadership” (March 27, 2007) Lecture, “Black Youth and Social Movement Participation,” NAACP ACT-SO Plenary Meeting, David Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, January 27, 2007. Lecture, “Incarcerated Persons’ Role in Today’s Social Justice Movement,” Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, December 16, 2006. Lecture, “Race and Social Policy,” University of Tennessee Department of Social Work, November 20, 2006. Panelist, “Reclaiming Our Youth: Movement Activism and Grassroots Lobbying for Juvenile Justice Reform,” Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, January 2006. Organizer, “TennCare on the Front Lines,” Matthew Walker Clinic, Nashville, Tennessee, September 29, 2005. Panelist, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile (In) Justice,” Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 9, 2005. Panelist, “African Americans the Race for the American South, 1954-1968,” American Politics Group Annual Conference, Canterbury Christ Church University College, Canterbury, England, January 6-8, 2005. Lecture, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” Middle Tennessee State University Honors College, November 2004. Panelist, “We Are Labor Too: African American Young Adult Participation in the Labor Movement,” Southwest Labor Studies Association Conference, April 30, 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Panelist, “After the Rebellion: Movement Activism Among the Post-Civil Rights Generation,” Popular Culture Association Conference, April 9, 2004, San Antonio, TX.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 45 of 50
16
Lecture, “Campus Racism and Activism,” University Mentoring Program, Middle Tennessee State University, October 28, 2003.
Panelist, “From Student Apathy to Student Activism,” Emerging Leaders Public Service Seminar Sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Leadership Institute, June 2003.
Panel Presentation, “New Intergroup Realities and the Decline of African American ‘Minority’ Status: Rethinking African American Methods and Modes of Struggle,” 26th Annual Black Studies Conference, Olive-Harvey College, African American Studies Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 23-26, 2003.
Lecture, “Black Youth Activism in New Haven,” College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York, March 2003.
Panel Presentation, “Black Political Thought and the Vote: Saliency, Interpretation, and Utility,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Oakland, California, March 13-15, 2003.
Panel Presentation, “Organizing as a Political Strategy in the Post-Black Power Era: Intergenerational Politics and Sociopolitical Movements in New Haven,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Oakland, California, March 13-15, 2003.
Presenter, “Cynthia McKinney and the 2002 Mid-Term Elections,” Conference, Elections 2002 – Implications for an Inclusive Politics, Williams College, November 15-16, 2002.
Presenter, “Moving Beyond the Talented Tenth,” Emerging Scholars Interdisciplinary Network Working Group, University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 13-15, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “The Paradoxes of Enclave Federalism: Political Culture, Home Rule, and Statehood, in the District of Columbia.” Midwest Political Science Association, April 2002.
Lecture, “Community Organizing and Citizen Participation in Post-Black Power Politics and the Era of Globalization,” Albion College, Albion, Michigan, April 17, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “Community Organizing and Strategy in Post-Black Power Era,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 8, 2002.
Roundtable Panelist, “You Came `Here’ to Leave: Negotiating the Graduate Studies Process Each Step of the Way,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 8, 2002.
Roundtable Chair and Panelist, “Making the Transition from Graduate School to the Academia,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 7, 2002.
Presentation, “Blacks and the Suffrage,” Sponsored by Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. and Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Inc., University of Illinois, March 6, 2002.
Panel Presentation, “The Black Freedom Movement and New Social Movement Theories,” (Reading Group) Afro-American Studies and Research Program (University of Illinois), January 31, 2002.
Lecture, “Political Generations and Black Student/Youth Social Movement Participation at the End of the Twentieth Century,” Wesleyan University,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 46 of 50
17
November 29, 2001. Lecture, “The World Beyond the Campus: Youth Organizing and the
Black Student Leadership Network,” University of Illinois Afro-American Studies and Research Program, November 12, 2001. Keynote Address, “Justice and the American Political Community.” Junior Statesman Association Summer Program, July 2001. Panel Presentation, “Mobilization and the Struggle for Leadership,” Dissertation Colloquium, Howard University’s Department of Political Science, Washington, DC, April 23, 2001. Panel Presentation, “The Culture of Black Student and Youth Political Activity,” School of Education Conference on Culturally Appropriate Teaching In An Urban Setting,” Howard University, Washington, D.C., March 7-8, 2001. Panel Chair, “Social Change and the Relevancy of Political Science to Communities of Color,” American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August-September, 2000. Panel Presentation, “The Origins of the Institutionalization of Police Brutality/Police Repression, Pre-1970," Crisis America: Police Brutality Symposium, Amnesty International at Howard University, March 2000. Panel Presentation, “Patron-Client Relations and Dilemmas in Black Student and Youth Socio-Political Organizations,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., March 2000. Panel Chair, “Community Politics and Black Youth Heading Into the 21st Century: Coalitions, Leadership, and Economic Development," Congressional Black Associates and Potential Unlimited, Inc., Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., September 1999. Panel Chair, “The Status of Graduate Political Science Students of Color at Predominantly White Institutions,” American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 1999. Panel Presentation, “HBCU’s and Community Development,” Howard University Graduate Symposium Conference, Washington, D.C., April 1999. Panel Presentation, “Social and Political Attitudes Towards the Black Predicament: Data from the Million Man March,” Co-authored with Joseph McCormick, II (Lead author), National Conference of Black Political Scientists’ Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, March 1999. Panel Presentation, "Expressions of Racial Consciousness Among Black Men at The Million Man March," Co-authored with Joseph P. McCormick, II (Lead author), American Political Science Association's Annual Conference, Boston, MA, September 1998. Panel Chair, "The Role of Black Political Scientists, In Transition Heading Into the Twenty-First Century" National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black Organizational Development and the Black Student Leadership Network: An Examination of Local-Level Black Organizations and the Community Mobilization Activities in the Post-Civil Rights Era," National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 47 of 50
18
April 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black and Latino Race Relations in the Western and
Southwestern Regions of the United States," Race Relations in the Next Millennium, Howard University, Washington, D.C, February 1998. Panel Presentation, "Black Political Opinion Towards California's Voter Initiatives: a closer look at Propositions 13, 187, and 209," Northeast Conference Political Science Association's Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, November 1997. Panel Presentation, “The San Jose NAACP chapter in the Post-Civil Rights Era,” National Conference of Black Political Scientists' Annual Conference, Savannah, GA, March 1996.
PROFESSIONAL/RESEARCH/WORK/VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES:
President of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, March 2019-Present.
Facilitator/Trainer, James Lawson Institute for Nonviolent, July 2018 – Present.
I was also appointed to the Tennessee Advisory Committee of the US Civil Rights Commission.
Coordinated the Tennessee Election Protection Network with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, November 2016.
Planning Committee of the Tennessee Caucus of Black Legislators’ Town Hall Forum on Criminal Justice Reform (Middle Tennessee cluster, June 12, 2016).
Program Co-Chair of the Annual Meeting of the National Black Political Scientists’ 47th Annual Meeting, Jackson, Mississippi, March 16-20, 2016.
I taught a three-hour short course at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, “The Role of Scholar Activism: How Political Scientists Can Bolster Resistance Movements,” San Francisco, CA, September 2, 2015.
Panelist and assisted with organizing the Nashville Convening of the Solidarity Summit – II with the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, Open Society Foundation, and the Proteus Foundation, Caza Azafran, Nashville, Tennessee, August 26-28, 2015.
Coordinating Committee of Democracy Nashville (Assisted with the Adoption of Banthe-Box in Nashville), http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/10/metro-adopts-banbox-policy-most-city-jobs/75515562/.
I served as the Co-Chair of the Black History Month program for MTSU.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 48 of 50
19
I served on the Faculty Search Committee for American Government and Politics.
I served on the Graduate Program Committee for the Department of Political Science.
In the summer 2006, I visited Venezuela to collect data and research for two projects: 1) “African Americans, Venezuela, and Transnational Alliances”; 2) a project that looks at the socio-political development of Afro-Venezuelans.
In the summer 2006, I took a course entitled, “Social Network Analysis,” at the Interuniversity Consortium of Social and Political Research (the satellite campus at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).
I received a Faculty Research and Activity Grant for the Spring-Summer 2007 to research the socio-political development of Afro-Venezuelans.
Chair of the Board of Directors, Urban EpiCenter, Nashville, Tennessee.
Board Member, Tennessee Alliance for Progress (TAP), September 2005-2006.
TennCare Saves Lives Coalitions, Coordinating Committee Member, August 2005Present.
Ad Hoc Committee for Equity (Nashville), Working Committee, Advise on Organizing Initiatives, August 2005-Present.
Trainer, Nashville Peace and Justice Center Leadership Institute, “Training for Community Organizing,” 2005.
Board Member, Tennessee Alliance for Progress, November 2005- Present . Lead Teacher, “A Ten-Week Teach-In of the Civil Rights and Social Justice
Movements,” Tennessee Citizen Action Voter/Electoral Organizing Project, Summer 2004. Board Member, Tennessee Citizen Action, 2004-2005. Board Member, Human Values for Transformative Action, Inc., June 2003-June 2005. Emerging Young Scholars Interdisciplinary Network, Working Committee, School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania, November 2000-Present. Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana Campus) Afro-American Studies and Research Program, August 2001-August 2002. Instructor, Junior Statesmen Association Summer School Program, Stanford University Site, Summer 2001. Curriculum Committee Coordinator, Potential Unlimited InTECHgration Enterprise and Career Development Institute, Washington, D.C., November 2000-August 2001. I was the Curriculum Development Coordinator for Potential Unlimted, Inc.’s InTECHgration Enterprise and Career Development Institute. The Institute attempted to develop an adult education school in collaboration with the State Education Agency Adult Division at the University of the District of Columbia, the Telecommunication Development Corporation, Xerox, and the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. Consultant, National Center for Bioethics, Tuskegee, Alabama, April 2001May 2001. Consultant, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial, Youth Against Racism Project, Washington,

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 49 of 50
20
D.C., March-May 2001. Graduate Intern/Assistant, National League of Cities Race and Ethnic Relations
Program, Washington, DC, June 2000-February 2001. The National League of Cities is the lobby and research public sector firm for municipal officials (city council members and mayors) and municipal state leagues. The National League of Cities has an on-going Campaign to Promote Racial Justice, that was led by Dr. Lorna Gonsalves-Pinto, who coordinated anti-racism initiatives with over 200 municipal officials. Chair of the Committee on Graduate Issues, Race and Ethnicity Section, American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1998-2000. Political Researcher, Wilmer Leon Show (Political Talk Show), WOL, September 1999-May 2001. Co-Principal Investigator, 1999 Howard University Political Survey: PreElection, 1999. Survey Analyst, Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, D.C., 1999. Teaching Intern, LISTEN, Inc., Washington, D.C., Summer 1999. Graduate Research Associate, Center for Urban Progress, Howard University, 1998-1999. National Research Council Graduate/Postdoctorate Internship, National Academy Sciences, 1998. President, Graduate Political Science Association, Howard University, Washington, D.C., 1998-1999. Community Outreach Coordinator, Election Committee for Ward One City Council Candidate, Baruti Jahi, Washington, D.C., 1999. Vice-President, Graduate Political Science Association, Howard University, Washington, D.C., 1997-1998. Survey Analyst, 1997 Million Women March Survey, Department of Political Science, Howard University. Survey Analyst, D.C. Council for Court Excellence, D.C. Jury Behavior Project, Washington, DC, 1997. GRANTS
Awarded a Faculty Development Grant to attend Carnegie Mellon’s Summer Institute on Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 2009.
Awarded a Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant for the project: "After the Rebellion: Social Movement Activism and Popular Mobilization among the PostCivil Rights Generation,” Spring 2009.
Awarded Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant, “The Socio-Political Development of Afro Venezuelans under the Bolivarian Experiment, 2006-2007.
Faculty Development Grant to attend the Social Network Analysis course sponsored by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of North Carolina, July 31-August 4, 2006.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-5 06/04/20 Page 50 of 50
21
Awarded Faculty Research & Creative Activity Grant, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” Summer Salary Grant, 2004.
Awarded W.T. Grant Foundation, “Policing and Protesting Juvenile Justice Inequities,” (Grant Number: 2561), 2003-2004 (See Final Report), $4,750.
Grants Written for Community Groups:
Clean Energy and Sustainability Zones: A Proposal for Sustainable Practices in LowIncome Communities, AmeriCorps Grant.
National Training and Information Center , Community Organizing Grant (Awarded $6,000 to the Urban EpiCenter).
Center for Community Change’s Campaign for Community Values Grant (Awarded $20,000 to the Urban EpiCenter
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
National Conference of Black Political Scientists Southern Political Science Association American Political Science Association
AWARDS
a) President’s Award, Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP b) Young Professionals Award, Rutherford County, Murfreesboro Magazine c) Green Hero Award, Tennessee Alliance for Progress d) Advocate of the Year, Tennessee Citizen Action e) John Pleas Faculty Award, Middle Tennessee State University f) Greater Nashville Alliance of Black School Educators Award g) NAACP Benjamin L. Hooks Keeper of the Flame Award

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 2 of 16
DRAFT
April 13, 2020
SECRETARY OF STATE EMERGENCY ELECTION PLAN FOR THE JULY 11, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY AND AUGUST 15, 2020
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
I. AUTHORITY
After the governor declares a statewide emergency, should the secretary of state determine that such emergency impairs an election that may otherwise be held except for technical, mechanical, or logistical problems with respect to the relocation or consolidation of polling places within the parish, potential shortages of commissioners and parish board commissioners, or shortages of voting machines, La. R.S. 18:401.3 authorizes the secretary to certify to the governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs that the emergency impairs the election and that an emergency election plan is necessary.
Upon concurrence by the governor and a majority of each of the two committees that such a plan is necessary, the secretary of state shall develop an emergency plan in writing that proposes a resolution to the technical, mechanical, or logistical problems that impair the election. The written emergency plan shall then be submitted to the Senate and Governmental Affairs and House and Governmental Affairs committees and the governor.
If a majority of the members of each Committee approve the emergency plan, the plan shall be submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval. If a majority of each house of the legislature and the governor approve the emergency plan, the secretary of state shall take all steps necessary to implement the plan and all officials of the state and of any political subdivision shall cooperate with and provide assistance to the secretary of state as necessary to implement the plan.
II. PURPOSE
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic.
Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 was signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on March 11, 2020, declaring a statewide public health emergency as a result of the imminent threat posed to Louisiana citizens by COVID-19, which has created emergency conditions that threaten the lives and health of the citizens of the State. The emergency conditions created by COVID-19, as well as the efforts necessary to contain its spread, will affect all 2,988,813 of Louisiana’s registered voters as well as the 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the State.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 3 of 16
Governor Edwards signed Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 on March 13, 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020. On April 13, 2020, the governor signed Proclamation No. ______ to reschedule the presidential preference primary election to July 11, 2020 and the municipal general election to August 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, imposing a general stay-at-home order on all individuals within the State and limiting all public gatherings to ten people or less in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19. All individuals were directed to stay home unless performing an essential activity until April 13, 2020. This order was extended to April 30, 2020 by 41 JBE 2020, signed by the governor on April 2, 2020.
The July 11, 2020 presidential preference primary election is a statewide federal election. This election also includes state and local party office races in 47 parishes, and local and municipal races and propositions in 24 parishes. The August 15, 2020 municipal general election includes local and municipal runoffs and propositions in 51 parishes. Five of the 51 parishes have no propositions on the ballot and only have potential run-offs from the July 11, 2020 primary.
COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The purpose of this emergency plan is to provide a means of conducting these elections in the wake of this unprecedented pandemic. In order to fully implement this plan, due to supply chain issues, the Department must order all equipment and material resources for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than April 24, 2020.
III. DUTIES OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
The secretary of state is the chief election officer of the State and administers the laws of the Election Code.
The State Board of Election Supervisors has the powers and duties granted to it by La. R.S. 18:24 to oversee Louisiana election laws. The State Board consists of the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general, the commissioner of elections, a representative of the Registrars of Voters Association, a representative of the Clerks of Court Association, a governor’s appointee, and a representative of the Police Jury Association.
Registrars of voters have many duties to perform before and during elections, including: registering voters, processing voter registration applications, processing requests for absentee by mail ballots, conducting early voting in the parish, and preparing the precinct registers for election day voting.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 4 of 16
Clerks of court are the chief election officers of each parish. For each election, the clerk of court trains the commissioners who work at the polling places on election day, takes responsibility for delivering the voting machines to and from the polling locations, and tabulates and transmits election results on election night.
Parish boards of election supervisors supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish. They are responsible for selecting election day commissioners, consolidating polling places, issuing commissions to watchers, counting absentee by mail and early voting ballots on election day, and selecting commissioners to aid in counting the absentee by mail and early voting ballots. The parish boards also seal the voting machines before election day, inspect the machines after the election, and conduct requested recounts.
Parish governing authorities have specific duties to perform during election cycles, including changing any polling places which are no longer available for use because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Changing polling places includes giving adequate notice of the change to each voter in the affected precincts and to each candidate to be voted on at that polling place, posting a sign at the former polling place, directing voters to the new polling place, advertising the changes in the official journal of the parish and in any other newspaper of general circulation in the affected precincts, and other reasonable steps necessary or desirable to inform voters and candidates of the change in location.
IV. VOTING MACHINES
The secretary of state has sufficient voting machines to conduct early voting and election day voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The voting machines used on election day are Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines, which have a large-format printed paper ballot fastened to the front of each machine. These paper ballots have already been printed and fastened to the front of the AVC machines for the April 4, 2020 election date. Prolonged storage in the humidity and heat of the Department’s un-air conditioned warehouses will cause the paper ballots to warp and curl, therefore it is recommended that paper ballots for all AVC machines used in the July 11, 2020 election be reprinted.
V. POLLING PLACES FOR IN-PERSON EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY VOTING
A. Early Voting
Early voting is conducted for seven days in each parish by the registrar of voters. There are currently 102 early voting sites statewide. Most are in registrars of voters offices, but some are in voting machine warehouses, public libraries, and other public facilities.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 5 of 16
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election is currently scheduled for June 26 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sunday, June 27, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election is currently scheduled for August 1 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sunday, August 2, 2020).
This plan will expand the days of early voting from seven to thirteen days. Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election will be held June 18 through July 2, 2020 (excluding Sundays, June 21, 2020 and June 28, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election will be held July 25 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sundays, July 26, 2020 and August 2, 2020). Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
One of the two early voting sites in Ouachita Parish is located at the West Ouachita Senior Center, 1800 North 7th Street, West Monroe. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seniors are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. The Department of State will choose another location for this early voting site. The Ouachita Parish Registrar of Voters will conduct early voting at the registrar’s main office, 1650 Desiard Street, Suite 125, Monroe, Louisiana 71201, and at the second site (location to be determined).
If any other early voting sites become unavailable for early voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVID-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish registrar of voters and parish governing authority to relocate the early voting site. If a sufficient temporary early voting site cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used for early voting.
B. Election Day Voting
Election day voting is normally conducted in 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the state. Polling places are established for each precinct by the parish governing authority. Polling places must be equipped with proper electric current, fixtures, and outlets necessary to operate voting machines and otherwise conduct the election. The polling places must also have sufficient sanitary facilities. To the extent possible, the parish governing authority must locate multiple precincts in one polling location in public buildings. If a suitable public building is not available, precincts may be located on private property.
Due to the Governor’s stay-at-home order, the limitation on gatherings of more than ten people at a time, and the rapid rise of COVID-19 cases in Louisiana, there may be limitations on the availability of polling places for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections. Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
The Department will work with the clerks of court and parish governing authorities to relocate polling places located in senior citizen centers and nursing homes (these polling places must be relocated). Polling places located in the following may be relocated, depending on the facility:
● Council on aging offices; ● Residential facilities or private homes; and
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 6 of 16

● Non-public buildings if the owners do not want to hold the election on their property due to conditions caused by COVID-19.
Polling places that must be relocated will need to be identified by April 22, 2020. If any other election day polling places become unavailable to conduct voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVD-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish clerk of court and parish governing authority to relocate the precinct to another polling place. If a desirable temporary polling place cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used as a polling place for one or more precincts.
Signs will be posted at all former polling places, updated voter registration cards will be sent to the voters reflecting their new polling place, and notice of the new polling places will be published, as time permits, to inform the voters of changes in polling places.
Currently, the secretary of state has identified the following polling places that should be relocated for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections:

PARISH ALLEN
AVOYELLES

POLLING LOCATION PRECINCTS REGISTERED VOTERS

Oberlin Senior Citizen Building

01-03

290

Marksville Senior Citizen Building

02-07

471

Bunkie Council on Aging

10-03A

433

BEAUREGARD

Council on Aging

00-26

936

CATAHOULA IBERVILLE

Catahoula Council on Aging

01-02

St. Gabriel Community Center

9 & 10

Iberville Council on Aging

19, 19A, 20 & 23

187 2413 1465

5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 7 of 16

JEFFERSON LAFOURCHE

Summerville Assisted Living Center
Westminster Towers
Harahan Senior Citizens Center
Metairie Manor
Metairie Senior Citizen Center
Dorothy B. Watson Center
George Edmond Activity Center
Marrero Senior Community Center
Terrytown Golden Age Center

K003 K025 H009
70 82, 85, 86 & 87
104 & 108 154
173, 179B & 181 227 & 229

Wilbert Tauzin Senior Citizen Center

6/2

MADISON

Madison Council on Aging

12

NATCHITOCHES

Natchitoches Council on Aging

01-02

ORLEANS

Mater Dolorosa Church Basement
Woldenberg Village Nazareth Inn
Guste High Rise

Ward 17 Pct 2-7 15/14G 09/44A
02/04

OUACHITA

West Ouachita Senior Center

34/47

1409 1274 627 831 3505 1569 1304 2596 1976
1289
478
1361
3574 1494 756 832
1046

ST. JAMES

Lutcher Senior Center

04,05,06

1669

6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 8 of 16

ST. MARY ST. TAMMANY
VERNON WASHINGTON

St. Mary Council Building

44

Health Unit

38

AARP Senior Center

45

Avanti Senior Living Center

115

Slagle Senior Citizens Center
Hornbeck Senior Citizens Center

08/01 02/03,03A

Bogalusa Senior Citizens Center

04/05,06,05B

596 499 609 1,058 440 955 1000

VI. IN-PERSON VOTING UNDER THE NURSING HOME PROGRAM
The program for in-person voting by voters residing in nursing homes, as provided in La. R.S. 18:1333, is suspended for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, except for the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1333(G)(4)(a). Voters currently enrolled in the Nursing Home Program will be mailed an absentee by mail ballot and allowed to vote the ballot according to the procedures in La. R.S. 18:1301-1319. However, if restrictions on visitation remain in place, voters enrolled in the Nursing Home Program may receive assistance from an employee of the nursing home for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
VII. ABSENTEE BY MAIL VOTING
The Election Code requires voters to have one of several listed reasons to be eligible to vote by mail. These reasons are specified by law.
A registered voter can request an absentee by mail ballot until four days before election day and must return their ballot to the registrar of voters no later than 4:30 p.m. on the day before the election, with special exceptions for deployed military, overseas citizens, and hospitalized or sequestered voters.
A. Voters Requesting an Absentee by Mail Ballot
The deadlines to request an absentee by mail ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:

7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 9 of 16
● July 7, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 10, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
The deadlines to request an absentee by mail ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 11, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 14, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
All requests to vote absentee by mail must be in writing under the voter’s signature and must specify the reason for the request. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or online through the secretary of state’s website at GeauxVote.com.
This plan will expand the reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and are:
● Sixty years of age or older; ● At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical
conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease); ● Subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order; ● Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; ● Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; ● Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID19; ● Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to selfquarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or ● Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID-19 concerns.
All regular requests for absentee by mail ballots will continue to be accepted.
All requests shall be verified by the registrar of voters by comparison with the registration records on file in the registrar’s office. The secretary proposes to deputize his staff to assist the registrars, if needed, to process the increased number of absentee by mail requests, mail absentee ballots to voters, and process absentee ballots returned by voters.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 10 of 16
La. R.S. 18:115(F) requires voters that registered by mail and who have not previously voted in their parish to vote in person the first time. This requirement will be waived for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
This plan will require the development and use of a temporary application for absentee by mail ballot requests due to COVID-19. This application will be available to voters in addition to the other absentee by mail applications currently in use.
The COVID-19 reasons for request may be submitted online through the GeauxVote online portal in addition to the statutory reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot. Programming by the Department’s IT Division will be required to add the COVID-19 reasons to the online portal and may take up to a month to implement due to time required for development, testing, and cybersecurity concerns.
Voters may otherwise submit an application by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
The requirement for two witness signatures in La. R.S. 18:1307(A) will be waived for absentee by mail ballot requests due to COVID-19. If a voter makes a mark or is otherwise unable to sign their name, the application must be signed by only one witness.
This plan may require special training for election officials to conduct the elections under this emergency plan.
B. Voters Receiving an Absentee by Mail Ballot
Under usual circumstances, a voter submits a request to the registrar of voters to receive an absentee by mail ballot, and the registrar of voters sends the absentee by mail ballot to the voter.
This plan may require the Department of State to assist the registrars of voters in carrying out the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1308 regarding absentee voting by mail.
The Department will assist the registrars, as needed, to mail an absentee by mail ballot to a voter who timely submits a request.
The Department may contract with the United States Postal Service to create a tracking system to track all absentee by mail ballots mailed to and from voters under this emergency plan, should cost and circumstances permit.
Voters who submit a request under this plan to receive an absentee ballot by mail must provide the address to which the absentee ballot shall be sent. If the address is within the parish, such address shall only be the voter’s registration address or a mailing address on file with the registrar of voters.
In addition to requesting to receive an absentee ballot by mail, voters may alternatively request to receive an absentee ballot by fax (with waiver of right to secret ballot), by email (for deployed military, overseas, and voters with physical disabilities, with waiver of right to secret ballot), or
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 11 of 16
by hand delivery to an immediate family member of a hospitalized voter. (Voters hospitalized with COVID-19 may cause unique problems as such patients are currently not allowed visitors, nor are visitors allowed in hospitals.)
Instructions on completing the absentee by mail ballot are included with the ballot. The instructions include how to vote the ballot, return the ballot, sign the envelope, request a replacement ballot for a spoiled ballot if necessary, and specify the deadline to return the ballot.
All voters who received and returned an absentee by mail ballot prior to approval of this emergency plan will receive a letter from the Department informing them that their returned ballot remains valid for the July 11, 2020 election date.
C. Voters Returning Voted Ballots
The deadlines to return a voted absentee by mail ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 11, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
The deadlines to return a voted absentee by mail ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 14, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 15, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
Voters can return a voted absentee by mail ballot by hand delivery, by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for deployed military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, the requirement in La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a) for a witness signature on the absentee by mail ballot envelope flap shall not be a reason to challenge an absentee by mail ballot for cause under La. R.S. 18:1315(B).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, if ballots cannot be returned in-person because registrar of voters offices remain closed to the public, voters may still return absentee ballots by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for deployed military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
D. Receipt of Voted Ballots by Registrars of Voters
All voted ballots must be received no later than the deadlines outlined above.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 12 of 16
When the registrar receives ballots, voter records are updated each day in ERIN to reflect which voters have returned voted ballots. The registrars verify ballots received from voters by comparison with the registration records on file in ERIN. The lists of absentee by mail voters who have returned a voted ballot are made public daily by the registrars of voters and are also available on the Secretary of State website.
The Department anticipates a larger than usual number of returned absentee ballots for both elections. (For the 2016 presidential preference primary election, 63,000 voted absentee by mail ballots were returned to the registrars.) There are 2,479,420 voters currently eligible for the July 11, 2020 election. The Department estimates receiving 375,000 or more voted absentee by mail ballots. Around 30,000 voted absentee by mail ballots have already been received by registrars of voters.
The number of voted absentee by mail ballots returned to registrars of voters may exceed 375,000 ballots for the July 11, 2020 election. This far exceeds the number of ballots usually returned by voters for a similar election.
The registrar of voters will continue to accept all voted ballots returned by voters and the registrar of voters will store all absentee by mail ballots until the parish board of election supervisors begins tabulation on election day.
With the anticipated increased number of voted ballots returned to registrars, in addition to an increase in the number of days registrars will conduct early voting, registrars may need to hire additional early voting commissioners or part time employees to handle the increased workload.
E. Tabulating Ballots
The parish board of election supervisors is responsible for overseeing all elections in the parish and for preparing, verifying, tabulating, and counting absentee by mail ballots as provided in La. R.S. 18:1313. It may utilize parish board commissioners under the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1314, and may also designate additional commissioners to assist with the duties required under La. R.S. 18:1313.
Before tabulation begins, the board must reconcile the names of voters who submitted an absentee ballot against the number of absentee by mail ballots in hand. This may require a large number of parish board commissioners.
Larger, high speed scanners must be acquired and will be necessary to scan and tabulate the increased number of absentee by mail ballots. Prior to use of these scanners in any election in this state, they must receive certification by the secretary of state that they meet the Department’s durability, accuracy, efficiency, and capacity standards. Each individual scanner must also be acceptance tested by the Department before being delivered for use by the parishes.
The fourteen largest parishes will require additional computer stations with ERIN access, spaced at least six feet apart, for the parish boards and parish board commissioners to scan
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 13 of 16
ballots. During the scanning process, additional computer stations, with at least two people per station, will be required to adjudicate ambiguous ballots to determine voter intent.
The process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots will begin two weeks prior to election day. Tabulating and counting the absentee by mail ballots will begin on election day and is estimated to require not longer than two weeks for completion.
Unofficial election results may not be available or reported on election night. No unofficial election results will be reported until all scanning and tabulation of absentee by mail ballots is complete, not longer than two weeks after election day. Every effort will be made to withhold all returns until all parishes are able to transmit unofficial results to the secretary of state. Once all unofficial results are transmitted, they will be reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards, registrars of voters, clerks of court, and any election officials or staff shall not make public any unofficial election results until all results are reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards will receive compensation for meetings held on additional days at the rate set forth in La. R.S. 18:423(E).
F. Deadlines
The deadlines and time intervals in the following statutes will be calculated beginning on the date that unofficial election results are reported by the secretary of state:
● La. R.S. 18:566.2 ● La. R.S. 18:572 ● La. R.S. 18:573 ● La. R.S. 18:574
The following deadlines after the election are changed as follows: ● An action contesting any election involving election to office shall be instituted not later than 4:30 p.m. of the ninth day after the unofficial results are reported by the secretary of state. The deadline in La. R.S. 18:1376, to release machines used in the July 11, 2020 election on the tenth day after the election, shall not be extended. ● Written requests for recounts of absentee by mail and early voting ballots shall be filed by 4:30 p.m. on the third calendar day after the unofficial results are reported by the secretary of state and recounts shall be held at a time and day set by the secretary of state, in conjunction with the registrars of voters and the clerks of court.
VIII. COST
Cost estimates for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections will be provided.
IX. COMMISSIONERS
A. Early Voting and Election Day Commissioners
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 14 of 16
The Department will work with registrars of voters and clerks of court to assess the need for additional commissioners for early voting and for precinct voting on election day.
The secretary will assist in recruiting national guard, secretary of state employees, other possible state employees, and any other available labor sources, provided these individuals receive the minimum training necessary to serve as a commissioner. Available additional commissioners from surrounding parishes may also be used. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
Additional funding will be required to recruit additional commissioners.
New commissioners must attend a general course of instruction to receive certification prior to serving as a commissioner. Part of the course of instruction may be conducted remotely, if possible, but hands-on training on voting machines will require part of the course to be conducted in person.
All early voting commissioners will need to receive training specific to conducting early voting for the July 11, 2020 election no later than June 4, 2020.
All election day commissioners, including those who have served as a commissioner before, must attend a pre-election school for the July 11, 2020 election not less than four days prior to election day. The pre-election school covers the procedures to be used for the federal presidential preference primary election (e.g., provisional voting and lockouts based on party affiliation).
B. Parish Board Commissioners
The Department will work with parish boards of election supervisors to train and provide the necessary number of parish board commissioners. This number will include Department staff, other state and parish employees, and members of the Louisiana National Guard, as necessary. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
X. ELECTION RESULTS
This plan will require the Department to establish a method as close to the current process as possible to upload election results. Absentee by mail results are not able to be reported by precinct, as in-person election day results are.
The process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots will begin two weeks prior to election day. Tabulating and counting the absentee by mail ballots will begin on election day and is estimated to require not longer than two weeks for completion.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 15 of 16
Unofficial election results may not be available or reported on election night. No unofficial election results will be reported until all scanning and tabulation of absentee by mail ballots is complete, not longer than two weeks after election day. Every effort will be made to withhold all returns until all parishes are able to transmit unofficial results to the secretary of state. Once all unofficial results are transmitted, they will be reported by the secretary of state.
Parish boards, registrars of voters, clerks of court, and any election officials or staff shall not make public any unofficial election results until all results are reported by the secretary of state.
XI. OUTREACH
The Department will conduct a media campaign to notify the public of the deadline to return voted absentee by mail ballots. Possible media outlets include:
1. Official parish journals, as time permits; 2. Sunday edition of major metropolitan newspapers, as time permits; 3. Secretary of State website and Geaux Vote Mobile App; 4. Social media; 5. Radio stations; 6. Press releases to statewide media outlets; 7. Posting signs at all polling locations; 8. Posting informational signs with the toll-free secretary of state telephone number in high
traffic thoroughfares if necessary; and 9. Any other reasonable means of communication as determined by the Department.
This will require the Department to identify and train additional staff to man the Secretary of State 1-800 hotline to answer an anticipated high volume of calls. (After Hurricane Katrina, for example, the hotline logged over 27,000 calls for voting information.)
XII. SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES
To the extent possible, the Department will assist the parishes to implement the CDC’s Recommendations for Election Polling Locations. It is imperative to supply all phases of the entire election cycle with the appropriate preventative measures.
The Department proposes to supply all polling places, tabulation and meeting areas, and any other area related to the election process with preventative supplies, including hand sanitizer and gloves for commissioners and staff, all as recommended by the CDC. The Department will determine the number of protective gear and sanitary items (hand sanitizer, gloves, masks, etc.) necessary for the daily process of updating ballots, for ballot tabulation, and for in-person early and election day voting.
All election officials, including watchers present at polling places on election day, will follow recommendations from the CDC for wearing protective gear and for cleaning and disinfecting the room and all areas (including bathrooms) related to the election process.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-6 06/04/20 Page 16 of 16
Draymen will also follow all CDC recommendations for wearing protective gear and social distancing while delivering voting machines to and from polling places.
Tape, cones, protective gear, sanitary items, cleaning supplies, and all other supplies necessary to adhere to CDC cleaning and social distancing guidelines must be purchased as soon as possible.
A. Supplies for Election Day Precincts and Early Voting Sites
Each precinct and each early voting site in the state will receive a bag of sanitization supplies.
Each bag will contain the following: 1. Instructions on the setup and use of each item in the bag; 2. Hand sanitizer (for voters and election officials); 3. Gloves for commissioners; 4. Masks for commissioners; 5. Protective clothing/disposable gown for commissioners; 6. Brightly colored flat discs or cones to mark the CDC 6 feet social distancing minimum requirement for polling places; 7. Disinfectant wipes to clean each voting machine between voters; 8. Disinfectant wipes to clean pens and pencils after use by voters; and 9. For early voting, disinfectant wipes to clean voter cards after use by voters.
The supplies must be ordered, delivered, and packed in the bags no later than May 22, 2020 for the July 11, 2020 election and as soon as possible following the July 11, 2020 election for the August 15, 2020 election.
The Department will work with the parishes to implement and adhere to social distancing requirements.
XIII. SPECIAL NOTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2020 ELECTION
A. To be held using the same process as outlined above for the July 11, 2020 election. B. Absentee ballots must be mailed no later than 13 days before election day (La. R.S.
18:1306(B)(3)), that is, by August 2, 2020. C. The rescheduled elections will overlap with qualifying for the November 3, 2020
presidential election. Legislation has been offered to move qualifying for the presidential election to August 19-21, 2020.
R. KYLE ARDOIN SECRETARY OF STATE
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 2 of 16
April 20, 2020
SECRETARY OF STATE EMERGENCY ELECTION PLAN FOR THE JULY 11, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY AND AUGUST 15, 2020
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
I. AUTHORITY
After the governor declares a statewide emergency, should the secretary of state determine that such emergency impairs an election that may otherwise be held except for technical, mechanical, or logistical problems with respect to the relocation or consolidation of polling places within the parish, potential shortages of commissioners and parish board commissioners, or shortages of voting machines, La. R.S. 18:401.3 authorizes the secretary to certify to the governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs that the emergency impairs the election and that an emergency election plan is necessary.
Upon concurrence by the governor and a majority of each of the two committees that such a plan is necessary, the secretary of state shall develop an emergency plan in writing that proposes a resolution to the technical, mechanical, or logistical problems that impair the election. The written emergency plan shall then be submitted to the Senate and Governmental Affairs and House and Governmental Affairs committees and the governor.
If a majority of the members of each Committee approve the emergency plan, the plan shall be submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval. If a majority of each house of the legislature and the governor approve the emergency plan, the secretary of state shall take all steps necessary to implement the plan and all officials of the state and of any political subdivision shall cooperate with and provide assistance to the secretary of state as necessary to implement the plan.
II. PURPOSE
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated the COVID-19 outbreak as a worldwide pandemic.
Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 was signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on March 11, 2020, declaring a statewide public health emergency as a result of the imminent threat posed to Louisiana citizens by COVID-19, which has created emergency conditions that threaten the lives and health of the citizens of the State. The emergency conditions created by COVID-19, as well as the efforts necessary to contain its spread, will affect all 2,988,813 of Louisiana’s registered voters as well as the 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the State.
Governor Edwards signed Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 on March 13, 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020. On April 14, 2020, the governor
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 3 of 16
signed Proclamation No. 46 to reschedule the presidential preference primary election to July 11, 2020 and the municipal general election to August 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, imposing a general stay-at-home order on all individuals within the State and limiting all public gatherings to ten people or less in an attempt to curb the spread of COVID-19. All individuals were directed to stay home unless performing an essential activity until April 13, 2020. This order was extended to April 30, 2020 by 41 JBE 2020, signed by the governor on April 2, 2020.
The July 11, 2020 presidential preference primary election is a statewide federal election. This election also includes state and local party office races in 47 parishes, and local and municipal races and propositions in 24 parishes. The August 15, 2020 municipal general election includes local and municipal runoffs and propositions in 51 parishes. Five of the 51 parishes have no propositions on the ballot and only have potential run-offs from the July 11, 2020 primary.
COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The purpose of this emergency plan is to provide a means of conducting these elections in the wake of this unprecedented pandemic. In order to fully implement this plan, due to supply chain issues, the Department must order all equipment and material resources for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than April 24, 2020.
III. DUTIES OF ELECTION OFFICIALS AND PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
The secretary of state is the chief election officer of the State and administers the laws of the Election Code.
The State Board of Election Supervisors has the powers and duties granted to it by La. R.S. 18:24 to oversee Louisiana election laws. The State Board consists of the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general, the commissioner of elections, a representative of the Registrars of Voters Association, a representative of the Clerks of Court Association, a governor’s appointee, and a representative of the Police Jury Association.
Registrars of voters have many duties to perform before and during elections, including: registering voters, processing voter registration applications, processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, conducting early voting in the parish, and preparing the precinct registers for election day voting.
Clerks of court are the chief election officers of each parish. For each election, the clerk of court trains the commissioners who work at the polling places on election day, takes responsibility
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 4 of 16
for delivering the voting machines to and from the polling locations, and tabulates and transmits election results on election night.
Parish boards of election supervisors supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish. They are responsible for selecting election day commissioners, consolidating polling places, issuing commissions to watchers, counting absentee and early voting ballots on election day, and selecting commissioners to aid in counting the absentee and early voting ballots. The parish boards also seal the voting machines before election day, inspect the machines after the election, and conduct requested recounts.
Parish governing authorities have specific duties to perform during election cycles, including changing any polling places which are no longer available for use. Changing polling places includes giving adequate notice of the change to each voter in the affected precincts and to each candidate to be voted on at that polling place, posting a sign at the former polling place, directing voters to the new polling place, advertising the changes in the official journal of the parish and in any other newspaper of general circulation in the affected precincts, and other reasonable steps necessary or desirable to inform voters and candidates of the change in location.
IV. VOTING MACHINES
The secretary of state has sufficient voting machines to conduct early voting and election day voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
The voting machines used on election day are Sequoia AVC Advantage voting machines, which have a large-format printed paper ballot fastened to the front of each machine. These paper ballots have already been printed and fastened to the front of the AVC machines for the April 4, 2020 election date. Prolonged storage in the humidity and heat of the Department’s un-air conditioned warehouses will cause the paper ballots to warp and curl, therefore it is recommended that paper ballots for all AVC machines used in the July 11, 2020 election be reprinted.
V. POLLING PLACES FOR IN-PERSON EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY VOTING
A. Early Voting
Early voting is conducted for seven days in each parish by the registrar of voters. There are currently 102 early voting sites statewide. Most are in registrars of voters offices, but some are in voting machine warehouses, public libraries, and other public facilities.
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election is currently scheduled for June 26 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sunday, June 28, 2020 and Friday, July 3, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election is currently scheduled for August 1 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sunday, August 2, 2020).
This plan will expand the days of early voting from seven to thirteen days.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 5 of 16
Early voting for the July 11, 2020 election will be held June 20 through July 4, 2020 (excluding Sundays, June 21, 2020 and June 28, 2020). Early voting for the August 15, 2020 election will be held July 25 through August 8, 2020 (excluding Sundays, July 26, 2020 and August 2, 2020).
Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
One of the two early voting sites in Ouachita Parish is located at the West Ouachita Senior Center, 1800 North 7th Street, West Monroe. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seniors are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. The Department of State will choose another location for this early voting site. The Ouachita Parish Registrar of Voters will conduct early voting at the registrar’s main office, 1650 Desiard Street, Suite 125, Monroe, Louisiana 71201, and at the second site (location to be determined).
If any other early voting sites become unavailable for early voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVID-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish registrar of voters and parish governing authority to relocate the early voting site. If a sufficient temporary early voting site cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used for early voting.
B. Election Day Voting
Election day voting is normally conducted in 3,934 precincts located at 2,058 polling places across the state. Polling places are established for each precinct by the parish governing authority. Polling places must be equipped with proper electric current, fixtures, and outlets necessary to operate voting machines and otherwise conduct the election. The polling places must also have sufficient sanitary facilities. To the extent possible, the parish governing authority must locate multiple precincts in one polling location in public buildings. If a suitable public building is not available, precincts may be located on private property.
Due to the Governor’s stay-at-home order, the limitation on gatherings of more than ten people at a time, and the rapid rise of COVID-19 cases in Louisiana, there may be limitations on the availability of polling places for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections. Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Department must begin all preparations for both the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections no later than May 4, 2020.
The Department will work with the clerks of court and parish governing authorities to relocate polling places located in senior citizen centers and nursing homes (these polling places must be relocated). Polling places located in the following may be relocated, depending on the facility:
● Council on aging offices; ● Residential facilities or private homes; and ● Non-public buildings if the owners do not want to hold the election on their property
due to conditions caused by COVID-19.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 6 of 16

Polling places that must be relocated will need to be identified as soon as possible. If any other election day polling places become unavailable to conduct voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections due to conditions caused by COVD-19 or because of a proclamation or executive order issued by the governor, the Department will work with the affected parish clerk of court and parish governing authority to relocate the precinct to another polling place. If a desirable temporary polling place cannot be found, the voting machine warehouses in each parish may be used as a polling place for one or more precincts.
Signs will be posted at all former polling places, updated voter registration cards will be sent to the voters reflecting their new polling place, and notice of the new polling places will be published, as time permits, to inform the voters of changes in polling places.
Currently, the secretary of state has identified the following polling places that should be relocated for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections:

PARISH ALLEN
AVOYELLES

POLLING LOCATION PRECINCTS REGISTERED VOTERS

Oberlin Senior Citizen Building

01-03

290

Marksville Senior Citizen Building

02-07

471

Bunkie Council on Aging

10-03A

433

BEAUREGARD

Council on Aging

00-26

936

CATAHOULA IBERVILLE JEFFERSON

Catahoula Council on Aging

01-02

St. Gabriel Community Center

9 & 10

Iberville Council on Aging
Summerville Assisted Living Center
Westminster Towers

19, 19A, 20 & 23
K003 K025

187
2413
1465 1409 1274

5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 7 of 16

LAFOURCHE

Harahan Senior Citizens Center
Metairie Manor
Metairie Senior Citizen Center
Dorothy B. Watson Center
George Edmond Activity Center
Marrero Senior Community Center
Terrytown Golden Age Center

H009 70
82, 85, 86 & 87 104 & 108 154
173, 179B & 181 227 & 229

Wilbert Tauzin Senior Citizen Center

6/2

MADISON

Madison Council on Aging

12

NATCHITOCHES

Natchitoches Council on Aging

01-02

ORLEANS

Mater Dolorosa Church Basement
Woldenberg Village Nazareth Inn
Guste High Rise

Ward 17 Pct 2-7 15/14G 09/44A
02/04

OUACHITA

West Ouachita Senior Center

34/47

627 831 3505 1569 1304 2596 1976
1289
478
1361
3574 1494 756 832
1046

ST. JAMES ST. MARY

Lutcher Senior Center

04,05,06

St. Mary Council Building

44

Health Unit

38

1669
596 499

6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 8 of 16

ST. TAMMANY VERNON
WASHINGTON

AARP Senior Center

45

Avanti Senior Living Center

115

Slagle Senior Citizens Center
Hornbeck Senior Citizens Center

08/01 02/03,03A

Bogalusa Senior Citizens Center

04/05,06,05B

609 1,058 440 955 1000

VI. IN-PERSON VOTING UNDER THE NURSING HOME PROGRAM
The program for in-person voting by voters residing in nursing homes, as provided in La. R.S. 18:1333, is suspended for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, except for the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1333(G)(4)(a). Voters currently enrolled in the Nursing Home Program will be mailed an absentee ballot and allowed to vote the ballot according to the procedures in La. R.S. 18:1301-1319. However, if restrictions on visitation remain in place, voters enrolled in the Nursing Home Program may receive assistance from an employee of the nursing home for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.
VII. ABSENTEE VOTING
Present law requires voters to have one of several listed reasons to be eligible to vote absentee. These reasons are specified in the Election Code.
A registered voter can request an absentee ballot until four days before election day and must return their ballot to the registrar of voters no later than 4:30 p.m. on the day before the election, with special exceptions for military, overseas citizens, and hospitalized or sequestered voters.
A. Voters Requesting an Absentee Ballot
The deadlines to request an absentee ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 7, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 10, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.

7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 9 of 16
The deadlines to request an absentee ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 11, 2020 (four days before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 14, 2020 (day before the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters.
All requests to vote absentee must be in writing under the voter’s signature and must specify the reason for the request. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or electronically through the secretary of state’s website at GeauxVote.com.
This plan will expand the reasons to request an absentee ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and are:
● At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications);
● Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19; ● Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; ● Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or ● Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine
or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.
All requests made under current law for absentee ballots will continue to be accepted.
All requests shall be verified by the registrar of voters by comparison with the registration records on file in the registrar’s office. The secretary proposes to deputize his staff to assist the registrars, if needed, to process the increased number of absentee requests, send absentee ballots to voters, and receive absentee ballots returned by voters.
La. R.S. 18:115(F) and 115.1(F) require voters that registered by mail or electronically and who have not previously voted in their parish to vote in person the first time. This requirement will be temporarily waived for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections for voters who request and receive an absentee ballot based on the COVID-19 reasons for request. However, any voter subject to the provisions of La. R.S. 18:115(F) or 115.1(F) who utilizes the COVID19 reasons to request an absentee ballot to vote in the July 11, 2020 or the August 15, 2020 shall be subject to the requirements of La. R.S. 18:115(F) and 115.1(F) in the first election the voter chooses to vote in subsequent to August 15, 2020.
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 10 of 16
This plan will require the development and use of a temporary application form for absentee ballot requests due to COVID-19. This application will be available to voters in addition to the other absentee application forms currently in use.
The COVID-19 reasons for request may be submitted electronically through the GeauxVote online portal. These reasons will be temporarily added to the list of statutory reasons to request an absentee ballot currently available to submit through the online portal. Programming by the Department’s IT Division will be required to add the COVID-19 reasons to the online portal and may take up to a month to implement due to time required for development, testing, and cybersecurity concerns.
Voters may otherwise submit an absentee application by mail, fax, or hand delivery.
La. R.S. 18:1307(A) currently requires voters who make a mark, or are otherwise unable to sign their name, to obtain two witness signatures on their request to vote absentee. For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, this requirement will be reduced to one witness signature on absentee ballot requests submitted by voters who make a mark or are otherwise unable to sign their name.
This plan may require special training for election officials to conduct the elections under this emergency plan.
B. Voters Receiving an Absentee Ballot
Under usual circumstances, a voter submits a request to the registrar of voters to receive an absentee ballot, and the registrar of voters sends the ballot to the voter.
This plan may require the Department of State to assist the registrars of voters in carrying out the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1308 regarding absentee voting. The Department will assist the registrars, as needed, to mail an absentee ballot to a voter who timely submits a request.
The Department may contract with the United States Postal Service to create a tracking system to track all absentee ballots mailed to and from voters under this emergency plan, should cost and circumstances permit.
Voters who submit a request under this plan to receive an absentee ballot by mail must provide the address to which the absentee ballot shall be sent. If the address is within the parish, such address shall only be the voter’s registration address or a mailing address on file with the registrar of voters.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 11 of 16
In addition to receiving an absentee ballot by mail, current law also allows voters to alternatively receive an absentee ballot by:
• Fax (with waiver of right to secret ballot); • Email (for military, overseas, and voters with physical disabilities, with waiver of right
to secret ballot); or • Hand delivery to an immediate family member of a hospitalized voter. (Voters
hospitalized with COVID-19 may cause unique problems as such patients are currently not allowed visitors, nor are visitors allowed in hospitals.)
Instructions are included with the ballot on completing the certificate on the ballot envelope flap and voting the absentee ballot. The instructions also include how to return the ballot and how to request a replacement ballot for a spoiled ballot, if necessary.
All voters who received and returned an absentee ballot prior to approval of this emergency plan will receive a letter from the Department informing them that their returned ballot remains valid for the July 11, 2020 election date.
C. Voters Returning Voted Ballots
The deadlines to return a voted absentee ballot for the July 11, 2020 election are:
● July 10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● July 11, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
The deadlines to return a voted absentee ballot for the August 15, 2020 election are:
● August 14, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. (day before the election) for all voters except military, overseas, and hospitalized voters; and
● August 15, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. (day of the election) for military, overseas, and hospitalized voters
Current law allows voters to return a voted absentee ballot by hand delivery, by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
For the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections, if ballots cannot be returned in-person because registrar of voters offices remain closed to the public, voters may still return absentee ballots by mail, by commercial courier, by fax (with waiver of secret ballot), or by email (for military, overseas, or emergency workers with approval of the secretary of state, with waiver of secret ballot).
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 12 of 16
D. Receipt of Voted Ballots by Registrars of Voters
All voted ballots must be received no later than the deadlines outlined above.
When the registrar receives ballots, voter records are updated each day in ERIN to reflect which voters have returned voted ballots. The registrars verify ballots received from voters by comparison with the registration records and signatures on file in ERIN. The lists of absentee voters who have returned a voted ballot are made public daily by the registrars of voters and are also available on the Secretary of State website.
The registrars of voters will continue to accept and securely store all voted ballots returned by voters until election day.
Registrars may need to hire additional early voting commissioners or part time employees to handle the increased workload of sending and receiving absentee ballots at the same time as conducting an additional week of early voting.
E. Tabulating Ballots
The parish board of election supervisors is responsible for overseeing all elections in the parish and for preparing, verifying, tabulating, and counting absentee ballots as provided in La. R.S. 18:1313. It may utilize parish board commissioners under the provisions of La. R.S. 18:1314, and may also designate additional commissioners to assist with the duties required under La. R.S. 18:1313.
Before tabulation begins, the board must reconcile the names of voters who submitted an absentee ballot against the number of absentee ballots in hand. This may require a large number of parish board commissioners.
Larger, high speed scanners must be acquired and will be necessary to scan and tabulate the increased number of absentee ballots. Prior to use of these scanners in any election in this state, they must receive certification by the secretary of state that they meet the Department’s durability, accuracy, efficiency, and capacity standards. Each individual scanner must also be acceptance tested by the Department before being delivered for use by the parishes.
The fourteen largest parishes will require additional computer stations with ERIN access, spaced at least six feet apart, for the parish boards and parish board commissioners to scan ballots. During the scanning process, additional computer stations, with at least two people per station, will be required to adjudicate ambiguous ballots to determine voter intent.
For parishes that have received 2,000 or more absentee ballots, the process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots may begin two days before election day. These parish boards will tabulate and count the absentee ballots on election day. All other parishes will prepare, verify, tabulate, and count the absentee ballots on election day.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 13 of 16
Parish boards will receive compensation for meetings held on additional days at the rate set forth in La. R.S. 18:423(E).
VIII. COMMISSIONERS
A. Early Voting and Election Day Commissioners
The Department will work with registrars of voters and clerks of court to assess the need for additional commissioners for early voting and for precinct voting on election day.
The secretary will assist in recruiting national guard, secretary of state employees, other possible state employees, and any other available labor sources, provided these individuals receive the minimum training necessary to serve as a commissioner. Available additional commissioners from surrounding parishes may also be used. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
Additional funding will be required to recruit additional commissioners.
New commissioners must attend a general course of instruction to receive certification prior to serving as a commissioner. Part of the course of instruction may be conducted remotely, if possible, but hands-on training on voting machines will require part of the course to be conducted in person.
All early voting commissioners will need to receive training specific to conducting early voting for the July 11, 2020 election no later than June 4, 2020.
All election day commissioners, including those who have served as a commissioner before, must attend a pre-election school for the July 11, 2020 election not less than four days prior to election day. The pre-election school covers the procedures to be used for the federal presidential preference primary election (e.g., provisional voting and lockouts based on party affiliation).
B. Parish Board Commissioners
The Department will work with parish boards of election supervisors to train and provide the necessary number of parish board commissioners. This number will include Department staff, other state and parish employees, and members of the Louisiana National Guard, as necessary. State employees serving as commissioners will receive paid overtime. All other commissioners will be paid in accordance with law and will be reimbursed mileage and accommodations according to the state travel guidelines.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 14 of 16
IX. ELECTION RESULTS
This plan will require the Department to establish a method as close to the current process as possible to upload election results. Absentee results are not able to be reported by precinct, as in-person election day results are.
For parishes that have received 2,000 or more absentee ballots, the process of preparing and verifying the absentee ballots may begin two days before election day. These parish boards will tabulate and count the absentee ballots on election day. All other parishes will prepare, verify, tabulate, and count the absentee ballots on election day.
X. OUTREACH
The Department will conduct a media campaign to notify the public of the deadline to return voted absentee ballots. Possible media outlets include:
1. Official parish journals, as time permits; 2. Sunday edition of major metropolitan newspapers, as time permits; 3. Secretary of State website and Geaux Vote Mobile App; 4. Social media; 5. Radio stations; 6. Press releases to statewide media outlets; 7. Posting signs at all polling locations; 8. Posting informational signs with the toll-free secretary of state telephone number in high
traffic thoroughfares if necessary; and 9. Any other reasonable means of communication as determined by the Department.
This will require the Department to identify and train additional staff to man the Secretary of State 1-800 hotline to answer an anticipated high volume of calls. (After Hurricane Katrina, for example, the hotline logged over 27,000 calls for voting information.)
XI. SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES
To the extent possible, the Department will assist the parishes to implement the CDC Recommendations for Election Polling Locations. It is imperative to supply all phases of the entire election cycle with the appropriate preventative measures.
The Department proposes to supply all polling places, tabulation and meeting areas, and any other area related to the election process with preventative supplies, including hand sanitizer and gloves for commissioners and staff, all as recommended by the CDC. The Department will determine the number of protective gear and sanitary items (hand sanitizer, gloves, masks, etc.) necessary for the daily process of updating ballots, for ballot tabulation, and for in-person early and election day voting.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 15 of 16
All election officials, including watchers present at polling places on election day, will follow recommendations from the CDC for wearing protective gear and for cleaning and disinfecting the room and all areas (including bathrooms) related to the election process.
Draymen will also follow all CDC recommendations for wearing protective gear and social distancing while delivering voting machines to and from polling places.
Tape, cones, protective gear, sanitary items, cleaning supplies, and all other supplies necessary to adhere to CDC cleaning and social distancing guidelines must be purchased as soon as possible.
A. Supplies for Election Day Precincts and Early Voting Sites
Each precinct and each early voting site in the state will receive a bag of sanitization supplies.
Each bag will contain the following: 1. Instructions on the setup and use of each item in the bag; 2. Hand sanitizer (for voters and election officials); 3. Gloves for commissioners; 4. Masks for commissioners; 5. Protective clothing/disposable gown for commissioners; 6. Brightly colored flat discs or cones to mark the CDC 6 feet social distancing minimum requirement for polling places; 7. Disinfectant wipes to clean each voting machine between voters; 8. Disinfectant wipes to clean pens and pencils after use by voters; and 9. For early voting, disinfectant wipes to clean voter cards after use by voters.
The supplies must be ordered, delivered, and packed in the bags no later than May 22, 2020 for the July 11, 2020 election and as soon as possible following the July 11, 2020 election for the August 15, 2020 election.
The Department will work with the parishes to implement and adhere to social distancing requirements.
XII. SPECIAL NOTES FOR THE AUGUST 15, 2020 ELECTION
A. To be held using the same process as outlined above for the July 11, 2020 election. B. Absentee ballots must be mailed no later than 13 days before election day (La. R.S.
18:1306(B)(3)), that is, by August 2, 2020. C. The rescheduled elections will overlap with qualifying for the November 3, 2020
presidential election. Qualifying for the November 3, 2020 election will need to be moved from July 15-17, 2020 to: • July 22-24, 2020 for candidates who qualify with the secretary of state, including
United States Senator, United States Representative, Associate Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Judges of Courts of Appeal, and Public Service Commissioners; and
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-7 06/04/20 Page 16 of 16 • August 19-21, 2020 for candidates who qualify with clerks of court, including
Judges (except for the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal), District Attorneys, and local and municipal offices. The department is requesting an amendment to pending legislation to move the qualifying dates for the 2020 fall elections in the manner provided above, and an emergency certification under La. R.S. 18:401.1 will also be sent to the governor, requesting a proclamation to reschedule qualifying.
R. KYLE ARDOIN SECRETARY OF STATE
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-8 06/04/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-8 06/04/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF TELISA CLARK Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Telisa Clark, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 55 years old and live in Houma, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a Black woman. I am registered to vote in Houma, Louisiana. 5. I am an event planner and civil rights activist. I am the president of the Houma district of Black Wall Street, a national movement establishing districts across the country in the spirit of the first Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Black Wall Street districts are urban areas that are a thriving center of business, industry, and culture and have one commercial strip that is 50%-70% or more Black-owned businesses.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-8 06/04/20 Page 3 of 5
6. I live at home with my husband, Kevin Clark, who is 58 years old. Several family members live with us at our home, including my daughter Lakeshia, my daughter Kevon Barnett, and her son (my grandson) Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter. 7. Many members of my household, including my husband, my daughter Kevon, my grandson Matthew, and myself have health conditions that put us at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and potentially dying from COVID-19. I have hypertension and other serious heart conditions. My husband is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. My daughter Kevon suffers from hypertension. And my grandson Matthew has severe asthma. 8. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to our health, my husband, my daughter Kevon, my grandson Matthew, other family members who live in our house, and I have been limiting our outside activity and avoiding person-to-person contact. When we must go out in public, my husband and I wear gloves, masks, and coverings on our clothes. 9. My husband and I are lifelong, regular voters. I prefer to vote in-person on election day. I voted early in-person recently after my husband was diagnosed with cancer. 10. I plan to vote in the July, August, November, and December elections in Houma. Because of the severe risk that voting in person at my polling place or at an early voting site poses to my health, my husband’s health, and the health of family members living in my household, I need to vote by absentee ballot for all upcoming 2020 elections. 11. I understand that for the July and August elections, I will qualify to request an absentee ballot through the COVID-19 Emergency Application as someone at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-8 06/04/20 Page 4 of 5
12. I understand, however, that for the November and December elections, I do not qualify to request an absentee ballot. If I am unable to vote by absentee ballot, I will have to decide whether to vote in person—risking my health and the health of my family—or not vote at all. 13. Voting is incredibly important to me. As a Black American, I know that so many of our forefathers fought, bled, and died so that we could exercise our right to vote. Without one’s vote, a person is unable to voice their opinion. If I am unable to vote in November or December, I will feel my voice is being cancelled out.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 60C6Ea5s87e8-3C:62C0F--4c3v25--0B063320-583D-S11DBAD37-2R36LB Document 22-8 06/04/20 Page 5 of 5

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 29th day of May 2020.

_______________________________________
Telisa Clark

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-9 06/04/20 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C0FaDs7e013-A:A2C0E--c41vE-D0-0973A08-891-BS1DF1D77-1R1AL9B Document 22-9 06/04/20 Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF LAKESHIA BARNETT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Lakeshia Barnett, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 26 years old and live in Houma, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a Black woman. I am registered to vote in Houma, Louisiana. 5. I live with my parents, Telisa and Kevin Clark, and several other family members, at my parents’ home. My mother Telisa Clark is also a Plaintiff in this case. 6. Many of my family members in our home—including my parents—suffer from health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. My mother has hypertension and other serious heart conditions. My father is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C0FaDs7e013-A:A2C0E--c41vE-D0-0973A08-891-BS1DF1D77-1R1AL9B Document 22-9 06/04/20 Page 3 of 4
complications from COVID-19. My sister Kevon Barnett suffers from hypertension. And my nephew Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. 7. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to the health of my family members, my parents, sister, nephew, other family members in our household, and I have been limiting our outside activity and avoiding person-to-person contact except when necessary. We practice safe social distancing and sanitary practices when we must go out. 8. I currently have two jobs. One employer, Target, recently reduced my hours to zero, and I have not worked there since late April. I also work at the U.S. Postal Service. At this job, I rarely interact with members of the public and always wears protective gear. I rely on my job to pay my living expenses and for health insurance. I do not have the option to work from home or take time off at my job with the U.S. Postal Service. If I took too much time off from work, I would lose my job. 9. I registered to vote when I turned 18 and have voted regularly since then. I intend to vote in each election in 2020. 10. I prefer to vote in person, but because of the risks voting in person would pose to my high-risk family members, I need to vote by absentee ballot in the July, August, November, and December elections. 11. I understand that I need an excuse to qualify for an absentee ballot in Louisiana and that I do not qualify for any excuse under Louisiana law. Therefore, if I want to vote in any election in 2020, I understand that I would have to vote in person, which would require me to engage in the person-to-person contact I have been avoiding to protect the health of my high-risk family members. If forced to vote in person, I would have to choose between my vote and my family’s health.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C0FaDs7e013-A:A2C0E--c41vE-D0-0973A08-891-BS1DF1D77-1R1AL9B Document 22-9 06/04/20 Page 4 of 4

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 31st day of May 2020.

_______________________________________ Lakeshia Barnett

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-10 06/04/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-10 06/04/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF MARTHA CHRISTIAN GREEN Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Martha Christian Green, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. I am a Plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am 52 years old and a resident of Lafayette, Louisiana. I am a U.S. citizen and have never lost my right to vote due to felony conviction or court order. 4. I am a white woman. I live in my home in Lafayette, Louisiana with my mother, Martha Goff Green. 5. I am registered to vote in Lafayette, Louisiana. 6. I am a scholar and researcher working in the fields of law and religion. 7. I am a member of the Lafayette chapter of the League of Women Voters of Louisiana (“LWVLA”) and also a board member of the LWVLA. 8. I was born in New Orleans, and my family has lived in Lafayette since 1977. I have lived in other parts of the country during my life, but I have lived permanently in Lafayette since 2014.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-10 06/04/20 Page 3 of 5
9. I currently live with and care for my mother, who is 80 years old. My mother suffers from several health conditions that make her higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. I prefer not to share my mother’s exact medical conditions out of concern for her privacy, but she does suffer from hypertension and her mostrecent hospitalization was due to her high blood pressure. 10. Because of my mother’s increased risk of contracting and having complications from COVID-19, I have been taking significant precautions to ensure that I do not contract the disease and expose her to it. Since Governor Edwards issued the stay-at-home order in mid-March, I have been practicing recommended social distancing and staying home except for necessary errands and work. When I come into contact with people or surfaces, I protect myself by wearing a mask, disinfecting surfaces, and washing my hands. 11. When my father was near the end of his life in 2011, I moved back to Louisiana to care for him. I take my role as my parents’ caretaker very seriously. I am trying to protect my mother’s health in every way that I can. 12. I always prefer to vote in person and have done so in past elections. I have also taken my mother to vote in person in past elections, even though she qualifies to vote by mail because of her age. 13. I plan to vote in the 2020 elections in Louisiana, including the July, August, November, and December elections. 14. I understand that my mother qualifies to vote by absentee ballot in Louisiana because she is over the age of 65. I understand she plans to vote by absentee ballot because of the risks to her health she faces by voting in person.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-10 06/04/20 Page 4 of 5
15. I would prefer to vote in person for upcoming 2020 elections. But because of my mother’s increased risk of contracting and having severe complications and dying from COVID19, I am unable to vote in person for the remainder of the 2020 elections without posing a severe risk to my mother’s health and life. 16. The option of early in-person voting for me does not mitigate the risks to my mother’s health because it still requires me to engage in the person-to-person contact I am avoiding to protect my mother’s health. Additionally, there is only one early voting site in Lafayette Parish, and I understand that I would be required to wait in line around other people before voting, including riding in the notoriously small and often-malfunctioning elevator or standing in the narrow stairwell. This activity would expose me to COVID-19 infection, and I am not willing to take the risk to my mother’s health. 17. For the 2020 elections, I need to vote by mail to protect my mother’s health. I understand that to vote by absentee ballot in the 2020 elections, I must have an excuse. I understand that I do not currently qualify for any of the excuses under law, including the excuses related to COVID19 for the July and August elections. I understand that because my mother is not under a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order, I do not qualify under the COVID-19 Emergency Application excuse for voters caring for those individuals. 18. If I cannot vote by absentee ballot in the 2020 elections, I will be forced to choose between voting and protecting my mother’s health. 19. Voting has always been important to me and my family. My father took me to register to vote when I turned 18. I have a strong family legacy of voting—almost genetic. I believe it is my civic duty to protect the right to vote of my fellow citizens.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-10 06/04/20 Page 5 of 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this __26th__ day of __May__ 2020.
M.Christian Green

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-11 06/04/20 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-11 06/04/20 Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF TRUPANIA BONNER ON BEHALF OF CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Trupania Bonner, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this
declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”) is a plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am the founder and Managing Director of CCMG. In my capacity as Managing Director of CCMG I am familiar with, and receive frequent updates and proposals for, the activities of CCMG. 4. CCMG is a community engagement and media production agency based in New Orleans, Louisiana. 5. CCMG was founded to address disparities in civic engagement and political education in communities of color in Louisiana. We work on a wide range of projects including civic

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-11 06/04/20 Page 3 of 5
engagement trainings, voter registration campaigns, census education, mutual aid and direct service, and voter education. 6. CCMG leads the “Louisiana Counts 2020” complete count committee and began preparations for this public education campaign in 2018. CCMG prepared and disseminated media toolkits, organizer trainings, social media campaigns, factual reports, and other resources for community stakeholders across Louisiana to use in census education work. We also invested significant time and energy into developing the “Census and Redistricting Initiative,” a community education initiative focused on preparing communities for the 2020 Census and 2021 redistricting cycle. The program would have taught Louisiana residents the basics of the redistricting process. 7. In addition to our specific census and redistricting work, CCMG conducts various voter education and policy advocacy training programs such as the Democracy and Power Institute, which was founded in 2016 and teaches students and community leaders how to draft legislation and lobby local governments. 8. Much of CCMG’s planned work has been put on hold as we must now expend our limited resources to respond to the state’s Emergency Election Plan and preparing for the upcoming 2020 elections, in which thousands of voters of color will be forced to risk their health by voting in person at their polling place. 9. CCMG is now using our limited resources to acquire and produce masks and other personal protective materials to provide to voters who will be forced to cast a ballot in person this year because they do not qualify for an absentee ballot under the Excuse Requirement.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-11 06/04/20 Page 4 of 5
10. During early voting and on election day, CCMG will provide direct support at polling places by handing out hand sanitizer, masks, and information on social distancing.
11. We are also now educating voters about the Emergency Election Plan, explaining and training voters on the Excuse Requirement, including the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application.
12. CCMG will be helping voters navigate the absentee ballot process, including the Witness Requirement for voters who live alone by doing radio and television public service announcements about what voters can do to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection while complying with the Witness Requirement.
13. The resources and staff time spent on these activities would have been spent on CCMG’s community education activities relating to the Census, voter registration drives, and redistricting. But for the Challenged Provisions, CCMG would otherwise be spending these resources, time, and staff hours on its core mission activities.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-11 06/04/20 Page 5 of 5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

27th

May

Executed this ______ day of ______ 2020.

