U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Central Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20−cv−00341−JM

CLOSED,JJV

Mays et al v. Thurston et al Assigned to: Judge James M. Moody Jr. Cause: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights Plaintiff Debra Mays
Plaintiff Johnny Smith, Jr

Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Date Terminated: 03/31/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Deuel Ross NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 212−965−2200 Fax: 212−226−7592 Email: dross@naacpldf.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah C. Aden NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 212−965−2200 Fax: 212−226−7592 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omavi Shukur NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 40 Rector Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 646−831−1774 Email: oshukur@naacpldf.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deuel Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah C. Aden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omavi Shukur (See above for address)

Plaintiff Christian Ministerial Alliance

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deuel Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah C. Aden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omavi Shukur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Thurston in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arkansas
Defendant Asa Hutchinson in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Arkansas

represented by Vincent Moore Wagner Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett−Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201−2610 501−682−8090 Email: vincent.wagner@arkansasag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vincent Moore Wagner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/26/2020 03/27/2020 03/27/2020 03/27/2020
03/29/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Johnny Smith, Jr, The Christian Ministerial Alliance, Debra Mays. Fee $400 received. Receipt Number LIT076594.No summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(bmd) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Debra Mays, Johnny Smith, Jr, The Christian Ministerial Alliance (Attachments: # 1 Document − Proposed Order)(Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
Summons Issued as to All Defendants and returned to counsel for service. (bmd) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
3 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 2 Motion for TRO filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Ross Declaration, # 2 Ex 1, # 3 Ex 2, # 4 Ex 3, # 5 Ex 4, # 6 Ex 5, # 7 Ex 6, # 8 Ex 7, # 9 Ex 8, # 10 Ex 9, # 11 Ex 10, # 12 Ex 11, # 13 Ex 12 Cooper Decl, # 14 Ex 12 A, # 15 Ex 12 B, # 16 Ex 12 C, # 17 Ex 12 D)(Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Asa Hutchinson by Johnny Smith, Jr, Debra Mays, Christian Ministerial Alliance. (Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/29/2020)

03/29/2020 03/29/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020
03/30/2020
03/30/2020
03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/31/2020

5 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Deuel Ross. Fee $100 receipt number AAREDC−3672308. Filed by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Deuel Ross)(Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/29/2020)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to John Thurston by Johnny Smith, Jr, Debra Mays, Christian Ministerial Alliance. (Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/29/2020)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Vincent Moore Wagner on behalf of Asa Hutchinson, John Thurston (Wagner, Vincent) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
8 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Order Denying TRO Motion, Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20−cv−00067 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2020), DE 12, # 2 Order Denying Renewed TRO Motion, Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20−cv−00067 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2020), DE 18)(Wagner, Vincent) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
9 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Deuel Ross, # 2 Ex 13, # 3 Ex 14, # 4 Ex 15, # 5 Ex 16)(Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by Leah C. Aden. Fee $100 receipt number AAREDC−3673175. Filed by Christian Ministerial Alliance, Debra Mays, Johnny Smith, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Leah C. Aden)(Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
11 ORDER denying 2 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injuction. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 3/30/2020. (thd) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
12 PROPOSED Intervenor−Defendants' MOTION to Intervene by Republican Party of Arkansas, Doyle Webb (jap) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
13 PROPOSED Intervenor−Defendants' BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 12 Motion to Intervene filed by Republican Party of Arkansas, Doyle Webb. (jap) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christian Ministerial Alliance, Debra Mays (Shukur, Omavi) (Entered: 03/31/2020)

 
 •

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 19

EASTUE.RfN1lDJImSTFRIrCJT~A1RRKATNSAS

MAR 2 6 2020

FOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRT JAMES THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~:

w.~ Mf,a•MAcK,

CLERK

DEPCLERK

DEBRA MAYS, JOHNNY SMITH, JR., and THE CHRISTIAN MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,
V.
JOHN THURSTON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arkansas, and ASA HUTCHINSON, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Arkansas,

COMPLAINT
Civil Case No. -4:-20--cv--3-41--JM- -

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Debra Mays, Reverend Johnny Smith, Jr. and the Christian Ministerial

Alliance (together, "Plaintiffs") file this Complaint for immediate injunctive and declaratory relief

against the Defendant Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston for failing to take adequate steps

to protect the fundamental right to vote ahead of 2020 elections, including the March 31 runoff, in

the midst of the unprecedented national and statewide COVID-19 public health crisis.

2.

The United States and the State of Arkansas are in the throes of an extraordinary

state ofemergency. COVID-19 is spreading throughout the country, infecting thousands ofcitizens

in communities across the nation, including Arkansas, which has at least 232 confirmed cases of

people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and two deaths. Experts estimate that, for every

confirmed case, there could be as many as eleven unconfirmed cases of COVID-19. One of the

two fatalities in Arkansas resulting from COVID-19 was a 59-year old person, similar in age to

Ms. Mays and Rev. Smith. As a result, people across the United States and Arkansas have been

advised by the Centers for Disease Control and the Governor to socially distance and remain in

1

This

case

assigned

to

District

Judge _M_ood_y

,.;..--,,1
_ _

and to Magistrate Judge_V_o_ lpe_ _ _ _ __

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 19
their homes. In a communal effort to slow the spread of the disease and save millions of people, the Governor has also closed government offices, schools, and businesses, strongly urged people to limit person-to-person interactions to their family, and to avoid large gatherings. This crisis may persist for months.
3. As Arkansans continue to socially distance themselves to comply with state and federal rules to ensure their own and the community's safety, many citizens will reasonably determine that they cannot risk their safety and the safety of others by waiting in line to cast their vote in-person on Election Day. Many Arkansas citizens also will reasonably determine that they cannot take on the safety risks of leaving their homes to take the steps required under Arkansas law to obtain and submit an absentee ballot before 7:30 p.m. on Election Day.
4. Thus, even if citizens are inclined to vote in-person or go in-person to submit their absentee ballots before the 7:30 p.m. Election Day deadline, the State has discouraged them from doing so. Indeed, for many people, the closure or limited hours of government offices, including county clerks, will make it nearly impossible to timely obtain and cast an absentee ballot.
5. Given these extraordinary circumstances, many Arkansas citizens must rely on absentee voting and other online or remote options to exercise their fundamental right to vote. In Benton County alone for the upcoming March 31 runoff election, over 22,000 absentee ballot applications were sent to voters-a significant increase over prior years.
6. Secretary Thurston has taken some steps to address this exceptional situation ahead of the March 31, 2020 runoff election. He has stated that "[a]11 Arkansans who are eligible to vote in [the] runoff election are eligible to cast an absentee ballot"; and that, if a voter cannot mail, fax, or email an absentee ballot application by March 24th, then the voter "may request one in person or through a designated bearer from your county clerk" by March 30th. Press Release, Important
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 19
Election Update: Early Voting/or General Primary RunoffElection Begins Tuesday, March 24th, Mar. 18, 2020.1
7. In addition, on March 20, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order No. 20-08.2 The Executive Order suspended the current March 24, 2020 deadline for absentee ballot applications to be submitted by email, fax, or mail. Ark. Code§ 7-5-404(a)(3)(A)(ii).
8. Nonetheless, state officials have not suspended the requirement that election officials receive absentee ballots by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day for the ballots to be counted. Id. ("Election Day Receipt Deadline" or the "challenged provision"). That provision poses a direct and severe obstacle to absentee voting.
9. The challenged provision poses significant risks to voters seeking to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming March 31, 2020 runoff election (or any election that occurs while this crisis continues). The provision will ensure that Plaintiffs and many Arkansas citizens will be unable to vote.
10. Indeed, without emergency intervention from this Court, thousands of Arkansas voters risk being disenfranchised. Historically, Arkansas voters have voted in-person in large numbers through early voting or on Election Day. In fact, in 2018, only 2.1 percent ofpeople cast mail-in absentee ballots in Arkansas; whereas over half of Arkansas voters used in-person early voting. Most Arkansas voters are therefore unlikely to be familiar with the absentee voting process. And a significant number of mail-in absentee ballots in Arkansas are often rejected because the ballots are not returned by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day or do not meet other absentee voting requirements. In 2018, Arkansas rejected over 7.5 percent of the absentee ballots cast (1,150 of 17,120) and, in 2016, it rejected 5.4 percent of absentee ballots (1,614). Thus, if, for instance, all
1 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ARSOS/bulletins/281e8cf. 2 https://govemor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-08._.pdf.
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 19
413,254 Arkansans who voted early at in-person sites in 2018 switched to mail-in absentee voting in the 2020, up to 31,000 voters (7.5 percent) could have their ballots rejected.3
11. Similarly, this year, many Arkansas citizens have not yet applied to vote absentee .for the March 31, 2020 runoff election because they anticipated being able to vote in-person. Absent extension of the Election Day Receipt Deadline, the effects of COVID-19 will leave thousands of potential voters who reasonably anticipated voting in-person without an option to participate in the democratic process.
12. The March 31 Election Day Receipt Deadline is less than a week away. This means that, despite the Governor's extension of the deadline to remotely request an absentee ballot, thousands of voters will not have a reasonable opportunity to request, receive, and then mail their absentee ballot with an assurance that the ballot will arrive in time to be counted. For example, the Governor's order allows a voter to send an email requesting an absentee ballot on Monday, March 30, 2020. But, due to the challenged provision, the voter's only means of guaranteeing that she can both receive and submit the absentee ballot before the Election Day Receipt Deadline would be for the voter to appear in-person to cast that ballot by 7:30 on Election Day.
13. Further, even voters who have already applied for absentee ballots will have, at most, mere days to receive and mail them, with a significant risk that they will not arrive by the Election Day Receipt Deadline to be counted. In fact, based on information and belief, Arkansas's mail system has already started to slow because of the effects of the coronavirus. As a result, it is . highly likely that many absentee ballots will arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline due to no fault ofthe voters. These same impediments to voting will continue for any election that occurs
3 Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey Report, at 28 (2018), available at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2018_EAVS_Report.pdf; Election Assistance Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey Report, at 23 (2016), available at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf.
4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 19
while this crisis persists. 14. Plaintiffs file this suit to ensure that Arkansas voters, including the individual
Plaintiffs and the Christian Ministerial Alliance's members and constituents, are able to fully exercise their right to vote in the midst of this unprecedented crisis. Plaintiffs seek an emergency injunction from this Court enjoining the Election Day Receipt Deadline, while allowing all ballots postmarked on or before Election Day but received within a minimum of 10 days thereafter to be counted. Any deadlines related to the receipt or perfection of provisional ballots must also be extended to be consistent with the injunction.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action and can grant appropriate relief pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a), and 1357; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, 10302, 10308(f), and 10310(e). 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants who are located in Arkansas. 17. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
PARTIES 18. Plaintiff Debra Mays is a Black registered voter over age 55 who resides in Jefferson County, Arkansas. She is eligible to vote in the runoff. Given the developing COVID19 crisis and the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor, Ms. Mays desires to vote absentee in the March 31, 2020 runoff election to protect her health and the health ofothers around her. She has not yet requested an absentee ballot. She has a credible fear that, if she were to appear in-person to vote or to submit an absentee ballot, she would be violating the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor and that she might contract or unintentionally contribute to the
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 19
spread of COVID-19. She also reasonably believes that if she requests an absentee ballot today she will be unable to return it in time to meet the March 31 deadline for tabulation
19. Reverend Johnny Smith, Jr. is a Black registered voter over age 60 who resides in Jefferson County, Arkansas. He is eligible to vote in the runoff. Given the developing COVID-19 -crisis and the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor, Reverend Smith desires to vote abscmtee in the March 31, 2020 runoff election to protect his health and the health of others around him. He has not yet requested an absentee ballot. He has a credible fear that, if he were to appear in-person to vote or to submit an absentee ballot, he would be acting in violation of the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor and that he might contract or unintentionally contribute to the spread ofCOVID-19. He reasonably believes that ifhe requests an absentee ballot by mail today, he will be unable to return it in time to meet the March 31 deadline for tabulation.
20. Rev. Smith is the pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church in Jefferson County and brings this action in his individual capacity and as a representative of his church and its membership. Most of the members of his church are Black. Elderly Black registered voters who are members of his church and eligible to vote in the runoff also credibly fear voting in-person in light of the outbreak and the related federal and state directives. If these members do vote absentee, they believe that their mail-in ballots will not arrive before the March 31 deadline for tabulation.
21. PlaintiffChristian Ministerial Alliance ("Ministerial Alliance") is a non-profit, nonpartisan interfaith coalition of religious leaders from Pulaski County and neighboring areas founded in 1968-just three years after Congress' enactment ofthe Voting Rights Act. It is devoted to furthering racial equality and justice in Arkansas. In furtherance of its mission, has been involved in litigation relating to minority voting rights.
22. The Ministerial Alliance's membership includes Black and other registered voters
6

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 19
in Arkansas who are eligible to vote and wish to vote in the March 31, 2020 runoff election, but who reasonably fear voting in-person or submitting absentee ballots in-person because the members themselves, or their family or friends, are susceptible to serious complications arising from exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus. In light of these well-founded concerns, the challenged provision will result in the denial or abridgment of their fundamental right to vote. Members ofthe Ministerial Alliance also face logistical barriers, such as lack oftransportation and lower income, that make it more difficult for them to vote under the challenged provision.
23. The Ministerial Alliance also sent a March 24, 2020 letter asking the Secretary to take other steps to address the concerns herein and otherwise secure the election in this crisis.4 To date, the Secretary has not responded to the letter or addressed all of its concerns.
24. Defendant John Thurston is sued in his official capacity as the Arkansas Secretary of State. He is chief election official of the State of Arkansas. He is charged with administering the challenged provision and doing so in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Secretary Thurston also serves as the Chair of the State Board of Election Commissioners. Ark. Code§ 7-4-lOl(b).
25. Defendant Asa Hutchinson is sued in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Arkansas. Under the Arkansas Constitution, Governor Hutchinson holds the "supreme executive power ofth[e] State," Ark. Const. art. VI,§ 2, and must "see that the laws are faithfully executed." Id. at § 7. In his capacity as Governor, Defendant Hutchinson enforces the challenged provision and doing so in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and federal law. In light of the declared state of emergency, state law also empowers the Governor Hutchinson to issue an order,
4 https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-03-24-Arkansas-re-COVID19-March-runoff-copy-copy-copy1.pdf
7

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 19
like he has with respect to Executive Order No. 20-08, to extend the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Demographics of Arkansas
26. According to the 2010 Census, the total population of Arkansas is 2,915,918 people. Of this total population, 77.0 percent are non-Hispanic white and 15.4 percent are nonHispanic Black.
27. According to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS), the total votingage population ofArkansas is 2,295,846, ofwhom 1,728,701 are white (75.3 percent), and 345,445 (15.0 percent) are Black.
28. Because of Arkansas's past and present history of discrimination, socioeconomic disparities remain stark between Black and white Arkansans. For example, according to the ACS, 17.9 percent of Black Arkansans lack a high school 18 diploma, while 11.7 percent of white Arkansans lack a high school diploma. Further, 23.8 percent ofwhite Arkansans have a bachelor's degree or higher as compared to 14.8 percent of Black Arkansans.
29. The median household income for Black Arkansans is $30,509, while white Arkansans have a median income of $49,890. The unemployment rate for white Arkansans stands at 2.8 percent, while Black Arkansans face an unemployment rate of 5.2 percent. Twenty-three percent of Black family households in Arkansas live below the poverty level, while only 9 percent of white family households live below the poverty level.. Of these households, 57.5 percent of Black families rent their homes, while only 28.7 percent of white families rent housing units. Further, 15 percent of Black families lack a vehicle in their home, while only 4.6 percent of white families lack a vehicle. Of people age 16 to 64, 16.5 percent of Black people and 13.3 percent of
8

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 19
white people age lack health insurance. Black people (25.5 percent) are more likely to work in service (blue collar) jobs than white people (14.9 percent). White people (35.9 percent) are more likely to hold managerial or professional (white collar) jobs than Black people (24.8 percent). The Black population in Arkansas has a higher percentage of persons with a disability than white people- 18.4% ofthe 18-64 Black population has a disability, compared to 15.3% ofwhite people; 48.6% ofthe 65 and over Black population is disabled, compared to 41.4% ofthe white population.
30. According to the ACS, there are similar racial disparities in the particular counties and cities that are holding runoff elections on March 31, 2020. For example, Jefferson County is 40.6 percent white and 56.4 percent Black. Black people in Jefferson County also bear the effects of past discrimination insofar as: 17.2 percent of Black people, but only 11.7% of white people have less than a high school degree; 26.6 percent of Black family households, but only 9.8 percent of white families live below the poverty line in the last year; 14.2 percent of Black households income, but only 6.3 percent of white households income were under $10,000 last year; Black median family income was $39,002 versus white median family income of$65,740; 23.5 percent of Black people and 14.6 percent of whites work in blue collar jobs; 23.8 percent of Black people and 32.7 percent of white people hold white collar jobs; and the unemployment rate for Black people age 16 to 64 (11.9 percent) is nearly double that of white people (6.3 percent).
31. The data concerning unemployment and income is from before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is already leading to substantial layoffs and is widely expected to result in a severe economic recession. Relevant Provisions of Arkansas Law
32. Arkansas law provides that requests for absentee ballots made by mail, fax or electronically "must be received in the office of the county clerk of the county of residence of the
9

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 19
voter not later than seven (7) days before the election for which the application was made." Ark. Code§ 7-5-404(a)(3)(A)(ii). For the March 31, 2020 runoff election, however, the Governor is permitting voters to make remote requests for absentee ballots after the March 24 deadline.
33. Once a voter has received and completed their absentee ballot, she or he must ensure that it is "received in the office of the county clerk of the county of residence of the voter not later than 7:30 p.m. on election day." Ark. Code§ 7-5-41 l(a)(l)(A).
34. Neither the Secretary, nor the Governor have suspended or extended the Election Day Receipt Deadline in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Coronavirus and the March 31, 2020 Election
35. Over the course of the last few weeks, and with dramatically increased intensity over just the last week, COVID-19 has been spreading throughout the United States, infecting thousands of citizens in communities across the nation, including in Arkansas. Each day more Arkansas residents are infected and, as more is learned about the virus and its potential reach, citizens and state and local governments are forced to take increasingly unprecedented steps to ensure their safety.
36. Indeed, on March 11, the Governor declared a state of emergency. The Governor has further ordered people to work from home, to minimize personal contact, to avoid large gatherings, and to stay home if they are ill. He has strongly urged everyone to practice social distancing. Public and private schools and certain businesses have been closed indefinitely. Bars, restaurants, and other commercial centers are closing. See, e.g., Proclamation by the Governor of the State ofArkansas, Executive Order No. 20-06, Mar. 17, 2020.5
37. Arkansas voters are now forced to socially distance themselves to try to slow the
5 https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-06._.pdf
10

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 19
spread of the disease in a communal effort to save their friends, neighbors, and families, with no end in sight. As a result, many Arkansas citizens have reasonably determined that it would risk their safety and the safety of others to cast their vote, or request an absentee ballot, in-person. Moreover, because of the State's quarantine orders, Arkansas citizens who are infected cannot leave their homes, even if they are otherwise willing to venture out to exercise their right to vote. Thus, it is not surprising that Arkansas voters intend to rely on mail-in absentee voting at an unprecedented level. Election officials across Arkansas have seen an increase in absentee ballot requests. See Bill Bowden, "Election officials in Arkansas proceed carefully," Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Mar. 22, 2070, https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officialsproceed-carefully/.
38. Because of the effects of the Coronavirus, Arkansas's requirement that election officials receive an absentee ballot by 7:30pm on Election Day creates an unreasonable barrier to voting for many citizens. This requirement is made more onerous in the current pandemic by the facts that mail services may slow because of delays resulting from the COVID-19 crisis. See, e.g., Eric Katz, "With Dozens of Confirmed Coronavirus Cases, USPS Launches New Measures to Protect Employees," Government Executive, Mar. 23, 2020.6 As a result, many Arkansas citizens will be unable to mail their absentee ballot before the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
39. The Election Receipt Deadline is especially arbitrary because, recognizing the unique circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor has suspended the March 24 deadline for requesting an absentee ballot. By failing to suspend the Election Receipt Deadline, state officials have rendered the extension of the March 24 deadline meaningless for many voters who will not be able to request, receive, and submit their absentee ballots by mail in order for them
6 https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/03/dozens-confirmed-coronavirus-cases-usps-launches-new-measuresprotect-employees/164017/
11

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 19
to be counted. 40. The March 31 runoff election is less than a week away. Accordingly, the increased
number of voters receiving absentee ballots will have, at most, mere days to mail them, with a significant risk that they will not arrive by the Election Day Receipt Deadline and thus will not be counted; Indeed, there is a significant risk that county clerks inundated with absentee ballot requests may not even be able to process all such requests by Election Day, much less mail the ballots with sufficient time for voters to return them by Election Day.
41. The Governor and the Secretary have failed to adequately notify Arkansas voters, including Plaintiffs, of COVID-19 related changes to the absentee voting requirements and procedures. For example, the Secretary of State's website does not mention the Executive Order No. 20-08, which extended the deadline for people to submit absentee ballot applications via email, fax, or mail. As described in paragraph 6 above, the Secretary issued a press release dated March 18. That release includes the March 24 deadline for remotely requesting absentee ballot deadlines. He has not issued a new release or otherwise updated his website. Local officials have also not adequately notified voters about the absentee voting process. For example, the Jefferson County clerk's website contains deadlines and information about the absentee ballot process that are inconsistent with both Executive Order No. 20-08 and the Election Day Receipt Deadline.7
42. In fact, based on information and belief, Arkansas's mail system has already started to slow because ofthe effects ofthe Coronavirus. As a result, it is highly likely that many absentee ballots will arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline due to no fault of the voters.
43. The challenged provision poses a significant risk to voters seeking to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming March 31, 2020 election. This provision means that many Arkansas
7 https://www.jeffersoncountyar.gov/plugins/show_image.php?id=177.
12

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 19
citizens will have their absentee ballots discarded. 44. Without action from this Court, these laws will continue to burden Arkansas voters'
right to vote, disenfranchising them in the upcoming March 31, 2020 election, as well as other elections taking place during the COVID-19 crisis. The Racially Disparate Impact of the Challenged Provision
45. Here, Black Arkansans will disproportionately bear the burdens associated with the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
46. For example, Black people in Arkansas are less likely to have access to the private transportation necessary to travel to county clerks' offices to submit their absentee ballots inperson. Black people in Arkansas are also more likely than white people to lack access to health insurance and more likely to be disabled. Thus, as national experts and articles confirm,8 Black people disproportionately face the threat of devastating health outcomes upon contracting the COVID 19 coronavirus.
47. The decisions of individual election officials have also increased the barriers to voting for Black voters. For example, in Jefferson County, which has disproportionately more Black voters as compared to the Black voter population in the State as a whole, election officials have reduced the number of polling sites to lessen the number of poll workers. And officials are unable to fully staff the county's six polling sites. These facts make it more difficult for Black people to vote safely in-person and increase the importance of permitting expansive absentee voting. Jefferson County has also had a large share of the COVID-19 coronavirus infections in Arkansas.
8 https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-03-25/why-black-americans-face-an-uphillbattle-against-the-coronavirus; https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyafelssmyth/2020/03/17/covid-19-and-health-anddeath-disparities/#2abbd7ec7712.
13

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 14 of 19
48. Nationally, Black voters are less likely than white voters to use mail-in absentee voting. Upon information and belief, in Arkansas, Black voters are also less likely to use mail-in absentee voting than white people. Black voters are less likely to be familiar with the process.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count i--:--Tbe Challenged Provision Burdens the Fundamental Rtgtlt to Vote in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 50. Under the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, a court considering a challenge to a state election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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."' See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983)). 51. Unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief requested herein thousands of Arkansas voters' right to vote, including Plaintiffs' members and constituents, will be severely burdened (if not wholly eliminated) in the upcoming March 31, 2020 election. 52. Because of COVID-19 and the unprecedented social distancing measures that Arkansas citizens have to take to slow the spread of the virus and to ensure their safety as well as the safety of their friends, families, and neighbors, many Arkansas voters who would have voted in-person will no long be able to do so. 53. As absentee balloting becomes the only safe way to vote, Arkansas voters are at a high risk of not receiving their ballots with sufficient time to mail them into the county clerk's
14

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 15 of 19
office so that they are received prior to the Election Day Receipt Deadline. This will lead to disenfranchisement.
54. The State cannot provide any colorable justification as to why absentee ballots received after 7:30pm on Election Day should not be counted in light ofthis unprecedented crisis. Indeed, depending on the elected office at issue, state law gives election officials between 15 and 19 days after Election Day to certify the election results. Ark. Code.§§ 7-5-701(a)(4), (c)(l). State law also currently gives voters until the Monday after Election Day (April 6) to perfect their provisional ballots. Ark. Code. § 7-5-308(f)(2)(A).
55. The challenged provision is not supported by a state interest that is sufficient to justify the resulting burdens on the right to vote, and thus, it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Count 2: The Challenged Provision results in the Denial of Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein.
57. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the states from depriving "any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. Which protections are due in a given case requires a careful analysis of the importance of the rights and the other interests at stake. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976); Nozziv. Hous. Auth. ofCityofL.A., 806 F.3d 1178, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015). Courts must first consider "the nature of the interest that will be affected" by the government's action as well as the "degree of potential deprivation that may be created" by existing procedures. Nozzi, 806 F. 3d at 1192-93. Second, "courts must consider the 'fairness and reliability' of the existing procedures and the 'probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards."' Id. at 1193 (quoting Mathews, 424
15

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 16 of 19
U.S. at 343). Finally, courts must consider "the public interest, which 'includes the administrative burden and other societal costs that would be associated with' additional or substitute procedures. Id. (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347). Overall, "due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334, (quotation and citation omitted).
58. The Election Day Receipt Deadline must comport with due process. See Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1358 (D. Ariz. 1990). "Such due process is not provided when the election procedures [for voting by mail]" do not adequately protect the right to vote or ensure that an "individual is not continually and repeatedly denied so fundamental a right." Id.; see also Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202,217 (D.N.H. 2018) ("Having induced voters to vote by absentee ballot, the State must provide adequate process to ensure that voters' ballots are fairly considered and, if eligible, counted."). When an election process reaches the point ofpatent and fundamental unfairness, there is a due process violation.
59. Under the current circumstances, there is little question that Arkansas's election process is fundamentally unfair. The nature of the interest at stake in this case-the right to vote and to have that vote count-is the most precious liberty interest of all because it is preservative of all other basic civil and political rights.
60. But the challenged provision threatens to deprive voters of this right in the upcoming election. Given the unprecedented situation at hand, Arkansas must establish adequate procedures to ensure that voters have a reliable, fair, effective and safe method to cast their ballots in the March 31, 2020 election.
61. Because the challenged provision is markedly inadequate in all of these respects, and substitute procedures are readily available to protect voters' rights with minimal burden to the
16