______________________________ Trupania Bonner

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

DECLARATION OF HILDA WALKER THOMAS ON BEHALF OF LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Hilda Walker Thomas, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of eighteen, and I am competent to make this declaration. I provide this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I would testify to the facts in this declaration under oath if called upon to do so. 2. The League of Women Voters of Louisiana (“LWVLA”) is a plaintiff in the case Clark, et al. v. Edwards, et al. 3. I am the President of LWVLA. In my capacity as President of LWVLA I am familiar with, and receive frequent updates and proposals for, the activities of LWVLA. 4. LWVLA is the Louisiana affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “LWVUS”). 5. LWVLA is comprised of two entities: (a) the League of Women Voters of Louisiana Education Fund, which is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana, and a tax-exempt charitable organization pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (b) the League of Women Voters of Louisiana Fund, a nonpartisan, not-for-

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 3 of 6
profit social welfare organization organized under the laws of Louisiana, and a tax-exempt organization pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 6. The LWVLA is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The mission of the LWVLA is to be a recognized, trusted, and knowledgeable volunteer, grassroots community resource with the flexibility and sustainable capacity to ensure a strong, active, and participatory democracy for all persons. 7. The LWVLA is dedicated to ensuring that all eligible voters—particularly those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including first-time voters, noncollege youth, new citizens, minorities, the elderly, and low-income Americans—have the opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. The local Leagues are active in voter registration, especially of new citizens and high school and college youths, while the state League works with the Secretary of State’s office to increase voter participation in elections. 8. The LWVLA has six local Leagues across the state and one unit that is in process of becoming a chapter with 287 members and members at-large. The LWVLA is diverse, inclusive, and equitable. We have committees the following committees: Criminal Justice, Education, Environmental, Healthcare, Voter Services, Women’s Issues, and a Nominating Committee. 9. Many of the members of the LWVLA are over the age of 60. Some of our members live in senior living facilities. 10. To ensure the public is educated about voting rights, the LWVLA will participate in the “People Powered Fair Maps Campaign” for redistricting. We will also work with LWVUS on the purging of voter rolls in four specific parishes, on pledge to be counted, and to educate the

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 4 of 6
community about the importance of the 2020 Census by writing letters to the editor(s), and to provide voter guides and questions for candidates. 11. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the way LWVLA serves as an educational resource for the public has changed. We have had to adapt to using social media and technology more as a tool to educate the public. 12. Many of our members include registered voters age 60-65 who are at higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19. Voting in person would therefore put the health of these voters at significant risk because of the person-to-person contact at the polling place. But these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. 13. LWVLA members also include registered voters who live with, care for, or come into regular contact with loved ones who are at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications—including death—from COVID-19; yet, these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. These members must choose between their vote and risking the health of their loved one by voting in-person at their polling place. 14. Because of the restrictions on absentee ballots under Louisiana law during the COVID-19 pandemic, LWVLA has been forced to divert time and resources away from its regular activities. Specifically, LWVLA will be conducting public education on the passage of the Emergency Election Plan with its complicated and vague Excuse Requirement, the current absentee ballot laws—including the Witness Requirement—and how voters can stay safe while complying with the law and voting. LWVLA member volunteers will be sending newsletters, writing letters to the editor, engaging in voter outreach, responding to voter contacts, and conducting voter

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 5 of 6
education events to ensure that members and the Louisiana electorate are educated on how they can vote during the 2020 elections without endangering their health or the health of their loved ones or the community. Because the LWVLA has limited financial and human resources, the resources and member time they will have to spend on these efforts would have been spent on the following LWVLA efforts: voter registration efforts, education around the 2020 Census and redistricting, and “Get Out the Vote” efforts during the 2020 election cycle. 15. The LWVLA is part of this lawsuit because our mission is to have a strong, engaged, participatory electorate, and current Louisiana law and the Emergency Election Plan will disenfranchise thousands of Louisiana voters—including many LWVLA members—if it is not changed to allow voters to safely vote by mail and have their votes counted. We believe that no voter should be put in the position of choosing between voting and protecting their own health or the health of a loved one.

C
ase3:20-cv-00308
-SDD-RLB Document 22-12 06/04/20 Page 6 of 6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 26th day of May 2020.

______________________________ Hilda Walker Thomas

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 22-13 06/04/20 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

ORDER Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek leave to file a Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in excess of the Court’s 25-page limit for initial memoranda under Local Rule 7(g). Plaintiffs seek to file a memorandum not to exceed 40 pages in length.
For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

DONE this ____ day of June, 2020.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24 06/05/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

THE STATE OF LOUISIANAS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTEREVENE. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and/or (b), the State of Louisiana, by and through Attorney General Jeff Landry, in his official capacity, respectfully moves the Court to permit the State of Louisiana to intervene in the above captioned suit. No party in Power Coalition opposes this motion.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24 06/05/20 Page 2 of 4
1. On May 7, 2020, Plaintiffs brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that, as a result of COVID-19, Louisiana’s election laws violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as well as the Voting Rights Act. Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, No. 20-cv-283 (M.D. La.) (ECF No. 1).
2. Shortly thereafter, on May 19, 2020, a separate set of Plaintiffs brought suit alleging nearly identical claims as were sought in Power Coalition. See Clark v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-308-SDD (M.D. La.) (filed May 19, 2020) (hereinafter “Clark Litigation”). The Attorney General is a named party in the Clark Litigation.
3. On May 26, 2020, Defendant Registrars in Power Coalition filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the two cases. See Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, No. 20-cv-283 (M.D. La.) (ECF No. 15). That motion was granted on June 3, 2020. Id. at (ECF No. 28); Clark v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-308 (M.D. La.) (ECF No. 17). In light the now granted motion to consolidate, the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, seeks to intervene in Power Coalition so that, inter alia, its rights may be applied equally to the two consolidated cases.
4. Pursuant to Rule 24(c), the following documents are attached: (1) State’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Power Coalition (Exhibit A); and (2) the State’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Power Coalition (Exhibit B). The State would like to reserve its right to amend these documents pursuant to any subsequent scheduling order the Court may order in the newly consolidated cases or as justice would otherwise dictate.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24 06/05/20 Page 3 of 4

5.

Intervention is necessary here as of right or permissively so that the State, through its

constitutionally designated officer, may be heard in defense of its election laws and regulations.

Therefore, for the reasons detailed in the attached Memorandum of Law, the State

respectfully requests that the Court grant its Rule 24 Motion to Intervene in Power Coalition for

Equity and Justice v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-283-BAJ (M.D. La).

Dated: June 5, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming
Counsel for Applicant the State of Louisiana

3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24 06/05/20 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing Motion to Intervene was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel Counsel for Applicant the State of Louisiana
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
The State of Louisiana, by and through Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or, in the alternative (b)(1) or (2), moves this Court for an order allowing the State of Louisiana to intervene in Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al. v. Edwards, et al., No. 20-cv-283 (M.D. La.). Each party in the Power Coalition litigation does not oppose the State’s intervention.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 2 of 9
INTRODUCTION On May 7, 2020, the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, and four individual Plaintiffs (collectively “Power Coalition Plaintiffs”) brought a Complaint (ECF No. 1) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that, as a result of COVID-19, Louisiana’s election laws violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as well as the Voting Rights Act. Power Coalition Plaintiffs brought suit against Governor John Bel Edwards, Secretary Kyle Ardoin, Registrar Steve Raborn, and Sandra L. Wilson, all in their official capacities. Power Coalition for Equity and Justice v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-283-BAJ (M.D. La) (filed May 7, 2020) (hereinafter “Power Coalition Litigation”). Shortly thereafter, on May 19, 2020, the Louisiana League of Women Voters, Crescent City Media Group, and three individual Plaintiffs (collectively “Clark Plaintiffs”) brought suit alleging nearly identical claims as were sought in the Power Coalition Litigation. See Clark v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-308-SDD (M.D. La.) (filed May 19, 2020) (hereinafter “Clark Litigation”). The Clark Plaintiffs brought suit against the following, all in their official capacities: Governor Edwards, Secretary Ardoin, Attorney General Landry, Terrebonne Parish Registrar Rogers, and Lafayette Parish Registrar Menard. On May 26, 2020, the registrars in the Power Coalition Litigation filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the two cases. See (ECF No. 15). That motion was granted on June 3, 2020 (ECF No. 28). On the same day, Judge Jackson recused himself from the Power Coalition Litigation, thereby making, by order of the Court, the Clark Litigation the lead consolidated case. The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, seeks to intervene in the Power Coalition Litigation so that its rights may be applied equally to the two now consolidated cases.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 3 of 9
Therefore, Applicant, the Attorney General of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, files this Motion to Intervene based on established judicial precedent and the powers conferred upon him by the laws and constitution of the State of Louisiana, federal law, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ARGUMENT I. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA MAY INTERVENE.
A. The State’s Motion to Intervene is Unquestionably Timely. Irrespective of whether intervention is brought under 24(a) or (b), it must be timely. Aubin v. Columbia Gas Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59405, *8 (M.D. La. Apr. 19, 2017). Timeliness “is to be determined from all the circumstance.” Stallworth v. Monsanto, Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263 (5th Cir. 1977). The following factors are used to determine the timeliness of a motion to intervene: (1) the length of time during which the proposed intervenor should have known of his interest in the case before he petitioned to intervene; (2) the extent of prejudice that those parties already in the litigation would suffer as a result of the would-be intervenor's failure to apply for intervention as soon as he actually knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (3) the extent of prejudice to the proposed intervenor if he is not allowed to intervene; and (4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Aubin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59405 at *7-8 (quoting Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2005)). In this instance, the Attorney General’s motion is clearly timely. Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit a mere 29 days ago. Likewise, there will be no prejudice to any of the existing parties as the State of Louisiana is ready to comply with the current case schedule with the attached Answer and Motion to Dismiss being filed even before the current party defendants have filed responsive pleadings. The State of Louisiana intends to respond to Power Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 4 of 9
Preliminary Injunction when a response is due under the rules or as ordered by the Court.1 Also, the Attorney General is already a party in the Clark Litigation where he will be representing the interests of the State of Louisiana. As the cases have been consolidated there is no prejudice by allowing the Attorney General to intervene when he is already a named party in one of the two consolidated cases.
By contrast, the prejudice to the State if intervention is denied is great. The Attorney General of Louisiana is empowered by the Louisiana Constitution to intervene in any civil case to protect the interests of the State. The Louisiana Constitution declares that:
[a]s necessary for the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state, the attorney general shall have authority (1) to . . . intervene in any civil action or proceeding; . . . and (3) for cause, when authorized by the court which would have original jurisdiction and subject to judicial review . . . to supersede any attorney representing the state in any civil . . . action. La. Const. art. IV, § 8; see also La. R.S. 36:701(A) (the Louisiana “Department of Justice . . . shall be a body corporate with the power to sue and be sued.”). The people of Louisiana expect their interests to be represented by the one elected to serve that role. See La. R.S. 36:702(1) (the Attorney General shall “[r]epresent the public interest in the administration of this Chapter and shall be responsible to the legislature and the public therefor.”). Denying the intervention of the State causes prejudice to not only the Attorney General but to the people of Louisiana as well. The Attorney General also has a right under state law to defend the constitutionality of the challenged statutes. The Louisiana Attorney General’s right to defend the constitutionality of state laws is codified in La. C.C.P. art. 1880, which states that “[i]f the statute, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state shall also be served with a copy of the
1 The State has sought and obtained an expert to respond to Plaintiffs’ claims in both the Power Coalition and Clark cases. The State will request, at the appropriate time and in light of consolidation—including Clark Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (currently subject to a motion for additional pages)—that the briefing schedule to the Preliminary Injunction motions be unified.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 5 of 9
proceeding and be entitled to be heard.” Additionally, La. R.S. 49:257(C) states, “[N]otwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the attorney general, at his discretion, shall represent or supervise the representation of the interests of the state in any action or proceeding in which the constitutionality of a state statute or of a resolution of the legislature is challenged or assailed.” And as has been recognized by the Supreme Court, standing to defend the laws of a State are prescribed by state law. See Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945, 1951 (2019).
Therefore, for those reasons, and many others, the State of Louisiana’s intervention is timely and allowed under the law.
B. The State of Louisiana Should be Permitted to Intervene as a Matter of Right. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), intervention as of right must be granted when the following four requirements are met: (1) The application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1204 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984)). The Louisiana Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, meets all of the requisite elements. As stated supra, the State of Louisiana’s motion is timely. The State has an overwhelming interest in the subject of the action. While in the Fifth Circuit, an intervenor need not “independently possess standing . . .”, Ruiz v. Estelle, 161 F.3d 814, 830 (5th Cir. 1998), it is unquestionable that “a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute.” Va. House of Delegates, 139 S. Ct. at 1951. In Louisiana, it is the Attorney General
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 6 of 9
who is designated by law as the one who has the power to speak for Louisiana “as a sovereign entity with a single voice.” Id. at 1952 (holding that government standing is, in part, prescribed by state law). The Attorney General is the “chief legal officer of the state,” La. Const. art. IV, § 8, and he is authorized to act and intervene on behalf of the State pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution. See La. Const. art. IV, § 8; see also LA R.S. 36:701(A) (the Louisiana “Department of Justice . . . shall be a body corporate with the power to sue and be sued.”).
Here, the Attorney General is asserting his right to intervene to speak for the State and its interests. See La. Const. art. IV, § 8. As such, the State should be permitted to intervene. See Order, Jane Doe I, et al. v. Juana Marine-Lombard, No. 16-cv-14876 (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2016) (order granting the State of Louisiana’s motion to intervene in a case where a state agency was already a party); Aubin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59405 at *12; cf. Va. House of Delegates, 139 S. Ct. at 1951 (holding a single body of a state legislature lacked standing to appeal because state law directed that the Attorney General be the designated officer for the State).
Likewise, disposition of this action without the State of Louisiana will impair the State’s interests. The Louisiana Constitution and federal law acknowledge that it is the Attorney General, as the chief legal officer of the State, who has the primary interest in defending the constitutionality of state statutes. See La. Const. art. IV, § 8; 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) (discussed in greater depth infra). Passing judgment upon the constitutionality of a state statute without permitting the State’s chief legal officer to be heard on those issues undeniably impairs the State’s interests, and therefore the interests of the people of Louisiana.
Finally, none of the existing Defendants in the Power Coalition Litigation adequately represent the interests of the State. Inadequacy of representation “is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation ‘may be’ inadequate” and this burden is treated as “minimal.” Trbovich v.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 7 of 9
United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). “In a suit involving a matter of sovereign interest, the State is presumed to represent the interests of all its citizens.” Hoffman v. Jindal, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99371 at *20. None of the existing Defendants are permitted to represent the interests of the State once the Attorney General invokes his right to do so. See La. Cost. Art. IV, § 8; cf. Va. House of Delegates, 139 S. Ct. at 1951 (holding that federal court standing is determined, in part, by state law). Therefore, this Court should grant Applicant’s Motion to Intervene.
C. Permissive Intervention Should be Granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” The Attorney General is given an unconditional right to intervene when: In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, . . . and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence . . . and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The State shall . . . have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). The Attorney General maintains that 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) confers an unconditional right to intervene here. However, at minimum, this statute grants the Attorney General a conditional right to intervene. Power Coalition Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of state law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. As the statutes in question are voting regulations, the statutes are unquestionably affecting the public interest. See Aubin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59405 at *11-12 (quoting O’Keefe v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 246 F.Supp. 978, 980 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)). Finally, permissive intervention is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) and 24(b)(2). Judicial economy will be promoted by allowing the Attorney General to intervene in the
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 8 of 9

Power Coalition Litigation as he is already a party in the Clark Litigation. No undue prejudice nor any other negative impact will result from equalizing the parties of the two substantially similar cases. The questions of law and fact are nearly identical in the two cases and the defenses will be substantially similar. Furthermore, the defenses articulated in the attached Answer, as well as those to be articulated in the forthcoming motion to dismiss, share with the main action a common question of law and fact. Intervention is also proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2) as the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the State and may be asked to prosecute voter fraud should it arise. La. Const. art. IV, § 8; La. R.S.18:1461.2; La R.S. 18:1412.
CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, this Court should permit the Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the State of Louisiana and to defend its interests herein.

Dated: June 5, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100

8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-1 06/05/20 Page 9 of 9
Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming Counsel for Applicant the State of Louisiana
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel Counsel for Applicant the State of Louisiana
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-2 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Intervene. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Attorney General’s intervention on behalf of the State of Louisiana in the instant case is hereby GRANTED.

DATE:________________

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-2 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2
________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shelly D. Dick.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-3 06/05/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Defendant, the State of Louisiana, by and through its counsel, do hereby move that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed. This motion is filed with the State’s motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c).
1.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-3 06/05/20 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiffs’ filed a Complaint on May 7, 2020, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

respecting Louisiana’s voting regulations in light of COVID-19 (the “Virus”).

2.

Plaintiffs’ claims come too late in the election cycle, and therefore should be dismissed

under the Supreme Court’s Purcell doctrine.

3.

This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, Plaintiffs’ lack standing because,

inter alia, the Virus is not state action for the purposes of Plaintiffs claims. Second, Plaintiffs’

claims present political questions unfit for judicial review.

4.

Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, once

again, the allegations on the face of the complaint point to the Virus, and not the State of Louisiana,

as the perpetrator of their alleged harms.

5.

Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to join the necessary parties to afford them relief under Rule 19.

For the reasons more fully set forth in the attached memorandum of law, Defendant State

of Louisiana respectfully requests that this Court DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Dated: June 5, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-3 06/05/20 Page 3 of 3
JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov
Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all
counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Intervenor-Defendant Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for the following reasons: (1) any Court order will result in electoral chaos in violation of the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit’s Purcell doctrine; (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) as Plaintiffs’ claims present non-justiciable political questions and Plaintiffs lack standing; (3)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 2 of 23
Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted because a communicable disease is not state action and is not protected by the Voting Rights Act; and (4) Plaintiffs have failed to join the proper parties in order to accord them the requested relief.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this case on the eve of a busy election season seeking to dictate through judicial enactment their own idea of what constitutes—according to them—a fairer election system in light of the current pandemic. This is despite the fact that the State of Louisiana, through its process designed to deal with these issues, has loosened some election regulations to make it easier for all Louisianans to vote. It can be no less than hubris to contend that laws that were perfectly legal—and arguably more restrictive—before the pandemic are suddenly now made illegal in their arguably less restrictive form during a pandemic. Fortunately, a motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed claims very similar to the claims here. See Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 (5th Cir. June 4, 2020). The panel emphatically stayed a District Court order granting a preliminary injunction “because the spread of the Virus1 has not given “unelected federal jud[ges]” a roving commission to rewrite state election codes.” Id. at *3 (quoting S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 19A1044, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041, *3 (U.S. May 29, 2020) (Roberts, C.J. concurring from the denial of cert.)). The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is just as persuasive here. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is fundamentally deficient. At the outset, voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 807-09 (1969).
1 In the interests of simplicity, just as the Fifth Circuit has done, all references to the current pandemic—coronavirus, COVID-19, and the like—will simply be to “the Virus.” See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *3 n.1.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 3 of 23
Louisiana’s statutory scheme, including its emergency plans, are “designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls.” Id. at 807-08; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22. This fact “does not itself ‘deny’ the plaintiffs ‘the exercise of the franchise.’” Id.; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22.2 Beyond this fundamental issue, there are two other truths to this litigation that cause Plaintiffs’ claims to fail.
First, each and every claim brought by Plaintiffs requires state action. See e.g, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)). However, the face of their Complaint is clear: it is the Virus and not the State of Louisiana that caused their alleged harms.
Second, it cannot be over emphasized that for every single rule Plaintiffs challenge, a more, or equally restrictive, version of that rule that was perfectly legal before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g., Mays v. Thurston, No. 4:20-cv-341 JM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498, at *4-5 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 30, 2020); Bethea v. Deal, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861, at *7 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2016).
Given these foundational truths as applied to the law, Plaintiffs’ claims must fall.
2 Louisiana’s actions also, as it will be shown herein and in the response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, does not and cannot result in a desperate impact under Section 2 of the Voting Right Act.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 4 of 23
I. THE SUPREME COURT’S PURCELL DOCTRINE DICTATES THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN FAST APPROACHING ELECTIONS.
The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit “ha[ve] repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37; Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56 (“The Court’s [dismissal] is bolstered by the fact that Plaintiffs seek extensive relief on the eve of/during an election”). “That is especially true where, as here, . . . local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37 (quoting S. Bay, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041 at *3).
This doctrine exists because judicial intrusion into elections must account for “considerations specific to election cases.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). These considerations include the fact that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections . . . can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Id. at 4-5. “As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 5.
Even assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are correct and there is a violation of either the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, or both, the Court still ought to decline from interfering in Louisiana’s upcoming elections. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964); Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 243 (5th Cir. 2016). “In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585. The existence of the Virus does not change this analysis. Recently, the Supreme Court stated that “changing the election rules so close to the election date . . . contravened [Supreme
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 5 of 23
Court] precedent[].”Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207 (staying a district court order changing election deadlines in response to the Virus).
Courts must weigh such factors as the harms associated with judicial action or inaction, the proximity of the upcoming election, the “possibility that the non-prevailing parties would want to seek” further review, and the risk of “conflicting orders” from such review. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585 (noting that withholding relief may be proper when “an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress.”).
Here, we are on the eve of the election under the revised deadlines set forth in the Emergency Election Plan. Absentee ballot applications have been printed and widely distributed with current law set forth in the instructions. The first absentee ballots for this July’s elections were mailed in February of 2020. Applications to vote absentee have been accepted since April 20. Secretary of State Emergency Action Plan (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised Emergency Election Plan for PPP and Mun General Rev. 4-20.pdf The registration deadline for the July 11 elections is on June 10, a mere seven days away. Louisiana Secretary of State, Primary Election Quick Facts (2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/LouisianaElectionQuickFacts. pdf. The online registration deadline is on June 20, a mere 17 days away. Id. And early voting begins on June 20. Id. Absentee ballots with the current law set forth in the instructions have been printed and have already been mailed to the homes of those people who have registered. Changing the method of absentee balloting now will invite chaos into the system and harm more people through voter confusion than any remedy ordered by the Court would help.
The same issue repeats itself for the subsequent elections, as the post-election calendar of required events for the July 11 election have a cascading effect on the August run-off elections. In
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 6 of 23
order for ballots to be printed and mailed to absentee voters for the August run-off election, the Secretary must certify multi-district results and local election officials must finalize local election results. Any movement in this final deadline risks the ability of the Secretary and local election officials to have absentee and in-person ballots printed and available in time for the run-off election on August 15.3
Finally, the extensive nature of the prohibitory and mandatory relief sought by Plaintiffs is yet another reason to deny their relief. Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56. Plaintiffs request no fewer than six mandatory injunctions that work to create a wholesale overhaul of Louisiana’s election code. “The combination of the extensive nature of the relief Plaintiffs seek and the temporal proximity to the election is a further reason to deny them relief.” Id. (denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s dismissal on political question grounds). As the Sixth Circuit Court recently said, “rewriting a state’s election procedures or moving deadlines rarely ends with one court order. Moving one piece on the game board invariably leads to additional moves. This is exactly why we must heed the Supreme Court’s warning that federal courts are not supposed to change state election rules as elections approach.” Thompson v. Dewine, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650, at *17 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020) (citing Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207; Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5)); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37.
II. THIS COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. “Federal courts cannot consider the merits of a case unless it ‘presents an actual
controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution . . .’” Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 458
3 A similar series of post-election dates exist between the November 2020 and December 2020 elections.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 7 of 23
(1974)). “The many doctrines that have fleshed out the case or controversy requirement—standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like—are ‘founded in concern about the proper— and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). When a jurisdictional defect is raised, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proof. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F. 3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs’ Complaint is facially and factually deficient in nearly every respect. However, the principal defects are jurisdictional in nature and require this Court’s immediate dismissal.
A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing. “Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2493 (2019). The doctrine of standing arises out of the “case” or “controversy” language of Article III. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013). “Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power.” Id. at 408-09 (quoting United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 188 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)). In Gill v. Whitford, the Court “insist[ed]” that a plaintiff must show that they “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.” 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the three elements of standing].” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish Article III
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 8 of 23
standing. As Plaintiffs lack standing, they cannot succeed on their claims, and their claims should be dismissed.
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Suffered an Injury in Fact.4 Foremost among a plaintiff’s requirements in establishing Article III standing is pleading and proving an injury in fact. Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929. In order to prove an injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead and prove an injury which is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent . . . .” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010)). The requirement that an injury be “imminent” exists “to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is certainly impending.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565, n.2) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that a “‘threatened injury”—such as Plaintiffs are alleging here—“must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact’ and that ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient’” to establish Article III standing. Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)) (emphasis in original). A plaintiff cannot sufficiently establish an injury in fact when the alleged injury is based on “their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending”—such as Plaintiffs are attempting to do here. Id. at 416. Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is not “actual or imminent”—and therefore fails.5 Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409. Here, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n the context of the COVID-19 pandemic”,
4 The presentation of this case is peculiar in that Plaintiffs are alleging purely conjectural harms that stem not from the state, but from a virus, and as such are neither traceable nor redressable by Defendants. However, even if one were to remove COVID-19 from the equation, there is every reason to believe that Plaintiffs would still lack individual and associational standing. See, e.g., Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929 (“[A] person’s right to vote is individual and personal in nature.” (internal quotation omitted)); NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding, in part, that organizations and associations must meet Lujan’s standing requirements). 5 It is also important to note that voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald, 394 U.S. at 80709. When a state legislature passes laws that make voting easier for certain demographics but not others, such as absentee voter laws, such laws cannot be viewed as an “abridgment” of one’s right. Veasy, 830 F.3d at 279 (Higginson, J. concurring). “There is a difference between making voting harder in ways that interact with historical and social conditions to disproportionately burden minorities and making voting easier in ways that may not benefit all
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 9 of 23
Louisiana voters suffered a sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of physically voting or by having a third party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. ¶ 4, 110 (May 7, 2020), ECF No. 1. In addition to the articles and studies cited in their Complaint, Plaintiffs proffer multiple experts, medical and otherwise, in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction who discuss the risks associated with the Virus and state that voters are potentially at risk of contracting the disease by voting. See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (May 21, 2020), ECF No. 14. In total, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with all the associated expert and witness declarations, total over 350 pages. See id. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, increasing the number of pages in their pleadings does not decrease their burden of proof in establishing an injury in fact which is “certainly impending” and not based on “fears of hypothetical future harms”—which Plaintiffs have certainly failed to do. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416.
The estimated population of Louisiana is 4,648,794.6 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), Louisiana has had a total of 40,857 Virus cases.7 While not diminishing the seriousness of the disease to those infected, an infection rate of less than one percent could not be classified as “certainly impending” under any definition. On June 5, 2020, Louisiana moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the re-opening process, and while Phase 2 will last at least 21 days, it is pure speculation to guess what phase Louisiana may be in as the July, August,
demographics equally (like motor-voter).” Id. (emphasis in original). “Every decision that a State makes in regulating its elections will, inevitably, result in somewhat more inconvenience for some voters than for others.” Greater Brimingham Ministries v. Merrill, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1279-81 (N.D. Ala 2018) (citing Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2014)). As such, Plaintiffs’ claims that Louisiana’s absentee ballot laws are unconstitutional and therefore cause injury, cannot be supported by the law. 6 QuickFacts: Louisiana, U.S. Census Bureau (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/LA 7 Cases in the U.S., Center for Disease Control and Prevention (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 10 of 23
November, and December elections approach.8 In moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2, Governor John Del Edwards cited to “continued improvement in Louisiana’s COVID-19 outlook and a significant increase in testing capacity and contact tracing” in support of the move.9 Id. While Louisiana health officials are allowing for most businesses, including children’s museums and arcades, to open safely (following occupancy and other guidelines), Plaintiffs argue that voting centers, following the same guidelines, cannot safely accommodate them. Id.
In support of their proposition that voting in accordance with Louisiana law will lead to an increase in infections of the Virus, Plaintiffs cite to a few news stories that claim Wisconsin suffered higher infection rates following their recent election. Compl. ¶ 62. However, these exaggerated reports have since been proven false. 10 At least two studies have been published as “pre-prints” to evaluate the election’s impact on the spread of the virus. These two research studies show no such effect. The first, titled “No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election.”11 That study concluded, “[t]aken together, it appears that voting in Wisconsin on April 7 was a low-risk activity.” Id. A second study examining Wisconsin found that the virus’ rate of spread actually declined following the election, and declined in the three most populated counties in Wisconsin. That study, entitled “Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates.”12 That study concluded, “[t]here was no increase in COVID-19 new case daily rates observed for Wisconsin or its three largest counties
8 Gov. Edwards Announces Louisiana’s Roadmap to Resilience Will Start Phase 2 on Friday, June 5, Louisiana Office of the Governor (June 1, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2521 9 Under 12(b)(1), parties are permitted to supplement 10 When a party is challenging the facts upon which jurisdiction depends, matters outside the pleadings can be considered. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. 11 Kathy Leung et al., No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078345v1.full.pdf 12 Andrew C. Berry et al., Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575v1.full.pdf
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 11 of 23
following the election on April 7, 2020, as compared to the US, during the post-incubation period.” Id. The available data surrounding the recent Wisconsin election, coupled with the data supporting the move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 in Louisiana, show that the likelihood of infection with the Virus while voting is not “actual or imminent” or “certainly impending” but is merely a “fear[] of hypothetical future harm[]”. Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409, 416.
Plaintiffs’ injury in fact theory is similar to the theory advanced by the plaintiffs in Clapper. In Clapper, the plaintiffs argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would allow the government to perform unconstitutional surveillance on them and sought a declaration of unconstitutionality and an injunction against the government performing surveillance authorized under the challenged law. 568 U.S. at 401. The Clapper plaintiffs claimed injury in fact and Article III standing because “there is an objectively reasonable likelihood that their communications will be acquired [by government surveillance] at some point in the future.” Id. The Court rejected this theory of injury because the plaintiffs failed to allege or prove that their communications had been unconstitutionally monitored, and the plaintiffs’ fear of non-certainly impending hypothetical future harm was insufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 411416. Here, Plaintiffs attempt to argue injury in fact under a failed theory similar to the Clapper plaintiffs—that by voting in-person or by having a witness sign an absentee ballot, Louisiana voters will suffer a sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus. See Compl. at ¶ 110. Here, just as in Clapper, because Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is based on uncertain possible future harm, it must fail for the same reasons as the plaintiffs’ claims in Clapper. To hold otherwise would be to allow for a nearly limitless range of possible speculative injuries that have not yet occurred and are likely to never
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 12 of 23
occur. Article III exists to limit and define the power of the federal judiciary, not expand it. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408-09.
2. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries are Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants. a. Because the Virus Is Not State Action, Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury Is Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants.
In addition to proving injury in fact, Plaintiffs must also show that the injury-in-fact is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of Defendants, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. However, like their failure to present a proper injury-in-fact, Plaintiffs also fail to show that their alleged injury can be traced to Defendants or redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.
It is important to note that Plaintiffs are not alleging the laws in question are unconstitutional or violative of the VRA writ large, but only temporarily due to the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at 4. In effect, Plaintiffs’ entire complaint hinges upon the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶¶ 6, 10. 16 (allegation are typically prefaced by “[i]n the context of the COVID-19 pandemic” or other similar language); Compl. at ¶¶ 31-65 (detailing all the alleged harms attributable to the Virus). Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries boil down to the claim that, “[i]n light of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Louisiana voters suffered a sufficient injury due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of voting in person or by having a third-party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. at ¶ 110. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs properly claimed a sufficient injury-in-fact, which they did not, their alleged injury cannot be traced to Defendants for one simple reason: the existence and proliferation of the Virus is not state action.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 13 of 23
Plaintiffs’ claims fail because each and every claim requires state action. Compare Compl. at 46-48 (Count I – “Violations of the Fundamental Right to Vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)”) and Compl. at 48-50 (Count II – “Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301”) with U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . .”(emphasis added)); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No state shall make any law . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, of property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added)); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state . . . .” (emphasis added)); Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 206 (1999) (discussing the Anderson/Burdick framework). The Virus is not state action. Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (finding that “the Constitution is not offended” even if voting is impossible “because of circumstances beyond the state’s control, such as the presence of the Virus.”); Coalition, No. 1:20cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2.
Moreover, it cannot be reiterated enough that for every single rule they challenge, there is a more or equally “restrictive” version of that rule that was perfectly lawful before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g, Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7; Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
States throughout the country, including Louisiana—as Plaintiffs admit, have taken measures to protect “the right to vote during this global pandemic” by taking actions including
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 14 of 23
“suspending the normal prerequisites . . . for requesting an absentee ballot” and encouraging “social distancing and other protections” while voting in person. Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5. With that backdrop, “[t]he real problem [for Plaintiffs] here is COVID-19, which all but the craziest conspiracy theorist would concede is not the result of any act or failure to act by the Government.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2. It is undeniable that the Virus has impacted the lives of Louisianans, but “these circumstances are not impediments created by the state.” Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7. “While Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have done a poor job of responding to [the Virus], the fact that the virus’s provenance was not through Defendants further increases, in this Court’s opinion, the impropriety of judicial intervention.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2; cf., Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *6-7.
A number of courts, including the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, have specifically relied upon, at least in part, the fact that the Virus—or another natural disaster—does not present state action as reason to stay a grant of preliminary injunction, dismiss claims, or to deny a motion for preliminary injunction.
In Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, the Circuit Court, upon granting a motion to stay the Western District of Texas’ order granting a preliminary injunction, held that:
The Constitution is not “offended simply because some” groups “find voting more convenient than” do the plaintiffs because of a state's mail-in ballot rules. That is true even where voting in person “may be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible,” because of circumstances beyond the state's control, such as the presence of the Virus.
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (emphasis added) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 810). The Circuit Court indicated that the result is similar in the VRA context. See id at *24 n.32 (“And here,
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 15 of 23
unlike in Veasey [v. Abbott], the state has not placed any obstacles on the plaintiffs’ ability to vote in person.” (emphasis in original)). The lack of state action is further emphasized in the concurring opinion, which notes “[f]or courts to intervene, a voter must show that the state ‘has in fact precluded [voters] from voting.’” Id. at 44-45 (Ho, J. concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 808 & n.7)).
In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs were challenging the signature gathering requirement of Ohio’s ballot-initiative laws in light of the the Virus. Thompson, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650 at *2. When staying the District Court’s order granting plaintiffs preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit noted the lack of state action inherent in claims resting upon the foundation of the Virus as rationale. Id. at *12 (“[J]ust because procuring signatures is now harder (largely because of a disease beyond the control of the State) doesn’t mean that Plaintiffs are excluded from the ballot.”). The court went further by noting that both First Amendment and Section 1983 actions require state action. Id. at *12-13 (going on to discuss the implication under the Anderson/Burdick standard).
In Mays v. Thurston, plaintiffs sought a mandatory temporary restraining order that the Governor of Arkansas “do more to ensure that Arkansans are allowed to have their vote counted by absentee ballot.” No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *2. The District Court found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Id. at *4-5. Specifically, the court stated that:
Plaintiffs have failed to articulate an injury suffered at the hands of . . . any . . . state official. Plaintiffs’ right to vote during this global pandemic have been made easier by the Governor’s . . . executive order suspending the normal prerequisites for requesting an absentee ballot. Plaintiffs complain that the Governor did not do enough. However, Plaintiffs’ injury, if any, will occur only if they did not follow the absentee voting requirements as loosened by the Governor or if they do not show up to vote at a designated voting place exercising the social distancing and other protections suggested by the State and the federal government. Any injury caused by Plaintiffs’ failing to take advantage of these available avenues to exercise their rights to vote are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 16 of 23
the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their requested remedy. Id. (emphasis added). The Court’s analysis is not changed due to the type of emergency. In Bethea v. Deal, plaintiffs, including the NAACP, sought a statewide mandatory preliminary injunction seeking to extend the voting registration deadline in response to Hurricane Matthew, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *3-4. The court found that the plaintiffs’ Section 2 and Fourteenth Amendment arguments “relie[d] on the unsupported notion that Defendants’ decision not to extend the [voter] registration deadline was some sort of action that created an impediment to the right to vote.” Id. at *6. The District Court was “unable to locate any precedent that would constitutionally or statutorily mandate that Defendants provide an extension in the absence of actual government action that burdens an individual’s right to vote.” Id. (emphasis added). The court goes on to discuss how the fact that the hurricane coincided with an election “made it difficult, but not impossible” for affected residents to vote and, in any event, “these circumstances [were] not impediments created by the State.” Id. at *7. In wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for counting absentee ballots. Assoc. of Communities for Reform Now v. Blanco, No. 2:06-cv-611, Order at 1-2 (E.D. La April 21, 2006) (ECF No. 58). The court noted that plaintiffs’ issues “do not rise to the level of a constitutional or Voting Rights Act violation.” Id. at 3. The court further noted that “[i]t is ironic that a step taken by the State, apparently to allow as many displaced voters as possible the ability to request and receive and absentee ballot . . . is now being challenged as having the exact opposite effect.” Id. The court then reminded plaintiffs that “our evacuation emanated from a natural disaster that ravaged [New
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 17 of 23
Orleans] casting thousands of our fellow citizens across the face of America. Hurricane Katrina (and Rita) crossed all divides, human-made and others.” Id. at 5. Finally, in light of the state officials’ work to “ameliorate the impact” of the natural disaster, the court held that the plaintiffs’ claims that the “[State’s] efforts will ‘disenfranchise’ minority voters is disingenuous.” Id.
Because Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries under the Fourteenth Amendment and VRA “are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic”, their claims must be dismissed. See Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
b. Even Assuming the Virus Represents State Action, Plaintiffs’ Purported Injuries Are Not Redressable By the Current Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ alleged injury cannot be redressed by a favorable judgment from this Court and should therefore fail. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. In other words, assuming proper injury-in-fact and traceability, if this Court were to rule in favor of Plaintiffs, the present Defendants could not act in a way that would cure Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
In Louisiana, the respective parish boards are responsible for determining who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot and for determining whether an absentee ballot is properly cast. See La. R.S. §§ 18:423, 18:1307(1), 18:1303. Plaintiffs have failed to include any parish boards in this suit. While Plaintiffs have sued two parish registrars, registrars can take no action themselves—they act only at the direction of the parish boards.13 See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 151 n. 10 (1965); Cf. Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714, *28-44 (11th Cir. 2020) (because individual county election officials were not part of suit, Court could not redress alleged injury and therefore lacked standing). While the parish boards are not parties to
13 The fact that a Registrar is a member of the board does not effectuate suit against the board as a body.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 18 of 23
this suit, Plaintiffs nonetheless request that the Court order Defendants to “issue guidance” to parties absent from this litigation to act in a certain manner. Compl. at 51. This requested relief not only serves as evidence that the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury without additional parties present, but is contrary to the law in that a court cannot control the conduct of parties absent from the present litigation. See Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *28-44.
In the end, Plaintiffs’ purported injury is fear of infection, or potential infection, of an individual by the Virus. When acting properly under its jurisdiction, this Court can do a great many things. However, no matter how well-intentioned, this Court cannot enjoin the Virus from infecting a Louisiana citizen. As such, the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury.
B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Present Non-Justiciable Political Questions. Issues that are “entrusted to one of the political branches or involve[] no judicially enforceable rights . . . present a political question . . . outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction.” 14 Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2494 (internal quotations omitted). As it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove jurisdiction, Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161, “[a]bsent pellucid proof provided by plaintiffs that a political question is not at issue, courts should not substitute their own judgments for state election codes.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. The purpose of the political question doctrine is to “protect[] the separation of powers and prevent[] federal courts from overstepping their constitutionally defined role.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962). “That the line might have been drawn differently” in response to the
14 The opinion in Tex. Democratic Party does not change the applicability of the political question doctrine here because Plaintiffs go even further than the Texas plaintiffs in seeking judicial enactment of their policy preference. See 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 13. This suit, similar to the suit in Georgia, “challenge[s] the wisdom of” Louisiana’s policy choices. See id (emphasis in original). While, the Fifth Circuit determined it “need not . . . consider the prudence of Texas’s plan” because those plaintiffs failed to raise it, see id., Plaintiffs here specifically make Louisiana’s policy choices a fundamental feature of their Complaint. See, e.g., Compl. at 50 (requesting numerous mandatory and prohibitory injunctions).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 19 of 23
Virus “is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *28 (internal quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court has found at least six areas where courts are not competent to render a decision, any one of which causes the case to present a non-justiciable political question outside the judicial expertise:
[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; [2] or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; [3] or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; [4] or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; [5] or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; [6] or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. At least two of these factors is implicated here: (1) “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;”15 and (2) “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.” Id. Therefore, it is not for courts to second guess the policy choices of the State in response to the Virus, see Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; see also id. at *40 (Ho, J. concurring), especially when there exist no judicially manageable standards for it to do so. See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9
15 The regulation of congressional elections is conferred by the federal constitution to the States via the Elections Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 (granting to the state legislatures the power to appoint electors for presidential elections). The states also retain their own plenary power to regulate state elections. See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986). In either event, the power to regulate and administer elections is committed to “Congress and state legislatures—not courts.” See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *8-9; cf. ); Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408 (“The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”).
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 20 of 23
1. There Exist No Judicially Manageable Standards to Determine State Policy in Response to the Virus.
The second Baker factor asks whether there exist “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” the question at issue. Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. Before a court conducts any analysis on whether the right to vote is burdened, it must “identify the burden before [it] can weigh it.” Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *54-55 (Pryor, W. J. concurring) (quoting Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008) (Scalia, J. concurring in judgment)). Here, the burden, if any, arises from the Virus and not any action of the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). However, even assuming that state action is implicated here, there are no judicially manageable standards to determine what measures must be taken to regulate elections in light of the Virus. As the Northern District of Georgia recently articulated:
“How early is too early for the election to be held in light of COVID-19? How many safeguards must be in place to protect those who would choose to vote in person from the possibility of contracting COVID-19? Have Defendants already implemented enough safeguards to avoid a constitutional violation? Plaintiffs have provided the Court with no non-speculative way to answer these questions . . . .” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. The exact same is true here. Plaintiffs seek various prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, effectively rewriting Louisiana’s election code. For example, why is a 14-day early voting period constitutional or compliant with the Voting Rights Act, but a seven-day period is not? See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. Why is a two-person signature requirement constitutional and valid under the VRA, but a one-person signature requirement is not? Why is less access to an absentee ballot constitutional and statutorily valid, but more access under Louisiana’s emergency election plan is not? As applied to each of those questions, which is fairer? How can the judiciary determine “fairness”? The truth is that no one knows, and this Court certainly cannot know because “federal courts can address only questions
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 21 of 23
‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2493-94 (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). As fairness is not a judicially manageable standard, “it is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context.” Id. at 2499-50. “Because ‘it is axiomatic that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change’, some questions—even those existential in nature—are the province of the political branches.” Juliana, v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1173 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and some quotations omitted).
“Ultimately, ordering Defendants to adopt Plaintiffs’ [relief] would require the Court to micromanage the State's election process. The relief Plaintiffs seek bears little resemblance to the type of relief plaintiffs typically seek in election cases aimed to redress state wrongs.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. As such, the questions put forth to the Court by Plaintiffs present political—not judicial—questions that are not addressable by the federal courts.
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM. Although this Court must accept all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, this Court is
not required to accept any legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim will survive a motion to dismiss only if the factual allegations in the complaint are “enough to raise the right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Additionally, this Court need not accept as true any conclusory factual assertions. Id. Accordingly, to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claims must be plausible on their face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This means that Plaintiffs must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have failed to do so here.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 22 of 23
The conduct alleged by Plaintiffs points to a singular culprit: the Virus. Plaintiffs again and again point to this invisible menace while addressing nearly everything in their Complaint. For example, the first paragraph of the Complaint does not address voting rights or Louisiana’s alleged actions against Plaintiffs, but instead discusses the Virus. This is true for the vast majority of the Complaint. See generally Compl. At the first mention of Plaintiffs claims, they make it clear that this lawsuit is “[i]n the unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic . . . .” Compl. at ¶ 4. In large part, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because the action they complain of was not brought about or caused by the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). Therefore, for reasons similar to why Plaintiffs lack standing, they have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
For each and every one of Plaintiffs’ claims they need to show a burden on the right to vote that resulted from some action of the State. They have failed to do so because each harm they allege would not exist but for the Virus, a non-state actor.16
IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO JOIN THE REQUIRED PARTIES. Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes that a plaintiff’s claim
may be dismissed for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). Rule 19(a)(1)(A) states that a party is required to be joined to the litigation if, “in that [party’s] absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Here, as discussed supra at Section II(A)(2)(b), Plaintiffs have failed to add the necessary parties in the respective parish boards, and as such, this Court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties. Therefore, due to the improbability of Plaintiffs being able to add all 64 parish boards prior to the upcoming July and August elections, the Court should dismiss this matter for failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19.
16 Proposed-Intervenor will provide additional and more detailed analysis of the why the relief sough should not be granted in its anticipated Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction should intervention granted.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-4 06/05/20 Page 23 of 23

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 5, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of

record.

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana

23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-5 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATE:________________

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-5 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2
________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Judge Shelly D. Dick

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State Civil Action: 20-cv-283-BAJ-EWD of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al., Defendants, and The State of Louisiana, Proposed Intervenor.
ANSWER ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Proposed Intervenor, Jeff Landry
in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, who denies each and every allegation of the Complaint except as expressly admitted in this Original Answer on behalf of Proposed Intervenor, and who responds as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A. The section headers in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are not factual or legal statements to which any response is required. To the extent a response is required, they are denied. Furthermore, the headers in this Answer are neither an admission nor a denial and are intended to mimic the style of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for organization and ease of reading. 1. The allegations in Paragraph 1 are admitted.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 2 of 19
2. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied as written.
3. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 3 are denied.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. The allegations in Paragraph 5 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. Admitted that the Emergency Election Plan was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020. Admitted that the Emergency Election Plan applies only to the July 11 and August 15 elections. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 are denied. 8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 are denied. 9. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 9 are denied. 10. The content of La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 10 are denied. 11. Allegations of “undue burden” in Paragraph 11 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 11 are denied. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 3 of 19
12. The content of La. R.S. 18:1307 speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
13. The content of La. R.S. 18:1309 speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
14. The allegations of “unreasonable burdens” in Paragraph 14 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 14 are denied.
15. The allegations of “disproportionate[] impact” in Paragraph 15 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 15 are denied. The referenced demographic data speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. Further, the State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State specifically denies subject matter jurisdiction as the alleged harms in the Complaint are not a result of state action.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 4 of 19
18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State specifically denies that the alleged violations concern state conduct.
19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
20. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
PARTIES 21. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied. 22. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 22 are denied. 23. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 23 are denied. 24. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 24 are denied. 25. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 25 are denied. 26. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 26 are denied. 27. Admitted that John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana. The statutes referenced speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required,
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 5 of 19
the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
28. Admitted that Kyle Ardoin is the Louisiana Secretary of State. The statutes referenced speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
29. Admitted that Steve Raborn is the Registrar of Voters for East Baton Rouge Parish and a member of the East Baton Rouge Parish Board of Election Supervisors. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
30. Admitted that Sandra L. Wilson is the Registrar of Voters for Orleans Parish and a member of the Orleans Parish Board of Election Supervisors. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 31. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 31 are denied as written. 32. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 32 are denied as written. 33. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 33 are denied as written.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 6 of 19
34. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 34 are denied as written.
35. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 35 are denied.
36. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 36 are denied.
37. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 37 are denied.
38. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 38 are denied.
39. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 39 are denied.
40. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 40 are denied.
41. The data referenced speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 41 are denied as written.
42. Admitted that various Louisiana state and local elected officials have issued orders in response to COVID-19. The content of any proclamation speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 42 is denied as written.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 7 of 19
43. The content of Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 44 are denied.
44. The content of Proclamation No. 27 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 44 are denied.
45. Admitted that Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 rescheduled elections. The content of Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 45 are denied.
46. The content of any Court order speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 46 are denied.
47. Admitted that Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 30 JBE 2020 on March 16, 2020. The contents of Proclamation No. 30 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 47 are denied.
48. Admitted that Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 on March 22, 2020. The content of Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 48 are denied.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 8 of 19
49. The full text of the cited Press Release is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation in Paragraph 49 are denied.
50. Admitted. 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted that Governor Edwards announced an extension of the stay at home order in a press release. Admitted that the Governor issued Proclamation 52 JBE 2020 on April 30, 2020. The contents of Proclamation No. 27 JBE 2020 and the Governor’s press release speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 are denied. 53. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 53 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written. 54. Admitted that the Governor formed a “Health Equity Task Force.” The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 54 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written. 55. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 55 are denied. Further, the underlying
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 9 of 19
demographic information is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
56. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 56 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
57. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 57 are denied. Further, the underlying demographic information is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
58. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 58 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
59. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 59 are denied.
60. Admitted that the CDC has issued “Recommendations for Election Polling Locations.” The contents of the CDC’s published Recommendations speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 60 are denied.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 10 of 19
61. The contents of the CDC’s published Recommendations speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 61 are denied.
62. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 62 are denied.
63. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 63 are denied.
64. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 64 are denied.
65. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 65 are denied.
66. Admitted that four elections are scheduled in Louisiana between May and December 31, 2020. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 to the extent they seek to characterize the elections are denied.
67. The contents of the referenced Louisiana statutes speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 67 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
68. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 68 are denied.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 11 of 19
69. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 69 are denied.
70. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 70 are denied.
71. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 71 are denied.
72. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 72 are denied.
73. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 73 denied.
74. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 74 are denied.
75. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 75 are denied.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 12 of 19
76. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 76 are denied.
77. The contents of the referenced Louisiana statute and absentee ballot application speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 77 are denied.
78. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 78 are denied.
79. Admitted. 80. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 80 are denied. 81. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 81 are denied. 82. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 82 are denied. 83. The content of Proclamation and Emergency Plan referenced in Paragraph 83 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 83 are denied. The State is without sufficient
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 13 of 19
knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 83 are denied.
84. The content of the “First Emergency Election Plan” referenced in Paragraph 84 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 84 are denied.
85. The content of the First Emergency Election Plan referenced in Paragraph 85 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 85 are denied.
86. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 86 are denied.
87. The content of the revised Emergency Election Plan referenced in Paragraph 87 speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 87 is denied.
88. Admitted that the Emergency Plan was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020.
89. The content of the Emergency Election Plan speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 89 are denied.
90. The content of the Emergency Election Plan speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 90 are denied.
91. The content of the Emergency Absentee Ballot Application speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 91 are denied.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 14 of 19
ARGUMENT 92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 are denied. 93. The allegations in Paragraph 93 are denied. 94. Admitted that in person voting cannot be done from home. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 94 are denied. 95. The allegations in Paragraph 95 are denied. 96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 are denied. 97. The allegations in Paragraph 97 are denied. 98. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 98 are denied. 99. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 99 are denied. 100. Admitted that the current Emergency Election Plan applies to only the July 11 and August 15 elections. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 100 are denied. 101. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 101 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 102. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 102 are denied. 103. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 103 are denied as written.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 15 of 19
104. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 104 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 104 are denied as written.
105. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 105 are denied.
106. The allegations in Paragraph 106 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 are denied. 108. The allegations in Paragraph 108 are denied. 109. The allegations in Paragraph 109 are denied. 110. The allegations in Paragraph 110 are denied. 111. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 111 are denied. 112. The allegations in Paragraph 112 are denied. 113. The allegations in Paragraph 113 are denied. 114. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 114 are denied. 115. The allegations in Paragraph 115 are denied.
COUNT I 15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 16 of 19
116. The State of Louisiana hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-116 as if copied in extenso. 117. The allegations in Paragraph 117 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 118. The allegations in Paragraph 118 are denied. 119. The allegations in Paragraph 119 are denied. 120. The allegations in Paragraph 120 are denied. 121. Admitted that there exists a ballot witness requirement. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 121 are denied. 122. The allegations in Paragraph 122 are denied. 123. Admitted that the State has a significant interest in the integrity of its elections. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 123 are denied.
COUNT II 124. The State of Louisiana hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-123 as if copied in extenso. 125. The allegations in Paragraph 125 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 126. The allegations in Paragraph 126 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 127. The allegations in Paragraph 127 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 128. The allegations in Paragraph 128 are denied. 129. The allegations in Paragraph 129 are denied. 130. The allegations in Paragraph 130 are denied.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 17 of 19
131. The allegations in Paragraph 131 are denied. 132. The allegations in Paragraph 132 are denied. 133. The allegations in Paragraph 133 are denied. 134. The allegations in Paragraph 134 are denied.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF 135. The allegations in the Request for Relief require no answer. To the extent a response is required, the State of Louisiana denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief they seek. Affirmative Defenses 136. The State reserves the right to file a motion to dismiss and to provide its Answer to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). 137. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims due to issues of ripeness, standing, and the political question doctrine. 138. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 139. Plaintiffs have failed to join the required parties under Rule 19. 140. The Court should decline to proceed under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). 141. Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits. 142. Additional defenses may not be alleged herein due to the unavailability of all the facts, after reasonable inquiry, necessary to determine what additional defenses may be available, and therefore the State reserves the right to amend its Answer to allege additional defenses, if subsequent investigation so warrants. 143. The State specifically denies those allegations in the Amended Complaint, which
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 18 of 19

are not specifically admitted herein.

WHEREFORE, the State of Louisiana states as follows:

1) That this Answer be deemed good and sufficient;

2) That, after all proceedings are had, there be judgment rendered in the State’s favor,

dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and at their cost;

3) For all general and equitable relief that justice requires, including but not limited to an award

of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and reasonable costs.

Dated: June 5, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 24-6 06/05/20 Page 19 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing Answer was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel
19

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Defendant, the State of Louisiana, by and through its counsel, do hereby move that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed. This motion is filed with the State’s motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c).
1.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiffs’ filed a Complaint on May 7, 2020, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief

respecting Louisiana’s voting regulations in light of COVID-19 (the “Virus”).

2.

Plaintiffs’ claims come too late in the election cycle, and therefore should be dismissed

under the Supreme Court’s Purcell doctrine.

3.

This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, Plaintiffs’ lack standing because,

inter alia, the Virus is not state action for the purposes of Plaintiffs claims. Second, Plaintiffs’

claims present political questions unfit for judicial review.

4.

Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, once

again, the allegations on the face of the complaint point to the Virus, and not the State of Louisiana,

as the perpetrator of their alleged harms.

5.

Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to join the necessary parties to afford them relief under Rule 19.

For the reasons more fully set forth in the attached memorandum of law, Defendant State

of Louisiana respectfully requests that this Court DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Dated: June 5, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3
JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov
Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all
counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Intervenor-Defendant Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for the following reasons: (1) any Court order will result in electoral chaos in violation of the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit’s Purcell doctrine; (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) as Plaintiffs’ claims present non-justiciable political questions and Plaintiffs lack standing; (3)

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 2 of 23
Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted because a communicable disease is not state action and is not protected by the Voting Rights Act; and (4) Plaintiffs have failed to join the proper parties in order to accord them the requested relief.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this case on the eve of a busy election season seeking to dictate through judicial enactment their own idea of what constitutes—according to them—a fairer election system in light of the current pandemic. This is despite the fact that the State of Louisiana, through its process designed to deal with these issues, has loosened some election regulations to make it easier for all Louisianans to vote. It can be no less than hubris to contend that laws that were perfectly legal—and arguably more restrictive—before the pandemic are suddenly now made illegal in their arguably less restrictive form during a pandemic. Fortunately, a motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed claims very similar to the claims here. See Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 (5th Cir. June 4, 2020). The panel emphatically stayed a District Court order granting a preliminary injunction “because the spread of the Virus1 has not given “unelected federal jud[ges]” a roving commission to rewrite state election codes.” Id. at *3 (quoting S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 19A1044, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041, *3 (U.S. May 29, 2020) (Roberts, C.J. concurring from the denial of cert.)). The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is just as persuasive here. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is fundamentally deficient. At the outset, voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 807-09 (1969).
1 In the interests of simplicity, just as the Fifth Circuit has done, all references to the current pandemic—coronavirus, COVID-19, and the like—will simply be to “the Virus.” See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *3 n.1.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 3 of 23
Louisiana’s statutory scheme, including its emergency plans, are “designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls.” Id. at 807-08; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22. This fact “does not itself ‘deny’ the plaintiffs ‘the exercise of the franchise.’” Id.; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22.2 Beyond this fundamental issue, there are two other truths to this litigation that cause Plaintiffs’ claims to fail.
First, each and every claim brought by Plaintiffs requires state action. See e.g, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)). However, the face of their Complaint is clear: it is the Virus and not the State of Louisiana that caused their alleged harms.
Second, it cannot be over emphasized that for every single rule Plaintiffs challenge, a more, or equally restrictive, version of that rule that was perfectly legal before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g., Mays v. Thurston, No. 4:20-cv-341 JM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498, at *4-5 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 30, 2020); Bethea v. Deal, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861, at *7 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2016).
Given these foundational truths as applied to the law, Plaintiffs’ claims must fall.
2 Louisiana’s actions also, as it will be shown herein and in the response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, does not and cannot result in a desperate impact under Section 2 of the Voting Right Act.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 4 of 23
I. THE SUPREME COURT’S PURCELL DOCTRINE DICTATES THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN FAST APPROACHING ELECTIONS.
The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit “ha[ve] repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37; Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56 (“The Court’s [dismissal] is bolstered by the fact that Plaintiffs seek extensive relief on the eve of/during an election”). “That is especially true where, as here, . . . local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37 (quoting S. Bay, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041 at *3).
This doctrine exists because judicial intrusion into elections must account for “considerations specific to election cases.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). These considerations include the fact that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections . . . can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Id. at 4-5. “As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 5.
Even assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are correct and there is a violation of either the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, or both, the Court still ought to decline from interfering in Louisiana’s upcoming elections. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964); Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 243 (5th Cir. 2016). “In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585. The existence of the Virus does not change this analysis. Recently, the Supreme Court stated that “changing the election rules so close to the election date . . . contravened [Supreme
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 5 of 23
Court] precedent[].”Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207 (staying a district court order changing election deadlines in response to the Virus).
Courts must weigh such factors as the harms associated with judicial action or inaction, the proximity of the upcoming election, the “possibility that the non-prevailing parties would want to seek” further review, and the risk of “conflicting orders” from such review. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585 (noting that withholding relief may be proper when “an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress.”).
Here, we are on the eve of the election under the revised deadlines set forth in the Emergency Election Plan. Absentee ballot applications have been printed and widely distributed with current law set forth in the instructions. The first absentee ballots for this July’s elections were mailed in February of 2020. Applications to vote absentee have been accepted since April 20. Secretary of State Emergency Action Plan (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised Emergency Election Plan for PPP and Mun General Rev. 4-20.pdf The registration deadline for the July 11 elections is on June 10, a mere seven days away. Louisiana Secretary of State, Primary Election Quick Facts (2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/LouisianaElectionQuickFacts. pdf. The online registration deadline is on June 20, a mere 17 days away. Id. And early voting begins on June 20. Id. Absentee ballots with the current law set forth in the instructions have been printed and have already been mailed to the homes of those people who have registered. Changing the method of absentee balloting now will invite chaos into the system and harm more people through voter confusion than any remedy ordered by the Court would help.
The same issue repeats itself for the subsequent elections, as the post-election calendar of required events for the July 11 election have a cascading effect on the August run-off elections. In
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 6 of 23
order for ballots to be printed and mailed to absentee voters for the August run-off election, the Secretary must certify multi-district results and local election officials must finalize local election results. Any movement in this final deadline risks the ability of the Secretary and local election officials to have absentee and in-person ballots printed and available in time for the run-off election on August 15.3
Finally, the extensive nature of the prohibitory and mandatory relief sought by Plaintiffs is yet another reason to deny their relief. Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56. Plaintiffs request no fewer than six mandatory injunctions that work to create a wholesale overhaul of Louisiana’s election code. “The combination of the extensive nature of the relief Plaintiffs seek and the temporal proximity to the election is a further reason to deny them relief.” Id. (denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s dismissal on political question grounds). As the Sixth Circuit Court recently said, “rewriting a state’s election procedures or moving deadlines rarely ends with one court order. Moving one piece on the game board invariably leads to additional moves. This is exactly why we must heed the Supreme Court’s warning that federal courts are not supposed to change state election rules as elections approach.” Thompson v. Dewine, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650, at *17 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020) (citing Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207; Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5)); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37.
II. THIS COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. “Federal courts cannot consider the merits of a case unless it ‘presents an actual
controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution . . .’” Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 458
3 A similar series of post-election dates exist between the November 2020 and December 2020 elections.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 7 of 23
(1974)). “The many doctrines that have fleshed out the case or controversy requirement—standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like—are ‘founded in concern about the proper— and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). When a jurisdictional defect is raised, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proof. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F. 3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs’ Complaint is facially and factually deficient in nearly every respect. However, the principal defects are jurisdictional in nature and require this Court’s immediate dismissal.
A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing. “Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2493 (2019). The doctrine of standing arises out of the “case” or “controversy” language of Article III. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013). “Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power.” Id. at 408-09 (quoting United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 188 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)). In Gill v. Whitford, the Court “insist[ed]” that a plaintiff must show that they “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.” 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the three elements of standing].” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish Article III
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 8 of 23
standing. As Plaintiffs lack standing, they cannot succeed on their claims, and their claims should be dismissed.
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Suffered an Injury in Fact.4 Foremost among a plaintiff’s requirements in establishing Article III standing is pleading and proving an injury in fact. Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929. In order to prove an injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead and prove an injury which is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent . . . .” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010)). The requirement that an injury be “imminent” exists “to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is certainly impending.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565, n.2) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that a “‘threatened injury”—such as Plaintiffs are alleging here—“must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact’ and that ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient’” to establish Article III standing. Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)) (emphasis in original). A plaintiff cannot sufficiently establish an injury in fact when the alleged injury is based on “their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending”—such as Plaintiffs are attempting to do here. Id. at 416. Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is not “actual or imminent”—and therefore fails.5 Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409. Here, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n the context of the COVID-19 pandemic”,
4 The presentation of this case is peculiar in that Plaintiffs are alleging purely conjectural harms that stem not from the state, but from a virus, and as such are neither traceable nor redressable by Defendants. However, even if one were to remove COVID-19 from the equation, there is every reason to believe that Plaintiffs would still lack individual and associational standing. See, e.g., Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929 (“[A] person’s right to vote is individual and personal in nature.” (internal quotation omitted)); NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding, in part, that organizations and associations must meet Lujan’s standing requirements). 5 It is also important to note that voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald, 394 U.S. at 80709. When a state legislature passes laws that make voting easier for certain demographics but not others, such as absentee voter laws, such laws cannot be viewed as an “abridgment” of one’s right. Veasy, 830 F.3d at 279 (Higginson, J. concurring). “There is a difference between making voting harder in ways that interact with historical and social conditions to disproportionately burden minorities and making voting easier in ways that may not benefit all
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 9 of 23
Louisiana voters suffered a sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of physically voting or by having a third party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. ¶ 4, 110 (May 7, 2020), ECF No. 1. In addition to the articles and studies cited in their Complaint, Plaintiffs proffer multiple experts, medical and otherwise, in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction who discuss the risks associated with the Virus and state that voters are potentially at risk of contracting the disease by voting. See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (May 21, 2020), ECF No. 14. In total, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with all the associated expert and witness declarations, total over 350 pages. See id. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, increasing the number of pages in their pleadings does not decrease their burden of proof in establishing an injury in fact which is “certainly impending” and not based on “fears of hypothetical future harms”—which Plaintiffs have certainly failed to do. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416.
The estimated population of Louisiana is 4,648,794.6 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), Louisiana has had a total of 40,857 Virus cases.7 While not diminishing the seriousness of the disease to those infected, an infection rate of less than one percent could not be classified as “certainly impending” under any definition. On June 5, 2020, Louisiana moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the re-opening process, and while Phase 2 will last at least 21 days, it is pure speculation to guess what phase Louisiana may be in as the July, August,
demographics equally (like motor-voter).” Id. (emphasis in original). “Every decision that a State makes in regulating its elections will, inevitably, result in somewhat more inconvenience for some voters than for others.” Greater Brimingham Ministries v. Merrill, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1279-81 (N.D. Ala 2018) (citing Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2014)). As such, Plaintiffs’ claims that Louisiana’s absentee ballot laws are unconstitutional and therefore cause injury, cannot be supported by the law. 6 QuickFacts: Louisiana, U.S. Census Bureau (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/LA 7 Cases in the U.S., Center for Disease Control and Prevention (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 10 of 23
November, and December elections approach.8 In moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2, Governor John Del Edwards cited to “continued improvement in Louisiana’s COVID-19 outlook and a significant increase in testing capacity and contact tracing” in support of the move.9 Id. While Louisiana health officials are allowing for most businesses, including children’s museums and arcades, to open safely (following occupancy and other guidelines), Plaintiffs argue that voting centers, following the same guidelines, cannot safely accommodate them. Id.
In support of their proposition that voting in accordance with Louisiana law will lead to an increase in infections of the Virus, Plaintiffs cite to a few news stories that claim Wisconsin suffered higher infection rates following their recent election. Compl. ¶ 62. However, these exaggerated reports have since been proven false. 10 At least two studies have been published as “pre-prints” to evaluate the election’s impact on the spread of the virus. These two research studies show no such effect. The first, titled “No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election.”11 That study concluded, “[t]aken together, it appears that voting in Wisconsin on April 7 was a low-risk activity.” Id. A second study examining Wisconsin found that the virus’ rate of spread actually declined following the election, and declined in the three most populated counties in Wisconsin. That study, entitled “Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates.”12 That study concluded, “[t]here was no increase in COVID-19 new case daily rates observed for Wisconsin or its three largest counties
8 Gov. Edwards Announces Louisiana’s Roadmap to Resilience Will Start Phase 2 on Friday, June 5, Louisiana Office of the Governor (June 1, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2521 9 Under 12(b)(1), parties are permitted to supplement 10 When a party is challenging the facts upon which jurisdiction depends, matters outside the pleadings can be considered. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. 11 Kathy Leung et al., No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078345v1.full.pdf 12 Andrew C. Berry et al., Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575v1.full.pdf
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 11 of 23
following the election on April 7, 2020, as compared to the US, during the post-incubation period.” Id. The available data surrounding the recent Wisconsin election, coupled with the data supporting the move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 in Louisiana, show that the likelihood of infection with the Virus while voting is not “actual or imminent” or “certainly impending” but is merely a “fear[] of hypothetical future harm[]”. Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409, 416.
Plaintiffs’ injury in fact theory is similar to the theory advanced by the plaintiffs in Clapper. In Clapper, the plaintiffs argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would allow the government to perform unconstitutional surveillance on them and sought a declaration of unconstitutionality and an injunction against the government performing surveillance authorized under the challenged law. 568 U.S. at 401. The Clapper plaintiffs claimed injury in fact and Article III standing because “there is an objectively reasonable likelihood that their communications will be acquired [by government surveillance] at some point in the future.” Id. The Court rejected this theory of injury because the plaintiffs failed to allege or prove that their communications had been unconstitutionally monitored, and the plaintiffs’ fear of non-certainly impending hypothetical future harm was insufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 411416. Here, Plaintiffs attempt to argue injury in fact under a failed theory similar to the Clapper plaintiffs—that by voting in-person or by having a witness sign an absentee ballot, Louisiana voters will suffer a sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus. See Compl. at ¶ 110. Here, just as in Clapper, because Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is based on uncertain possible future harm, it must fail for the same reasons as the plaintiffs’ claims in Clapper. To hold otherwise would be to allow for a nearly limitless range of possible speculative injuries that have not yet occurred and are likely to never
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 12 of 23
occur. Article III exists to limit and define the power of the federal judiciary, not expand it. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408-09.
2. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries are Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants. a. Because the Virus Is Not State Action, Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury Is Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants.
In addition to proving injury in fact, Plaintiffs must also show that the injury-in-fact is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of Defendants, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. However, like their failure to present a proper injury-in-fact, Plaintiffs also fail to show that their alleged injury can be traced to Defendants or redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.
It is important to note that Plaintiffs are not alleging the laws in question are unconstitutional or violative of the VRA writ large, but only temporarily due to the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at 4. In effect, Plaintiffs’ entire complaint hinges upon the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶¶ 6, 10. 16 (allegation are typically prefaced by “[i]n the context of the COVID-19 pandemic” or other similar language); Compl. at ¶¶ 31-65 (detailing all the alleged harms attributable to the Virus). Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries boil down to the claim that, “[i]n light of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Louisiana voters suffered a sufficient injury due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of voting in person or by having a third-party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. at ¶ 110. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs properly claimed a sufficient injury-in-fact, which they did not, their alleged injury cannot be traced to Defendants for one simple reason: the existence and proliferation of the Virus is not state action.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 13 of 23
Plaintiffs’ claims fail because each and every claim requires state action. Compare Compl. at 46-48 (Count I – “Violations of the Fundamental Right to Vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)”) and Compl. at 48-50 (Count II – “Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301”) with U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . .”(emphasis added)); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No state shall make any law . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, of property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added)); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state . . . .” (emphasis added)); Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 206 (1999) (discussing the Anderson/Burdick framework). The Virus is not state action. Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (finding that “the Constitution is not offended” even if voting is impossible “because of circumstances beyond the state’s control, such as the presence of the Virus.”); Coalition, No. 1:20cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2.
Moreover, it cannot be reiterated enough that for every single rule they challenge, there is a more or equally “restrictive” version of that rule that was perfectly lawful before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g, Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7; Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
States throughout the country, including Louisiana—as Plaintiffs admit, have taken measures to protect “the right to vote during this global pandemic” by taking actions including
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 14 of 23
“suspending the normal prerequisites . . . for requesting an absentee ballot” and encouraging “social distancing and other protections” while voting in person. Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5. With that backdrop, “[t]he real problem [for Plaintiffs] here is COVID-19, which all but the craziest conspiracy theorist would concede is not the result of any act or failure to act by the Government.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2. It is undeniable that the Virus has impacted the lives of Louisianans, but “these circumstances are not impediments created by the state.” Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7. “While Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have done a poor job of responding to [the Virus], the fact that the virus’s provenance was not through Defendants further increases, in this Court’s opinion, the impropriety of judicial intervention.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2; cf., Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *6-7.
A number of courts, including the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, have specifically relied upon, at least in part, the fact that the Virus—or another natural disaster—does not present state action as reason to stay a grant of preliminary injunction, dismiss claims, or to deny a motion for preliminary injunction.
In Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, the Circuit Court, upon granting a motion to stay the Western District of Texas’ order granting a preliminary injunction, held that:
The Constitution is not “offended simply because some” groups “find voting more convenient than” do the plaintiffs because of a state's mail-in ballot rules. That is true even where voting in person “may be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible,” because of circumstances beyond the state's control, such as the presence of the Virus.
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (emphasis added) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 810). The Circuit Court indicated that the result is similar in the VRA context. See id at *24 n.32 (“And here,
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 15 of 23
unlike in Veasey [v. Abbott], the state has not placed any obstacles on the plaintiffs’ ability to vote in person.” (emphasis in original)). The lack of state action is further emphasized in the concurring opinion, which notes “[f]or courts to intervene, a voter must show that the state ‘has in fact precluded [voters] from voting.’” Id. at 44-45 (Ho, J. concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 808 & n.7)).
In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs were challenging the signature gathering requirement of Ohio’s ballot-initiative laws in light of the the Virus. Thompson, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650 at *2. When staying the District Court’s order granting plaintiffs preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit noted the lack of state action inherent in claims resting upon the foundation of the Virus as rationale. Id. at *12 (“[J]ust because procuring signatures is now harder (largely because of a disease beyond the control of the State) doesn’t mean that Plaintiffs are excluded from the ballot.”). The court went further by noting that both First Amendment and Section 1983 actions require state action. Id. at *12-13 (going on to discuss the implication under the Anderson/Burdick standard).
In Mays v. Thurston, plaintiffs sought a mandatory temporary restraining order that the Governor of Arkansas “do more to ensure that Arkansans are allowed to have their vote counted by absentee ballot.” No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *2. The District Court found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Id. at *4-5. Specifically, the court stated that:
Plaintiffs have failed to articulate an injury suffered at the hands of . . . any . . . state official. Plaintiffs’ right to vote during this global pandemic have been made easier by the Governor’s . . . executive order suspending the normal prerequisites for requesting an absentee ballot. Plaintiffs complain that the Governor did not do enough. However, Plaintiffs’ injury, if any, will occur only if they did not follow the absentee voting requirements as loosened by the Governor or if they do not show up to vote at a designated voting place exercising the social distancing and other protections suggested by the State and the federal government. Any injury caused by Plaintiffs’ failing to take advantage of these available avenues to exercise their rights to vote are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 16 of 23
the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their requested remedy. Id. (emphasis added). The Court’s analysis is not changed due to the type of emergency. In Bethea v. Deal, plaintiffs, including the NAACP, sought a statewide mandatory preliminary injunction seeking to extend the voting registration deadline in response to Hurricane Matthew, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *3-4. The court found that the plaintiffs’ Section 2 and Fourteenth Amendment arguments “relie[d] on the unsupported notion that Defendants’ decision not to extend the [voter] registration deadline was some sort of action that created an impediment to the right to vote.” Id. at *6. The District Court was “unable to locate any precedent that would constitutionally or statutorily mandate that Defendants provide an extension in the absence of actual government action that burdens an individual’s right to vote.” Id. (emphasis added). The court goes on to discuss how the fact that the hurricane coincided with an election “made it difficult, but not impossible” for affected residents to vote and, in any event, “these circumstances [were] not impediments created by the State.” Id. at *7. In wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for counting absentee ballots. Assoc. of Communities for Reform Now v. Blanco, No. 2:06-cv-611, Order at 1-2 (E.D. La April 21, 2006) (ECF No. 58). The court noted that plaintiffs’ issues “do not rise to the level of a constitutional or Voting Rights Act violation.” Id. at 3. The court further noted that “[i]t is ironic that a step taken by the State, apparently to allow as many displaced voters as possible the ability to request and receive and absentee ballot . . . is now being challenged as having the exact opposite effect.” Id. The court then reminded plaintiffs that “our evacuation emanated from a natural disaster that ravaged [New
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 17 of 23
Orleans] casting thousands of our fellow citizens across the face of America. Hurricane Katrina (and Rita) crossed all divides, human-made and others.” Id. at 5. Finally, in light of the state officials’ work to “ameliorate the impact” of the natural disaster, the court held that the plaintiffs’ claims that the “[State’s] efforts will ‘disenfranchise’ minority voters is disingenuous.” Id.
Because Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries under the Fourteenth Amendment and VRA “are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic”, their claims must be dismissed. See Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
b. Even Assuming the Virus Represents State Action, Plaintiffs’ Purported Injuries Are Not Redressable By the Current Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ alleged injury cannot be redressed by a favorable judgment from this Court and should therefore fail. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. In other words, assuming proper injury-in-fact and traceability, if this Court were to rule in favor of Plaintiffs, the present Defendants could not act in a way that would cure Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
In Louisiana, the respective parish boards are responsible for determining who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot and for determining whether an absentee ballot is properly cast. See La. R.S. §§ 18:423, 18:1307(1), 18:1303. Plaintiffs have failed to include any parish boards in this suit. While Plaintiffs have sued two parish registrars, registrars can take no action themselves—they act only at the direction of the parish boards.13 See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 151 n. 10 (1965); Cf. Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714, *28-44 (11th Cir. 2020) (because individual county election officials were not part of suit, Court could not redress alleged injury and therefore lacked standing). While the parish boards are not parties to
13 The fact that a Registrar is a member of the board does not effectuate suit against the board as a body.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 18 of 23
this suit, Plaintiffs nonetheless request that the Court order Defendants to “issue guidance” to parties absent from this litigation to act in a certain manner. Compl. at 51. This requested relief not only serves as evidence that the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury without additional parties present, but is contrary to the law in that a court cannot control the conduct of parties absent from the present litigation. See Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *28-44.
In the end, Plaintiffs’ purported injury is fear of infection, or potential infection, of an individual by the Virus. When acting properly under its jurisdiction, this Court can do a great many things. However, no matter how well-intentioned, this Court cannot enjoin the Virus from infecting a Louisiana citizen. As such, the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury.
B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Present Non-Justiciable Political Questions. Issues that are “entrusted to one of the political branches or involve[] no judicially enforceable rights . . . present a political question . . . outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction.” 14 Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2494 (internal quotations omitted). As it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove jurisdiction, Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161, “[a]bsent pellucid proof provided by plaintiffs that a political question is not at issue, courts should not substitute their own judgments for state election codes.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. The purpose of the political question doctrine is to “protect[] the separation of powers and prevent[] federal courts from overstepping their constitutionally defined role.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962). “That the line might have been drawn differently” in response to the
14 The opinion in Tex. Democratic Party does not change the applicability of the political question doctrine here because Plaintiffs go even further than the Texas plaintiffs in seeking judicial enactment of their policy preference. See 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 13. This suit, similar to the suit in Georgia, “challenge[s] the wisdom of” Louisiana’s policy choices. See id (emphasis in original). While, the Fifth Circuit determined it “need not . . . consider the prudence of Texas’s plan” because those plaintiffs failed to raise it, see id., Plaintiffs here specifically make Louisiana’s policy choices a fundamental feature of their Complaint. See, e.g., Compl. at 50 (requesting numerous mandatory and prohibitory injunctions).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 19 of 23
Virus “is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *28 (internal quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court has found at least six areas where courts are not competent to render a decision, any one of which causes the case to present a non-justiciable political question outside the judicial expertise:
[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; [2] or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; [3] or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; [4] or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; [5] or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; [6] or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. At least two of these factors is implicated here: (1) “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;”15 and (2) “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.” Id. Therefore, it is not for courts to second guess the policy choices of the State in response to the Virus, see Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; see also id. at *40 (Ho, J. concurring), especially when there exist no judicially manageable standards for it to do so. See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9
15 The regulation of congressional elections is conferred by the federal constitution to the States via the Elections Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 (granting to the state legislatures the power to appoint electors for presidential elections). The states also retain their own plenary power to regulate state elections. See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986). In either event, the power to regulate and administer elections is committed to “Congress and state legislatures—not courts.” See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *8-9; cf. ); Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408 (“The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”).
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 20 of 23
1. There Exist No Judicially Manageable Standards to Determine State Policy in Response to the Virus.
The second Baker factor asks whether there exist “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” the question at issue. Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. Before a court conducts any analysis on whether the right to vote is burdened, it must “identify the burden before [it] can weigh it.” Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *54-55 (Pryor, W. J. concurring) (quoting Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008) (Scalia, J. concurring in judgment)). Here, the burden, if any, arises from the Virus and not any action of the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). However, even assuming that state action is implicated here, there are no judicially manageable standards to determine what measures must be taken to regulate elections in light of the Virus. As the Northern District of Georgia recently articulated:
“How early is too early for the election to be held in light of COVID-19? How many safeguards must be in place to protect those who would choose to vote in person from the possibility of contracting COVID-19? Have Defendants already implemented enough safeguards to avoid a constitutional violation? Plaintiffs have provided the Court with no non-speculative way to answer these questions . . . .” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. The exact same is true here. Plaintiffs seek various prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, effectively rewriting Louisiana’s election code. For example, why is a 14-day early voting period constitutional or compliant with the Voting Rights Act, but a seven-day period is not? See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. Why is a two-person signature requirement constitutional and valid under the VRA, but a one-person signature requirement is not? Why is less access to an absentee ballot constitutional and statutorily valid, but more access under Louisiana’s emergency election plan is not? As applied to each of those questions, which is fairer? How can the judiciary determine “fairness”? The truth is that no one knows, and this Court certainly cannot know because “federal courts can address only questions
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 21 of 23
‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2493-94 (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). As fairness is not a judicially manageable standard, “it is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context.” Id. at 2499-50. “Because ‘it is axiomatic that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change’, some questions—even those existential in nature—are the province of the political branches.” Juliana, v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1173 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and some quotations omitted).
“Ultimately, ordering Defendants to adopt Plaintiffs’ [relief] would require the Court to micromanage the State's election process. The relief Plaintiffs seek bears little resemblance to the type of relief plaintiffs typically seek in election cases aimed to redress state wrongs.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. As such, the questions put forth to the Court by Plaintiffs present political—not judicial—questions that are not addressable by the federal courts.
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM. Although this Court must accept all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, this Court is
not required to accept any legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim will survive a motion to dismiss only if the factual allegations in the complaint are “enough to raise the right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Additionally, this Court need not accept as true any conclusory factual assertions. Id. Accordingly, to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claims must be plausible on their face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This means that Plaintiffs must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have failed to do so here.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 22 of 23
The conduct alleged by Plaintiffs points to a singular culprit: the Virus. Plaintiffs again and again point to this invisible menace while addressing nearly everything in their Complaint. For example, the first paragraph of the Complaint does not address voting rights or Louisiana’s alleged actions against Plaintiffs, but instead discusses the Virus. This is true for the vast majority of the Complaint. See generally Compl. At the first mention of Plaintiffs claims, they make it clear that this lawsuit is “[i]n the unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic . . . .” Compl. at ¶ 4. In large part, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because the action they complain of was not brought about or caused by the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). Therefore, for reasons similar to why Plaintiffs lack standing, they have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
For each and every one of Plaintiffs’ claims they need to show a burden on the right to vote that resulted from some action of the State. They have failed to do so because each harm they allege would not exist but for the Virus, a non-state actor.16
IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO JOIN THE REQUIRED PARTIES. Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes that a plaintiff’s claim
may be dismissed for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). Rule 19(a)(1)(A) states that a party is required to be joined to the litigation if, “in that [party’s] absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Here, as discussed supra at Section II(A)(2)(b), Plaintiffs have failed to add the necessary parties in the respective parish boards, and as such, this Court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties. Therefore, due to the improbability of Plaintiffs being able to add all 64 parish boards prior to the upcoming July and August elections, the Court should dismiss this matter for failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19.
16 Proposed-Intervenor will provide additional and more detailed analysis of the why the relief sough should not be granted in its anticipated Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction should intervention granted.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-1 06/08/20 Page 23 of 23

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 5, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of

record.

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana

23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-2 06/08/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w

Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

and

The State of Louisiana,

Proposed Intervenor.

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATE:________________

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-2 06/08/20 Page 2 of 2
________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Judge Shelly D. Dick

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State Civil Action: 20-cv-283-BAJ-EWD of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al., Defendants, and The State of Louisiana, Proposed Intervenor.
ANSWER ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Proposed Intervenor, Jeff Landry
in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, who denies each and every allegation of the Complaint except as expressly admitted in this Original Answer on behalf of Proposed Intervenor, and who responds as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT A. The section headers in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are not factual or legal statements to which any response is required. To the extent a response is required, they are denied. Furthermore, the headers in this Answer are neither an admission nor a denial and are intended to mimic the style of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for organization and ease of reading. 1. The allegations in Paragraph 1 are admitted.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 2 of 19
2. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied as written.
3. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 3 are denied.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. The allegations in Paragraph 5 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 are denied. 7. Admitted that the Emergency Election Plan was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020. Admitted that the Emergency Election Plan applies only to the July 11 and August 15 elections. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 are denied. 8. The allegations in Paragraph 8 are denied. 9. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 9 are denied. 10. The content of La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 10 are denied. 11. Allegations of “undue burden” in Paragraph 11 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 11 are denied. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 3 of 19
12. The content of La. R.S. 18:1307 speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
13. The content of La. R.S. 18:1309 speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
14. The allegations of “unreasonable burdens” in Paragraph 14 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 14 are denied.
15. The allegations of “disproportionate[] impact” in Paragraph 15 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 15 are denied. The referenced demographic data speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. Further, the State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 are denied. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State specifically denies subject matter jurisdiction as the alleged harms in the Complaint are not a result of state action.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 4 of 19
18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The State specifically denies that the alleged violations concern state conduct.
19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
20. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
PARTIES 21. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied. 22. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 22 are denied. 23. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 23 are denied. 24. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 24 are denied. 25. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 25 are denied. 26. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 26 are denied. 27. Admitted that John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana. The statutes referenced speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required,
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 5 of 19
the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
28. Admitted that Kyle Ardoin is the Louisiana Secretary of State. The statutes referenced speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
29. Admitted that Steve Raborn is the Registrar of Voters for East Baton Rouge Parish and a member of the East Baton Rouge Parish Board of Election Supervisors. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
30. Admitted that Sandra L. Wilson is the Registrar of Voters for Orleans Parish and a member of the Orleans Parish Board of Election Supervisors. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 31. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 31 are denied as written. 32. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 32 are denied as written. 33. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 33 are denied as written.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 6 of 19
34. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 34 are denied as written.
35. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 35 are denied.
36. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 36 are denied.
37. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 37 are denied.
38. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 38 are denied.
39. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 39 are denied.
40. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 40 are denied.
41. The data referenced speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 41 are denied as written.
42. Admitted that various Louisiana state and local elected officials have issued orders in response to COVID-19. The content of any proclamation speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 42 is denied as written.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 7 of 19
43. The content of Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 44 are denied.
44. The content of Proclamation No. 27 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 44 are denied.
45. Admitted that Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 rescheduled elections. The content of Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 45 are denied.
46. The content of any Court order speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 46 are denied.
47. Admitted that Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 30 JBE 2020 on March 16, 2020. The contents of Proclamation No. 30 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 47 are denied.
48. Admitted that Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 on March 22, 2020. The content of Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 48 are denied.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 8 of 19
49. The full text of the cited Press Release is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation in Paragraph 49 are denied.
50. Admitted. 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted that Governor Edwards announced an extension of the stay at home order in a press release. Admitted that the Governor issued Proclamation 52 JBE 2020 on April 30, 2020. The contents of Proclamation No. 27 JBE 2020 and the Governor’s press release speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 52 are denied. 53. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 53 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written. 54. Admitted that the Governor formed a “Health Equity Task Force.” The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 54 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written. 55. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 55 are denied. Further, the underlying
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 9 of 19
demographic information is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
56. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 56 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
57. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 57 are denied. Further, the underlying demographic information is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
58. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 58 are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
59. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 59 are denied.
60. Admitted that the CDC has issued “Recommendations for Election Polling Locations.” The contents of the CDC’s published Recommendations speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 60 are denied.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 10 of 19
61. The contents of the CDC’s published Recommendations speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 61 are denied.
62. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 62 are denied.
63. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 63 are denied.
64. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 64 are denied.
65. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 65 are denied.
66. Admitted that four elections are scheduled in Louisiana between May and December 31, 2020. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 to the extent they seek to characterize the elections are denied.
67. The contents of the referenced Louisiana statutes speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 67 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
68. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 68 are denied.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 11 of 19
69. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 69 are denied.
70. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 70 are denied.
71. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 71 are denied.
72. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 72 are denied.
73. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 73 denied.
74. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 74 are denied.
75. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 75 are denied.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 12 of 19
76. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 76 are denied.
77. The contents of the referenced Louisiana statute and absentee ballot application speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 77 are denied.
78. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 78 are denied.
79. Admitted. 80. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 80 are denied. 81. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 81 are denied. 82. The content of the referenced Louisiana statute speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 82 are denied. 83. The content of Proclamation and Emergency Plan referenced in Paragraph 83 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 83 are denied. The State is without sufficient
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 13 of 19
knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 83 are denied.
84. The content of the “First Emergency Election Plan” referenced in Paragraph 84 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 84 are denied.
85. The content of the First Emergency Election Plan referenced in Paragraph 85 is the best evidence of its contents and speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 85 are denied.
86. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 86 are denied.
87. The content of the revised Emergency Election Plan referenced in Paragraph 87 speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 87 is denied.
88. Admitted that the Emergency Plan was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020.
89. The content of the Emergency Election Plan speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 89 are denied.
90. The content of the Emergency Election Plan speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 90 are denied.
91. The content of the Emergency Absentee Ballot Application speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 91 are denied.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 14 of 19
ARGUMENT 92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 are denied. 93. The allegations in Paragraph 93 are denied. 94. Admitted that in person voting cannot be done from home. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 94 are denied. 95. The allegations in Paragraph 95 are denied. 96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 are denied. 97. The allegations in Paragraph 97 are denied. 98. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 98 are denied. 99. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 99 are denied. 100. Admitted that the current Emergency Election Plan applies to only the July 11 and August 15 elections. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 100 are denied. 101. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 101 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 102. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 102 are denied. 103. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 103 are denied as written.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 15 of 19
104. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 104 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 104 are denied as written.
105. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 105 are denied.
106. The allegations in Paragraph 106 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 are denied. 108. The allegations in Paragraph 108 are denied. 109. The allegations in Paragraph 109 are denied. 110. The allegations in Paragraph 110 are denied. 111. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. Further, the census and underlying demographic information are the best evidence of their contents; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 111 are denied. 112. The allegations in Paragraph 112 are denied. 113. The allegations in Paragraph 113 are denied. 114. The State is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations; to the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 114 are denied. 115. The allegations in Paragraph 115 are denied.
COUNT I 15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 16 of 19
116. The State of Louisiana hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-116 as if copied in extenso. 117. The allegations in Paragraph 117 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 118. The allegations in Paragraph 118 are denied. 119. The allegations in Paragraph 119 are denied. 120. The allegations in Paragraph 120 are denied. 121. Admitted that there exists a ballot witness requirement. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 121 are denied. 122. The allegations in Paragraph 122 are denied. 123. Admitted that the State has a significant interest in the integrity of its elections. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 123 are denied.
COUNT II 124. The State of Louisiana hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-123 as if copied in extenso. 125. The allegations in Paragraph 125 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 126. The allegations in Paragraph 126 are legal conclusions to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 127. The allegations in Paragraph 127 are legal conclusions to which no response is required, to the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. 128. The allegations in Paragraph 128 are denied. 129. The allegations in Paragraph 129 are denied. 130. The allegations in Paragraph 130 are denied.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 17 of 19
131. The allegations in Paragraph 131 are denied. 132. The allegations in Paragraph 132 are denied. 133. The allegations in Paragraph 133 are denied. 134. The allegations in Paragraph 134 are denied.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF 135. The allegations in the Request for Relief require no answer. To the extent a response is required, the State of Louisiana denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief they seek. Affirmative Defenses 136. The State reserves the right to file a motion to dismiss and to provide its Answer to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). 137. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims due to issues of ripeness, standing, and the political question doctrine. 138. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 139. Plaintiffs have failed to join the required parties under Rule 19. 140. The Court should decline to proceed under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). 141. Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits. 142. Additional defenses may not be alleged herein due to the unavailability of all the facts, after reasonable inquiry, necessary to determine what additional defenses may be available, and therefore the State reserves the right to amend its Answer to allege additional defenses, if subsequent investigation so warrants. 143. The State specifically denies those allegations in the Amended Complaint, which
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 18 of 19

are not specifically admitted herein.

WHEREFORE, the State of Louisiana states as follows:

1) That this Answer be deemed good and sufficient;

2) That, after all proceedings are had, there be judgment rendered in the State’s favor,

dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and at their cost;

3) For all general and equitable relief that justice requires, including but not limited to an award

of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and reasonable costs.

Dated: June 5, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Phillip M. Gordon* Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law *pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the State of Louisiana
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 29-3 06/08/20 Page 19 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 5th day of June 2020, the foregoing Answer was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel
19

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

NO.: 20-00308-SDD-RLB

Consolidated With
POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, ET AL. VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 20-00283-BAJ-EWD

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(7)
Defendants, STEVE RABORN, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar of Voters, SANDRA WILSON, in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters, CHARLENE MEAUX MENARD, in her official capacity as Lafayette Parish Registrar of Voters, and RHONDA R. ROGERS, in her official capacity as Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters, (the “Registrars”, collectively), respectfully move to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to joined parties required to be joined by Rule 19.
1. The plaintiffs, one and all, are without standing to pursue a claim against the Registrars because the plaintiffs’ grievances are not traceable to the Registrars, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief against the Registrars would not redress the plaintiffs’ complaints. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case for lack of a Case or Controversy.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
2. The Registrars further move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join parties required to be joined under Rule 19. Plaintiffs clearly intend and plead for statewide injunctive and declaratory relief with an order directed to all Registrars and all Parish Board of Election Supervisors but exclude from the suit indispensable parties in the absence of which complete relief cannot be accorded and who have an interest relating to the subject matter of the litigation and are so situated that (a) allowing the litigation to proceed would impede their ability to protect their interest and (b) would potentially subject the absent parties to double exposure and/or inconsistent obligations.
3. Among such parties indispensable to the case are, at a minimum, the respective Parish Board of Election Supervisors for Orleans, East Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Terrebonne, but more comprehensively, all State Registrars and all Parish Board of Election Supervisors against whom the plaintiffs have requested an injunctive and declaratory order and all of whom have responsibilities and obligations extending to the matters sued upon and whose obligations and responsibilities would be impacted by this litigation.
4. The grounds for the foregoing motions are addressed in further detail in the memorandum accompanying this motion.
5. Exhibits A-I are attached to this motion and memorandum. ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons expressed above and more fully expressed in the accompanying memorandum, the Registrars respectfully move that the plaintiffs’ claims against

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3
them be dismissed, with prejudice, at Plaintiffs’ cost.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: /s/ Carey T. Jones______________________ Carey T. Jones (La. Bar # 07404) David Jeddie Smith (La. Bar #27089 Alicia E. Wheeler (La. Bar # 28803) Jeffrey Wale (La. Bar #36070) Assistant Attorneys General LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 North Third Street Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone No. 225-326-6766 Facsimile No. 225-326-6793 E-Mail Address: jonescar@ag.louisiana.gov smithda@ag.louisiana.gov wheelera@ag.louisiana.gov walej@ag.louisiana.gov
Counsel for Defendants, East Baton Rouge Registrar of Voters Steve Raborn, Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters Sandra Wilson, Lafayette Parish Registrar Charlene Meaux Menard, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar, Rhonda R. Rogers
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 8th day of June, 2020 the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which gives notice of filing to
all counsel of record.
/s/ Carey T. Jones Carey T. Jones

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

NO.: 20-00308-SDD-RLB

Consolidated With
POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, ET AL. VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 20-00283-BAJ-EWD

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRARS OF VOTERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(7) MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Among the defendants named in these consolidated cases are four of Louisiana’s 64 Registrars of Voters, Sandra Wilson as Registrar of Voters for Orleans Parish and Steve Raborn as Registrar of Voters of East Baton Rouge Parish in CA No. 3:20-cv-00283, and Charlene Meaux Menard, as Registrar of Voters for Lafayette Parish and Rhonda R. Rogers, as Registrar of Voters for Terrebonne Parish, in CA No. 3:20-cv-00308, (collectively, the “Registrars”). The Registrars move to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7). Because the plaintiffs’ grievances are not traceable to the Registrars, whose duties are purely ministerial, and because relief against the Registrars would not give redress to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are without standing to maintain their claims against the Registrars. Additionally, the plaintiffs have

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 2 of 22
not named parties indispensable to the litigation under Rule 19, and the case cannot go forward in their absence.
The respective Complaints in these consolidated cases are substantially the same. The plaintiffs complain that the risk of contracting coronavirus at the polls will discourage them from voting in upcoming elections, and Louisiana should be ordered to change its voting methods to accommodate their concerns. The failure to do so, plaintiffs argue, will place an impermissible burden on their right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and further amounts to a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because coronavirus disproportionately affects African-Americans.
The plaintiffs primarily question the choices made by the State of Louisiana in formulating an Emergency Election Plan to take account of COVID-19 for the presidential/local and municipal primary election, rescheduled to July 11, 2020, and the general local and municipal election, rescheduled to August 15, 2020.1 But, the suit challenges, more broadly, several of Louisiana’s longstanding election statutes applicable to the November 3, 2020 presidential general and open congressional primary elections as well as the December 5, 2020 congressional and open general election.2
Plaintiffs’ grievances center principally on particular aspects of absentee by mail voting both in the Emergency Election Plan and in the Louisiana Election Code more generally. Specifically, plaintiffs complain that the option to vote absentee by mail should be extended to
1 The presidential primary and the municipal primary and general elections were scheduled to be held on April 4 and May 9, 2020 respectively. Prior to the elections, Governor John Bel Edwards declared a public health emergency due to COVID-19 in 25 JBE 2020 and subsequently rescheduled the elections in two proclamations, 28 JBE 2020, issued March 13, 2020, and 46 JBE 2020, issued April 14, 2020. The elections are currently scheduled to be held on July 11 and August 15, 2020. https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/category/10 2 The November and December elections are not part of the State’s Emergency Election Plan.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 3 of 22
more voters and that the witness requirement to request an absentee mail ballot and to vote absentee by mail should be enjoined as too onerous. Plaintiffs also complain that the early voting period is too short for all of the 2020 elections. The defendant Registrars do not make, participate in, nor enforce the choices that aggrieve the plaintiffs, and any harm to the plaintiffs is not traceable to any of the Registrars named in the suit.
Understanding the role of Registrars in the Louisiana election process helps explain why the plaintiffs’ claims against them are misdirected. Early in the evolution of the State’s voting practices, Louisiana endowed Registrars with considerable discretion in determining whether citizens were allowed to vote. Cases such as Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965), illustrated the dangers inherent in concentrating such power and authority in a single election official, and the Louisiana Election Code, enacted pursuant to the State’s 1974 Constitution, restructured voter registration and balloting decisions. Parish registrars were made ministerial officers bound by the dictates of statute in carrying out their duties. Discretionary decisions, such as determining the validity of an absentee by mail ballot, were assigned to a Parish Board of Election Supervisors made up of five members who must vote by majority to reach a decision in the tabulation and counting of ballots.3
The current role of Registrars in the Louisiana election process is purely ministerial.4 They follow the dictates of state laws and administrative rules given to them by decision-making branches and agencies of state government. They are without discretion in applying election laws that mandate their every step in conducting their part in elections. They have no enforcement authority with respect to election laws.
3 La. R.S. 18:423, 1313. 4 La. R.S. 18:66.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 4 of 22
With respect to absentee by mail ballots, the Registrars are merely conduits for passing absentee ballots from the Secretary of State to the voters and then receiving the ballots from the voters once cast for transfer to the Parish Board of Election Supervisors to assess, tabulate, and count. The Parish Board of Election Supervisors receives the absentee by mail ballots cast in the election and determines the validity of absentee by mail ballots. The Parish Board also rules on absentee ballot challenges.5 A registrar is but one member of the Parish Board and has no independent authority to make any determination with respect to absentee ballots.6 Rather, the Parish Board must act at a meeting with a quorum of its members present and act by majority vote.7 Registrars do not set, control, or enforce the procedures for absentee balloting nor set the number of days for early voting. They have no power to change the terms of statutory requirements in that regard.
With respect to early voting, Registrars are assigned to carry out the mechanics of early voting, again, according to the mandates of statute. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized that such general supervision over elections cannot serve as the basis for standing.8 It is the official or body that actually sets the terms of the election or determines whether the form of the ballot is valid that must be sued. The case or controversy does not lie between Registrars and the plaintiffs but rather, between the plaintiffs and the party or parties who caused their injury and are empowered to fix it.
Early voting periods are set by lawmakers and state agencies both in the Emergency Election Plan and in other Louisiana elections.9 While the Registrars administer early voting, they
5 La. R.S. 18:1313, 1315. 6 La. R.S. 18:423. 7 La. R.S. 18:423(I) 8 Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F. 3d 1193, 1207-1211 (11th Cir. 4/29/20). 9 La. R.S. 18:1309; Exhibit A.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 5 of 22
do so in accordance with the dictates of state law, not as they may see fit or with discretion to change statutorily mandated procedures.
The harms that the plaintiffs allege are not traceable to the Registrars, and an injunction against these four Registrars would not redress the plaintiffs’ grievances. Other agencies enact and enforce the laws and rules that the Registrars are bound to follow, and to the extent the latter parties are absent from the litigation, they must either be joined or the case dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. I. ABSENTEE BY MAIL AND EARLY VOTING IN LOUISIANA
The Louisiana Constitution of 1974 directed the legislature to adopt an election code to provide for the registration of voters and for the conduct of all elections.10 The Louisiana Election Code was enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate by 1976 La. Acts No. 697, eff. January 1, 1978 to include laws governing elections in the State.11 Absentee by mail and early voting procedures are currently set out in the Election Code in Chapter 7, La. R.S. 18:1301-1319 as alternatives to voting at the polls on election day.12
A. Current Absentee By Mail Voting Procedures in Louisiana The absentee by mail voting option in Louisiana may be used by voters in statutorily prescribed categories who, for various reasons, expect to be unavailable or unable to vote at the polls on election day.13 Absentee by mail ballots are paper ballots prepared by the Secretary of State on paper stock with print, size, type, etc., set out in the statutes.14
10 La. Const. Art XI, § 1. 11 Louisiana’s election laws are now codified in La. R.S. 18:1, et seq. 12 La. R.S. 18:1301. 13 La. R.S. 18:1303. 14 La. R.S. 18:1306.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 6 of 22
A voter can request an absentee by mail ballot from the Registrar of Voters on a standard absentee by mail ballot application form prepared by the Secretary of State. The ballot application form may be obtained from the Registrar or online on the Louisiana Secretary of State website. Requests for absentee by mail ballots may be submitted by mail, fax, hand-delivery, or electronic means. The application form may also be completed on the Secretary of State website and conveyed electronically to the appropriate Registrar.
Three application forms are available for the absentee ballot request - - General Application Form, Disability Application Form, and Military Application Form.15 These forms are generally used for all Louisiana elections. A handwritten request by the voter is also acceptable for requesting an absentee by mail ballot, but their use is exceedingly rare.16
Each of the three application forms contains check boxes beside each reason for requesting an absentee ballot. The voter indicates the reason for his or her request by checking one or more of the boxes.17 Except for the disability and hospitalization forms, which require documentation, registrars accept the reason indicated by the voter’s check mark as the basis for sending the voter an absentee by mail ballot.18 Registrars do not look behind or investigate the voter’s check mark to verify the reason for requesting an absentee by mail ballot.19 Where a request form is incomplete or in the case of disability and hospitalization, lack documentation, the registrar promptly contacts the voter to get the missing information so that a ballot can be sent out to the voter.20
With respect to the absentee by mail ballots themselves, once they are prepared and printed for the election, the Secretary of State conveys ballots and ballot envelopes to the parish registrars
15 https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteByMail/Pages/default.aspx 16 Exhibits B, C, D. 17 Exhibits E, F, G, H. 18 The procedure is similar to that noted and approved by the Texas Supreme Court in the matter of In Re State of Texas, 20-0394 (Tex. 5/27/20), 2020 WL 2747179. 19 Exhibits B, C, D. 20 Id.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 7 of 22
to send the ballots out to voters.21 Where the voter who requests a ballot is in the prescribed category of voters entitled to exercise the absentee ballot option, the Registrar sends or gives the voter a ballot and ballot envelope together with instructions prepared by the Secretary of State on how to mark and return the ballot.22 When the ballot is marked by the voter, it is returned to the Registrar in the ballot envelope to hold until election day.23
Each absentee by mail ballot envelope bears a “ballot flap.”24 The ballot flap is a certificate attached to the ballot envelope to be completed by the voter upon receipt of the absentee by mail ballot.25 It contains certain information about the voter as well as the voter’s ward and precinct to enable Registrars to sort the ballots for tabulation and counting by the Parish Board of Election Supervisors. The ballot flap must be filled out by the voter in accordance requires a certification by the voter and a witness handwritten name and signature.26 Once ballot is marked, the voter places it in the absentee by mail envelope with the completed ballot flap attached and returns the voted ballot to the Registrar.27 The Registrar holds the voted ballots until election day.
The Parish Board of Election Supervisors takes possession of the ballots on election day to tabulate and count the absentee by mail ballots in accordance with La. R.S. 18:1313. It is the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, not the Registrars, that examines the ballots and ballot envelopes and determines whether or not the ballot is valid and should be counted.28 The Registrar is but one member of the Parish Board of Election Supervisors and has no independent authority to make any
21 La. R.S. 18:1306. 22 La. R.S. 18:1307, 1307.1, 1307.2, and 1308. 23 La. R.S. 18:1312. 24 La. R.S. 18:1306(E). 25 Exhibit I. 26 La. R.S. 18:1306(E). 27 La. R.S. 18:1310. 28 La. R.S. 18:1313.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 8 of 22
determination with respect to absentee ballots.29 Rather, the Parish Board must act at a meeting with a quorum of its members present upon majority vote.30
After tabulation and counting, the absentee ballots, ballot flaps, and certain ballot
envelopes are given back to the registrars for preservation until recounts, the delay for recounts, election contests or time for election contests are concluded.31
B. The Relevant Change in Absentee Balloting Under the Emergency Election Plan
An Emergency Election Plan was adopted by the joint action of the Governor the Secretary
of State, and the Legislature pursuant to La. R.S. 18:401.3. The presidential primary election had
been scheduled for April 4, 2020 with the local general elections set for May 2020. However
pursuant to Executive Proclamations, the elections were twice rescheduled due to COVID-19 and are presently scheduled on July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020, respectively.32
The Emergency Election Plan altered absentee by mail balloting for the rescheduled July
and August elections. The relevant change for purposes of this lawsuit extended the category of
voters able to exercise the absentee option and expanded the number of days for absentee voting.
The Emergency Election Plan added to the category of voters able to exercise the absentee
option as follows:
This plan will expand the reasons to request an absentee ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and are:
 At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma,
29 La. R.S. 18:423. 30 La. R.S. 18:423(I) 31 Id. 32 The Governor issued Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 to declare a state of emergency. Thereafter, in Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020, the elections were first rescheduled to June 20, 2020 and July 25, 2020. In Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020, the elections were rescheduled a second time to their present dates. https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/category/10
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 9 of 22
hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications);
 Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19
 Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
 Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or
 Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.
All requests made under current law for absentee ballots will continue to be accepted.33 For the July and August, 2020 elections the Secretary of State devised a fourth absentee ballot request form especially for COVID-19 related issues. The additional form is referred to as Temporary COVID-19 Application Form.34 Like the other ballot application forms, the COVID19 form contains check boxes for the applicant to indicate the COVID-19 related reason to receive an absentee by mail ballot prescribed in the Emergency Election Plan. Also like the other applications, Registrars do not look behind or investigate the voter’s check mark to verify the reason for requesting a COVID-19 related absentee by mail ballot.35
33 Exhibit A. 34 Exhibit E. 35 The procedure is similar to that noted and approved by the Texas Supreme Court in the matter of In Re State of Texas, 20-0394 (Tex. 5/27/20), 2020 WL 2747179.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 10 of 22
An absentee by mail application requires a witness signature for persons signing the request with a mark. Ordinarily two witnesses are required.36 However, for the rescheduled elections covered by the Emergency Election Plan, the witness requirement for persons making a mark is reduced to one witness.37
C. The Early Voting Period Early voting, as the name suggests, allows voters to vote in person at special polling places before election day. For regular elections, the early voting period begins 14 days before the election and ends seven days before the election for an early voting period of seven days.38 The Emergency Election Plan expands the early voting period to a total of 13 days.39 The time periods are established by statute and/or in the Emergency Election Plan. The Registrars have no part in setting the number of days for early voting. Registrars are charged with the administration of early voting to be conducted in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Election Code.40 The procedures for conducting early voting are laid out in the Code in exquisite detail, and the Registrars are constrained to carry out early voting accordingly.41 As with absentee by mail ballots, early voting ballots are tabulated and counted by the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, not by the Registrars. II. THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISICTION OVER THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE REGISTRAR BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING Without jurisdiction a federal court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is
36 La. R.S. 18:1307. 37 Exhibit A. 38 La. R.S.18:1309(A). 39 Exhibit A. 40 La. R.S. 18:58(B). 41 La. R.S. 18:1309-1309.3.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 11 of 22
that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”42 The requirement that jurisdiction be
established as a threshold matter “spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States” and is “inflexible and without exception.”43
Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to
challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint
alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.44
The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.45 Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.46 It is the party seeking to establish subject-matter jurisdiction that bears the burden of demonstrating its existence, else the case cannot proceed.47
A court should consider a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.48 Considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss first “prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice.”49
A. Article III Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Whose Authority Extends Only To Cases and Controversies. The Plaintiffs In This Case Have Not Shown That a Case or Controversy Exists With Respect to the four named Registrars
42 Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868). 43 Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1012, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1998). 44 Barrera–Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir.1996). 45 McDaniel v. United States, 899 F.Supp. 305, 307 (E.D.Tex.1995). 46 Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir.1980). 47 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). 48 Id. (citing Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960, 122 S.Ct. 2665, 153 L.Ed.2d 839 (2002)). 49 Id. See, Hall v. Louisiana, 983 F. Supp. 2d 820, 827 (M.D. La. 2013).
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 12 of 22
Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts' jurisdiction to certain “Cases” and
“Controversies.” As we have explained, “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's
proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.”50 “One element of the case-or-controversy requirement” is that plaintiffs “must establish that they have standing to sue.”51
1. Proof of Standing Requires the Plaintiff to Show a Concrete Injury Traceable To A Defendant’s Conduct That Can Be Redressed By an Order Against that Defendant
At an irreducible minimum, Art. III requires the party who invokes the court's authority
to show that (1) he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the
putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, (2) that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”52
First, the injury alleged must be ... “‘distinct and palpable,”’ and not ‘abstract’ or ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.53 The Supreme Court has thus refused to entertain a variety of
suits premised only upon “the value interests of concerned bystanders,” United States v.
SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973), or upon “‘the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.”’54 (The exercise of judicial power,
which can so profoundly affect the lives, liberty, and property of those to whom it extends, is
… restricted to litigants who can show ‘injury in fact’ resulting from the action which they
seek to have the court adjudicate.”)
50 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492–493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). 51 Raines, supra, at 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312. 52 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 53 Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). 54 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982).
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 13 of 22
Thus, the injury-in-fact alleged in a plaintiff's complaint “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”55 (emphasis added); see also id. at 581 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[T]he party bringing suit must show that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way.”).
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party.”56
Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a decision.”57 Plaintiffs must show that an order against the defendant would give relief to the plaintiff.
Standing is an issue upon which the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, bears the burden of persuasion.58
2. Plaintiffs Here Have Not Shown That They Have Standing With Respect to the Four Registrars
The plaintiffs do not show that the Registrars caused them injury. The plaintiffs first complain that they should receive absentee by mail ballots. They argue that coronavirus disproportionately impacts African-Americans, and their concern about contracting the virus at the polls should place them in a category of voters entitled to choose the absentee by mail option to vote.
But, it is not these four Registrars that set the categories entitled to vote absentee, and so, any injury stemming from the establishment of persons entitled to vote absentee is not traceable to
55 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1. 56 Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 41–42, (1976). 57 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). 58 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 95 F.3d 358, 361–62 (5th Cir. 1996).
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 14 of 22
the Registrars. The Registrars’ responsibility in that regard consists in reviewing the check boxes on the application form for an absentee by mail ballot and sending ballots to those who check a box that includes one of the reasons that entitle the voter to an absentee ballot. Establishing the reasons for entitlement to an absentee ballot is not a part of the Registrars’ duties and responsibilities. The forms for the absentee ballot request are not devised by the Registrars. The category of voters and list of reasons for entitlement to an absentee ballot are determined by others. There is no causal connection between the conduct of the Registrars in the election process and the make-up of the voter categories entitled to an absentee ballot.
Nor do these four Registrars enforce the absentee by mail ballot provisions in the statute. They merely review the application form and send the ballot. They do not look behind the check marks nor investigate the legitimacy of the voter’s entitlement of a ballot. Their function is ministerial and mechanical. The harm alleged by the plaintiffs do not stem from the conduct or responsibilities of the Registrars. Registrars did not make the decisions that the plaintiffs allege caused them harm.
Second, the plaintiffs allege that requiring a witness for the absentee ballot request form for those who sign with a mark, as well as the signature requirement on the absentee ballot flap, are too onerous. However, as previously noted, those are matters mandated by statute. These Registrars did not set the witness requirement. They cannot change it. Nor do they enforce it. It is the Parish Board of Election Supervisors that reviews absentee by mail ballots for validity and thus enforcement of the witness requirement. The injury complained of does not follow from any act, duty, or responsibility on the part of these four Registrars.
Third, the plaintiffs claim that the early voting period is not long enough in the emergency elections or the regular elections in November and December of 2020. But, the early voting period
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 15 of 22
is set by statute in one instance and by Louisiana’s Emergency Election Plan in the other. It is true that these Registrars administer early voting in their respective parishes, but a general duty to administer early voting is not sufficient to support standing.59
Fourth, the plaintiffs allege that Louisiana’s decisions with respect to absentee voting violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by causing them to risk potential illness in order to vote. Again, the decisions with respect to voting by absentee by mail and voting at the polls are not made by these Registrars. These Registrars do not enforce those decisions. The terms of voting are set by other branches of government and agencies, and those decisions and hence plaintiffs’ injuries are not traceable to Registrars.
Finally, the plaintiffs assert a Section 2 violation by virtue of COVID-19’s disparate impact on African-Americans. Whether the effect of a virus on a discrete population may constitute a Section 2 violation, this claim cannot be laid at the feet of these Registrars. How to balance the risk of contracting the coronavirus in the context of an election is well beyond the responsibilities of these Registrars. These are legislative decisions made by lawmakers with access to all of the relevant information necessary to exercise their legislative discretion. Any Section 2 violation is too far removed from what the Registrars do in elections to implicate them.
In those same instances cited by the plaintiffs as grounds for relief, an order against these four Registrars would not redress plaintiffs’ grievances. The Registrars lack power and authority to change the law or rules that allegedly cause harm to these plaintiffs. They cannot enforce the law or rules. Their roles are purely ministerial. They give out and collect ballots to be judged by others. They administer early voting in strict accordance with statute. They do not exercise
59 Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F. 3d 1193, 1207-1211 (11th Cir. 4/29/20).
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 16 of 22
discretion in how to apply statutes. They do not determine whether election laws, rules, or procedures have been violated or decide if a ballot is deficient or to be counted in the election.
Because the injuries complained of in the consolidate Complaints are not traceable to these Registrars and an order against these Registrars would not remedy the plaintiffs’ complaints, the necessary elements of standing are absent, and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear the case. III. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(7)
In the alternative, should this Honorable Court find the Registrars of Voters are necessary parties in this suit, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party under Rule 19. A. Legal Standard for F.R.C.P. 12(b)(7)
In order to determine whether a person is a necessary party, the court must consider whether complete relief would be available among the parties already in the suit. Rule 19(a) recognizes that complete relief cannot be accorded when the party who maintains control over the actions at issue is not a party to the suit.60 This is particularly true where plaintiffs seek to impose liability on a party for the conduct of the absent party and their future actions which are the subject matter of the suit. The absent parties thus become essential to ensuring complete relief to the parties.61 Furthermore, when a necessary person cannot be made a party, Rule 19 authorizes dismissal, even where the absent party, although essential to ensuring complete relief to the parties, is not crucial to the case.62 Additionally, dismissal under Rule 19 is appropriate in a suit for preliminary
60 See, Tillman v. City of Milwaukee, 715 F.2d 354, 358 (7th Cir.1983) (state agency vested with responsibility of controlling, supervising and approving program participation was a necessary party to the determination of what, if any, relief could be afforded). Martin v. Local 147, Int'l Bhd. of Painters & Allied Trades, 775 F.Supp. 235, 237 (N.D. Ill.1991) (“International Union is ... a necessary party because it issued the directive on mailings and was in complete control of the election.”). 61 Hashop v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 171 F.R.D. 208, 211 (N.D. Ill.1997). 62 Ponce v Housing Authority of County of Tulare, 389 F Supp 635 (E.D. Cal. 1975).
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 17 of 22
injunction as there can no likelihood of success on the merits in the absence of an indispensable party.63 B. Complete relief cannot be afforded between the plaintiffs and defendants in the absence of indispensable parties.
As previously stated, the duties of the Registrars of Voters, as related to this matter, are ministerial and the relief requested by the plaintiffs is simply beyond the reach and legal capacity of the Registrars of Voters to address. Nevertheless, should this Court find otherwise, joinder of those parties whose duties are beyond mere administration is compulsory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), which provides in part:
(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties. The United States Supreme Court noted, in Louisiana v. United States, that a claim that the Registrar of Voters was an indispensable party was meritless. “The registrars have no personal interest in the outcome of this case and are bound to follow the directions of the State Board of Registration.”64 Rather, the members of the board were deemed the proper defendants in light of the board’s authority. The registrars were merely conduits.65 Similarly, the plaintiffs’ allegations against the ROV result from actions taken, by law, at the direction of the parish boards. Each of Louisiana’s parish board of election supervisors is statutorily mandated “to supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish.”66 Each parish board of election supervisors, not the registrar, is responsible for counting and tabulation of all
63 Escamilla v M2 Technology, Inc., 536 Fed. Appx 417 (2013). 64 380 U.S. 145, n. 10 (1965). 65 Id. 66 La. R.S. 18:423.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 18 of 22
absentee by mail voting ballots, which includes, but is not limited to: selecting parish board commissioners when necessary, determining the validity of mail ballots, and rejecting ballots.67 Each parish board of election supervisors is also responsible for determining whether a voter is eligible to vote by mail. Eligibility to vote absentee by mail ballot is set forth in La. R.S. 18:1303. If a parish board of election supervisors, after providing the voter with a hearing and opportunity to be heard, determines that the voter’s eligibility is based on fraud or fraudulent information, the board notifies both the District Attorney and the registrar that the voter is ineligible to vote absentee by mail.68
While registrars of voters have a vote on the parish board of election supervisors, they are only responsible for one vote out of five.69 It is the parish board of election supervisors that have the authority to reject a ballot, not individual members of the board; the registrars of voters lack any authority to independently reject a ballot or undertake any other authority on behalf of the parish board of election supervisors. At least three members of the parish board of election supervisors must be present in order to transact business.70
In order to evaluate the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court must examine the manner in which each parish board handles its elections because it is the parish boards of election supervisors that are responsible for the preparation and the conduct of all elections held in the parish; it is the parish boards that actually determine whether voters are eligible to vote by mail and whether ballots are rejected. The boards’ authority and actions, therefore, are at the center of the plaintiffs’ allegations. If a remedy is to be fashioned by this Court, such a remedy would necessitate a change to the
67 La. R.S. 18:1307(I). 68 Id. 69 La. R.S. 18:423(C)(1) provides that, “[i]n each parish, the board of election supervisors shall be composed of the registrar of voters, the clerk of court, the chairman of the parish executive committee of each recognized political party or his designee who shall be a member of the parish executive committee of the same recognized political party, and one member appointed by the governor.” 70 La. R.S. 42:13(A)(4) defines quorum as “a simple majority of the total membership of a public body.”
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 19 of 22
parish boards of election superviors’ practices, not the registrars who simply have no authority or control over the parish boards. Indeed, not only do the registrars have no authority to direct the parish boards, nor do the other defendants named herein.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint fully underscores the significance of the parish boards’ role in the allegations made against them, yet the Plaintiffs fail to name them as defendants.71 The plaintiffs even acknowledge that any remedy to be fashioned would require the parish boards to change their practices, not the registrars, as demonstrated in their prayer for relief requesting that guidance be issued to the parish boards. No defendant named herein has the authority to direct or compel the actions of the parish boards of elections supervisors. Any remedy therefore requires their joinder.
Furthermore, in the event that this Court finds that the registrars are proper party defendants in this litigation, then complete relief as to the alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights can only be granted by an order affecting not only these four Registrars, named defendants herein, but the registrars and parish board of election supervisors of all 64 parishes of Louisiana. Thus, all the state Registrars and Parish Boards of Election Supervisors must be joined to this action, as plaintiffs pray for relief affecting “all voters” and “all elections.”72 A judicial order issued by the Court, no matter how persuasive, is insufficient to establish redressability against an absent nonparty.
In Jacobson v. Florida Sec'y of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020), the district court granted the plaintiffs’ relief identical to that sought herein, i.e., written guidance directed at absent nonparties.73 On appeal, the Court held,
But this “notice” theory of redressability contravenes the settled principle that it must be the effect of the court’s judgment on the defendant—not an absent third
71 Rec. Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 69 and 74. 72 Rec. Doc. 1, p. 50 – 51. 73 Ultimately, judgment against the secretary of state was vacated the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 20 of 22
party—that redresses the plaintiff’s injury. Any persuasive effect a judicial order might have upon the Supervisors, as absent nonparties who are not under the Secretary’s control, cannot suffice to establish redressability. (internal citations omitted). Id., 957 F.3d at 1208. The Jacobson plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Florida’s general election ballot-order scheme violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court permanently enjoined the Florida Secretary of State and the 67 Supervisors of Elections from implementing the ballot-order statute. None of the election supervisors, however, were named as defendants to the suit or served with process. Nevertheless, the district court’s order required the Florida Secretary, in part, to provide “written guidance to the supervisors of elections of Florida’s counties informing them that this Court has declared the [statute] unconstitutional.”74 The order also prohibited the supervisor of elections of any Florida county from issuing any ballot pursuant to the statute.75 In addition to finding that the district court exceeded its authority by issuing a judgment against a nonparty, the court found that the nonparties were under no obligation to honor any incidental legal determination resulting from the suit and remained lawfully entitled to follow the law “unless and until they [were] made parties to a judicial proceeding that determine[d] otherwise.”76 In its reasoning, the Court noted that the election supervisors were independent officials over whom the secretary had no authority and given that Florida law expressly gave the supervisors control of the placement of candidate names on the ballot, the secretary of state’s general election authority was insufficient to establish an injury. Thus, any relief against the secretary would not redress the plaintiffs’ injuries.77
74 Id., 957 F.3d at 1200. 75 Id. 76 Id., 957 F.3d at 1208. 77 Id., 957 F.3d at 1207 – 08.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 21 of 22
Likewise, in Louisiana the parish boards of election supervisors are independent entities at the local level. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against only four of the registrars in the State, and none of the parish boards of elections supervisors, could lead to confused state of affairs where nonparty registrars and parish boards of elections supervisors would heed their statutory mandates instead of following a nonbinding federal decree, whereas the defendant registrars would be bound by an inconsistent federal decree. The ROVs and the Boards will remain statutorily obligated to continue performing their ministerial duties, unless and until they are made parties to a judicial proceeding that determines otherwise. Accordingly, joinder of Louisiana’s other 60 Registrar of Voters and 64 Parish Boards of Election Supervisors, not already party to this suit, is appropriate under Rule 19. IV. CONCLUSION
The jurisdictional challenge should be taken up prior to any further proceedings, and the Registrars submit that the Court should grant the motion to dismiss for plaintiffs’ lack of standing with respect to these named Registrars.
Otherwise, parties needed for the full adjudication of the plaintiffs’ claims are absent. Until those parties are brought into the litigation, the matter cannot proceed.
Respectfully submitted, JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: /s/ Carey T. Jones______________________ Carey T. Jones (La. Bar # 07404) David Jeddie Smith (La. Bar #27089 Alicia E. Wheeler (La. Bar # 28803) Jeffrey Wale (La. Bar #36070) Assistant Attorneys General LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-1 06/08/20 Page 22 of 22
1885 North Third Street Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone No. 225-326-6766 Facsimile No. 225-326-6793 E-Mail Address: jonescar@ag.louisiana.gov smithda@ag.louisiana.gov wheelera@ag.louisiana.gov walej@ag.louisiana.gov
Counsel for Defendants, East Baton Rouge Registrar of Voters Steve Raborn, Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters Sandra Wilson, Lafayette Parish Registrar Charlene Meaux Menard, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar, Rhonda R. Rogers
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that, on this 8th day of June, 2020 the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which gives notice of filing to
all counsel of record. /s/ Carey T. Jones Carey T. Jones
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-2 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

NO.: 20-00308-SDD-RLB

Consolidated With

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL.

NO.: 20-00283-BAJ-EWD

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendants Registrars of Voters’ Motion to Dismiss. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Registrars of Voters’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

DATE:________________

________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shelly D. Dick

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 1 of 16
A

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 2 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 3 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 4 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 5 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 6 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 7 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 8 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 9 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 10 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 11 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 12 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 13 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 14 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 15 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-3 06/08/20 Page 16 of 16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-4 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
B

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-4 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-4 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-5 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3
C

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-5 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-5 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-6 06/08/20 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-6 06/08/20 Page 2 of 3
D

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-6 06/08/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-7 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
E

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-8 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
F

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-9 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
G

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-10 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
H

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 31-11 06/08/20 Page 1 of 1
I

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35 06/11/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,

Defendants,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF LANDRY’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Defendant, Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, by and

through its counsel, hereby moves that Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Clark v. Edwards be dismissed.1

1.

1 With its Motion to Intervene, the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, filed a Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition only in order to avoid potential waiver issues resulting from filing an answer as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and properly preserve error, Defendant, Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, files this Motion to Dismiss in the Clark matter (20-cv-308-SDDRLB). This motion is notwithstanding filing a substantively similar Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition (20-cv283-SDD-RLB) prior to the Court establishing consolidated pleading schedules and granting the State’s Motion to Intervene in Power Coalition. The Attorney General represents to the Court that aside from references to the differing pleadings (which are very similar) and nuances in the relief the different Plaintiffs are seeking in the now consolidated cases—along with some minor updates on the State’s current response to COVID-19—this Motion is substantively similar to the State’s Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35 06/11/20 Page 2 of 4

The Clark Plaintiffs’ filed a Complaint on May 19, 2020, seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief respecting Louisiana’s voting regulations in light of COVID-19 (the “Virus”).

2.

Plaintiffs’ claims come too late in the election cycle, and therefore should be dismissed

under the Supreme Court’s Purcell doctrine.

3.

This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. First, Plaintiffs’ lack standing because,

inter alia, the Virus is not state action for the purposes of Plaintiffs claims. Second, Plaintiffs’

claims present political questions unfit for judicial review.

4.

Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, once

again, the allegations on the face of the complaint point to the Virus, and not the State of Louisiana,

as the perpetrator of their alleged harms.

5.

Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to join the necessary parties to afford them relief under Rule

19.