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 17 of 19
State, the challenged law violates Arkansas voters' procedur~l due process rights. Count 3: The Challenged Provision Violates
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10301) 62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein. 63. Section 2 ofthe Voting Rights Act prohibits vote denial: the use of voting laws, policies, or practices, like absentee ballot procedures and qualifications, that deny, abridge, or otherwise limit Black voter access or increase the burden for Black people to exercise the right to vote. 52 U.S.C. §10301. Discriminatory intent is not required to prove a Section 2 violation. 64. Section 2 requires a "totality of the circumstances" analysis to prove that Plaintiffs and other Black voters "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 52 U.S.C. § 1030l(b). 65. Under the totality of circumstances, the challenged provision has the result of denying or abridging the rights of Plaintiffs in that Black voters have less opportunity than white voters in the State of Arkansas to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice in violation of Section 2. 52 U.S.C. § 10301. 66. Black voters bear the effects of past and present racial discrimination in Arkansas. 67. For example, the State of Arkansas has a thoroughly documented and judicially recognized history of official racial discrimination against Black voters, racially polarized voting in state and local elections, and unresponsiveness to the needs of Black voters. See, e.g., Taylor v. Howe, 225 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2000); Harvell v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 71 F.3d 1382 (8th Cir. 1995) (en bane); Jeffers v. Clinton, 740 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Ark. 1990) (three-judge court). 68. The State has also erected barriers, like restrictive voter registration and photo identification laws, that have made it harder for Black people and low-income people to register
17

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 18 of 19
to vote or cast ballots. See, e.g., Martin v. Kohls, 444 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2014); Arkansas Cmty. Org.for Reform Now v. Clinton, No. 84-49, 1987 WL 1557249 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 28, 1987).
69. Among other racial disparities, the State's history ofracial discrimination results in Black voters being poorer and having less access to transportation and less access to health insurance than·white voters in Arkansas. Black people in Arkansas are-also less economically secure than white people and are more likely to be unemployed and work in blue collar jobs than white people.
70. As a result of these longstanding disparities, the financial crisis brought about because ofthe COVID-19 outbreak bears more heavily on African American voters. And, because white people are more likely to have a higher income and to hold white-collar jobs, they are more likely than Black people to be able to work remotely and to weather the current health and financial cns1s.
71. Given the COVID-19 crisis, the challenged provision interacts with this history of discrimination to make it more difficult for Black voters to vote and have their votes counted than white voters in Arkansas.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 72. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to violate the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by conducting elections under the challenged provisions. 73. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to enter an order:
a. Declaring that in the context ofthe current Coronavirus crisis, the Election Day Receipt Deadline is unconstitutional in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act;
b. Enjoining Defendants and their respective agents, officers, employees, and
18

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 19 of 19
successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at the county clerk's office within a minimum often days after Election Day; Ballots that do not have a postmark or other marking from the USPS shall be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day; a. Ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiffs' costs, expenses, and other reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 52 U.S.C. § 103 lO(e); and b. Ordering any such additional relief as the interests ofjustice may require.
Respectfully sub~tted on March 26, 2020,
i;ftili ----=:::::::::
President and Director-Counsel Leah C. Aden* Deuel Ross* Omavi Shukur (Arkansas Bar No. 2016067) NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 laden@naacpldf.org dross@naacpldf.org oshakur@naacpldf.org *Pro Hae Vice Motions forthcoming
19

 
 Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs Debra Mays, Rev. Johnny Smith, Jr. and the Christian Ministerial Alliance, by and through their attorneys, respectfully move the Court pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a temporary restraining order and, after further proceedings, a preliminary injunction restraining Defendants and their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the requirement that the county clerk receive absentee ballots by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day to be counted (“Election Day Receipt Deadline”) for the March 31, 2020 runoff election.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction because they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Election Day Receipt Deadline unconstitutionally burdens the rights of Arkansas voters, particularly Black voters. The United States is in the throes of an unprecedented crisis. As COVID-19 spreads throughout the country, Americans, including Arkansas residents, have been strongly urged by federal and state authorities to socially distance themselves to try to slow the spread of the disease in a communal effort to save their friends, neighbors, and families.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4
Arkansas voters, including Plaintiffs and their members and constituents, should not also be forced to make the untenable choice between their safety and potentially endangering the lives of others and exercising their fundamental right to vote. Yet, the Election Day Receipt Deadline does just that. It imposes an arbitrary deadline for citizens who reasonably determine they cannot safely vote in person that simply cannot be met in the current crisis. If it is not enjoined and voters are not adequately informed of the injunction during this unprecedented crisis, the Election Day Receipt Deadline will pose significant risks to voters seeking to exercise their right to vote in the upcoming March 31, 2020 election and in any election held while the crisis persists.
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 Arkansas voters outweighs any putative harm to the State, and the relief Plaintiffs seek is in the public interest. In order to maintain the status quo pending determination of their motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs seek an immediate temporary restraining order to prevent these immediate and irreparable injuries to Arkansas voters’ rights.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant an immediate Temporary Restraining Order and, after further proceedings, a Preliminary Injunction that: (a) enjoins the rejection of ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at a polling place or the county clerk’s office within, at a minimum, ten days of Election Day and (b) requires that ballots without a postmark or other marking from the United States Postal Service be presumed to have been mailed on or before Election Day. Plaintiffs further request that Defendants provide voters with adequate and accurate notice of its injunction and the procedures for voting absentee during the current crisis.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2020.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur (Arkansas Bar No. 2016067) Leah C. Aden* Deuel Ross* NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshakur@naacpldf.org laden@naacpldf.org dross@naacpldf.org
*Pro Hac Vice Motions forthcoming

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 27, 2020, I filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF
system, which will send a copy to all counsel of record.
/s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshukur@naacpldf.org

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiffs in this action have moved the Court pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the requirement that the county clerk receive absentee ballots by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day to be counted for the March 31, 2020 runoff election. For good cause shown, the Court grants the Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants and their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, are enjoined from rejecting of absentee ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at a polling place or the county clerk’s office within, at a minimum, of ten days after Election Day. The Court orders that Defendants and their agents must presume that ballots without a postmark or other marking from the United States Postal Service were mailed on or before Election Day. The Court further orders Defendants to confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to devise a plan for immediately notifying all voters eligible to vote in the March 31, 2020 runoff election of this

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 2-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2 injunction and the procedures for voting absentee during the current COVID-19 crisis.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2020.
JAMES M. MOODY JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, Debra Mays, Rev. Johnny Smith, Jr. and the Christian Ministerial Alliance, file this memorandum in support of their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Defendants, Secretary of State Thurston and Governor Hutchinson, to address the immediate and severe effects the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the Arkansas runoff election scheduled for March 31, 2020.
Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court grant emergency relief today because an Arkansas statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-411(a)(1)(A), requires election officials to discard absentee ballots received after 7:30 p.m. on Election Day (“Election Day Receipt Deadline” or “challenged provision”). Although Defendants have suspended other absentee balloting deadlines and have the power to suspend this deadline as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have not done so.
Arkansas, Benton, Conway, Craighead, Garland, Grant, Greene, Hot Spring, Jefferson, Lonoke, Saline and White counties are holding runoff elections this coming Tuesday. Yet, absent intervention by the Court, Plaintiffs, their members, and other voters will have no assurance that absentee ballots placed in the mail in the coming days will be counted, leading to the effective

1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 17
disenfranchisement of potentially thousands of citizens attempting to participate in the election. With the directives and guidance from the federal and state government for people
throughout the country, including in Arkansas, to stay in their homes, voting in person is simply not feasible.
Arkansas will almost certainly have a dramatic increase in voting by-mail in the runoff election and, in all likelihood, in the November general election. With the impending surge in mailin ballots, there is a strong likelihood that large numbers of Arkansas voters, like Plaintiffs, will not receive their mail-in ballots in time or be able to mail them in time to arrive before the 7:30 p.m. deadline on March 31. Arkansas voters should not be forced to violate state directives and risk their health and that of their families, friends, and communities to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
Absent relief from the Court, those ballots will be thrown away and citizens will be disenfranchised. There is no legitimate reason for the State to continue to impose this Election Day receipt deadline and certainly not the type of extremely compelling state interest that the State must show given the potential widespread disenfranchisement of Arkansas voters.
Accordingly, immediate relief is required to protect the basic rights of Plaintiffs and thousands of other Arkansas citizens. “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). Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enjoin Defendants and their agents from rejecting absentee ballots that are postmarked on or before the March 31 election and arrive at the county clerk’s office within a minimum of ten days thereafter.
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 17
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Arkansas runoff election is currently scheduled for Tuesday March 31, 2020. Today, March 26, is less than a week away from the Election Day Receipt Deadline. A voter seeking to vote by-mail absentee must submit an application no later than March 30, 2020. The Governor recently issued Executive Order No. 20-08, which extended the deadline in Arkansas Code § 7-5404(a)(3)(A)(ii) for absentee ballot applications to be submitted by email, fax, or mail to March 30, 2020. Ex. 1. Nonetheless, the voter must still receive and mail her or his absentee ballot so that it arrives at the county clerk’s office by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day. Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-411(a)(1)(A). If the absentee ballot arrives after 7:30 p.m. on Election Day—even if cast long before Election Day—it is rejected and the voter is disenfranchised. Id. Voters must navigate these requirements in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis enveloping the world. Arkansas is not exempt from the coronavirus or COVID-19. As of March 25, at least 232 people in the State had tested positively for the illness and two people have died from it. Ex. 2. And, effective March 11, the Governor declared a state of emergency and has ordered people to work from home, advised them to minimize personal contact, to avoid large gatherings, and to stay home if they are ill, and urged everyone to practice social distancing. Ex. 3. Restaurants, bars, barbershops, and other businesses, Ex. 4, and all public schools have been ordered closed or to limit their services. Ex. 5. County clerks offices too, are shuttering or running limited hours and cutting back on inperson polling sites across Arkansas, Ex. 6, including those in Jefferson County where Plaintiffs and their members reside. Ex. 7. Most Arkansas voters are therefore unlikely to be familiar with the absentee voting process.
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 17
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, in mail-in absentee voting, same-day voter registration has been an unpopular option. In 2018, for example, 2% of voters cast mail-in absentee ballots. Ex. 8 at 28. In the 2016 election, about 3% of voters cast mail-in absentee ballots. Ex. 9 at 23.
In light of the current crisis, however, requests for absentee ballots are increasing. As the coronavirus and its effects continue to spread, there is little reason to expect these numbers to abate. Ex. 6.
But not all these absentee ballots will be counted—even if they are cast on or before Election Day. Even voters who have already applied for or who have received their absentee ballots today have mere days to mail the ballots, with a significant risk that they will not arrive by the Election Day Receipt Deadline to be counted. As a result, it is highly likely that many absentee ballots will arrive after 7:30 p.m. on Election Day and, as state law dictates, they will be rejected.
A significant number of mail-in absentee ballots in Arkansas are often rejected because the ballots are not returned by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day or do not meet other absentee voting requirements In 2018, Arkansas rejected over 7.5% of the absentee ballots cast (1,150 of 17,120). Ex. 8 at 28. In 2016, it rejected 5.4% of absentee ballots (1,614). Ex. 9 at 23. Thus, if, for instance, all 413,254 Arkansans who voted early at in-person sites in 2018 switched to mail-in absentee voting in the 2020, up to 31,000 voters (7.5%) could have their ballots rejected.
Plaintiff the Christian Ministerial Alliance wrote to the Secretary asking that he attempt to address the absentee voting concerns caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Ex. 10. Yet, the Secretary failed to respond to the Alliance’s letter or concerns.
LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice to Defendants if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 17
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Where the adverse party has received notice of a motion for a temporary restraining order and a hearing has been held on the motion, it is proper for the court to consider the motion as one for a preliminary injunction. See Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Van Hollen, 963 F. Supp. 2d 858, 865 (W.D. Wis. 2013).
The same showing is required to obtain either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. See ACLU of Minnesota v. Kiffmeyer, No. 04-CV-4653, 2004 WL 2428690, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2004).
The Court must consider: (1) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties to the litigation; and (4) the public interest. Id. (citing Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981)).
Likelihood of success on the merits is the “most significant” factor. See League of Women Voters of Missouri v. Ashcroft, 336 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1002–03 (W.D. Mo. 2018). A court may, however, apply a “sliding scale in weighing whether preliminary relief is warranted.” Van Hollen, 963 F. Supp. 2d at 864. “[T]he more net harm an injunction can prevent, the weaker the plaintiff’s claim on the merits can be while supporting some preliminary relief.” Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009).
ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
The Election Day Receipt Deadline threatens to disenfranchise Plaintiffs and other valid voters during an unprecedented public health crisis and deprive voters of due process in violation of the Constitution. Plaintiffs are therefore highly likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 17
1. “Anderson-Burdick” Claim. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First and Fourteenth Amendment claim that the Election Day Receipt Deadline violates their fundamental right to vote. The challenged provision severely restricts Arkansas voters’ right to vote by forcing them to venture out in public during a public health crisis—contrary to governmental guidance—or else not vote. Under the Anderson/Burdick balancing test, the Supreme Court requires courts to “weigh ‘the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights . . . that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’ against ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,’” considering “‘the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788–89 (1983)). This inquiry is highly fact-specific and the Court must apply a “flexible standard.” Id. When voting rights are severely restricted, a law “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 280 (1992). Courts have repeatedly recognized that disenfranchisement severely burdens the right to vote—and that even disenfranchising a small number of voters can give rise to a severe burden. See, e.g., League of Women Voters of N.C. (“LWV”) v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 244 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1321 (11th Cir. 2019); Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580, 597 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the Election Day Receipt Deadline operates to disenfranchise thousands of voters. The challenged provision requires that absentee ballots be received by election offices no later than 7:30 p.m. on Election Day. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many voters—including Plaintiffs Ms. Mays and Rev. Smith—have reasonably determined that they cannot safely venture
6

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 17
out in public to vote in person. Indeed, the Governor has strongly urged individuals to stay at home and avoid public gatherings. Plaintiffs and many other individuals will abide by this guidance and will not leave their homes to go to the county clerk’s office or a polling place on Election Day or during the early vote period. Thus, they must vote absentee by mail or not at all.
Yet, many Arkansas citizens have not yet applied to vote absentee for the March 31, 2020 runoff election, which means it is unlikely they will be able to receive their ballots, and return them in time to meet the Election Day Receipt Deadline. This is not the fault of the voters. Instead, it is because Defendants only recently extended the deadline to request absentee ballots, Ex. 1, and Defendants have failed to adequately notify Arkansas voters, including Plaintiffs, of the increased access to absentee voting and related changes to the deadlines.
In fact, the Secretary’s website does not mention Executive Order No. 20-08, which extended the deadline until March 30 for people to submit absentee ballot applications via email, fax, or mail. As of today, only information about absentee voting in this crisis is a March 18 press release about the runoff, which includes the incorrect March 24 deadline for remotely requesting absentee ballots. Ex. 10. The Jefferson County clerk’s website, Ex. 7, also contains deadlines and information about the absentee ballot process that are inconsistent with both Executive Order No. 20-08, Ex. 1, and the Election Day Receipt Deadline.
The March 31 Election Day Receipt Deadline is less than a week away. This means that, despite the Governor’s extension of the deadline to remotely request an absentee ballot, thousands of voters will not have a reasonable opportunity to request, receive, and then mail their absentee ballot with an assurance that the ballot will arrive in time to be counted. For example, the Governor’s order allows a voter to send an email requesting an absentee ballot on Monday, March 30, 2020. But, due to the challenged provision, the voter’s only means of guaranteeing that she can
7

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 17
both receive and submit the absentee ballot before the Election Day Receipt Deadline would be for the voter to appear in-person to cast that ballot by 7:30 on Election Day.
Even voters who have already applied for absentee ballots will have, at most, mere days to receive and mail them, with a significant risk that they will not arrive by the Election Day Receipt Deadline to be counted. As a result, it is highly likely that many absentee ballots will arrive after the Election Day Receipt Deadline due to no fault of the voters. These same impediments to voting will continue for any election that occurs while this crisis persists.
Election deadlines must give way when, as a result of emergency circumstances, those deadlines operate to prevent votes from being cast and counted. See Fla. Dem. Party v. Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1257 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (holding that the state imposed a “severe burden on the right to vote” when the hurricane and subsequent evacuations prevented eligible voters from registering to vote); Ga. Coal. for the Peoples’ Agenda, Inc., v. Deal, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1345 (S.D. Ga. 2016) (granting preliminary injunction to extend voter registration deadline due to a hurricane). Because the Election Day Receipt Deadline “would categorically deny the right to vote” to thousands of individual, it would be “nonsensical to prioritize th[at] deadline[] over the right to vote.” Fla. Dem. Party, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 1258.
In an analogous situation, a court allowed ballots received after Election Day to be counted due to the anthrax attacks of 2002. In re Holmes, 788 A.2d 291 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2002). The court held that “rigid application of the rule that all ballots be received by the board by 8:00 P.M. of Election Day would unfairly deprive absentee voters of their franchise as a result of exceptional circumstances neither within their control nor which, in light of human experience, might reasonably be expected.” Id. at 295. And courts regularly order the extension of election deadlines to ensure compliance with federal laws that protect the rights of citizens who live overseas to vote
8

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 17
absentee. See, e.g., United States v. Alabama, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1241 (M.D. Ala. 2012); Doe v. Walker, 746 F. Supp. 2d 667, 677 (D. Md. 2010); United States v. Cunningham, No. 3:08-cv709, 2009 WL 3350028, at *4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2009).
Although this motion does not address the Voting Rights Act claim, the Anderson-Burdick analysis must also consider the burden on specific groups of voters, such as African Americans. See, e.g., Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 664 (6th Cir. 2016).
Here, the failure to provide Black voters with the same notice and opportunity to vote absentee as white voters contributes to this disparate impact. Each of the 22,000 voters eligible to vote in the runoff in Benton County, with an over 90% white population, were mailed notices about the relaxed absentee voter requirements and deadlines. Ex. 6. But, the voters in the majority African American Jefferson County—including Plaintiffs Ms. Mays and Rev. Smith—did not get similar individual notices. Id.; see Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson Cty., No. 2:10-CV-095, 2010 WL 4226614, at *3 (D.N.D. Oct. 21, 2010). (“Native American are more likely to have not received a ballot application, which when coupled with a decreased ability to vote in person, creates a disparate impact”); Brown v. Post, 279 F. Supp. 60, 64-65 (W.D. La. 1968) (holding that officials violated Section 2 by soliciting absentee ballots from white voters, but not from Black voters).
Rather, the Jefferson County clerk’s website includes incorrect information about the absentee ballot application and receipt deadlines. Ex. 7. In the midst of this crisis and the changes to absentee voting rules made by Defendants, Defendants must ensure that all voters are given the same, accurate information about absentee voting as others. See United States v. Post, 297 F. Supp. 46, 51 (W.D. La. 1969) (holding that officials who, acting in good faith, provided erroneous instructions on voting machines denied Black voters an effective ballot in an election).
There are also significant socioeconomic disparities between Black and white voters in
9

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 17
Arkansas that will result in Black voters disproportionately bearing the burdens of complying with the Election Day Receipt Deadline and the lack of adequate notice to voters about the absentee voting process. See Ex. 12 (Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 10-11); Compl., Doc. 1 ¶¶ 45-48, 62-74.
Faced with this clear burden on the right to vote, Arkansas would have to justify—at a minimum—a “precise interest” in maintaining the Election Day Deadline. Anderson cite. It cannot do so. No “precise interest” Arkansas articulates can justify the burdens the Challenged Provisions inflicts on its voters. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. First, while the State has an interest in identifying a deadline for receiving absentee ballots, it has no precise interest in limiting that deadline to Election Day.
In response to the crisis, the Governor has already suspended other deadlines. He has allowed voters to continue to send in absentee ballot applications via email, fax, or mail through Election Day. Ex. 1. Yet the state is arbitrarily keeping the Election Day Receipt Deadline. This creates a Kafkaesque situation wherein Arkansas voters are allowed to continue requesting ballots, but they have no guarantee that ballots mailed in the next several days will arrive in time to be counted.
While the state has an interest in ensuring the finality of elections, rejecting validly cast ballots that happen to arrive after 7:30 p.m. on Election Day as a result of circumstances caused by a pandemic does not serve that interest. In fact, this purported state interest is undercut by Arkansas’s own processes. Ballots are still being processed long after Election Day. Voters who cast provisional ballots have until the Monday after Election Day (April 6) to perfect their ballots. Ark. Code. Ann. § 7-5-308(f)(2)(A). And, depending on the elected office at issue, state law gives election officials between 15 and 19 days after Election Day to certify the election results. Ark. Code. Ann. §§ 7-5-701(a)(4), (c)(1).
10

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 17
Therefore, Defendants and their agents have ample time to accept and count validly cast absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive at some point thereafter. Doing so would not violate Arkansas’s interest in the finality of elections.
2. Procedural Due Process claim Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on their procedural due process claim. Arkansas cannot deprive any person of liberty without “due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In the current environment of self-quarantines, the shuttering of significant portions of the national and global economies, and social distancing amidst an extraordinary global pandemic, the Election Day Receipt Deadline does just that because it operates to deprive citizens’ liberty interest in voting without process. In considering a due process challenge such as this one, courts must first consider “‘private interest that will be affected by the official action.’” Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520, 525 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). Next, courts must consider the “fairness and reliability” of the existing procedures and the “probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343. Finally, courts assess the public interest, “includ[ing] the administrative burden and other societal costs that would be associated with” additional or substitute procedures. Id. at 347. Each of these factors weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor here. First, the right to vote is unquestionably a liberty interest and cannot be “confiscated without due process.” Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Election Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1357 (D. Ariz. 1990). This liberty interest extends to by-mail voting in Arkansas. See, e.g., Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 215 (D.N.H. 2018) (“voter has a sufficient liberty interest once ‘the State permits voters to vote absentee.’”) (quoting Zessar v. Helander, 2006 WL 642646, at *5
11

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 17
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2006)). Second, the challenged provision is neither fair nor reliable in the context of a growing
global pandemic. The administrative burden on Arkansas in extending time in which a likely avalanche of absentee ballots may be received and counted is marginal compared to the deprived liberty interest. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Third, the degree of deprivation resulting from the Election Day Receipt Deadline is extraordinarily high. This deprivation is neither hypothetical nor speculative; it is happening each day that the coronavirus spreads, governments respond to the growing threat, and individuals opt to take extraordinary precautions to avoid the pandemic in the form of physical isolation. Already, Arkansas voters have requested—and continue to request—increased levels of absentee voting. See Ex. 6.
B. An injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. The Election Day Receipt Deadline operates to inflict two irreparable harms on Arkansas
voters. First, it results in disenfranchisement of Plaintiffs and other voters. The loss of these constitutional “freedoms . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). And “[c]ourts routinely deem restrictions on fundamental voting rights irreparable injury.” LWV, 769 F.3d at 247 (collecting citations); see also League of Women Voters of Missouri v. Ashcroft, 336 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1005 (W.D. Mo. 2018); Kiffmeyer, 2004 WL 2428690, at *2 (finding that the denial of the right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).
Once the election comes and goes, “there can be no do-over and no redress.” LWV, 769 F.3d at 247; see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law”).
Second, the challenged law contributes to public health risks. It operates to encourage
12

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 17
determined registrants and voters, like Plaintiffs and its organizational members, to venture out into the world and interact face-to-face with people—despite what numerous governmental entities are warning against doing. At worst, the challenged law risks exposing Arkansas voters to an ailment that has already claimed thousands of lives nationally and internationally. Cf. Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming preliminary injunction barring county from closing hospital because doing so would cause irreparable harm to patients and cause “exacerbation of the current overcrowded situation and additional suffering . . . avoided” by enjoining closure). “[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. Electric Co., 917 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2019). The statements of Defendants show that the risk of substantial danger to the public health is substantial, imminent, and ongoing. See Exs. 1, 3, 4-5, 8.
C. Traditional legal remedies will not adequately protect Plaintiffs’ rights. Because Plaintiffs and their members and constituents face the inability to vote in-person
without exposing themselves to the coronavirus and negatively impacting public health, traditional legal remedies are inadequate. Money damages cannot adequately remedy a constitutional violation. 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).
More specifically, money damages cannot cure disenfranchisement post hoc. Cf. Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Thurston, 394 F. Supp. 3d 882, 919 (E.D. Ark. 2019). Given the close proximity of the runoff election, it is certain than an election will occur, necessitating action from this Court to ensure that Plaintiffs’ and their constituents’ rights are not violated.
13

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 17
D. The balance of hardships weighs in favor of an injunction. The balance of the equities favors Plaintiff. An injunction would protect the fundamental right to vote for potentially thousands of
voters and the health of the public by removing barriers to voting during a time of an unprecedented public health crisis. “It would be untenable to permit a law with a discriminatory effect to remain in operation for [an upcoming] election.” Veasey, 830 F.3d at 270.
While Defendants and their agents will have a handful more administrative tasks, mild inconvenience is outweighed by the vindication of constitutional rights. See Taylor v. Louisiana., 419 U.S. 522, 535 (1975) (holding “administrative convenience” cannot justify practices that impinge upon fundamental rights). “Any potential hardship [to Arkansas] . . . pales in comparison to that imposed by unconstitutionally depriving those voters of their right to vote and to have their votes counted.” Fla. Dem. Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16-cv-607, 2016 WL 6090943, at *26 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016).
“The potential hardships that [Defendants and their agents] might experience 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). “[I]nconvenience” to officials, including having to adjust their schedules, does not amount to substantial harm. See Covington v. North Carolina, 270 F. Supp. 3d 881, 895 (M.D. N.C. 2017) (three-judge court). Likewise, the increased administrative burden of “disseminating information” and “training poll managers. . . is minimal compared to the potential loss of a right to vote.” Ga. Coal. for People’s Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1268 (N.D. Ga. 2018). Under state law, Defendants unquestionably have the authority to take the necessary action now to protect the right to vote in this state of emergency.
14

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 15 of 17
E. An injunction is in the public interest. Without question, an injunction that is aimed to protect the public from more exposure to
the coronavirus and avoid disenfranchisement is in the public interest. “[I]njunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest.” Christian Legal Soc’y, 453 F.3d at 859. “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. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (N.D. Fla. 2012). This is because “[t]he public interest . . . favors permitting as many qualified voters to vote as possible.” Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 437 (6th Cir. 2012). Enjoining the challenged provision here would do precisely that— allow as many qualified Arkansas voters as possible to safely vote.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order that requires Defendants to accept ballots that are postmarked before or on Election Day that arrive within 10 days of Election Day and to provide adequate notice to voters and election officials of this extension and the absentee voting process.
15

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 16 of 17
Dated this 27th day of March, 2020. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur (Arkansas Bar No. 2016067) Leah C. Aden* Deuel Ross* NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshakur@naacpldf.org laden@naacpldf.org dross@naacpldf.org *Pro Hac Vice Motions forthcoming
16

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 27, 2020, I filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a copy to all counsel of record. /s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshukur@naacpldf.org
17

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al.,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

DECLARATION OF DEUEL ROSS DEUEL ROSS declares, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. I am an attorney
for Plaintiffs. I am barred in New York and have moved to be admitted Pro Hac Vice before this Court in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration on behalf of the Plaintiffs to provide true and correct copies of certain documents submitted in connection with Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
2. A true and correct copy of Executive Order No. 20-08 issued by the Governor of
Arkansas on March 20, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. A true and correct copy of “Two die of coronavirus in Arkansas,” an Arkansas
Democrat Gazette news article, dated March 24, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
4. A true and correct copy of Executive Order No. 20-06 issued by the Governor of
Arkansas on March 11, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
5. A true and correct copy of memorandum from the Arkansas Department of
Health, dated March 23, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 3
6. A true and correct copy of an Associated Press article entitled “Arkansas Expands
Restrictions, School Closure Over Virus,” dated March 19, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
7. A true and correct copy of an Arkansas Democrat Gazette article entitled
“Election officials in Arkansas proceed carefully,” dated March 22, 2020, is attached hereto as Ex. 6.
8. A true and correct copy of an undated Press Release issued by the Jefferson
County Clerk Shawndra Taggart is attached hereto as Ex. 7.
9. A true and correct copy of the 2018 Election Administration and Voting Survey
Report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
10. A true and correct copy of the 2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey
Report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
11. A true and correct copy of a Letter from Deuel Ross, et al. to the Arkansas Secretary
of State, dated March 24, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
12. A true and correct copy of a Press Release issued by the Arkansas Secretary of
State, dated March 18, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
13. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of William S. Cooper, dated March 26,
2020—which includes true and correct copies of, inter alia, Mr. Cooper’s curriculum vitae, and population, geographic, and socioeconomic data relied upon by Mr. Cooper from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey—is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
14. I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing
is true and correct.
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 3

Dated: March 27, 2020

Deuel Ross

3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-2 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede1 of 8



Search Latest Coronavirus Elections Core values App Listen Story ideas iPad Weath
ADVERTISEMENT

Two die of coronavirus in Arkansas; virus cases rise to 232 statewide
by Eric Besson, Francisca Jones, Nyssa Kruse | March 24, 2020 at 7:20 p.m. 0
Follow

Gov. Asa Hutchinson, center, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday where he announced the first deaths from covid19 in the state of Arkansas.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 1/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede2 of 8 For our community, now there’s unlimited access for all covid-19 news online from
the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

7:20 p.m. UPDATE:
The number of Arkansans testing positive for the coronavirus increased by two to 232 Tuesday evening, according to a state website. Earlier Tuesday, the site listed 230 cases.

Coronavirus Updates
Stay up to date with the latest news regarding the coronavirus pandemic.
Email Address

Sign Up

5 p.m. UPDATE:
The number of Arkansans testing positive for the coronavirus had increased to 230 as of Tuesday afternoon, according to a state website. Earlier Tuesday, the site had listed 218 cases.
Yahoo Search
Sponsored

⌃

Unexpected Signs of Psoriatic Arthritis Read More
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 2/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede3 of 8

3:36 p.m. UPDATE:

The rst two people to die from covid-19 in Arkansas were a 59-year-old Sherwood man and a 91year-old man from Cleburne County. The man from Cleburne County was a member of a church that is reportedly connected to at least 34 virus cases, another church member said.

The man from Sherwood died at 4 a.m. Tuesday at Baptist Health Medical Center in North Little Rock, according to Julie Voegele, Pulaski County's chief deputy coroner.

Voegle declined to release the man's name, saying she was not sure if family had been noti ed.

The man had a "signi cant medical history," including respiratory and cardiac problems, Voegele said.

The 91-year-old man died at 8 a.m. Tuesday at Conway Regional Medical Center, a deputy Faulkner County coroner con rmed.

Deputy coroner Robert Edwards could not immediately provide the name of the man, who was a Cleburne County resident.

Gracie Campbell, a member of Greers Ferry First Assembly of God in Greers Ferry, later con rmed that Bill Barton was a member and door greeter at the church.

Jeff Crites of Bishop-Crites Funeral Home in Greenbrier said Tuesday that the home is handling the arrangements.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson noted Arkansas' rst two deaths from coronavirus at a news conference where he also said the state is not considering a shelter-in-place order at this time.

Hutchinson said he did not want to issue such an order because he believes it would create dif cult-toanswer questions of when businesses might reopen or create supply chain issues.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

More related headlines
3rd patient dies of virus in state; $116M plan taps Medicaid funds 3rd person to die of virus linked to Greers Ferry church; cases rise to 349 in state State tightens controls; virus cases hit 308 State sees first covid-19 deaths MARCH 25 UPDATE: State to ban gatherings over 10 people; virus cases at 301 Governor extends individual tax deadline, says special session needed; virus cases hit 201
ADVERTISEMENT

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 3/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede4 of 8

LIVE: Governor Hutchinson Provides COVID-19 Update to …

[Video not showing up above? Click here to watch » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odm3YrdBYc]
He also said most orders are too broad and believes the more speci c orders he and the Health Department have made so far — closing beauty salons and tattoo parlors, ending dine-in options at restaurants — are better.
Hutchinson said the state received almost 28,000 face masks for healthcare workers overnight from the national stockpile. Another 1 million units of personal protective equipment is scheduled to begin arriving this weekend.
Health Secretary Dr. Nate Smith said people should continue social distancing and advised families to carefully consider plans for funerals and memorials.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 4/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede5 of 8

He said those gatherings can be a place to transmit the virus to family members, including older people. He advised people to limit gatherings to close family members, to have ceremonies outdoors, to physically distance themselves from one another and to consider delaying large memorial services until after the outbreak.

He said these measures protect not just families but funeral directors as well.

The number of positive cases remained at 218 as of the 1:30 p.m. news conference, Smith said.

Among the sick are 11 children, 134 adults age 19-64 and 73 who are 65 and older.

Smith said 14 patients are hospitalized including six on ventilators. Ten people have recovered from the illness so far, he said.

Hutchinson also pointed to his previous guidance to companies, including allowing employees to work from home when possible.

The news conference came on the heels of an interview in which President Trump seemed to indicate a desire to return to business as normal in the United States by Easter, April 12.

Hutchinson said he had not heard the remarks but believed the president was trying to give people hope.

He said he believes Arkansas is only at the beginning of its outbreak and will see “more disruption” in the coming weeks.

Hutchinson said he's been advised what Arkansas is seeing in terms of the virus right now is "the calm before the storm."

Smith said he believes April 12 will likely be too early to return to business as usual.

Read Wednesday’s Democrat-Gazette for full details.

EARLIER:

The Arkansas Department of Health reported Tuesday afternoon that 218 people have tested positive for coronavirus in Arkansas.

The number of total cases increased by 12 since Tuesday morning, when the agency reported 206 cases. So far, seven people have recovered from the virus. One person has died, according to the Faulkner County deputy coroner.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson and state health of cials plan to provide an update on the spread of coronavirus in Arkansas at 1:30 p.m. Check back to watch the conference live.
Topics
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 5/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede6 of 8

Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, Cleburne county, coronavirus, Sherwood, Nate Smith, Arkansas Department of Health, Faulkner county

, Robert Edwards, Pulaski county, Conway Regional Medical Center, Health Department, Baptist Health Medical Center,

Gracie Campbell, Bill Barton, Ferry First Assembly

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Articles

3rd patient dies of virus in state; $116M plan taps Medicaid funds
Sponsor Content

3rd person to die of virus linked State tightens controls; virus to Greers Ferry church; cases cases hit 308 rise to 349 in state

Plastic Surgeon Tells: “Doing This Every Morning Can Snap Back Sagging Skin (No Creams Needed)”
Beverly Hills MD

Before you renew Amazon Prime, read this
Wikibuy

Recommended For You

[Pics] Mom has no idea why vacation photo went viral, then she sees the background
When she went to recreate the photo she never knew what she wa…
Obsev

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 6/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede7 of 8

MARCH 25 UPDATE: State to ban gatherings over 10 people; virus cases at 301

Little Rock to extend nightly curfew, mayor says

State sees rst covid-19 deaths

SPONSOR CONTENT
Why a Bigger Diamond Isn’t Necessarily Better
By Gemological Institute of America

ADVERTISEMENT
Recommended For You
Arkadelphia's Eldridge recommended for NLR head coaching spot
RESTAURANT TRANSITIONS: Eateries cook up new ways to run — or just close
What's in store: Groceries installing barriers amid outbreak
State tightens controls; virus cases hit 308
3rd person to die of virus linked to Greers Ferry church; https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mari/24/marc3h-4249-uipdate-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 7/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-0034Tw1o-JdiMe of cDorooncavuirmuseinnAtrk3a-n3sas;Fviriules dcas0e3s /r2ise7t/o22032 sPtataewgiede8 of 8 cases rise to 349 in state

News



Sports



Features



Web Extras



Promotions



Other



Contact



Digital Replica Info



Contact Us Terms of Use Advertise With Us
Copyright © 2020, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
Material from the Associated Press is Copyright © 2020, Associated Press and may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and noncommercial use. The AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing. All rights reserved.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/24/march-24-update-206-total-cases-confirmed-arkansas/?bcsubid=8247bcea-1076-4eaf-aee8-6b0c… 8/8

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-4 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-5 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1
Arkansas Department of Health
4815 West Markham Street ● Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 ● Telephone (501) 661-2000 Governor Asa Hutchinson
Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH, Secretary of Health

To: From: Date: Regarding:

Arkansas Barbers, Body Artists, Cosmetologists, Massage Therapist, and Spas Dr. Nate Smith, Secretary of Health March 23, 2020 Directive to Barbers, Body Art Establishments, Body Art Schools, Cosmetology Establishments, Massage Therapy Clinics/Spas, and Medical Spas

The Secretary of Health, in consultation with the Governor, has sole authority over all instances of quarantine, isolation, and restrictions on commerce and travel throughout Arkansas, as necessary and appropriate to control disease in the state of Arkansas as authorized by Ark. Code Ann. §20-7-109—110 and the Arkansas State Board of Health Rules Pertaining to Reportable Disease (2019). Based on available scientific evidence, it is necessary and appropriate to take further action to ensure that COVID-19 remains controlled and that residents and visitors in Arkansas remain safe.

While the CDC public health emergency recommendations do not apply to the day-to-day operation of certain business operations at this time, there are no reasonable assurances of recommended social distancing and safety in Barber Shops, Body Art Establishments, Body Art Schools, Cosmetology Establishments, Massage Therapy Clinics/Spas, and Medical Spas. In order to slow the spread of COVID-19, all Barbers, Body Art establishments, Body Art schools, Cosmetology establishments, Massage Therapy Clinics/Spas, and Medical Spas should close for in-person operations. Maintaining any related schools’ distance education/learning is acceptable.

This directive to Barbers, Body Art Establishments, Body Art Schools, Cosmetology Establishments and Massage Therapy Clinics/Spas, and Medical Spas is made in an attempt to reduce introduction of the virus into new communities and to slow the spread of infection in communities already affected by the virus. This directive and mandate is subject to change as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses.
This directive will be in effect as of March 25, 2020 at 12:00 p.m.

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U1SoNfe8ws NEWS

Arkansas Expands Restrictions, School Closure Over Virus
Arkansas is keeping its schools closed for another three weeks and banning sit-down service at bars and restaurants over concerns about the coronavirus outbreak.
By Associated Press, Wire Service Content March 19, 2020

In this Wednesday, March 18, 2020 photo, service representative Lisa Norwood, left, wears a mask as she takes a

driver's license photo of Jamie Easton, of North Little Rock, at the Central Revenue O ce in Little Rock, Ark.

(Thomas Metthe/The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette via AP)

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BY ANDREW DEMILLO, Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Thursday that Arkansas' schools will remain closed for an additional three weeks and he banned sit-down service at all

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

1/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U2SoNfe8ws

restaurants and bars, as the number of COVID-19 cases in the state nearly doubled in

one day.

Hutchinson detailed the new restrictions as health o cials said the number of cases of the disease caused by the coronavirus rose overnight from 37 to 62.
“We’re really separating what we need to be doing with what is optional to be doing in trying to reduce the risk of community spread and exposure, particularly of our vulnerable population,” Hutchinson said.
For most people, the virus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with preexisting health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia.
The vast majority of people recover from the virus. According to the World Health Organization, people with mild cases recover in about two weeks, while others could take three to six weeks to get well.
The state's public schools, which had been set to reopen on March 30 after a two-week closure, will now remain closed through April 17.
Starting Friday, restaurants will be allowed to offer only take-out, curbside and delivery service, he said.
“Please get your food and go home. ... For now, this is our new normal," Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott said earlier Thursday as he announced identical restrictions for his city.
Because of the dining restrictions, the state is temporarily allowing restaurants to sell beer and wine for takeout or delivery with the purchase of food. The emergency rule will also allow curbside service and delivery by liquor stores.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

2/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U3SoNfe8ws

In Little Rock, Scott said the city will allow the restaurant and bar facilities to be used for other purposes such as specialty grocery stores, as long as the maximum occupancy doesn't exceed 10 people.
Gyms in the state were also closed for non-essential services.
The governor also said the state will move to telecommuting, with on-site work limited to employees needed for the proper function of government. He also ordered hospitals, clinics and mental health facilities to screen staff and visitors for temperature and potential symptoms of the virus.
Hutchinson said students will still be taught through alternative instruction methods during the closure. The state Department of Education said it's working with Arkansas PBS to develop lessons and resources for students in kindergarten through 8th grade for districts with limited capacity to plan for and deliver additional lessons, and with Virtual Arkansas and the Arkansas Public Resource Center on options for 9th through 12th grade students.
Education Secretary Johnny Key said o cials haven't made a decision about standardized testing because of the closure but will likely have an answer in the next several days. Several states that have closed because of the outbreak have canceled their tests.
Before Thursday, Hutchinson had said he didn't see a need yet for ordering restaurants and bars to close despite other states taking that step. Little Rock on Wednesday began enforcing a curfew from 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. Fayetteville, in northwest Arkansas, had

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

3/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U4SoNfe8ws

imposed restrictions on restaurants and bars that prohibited them from lling at least

half their capacity.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

___
Follow AP coverage of the virus outbreak at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak
Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tags: Arkansas

Coronavirus Bulletin
Stay informed daily on the latest news and advice on COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Email address

Sign Up

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

4/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U5SoNfe8ws

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

The 10 Best States in the U.S.
BRANDFUSE ad content by Nitto Tire
Why Ford’s Smaller Pickup Has Plenty of Potential: Take a Look Here

The 10 Best U.S. States for Education Vermont Governor to Talk of Switch to Remote Learning

ACLU Questions Constitutionality of Stopping New York Cars

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

5/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U6SoNfe8ws
The Latest: 2 Dane County Jail Inmates Have Coronavirus

Voting Groups, Unions Sue to Force Election Postponement

Authorities Squash Western New Mexico Prison Riot

Top Dodge County Prosecutor Arrested, Accused of DUI

1 Dead in Early Morning House Fire in Northeast Albuquerque Juvenile Dies, 2 Injured in West Virginia House Fire
Load More

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

6/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U7SoNfe8ws

BEST STATES
Best States is an interactive platform developed by U.S. News for ranking the 50 U.S. states, alongside news analysis and daily reporting. The platform is designed to engage citizens and
government leaders in a discussion about what needs improvement across the country.
BEST COUNTRIES BEST STATES
HEALTHIEST COMMUNITIES NEWS CITIES
LEADERS THE REPORT
PHOTOS AMERICA 2020
EVENTS

About Our Mission Contact Press Advertise Newsletters Jobs Site Map Store

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

7/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cAvrk-a0n0sa3s4E1xp-aJnMds ReDstoricctiuonms,eSnchtoo3l-C6losuFreilOevder 0Vi3ru/s2|7A/r2ka0nsasPNaegwse| U8SoNfe8ws

Copyright 2020 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.
Terms & Conditions/Privacy Policy/California Privacy Notice/California Do Not Sell My Personal Information Request

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2020-03-19/agency-number-of-arkansas-coronavirus-cases-rises-to-46

8/8

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 1 of 8

In service to our community, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is making its online coronavirus coverage accessible for all readers.



Search Latest Coronavirus Elections Core values App Listen Story ideas iPad Weath
ADVERTISEMENT

Election o cials in Arkansas proceed carefully
by Bill Bowden, Dale Ellis | March 22, 2020 at 9:12 a.m. 2
Follow

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

1/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 2 of 8

FdeilmeIn-oSnusesrtrrrovauitcneedsettdhoebofyuusnrtcuctdoioemnnstmsofufrtnohmietyPiV,itnohetreBoAnluircffksHatonigushcahSs-csDhcoreeomel,nJoevcforftaeirnts-goGmnaCazcoehutinnteteysisEthlmeactatvikoointneCgrsoimtussmeodinssilniiontnheeecrMoSrtaourncShaof3vfeiprrru,icmsecanrotyevree,lreacgtieon.

Seventeen students from work the polls as election

PpiangeeBs.l(uAffrkHainghsaSscDhoemoloaacncrdcaetn-siGnsiaebzseltetutfdeoe/rDntaasllelfrrEoelmlaisdW) e(Dhrsiat.leeHEalllilsH) igh

School

went

through

training

to

For our community, now there’s unlimited access for all covid-19 news online from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

With covid-19 creeping across Arkansas, voters will begin going to the polls Tuesday to cast early votes in the state’s primary runoffs.
The situation is unprecedented. The Arkansas Constitution provides no mechanism for postponing the election, which is taking place during a pandemic that has infected more than 266,000 people worldwide, including 15,000 in the United States and 118 in Arkansas.

Coronavirus Updates
Stay up to date with the latest news regarding the coronavirus pandemic.
Email Address

Sign Up

In Pine Bluff, where Arkansas’ rst case of covid-19 was con rmed, poll workers are skittish, and one quit.
Across Arkansas, hand sanitizer and alcohol wipes will be deployed at polling places, and electronic voting machines, countertops, tables and anything else people touch will be cleaned regularly.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

2/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 3 of 8

In service to our comYmauhnoioty,StehaerAcrhkansas Democrat-Gazette is making its online coronavirus coverage

Sponsored

accessible for all readers.

⌃

Unexpected Signs of Psoriatic Arthritis Read More [CORONAVIRUS: Click here for our complete coverage » arkansasonline.com/coronavirus]
One county opted for paper ballots. Another is handing out pencils so voters can use the erasers on the touch screens of voting machines instead of their ngers.
Another county is having drive-thru voting. Some courthouses are closed to the public but will let people in one at a time to vote.
Voting will continue in the 12 Arkansas counties through Election Day, which is March 31.
At the direction of the state Board of Election Commissioners, of cials in those counties are working to limit the amount of contact between voters and poll workers out of fear of the coronavirus.
Holding runoffs are Arkansas, Benton, Conway, Craighead, Garland, Grant, Greene, Hot Spring, Jefferson, Lonoke, Saline and White counties.
Of cials in those counties have worked to establish sanitation procedures, cut the number of polling sites, schedule poll workers — most of whom are considered at high risk to the virus because of their age — and promote absentee balloting in an effort to keep as many voters as possible away from the polls while simultaneously working to safeguard their right to cast a ballot.
While of cials hope more voters than usual will opt to vote by absentee ballot, they are preparing for an unknown number to vote in person.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

3/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 4 of 8

EffIonrstesrtvoicme tinoiomuirzecotmhemruisnkitvy,atrhyefArormkacnosausnDtyemtooccorautn-tGya, zweittthesisomaekeinlegcittisoonnolifnecicaolrsoonpatvinirgustocohvaevreage ballots cast at a single site on Election Daacyc.essible for all readers.

JEFFERSON COUNTY

Jefferson County remains one of the hardest-hit counties with more than 10 con rmed cases of covid19.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

More related headlines
March 31runoff to go on despite the health scare Think safety for runoffs, counties told; officials prep for elections, but some calling for delay 3 states vote, but coronavirus disruptions could last weeks Arkansas Election Board provides guidance for runoff elections amid virus
ADVERTISEMENT

Do This To Fix Slow Wi-Fi
Finally, there is a new plug-in device that can double internet speeds & Wi-Fi reach. wi blastshop.com

There are two races on the ballot — one for Pine Bluff City Council and one for Jefferson County justice of the peace.

“We’ve lowered the number of polling sites to lessen the number of poll workers and the exposure factor,” Election Administrator Sven Hippsaid Thursday. “We’ve come up with a health/safety plan to require gloves and alcohol wipes at each polling site, and as of now, everything is programmed and ready to walk out the door for the election.”

Hipp said that after the rst covid-19 case was discovered in Pine Bluff, he began hearing from concerned poll workers as well as of cials in charge of the locations the county uses as polling sites, many of whom were unwilling to risk the possibility of exposure. As the threat level continues to rise in the state, concern is also rising, he said.

“I’ve had three [poll workers] call today and express concern after they raised the number [of covid-19 cases] to 62,” Hipp said Thursday. “One poll worker actually quit, and two others wanted to know if we

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

4/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 5 of 8

areInssteilrlvhiacveitnogotuhreceolmecmtiuonnitwy,itthheaAllrokfatnhsiass.”Democrat-Gazette is making its online coronavirus coverage

Hipp said at the moment he is able to fuallcycsetsasfibf ltehfeocroaullnrteya’dsesrixs.polling locations.

BENTON COUNTY

In Benton County, voters will be handed pencils, but not to write on paper ballots. They’ll be instructed to use the eraser end on the touch screen of electronic voting machines.

The pencils will be sanitized between voters, said Russell Anzalone, chairman of the Benton County Election Commission.

Anzalone said that with three early voting locations and six polling places open on Election Day, he doesn’t foresee overcrowding being a problem.

“It’s a runoff election,” he said. “We are really not inundated with voters for runoff elections.”

Samantha Hufford, deputy Benton County clerk, said 22,000 notices were mailed Tuesday to let people know they could vote by absentee ballot, and as of Thursday, the of ce had processed 118 applications. Many more are expected, she said.

“We are trying to get people to vote absentee just to cut down on the traf c,” Hufford said.

HOT SPRING COUNTY

In Hot Spring County, among other precautions, paper ballots will be used in the Glen Rose School District election so voters don’t have to touch the screens of voting machines, said Election Coordinator Liz Pfeiffer. If handicapped voters need a machine to vote, they will have access to one, she said.

She said the number of people allowed into the voting center in Malvern would be limited to 10. That probably will include three staff members and two poll workers at any given time. Pfeiffer said only the younger, healthy poll workers will be working this election.

And she said that for this election, the only polling place will be at the voting center in Malvern.

“We felt like we needed to be able to contain and monitor the situation,” she said.

SALINE COUNTY

In neighboring Saline County, which also has voters participating in the Glen Rose School District runoff, Election Coordinator Allison Cain said voters will cast ballots at a single location both for early voting and on March 31 — at the Benton Vote Center across from the Saline County Courthouse in Benton.

Cain said she has had no trouble securing poll workers to staff the voting center.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

5/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 6 of 8

“ThInesoenrveiscethtaotowurechoamvme buansitiyc,atlhlyehAarvkeannsoausnDdeemrloycirnagt-cGoanzdeitttioenissmthaaktinmgaitkseotnhleinme scuorsocneapvtiibrules ctooverage catching anything,” she said. “It’s pretty amcucecshsoibuler rfoergaulllarresawdehros.normally work the Benton Vote Center,
so we haven’t had any issues at all.”

GARLAND COUNTY

Sarah Smith, the Garland County clerk, said Wednesday that she had sent out 70 absentee ballots for the Lakeside School Board election and had requests for 25 more.

“We’ve de nitely had an increase in the requests,” she said. “We have asked people to request absentee ballots if they could based on the recommendation of the state Board of Elections.”

WHITE COUNTY

In White County, which has a runoff for Big Creek Township constable, of cials plan to utilize three polling sites.

“We normally have ve locations for that township, but due to all of this we have consolidated,” said Election Coordinator Tara McKnight. “All of our poll workers are older, so we’re trying to limit their risk as much as possible.”

McKnight said though some had expressed concerns, she had no dif culty lining up poll workers, and as recently as a week ago all were still committed to work.

“When we consolidated, I talked to them last week to be sure everyone was still OK,” she said. “They were just like, ‘Well, we’re ne.’ Everyone is still on board.”

LONOKE COUNTY

For voters who opt to show up for early voting in person in Lonoke County, the process will be conducted in a manner guaranteed to keep voters more than 6 feet apart, said Election Coordinator Kirsten Shipp.

“We’re going to be doing early voting, drive-thru, at the courthouse,” Shipp said. “We care most about our voters and we don’t want to deny them the right to vote, so we’re doing everything we can to safeguard their right to vote and their safety while doing so.”

On Election Day, voters will vote at the South Bend Fire Department in Jacksonville.

GRANT COUNTY

Voters in Grant County will have their temperatures taken outside the courthouse, said Election

Coordinator Debbie More. Those who have a normal temperature will cast their ballot on a

touchscreen machine, while those who have a fever will vote by paper. A justice of the peace seat is on

the ballot.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

6/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 7 of 8

“WIne’sreerovincleytpouotutirncgoumpmounneitmy,atchheinAerkaanndsaitswDiellmboecsratet-rGilaizzeedttaefitsemr eaakcinhgviotsteorn,”liMneocroersoaniadv. i“rWusec’lolvliemraitge courthouse access to one voter at a timeacacsewsseiblll.”e for all readers.

ARKANSAS COUNTY

In Arkansas County, in the DeWitt School Board Zone 7 runoff, County Clerk Melissa Wood said that during early voting voters will be required to call a number posted on the door, which will be locked, and they will be allowed in one at a time to cast their vote on a paper ballot. She said voters will not be screened before being allowed in.

“We can’t deny anyone their right to vote, whether they have a fever, a cough or whatever,” Wood said. “What we’ll do is — wearing gloves, masks and all of that — we’ll let them in one at a time to vote, and then we’ll sanitize the area behind each voter. Then we’ll allow the next person to come inside the building.”

GREENE COUNTY

Kristi Rawls, the election coordinator in Greene County, said there are two constable races on the ballot.

Roscoe Wood, a candidate in one of those races, died Feb. 29 during early voting. He got the same number of votes as his opponent, Claude Graves, in the March 3 election for constable for Crowley’s Ridge Township, so the two are in a runoff.

“It’s actually pretty heated,” said Rawls. “There’s just been a lot of social media talk.”

CRAIGHEAD COUNTY

Craighead County is having a Republican primary runoff for District 53 state representative.

Jennifer Clack, the Craighead County election coordinator, said the county will have forehead thermometers available for election workers to make sure they don’t have a fever.

Clack said she has a total of 23 election workers scheduled to work the two polling places during early voting — the courthouse in Jonesboro and the courthouse annex in Lake City — and seven polling places on Election Day.

CONWAY COUNTY

A Democratic primary runoff is being held for an at-large Morrilton City Council seat, said Debbie Hartman, the Conway County clerk.

Hartman said the courthouse in Morrilton has been closed to the public, so early voting will be held at an annex across the alley from the courthouse.

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

7/10

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM EDleoctcioun moffiecinalst i3n-A7rkanFsaislepdroc0e3ed/2ca7re/2fu0lly Page 8 of 8

“ItI’snwsehrevriceeotuorovuortcionmg muacnhitiyn,ethsearAerksatonrseads,”Dsehmeoscariadt.-Gazette is making its online coronavirus coverage
accessible for all readers. On Election Day, voting will be held at the Morrilton Christian Center.