For the reasons more fully set forth in the attached memorandum of law, Defendant

Attorney General Jeff Landry respectfully requests that this Court DISMISS Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Dated: June 11, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35 06/11/20 Page 3 of 4
JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL /s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov
Jason B. Torchinsky* Jonathan Lienhard** Phillip M. Gordon* Dallin Holt** Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law jlienhard@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law dholt@hvjt.law *admitted pro hac vice **pro hac vice motions forthcoming Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35 06/11/20 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 11th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jason Torchinsky Jason Torchinsky Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

v. Edwards, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Defendants,

c/w Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

Defendants,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF LANDRY’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS1

Defendant Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, hereby

moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Clark v. Edwards for the following reasons: (1) any

Court order will result in electoral chaos in violation of the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit’s

Purcell doctrine; (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) as Plaintiffs’

claims present non-justiciable political questions and Plaintiffs lack standing; (3) Plaintiffs have

1 With its Motion to Intervene, the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, filed a Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition in order to avoid potential waiver issues resulting from filing an answer as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and properly preserve error, Defendant, Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, files this Motion to Dismiss in the Clark matter (20-cv-308-SDD-RLB). This motion is notwithstanding filing a substantively similar Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition (20-cv-283-SDDRLB) prior to the Court establishing consolidated pleading schedules and granting the State’s Motion to Intervene in Power Coalition. The Attorney General represents to the Court that aside from references to the differing pleadings (which are very similar) and nuances in the relief the different Plaintiffs are seeking in the now consolidated cases— along with some minor updates on the State’s current response to COVID-19—this Motion is substantively similar to the State’s Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 2 of 24
failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted because a communicable disease is not state action and is not protected by the Voting Rights Act; and (4) Plaintiffs have failed to join the proper parties in order to accord them the requested relief.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this case on the eve of a busy election season seeking to dictate through judicial enactment their own idea of what constitutes—according to them—a fairer election system in light of the current pandemic. This is despite the fact that the State of Louisiana, through its process designed to deal with these issues, has loosened some election regulations to make it easier for all Louisianans to vote. It can be no less than hubris to contend that laws that were perfectly legal—and arguably more restrictive—before the pandemic are suddenly now made illegal in their arguably less restrictive form during a pandemic. Fortunately, a motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently addressed claims very similar to the claims here. See Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 (5th Cir. June 4, 2020). The panel emphatically stayed a District Court order granting a preliminary injunction “because the spread of the Virus2 has not given “unelected federal jud[ges]” a roving commission to rewrite state election codes.” Id. at *3 (quoting S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 19A1044, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041, *3 (U.S. May 29, 2020) (Roberts, C.J. concurring from the denial of cert.)). The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is just as persuasive here. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is fundamentally deficient. At the outset, voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 807-09 (1969).
2 In the interests of simplicity, just as the Fifth Circuit has done, all references to the current pandemic—coronavirus, COVID-19, and the like—will simply be to “the Virus.” See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *3 n.1.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 3 of 24
Louisiana’s statutory scheme, including its emergency plans, are “designed to make voting more available to some groups who cannot easily get to the polls.” Id. at 807-08; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22. This fact “does not itself ‘deny’ the plaintiffs ‘the exercise of the franchise.’” Id.; see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *22.3 Beyond this fundamental issue, there are two other truths to this litigation that cause Plaintiffs’ claims to fail.
First, each and every claim brought by Plaintiffs requires state action. See e.g, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)). However, the face of their Complaint is clear: it is the Virus and not the State of Louisiana that caused their alleged harms.
Second, it cannot be over emphasized that for every single rule Plaintiffs challenge, a more, or equally restrictive, version of that rule that was perfectly legal before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g., Mays v. Thurston, No. 4:20-cv-341 JM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498, at *4-5 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 30, 2020); Bethea v. Deal, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861, at *7 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2016).
Given these foundational truths as applied to the law, Plaintiffs’ claims must fail.
3 Louisiana’s actions also, as it will be shown herein and in the response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, do not and cannot result in a disparate impact under Section 2 of the Voting Right Act.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 4 of 24
I. THE SUPREME COURT’S PURCELL DOCTRINE DICTATES THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN FAST APPROACHING ELECTIONS.
The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit “ha[ve] repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37; Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56 (“The Court’s [dismissal] is bolstered by the fact that Plaintiffs seek extensive relief on the eve of/during an election”). “That is especially true where, as here, . . . local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37 (quoting S. Bay, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3041 at *3).
This doctrine exists because judicial intrusion into elections must account for “considerations specific to election cases.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). These considerations include the fact that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections . . . can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Id. at 4-5. “As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 5.
Even assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are correct and there is a violation of either the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, or both, the Court still ought to decline from interfering in Louisiana’s upcoming elections. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964); Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 243 (5th Cir. 2016). “In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of state election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585. The existence of the Virus does not change this analysis. Recently, the Supreme Court stated that “changing the election rules so close to the election date . . . contravened [Supreme
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 5 of 24
Court] precedent[].”Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207 (staying a district court order changing election deadlines in response to the Virus).
Courts must weigh such factors as the harms associated with judicial action or inaction, the proximity of the upcoming election, the “possibility that the non-prevailing parties would want to seek” further review, and the risk of “conflicting orders” from such review. Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 585 (noting that withholding relief may be proper when “an impending election is imminent and a State’s election machinery is already in progress.”).
Here, we are on the eve of the election under the revised deadlines set forth in the Emergency Election Plan. Absentee ballot applications have been printed and widely distributed with current law set forth in the instructions. The first absentee ballots for this July’s elections were mailed in February of 2020. Applications to vote absentee have been accepted since April 20. Secretary of State Emergency Action Plan (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised Emergency Election Plan for PPP and Mun General Rev. 4-20.pdf The registration deadline for the July 11 elections is on June 10, a mere seven days away. Louisiana Secretary of State, Primary Election Quick Facts (2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/LouisianaElectionQuickFacts. pdf. The online registration deadline is on June 20, a mere 17 days away. Id. And early voting begins on June 20. Id. Absentee ballots with the current law set forth in the instructions have been printed and have already been mailed to the homes of those people who have registered. Changing the method of absentee balloting now will invite chaos into the system and harm more people through voter confusion than any remedy ordered by the Court would help.
The same issue repeats itself for the subsequent elections, as the post-election calendar of required events for the July 11 election have a cascading effect on the August run-off elections. In
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 6 of 24
order for ballots to be printed and mailed to absentee voters for the August run-off election, the Secretary must certify multi-district results and local election officials must finalize local election results. Any movement in this final deadline risks the ability of the Secretary and local election officials to have absentee and in-person ballots printed and available in time for the run-off election on August 15.4
Finally, the extensive nature of the prohibitory and mandatory relief sought by Plaintiffs is yet another reason to deny their relief. Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20cv-1677, 8-9 (May 26, 2020), ECF No. 56. Plaintiffs request no fewer than six mandatory injunctions that work to create a wholesale overhaul of Louisiana’s election code. “The combination of the extensive nature of the relief Plaintiffs seek and the temporal proximity to the election is a further reason to deny them relief.” Id. (denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s dismissal on political question grounds). As the Sixth Circuit Court recently said, “rewriting a state’s election procedures or moving deadlines rarely ends with one court order. Moving one piece on the game board invariably leads to additional moves. This is exactly why we must heed the Supreme Court’s warning that federal courts are not supposed to change state election rules as elections approach.” Thompson v. Dewine, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650, at *17 (6th Cir. May 26, 2020) (citing Republican Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207; Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-5)); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37.
II. THIS COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. “Federal courts cannot consider the merits of a case unless it ‘presents an actual
controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution . . .’” Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 458
4 A similar series of post-election dates exist between the November 2020 and December 2020 elections.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 7 of 24
(1974)). “The many doctrines that have fleshed out the case or controversy requirement—standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like—are ‘founded in concern about the proper— and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). When a jurisdictional defect is raised, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proof. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F. 3d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs’ Complaint is facially and factually deficient in nearly every respect. However, the principal defects are jurisdictional in nature and require this Court’s immediate dismissal.
A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing. “Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2493 (2019). The doctrine of standing arises out of the “case” or “controversy” language of Article III. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013). “Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power.” Id. at 408-09 (quoting United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 188 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)). In Gill v. Whitford, the Court “insist[ed]” that a plaintiff must show that they “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.” 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the three elements of standing].” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish Article III
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 8 of 24
standing. As Plaintiffs lack standing, they cannot succeed on their claims, and their claims should be dismissed.
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Suffered an Injury in Fact.5 Foremost among a plaintiff’s requirements in establishing Article III standing is pleading and proving an injury in fact. Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929. In order to prove an injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead and prove an injury which is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent . . . .” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010)). The requirement that an injury be “imminent” exists “to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is certainly impending.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 565, n.2) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that a “‘threatened injury”—such as Plaintiffs are alleging here—“must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact’ and that ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient’” to establish Article III standing. Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)) (emphasis in original). A plaintiff cannot sufficiently establish an injury in fact when the alleged injury is based on “their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending”—such as Plaintiffs are attempting to do here. Id. at 416. Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is not “actual or imminent”—and therefore fails.6 Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409. Here, Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n light of COVID-19”, Louisiana voters suffered a
5 The presentation of this case is peculiar in that Plaintiffs are alleging purely conjectural harms that stem not from the state, but from a virus, and as such are neither traceable nor redressable by Defendants. However, even if one were to remove COVID-19 from the equation, there is every reason to believe that Plaintiffs would still lack individual and associational standing. See, e.g., Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929 (“[A] person’s right to vote is individual and personal in nature.” (internal quotation omitted)); NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding, in part, that organizations and associations must meet Lujan’s standing requirements). 6 It is also important to note that voting by absentee ballot is not a fundamental right. See McDonald, 394 U.S. at 80709. When a state legislature passes laws that make voting easier for certain demographics but not others, such as absentee voter laws, such laws cannot be viewed as an “abridgment” of one’s right. Veasy, 830 F.3d at 279 (Higginson, J. concurring). “There is a difference between making voting harder in ways that interact with historical and social conditions to disproportionately burden minorities and making voting easier in ways that may not benefit all
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 9 of 24
sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of severe illness or death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of physically voting or by having a third party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. ¶¶ 12, 13, & 78 (at 36)7 (May 19, 2020), ECF No. 1. In addition to the articles and studies cited in their Complaint, Plaintiffs proffer multiple experts, medical and otherwise, in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction who discuss the risks associated with the Virus and state that voters are potentially at risk of contracting the disease by voting. See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (June 04, 2020), ECF No. 22. In total, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, with all the associated expert and witness declarations, total nearly 350 pages. See id. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, increasing the number of pages in their pleadings does not decrease their burden of proof in establishing an injury in fact which is “certainly impending” and not based on “fears of hypothetical future harms”—which Plaintiffs have certainly failed to do. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 416.
The estimated population of Louisiana is 4,648,794.8 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), Louisiana has had a total of 40,857 Virus cases.9 While not diminishing the seriousness of the disease to those infected, an infection rate of less than one percent could not be classified as “certainly impending” under any definition. On June 4, 2020, Louisiana moved from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the re-opening process, and while Phase 2 will last at least 21 days, it is pure speculation to guess what phase Louisiana may be in as the July, August,
demographics equally (like motor-voter).” Id. (emphasis in original). “Every decision that a State makes in regulating its elections will, inevitably, result in somewhat more inconvenience for some voters than for others.” Greater Brimingham Ministries v. Merrill, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1279-81 (N.D. Ala 2018) (citing Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 754 (7th Cir. 2014)). As such, Plaintiffs’ claims that Louisiana’s absentee ballot laws are unconstitutional and therefore cause injury, cannot be supported by the law. 7 Due to duplicative paragraph numbering in the Complaint, citations to the Complaint will include a parenthetical with a page number next to the corresponding paragraph number when necessary. 8 QuickFacts: Louisiana, U.S. Census Bureau (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/LA 9 Cases in the U.S., Center for Disease Control and Prevention (last accessed June 3, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 10 of 24
November, and December elections approach.10 In moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2, Governor John Del Edwards cited to “continued improvement in Louisiana’s COVID-19 outlook and a significant increase in testing capacity and contact tracing” in support of the move.11 Id. While Louisiana health officials are allowing for most businesses, including children’s museums and arcades, to open safely (following occupancy and other guidelines), Plaintiffs argue that voting centers, following the same guidelines, cannot safely accommodate them. Id.
At least two studies have been published as “pre-prints” evaluating an election’s impact on the spread of the virus looking at the recent April 7, 2020 election in Wisconsin—these two research studies show no such effect. 12 The first, titled “No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election.”13 That study concluded, “[t]aken together, it appears that voting in Wisconsin on April 7 was a low-risk activity.” Id. A second study examining Wisconsin found that the virus’ rate of spread actually declined following the election, and declined in the three most populated counties in Wisconsin. That study, entitled “Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates.”14 That study concluded, “[t]here was no increase in COVID-19 new case daily rates observed for Wisconsin or its three largest counties following the election on April 7, 2020, as compared to the US, during the post-incubation period.” Id. The available data surrounding the recent Wisconsin election, coupled with the data supporting the move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 in Louisiana, show that the
10 Gov. Edwards Announces Louisiana’s Roadmap to Resilience Will Start Phase 2 on Friday, June 5, Louisiana Office of the Governor (June 1, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2521 11 Under 12(b)(1), parties are permitted to supplement 12 When a party is challenging the facts upon which jurisdiction depends, matters outside the pleadings can be considered. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. 13 Kathy Leung et al., No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Election, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078345v1.full.pdf 14 Andrew C. Berry et al., Wisconsin April 2020 Election Not Associated with Increase in COVID-19 Infection Rates, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20074575v1.full.pdf
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 11 of 24
likelihood of infection with the Virus while voting is not “actual or imminent” or “certainly impending” but is merely a “fear[] of hypothetical future harm[]”. Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409, 416.
Plaintiffs’ injury in fact theory is similar to the theory advanced by the plaintiffs in Clapper. In Clapper, the plaintiffs argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would allow the government to perform unconstitutional surveillance on them and sought a declaration of unconstitutionality and an injunction against the government performing surveillance authorized under the challenged law. 568 U.S. at 401. The Clapper plaintiffs claimed injury in fact and Article III standing because “there is an objectively reasonable likelihood that their communications will be acquired [by government surveillance] at some point in the future.” Id. The Court rejected this theory of injury because the plaintiffs failed to allege or prove that their communications had been unconstitutionally monitored, and the plaintiffs’ fear of non-certainly impending hypothetical future harm was insufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 411416.
Here, Plaintiffs attempt to argue injury-in-fact under a failed theory similar to the Clapper plaintiffs—that by voting in-person or by having a witness sign an absentee ballot, Louisiana voters will suffer a sufficient injury in fact due to the potential “risk of severe illness or death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus. See Compl. at ¶ 78 (at 36). Here, just as in Clapper, because Plaintiffs’ alleged injury in fact is based on uncertain possible future harm, it must fail for the same reasons as the plaintiffs’ claims in Clapper. To hold otherwise would be to allow for a nearly limitless range of possible speculative injuries that have not yet occurred and are likely to never occur. Article III exists to limit and define the power of the federal judiciary, not expand it. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408-09.
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 12 of 24
2. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries are Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants. a. Because the Virus Is Not State Action, Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury Is Neither Traceable to nor Redressable by Defendants.
In addition to proving injury in fact, Plaintiffs must also show that the injury-in-fact is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of Defendants, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. However, like their failure to present a proper injury-in-fact, Plaintiffs also fail to show that their alleged injury can be traced to Defendants or redressed by a favorable judicial opinion.
It is important to note that Plaintiffs are not alleging the laws in question are unconstitutional or violative of the VRA writ large, but only temporarily due to the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at 5. In effect, Plaintiffs’ entire complaint hinges upon the Virus. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶¶ 12, 13 (allegations are typically prefaced by “[i]n light of COVID-19” or other similar language); Compl. at ¶¶ 24-78 (at 7-35) (detailing all the alleged harms attributable to the Virus). Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries boil down to the claim that, “[i]n light of COVID-19”, Louisiana voters suffered a sufficient injury due to the potential “risk of infection and death” by possibly coming in contact with the Virus through the act of voting in person or by having a third-party sign their absentee ballot as a witness. See Compl. at ¶ 78 (at 36). Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs properly claimed a sufficient injury-in-fact, which they did not, their alleged injury cannot be traced to Defendants for one simple reason: the existence and proliferation of the Virus is not state action.
Plaintiffs’ claims fail because each and every claim requires state action. Compare Compl. at 35-45 (Counts I – IV Claims brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301)
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 13 of 24
with U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . .”(emphasis added)); U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No state shall make any law . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, of property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (emphasis added)); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state . . . .” (emphasis added)); Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . .” (emphasis added)); Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 206 (1999) (discussing the Anderson/Burdick framework). The Virus is not state action. Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (finding that “the Constitution is not offended” even if voting is impossible “because of circumstances beyond the state’s control, such as the presence of the Virus.”); Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2.
Moreover, it cannot be reiterated enough that for every single rule they challenge, there is a more or equally “restrictive” version of that rule that was perfectly lawful before the Virus. To that end, an otherwise constitutional (or statutorily compliant) law is not made less constitutional (or compliant) by non-state action such as the Virus. See, e.g, Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7; Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
States throughout the country, including Louisiana—as Plaintiffs admit—have taken measures to protect “the right to vote during this global pandemic” by taking actions including “suspending the normal prerequisites . . . for requesting an absentee ballot” and encouraging “social distancing and other protections” while voting in person. Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5. With that backdrop, “[t]he real problem [for Plaintiffs] here
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 14 of 24
is COVID-19, which all but the craziest conspiracy theorist would concede is not the result of any act or failure to act by the Government.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2. It is undeniable that the Virus has impacted the lives of Louisianans, but “these circumstances are not impediments created by the state.” Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *7. “While Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have done a poor job of responding to [the Virus], the fact that the virus’s provenance was not through Defendants further increases, in this Court’s opinion, the impropriety of judicial intervention.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9 n.2; cf., Bethea, No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *6-7.
A number of courts, including the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, have specifically relied upon, at least in part, the fact that the Virus—or another natural disaster—does not present state action as reason to stay a grant of preliminary injunction, dismiss claims, or to deny a motion for preliminary injunction.
In Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, the Circuit Court, upon granting a motion to stay the Western District of Texas’ order granting a preliminary injunction, held that:
The Constitution is not “offended simply because some” groups “find voting more convenient than” do the plaintiffs because of a state's mail-in ballot rules. That is true even where voting in person “may be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible,” because of circumstances beyond the state's control, such as the presence of the Virus. 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *24 (emphasis added) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 810). The Circuit Court indicated that the result is similar in the VRA context. See id at *24 n.32 (“And here, unlike in Veasey [v. Abbott], the state has not placed any obstacles on the plaintiffs’ ability to vote in person.” (emphasis in original)). The lack of state action is further emphasized in the concurring opinion, which notes “[f]or courts to intervene, a voter must show that the state ‘has in fact
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 15 of 24
precluded [voters] from voting.’” Id. at 44-45 (Ho, J. concurring) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 808 & n.7)).
In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs were challenging the signature gathering requirement of Ohio’s ballot-initiative laws in light of the Virus. Thompson, No. 20-3526, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16650 at *2. When staying the District Court’s order granting plaintiffs preliminary injunction, the Sixth Circuit noted the lack of state action inherent in claims resting upon the foundation of the Virus as rationale. Id. at *12 (“[J]ust because procuring signatures is now harder (largely because of a disease beyond the control of the State) doesn’t mean that Plaintiffs are excluded from the ballot.”). The court went further by noting that both First Amendment and Section 1983 actions require state action. Id. at *12-13 (going on to discuss the implication under the Anderson/Burdick standard).
In Mays v. Thurston, plaintiffs sought a mandatory temporary restraining order that the Governor of Arkansas “do more to ensure that Arkansans are allowed to have their vote counted by absentee ballot.” No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *2. The District Court found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Id. at *4-5. Specifically, the court stated that:
Plaintiffs have failed to articulate an injury suffered at the hands of . . . any . . . state official. Plaintiffs’ right to vote during this global pandemic have been made easier by the Governor’s . . . executive order suspending the normal prerequisites for requesting an absentee ballot. Plaintiffs complain that the Governor did not do enough. However, Plaintiffs’ injury, if any, will occur only if they did not follow the absentee voting requirements as loosened by the Governor or if they do not show up to vote at a designated voting place exercising the social distancing and other protections suggested by the State and the federal government. Any injury caused by Plaintiffs’ failing to take advantage of these available avenues to exercise their rights to vote are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue their requested remedy. Id. (emphasis added).
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 16 of 24
The Court’s analysis is not changed due to the type of emergency. In Bethea v. Deal, plaintiffs, including the NAACP, sought a statewide mandatory preliminary injunction seeking to extend the voting registration deadline in response to Hurricane Matthew, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. No. CV216-140, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144861 at *3-4. The court found that the plaintiffs’ Section 2 and Fourteenth Amendment arguments “relie[d] on the unsupported notion that Defendants’ decision not to extend the [voter] registration deadline was some sort of action that created an impediment to the right to vote.” Id. at *6. The District Court was “unable to locate any precedent that would constitutionally or statutorily mandate that Defendants provide an extension in the absence of actual government action that burdens an individual’s right to vote.” Id. (emphasis added). The court goes on to discuss how the fact that the hurricane coincided with an election “made it difficult, but not impossible” for affected residents to vote and, in any event, “these circumstances [were] not impediments created by the State.” Id. at *7.
In wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed plaintiffs’ request to extend the deadline for counting absentee ballots. Assoc. of Communities for Reform Now v. Blanco, No. 2:06-cv-611, Order at 1-2 (E.D. La April 21, 2006) (ECF No. 58). The court noted that plaintiffs’ issues “do not rise to the level of a constitutional or Voting Rights Act violation.” Id. at 3. The court further noted that “[i]t is ironic that a step taken by the State, apparently to allow as many displaced voters as possible the ability to request and receive and absentee ballot . . . is now being challenged as having the exact opposite effect.” Id. The court then reminded plaintiffs that “our evacuation emanated from a natural disaster that ravaged [New Orleans] casting thousands of our fellow citizens across the face of America. Hurricane Katrina (and Rita) crossed all divides, human-made and others.” Id. at 5. Finally, in light of the state
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 17 of 24
officials’ work to “ameliorate the impact” of the natural disaster, the court held that the plaintiffs’ claims that the “[State’s] efforts will ‘disenfranchise’ minority voters is disingenuous.” Id.
Because Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries under the Fourteenth Amendment and VRA “are not caused by or fairly traceable to the actions of the State, but rather are caused by the global pandemic”, their claims must be dismissed. See Mays, No. 4:20-cv-341 (JM), 020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54498 at *4-5.
b. Even Assuming the Virus Represents State Action, Plaintiffs’ Purported Injuries Are Not Redressable By the Current Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ alleged injury cannot be redressed by a favorable judgment from this Court and should therefore fail. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929; Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547. In other words, assuming proper injury-in-fact and traceability, if this Court were to rule in favor of Plaintiffs, the present Defendants could not act in a way that would cure Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
In Louisiana, the respective parish boards are responsible for determining who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot and for determining whether an absentee ballot is properly cast. See La. R.S. §§ 18:423, 18:1307(1), 18:1303. Plaintiffs have failed to include any parish boards in this suit. While Plaintiffs have sued two parish registrars, registrars can take no action themselves—they act only at the direction of the parish boards.15 See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 151 n. 10 (1965); Cf. Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714, *28-44 (11th Cir. 2020) (because individual county election officials were not part of suit, Court could not redress alleged injury and therefore lacked standing). While the parish boards are not parties to this suit, Plaintiffs nonetheless request that the Court order Defendants to “issue guidance” to parties absent from this litigation to act in a certain manner. Compl. at 45-47. This requested relief
15 The fact that a Registrar is a member of the board does not effectuate suit against the board as a body.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 18 of 24
not only serves as evidence that the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury without additional parties present, but is contrary to the law in that a court cannot control the conduct of parties absent from the present litigation. See Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *28-44.
In the end, Plaintiffs’ purported injury is fear of infection, or potential infection, of an individual by the Virus. When acting properly under its jurisdiction, this Court can do a great many things. However, no matter how well-intentioned, this Court cannot enjoin the Virus from infecting a Louisiana citizen. As such, the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury.
B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Present Non-Justiciable Political Questions. Issues that are “entrusted to one of the political branches or involve[] no judicially enforceable rights . . . present a political question . . . outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction.” 16 Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2494 (internal quotations omitted). As it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove jurisdiction, Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161, “[a]bsent pellucid proof provided by plaintiffs that a political question is not at issue, courts should not substitute their own judgments for state election codes.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. The purpose of the political question doctrine is to “protect[] the separation of powers and prevent[] federal courts from overstepping their constitutionally defined role.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962). “That the line might have been drawn differently” in response to the Virus “is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration.” Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *28 (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has found at least six areas where courts are not competent to render a
16 The opinion in Tex. Democratic Party does not change the applicability of the political question doctrine here because Plaintiffs go even further than the Texas plaintiffs in seeking judicial enactment of their policy preferences. See 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 13. This suit, similar to the suit in Georgia, “challenge[s] the wisdom of” Louisiana’s policy choices. See id (emphasis in original). While, the Fifth Circuit determined it “need not . . . consider the prudence of Texas’s plan” because those plaintiffs failed to raise it, see id., Plaintiffs here specifically make Louisiana’s policy choices a fundamental feature of their Complaint. See, e.g., Compl. at 45-47 (requesting numerous mandatory and prohibitory injunctions).
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 19 of 24
decision, any one of which causes the case to present a non-justiciable political question outside
the judicial expertise:
[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; [2] or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; [3] or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; [4] or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; [5] or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; [6] or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. At least two of these factors is implicated here: (1) “a textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;”17 and
(2) “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.” Id. Therefore, it
is not for courts to second guess the policy choices of the State in response to the Virus, see Tex.
Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; see also id. at *40 (Ho, J. concurring),
especially when there exist no judicially manageable standards for it to do so. See Coalition, No.
1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9
1. There Exist No Judicially Manageable Standards to Determine State Policy in Response to the Virus.
The second Baker factor asks whether there exist “judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving” the question at issue. Baker, 369 U.S. at 210. Before a court conducts any
analysis on whether the right to vote is burdened, it must “identify the burden before [it] can weigh
it.” Jacobson, No. 19-14552, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13714 at *54-55 (Pryor, W. J. concurring)
17 The regulation of congressional elections is conferred by the federal constitution to the States via the Elections Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 (granting to the state legislatures the power to appoint electors for presidential elections). The states also retain their own plenary power to regulate state elections. See Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at 29; Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986). In either event, the power to regulate and administer elections is committed to “Congress and state legislatures—not courts.” See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *8-9; cf. ); Clapper, 568 U.S. at 408 (“The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.”).
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 20 of 24
(quoting Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 205 (2008) (Scalia, J. concurring in judgment)). Here, the burden, if any, arises from the Virus and not any action of the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). However, even assuming that state action is implicated here, there are no judicially manageable standards to determine what measures must be taken to regulate elections in light of the Virus. As the Northern District of Georgia recently articulated:
“How early is too early for the election to be held in light of COVID-19? How many safeguards must be in place to protect those who would choose to vote in person from the possibility of contracting COVID-19? Have Defendants already implemented enough safeguards to avoid a constitutional violation? Plaintiffs have provided the Court with no non-speculative way to answer these questions . . . .” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. The exact same is true here. Plaintiffs seek various prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, effectively rewriting Louisiana’s election code. For example, why is a 14-day early voting period constitutional or compliant with the Voting Rights Act, but a seven-day period is not? See Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *6. Why is a two-person signature requirement constitutional and valid under the VRA, but a one-person signature requirement is not? Why is less access to an absentee ballot constitutional and statutorily valid, but more access under Louisiana’s emergency election plan is not? As applied to each of those questions, which is fairer? How can the judiciary determine “fairness”? The truth is that no one knows, and this Court certainly cannot know because “federal courts can address only questions ‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2493-94 (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). As fairness is not a judicially manageable standard, “it is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context.” Id. at 2499-50. “Because ‘it is axiomatic that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change’, some questions—even those existential in nature—are the province of the
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 21 of 24
political branches.” Juliana, v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1173 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and some quotations omitted).
“Ultimately, ordering Defendants to adopt Plaintiffs’ [relief] would require the Court to micromanage the State's election process. The relief Plaintiffs seek bears little resemblance to the type of relief plaintiffs typically seek in election cases aimed to redress state wrongs.” Coalition, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 at *9. As such, the questions put forth to the Court by Plaintiffs present political—not judicial—questions that are not addressable by the federal courts.
III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM. Although this Court must accept all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, this Court is
not required to accept any legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim will survive a motion to dismiss only if the factual allegations in the complaint are “enough to raise the right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Additionally, this Court need not accept as true any conclusory factual assertions. Id. Accordingly, to survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claims must be plausible on their face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This means that Plaintiffs must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have failed to do so here.
The conduct alleged by Plaintiffs points to a singular culprit: the Virus. Plaintiffs again and again point to this invisible menace while addressing nearly everything in their Complaint. For example, the first paragraph of the Complaint does not address voting rights or Louisiana’s alleged actions against Plaintiffs, but instead discusses the Virus. This is true for the vast majority of the Complaint. See generally Compl. At the first mention of Plaintiffs claims, they make it clear
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 22 of 24
that they brought this lawsuit against Defendants “for failing to protect the fundamental right to vote ahead of the 2020 elections . . . during Louisiana’s COVID-19 public health crisis[]” and for depriving “Louisiana voters of their right to vote in 2020 elections in light of COVID-19.” Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 12, 13 (emphasis added). In large part, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because the action they complain of was not brought about or caused by the State. See supra at Section II(A)(2)(a). Therefore, for reasons similar to why Plaintiffs lack standing, they have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
For each and every one of Plaintiffs’ claims they need to show a burden on the right to vote that resulted from some action of the State. They have failed to do so because each harm they allege would not exist but for the Virus, a non-state actor.18
IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO JOIN THE REQUIRED PARTIES. Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes that a plaintiff’s claim
may be dismissed for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). Rule 19(a)(1)(A) states that a party is required to be joined to the litigation if, “in that [party’s] absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Here, as discussed supra at Section II(A)(2)(b), Plaintiffs have failed to add the necessary parties in the respective parish boards, and as such, this Court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties. Therefore, due to the improbability of Plaintiffs being able to add all 64 parish boards prior to the upcoming July and August elections, the Court should dismiss this matter for failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19.
CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
18 Defendant will provide additional and more detailed analysis of the why the relief sough should not be granted in its anticipated Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 23 of 24

Dated: June 11, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

Jason B. Torchinsky* Jonathan Lienhard** Phillip M. Gordon* Dallin Holt** Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law jlienhard@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law dholt@hvjt.law *admitted pro hac vice **pro hac vice motions forthcoming

Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry

23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-1 06/11/20 Page 24 of 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 11th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jason Torchinsky Jason Torchinsky Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 35-2 06/11/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants, c/w Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,

Defendants,

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’

Complaint. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion it should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATE:________________

________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Judge Shelly D. Dick

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 1 of 29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENTS IN STATE’S AND PARISH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases1 hereby present their joint memorandum in
opposition to jurisdictional arguments raised by the State of Louisiana’s (“State”) and Parish
Registrars of Voters’ (collectively, “Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 29, 31, as they
pertain to the claims in Plaintiffs’ pending motions for preliminary injunction.2 Accordingly,

1 Plaintiffs in the Clark v. Edwards case are Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Martha Christian Green, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Clark Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs in the Power Coalition for Equity & Justice v. Edwards case are Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”), Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“Louisiana NAACP”), Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, and Jasmine Pogue (collectively “Power Coalition Plaintiffs”). 2 Plaintiffs will respond to the non-jurisdictional arguments raised in these motions in accord with the schedule set forth under the Local Rules.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 2 of 29
Plaintiffs respond to Defendants’ contentions that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the pending motions for preliminary injunction because: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing due to a lack of (a) injury in fact, (b) traceability, and/or (c) redressability; and (2) that the case is barred by the Political Question Doctrine.
Plaintiffs also briefly address Defendants’ arguments under Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would be too close to the July election for the Court to grant relief.
I. Plaintiffs Have Standing. A. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries Are Concrete, Not Speculative, and Strongly Supported by Record Evidence.
Defendants’ first jurisdictional argument is that Plaintiffs lack standing because their alleged injury is based on “their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are “too speculative for Article III purposes.” Id. at 409 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 565, n.2 (1992) (emphasis in original)).
First, this dispute can only be resolved by reviewing the evidence the parties have introduced. Because the standing and merits issues are completely intertwined, the Court can and should resolve both the dispute over the Article III injury in fact and the preliminary injunction motions at the same time following a single evidentiary hearing. While it is true that Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing their standing, see, e.g., Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.”), in this case, the dispute over Plaintiffs’ injury is inextricably enmeshed with the disputed merits of the claimed constitutional injuries. Chatham Condo. Associations v. Century Vill., Inc., 597 F.2d 1002, 1011 (5th Cir. 1979) (“When
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 3 of 29
jurisdictional issues are intertwined with the merits, the adjudication of the jurisdictional issue in accordance with the procedure under a 12(b)(1) motion fails to offer the procedural safeguards attendant upon proceedings under a 12(b)(6) motion or a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.”). Because the standing and merits are inextricably intertwined, Defendants’ bid to prematurely dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims should be rejected. In this Circuit, in antitrust cases, let alone cases involving fundamental rights such as the right to vote, it is a “well-established principle . . . that premature dismissals . . . for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are not favored ‘where the factual and jurisdictional issues are completely intermeshed . . . .’” Id. at 1011 (quoting McBeath v. Inter-American Citizens for Decency Committee, 374 F.2d 359, 363 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 896, 88 S. Ct. 216 (1967). Plaintiffs submit that the nature of this case, where the existence of an injury turns on record evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to preliminary injunction motions, cries out for application of the same principle and for resolution of both the Rule 12(b)(1) and preliminary injunction motions following a single evidentiary hearing.
Second, Plaintiffs’ claims are not speculative.3 The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic threatens the lives of at-risk voters like Plaintiffs, who are forced by Louisiana law to vote in specific ways that greatly increase the risk of their exposure to Covid-19, and compels the Organizational Plaintiffs to divert resources and time to combating these constitutional
3 The Power Coalition Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiffs have alleged an injury in fact because the challenged requirements, namely the Excuse and Witness requirements, force them to violate social distancing guidance or face disenfranchisement. Additionally, voters always have standing to challenge state laws that require them to take an affirmative act to vote (e.g., obtain a witness signature). See Veasey v. Perry, 29 F. Supp. 3d 896, 910 (S.D. Tex. 2014); Common Cause v. Billups, 554 F. 3d 1340, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2009). Defendants’ claim that it is too “speculative” to know whether Plaintiffs will contract Covid-19 due to the challenged requirements, misunderstands the nature of Plaintiffs’ injury. The injury in fact is that Plaintiffs must take steps to satisfy the State’s requirements. The greater risk of getting Covid-19 due to the Challenged Provisions is relevant to the merits since it shows the severity of the burdens during the pandemic. But Plaintiffs’ Article III injury is being forced to comply with the challenged requirements, which they have standing to challenge even outside of a pandemic.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 4 of 29
violations. Louisiana cannot preempt consideration of the merits by asserting that the Individual Plaintiffs are not certain to contract Covid-19 and die if they vote in person or interact with a witness to vote by mail. The notion that an Article III injury only arises once a voter contracts and suffers physical harm from Covid-19 is belied by the law and the facts.
The constitutional standards themselves for the undue burden and unconstitutional condition claims do not require Plaintiffs to establish an absolute certainty of contracting Covid19 resulting in severe complications or death. An Article III injury in fact is necessarily defined by and pegged to the specific claims in a case, as standing “often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (“Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff’s position a right to judicial relief.”). As for Plaintiffs’ undue burden claim, severe risk to physical health and life is a concrete and imminent injury to Plaintiffs. In Thomas v. Andino, the U.S. District Court for South Carolina recently issued a preliminary injunction against the state’s witness requirement for absentee voting, explaining:
Thomas/Middleton Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their constitutional challenge to the Witness Requirement under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test because the character and magnitude of the burdens imposed on Thomas/Middleton Plaintiffs in having to place their health at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic likely outweigh the extent to which the Witness Requirement advances the state’s interests of voter fraud and integrity. No. 3:20-CV-01552-JMC, --F.3d--, 2020 WL 2617329, at *21 (D.S.C. May 25, 2020) (emphasis added); see also id. at *19 (“[T]he Witness Requirement further burdens [Plaintiffs] from exercising their right to vote by absentee ballot by requiring them to expose themselves to other people in contravention of maintaining safe social distancing practices”); id. at *21 (noting “the burdens placed upon them by the Witness Requirement”); Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 5 of 29
Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2019) (noting that “Florida’s signature-match scheme subjects vote-by-mail and provisional electors to the risk of disenfranchisement”) (emphasis added).
As these cases indicate, under Anderson-Burdick, voting rights plaintiffs have standing and state a claim when their voting rights are impaired. This is true even if they have not yet suffered physical harm or disenfranchisement, as long as they face a severe risk of such harms. The constitutional inquiry here necessarily focuses on the threat to the plaintiffs and the reasonableness of requiring the Plaintiffs to comply with certain legal requirements that increase the burden or danger.
As to the unconstitutional condition claim, this Court does not need to find that the condition actually caused voters to contract Covid-19, because it is the coercion itself to give up one constitutional right—the right to bodily integrity—in order to exercise another—the right to vote—that constitutes the injury and source of the constitutional violation. See Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 504 (1999); Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty, 415 U.S. 250, 258 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339–40 (1972). The Supreme Court explained in Perry v. Sindermann why the government cannot condition the receipt of a government-created benefit upon the forfeiture of a constitutionally protected right:
[The government] may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which (it) could not command directly.’ Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible. Perry, 408 U.S. at 597 (internal citation omitted). If a government cannot coerce someone to sacrifice a constitutionally-protected right in order to receive a statutory benefit, then it certainly
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 6 of 29
cannot condition the exercise of a constitutionally protected right—here, voting—on the forfeiture of another constitutional right, the right to bodily integrity.
It is not Plaintiffs’ burden to establish that they will certainly contract the virus or certainly develop severe complications or die from Covid-19. Defendants appear to argue that any amount of uncertainty defeats Plaintiffs’ claims and permits Defendants to enforce election laws that have become unreasonably and severely burdensome during this pandemic.
However, the standard for review is of course preponderance of the evidence, meaning Plaintiffs must establish that it is more likely than not that they will suffer a severe risk of contracting Covid-19 in the July, August, November, and December election periods, absent injunctive relief from this Court. See Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 173 F. Supp. 3d 363, 384 n.9 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (“Proving a fact by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ means showing that the existence of a fact is more likely than not. Thus, to prove a fact or claim by a preponderance of the evidence, a party must prove that it is more likely than not that its version of the facts is true.” (citing Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983))). The record evidence strongly supports that conclusion.
The record evidence also demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ claims are not speculative, but rather based on an immediate impairment of the right to vote in the context of the objective danger created by the pandemic. Covid-19 is a highly communicable and highly lethal disease that has killed upwards of 110,000 Americans and counting,4 not a subjective fear based on a purely “conjectural or hypothetical” risk. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (quotation marks and citations omitted). They are also supported by substantial record evidence. In its brief, the State calculates
4 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Cases in the US, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 7 of 29
a risk of infection of less than one percent by dividing the total number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in Louisiana by total population. See Br. in Supp. of St.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 29-1, at 9. The State’s flawed calculation overlooks what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), Dr. Megan Murray, an expert in infectious disease dynamics and epidemiology, Murray Decl. ¶¶ 1-2, and even the Emergency Election Plan acknowledge: that certain groups are at increased risk of contracting severe illness or dying from Covid-19—groups to which Plaintiffs Clark, Chandler, Harding, Jones, and Pogue, individual Plaintiffs’ family members, and some of the organizational Plaintiffs’ members belong. The Louisiana Health Department’s (“LHD”) statistics substantiate this fact. For example, as of June 9, LHD confirmed 43,612 total cases and 2,844 Covid-19-related deaths in the state.5 Of those cases, 13,870—nearly a third—have been among people age 60 years or older.6 People in this age group account for 86 percent of Covid-19-related deaths.7 The statistics for other disproportionately-affected groups are equally grim. As of June 9, Black people accounted for over 53 percent of Covid-19-related deaths in Louisiana.8 Individuals with hypertension, like Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff Green’s mother, accounted for nearly 60 percent of Covid-19-related deaths, while over one in five deaths resulting from Covid-19 were among people with cardiac disease—a condition with which Plaintiff Clark also lives.9 See Declaration of Telisa Clark ¶ 7, ECF No. 22-8; Declaration of Martha Christian Green ¶ 9, ECF No. 22-10.
5 Louisiana Coronavirus COVID-19, La. Dept. of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated Jun. 9, 2020). 6 La. Dept. of Health, Cases/Deaths by Age Group, Louisiana Coronavirus COVID-19, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated Jun. 9, 2020). 7 Id. 88 La. Dept. of Health, Additional Data on COVID-19 Deaths in Louisiana, Louisiana Coronavirus COVID-19, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated Jun. 9, 2020). 9 Id.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 8 of 29
Accordingly, the Individual Plaintiffs or members of their households are at great risk of severe complications and death from Covid-19. According to Dr. Murray, voting in person at a polling place poses a risk to their health. Id. ¶ 11 (“To the extent that polling places are crowded, require people to wait in lines, involve interacting with polling staff or other voters at a close distance, move people through the process slowly, are poorly ventilated and/or involve people touching objects like pens, paper, or surfaces within the voting booth, they constitute a risk to voters.”). It is unreasonable for the state to require such individuals to vote in person, given there are safe and reasonable alternatives that do not undermine election integrity whatsoever. Similarly, there are safe and reasonable alternatives to the Witness Requirement that equally do not undermine election integrity, and it is therefore equally unreasonable to continue requiring voters, particularly at-risk voters, to secure a signed witness certification during a pandemic necessitating strict social distancing. Therefore, the Excuse and Witness Requirements impose an undue burden and an unconstitutional condition on the right to vote.
Defendants dispute the danger voters will face in the successive 2020 elections, but this dispute of course cannot be resolved without consideration of the epidemiological evidence Plaintiffs have introduced and Defendants have represented they plan to introduce. The Covid-19 pandemic is indeed expected to produce steady or increased transmission in the United States through the fall, as voters seek to cast their ballots on or before Election Day:
Epidemiologists have projected a number of future Covid-19 epidemic trajectories based on a range of different possible scenarios but all of these scenarios are similar in that they predict that it is highly likely that Covid-19 will continue to circulate at its current level or at an even higher level than currently in October and November of 2020. Murray Decl. ¶ 33. Federal government officials concur. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said a second wave of infections in the
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 9 of 29
United States is “inevitable,” and CDC Director Robert Redfield has said that wave may “be even more difficult than the one we just went through.”10 Due to the corresponding increase in social contacts and seasonal changes, “it is reasonable to expect that, like other betacoronaviruses, [Covid-19] may transmit somewhat more efficiently in winter than summer.” Murray Decl. ¶¶ 37-39. The projected persistent or increased risk of transmission in the fall and winter is, in part, due to seasonal factors, including “differences in the ways people congregate,” as “people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation and less personal space than they do in the summer.” Id. ¶ 39. Citing one study that “drew lessons from previous influenza pandemics to predict the future trajectory of Covid-19,” id. ¶ 40, Dr. Murray notes that the “most likely scenario” is that “the current first wave of Covid-19 will be followed by a larger wave in the fall or winter of 2020 and one or more smaller subsequent waves in 2021,” id. ¶ 41, and that “most epidemiologists expect that incidence will increase in the fall/winter months of 20202021.” Id. ¶ 42. “In the period prior to the widespread use of an effective vaccine, this spread will continue to lead to serious disease and death in at-risk groups.” Id. ¶ 44. Progress towards herd immunity and vaccine development and production are unlikely to advance sufficiently quickly to significantly alter the trajectory of the Covid-19 outbreak. Id. ¶¶ 50-53.
Furthermore, the relaxation of social distancing measures is already having a negative effect on the Covid-19 transmission and death rates. The rate of new Covid-19 cases has steadily increased since May 15, 2020, when Phase One of the State’s reopening commenced.11 On May 14, Louisiana had confirmed a cumulative total of 33,555 cases. By June 5, the day that Phase
10 Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House, Mar. 25, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trumpvice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/; Zack Budryk, CDC director warns second wave of coronavirus might be ‘more difficult,’ The Hill, Apr. 21, 2020, https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/493973cdc-director-warns-second-wave-of-coronavirus-might-be-more-difficult. 11 Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020, § 6, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf.
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 10 of 29
Two of reopening took effect,12 that number had grown by 8,434 cases,13 or an average of 383 new cases per day. By contrast, on April 23, Defendant Governor Edwards reported a total of 25,739 confirmed cases,14 meaning that in the same period of time prior to Phase One, the state witnessed an increase of 7,816 confirmed cases, for an average increase of 355 new cases per day. In the days since Phase Two went into effect, total cumulative cases increased from 41,98915 to 44,472,16 for an average of 414 new cases per day. These data reflect a correlation between relaxed social distancing measures and an increase in confirmed infections, consistent with Dr. Murray’s predictions. Id. ¶ 10.
Therefore, the parties dispute the magnitude and certainty of these future risks and harms. But these arguments cannot be resolved without consideration of the record evidence. Intervenor-Defendant Louisiana prefers a “wait-and-see” approach, appearing to argue that this Court is prohibited from moving to safeguard voters’ rights during this ongoing pandemic until it sees what the Covid-19 situation in Louisiana is in mid-to-late October.
This argument of course is in direct contradiction to Louisiana’s Purcell arguments, see infra at Section III; apparently all voting rights claims during the Covid-19 pandemic are either too early or too late. By contrast, Plaintiffs argue that their epidemiological evidence establishes that there is already sufficient record evidence to conclude that it is far more likely than not that voters will face a severe risk of contracting Covid-19 and suffering severe consequences, if
12 Proclamation No. 74 JBE 2020, § 6, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/74-JBE-2020-State-ofEmergency-COVID-19-Resilient-Louisiana-Phase-2.pdf. 13 Trends in Cumulative Number of COVID-19 Cases in Louisiana Reported to CDC, Ctr. for Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/ (last visited June 9, 2020). 14 Thursday, April 23, 2020: Governor’s Press Conference, La. Dept. of Health 11 (Apr. 23, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/3919. 15 Trends in Cumulative Number of COVID-19 Cases in Louisiana Reported to CDC, supra note 13. 16 Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, La. Dept. of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated June 11, 2020).
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 11 of 29
forced to vote in person or to engage a witness in person. Ultimately this dispute as to the Article III injury is coterminous with the merits of the constitutional claims and can only be resolved following an evidentiary hearing on all pending Rule 12(b)(1) and preliminary injunction motions.
B. Plaintiffs’ Injuries Are Traceable to Defendants’ Actions. Louisiana next argues that the pandemic is to blame for any threat to Plaintiffs’ health and lives, not state government action. DE 29-1 at 13 (“The Virus is not state action.”). This argument fundamentally misunderstands Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana laws, as enforced by Defendants, interact with the Covid-19 pandemic to threaten and infringe Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their rights to vote and to be free of unconstitutional conditions on their right to vote that threaten their right to bodily integrity. Leaving aside whether or not Defendants are responsible for any part of the Covid-19 pandemic’s devastating effects on public health in Louisiana, they nevertheless cannot evade constitutional liability—for the enforcement of their election laws—simply because they have not caused the pandemic. If this Court granted Plaintiffs their requested relief, this would by no means be the first time that a federal court has found an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the context of a natural disaster. When Hurricane Matthew struck Florida just weeks before the November 2016 general election, a federal court ordered an extension of the voter registration deadline by a week “to afford a full opportunity to register for those who may have been affected by Hurricane Matthew’s destruction.” Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott, No. 4:16-CV-626-MW/CAS, 2016 WL 6080225, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016). The first claim in Plaintiffs’ Complaint was an Anderson-Burdick claim. See Ex. 1, Complaint, Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott, No. 4:16-CV-626-MW/CAS, at 13– 16 (N.D. Fla. filed Oct. 9, 2016)
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 12 of 29
Similarly, in Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, Inc. v. Deal, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1344–45 (S.D. Ga. 2016), the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ failure to extend the state’s voter registration deadline in the wake of hurricane Matthew, which resulted in the closure of boards of elections and post offices and the suspension of mail, placed an unconstitutional burden on their fundamental right to vote under the Anderson/Burdick framework. See Ex. 2, Complaint, Ga. Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda v. Deal, Case 4:16-cv00269-WTM-GRS, at 13–14 (S.D Ga. filed Oct. 12, 2016). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for relief pursuant to their Anderson-Burdick claim and extended the voter registration deadline for a week. Id. at 1345–46. While the Court acknowledged that the extension “would present some administrative difficulty,” it nevertheless ultimately concluded that
[T]hose administrative hurdles pale in comparison to the physical, emotional, and financial strain Chatham County residents faced in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew. Extending a small degree of common courtesy by allowing impacted individuals a few extra days to register to vote seems like a rather small consolation on behalf of their government. Id. The same reasoning holds true here where a lethal pandemic has forced voters in Louisiana to take unprecedented measures, including widespread social distancing, to avoid all unnecessary interactions or gatherings with people not in their households. Whether it is an evacuation or a quarantine is immaterial; federal courts have found an undue burden on the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments where, as here, a natural disaster not of the state’s making interacts with a preexisting state law or policy to create a severe burden on the right to vote. Louisiana carefully omits citation to these precedents. Defendants and Louisiana cannot deflect responsibility to Covid-19 itself. These government officials possess emergency powers and have already implemented some measures to modify the state’s election laws, in clear acknowledgment of the responsibility they have for
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 13 of 29
the safety of voters as they seek to exercise their right to vote. Louisiana law anticipates such disasters and tasks state election officials with protecting voters’ safety in the aftermath, indicating state law does not stand in the way of greater flexibility to preserve voters’ rights here. The statute authorizing Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin to develop the Emergency Election Plan expressly grants the Secretary this power “to ensure maximum citizen participation in the electoral process and provide a safe and orderly procedure for persons seeking to qualify or exercise their right to vote, to minimize to whatever degree possible a person’s exposure to danger during declared states of emergency, and to protect the integrity of the electoral process . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.1(A); id. § 18:401.3(A). It further requires that “[i]f a polling place is destroyed, inaccessible, or unsafe, efforts should be made . . . to permit the orderly establishment of a new polling place.” Id. § 18:401.1(D)(1). Louisiana’s state action argument directly contradicts the text and purpose of these laws.
Reasonable modifications and relaxations of voting laws in the face of natural disasters are what typically keep these issues out of the courts. For instance, in 2012, when Hurricane Sandy struck just before the presidential election, New York’s Governor issued executive orders permitting voters to cast provisional ballots without regard to restrictions in state law.17 Here, by contrast, Louisiana is just one of four states that have refused to relax their excuse requirements so that all voters can vote absentee during this pandemic, and in one of these, Tennessee, a state court just enjoined that rule. Lay v. Goins, Memorandum and Order (Chancery Court for State of Tennessee, 20th Dist., Davidson Cty., Part II June 4, 2020), https://www.aclu.org/legaldocument/order-lay-v-goins.
17 See State of New York Executive Chamber, Executive Order No. 62, Temporary Suspension of Provisions Relating to the Election Law (Nov. 5, 2012), http://www.governor.ny.gov/executiveorder/62.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 14 of 29
Many other states have already modified their substantive voting rules in response to Covid-19, not just the timing of their elections. Legislatures in several states have enacted legislation in response to Covid-19 to make it easier to vote during the pandemic, three months or less before their next scheduled elections. For example, on March 23, 2020, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted legislation permitting those municipalities with elections scheduled between the date of enactment and May 30 to postpone their elections,18 and providing that “any eligible voter may vote early by mail for any annual or special municipal or state election held on or before June 30, 2020.”19 In Missouri, on June 4, the Governor signed legislation into law that permits a voter to vote by mail in any 2020 election if the voter “has contracted or is in an at-risk category for contracting or transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.277.1.(7) (2020). The state’s next election is scheduled for August 4.20 Legislation enacted by Ohio on March 27 postponed that state’s primary to April 28 and, for the first time, required an election to be conducted primarily by mail.21 On April 22, Utah also eliminated in-person voting for its regular primary election, which is scheduled to take place on June 30.22 South Carolina’s Governor signed into law legislation that allows voters whose residence or polling place is subject to a state of emergency to vote by mail if there are fewer than 46 days left before the next election.23
Executive officials have also altered the manner of their states’ elections due to Covid-19 in a short period of time. Pursuant to an executive order issued by the Governor of Kentucky, the
18 2020 Mass. Legis. Serv. Ch. 45, § 1(a). 19 Id. § 5(a). 20 2020 Missouri Election Calendar, Mo. Sec’y of State, https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/calendar/2020cal (last visited June 9, 2020). 21 See 2020 Ohio Laws File 30, Am. Sub. H.B. 197, § 32(C)(3). 22 See 2020 Utah Laws 3rd Sp. Sess. H.B. 3006. 23 2020 South Carolina Laws Act 133, § 2.A.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 15 of 29
Kentucky State Board of Elections issued 31 K.A.R. 4:190E on May 1, temporarily modifying the state’s absentee voting laws for the June 23 primary election so that any voter may vote by mail if the voter has a “reasonable fear of infection or transmission during a state of public health emergency declared by the Governor.”24 Maryland’s Governor issued an executive order on March 17, requiring election officials to “utilize, as an alternative voting system, voting by mail” in the April 28 special election for the state’s Seventh Congressional District.25 New Jersey, which has more than double the number of registered voters as Louisiana,26 also required that all elections held on May 12 to be conducted “solely via vote-by-mail ballots, which will automatically be sent to all registered voters without the need for an application to receive a vote-by-mail ballot.”27 And the Secretary of State for Alabama, a state that also employs excuse requirements, issued an emergency rule relaxing the state’s excuse requirement so that “any qualified voter who determines it is impossible or unreasonable to vote at their voting place . . . due to the declared states of emergency” may vote by absentee ballot in the Primary Runoff Election on July 14, 2020.28
C. Plaintiffs’ Injuries are Redressable by Defendants.29 The State’s attempt to divert responsibility from the properly named Defendants to the local Parish Boards of Election Supervisors (“Parish Boards”) is a red herring that must be rejected. Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that their injuries are “likely to be redressed
24 31 K.A.R. 4:190E, § 2. 25 Renewal of Declaration of State of Emergency and Existence of Catastrophic Health Emergency – COVID-19, § II, Off. of Gov. Larry Hogan (Mar. 17, 2020), https://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Renewalof-State-of-Emergency.pdf. 26Statewide Voter Registration Summary, N.J. Dept. of Elections (Jun. 1, 2020), https://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/assets/pdf/svrs-reports/2020/2020-06-voter-registration-by-county.pdf. 27 Exec. Order. No. 105, § 9 (Mar. 19, 2020), https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/EO-105.pdf. 28 820-2-3-.06-.01ER(1) (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/SOS%20Emergency%20Rule%20820-2-3-.06-.01ER.pdf. 29 The arguments set forth here are equally applicable to Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the Defendants Registrars of Voters’ motion to dismiss for failure to join the necessary parties under FRCP 19. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7).
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 16 of 29
by a favorable judicial opinion”30 against the named Defendants. Such relief is available against all named Defendants. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, the Parish Boards are not necessary parties who must be added to this case for Plaintiffs in order to obtain relief that redresses their injuries.
1. Defendants, Not the Parish Boards, Set the Criteria for Acceptable Absentee Ballots. a) Non-Emergency Authority
As an initial matter, state law, not the Parish Boards, establishes the Excuse Requirements,31 the Witness Requirements,32 and the rules regarding notice to voters if their ballots are rejected.33 With respect to the Excuse Requirement, the categories that establish who is entitled to vote absentee are initially set by statute and can be modified by the named Defendants without any involvement by the Parish Boards.
There is no doubt that, under the Louisiana Constitution, the Attorney General “shall have authority . . . to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any civil action or proceeding” on behalf of the State as a whole. La. Const. art. IV, § 8; see also R.S. 49:257(C) (“[N]otwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the attorney general, at his discretion, shall represent or supervise the representation of the interests of the state in any action or proceeding in which the constitutionality of a state statute or of a resolution of the legislature is challenged or assailed.”).
Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin is the “the chief election officer of the state.” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:421. As set forth in the Registrars’ Motion to Dismiss, a voter can request an
30 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). 31 La Rev. Stat. § 18:1307. 32 Id.; La Rev. Stat. § 18:1306. 33 La. Rev. Stat. §§ 18:1306; 18:1313.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 17 of 29
absentee by mail ballot from the Registrar of Voters on a standard absentee by mail ballot application form prepared by the Secretary of State. The ballot application form may be obtained from the Registrar or online on the Louisiana Secretary of State’s website. Requests for absentee by mail ballots may be submitted by mail, fax, hand-delivery, or electronic means. The application form may also be completed on the Secretary of State’s website and conveyed electronically to the appropriate Registrar.34
Three application forms are available for the absentee ballot request—General Application Form, Disability Application Form, and Military Application Form.35 These forms are generally used for all Louisiana elections. See generally La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1308. The absentee-by-mail ballot application forms prepared by the Secretary of State include checkboxes beside each reason for requesting an absentee ballot. Once established, it is the Registrars’ responsibility to review the check boxes on an application form for an absentee by mail ballot and send ballots to those who check a box for one of the reasons that entitle the voter to an absentee ballot.
b) Emergency Authority The State Defendants—the Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General—have authority to modify election law and procedures during an emergency. Parish officials are required to act accordingly and cannot deviate from state election laws or statewide emergency plans promulgated by Defendants. In extraordinary circumstances such as the one Louisiana now faces, it becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to prepare an “emergency plan for the holding of elections impaired as a result of such an emergency or disaster.” La. Rev. Stat. §
34 See https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteByMail/Pages/default.aspx. 35 https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteByMail/Pages/default.aspx.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 18 of 29
18:401.3. Once the Governor declares a state of emergency, it is the duty of the Secretary of State, if he finds that the emergency “impairs an election that may otherwise be held except for technical, mechanical, or logistical problems,” to certify such facts. Id. Once the Governor and relevant House and Senate committees agree, the Secretary of State is required to develop an emergency plan to address the issues preventing a normal electoral process. Id. Notably, once approved by the Legislature and the Governor, it is the responsibility of “all officials of the state and of any political subdivision thereof” to “cooperate with and provide assistance to the secretary of state as necessary to implement the plan.” Id.
The statutory framework makes it abundantly clear that throughout the entire process that the Secretary of State is responsible for determining when an emergency plan is necessary, developing that plan, and ultimately implementing and executing that plan. The statute also makes clear that other state entities are required to aid in the passage and implementation of any emergency plan. And, as noted, this framework identifies the Governor’s authority and responsibilities; the Governor is required to both declare a statewide emergency and approve the emergency election plan proposed by the Secretary of State and passed into law by the Legislature. Id.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for relief “[p]reliminarily and permanently enjoin[ing] Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement for all eligible voters during all elections taking place in Louisiana in 2020,” would appropriately redress Plaintiffs’ injuries related to the Excuse Requirement by either: (1) directing the Secretary of State to remove all checkboxes from the application form and requiring Registrars, who act at the direction of the Secretary of State see La. Rev. Stat. § 18:58,, to issue absentee ballots to any voter who requests one, or (2)
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 19 of 29
directing the Secretary of State to include a catch-all checkbox on the absentee ballot application form.
Similarly, as admitted by the Defendant Registrars of Voters, Registrars’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 31-1, at 10, the Application Witness Requirement is set by statute. If the Application Witness Requirement is declared unenforceable and the Secretary of State is ordered to issue absentee ballots to voters who certify their application with a mark but do not include a witness signature, the Registrars would be required to send absentee ballots to any voters thus situated.
2. The Parish Boards Have No Role in Setting Aside the Directives of the Defendants When Implementing the Rules Regarding Absentee Voting.
The Parish Boards have a limited role in implementing the challenged provisions. They have no authority to set aside the rules governing absentee voting established by the State Defendants. The State’s statement that Parish Boards are responsible for “determining who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot,” Mot. at 17, is wrong. As previously explained, that authority is vested in the state Legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Governor see, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303.
The Parish Boards have narrow duties related to implementing the policies set by Defendants.
Regarding the absentee ballot applications, the only power Parish Boards have in determining whether an absentee ballot should be issued entails adjudication of whether the applicant has applied for an absentee ballot under the disability excuse, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:303(I), based on false or fraudulent information. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:307(H). This case, however, does not challenge that authority. They are thus irrelevant to redressing Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to state laws and policies or the absence thereof.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 20 of 29
With respect to absentee ballots, the Parish Boards are responsible for “the counting and tabulation of all absentee by mail and early voting ballots in the parish.” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. But they have no discretion in enforcing the challenged provisions.36 And during a state of emergency, the determination of who is eligible for an absentee ballot falls to the Secretary of State as part of his proposals to resolve the problems presented by the underlying emergency. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3(B).
Like the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirement is neither established nor enforced by Parish Boards. Parish Boards adjudicate challenges to absentee ballots based on the grounds specified in statute, including a challenge based on the fact that the “applicant is not qualified to vote in the election.” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:565(A)(1); id. § 18:1315. This can include a challenge based on whether a witness signature is present or not. See La. Rev. Stat. §§ 18:565(A)(1), 18:1306, 18:1315.
Finally, it bears emphasis that the Parish Boards have no role in determining whether, when, and how Louisiana’s election code may be modified.37 Indeed, the State Defendants in no way consulted or involved the Parish Boards in the creation or approval of the Emergency Plan38, which demonstrates yet again that Parish Boards have no role related to the modification Louisiana’s election code.
3. Jacobson Is Inapposite and Distinguishable. The State’s argument that Plaintiffs’ failure to join the Parish Boards means that they lack standing relies heavily on a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
36 The fact that Plaintiffs’ requested relief included a request that the Court order Defendants to “issue guidance” to Parish Boards does not mean the Court cannot redress Plaintiffs’ injury without the addition of Parish Boards. As established above, to the extent Plaintiffs’ request relief requires action from third-parties, it is from the Registrars. Registrars Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 31-1, at 4, 17. 37 Id. at. 18-19. 38 Id. at 8.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 21 of 29
Circuit. In Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020), the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing in a suit challenging a ballot-ordering statute. The appeal occurred following a bench trial. Id. at 1198. The statute at issue in Jacobson required the names of candidates from the political party that won Florida’s most recent gubernatorial election to appear first on the general election ballot, with candidates from the second-place party in the most recent gubernatorial election appearing second. Florida law specifically vested the state’s 67 county supervisors with the discretionary authority to determine ballot ordering.
The Eleventh Circuit determined that individual county supervisors were the proper defendants, not the Florida Secretary of State. Id. at 1209-10. The court’s reasoning rested on two primary grounds: (1) Florida’s county supervisors of elections were independent elected officials not accountable to the Secretary of State, and (2) a directive from the Secretary of State instructing the supervisors to alter the ballot ordering would not have redressed the plaintiffs’ injuries because the supervisors were still bound to follow the letter of the statute. Id. at 1207-08.
Jacobson is distinguishable from this case. As described in Section I.C. above, the Parish Boards play no role in the establishment or modification of Louisiana’s election laws, including the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition, which Plaintiffs are challenging as insufficient. Even as modified by the emergency plan, these laws were created and passed with the sole involvement of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Legislature.
Further, unlike the Florida county supervisors in Jacobson, who had been given the power to design ballots and set the order of candidates the authority to set rules regarding absentee ballot rests with the State Defendants.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 22 of 29
Plaintiffs’ case is more closely analogous to Self Advocacy Sols. N.D. v. Jaeger, No. 3:20-CV-00071, 2020 WL 2951012, at *1 (D.N.D. June 3, 2020). In that case, plaintiffs challenged two North Dakota statutes that vest election officials with authority to reject mail-in ballots based on signature discrepancies. The court in Self Advocacy found that, unlike the Florida’s county supervisors in Jacobson, North Dakota’s county auditors, who were responsible for enforcing the signature requirements, lack independence given the fact that they are expressly “responsible to” the Secretary when carrying out election-related duties. Self Advocacy Sols. N.D. v. Jaeger, No. 3:20-CV-00071, 2020 WL 2951012, at *7 (D.N.D. June 3, 2020). Based on this assessment, the court in Self Advocacy found that the inclusion of the Secretary of State in the lawsuit satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing, as construed by Jacobson. Suing the county auditors who must adhere to the directives of the Secretary of State, the state’s chief election law enforcement official, was unnecessary.
4. To the Degree the Parish Boards Implement the Rules and Criteria for Absentee Voting, They Act at the Direction of Defendants Within the Ambit of FRCP 65.
“An injunction binds not only the parties subject thereto, but also non-parties who act with the enjoined party.” Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056, 106 S.Ct. 794 (1986)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C) (an injunction binds both parties to a suit and “other persons who are in active concert or participation” with the parties). The relationship between the party and the nonparty must be “that of associate or confederate.” Chase Nat’l Bank v. City of Norwalk, Ohio, 291 U.S. 431, 436–37 (1934); see also Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB, 226 F.3d 35, 43 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[A]ctive concert” requires a “close alliance with the enjoined defendant”). This ensures that “[a] nonparty who has acted independently of the enjoined defendant will not be bound by the injunction[.]” Id.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 23 of 29
In the context of absentee voting, Parish Boards act in concert with Louisiana and Secretary of State rather than acting on their own. The Secretary of State prepares all absentee mail in ballots. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(A)–(B). The Department of State is responsible for providing assistance to the individual registrars. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:18(C). Further, during declared or even potential emergencies, the clerk of the court for each parish—a member of the parish board—“may bring to attention of the secretary of state any difficulties occurring in his parish” that might hinder an election and determines “in conjunction with the secretary of state” if a polling place must be relocated in such situations. See La. Rev. Stat. §§ 18:401.1(B); 18:401.2(A)–(B) (emphasis added).
5. Although the Court Can Accord Complete Relief Among the Existing Parties, if Required, All Parish Boards Could Easily Be Added as Defendants If the Court Determines This Is Necessary.
As shown above, this Court can redress Plaintiffs’ injuries by issuing orders directing the named Defendants to act. The Parish Boards are, therefore, not necessary parties to the cases before the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Thus, Louisiana’s motion to dismiss the case for “failure to join a party under Rule 19” should be rejected. That said, if the Court believes the Parish Boards are necessary parties and orders it, Plaintiffs are prepared to amend the Complaints to name all 64 Parish Boards as defendants. See, e.g., Exhibit 3. Given that the Attorney General is the statutorily appointed legal representative for the Parish Boards, La. Rev. Stat. § 18:423(G), service can easily be effectuated for all 64 Parish Boards. II. Defendants’ Political Question Defense Fails.
Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims do not implicate political questions and are fully within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit already considered this issue and squarely rejected the State of Louisiana’s parallel political question arguments in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, No. 20-50407, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 (5th Cir. June 4, 2020). Specifically, as amicus
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 24 of 29
curiae in support of Texas state officials in a matter regarding absentee mail-in voting amid the Covid-19 pandemic, Louisiana similarly argued that the plaintiffs’ claims constituted nonjusticiable political questions, contending in part that no manageable standard existed by which to assess the relevant state action and that any decision by the court was impossible without first making a non-judicial policy determination. Brief for the States of Louisiana and Mississippi in Support of the State of Texas, Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564, at *9-12. The Fifth Circuit rejected these political question contentions, stating that they were “unlikely to gain traction, and emphasizing that “[t]he standards for resolving such claims are familiar and manageable, and federal courts routinely entertain suits to vindicate voting rights.” Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564, at *12-13.
The State attempts to draw comparisons to Coalition for Good Governance v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-1677-TCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996 (N.D. Ga. May 14, 2020), to support its unsuccessful political question arguments. The facts here are distinguishable from Coalition for Good Governance. In that case, the plaintiffs sought an array of remedies distinct in both substance and scope, including the postponement of an election, an order requiring polling places to use paper ballots, and changes in the number of voting stations, among a number of other requests for relief. Coalition for Good Governance, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86996, at *2-4. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ claims presented a non-justiciable political question insofar as it found that “[u]ltimately, ordering Defendants to adopt Plaintiffs’ laundry list . . . would require the Court to micromanage the State’s election process,” and that the “relief Plaintiffs seek bears little resemblance to the type of relief plaintiffs typically seek in election cases aimed to redress state wrongs.” Id. at *9. In Texas Democratic Party, the Fifth Circuit rejected the State’s reliance on the Coalition for Good Governance case, stating that it
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 25 of 29
was “different in kind [and] directed at the specific procedures Georgia planned to use to conduct the election, such as whether to use electronic voting machines or paper ballots.” That is, “the suit challenged the wisdom of Georgia’s policy choices,” as opposed to the straightforward question of whether the challenged election provisions ran “afoul of the Constitution.”39 Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564, at *12. Plaintiffs present straightforward constitutional claims here.
The State’s assertion that the court’s political question determination in Texas Democratic Party does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims here because this case is similar to the suit in Coalition for Good Governance is plainly incorrect. Here, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Louisiana state laws and are not seeking a policy determination—it is wellestablished that such claims do not present non-justiciable political questions. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962) (“[I]t is the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government, and not the federal judiciary’s relationship to the States, which gives rise to the ‘political question.’”). To maintain otherwise, as the State has repeatedly attempted to do, would improperly and unjustly insulate an array of state constitutional violations from judicial review.
Adjudicating Plaintiffs’ claims requires no policy determination by the Court and can be accomplished via judicially manageable standards that have been applied by several other federal courts in comparable contexts. See, e.g., Thomas v. Andino, No. 3:20-CV-01552-JMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90812 (D.S.C. May 25, 2020) (enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness
39 The Fifth Circuit similarly rejected the State’s reliance on Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (concerning partisan gerrymandering) and Jacobson v. Florida Secretary of State, 957 F.3d 1193, 1212–23 (11th Cir. 2020) (W. Pryor, J., concurring) (concerning allocation of partisan candidates on the state’s paper ballots)— both of which the State also relies on here for its political question arguments—concluding the cases were “of no help” to defendants’ and amici Louisiana’s political question arguments. Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564, at *12.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 26 of 29
requirement under South Carolina law); League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. Of Elec., No. 6:20-cv-0024, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79439, at *45 (W.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (approving consent decree enjoining absentee ballot witness requirement under Virginia law). III. The Purcell Doctrine Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Claims or Requested Relief.
The State’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), is unpersuasive. The considerations outlined in Purcell are weighed along with the equitable factors for preliminary or permanent injunctive relief; they are irrelevant to this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.40 Such argument is not properly raised in a motion to dismiss, and the Court need not address the issue.
Purcell does not create a per se rule mandating that courts reject any request for injunctive relief as to voting rules brought within a certain timeframe before an election. Rather, it instructs courts to consider alleged, potential inconveniences and burdens of ordering rule changes shortly before an election. 549 U.S. at 4-5. In a short per curiam order, the Supreme Court vacated an injunction barring the enforcement of Arizona’s newly implemented voter identification and proof of citizenship laws. Id. at 4-6. The Court appeared to rely on the fact that Election Day was imminent and its belief that court orders affecting elections can cause voter confusion and turnout decline: “Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 4-5; see id. at 5 (referencing “the necessity for clear guidance” for election administrators).
This Court will review the equitable factors for issuance of a preliminary injunction announced in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and election
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 27 of 29 related considerations referenced in Purcell must be analyzed under Winter’s balancing of equities and public interest factors. See generally Richard L. Hasen, Reining in the Purcell Principle, 43 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 427, 429 (2016) (“[T]he Purcell principle should properly be understood not as a stand-alone rule but instead as relevant to one of the factors (the public interest) the Court usually considers.”). As dictated by Purcell, “considerations specific to election cases” must be weighed in conjunction with—not to the exclusion of—the other equitable factors for injunctive relief: “[T]he Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction, considerations specific to election cases and its own institutional procedures.” 549 U.S. at 4 (emphasis added). Therefore Purcell does not speak to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See id.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have standing, this case does not present a nonjusticiable political question, and Purcell does not affect this Court’s jurisdiction.
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 28 of 29

DATED this 10th day of June, 2020.
/s/ Ronald L. Wilson Ronald L. Wilson, (LSBN 13575) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel.: (504) 525-4361 cabral2@aol.com
/s/ John Z. Morris John Z. Morris NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel.: (212) 965-2200 zmorris@naacpldf.org /s/ Catherine Meza Catherine Meza NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-1300 cmeza@naacpldf.org
/s/ Robert D. Fram Robert D. Fram* Morgan Lewis* Joshua González* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com MELewis@cov.com jgonzalez@cov.com John Fraser** Covington & Burling LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Tel: (212) 841-1000 JFraser@cov.com
Attorneys for Power Coalition Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice **Pro hac vice motion forthcoming
Attorneys for Clark Plaintiffs

28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36 06/11/20 Page 29 of 29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 11, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing motion with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to counsel of record who are registered participants of the Court’s CM/ECF system. I further certify that I sent the foregoing document by electronic mail to counsel of record who are not CM/ECF participants.
/s/ Caren E. Short Counsel for Clark Plaintiffs
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-1 06/11/20 Page 1 of 25
EXHIBIT 1

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 12 ooff 2245
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, and KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Florida,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-626

COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff, the FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, by and through the undersigned attorneys, files this COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF against Defendant RICHARD SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, and Defendant KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, (collectively, “Defendants”), and alleges upon information and belief as follows:

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 23 ooff 2245
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). 2. Under state law, the voter registration deadline for Florida voters is Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Eligible United States citizens who fail to register by October 11 will be unable to register thereafter in time to cast a ballot in the upcoming 2016 general election scheduled to occur on November 8, 2016. 3. Florida voters, however, face a daunting and, indeed, lifethreatening obstacle to registering to vote in the form of Hurricane Matthew, a massive and dangerous weather event that has threatened Florida with substantial damage and loss of life. 4. On Thursday, October 6, Defendant Scott unambiguously ordered Florida citizens to “evacuate, evacuate, evacuate” the areas in Hurricane Matthew’s path. “There are no excuses. You need to leave,” he told Floridians. “This storm will kill you. Time is running out.” Arek Sarkissian & Doug Stanglin, Hurricane Matthew: Florida Governor Says ‘Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate,’ USA Today (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation/2016/10/06/hurricane-matthew-batters-bahamas-set-strengthen-florida-
2

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 34 ooff 2245
approach/91652096/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); Camila Domonoske, Millions of Coastal Residents Warned to Flee Inland as Hurricane Nears Florida, NPR (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/06/496836153/ millions-of-coastal-residents-warned-to-flee-inland-as-hurricane-nears-florida (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
5. That very same day, Defendant Scott refused to extend the voter registration deadline for the very citizens heeding his orders to evacuate— forcing voters to choose between their safety and the safety of their families, on one hand, and their fundamental right to vote, on the other hand.
6. Many elected officials, citizens, and organizations, including Plaintiff, have called upon Defendant Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline so that Florida voters need not choose between safety and the fundamental right to vote. Defendant Scott has thus far refused to extend the deadline.
7. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit because Defendants have refused to take any action to protect the voting rights of Florida citizens who, due to Hurricane Matthew, cannot register to vote by the upcoming October 11 registration deadline.
3

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 45 ooff 2245
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution. 9. This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, because Plaintiff brings this action to redress the deprivation, under color of State law, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and federal law, and because Plaintiff brings this action to secure equitable relief under federal law providing for the protection of voting rights. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in their official capacity only. 11. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district. 12. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
4

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 56 ooff 2245
PARTIES 13. Plaintiff FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY (“FDP”) is a political party recognized by Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 103.091. FDP is the statewide organization representing Democratic candidates and voters throughout the State of Florida within the meaning of Florida Statute § 103.121 and all other applicable provisions of the election laws. FDP’s purpose is to elect Democratic Party candidates to public office throughout Florida. To accomplish its purpose, FDP engages in vitally important activities, including supporting Democratic Party candidates in national, state, and local elections through fundraising and organizing efforts; protecting the legal rights of voters; and ensuring that all voters have a meaningful ability to cast ballots in Florida. FDP has millions of members and constituents across Florida and in storm-affected areas, including millions of Floridians who are registered with the Florida Department of State’s Division of Elections as Democrats, and many other Floridians who regularly support and vote for candidates affiliated with the Democratic Party. 14. Defendants’ refusal to extend the voter registration deadline in the face of a catastrophic emergency that has made it impossible for many Floridians to register by the October 11 deadline directly harms FDP, its members, and constituents. It is likely that citizens who would otherwise register as Democrats prior to the registration deadline—or who have already
5

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 67 ooff 2245
registered as Democrats with a third-party voter registration agency that is being prevented, by Hurricane Matthew, from turning in that voter’s registration paperwork—will not be able to do so, thereby decreasing the overall likelihood that FDP will be successful in its efforts to help elect Democratic candidates to public office.
15. Defendant RICHARD SCOTT is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida. Defendant Scott is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. As Governor of Florida, Defendant Scott is the state’s chief executive officer and is responsible for the administration of all state laws, including those pertaining to voter registration.
16. Defendant KEN DETZNER is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Florida. Defendant Detzner is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and acts under color of state law. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 97.012, the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the State and is responsible for the administration of state laws affecting voting, including those pertaining to voter registration. As Secretary of State, Defendant Detzner’s duties consist, among other things, of “[o]btain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity in the interpretation and implementation of the election laws.” Id. at § 97.012(1).
6

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 78 ooff 2245
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW 17. Unlike many other states, Florida does not permit residents to register to vote online. See Fla. Stat. § 97.053. Nor does it offer same-day registration on election day. Rather, Floridians must complete a paper Florida Voter Registration Application and deliver it, either in person or by mail, to the office of the County Supervisor of Elections, the Florida Division of Elections, or a third-party voter registration agency. Id. 18. Tuesday, October 11 is the voter registration deadline for the upcoming general election on November 8, 2016. See Fla. Stat. §§ 97.053, 97.055, 97.0555. See also Fla. Dep’t of St., Div. of Elections, 2016 Florida Voter Registration and Voting Guide, available at http://dos.myflorida.com/ media/693760/voter-registration-guide.pdf. 19. October 9 is the deadline for county election officials to submit early voting plans, including identification of all early voting sites and the hours of operation for such sites. See Fla. Stat. § 101.657(1)(b). 20. After claiming nearly 900 lives in Haiti and the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew hit Florida on the afternoon of Thursday, October 6, 2016, just five days before the October 11 voter registration deadline. The largest storm to hit the eastern seaboard in a decade, Hurricane Matthew tore through Florida with 130-mile-per-hour winds, destroying roads and bridges and killing
7

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 89 ooff 2245
at least four people. President Barack Obama declared a state of emergency in more than two dozen Florida counties. Defendant Scott deployed 3,500 National Guard troops and insisted that 1.5 million Florida residents evacuate their homes and relocate inland. By Friday evening, more than 1 million residents had lost power, more than 500,000 residents were still in evacuation zones, and thousands of residents were in shelters. See Arek Sarkissian & Doug Stanglin, Hurricane Matthew: Florida Governor Says ‘Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate,’ USA Today (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation/2016/10/06/hurricane-matthew-batters-bahamas-set-strengthen-floridaapproach/91652096/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); J.J. Gallagher, Morgan Winsor, Emily Shapiro, & Julia Jacobo, Hurricane Matthew Batters Florida Coast; 4 Dead, Over 1 Million Lose Power, ABC News (Oct. 8, 2016), http://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-matthew-batters-florida-coast-deadmillion-lose/story?id=42608853 (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
21. On Thursday, October 6, the campaign manager of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and several Florida lawmakers, including Senator Bill Nelsen and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, asked Defendant Scott to extend the voter registration deadline. See Eli Yokley, Florida Democrats Call on Rick Scott to Extend Voter Registration Deadline, Morning Consult (Oct. 7, 2016), https://morningconsult.com/alert/florida-
8

CCaassee34:2:106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALBS DDooccuummeennt t336F-1iled0160//1019//2106 PPaaggee190ooff2245
democrats-call-scott-extend-voter-registration-deadline/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); Gabriel Debenedetti, Clinton Campaign Chief to Florida: Extend Voter Registration Because of Storm, Politico (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.politico.com/ story/2016/10/clinton-campaign-florida-voter-registration-hurricane-229249 (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
22. While acknowledging that he has “never seen anything like [Hurricane Matthew] before,” Defendant Scott nevertheless refused to extend the voter registration deadline to give Floridians additional time to register. See Reena Flores, Rick Scott Won’t Extend Florida Voter Registration Because of Hurricane, CBS News (Oct. 7, 2016), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rick-scottwont-extend-florida-voter-registration-because-of-hurricane/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); Gov. Scott Says No to Extending Florida Voter-Registration Deadline, Miami Herald, (Oct. 6, 2016), http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/ 2016/10/gov-scott-says-no-to-extending-florida-voter-registration-deadline.html (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
23. During a press conference on Thursday, October 6, Defendant Scott chose to blame his constituents for failing to register before Hurricane Matthew hit Florida. He stated, “everybody’s had a lot of time to register. On top of that, we have lots of opportunities to vote: early voting, absentee voting, Election Day. So I don’t intend to make any changes.” Reena Flores, Rick Scott Won’t
9

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1101 ooff 2245
Extend Florida Voter Registration Because of Hurricane, CBS News (Oct. 7, 2016), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rick-scott-wont-extend-florida-voterregistration-because-of-hurricane/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
24. Defendant Scott dismissed the ramifications of his refusal to extend the deadline, stating, “Look, this is, this is politics.” Id.
25. Defendant Scott is a member of the Republican Party of Florida, a staunch supporter of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and Chair of Rebuilding America Now, a pro-Trump super PAC. See Marc Caputo, Scott to Chair Pro-Trump Super PAC, Politico (July 27, 2016), http://www.politico. com/states/florida/story/2016/07/rick-scott-to-chair-pro-trump-super-pac104308.
26. Defendants’ refusal to extend the registration deadline will prevent thousands of Florida residents in the areas affected by Hurricane Matthew from registering and voting in the upcoming general election. In the nine days in October prior to the voter registration deadline preceding the 2012 election, for example, roughly 181,000 Floridians registered to vote. See Fla. Dep’t of St., Div. of Elections, Voter Registration Monthly Report October 2012, available at http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/ voter-registration-monthly-reports/ (Archived Monthly Reports, 2012, October, MonthlyReport2.pdf).
10

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1112 ooff 2245
27. Even if would-be voters choose to disregard the commands of Defendant Scott and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and venture out to attempt to register amid the chaos caused by Hurricane Matthew, it is unlikely that any office permitted to accept voter registration applications will be open. All Board of County Commissioners offices were closed late last week. Bridges are closed. Many roads that have not been destroyed are flooded or otherwise impassable. And registering by mail is not an option: the U.S. Postal Service has suspended operations in most (if not all) areas affected by Hurricane Matthew. See Postal Service Prepping for Hurricane Matthew, WJHG (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.wjhg.com/content/news/Postal-serviceprepping-for-Hurricane-Matthew-396212161.html (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); Closings, Cancellations Due to Hurricane Matthew, WTSP (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/florida/closings-due-to-hurricanematthew/329299515 (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
28. Defendants’ refusal to extend the voter registration deadline will have a substantial effect on the upcoming general election and will unfairly and arbitrarily favor some Florida voters over others. Unlucky Floridians who happen to live in the counties stricken by Hurricane Matthew who have not yet registered will be unable to register by the October 11 deadline and will therefore not be permitted to vote in the upcoming general election. Meanwhile,
11

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1123 ooff 2245
their neighbors to the west, who by happy geographic accident will not have to contend with the devastation of Hurricane Matthew, will have no difficulty registering by the October 11 deadline and casting their vote in the general election.
29. Moreover, Defendants’ refusal to extend the voter registration deadline will have a decidedly partisan effect because Democratic-leaning communities, including minority voters and young voters, register at higher percentages shortly before the registration deadline. See Matt Dixon & Marc Caputo, Scott Won’t Extend Voter Registration Deadline as Hurricane Matthew Threatens State, Politico (Oct. 6, 2016), http://www.politico.com/states/florida/ story/2016/10/scott-wont-extend-voter-registration-deadline-as-hurricanematthew-approaches-106172#ixzz4MWytl0yG (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
30. On information and belief, because of Hurricane Matthew, some county election officials were unable to timely submit early voting plans and/or verify that identified early voting sites remain viable in light of potential storm damage. Those officials will need extra time to submit their early voting plans and/or notify affected residents of those changes.
31. Meanwhile, other states directly impacted by Hurricane Matthew have taken action to protect voters. South Carolina extended its mail-in voter registration deadline, and Georgia is encouraging voters to take advantage of
12

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1134 ooff 2245
online registration—an option not available to Floridians. See How to Register to Vote in South Carolina, Heavy (Oct. 7, 2016), http://heavy.com/news/ 2016/10/how-can-i-register-to-vote-in-south-carolina-online-person-by-mailhurricane-matthew-when-is-deadline/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016); Kristina Torres, More Than Half a Million People Have Registered to Vote in Georgia, The Atlantic Journal-Constitution (Oct. 7, 2016), http://www.ajc.com/news/state-regional-govt--politics/more-than-half-million-people-have-registered-votegeorgia/sOD9NTX3YzrUNZUjBEUVVK/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2016).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Undue Burden on the Right to Vote in Violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all prior
paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein.
33. Under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude of the injury to First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the state for the burdens imposed by the rule. See
13

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1145 ooff 2245
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983).
34. The court “must weigh ‘the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’ against ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’ taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789).
35. Unless Plaintiff is granted the relief requested, there is a strong likelihood that the right to vote of thousands of Floridians, including Plaintiff’s members and constituents, will be severely burdened (if not eliminated entirely) in the 2016 general election.
36. Because of Hurricane Matthew, many Floridians who would have registered to vote prior to the October 11 registration deadline have been displaced or otherwise prevented from registering, and thus cannot register to vote by the October 11 deadline. Moreover, many offices at which voters could register in person and U.S. Postal Offices where voters could submit registration applications have been closed, preventing Floridians in areas impacted by Hurricane Matthew from timely submitting registration materials.
14

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1156 ooff 2245
37. As a result, enforcing the October 11 voter registration deadline unfairly, severely, and disproportionately burdens the voting rights of Floridians in storm-affected areas.
38. The burdens imposed by the October 11 voter registration deadline are especially severe for certain voter populations, including minority voters and poor voters. The burdens imposed by the October 11 voter registration deadline, individually and collectively, outweigh any conceivable benefits of that deadline.
39. The State has not provided any colorable justification for its refusal to extend the voter registration deadline notwithstanding the consequences of Hurricane Matthew. In Florida, elections supervisors usually see a surge in voter registration shortly before the registration deadline. In the last presidential election year, roughly 181,000 people registered during the nine days before the registration deadline. Nonetheless, the Governor has refused to extend the voter registration deadline, stating simply that “[e]verybody has had a lot of time to register.”
40. Hurricane Matthew has prevented local election officials from meeting the October 9 deadline for submission of early voting plans that, among other things, must identify viable early voting sites.
15

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1167 ooff 2245
41. That it is possible for Florida to extend the registration deadline cannot be disputed. Other states impacted by Hurricane Matthew, including South Carolina, have extended voter registration deadlines to mitigate the consequences of the hurricane and afford voters a viable opportunity to register.
COUNT II Disparate Treatment in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 43. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees qualified voters a substantive right to participate equally with other qualified voters in the electoral process. Further, the equal right to vote that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise; equal protection applies to the manner of its exercise as well. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000). Thus, a state may not arbitrarily impose disparate treatment on similarly situated voters. 44. As set forth above, the effect of the State’s refusal to extend the voter registration deadline is to treat similarly situated Floridians differently. 45. Specifically, Floridians in inland areas not affected by Hurricane Matthew may register to vote until the October 11 deadline without impediment,
16

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1178 ooff 2245
because (among other reasons) they have not been ordered to evacuate and they reside in areas where local government services remain available. In contrast, many Floridians in storm-affected areas are either displaced or otherwise prevented from registering to vote as a result of Hurricane Matthew. And, even if they attempted to register notwithstanding those barriers, the local government offices that they would need to access are closed as a result of the hurricane. Likewise, Hurricane Matthew has prevented local election officials from meeting the October 9 deadline for submission of early voting plans that, among other things, must identify viable early voting sites.
46. There is no rational basis for favoring voters in inland areas over voters in storm-affected areas with respect to the right to cast a ballot in the upcoming general election. This disparate treatment of Florida residents based solely upon the area in which they live is unfair and arbitrary, and the State has not and cannot set forth any valid justification for its disparate treatment of members of the electorate.
47. Based on the foregoing, Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiff and Florida voters of equal protection under the law secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
17

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1189 ooff 2245
COUNT III Violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 49. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides in relevant part that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). 50. The State’s refusal to extend the voter registration deadline and/or the deadline for local election officials to submit early voting plans notwithstanding the effects of Hurricane Matthew has abridged and/or denied, and will continue to abridge and/or deny, the voting rights of minority voters in Florida on account of race. 51. The areas affected by Hurricane Matthew include substantial populations of minority voters, including African Americans and Latinos. Minorities in storm-affected areas are disproportionately likely to register to vote in the days immediately preceding the registration deadline. As a result,
18

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 1290 ooff 2245
the effective elimination of the final days preceding the registration deadline will have a disparate impact on minority voters.
52. Minority voters in Florida, including African Americans and Latinos, have suffered from, and continue to suffer from, discrimination on the basis of race, including discrimination touching on the rights to register, to vote, or to otherwise participate in the democratic process.
53. The ongoing effects of this discrimination include significant and continuing disparities between minorities and other members of the electorate, including disparities in socioeconomic conditions, employment and health, education, access to transportation, and access to government services.
54. Those disparities, in turn, mean that minority voters in stormaffected areas will have more difficulty overcoming the barriers to voter registration caused by Hurricane Matthew than other members of the electorate in the storm-affected areas.
55. As a result, the challenged voter registration deadline will impose a disproportionate burden on the voting rights of minority voters in the stormaffected areas. That disproportionate burden will be caused by and is linked to the social and historical conditions that have produced discrimination against minorities, and the State’s insistence that it will not modestly extend the voter
19

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 2201 ooff 2245
registration deadline has, at best, a tenuous connection to any legitimate government policy underlying the registration deadline.
56. The voter registration deadline challenged under Section 2 has had and, if not declared illegal and enjoined, will continue to have a disparate adverse impact on minority voters in Florida, including African Americans and/or Latinos.
57. Under the totality of the circumstances, the voter registration deadline has resulted and will result in less opportunity for minorities than for other members of the electorate in Florida to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice, and therefore violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 65 58. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 59. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants’ present and ongoing refusal to allow Floridians an opportunity to register to vote in the general election subjects Plaintiff and its members and constituents to
20

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 2212 ooff 2245
serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
60. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief to protect its statutory and constitutional rights and avoid the injuries described above. A favorable decision enjoining Defendants from enforcing the October 11 voter registration deadline, and requiring Defendants to extend the period for submitting early voting plans, would redress and prevent the irreparable injuries to Plaintiff and its members and constituents identified herein, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law or in equity.
61. The Defendants will incur little to no burden in if the relief sought here is granted. Any minor administrative burden imposed on Defendants pales in comparison to the fundamental constitutional injury of denial of the right to vote that Plaintiff and its members and constituents will suffer in the absence of the relief requested.
62. The public interest weighs strongly in favor of extending the October 11 voter registration deadline and extending the deadline for submission of early voting plans to permit every lawful, eligible citizen who wishes to vote to vote in the upcoming general election. The balance of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiff.
21

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 2223 ooff 2245
63. Concurrently with this Complaint, Plaintiff has filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order in accord with Local Rule 7.1(L).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment:
A. Ordering Defendants to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline by at least one week (from October 11, 2016 up to and including October 18, 2016).
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the current October 11, 2016 voter registration deadline.
C. Ordering Defendants to extend the deadline for counties to submit or amend early voting plans until at least October 16, 2016, to the extent that any counties have been unable to submit their early voting plans (and/or verify that identified early voting sites remain viable post-hurricane) by October 9, 2016.
D. Awarding Plaintiff its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
E. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 2234 ooff 2245

Dated: October 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark Herron Mark Herron Fl. Bar. No. 199737 mherron@lawfla.com Robert J. Telfer III Fl. Bar No. 0168694 rtelfer@lawfla.com MESSER CAPARELLO 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 222-0720 Facsimile: (850) 558-0659
and
Marc E. Elias D.C. Bar No. 44207 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) MElias@perkinscoie.com Kevin J. Hamilton Wash. Bar No. 15648 (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) KHamilton@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Telephone: (202) 654-6200 Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
Counsel for Plaintiff

23

CCaassee 34::2106--ccvv--0000360286--SMDWD--CRALSB DoDcoucmumenetn3t 36F-i1led 1006//0191//1260 PPaaggee 2245 ooff 2245
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the following parties via electronic mail; Adam S. Tanenbaum, General Counsel for The Secretary of State, adam.tanenbaum@dos.myflorida.com, William Spicola, General Counsel for Governor, Rick Scott, william.spicola@eog.myflorida.com
/s/ Mark Herron
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-2 06/11/20 Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT 2

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee21ooff2210

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

GEORGIA COALITION FOR THE PEOPLES’ AGENDA, INC., as an organization; GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, as an organization; and THIRD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., as an organization;

Civil Action Case No. _________________

Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN NATHAN DEAL, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, and BRIAN P. KEMP, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Georgia,

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 1. “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964). 2. This lawsuit seeks to prevent the disenfranchisement of eligible prospective voters in Chatham County, whose right to vote has been impeded by the effects of Hurricane Matthew and the refusal of defendants to remedy the situation. 3. Under state law, the voter registration deadline for Georgia voters was Tuesday,

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee32ooff2210
October 11, 2016. Eligible citizens who failed to register by then cannot cast a ballot that will count in the upcoming November 2016 general election.
4. Chatham County government offices, which opened today, were last open on Wednesday, October 5. Many prospective voters thus lost the ability to register for the last six days of the voter registration period. For much of the interim period, the county was under a state of emergency and an evacuation order due to Hurricane Matthew. Matthew hit Chatham County as a Category 2 hurricane on Friday, October 7, and caused massive damage, substantial flooding, and a loss of power to more than a hundred thousand county residents.
5. Despite declaring a state of emergency and issuing a mandatory evacuation order, Defendant Deal refused to extend the voter registration deadline for the citizens heeding his orders to evacuate in Chatham County and elsewhere in Georgia.
6. Many states, including Florida and South Carolina, which were similarly impacted by Matthew, are providing citizens with an extended registration period. Meanwhile, elected officials, citizens, and organizations, including Plaintiffs, have called upon Defendant Deal to extend Georgia’s voter registration deadline so that voters in Chatham County and elsewhere do not lose the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Defendant Deal refused to take any action to protect citizens’ voting rights and extend the deadline, which has passed.
7. Without relief, many eligible prospective voters who were forced to choose between their safety and the fundamental right to vote and suffered hardship as a result of Hurricane Matthew will be disenfranchised in the November 8, 2016 election.
2

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee43ooff2210
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the United States Constitution; and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the laws of the United States. 9. This Court has jurisdiction to grant both declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
THE PARTIES 11. Plaintiff THE GEORGIA COALITION FOR THE PEOPLES’ AGENDA, INC. (“GCPA”) is a Georgia nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. The GCPA is a coalition of more than 30 organizations, which collectively have more than 5,000 individual members. The organization encourages voter registration and participation, particularly among minority and low-income citizens. The GCPA’s support of voting rights is central to its mission. The organization has committed, and continues to commit, time and resources to conducting voter registration drives, voter education, voter ID assistance, Souls to the Polls, and other GOTV efforts in Georgia that seek to encourage turnout. 12. The GCPA regularly conducts voter registration drives in Chatham County, and was planning on making a final effort to register voters in the county between October 7 and 11, 2016. The GCPA was forced to suspend voter registration activities in Chatham County between
3

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee54ooff2210
October 7 and 9, 2016, due to the mandatory evacuation order issued by Governor Deal. GCPA further determined that door to door canvassing in Chatham County was infeasible on October 10 or 11, 2016, because power was still out in many parts of the county, a number of roads were impassible, electrical wires were down, and local officials asked that people remain home and off the roads. If the voter registration deadline is not extended, the GCPA will be prevented from carrying out its core activity of registering voters to vote during the busiest registration days in four years in Chatham County.
13. Plaintiff GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP (“Georgia NAACP”) is a non-partisan, interracial, nonprofit membership organization that was founded in 1941. Its mission is to eliminate racial discrimination through democratic processes and ensure the equal political, educational, social, and economic rights of all persons, in particular AfricanAmericans. It is headquartered in Atlanta and currently has approximately 10,000 members. The Georgia NAACP works to protect voting rights through litigation, advocacy, legislation, communication, and outreach, including work to promote voter registration, voter education, get out the vote efforts, election protection, and census participation.
14. The Georgia NAACP has submitted many voter registration applications to elections officials in Chatham County. The Georgia NAACP maintains a branch office in Chatham County, which engages in significant voter registration efforts in presidential election cycles. The Savannah branch office, however, was closed between October 7 and 10, 2016, due to Governor Deal’s evacuation order and could not conduct voter registration activity during that period. The Georgia NAACP was forced to cancel voter registration events scheduled for October 8 at a Sam’s Club and for October 9 following church services. The organization also
4

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee65ooff2210
cancelled door to door voter registration canvassing scheduled for the period between October 7 and 11, 2016. If the voter registration deadline is not extended, the Georgia NAACP will be prevented from carrying out its core activity of registering voters to vote during the busiest registration days in four years in Chatham County.
15. Plaintiff THIRD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC. (“Third Sector”), is a Georgia not for profit corporation. It is a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1998. The New Georgia Project (“NGP”) is a non-partisan, nonprofit program of Third Sector that was launched in 2013. NGP’s mission is to civically engage Georgians in underrepresented communities. The organization engages in voter registration, voter education, and get out the vote efforts throughout the State of Georgia, including in Chatham County.
16. NGP regularly conducts voter registration drives throughout Georgia, including in Chatham County. The organization has collected more than 11,000 voter registration applications from Chatham County residents in 2016 alone. NGP was planning on putting together a phone bank to contact prospective voters throughout Georgia, including in Chatham County, in the days leading up to the close of registration. These efforts were to include contacting applicants who submitted registration forms but are not registered for the purpose of assisting them with clearing up any problems with their applications with the Chatham County registrar. Due to Hurricane Matthew, the evacuation order, the loss of power and the closure of the Chatham County Board of Elections office between October 6 and October 11, 2016, NGP determined that it would not be feasible to continue voter applicant outreach efforts in Chatham County because it was impossible for NGP to connect applicants with elections officials.
5

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee76ooff2210
17. Defendant JOHN NATHAN DEAL is being sued in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia. Governor Deal is granted broad emergency powers under Georgia state law. GA. CODE ANN. § 38-3-51. Those powers include the ability to extend the voter registration deadline for the entire State of Georgia, or one or more of its counties. Exhibit B, Email from Ryan Germany to Kristen Clarke, Oct. 12, 2016.
18. Defendant BRIAN P. KEMP is being sued in his official capacity as Georgia Secretary of State. Secretary Kemp’s responsibilities include maintaining the state’s official list of registered voters and preparing and furnishing information for citizens pertaining to voter registration and voting. GA. CODE ANN. §§ 21-2-50(a), 21-2-211. Defendant also serves as the Chairperson of Georgia’s State Election Board, which promulgates and enforces rules and regulations to obtain uniformity in the practices and proceedings of election officials and promotes the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of all primaries and elections in the state. Id. §§ 212-30(d), 21-2-31, 21-2-33.1. Finally, Defendant is the chief election official responsible for the coordination of Georgia’s list maintenance responsibilities under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Id. §§ 21-2-210, 21-250.2.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LAW 19. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to ensure “that any eligible applicant is registered to vote” if they submit their registration form as close to Election Day as the state will provide—and that in any event the state cannot require voters to register more than 30 days prior to an election. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(1).
6

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee87ooff2210
20. Georgia state law requires that the main elections office in each county “remain open for business during regular office hours on each business day, except Saturday” and “be open at such designated times other than the normal business hours as shall reasonably be necessary to facilitate registration and at such other hours as will suit the convenience of the public.” GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-215(c).
21. The voter registration deadline in Georgia was Tuesday, October 11. See GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-224(a).
22. Georgia state law provides that “[a]ny person desiring to register as an elector shall apply to do so by making application to a registrar or deputy registrar of such person's county of residence in person, by submission of the federal post card application form as authorized under Code Section 21-2-219, by making application through the Department of Driver Services as provided in Code Section 21-2-221, by making application through the Department of Natural Resources as provided in Code Section 21-2-221.1, by making application through designated offices as provided in Code Section 21-2-222, or by making application by mail as provided in Code Section 21-2-223.” GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-220(a). Applicants with access to a computer and a current Georgia driver’s license or state identification card may register to vote online. GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-221.2.
23. Georgia residents are barred from voting a ballot that will be counted if they do not meet the registration deadline because Georgia does not permit eligible citizens to register during the in-person early voting period or on Election Day.
24. A significant number of Georgia residents, including those in Chatham County, register to vote in the days leading up to the registration deadline. For example, a voter
7

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee98ooff2210
registration event held between 9 am and 3 pm on Tuesday, September 27, 2016, at the Chatham County Voter Registration office in Savannah drew more than 100 people. Kelly Quimby, State, local officials make final push to register voters, SAVANNAH MORNING NEWS, Sept. 27, 2016, available at http://savannahnow.com/politics-news/2016-09-27/state-local-officials-make-finalpush-register-voters. Additionally, voter registration groups were planning on conducting voter registration and other outreach efforts in Chatham County during the last week of the voter registration period.
25. Governor Deal declared a state of emergency for thirteen counties, including Chatham County, on Tuesday, October 4, 2016. Gov. Nathan Deal declares state of emergency ahead of Hurricane Matthew, WTOC, Oct. 4, 2016, available at http://www.wtoc.com/story/33315568/gov-nathan-deal-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-ofhurricane-matthew.
26. The Chatham County Commission called for a voluntary evacuation of roughly eleven percent of the county’s population on Wednesday, October 5, 2016. The Latest: Georgia coast placed under hurricane watch, WRDW, Oct. 5, 2016, available at http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Gov-Deal-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-HurricaneMatthew-395861441.html.
27. The City of Tybee Island, which is located in Chatham County, issued a mandatory evacuation order that began at 3 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2016. Id.
28. The United States Postal Service suspended operations in Chatham County. 29. Governor Deal issued a mandatory evacuation order for six counties, including Chatham County, on Thursday, October 6, 2016. Press release, Deal orders mandatory
8

CCaassee 43::1260--ccvv--0000236098--WSDTDM--RGLRBS DDooccuummeenntt 136-F2iled061/01/11/22/016 PPagaege109 ooff 2210
evacuation east of Interstate 95 for six coastal counties, Oct. 6, 2016, available at https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-10-06/deal-orders-mandatory-evacuation-eastinterstate-95-six-coastal-counties.
30. Hurricane Matthew hit Chatham County as a Category 2 hurricane on Friday, October 7. Nicole Carr, Ross Cavitt, & Richard Elliott, Deaths, floods as Hurricane Matthew hits South Carolina, WSB-TV, Oct. 9, 2016, available at http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/south-georgia-getting-pounded-by-hurricanematthew/454816981; Governor Nathan Deal press release, GEMHSA: Georgia mobilizes recovery plan in Matthew’s wake, available at https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-1008/gemhsa-georgia-mobilizes-recovery-plan-matthew%E2%80%99s-wake-1.
31. The hurricane caused massive destruction in Chatham County, which experienced high winds, heavy rain and flooding. In Savannah, many trees were down and, and street lights and buildings were damaged. The hurricane devastated the barrier islands, particularly Tybee Island. Approximately 116,000 Chatham County residents lost power.
32. Some residents were evacuated by bus to Augusta. Some began to return on Monday, October 10, and were taken to a local shelter if they were unable to safely go home. The Latest: Savannah’s signature tree canopy gets bushwacked by Matthew, WRDW, Oct. 11, 2016, available at http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/The-Latest-Hurricane-closes-parts-of-I95-on-Georgia-coast-396395301.html.
33. Governor Deal lifted the mandatory evacuation order for the mainland portion of Chatham County at 5 pm on Sunday, October 9. Scott Trubey & Dan Chapman, Gov. Deal lifts hurricane evacuation orders; islands still closed, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION, Oct. 9,
9

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1110ooff2210
2016, available at http://www.ajc.com/news/local/gov-deal-lifts-hurricane-evacuation-ordersislands-still-closed/kJZwRm9Kj1UwYxOtH200CN/.
34. Chatham County government offices, including the Chatham County Board of Elections, were closed beginning Thursday, October 6, through Tuesday, October 11. See Exhibit A, Email from Ryan Germany to Kristen Clarke.
35. The Chatham County Board of Elections office reopened on Wednesday, October 12.
36. Most post offices in Chatham County reopened on Tuesday, October 11. 37. Columbus Day, which was Monday, October 10, was not observed by the Chatham County government this year. 2016 Holiday Schedule, Chatham County, Georgia, available at http://www.chathamcounty.org/Home/Holiday-Schedule. The Chatham County Board of Elections office would therefore have been open on October 10 if it were not for Hurricane Matthew. 38. Although applicants who already have a Georgia driver’s license or state ID card may register to vote online, this technology was not readily available to many residents of Chatham County, most of whom had evacuated the county. Moreover, electricity and cable were out in much of the county. 39. Online registration was also not available to applicants who lack a Georgia driver’s license or state ID card, including persons who have recently moved to Georgia, senior citizens, students and others. 40. The Georgia online voter registration database experienced glitches and problems on Monday, October 10, and Tuesday, October 11. These problems prevented some applicants
10

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1121ooff2210
from successfully completing online voter registration applications. As online voter registration closes, mixed success in Georgia, 11ALIVE, Oct. 11, 2016, available at http://www.11alive.com/news/local/as-online-voter-registration-closes-mixed-success-ingeorgia/333992259.
41. The Chatham County Board of Elections office was closed for the last six days, and the last four weekdays, of the voter registration period prior to the November 2016 election.
42. Hurricane Matthew and its aftermath effectively prevented Chatham County residents from registering to vote up to 30 days before the election, during what is typically the busiest period of voter registration every four years. Governor Deal’s evacuation order and the closure of Chatham County government offices until today, while necessary for public safety, prevented county residents from registering to vote in person. And, due to widespread and ongoing power outages, prospective voters may not have been able to access, download, and print registration forms to be mailed, or to register to vote online.
43. For all practical purposes, voter registration opportunities were unavailable to many residents of Chatham County after Wednesday, October 5.
44. A significant number of prospective minority voters were affected by the loss of voter registration opportunities due to Hurricane Matthew. According to the 2011-2014 American Community Survey, approximately 78,713 (38.7%) of Chatham County’s 203,629 citizens of voting age are Black, while 6,040 (3.0%) are Latino.
45. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sent a letter to Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens and General Counsel for the Georgia Secretary of State C. Ryan Germany on Tuesday, October 11. Exhibit A, Letter from Kristen Clarke to Attorney General
11

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1132ooff2210
Olens and Mr. Germany. The letter noted the closures in Chatham County and asked that the voter registration deadline be extended in the county to permit county residents an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process.
46. Mr. Germany responded on Wednesday, October 12. His email stated that the Georgia Secretary of State declined to ask the Governor to extend the voter registration deadline in Chatham County or anywhere else in the state. In particular, he claimed that extending the deadline was “not appropriate or prudent given that opportunities to register remained available and that counties, including counties affected by the storm, need to continue to prepare for early voting beginning on Monday.” Ex. B.
47. Governor Deal has refused to extend the voter registration deadline despite acknowledging the severe impact of the storm. See, e.g., Governor Nathan Deal press release, Hurricane Matthew recovery update, available at https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/201610-08/hurricane-matthew-recovery-update-0.
48. Defendants’ refusal to extend the voter registration deadline in Chatham County will disenfranchise a significant number of eligible prospective voters. People who were unable to register by yesterday’s deadline cannot vote in the November 2016 election.
49. Georgia stands alone in its refusal to protect its voters. For example, South Carolina voluntarily extended its voter registration deadline, while Florida has been ordered to do so as a result of litigation. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 29, Fla. Dem. Party v. Scott, No. 4:16-cv-626-MW/CAS (N.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016); S.C. extends voter registration deadline in anticipation of Hurricane Matthew, THE HERALD, Oct. 6, 2016, available at http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article106494827.html.
12

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1143ooff2210
COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS 50. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 to 49 above, as if fully set forth herein. 51. The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution protect the right to vote as a fundamental right. The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and association protect the right to vote and to participate in the political process. The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right also protected by both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000); Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 670 (1966) (Virginia’s poll tax violates the Equal Protection Clause); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 786-87 (1983) (the right to vote is incorporated into the Due Process Clause). 52. By preventing prospective voters from registering during the last six days of the voter registration period, including the last four business days, the refusal to extend the voter registration deadline in Chatham County imposes a severe burden on the fundamental right to vote by depriving citizens of that right altogether. 53. While the burdens imposed by the Governor’s refusal to extend the voter registration deadline are undeniably severe, his failure to take action under these circumstances cannot pass muster even under rational basis review. 54. The decision not to extend the deadline is not narrowly drawn to advance any state interest sufficiently compelling to justify the imposition of such severe burdens. 55. The State has no justification for the burden imposed by its decision not to extend the deadline making it necessary to burden Plaintiffs’ rights.
13

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1154ooff2210
56. There is no sufficient state interest justifying the refusal to extend the voter registration deadline that was not already adequately protected by preexisting election procedures.
57. Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaratory judgment that, by refusing to extend the voter registration deadline in Chatham County, the Governor and Secretary of State, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
58. Further, Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law. Unless the Court orders the Governor and Secretary of State to extend the voter registration deadline in Chatham County, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer the immediate and irreparable harm described herein.
COUNT TWO: VIOLATION OF SECTION 8 OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF
1993 59. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 to 58 above, as if fully set forth herein. 60. Section 8 of the NVRA requires states to process any voter registration form received or postmarked no later than 30 days of an election. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(1). 61. Section 8 requires each state to:
(1) ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election – A. in the case of registration with a motor vehicle . . . if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is submitted to the appropriate State motor vehicle authority not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date of the election;
14

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1165ooff2210
B. in the case of registration by mail . . . if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is postmarked not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date of the election; C. in the case of registration at a voter registration agency, if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is accepted at the voter registration agency not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date of the election; and D. in any other case, if the valid voter registration form of the applicant is received by the appropriate State election official not later than the lesser of 30 days, or the period provided by State law, before the date of the election[.] 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(1). 62. These provisions are intended to ensure that eligible United States citizens have sufficient time to register to vote and thus, are not forced to register to vote more than thirty days in advance of a federal election. 63. These provisions must be interpreted in the context of the primary purpose of the statute as a whole. Congress’s purpose in passing the NVRA was to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections” and “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” and to protect the active role that community-based voter registration groups play in the registration process. 52 U.S.C. § 20501. 64. The NVRA was intended to “ensure that no American is denied the ability to participate in Federal elections because of real or artificial barriers . . . [and] to make voter registration an inclusive, rather than an exclusive opportunity in the United States.” 139 Cong. Rec. H495-04 (1993) (statement of Rep. Martin Frost).
15

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1176ooff2210
65. Toward that end, the NVRA “provides that the registration cutoff may be no more than 30 days before election or such lesser period as State may provide.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 20 (1993) (Conf. Rep.).
66. The NVRA also focused on increasing voting access to traditionally disenfranchised communities. It did so by increasing the places open for in-person voter registration. For example, the conference report expressed concern that, unless the bill provided that unemployment offices and other agencies could provide voter registration, “it will exclude a segment of its population from those for whom registration will be convenient and readily available – the poor and persons with disabilities . . . . It is important that no State be permitted to so restrict its agency registration program.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-66 (1993) (Conf. Rep.).
67. Hurricane Matthew effectively foreclosed the ability to register to vote for six days, including a full weekend. Two of the days the Chatham County Board of Elections office would have otherwise been open, October 10 and 11, fall within the period that the NVRA requires states to provide for voter registration in advance of a federal election. The state’s refusal to extend the voter registration deadline in the face of this natural disaster is the type of artificial barrier that the NVRA was designed to protect against.
68. Hurricane Matthew effectively prevented a substantial number of Chatham County residents from registering to vote by the October 11, 2016, deadline. Unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief requested, the right to vote will be denied to significant numbers of eligible county residents.
16

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1187ooff2210
69. Since this violation of the NVRA occurred within thirty days of an election for federal office, Plaintiffs are not obligated to provide advance notice to Secretary Kemp before bringing a civil action. 52 U.S.C. § 20510(b)(3).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court: 1. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the claims for relief as alleged in this Complaint; 2. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that the refusal to extend the voter registration deadline (a) violates the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and (b) violates Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C. § 20507. 3. Grant Plaintiffs preliminary or permanent injunctive relief by ordering that Defendants:
(a) discontinue enforcement of the current voter registration deadline for Chatham County; and
(b) extend Chatham County’s voter registration deadline to account for the lost days and weekend of voter registration up to and including October 18, 2016; or, in the alternative,
(c) discontinue enforcement of the current voter registration deadline and extend the voter registration for the entire State of Georgia to October 18, 2016;
4. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statute; and 5. Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.
17

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee1198ooff2210

Dated: October 12, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ William V. Custer William V. Custer Georgia Bar No. 202910 Jennifer B. Dempsey Georgia Bar No. 217536 Bryan Cave LLP One Atlantic Center Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3488 Phone: (404) 572-6600 Fax: (404) 572-6999 bill.custer@bryancave.com jennifer.dempsey@bryancave.com
Ezra D. Rosenberg (pro hac vice – to be filed) Julie Houk (pro hac vice – to be filed) John Powers (pro hac vice – to be filed) Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org jhouk@lawyerscommittee.org jpowers@lawyerscommittee.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

18

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee2109ooff2210

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

GEORGIA COALITION FOR THE PEOPLES’ AGENDA, INC., as an organization; GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, as an organization; and THIRD SECTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., as an organization;

Civil Action Case No. _________________

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN NATHAN DEAL, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, and BRIAN P. KEMP, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Georgia,

Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the
CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys
of record.
This 12th day of October, 2016.
By: /s/ William V. Custer William V. Custer Georgia Bar No. 202910 Bryan Cave LLP One Atlantic Center Fourteenth Floor
19

CCaassee43:1:260--ccvv--0000236098--WSTDMD--GRRLBS DDooccuummeennt t136F-2iled0160/1/112/2/106 PPaaggee2210ooff2210 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3488 Phone: (404) 572-6600 Fax: (404) 572-6999 bill.custer@bryancave.com
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 1 of 54
EXHIBIT 3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 2 of 54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants. POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case. No.: 3:20-00308-SDD-RLB Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”); Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“Louisiana NAACP”); Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, and Jasmine Pogue (collectively “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following:

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 3 of 54
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared a global
pandemic due to COVID-19.1 That same day, the Governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards,
declared a statewide emergency.2 On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards enacted a stay-at-home
order. 3
2. As of April 2020, Louisiana’s death rate from the virus was, per capita, the second
highest in the country.4 St. John the Baptist Parish had the highest death rate of any parish or
county in the country.5 Four out of six of the parishes/counties in the United States with the highest
COVID-19-related death rates are in Louisiana.6
3. Public health experts have projected that “controlling this pandemic will depend on
a safe and efficacious vaccine,” however “[t]he estimated timeline for availability of an initial
vaccine is between early and mid-2021.”7
1 See World Health Org. (WHO) (@WHO), Twitter (Mar. 11, 2020), https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1237777021742338049 (“We have therefore made theassessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”); WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID19, WHO (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-themedia-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020. 2 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Declaration of Public Health Emergency in Responseto COVID-19, (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2400. 3 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf. 4 Johnston von Springer, “Louisiana ranks second percapita in COVID-19 deaths,” WBRZ 2 (Apr. 2, 2020), h ttp s://www.wbrz.co m/news/lo uis iana-ranks -second-p er-capita-in-cov id-19-d eaths/. 5 Ashley Killough and Ed Lavandera, “This small Louisiana parish has thehighest death rate per capita for coronavirus in the country,” CNN (April 16, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/us/louisiana-st-john-theb ap tis t-coro naviru s/in dex.h tml. 6 WWLStaff, “4 of top 6 parishes or counties in deaths per capita from COVID-19 arein Louisiana,” 4WWL, (Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/4-of-top-6-parishes-or-counties-in-deathsp er-cap ita-are-in -lo uis iana/289-1ab 60d 0c-1298-4c44-8940-b 3890aef37c6. 7 Saad B. Omer et al., The COVID-19 Pandemicin theUS: A Clinical Update, J. Am. Med. Assoc. Net. (Apr. 6, 2020), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2764366.; see also Hailey Waller et al., Bill Gates’
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 4 of 54
4. In this unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple provisions of Louisiana law, policies, and procedures that establish requirements for voting absentee by mail and voting early pose undue burdens on the right to vote, including (1) the requirement that eligible voters are required to identify one of a limited number of excuses to be eligible to vote absentee by mail (the “Excuse Requirement”); (2) the requirement that a voter voting absentee by mail obtain a witness signature (the “Ballot Witness Requirement”); (3) the requirement that a voter who uses a mark to certify their application for an absentee by mail ballot obtain two witness signatures on the application (the “Application Witness Requirement,” and together with the “Ballot Witness Requirement,” collectively “the Witness Requirements”); and (4) the failure to extend the early voting period to fourteen days for all elections in Louisiana in 2020 (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”).
5. First, Plaintiffs challenge the limited list of excuses allowing individuals to vote by absentee ballot set forth in La. R.S. 18:1303. A voter who does not qualify under any of the listed categories has to vote in person or not at all.
6. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Excuse Requirement violates the fundamental right to vote as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Voters who do not have a qualifying excuse are compelled to endure unacceptable health risks (and to increase the health risk to the community) in order to exercise their right to vote. The burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement will fall with particular severity on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
coronavirus vaccine could be manufacturing at scale in a year, Fortune (Apr. 26, 2020), https://fortune.com/2020/04/26/bill-gates-coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19/ (Bill Gates, who is funding production of vaccine development, has projected that, “[i]f everything went perfectly, we’d be in scale manufacturing within a year . . . . It could be as long as two years.”).
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 5 of 54
7. Nor does the Secretary of State’s Emergency Election Plan (the “Emergency Plan”)8—which was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020, and allows voters to vote by absentee ballot due to five limited COVID-19-specific excuses—remedy this constitutional defect. As an initial matter, the Emergency Plan only applies to the July 11, 2020 (Presidential Preference Primary/Municipal Primary Election, hereinafter the “July Election”) and the August 15, 2020 (Municipal General Election, hereinafter the “August Election”) elections; it does not address the health risks entailed by in-person voting in the November 3, 2020 election (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Elections, hereinafter the “November Election”) and/or the December 5, 2020 election (Congressional and Open General Election, hereinafter the “December Election”).
8. Even as to the July and August Elections, the Emergency Plan does not adequately protect the right to vote. The COVID-19 related excuses in the Emergency Plan are unduly restrictive. The first COVID-19 related excuse applies to voters who are “[a]t higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions,” but limits the conditions to ones identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and provides an exclusive list of conditions. The next excuse applies to voters who are “[s]ubject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19,” but fails to define medically necessary. The third excuse applies to voters who have been “[a]dvised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns,” but is vague with respect to what advisement by a health care provider means. Similarly, the fourth COVID-19 related excuse applies to voters
8 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the Stateof Louisiana(Apr. 20, 2020), h ttp s://www.sos.la.go v/Ou rOffice/Pub lis hed Docu ments/Revised%20Emerg ency%20Electio n %20Plan %20fo r%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 6 of 54
[e]xperiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis,” but does not provide guidance about whether this excuse, for instance, applies to a voter who saw a doctor and was tested (but has not received a test result) or who may have seen a health care provider but was not tested. The fifth excuse applies to a voter who is “[c]aring for an identified individual who is subject to medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns,” but also does not define medically necessary and requires the voter to identify the individual for whom they are caring by name.9 Notably, none of the COVID-19 excuses in the Emergency Plan apply to the many thousands of voters who reasonably fear that voting in person may result in their contracting or unintentionally contributing to the spread of COVID-19. Defendants have forced Louisiana voters to make an untenable decision between risking their health and the health of their families and communities or giving up their fundamental right to vote.
9. For example, Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue suffers from environmentally induced asthma and a history of upper respiratory infections. When experiencing an asthma attack, she has severe trouble breathing and requires an inhaler. Due to her breathing troubles, Ms. Pogue fears that if she contracted COVID-19 she could suffer fatal consequences. Accordingly, she has been practicing strict social distancing with her husband and son since the virus reached Louisiana. Because Ms. Pogue does not require asthma medication on a regular basis, her condition does not qualify as “moderate or severe” and is not listed among the accepted virus-related excuses on the absentee ballot application under the Emergency Plan. Ms. Pogue’s only option to vote requires risking virus exposure—and perhaps her life—at an in-person voting site.
9 Id.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 7 of 54
10. Second, Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s requirement pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) that all absentee by mail ballot envelopes be signed by a witness in addition to the voter. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ballot Witness Requirement imposes an undue burden on many Louisiana voters who live alone or who do not live in a household with another adult who can act as a witness, and must choose between risking contact with a third party or foregoing their right to vote.
11. The Ballot Witness Requirement will impose an undue burden on voters such as Plaintiff Jane Chandler, a 76-year-old breast cancer survivor who lives alone in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Chandler suffers from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a progressive condition that compromises her lung capacity and is likely the result of late onset side effects of her cancer treatment. There is no treatment and no cure. She also has osteoporosis and moderate allergies, which she regulates with medication. Ms. Chandler has taken extreme precautions to avoid inperson contacts since COVID-19 reached Louisiana because infection would pose a grave risk to her health. Ms. Chandler qualifies to vote absentee because she is over 65 years of age. However, because she lives alone and fears welcoming guests into her home during the pandemic, Ms. Chandler would have difficulty obtaining a witness signature without compromising her social distancing practices and her safety.
12. Third, Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s Application Witness Requirement, La. R.S. 18:1307, that requires individuals who are unable to sign their name and use a mark instead to obtain the signature of two third-party witnesses in order to apply for an absentee ballot. Although the Emergency Plan reduces the number of required witness signatures from two to one for the July and August Elections, it does not address the barrier that the Application Witness Requirement
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 8 of 54
presents to voters who wish to apply for an absentee ballot but who cannot obtain a witness signature without violating social distancing recommendations or medical advice.
13. Fourth, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the State’s early voting practices to the extent that they only allow for early voting for seven days prior to the November and December Elections. Under La. R.S. 18:1309, early voting may take place up to fourteen days prior to a scheduled election. While the Emergency Plan extends early voting to 13 days for the July and August Elections, it does not extend early voting for the November and December Elections.
14. Plaintiffs seek relief enjoining the State from limiting early voting to seven days insofar as it unreasonably burdens their fundamental right to vote by exposing them to intensified health risks by requiring a larger number of voters to vote in person during a constrained schedule. For those voters who wish to vote in person, such as Plaintiff Edith Gee Jones, early voting reduces the health risks of doing so by reducing the number of voters at the polling places at any given time, making social distancing more achievable.
15. The burdens imposed by the Challenged Provisions will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana, who are more likely to live alone, more likely to have a disability compared to white Louisiana residents, and who are disproportionately subject to infection and death from COVID-19. Black people currently comprise over 58% of Louisiana’s reported COVID-19 deaths while they only comprise 32% of Louisiana’s population.10 Louisiana’s history of discrimination in voting, and ongoing and current racial disparities in education, employment,
10 See La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited May 6, 2020); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Louisiana, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/LA,US/PST045219? (last visited May 6 2020).
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 9 of 54
and health interact with the Challenged Provisions to hinder Black people’s opportunity to participate equally in the political process.
16. The Challenged Provisions, individually and collectively, will materially and unduly burden the right to vote of Louisiana’s voters in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare that the Challenged Provisions are unconstitutional and violate the Voting Rights Act, and further, enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Challenged Provisions for all elections in Louisiana in 2020.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 52 U.S.C. § 10301 to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of constitutional rights under color of state law. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in their official capacities as state officials. The violations complained of concern their conduct in such capacities. 19. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 20. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants reside in this judicial district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred there.
PARTIES 21. Plaintiff the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit statewide civic engagement table in Louisiana that works to build grassroots power, advocate for community-centered policies, and increase voter participation. PCEJ’s mission is to support community-driven activism and grassroots leadership development to empower citizens
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 10 of 54
to address classism, racism, and other marginalization in their own lives and communities. PCEJ advances its mission with the support of full-time staff, community volunteers, and a team of nonprofit and advocacy organizations united around an integrated civic engagement strategy to educate and empower voters across Louisiana. In 2019, PCEJ engaged with 465,406 infrequent and semi-frequent voters of color through hundreds of thousands of doors knocked, phone calls, and text messages totaling over 1.2 million contact attempts. PCEJ also routinely provides rides to the polls and rapid response voter support on Election Days. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, PCEJ has been forced to shift to virtual engagement models, including tele-town halls, video meetings, and multilayer press strategies to communicate information to its membership and target constituencies. PCEJ has been required to dedicate staff time and resources to monitoring and responding to each iteration of Louisiana’s Emergency Plan, including attending the April 15 and April 22 Senate and House committee meetings at risk to personal health. If the Challenged Provisions remain in effect, PCEJ anticipates diverting resources to train volunteers and educate voters on the limitations of these measures. PCEJ expects to receive an influx of requests for rides to the polls or assistance obtaining a witness signature in advance of Election Day, and recurring questions about how to adhere to social distancing guidance while attempting to vote in person or in the presence of a signatory.
22. Plaintiff Louisiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the “Louisiana NAACP”) is a state subsidiary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. For decades, the Louisiana NAACP has worked to ensure the economic, educational, political, and social equity of Black people and of all Americans. Its membership includes Black voters residing throughout Louisiana. The Louisiana NAACP’s mission includes eliminating racial discrimination in the democratic process and
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 11 of 54
ensuring the protection of voting rights and equitable political representation. Its work includes efforts to register, educate, and advocate on behalf of Black voters throughout Louisiana. As a direct result of the Challenged Provisions, the Louisiana NAACP has diverted its limited resources to monitor and investigate the impact of the Challenged Provisions on its members, and has advocated for a modified Emergency Plan that considers the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black Louisianans and that will not disproportionately burden Black voters.
23. Plaintiff Jane Chandler is 76 years old and lives alone in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered voter. Ms. Chandler is self-quarantining due to a lung condition that is a comorbidity of COVID-19. Since COVID-19 reached Louisiana, she has only left her home for limited purposes, such as a doctor’s appointment, and has maintained social distancing best practices while out. To reduce unnecessary interactions, Ms. Chandler has arranged to have her groceries and other necessities dropped off and has completely sanitized all items delivered to her home. While Ms. Chandler has been eligible to vote by absentee ballot for over ten years, she prefers to vote in person and has consistently voted at her polling site on Election Day. This year, however, she intends to request an absentee ballot for all elections due to her fear of exposure to COVID-19. Because Ms. Chandler lives alone and is abstaining from avoidable in-person contact, she does not know how she will be able to safely and efficiently obtain a witness signature for her ballot envelope without defying the predominant health guidance to maintain isolation.
24. Plaintiff Jennifer Harding is a 42-year-old community organizer from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. Ms. Harding lives with her husband and their son, who is in the fourth grade. Her nuclear family has been strictly socia lly distancing since schools closed in Louisiana in order to protect their own health and the health of
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 12 of 54
others. In her current stage of life, Ms. Harding has both child and parental care responsibilities. Her 72-year-old father, 71-year-old mother, and 93-year-old grandmother live together close by and require various levels of assistance. Her father has Parkinson’s disease, her mother has limited mobility due to post-polio syndrome, and her grandmother has been diagnosed with dementia. Ms. Harding is responsible for completing tasks that they cannot easily perform, including taking out the trash, but does not serve in a fulltime or live-in caretaking role. During visits to their home, she has taken extreme precautions to maintain distance and use sanitary practices. She is aware of the potential of undetected and asymptomatic infection and has reasonable fear that she could expose her at-risk family to COVID-19 if she does not continue to maintain extreme social distancing. Ms. Harding has not left her house for any other purpose than to visit her parents’ and grandmother’s home or to take a walk in her immediate neighborhood. If able, she would vote by absentee ballot in order to decrease her risk of virus exposure at her polling location. However, she does not believe the Emergency Plan absentee ballot application permits her, or others similarly situated in part-time eldercare roles, to request a ballot without exposure to the risk of criminal penalty. As a result, her only option to vote in this year’s elections requires jeopardizing her health and the health of her family and community by voting in person.
25. Plaintiff Edith Gee Jones is over 65 years old and resides in New Orleans with her husband. Mrs. Jones is Black. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. Mrs. Jones routinely votes in Louisiana elections, and has done so for decades. Historically, Mrs. Jones has voted in person. She takes advantage of the opportunity to engage in early voting, preferring to vote in person when her polling site has typically been less crowded than on election days. Mrs. Jones would like the option to continue her tradition of voting in person in 2020 but recognizes that she is at higher risk of experiencing COVID-19-related complications because of her age. She
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 13 of 54
is also aware of the heightened risk that Black Louisianans face with regard to COVID-19. Given her preference for in-person voting, Mrs. Jones would like to have the opportunity to safely participate in early voting in each of Louisiana’s upcoming elections.
26. Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue is a 33-year-old Black woman who was recently diagnosed with asthma. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. She lives with her husband and 6-year-old daughter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Pogue’s asthma is environmentally induced, triggered by allergens and other pollutants. She also has a history of upper respiratory infections, and last contracted one in mid-March. Ms. Pogue and her family have been engaging in strict social distancing to avoid all unnecessary risk of exposure to COVID19. Ms. Pogue has severe difficulty breathing and requires an inhaler when experiencing an asthma attack. However, because Ms. Pogue does not require her inhaler on a frequent, standard basis, she does not believe her asthma qualifies as “moderate or severe.” Because her diagnosis is not among the “serious underlying medical conditions” listed on the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application or identified by the CDC as a comorbidity of COVID-19, she does not believe she qualifies to apply for an absentee ballot. Ms. Pogue is aware of the disproportionate rates of infection and death among Black Louisianans and especially individua ls with respiratory concerns. She reasonably fears that voting in person—her only option to participate in this year’s elections if the Challenged Provisions remain in effect—would pose severe and potentially fatal risk to her health.
27. Defendant John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana and is being sued in his official capacity. Under the Louisiana Constitution, he is “the chief executive officer of the state,” and must “faithfully support the constitution and laws of the state and of the United States,” as well as ensure that “the laws are faithfully executed.” La. Const. art. IV, § 5(A). Like other
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 14 of 54
executive officers of the State, Defendant Edwards is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution , including the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to it, as part of the execution of his gubernatorial duties and responsibilities. 4 U.S.C. § 101. His authority to protect public health during the pandemic in connection with elections was exercised by his order postponing the primary elections.11
28. Defendant Robert Kyle Ardoin is the Louisiana Secretary of State and is being sued in his official capacity. The Secretary of State is the “chief election officer of the state.” La. Const. art. IV, § 7; La. R.S. 18:421. Defendant Ardoin is responsible for, among other things, preparing and certifying the ballots for all Louisiana elections, promulgating all election returns, and promulgating and publishing all laws enacted by the legislature. La. Const. art. IV, § 7; La. R.S. 18:18; 18:421.
29. Defendant Steve Raborn is the Registrar of Voters for East Baton Rouge Parish and a member of the East Baton Rouge Parish Board of Election Supervisors and is being sued in his official capacity. As registrar and a member of the parish board of election supervisors Defendant Raborn has the duty to supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the East Baton Rouge Parish, and is charged with processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, and tabulating and counting absentee by-mail ballots and early voting ballots.
30. Defendant Sandra L. Wilson is the Registrar of Voters for Orleans Parish and a member of the Orleans Parish Board of Election Supervisors and is being sued in her official capacity. As registrar and a member of the parish board of election supervisors Defendant Wilson
11 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28-JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19Po s tp onement.pdf.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 15 of 54
has the duty to supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the Orleans Parish, and is charged with processing requests for absentee ballots, receiving absentee ballots from voters, and tabulating and counting absentee by-mail ballots and early voting ballots.
31. The Defendant Parish Boards of Election Supervisors (the “Parish Boards”) include the Parish Boards of the following counties: Acadia Parish, Allen Parish, Ascension Parish, Assumption Parish, Avoyelles Parish, Beauregard Parish, Bienville Parish, Bossier Parish, Caddo Parish, Calcasieu Parish, Caldwell Parish, Cameron Parish, Catahoula Parish, Claiborne Parish, Concordia Parish, De Soto Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, East Carroll Parish, East Feliciana Parish, Evangeline Parish, Franklin Parish, Grant Parish, Iberia Parish, Iberville Parish, Jackson Parish, Jefferson Parish, Jefferson Davis Parish, Lafayette Parish, Lafourche Parish, Lasalle Parish, Lincoln Parish, Livingston Parish, Madison Parish, Morehouse Parish, Natchitoches Parish, Orleans Parish, Ouachita Parish, Plaquemines Parish, Pointe Coupee Parish, Rapides Parish, Red River Parish, Richland Parish, Sabine Parish, St. Bernard Parish, St. Charles Parish, St. Helena Parish, St. James Parish, St. John The Baptist Parish, St. Landry Parish, St. Martin Parish, St. Mary Parish, St. Tammany Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Tensas Parish, Terrebonne Parish, Union Parish, Vermilion Parish, Vernon Parish, Washington Parish, Webster Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, West Carroll Parish. West Feliciana Parish, and Winn Parish.
32. The Parish Boards “supervise the preparation for and the conduct of all elections held in the parish.” LA Rev Stat § 18:423. In so doing they follow the rules and requirements established by the Legislature and the Secretary of State, including any requirements established in any Emergency Plan. The Parish Boards are bodies corporate located in the State of Louisiana, with the capacity to sue and be sued.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 16 of 54
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The COVID-19 Pandemic
A. COVID-19’s Impact 33. The rapid spread of COVID-19 has triggered a global health crisis of unprecedented consequence. By April 2020, the United States became the epicenter of the pandemic, surpassing other nations in both instance and concentration of infection.12 By the end of that month, over 1 million cases were recorded nationwide.13 Yet according to experts, this figure is a drastic undercount of the virus’ actual reach.14 34. As of May 6, 2020, over 70,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the United States.15 Even with appropriate preventive measures, COVID-19-related fatalities are expected to continue through the summer months.16 Projections forecast higher rates of fatality if health guidance is ignored.17 The leading public model of the disease recently doubled the predicted number of deaths in order to reflect “the easing of social distancing measures expected in 31 states
12 David Smith, US Surpasses China for Highest Number of Confirmed COVID-19 Cases in the World, The Guardian (Mar.27, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/coronavirus-outbreak-us-latest-trump. 13 Daniel Wood, Tracking The Pandemic: How Quickly Is The Coronavirus Spreading StateBy State?, NPR (May 1, 2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-thecoronavirus-in-the-u-s. 14 Emma Brown et al., U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to covid-19, Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-tollundercounted/?arc404=true. 15 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Cases in the US , https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited May 7, 2020). 16 Laura Castañón and Khalida Sarwari, Northeastern Models are Helping Shape US COVID-19 Policy, Northeastern University (Apr. 1, 2020), https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/04/01/northeastern-models-are-helpings h ap e-u s-co vid -19-p olicy /. 17 Isaac Sher, Without any interventions like social distancing, one model predicts thecoronavirus could have killed 40 million people this year, Bus. Insider (Mar. 27, 2020) https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19-model-predicts40-million-people-could-die-without-interventions-2020-3.
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 17 of 54
by May 11, indicating that growing contacts among people will promote transmission of the coronavirus.” 18
35. COVID-19 is the respiratory infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARSCoV-2. It transmits through respiratory droplets, which are spread primarily through close inperson contacts.19 People with both detected and undetected infection are capable of transmitting the virus, even when showing no symptoms.20
36. The novel coronavirus can severely damage lung tissue, cause permanent loss of respiratory capacity, and damage tissues in the kidney, heart, and liver.21 It may trigger strokes and seizures, leading to serious brain impairments.22 It is lethal at its worst.
37. The health effects of COVID-19 vary by patient and demographic subgroup. While older age groups face heightened risks of death, people of all ages have been infected and killed by COVID-19. Preliminary reports show mortality rates of 3.6% among individuals between 60– 69 years old, 8.0% for those 70–79 years old, and 14.8% among people who are 80 years of age
18 Press Release, IHME, New IHME Forecast Projects Nearly 135,000 COVID-19 Deaths in US (May 4, 2020), http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-ihme-forecast-projects-nearly-135000-covid-19-deaths-us (“Increases in testing and contact tracing, along with warming seasonal temperatures – factors that could help slow transmission – do not offset rising mobility, thereby fueling a significant increase in projected deaths.”). 19 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html (last visited May 1, 2020). 20 Id. 21 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidancefor Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidancemanagement-patients.html (last visited May 6, 2020). 22 See Roni Caryn Rabin, Some Coronavirus Patients Show Signs of Brain Ailments, N.Y. Times (Apr. 1, 2020), h ttp s://www.nytimes .com/2020/04/01/h ealth /coron aviru s-stroke-seizu res-confu sion .html.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 18 of 54
and older.23 These rates are significantly higher than the mortality rate of seasonal influenza. 24 People across all ages with certain preexisting medical issues, such as heart and respiratory conditions, compromised immune systems, and many other conditions also face heightened risks. 25
38. The sweeping health consequences of COVID-19 have had a ripple effect across the entire healthcare system. WHO estimates that approximately 20% of individuals infected with COVID-19 require hospitalization.26 This surge of COVID-19 patients has triggered shortages in healthcare staff, hospital beds, medical equipment, and personal protective equipment (“PPE”).27
39. Government leaders from the federal to local level have released emergency declarations, halting or limiting both public and private operations for weeks on end and, at times, indefinitely.28 Over 30 million people have filed for unemployment insurance since the crisis hit. 29
40. The effects of the virus’s first wave will last well into the summer of 2020, and the virus is projected to resurge in the later months of the year, and beyond. Indeed, the “flattening of
23 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidancefor Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), supra n.21. 24 See Darren Thackeray, How COVID-19 compares to seasonal flu, and why you should take it seriously, World Economic Forum(Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-covid19-flu-influenza/. 25 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Groups at Higher Risk of SevereIllness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html (last visited May 6, 2020). 26 WHO, Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19), https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses (last visited May 6, 2020). 27 See Christi A. Grimm, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Hospital Experiences Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the National Pulse Survey March 23–27, 2020, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., Office of Inspector General (Apr. 2020), https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-20-00300.pdf. 28 Michelle Stoddart, Mark Osborne, Abby Cruz, When each state’s stay-at-home order lifts, ABC (May 1, 2020), h ttp s://ab cnews.go.com/US/lis t-states-stay-h ome-o rder-lifts /sto ry?id=70317035. 29 Christopher Rugaber, 30 million have sought US unemployment aid since virus hit, Assoc. Press (Apr. 30, 2020), https://apnews.com/7f38d7fa2982dc53572232c9d2049dca.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 19 of 54
the curve” is designed to extend the duration of the virus.30 Experts suggest that COVID-19 “will face less immunity and thus transmit more readily even outside of the winter season,” and that
seasonal changes are “unlikely to stop transmission.”31 Even if infections subside in the summer, a second wave of COVID-19 infections appears inevitable.32
41. Dr. David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19, has warned that the virus will continue to pose a serious threat to Americans until a vaccine is developed, stating: “We think
it’s going to be a virus that stalks the human race for quite a long time to come until we can all have a vaccine that will protect us and that there will be small outbreaks that will emerge
sporadically and they will break through our defenses.”33 Accordingly, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said that he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting will be safe in November, because of the
potential resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall.34 42. To date, there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and no known or widely effective
treatment. Further, there is “no evidence” that those who develop an immune response to the
30 See generally Neil M. Ferguson et al., Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcaredemand, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team(Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf. 31 Marc Lipsitch, DPhil, Professor of Epidemiology and Director, Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Seasonalityof SARS-CoV-2: Will COVID-19 go awayon its own in warmer weather?, Center for Communicable DiseaseDynamics, https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-covid-19-goaway-on-its-own-in-warmer-weather/. 32 Matthew Impelli, What Experts HaveSaid About a Second Wave of Coronavirus in the U.S., Newsweek (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.newsweek.com/what-experts-have-said-about-second-wave-coronavirus-us-1499501; see also New IHME Forecast Projects Nearly 135,000 COVID-19 Deaths in US, supra n.18. 33 Devan Cole, Fauci admits earlier Covid-19 mitigation efforts would havesaved more American lives, CNN (Apr. 12, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/politics/anthony-fauci-pushback-coronavirus-measurescnntv/index.html. 34 Jason Silverstein, Fauci says he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting in November will be safe, CBS News (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-fauci-says-he-cant-guarantee-in-person-voting-inn o v emb er-will-b e-s afe/.
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 20 of 54
virus—known as antibodies—after an infection are safe from reinfection, nor is there sufficient data about how long immunity to the virus would last.35 Despite the absence of a cure, experts have identified techniques that are effective in decreasing the transmission rate of COVID-19. Officials have encouraged the practice of social distancing through avoiding close in-person contacts, as well as frequent and thorough hand-washing.36
B. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana 43. Louisiana is among the states hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic.37 As of May 6, 2020, over 2,000 Louisianans had died from COVID-19.38 Approximately 30,000 cases were reported by the State, which excludes individuals who were never tested.39 These tallies only grow each day. 44. Since early March, state and local leaders in Louisiana have taken various measures to reduce the spread of the deadly virus. Local leaders in the state’s largest cities, including Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans and Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome of Baton Rouge, have issued multiple stay-at-home orders, limiting all non-essential operations through at least
35 Stephanie Nebehay, “No evidence” that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected: WHO, Reuters (Apr. 25, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19patients-cannot-be-reinfected-who-idUSKCN2270FB; see also, ApoorvaMandavilli and Katie Thomas, Will an AntibodyTest Allow Us to Go Back to School or Work?, N.Y. Times (Apr. 10, 2020), h ttp s://www.nytimes .com/2020/04/10/h ealth /coron aviru s-antibod y-test.html. 36 Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H , Coronavirus, Social and Physical Distancing and Self-Quarantine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-social distancing-and-self-quarantine (last visited May 6, 2020). 37 Aila Slisco, Louisiana Becomes Fourth U.S. State to Reach 1,000 Coronavirus Deaths, Newsweek (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.newsweek.com/louisiana-becomes-fourth-us-state-reach-1000-coronavirus-deaths-1497930. 38 La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), supra n.10. 39 Id.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 21 of 54
May 15, 2020.40 At the statewide level, Governor Edwards has issued a series of incremental proclamations closing down most “non-essential” businesses and encouraging Louisianans to shelter in place.
45. On March 11, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, declaring a State of Emergency for Louisiana.41 Two days later President Donald Trump proclaimed a National Emergency concerning COVID-19.42
46. On March 12, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27, which, among other things, banned public gatherings of more than 250 people and closed all K-12 public schools statewide until at least April 13, 2020.43
47. On March 13, upon the recommendation of Secretary of State Ardoin, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020.44 It delegated responsibility to the Secretary of State, Commissioner of Elections, Parish Boards of Election Supervisors, Clerks of Court, Registrars of Voters, and any others
40 Press Release, City of New Orleans, Mayor LaToyaCantrell, Mayor Cantrell Issues StayHome Mandate in Responseto COVID-19 (March 20, 2020), https://nola.gov/mayor/news/march-2020/mayor-cantrell-issues-stayhome-mandate-in-response-to-covid-19/; Terry L. Jones, Stay-at-Home Order to Remain in Place in East Baton Rouge Despite Other Parishes’ Defiance, The Advocate (Apr. 30, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_482ea0ee-8af1-11ea-900dbb852bbc325c.html. 41 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 42 Proclamation 9994, 85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. 43 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/27-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 44 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020, supra n.11.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 22 of 54
charged with conducting elections in Louisiana to “do every act necessary to conduct the elections.” 45
48. On March 13, 2020, this Court responded to the pandemic by, among other things, postponing civil trials and suspending in-person filing through April 30.46 This Court has also authorized the use of video conferencing and other technology for criminal-related appearances.47 This Court subsequently extended postponement of civil and criminal trials, suspension of inperson filing, and other preventive measures through June 30.48
49. On March 16, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30, which, among other measures, banned public gatherings of more than 50 people, closed or limited the operations of certain, “non-essential” businesses (e.g., casinos, bars, restaurants, gyms, etc.) statewide until at least April 13, 2020.49
50. On March 22, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, a statewide Stay-at-Home order requiring “all individuals within the state of Louisiana . . . to stay home unless performing an essential activity,” cancelling public gatherings of more than 10 people, and expanding the definition of “non-essential” businesses.50 It directed individuals in
45 Id. 46 See United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Administrative Order No. 2020-1 (Mar. 13, 2020) https://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/AO%202020-1.pdf; see also Administrative Order No. 2020-5 (Apr. 8, 2020) http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/orders/public_orders/AO%202020-5.pdf. 47 See id. 48 See United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Administrative Order No. 2020-7 (May 1, 2020) http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/orders/public_orders/AO%202020%207-4.30.2020.pdf. 49 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30 (Mar. 16, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/30-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID19.pdf. 50 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 33 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 23 of 54
Louisiana to “maintain a distance of six feet from one another and abide by the 10-person limitation on gathering size.”51 It ordered residents to limit movement outside the home, until at least April 13, 2020, except for the purpose of visiting essential businesses, obtaining non-elective medical care, performing their job at an essential business, visiting family, exercising, and going to a place of worship.52
51. In issuing the Stay-at-Home order, Governor Edwards explained that despite having taken “aggressive measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and flatten the curve,” the measures already taken had not been enough.53
52. On March 24, President Trump approved a major disaster declaration for Louisia na , which made federal emergency aid available for recovery efforts due to COVID-19.54
53. On April 14, upon the recommendation of Secretary of State Ardoin, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020, further postponing or rescheduling all elections scheduled to be held in the State. The June 20, 2020 presidential preference primary election in Louisiana was rescheduled for July 11, 2020. The July 25, 2020 municipal election was rescheduled for August 15, 2020.55
51 Id. 52 Id. 53 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Issues Statewide Stay at Home Order to Further Fight the Spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/order/. 54 See FEMA, President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Louisiana (Mar. 24, 2020), h ttp s://www.fema.go v/n ews-release/2020/03/24/p resident-donald -j-trump -app roves-majo r-dis aster-d eclaratio nlo u is ian a. 55 La. Exec Dep’t Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), h ttp s://gov.lo u isiana.gov /assets/Proclamatio ns/2020/46-JBE-2020-Electio n s -Rescheduled .pdf.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 24 of 54
54. On April 27, Governor Edwards announced that Louisiana’s Stay-at-Home order would be extended until at least May 15 in order to continue to slow the spread of the disease,56 officially implementing the extension on April 30.57 Governor Edwards intends to make his next announcement on whether the Stay-at-Home order will be modified on or by May 11.58
C. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black Pe ople in Louisiana 55. As the COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the country, it has taken a devastating toll on Black people, who make up a disproportionate number of confirmed cases and deaths resulting from the virus.59 Preliminary nationwide data released by the CDC on April 25, which included race data for 42.1% of the 671,485 cases analyzed, found that Black people make up 30% of reported COVID-19 cases although they only make up 13% of the total U.S. population. 60 56. In Louisiana, racial disparities in infections and deaths resulting from the coronavirus have been particularly acute. On April 6, Governor Edwards announced that initial data categorizing deaths resulting from COVID-19 by race showed that Black people comprised
56 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Will Extend Stay at Home Order Until May 15 to Continue Flattening the Curveand Slowing the Spread of COVID-19 (Apr. 27, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/home-orderextended-may15/. 57 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 52 JBE 2020 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-2020-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf. 58 Id. 59 Reis Thebault, et al., The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate, Washington Post (Ap. 7, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infectingkillin g -b lack-american s -an -alarmin g ly -hig h-rate-p ost-analysis -shows/?arc404=tru e&itid =lk_ in lin e_manu al_ 3 60 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases, Data, & Surveillance, Demographic characteristics of COVID-19 cases in theU.S. (May 5, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-inu s .h tml.
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 25 of 54
70% of deaths, despite making up only 32% of Louisiana’s population.61 The Governor called this alarming statistic “a disturbing trend and one that deserves our attention,” and announced the creation of the Louisiana COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force to explore “how health inequities are affecting communities that are most impacted by the coronavirus.”62
57. As of May 4, data updated weekly by the Louisiana Department of Health indicate s that the COVID-19 death rate remains disproportionately high for Black people at over 57%. Further, recently released Louisiana Department of Health data reporting COVID-19 cases by U.S. census tract shows high rates of infection in Louisiana’s predominantly Black areas.63 For example, in Orleans Parish, where Black people make up 60% of the population, the census tract data indicate that neighborhoods with high concentrations of Black residents have higher numbers of reported cases.64 While the State’s data does not report rates of COVID-19 infection by race, the census tract data reflect a disparate impact on Louisiana’s Black communities as opposed to predominately white communities. These figures mirror developing trends in other states, such as Maryland and North Carolina, which have both released data showing that Black people face higher rates of both infection and death from COVID-19 than the population as a whole.65
61 Gordon Russell & Sam Karlin, Coronavirus disparity in Louisiana: About 70% of victims are black, but why?, nola.com(Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_d804d410-7852-11ea-ac6d470ebb61c694.html. 62 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Announces Creation of COVID-19 Health Equity Taskforce (Apr. 10, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2457. 63 Jeff Adelson, ‘Glaring’ racial disparities found in coronavirus infection rates in theseNew Orleans neighborhoods, nola.com(Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_0ea8b004-8357-11ea81e3-ff26d085e141.html. 64 Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of Covid-19 in America, N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-covid-19.html. 65 N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., COVID-19 North Carolina Dashboard, https://www.ncdhhs.gov/divisions/public-health/covid19/covid-19-nc-case-count#by-race-ethnicity (last updated May 6, 2020); Fenit Nirappil et al., Record set for single-day covid-19 deaths in D.C., Maryland and Virginia at 53;
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 26 of 54
58. The stark racial disparities reflected in COVID-19’s effects on Louisiana’s residents are a manifestation of longstanding discrimination and socioeconomic inequities in the State. According to 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year estimates, in Louisiana, 30% of all Black residents compared to 12% of all white residents live in poverty; the unemployment rate is 9.9% for Black residents compared to 4.5% for white residents; per capita income for Black residents is $17,491, compared to $33,856 for white residents; only 19% of Black residents have finished high school compared to 10.8% of white residents; 7.8% of Black residents had no health insurance compared to 6.2% of white residents; and 15.8% of Black residents lacked a vehicle compared to 4.7% white residents.66
59. Together with race and class biases that impact access to healthcare, these racially disparate socioeconomic conditions contribute to adverse health conditions and outcomes that predispose Black people to contracting COVID-19. According to statistics from the Louisiana State Health Department, the number of deaths from asthma, heart disease, diabetes, and severe obesity are higher for Black people than for whites. 67 The CDC has cited racial disparities in these
black residents hit hardest, Washington Post (Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-19deaths-hit-new-high-in-dc-maryland-and-virginia-at-53-black-residents-hit-hardest/2020/04/09/cc85cd14-77b311ea-b 6ff-597f170d f8f8_ s to ry .h tml. 66 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=s0201&tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&y=2018&t=400%20%20His p an ic%20o r%20Latin o%20%28of%20any%20race%29%20%28200-299%29%3A 451%20%20W h ite%20alo ne,%20n ot%20His panic%20o r%20Latino %3A453%20%20Black%20o r%20A frican %20American %20alo ne,%20n ot%20His panic%20o r%20Latin o%3A Race%20and %20 Ethnicity&hidePreview=true&moe=false&g=0400000US22. 67 La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Community Partnerships & Health Equity, MinorityHealth Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 27 of 54
underlying medical conditions as a factor that influences the disproportionate impact of COVID19 on the Black population.68
60. Racial disparities in employment and access to transportation also make it more difficult for Black people to take measures that mitigate the risks posed by COVID-19, including engaging in social isolation or working from home. In Louisiana, 29.9% of African Americans 16 years and over who are employed work in service industry occupations compared to only 14.8% of whites, and only 24.7% are in management and business positions, positions more likely to facilitate remote work, as compared to 39.3% of whites; thus, African Americans face a higher degree of exposure to COVID-19 both at their workplace and in transit.69
61. The COVID-19 pandemic has both exposed and exacerbated deep-rooted and systemic inequalities faced by Black people throughout the country, and in Louisiana in particular. Indeed recognizing that “[h]ealth differences between racial and ethnic groups are often due to economic and social conditions that are more common among some racial and ethnic minorit ies
68 Id. (citing A.P. Bartel et al., Racial and ethnicdisparities in access to and useof paid family and medical leave: evidence from four nationallyrepresentative datasets, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Jan. 2019), https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.2; T.J. Cunninghamet al., Vital signs: racial disparities in age-specific mortality among blacks or African Americans—United States, 1999–2015, 66(17) CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 444 (2017)); see also Joseph P. Williams, Rumor, Disparityand Distrust: Why Black Americans Facean Uphill Battle Against COVID-19, U.S. News and World Report (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-03-25/why-black-americans-face-an-uphillbattle-against-the-coronavirus (citing Dr. Lisa Cooper, internist and social epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “The concern that black communities presently hampered by health inequities could be devastated by the coronavirus is rooted in decades of research as well as the nation’s checkered racial history.”); IbramX. Kendi, Stop Blaming Black Peoplefor Dying of the Coronavirus, The Atlantic (Apr. 14, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/race-and-blame/609946/ (“Without question, African Americans suffer disproportionately fromchronic diseases such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, obesity, and asthma, which make it harder for themto survive COVID-19.”). 69 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 28 of 54
than whites,” the CDC has identified racial and ethnic minority groups among “people who need to take extra precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19.”70
D. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting 62. The CDC has issued specific guidance concerning safe voting practices during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent spread of the coronavirus. In particular, the CDC has warned of the high potential of COVID-19 transmission at polling sites, and instructs election officials to “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”71 The guidance advises officials to encourage mail-in methods of voting, early voting, and drive up voting, among other recommendations.72 63. The CDC lists “mail-in methods of voting” first among its recommendations to reduce person-to-person contacts and congestion at polling sites.73 While COVID-19 spreads rapidly in crowds, like those at congested polling sites, there is no evidence that it spreads through the mail.74 In the interest of extreme caution, the U.S. Postal Service has also implemented policies
70 CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, Others at Risk, Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html (last updated Apr. 20, 2020). 71 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020). 72 Id. 73 Id. 74 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): FrequentlyAsked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html (last updated Apr. 28, 2020).
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 29 of 54
to reduce contacts between mail carriers and members of the businesses and households they serve. 75
64. Across the country, voters and election workers have already fallen victim to COVID-19 through contacts made at in-person polling sites. After Florida’s March 17 primary, two Broward County poll workers tested positive for COVID-19, one of whom was handling driver’s licenses as part of the identification verification process.76 Chicago officials later reported that a poll worker died of COVID-19 after working at the polls on March 17, with officials identifying individuals with confirmed coronavirus cases at additional polling locations.77 Just weeks later, in-person voting proceeded in Wisconsin, where voters in Milwaukee and Green Bay waited in multi-hour lines.78 Following that election, health officials identified at least 52 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 after either voting in person or working at a polling site. 79
75 Press Release, United States Postal Service, Media Statement – COVID-19 (Apr. 2, 2020), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/statements/usps-statement-on-coronavirus.htm(citing guidance fromWorld Health Organization, CDC, and Surgeon General). 76 Anthony Man, Two Broward poll workers, including one who handled voters’ driver licenses, test positivefor coronavirus, S. Fla. Sun Sentinel (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-browardelectio n s-p oll-wo rkers-coro naviru s-20200326-wmg y 775d v jc5jis 2o agxlp mu le-s to ry.html. 77 See Mary Ann Ahern, Poll Worker at Chicago Voting Site Dies of Coronavirus, Election Officials Say, NBC Chicago (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/poll-worker-at-chicago-votings ite-d ies -of-coro nav irus-electio n-o fficials-say/2255072/. 78 Devi Shastri, In-person voting was likelya ‘disaster’ for Wisconsin’s efforts to flatten coronavirus curve, national experts say, MilwaukeeJ. Sentinel (Apr. 8, 2020) (quoting Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm), https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/08/coronavirus-wisconsin-electionlikely-hurt-effort-flatten-curve/2961718001/. 79 Nolan D. McCaskill, Wisconsin Health Dept.: 36 PeoplePositive for Coronavirus After Primary Vote, Politico (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/wisconsin-tested-positive-coronavirus-election-211495; The Latest: 52 positivecases tied to Wisconsin election, The Associated Press (Apr. 28, 2020), https://apnews.com/b1503b5591c682530d1005e58ec8c267.
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 30 of 54
65. Expanded access to voting by mail for all voters also helps reduce lines and crowds at polling sites by allowing some people who would otherwise vote in person to vote by mail. Many other voters, including but not limited to people who are homeless, visually impaired, have limited English proficiency, or are illiterate and need accessible voting machines and personal assistance, will continue to rely on in-person voting to participate in the democratic process. The CDC recommendations also address best practices for in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, including sanitizing surfaces and maintaining 6 feet of distance between individua ls. 80 As noted, however, the CDC recommends that election officials “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations,” including mail-in methods of voting and drive up voting.81 Maximizing options for voters ensures less congestion at polling sites, while maintaining inclusive access to the franchise.
66. The majority of states, that is, 34 and the District of Columbia, already offer all eligible voters a vote-by-mail ballot option.82 Of the 16 states that require an excuse to vote absentee by mail, several have expanded the scope of absentee eligibility in recognition of the extensively documented threat that the pandemic continues to pose to the public and in response to the well-founded health and safety concerns of qualified voters.
80 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020). 81 Id. 82 The Brennan Center for Justice, Research & Reports: Preparing Your Statefor an Election Under Pandemic Conditions, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preparing-your-state-election-underpandemic-conditions (last updated Apr. 27, 2020).
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 31 of 54
67. For example, Arkansas,83 Alabama,84 Delaware,85 Massachusetts,86 New
Hampshire,87 Virginia,88 and West Virginia89 have, via varying interpretations, expanded the
scope of existing state election laws establishing absentee ballot eligibility for illness, injury, or
disability to now include all qualified voters concerned about or taking preventative measures
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts have similarly removed the burdens of witness and
notary requirements for absentee ballots within the context of the pandemic.90
83 Governor of Arkansas, Exec. Order No. 20-08, (Mar. 20, 2020), h ttp s://governo r.arkan sas.go v/imag es/up loads/execu tiv eOrd ers /EO_ 20-08._ .p df. 84 Ala. Legis. Servs. Agency, Absentee Voting During State of Emergency, 17-11-3(e) (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/SOS%20Emergency%20Rule%20820-2-3-.06-.01ER.pdf; see also Press Release, Alabama Secretary of State, 100 Days Left to Applyfor AbsenteeBallot for the Primary Runoff Election (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/100-days-left-apply-absentee-ballot-primaryrunoff-election; see also Ala. Code§ 17-11-3(a)(2). 85 See Governor of Delaware, Exec. Dep’t, Sixth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of Delaware Due to a Public Health Threat (Mar. 24, 2020), https://governor.delaware.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/24/2020/03/Sixth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03242020.pdf (Delaware executive order providing that for upcoming primary and special elections “the qualification of ‘sick or physically disabled’ [in Delaware vote-by-mail provisions] shall apply to and include any such voter who is asymptomatic of COVID-19 . . . and who herself or himself freely chooses to usesuch qualification to voteby absentee ballot.”). 86 An Act Granting Authority to Postpone 2020 Municipal Elections in the Commonwealth and IncreaseVoting Option in Response to the Declaration of Emergency to Respond to COVID-19, 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., ch. 45 (2020), https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter45 (new Massachusetts law clarifying that “any person taking precaution related to COVID-19 in response to a declared state of emergency or fromguidance froma medical professional, local or state health official, or any civil authority shall be deemed to be unable by reason of physical disability to cast their vote in person,” which is one of the reasons set forth in the state constitution that permits a Massachusetts voter to vote by mail). 87 Memorandumfromthe Sec’y of State and Att’y General to New Hampshire Election Officials re: Elections Operations During the State of Emergency at 2 (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press2020/d o cu men ts/20200410-ab s en tee-v otin g.p df. 88 Absentee Voting, Va. Dep’t of Elections, https://www.elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/ (last visited May 6, 2020) (Virginia Department of Elections statement clarifying that “[v]oters may choose reason ‘2A My disability or illness’” to vote absentee in upcoming elections dueto COVID-19). 89 W. Va. Sec’y of State Mac Warner, Admin. Law Div., Notice Of An Emergency Rule (Mar. 20, 2020), http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=53039&Format=PDF. 90 See League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, F. Supp. 3d, No. 6:20-cv-00024, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (E.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (approving order enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 32 of 54
II. Louisiana’s Abse ntee and Early Voting Proce ss 68. At least four major elections are scheduled to take place in Louisiana between May
and the end of the calendar year, including major statewide and federal elections. The elections are currently scheduled to take place on July 11, 2020 (Presidential Preference Primary/Municipal Primary Election), August 15, 2020 (Municipal General Election), November 3, 2020 (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election), and December 5, 2020 (Congressional and Open General Election).91
69. Louisiana’s state election code enumerates specific categories of eligible voters who may request and vote by mail-in ballot, a process described in Louisiana’s election code as “absentee voting by mail.” La. R.S. 18:1308. The categories include voters who expect to be out of the parish in which they would be qualified to vote in person on Election Day, such as service members, students, clergy members, and overseas citizens. La. R.S. 18:1303(B). Voters who are not necessarily absent from the parish but will remain incarcerated pre-trial or sequestered as a jury member during the election may also request and vote by absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1303(C)-(G). Eligible voters who submit certain identification or documentation of a qualifying disability may vote absentee. La. R.S. 18:1303(I). Voters who are 65 years-of-age and older also qualify for this accommodation. La. R.S. 18:1303(J). Finally, qualified voters who
requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to mitigate therisks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded fromexercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); Leagueof Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee b allo ts ). 91 See 2020 Elections Calendar, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/ElectionsCalendar2020.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2020).
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 33 of 54
were unable to participate in early voting and will be unable to vote on election day due to hospitalization may vote by absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1303(D).
70. All requests to vote absentee by mail must specify the reason for the request. La. R.S. 18:1307. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or electronically through the Secretary of State’s website at GeauxVote.com. La. R.S. 18:1307.
71. When applying for an absentee ballot, the applicant must provide the reason for their request to vote absentee by mail and attach any documents in support thereof. La. R.S. 18:1307(A)(2). If the registrar of voters has reason to believe that the eligibility of a voter to vote absentee by mail pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1303 is based upon false or fraudulent information, they “shall immediately notify the parish board of election supervisors.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I). And, if “after appropriate hearing and opportunity for the voter to be heard, the parish board of election supervisors finds that the voter’s eligibility to vote absentee by mail was based upon false or fraudulent information, the board shall inform the appropriate district attorney and the registrar of voters who shall not allow the voter to vote absentee by mail.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I).
72. The Secretary of State is responsible for preparing absentee ballots. La. R.S. 18:1306(A). Every ballot is mailed in an envelope with the following on its face in red bold face type: “VIOLATION OF ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR EARLY VOTING LAWS VOIDS BALLOT AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES” and “VOTING AT POLLS AFTER VOTING ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR DURING EARLY VOTING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES.” La. R.S. 18:1306(D). The envelope also includes a “Certificate” to be signed by the voter, certifying that they “applied for the ballot, marked the enclosed ballot(s) himself or that they were marked for him according to his instructions and in his
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 34 of 54
presence;” that the voter is entitled to vote at the precinct they name; and that the parish board of election supervisors is authorized to open the envelope and count their ballot. La. R.S. 18:1306(E).
73. The “Certificate,” which is on the envelope, includes “an affidavit followed by a line for the handwritten signature or mark of the voter, certifying that the statements made . . . are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making a false statement therein, which penalties shall be stated on the certificate.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(1)(f).
74. Finally, the voter must sign the certificate in the presence of one witness, who must also sign the envelope. The voter’s certificate “shall be made under penalty of perjury for providing false or fraudulent information.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a).
75. Once completed, the ballot must be returned to the registrar by the U.S. Postal Service, a commercial courier, or by hand delivery. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). If delivered by someone other than the voter, a commercial courier, or the U.S. Postal Service, the registrar must require that the person making such delivery sign a statement, prepared by the Secretary of State, certifying that they have the authorization and consent of the voter to hand deliver the marked ballot. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). No person except the immediate family of the voter may hand deliver more than one marked ballot to the registrar. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). Under most circumstances, ballots must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the day before Election Day in order to be counted. La. R.S. 18:1308(C).
76. The parish board of election supervisors conducts the counting and tabulation of all absentee by mail and early voting ballots in the parish. La. R.S. 18:1313(A). Absentee by mail and early voting ballots are counted at a public facility within the parish no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. La. R.S. 18:1313(B). Several steps must be taken to validate each ballot before it may be counted: (1) a member of the board must compare the name on the certificate or on the
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 35 of 54
flap of the envelope containing the absentee by mail ballot with the names on the absentee by mail voter report; (2) the board will consider any properly filed challenges to the ballot, following procedures delineated elsewhere in the statutes; (3) if a majority of the members of the board determine that an absentee by mail ballot is invalid, the members must leave the flap on the envelope containing the absentee by mail ballot, leave the envelope sealed, and a board member must write the word “rejected,” together with the reasons for rejecting the ballot, and their initials. La. R.S. 18:1313(F). The rejected absentee by mail ballots and certificates must be replaced in the special absentee by mail and early voting ballot envelope or container. La. R.S. 18:1313(F).
77. No rejected absentee by mail ballot is counted. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5). 78. If the board determines that an absentee by mail ballot is valid, the ballot certificate must be signed by two board members. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6). 79. Any person who knowingly, willfully, or intentionally votes or attempts to vote more than once in an election, or otherwise votes in a false, fictitious, or fraudulent way shall be fined up to $2,000 dollars, be imprisoned for up to two years, or both, for the first offense. La. R.S. 18:1461.2(B). These penalties are listed boldly on all absentee ballot applications.92
92See General Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, h ttp s://www.sos.la.go v/Electio nsAndVo tin g/Publis hedDocumen ts/Gen eralA pplicatio nForAbsenteeByMailBallo t.p d f (last visited May 6, 2020); Disabled Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, h ttp s://www.sos.la.go v/Electio nsAndVo tin g/Publis hedDocumen ts/Dis ab ledApplicatio nForAbsenteeByMailBallo t.p df (last visited May 6, 2020); Military Overseas Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, h ttp s://www.sos.la.go v/Electio nsAndVo tin g/Publis hedDocumen ts/Military Ov erseasApp licatio nForA bsenteeBy Mail Ballot.pdf (last visited May 6, 2020).
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 36 of 54