“We found some young poll workers who are going to be running it that day,” said Hartman. “We’re going to do everything we can to protect the public and ourselves.”
Topics
Arkansas, Jefferson county, Benton county, Arkansas county, Lonoke county, Saline county, Craighead county, Board of Election Commissioners, Hot Spring county, Greene county, Grant county, White county, Lake city, Garland county, Big creek, Sarah Smith, Board of Elections, Conway county

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Articles

March 31runoff to go on despite the health scare
Sponsor Content

Think safety for runoffs, counties told; of cials prep for elections, but some calling for delay

3 states vote, but coronavirus disruptions could last weeks

Plastic Surgeon Tells: “Doing This Every Morning Can Snap Back Sagging Skin (No Creams Needed)”
Beverly Hills MD

Before you renew Amazon Prime, read this
Wikibuy

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/

New York: Say Bye To Expensive Solar Panels If You Own A Home in New York
top.solar
8/10

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-8 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Released by: Jefferson County Clerk Shawndra Taggart (870) 541-5322
Subject: Jefferson County Clerk Encourages Voting By Absentee Ballot for the March 31 Runoff Election
As a preventative measure to avoid COVID-19 exposure, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arkansas Department of Health and State Board of Election Commissioners recommend voting by absentee ballot in the March 31 Democratic general primary election (runoff) for JP District 13 and Pine Bluff Ward 2, position 1 city council. Steps for Absentee Voting:
 Request an absentee ballot application from the Clerk’s office or download and print a ballot
from jeffersoncountyar.gov. Go to officials/County Clerk website/over registration information or https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/elections/Absentee_Ballot_Application.pdf
 Although the courthouse is closed to the public, the County Clerk’s Office will be open during
regular business hours Wednesday 18th through Tuesday 24th to provide and accept absentee ballot applications. Call (870) 541-5322 if you cannot get in to the courthouse.
 Complete and return the ballot application to the County Clerk’s Office in person, by fax to
870-541-5324, or by email to staggart.jcclerk@yahoo.com no later than March 24; or by mail to P.O. Box 6317, Pine Bluff AR 71611-6317 postmarked no later than March 24, 2020.
 Upon receipt of your absentee ballot and voter statement, ensure you accurately complete the
voter statement. In the event you cannot provide a copy of acceptable photo ID, ensure you sign the highlighted OPTIONAL VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY statement at the bottom.
The voter shall return their voted absentee ballot in person no later than 5 pm on Monday, March 30. If a voted ballot is returned by mail, designated bearer, authorized agent or nursing home administrator, it must be received in the County Clerk’s Office by 5 pm on March 31.
Early voting will be conducted at the courthouse beginning Tuesday, March 24th through Monday, March 30th from 8:30 am to 5 pm with no voting on Saturday or Sunday.
The Jefferson County Clerk’s Office has implemented health screen strategies for the safety of Jefferson County voters. Notices will be posted from the entrance throughout the designated areas leading to the voting machines. Each voter is required to remain at least six (6) feet from the voter in front of them. Bringing children is discouraged. Voting machine screens will be disinfected after each voter casts their vote.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-10 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 4

New York Office 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006-1738 T. (212) 965 2200 F. (212) 226 7592 www.naacpldf.org
March 24, 2020

Washington, D.C. Office 700 14th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
T. (202) 682 1300 F. (202) 682 1312

Via Email

Hon. John Thurston
Arkansas Secretary of State Executive Office State Capitol, Suite 256 500 Woodlane Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-1010

Re: Ensuring Ballot Access for Arkansas Voters during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Dear Secretary Thurston:

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Christian Ministerial Alliance, and the Arkansas Community Institute write to ask that you issue guidance and administrative rules to permit every eligible voter in Arkansas to safely vote in the March 31, 2020 runoff election during this unprecedented national and statewide health crisis. We also write to raise concerns about your compliance with the National Voter Registration Act.
As you know, the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic presents extraordinary public health, safety, and logistical concerns for every Arkansas voter. On March 10, the President responded to the rapid spread of COVID-19 by declaring a national emergency.1 On March 11, Governor Hutchinson declared a state of emergency for Arkansas.2 These declarations are based on the well-founded concern that COVID-19 could led to the death or serious illness of millions and overwhelm our healthcare system. To date, there are 211 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Arkansas.3 For each confirmed case, however, there could be up to 10 unconfirmed ones.4 To slow the outbreak, the State has ordered school closures, advised people to work from home, to minimize personal contact, to avoid large gatherings, and to stay home if they are ill, and the State has urged everyone to practice social distancing.5
Because conducting elections and other government functions in this situation presents
exceptional challenges, the Governor has directed every state agency to identify and suspend

1 Brooke Singman, “Trump Declares National Emergency over Coronavirus, Enlists Private Sector,” Fox News (Mar. 14, 2020), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-declares-national-emergency-coronavirus.
2 Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Arkansas, Executive Order No. 20-03, Mar. 11, 2020, available at https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-03.__1.pdf.
3 “Officials say 7 people have recovered from coronavirus in Arkansas,” THV 11 Digital, Mar. 23, 2020, https://www.thv11.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-arkansas-covid-19-updates/91-386ccf84-2651481e-b77f-e07e703fad65.
4 Ruiyun Li, et al, Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus, Science Magazine (Mar. 16, 2020), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221.
5 Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Arkansas, Executive Order No. 20-06, Mar. 17, 2020, available at https://governor.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/executiveOrders/EO_20-06._.pdf.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 4
March 24, 2020 Page 2 of 4
any “regulatory statute, agency order or rule that in any way prevents, hinders, or delays the agency's ability to render maximum assistance to the citizens of this state while they are adhering to the guidelines to prohibit the spread of disease”6
To that end, we appreciate that you have recently issued guidance that explains that “[a]ll Arkansans who are eligible to vote in a runoff election are eligible to cast an absentee ballot under Arkansas’s existing absentee voting law.”7 Unfortunately, this guidance does not go far enough to protect voters. For example, under the guidance, a voter must apply for an absentee ballot via mail, fax, or email by today (March 24), but a voter may request an absentee ballot in-person through March 30. Further, the absentee ballot itself must be received by the county clerk by 7:30pm on Election Day (March 31) and there are needless limitations placed on who can collect absentee ballot applications.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you take the following additional steps:
• Clarify that voters are exempt from the photo ID requirements related to absentee voting;
• To assist voters in complying with social distancing guidelines and burdened by county courthouse and polling place closures, extend the absentee ballot request deadline for mail, fax, or email applications to at least March 30 (i.e., the deadline for in-person absentee ballot requests);
• Accept absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day (March 31) and received within 10 days of Election Day;
• Allow any voter or a designee to drop off their absentee ballot at any polling place;
• Allow any person designated by the voter (including staff of nursing homes and senior centers if the voter resides in these facilities) to pick up the voter’s absentee ballot and drop that absentee ballot off by the close of polls on Election Day; .
• Allow curbside voting to any eligible voter that is concerned about coming inside a polling location; and
• Undertake an aggressive voter education plan to ensure that voters are aware of and know how to exercise these options and to counter (intentional or unintentional) disinformation with facts.
6 Id.
7 Press Release, “Important Election Update: Early Voting for General Primary Runoff Election Begins Tuesday, March 24th,” Arkansas Secretary of State, March 18, 2020, available at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ARSOS/bulletins/281e8cf.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 4
March 24, 2020 Page 3 of 4
The above measures, in conjunction with the recommendations made by others,8 will benefit all eligible voters, but are particularly important for older voters, low-income people, voters with disabilities, and people of color who are less likely to have access to the healthcare, social networks, and transportation necessary to feel safe voting in-person. In fact, to protect the fundamental right to vote in times of crisis, federal courts have ordered election officials to extend voting deadlines or make other accommodations to address states of emergency.9
Moreover, because polling places are being relocated to protect the public health and vulnerable populations, like elderly people and people with disabilities, affected voters must be promptly notified of any changes. 10 Election officials must ensure that no polling site relocation violates the Voting Rights Act, that any new poll sites are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that the new sites are consistent with all other federal nondiscrimination and election laws. Also, to prepare for the possibility that COVID-19 may lead to the unavailability of large numbers of poll workers,11 your office should immediately begin working with local officials on a special effort to recruit and train more poll workers.
Finally, we write to notify you that the State of Arkansas is not in compliance with Sections 5 and 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20504 et seq. Arkansas is systematically failing to ensure that a driver’s license or identification card application, renewal, or change of address transaction serves as a voter registration application or change of address in accordance with Section 5. Arkansas is also not in compliance with Section 7 of the NVRA. While Arkansas permits individuals to apply for public benefits online at https://access.arkansas.gov/Welcome.aspx, that website is not set up to accept or transmit voter registration applications or to assist voters with the registration process. Rather, voters are directed to print and mail-in their registration forms. This letter serves as notice per 52 U.S.C. § 20510(b) of violations by Arkansas of the NVRA.
Given the urgency of the COVID-19 concerns, we request that you respond by noon tomorrow (Wednesday March 25, 2020) to Deuel Ross (dross@naacpldf.org) and Natasha Merle (nmerle@naacpldf.org). Thank you.
8 See, e.g., Letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to State Election Officials, etc., Mar. 17, 2020, available at http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/policy/letters/2020/COVID-19-Coalition-Letter-updated3.17.20.pdf; Brennan Center for Justice, Memorandum re: How to Protect the 2020 Vote from the Coronavirus, Mar. 16, 2020, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/Coronavirus Response Memo.pdf.
9 D.N.C. v. Bostelmann, No. 20-cv-249, 2020 WL 1320819 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2020); Florida Democratic Party v. Scott, No. 4:16-cv-626, 2016 WL 6080225 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016).
10See Bill Bowden, Election officials in Arkansas proceed carefully, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Mar. 22, 2020, available at https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/mar/22/election-officials-proceed-carefully/
11Nationally, two-thirds of poll workers are age 61 or older. Election Administration Commission, Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report, at 9, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2018_EAVS_Report.pdf.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-11 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 4
March 24, 2020 Page 2 of 4
Sincerely,
Deuel Ross Natasha Merle NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (212) 965-7712
Bishop Vernon Kennebrew, President Christian Ministerial Alliance
Neil Sealy Executive Director Arkansas Community Institute

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00E3ar4ly1V-oJtiMng forDGoenceuraml Perimnatry3R-1un2off EFleiclteiodn B0e3gi/n2s7Tu/2es0day,PMaargche214thof 2 2

Receive Updates Enter Email Address

Go

Arkansas Secretary of State

Early Voting for General Primary Runoff Election Begins Tuesday, March 24th

Arkansas Secretary of State sent this bulletin at 03/18/2020 02:45 PM CDT
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

March 18, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Chris Powell | chris.powell@sos.arkansas.gov | (501) 529-5441
Important Election Update: Early Voting for General Primary Runoff Election
Begins Tuesday, March 24th

(LITTLE ROCK, ARK.) – Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston wants to remind voters that Early Voting for the Tuesday, March 31st General Primary Runoff Election begins next Tuesday, March 24th.

Early voting will be available during your county clerk’s normal business hours, March 24-March 30. Polls will be closed Saturday, March 28th and Sunday, March 29th.

The Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners has provided guidance to local election officials in Arkansas to explore all available options to make the March 31st General Primary Runoff Election as safe and accessible as possible. Due to the ongoing precautions being taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board recommended notifying eligible voters of the option to vote by absentee ballot if they wish.

All Arkansans who are eligible to vote in a runoff election are eligible to cast an absentee ballot under Arkansas’s existing absentee voting law. To receive an absentee ballot, the eligible voter must submit an application to his or her local county clerk. Applications sent via mail, fax, or email must be received by the County Clerk no later than March 24th. If you are unable to mail, fax, or email your absentee ballot application by March 24th, then you may request one in person or through a designated bearer from your county clerk so long as the request is made by close of business hours on March 30th. Please note that a designated bearer may only request two absentee ballots per election. Absentee ballots received by the County Clerk by 7:30 pm on March 31st will be counted. You may download an absentee ballot application from the Secretary of State website at: https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/elections/Absentee_Ballot_Application.pdf.

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ARSOS/bulletins/281e8cf

1/2

3/27/2020

Case 4:20-cv-00E3ar4ly1V-oJtiMng forDGoenceuraml Perimnatry3R-1un2off EFleiclteiodn B0e3gi/n2s7Tu/2es0day,PMaargche224thof 2
Per recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and the Arkansas Department of Health, voters should continue to observe appropriate social distancing measures when going to vote, and maintain a six-foot distance from others, if possible. County officials and workers are receiving guidance on additional measures to ensure the safety of everyone.
To check your voter registration information and get information on your local polling location, contact your county clerk.
# # #

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. Stay Connected with Arkansas Secretary of State:

Powered by

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe All | Help

Privacy Policy | Cookie Statement | Help

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ARSOS/bulletins/281e8cf

2/2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants. DECLARATION OF WILLIAM S. COOPER WILLIAM S. COOPER, acting in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) (2) (B), and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, does hereby declare and say: I. INTRODUCTION 1. My name is William S. Cooper. I have a B.A. in Economics from Davidson College. As a private consultant, I currently serve as a demographic and redistricting expert for the Plaintiffs. I am compensated at a rate of $150 per hour. 2. I have testified at trial as an expert witness on redistricting and demographics in federal courts in about 40 voting rights cases since the late 1980s. Five of these lawsuits resulted in changes to state legislative boundaries. Approximately 25 of the cases led to changes in local election district plans. My testimony in these lawsuits almost always included a review of demographics and socioeconomic characteristics for the jurisdictions at issue.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 7

3. For additional historical information on my testimony as an expert

witness, see Exhibit A attached to this declaration.

4. In this declaration, I present a demographic and socioeconomic profile of

Arkansas and the counties at issue in this lawsuit. All of this information is based

on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF ARKANSAS

5. As shown in Figure 1, according to the 2010 Census, Arkansas has a

total population of 2,915,918. Non-Hispanic Whites (“NH Whites”) are a majority

of the population (74.54%). African Americans –16.07% Any Part Black (“AP

Black”) – comprise the largest minority population, followed by Latinos (6.38%),

who may be of any race.

Figure 1

Arkansas – 2010 Census and 2018 Census Bureau Estimates

Population by Race and Ethnicity

2010

2018

Number Percent Number Percent

Total Population

2,915,918 100.00% 3,013,825 100.00%

NH White*

2,173,469 74.54% 2,176,611 72.22%

Total Minority Pop.

742,449 25.46% 837,214 27.78%

Latino

186,050 6.38% 233,187 7.74%

NH Black* Single-race Black (Including Hispanics)

447,102 15.33% 449,895 15.43%

464,640 15.42% 472,287 15.67%

Any Part Black (Including Hispanics)
* Single-race

468,710 16.07% 499,364 16.57%

6. The most recent estimates available from the Census Bureau, also shown

in Figure 1, indicate relative stability since 2010 in the statewide population in

2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 7

percentage and absolute terms. As of July 1, 2018, the Census Bureau estimates a

statewide population of 3,013,825, of whom 72.22% are NH White, 16.57% AP

Black, and 7.74% Latino.

7. Figure 2 shows 2010 Census population and AP Black population

estimates for the dozen counties at issue in this case, alongside the 2018 Census

Bureau estimates.

Figure 2

12 Counties – 2010 Census and 2018 Census Bureau Estimates

Population by Race and Ethnicity

2010

2018

AP

2010

2010 AP

2018

AP Pop

Black

%AP

County

Pop.

Black

Pop. Black Change Change Black

ARKANSAS

19,019 4,798 17,769 4,619 -1,250

-179 25.23%

BENTON

221,339 3,603 272,608 7,221 51,269

3,618 1.63%

CONWAY

21,273 2,561 20,891 2,612

-382

51 12.04%

CRAIGHEAD

96,443 13,458 108,558 18,735 12,115

5,277 13.95%

GARLAND

96,024 8,531 99,154 9,862 3,130

1,331 8.88%

GRANT

17,853

432 18,188

601

335

169 2.42%

GREENE

42,090

392 45,325 1,145 3,235

753 0.93%

HOT SPRING

32,923 3,792 33,701 4,134

778

342 11.52%

JEFFERSON

77,435 43,194 68,114 39,447 -9,321 -3,747 55.78%

LONOKE

68,356 4,443 73,657 5,307 5,301

864 6.50%

SALINE

107,118 5,472 121,421 10,526 14,303

5,054 5.11%

WHITE

77,076 3,658 78,727 4,418 1,651

760 4.75%

12-County Total 876,949 94,334 958,113 108,627 81,164 14,293 10.76%

2018 %AP Black 25.99% 2.65% 12.50% 17.26% 9.95% 3.30% 2.53% 12.27% 57.91% 7.21% 8.67% 5.61% 11.34%

8. Figure 3 (on the next page) displays the 2010 voting age population

(“VAP”) in Arkansas by race and ethnicity, alongside Census Bureau estimates for

VAP as of July 1, 2018. The rightmost column reports CVAP percentages,

according to the Special Tabulation of the 2014-2018 5-year American Community

Survey (“ACS”), released by the Census Bureau on January 31, 2020.

3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 7

Figure 3

Arkansas – 2010 Voting Age and CVAP by Race and Ethnicity

Total

2010 VAP

2018 VAP % 2014-

2010 VAP Percent 2018 VAP Percent 2018 CVAP

2,204,443 100.00% 2,389,973 100.00%

NH White 18+

1,708,907 77.52% 1,733,825 72.55% 78.3%

Total Minority 18+

495,536 22.48% 656,148 27.45% 21.7%

Latino 18+

111,094 5.04% 145,153 6.07%

3.4%

NH Black 18+

313,887 14.24% 339,486 14.20% 15.1%

Single-race Black (Including Hispanics)18+ 315,462 14.31% 344,104 14.40%

Any Part Black (Including

Hispanics) 18+

321,201 14.57% 353,422 14.79%

9. For the counties at issue, Figure 4 presents 2010 VAP according to the

2010 Census and 2014-2018 CVAP (2016 survey midpoint). Note that unlike the

2018 VAP estimates for the state shown in Figure 3, post-2010 VAP estimates as

reported by the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program are not available at

the county level.

Figure 4

12 Counties – 2010 VAP and 2014-2018 CVAP Estimates

Population by Race and Ethnicity

% NH

%NH 2014-

2010 Black %_Latino White 2018 % NH

%

% NH

County

VAP

VAP

VAP

VAP CVAP BCVAP LCVAP WCVAP

ARKANSAS

14,594 22.41% 2.45% 73.62% 13,855 24.83% 1.55% 73.08%

BENTON

159,491 1.11% 12.56% 80.33% 170,775 1.63% 8.07% 85.02%

CONWAY

16,128 10.89% 2.77% 84.03% 15,815 12.01% 1.20% 84.45%

CRAIGHEAD 72,302 10.98% 3.50% 83.07% 76,270 12.55% 1.86% 83.63%

GARLAND

75,931 7.10% 3.79% 86.53% 76,295 7.86% 2.52% 86.90%

GRANT

13,538 2.22% 1.69% 94.74% 13,830 2.57% 1.59% 94.14%

GREENE

31,500 0.49% 1.57% 96.29% 33,405 1.18% 1.74% 95.36%

HOT SPRING 25,237 10.29% 2.15% 85.74% 26,220 11.96% 2.04% 84.94%

JEFFERSON

59,007 51.95% 1.34% 44.83% 54,000 54.46% 1.32%

42.59%

LONOKE

49,525 5.78% 2.59% 89.34% 52,605 5.95% 2.95% 88.62%

SCOTT

8,350 0.30% 5.05% 88.42% 88,240 6.45% 2.10% 89.17%

WHITE

58,643 3.65% 2.91% 91.26% 58,720 3.79% 2.17% 91.94%

4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 7
III. SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF ARKANSAS 10. Non-Hispanic Whites in Arkansas significantly outpace African
Americans across a broad range of socioeconomic measures, as reported in the 5year 2013-2017 ACS. 1 This disparity is summarized below and depicted with further detail in charts found in Exhibit B.
(a) Income  African Americans in Arkansas experience a poverty rate (31.9%) that
is more than twice that of Whites (14.1%). (Exhibit B, pp. 28-29)  The child poverty rate for African Americans is 44.8%, compared to
18.1% of White children. (Exhibit B, pp. 22-29)  Black median household income is $29,299 – just 60.8% of the White
median household income of $48,154. (Exhibit B, pp. 32-33)  Per capita income disparities in Arkansas track the disparities seen in
median household income. Black per capita income is $16,303, compared to White per capita income of $27,425. (Exhibit B, pp. 40-41)
 Over a quarter (28.4%) of Black households rely on food stamps, compared to 10.5% of White households. (Exhibit B, pp. 49-50) (b) Education
 Of persons 25 years of age and over, 17.9% of African Americans have not finished high school, compared to 11.7% of their White counterparts. (Exhibit B, pp 21-22)
1 In this section, “White” refers to NH White. Black or African American refers to singlerace Black, including Hispanic Blacks. There is not a breakout for the Any Part Back category for socioeconomic statistics reported in the 5-year 2013-2017 ACS.
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 7
 At the other end of the educational scale, for ages 25 and over, 14.8% of African Americans have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 23.8% of Whites. (Exhibit B, pp. 21-22)
(c) Employment
 The Black unemployment rate (for the population over 16, expressed as a percent of the civilian labor force) is 12.0% – more than twice the 5.6% White unemployment rate. (Exhibit B, pp. 51-54)
 Of employed African Americans, 24.8% are in management or professional occupations, compared to 35.9% of Whites. (Exhibit B, pp. 5556)
(d) Housing
 In Arkansas, less than half of Black householders (43.2%) are homeowners, while over two-thirds of White households (71.5%) are owneroccupied. (Exhibit B, pp. 57-58)
(e) Health
 The African American population has a higher percentage of persons with a disability than Whites – 18.4% of the 18-64 Black population has a disability, compared to 15.3% of Whites; 48.6% of the 65 and over Black population is disabled, compared to 41.4% of Whites. (Exhibit B, pp. 6162)
 About 16.5% of the 18-64 Black population is not covered by health insurance, compared to 13.3% of Whites. (Exhibit B, pp. 63-64) 11. County-level socioeconomic disparities by race mirror the statewide
disparities. Corresponding 2013-2017 ACS charts for Jefferson County – the county
with the largest Black population of the 12 counties at issue – are shown in Exhibit
C. Charts for the remaining 11 counties are available for download in a zip file at
6

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-13 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 7
this link: http://www.fairdata2000.com/Arkansas_12_counties/
12. The charts in Exhibit D summarize statewide statistics from the 1-year 2018 ACS, released by the Census Bureau in November 2019. Breakouts for the Latino population are included in these charts.2
13. Some statistics that are not reported in the 5-year ACS are found in the 1-year ACS. For example, 15.6% of Black households do not have an available vehicle, compared to 4.9% of White households. (Exhibit D, p.23)
# # #
I reserve the right to continue to supplement my reports in light of additional facts, testimony and/or materials that may come to light.
Executed on: March 26, 2020
WILLIAM S. COOPER
2 In these charts Black or African American refers to single-race NH Black (excluding Hispanic Blacks who are reported as a component of the Latino population). The 1-year 2018 ACS survey is based on a smaller sample size and is not available for many counties in Arkansas.
7

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 9 March 15, 2020
William S. Cooper P.O. Box 16066 Bristol, VA 24209 276-669-8567 bcooper@msn.com
Summary of Redistricting Work
I have a B.A. in Economics from Davidson College in Davidson, North Carolina. Since 1986, I have prepared proposed redistricting maps of approximately 750 jurisdictions for Section 2 litigation, Section 5 comment letters, and for use in other efforts to promote compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I have analyzed and prepared election plans in over 100 of these jurisdictions for two or more of the decennial censuses – either as part of concurrent legislative reapportionments or, retrospectively, in relation to litigation involving many of the cases listed below. From 1986 to 2019, I have prepared election plans for Section 2 litigation in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Post-2010 Redistricting Experience Since the release of the 2010 Census in February 2011, I have developed statewide legislative plans on behalf of clients in eight states (Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia), as well as over 150 local redistricting plans in approximately 30 states – primarily for groups working to protect minority voting rights. In addition, I have prepared congressional plans for clients in eight states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia). In March 2011, I was retained by the Sussex County, Virginia Board of
1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 9 March 15, 2020
Supervisors and the Bolivar County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors to draft new district plans based on the 2010 Census. In the summer of 2011, both counties received Section 5 preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Also in 2011, I was retained by way of a subcontract with Olmedillo X5 LLC to assist with redistricting for the Miami-Dade County, Florida Board of Commissioners and the Miami-Dade, Florida School Board. Final plans were adopted in late 2011 following public hearings.
In the fall of 2011, I was retained by the City of Grenada, Mississippi to provide redistricting services. The ward plan I developed received DOJ preclearance in March 2012.
In 2012 and 2013, I served as a redistricting consultant to the Tunica County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors and the Claiborne County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors.
In Montes v. City of Yakima (E.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2015) the court adopted, as a remedy for the Voting Rights Act Section 2 violation, a seven single-member district plan that I developed for the Latino plaintiffs. I served as the expert for the Plaintiffs in the liability and remedy phases of the case.
In Pope v. Albany County (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2015), the court approved, as a remedy for a Section 2 violation, a plan drawn by the defendants, creating a new Blackmajority district. I served as the expert for the Plaintiffs in the liability and remedy phases of the case.
In 2016, two redistricting plans that I developed on behalf of the plaintiffs for consent decrees in Section 2 lawsuits in Georgia were adopted (NAACP v. Fayette County, Georgia and NAACP v. Emanuel County, Georgia).
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 9 March 15, 2020
In 2016, two federal courts granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs based in part on my Gingles 1 testimony: Navajo Nation v. San Juan County, Utah (C.D. Utah 2016) and NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant School District, Missouri (E. D. Mo. August 22, 2016).
Also in 2016, based in part on my analysis, the City of Pasco, Washington admitted to a Section 2 violation. As a result, in Glatt v. City of Pasco (E.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2017), the court ordered a plan that created three Latino majority single-member districts in a 6 district, 1 at-large plan.
In 2017, a federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a Section 2 case regarding the 32nd Judicial District in Louisiana, based in part on my Gingles 1 testimony in Terrebonne Parish Branch NAACP et al. v. Jindal et al (M.D La. August 17, 2017).
In August 2018, the Wenatchee City Council adopted a hybrid election plan that I developed – five single-member districts with two members at-large. The Wenatchee election plan is the first plan adopted under the Washington Voting Rights Acts of 2018.
In February 2019, a federal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a Section 2 case regarding Senate District 22 in Mississippi, based in part on my Gingles 1 testimony in Thomas v. Bryant (S.D. Ms. Feb 16, 2019).
In August 2019, the Grand County (Utah) Change of Form of Government Study Committee voted to place a county commission redistricting plan I developed on the ballot for voter approval in November 2020.
I currently serve as a redistricting consultant and expert to the City of Decatur, Alabama (Voketz v. City of Decatur).
I am currently a redistricting consultant and expert for the plaintiffs in nine voting cases –Terrebonne Parish Branch NAACP. v. Jindal; Dwight v. Kemp; NAACP v. East Ramapo Central School District; Thomas v. Bryant; Jayla Allen. v. Waller County, Texas;
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 9 March 15, 2020
Chestnut v. Merrill; Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. State of Alabama; Johnson v. Ardoin; and NAACP v. Merrill.
Since 2011 (mostly in the first half of the decade), I have served as a redistricting and demographic consultant to the Massachusetts-based Prison Policy Initiative for a nationwide project to end prison-based gerrymandering. I have analyzed proposed and adopted election plans in about 25 states as part of my work. Post-2010 Demographics Experience
My trial testimony in Section 2 lawsuits usually includes presentations of U.S. Census data with charts, tables, and/or maps to demonstrate socioeconomic disparities between non-Hispanic Whites and racial or ethnic minorities.
I have also served as an expert witness on demographics in non-voting trials. For example, in an April 2017 opinion in Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education (Case no.2:65-cv-00396-MHH), a school desegregation case involving the City of Gardendale, Ala., the court made extensive reference to my testimony.
I provide technical demographic and mapping assistance to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) in Washington D.C and their constituent organizations around the country. Most of my work with FRAC involves the Summer Food Program and Child and Adult Care Food Program. Both programs provide nutritional assistance to schoolage children who are eligible for free and reduced price meals. As part of this project, I developed an online interactive map to determine site eligibility for the two programs that has been in continuous use by community organizations and school districts around the country since 2003. The map is updated annually with new data from a Special Tabulation of the American Community Survey prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 9 March 15, 2020
Historical Redistricting Experience In the 1980s and 1990s, I developed voting plans in about 400 state and local
jurisdictions – primarily in the South and Rocky Mountain West. During the 2000s, I prepared draft election plans involving about 300 state and local jurisdictions in 25 states. Most of these plans were prepared at the request of local citizens’ groups, national organizations such as the NAACP, tribal governments, and for Section 2 or Section 5 litigation.
Election plans I developed for governments in two counties – Sussex County, Virginia and Webster County, Mississippi – were adopted and precleared in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Justice. A ward plan I prepared for the City of Grenada, Mississippi was precleared in August 2005. A county supervisors’ plan I produced for Bolivar County, Mississippi was precleared in January 2006.
In August 2005, a federal court ordered the State of South Dakota to remedy a Section 2 voting rights violation and adopt a state legislative plan I developed (Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine).
A county council plan I developed for Native American plaintiffs in a Section 2 lawsuit (Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County) was adopted by Charles Mix County, South Dakota in November 2005. A plan I drafted for Latino plaintiffs in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition v. Bethlehem Area School District) was adopted in March 2009. Plans I developed for minority plaintiffs in Columbus County, North Carolina and Montezuma- Cortez School District in Colorado were adopted in 2009.
Since 1986, I have testified at trial as an expert witness on redistricting and demographics in federal courts in the following voting rights cases (approximate most recent testimony dates are in parentheses). I also filed declarations and was deposed in
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 9
March 15, 2020
most of these cases.
Alabama Alabama Legislative Black Caucus et al. v. Alabama et al. (2013) Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Alabama (2018) Chestnut v Merrill (2019)
Colorado Cuthair v. Montezuma-Cortez School Board (1997)
Georgia Cofield v. City of LaGrange (1996) Love v. Deal (1995) Askew v. City of Rome (1995) Woodard v. Lumber City (1989)
Louisiana Knight v. McKeithen (1994) Reno v. Bossier Parish (1995) Wilson v. Town of St. Francisville (1996) Terrebonne Parish NAACP v. Jindal, et al. (2017)
Maryland Cane v. Worcester County (1994)
Mississippi Addy v Newton County (1995) Boddie v. Cleveland (2003) Boddie v. Cleveland School District (2010) Ewing v. Monroe County(1995) Fairley v. Hattiesburg (2014) Fairley v. Hattiesburg (2008) Jamison v. City of Tupelo (2006) Gunn v. Chickasaw County (1995) NAACP v. Fordice (1999) Nichols v. Okolona (1995) Smith v. Clark (2002) Thomas v. Bryant (2019)
Montana Old Person v. Cooney (1998) Old Person v. Brown (on remand) (2001)
Missouri Missouri NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant School District (2016)
Nebraska Stabler v. Thurston County (1995)
6

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 9 March 15, 2020
New York Arbor Hills Concerned Citizens v. Albany County (2003 Pope v. County of Albany (2015 NAACP v. East Ramapo Central School District (2020)
Ohio Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Ryan (2019)
South Carolina Smith v. Beasley (1996) South Dakota Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine (2004) Cottier v. City of Martin (2004)
Tennessee Cousins v. McWherter (1994) Rural West Tennessee African American Affairs Council v. McWherter (1993)
Virginia Henderson v. Richmond County (1988) McDaniel v. Mehfoud (1988) White v. Daniel (1989) Smith v. Brunswick County (1991)
Wyoming Large v. Fremont County (2007)
In addition, I have filed expert declarations or been deposed in the following
cases that did not require trial testimony. The dates listed indicate the deposition date or
date of last declaration or supplemental declaration:
Alabama Voketz v. City of Decatur (2018) Alabama State NAACP v. City of Pleasant Grove (2019) Jpmes v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2019)
Connecticut NAACP v. Merrill (2020)
7

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 9
March 15, 2020
Florida Calvin v. Jefferson County (2016) Thompson v. Glades County (2001) Johnson v. DeSoto County (1999) Burton v. City of Belle Glade (1997)
Georgia Dwight v. Kemp (2018) Georgia NAACP et al. v. Gwinnett County, GA (2018 Georgia State Conference NAACP et al v. Georgia (2018) Georgia State Conference NAACP, et al. v. Fayette County (2015) Knighton v. Dougherty County (2002) Johnson v. Miller (1998) Jones v. Cook County (1993)
Kentucky Herbert v. Kentucky State Board of Elections (2013)
Louisiana Johnson v. Ardoin (2019) NAACP v. St. Landry Parish Council (2005) Rodney v. McKeithen (1993) Prejean v. Foster (1998)
Maryland Fletcher v. Lamone (2011) Benisek v. Lamone (2017)
Mississippi Partee v. Coahoma County (2015) Figgs v. Quitman County (2015) West v. Natchez (2015) Williams v. Bolivar County (2005) Clark v. Calhoun County (on remand)(1993) Houston v. Lafayette County (2002) Wilson v. Clarksdale (1992) Stanfield v. Lee County(1991) Teague v. Attala County (on remand)(1993)
Montana Alden v. Rosebud County (2000)
North Carolina Lewis v. Alamance County (1991) Gause v. Brunswick County (1992) Webster v. Person County (1992)
8

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 9 March 15, 2020
Rhode Island Davidson v. City of Cranston (2015) South Carolina Vander Linden v. Campbell (1996) South Dakota Emery v. Hunt (1999) Kirkie v. Buffalo County (2004 Tennessee NAACP v. Frost, et al. (2003) Texas Jayla Allen et al. v. Waller County (2019) Utah Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (2018) Virginia Moon v. Beyer (1990) Washington Montes v. City of Yakima (2014 Glatt v. City of Pasco (2016)
# # #
9

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 64
Selected Socio-Economic Data Arkansas
African American and White, Not Hispanic Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
www.fairvote2020.org www.fairdata2000.com 25-Mar-20

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 64
C02003.DETAILED RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Population of one race: White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race Population of two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races Population of two races: White; Black or African American White; American Indian and Alaska Native White; Asian Black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native All other two race combinations Population of three races Population of four or more races

Population

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of Total

2,977,944 2,906,122 2,302,141
459,969 19,476 42,368 7,062 75,106 71,822 6,651 65,171 68,670 20,253 28,809 7,904 2,616 9,088 2,871 281

***** 2,359 3,304 1,706 1,088
858 624 3,110 2,359 1,106 1,923 2,200 1,329 959 810 664 1,262 540 144

100.0% 97.6% 77.3% 15.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.2% 2.5% 2.4% 0.2% 2.2% 2.3% 0.7% 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%

Note: Hispanics may be of any race. See Table B03002 and chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 64
Population by Race
Arkansas

80.0%

77.3%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

15.4%

10.0% 0.0%

White

0.7%

1.4%

0.2%

2.5%

2.4%

Black or African American

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian Some other race and Other Pacific
Islander

Population of two or more
races:

Source: C02003.DETAILED RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 64
B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Not Hispanic or Latino: White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races Hispanic or Latino

Population
2,977,944 2,764,698 2,174,326
457,251 17,002 41,896 6,979 4,283 62,961 1,374 61,587
213,246

Margin of Error (+/-)
***** 272 629 1,636 951 868 601 919 1,835 382 1,790 272

% of Total
100.0% 92.8% 73.0% 15.4% 0.6% 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 7.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 64
Non-Hispanic by Race and Hispanic Population
Arkansas

80.0% 70.0%

73.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

15.4%

10.0% 0.0%

0.6%

White alone

Black or African American alone

American Indian and Alaska Native
alone

1.4% Asian alone

0.2%

0.1%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

Some other race alone

7.2% 2.1%

Two or more races:

Hispanic or Latino

Source: B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 64
B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Population

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of Total

Hispanic or Latino: White alone
Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races

213,246 127,815
2,718 2,474
472 83
70,823 8,861 5,277 3,584

272 3,339
527 566 162
93 3,046 1,215
963 625

100.0% 59.9%
1.3% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 33.2% 4.2% 2.5% 1.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 64
Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race
Arkansas

60.0%

59.9%

50.0%

40.0% 30.0%

33.2%

20.0%

10.0% 0.0%

White alone

1.3%

1.2%

Black or African American alone

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

0.2%

0.0%

4.2%

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian Some other race

and Other Pacific

alone

Islander alone

Two or more races:

Source: B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 64
B01001. SEX BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over
Male: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over
Female: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

459,969 127,591 286,695
45,683 219,775
65227 135,648
18,900 240,194
62,364 151,047
26,783

1,706 NC NC NC 988 NC NC NC
1,132 NC NC NC

100.0% 27.7% 62.3% 9.9% 47.8% 14.2% 29.5% 4.1% 52.2% 13.6% 32.8% 5.8%

2,174,326 450,312
1,310,909 413,105
1,068,133 231,491 652,251 184,391
1,106,193 218,821 658,658 228,714

629 NC NC NC 4,980 NC NC NC 5,836 NC NC NC

100.0% 20.7% 60.3% 19.0% 49.1% 10.6% 30.0%
8.5% 50.9% 10.1% 30.3% 10.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 64
Population by Age
Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

62.3%

60.3%

27.7% 20.7%

Under 18 years

18 to 64 years

19.0% 9.9%
65 years and over

Source: B01001. SEX BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 64
B05003. SEX BY AGE BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen
Male: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen

Arkansas

African American

Margin of % of AA Total White, Not

Error (+/-)

by Age

Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total by Age

459,969 127,591 127,332
259 112 147 332,378 329,216 3,162 1,165 1,997 219,775 65227 65,087 140
80 60 154,548 152,863 1,685 632 1,053

1,706 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 988 788 789 78 68 40 604 682 346 200 321

100.0% 100.0%
99.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
100.0% 99.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.6% 47.8%
100.0% 99.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
100.0% 98.9% 1.1% 0.4% 0.7%

2,174,326 450,312 449,481 831 301 530
1,724,014 1,707,573
16,441 8,527 7,914
1,068,133 231491 231,011 480 122 358 836,642 829,121 7,521 3,618 3,903

629

100.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

99.8%

NC

0.2%

NC

0.1%

NC

0.1%

NC

100.0%

NC

99.0%

NC

1.0%

NC

0.5%

NC

0.5%

373

49.1%

265

100.0%

333

99.8%

190

0.2%

82

0.1%

199

0.2%

222

100.0%

677

99.1%

648

0.9%

382

0.4%

588

0.5%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 64

Arkansas

Female: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA by Age

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of % of NHW by

Error (+/-)

Age

240,194 62,364 62,245 119 32 87
177,830 176,353
1,477 533 944

1,132 826 837 84 36 70 753 824 313 188 242

52.2% 100.0%
99.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
100.0% 99.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5%

1,106,193 218,821 218,470 351 179 172 887,372 878,452 8,920 4,909 4,011

471

50.9%

326

100.0%

343

99.8%

116

0.2%

93

0.1%

95

0.1%

230

100.0%

631

99.0%

616

1.0%

446

0.6%

481

0.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 64
Citizenship Status of Voting Age Population (18 and Over)
Arkansas

99.0% 99.0%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

Native

1.0% 1.0% Foreign born:

0.4% 0.5% Naturalized U.S. citizen

0.6% 0.5% Not a U.S. citizen

Source: B05003. SEX BY AGE BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B07004. GEOGRAPHICAL MOBCILaIsTeY 4IN:2T0H-cEvP-0A0S3T4Y1E-AJMR BYDRoAcuCmE eFOntR3C-1U5RREFNileTdR0E3S/I2D7E/N2C0E IPNaTgHeE1U3NoITfE6D4STATES - Universe:
POPULATION 1 YEAR AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Same house 1 year ago Moved within same county Moved from different county within same state Moved from different state Moved from abroad

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

453,377 367,617
59,288 15,682
9,967 823

1,816 4,321 3,612 1,244 1,079
221

100.0% 81.1% 13.1% 3.5% 2.2% 0.2%

2,151,898 1,833,469
181,529 80,908 52,423 3,569

1,165 5,538 4,570 2,726 2,364
570

100.0% 85.2%
8.4% 3.8% 2.4% 0.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 64
Geographical Mobility in the Past Year (Population 1 Year and Over)
Arkansas

90.0% 80.0%

85.2% 81.1%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Same house 1 year ago

13.1% 8.4%

3.5% 3.8%

2.2% 2.4%

Moved within same county

Moved from different county within same state

Moved from different state

0.2% 0.2% Moved from abroad

Source: B07004. GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY IN THE PAST YEAR BY RACE FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES - Universe: POPULATION 1 YEAR AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 15 of 64
B08105. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK - Universe: WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Car, truck, or van - drove alone Car, truck, or van - carpooled Public transportation (excluding taxicab) Walked Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means Worked at home

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

172144 140511
19760 1779 3799 3260 3035

2197 2335 1118
300 497 504 443

100.0% 81.6% 11.5%
1.0% 2.2% 1.9% 1.8%

948326 801186
86452 2212
14144 10071 34261

3727 3965 2455
402 753 812 1317

100.0% 84.5% 9.1% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% 3.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 16 of 64
Means of Transportation to Work (Workers 16 Years and Over)
Arkansas

90.0% 80.0%

84.5% 81.6%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Car, truck, or van drove alone

African American Non-Hispanic, White

11.5% 9.1%
Car, truck, or van carpooled

1.0% 0.2%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)

2.2% 1.5%

1.9% 1.1%

1.8% 3.6%

Walked

Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means

Worked at home

Source: B08105. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK - Universe: WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 17 of 64
B11002. HOUSEHOLD TYPE BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES FOR POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: In family households In nonfamily households

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

433735 351864
81871

2570 3316 2349

100.0% 81.1% 18.9%

2162144 1802162
359982

4155 5952 4438

100.0% 83.4% 16.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 18 of 64
Household Type for Population in Households Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

81.1%

83.4%

In family households

18.9%

16.6%

In nonfamily households

Source: B11002. HOUSEHOLD TYPE BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES FOR POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 19 of 64
B12002. MARITAL STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced Male: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced Female: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

353,877 166,084 102,640
16,439 22,069 46,645 165,863 82,764 52,950
5,966 4,543 19,640 188,014 83,320 49,690 10,473 17,526 27,005

1,168 NC NC NC NC NC 707
1,489 1,441
514 409 1,001 887 1,343 1,377 784 614 1,075

100.0% 46.9% 29.0% 4.6% 6.2% 13.2% 46.9% 23.4% 15.0% 1.7% 1.3% 5.5% 53.1% 23.5% 14.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.6%

1,803,199 409,348 978,980 34,531 135,691 244,649 877,318 228,966 492,052 14,917 28,997 112,386 925,881 180,382 486,928 19,614 106,694 132,263

382 NC NC NC NC NC 266 2,426 4,059 1,085 969 2,728 293 2,332 3,670 1,001 1,938 2,533

100.0% 22.7% 54.3%
1.9% 7.5% 13.6% 48.7% 12.7% 27.3% 0.8% 1.6% 6.2% 51.3% 10.0% 27.0% 1.1% 5.9% 7.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 20 of 64
Marital Status for the Population 15 Years and Over
Arkansas

60.0% 50.0%

46.9%

54.3%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

22.7%

29.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Never married

Now married (except separated)

4.6% 1.9%
Separated

Source: B12002. MARITAL STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

6.2% 7.5% Widowed

13.2% 13.6% Divorced

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 21 of 64
C15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher
Male: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher
Female: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

277,145 49,613
100,264 86,358 40,910
126,567 23,880 53,611 34,202 14,874
150,578 25,733 46,653 52,156 26,036

889 NC NC NC NC 627 935 1,374 1,275 890 611 1,121 1,526 1,445 1,176

100.0% 17.9% 36.2% 31.2% 14.8% 45.7%
8.6% 19.3% 12.3%
5.4% 54.3%
9.3% 16.8% 18.8%
9.4%

1,533,104 178,707 532,933 457,023 364,441 739,298 92,042 266,875 207,773 172,608 793,806 86,665 266,058 249,250 191,833

430 NC NC NC NC 258 1,996 3,399 2,877 2,853 248 1,591 2,673 2,623 2,403

100.0% 11.7% 34.8% 29.8% 23.8% 48.2% 6.0% 17.4% 13.6% 11.3% 51.8% 5.7% 17.4% 16.3% 12.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 22 of 64
Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Older
Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

36.2% 34.8%

31.2% 29.8%

23.8%

20.0% 15.0% 10.0%

17.9% 11.7%

14.8%

5.0%

0.0%

Less than high school

High school graduate, GED, Some college or associate's Bachelor's degree or higher

diploma

or alternative

degree

Source: C15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B16005. NATIVITY BY LANGUACGaEseSP4O:2K0E-NcvA-T00H3O4M1E-JBMY ADBoILcIuTmY TeOntS3P-E1A5K FENileGdLI0S3H/2F7O/R20THEPaPgOePU2L3AoTfIO64N 5 YEARS AND OVER
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"
Native: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"
Foreign born: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

425,645 420,079
5,566 4,416 1,150 422,277 418,572 3,705 3,036
669 3,368 1,507 1,861 1,380
481

1,416 NC NC NC NC
1,515 1,600
543 503 167 485 320 405 366 204

100.0% 98.7% 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% 99.2% 98.3% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1%

2,055,695 2,026,567
29,128 22,786
6,342 2,038,590 2,017,513
21,077 17,985
3,092 17,105
9,054 8,051 4,801 3,250

471 NC NC NC NC 1,126 1,847 1,286 1,167 472 1,074 649 942 698 634

100.0% 98.6%
1.4% 1.1% 0.3% 99.2% 98.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

`

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 24 of 64
Speak English "Less than Very Well" (Population 5 Years and Over) Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White
0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0% Speak English "less than very well"
Source: B16005. NATIVITY BY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 25 of 64
B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

Total: Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: Married-couple family: With related children under 18 years Other family: Male householder, no wife present With related children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present With related children under 18 years Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: Married-couple family: With related children under 18 years Other family: Male householder, no wife present With related children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present With related children under 18 years

102,634 27,738 4,993 2,849 22,745 2,785 2,053 19,960 17,516 74,896 39,761 16,543 35,135 6,290 3,184 28,845 18,097

1,433 1,214
483 416 1,209 389 342 1,087 1,064 1,528 1,377 984 1,079 578 437 991 961

100.0% 27.0%
4.9% 2.8% 22.2% 2.7% 2.0% 19.4% 17.1% 73.0% 38.7% 16.1% 34.2% 6.1% 3.1% 28.1% 17.6%

586,769 56,968 24,308 13,501 32,660 6,216 4,427 26,444 22,093
529,801 440,472 162,238
89,329 28,678 15,398 60,651 31,332

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

3,559 1,833 1,215
852 1,140
574 463 930 876 3,817 4,198 2,943 2,261 1,211 828 1,739 1,230

100.0% 9.7% 4.1% 2.3% 5.6% 1.1% 0.8% 4.5% 3.8%
90.3% 75.1% 27.6% 15.2%
4.9% 2.6% 10.3% 5.3%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 26 of 64
Family Households Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

27.0% 9.7%
Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:

Source: B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 27 of 64
Female-headed Households with Related Children Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

49.2%

41.4%

With related children under 18 years below poverty

Source: B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 28 of 64
B17020 POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE - Universe: POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total:
Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:
Under 18 years
18 to 59 years 60 years and over Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: Under 18 years 18 to 59 years 60 years and over

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA By Age

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of % of NHW By

Error (+/-)

Age

437,236
139,406
55,866
68,473 15,067 297,830 68,881 176,543 52,406

1,830
4,453
NC
766 NC 4,723 NC 1,054 NC

100.0%
31.9%
44.8%
27.9% 22.3% 68.1% 55.2% 72.1% 77.7%

2,115,730
297,355
80,100
166,061 51,194
1,818,375 361,797 964,389 492,189

1,289
6,289
NC
1,527 NC
6,092 NC
2,047 NC

100.0%
14.1%
18.1%
14.7% 9.4%
85.9% 81.9% 85.3% 90.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 29 of 64
Population Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Arkansas

45.0%

40.0%

35.0% 30.0%

31.9%

25.0%

20.0% 15.0%

14.1%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:

44.8%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

18.1%

27.9% 14.7%

22.3% 9.4%

Under 18 years

18 to 59 years

60 years and over

Source: B17020 POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE - Universe: POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 30 of 64
B19001. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Less than $ 10,000 $ 10,000 to $ 14,999 $ 15,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25,000 to $ 34,999 $ 35,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 to $ 99,999 $ 100,000 to $ 149,999 $ 150,000 to $ 199,999 $ 200,000 or more

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

172,490 28,021 17,775 30,316 23,983 25,199 25,367 10,625 7,870 2,036 1,298

1,507 1,242
937 NC NC NC NC 709 NC 311 294

100.0% 16.2% 10.3% 17.6% 13.9% 14.6% 14.7%
6.2% 4.6% 1.2% 0.8%

879,735 61,431 54,932
105,022 100,399 131,692 164,369 101,288
99,031 31,665 29,906

3,594 2,151 1,729
NC NC NC NC 2,250 NC 1,133 1,146

100.0% 7.0% 6.2%
11.9% 11.4% 15.0% 18.7% 11.5% 11.3%
3.6% 3.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 31 of 64
Household Income in the Past 12 Months
Arkansas

20.0%

18.0% 16.0%

16.2%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

10.3%

17.6%

18.7%

13.9%

14.6%15.0%

14.7%

11.9%

11.4%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

11.5%

11.3%

8.0%

7.0%

6.2%

6.0%

4.0%

6.2% 4.6%

3.6%

3.4%

2.0%

1.2% 0.8%

0.0%

Less than $ $ 10,000 to $ $ 15,000 to $ $ 25,000 to $ $ 35,000 to $ $ 50,000 to $ $ 75,000 to $ $ 100,000 to $ 150,000 to $ 200,000 or

10,000

14,999

24,999

34,999

49,999

74,999

99,999

$ 149,999 $ 199,999

more

Source: B19001. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 32 of 64
B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

$ 29,299 $

734 $ 48,154 $

455

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

$50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 33 of 64
Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White $48,154
$29,299
Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 34 of 64
B19101. FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Less than $ 10,000 $ 10,000 to $ 14,999 $ 15,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25,000 to $ 34,999 $ 35,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 100,000 to $ 149,999 $ 150,000 to $ 199,999 $ 200,000 or more

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

102,634 12,145 7,232 17,246 14,381 16,351 17,186 6,715 1,628 1,083

1,433 830 618 NC NC NC NC NC 288 273

100.0% 11.8%
7.0% 16.8% 14.0% 15.9% 16.7%
6.5% 1.6% 1.1%

586,769 22,507 17,040 47,415 59,990 87,907
123,771 87,353 28,618 26,906

3,559 1,099 1,110
NC NC NC NC NC 1,039 1,078

100.0% 3.8% 2.9% 8.1% 10.2% 15.0% 21.1%
14.9% 4.9% 4.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 35 of 64
Family Income in the Past 12 Months
Arkansas

25.0%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

21.1%

20.0%

15.0%

16.8%

14.0%

15.9% 15.0%

16.7%

14.9%

11.8%
10.0%
7.0%

5.0%

3.8%

2.9%

8.1%

10.2%

6.5%

4.9%

4.6%

1.6% 1.1%

0.0%

Less than $ $ 10,000 to $ $ 15,000 to $ $ 25,000 to $ $ 35,000 to $ $ 50,000 to $ $ 100,000 to $ $ 150,000 to $ $ 200,000 or

10,000

14,999

24,999

34,999

49,999

74,999

149,999

199,999

more

Source: B19101. FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 36 of 64
B19113. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Median family income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

$ 35,221 $

1,004 $ 60,740 $

517

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 37 of 64
Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000
$-

$35,221

$60,740

Median family income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19113. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 38 of 64
B19202. MEDIAN NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Median nonfamily household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

$ 19,871 $

622 $ 26,263 $

405

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 39 of 64
Median Non-Family Income in the Past 12 Months
Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

$30,000

$26,263

$25,000 $20,000

$19,871

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$Median nonfamily household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Source: B19202. MEDIAN NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 40 of 64
B19301. PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

$ 16,303 $

311 $ 27,425 $

216

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 41 of 64
Per capita Income in the Past 12 Months Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

$30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

$16,303

$27,425

Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19301. PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 42 of 64
B20017. MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) BY SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER WITH EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Median earnings in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars) -Total: Male -Total Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months Other Female -Total Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months Other

$ 22,335 $

362 $ 30,577 $

184

$ 24,612 $

839 $ 36,034 $

257

$ 32,427 $

724 $ 45,567 $

386

$

8,580 $

953 $ 11,043 $

260

$ 21,138 $

451 $ 25,158 $

245

$ 28,953 $

866 $ 35,434 $

312

$

8,656 $

364 $

9,892 $

207

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 43 of 64
Median earnings in the Past 12 Months (16 Years and Over with Earnings) Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

$35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

$22,335

$30,577

Median earnings in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars) --

Source: B20017. MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) BY SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER WITH EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 44 of 64
C21001. SEX BY AGE BY VETERAN STATUS FOR THE CIVILIAN POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Veteran Nonveteran
Male: 18 to 64 years: Veteran Nonveteran 65 years and over: Veteran Nonveteran
Female: 18 to 64 years: Veteran Nonveteran 65 years and over: Veteran Nonveteran

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

331,793 22,826
308,967 154,232 135,332
13,893 121,439
18,900 6010
12,890 177,561 150,778
2,754 148,024
26,783 169
26,614

989

100.0% 1,720,895

NC

6.9%

174,368

NC

93.1% 1,546,527

609

46.5%

833,909

589

40.8%

649,518

816

4.2%

75,214

973

36.6%

574,304

199

5.7%

184,391

396

1.8%

87615

409

3.9%

96,776

757

53.5%

886,986

717

45.4%

658,272

415

0.8%

9,053

847

44.6%

649,219

223

8.1%

228,714

77

0.1%

2,486

233

8.0%

226,228

564 NC NC 433 431 1,848 1,864 74 1194 1,202 263 257 693 710 72 305 325

100.0% 10.1% 89.9% 48.5% 37.7%
4.4% 33.4% 10.7%
5.1% 5.6% 51.5% 38.3% 0.5% 37.7% 13.3% 0.1% 13.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 45 of 64
Veterans in the Civilian Population 18 Years and Over Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White ` 10.1%
6.9%
Veteran