80. La. R.S. 18:1309 allows for early voting from seven to fourteen days prior to any

scheduled election. In practice, over at least the past four years, Louisiana has only allowed for

seven days of early voting in primary and general elections.93

81. All registered voters may vote early.94

III. 82.

The Eme rge ncy Ele ction Plan Louisiana election procedures are governed by the Louisiana Election Code.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:401.3, if the Governor declares a statewide emergency, the Secretary of

State may certify that the emergency will impair an upcoming election. The Secretary of State

sends the certification with the underlying facts and reasons detailing the election impairment to

the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House

Committee on House and Governmental Affairs.

83. If the Governor and the majority of each of the two committees agree that an

emergency election plan is necessary, the Secretary of State shall develop a plan to address any

impairments the emergency presents to the holding of the election. The Secretary of State may, if

deemed necessary, include in the emergency plan a proposal to conduct early voting in certain

parishes to enable displaced voters to vote. The written emergency plan must then be submitted

by the Secretary of State to the two aforementioned committees and the Governor.

84. The majority of the two committees must approve of the plan, after which it will be

submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval by the majority of each

93See Search Election Dates, La. Sec. State, h ttp s://www.sos.la.go v/Electio nsAndVo tin g/GetElectio nIn formatio n/Search Electio nDates/Pages/defau lt.aspx(las t visited May 6, 2020). 94See, Elections and Voting, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteEarly/Pages/default.aspx(last visited May 6, 2020).
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 37 of 54
house. Upon approval by a majority of the members of the House and the Senate and by the Governor, the Secretary of State must then take steps necessary to implement the plan.
85. On March 13, 2020, Secretary of State Ardoin certified to the Governor that a state of emergency exists that would affect the electoral process, and certified the same one month later on April 13, 2020.95 On April 14, 2020, Secretary Ardoin presented his first emergency plan to the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House
Committee on House and Governmental Affairs (“the First Emergency Plan”). 86. The First Emergency Plan recognized the serious threat COVID-19 poses to
Louisianans. The First Emergency Plan explained that: COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.96
87. Secretary Ardoin then described the steps he believed were necessary to ensure a safe and fair election. These included (1) expanding early voting from seven to thirteen days
before election day; (2) expanding the reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and included voters:
• Sixty years of age or older; • At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical
conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy,
95 See State of Louisiana Executive Department: Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), h ttp s://gov.lo u isiana.gov /assets/Proclamatio ns/2020/mo dified /46-JBE-2020-Electio n s .pd f. 96 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential PreferencePrimary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2020/Apr_2020/Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20PPP%20and%20 Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-13.pdf.
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 38 of 54
immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease); • Subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order; • Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; • Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; • Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19; • Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or • Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID-19 concerns;
(3) reducing the number of witness signatures required on an absentee ballot application where the
applicant is unable to sign their own name from two witnesses to one witness; and (4) providing polling locations and election workers with supplies to prevent against the spread of the virus.97
88. On April 15, 2020, the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee blocked the
First Emergency Plan in committee on a party-line vote, citing concerns that making absentee
voting available to anyone concerned about exposure to COVID-19 would enable voter fraud, despite statistics and evidence to the contrary.98 Blocking the First Emergency Plan in committee
ensured that the full Louisiana legislature would not be able to approve of the plan.99
97 See id. 98 See Sam Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Emergency Coronavirus Election Plan; Futureof Election Unclear, The Advocate (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html; see also Melinda Deslatte, Louisiana Lawmakers ApproveEmergency Summer Elections Plan, U.S. News (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-04-28/louisiana-lawmakers-approveemergency-summer-elections-plan. 99 See id.
37

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 39 of 54
89. On April 20, 2020, less than a week after the First Emergency Plan was blocked, Secretary Ardoin presented his new emergency plan (the “Emergency Plan”).100 The new Emergency Plan would no longer allow voters with a “concern of exposure” to COVID-19 to request an absentee-by-mail ballot.101 The Emergency Plan would no longer extend access to absentee ballots to voters over the age of 60 or those caring for a child or grandchild whose school or daycare is closed and/or where alternative childcare is not available due to COVID-19 concerns.102 And, the revised Emergency Plan would cover only the July Election and the August Election—it would not provide for expanded access to absentee ballots for either the November Election or December Election.103
90. Two days later, on April 22, 2020, both the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee and House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs approved the revised Emergency Plan. On April 27, 2020, the Emergency Plan was approved by the full Louisiana State House (passing 62–39) and State Senate (passing 31–8).
91. Contrary to recommendations from federal health experts at the CDC, the Emergency Plan only allows voters to seek absentee ballots if they attest on an application that they (i) are “[a]t a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease,
100 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential PreferencePrimary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020), supra n.8. 101 See id. 102 See id. 103 See id.
38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 40 of 54
pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications)”; (ii) are “[s]ubject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19”; (iii) are “[a]dvised by a health provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns”; (iv) are “[e]xperiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis”; or (v) are “[c]aring for an identified individual who is subject to medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.”104
92. The Emergency Plan does not define or explain qualifying terms included in the list of COVID-19 specific excuses, including the terms “medically necessary,” and “moderate or severe,” nor does the Emergency Plan provide guidance on what qualifies as being “advised by a health provider” or “seeking medical diagnosis.”105 Given that the State’s medical infrastructure is overwhelmed and hospitals are advising all but the most severely ill patients not to go to a hospital, most voters quarantining due to COVID-19 symptoms will be unable to obtain the medical advice or documentation of such advice that may be required under the Emergency P lan. 106
93. The State’s COVID-19 Emergency Absentee Ballot Application expressly states and requires a voter requesting an absentee mail in ballot based on one of the COVID-19-related
104 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the Stateof Louisiana(Apr. 20, 2020), supra note 8; Exhibit A, Emergency Ballot Application. 105 See id. 106 See Healthcare Facility Notice/Order: Notice #2020-COVID19-All-010, L.A. Dept. of Health (Apr. 20, 2020) http://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Coronavirus/resources/providers/LDH-MEMO-UPDATE-RESTORE-MED-SURGProcedures.pdf, (requiring all non-essential healthcare services to be donevia telehealth due to ongoing pandemic).
39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 41 of 54
excuses to acknowledge that “[p]roviding a false statement to an election official is a felony offense,” and that doing do will subject the voter to a fine or imprisonment.107
ARGUMENT I. Louisiana’s Restrictions on Absentee Mail-In Voting and Early Voting Will Place
Undue Burde ns on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pande mic A. The Excuse Require me nt Will Se ve rely Burde n the Right to Vote 94. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will severely burden the right to vote because it
will require many thousands of Louisiana’s voters to choose between exposing themselves and others to the risk of illness from COVID-19 to vote in person or foregoing their right to vote.
95. The ongoing health risks posed by COVID-19 necessitate that Defendants provide all eligible voters the opportunity to cast an absentee by mail ballot without any excuse so that they can avoid the significant risks posed by voting in person. Moreover, all voters who are forced by Defendants to take on the risks of voting during the pandemic will necessarily bring those risks home with them, potentially spreading COVID-19 to their families and community members, vulnerable and healthy alike.
96. Voting in person requires individuals to leave the safety of their homes; to commute to and from the polls, potentially via public transportation; to line up at polling places (potentially for hours); and to congregate with unknown individuals including other voters, poll workers, and poll monitors. Making one’s way to cast a vote in person will also require voters to touch shared surfaces, which may include voting machines, shared writing instruments, doorknobs, elevator buttons, and parking meters. Public health officials have unequivocally warned of the risks of engaging in these activities in public during the COVID-19 pandemic.
107 See Exhibit A, Emergency Ballot Application.
40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 42 of 54
97. None of the statutory excuses nor the COVID-19-related excuses created by the Emergency Plan include self-isolating due to a pandemic. The existence of the Emergency Plan reflects Defendants’ recognition that the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic will still loom large over the State’s upcoming elections. Yet, Defendants fail to provide any protection or accommodation for many thousands of voters—including many who are at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and/or live with individuals who are at increased risk—to vote absentee by mail-in ballot and thereby continue taking protective steps of remaining at home and observing strict social distancing, as current orders from the State instruct them to do.
98. A failure to provide for a no-excuses regime during the COVID-19 pandemic will likely impose particularly severe burdens on the rights of certain categories of vulnerable individuals, including older voters, voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, and Black voters.
99. Louisiana’s current Excuse Requirement will disproportionately burden older voters, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19. The CDC has warned that older individuals are at higher risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19, because “[t]he immune systems of older adults weaken with age, making it harder to fight off infections,” and “older adults commonly have chronic diseases that can increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19.”108 Thus, “the older you are, the higher your risk of serious disease.”109
100. The virus is already having a devastating impact on older individuals in Louisiana. Almost one-fifth of all COVID-19 cases reported in Louisiana (approximately 19%) involve
108 CDC, Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness (webpagelast updated Apr. 17, 2020), h ttp s://www.cd c.g ov/coro naviru s/2019-n cov /need -extra-p recaution s/gro ups-at-h igh er-ris k.h tml. 109 Id.
41

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 43 of 54
individuals aged 50–59, with another 17% involving individuals aged 60–69.110 Currently, only senior citizens over the age of 65 may request an absentee ballot based on age.111
101. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden voters with pre-existing health conditions, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19. The CDC has warned that “people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”112 Louisiana ranks in the bottom five among states for both adult obesity,113 and cardiovascular deaths,114 two indicators of chronic health conditions.
102. While one of the COVID-19-related excuses accounts for some immunocompromised voters, the plan only applies to the upcoming July and August elections; thus, these vulnerable voters will be at heightened risk during the November and December elections. Due to their medical condition, immunocompromised individuals face a greater risk of contracting the virus on the way to the polls. If immunocompromised individuals contract the virus while voting in person, they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences.
103. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden Black voters, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19 because of social and economic disparities,
110 See La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19) supra note38. 111 La. R.S. 18:1303(J). 112 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html (last visited May 7, 2020). 113 America Health Rankings, Obesity, https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Obesity/state/LA (last visited May 7, 2020). 114 America Health Rankings, CVD Deaths, https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/CVDDeaths/state/LA (last visited May 7, 2020).
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 44 of 54
as well as disparities in health and healthcare that raise the stakes for them at every step of the process.
104. Black voters also face a greater risk of contracting the virus on their way to the polls. Black Americans are “least likely to own a car,”115 and therefore more likely to have to rely on public or shared transportation to go to the polls. In Louisiana, about one in six (15.8%) Black households lack access to a vehicle, compared to 4.7% white households.116
105. If Black voters contract the virus while voting in person, they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences, because they disproportionately suffer from the underlying medical conditions that exacerbate the virus and because they are also more likely to be subject to inequalities in the health care system.
106. These heightened risks, both individually and collectively, demonstrate that the Excuse Requirement imposes an especially severe burden on Black voters. Racial disparities in serious illness and death due to COVID-19 are inextricably linked to a long history and ongoing patterns of racial discrimination against Black people in voting and ongoing and current racial disparities in education, employment, and health.
107. Louisiana’s failure to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail in the upcoming elections will also impose a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 on voters who live with, care for, or work with individuals who have a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19; and all poll workers. As the health data from states that have held in-person primaries indicate, requiring
115 Jamelle Bouie, Why Coronavirus Is Killing African-Americans More Than Others, N.Y. Times (Apr. 14, 2020), h ttp s://www.nytimes .com/2020/04/14/o p inio n/sunday/coro naviru s-racism-african -americans.html. 116 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66.
43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 45 of 54
in-person voting during the pandemic is not a mere inconvenience: failing to treat the pandemic as an excuse, even after complete shelter-in-place policies have been lifted, can cost lives.
108. Louisiana’s current excuse-required regime is unduly burdensome because the refusal to allow all Louisianans to vote absentee by mail in response to the pandemic cannot be justified by any legitimate state interest. Voters should not have to make the untenable decision between risking their health and giving up their right to vote.
B. The Witne ss Re quire ments Will Se ve re ly Burde n the Right to Vote 109. The requirements that an absentee mail-in ballot and an absentee ballot applica tion certified by a mark (as opposed to a signature) include witness signatures (the “Witness Requirements”) present significant health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic and will severely burden voters who live alone and have no access to a witness who can sign their absentee ballot request application or their ballot. 110. In line with the guidance provided by the CDC and public health and medical experts to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, Louisiana’s current Stay-at-Home order instructs all Louisiana residents to shelter at home and limits movement outside of their homes beyond essential needs. The Governor’s order further instructs that residents should maintain at least 6 feet of distance from others when outside their homes. If required to secure a witness signature, the Witness Requirements will force voters who live alone or do not live with another adult who can witness their ballot to not only violate the Stay-at-Home order, but also risk their health and safety. 111. Given that approximately 15% (or 532,678 individuals) of the 3,560,000 Louisiana residents of voting age live alone, and that individuals of any age are susceptible to COVID-19
44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 46 of 54
infection, the Witness Requirements will pose a serious risk to and material burden on a significant number of the State’s voters.117
112. Indeed, there will also be voters for whom the burden of the Witness Requirements will be amplified given that they already face a disproportionate risk of infection and death from COVID-19, including voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters. For Louisiana residents of voting age living alone, 27.5% are disabled, and for those who are 65 years old and older living alone, 44% are disabled.118 The Witness Requirements put older voters at particular risk. As explained above, older individuals face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19, and they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences. Of those Louisiana residents who live alone, 35.8% are over 65 years-of-age.
113. In addition to the devastating and disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on Black people in Louisiana, see supra ¶¶ 55–61, they face several compounding factors that heightens the burden of the Witness Requirement. According to the 2018 ACS 1-Year Estimates, Black people make up 32% of Louisiana’s population, yet at the same time, 18.1% of Black people of voting age in Louisiana live alone, compared to 14.9% of whites of voting age, and 29.8% of Black people who are 65 and older live alone, compared to 27.1% of whites who are 65 and older. 119
114. The Witness Requirements, which the Emergency Plan preserve, will therefore likely prevent many Louisianans who might otherwise cast absentee ballots from doing so this year. In effect, the Witness Requirements defeat the purpose of the expanded COVID-19-related
117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66. 118 Id. 119 Id.
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 47 of 54
excuses included in the Emergency Plan. Even if the Emergency Plan excuses expand eligibility to vote by absentee ballot to some additional categories of voters, maintaining the requirement that those voters must obtain a witness signature in order to vote by absentee ballot will still potentially expose them to the risks posed by COVID-19.
C. The Failure to Expand Early Voting for the General and Runoff Elections Unreasonably Increases the Risks of COVID-19 Infection and Severely Burdens the Right to Vote
115. In light of public health officials’ assurances that the United States will likely have a second wave of the coronavirus in the fall even if the pandemic subsides this summer, Louisiana’s failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December elections will severely burden the fundamental right of all eligible voters.
116. Medical experts, including Dr. Fauci, have stated that is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue into the fall, 120 requiring social distancing guidelines to remain in effect.121 For in-person voters, early voting can help make social distancing effective and reduce the risk of crowds gathering at polling places.
117. Defendants recognized as much by extending early voting for the July Primary and August Municipal elections in the Emergency Plan. Their failure to do so for the November General and December Runoff elections is an unreasonable burden on Louisiana voters.
120 Jason Silverstein, Fauci says he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting in November will be safe, CBS News (Apr. 13, 2020), supra n.34. 121 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How Coronavirus Spreads, supra n. 19.
46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 48 of 54
COUNT I Violations of the Fundamental Right to Vote unde r the First and Fourte e nth Ame ndme nts to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. §
1983) 118. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the Counts below as though fully set forth herein. 119. The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect the fundamental right to vote. Under the Anderson-Burdick doctrine, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). 120. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ enforcement of the Excuse Requirement will impose a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. This requirement limits eligibility for absentee voting to a narrow category of voters and will likely prevent many thousands of otherwise eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing a disproportionate burden on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters. 121. Despite Louisiana’s adoption of the Emergency Plan, the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement persists for a significant number of voters in the July Primary and August Municipal elections, and for all voters in the November and December elections. Even under the
47

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 49 of 54
Emergency Plan many voters will be forced to choose between risking their lives and the lives of others or not exercising their right to vote at all.
122. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ enforcement of the Witness Requirements will impose a severe and undue burden the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. These requirements force voters to subject themselves to significant health risks and will likely prevent many thousands of eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing disproportionate burdens on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilit ies, older voters, and Black voters.
123. Despite Louisiana’s adoption of the Emergency Plan, the Ballot Witness Requirement will persist for all voters casting an absentee ballot in the July Primary and August Municipal elections, and for all voters in the November and December elections. The Application Witness Requirement persists for all voters who must mark (as oppose to sign) their request to vote by absentee ballot in all upcoming elections in Louisiana. By failing to waive these requirements Louisiana is forcing voters to choose between breaking social distancing rules and risking their lives and the lives of others, or not voting at all.
124. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ failure to extend early voting for the November General and December Runoff elections will impose a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. The lack of additional days of early voting forces voters to subject themselves to significant health risks and will likely prevent many thousands of eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing disproportionate burdens on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
48

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 50 of 54
125. Defendants’ stated interest in protecting the integrity of elections is a valid governmental interest, but it is not advanced by the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirements, or the failure to expand early voting, nor does the interest outweigh or justify the undue burdens imposed on the fundamental right to vote, especially in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
COUNT II Violations of Se ction 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 126. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the Count below as though fully set forth herein. 127. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits Defendants from imposing, applying, or maintaining any “qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). 128. “The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and [nonblack] voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). 129. Section 2 vote-denial claims have two elements. First, “[t]he challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that members of the protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Second, “[t]hat burden must in part be caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that
49

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 51 of 54
have or currently produce discrimination against members of the protected class.” Veasey v Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 244 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 612 (2017).
130. The Witness Requirement, the Excuse Requirement, and the failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December 2020 elections (collectively “the Challenged Provisions”), will result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote for Black voters in Louisiana.
131. The Challenged Provisions, if not enjoined, will independently and collectively , impose a discriminatory burden on Black voters in Louisiana.
132. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if forced to vote in person, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the Excuse Requirement.
133. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if required to obtain a witness signature on an absentee ballot, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the Witness Requirements.
134. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if they vote in person, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December 2020 elections.
135. The discriminatory burdens imposed by the Challenged Provisions affect Black voters disparately because they interact with social and historical conditions that have produced or
50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 52 of 54
currently produce discrimination against Black people in Louisiana causing an inequality in the opportunities to elect their preferred representatives.
136. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Challenged Provisions deny or abridge the rights of Black voters in Louisiana because the State has an established and judicially recognized history of official voting-related discrimination; Louisiana also has an extensive and judicially recognized history of racially polarized voting; and Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: A. Declare that Defendants’ enforcement of the Excuse Requirement for all elections taking place for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; B. Declare that Defendants’ enforcement of the Witness Requirements for all elections taking place for the duration of COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; C. Declare that Defendants’ failure to extend the early voting period during all elections taking place in Louisiana for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; D. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement for all eligible voters during all elections taking place in Louisiana in 2020; E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirements for all voters during all elections taking place in Louisiana in 2020;
51

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 53 of 54
F. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to extend the early voting period to fourteen days during all elections taking place in Louisiana in November and December 2020;
G. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to issue absentee mail-in ballots to any eligible voter who requests one without requiring an excuse for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
H. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing a witness signature for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
I. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to accept otherwise valid applications for an absentee by mail ballots that are missing a witness signature for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
J. Award Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and K. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in the circumstances.
52

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 36-3 06/11/20 Page 54 of 54

DATED this 11th day of June 2020.
John Z. Morris NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel.: (212) 965-2200 zmorris@naacpldf.org
Catherine Meza NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-1300 cmeza@naacpldf.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronald L. Wilson Ronald L. Wilson, (LSBN 13575) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel.: (504) 525-4361 cabral2@aol.com
Robert D. Fram Morgan Lewis Joshua González John Fraser* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com MELewis@cov.com jgonzalez@cov.com JFraser@cov.com
* Pro Hac Vice Motion forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 37 06/12/20 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

v. Edwards, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Defendants,

c/w Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

Defendants

MEMORANDUM IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRARS OF VOTERS MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
The plaintiffs’ opposition to the Registrars motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds actually supports the Registrars’ arguments that plaintiffs’ grievances trace, not to the registrars, but to other governmental entities – the registrars did not establish the alleged offending election procedures – the registrars are powerless to change them. Moreover, state law makes it abundantly clear that the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, not the registrars, enforce the provisions relating to absentee ballots. If the Parish Boards are not required for the litigation, as the plaintiffs argue, the registrars are even further removed and should inarguably be dismissed for the litigation.

1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 37 06/12/20 Page 2 of 5
ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs Correctly Argue That Their Grievances Arise From State Law and Emergency Election Plan and That Local Election Officials Are Powerless to Establish or Modify Legal Requirements
In arguing against the necessity of joining the Parish Board of Election Supervisors in their
opposition memorandum, the plaintiffs argue:
As an initial matter, state law, not the Parish Boards, establishes the Excuse Requirements, the Witness Requirements, and the rules regarding notice to voters if their ballots are rejected. With respect to the Excuse Requirement, the categories that establish who is entitled to vote absentee are initially set by statute and can be modified by the named Defendants1 without any involvement by the Parish Boards.2
Again arguing against the joinder of Parish Boards, plaintiffs assure the court, “They have no
authority to set aside the rules governing absentee voting established by the State Defendants.” 3
Plaintiffs go on:
The State’s statement that Parish Boards are responsible for ‘determining who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot,’ Mot. at 17, is wrong. As previously explained, that authority is vested in the state Legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Governor see, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303.4
Plaintiffs elaborate the Parish Board’s lack of involvement in the absentee ballot process:
Finally, it bears emphasis that the Parish Boards have no role in determining whether, when, and how Louisiana’s election code may be modified. Indeed, the State Defendants in no way consulted or involved the Parish Boards in the creation or approval of the Emergency Plan, which demonstrates yet again that Parish Boards have no role related to the modification Louisiana’s election code.5
1 If by “named Defendants” the plaintiffs mean to target the Registrars with their shotgun blast, they miss their mark because the Registrars are unable to set or modify state statutes; to the contrary, they are bound to follow such laws as ministerial officers. La. R.S. 18:66. 2 Doc. 36, Memo. p. 16. 3 Id. at p. 19. 4 Id. at p. 19, emphasis supplied. 5 Id. at p. 20,emphasis supplied.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 37 06/12/20 Page 3 of 5
Plaintiffs continue in the same vein in attempting to distinguish the Jacobson6 case by denying that the Parish Boards have sufficient involvement in the election process to include them in the litigation:
Jacobson is distinguishable from this case. As described in Section I.C. above, the Parish Boards play no role in the establishment or modification of Louisiana’s election laws, including the Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition, which Plaintiffs are challenging as insufficient. Even as modified by the emergency plan, these laws were created and passed with the sole involvement of the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Legislature.7
The plaintiffs embrace the very arguments that the Registrars advance with regard to the traceability component of standing. The Registrars did not establish the requirements that the plaintiffs complain of with respect to absentee ballots, witness requirements, or period for early voting. Nor can they modify, change, or exercise discretion with respect to such requirements. The plaintiffs, as they argue in their opposition memorandum, cannot trace their grievances to local officials, especially and particularly to the four Registrars they sued in this case.
Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. Either the Parish Boards, because of their statutory role in the election process, must be added as parties, or the claims against the Registrars must be dismissed for lack of standing.
The four Registrars named as defendants cannot redress the plaintiffs’ complaints concerning the election process. At the risk of unnecessary repetition, the Registrars have no role in setting the terms of the election that offend these plaintiffs. They cannot change those terms. They cannot exercise discretion with respect to those statutes. The plaintiffs do not disagree with the limitations on their role and function as local officials with a ministerial duty. Standing requires traceability and redressability for their claims, and both elements are lacking here.8
6 Jacobson v. Florida Sec'y of State, 957 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2020). 7 Doc. 36, Memo, at p. 21, emphasis supplied. 8 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 37 06/12/20 Page 4 of 5
C. The Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Naming the Parish Board Under Rule 19 Even though plaintiffs argue that Parish Boards have no involvement in determining the validity of absentee ballots, their allegations in the Power Coalition Complaint say otherwise. The Power Coalition Complaint belies their arguments in the opposition memorandum.9 In the Complaint, the plaintiffs detail the Parish Board’s authority and discretion in rejecting absentee ballots for cause. The allegations of the Complaint are right. Plaintiffs’ subsequent efforts to marginalize the Parish Boards to avoid their joinder misstates the law. The Parish Board of Election Supervisors takes possession of the ballots on election day to tabulate and count the absentee by mail ballots in accordance with La. R.S. 18:1313. It is the Parish Board of Election Supervisors, not the Registrars, that examines the ballots and ballot envelopes and determines whether or not the ballot is valid and should be counted.10 The plaintiffs suggest otherwise in their memorandum in opposition, but the statute is clear.
D. The Parish Boards Are Not So Readily Joined As the Plaintiffs Claim Plaintiffs attached the draft of an Amended Complaint presumably to demonstrate to the court that the Parish Boards can be easily brought into the suit if the court finds their joinder required under Rule 19. However, the Amended Complaint does not properly name the Parish Boards, and the plaintiffs are incorrect in assuming that the Parish Boards can be served through the Attorney General under Rule 4. The Attorney General is not agent for service. He is statutory counsel for the Parish Boards but may designate the district attorney for the parish as attorney for the Boards or allow the Parish Board to retain private counsel.
9 Doc. 1, CA No. 20-cv-00283, ⁋⁋ 74-76. 10 La. R.S. 18:1313(F).
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 37 06/12/20 Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs do not argue in their opposition that the Registrars should remain in the suit. They
argue vigorously that the Parish Boards should not be in the suit, but their arguments in that regard
support a finding that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue the Registrars. The plaintiffs have no
standing with respect to their claims against the Registrars.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: /s/ Carey T. Jones Carey T. Jones (La. Bar # 07404) David Jeddie Smith (La. Bar #27089 Alicia E. Wheeler (La. Bar # 28803) Jeffrey Wale (La. Bar #36070) Assistant Attorneys General LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 North Third Street Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone No. 225-326-6766 Facsimile No. 225-326-6793 E-Mail Address: jonescar@ag.louisiana.gov smithda@ag.louisiana.gov wheelera@ag.louisiana.gov walej@ag.louisiana.gov
Counsel for Defendants, East Baton Rouge Registrar of Voters Steve Raborn, Orleans Parish Registrar of Voters Sandra Wilson, Lafayette Parish Registrar Charlene Meaux, and Terrebonne Parish Registrar, Rhonda R. Rogers
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 12th day of June, 2020 the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which gives notice of filing to
all counsel of record.
/s/ Carey T. Jones Carey T. Jones
5

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Clark, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-308-SDD-RLB

Edwards, et al.,

Defendants,

c/w Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action: 20-cv-283-SDD-RLB

John Bel Edwards, the Governor of the State of Louisiana, in his Official Capacity, et al.,

Defendants,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF LANDRY’S AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendant, Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana and on

behalf of the State of Louisiana (hereinafter the “State”), by and through its counsel, hereby files

this Reply to Plaintiffs’ Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdictional arguments in State’s

and Parish Registrars of Voters’ Motions to Dismiss1.

1 Pursuant to the Order of the Court, Plaintiffs’ opposition was due to be filed no later than 4:05 p.m. on June 11, 2020, in response to the Registrars of Voters Mot. to Dismiss, which they failed to do. As Plaintiffs filed at 4:33 p.m. their Mem. in Opposition was untimely.
1

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 2 of 8
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs use 29 pages and over 9,000 words and yet say very little.2 Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, simply repeating the same flawed arguments does not suddenly make the arguments correct. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition is misguided for many reasons, however, given the page limits for a reply and in consideration of the Court’s time, the State will only address a few herein,3 namely: (1) Plaintiffs lack standing as the Virus is not state action and any purported injury is not certainly impending, and (2) the Purcell Doctrine strongly favors dismissal. I. Plaintiffs Lack Standing as The Virus Is Not State Action and Any Purported
Injury Is Not Certainly Impending. Plaintiffs allege that since they would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the challenged law outside of the current pandemic, then they most certainly can challenge it during a pandemic. Pls.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss 3. Plaintiffs further attempt to explain away their hypothetical injuries by arguing that their purported injuries are not the Virus itself, but the State’s laws or action viewed “in the context of the objective danger created by the pandemic[,]” and that challenged laws, “as enforced by Defendants, interact with the Covid-19 pandemic to threaten and infringe Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights[,]” or that the challenged laws “become unreasonably and severely burdensome during this pandemic.” Id. at 6 & 11 (emphasis included in original). In attempting to further define their purported injuries, Plaintiffs only further established that, absent the Virus, the challenged provisions are otherwise constitutional.
2 Despite receiving excess pages to respond to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs decided to leave out discussion of matters they deemed to be non-jurisdictional. In leaving out any responses to Defendants’ 12(b)(6) claims, Plaintiffs have potentially waived their ability to respond to them in the future. However, this will be explored further at a later time. 3 While not addressed herein, as stated in their Motion to Dismiss, the proper parties are not before the Court in order to accord Plaintiffs complete relief. The State points to the arguments made by the Registrars of Voters in their Motion to Dismiss and Reply in support of that contention.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 3 of 8
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ purported injuries are not based on any state action (a requirement of claims brought under Section 1983 and under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), but on the existence of the Virus—remove the Virus from the equation, and Plaintiffs have no claims, and they would vote as they always have without any complaint. As such, Plaintiffs’ claims must fail.
Again, in trying to further define their purported injuries, Plaintiffs dig a deeper hole that they cannot climb out of. Plaintiffs correctly state that they must prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence—more likely than not—evidentiary standard. Id. at 6. Where Plaintiffs misstep is when they state what they must prove by this standard—principally that “it is more likely than not that they will suffer a severe risk of contracting Covid-19 in the July, August, November, and December election periods, absent injunctive relief from this Court.” Id. The preponderance of the evidence standard does not somehow change the fact that Plaintiffs’ injuries must be “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent . . . .” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (internal citation removed). The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that a “‘threatened injury”—such as the one Plaintiffs are alleging here—“must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact’ and that ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient” to establish Article III standing. Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)) (emphasis in original). Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs are able to meet their preponderance standard in proving their claims, that does not change the fact that their alleged threatened injury must be certainly impending rather than “more likely than not” impending. To hold that a plaintiff can establish and prove injury by claiming a “risk” of a future hypothetical injury (such as possibly contracting a disease which fewer than 1% of the population of Louisiana currently has) would be to essentially remove the injury requirement all together. Plaintiffs cannot sufficiently establish an injury in fact when the alleged injury is based on “their fears [or “risk”
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 4 of 8
as Plaintiffs put it] of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Id. at 416. This lack of real and traceable injury is further borne out in the Governor’s recent Executive Order moving Louisiana to Phase II re-opening. That document states that “this gradual re-opening is based on the advance and expertise of medical experts at the Louisiana Department of Health.” Proclamation Number 74 JBE 2020 at 2. This same order allows nearly all businesses, such as food service establishments, churches, beauty shops, malls, gyms, and casinos, to open at approximately fifty percent capacity. Id.
Plaintiffs attempt to argue that, since other states have established different guidelines surrounding absentee voting, that proves that the State injured Plaintiffs by not making the same changes as other states. See Pls.’ Mem. in Opp’n 3-15. The Fifth Circuit recently rejected this exact same argument when plaintiffs challenged Texas’ absentee voting laws, and stated:
The Legislature can ‘take one step at a time addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute,’ [] without worrying that a rogue district judge might later accuse it of drawing lines unwisely . . . . Texas may take one bite at the apple; it need not swallow it whole. [] That ‘the line might have been drawn differently . . . is a matter for the legislature, rather than judicial, consideration.’ Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *28 (internal citations omitted). The State does not dispute that the presence of the Virus might alter the process of voting in ways it would not if the Virus otherwise did not exist. However, as Plaintiffs attempt to argue 100 different ways, these changes are not due to any state action—as such, their claims must fail. As with many of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Fifth Circuit also recently rejected the claim that the voting-burdens associated with the Virus are somehow attributed to the State:
The Constitution is not “offended simply because some” groups “find voting more convenient than” do the plaintiffs because of a state's mail-in ballot rules. That is true even where voting in person “may be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible,” because of circumstances beyond the state's control, such as the presence of the Virus.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 5 of 8
Id. at *24 (emphasis added) (quoting McDonald v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 394 U.S. 802, 810 (1969)).
As Plaintiffs’ purported injuries are not state action, nor certainly impending, they fail to meet their burden to establish standing. Therefore, their claims must be dismissed.
II. The Purcell Doctrine Strongly Favors Dismissal. At the end of their Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiffs attempt to dismiss the State’s
Purcell arguments by arguing that since it is not jurisdictional, it is not applicable to the present matter. Memo. in. Opposition 26-27. Purcell stands for the proposition “that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam); see also Tex. Democratic Party, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17564 at *37.
Louisiana’s July 11 election is well underway. Early voting begins Saturday, June 20, 2020. Registrars are in the final stages of preparing polling places for next week, training poll workers on both regular procedures and additional procedures for social distancing and cleaning and maintaining polling places. Absentee ballots, absentee ballot applications and instructions have been in the hands of voters since February of 2020. The deadline for requesting absentee ballots for the July 11 election is 25 days from the date of this filing. The deadline for returning absentee ballots is a mere 28 days from the date of this filing. Disrupting the July 11 election process, or even threatening to upend it at this point, is exactly the sort of last-minute intrusion into the administration of elections that Purcell is intended to prevent.
This doctrine exists because judicial intrusion into elections must account for “considerations specific to election cases.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006). These considerations include the fact that “[c]ourt orders affecting elections . . . can themselves result in
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 6 of 8

voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” Id. at 4-5. “As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.” Id. at 5. While Purcell is not jurisdictional in nature, given that it exists to prevent court action that would lead to voter confusion, it goes without saying that the correct time for a court to apply Purcell would be before they take any action, not after. Therefore, Purcell is properly before the Court at this time. And, given that absentee ballots are already printed, mailed, and many already returned, this exact scenario is the type for which Purcell exists. In following Purcell and abstaining from interfering in an ongoing election, this Court would assist in eliminating potential confusion among voters and election staff as well as ensuring a greater confidence in the results of the upcoming elections.
CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 12, 2020

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Angelique Duhon Freel Angelique Duhon Freel (La. Bar Roll No. 28561) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division P. O. BOX 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Telephone: (225) 326-6017 Facsimile: (225) 326-6098 Email: freela@ag.louisiana.gov

6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 7 of 8
Jason B. Torchinsky* Jonathan Lienhard** Phillip M. Gordon* Dallin Holt** Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC 45 N. Hill Dr., Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 Facsimile: (540) 341-8809 Email: jtorchinsky@hvjt.law jlienhard@hvjt.law pgordon@hvjt.law dholt@hvjt.law *admitted pro hac vice **pro hac vice motions forthcoming Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 38 06/12/20 Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that, on this 12th day of June 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which gives notice of filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jason Torchinsky Jason Torchinsky Counsel for Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry
8

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 39 06/15/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

CLARK PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENTS IN ATTORNEY GENERAL LANDRY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Attorney General Jeff Landry has moved to dismiss the Clark Plaintiffs’
Complaint on the same grounds that the State of Louisiana (“the State”) invokes in its motion to
dismiss. See ECF Nos. 29, 35. The Attorney General explains the reasoning behind filing this
substantively similar motion to dismiss in the first footnote in his Motion:
With its Motion to Intervene, the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Louisiana, filed a Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition in order to avoid potential waiver issues resulting from filing an answer as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and properly preserve error, Defendant, Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Louisiana, files this Motion to Dismiss in the Clark matter (20-cv-308-SDD-RLB). This motion is notwithstanding filing a substantively similar Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition (20-cv-283-SDD- RLB) prior to the Court establishing consolidated pleading schedules and granting the State’s Motion to Intervene in

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 39 06/15/20 Page 2 of 3

Power Coalition. The Attorney General represents to the Court that aside from references to the differing pleadings (which are very similar) and nuances in the relief the different Plaintiffs are seeking in the now consolidated cases— along with some minor updates on the State’s current response to COVID-19—this Motion is substantively similar to the State’s Motion to Dismiss in Power Coalition.
See ECF No. 35 at 1 n.1. Given this Motion is substantively the same as the State’s motion to
dismiss, ECF No. 29, the Clark Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their arguments from Plaintiffs’
Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdictional Arguments in State’s and Parish Registrars of
Voters’ Motions to Dismiss, filed on June 11, 2020. ECF No. 36. Those same arguments are now
directed against Attorney General Landry’s Motion to Dismiss.1

DATED this 15th day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947

1 As noted in Plaintiffs’ Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdictional Arguments in State’s and Parish Registrars of Voters’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. 36, the Clark Plaintiffs note that this filing only responds to the jurisdictional arguments raised in Attorney General Landry’s Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to the Court’s June 8, 2020 Order. Plaintiffs will respond to the non-jurisdictional arguments raised in the motion in accord with the schedule set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.

2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 39 06/15/20 Page 3 of 3
danielle.davis@splcenter.org Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 1 of 47

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, LAKESHIA BARNETT, CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP, and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOUISIANA,

Plaintiffs,

v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; JEFF LANDRY, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana,

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

Defendants.