Source: C21001. SEX BY AGE BY VETERAN STATUS FOR THE CIVILIAN POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 46 of 64
B20005. SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more Other: No earnings With earnings: less than full time, year-round
Male: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

346,651 125,903
0 125,903
3,898 23,937 31,501 41,125 18,162
7,280 220,748 147,701
73,047 162,031
58,809 0
58,809 1,764 9,255
13,465 20,479
9,416 4,430

1,136 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 756
1,597 27
1,597 NC NC NC NC NC NC

100.0% 36.3% 0.0% 36.3% 1.1% 6.9% 9.1% 11.9% 5.2% 2.1% 63.7% 42.6% 21.1% 46.7% 17.0% 0.0% 17.0% 0.5% 2.7% 3.9% 5.9% 2.7% 1.3%

1,776,600 705,609 115 705,494 12,248 73,381 132,935 221,405 148,019 117,506
1,070,991 706,806 364,185 863,595 403,863 59 403,804 6,081 30,023 65,336 120,445 93,614 88,305

1,188 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 800
2,676 60
2,666 NC NC NC NC NC NC

100.0% 39.7%
0.0% 39.7%
0.7% 4.1% 7.5% 12.5% 8.3% 6.6% 60.3% 39.8% 20.5% 48.6% 22.7% 0.0% 22.7% 0.3% 1.7% 3.7% 6.8% 5.3% 5.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 47 of 64

Arkansas

Other: No earnings With earnings:
Female: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more Other: No earnings With earnings:

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

103,222 70,987 32,235
184,620 67,094 0 67,094 2,134 14,682 18,036 20,646 8,746 2,850
117,526 76,714 40,812

1,705 1,652 1,235
889 1,504
27 1,504
NC NC NC NC NC NC 1,535 1,746 1,332

29.8% 20.5%
9.3% 53.3% 19.4%
0.0% 19.4%
0.6% 4.2% 5.2% 6.0% 2.5% 0.8% 33.9% 22.1% 11.8%

459,732 295,575 164,157 913,005 301,746
56 301,690
6,167 43,358 67,599 100,960 54,405 29,201 611,259 411,231 200,028

2,767 2,614 2,707
797 2,456
40 2,454
NC NC NC NC NC NC 2,791 3,017 2,860

25.9% 16.6%
9.2% 51.4% 17.0%
0.0% 17.0%
0.3% 2.4% 3.8% 5.7% 3.1% 1.6% 34.4% 23.1% 11.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 48 of 64
Employment and Earnings in in the Past 12 Months (16 Years and Over)
Arkansas

45.0% 40.0% 35.0%

36.3%

39.7%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months:

African American 42.6%

Non-Hispanic, White 39.8%

21.1%

20.5%

No earnings

With earnings: less than full time, yearround

Source: B20005. SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 49 of 64
B22005. RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS/SNAP IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: HH received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months HH did not receive Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

172,490 48,970
123,520

1,507 1,368 1,602

100.0% 28.4% 71.6%

879,735 92,137
787,598

3,594 2,014 3,954

100.0% 10.5% 89.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 50 of 64
Receipt of Food Stamps/SNAP in the Past 12 Months by Household Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

28.4% 10.5%
HH received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months

Source: B22005. RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS/SNAP IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 51 of 64
C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force
Male: 16 to 64 years: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force 65 years and over: In labor force: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force

Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

346,651 198,764
585 191,996 175,143
23,036 147,887 162,031 143,131
87,868 316
87,552 75782 11,770 55,263 18,900 3,065 2,781
284 15,835

1,136 NC NC NC NC NC NC 756 749
1,455 157
1,456 1411
871 1,484
199 284 269 104 335

100.0% 57.3% 0.2% 55.4% 50.5% 6.6% 42.7% 46.7% 41.3% 25.3% 0.1% 25.3% 21.9% 3.4% 15.9% 5.5% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 4.6%

1,776,600 1,018,221
3,119 950,873 961,387
53,715 758,379 863,595 679,204 509,412
2,733 506,679 477242
29,437 169,792 184,391
35,959 34,830
1,129 148,432

1,188 NC NC NC NC NC NC 800 792
2,210 359
2,176 2271 1,118 2,284
74 1,164 1,134
191 1,161

100.0% 57.3%
0.2% 53.5% 54.1%
3.0% 42.7% 48.6% 38.2% 28.7%
0.2% 28.5% 26.9%
1.7% 9.6% 10.4% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 8.4%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 52 of 64

Arkansas

Female: 16 to 64 years: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force 65 years and over: In labor force: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

184,620 157,837 104,713
269 104,444
93,551 10,893 53,124 26,783
3,118 3,029
89 23,665

889 851 1,573 178 1,565 1,629 923 1,608 223 304 305
52 401

53.3% 45.5% 30.2%
0.1% 30.1% 27.0%
3.1% 15.3%
7.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 6.8%

913,005 684,291 444,580
386 444,194 421,651
22,543 239,711 228,714
28,270 27,664
606 200,444

797 791 2,523 129 2,509 2,527 1,158 2,708
72 888 897 153 893

51.4% 38.5% 25.0%
0.0% 25.0% 23.7%
1.3% 13.5% 12.9%
1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 11.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 53 of 64
Employment Status for the Population 16 years and over
Arkansas

57.3% 57.3%

African American Non-Hispanic, White
54.1% 50.5%

42.7% 42.7%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%
0.0% In labor force:

0.2% 0.2% In Armed Forces

Employed

6.6% 3.0%
Unemployed

Not in labor force

Source: C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 54 of 64
Unemployment of Working Age Population (Ages 16 to 64) (As a Percent of 16-64 Civilian Labor Force)
Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

12.0% 5.6%
16-64 Unemployment Rate

Source: C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 55 of 64
C24010. SEX BY OCCUPATION FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Management, professional, and related occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
Male: Management, business, science, and arts occupations: Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
Female: Management, professional, and related occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

African American
175,143 43,503 44,675 38,649 9,267 39,049 78,563 12,759 16,540 12,469 8,488 28,307 96,580 30,744 28,135 26,180 779 10,742

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

2,205 NC NC NC NC NC
1,454 824
1,088 968 713
1,156 1,619 1,194 1,134 1,154
216 790

100.0% 24.8% 25.5% 22.1% 5.3% 22.3% 44.9% 7.3% 9.4% 7.1% 4.8% 16.2% 55.1% 17.6% 16.1% 14.9% 0.4% 6.1%

961,387 345,297 143,307 236,173 103,078 133,532 512,072 155,889
61,282 87,140 99,187 108,574 449,315 189,408 82,025 149,033
3,891 24,958

3,528 NC NC NC NC NC
2,425 2,380 1,949 2,153 2,343 2,502 2,563 2,469 2,122 2,553
463 1,066

% of NHW Total 100.0%
35.9% 14.9% 24.6% 10.7% 13.9% 53.3% 16.2%
6.4% 9.1% 10.3% 11.3% 46.7% 19.7% 8.5% 15.5% 0.4% 2.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 56 of 64
Occupation for the Civilian Employed 16 Years and Over Population
Arkansas

40.0% 35.0%

35.9%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0%

24.8%

25.5% 14.9%

24.6% 22.1%

10.7% 5.3%

22.3% 13.9%

0.0% Management,
professional, and related occupations

Service occupations

Sales and office occupations

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations:

Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations

Source: C24010. SEX BY OCCUPATION FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 57 of 64
B25003. TENURE - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Owner occupied Renter occupied

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

172,490 74,500 97,990

1,507 1,461 1,849

100.0% 43.2% 56.8%

879,735 629,422 250,313

3,594 4,273 2,738

100.0% 71.5% 28.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.h

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 58 of 64
Home Owners and Renters by Household Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

71.5% 43.2%
Owner occupied

Source: B25003. TENURE - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

56.8% 28.5%
Renter occupied

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 59 of 64
B25014. OCCUPANTS PER ROOM - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: 1.00 or less occupants per room 1.01 or more occupants per room

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

172,490 166,115
6,375

1,507 1,735
628

100.0% 96.3% 3.7%

879,735 864,158
15,577

3,594 3,686
766

100.0% 98.2%
1.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.ht

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 60 of 64
More than One Person per Room (Crowding) by Household Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White
3.7% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5%
1.8% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%
1.01 or more occupants per room
Source: B25014. OCCUPANTS PER ROOM - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B18101. AGE BY DISABILITY SCTaAsTeUS4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 61 of 64
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Under 18 years: With a disability No disability 18 to 64 years: With a disability No disability 65 years and over: With a disability No disability

African American
445,351 126,845
9,585 117,260 275,021
50,740 224,281
43,485 21,128 22,357

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

1,736 1,245
992 1,694
970 1,912 2,013
413 711 637

100.0% 28.5%
2.2% 26.3% 61.8% 11.4% 50.4%
9.8% 4.7% 5.0%

2,138,713 449,103 25,273 423,830
1,290,161 197,257
1,092,904 399,449 165,496 233,953

Margin of Error (+/-)
903 1,325 1,156 1,245
690 2,963 2,857
482 2,143 2,150

% of NHW Total
100.0% 21.0% 1.2% 19.8% 60.3% 9.2% 51.1% 18.7% 7.7% 10.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 62 of 64
Disability by Age
Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

48.6%

41.4%

7.6% 5.6%
Under 18 with a disability

18.4%

15.3%

18 to 64 with a disability

65 and over with a disability

Source: B18101. AGE BY DISABILITY STATUS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

C27001B. HEALTH INSURANCECCasOeVE4R:2A0G-cEvS-0T0A3T4U1S-BJMY AGDEocument 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 63 of 64
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Arkansas

Total: Under 18 years: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage 18 to 64 years: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage 65 years and over: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage

African American
445,351 135,916 130,470
5,446 265,950 222,200
43,750 43,485 43,275
210

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

1,736 1,480 1,530
893 1,093 1,920 1,661
413 415
79

100.0% 30.5% 29.3%
1.2% 59.7% 49.9%
9.8% 9.8% 9.7% 0.0%

2,138,713 474,933 455,561 19,372
1,264,331 1,096,133
168,198 399,449 398,697
752

Margin of Error (+/-)
903 982 1,640 1,274 1,168 4,206 4,098 482 523 213

% of NHW Total
100.0% 22.2% 21.3% 0.9% 59.1% 51.3% 7.9% 18.7% 18.6% 0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-15 Filed 03/27/20 Page 64 of 64
Lack of Health Insurance Coverage by Age
Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

16.5%

13.3%

4.0%

4.1%

Under 18 no health insurance

18 to 64 no health insurance

0.5%

0.2%

65 and over no health insurance

Source: C27001B. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE STATUS BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 64
Selected Socio-Economic Data Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American and White, Not Hispanic Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
www.fairvote2020.org www.fairdata2000.com 24-Mar-20

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 64
C02003.DETAILED RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Population of one race: White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race Population of two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races Population of two races: White; Black or African American White; American Indian and Alaska Native White; Asian Black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native All other two race combinations Population of three races Population of four or more races

Population

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of Total

71,373 70,559 28,952 40,220
169 539
0 679 814
27 787 768 260 296 159
17 36 46
0

*****

100.0%

218

98.9%

218

40.6%

164

56.4%

94

0.2%

124

0.8%

27

0.0%

227

1.0%

218

1.1%

29

0.0%

220

1.1%

211

1.1%

153

0.4%

94

0.4%

124

0.2%

23

0.0%

34

0.1%

53

0.1%

27

0.0%

Note: Hispanics may be of any race. See Table B03002 and chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 64
Population by Race
Jefferson County, Arkansas

60.0%

50.0% 40.0%

40.6%

56.4%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0% 0.0%

White

0.2%

0.8%

0.0%

1.0%

1.1%

Black or African American

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian Some other race and Other Pacific
Islander

Population of two or more
races:

Source: C02003.DETAILED RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 64
B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Not Hispanic or Latino: White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races Hispanic or Latino

Population
71,373 69,963 28,256 40,183
169 539
0 75 741
0 741 1,410

Margin of Error (+/-)
***** *****
32 161
94 124
27 63 208 27 208 *****

% of Total
100.0% 98.0% 39.6% 56.3% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 64
Non-Hispanic by Race and Hispanic Population
Jefferson County, Arkansas

60.0%

56.3%

50.0% 40.0%

39.6%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

0.2%

White alone

Black or African American alone

American Indian and Alaska Native
alone

0.8% Asian alone

0.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

0.1%
Some other race alone

1.0%

2.0%

Two or more races:

Hispanic or Latino

Source: B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 64
B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Population

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of Total

Hispanic or Latino: White alone
Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races: Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and three or more races

1,410 696 37 0 0 0 604 73 27 46

0

100.0%

215

49.4%

26

2.6%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

214

42.8%

63

5.2%

29

1.9%

52

3.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 64
Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race
Jefferson County, Arkansas

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

49.4% White alone

2.6%

0.0%

Black or African American alone

American Indian and Alaska Native alone

42.8%

5.2%

0.0%

0.0%

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian Some other race

and Other Pacific

alone

Islander alone

Two or more races:

Source: B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 64
B01001. SEX BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over
Male: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over
Female: Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

40,220 10,653 25,081
4,486 19,343
5543 11,935
1,865 20,877
5,110 13,146
2,621

164

100.0%

NC

26.5%

NC

62.4%

NC

11.2%

112

48.1%

NC

13.8%

NC

29.7%

NC

4.6%

92

51.9%

NC

12.7%

NC

32.7%

NC

6.5%

28,256 4,756
17,059 6,441
14,328 2,434 8,997 2,897
13,928 2,322 8,062 3,544

32 NC NC NC 4,980 NC NC NC 5,836 NC NC NC

100.0% 16.8% 60.4% 22.8% 50.7%
8.6% 31.8% 10.3% 49.3%
8.2% 28.5% 12.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 64
Population by Age
Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

62.4%

60.4%

26.5% 16.8%

Under 18 years

18 to 64 years

22.8% 11.2%
65 years and over

Source: B01001. SEX BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 64
B05003. SEX BY AGE BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen
Male: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of % of AA Total White, Not

Error (+/-)

by Age

Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total by Age

40,220 10,653 10,653
0 0 0 29,567 29,338 229 60 169 19,343 5543 5,543 0 0 0 13,800 13,719 81 29 52

164

100.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

99.2%

NC

0.8%

NC

0.2%

NC

0.6%

112

48.1%

57

100.0%

57

100.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

74

100.0%

111

99.4%

73

0.6%

26

0.2%

69

0.4%

28,256 4,756 4,756 0 0 0
23,500 23,383
117 101
16 14,328
2434 2,434
0 0 0 11,894 11,831 63 47 16

32

100.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

100.0%

NC

99.5%

NC

0.5%

NC

0.4%

NC

0.1%

6

50.7%

27

100.0%

27

100.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

6

100.0%

49

99.5%

49

0.5%

43

0.4%

17

0.1%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 64

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Female: Under 18 years: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen 18 years and over: Native Foreign born: Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA by Age

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of % of NHW by

Error (+/-)

Age

20,877 5,110 5,110 0 0 0
15,767 15,619
148 31
117

92

51.9%

51

100.0%

51

100.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

58

100.0%

119

99.1%

103

0.9%

34

0.2%

90

0.7%

13,928 2,322 2,322 0 0 0
11,606 11,552
54 54
0

31

49.3%

21

100.0%

21

100.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

27

0.0%

22

100.0%

43

99.5%

37

0.5%

37

0.5%

27

0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 64
Citizenship Status of Voting Age Population (18 and Over)
Jefferson County, Arkansas

99.2% 99.5%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

Native

0.8% 0.5% Foreign born:

0.2% 0.4% Naturalized U.S. citizen

0.6% 0.1% Not a U.S. citizen

Source: B05003. SEX BY AGE BY CITIZENSHIP STATUS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B07004. GEOGRAPHICAL MOBCILaIsTeY 4IN:2T0H-cEvP-0A0S3T4Y1E-AJMR BYDRoAcuCmE eFOntR3C-1U6RREFNileTdR0E3S/I2D7E/N2C0E IPNaTgHeE1U3NoITfE6D4STATES - Universe:
POPULATION 1 YEAR AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Same house 1 year ago Moved within same county Moved from different county within same state Moved from different state Moved from abroad

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

39,780 34,779
3,371 1,092
447 91

212

100.0%

759

87.4%

666

8.5%

309

2.7%

209

1.1%

55

0.2%

28,195 24,981
1,380 1,392
431 11

60

100.0%

484

88.6%

304

4.9%

396

4.9%

257

1.5%

13

0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 64
Geographical Mobility in the Past Year (Population 1 Year and Over)
Jefferson County, Arkansas

90.0%

87.4% 88.6%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Same house 1 year ago

8.5% 4.9%

4.9% 2.7%

1.1% 1.5%

Moved within same county

Moved from different county within same state

Moved from different state

0.2% 0.0% Moved from abroad

Source: B07004. GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY IN THE PAST YEAR BY RACE FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES - Universe: POPULATION 1 YEAR AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 15 of 64
B08105. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK - Universe: WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Car, truck, or van - drove alone Car, truck, or van - carpooled Public transportation (excluding taxicab) Walked Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means Worked at home

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

14027 12330
782 39
193 381 302

553

100.0%

621

87.9%

177

5.6%

28

0.3%

125

1.4%

146

2.7%

125

2.2%

11091 9718 811 19 89 228 226

535

100.0%

520

87.6%

190

7.3%

22

0.2%

61

0.8%

123

2.1%

89

2.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 16 of 64
Means of Transportation to Work (Workers 16 Years and Over)
Jefferson County, Arkansas

90.0%

87.9% 87.6%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Car, truck, or van drove alone

African American Non-Hispanic, White

5.6% 7.3%
Car, truck, or van carpooled

0.3% 0.2%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)

1.4% 0.8% Walked

2.7% 2.1%
Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means

2.2% 2.0% Worked at home

Source: B08105. MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK - Universe: WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 17 of 64
B11002. HOUSEHOLD TYPE BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES FOR POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: In family households In nonfamily households

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

36803 29696
7107

442

100.0%

753

80.7%

707

19.3%

26182 21617
4565

599

100.0%

708

82.6%

483

17.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 18 of 64
Household Type for Population in Households Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

80.7%

82.6%

In family households

19.3%

17.4%

In nonfamily households

Source: B11002. HOUSEHOLD TYPE BY RELATIVES AND NONRELATIVES FOR POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 19 of 64
B12002. MARITAL STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced Male: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced Female: Never married Now married (except separated) Separated Widowed Divorced

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

31,438 14,760
9,692 1,342 2,005 3,639 14,783 7,732 4,904
561 354 1,232 16,655 7,028 4,788 781 1,651 2,407

120

100.0%

NC

46.9%

NC

30.8%

NC

4.3%

NC

6.4%

NC

11.6%

74

47.0%

348

24.6%

361

15.6%

130

1.8%

107

1.1%

177

3.9%

80

53.0%

321

22.4%

343

15.2%

163

2.5%

178

5.3%

269

7.7%

24,421 5,338
12,777 682
2,199 3,425 12,374 3,342 6,337
396 423 1,876 12,047 1,996 6,440 286 1,776 1,549

23

100.0%

NC

21.9%

NC

52.3%

NC

2.8%

NC

9.0%

NC

14.0%

6

50.7%

307

13.7%

319

25.9%

127

1.6%

113

1.7%

285

7.7%

22

49.3%

208

8.2%

332

26.4%

128

1.2%

205

7.3%

258

6.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 20 of 64
Marital Status for the Population 15 Years and Over
Jefferson County, Arkansas

60.0% 50.0%

46.9%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

52.3%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

21.9%

30.8%

10.0%

4.3% 2.8%

0.0%

Never married

Now married (except separated)

Separated

Source: B12002. MARITAL STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 15 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

9.0% 6.4%
Widowed

14.0% 11.6%
Divorced

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 21 of 64
C15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher
Male: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher
Female: Less than high school diploma High school graduate, GED, or alternative Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higher

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

24,405 4,198 8,599 7,528 4,080
11,238 2,271 4,940 2,835 1,192
13,167 1,927 3,659 4,693 2,888

97

100.0%

NC

17.2%

NC

35.2%

NC

30.8%

NC

16.7%

72

46.0%

331

9.3%

384

20.2%

343

11.6%

199

4.9%

50

54.0%

249

7.9%

317

15.0%

352

19.2%

313

11.8%

21,544 2,512 9,092 6,321 3,619
10,865 1,390 4,927 2,882 1,666
10,679 1,122 4,165 3,439 1,953

22

100.0%

NC

11.7%

NC

42.2%

NC

29.3%

NC

16.8%

27

50.4%

232

6.5%

369

22.9%

237

13.4%

209

7.7%

22

49.6%

209

5.2%

370

19.3%

369

16.0%

269

9.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 22 of 64
Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Older
Jefferson County, Arkansas

45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0%

42.2% 35.2%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

30.8% 29.3%

25.0%

20.0% 15.0% 10.0%

17.2% 11.7%

16.7% 16.8%

5.0%

0.0%

Less than high school

High school graduate, GED, Some college or associate's Bachelor's degree or higher

diploma

or alternative

degree

Source: C15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B16005. NATIVITY BY LANGUACGaEseSP4O:2K0E-NcvA-T00H3O4M1E-JBMY ADBoILcIuTmY TeOntS3P-E1A6K FENileGdLI0S3H/2F7O/R20THEPaPgOePU2L3AoTfIO64N 5 YEARS AND OVER
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"
Native: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"
Foreign born: Speak only English Speak another language Speak English "very well" Speak English "less than very well"

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

37,371 36,820
551 401 150 37,142 36,805 337 240
97 229
15 214 161
53

128

100.0%

NC

98.5%

NC

1.5%

NC

1.1%

NC

0.4%

203

99.4%

277

98.5%

136

0.9%

123

0.6%

60

0.3%

150

0.6%

19

0.0%

146

0.6%

103

0.4%

69

0.1%

27,044 26,552
492 445
47 26,927 26,506
421 394
27 117
46 71 51 20

23

100.0%

NC

98.2%

NC

1.8%

NC

1.6%

NC

0.2%

66

99.6%

303

98.0%

291

1.6%

289

1.5%

21

0.1%

61

0.4%

37

0.2%

50

0.3%

42

0.2%

24

0.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

`

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 24 of 64
Speak English "Less than Very Well" (Population 5 Years and Over) Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White
0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%
0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Speak English "less than very well"
Source: B16005. NATIVITY BY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 25 of 64
B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

Total: Income in the past 12 months below poverty level: Married-couple family: With related children under 18 years Other family: Male householder, no wife present With related children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present With related children under 18 years Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: Married-couple family: With related children under 18 years Other family: Male householder, no wife present With related children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present With related children under 18 years

8,862 2,356
531 290 1,825 197 133 1,628 1,402 6,506 3,731 1,517 2,775 424 105 2,351 1,305

398

100.0%

317

26.6%

156

6.0%

132

3.3%

272

20.6%

81

2.2%

69

1.5%

254

18.4%

222

15.8%

370

73.4%

348

42.1%

269

17.1%

256

31.3%

120

4.8%

59

1.2%

243

26.5%

192

14.7%

7,314 719 330 203 389 74 74 315 253
6,595 5,575 1,560 1,020
391 166 629 289

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

315

100.0%

163

9.8%

129

4.5%

112

2.8%

115

5.3%

48

1.0%

48

1.0%

110

4.3%

97

3.5%

329

90.2%

321

76.2%

218

21.3%

222

13.9%

117

5.3%

73

2.3%

164

8.6%

119

4.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 26 of 64
Family Households Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

26.6% 9.8%
Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:

Source: B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 27 of 64
Female-headed Households with Related Children Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

51.8%

46.7%

With related children under 18 years below poverty

Source: B17010. POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS OF FAMILIES BY FAMILY TYPE BY PRESENCE OF RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 28 of 64
B17020 POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE - Universe: POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total:
Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:
Under 18 years
18 to 59 years 60 years and over Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level: Under 18 years 18 to 59 years 60 years and over

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA By Age

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of % of NHW By

Error (+/-)

Age

36,781
11,729
4,783
5,579 1,367 25,052 5,555 14,498 4,999

432
1,052
NC
237 NC 1,058 NC 246 NC

100.0%
31.9%
46.3%
27.8% 21.5% 68.1% 53.7% 72.2% 78.5%

25,799
4,050
1,305
1,965 780
21,749 3,417
11,086 7,246

444

100.0%

653

15.7%

NC

27.6%

192

15.1%

NC

9.7%

799

84.3%

NC

72.4%

277

84.9%

NC

90.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 29 of 64
Population Below Poverty in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas

50.0%

45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

31.9%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0% 15.0%

15.7%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Income in the past 12 months below poverty level:

46.3%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

27.6%

27.8% 15.1%

21.5% 9.7%

Under 18 years

18 to 59 years

60 years and over

Source: B17020 POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE - Universe: POPULATION FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 30 of 64
B19001. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Less than $ 10,000 $ 10,000 to $ 14,999 $ 15,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25,000 to $ 34,999 $ 35,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 to $ 99,999 $ 100,000 to $ 149,999 $ 150,000 to $ 199,999 $ 200,000 or more

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

14,926 2,116 1,657 2,350 2,055 2,218 2,413 1,238 663 147 69

399

100.0%

226

14.2%

250

11.1%

NC

15.7%

NC

13.8%

NC

14.9%

NC

16.2%

203

8.3%

NC

4.4%

84

1.0%

40

0.5%

11,402 716 666
1,522 1,217 1,682 2,215 1,218 1,367
427 372

420

100.0%

174

6.3%

188

5.8%

NC

13.3%

NC

10.7%

NC

14.8%

NC

19.4%

214

10.7%

NC

12.0%

122

3.7%

125

3.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 31 of 64
Household Income in the Past 12 Months
Jefferson County, Arkansas

20.0%

19.4%

African American Non-Hispanic, White

18.0%

16.0% 14.0%

14.2%

12.0%

11.1%

15.7%

13.3%

13.8%

14.9%14.8%

16.2%

10.7%

10.7%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.3%

5.8%

6.0%

4.0%

8.3% 4.4%

3.7%

3.3%

2.0% 0.0%

1.0% 0.5%

Less than $ $ 10,000 to $ $ 15,000 to $ $ 25,000 to $ $ 35,000 to $ $ 50,000 to $ $ 75,000 to $ $ 100,000 to $ 150,000 to $ 200,000 or

10,000

14,999

24,999

34,999

49,999

74,999

99,999

$ 149,999 $ 199,999

more

Source: B19001. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 32 of 64
B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

$ 31,167 $

2,284 $ 48,797 $

3,444

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

$50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 33 of 64
Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White $48,797
$31,167
Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19013. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 34 of 64
B19101. FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Less than $ 10,000 $ 10,000 to $ 14,999 $ 15,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25,000 to $ 34,999 $ 35,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 100,000 to $ 149,999 $ 150,000 to $ 199,999 $ 200,000 or more

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

8,862 836 697
1,311 1,171 1,513 1,528
624 147
49

398

100.0%

202

9.4%

184

7.9%

NC

14.8%

NC

13.2%

NC

17.1%

NC

17.2%

NC

7.0%

84

1.7%

34

0.6%

7,314 349 169 353 716
1,059 1,549 1,272
396 342

315

100.0%

130

4.8%

83

2.3%

NC

4.8%

NC

9.8%

NC

14.5%

NC

21.2%

NC

17.4%

113

5.4%

122

4.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

25.0% 20.0% 15.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 35 of 64
Family Income in the Past 12 Months
Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

21.2%

14.8%

13.2%

17.1%

17.2%

14.5%

17.4%

10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

9.4% 7.9%
4.8% 2.3%

4.8%

9.8%

7.0%

5.4% 4.7%
1.7% 0.6%

Less than $ $ 10,000 to $ $ 15,000 to $ $ 25,000 to $ $ 35,000 to $ $ 50,000 to $ $ 100,000 to $ $ 150,000 to $ $ 200,000 or

10,000

14,999

24,999

34,999

49,999

74,999

149,999

199,999

more

Source: B19101. FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 36 of 64
B19113. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Median family income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

$ 39,002 $

2,950 $

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

65,740 $

4,098

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 37 of 64
Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

$70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000
$-

$65,740 $39,002
Median family income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19113. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 38 of 64
B19202. MEDIAN NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Median nonfamily household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

$ 21,423 $

1,790 $ 25,075 $

2,767

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 39 of 64
Median Non-Family Income in the Past 12 Months
Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

$30,000 $25,000

$21,423

$25,075

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$Median nonfamily household income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Source: B19202. MEDIAN NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 40 of 64
B19301. PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

$ 15,885 $

630 $ 26,930 $

1,605

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 41 of 64
Per capita Income in the Past 12 Months Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

$30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

$15,885

$26,930

Per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Source: B19301. PER CAPITA INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 42 of 64
B20017. MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) BY SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER WITH EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

Median earnings in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars) -Total: Male -Total Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months Other Female -Total Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months Other

$ 24,453 $

$ 28,210 $

$ 36,152 $

$

6,640 $

$ 22,500 $

$ 30,760 $

$

7,767 $

1,451 $ 34,089 $

2,918 $ 2,354 $ 2,187 $

40,320 $ 48,135 $
8,881 $

1,746 $ 1,352 $ 1,081 $

27,295 $ 37,313 $ 10,168 $

2,225
2,337 4,402 2,071
2,094 3,059 1,748

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

$35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000
$5,000 $-

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 43 of 64
Median earnings in the Past 12 Months (16 Years and Over with Earnings) Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White $34,089
$24,453
Median earnings in the past 12 months (in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars) --

Source: B20017. MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) BY SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER WITH EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 44 of 64
C21001. SEX BY AGE BY VETERAN STATUS FOR THE CIVILIAN POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Veteran Nonveteran
Male: 18 to 64 years: Veteran Nonveteran 65 years and over: Veteran Nonveteran
Female: 18 to 64 years: Veteran Nonveteran 65 years and over: Veteran Nonveteran

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

29,565 1,640
27,925 13,798 11,933
833 11,100
1,865 596
1,269 15,767 13,146
199 12,947
2,621 12
2,609

104

100.0%

NC

5.5%

NC

94.5%

74

46.7%

73

40.4%

185

2.8%

190

37.5%

13

6.3%

110

2.0%

112

4.3%

58

53.3%

58

44.5%

80

0.7%

98

43.8%

11

8.9%

19

0.0%

22

8.8%

23,498 2,562
20,936 11,892
8,995 1,008 7,987 2,897 1342 1,555 11,606 8,062
197 7,865 3,544
15 3,529

24

100.0%

NC

10.9%

NC

89.1%

7

50.6%

7

38.3%

168

4.3%

168

34.0%

27

12.3%

182

5.7%

182

6.6%

22

49.4%

27

34.3%

104

0.8%

104

33.5%

22

15.1%

23

0.1%

33

15.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 45 of 64
Veterans in the Civilian Population 18 Years and Over Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White ` 10.9%
5.5%
Veteran

Source: C21001. SEX BY AGE BY VETERAN STATUS FOR THE CIVILIAN POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 46 of 64
B20005. SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more Other: No earnings With earnings: less than full time, year-round
Male: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

30,614 9,994 0 9,994 195 1,497 2,384 3,618 1,657 643
20,620 14,682
5,938 14,358
4,535 0
4,535 67
522 883 1,712 794 557

172

100.0%

NC

32.6%

NC

0.0%

NC

32.6%

NC

0.6%

NC

4.9%

NC

7.8%

NC

11.8%

NC

5.4%

NC

2.1%

NC

67.4%

NC

48.0%

NC

19.4%

123

46.9%

347

14.8%

27

0.0%

347

14.8%

NC

0.2%

NC

1.7%

NC

2.9%

NC

5.6%

NC

2.6%

NC

1.8%

24,055 8,764 0 8,764 102 744 1,656 2,662 2,155 1,445
15,291 11,560
3,731 12,213
4,878 0
4,878 74
288 702 1,466 1,297 1,051

99

100.0%

NC

36.4%

NC

0.0%

NC

36.4%

NC

0.4%

NC

3.1%

NC

6.9%

NC

11.1%

NC

9.0%

NC

6.0%

NC

63.6%

NC

48.1%

NC

15.5%

68

50.8%

384

20.3%

27

0.0%

384

20.3%

NC

0.3%

NC

1.2%

NC

2.9%

NC

6.1%

NC

5.4%

NC

4.4%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 47 of 64

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Other: No earnings With earnings:
Female: Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months: No earnings With earnings: $ 1 to $ 9,999 or loss $ 10,000 to $ 19,999 $ 20,000 to $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 or more Other: No earnings With earnings:

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

9,823 7,354 2,469 16,256 5,459
0 5,459
128 975 1,501 1,906 863
86 10,797
7,328 3,469

332

32.1%

7,335

374

24.0%

5,612

297

8.1%

1,723

116

53.1%

11,842

363

17.8%

3,886

27

0.0%

0

363

17.8%

3,886

NC

0.4%

28

NC

3.2%

456

NC

4.9%

954

NC

6.2%

1,196

NC

2.8%

858

NC

0.3%

394

378

35.3%

7,956

398

23.9%

5,948

330

11.3%

2,008

376

30.5%

430

23.3%

261

7.2%

76

49.2%

313

16.2%

27

0.0%

313

16.2%

NC

0.1%

NC

1.9%

NC

4.0%

NC

5.0%

NC

3.6%

NC

1.6%

333

33.1%

303

24.7%

294

8.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 48 of 64
Employment and Earnings in in the Past 12 Months (16 Years and Over)
Jefferson County, Arkansas

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

32.6%

36.4%

Worked full-time, year-round in the past 12 months:

African American 48.0%

Non-Hispanic, White 48.1%

19.4%

15.5%

No earnings

With earnings: less than full time, yearround

Source: B20005. SEX BY WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2017 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS) FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 49 of 64
B22005. RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS/SNAP IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: HH received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months HH did not receive Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

14,926 4,338
10,588

399

100.0%

303

29.1%

407

70.9%

11,402 1,110
10,292

420

100.0%

198

9.7%

423

90.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 50 of 64
Receipt of Food Stamps/SNAP in the Past 12 Months by Household Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

29.1% 9.7%
HH received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months

Source: B22005. RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS/SNAP IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 51 of 64
C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Total: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force
Male: 16 to 64 years: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force 65 years and over: In labor force: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force

Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

30,614 16,520
2 16,007 14,295
2,223 14,094 14,358 12,493
7,017 2
7,015 5960 1,055 5,476 1,865
223 204
19 1,642

172

100.0%

NC

54.0%

NC

0.0%

NC

52.3%

NC

46.7%

NC

7.3%

NC

46.0%

123

46.9%

122

40.8%

398

22.9%

4

0.0%

398

22.9%

345

19.5%

235

3.4%

384

17.9%

13

6.1%

69

0.7%

68

0.7%

21

0.1%

70

5.4%

24,055 11,992
2 10,925 11,298
692 12,063 12,213
9,316 5,704
2 5,702 5360
342 3,612 2,897
565 565
0 2,332

99

100.0%

NC

49.9%

NC

0.0%

NC

45.4%

NC

47.0%

NC

2.9%

NC

50.1%

68

50.8%

68

38.7%

438

23.7%

4

0.0%

438

23.7%

448

22.3%

135

1.4%

433

15.0%

27

12.0%

126

2.3%

126

2.3%

27

0.0%

126

9.7%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 52 of 64

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Female: 16 to 64 years: In labor force: In Armed Forces Civilian: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force 65 years and over: In labor force: Employed Unemployed Not in labor force

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

16,256 13,635
8,992 0
8,992 7,860 1,132 4,643 2,621
288 271
17 2,333

116

53.1%

11,842

115

44.5%

8,298

366

29.4%

5,223

27

0.0%

0

366

29.4%

5,223

369

25.7%

4,873

219

3.7%

350

367

15.2%

3,075

11

8.6%

3,544

92

0.9%

500

81

0.9%

500

26

0.1%

0

92

7.6%

3,044

76

49.2%

75

34.5%

248

21.7%

27

0.0%

248

21.7%

255

20.3%

134

1.5%

240

12.8%

22

14.7%

116

2.1%

116

2.1%

27

0.0%

117

12.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 53 of 64
Employment Status for the Population 16 years and over Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

54.0% 49.9%

46.7% 47.0%

50.1% 46.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%
0.0% In labor force:

0.0% 0.0% In Armed Forces

Employed

7.3% 2.9%
Unemployed

Not in labor force

Source: C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 54 of 64
Unemployment of Working Age Population (Ages 16 to 64) (As a Percent of 16-64 Civilian Labor Force)
Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

13.9% 6.3%
16-64 Unemployment Rate

Source: C23002. SEX BY AGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 55 of 64
C24010. SEX BY OCCUPATION FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Management, professional, and related occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
Male: Management, business, science, and arts occupations: Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
Female: Management, professional, and related occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations: Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

African American
14,295 3,408 3,356 2,851 711 3,969 6,164 948 1,203 626 683 2,704 8,131 2,460 2,153 2,225 28 1,265

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

542

100.0%

NC

23.8%

NC

23.5%

NC

19.9%

NC

5.0%

NC

27.8%

360

43.1%

242

6.6%

226

8.4%

152

4.4%

176

4.8%

352

18.9%

375

56.9%

309

17.2%

281

15.1%

345

15.6%

27

0.2%

272

8.8%

11,298

540

3,695

NC

1,653

NC

2,993

NC

1,138

NC

1,819

NC

5,925

472

1,532

213

849

165

845

191

1,099

214

1,600

287

5,373

288

2,163

304

804

213

2,148

305

39

34

219

92

% of NHW Total 100.0%
32.7% 14.6% 26.5% 10.1% 16.1% 52.4% 13.6%
7.5% 7.5% 9.7% 14.2% 47.6% 19.1% 7.1% 19.0% 0.3% 1.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 56 of 64
Occupation for the Civilian Employed 16 Years and Over Population Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White
32.7%

23.8%

23.5% 14.6%

26.5% 19.9%

27.8%

10.1%

16.1%

5.0%

0.0% Management,
professional, and related occupations

Service occupations

Sales and office occupations

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations:

Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations

Source: C24010. SEX BY OCCUPATION FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYED POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 57 of 64
B25003. TENURE - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Owner occupied Renter occupied

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

14,926 7,672 7,254

399

100.0%

367

51.4%

432

48.6%

11,402 9,192 2,210

420

100.0%

411

80.6%

317

19.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.h

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 58 of 64
Home Owners and Renters by Household Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

80.6% 51.4%
Owner occupied

Source: B25003. TENURE - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

48.6% 19.4%
Renter occupied

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 59 of 64
B25014. OCCUPANTS PER ROOM - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: 1.00 or less occupants per room 1.01 or more occupants per room

African American

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of NHW Total

14,926 14,503
423

399

100.0%

408

97.2%

142

2.8%

11,402 11,304
98

420

100.0%

409

99.1%

62

0.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.ht

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 60 of 64
More than One Person per Room (Crowding) by Household Jefferson County, Arkansas
African American Non-Hispanic, White
2.8% 3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5% 0.9%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% 1.01 or more occupants per room
Source: B25014. OCCUPANTS PER ROOM - Universe: OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

B18101. AGE BY DISABILITY SCTaAsTeUS4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 61 of 64
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Under 18 years: With a disability No disability 18 to 64 years: With a disability No disability 65 years and over: With a disability No disability

African American
38,321 10,626
606 10,020 23,433
3,964 19,469
4,262 1,714 2,548

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

341

100.0%

89

27.7%

216

1.6%

235

26.1%

329

61.1%

339

10.3%

439

50.8%

61

11.1%

212

4.5%

202

6.6%

25,896 4,730 243 4,487
14,928 2,419
12,509 6,238 2,864 3,374

Margin of Error (+/-)
438 161 100 105 431 303 470 128 222 245

% of NHW Total
100.0% 18.3% 0.9% 17.3% 57.6% 9.3% 48.3% 24.1% 11.1% 13.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 62 of 64
Disability by Age
Jefferson County, Arkansas

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

45.9% 40.2%

5.7%

5.1%

Under 18 with a disability

16.9%

16.2%

18 to 64 with a disability

65 and over with a disability

Source: B18101. AGE BY DISABILITY STATUS Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

C27001B. HEALTH INSURANCECCasOeVE4R:2A0G-cEvS-0T0A3T4U1S-BJMY AGDEocument 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 63 of 64
Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Jefferson County, Arkansas

Total: Under 18 years: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage 18 to 64 years: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage 65 years and over: With health insurance coverage No health insurance coverage

African American
38,321 11,377 11,087
290 22,682 19,591
3,091 4,262 4,236
26

Margin of Error (+/-)

% of AA Total

White, Not Hispanic

341

100.0%

158

29.7%

213

28.9%

143

0.8%

342

59.2%

484

51.1%

357

8.1%

61

11.1%

64

11.1%

23

0.1%

25,896 5,036 4,862 174
14,622 12,662
1,960 6,238 6,227
11

Margin of Error (+/-)
438 79
130 98
447 520 308 128 128
17

% of NHW Total
100.0% 19.4% 18.8% 0.7% 56.5% 48.9% 7.6% 24.1% 24.0% 0.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey

For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/index.htm

14.0%

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 3-16 Filed 03/27/20 Page 64 of 64
Lack of Health Insurance Coverage by Age
Jefferson County, Arkansas

13.6%

13.4%

African American

Non-Hispanic, White

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0% 4.0% 2.0%

3.5% 2.5%

0.0%

Under 18 no health insurance

18 to 64 no health insurance

0.6%

0.2%

65 and over no health insurance

Source: C27001B. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE STATUS BY AGE Data Set: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

 
 Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

DEBRA MAYS, JOHNNY SMITH, JR., and THE CHRISTIAN MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE,

v.

Case No. 4:20-cv-00341-JM

PLAINTIFFS,

JOHN THURSTON, in his official capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State, and ASA HUTCHINSON, in his official capacity as Arkansas Governor,

DEFENDANTS.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Like the entire world, Arkansas faces a public-health threat in COVID-19 unlike any in at
least a century, with 449 cumulative cases and 6 deaths as of this filing.1 But the sheer number

of cases understates the threat. The disease has spread at pace that is difficult to comprehend.

Take the U.S. numbers: On January 21, 2020—just 69 days ago, barely two months—there were

zero reported cases. The first case was reported on January 22; the case number didn’t even hit

double digits until February 3. Yet last Wednesday, March 25, there were 68,440 U.S. cases, a

number that jumped by nearly 20,000 cases overnight.2

“[S]tate and local executive officials are closest to the problems at hand and, as between

different institutional actors, frequently possess the most flexibility in approach and political ac-

countability to address them.” See Jim Rossi, State Executive Lawmaking in Crisis, 56 Duke L.J.

237, 276 (2006). Given the fluidity of the COVID-19 crisis, state officials are best suited to cali-

brate a proper response that respects state law—particularly regarding politically sensitive issues

1 Ark. Dep’t of Health, Arkansas COVID-19 Update (accessed Mar. 30, 2020, 11:29 a.m.), https://adem.maps. arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f533ac8a8b6040e5896b05b47b17a647.
2 Ctrs. for Disease Control, Cases in U.S. (accessed Mar. 30, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 18
like election procedures. Indeed, because Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on a misunderstanding of Arkansas law, they demonstrate the need to give state officials room to develop responses to rapidly changing crises. In recognition of that fact, the Northern District of Florida just two weeks ago refused to enter a temporary restraining order remarkably similar to the order requested in Plaintiffs’ motion. See Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-00067 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 1718, 2020) (Hinkle, J.), DE 12, DE 18.3 This Court should follow that court’s lead and refuse to fundamentally alter absentee voting in Arkansas less than a day before the polls open. It should deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
BACKGROUND When considering the receipt deadline for absentee ballots, this Court must take into account the myriad other deadlines laid out in Arkansas’s electoral calendar. Illustrating the large number of deadlines—and the complex ways in which each deadline interacts with every other deadline—each election cycle, the Secretary publishes a calendar listing all the relevant electoral deadlines. The 2019–2020 calendar spans 49 dense pages and lists dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of interrelated deadlines. See generally Ark. Sec’y of State, 2020 Election Dates (Jan. 2020), https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/2020_Election_Calendar_1-27-20_1.pdf. Plaintiffs’ blithe assertions that Arkansas has no interest in a single deadline falling on a particular date ignores the interrelated nature of every deadline in the electoral calendar. (See Br. in Supp. of Mot. for TRO, DE 3 (TRO Br.) at 10.) Changing even a single deadline by 10 days risks causing effects that ripple through an entire election cycle. Plaintiffs’ requested relief poses just that risk, a point best illustrated by their mistaken understanding of the deadline to certify primary results.
3 Copies of the Northern District of Florida’s two orders are being simultaneously filed as attachments to this brief.
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 18
Under Arkansas law, county boards of election commissioners must “canvass the returns and examine the ballots” after a primary election. Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-309. They must then “certify the result” no sooner than 48 hours after the primary “and not later than ten (10) days after the primary.” Id. Plaintiffs incorrectly claim that “state law gives election officials between 15 and 19 days after Election Day to certify the election results.” (Compl., DE 1 ¶ 54 (citing Ark. Code Ann. 7-5-701(a)(4), (c)(1)); see TRO Br. 10 (making same claim, and citing same provision).) The provision they cite applies to general elections held in November, not to preferential primaries nor general primaries held in the spring.4 See Ark. Sec’y of State, 2020 Election Dates 41 (Jan. 2020), https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/2020_Election_Calendar_1-2720_1.pdf. Indeed, it appears in Chapter 5 of Arkansas’s election code, which relates to election procedure generally, not Chapter 7, which related to primary procedures in particular. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-101 through -402.
If this Court were to grant the order that Plaintiffs request and require that mailed-in ballots be counted if received on the tenth day after the primary, then county boards of election would be unable to comply with their statutory deadline for certifying primary results. By suspending only the deadline to request an absentee ballot, the Governor’s March 20 executive order, EO 20-08, balances the needs of Arkansas voters in light of COVID-19 with the statutory requirements on the Secretary and other election officials throughout the State. (See EO 20-08, DE 3-2.)
4 Tomorrow’s primary, although often thought of as a runoff, is referred to in Arkansas’s election statutes as the “general primary election.” See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-202(b). The primary that occurred on Super Tuesday this year was the “preferential primary election.” See Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-202(a).
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 18
ARGUMENT In the middle of an unprecedented, global public-health crisis, Plaintiffs ask this Court, on the day before a primary, to fundamentally alter the procedures for conducting that primary. Such relief that is not in the public interest. In this case, that factor so favors denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order that this Court need not move on to the merits—which is not to say Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. They aren’t. First off, they have no standing to bring these claims because whatever injuries they have alleged, none were caused by Defendants. Second, and similarly, Plaintiffs allege no action by Defendants that they purport has burdened their right to vote. And even if they had, Defendants have compelling interests to justify their actions. Third, Plaintiffs cite no support for their claim under the Due Process Clause. They apparently ask this Court to break entirely new constitutional ground—on a scant TRO record, the day before an election, in the middle of a pandemic.5 Reinforcing all these reasons for denying Plaintiffs’ motion, the balance of the harms in this case favors Defendants. This Court should not grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief and restructure Arkansas’s March 31 primary less than a day before the polls open. I. Restructuring Arkansas’s primary at the last minute would not serve the public interest, so the Court should deny the motion without reaching the merits. Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a temporary restraining order on the day before a primary that alters the deadline for voting in that primary and dramatically restructures state absentee-voting law. Plaintiffs claim that such a radical, last-minute change would serve the public interest but make no mention of the damage it would do to Arkansans’ “[c]onfidence in the integrity of [the] electoral process.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam). (See
5 Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order only on their right-to-vote and due-process claims. They expressly do not seek a temporary restraining order on their Voting Rights Act claim. (TRO Br. 9.)
4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 18
TRO Br. 15 (failing even to acknowledge that Arkansans have an interest in orderly elections).) “Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes” that will certainly arise—not to mention a global pandemic—this Court should refuse to enter the requested order and instead should “allow the election to proceed.” Purcell, 549 U.S. at 5-6; see Bethea v. Deal, No. CV216-140, 2016 WL 6123241, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2016) (recognizing public’s “general interest in having citizens participate in the electoral process,” but counterbalancing that with the public’s “interest in preserving the integrity of that process” in the face of a hurricane that interfered with election).
Indeed, just two weeks ago, a district court in Florida denied a request with striking similarities to Plaintiffs’ request—without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims in that case, instead analyzing only the public interest. See Williams v. DeSantis, No. 1:20-cv-00067 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17-18, 2020) (Hinkle, J.), DE 12, DE 18. Among other things, the Williams plaintiffs asked that court to order the Florida Governor, Secretary of State, and other election officials to count all mailed-in ballots received up to 10 days after the Florida primary. See Williams, Mot. for TRO (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020), DE 4 at 2-4. The Williams court correctly described this as asking a federal court to make “a fundamental alteration in the manner in which further voting will be conducted.” Williams, Order Denying Mot. for TRO (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2020), DE 12 at 1. That court focused primarily on the chaos that an election-eve order by a federal court would cause. See id. at 3 (“At least until the polls close, and under all the circumstances, it will be in the public interest to allow the Governor, Secretary of State, and Supervisors of Elections to perform their respective roles.”). It denied the Williams plaintiffs’ request to extend the absenteeballot deadline by 10 days.
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 18
That same day—the day of the Florida election and the district court’s first order—the Williams plaintiffs filed a renewed motion, in which they again asked that court to force Florida election officials to accept ballots mailed in after the election. See Williams, Renewed Mot. for TRO (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2020), DE 16 at 1-4. Acting the next day, after the end of Florida’s primary, the court correctly rejected those arguments. As it said, “it would be adverse to the public interest to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction blocking the Secretary of State and Supervisors of Elections from processing the results of the March 17 presidential primary in accordance with the governing Florida statutes.” Williams, Order Denying Renewed Mot. for TRO (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2020), DE 18 at 1-2.
Supreme Court precedent supports the Williams court’s decision. The Court has made clear that the public interest is not served by court orders altering election procedures shortly before elections. See Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4-6. When a federal court is asked to enter an order like the one that Plaintiffs request in this case, the court must “weigh, in addition to the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction, considerations specific to election cases.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Those election-case considerations include the danger 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. In Purcell, the Supreme Court considered whether the court of appeals had correctly granted “an application to enjoin operation of voter identification procedures just weeks before an election.” Id. at 4. Weeks before was too close to the election in that case, so the Supreme Court vacated the injunction and allowed the election to proceed according to state law. Id. at 5-6.
If weeks before the election was too late for an injunction in Purcell, then the day before Arkansas’s March 31 primary is certainly too late for a temporary restraining order here. “As an
6

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 18
election draws closer, that risk [of voter confusion and lowered turnout] will increase.” Id. at 5. Granting Plaintiffs’ requested order risks creating voter confusion, lowering turnout, and, as a result, reducing confidence in the outcome of tomorrow’s primary. As a result, issuing a temporary restraining order would not serve the public interest; it would severely harm it.
The sheer temporal proximity in this instance—less than a day before voting begins— creates a severe risk of voter confusion. Other aspects of Plaintiffs’ requested relief exacerbate that risk. For one thing, Plaintiffs would have this Court order that ballots must be counted as long as they “arrive at a polling place or the county clerk’s office within, at a minimum, of ten days after Election Day.” (Proposed Order, DE 2-1.) But each county board of election commissioners must “certify the result” of tomorrow’s primary “not later than ten (10) days after the primary.” Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-309. If county boards of election commissioners must continue accepting mailed-in ballots through the tenth day after the primary, complying with their statutory certification deadline will prove difficult, to say the least.
If that weren’t bad enough, Plaintiffs’ requested order would, as a practical matter, do away with all deadlines for receiving absentee ballots. They ask that “[t]he Court order[] that Defendants and their agents must presume that ballots without a postmark or other marking from the United States Postal Service were mailed on or before Election Day.” (DE 2-1 (emphasis added).) Ordering Arkansas election officials to count ballots with no postmark would diminish their ability to distinguish between validly and invalidly submitted absentee ballots. Such a state of affairs would undermine voters’ “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral process,” and that confidence “is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.” Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4; see Eu v. San Francisco Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231 (1989) (“A State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.”).
7

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 18
Because of the dangers it poses to the Arkansas electoral process, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is decidedly not in the public interest. This Court is empowered to—and should—deny the motion for a temporary restraining order on this basis before even reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. II. Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their attempt to restructure Ar-
kansas’s absentee-ballot procedures. A. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring any claims related to absentee voting. Plaintiffs have suffered no injury at the hands of the Governor, the Secretary, or any other Arkansas official. Instead, by failing to exercise their state-law right to request an absentee ballot, Plaintiffs have inflicted injury to themselves. Article III does not grant them standing to sue based on self-inflicted injury. To establish their standing, Plaintiffs must show not just a concrete injury that this Court can redress, but also that their alleged injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged action.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013). In other words, “there must be causation— a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Here that means Plaintiffs must show that their alleged inability to vote by absentee ballot was “caused by private or official violation of law.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009) (emphasis added). And they cannot make that showing if they caused their own alleged injuries. “[S]elf-inflicted injuries are not fairly traceable to the Government’s purported activities.” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 418. To the extent Plaintiffs are injured—that is, are allegedly unable to comply with Arkansas’s receipt deadline for absentee ballots—no action by either Defendant caused that injury. If anything, Defendants’ actions related to tomorrow’s primary partially remediated any injury to
8

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 18
Plaintiffs. The Governor’s March 20 executive order suspended the normal prerequisites for requesting an absentee ballot (e.g., by showing a “physical disability,” Ark. Code Ann. 7-5-402(2)) so that all Arkansans, including Plaintiffs, could elect to vote by absentee ballot in tomorrow’s primary. (See EO 20-08, DE 3-2 at 1 (suspending section 402 to allow “all eligible qualified electors currently entitled to vote in the March 31, 2020 election [to] request the appropriate absentee ballots”).) Therefore, as of March 20, Ms. Mays, Rev. Smith, and all members of the Christian Ministerial Alliance were eligible to request an absentee ballot.
Nevertheless, the complaint does not allege that any Plaintiff had requested an absentee ballot. In fact, it affirmatively alleges the opposite. As of the complaint’s March 26 filing—six days after the Governor’s executive order—both Ms. Mays and Rev. Smith “ha[d] not yet requested an absentee ballot.” (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19.) And the Christian Ministerial Alliance simply makes no allegations whatsoever about whether any of its members had requested absentee ballots. (See Compl. ¶¶ 21-23.) Nearly a week after the Governor had taken emergency action to expand the availability of absentee voting to benefit Arkansans in the same position as Plaintiffs, and just five days before tomorrow’s primary, none of them had acted.
The Governor has exercised his emergency state-law powers to reduce the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on voters like Plaintiffs. But Plaintiffs have failed to take advantage of the resulting accommodations. Article III does not grant Plaintiffs standing to sit idly by and then sue to restructure tomorrow’s primary. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 418. This Court should deny the motion for a temporary restraining order because Plaintiffs lack standing.
B. The burdens imposed by a global pandemic do not invalidate Arkansas’s otherwise-constitutional absentee-voting deadlines.
Plaintiffs do not allege that either Defendant has done anything to burden their right to vote. Instead, they allege that the COVID-19 pandemic has made voting more difficult for them,
9