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

CLARK PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Crescent City Media Group, and League of Women Voters Louisiana (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action for immediate injunctive and declaratory relief against Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, and Attorney General Jeff Landry, for failing to protect the fundamental right to vote

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 2 of 47
ahead of the 2020 elections—including elections on July 11, August 15, November 3, and December 5—during Louisiana’s COVID-19 public health crisis.
2. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge to our nation, threatening the lives, livelihood, and health of millions of Americans and severely straining health care systems, the economy, and all levels and branches of government.
3. COVID-19 is wreaking havoc across all sectors and causing massive disruptions in election administration during this presidential election year. With its high transmission and mortality rates, COVID-19 poses a significant risk to in-person voters, especially to those voters at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19. The pandemic has decimated voter registration drive activity, makes it unreasonably dangerous and burdensome to comply with certain requirements for mail-in absentee voting, and threatens massive withdrawals by volunteer poll workers who justifiably fear contracting the disease.
4. The United States has recorded more than 2.1 million confirmed cases and 111,140 deaths.1 As of June 16, 2020, Louisiana had reported 47,706 cases and 2,930 deaths.2
5. In the face of this rapidly escalating public health emergency, Defendant Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency3 and issued a stay-at-home order.4 He also twice postponed the primary and municipal elections,5 and later extended the state’s stay-at-home order to May
1 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Cases in the U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html#accordion-1-collapse-3 (last updated June 17, 2020). 2 Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, La. Dept. of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated June 17, 2020). 3 Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, § 1, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/25-JBE-2020Public-Health-Emergency-COVID-19.pdf. 4 Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, § 3, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/33-JBE-2020Public-Health-Emergency-COVID.pdf. 5 Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19-Postponement.pdf; Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/46-JBE-2020-Elections.pdf.
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 3 of 47
15.6 Even with the stay-at-home order partially lifted as of May 15, Louisianans are still required to stay at home as much as possible; the types of businesses allowed to open may only do so with strict social distancing, required mask use for employees helping the public, and only at 25 percent total occupancy.7
6. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency election plan that would have substantially reduced the risk of voters being exposed to COVID-19 by suspending certain aspects of Louisiana election law that require person-to-person interactions, including in-person voting by large categories of individuals. In declaring his support for Secretary Ardoin’s plan, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”8
7. Secretary Ardoin’s original plan was blocked by the Louisiana legislature. Instead, on April 27, 2020, the Legislature adopted an alternative emergency election plan for the July 11 Presidential Preference Primary and Municipal Primary Election (“July election”) and the August 15 Municipal General Election (“August election”), developed and submitted by Defendants Governor Edwards and Secretary of State Ardoin (the “Emergency Election Plan”).9 As described herein, the alternative Emergency Election Plan failed to suspend a number of aspects of Louisiana election law that will unnecessarily expose voters to risk of contracting COVID-19 and place an undue burden on the right to vote. The Emergency Election Plan also does not apply to the
6 Proclamation No. 52 JBE 2020, § 15, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-2020-Stay-atHome-Order.pdf. 7 Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020, § 15 (May 14, 2020) § 2A, 2C, 2D, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf. 8 Id. 9 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, Sec’y of State (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised%20Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf.
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 4 of 47
November 3 Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election (“November election”) or the December 5 Congressional and Open General Election (“December election”).10
8. Louisiana law limits absentee voting by mail to voters who satisfy one of fifteen excuses (“Excuse Requirement”). See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303. The Emergency Election Plan creates an additional COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application, which extends the ability to vote by mail to five narrow categories of voters with COVID-19–related restrictions.11 The Emergency Election Plan fails to protect other categories of voters who need protection from COVID-19.
9. The Emergency Election Plan leaves in place the requirement that voters who cast their ballots by mail find a witness to observe the signing of their absentee ballot affidavit and then sign the certificate envelope (the “Witness Requirement”). See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). On June 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards signed Senate Bill 75 (“SB 75”) into law, effective immediately, that amended the Witness Requirement to require that no person, except the immediate family member of the absentee voter, can witness more than one absentee ballot. ABSENTEE VOTING, 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 210. The Witness Requirement will require voters who qualify to vote by mail and who live on their own to risk infection to have their ballots counted.
10. Louisiana law fails to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their mailin absentee ballot requests and their mail-in absentee ballots and deprives them of an opportunity to cure such problems so that their votes may be counted (“Cure Prohibition”). See La. Rev. Stat.
10 See id. at 2. 11 Emergency Election Plan, supra note 9, at 8.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 5 of 47
§ 18:1313.12 Louisiana also provides no mechanism for tracking whether one’s absentee ballot has been received, accepted, or counted.
11. Epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists have already concluded that there will very likely be a COVID-19 resurgence in the United States this fall. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said a second wave of infections in the United States is “inevitable.”13 Furthermore, experts from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics warned that, to avoid exceeding hospital critical care capacities, prolonged or intermittent social distancing may be necessary into 2022.14
12. The Excuse Requirement, Witness Requirement, and Cure Prohibition (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) will unnecessarily deprive Louisiana voters of their right to vote in 2020 elections in light of COVID-19.
13. Both together and separately, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement needlessly burden Louisiana voters’ fundamental right to vote in the 2020 elections in light of COVID-19. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement directly contradict the specific guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) concerning safe voting practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other measures, the CDC
12 As explained infra, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin, with the approval of Defendant Attorney General Landry as required by La. Rev. Stat. § 18:18 (A)(3), promulgated an emergency rule that purports to provide an opportunity for voters to be notified of and have an opportunity to cure certain procedural deficiencies in their absentee ballots. See ECF No. 40, 40-1. The process requires, however, that the voter appear in person at the office of the registrar, regardless of the deficiency. See id. 13 Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trumpvice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-11/. 14 Stephen M. Kissler et al., Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period, Science, Apr. 14, 2020, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/24/science.abb5793.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 6 of 47
recommends that states and jurisdictions “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”15
14. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement create significant risks to the health and lives of Plaintiffs, as well as the Organizational Plaintiffs’ members and thousands of other Louisiana voters who want to vote in the July, August, November, and/or December 2020 elections.
15. The risk of disenfranchisement from the Excuse Requirement and Witness Requirement fall more heavily on Black citizens in Louisiana, who are more likely than white Louisianans to live alone or with young children, more likely to have underlying health conditions that put them at severe risk from COVID-19, and who are afflicted by and die from COVID-19 at shockingly disproportionate rates. Black Louisianans comprise nearly 57% of COVID-19–related deaths despite making up just 33% of the state’s total population. Black Louisianans are also more likely to live alone, making the Witness Requirement more burdensome than for white Louisianans. Louisiana’s history of racial discrimination in various areas, such as voting, education, employment, and healthcare, interact with these provisions to hinder Black people’s ability to participate effectively in the political process in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
16. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, separately and together, unduly burden the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters for the 2020 elections.
15 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated March 27, 2020).
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 7 of 47
17. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, separately and together, violate Louisiana voters’ fundamental right to bodily integrity by requiring them to take a severe risk to their health in order to exercise their right to vote.
18. The Cure Prohibition will deprive Louisiana voters of their liberty interests in requesting and casting mail-in absentee ballots and exercising their fundamental right to vote by denying them notice of and an opportunity to cure defects.
19. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to enjoin the Challenged Provisions and declare them unconstitutional for the duration of the 2020 election cycle. Given that epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are predicting a highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall, and given the inexorable timeline of election administration procedures that must be completed to print mail-in ballots with certificate envelopes and instructions and to educate the electorate about revised voting procedures, Plaintiffs, who all seek to vote in November, must be granted relief now.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), and is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and authorized under 52 U.S.C. § 10302 to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of constitutional and statutory rights under color of state law. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each is sued in their official capacity as a state official, and the violations complained of concern their conduct in such capacities. 22. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 8 of 47
23. Venue in the Middle District of Louisiana is proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendants are state officials working in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
III. PARTIES 24. Plaintiff TELISA CLARK is a 55-year-old event planner and civil rights activist. She is a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a registered voter in Louisiana. She is African-American and lives in Houma, Louisiana. Ms. Clark lives at home with her husband, Kevin Clark, who is 58 years old. Several family members live with Ms. Clark and her husband at their home. Ms. Clark, her husband, and many members of her household have health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and potentially dying from COVID-19. Ms. Clark has hypertension and other serious heart conditions. Her husband is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Ms. Clark’s daughter Kevon Barnett is currently seven months pregnant and suffers from hypertension. And Ms. Clark’s grandson Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, Ms. Clark, her husband, her daughter Kevon, her grandson Matthew, and other family members have been limiting their outside activity and avoiding personto-person contact. When they must go out in public, Ms. Clark and her husband wear gloves, masks, and coverings on their clothes. Both Ms. Clark and her husband are lifelong, regular voters. Ms. Clark prefers to vote in-person on election day. She voted early in-person recently after her husband was diagnosed with cancer. Ms. Clark plans to vote in the July, August, November, and December elections in Houma. Because of the severe risk that voting in person at her polling place or at an early voting site poses to her health, her husband’s health, and the health of family members living in her household, Ms. Clark needs to vote by absentee ballot for all upcoming
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 9 of 47
2020 elections. Ms. Clark understands that for the July and August elections, she will qualify to request an absentee ballot through the COVID-19 Emergency Application as someone at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC. Ms. Clark understands, however, that for the November and December elections, she does not qualify to request an absentee ballot and must choose between voting in person—risking her health and the health of her family—and not voting at all.
25. Plaintiff LAKESHIA BARNETT is 26 years old, a U.S. citizen, has never lost her right to vote by reason of a felony conviction or court order, and is a registered voter in Louisiana. She is African-American and lives in Houma, Louisiana. Ms. Barnett lives with her parents, Telisa and Kevin Clark, and several other family members, at her parents’ home. Many of her family members in her home—including her parents—suffer from health conditions that put them at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19. Ms. Clark has hypertension and other serious heart conditions. Mr. Clark is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer and is at extremely high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Ms. Barnett’s sister Kevon Barnett is currently seven months pregnant and suffers from hypertension. And Ms. Barnett’s nephew Matthew, who is 18 and a registered voter, has severe asthma. Because of the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, Ms. Barnett, her parents, sister, nephew, and other family members have been limiting their outside activity and avoiding personto-person contact except when necessary. Ms. Barnett currently works two jobs. One employer, Target, recently reduced her hours to zero, and she has not worked there since late April. She also works at the U.S. Postal Service. At her job, Ms. Barnett rarely interacts with members of the public and always wears protective gear. Ms. Barnett relies on her job to pay her living expenses and for health insurance. At this job, she does not have the option to work from home or take time
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 10 of 47
off because she is worried about infecting her family members who are at higher risk from COVID19. If she took too much time off from work, she would lose her job. Ms. Barnett registered to vote when she turned 18 and has voted regularly since then. She intends to vote in each election in 2020. She prefers to vote in person, but because of the risks voting in person would pose to her family, Ms. Barnett needs to vote by absentee ballot in the July, August, November, and December elections. Ms. Barnett understands that she needs an excuse to qualify for an absentee ballot in Louisiana and that she does not qualify for any excuse under Louisiana law. Therefore, if Ms. Barnett wants to vote in any election in 2020, she understands that she would have to vote in person, which would require her to engage in the person-to-person contact she has been avoiding to protect the health of her high-risk family members. If forced to vote in person, Ms. Barnett would have to choose between her vote and her family’s health.
26. Plaintiff CRESCENT CITY MEDIA GROUP (“CCMG”) is a community engagement and media production agency based in New Orleans, Louisiana. CCMG was founded to address disparities in civic engagement and political education in communities of color in Louisiana. CCMG works on a wide range of projects including civic engagement trainings, voter registration campaigns, census education, mutual aid and direct service, and voter education.
27. CCMG leads the “Louisiana Counts 2020” complete count committee and began preparations for this public education campaign in 2018. CCMG prepared and disseminated media toolkits, organizer trainings, social media campaigns, factual reports, and other resources for community stakeholders across Louisiana to use in their census education work. CCMG also invested significant time and energy into developing their “Census and Redistricting Initiative,” a community education initiative focused on preparing communities for the 2020 Census and 2021 redistricting cycle. The program would have taught Louisiana residents the basics of the
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 11 of 47
redistricting process. In addition to its specific census and redistricting work, CCMG conducts various voter education and policy advocacy training programs such as the Democracy and Power Institute, which was founded in 2016 and teaches students and community leaders how to draft legislation and lobby local governments.
28. Much of CCMG’s planned work has been put on hold as it must now expend its limited resources to respond to the state’s Emergency Election Plan and preparing for the upcoming 2020 elections, in which thousands of voters of color will be forced to risk their health by voting in person at their polling place. CCMG is now using its limited resources to acquire and produce masks and other personal protective materials to provide to voters who will be forced to cast a ballot in person this year because they do not qualify for an absentee ballot under the Excuse Requirement. During early voting and on election day, CCMG will provide direct support at polling places by handing out hand sanitizer and information on social distancing. CCMG is also now educating voters about the Emergency Election Plan, explaining and training voters on the Excuse Requirement, including the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application. CCMG will be helping voters navigate the absentee ballot process, including the Witness Requirement for voters who live alone by doing radio and television public service announcements about what voters can do to protect themselves from COVID-19 infection while complying with the Witness Requirement. The resources and staff time spent on these activities would have been spent on CCMG’s community education activities relating to the Census, voter registration drivers, and redistricting. But for the Challenged Provisions, CCMG would otherwise be spending these resources, time, and staff hours on its core mission activities.
29. Plaintiff LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOUISIANA (“LWVLA”) is the Louisiana affiliate of the national League of Women Voters (the “LWVUS”). LWVLA is a
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 12 of 47
nonpartisan, not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana. The mission of LWVLA is to be a recognized, trusted, and knowledgeable volunteer, grassroots community resource with the flexibility and sustainable capacity to ensure a strong, active, and participatory democracy for all persons. The LWVLA is dedicated to ensuring that all eligible voters— particularly those from traditionally underrepresented or underserved communities, including firsttime voters, non-college youth, new citizens, minorities, the elderly, and low-income Americans— have the opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. The local Leagues are active in voter registration, especially of new citizens and high school and college youths, while the state League works with the Secretary of State’s office to increase voter participation in elections.
30. Because of the restrictions on absentee ballots under Louisiana law during the COVID-19 pandemic, LWVLA has been forced to divert time and resources away from its regular activities. Specifically, LWVLA will be conducting public education on the passage of the Emergency Election Plan with its complicated and vague Excuse Requirement, the current absentee ballot laws—including the Witness Requirement—and how voters can stay safe while complying with the law and voting. LWVLA member volunteers will be sending newsletters, writing letters to the editor, engaging in voter outreach, responding to voter contacts, and conducting voter education events to ensure that members and the Louisiana electorate are educated on how they can vote during the 2020 elections without endangering their health or the health of their loved ones or the community. Because the LWVLA has limited financial and human resources, the resources and member time they will have to spend on these efforts would have been spent on the following LWVLA efforts: voter registration efforts, education around the 2020 Census and redistricting, and “Get Out the Vote” efforts during the 2020 election cycle.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 13 of 47
31. The LWVLA has six local Leagues across the state and 287 members and membersat-large. Many of the members of the LWVLA are over the age of 60. Some of its members live in senior living facilities. Many members include registered voters age 60-65 who are at higher risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19. Voting in person would therefore put the health of these voters at significant risk because of the person-to-person contact at the polling place. But these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan.
32. LWVLA members include registered voters who live with, care for, or come into regular contact with loved ones who are at higher risk of contracting and suffering severe complications—including death—from COVID-19; yet, these members do not currently qualify for an absentee ballot under Louisiana law or the Emergency Election Plan. These members must choose between their vote and risking the health of their loved one by voting in-person at their polling place.
33. Defendant John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana and is being sued in his official capacity. Under the Louisiana Constitution, he is “the chief executive officer of the state,” and must “faithfully support the constitution and laws of the state and of the United States,” as well as ensure that “the laws are faithfully executed.” La. Const. art. IV, § 5(A). Defendant Governor Edwards is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as part of the execution of his gubernatorial duties and responsibilities. 4 U.S.C. § 101. In his capacity as “chief executive officer of the state,” Defendant Governor Edwards is empowered to suspend or delay “any qualifying of candidates, early voting, or elections” “upon issuance of an executive order declaring a state of emergency or impending emergency.” Id. § 18:401.1. The Governor does so “upon the certification of the secretary of state that a state of
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 14 of 47
emergency exists. Id. Defendant Governor Edwards is also responsible for approving, along with a majority of the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs, an Emergency Election Plan submitted by the Secretary of State “for the holding of elections impaired as a result of such an emergency or disaster.” Id. § 18:401.3.
34. Defendant Kyle Ardoin is the Secretary of State of Louisiana, and he is sued in his official capacity. The Secretary of State is the state’s chief election officer. LA Const. art. IV, § 7. In that capacity, he is responsible for, among other things, administering election laws, preparing and certifying the ballots for all elections, and promulgating all election returns. Id. The Secretary of State is also responsible for preparing absentee by mail ballots, envelopes, instructions, certificates, and “all other matters pertaining to absentee by mail and early voting ballots shall be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to approval as to content by the attorney general.” La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(A)(1); see also id § 18:1306(B)(1).
35. Defendant Jeff Landry is Louisiana’s Attorney General and is being sued in his official capacity. As Attorney General, Defendant Landry is the “chief legal officer of the state,” charged with asserting or protecting the rights or interests of Louisiana. La. Const. art. IV, § 8. Defendant Landry is empowered to approve the content of various materials related to absentee ballots. La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(A)(1); see also id § 18:1306(B)(2). Like other executive officers of the State, Defendant Attorney General Landry is required to support the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments to it, before executing his duties as Attorney General. 4 U.S.C. § 101.
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 15 of 47
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Transmission of COVID-19 and Public Health Guidelines 36. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus was detected, now named SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes became known as COVID-19; it has now spread throughout the world, including to every state in the United States. 37. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that it had become a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump proclaimed a National Emergency concerning COVID-19. 38. On March 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards declared a state of emergency,16 and issued a stay at home order17 on March 22, which was revised on May 15.18 He has also twice postposed the presidential preference primary and municipal elections as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.19 39. The novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 continues to spread at an unprecedented pace around the world and within the United States. There are currently 2.1 million confirmed cases in the United States, and there have been 116,140 deaths nationwide. 40. COVID-19 is highly contagious and lethal. According to an article published in Science Magazine, produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the virus acts like no pathogen humanity has ever seen.”20
16 Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, § 1. 17 Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, § 3. 18 Proclamation No. 58 JBE 2020, § 15 (May 14, 2020) § 2A, 2C, 2D, https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/58-JBE-2020.pdf. 19 Ashley Dean, Louisiana's Elections Are Postponed Another 3 Weeks, New Orleans Public Radio, Apr. 14, 2020, https://www.wwno.org/post/louisianas-elections-are-postponed-another-3-weeks. 20 Meredith Wadman et al., How does coronavirus kill? Clinicians trace a ferocious rampage through the body, from brain to toes, Science Magazine, Apr. 17, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-doescoronavirus-kill-clinicians-trace-ferocious-rampage-through-body-brain-toes#.
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 16 of 47
41. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), older adults
and those who have underlying health conditions and diseases, such as chronic lung diseases,
moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, serious heart conditions, and others that suppress immune systems like HIV/AIDS, are at higher risk of complications from COVID-19.21 The CDC’s
website, relying upon research from the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory
Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases, notes that immunocompromised individuals are at
severe risk from COVID-19: “Many conditions can cause a person to be immunocompromised,
including cancer treatment, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly
controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications.”22 Severe COVID-19 cases can lead to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress
syndrome, requiring hospitalization; in critical cases, some patients need to be intubated and put
on a ventilator.
42. Younger people have also contracted severe cases of COVID-19 and been
hospitalized; many of them have died. In Louisiana, patients under the age of 50 have accounted for about six percent of COVID-19 related deaths in the state,23 a rate far higher than in New York and New Jersey,24 even though these states have seen approximately nine times and four times the
number of deaths as Louisiana, respectively. As of May 9, 2020, about 30 percent of all
21 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, People who are at higher risk for severe illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/people-at-higher-risk.html (last updated May 14, 2020). 22 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Information for Healthcare Professionals: COVID-19 and Underlying Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/underlying-conditions.html (last updated Apr. 6, 2020). 23 La. Dept. of Health, Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, Cases/Deaths by Age Group, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated May 19, 2020). 24 N.Y. St. Dept. of Elections, Fatalities, Fatalities by Age Group, https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYSCOVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Fatalities?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n (last updated May 19, 2020); State of New Jersey Dept. of Health, COVID-19 Deaths by Age Group, New Jersey COVID-19 Dashboard, https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/topics/covid2019_dashboard.shtml (last updated May 19, 2020).
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 17 of 47
hospitalizations from COVID-19 in the United States have been of people less than 50 years old.25
Young, healthy Americans have suffered debilitating and even, in certain cases, fatal strokes from
COVID-19, underscoring how little is known about how this particular virus actually attacks the
human body. Finally, and significantly, even if a person ultimately recovers from COVID-19, it
may leave their lungs and other organs severely damaged or weakened, leading to lifelong respiratory deficiencies or problems.26
43. The CDC has noted that asymptomatic COVID-19-positive individuals can transmit the disease to others.27 As a result, the disease can spread before individuals know that
they have contracted COVID-19, facilitating the rapid contagion.
44. Louisiana has been especially hard-hit by COVID-19, experiencing the fastest twoweek spread of COVID-19 compared to other U.S. states and other countries.28 As of June 17, 2020, Louisiana reported 47,706 COVID-19 cases and 2,930 deaths.29 Louisiana ranks ninth in the
nation in the number of deaths, and it has lost more residents to COVID-19 than more populous states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington, and Maryland.30
B. Louisiana’s Elections During the COVID-19 Pandemic 45. COVID-19 will have an unprecedented impact on the nation’s upcoming elections.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Brookings Institution predicted that “turnout in 2020 could
25 COVID-19 Laboratory-Confirmed Hospitalizations, COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations by Age, https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html (last updated Apr. 25, 2020). 26 Robin Young & Samantha Raphelson, As Patients Recover From Coronavirus, Doctors Wonder About LongTerm Health Impacts, WBUR, Apr. 28, 2020, https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/04/28/coronavirus-recoverychallenges. 27 Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): How to Prepare, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html (last updated Mar. 4, 2020). 28 Andrew Capps, Louisiana experiences fastest COVID-19 case increase in the world in first weeks, Lafayette Daily Advertiser, Mar. 24, 2020, https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2020/03/24/covid-19-caseslouisiana-coronavirus-spreading-faster-than-anywhere-world/2907504001/. 29 Louisiana Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information, La. Dept. of Health, http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated June 17, 2020). 30 CDC, Cases in U.S., supra note 1.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 18 of 47
break all records and test our election machinery as it has never been tested before.”31 Other experts
also anticipate record-breaking turnout in the 2020 presidential election.32 Louisiana’s own turnout
statistics reflect voters’ increasing participation and interest. The 2019 gubernatorial election saw
a turnout of 51.05 percent,33 compared to 40.19 percent in 2015.34 In the 2016 general election,
over 67.79 percent of registered voters cast a ballot.35
46. On April 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin proposed an emergency
election plan that would have expanded access to absentee ballots during the July primary and
August municipal elections, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3. Specifically, the first emergency
plan expanded the reasons to request an absentee ballot to registered voters who are:
• Sixty years of age or older;
• At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease);
• Subject to a stay-at-home, quarantine, or isolation order;
• Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
• Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
31 William A. Galston, What does high voter turnout tell us about the 2020 elections? Brookings Institution (Nov. 20, 2019), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/11/20/what-does-high-voter-turnout-tell-us-about-the-2020elections/. 32 See, e.g., Susan Milligan, Preparing for a Voter Surge, U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 20, 2019, https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-09-20/experts-predict-huge-turnout-in-2020; Nate Cohn, Huge Turnout Is Expected in 2020. So Which Party Would Benefit? N.Y. Times, July 15, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upshot/2020-election-turnout-analysis.html; Ronald Brownstein, Brace for a Voter-Turnout Tsunami, The Atlantic, June 13, 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/. 33 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 16, 2019), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2019_1116_sta.pdf. 34 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 21, 2015), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2015_1121_sta.pdf. 35 State Wide Post Election Statistical Report, La. Sec’y of State 1 (Nov. 8, 2016), https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2016_1108_sta.pdf.
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 19 of 47
• Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19;
• Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay-at-home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or
• Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the childcare provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID19 concerns.
47. The first proposed emergency election plan also stated that failure to comply with the Witness Requirement would not be a reason to challenge or reject returned absentee ballots for the July and August elections.
48. The plan was blocked by the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee, which cited concerns of “voter fraud.”36 After the first emergency election plan was blocked, Defendant Governor Edwards stated that “nobody should have to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.”37 To the senators’ concerns about Louisiana voters using the COVID-19 crisis to engage in fraudulent behavior, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin stated: “I think some of their concerns are not steeped in all the facts that were presented to them today. I’m hoping over time there can be some clarity.”38
49. On April 20, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin presented a substantially revised emergency election plan. Unlike the initial proposal, the revised Emergency Election Plan included far fewer categories of voters eligible to cast absentee ballots and failed to waive the Witness Requirement for absentee ballots during the July and August elections. The Emergency Election
36 Sam Karlin, Louisiana republicans block emergency coronavirus election plan; future of election unclear, The Advocate, Apr. 15, 2020, https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11eab67e-73d2172ba20b.html. 37 Id. 38 Id.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 20 of 47
Plan forces voters to choose between exercising their right to vote and potentially endangering themselves or others.
50. The Emergency Election Plan was approved, ironically, by the Louisiana legislature mailing in their votes.39
51. Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin is now implementing the Emergency Election Plan. There is no emergency election plan in place for the November or December elections.
52. Even with the Emergency Election Plan in place, several provisions of Louisiana law, as well as the Emergency Election Plan itself, now pose direct and severe obstacles to voting in Louisiana’s 2020 elections and having one’s vote counted. These provisions are: (1) the Excuse Requirement: the requirement to satisfy a specific excuse on the COVID-19 emergency application for absentee ballots, provided in the Emergency Election Plan passed pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3 and the requirement to satisfy a specific excuse to vote by absentee ballot, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(B); (2) the Witness Requirement: the requirement that voters obtain a witness signature on their mail-in absentee ballot that is either an immediate family member or a person who has not witnessed any other absentee ballot, pursuant to La. Stat. Rev. § 18:1306(E)(2)(a)40; and (3) the Cure Prohibition: the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of defects with their absentee ballot request forms or their mail-in absentee ballots and an opportunity to cure such problems so that their votes may be counted.
53. According to Louisiana law, the following categories of voters may vote by mail: • Members of the United States Service, their spouses, and dependents;
39 Tierney Sneed, The Irony: LA Legislature Votes By Mail To Approve Plan Limiting Vote-By-Mail, TPM, May 4, 2020, https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/voting-rights-primer-pandemic-age-flashpoint-voting. 40 As noted above, on June 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards signed into law Senate Bill 75 (“SB 75”), which amended the Witness Requirement to require that “No person except the immediate family member of the voter, as defined in this Code, shall witness more than one certificate of a voter.” ABSENTEE VOTING, 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 210. The law became effective immediately. Id.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 21 of 47
• Students, instructors, or professors at institutions located outside their parish of residence, their spouses, and dependents;
• Ministers, priests, rabbis, or other members of the clergy assigned to a religious post outside their parish of registration, their spouses, and dependents;
• Those who will be or expect to be outside their parish of registration during the early voting period and on Election Day;
• Those involuntarily confined to a mental health institution; • Voters located outside the United States; • Jurors sequestered on Election Day; • Voters hospitalized during the early voting period and on Election Day; • Those employed on state waters during the early voting period and on Election
Day; • Incarcerated voters not confined pursuant to a felony conviction; • Participants in the Department of State Address Confidentiality Program; • Voters with disabilities; • Voters aged sixty-five years and older; • The Secretary of State and his or her employees; and • People employed by a registrar of voters outside of their parish of registration. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303. 54. The Emergency Election Plan extends the ability to vote by mail to voters: • At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying
medical conditions as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious heart conditions, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease, pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 22 of 47
transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications); • Subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19; • Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; • Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; or • Caring for an identified individual who is subject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.41 55. The Emergency Election Plan leaves untouched the requirement that voters who cast their ballots by mail, other than military and overseas voters, obtain a witness signature for their ballots to count. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over half a million Louisianans live in a single-member household.42 56. The Emergency Election Plan also fails to address the failure to provide absentee voters with notice of problems with their mail-in ballots and an opportunity to cure such problems so that their votes may be counted. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313. 57. On June 15, 2020, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin, with the approval of Defendant Attorney General Landry as required by La. Rev. Stat. § 18:18 (A)(3), promulgated an emergency rule that purports to provide an opportunity for voters to be notified of and have an opportunity to cure certain procedural deficiencies in their absentee ballots. See ECF No. 40, 401. The process requires, however, that the voter appear in person at the office of the registrar, regardless of the deficiency. See id.
41 Emergency Election Plan, supra note 9, at 8. 42 Table S2501, Occupancy Characteristics, Amer. Community Survey 2014-2018, U.S. Census Bureau, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S2501&tid=ACSST5Y2018.S2501&hidePreview=true&g=0400000US22.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 23 of 47
C. The Impact of COVID-19 on Black Louisianans given Past and Present Discrimination
58. COVID-19 has devastated Black communities across the country. A recent study
showed that counties with disproportionate numbers of Black residents account for more than half of COVID-19 diagnoses and nearly 60 percent of COVID-19 deaths nationally.43 Socioeconomic
factors such as access to health care and employment status, as well as disproportionate rates of
underlying health conditions, contribute to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the Black community.44
59. In Louisiana, Black residents have been especially hard-hit by the COVID-19
pandemic. On April 6, Louisiana released racial impact data for COVID-19 deaths: while making up only 33% of the state’s population, Black residents accounted for 70% of COVID-19 deaths.45 And by mid-May, nearly 57% of people who had died from COVID-19 in Louisiana were Black.46
Put differently, Black Louisianans are dying at a rate 2.65 times higher than other races in the state.47
60. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on Black Louisianans reflects systemic
inequality and discrimination in healthcare, education, housing, employment, access to
43 Laura Barron-Lopez, A new study shows just how badly black Americans have been hit by Covid-19, Politico, May 5, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/05/black-counties-disproportionately-hit-by-coronavirus237540. 44 Vanessa Williams, Disproportionately black counties account for over half of coronavirus cases in the U.S. and nearly 60% of deaths, study finds, Wash. Post., May 6, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/06/study-finds-that-disproportionately-black-counties-accountmore-than-half-covid-19-cases-us-nearly-60-percent-deaths/; Colleen Walsh, COVID-19 Targets Communities of Color, Harvard Gazette, Apr. 14, 2020, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/04/health-care-disparities-inthe-age-of-coronavirus/. 45 Weekend Edition Sunday, 7 Out Of 10 Patients Killed By COVID-19 In Louisiana Were African American, NPR, Apr. 12, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/04/12/832682489/7-out-of-10-patients-killed-by-covid-19-in-louisianawere-african-american. 46 Louisiana Dep’t of Health, COVID-19 (last updated May 11, 2020), http://ldh.la.gov/coronavirus/. 47 Id.
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 24 of 47
transportation, and other socioeconomic factors.48 Black people are less likely to have health
insurance49 and are disproportionately medically underserved.50
61. Black residents are more likely to suffer and die from the underlying health
conditions that make COVID-19 infection more likely and more deadly. On April 8, a CDC study
suggested that about 90 percent of the most serious COVID-19 cases involve underlying health
conditions that are more common and more deadly in Black Americans and strike at younger ages,
including hypertension and cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.51
According to the CDC, the rate of diabetes is 66 percent higher in Black Americans than in white
Americans and the rate of hypertension is 49 percent higher.52
62. The combined effects of discrimination in healthcare, employment, education,
housing, and other areas of life create a perfect storm that puts Black Louisianans at
disproportionate risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19. Black Americans are, for example,
more likely to be part of the essential “front line” workforce than white Americans. In Louisiana,
the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (“ACS”) shows
that 29.9% of Black people and just 14.8% of white people over age 16 work in service
occupations.53 Similarly, 16.3% of Black people and just 11.3% of white people work in
48 Sheba Turk, Racial disparities in Louisiana's COVID-19 death rate reflect systemic problems, WWLTV, Apr. 7, 2020, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/racial-disparities-in-louisianas-covid-19-death-ratereflect-systemic-problems/289-bd36c4b1-1bdf-4d07-baad-6c3d207172f2. 49 Heeju Sohn, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Insurance Coverage: Dynamics of Gaining and Losing Coverage over the Life-Course 4-5, Population Research Policy Rev. (April 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370590/pdf/nihms823497.pdf. 50 Asad El Malik, The Color of a Pandemic: COVID-19, Poverty, and Race in New Orleans, Big Easy Magazine, Mar. 28, 2020, https://www.bigeasymagazine.com/2020/03/28/the-color-of-a-pandemic-covid-19-poverty-and-racein-new-orleans/; Andre M. Perry, et al. Mapping racial inequity amid COVID-19 underscores policy discriminations against Black Americans, Brookings, Apr. 16, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/theavenue/2020/04/16/mapping-racial-inequity-amid-the-spread-of-covid-19/. 51 Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of Covid-19 in America, NY Times, Apr. 29, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-covid-19.html. 52 Id. 53 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3.
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 25 of 47
production, transportation, or material moving occupations.54 By contrast, 39.3% of white people versus only 24.7% of Black people in Louisiana hold management or professional occupations— i.e., “white collar” jobs that are much more likely to allow employees to continue to work safely at home.55 Further, because 15.8% of Black households and only 4.7% of white households lack a vehicle,56 Black Louisianans are at higher risk of exposure to COVID-19 both at their job and getting to their job using public transit.
63. The CDC has acknowledged that racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 due to economic and social conditions caused by institutional racism and systemic inequalities in healthcare, among other factors.57 According to the ACS, in Louisiana, 7.9% of Black people and 6.2% of white people lack health insurance; 39.6% of Black people and 37.8% of white people over age 65 have a disability; 16.0% of Black people and 12.5% of white people age 18 to 64 have a disability; 19% of Black people and only 10.8% of white people lack a high school degree; 9.9% of Black people and 4.5% of white people over age 16 are unemployed; 25.2% of Black households and 8.1% of white households in general live below the poverty line; 22.9% of Black people over 65 versus 8.7% of white people over 65 also live in poverty; 31% of Black households and just 17.9% of white households lack broadband internet; 28.1% of Black households and 8.7% of white households use SNAP/food stamps; and Black median family income ($37,048) is half that of white families ($76,800).58
54 Id. 55 See id. 56 Id. 57 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (last visited May 8, 2020). 58 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 26 of 47
64. And given underlying inequalities, Black people in Louisiana are more likely to have the underlying health conditions that put them at increased risk for contracting and dying from COVID-19. The Louisiana Department of Health reports that Black Louisianans have higher rates of death from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer than white residents.59 Black adults in Louisiana also report higher rates of asthma than white adults.60
D. The Challenged Provisions Unreasonably Burden the Voting Rights of Louisiana Voters and Impose an Unconstitutional Condition on the Right to Vote. 1. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will force thousands of voters to risk exposure to COVID-19 by voting in person during 2020 elections.
65. Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s requirement to have an excuse to vote by mail in upcoming 2020 elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though the emergency plan adds five additional excuses on the COVID-19 emergency application for absentee ballot (“emergency application”) for voters who seek to vote by mail in the July primary or August municipal elections, the Excuse Requirement will burden thousands of Louisiana voters who do not qualify for an absentee ballot, but cannot risk voting in person because of the risks of person-to-person contact. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic and its likely resurgence in the fall, the state’s failure to provide an option to vote by absentee ballot in November and December in particular for high-risk voters, those caring for or living with high-risk spouses, children, or near relatives, and many others, places these voters in the untenable position of choosing between their vote and their health or the health of a spouse, child, or near relative.
59 Louisiana Dep’t of Health, Minority Health Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672 (last visited May 8, 2020). 60 Id.
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 27 of 47
66. By requiring every voter who wishes to safeguard their health—or the health of a spouse, child, or near relative—to have an excuse to vote by mail, Louisiana imposes an undue burden on their fundamental right to vote.
67. The burden of the Excuse Requirement will fall more heavily on Black voters in Louisiana, who—due to longstanding socioeconomic discrimination and inequity—are more likely to contract and die from COVID-19 than voters of other races.
68. For the July and August elections, the Excuse Requirement threatens to disenfranchise many thousands of voters, like Plaintiffs Barnett, and LWVLA members, who are living with or caring for loved ones who are at increased risk from COVID-19 and do not want to risk exposing their loved one to infection by voting in person. The Excuse Requirement also poses an unreasonable obstacle to voters like LWVLA members who are between 60-65 years old and whose age makes them more susceptible to COVID-19. And although voters who satisfy one of excuses on the expanded emergency list, like Plaintiff Clark, can vote by absentee ballot in the July and August elections, there is still no option for them to vote by mail in November and December. The burden placed on these voters—including voters who are at severe risk of contracting and suffering complications and dying from COVID-19 is unnecessary. Given epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are predicting a highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall and given the inexorable timeline of election administration procedures that must be completed to print mail-in ballots with instructions and to educate the electorate about revised voting procedures, the Excuse Requirement must be enjoined now.
69. Plaintiffs LWVLA and Plaintiff CCMG will expend their limited resources to educate Louisiana voters about whether they qualify to apply for an absentee ballot and how to
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 28 of 47
stay safe while voting for those voters who are ineligible for an absentee ballot but need to take specific precautions while voting in person to protect their health or the health of a loved one. Plaintiff CCMG will also spend staff time at selected polling locations to provide hand sanitizer and information on best practices on social distancing to voters who are forced to vote in person but need to stay safe while doing so. These resources are diverted away from Plaintiff LWVLA’s and Plaintiff CCMG’s regular activities which, for both organizations, include engaging with Louisiana residents on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and the 2020 redistricting cycle.
70. The Excuse Requirement does not advance any valid government interest. Indeed, the first emergency election plan proposed by Defendant Ardoin allowed broader categories of voters to qualify for an emergency application, including anyone “unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19,” among other reasons.61 In defending the first emergency election plan, Defendant Ardoin stated that it was drafted “in direct response to an unprecedented health event” and, noting the state had already reached 1000 deaths, he hoped it would not “take another 600 [deaths] for people to realize it is not wise to proceed with elections as if nothing is wrong.”62
71. Further, many other provisions in Louisiana law already safeguard the integrity of the absentee ballot process. For example, the state’s election code requires absentee ballot envelopes to include an affidavit and a line for the voter’s signature, “certifying that the statements made by [the voter] are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making a false statement therein, which penalties shall be stated on the certificate,” id. § 18:1306(E.)(1)(f); and permits commissioners, watchers, and qualified voters to challenge an
61 See supra ¶ 46. 62 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs 9:17 to 9:48 (Apr. 15, 2020).
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 29 of 47
absentee ballot on the grounds that the voter is not qualified to vote in the election or precinct, or that the voter is not the person listed on the precinct register, id. § 18:1315(A.)(2)(a); id. § 18:565(A.)(1)–(3). Voters are also required to sign the following statement on their absentee ballot request form on penalty of law: “I CERTIFY that the statements made herein by me are true and correct and I may be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both, for knowingly making false statements.”63
72. Additionally, given projected voter turnout for the November 2020 election and the highly likely resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall, the Excuse Requirement does not meaningfully advance any valid state interest for the November and December elections. The state has already concluded that the July and August elections need an expanded list of absentee voting excuses for the July and August elections, conceding that these pandemic conditions require a modification of the existing restrictions on voting by mail.
73. In addition to Louisiana, only 15 other states require an excuse to vote by mail— half of these states have already waived their excuse requirements in response to COVID-19.64 That demonstrates that such requirements are not necessary to ensure election integrity. And even if the Excuse Requirement created a marginal benefit to a valid state interest, such benefit would be greatly outweighed by the risk of widespread disenfranchisement.
74. Therefore, in the context of this highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the Excuse Requirement, which requires a significant number of voters to cast their ballots in person in
63 General Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f; Disabled Application for Absentee by Mail Ballot, La. Sec’y of State (Sept. 2019), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/DisabledApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.p df. 64 Max Feldman, et al., Brennan Center for Justice, Covid-19 Should Be a Legitimate ‘Excuse’ to Vote by Mail (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/covid-19-should-be-legitimate-excusevote-mail.
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 30 of 47
violation of social distancing directives and/or guidelines, violates the fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). Additionally, by requiring some voters to cast their ballots in person during this lethal pandemic, the Excuse Requirement also conditions voters’ exercise of the franchise on the surrender of their fundamental right to bodily integrity, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2. Louisiana’s Witness Requirement will deny large numbers of eligible voters the right to vote without meaningfully advancing any valid state interest.
67. Plaintiffs also challenge Louisiana’s requirement that voters who cast a ballot by mail obtain a witness signature. Under state law, the absentee ballot envelope flap must contain a line for the handwritten signature of one witness and a line for the printed name of the witness. See La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a). The Witness Requirement was amended by SB 75 to require that “no person except the immediate family member of the voter, as defined in this Code, shall witness more than one certificate of a voter.” ABSENTEE VOTING, 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 210. The voter must sign their absentee ballot affidavit in the presence of this witness, who then signs the envelope. Id.
75. In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, the Witness Requirement imposes an unreasonably dangerous and burdensome hurdle to thousands of voters who live alone and, because of their age or underlying health conditions, are strictly limiting person-to-person contact to protect their health. These voters cannot risk contracting COVID-19, and Louisiana cannot require them to do so to vote. Plaintiffs LWVLA and CCMG will expend their limited resources to educate Louisiana voters who live alone but qualify for absentee ballots on how to comply with the Witness Requirement while protecting their own health. Plaintiff CCMG will be spending money on media advertisements to reach voters who live alone and will be voting absentee to
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 31 of 47
ensure that if they are forced to find a witness, they have the information they need to do so in the safest manner possible. These resources are diverted away from Plaintiff LWVLA’s and Plaintiff CCMG’s regular activities which, for both organizations, include engaging with Louisiana residents on voter registration, the 2020 Census, and the 2020 redistricting cycle.
68. On May 1, 2020, Louisiana had over 2.9 million registered voters.65 In the November 2019 general election, over 1.5 million Louisianans voted.66 And in the 2016 presidential election, over 2 million Louisiana voters cast ballots.67
69. According to the ACS, 14.9% of Louisiana adults live alone.68 If the November 2020 election has similar voter turnout to November 2016, nearly 300,000 Louisiana voters (i.e., 14.9% of 2 million voters) could be forced to choose between risking their health by voting inperson, leaving their homes and violating social distancing directives to find witnesses for their absentee ballots, or not voting at all. Many of them will be forced not to vote to protect their health and their community.
70. This burden on the right to vote will fall more heavily on older voters, voters with disabilities, and Black voters, among others. According to the ACS, of the 532,003 Louisianans of voting age who live alone, 35.89% (190,943) are 65 and older.69 Around 27.51% of Louisianans 18 and older who live alone have a disability, and 43.69% of Louisianans 65 and older who live alone have a disability.70
65 Louisiana Sec’y of State, Registration Statistics – Statewide (last visited May 14, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/RegistrationStatisticsStatewide.aspx. 66 Louisiana Sec’y of State, Geaux Vote, Election Results (select Sat Nov 16 2019 from menu), https://voterportal.sos.la.gov/graphical. 67 Id. (select Tues Nov 6 2018 from menu). 68 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP02, https://tinyurl.com/y89tlwwt. 69 Id. 70 Id.
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 32 of 47
71. Of all Black households (i.e., homes with all their occupants, regardless of number, treated as one unit), 38.70% contain people who live alone, per the ACS.71 Of all white households, 31.30% contain people who live alone.72 And 14.9% of all Black households in Louisiana are headed by women who live alone with their children under 18 (i.e., people who are not legally competent witnesses) versus just 4.9% of similar white households.73
72. The Witness Requirement imposes a severe burden on many voters and is not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in preventing or detecting electoral fraud. The Witness Requirement is simply not an effective enough deterrent or method of detecting and prosecuting fraud to outweigh the severe risks and burdens it imposes on voters, particularly at-risk voters who are living alone, during this pandemic. Indeed, Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s first Emergency Election Plan waived the Witness Requirement to ensure that it would not prevent voters from casting an absentee ballot without incurring an unreasonable risk to their health or the health of loved ones. Several other provisions of Louisiana law safeguard the integrity of absentee voting without putting voters’ lives at risk. In fact, Louisiana is one of only 12 states that require a voter submitting an absentee ballot to have their ballot witnessed or notarized.74
73. SB 75 creates additional burdens to absentee voters who live alone and Organizational Plaintiffs as they work to educate voters on how to comply with the Witness
71 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use Microdata Sample, Custom Table, https://tinyurl.com/y9xng3b2. 72 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates – Public Use Microdata Sample, Custom Table, https://tinyurl.com/ya7j57b5. 73 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018: ACS 1-Year Estimates Selected Population Profiles, Table S0201, https://tinyurl.com/yb3dxcm3. 74 See Ala. Code §§ 17-9-30(b), 17-11-7, 17-11-10; Alaska Stat. § 15.20.030; La. Stat. Ann. § 18:1306(2)(a); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 23-15-627, 23-15-635, 23-15-633; Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07, 203B.121; Minn. R. 8210.2450; Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 115.279, 115.283, 115.295; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-231; Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108; 17 R.I. Gen. Laws § 1720-23; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-15-220, 7-15-230; VA Code Ann. §§ 24.2-706, 24.2-707; Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 33 of 47
Requirement. SB 75 decreases the pool of available witnesses, particularly for voters who live alone and away from immediate family members.
74. In the context of this highly contagious and lethal pandemic, the Witness Requirement imposes an undue burden on the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, unconstitutionally conditions exercise of the right to vote on the surrender of the fundamental right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and denies Black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.
3. Louisiana’s failure to provide absentee voters notice and an opportunity to cure defects in their absentee ballot request forms and their absentee ballots so they may be counted will disenfranchise Louisiana voters.
75. Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA also challenge Louisiana’s failure to provide voters who qualify to vote by absentee ballot any notice of or opportunity to correct deficiencies in their absentee ballot request forms and absentee ballots so that their ballot can be counted.
76. In the 2016 general election, 3.7% of Louisiana voters received an absentee ballot, and 2.9% of voters returned them.75 The rejection rate was nearly 3% for absentee ballots in 2016—2,271 voters had their absentee ballots rejected without any notice or opportunity to address deficiencies under Louisiana law.76
77. Louisiana is about to experience a substantially higher level of absentee mail-in voting than prior to the pandemic, for several reasons. For example, elderly voters ages 65 and up already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses but now that they are at severe risk from COVID-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for
75 U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, The Election Administration & Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report 23 tbl.2 (2016), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf. 76 Id.
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 34 of 47
the first time. With all these first-time absentee voters requesting ballots and voting them remotely, this will inevitably yield a higher error rate.
78. Even under the limited expanded eligibility of the Emergency Election Plan, Louisiana officials expect an increase in voters—especially older voters—seeking to vote by mail for the first time in this year’s elections. Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin acknowledged this reality in defending the first emergency election plan, noting that even if no plan was implemented, the state was likely to see an influx of absentee ballot requests during the COVID-19 pandemic.77 Indeed, Plaintiff Clark is a lifelong in-person voter, but must vote by absentee ballot because of the risk in-person voting poses to her health and the health of her family.
79. Under Louisiana law, local election officials may reject an absentee ballot for a perceived failure to comply with a legal requirement. Without notice of or an opportunity to fix any deficiencies, thousands of voters will be denied their fundamental right to vote and likely more than in prior presidential election years.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(All Plaintiffs) Violation of the Fundamental Right to Vote 42 U.S.C. § 1983, First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution 75. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 76. Eligible individuals have a fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude
77 Recording of Senate Hearing for First Emergency Election Plan, Senate Cmte. on Senate & Governmental Affairs at 23:45 (Apr. 15, 2020).
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 35 of 47
of the injury to the rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the justifications put forward by the State. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983).
77. Unless Plaintiffs are granted the requested relief, thousands of Louisiana voters’ right to vote, including Plaintiffs’, will be severely burdened—if not entirely denied—in the July, August, November, and December elections.
78. First, Plaintiff Barnett does not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or the Emergency Election Plan, which requires an excuse to vote by mail. But because they live with family members who are at increased risk for contracting and suffering severe complications or dying from COVID-19, they cannot vote in person in the July, August, November, or December elections without endangering the health of their loved ones. And Plaintiff Clark, although she qualifies for an absentee ballot under the Emergency Election Plan for the July and August elections, she does not qualify to vote by mail under La. Rev. Stat § 18:1303 for the November or December elections. Because Plaintiff Clark is at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19, she cannot vote in person without endangering her health. The Excuse Requirement imposes a severe burden on many voters, including Plaintiffs Barnettand Clark, which are not sufficiently tailored to the state’s interest, and, as such, these laws unduly burden Plaintiffs’ right to vote.
79. Second, even though many voters qualify to vote by mail in upcoming elections, the fact that they live alone means that they will have to interact with someone from outside their household to satisfy the Witness Requirement. Otherwise, their only option is to vote in person. Due to their age and preexisting health conditions, such contact could result in severe illness or even death. The Witness Requirement is unreasonably dangerous for absentee voters and imposes
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 36 of 47
a severe burden on many such voters, including but not limited to those who live alone and/or who have an underlying health condition that puts them at heightened risk. The burdens of the Witness Requirement are not sufficiently tailored to the state’s anti-fraud interest, and, as such, these laws unduly burden Plaintiffs’ right to vote. The Witness Requirement unduly burdens their right to vote in the July, August, November and/or December elections. Both Plaintiff LWVLA and Plaintiff CCMG are injured by the Witness Requirement, in that they will divert resources and time to educating voters on how to comply safely with the Witness Requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA) Unconstitutional Condition on Right to Vote Compelling Forfeiture of Right to Bodily
Integrity 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 80. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 81. Voting is protected by the First Amendment as a means of political association and political expression. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000); Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 288–90 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787–89, 806 (1983); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56–58 (1973); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30–31 (1968). 82. Under the unconstitutional condition doctrine, the government may not require an individual to forfeit one constitutional right in order to exercise another. See Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394 (1968); Howard v. Walker, 406 F.3d 114, 129 (2d Cir. 2005); Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004); Green v. Brigano, 123 F.3d 917, 921 (6th Cir. 1997).
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 37 of 47
83. When the government places a condition on the exercise of a right or receipt of a government-created benefit that interferes with a constitutional right, courts will apply the same level of scrutiny to the condition as it would to a law that directly regulates the constitutional right. See Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 415 U.S. 250, 261–62 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638 (1969). Government actions that threaten the right to bodily integrity will survive only if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997); Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1064 (6th Cir. 1998).
84. The Supreme Court has invalidated voting requirements or conditions that require the forfeiture of another fundamental right. See Blumstein, 405 U.S. at 346, 353 (1972) (finding that durational residency requirement for voter registration placed unconstitutional condition on fundamental right to interstate travel).
85. There is a constitutionally recognized fundamental right to bodily integrity. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 777–78 (1997); Alton v. Tex. A & M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1999). “[I]ndividuals possess a constitutional right to be free from forcible intrusions on their bodies against their will, absent a compelling state interest.” Guertin v. State, 912 F.3d 907, 919 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Reg. v. DeWine, 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012)). This right is violated if government officials are deliberately indifferent to the violation of the plaintiff’s bodily integrity. See M.D. by Strukenberg v. Abbot, 907 F.3d 237, 248 (5th Cir. 2018); Guertin, 912 F.3d at 919. “To act with deliberate indifference, a state actor must consciously disregard a known and excessive risk to the victim’s health and safety.” M.D. by Stukenberg, 907 F.3d at 252 (quoting Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex. Dept. of Prot. & Regulatory Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 880 (5th Cir. 2004)). The state “must be both aware of facts from
37

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 38 of 47
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [it] must also draw that inference.” Id. (quoting Hernandez, 380 F.3d 872, at 881) (alteration in original). “Involuntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value . . . is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 921–22.
86. By requiring Plaintiffs to vote in person or obtain a witness signature, both of which cannot be safely and reasonably accomplished throughout 2020 and during the COVID-19 emergency in Louisiana, Defendants force Plaintiffs to forfeit their right to bodily integrity in order to exercise their right to vote. Should Plaintiffs exercise their right to vote under these circumstances, Defendants will have knowingly and unreasonably subjected Plaintiffs to significant risk of exposure to a highly contagious and highly lethal pathogen, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, without a therapeutic basis or Plaintiffs’ consent. As reflected by Defendant Governor Edwards’ stay-at-home order, the Emergency Election Plan, and Defendant Secretary of State Ardoin’s failed attempts to waive the Witness Requirement for the July and August elections, Defendants are aware of the dangers posed by COVID-19 to voters generally and specifically if voters are forced to comply with the Excuse and Witness Requirements and risk contracting or causing illness, death, and lasting injury.
87. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by requiring them to forfeit their right to bodily integrity in order to exercise their right to vote.
88. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of the right to be free of unconstitutional conditions on their rights to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 39 of 47
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and Barnett) Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 89. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 90. Section 2 of the VRA provides in part that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). 91. The “essence of a [Section] 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). Section 2 prohibits both vote denial and vote dilution. See id. at 45 n.10. 92. The Fifth Circuit has adopted a two-part test for determining liability on a claim of vote denial under Section 2: [1] [T]he challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that members of the protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, [and] [2] [T]hat burden must in part be caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have or currently produce discrimination against members of the protected class. Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 244 (5th Cir. 2016). 93. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement—separately and together— will result in Black voters in Louisiana having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement will result in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote for Black voters in Louisiana.
39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 40 of 47
94. The Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement—separately and together— impose a discriminatory burden on Black voters in Louisiana.
95. The Excuse Requirement, if not enjoined, will severely burden the right to vote and will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana. Because of longstanding and pervasive discrimination in healthcare, housing, education, employment, and other socioeconomic areas, Black voters are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, suffering serious complications and dying than white voters if required to vote in person. Accordingly, Black voters are disproportionately burdened by the Excuse Requirement.
96. The Witness Requirement, if not enjoined, will severely burden the right to vote and will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana. Black voters are more likely to live alone than white voters in Louisiana. And because of longstanding and pervasive discrimination in healthcare, housing, education, employment, and other socioeconomic areas, Black voters are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, suffering serious complications and dying than white voters if required to break self-quarantine to find a witness signature on their absentee ballot. Accordingly, Black voters are disproportionately burdened by the Witness Requirement.
97. The discriminatory results of the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement are directly linked to social and historical conditions. Louisiana has a long history of voting-related discrimination, including recent polling place closures, discriminatory lack of early voting sites and days, and at-large election systems. From 1965 to 2013, Louisiana was covered by the preclearance provisions of the VRA. During that time, the U.S. Department of Justice objected to dozens of Louisiana’s proposed voting changes because of their potentially discriminatory purpose or effect.
40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 41 of 47
98. Black Louisianans continue to face discrimination in other areas of life, including healthcare, health, education, employment, and housing, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Such discrimination results in Black Louisianans suffering disproportionately from health conditions that put them at higher-risk of serious complications and death from COVID-19. See supra ¶¶ 58-64. This heightened and disproportionate risk from COVID-19 exacerbates the difficulties Louisiana’s Black voters face in participating effectively in the political process and electing representatives of their choice.
99. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement interact with social and historical conditions to deny and abridge the right to vote of Black people in Louisiana. Because of the Excuse Requirement and the Witness Requirement, Black people in Louisiana will have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiffs Clark and LWVLA)
Denial of Plaintiffs’ Right to Procedural Due Process in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
100. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
101. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. A liberty interest that is governed by due process can be created by the Constitution or “may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Courts analyze whether a statutory entitlement existed prior to the notice and process afforded and prior to the deprivation.
41

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 42 of 47
102. “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of Coushatta, 930 F.2d 1122, 1130 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
103. “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Triplett v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 26 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
104. Under Mathews, the determination of what process is due rests on the balance between (1) the interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the current procedures, and the “probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) the state’s interest, including the “fiscal and administrative burdens” additional procedures would entail. 424 U.S. at 335.
105. Absent exigent circumstances, due process requires pre-deprivation procedures. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“We have described ‘the root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause as being ‘that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original)); Sciolino, 480 F.3d at 653 (“An opportunity to clear your name after it has been ruined by dissemination of false, stigmatizing charges is not ‘meaningful.’”).
106. Louisiana law gives registered Louisiana voters who meet certain criteria statutory rights to request and cast a mail-in absentee ballot that will be processed and counted, thereby vesting them with liberty interests. Eligible, registered voters enjoy an “individual and personal”
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 43 of 47
right to vote under Louisiana law. Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 (1964)).
107. Yet Defendants do not afford mail-in absentee voters any notice of or opportunities to cure material defects in their absentee ballot requests and their absentee ballots that will result in rejection, thereby depriving Plaintiff Clark and other registered Louisiana voters eligible to vote by absentee ballot of their liberty interests in requesting and casting mail-in absentee ballots and exercising their fundamental right to vote.
108. Louisiana is about to experience a substantially higher level of absentee mail-in voting than prior to the pandemic. Many elderly voters ages 65 and up already had the option to vote by mail under the existing excuses but now that they are at severe risk from COVID-19, many will abandon in-person voting at the polls and cast ballots by mail for the first time. With all these first-time absentee voters requesting ballots and voting them remotely, this will inevitably yield a higher error rate.
109. The risk of erroneous deprivation is high, as these eligible, registered Louisiana voters are entitled by law to vote an absentee ballot either under the provisions set forth under La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303 or under the Emergency Election Plan and, therefore, must be provided with an opportunity to timely cure any defect that would cause the absentee ballot request form’s rejection or the absentee ballot’s rejection.
110. Defendants cannot advance any interests that outweigh the risk of erroneous deprivation. Any increased administrative burden in affording voters an opportunity to cure their absentee ballot defects is far outweighed by the threat of disenfranchising Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA’s members eligible to vote by absentee ballot. Defendants’ interest in conducting fair election administration and preserving election integrity would not be
43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 44 of 47
compromised in the slightest, and they would satisfy their weighty interest in abiding by federal constitutional requirements.
111. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have violated and will continue to violate Plaintiffs’ and their members’ federal constitutional rights to procedural due process.
112. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted under color of state law. 113. Defendants have deprived and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs and their members of their right to adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard to cure deficiencies with their absentee ballot requests and their absentee ballots. This wholly fails to meet these minimum requirements of procedural due process, as guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court provide the following relief:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action; b. Declare that the Excuse Requirement, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1303(B) and La. Rev. Stat. § 18:401.3, and the Witness Requirement, as provided in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1306(E.)(2)(a), violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as undue burdens on the fundamental right to vote, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they unconstitutionally condition the right to vote upon the forfeiture of the right to bodily integrity, and violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020; c. Declare that the Cure Prohibition, as found generally in La. Rev. Stat. § 18:1313, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying Plaintiff Clark and Plaintiff LWVLA members their right to procedural due process.
44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 45 of 47
d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that order relief including: 1. Prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement for all voters during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020; 2. Prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirement for all voters during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020;78 3. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local, city, and parish election officials to modify election materials, including absentee ballots, envelopes, instructions, and other materials, to reflect the enjoining of the Challenged Provisions, and conduct a public information campaign informing Louisiana voters about the enjoining of the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirement, and the Cure Prohibition, in coordination with parish and local officials before and during the absentee balloting period; 4. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all parish and local election officials to process all valid absentee ballot applications, regardless of whether the applicant has provided an excuse, for all elections in Louisiana in 2020; 5. Ordering Defendants to issue guidance instructing all parish and local election officials to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing the signature of a witness for all elections in Louisiana in 2020;
78 Alternatively, Defendants must offer voters the opportunity to sign a sworn affirmation on the absentee ballot’s certificate envelope that states the voter could not reasonably and safely complete the Witness Requirement and count all absentee ballots with that signed, sworn attestation.
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 46 of 47 6. Ordering Defendants to provide absentee voters notice and an opportunity to cure any defects in their absentee ballots during, at least, all elections in Louisiana in 2020 that do not require the voter to appear anywhere in person;
e. Award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in this action; f. Award Plaintiffs their costs of suit; g. Order such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate; and h. Retain jurisdiction to enforce the Judgment.
46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 47 06/17/20 Page 47 of 47

DATED this 17th day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

47

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 1 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE; LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; JANE CHANDLER, JENNIFER HARDING, EDITH GEE JONES, and JASMINE POGUE
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; and KYLE ARDOIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

POWER COALITION PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”); Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP (“Louisiana NAACP”); Jane Chandler, Jennifer Harding, Edith Gee Jones, and Jasmine Pogue (collectively “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following:

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 2 of 51
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared a global
pandemic due to COVID-19.1 That same day, the Governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards,
declared a statewide emergency.2 On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards enacted a stay-at-home
order.3
2. As of April 2020, Louisiana’s death rate from the virus was, per capita, the second
highest in the country.4 St. John the Baptist Parish had the highest death rate of any parish or
county in the country.5 Four out of six of the parishes/counties in the United States with the highest
COVID-19-related death rates are in Louisiana.6
3. Public health experts have projected that “controlling this pandemic will depend on
a safe and efficacious vaccine,” however “[t]he estimated timeline for availability of an initial
vaccine is between early and mid-2021.”7
1 See World Health Org. (WHO) (@WHO), Twitter (Mar. 11, 2020), https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1237777021742338049 (“We have therefore made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”); WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID19, WHO (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-themedia-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020. 2 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Declaration of Public Health Emergency in Response to COVID-19, (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2400. 3 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf. 4 Johnston von Springer, “Louisiana ranks second per capita in COVID-19 deaths,” WBRZ 2 (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.wbrz.com/news/louisiana-ranks-second-per-capita-in-covid-19-deaths/. 5 Ashley Killough and Ed Lavandera, “This small Louisiana parish has the highest death rate per capita for coronavirus in the country,” CNN (April 16, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/us/louisiana-st-john-thebaptist-coronavirus/index.html. 6 WWL Staff, “4 of top 6 parishes or counties in deaths per capita from COVID-19 are in Louisiana,” 4WWL, (Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/4-of-top-6-parishes-or-counties-in-deathsper-capita-are-in-louisiana/289-1ab60d0c-1298-4c44-8940-b3890aef37c6. 7 Saad B. Omer et al., The COVID-19 Pandemic in the US: A Clinical Update, J. Am. Med. Assoc. Net. (Apr. 6, 2020), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2764366.; see also Hailey Waller et al., Bill Gates’
(continued…)
2

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 3 of 51
4. In this unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple provisions of Louisiana law, policies, and procedures that establish requirements for voting absentee by mail and voting early pose undue burdens on the right to vote, including (1) the requirement that eligible voters are required to identify one of a limited number of excuses to be eligible to vote absentee by mail (the “Excuse Requirement”); (2) the requirement that a voter voting absentee by mail obtain a witness signature (the “Ballot Witness Requirement”); (3) the requirement that a voter who uses a mark to certify their application for an absentee by mail ballot obtain two witness signatures on the application (the “Application Witness Requirement,” and together with the “Ballot Witness Requirement,” collectively “the Witness Requirements”); and (4) the failure to extend the early voting period to fourteen days for all elections in Louisiana in 2020 (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”).
5. First, Plaintiffs challenge the limited list of excuses allowing individuals to vote by absentee ballot set forth in La. R.S. 18:1303. A voter who does not qualify under any of the listed categories has to vote in person or not at all.
6. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Excuse Requirement violates the fundamental right to vote as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Voters who do not have a qualifying excuse are compelled to endure unacceptable health risks (and to increase the health risk to the community) in order to exercise their right to vote. The burdens imposed by the Excuse Requirement will fall with particular severity on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
coronavirus vaccine could be manufacturing at scale in a year, Fortune (Apr. 26, 2020), https://fortune.com/2020/04/26/bill-gates-coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19/ (Bill Gates, who is funding production of vaccine development, has projected that, “[i]f everything went perfectly, we’d be in scale manufacturing within a year . . . . It could be as long as two years.”).
3

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 4 of 51
7. Nor does the Secretary of State’s Emergency Election Plan (the “Emergency Plan”)8—which was approved by the Louisiana Legislature on April 27, 2020, and allows voters to vote by absentee ballot due to five limited COVID-19-specific excuses—remedy this constitutional defect. As an initial matter, the Emergency Plan only applies to the July 11, 2020 (Presidential Preference Primary/Municipal Primary Election, hereinafter the “July Election”) and the August 15, 2020 (Municipal General Election, hereinafter the “August Election”) elections; it does not address the health risks entailed by in-person voting in the November 3, 2020 election (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Elections, hereinafter the “November Election”) and/or the December 5, 2020 election (Congressional and Open General Election, hereinafter the “December Election”).
8. Even as to the July and August Elections, the Emergency Plan does not adequately protect the right to vote. The COVID-19 related excuses in the Emergency Plan are unduly restrictive. The first COVID-19 related excuse applies to voters who are “[a]t higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions,” but limits the conditions to ones identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and provides an exclusive list of conditions. The next excuse applies to voters who are “[s]ubject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19,” but fails to define medically necessary. The third excuse applies to voters who have been “[a]dvised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns,” but is vague with respect to what advisement by a health care provider means. Similarly, the fourth COVID-19 related excuse applies to voters
8 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.sos.la.gov/OurOffice/PublishedDocuments/Revised%20Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20P PP%20and%20Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-20.pdf.
4

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 5 of 51
[e]xperiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis,” but does not provide guidance about whether this excuse, for instance, applies to a voter who saw a doctor and was tested (but has not received a test result) or who may have seen a health care provider but was not tested. The fifth excuse applies to a voter who is “[c]aring for an identified individual who is subject to medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns,” but also does not define medically necessary and requires the voter to identify the individual for whom they are caring by name.9 Notably, none of the COVID-19 excuses in the Emergency Plan apply to the many thousands of voters who reasonably fear that voting in person may result in their contracting or unintentionally contributing to the spread of COVID-19. Defendants have forced Louisiana voters to make an untenable decision between risking their health and the health of their families and communities or giving up their fundamental right to vote.
9. For example, Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue suffers from environmentally induced asthma and a history of upper respiratory infections. When experiencing an asthma attack, she has severe trouble breathing and requires an inhaler. Due to her breathing troubles, Ms. Pogue fears that if she contracted COVID-19 she could suffer fatal consequences. Accordingly, she has been practicing strict social distancing with her husband and son since the virus reached Louisiana. Because Ms. Pogue does not require asthma medication on a regular basis, her condition does not qualify as “moderate or severe” and is not listed among the accepted virus-related excuses on the absentee ballot application under the Emergency Plan. Ms. Pogue’s only option to vote requires risking virus exposure—and perhaps her life—at an in-person voting site.
9 Id.
5

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 6 of 51
10. Second, Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s requirement pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1306E(2)(a) that all absentee by mail ballot envelopes be signed by a witness in addition to the voter. On June 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards signed into law Senate Bill 75 (“SB 75”), which immediately amended the Ballot Witness Requirement to require, among other provisions, that no person except the immediate family member of a voter can witness more than one absentee ballot certificate. ABSENTEE VOTING, 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 210. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ballot Witness Requirement imposes an undue burden on many Louisiana voters who live alone or who do not live in a household with another adult who can act as a witness, and must choose between risking contact with a third party or foregoing their right to vote.
11. The Ballot Witness Requirement will impose an undue burden on voters such as Plaintiff Jane Chandler, a 76-year-old breast cancer survivor who lives alone in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Chandler suffers from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a progressive condition that compromises her lung capacity and is likely the result of late onset side effects of her cancer treatment. There is no treatment and no cure. She also has osteoporosis and moderate allergies, which she regulates with medication. Ms. Chandler has taken extreme precautions to avoid inperson contacts since COVID-19 reached Louisiana because infection would pose a grave risk to her health. Ms. Chandler qualifies to vote absentee because she is over 65 years of age. However, because she lives alone and fears welcoming guests into her home during the pandemic, Ms. Chandler would have difficulty obtaining a witness signature without compromising her social distancing practices and her safety.
12. Third, Plaintiffs challenge Louisiana’s Application Witness Requirement, La. R.S. 18:1307, that requires individuals who are unable to sign their name and use a mark instead to
6

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 7 of 51
obtain the signature of two third-party witnesses in order to apply for an absentee ballot. Although the Emergency Plan reduces the number of required witness signatures from two to one for the July and August Elections, it does not address the barrier that the Application Witness Requirement presents to voters who wish to apply for an absentee ballot but who cannot obtain a witness signature without violating social distancing recommendations or medical advice.
13. Fourth, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the State’s early voting practices to the extent that they only allow for early voting for seven days prior to the November and December Elections. Under La. R.S. 18:1309, early voting may take place up to fourteen days prior to a scheduled election. While the Emergency Plan extends early voting to 13 days for the July and August Elections, it does not extend early voting for the November and December Elections.
14. Plaintiffs seek relief enjoining the State from limiting early voting to seven days insofar as it unreasonably burdens their fundamental right to vote by exposing them to intensified health risks by requiring a larger number of voters to vote in person during a constrained schedule. For those voters who wish to vote in person, such as Plaintiff Edith Gee Jones, early voting reduces the health risks of doing so by reducing the number of voters at the polling places at any given time, making social distancing more achievable.
15. The burdens imposed by the Challenged Provisions will disproportionately impact Black voters in Louisiana, who are more likely to live alone, more likely to have a disability compared to white Louisiana residents, and who are disproportionately subject to infection and death from COVID-19. As of June 18, Black people comprise over 53% of Louisiana’s reported
7

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 8 of 51
COVID-19 deaths while they only comprise 32% of Louisiana’s population.10 Louisiana’s history of discrimination in voting, and ongoing and current racial disparities in education, employment, and health interact with the Challenged Provisions to hinder Black people’s opportunity to participate equally in the political process.
16. The Challenged Provisions, individually and collectively, will materially and unduly burden the right to vote of Louisiana’s voters in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare that the Challenged Provisions are unconstitutional and violate the Voting Rights Act, and further, enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Challenged Provisions for all elections in Louisiana in 2020.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 52 U.S.C. § 10301 to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of constitutional rights under color of state law. This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in their official capacities as state officials. The violations complained of concern their conduct in such capacities. 19. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 20. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants reside in this judicial district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred there.
10 See La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (last visited June 18, 2020); U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts Louisiana, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/LA,US/PST045219? (last visited May 6 2020).
8

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 9 of 51
PARTIES 21. Plaintiff the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice (“PCEJ”) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit statewide civic engagement table in Louisiana that works to build grassroots power, advocate for community-centered policies, and increase voter participation. PCEJ’s mission is to support community-driven activism and grassroots leadership development to empower citizens to address classism, racism, and other marginalization in their own lives and communities. PCEJ advances its mission with the support of full-time staff, community volunteers, and a team of nonprofit and advocacy organizations united around an integrated civic engagement strategy to educate and empower voters across Louisiana. In 2019, PCEJ engaged with 465,406 infrequent and semi-frequent voters of color through hundreds of thousands of doors knocked, phone calls, and text messages totaling over 1.2 million contact attempts. PCEJ also routinely provides rides to the polls and rapid response voter support on Election Days. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, PCEJ has been forced to shift to virtual engagement models, including tele-town halls, video meetings, and multilayer press strategies to communicate information to its membership and target constituencies. PCEJ has been required to dedicate staff time and resources to monitoring and responding to each iteration of Louisiana’s Emergency Plan, including attending the April 15 and April 22 Senate and House committee meetings at risk to personal health. If the Challenged Provisions remain in effect, PCEJ anticipates diverting resources to train volunteers and educate voters on the limitations of these measures. PCEJ expects to receive an influx of requests for rides to the polls or assistance obtaining a witness signature in advance of Election Day, and recurring questions about how to adhere to social distancing guidance while attempting to vote in person or in the presence of a signatory. 22. Plaintiff Louisiana State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the “Louisiana NAACP”) is a state subsidiary of the National
9