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 18
and that, although Defendants have acted to help voters like Plaintiffs (see EO 20-08, DE 3-2), the Constitution requires Defendants to do more. Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on this right-to-vote claim, giving this Court still another reason to deny the motion for a temporary restraining order.
1. Heightened scrutiny does not apply, so Plaintiffs’ claim fails. As an initial matter, there is no binding precedent applying any form of heightened scrutiny to a claim like Plaintiffs’ claim here, which amounts to “only a general objection . . . to the details of the emergency regime.” Diane P. Wood, The Bedrock of Individual Rights in Times of Natural Disaster, 51 Howard L.J. 747, 756 (2008). Plaintiffs style this as an Anderson/Burdick claim, referring to two seminal Supreme Court cases, Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), and Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983). (See TRO Br. 6.) But the Anderson/Burdick analysis was not designed for reviewing state executives’ emergency actions to reduce burdens on voters caused by an emergency. Much of the Eighth Circuit’s Anderson/Burdick precedent relates to whether the structure of a State’s electoral calendar severely burdens parties’ and candidates’ attempts to appear on the ballot. See, e.g., Libertarian Party of N.D. v. Jaeger, 659 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying Anderson/Burdick and upholding requirements for appearing on ballot); Green Party of Ark. v. Martin, 649 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 2011) (same, upholding Arkansas’s petition-signature requirement for new political parties). None of the cases that Plaintiffs cite require this Court to apply any form of heightened scrutiny. The most factually analogous case they cite, In re Holmes, 788 A.2d 291 (N.J. App. 2002), related to vote counting during the 2001 anthrax attacks, does not even cite Anderson or Burdick. (See TRO Br. 8-9.) In that case, the New Jersey state intermediate appellate court held—strictly as a matter of New Jersey state law—that state election officials should have
10

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 18
counted absentee ballots that arrived one day past the deadline “due to anthrax contamination” at a U.S. Postal Service facility. 788 A.2d at 294. Holmes did not analyze the First Amendment.
If heightened scrutiny does not apply, Plaintiffs’ claims must fail. When reviewing state executives’ exercise of their emergency powers under state law, federal courts should tread lightly. Otherwise, “consideration of the assertion of emergency powers invites the judiciary into a thicket of highly volatile and frequently politicized issues.” Rossi, supra, 56 Duke L.J. at 252. Given the dearth of federal litigation in this area, the precise standard is not well defined. But federal courts should generally defer to state executives’ management of emergencies. See id. at 266 (suggesting that “where federal law is ambiguous, federal courts would defer to state executive actors during times of crisis”). Recognizing that COVID-19 would affect tomorrow’s primary, the Governor acted on March 20 to allow all Arkansans to vote by absentee ballot. That action is a reasonable response to the current public-health crisis and deserves deference. This Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to second-guess it.
2. If this Court applies heightened scrutiny as a matter of first impression, Plaintiffs’ claim still fails.
Setting aside the fact that no binding precedent requires this Court to apply the Anderson/Burdick inquiry to this claim, Plaintiffs’ right-to-vote claim fails even under that inquiry. The Supreme Court has for decades left no doubt about the States’ freedom to regulate the electoral process: “The States possess a broad power to prescribe the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,’ Art. I, § 4, cl. 1, which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451 (2008) (some quotation marks omitted). As a result, strict scrutiny does not apply to all election regulations. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 432 (criticizing “the
11

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 18
erroneous assumption that a law that imposes any burden upon the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny”).
Instead, the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit apply a sliding-scale analysis. To “discern the level of scrutiny required” under this analysis—and thus the nature of the interest a State needs in order to justify an election regulation—courts must “analyze the burdens imposed” by that regulation. Green Party of Ark. v. Martin, 649 F.3d 675, 681 (8th Cir. 2011). Where a State’s election regime “imposes only modest burdens,” the State’s “important regulatory interests” in managing “election procedures” suffice to justify it. Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 452 (quotation marks omitted). Alternatively, a more exacting standard—requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring—applies to severely burdensome regulations. See Martin, 649 F.3d at 680. Thus, Defendants “need not assert a compelling interest” unless Plaintiffs first establish that some action of Defendants—rather than an unprecedented global, public-health crisis—imposes a severe burden on Plaintiffs’ rights. Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 458. Wherever this case lands on Anderson/Burdick’s sliding-scale, Plaintiffs’ claim fails.
i. Plaintiffs do not allege any severe burden on their right to vote caused by Defendants.
To the extent Plaintiffs allege any burden on their right to vote—and as already discussed, they actually have alleged no actionable burdened because they failed to request absentee ballots, see supra Part II.A—COVID-19 created that burden rather than any action by the Governor or the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs point to the Governor’s March 20 executive order, but that order made it easier for them to vote. They never explain how an executive order providing them more opportunities to vote creates a severe burden on their rights. They simply claim that the Governor should have made it still easier to vote by absentee ballot in tomorrow’s election.
12

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 18
(See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 39 (“By failing to suspend the Election Receipt Deadline, state officials have rendered the extension of the March 24 deadline meaningless for many voters who will not be able to request, receive, and submit their absentee ballots by mail in order for them to be counted.”). This is not a claim that the Governor or anyone else has “disenfranchise[d]” Plaintiffs. (TRO Br. 6.) Defendants have acted to ensure that the pandemic causes as little disruption as possible in tomorrow’s primary. Their actions do not severely burden Plaintiffs’ voting rights.
None of the “disenfranchisement” cases they cite are at all comparable. (See id.) Most glaringly, the Fourth Circuit did not even purport to apply the Anderson/Burdick inquiry in League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014). In that Voting Rights Act case, the court simply made the true statement that “even one disenfranchised voter—let alone several thousand—is too many.” Id. at 244. It nowhere suggested that a case like this one amounts to disenfranchisement of any voters. Nor do the other two cases Plaintiffs’ cite, both of which reviewed state-law procedures for invalidating timely ballots. See Democratic Executive Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019); Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012). These cases do not support the proposition that Arkansas’s absentee-ballot deadline, which Plaintiffs do not claim would be severely burdensome under normal circumstances, is made severely burdensome because of COVID-19.
Because Plaintiffs cannot show a severe burden, Arkansas’s “important regulatory interests” in managing “election procedures” justify the absentee-ballot deadline. Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 452 (quotation marks omitted). Defendants “need not assert a compelling interest.” Green Party of Ark., 649 F.3d at 685 (quoting Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 458).
13

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 18
Instead, “something like rational basis review” applies in a case like this. Christopher S. Elmendorf, Structuring Judicial Review of Electoral Mechanics: Explanations and Opportunities, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 313, 330 (2007).
The absentee-ballot deadline easily survives that standard. That deadline, together with the ten-day deadline to certify primary results, serves Arkansas’s important interest in “ensur[ing] elections are fair, honest, and orderly.” Libertarian Party of N.D., 659 F.3d at 693. The COVID-19 crisis does not weaken that interest but heightens it. Given how unsettled all of American society is at this moment, Defendants and other Arkansas election officials must work even harder to ensure that voters are confident in the results of tomorrow’s primary. Cf. Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679, 680 (1973) (“States have valid and sufficient interests in providing for some period of time—prior to an election—in order to prepare adequate voter records and protect its electoral processes from possible frauds.”). To protect Arkansas’s interest in orderly elections, this Court should deny the motion for a temporary restraining order.
ii. Arkansas’s compelling interests in maintaining confidence in the integrity of its elections while at the same time responding to a global, publichealth crisis justify its election regulations.
Plaintiffs have offered no support for the proposition that Defendants’ actions severely burden their right to vote. If they had, their claim would still fail because Arkansas’s “compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process” justifies maintaining as much of the normal electoral calendar as possible in the face of COVID-19. Eu, 489 U.S. at 231. Lastminute tinkering with election procedures—particularly procedures as fundamental as the deadline for casting a ballot, whether it be in-person or absentee—risks undermining voters’ “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes.” Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4. Motivated by a compelling interest in maintaining that confidence, the Governor’s March 20 executive order balanced the need to help voters affected by COVID-19 with the need to ensure orderly elections.
14

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 18
Because that compelling interest justifies the actions that Plaintiffs’ challenge, their claim is not likely to succeed.
Plaintiffs’ misunderstand the nature of that compelling interest when they fault Defendants for lacking a “precise interest” in the absentee-ballot deadline. (TRO Br. 10.) In their view, Defendants must justify picking that deadline as opposed to picking a deadline hours or days later, which they claim would be less burdensome. But “the mere identification of a less burdensome alternative is not dispositive in election cases” because a challenger could always identify another threshold that might accomplish similar goals. Libertarian Party of N.D., 659 F.3d at 698. As the Eighth Circuit has said, any “precise date” on the electoral calendar “is to some extent ‘necessarily arbitrary.’” McLain v. Meier, 851 F.2d 1045, 1050 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Am. Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 783 (1974)). “A litigant could always point to a day slightly later that would not significantly alter a state’s interests until the point at which” the State could set no deadlines at all. Id. Plaintiffs cannot succeed simply by pointing to a date later than the current absentee-ballot deadline and arguing that it would be less burdensome.
To argue otherwise, they point only to cases that required States to extend voter-registration deadlines in the face of hurricanes that required state offices to close. See Fla. Democratic Party v. Scott, 215 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1257 & n.2 (N.D. Fla. 2016); Ga. Coal. for the Peoples’ Agenda, Inc. v. Deal, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1344-45 (S.D. Ga. 2016). But extending voter-registration deadlines does not pose the same acute threat of voter confusion that Plaintiffs’ requested relief poses. In fact, in another recent COVID-19 election case, the district court denied a request to “extend the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots from the current deadline of 8:00
15

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 18
p.m. on election day” despite granting request to extend voter-registration deadlines. Democratic Nat’l Committee v. Bostelmann, No. 20-cv-249, 2020 WL 1320819, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2020).
Arkansas has a compelling interest in maintaining voter confidence in election results during this global public-health crisis. And that compelling interest justifies making only limited changes to the procedures for tomorrow’s election. Because of that compelling interest, the Constitution did not require Defendants to take further action at all, and certainly not the actions requested by Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ right-to-vote claim not only is unlikely to succeed, it will in fact fail. This Court should deny the motion for a temporary restraining order.
C. Plaintiffs cite no case even remotely similar to this one where a court found a violation of the Due Process Clause.
As an alternative to their failed right-to-vote claim, Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order based on their novel procedural-due-process claim. The theory of this claim is that the Due Process Clause requires state executive officials to modify otherwise-valid state statutes in times of emergency. (See TRO Br. 11-12.) Plaintiffs cite no support for this new type of claim. See Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 222 (D.N.H. 2018) (considering statute that “vest[ed] moderators with sole, unreviewable discretion to reject” absentee ballots); Raetzel v. Parks/Bellemont Absentee Elec. Bd., 762 F. Supp. 1354, 1355 (D. Ariz. 1990) (considering statute that gave voters no notice or hearing if they were determined to be not qualified voters). An emergency proceeding on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is not appropriate for creating an entirely new claim under the Due Process Clause.
16

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 18
III. The harm that Plaintiffs’ relief would cause to Defendants’ ability to manage a fluid public-health crisis outweighs Plaintiffs’ self-inflicted injuries. Plaintiffs’ self-inflicted injuries are outweighed by the harm that a temporary restraining
order would cause to Defendants and the people of Arkansas. Although Plaintiffs generically recite case law on irreparable harm, they do not discuss the self-inflicted nature of their alleged inability to comply with the absentee-ballot deadline. (See TRO Br. 13-14.) As already discussed, despite the Governor’s March 20 executive order making clear that any Arkansan could request an absentee ballot for tomorrow’s primary, Plaintiffs chose not to apply for an absentee ballot. See supra Part II.A. Their injuries, therefore, are “self-inflicted wounds,” and such wounds are “not irreparable injury.” Second City Music, Inc. v. City of Chi., 333 F.3d 846, 850 (7th Cir. 2003); accord Salt Lake Tribune Publ’g Co. v. AT&T Corp., 320 F.3d 1081, 1106 (10th Cir. 2003); Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, 68 F.3d 828, 839 (3d Cir. 1995).
Contrast that with the harm a temporary restraining order would impose on Defendants and the State they represent. The Supreme Court has consistently warned that “the inability to enforce its duly enacted plans clearly inflicts irreparable harm on the State.” Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2324 n.17 (2018); see Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 718, 719 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Hand v. Scott, 888 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that State “would be harmed if it could not apply its own laws . . . now, even if it might later be able to” apply altered version of law). And the election-law context of this case heightens rather than lessens that harm. Voter confusion, once caused, will not be easily remedied. In fact, a temporary restraining order followed by a later court order contradicting it would exacerbate that confusion. See Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4 (noting the particular dangers of “conflicting court orders”).
The harm to Arkansas, and by extension, Arkansans, is further heightened by the publichealth crisis that surrounds this litigation. State executive officials need flexibility to respond to
17

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 8 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 18

developing crises. See Rossi, supra, 56 Duke L.J. at 276 (“[S]tate and local executive officials

are closest to the problems at hand and, as between different institutional actors, frequently pos-

sess the most flexibility in approach and political accountability to address them.”). But litiga-

tion challenging decisions they make in an emergency situation hinders that flexibility. Cf. Pear-

son v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (discussing the importance of “shield[ing] officials

from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably,” which

motivates qualified-immunity doctrine). Plaintiffs’ requested temporary restraining order would

harm all Arkansans by restricting Defendants’ ability to respond to this rapidly developing crisis.

CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

order.

Dated: March 30, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE Arkansas Attorney General

Vincent M. Wagner (2019071) Deputy Solicitor General
OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8090 (501) 682-7395 (fax) vincent.wagner@arkansasag.gov

Counsel for Defendants

18

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t112FileFdile0d30/330/1/270/20PaPgaeg1eo1f o3f 3 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS, DREAM DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA MAJORITY, ORGANIZE FLORIDA, TERRIAYNA SPILLMAN, RAY WINTERS, KATHLEEN WINTERS, and BIANCA MARIA BAEZ

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity as Florida Secretary of State, and FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

The Florida presidential primary has been in progress through voting by mail and early in-person voting and is concluding with in-person voting today, Tuesday, March 17, 2020. At 9:29 p.m. on Monday, March 16, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking a fundamental alteration in the manner in which further voting will be conducted. At 11:16 p.m., the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t112FileFdile0d30/330/1/270/20PaPgaeg2eo2f o3f 3 Page 2 of 3
or preliminary injunction. The defendants have entered appearances but, not surprisingly, have not yet responded to the complaint or motion.
The factual basis for the lawsuit and motion is substantial: the ongoing covid-19 national healthcare emergency. Going to the polls may risk infection of individual poll workers and voters and thus may advance the spread of the disease, increasing the already-substantial risk that the nation’s healthcare capacity will eventually be overrun. Responsible supervisors of elections can take steps to reduce but not eliminate the risk.
Some voters are at greater risk than others. And the steps that responsible individuals have already taken to reduce the risk of spreading the virus—for example, by leaving college campuses—will make it difficult or impossible for some to vote.
As a prerequisite to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause a defendant, and that the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t112FileFdile0d30/330/1/270/20PaPgaeg3eo3f o3f 3 Page 3 of 3
At this hour, with voting in progress, a temporary restraining order would be adverse to the public interest. At least until the polls close, and under all the circumstances, it will be in the public interest to allow the Governor, Secretary of State, and Supervisors of Elections to perform their respective roles. The national healthcare emergency is not a basis to cancel an election, and the plaintiffs do not assert it is.
This order makes no ruling on the merits. The order also makes no ruling on whether the plaintiffs’ claims will become moot when the polls close or will instead either support a claim for relief affecting this primary or be capable of repetition yet evading review. A separate order will be entered setting procedures going forward.
IT IS ORDERED: The motion for a temporary restraining order is denied. The motion for a preliminary injunction remains pending and will be addressed through further procedures after the polls close. SO ORDERED on March 17, 2020.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t218FileFdile0d30/330/1/280/20PaPgaeg1eo1f o4f 4 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ACACIA WILLIAMS et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE RENEWED MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, DENYING IN PART THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND SETTING A SCHEDULE

The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The order of March 17 denied a temporary restraining order and left pending the motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs have filed a second motion for temporary restraining order.
As set out in the March 17 order, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction cannot be entered when it would be adverse to the public interest. On the specific facts of this case, it would be adverse to the public interest to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction blocking the

Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t218FileFdile0d30/330/1/280/20PaPgaeg2eo2f o4f 4 Page 2 of 4
Secretary of State and Supervisors of Elections from processing the results of the March 17 presidential primary in accordance with the governing Florida statutes. This order denies the second motion for a temporary restraining order and denies the motion for a preliminary injunction except to the extent that it applies to future elections. The order sets the schedule for further proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The second motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 16, is denied. 2. The motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 4, is denied with respect to the March 17 presidential primary and remains pending with respect to future elections. 3. The deadline for the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) attorney conference is April 6, 2020. At the conference, the attorneys must address the schedule for the remaining part of the preliminary-injunction motion, whether a hearing on that motion should be consolidated with the trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2), and the matters set out in Rules 16(b)(3)(A), 16(b)(3)(B), 16(c)(2), 26(f)(2), and 26(f)(3). Discovery may begin after the attorney conference or, if both sides agree, earlier.
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t218FileFdile0d30/330/1/280/20PaPgaeg3eo3f o4f 4 Page 3 of 4
4. All conferences, proceedings, and discovery should be conducted electronically or remotely, when possible, to comply with best practices during the national healthcare emergency.
5. The deadline to file the Rule 26(f) report is April 13. The report must address the schedule for the remaining part of the preliminary-injunction motion, whether a hearing on the motion should be consolidated with the trial on the merits, and the matters set out in Rules 16(b)(3)(A), 26(f)(2), and 26(f)(3). The report may address any other scheduling or case-management issue.
6. Unless a change is agreed to by all parties and set out in the Rule 26(f) report, or a change is ordered by the court, these are the deadlines for Rule 26 disclosures:
(1) for 26(a)(1) disclosures, 14 days after the 26(f) attorney conference; (2) for 26(a)(2) disclosures, the deadlines set out in Rule 26(a)(2)(D); (3) for 26(a)(3) disclosures, the deadline set in an order for pretrial
conference to be entered later or, if no such order is entered, the deadline set out in Rule 26(a)(3)(B). 7. The deadline for the defendants to respond to the remaining part of the preliminary-injunction motion, ECF No. 4, is extended to April 20, 2020. 8. Absent good cause set out in the 26(f) report, the discovery deadline will be June 5, 2020, and a consolidated hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

CaCsaes1e:240:2-c0v--c0v0-006374-R1H-J-MGRDJ ocDuomcuemnte8n-t218FileFdile0d30/330/1/280/20PaPgaeg4eo4f o4f 4 Page 4 of 4
will occur during the two-week period that begins on July 20, 2020. These dates will be moved earlier if all parties so request. The parties should not request a delay of these dates except for good cause. The national healthcare emergency is good cause only in the unlikely event that proceedings cannot be conducted in a manner consistent with best practices.
9. Based on the plaintiff Terriayna Spillman’s notice of voluntary dismissal, ECF No. 17, the complaint is deemed amended to delete her claims. See Perry v. Schumacher Grp. Of La., 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018).
SO ORDERED on March 18, 2020. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 1:20cv67-RH-GRJ

 
 Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, Debra Mays, Rev. Johnny Smith, Jr. and the Christian Ministerial Alliance, file this Reply in support of their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Defendants, Secretary of State Thurston and Governor Hutchinson.
First, Plaintiffs attach hereto affidavits demonstrating their injuries. Ms. Mays and Rev. Smith have requested absentee ballots and remain fearful of not being able to return them in time and going in-person to vote or to submit the absentee ballots. Exs. 13-14. The Christian Ministerial Alliance, in both the pleadings and affidavit, make clear that its members have already requested, received, and attempted to mail-in their absentee ballots for the upcoming runoff and are at risk of disfranchisement because of the March 31, 2020 deadline for receiving absentee ballots. Ex. 15.
Second, the crisis caused by COVID-19 is fluid and ever changing. Only recently did the President and the Governor issue the social distancing guidelines. Only in the last week have the number of cases in Arkansas begun to spike. In fact, Defendants’ assertion that any changes have to be made weeks in advance is belied by the Governor’s order coming on March 20, less than two weeks before the election. Plaintiffs have moved expeditiously to fill in the gaps in the Governor’s

1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 5
order. And even in less fluid situations, the courts can and do issue temporary restraining orders
under similar timelines. See Georgia Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019) (declining to stay an injunction that changed absentee voting procedures on the eve of Election Day); Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019) (same); see also Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020) (declining to stay a preliminary injunction issued less than two weeks before the election); ACLU of Minnesota v. Kiffmeyer, No. 04-CV-4653 MJR/FLN, 2004 WL 2428690, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2004) (changing voter ID requirements less than a week before Election Day); Ex. 16, Slip Op. at 10-11, Copeland v. Huckabee, No. 4:02-cv-00675-GH, Doc. No. (E.D. Ark. Oct. 30, 2002) (same).
Third, where, as here, Plaintiffs face disfranchisement, courts have repeatedly applied strict scrutiny. See, e.g., O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 529 (1974); Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F. 3d 423, 429 (6th Cir. 2012); Republican Party of Ark. v. Faulkner Cty., 49 F.2d 1289, 1297 (8th Cir. 1995).
Fourth, regarding the non-binding district court cases cited by Defendants, here, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is fundamentally different from and more modest than the requests made in the other cases. In Arcia v. DeSantis, at midnight before the election and later again on Election Day, the plaintiffs’ requested different and more ample changes to the election process. Doc. Nos. 8-1, 8-2. Here, several days before the election, Plaintiffs simply asked that Defendants accept ballots mailed out tomorrow and received after Election Day.
This Court has broad discretion to enter an injunction that takes into consideration the facts and state law requirements that Defendants claim might be impacted by an injunction. See Lee, 915 F.3d at 1327 (describing the broad discretion that district courts have in issuing injunctions).
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 5
For example, the Court could order Defendants to count absentee ballots mailed out and received within seven days of Election Day. Defendants have not suggested that a timeframe of less than 10 days is not feasible.
And, in DNC v. Bostelmann, the court initially denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction on this issue because the April 7 election was still some weeks away. 2020 WL 1320819, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2020) (noting that the court would still permit plaintiffs to pursue relief on the absentee ballot deadline issue in a motion for preliminary injunction). But the court in that case has now permitted the parties to brief a renewed motion for relief on this very issue. See Order, Doc. No. 80, DNC v. Bostelmann, No. 20-cv-249 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2020).
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order that requires Defendants to accept ballots that are postmarked before or on Election Day and arrive within a reasonable period of time and provide adequate notice of these changes. Dated this 30th day of March, 2020.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur (Arkansas Bar No. 2016067) Leah C. Aden* Deuel Ross* NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshakur@naacpldf.org laden@naacpldf.org dross@naacpldf.org
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 5 *Pro Hac Vice Motions pending
4

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 30, 2020, I filed the foregoing document electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a copy to all counsel of record. /s/ Omavi Shukur Omavi Shukur NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 965-2200 Fax: (212) 226-7592 oshukur@naacpldf.org
5

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341

DECLARATION OF DEUEL ROSS DEUEL ROSS declares, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. I am an attorney
for Plaintiffs. I am barred in New York and have moved to be admitted Pro Hac Vice before this Court in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration on behalf of the Plaintiffs to provide true and correct copies of certain documents submitted in connection with Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
2. A true and correct copy of a declaration from Plaintiff Debra Mays, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 13.
3. A true and correct copy of a declaration from Plaintiff Johnny Smith, Jr., is
attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
4. A true and correct copy of a declaration from Bishop Vernon Kennebrew,
president of the plaintiff Christian Ministerial Alliance, is attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
5. A true and correct copy of the slip opinion in Copeland v. Huckabee is attached
hereto as Exhibit 16.

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2
6. I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing
is true and correct. Dated: March 30, 2020
Deuel Ross
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

DECLARATION OF DEBRA MAYS 1. I, DEBRA MAYS, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows: 2. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. 3. I am African American and a registered voter over age 55. I reside in the City of Pine Bluff in Jefferson County, Arkansas. I am eligible to vote in the March 31, 2020 runoff election. 4. Given the developing COVID-19 crisis and the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor, I desire to vote absentee in the March 31, 2020 runoff election to protect my health and the health of others around me. 5. Until last week, I was not aware that the Governor had extended the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot via email, fax, or mail. I have filed a request for an absentee ballot. 6. I am afraid that, if I were to appear in-person to vote or to submit an absentee ballot, I would be violating the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor and that I might contract or unintentionally contribute to the spread of COVID-19. However, I do not believe that I will be able to mail in my absentee ballot in time to meet the March 31 deadline for tabulation.

1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-2 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2 7. I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct. Dated March 30, 2020.
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

DECLARATION OF REV. JOHNNY SMITH, JR. 1. I, JOHNNY SMITH, JR., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows: 2. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. 3. I am an African-American registered voter over age 60. I reside in the City of Pine Bluff in Jefferson County, Arkansas. I am eligible to vote in the March 31, 2020 runoff. 4. Given the developing COVID-19 crisis and the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor and the President, I desire to vote absentee in the March 31, 2020 runoff election to protect my health and the health of others around him. 5. Until last week, I was not aware that the Governor had extended the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot. I have never voted absentee before. I have requested an absentee ballot for the upcoming runoff election. 6. I am afraid that, if I were to appear in-person to vote or to submit an absentee ballot, I would be acting in violation of the social distancing guidelines issued by the Governor and that I might contract or unintentionally contribute to the spread of COVID-19. However, I do not believe that I will be able to mail in my absentee ballot in time to meet the March 31 deadline for tabulation.
7. I am the pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church in Jefferson County. I bring this action in
1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-3 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2 my individual capacity and as a representative of my church and its membership. Most of the members of my church are Black. Many of the elderly Black registered voters who are members of my church and eligible to vote in the runoff are afraid of voting in-person given the outbreak and do not want to violate social distancing guidelines. I am also concerned that the absentee ballots of members who have already mailed their ballots in will not arrive before the March 31 deadline for tabulation.
8. I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: March 30, 2020
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DEBRA MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN THURSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Case No. 4:20-cv-341-JM

DECLARATION OF BISHOP VERNON KENNEBREW 1. I, VERNON KENNEBREW, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows: 2. I am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. 3. I am the president of the Christian Ministerial Alliance (“Ministerial Alliance”). The Ministerial Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan interfaith coalition of religious leaders from