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 10 of 51
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. For decades, the Louisiana NAACP has worked to ensure the economic, educational, political, and social equity of Black people and of all Americans. Its membership includes Black voters residing throughout Louisiana. The Louisiana NAACP’s mission includes eliminating racial discrimination in the democratic process and ensuring the protection of voting rights and equitable political representation. Its work includes efforts to register, educate, and advocate on behalf of Black voters throughout Louisiana. As a direct result of the Challenged Provisions, the Louisiana NAACP has diverted its limited resources to monitor and investigate the impact of the Challenged Provisions on its members, and has advocated for a modified Emergency Plan that considers the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black Louisianans and that will not disproportionately burden Black voters.
23. Plaintiff Jane Chandler is 76 years old and lives alone in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered voter. Ms. Chandler is self-quarantining due to a lung condition that is a comorbidity of COVID-19. Since COVID-19 reached Louisiana, she has only left her home for limited purposes, such as a doctor’s appointment, and has maintained social distancing best practices while out. To reduce unnecessary interactions, Ms. Chandler has arranged to have her groceries and other necessities dropped off and has completely sanitized all items delivered to her home. While Ms. Chandler has been eligible to vote by absentee ballot for over ten years, she prefers to vote in person and has consistently voted at her polling site on Election Day. This year, however, she intends to request an absentee ballot for all elections due to her fear of exposure to COVID-19. Because Ms. Chandler lives alone and is abstaining from avoidable in-person contact, she does not know how she will be able to safely and efficiently obtain a witness signature for her ballot envelope without defying the predominant health guidance to maintain isolation.
10

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 11 of 51
24. Plaintiff Jennifer Harding is a 42-year-old community organizer from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. Ms. Harding lives with her husband and their son, who is in the fourth grade. Her nuclear family has been strictly socially distancing since schools closed in Louisiana in order to protect their own health and the health of others. In her current stage of life, Ms. Harding has both child and parental care responsibilities. Her 72-year-old father, 71-year-old mother, and 93-year-old grandmother live together close by and require various levels of assistance. Her father has Parkinson’s disease, her mother has limited mobility due to post-polio syndrome, and her grandmother has been diagnosed with dementia. Ms. Harding is responsible for completing tasks that they cannot easily perform, including taking out the trash, but does not serve in a fulltime or live-in caretaking role. During visits to their home, she has taken extreme precautions to maintain distance and use sanitary practices. She is aware of the potential of undetected and asymptomatic infection and has reasonable fear that she could expose her at-risk family to COVID-19 if she does not continue to maintain extreme social distancing. Ms. Harding has not left her house for any other purpose than to visit her parents’ and grandmother’s home or to take a walk in her immediate neighborhood. If able, she would vote by absentee ballot in order to decrease her risk of virus exposure at her polling location. However, she does not believe the Emergency Plan absentee ballot application permits her, or others similarly situated in part-time eldercare roles, to request a ballot without exposure to the risk of criminal penalty. As a result, her only option to vote in this year’s elections requires jeopardizing her health and the health of her family and community by voting in person.
25. Plaintiff Edith Gee Jones is over 65 years old and resides in New Orleans with her husband. Mrs. Jones is Black. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. Mrs. Jones routinely votes in Louisiana elections, and has done so for decades. Historically, Mrs. Jones
11

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 12 of 51
has voted in person. She takes advantage of the opportunity to engage in early voting, preferring to vote in person when her polling site has typically been less crowded than on election days. Mrs. Jones would like the option to continue her tradition of voting in person in 2020 but recognizes that she is at higher risk of experiencing COVID-19-related complications because of her age. She is also aware of the heightened risk that Black Louisianans face with regard to COVID-19. Given her preference for in-person voting, Mrs. Jones would like to have the opportunity to safely participate in early voting in each of Louisiana’s upcoming elections.
26. Plaintiff Jasmine Pogue is a 33-year-old Black woman who was recently diagnosed with asthma. She is a U.S. citizen and lawfully registered Louisiana voter. She lives with her husband and 6-year-old daughter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Pogue’s asthma is environmentally induced, triggered by allergens and other pollutants. She also has a history of upper respiratory infections, and last contracted one in mid-March. Ms. Pogue and her family have been engaging in strict social distancing to avoid all unnecessary risk of exposure to COVID19. Ms. Pogue has severe difficulty breathing and requires an inhaler when experiencing an asthma attack. However, because Ms. Pogue does not require her inhaler on a frequent, standard basis, she does not believe her asthma qualifies as “moderate or severe.” Because her diagnosis is not among the “serious underlying medical conditions” listed on the COVID-19 emergency absentee ballot application or identified by the CDC as a comorbidity of COVID-19, she does not believe she qualifies to apply for an absentee ballot. Ms. Pogue is aware of the disproportionate rates of infection and death among Black Louisianans and especially individuals with respiratory concerns. She reasonably fears that voting in person—her only option to participate in this year’s elections if the Challenged Provisions remain in effect—would pose severe and potentially fatal risk to her health.
12

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 13 of 51
27. Defendant John Bel Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana and is being sued in his official capacity. Under the Louisiana Constitution, he is “the chief executive officer of the state,” and must “faithfully support the constitution and laws of the state and of the United States,” as well as ensure that “the laws are faithfully executed.” La. Const. art. IV, § 5(A). Like other executive officers of the State, Defendant Edwards is required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to it, as part of the execution of his gubernatorial duties and responsibilities. 4 U.S.C. § 101. His authority to protect public health during the pandemic in connection with elections was exercised by his order postponing the primary elections.11
28. Defendant Robert Kyle Ardoin is the Louisiana Secretary of State and is being sued in his official capacity. The Secretary of State is the “chief election officer of the state.” La. Const. art. IV, § 7; La. R.S. 18:421. Defendant Ardoin is responsible for, among other things, preparing and certifying the ballots for all Louisiana elections, promulgating all election returns, and promulgating and publishing all laws enacted by the legislature. La. Const. art. IV, § 7; La. R.S. 18:18; 18:421.
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The COVID-19 Pandemic
A. COVID-19’s Impact 29. The rapid spread of COVID-19 has triggered a global health crisis of unprecedented consequence. By April 2020, the United States became the epicenter of the pandemic, surpassing
11 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/28-JBE-2020-Special-Elections-COVID19Postponement.pdf.
13

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 14 of 51
other nations in both instance and concentration of infection.12 By the end of that month, over 1 million cases were recorded nationwide.13 Yet according to experts, this figure is a drastic undercount of the virus’ actual reach.14
30. As of May 6, 2020, over 70,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the United States.15 Even with appropriate preventive measures, COVID-19-related fatalities are expected to continue through the summer months.16 Projections forecast higher rates of fatality if health guidance is ignored.17 The leading public model of the disease recently doubled the predicted
number of deaths in order to reflect “the easing of social distancing measures expected in 31 states
by May 11, indicating that growing contacts among people will promote transmission of the coronavirus.”18
12 David Smith, US Surpasses China for Highest Number of Confirmed COVID-19 Cases in the World, The Guardian (Mar.27, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/coronavirus-outbreak-us-latest-trump. 13 Daniel Wood, Tracking The Pandemic: How Quickly Is The Coronavirus Spreading State By State?, NPR (May 1, 2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-thecoronavirus-in-the-u-s. 14 Emma Brown et al., U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to covid-19, Washington Post (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-tollundercounted/?arc404=true. 15 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Cases in the US , https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited May 7, 2020). 16 Laura Castañón and Khalida Sarwari, Northeastern Models are Helping Shape US COVID-19 Policy, Northeastern University (Apr. 1, 2020), https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/04/01/northeastern-models-are-helpingshape-us-covid-19-policy/. 17 Isaac Sher, Without any interventions like social distancing, one model predicts the coronavirus could have killed 40 million people this year, Bus. Insider (Mar. 27, 2020) https://www.businessinsider.com/covid19-model-predicts40-million-people-could-die-without-interventions-2020-3. 18 Press Release, IHME, New IHME Forecast Projects Nearly 135,000 COVID-19 Deaths in US (May 4, 2020), http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-ihme-forecast-projects-nearly-135000-covid-19-deaths-us (“Increases in testing and contact tracing, along with warming seasonal temperatures – factors that could help slow transmission – do not offset rising mobility, thereby fueling a significant increase in projected deaths.”).
14

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 15 of 51
31. COVID-19 is the respiratory infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARSCoV-2. It transmits through respiratory droplets, which are spread primarily through close inperson contacts.19 People with both detected and undetected infection are capable of transmitting the virus, even when showing no symptoms.20
32. The novel coronavirus can severely damage lung tissue, cause permanent loss of respiratory capacity, and damage tissues in the kidney, heart, and liver.21 It may trigger strokes and seizures, leading to serious brain impairments.22 It is lethal at its worst.
33. The health effects of COVID-19 vary by patient and demographic subgroup. While older age groups face heightened risks of death, people of all ages have been infected and killed by COVID-19. Preliminary reports show mortality rates of 3.6% among individuals between 60– 69 years old, 8.0% for those 70–79 years old, and 14.8% among people who are 80 years of age and older.23 These rates are significantly higher than the mortality rate of seasonal influenza.24 People across all ages with certain preexisting medical issues, such as heart and respiratory
19 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html (last visited May 1, 2020). 20 Id. 21 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidancemanagement-patients.html (last visited May 6, 2020). 22 See Roni Caryn Rabin, Some Coronavirus Patients Show Signs of Brain Ailments, N.Y. Times (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/coronavirus-stroke-seizures-confusion.html. 23 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), supra n.21. 24 See Darren Thackeray, How COVID-19 compares to seasonal flu, and why you should take it seriously, World Economic Forum (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-covid19-flu-influenza/.
15

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 16 of 51
conditions, compromised immune systems, and many other conditions also face heightened risks.25
34. The sweeping health consequences of COVID-19 have had a ripple effect across the entire healthcare system. WHO estimates that approximately 20% of individuals infected with COVID-19 require hospitalization.26 This surge of COVID-19 patients has triggered shortages in healthcare staff, hospital beds, medical equipment, and personal protective equipment (“PPE”). 27
35. Government leaders from the federal to local level have released emergency declarations, halting or limiting both public and private operations for weeks on end and, at times, indefinitely.28 Over 30 million people have filed for unemployment insurance since the crisis hit.29
36. The effects of the virus’s first wave will last well into the summer of 2020, and the virus is projected to resurge in the later months of the year, and beyond. Indeed, the “flattening of the curve” is designed to extend the duration of the virus.30 Experts suggest that COVID-19 “will face less immunity and thus transmit more readily even outside of the winter season,” and that
25 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Groups at Higher Risk of Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html (last visited May 6, 2020). 26 WHO, Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19), https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses (last visited May 6, 2020). 27 See Christi A. Grimm, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Hospital Experiences Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the National Pulse Survey March 23–27, 2020, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., Office of Inspector General (Apr. 2020), https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-20-00300.pdf. 28 Michelle Stoddart, Mark Osborne, Abby Cruz, When each state’s stay-at-home order lifts, ABC (May 1, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/US/list-states-stay-home-order-lifts/story?id=70317035. 29 Christopher Rugaber, 30 million have sought US unemployment aid since virus hit, Assoc. Press (Apr. 30, 2020), https://apnews.com/7f38d7fa2982dc53572232c9d2049dca. 30 See generally Neil M. Ferguson et al., Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf.
16

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 17 of 51
seasonal changes are “unlikely to stop transmission.”31 Even if infections subside in the summer, a second wave of COVID-19 infections appears inevitable.32
37. Dr. David Nabarro, a WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19, has warned that the virus
will continue to pose a serious threat to Americans until a vaccine is developed, stating: “We think
it’s going to be a virus that stalks the human race for quite a long time to come until we can all
have a vaccine that will protect us and that there will be small outbreaks that will emerge sporadically and they will break through our defenses.”33 Accordingly, Dr. Anthony Fauci
recently said that he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting will be safe in November, because of the potential resurgence of COVID-19 in the fall.34
38. To date, there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and no known or widely effective
treatment. Further, there is “no evidence” that those who develop an immune response to the
virus—known as antibodies—after an infection are safe from reinfection, nor is there sufficient data about how long immunity to the virus would last.35 Despite the absence of a cure, experts
31 Marc Lipsitch, DPhil, Professor of Epidemiology and Director, Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Seasonality of SARS-CoV-2: Will COVID-19 go away on its own in warmer weather?, Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-covid-19-goaway-on-its-own-in-warmer-weather/. 32 Matthew Impelli, What Experts Have Said About a Second Wave of Coronavirus in the U.S., Newsweek (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.newsweek.com/what-experts-have-said-about-second-wave-coronavirus-us-1499501; see also New IHME Forecast Projects Nearly 135,000 COVID-19 Deaths in US, supra n.18. 33 Devan Cole, Fauci admits earlier Covid-19 mitigation efforts would have saved more American lives, CNN (Apr. 12, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/politics/anthony-fauci-pushback-coronavirus-measurescnntv/index.html. 34 Jason Silverstein, Fauci says he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting in November will be safe, CBS News (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-fauci-says-he-cant-guarantee-in-person-voting-innovember-will-be-safe/. 35 Stephanie Nebehay, “No evidence” that recovered COVID-19 patients cannot be reinfected: WHO, Reuters (Apr. 25, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who/no-evidence-that-recovered-covid-19patients-cannot-be-reinfected-who-idUSKCN2270FB; see also, Apoorva Mandavilli and Katie Thomas, Will an Antibody Test Allow Us to Go Back to School or Work?, N.Y. Times (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/health/coronavirus-antibody-test.html.
17

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 18 of 51
have identified techniques that are effective in decreasing the transmission rate of COVID-19. Officials have encouraged the practice of social distancing through avoiding close in-person contacts, as well as frequent and thorough hand-washing.36
B. The COVID-19 Pandemic in Louisiana 39. Louisiana is among the states hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic.37 As of June 18, 2020, nearly 3,000 Louisianans had died from COVID-19.38 Over 48,000 cases were reported by the State, which excludes individuals who were never tested.39 These tallies only grow each day. 40. Since early March, state and local leaders in Louisiana have taken various measures to reduce the spread of the deadly virus. Local leaders in the state’s largest cities, including Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans and Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome of Baton Rouge, have issued multiple stay-at-home orders, limiting all non-essential operations through at least May 15, 2020.40 At the statewide level, Governor Edwards has issued a series of incremental proclamations closing down most “non-essential” businesses and encouraging Louisianans to shelter in place.
36 Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H , Coronavirus, Social and Physical Distancing and Self-Quarantine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-social distancing-and-self-quarantine (last visited May 6, 2020). 37 Aila Slisco, Louisiana Becomes Fourth U.S. State to Reach 1,000 Coronavirus Deaths, Newsweek (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.newsweek.com/louisiana-becomes-fourth-us-state-reach-1000-coronavirus-deaths-1497930. 38 La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19), supra n.10. 39 Id. 40 Press Release, City of New Orleans, Mayor LaToya Cantrell, Mayor Cantrell Issues Stay Home Mandate in Response to COVID-19 (March 20, 2020), https://nola.gov/mayor/news/march-2020/mayor-cantrell-issues-stayhome-mandate-in-response-to-covid-19/; Terry L. Jones, Stay-at-Home Order to Remain in Place in East Baton Rouge Despite Other Parishes’ Defiance, The Advocate (Apr. 30, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_482ea0ee-8af1-11ea-900dbb852bbc325c.html.
18

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 19 of 51
41. On March 11, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020, declaring a State of Emergency for Louisiana.41 Two days later President Donald Trump proclaimed a National Emergency concerning COVID-19.42
42. On March 12, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27, which, among other things, banned public gatherings of more than 250 people and closed all K-12 public schools statewide until at least April 13, 2020.43
43. On March 13, upon the recommendation of Secretary of State Ardoin, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020, which rescheduled the April 4, 2020 presidential preference primary election to June 20, 2020 and the May 9, 2020 municipal general election to July 25, 2020.44 It delegated responsibility to the Secretary of State, Commissioner of Elections, Parish Boards of Election Supervisors, Clerks of Court, Registrars of Voters, and any others charged with conducting elections in Louisiana to “do every act necessary to conduct the elections.”45
44. On March 13, 2020, this Court responded to the pandemic by, among other things, postponing civil trials and suspending in-person filing through April 30.46 This Court has also
41 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 25 JBE 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/25-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 42 Proclamation 9994, 85 Fed. Reg. 15337 (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialactions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. 43 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-27 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/ExecutiveOrders/27-JBE-2020-COVID-19.pdf. 44 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 28 JBE 2020, supra n.11. 45 Id. 46 See United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Administrative Order No. 2020-1 (Mar. 13, 2020) https://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/AO%202020-1.pdf; see also Administrative Order No. 2020-5 (Apr. 8, 2020) http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/orders/public_orders/AO%202020-5.pdf.
19

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 20 of 51
authorized the use of video conferencing and other technology for criminal-related appearances.47 This Court subsequently extended postponement of civil and criminal trials, suspension of inperson filing, and other preventive measures through June 30.48
45. On March 16, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30, which, among other measures, banned public gatherings of more than 50 people, closed or limited the operations of certain, “non-essential” businesses (e.g., casinos, bars, restaurants, gyms, etc.) statewide until at least April 13, 2020.49
46. On March 22, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 33 JBE 2020, a statewide Stay-at-Home order requiring “all individuals within the state of Louisiana . . . to stay home unless performing an essential activity,” cancelling public gatherings of more than 10 people, and expanding the definition of “non-essential” businesses.50 It directed individuals in Louisiana to “maintain a distance of six feet from one another and abide by the 10-person limitation on gathering size.”51 It ordered residents to limit movement outside the home, until at least April 13, 2020, except for the purpose of visiting essential businesses, obtaining non-elective medical care, performing their job at an essential business, visiting family, exercising, and going to a place of worship.52
47 See id. 48 See United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, Administrative Order No. 2020-7 (May 1, 2020) http://www.lamd.uscourts.gov/orders/public_orders/AO%202020%207-4.30.2020.pdf. 49 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 2020-30 (Mar. 16, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/30-JBE-2020-Public-Health-Emergency-COVID19.pdf. 50 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. JBE 33 2020 (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/JBE-33-2020.pdf. 51 Id. 52 Id.
20

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 21 of 51
47. In issuing the Stay-at-Home order, Governor Edwards explained that despite having taken “aggressive measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and flatten the curve,” the measures already taken had not been enough.53
48. On March 24, President Trump approved a major disaster declaration for Louisiana, which made federal emergency aid available for recovery efforts due to COVID-19. 54
49. On April 14, upon the recommendation of Secretary of State Ardoin, Governor Edwards issued Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020, further postponing or rescheduling all elections scheduled to be held in the State. The June 20, 2020 presidential preference primary election in Louisiana was rescheduled for July 11, 2020. The July 25, 2020 municipal election was rescheduled for August 15, 2020.55
50. On April 27, Governor Edwards announced that Louisiana’s Stay-at-Home order would be extended until at least May 15 in order to continue to slow the spread of the disease,56 officially implementing the extension on April 30.57 Governor Edwards intended to make his next announcement on whether the Stay-at-Home order will be modified on or by May 11. 58
53 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Issues Statewide Stay at Home Order to Further Fight the Spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana (Mar. 22, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/order/. 54 See FEMA, President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Louisiana (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2020/03/24/president-donald-j-trump-approves-major-disaster-declarationlouisiana. 55 La. Exec Dep’t Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/46-JBE-2020-Elections-Rescheduled.pdf. 56 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Will Extend Stay at Home Order Until May 15 to Continue Flattening the Curve and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19 (Apr. 27, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/home-orderextended-may15/. 57 La. Exec. Dep’t Proclamation No. 52 JBE 2020 (Apr. 30, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/52-JBE-2020-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf. 58 Id.
21

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 22 of 51
C. COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Black People in Louisiana 51. As the COVID-19 pandemic has spread across the country, it has taken a devastating toll on Black people, who make up a disproportionate number of confirmed cases and deaths resulting from the virus.59 Preliminary nationwide data released by the CDC on April 25, which included race data for 42.1% of the 671,485 cases analyzed, found that Black people make up 30% of reported COVID-19 cases although they only make up 13% of the total U.S. population.60 52. In Louisiana, racial disparities in infections and deaths resulting from the coronavirus have been particularly acute. On April 6, Governor Edwards announced that initial data categorizing deaths resulting from COVID-19 by race showed that Black people comprised 70% of deaths, despite making up only 32% of Louisiana’s population.61 The Governor called this alarming statistic “a disturbing trend and one that deserves our attention,” and announced the creation of the Louisiana COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force to explore “how health inequities are affecting communities that are most impacted by the coronavirus.”62 53. As of May 4, data updated weekly by the Louisiana Department of Health indicates that the COVID-19 death rate remains disproportionately high for Black people at over 57%.
59 Reis Thebault, et al., The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate, Washington Post (Ap. 7, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infectingkilling-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true&itid=lk_inline_manual_3 60 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases, Data, & Surveillance, Demographic characteristics of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. (May 5, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-inus.html. 61 Gordon Russell & Sam Karlin, Coronavirus disparity in Louisiana: About 70% of victims are black, but why?, nola.com (Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_d804d410-7852-11ea-ac6d470ebb61c694.html. 62 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Gov. Edwards Announces Creation of COVID-19 Health Equity Taskforce (Apr. 10, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/2457.
22

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 23 of 51
Further, recently released Louisiana Department of Health data reporting COVID-19 cases by U.S. census tract shows high rates of infection in Louisiana’s predominantly Black areas.63 For example, in Orleans Parish, where Black people make up 60% of the population, the census tract data indicate that neighborhoods with high concentrations of Black residents have higher numbers of reported cases.64 While the State’s data does not report rates of COVID-19 infection by race, the census tract data reflect a disparate impact on Louisiana’s Black communities as opposed to predominately white communities. These figures mirror developing trends in other states, such as Maryland and North Carolina, which have both released data showing that Black people face higher rates of both infection and death from COVID-19 than the population as a whole. 65
54. The stark racial disparities reflected in COVID-19’s effects on Louisiana’s residents are a manifestation of longstanding discrimination and socioeconomic inequities in the State. According to 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year estimates, in Louisiana, 30% of all Black residents compared to 12% of all white residents live in poverty; the unemployment rate is 9.9% for Black residents compared to 4.5% for white residents; per capita income for Black residents is $17,491, compared to $33,856 for white residents; 19% of Black residents have not finished high school compared to 10.8% of white residents; 7.8% of Black residents had no health
63 Jeff Adelson, ‘Glaring’ racial disparities found in coronavirus infection rates in these New Orleans neighborhoods, nola.com (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_0ea8b004-8357-11ea81e3-ff26d085e141.html. 64 Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of Covid-19 in America, N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-covid-19.html. 65 N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., COVID-19 North Carolina Dashboard, https://www.ncdhhs.gov/divisions/public-health/covid19/covid-19-nc-case-count#by-race-ethnicity (last updated May 6, 2020); Fenit Nirappil et al., Record set for single-day covid-19 deaths in D.C., Maryland and Virginia at 53; black residents hit hardest, Washington Post (Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-19deaths-hit-new-high-in-dc-maryland-and-virginia-at-53-black-residents-hit-hardest/2020/04/09/cc85cd14-77b311ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html.
23

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 24 of 51
insurance compared to 6.2% of white residents; and 15.8% of Black residents lacked a vehicle
compared to 4.7% white residents.66
55. Together with race and class biases that impact access to healthcare, these racially
disparate socioeconomic conditions contribute to adverse health conditions and outcomes that
predispose Black people to contracting COVID-19. According to statistics from the Louisiana
State Health Department, the number of deaths from asthma, heart disease, diabetes, and severe
obesity are higher for Black people than for whites.67 The CDC has cited racial disparities in these
underlying medical conditions as a factor that influences the disproportionate impact of COVID-
19 on the Black population.68
56. Racial disparities in employment and access to transportation also make it more
difficult for Black people to take measures that mitigate the risks posed by COVID-19, including
engaging in social isolation or working from home. In Louisiana, 29.9% of African Americans 16
66 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=s0201&tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&y=2018&t=400%20%20Hispanic%20or%20Latino%20%28of%20any%20race%29%20%28200-299%29%3A451%20%20White%20alone,%20not%20Hispanic%20or%20Latino%3A453%20%20Black%20or%20African%20American%20alone,%20not%20Hispanic%20or%20Latino%3ARace%20and%20 Ethnicity&hidePreview=true&moe=false&g=0400000US22. 67 La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Community Partnerships & Health Equity, Minority Health Indicators, http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/672 68 Id. (citing A.P. Bartel et al., Racial and ethnic disparities in access to and use of paid family and medical leave: evidence from four nationally representative datasets, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Jan. 2019), https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.2; T.J. Cunningham et al., Vital signs: racial disparities in age-specific mortality among blacks or African Americans—United States, 1999–2015, 66(17) CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 444 (2017)); see also Joseph P. Williams, Rumor, Disparity and Distrust: Why Black Americans Face an Uphill Battle Against COVID-19, U.S. News and World Report (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-03-25/why-black-americans-face-an-uphillbattle-against-the-coronavirus (citing Dr. Lisa Cooper, internist and social epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “The concern that black communities presently hampered by health inequities could be devastated by the coronavirus is rooted in decades of research as well as the nation’s checkered racial history.”); Ibram X. Kendi, Stop Blaming Black People for Dying of the Coronavirus, The Atlantic (Apr. 14, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/race-and-blame/609946/ (“Without question, African Americans suffer disproportionately from chronic diseases such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, obesity, and asthma, which make it harder for them to survive COVID-19.”).
24

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 25 of 51
years and over who are employed work in service industry occupations compared to only 14.8% of whites, and only 24.7% are in management and business positions, positions more likely to facilitate remote work, as compared to 39.3% of whites; thus, African Americans face a higher degree of exposure to COVID-19 both at their workplace and in transit.69
57. The COVID-19 pandemic has both exposed and exacerbated deep-rooted and systemic inequalities faced by Black people throughout the country, and in Louisiana in particular. Indeed recognizing that “[h]ealth differences between racial and ethnic groups are often due to economic and social conditions that are more common among some racial and ethnic minorities than whites,” the CDC has identified racial and ethnic minority groups among “people who need to take extra precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19.”70
D. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Voting 58. The CDC has issued specific guidance concerning safe voting practices during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent spread of the coronavirus. In particular, the CDC has warned of the high potential of COVID-19 transmission at polling sites, and instructs election officials to “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”71 The guidance advises officials to encourage mail-in methods of voting, early voting, and drive up voting, among other recommendations. 72
69 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66. 70 CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, Others at Risk, Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnicminorities.html (last updated Apr. 20, 2020). 71 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020). 72 Id.
25

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 26 of 51
59. The CDC lists “mail-in methods of voting” first among its recommendations to reduce person-to-person contacts and congestion at polling sites.73 While COVID-19 spreads rapidly in crowds, like those at congested polling sites, there is no evidence that it spreads through the mail.74 In the interest of extreme caution, the U.S. Postal Service has also implemented policies to reduce contacts between mail carriers and members of the businesses and households they serve.75
60. Across the country, voters and election workers have already fallen victim to COVID-19 through contacts made at in-person polling sites. After Florida’s March 17 primary, two Broward County poll workers tested positive for COVID-19, one of whom was handling driver’s licenses as part of the identification verification process.76 Chicago officials later reported that a poll worker died of COVID-19 after working at the polls on March 17, with officials identifying individuals with confirmed coronavirus cases at additional polling locations.77 Just weeks later, in-person voting proceeded in Wisconsin, where voters in Milwaukee and Green Bay waited in multi-hour lines.78 Following that election, health officials identified at least 52
73 Id. 74 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html (last updated Apr. 28, 2020). 75 Press Release, United States Postal Service, Media Statement – COVID-19 (Apr. 2, 2020), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/statements/usps-statement-on-coronavirus.htm (citing guidance from World Health Organization, CDC, and Surgeon General). 76 Anthony Man, Two Broward poll workers, including one who handled voters’ driver licenses, test positive for coronavirus, S. Fla. Sun Sentinel (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-browardelections-poll-workers-coronavirus-20200326-wmgy775dvjc5jis2oagxlpmule-story.html. 77 See Mary Ann Ahern, Poll Worker at Chicago Voting Site Dies of Coronavirus, Election Officials Say, NBC Chicago (Apr. 13, 2020), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/poll-worker-at-chicago-votingsite-dies-of-coronavirus-election-officials-say/2255072/. 78 Devi Shastri, In-person voting was likely a ‘disaster’ for Wisconsin’s efforts to flatten coronavirus curve, national experts say, Milwaukee J. Sentinel (Apr. 8, 2020) (quoting Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary
(continued…)
26

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 27 of 51
individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 after either voting in person or working at a polling site.79
61. Expanded access to voting by mail for all voters also helps reduce lines and crowds at polling sites by allowing some people who would otherwise vote in person to vote by mail. Many other voters, including but not limited to people who are homeless, visually impaired, have limited English proficiency, or are illiterate and need accessible voting machines and personal assistance, will continue to rely on in-person voting to participate in the democratic process. The CDC recommendations also address best practices for in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, including sanitizing surfaces and maintaining 6 feet of distance between individuals.80 As noted, however, the CDC recommends that election officials “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations,” including mail-in methods of voting and drive up voting.81 Maximizing options for voters ensures less congestion at polling sites, while maintaining inclusive access to the franchise.
62. The majority of states, that is, 34 and the District of Columbia, already offer all eligible voters a vote-by-mail ballot option.82 Of the 16 states that require an excuse to vote
Andrea Palm), https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/08/coronavirus-wisconsin-electionlikely-hurt-effort-flatten-curve/2961718001/. 79 Nolan D. McCaskill, Wisconsin Health Dept.: 36 People Positive for Coronavirus After Primary Vote, Politico (Apr. 27, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/wisconsin-tested-positive-coronavirus-election-211495; The Latest: 52 positive cases tied to Wisconsin election, The Associated Press (Apr. 28, 2020), https://apnews.com/b1503b5591c682530d1005e58ec8c267. 80 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling Locations: Interim guidance to prevent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html (last updated Mar. 27, 2020). 81 Id. 82 The Brennan Center for Justice, Research & Reports: Preparing Your State for an Election Under Pandemic Conditions, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preparing-your-state-election-underpandemic-conditions (last updated Apr. 27, 2020).
27

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 28 of 51
absentee by mail, several have expanded the scope of absentee eligibility in recognition of the
extensively documented threat that the pandemic continues to pose to the public and in response
to the well-founded health and safety concerns of qualified voters.
63. For example, Arkansas,83 Alabama,84 Delaware,85 Massachusetts,86 New
Hampshire,87 Virginia,88 and West Virginia89 have, via varying interpretations, expanded the
scope of existing state election laws establishing absentee ballot eligibility for illness, injury, or
disability to now include all qualified voters concerned about or taking preventative measures
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts have similarly removed the burdens of witness and
83 Governor of Arkansas, Exec. Order No. 20-08, (Mar. 20, 2020), https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-08._.pdf. 84 Ala. Legis. Servs. Agency, Absentee Voting During State of Emergency, 17-11-3(e) (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/SOS%20Emergency%20Rule%20820-2-3-.06-.01ER.pdf; see also Press Release, Alabama Secretary of State, 100 Days Left to Apply for Absentee Ballot for the Primary Runoff Election (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.sos.alabama.gov/newsroom/100-days-left-apply-absentee-ballot-primaryrunoff-election; see also Ala. Code § 17-11-3(a)(2). 85 See Governor of Delaware, Exec. Dep’t, Sixth Modification of the Declaration of a State of Emergency for the State of Delaware Due to a Public Health Threat (Mar. 24, 2020), https://governor.delaware.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/24/2020/03/Sixth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03242020.pdf (Delaware executive order providing that for upcoming primary and special elections “the qualification of ‘sick or physically disabled’ [in Delaware vote-by-mail provisions] shall apply to and include any such voter who is asymptomatic of COVID-19 . . . and who herself or himself freely chooses to use such qualification to vote by absentee ballot.”). 86 An Act Granting Authority to Postpone 2020 Municipal Elections in the Commonwealth and Increase Voting Option in Response to the Declaration of Emergency to Respond to COVID-19, 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., ch. 45 (2020), https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter45 (new Massachusetts law clarifying that “any person taking precaution related to COVID-19 in response to a declared state of emergency or from guidance from a medical professional, local or state health official, or any civil authority shall be deemed to be unable by reason of physical disability to cast their vote in person,” which is one of the reasons set forth in the state constitution that permits a Massachusetts voter to vote by mail). 87 Memorandum from the Sec’y of State and Att’y General to New Hampshire Election Officials re: Elections Operations During the State of Emergency at 2 (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press2020/documents/20200410-absentee-voting.pdf. 88 Absentee Voting, Va. Dep’t of Elections, https://www.elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/ (last visited May 6, 2020) (Virginia Department of Elections statement clarifying that “[v]oters may choose reason ‘2A My disability or illness’” to vote absentee in upcoming elections due to COVID-19). 89 W. Va. Sec’y of State Mac Warner, Admin. Law Div., Notice Of An Emergency Rule (Mar. 20, 2020), http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=53039&Format=PDF.
28

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 29 of 51
notary requirements for absentee ballots within the context of the pandemic.90 II. Louisiana’s Absentee and Early Voting Process
64. At least four major elections are scheduled to take place in Louisiana between May and the end of the calendar year, including major statewide and federal elections. The elections are currently scheduled to take place on July 11, 2020 (Presidential Preference Primary/Municipal Primary Election), August 15, 2020 (Municipal General Election), November 3, 2020 (Presidential General and Open Congressional Primary Election), and December 5, 2020 (Congressional and Open General Election).91
65. Louisiana’s state election code enumerates specific categories of eligible voters who may request and vote by mail-in ballot, a process described in Louisiana’s election code as “absentee voting by mail.” La. R.S. 18:1308. The categories include voters who expect to be out of the parish in which they would be qualified to vote in person on Election Day, such as service members, students, clergy members, and overseas citizens. La. R.S. 18:1303(B). Voters who are not necessarily absent from the parish but will remain incarcerated pre-trial or sequestered as a jury member during the election may also request and vote by absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1303(C)-(G). Eligible voters who submit certain identification or documentation of a
90 See People First of Ala. v. Merrill, No. 2:20-cv-00619-AKK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104444 (N.D. Ala. June 15, 2020) (enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement); Thomas v. Andino, Nos. 3:20-cv-01552-JMC, 3:20-cv-01730-JMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90812 (D.S.C. May 25, 2020) (enjoining enforcement of witness requirement for absentee voting); League of Women Voters of Va. v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, F. Supp. 3d, No. 6:20-cv-00024, 2020 WL 2158249, at *8 (E.D. Va. May 5, 2020) (approving order enjoining enforcement of absentee ballot witness requirement, noting “[n]otwithstanding the proffered steps which could be taken to mitigate the risks to health in having somebody witness one’s absentee ballot, many would be dissuaded from exercising their vote both on account of the remaining health risks and required steps to mitigate them”); League of Women Voters of Okla. v. Ziriax, No. 118765, 2020 WL 2111348, at *1 (Okla. May 4, 2020) (barring use of notary requirement for absentee ballots). 91 See 2020 Elections Calendar, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/ElectionsCalendar2020.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2020).
29

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 30 of 51
qualifying disability may vote absentee. La. R.S. 18:1303(I). Voters who are 65 years-of-age and older also qualify for this accommodation. La. R.S. 18:1303(J). Finally, qualified voters who were unable to participate in early voting and will be unable to vote on election day due to hospitalization may vote by absentee ballot. La. R.S. 18:1303(D).
66. All requests to vote absentee by mail must specify the reason for the request. La. R.S. 18:1307. Applications can be sent to the registrar of voters by mail, fax, hand delivery, or electronically through the Secretary of State’s website at GeauxVote.com. La. R.S. 18:1307.
67. When applying for an absentee ballot, the applicant must provide the reason for their request to vote absentee by mail and attach any documents in support thereof. La. R.S. 18:1307(A)(2). If the registrar of voters has reason to believe that the eligibility of a voter to vote absentee by mail pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1303 is based upon false or fraudulent information, they “shall immediately notify the parish board of election supervisors.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I). And, if “after appropriate hearing and opportunity for the voter to be heard, the parish board of election supervisors finds that the voter’s eligibility to vote absentee by mail was based upon false or fraudulent information, the board shall inform the appropriate district attorney and the registrar of voters who shall not allow the voter to vote absentee by mail.” La. R.S. 18:1307(I).
68. The Secretary of State is responsible for preparing absentee ballots. La. R.S. 18:1306(A). Every ballot is mailed in an envelope with the following on its face in red bold face type: “VIOLATION OF ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR EARLY VOTING LAWS VOIDS BALLOT AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES” and “VOTING AT POLLS AFTER VOTING ABSENTEE BY MAIL OR DURING EARLY VOTING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES.” La. R.S. 18:1306(D). The envelope also includes a “Certificate” to be signed by the voter, certifying that they “applied for the ballot, marked the
30

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 31 of 51
enclosed ballot(s) himself or that they were marked for him according to his instructions and in his presence;” that the voter is entitled to vote at the precinct they name; and that the parish board of election supervisors is authorized to open the envelope and count their ballot. La. R.S. 18:1306(E).
69. The “Certificate,” which is on the envelope, includes “an affidavit followed by a line for the handwritten signature or mark of the voter, certifying that the statements made . . . are true and correct and that the voter is aware of the penalties for knowingly making a false statement therein, which penalties shall be stated on the certificate.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(1)(f).
70. Finally, the voter must sign the certificate in the presence of one witness, who must also sign the envelope. The voter’s certificate “shall be made under penalty of perjury for providing false or fraudulent information.” La. R.S. 18:1306(E)(2)(a).
71. Once completed, the ballot must be returned to the registrar by the U.S. Postal Service, a commercial courier, or by hand delivery. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). If delivered by someone other than the voter, a commercial courier, or the U.S. Postal Service, the registrar must require that the person making such delivery sign a statement, prepared by the Secretary of State, certifying that they have the authorization and consent of the voter to hand deliver the marked ballot. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). No person except the immediate family of the voter may hand deliver more than one marked ballot to the registrar. La. R.S. 18:1308(B). Under most circumstances, ballots must be received by 4:30 p.m. on the day before Election Day in order to be counted. La. R.S. 18:1308(C).
72. The parish board of election supervisors conducts the counting and tabulation of all absentee by mail and early voting ballots in the parish. La. R.S. 18:1313(A). Absentee by mail and early voting ballots are counted at a public facility within the parish no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. La. R.S. 18:1313(B). Several steps must be taken to validate each ballot before it
31

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 32 of 51
may be counted: (1) a member of the board must compare the name on the certificate or on the flap of the envelope containing the absentee by mail ballot with the names on the absentee by mail voter report; (2) the board will consider any properly filed challenges to the ballot, following procedures delineated elsewhere in the statutes; (3) if a majority of the members of the board determine that an absentee by mail ballot is invalid, the members must leave the flap on the envelope containing the absentee by mail ballot, leave the envelope sealed, and a board member must write the word “rejected,” together with the reasons for rejecting the ballot, and their initials. La. R.S. 18:1313(F). The rejected absentee by mail ballots and certificates must be replaced in the special absentee by mail and early voting ballot envelope or container. La. R.S. 18:1313(F).
73. No rejected absentee by mail ballot is counted. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(5). 74. If the board determines that an absentee by mail ballot is valid, the ballot certificate must be signed by two board members. La. R.S. 18:1313(F)(6). 75. Any person who knowingly, willfully, or intentionally votes or attempts to vote more than once in an election, or otherwise votes in a false, fictitious, or fraudulent way shall be fined up to $2,000 dollars, be imprisoned for up to two years, or both, for the first offense. La. R.S. 18:1461.2(B). These penalties are listed boldly on all absentee ballot applications.92
92See General Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/GeneralApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.pd f (last visited May 6, 2020); Disabled Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/DisabledApplicationForAbsenteeByMailBallot.p df (last visited May 6, 2020); Military Overseas Application for Absentee By Mail Ballot, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/PublishedDocuments/MilitaryOverseasApplicationForAbsenteeByMail Ballot.pdf (last visited May 6, 2020).
32

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 33 of 51

76. La. R.S. 18:1309 allows for early voting from seven to fourteen days prior to any

scheduled election. In practice, over at least the past four years, Louisiana has only allowed for

seven days of early voting in primary and general elections.93

77. All registered voters may vote early.94

III.

The Emergency Election Plan

78. Louisiana election procedures are governed by the Louisiana Election Code.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:401.3, if the Governor declares a statewide emergency, the Secretary of

State may certify that the emergency will impair an upcoming election. The Secretary of State

sends the certification with the underlying facts and reasons detailing the election impairment to

the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House

Committee on House and Governmental Affairs.

79. If the Governor and the majority of each of the two committees agree that an

emergency election plan is necessary, the Secretary of State shall develop a plan to address any

impairments the emergency presents to the holding of the election. The Secretary of State may, if

deemed necessary, include in the emergency plan a proposal to conduct early voting in certain

parishes to enable displaced voters to vote. The written emergency plan must then be submitted

by the Secretary of State to the two aforementioned committees and the Governor.

80. The majority of the two committees must approve of the plan, after which it will be

submitted to the members of each house of the legislature for approval by the majority of each

93See Search Election Dates, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetElectionInformation/SearchElectionDates/Pages/default.aspx (last visited May 6, 2020). 94See, Elections and Voting, La. Sec. State, https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Vote/VoteEarly/Pages/default.aspx (last visited May 6, 2020).
33

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 34 of 51
house. Upon approval by a majority of the members of the House and the Senate and by the Governor, the Secretary of State must then take steps necessary to implement the plan.
81. On March 13, 2020, Secretary of State Ardoin certified to the Governor that a state of emergency exists that would affect the electoral process, and certified the same one month later on April 13, 2020.95 On April 14, 2020, Secretary Ardoin presented his first emergency plan to the Governor, the Senate Committee on Senate and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs (“the First Emergency Plan”).
82. The First Emergency Plan recognized the serious threat COVID-19 poses to Louisianans. The First Emergency Plan explained that:
COVID-19 poses unknown and unprecedented logistical problems regarding the availability of polling places, commissioners, election officials, and sanitation and safety products (like clothing, protective eyewear, masks, sanitizing products, and sterilizing services to clean facilities prior to and following the election) with respect to conducting in-person voting for the July 11, 2020 and August 15, 2020 elections.96
83. Secretary Ardoin then described the steps he believed were necessary to ensure a safe and fair election. These included (1) expanding early voting from seven to thirteen days before election day; (2) expanding the reasons to request an absentee by mail ballot to registered voters who are affected by COVID-19 and included voters:
Sixty years of age or older; At higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions (such as chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy,
95 See State of Louisiana Executive Department: Proclamation No. 46 JBE 2020 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/Proclamations/2020/modified/46-JBE-2020-Elections.pdf. 96 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana, at 2 (Apr. 14, 2020), https://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2020/Apr_2020/Emergency%20Election%20Plan%20for%20PPP%20and%20 Mun%20General%20Rev.%204-13.pdf.
34

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 35 of 51
immunodeficiencies, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and liver disease); Subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order; Advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis; Unable to appear in public due to concern of exposure to or transmission of COVID-19; Caring for an individual who is subject to a stay at home, quarantine, or isolation order or who has been advised by a health care provider or governmental authority to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns; or Caring for a child or grandchild if the child’s school or daycare is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable, due to precautions taken because of COVID-19 concerns;
(3) reducing the number of witness signatures required on an absentee ballot application where the
applicant is unable to sign their own name from two witnesses to one witness; (4) eliminating the
requirement for a witness signature on the absentee by mail ballot as a reason to challenge an
absentee by mail ballot for cause; and (5) providing polling locations and election workers with
supplies to prevent against the spread of the virus.97
84. On April 15, 2020, the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee blocked the
First Emergency Plan in committee on a party-line vote, citing concerns that making absentee
voting available to anyone concerned about exposure to COVID-19 would enable voter fraud,
despite statistics and evidence to the contrary.98 Blocking the First Emergency Plan in committee
ensured that the full Louisiana legislature would not be able to approve of the plan.99
97 See id. 98 See Sam Karlin, Louisiana Republicans Block Emergency Coronavirus Election Plan; Future of Election Unclear, The Advocate (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/article_4dfccfd6-7f44-11ea-b67e-73d2172ba20b.html; see also Melinda Deslatte, Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Emergency Summer Elections Plan, U.S. News (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2020-04-28/louisiana-lawmakers-approveemergency-summer-elections-plan. 99 See id.
35

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 36 of 51
85. On April 20, 2020, less than a week after the First Emergency Plan was blocked, Secretary Ardoin presented his new emergency plan (the “Emergency Plan”).100 The new Emergency Plan would no longer allow voters with a “concern of exposure” to COVID-19 to request an absentee-by-mail ballot.101 The Emergency Plan would no longer extend access to absentee ballots to voters over the age of 60 or those caring for a child or grandchild whose school or daycare is closed and/or where alternative childcare is not available due to COVID-19 concerns.102 And, the revised Emergency Plan would cover only the July Election and the August Election—it would not provide for expanded access to absentee ballots for either the November Election or December Election.103
86. Two days later, on April 22, 2020, both the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee and House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs approved the revised Emergency Plan. On April 27, 2020, the Emergency Plan was approved by the full Louisiana State House (passing 62–39) and State Senate (passing 31–8).
87. Contrary to recommendations from federal health experts at the CDC, the Emergency Plan only allows voters to seek absentee ballots if they attest on an application that they (i) are “[a]t a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to serious underlying medical conditions as identified by the CDC (including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, hypertension and other serious heart conditions, diabetes, undergoing chemotherapy, severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher), chronic kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, liver disease,
100 See Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020), supra n.8. 101 See id. 102 See id. 103 See id.
36

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 37 of 51
pregnancy, or immunocompromised due to cancer treatment, smoking, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications)”; (ii) are “[s]ubject to a medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19”; (iii) are “[a]dvised by a health provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns”; (iv) are “[e]xperiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis”; or (v) are “[c]aring for an identified individual who is subject to medically necessary quarantine or isolation order as a result of COVID-19 or who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns.”104
88. The Emergency Plan does not define or explain qualifying terms included in the list of COVID-19 specific excuses, including the terms “medically necessary,” and “moderate or severe,” nor does the Emergency Plan provide guidance on what qualifies as being “advised by a health provider” or “seeking medical diagnosis.”105 Given that the State’s medical infrastructure is overwhelmed and hospitals are advising all but the most severely ill patients not to go to a hospital, most voters quarantining due to COVID-19 symptoms will be unable to obtain the medical advice or documentation of such advice that may be required under the Emergency Plan.106
89. The State’s COVID-19 Emergency Absentee Ballot Application expressly states and requires a voter requesting an absentee mail in ballot based on one of the COVID-19-related
104 Secretary of State Emergency Election Plan for the July 11, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary and August 15, 2020 Municipal General Elections in the State of Louisiana (Apr. 20, 2020), supra note 8; Exhibit A, Emergency Ballot Application. 105 See id. 106 See Healthcare Facility Notice/Order: Notice #2020-COVID19-All-010, L.A. Dept. of Health (Apr. 20, 2020) http://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Coronavirus/resources/providers/LDH-MEMO-UPDATE-RESTORE-MED-SURGProcedures.pdf, (requiring all non-essential healthcare services to be done via telehealth due to ongoing pandemic).
37

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 38 of 51
excuses to acknowledge that “[p]roviding a false statement to an election official is a felony offense,” and that doing do will subject the voter to a fine or imprisonment.107
ARGUMENT I. Louisiana’s Restrictions on Absentee Mail-In Voting and Early Voting Will Place
Undue Burdens on the Right to Vote in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic A. The Excuse Requirement Will Severely Burden the Right to Vote 90. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will severely burden the right to vote because it
will require many thousands of Louisiana’s voters to choose between exposing themselves and others to the risk of illness from COVID-19 to vote in person or foregoing their right to vote.
91. The ongoing health risks posed by COVID-19 necessitate that Defendants provide all eligible voters the opportunity to cast an absentee by mail ballot without any excuse so that they can avoid the significant risks posed by voting in person. Moreover, all voters who are forced by Defendants to take on the risks of voting during the pandemic will necessarily bring those risks home with them, potentially spreading COVID-19 to their families and community members, vulnerable and healthy alike.
92. Voting in person requires individuals to leave the safety of their homes; to commute to and from the polls, potentially via public transportation; to line up at polling places (potentially for hours); and to congregate with unknown individuals including other voters, poll workers, and poll monitors. Making one’s way to cast a vote in person will also require voters to touch shared surfaces, which may include voting machines, shared writing instruments, doorknobs, elevator buttons, and parking meters. Public health officials have unequivocally warned of the risks of engaging in these activities in public during the COVID-19 pandemic.
107 See Exhibit A, Emergency Ballot Application.
38

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 39 of 51
93. None of the statutory excuses nor the COVID-19-related excuses created by the Emergency Plan include self-isolating due to a pandemic. The existence of the Emergency Plan reflects Defendants’ recognition that the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic will still loom large over the State’s upcoming elections. Yet, Defendants fail to provide any protection or accommodation for many thousands of voters—including many who are at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and/or live with individuals who are at increased risk—to vote absentee by mail-in ballot and thereby continue taking protective steps of remaining at home and observing strict social distancing, as current orders from the State instruct them to do.
94. A failure to provide for a no-excuses regime during the COVID-19 pandemic will likely impose particularly severe burdens on the rights of certain categories of vulnerable individuals, including older voters, voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, and Black voters.
95. Louisiana’s current Excuse Requirement will disproportionately burden older voters, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19. The CDC has warned that older individuals are at higher risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19, because “[t]he immune systems of older adults weaken with age, making it harder to fight off infections,” and “older adults commonly have chronic diseases that can increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19.”108 Thus, “the older you are, the higher your risk of serious disease.”109
96. The virus is already having a devastating impact on older individuals in Louisiana. Almost one-fifth of all COVID-19 cases reported in Louisiana (approximately 19%) involve
108 CDC, Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness (webpage last updated Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html. 109 Id.
39

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 40 of 51
individuals aged 50–59, with another 17% involving individuals aged 60–69.110 Currently, only senior citizens over the age of 65 may request an absentee ballot based on age.111
97. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden voters with pre-existing health conditions, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19. The CDC has warned that “people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions might be at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.”112 Louisiana ranks in the bottom five among states for both adult obesity,113 and cardiovascular deaths,114 two indicators of chronic health conditions.
98. While one of the COVID-19-related excuses accounts for some immunocompromised voters, the plan only applies to the upcoming July and August elections; thus, these vulnerable voters will be at heightened risk during the November and December elections. Due to their medical condition, immunocompromised individuals face a greater risk of contracting the virus on the way to the polls. If immunocompromised individuals contract the virus while voting in person, they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences.
99. Louisiana’s Excuse Requirement will also disproportionately burden Black voters, who face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19 because of social and economic disparities, as well as disparities in health and healthcare that raise the stakes for them at every step of the process.
110 See La. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Coronavirus (COVID-19) supra note 38. 111 La. R.S. 18:1303(J). 112 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html (last visited May 7, 2020). 113 America Health Rankings, Obesity, https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Obesity/state/LA (last visited May 7, 2020). 114 America Health Rankings, CVD Deaths, https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/CVDDeaths/state/LA (last visited May 7, 2020).
40

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 41 of 51
100. Black voters also face a greater risk of contracting the virus on their way to the polls. Black Americans are “least likely to own a car,”115 and therefore more likely to have to rely on public or shared transportation to go to the polls. In Louisiana, about one in six (15.8%) Black households lack access to a vehicle, compared to 4.7% white households.116
101. If Black voters contract the virus while voting in person, they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences, because they disproportionately suffer from the underlying medical conditions that exacerbate the virus and because they are also more likely to be subject to inequalities in the health care system.
102. These heightened risks, both individually and collectively, demonstrate that the Excuse Requirement imposes an especially severe burden on Black voters. Racial disparities in serious illness and death due to COVID-19 are inextricably linked to a long history and ongoing patterns of racial discrimination against Black people in voting and ongoing and current racial disparities in education, employment, and health.
103. Louisiana’s failure to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail in the upcoming elections will also impose a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 on voters who live with, care for, or work with individuals who have a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19; and all poll workers. As the health data from states that have held in-person primaries indicate, requiring in-person voting during the pandemic is not a mere inconvenience: failing to treat the pandemic as an excuse, even after complete shelter-in-place policies have been lifted, can cost lives.
115 Jamelle Bouie, Why Coronavirus Is Killing African-Americans More Than Others, N.Y. Times (Apr. 14, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-racism-african-americans.html. 116 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66.
41

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 42 of 51
104. Louisiana’s current excuse-required regime is unduly burdensome because the refusal to allow all Louisianans to vote absentee by mail in response to the pandemic cannot be justified by any legitimate state interest. Voters should not have to make the untenable decision between risking their health and giving up their right to vote.
B. The Witness Requirements Will Severely Burden the Right to Vote 105. The requirements that an absentee mail-in ballot and an absentee ballot application certified by a mark (as opposed to a signature) include witness signatures (the “Witness Requirements”) present significant health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic and will severely burden voters who live alone and have no access to a witness who can sign their absentee ballot request application or their ballot. 106. In line with the guidance provided by the CDC and public health and medical experts to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, Louisiana’s current Stay-at-Home order instructs all Louisiana residents to shelter at home and limits movement outside of their homes beyond essential needs. The Governor’s order further instructs that residents should maintain at least 6 feet of distance from others when outside their homes. If required to secure a witness signature, the Witness Requirements will force voters who live alone or do not live with another adult who can witness their ballot to not only violate the Stay-at-Home order, but also risk their health and safety. 107. Given that approximately 15% (or 532,678 individuals) of the 3,560,000 Louisiana residents of voting age live alone, and that individuals of any age are susceptible to COVID-19
42

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 43 of 51
infection, the Witness Requirements will pose a serious risk to and material burden on a significant number of the State’s voters.117
108. Indeed, there will also be voters for whom the burden of the Witness Requirements will be amplified given that they already face a disproportionate risk of infection and death from COVID-19, including voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters. For Louisiana residents of voting age living alone, 27.5% are disabled, and for those who are 65 years old and older living alone, 44% are disabled.118 The Witness Requirements put older voters at particular risk. As explained above, older individuals face heightened risks from contracting COVID-19, and they are more likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences. Of those Louisiana residents who live alone, 35.8% are over 65 years-of-age.
109. In addition to the devastating and disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on Black people in Louisiana, see supra ¶¶ 53–59, they face several compounding factors that heightens the burden of the Witness Requirement. According to the 2018 ACS 1-Year Estimates, Black people make up 32% of Louisiana’s population, yet at the same time, 18.1% of Black people of voting age in Louisiana live alone, compared to 14.9% of whites of voting age, and 29.8% of Black people who are 65 and older live alone, compared to 27.1% of whites who are 65 and older.119
110. As noted above, on June 11, 2020, Defendant Governor Edwards amended the Witness Requirements by signing SB 75 into law, which immediately mandated that “[n]o person except the immediate family member of the voter, as defined in this Code, shall witness more than
117 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Social Characteristics of the United States: Louisiana (2018), supra n.66. 118 Id. 119 Id.
43

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 44 of 51
one certificate of a voter.” ABSENTEE VOTING, 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 210. SB 75 serves to further increase the burden of the Witness Requirements on absentee voters who live alone by restricting their choices for potential witnesses.
111. The Witness Requirements, which the Emergency Plan preserve, will therefore likely prevent many Louisianans who might otherwise cast absentee ballots from doing so this year. In effect, the Witness Requirements defeat the purpose of the expanded COVID-19-related excuses included in the Emergency Plan. Even if the Emergency Plan excuses expand eligibility to vote by absentee ballot to some additional categories of voters, maintaining the requirement that those voters must obtain a witness signature in order to vote by absentee ballot will still potentially expose them to the risks posed by COVID-19.
C. The Failure to Expand Early Voting for the General and Runoff Elections Unreasonably Increases the Risks of COVID-19 Infection and Severely Burdens the Right to Vote
112. In light of public health officials’ assurances that the United States will likely have a second wave of the coronavirus in the fall even if the pandemic subsides this summer, Louisiana’s failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December elections will severely burden the fundamental right of all eligible voters.
113. Medical experts, including Dr. Fauci, have stated that is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue into the fall, 120 requiring social distancing guidelines to remain in effect.121 For in-person voters, early voting can help make social distancing effective and reduce the risk of crowds gathering at polling places.
120 Jason Silverstein, Fauci says he “can’t guarantee” in-person voting in November will be safe, CBS News (Apr. 13, 2020), supra n.34. 121 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How Coronavirus Spreads, supra n. 19.
44

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 45 of 51
114. Defendants recognized as much by extending early voting for the July Primary and August Municipal elections in the Emergency Plan. Their failure to do so for the November General and December Runoff elections is an unreasonable burden on Louisiana voters.
COUNT I Violations of the Fundamental Right to Vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. §
1983) 115. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the Counts below as though fully set forth herein. 116. The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect the fundamental right to vote. Under the Anderson-Burdick doctrine, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justification for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). 117. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ enforcement of the Excuse Requirement will impose a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. This requirement limits eligibility for absentee voting to a narrow category of voters and will likely prevent many thousands of otherwise eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing a disproportionate burden on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
45

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 46 of 51
118. Despite Louisiana’s adoption of the Emergency Plan, the burden imposed by the Excuse Requirement persists for a significant number of voters in the July Primary and August Municipal elections, and for all voters in the November and December elections. Even under the Emergency Plan many voters will be forced to choose between risking their lives and the lives of others or not exercising their right to vote at all.
119. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ enforcement of the Witness Requirements will impose a severe and undue burden the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. These requirements force voters to subject themselves to significant health risks and will likely prevent many thousands of eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing disproportionate burdens on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
120. Despite Louisiana’s adoption of the Emergency Plan, the Ballot Witness Requirement will persist for all voters casting an absentee ballot in the July Primary and August Municipal elections, and for all voters in the November and December elections. The Application Witness Requirement persists for all voters who must mark (as oppose to sign) their request to vote by absentee ballot in all upcoming elections in Louisiana. By failing to waive these requirements Louisiana is forcing voters to choose between breaking social distancing rules and risking their lives and the lives of others, or not voting at all.
121. Under the circumstances brought about by COVID-19, Defendants’ failure to extend early voting for the November General and December Runoff elections will impose a severe and undue burden on the fundamental right to vote of Louisiana voters. The lack of additional days of early voting forces voters to subject themselves to significant health risks and will likely prevent many thousands of eligible voters from casting effective ballots, placing disproportionate
46

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 47 of 51
burdens on voters with underlying medical conditions and disabilities, older voters, and Black voters.
122. Defendants’ stated interest in protecting the integrity of elections is a valid governmental interest, but it is not advanced by the Excuse Requirement, the Witness Requirements, or the failure to expand early voting, nor does the interest outweigh or justify the undue burdens imposed on the fundamental right to vote, especially in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
COUNT II Violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 123. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the Count below as though fully set forth herein. 124. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits Defendants from imposing, applying, or maintaining any “qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). 125. “The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and [nonblack] voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). 126. Section 2 vote-denial claims have two elements. First, “[t]he challenged standard, practice, or procedure must impose a discriminatory burden on members of a protected class, meaning that members of the protected class have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
47

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 48 of 51
Second, “[t]hat burden must in part be caused by or linked to social and historical conditions that have or currently produce discrimination against members of the protected class.” Veasey v Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 244 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 612 (2017).
127. The Witness Requirement, the Excuse Requirement, and the failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December 2020 elections (collectively “the Challenged Provisions”), will result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote for Black voters in Louisiana.
128. The Challenged Provisions, if not enjoined, will independently and collectively, impose a discriminatory burden on Black voters in Louisiana.
129. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if forced to vote in person, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the Excuse Requirement.
130. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if required to obtain a witness signature on an absentee ballot, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the Witness Requirements.
131. Because Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, they are particularly at risk of infection from COVID-19 if they vote in person, and thus, disproportionately burdened by the failure to expand the early voting period for the November and December 2020 elections.
132. The discriminatory burdens imposed by the Challenged Provisions affect Black voters disparately because they interact with social and historical conditions that have produced or
48

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 49 of 51
currently produce discrimination against Black people in Louisiana causing an inequality in the opportunities to elect their preferred representatives.
133. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Challenged Provisions deny or abridge the rights of Black voters in Louisiana because the State has an established and judicially recognized history of official voting-related discrimination; Louisiana also has an extensive and judicially recognized history of racially polarized voting; and Black people in Louisiana continue to bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health status, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: A. Declare that Defendants’ enforcement of the Excuse Requirement for all elections taking place for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; B. Declare that Defendants’ enforcement of the Witness Requirements for all elections taking place for the duration of COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; C. Declare that Defendants’ failure to extend the early voting period during all elections taking place in Louisiana for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; D. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Excuse Requirement for all eligible voters during all elections taking place in Louisiana in 2020; E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Witness Requirements for all voters during all elections taking place in Louisiana in 2020;
49

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 50 of 51
F. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to extend the early voting period to fourteen days during all elections taking place in Louisiana in November and December 2020;
G. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to issue absentee mail-in ballots to any eligible voter who requests one without requiring an excuse for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
H. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to count otherwise validly cast absentee ballots that are missing a witness signature for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
I. Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to issue guidance instructing all local parish election officials, including registrars of voters, clerks of court, parish boards of election supervisors, and parish governing officials who perform election-related duties to accept otherwise valid applications for an absentee by mail ballots that are missing a witness signature for all Louisiana elections in 2020;
J. Award Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and K. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in the circumstances.
50

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 49 06/18/20 Page 51 of 51

DATED this 18th day of June 2020.
*John Z. Morris NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel.: (212) 965-2200 zmorris@naacpldf.org
*Catherine Meza NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc. 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-1300 cmeza@naacpldf.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronald L. Wilson Ronald L. Wilson, (LSBN 13575) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel.: (504) 525-4361 cabral2@aol.com
*Robert D. Fram *Morgan Lewis *Joshua González **John Fraser* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 rfram@cov.com MELewis@cov.com jgonzalez@cov.com JFraser@cov.com
* Admitted Pro Hac Vice ** Pro Hac Vice Motion forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 70 06/22/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARK, et al VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al consolidated with POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al

CIVIL ACTION 20-308-SDD-RLB
CIVIL ACTION 20-283-SDD-RLB

JUDGMENT For the written reasons assigned: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants, Governor John Bel Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin. Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 22, 2020.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Document Number: 60825

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72 06/25/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants. POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case. No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

CLARK PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Clark Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss their claims with prejudice. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, the Clark Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the dismissal itself, but simply the Court’s decision to dismiss the actions with prejudice.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72 06/25/20 Page 2 of 2

DATED this 25th day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Clark Plaintiffs

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-1 06/25/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants. POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case. No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

CLARK PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Clark Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss their claims with prejudice. The Clark Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the dismissal itself, but simply the Court’s decision to dismiss the actions with prejudice.
The Court makes clear throughout its order that it is only granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and not reaching Defendants’ arguments pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). See ECF No. 69 at 6-9, 36. As the Court explained, the dismissal was for lack of standing, not on the merits of the

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-1 06/25/20 Page 2 of 5
case. Id. at 36 (“Because the dismissal is on standing grounds . . .”). A dismissal for lack of standing is based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 7 (citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154–155 (1990)). It is “not a determination on the merits.” Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v. Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has uniformly held that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction must be ordered without prejudice. In Davis v. United States, the court explained that “since the district court did not reach the merits of the case, it was incorrect to dismiss [it] with prejudice.” 961 F.2d 53, 57 (5th Cir. 1991). This is well-established. See Sepulvado v. La. Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 114 Fed. Appx. 620, 622 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing); therefore, it is without prejudice.”); Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, LLC v. Sasol N. Am., Inc., 544 Fed. Appx. 455, 456–457 (5th Cir. 2013) (“To dismiss with prejudice a case under 12(b)(1) is ‘to disclaim jurisdiction and then exercise it. Our precedent does not sanction the practice, and we will not do so here.’”) (citation omitted); Boudloche v. Conoco Oil Corp., 615 F.2d 687, 688 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Since the court lacked jurisdiction over the action, it had no power to render a judgment on the merits.”).
In its opinion dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court cites to Crenshaw-Logal v. City of Abilene, Texas, 436 Fed. Appx. 306, 308 (5th Cir. 2011), which quotes Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001), for the proposition that “[w]hen a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction ‘is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.’” See id. at 6-7 n.30. The court in Ramming also specifies that attacks on jurisdictional grounds such as standing should be

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-1 06/25/20 Page 3 of 5
considered first because this “prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice.” 281 F.3d at 161.
At a bare minimum, dismissal must be without prejudice as to the November and December elections, where the Court itself indicates that Plaintiffs may have standing in the future to bring their claims. See, e.g., ECF No. 69 at 20 (“Until Clark can articulate a concrete, imminent injury . . . her claims present no injury-in-fact sufficient to support a finding of Article III standing.”) (emphasis added). For example, in this action, Plaintiff Telisa Clark asserted her claims as to the November and December elections. Dismissal with prejudice means she will never again be able to assert her claims, even if she has a concrete, imminent injury as to the November and December elections. The Court necessarily leaves this door open to Plaintiff Clark, noting that there is a possibility that the current Emergency Election Plan will not be extended to the elections in November and December:
This allegation assumes that the Emergency Election Plan will not be extended to apply for the November and December election. It is as yet unknown what procedures will govern those elections. It is premature, speculative, and insufficiently concrete for Clark to assert an injury-in-fact based on requirements that may or may not be in place in the future. Id. Dismissal with prejudice of course means that Plaintiff Clark’s future claim is subject to dismissal on res judicata grounds. “Res judicata means ‘a thing decided;’ the doctrine states that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the parties and their privies; therefore, attempts to litigate the matter further are barred.” Mock v. Epps, No. 4:06CV39-P-A, 2006 WL 1050534, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2006). Plaintiffs Lakeshia Barnett, LWVLA, and CCMG have also raised claims as to the November and December elections. Because their claims were dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds, the merits of Plaintiffs’

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-1 06/25/20 Page 4 of 5
claims as to the November and December elections have not been decided and, under Fifth Circuit precedent, cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, the Clark Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for reconsideration and respectfully request that this Court amend its order dismissing the action to note that dismissal is without prejudice as to the Clark Plaintiffs and their claims.

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-1 06/25/20 Page 5 of 5

DATED this 25th day of June, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caren E. Short
Caren E. Short* Nancy G. Abudu* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA 30031 P: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 caren.short@splcenter.org nancy.abudu@splcenter.org
Danielle E. Davis, La. Bar No. 37995 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER P.O. Box 57089 New Orleans, LA 70157 T: (504) 486-8982 C: (504) 376-7085 F: (504) 486-8947 danielle.davis@splcenter.org
Jon Sherman* (D.C. Bar No. 998271) Michelle Kanter Cohen* (D.C. Bar No. 989164) Cecilia Aguilera* (D.C. Bar No. 1617884) Fair Elections Center 1825 K St. NW, Ste. 450 Washington, D.C. 20006 P: (202) 331-0114 jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org caguilera@fairelectionscenter.org
John A. Freedman* ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Clark Plaintiffs

Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 72-2 06/25/20 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TELISA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB

POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00283-SDD-RLB

ORDER Plaintiffs Telisa Clark, Lakeshia Barnett, Crescent City Media Group (“CCMG”), and League of Women Voters Louisiana (“LWVLA”) (collectively, “Clark Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek leave to amend the judgment with respect to its dismissal of their claims with prejudice, ECF No. 69.

For good cause shown, the Clark Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

DONE this ____ day of June, 2020.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:20-cv-00308-SDD-RLB Document 74 06/30/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLARK, et al VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al consolidated with POWER COALITION FOR EQUITY AND JUSTICE, et al VERSUS JOHN BEL EDWARDS, et al

CIVIL ACTION 20-308-SDD-RLB
CIVIL ACTION 20-283-SDD-RLB

JUDGMENT For the written reasons assigned: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants, Governor John Bel Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin. Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 30, 2020.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA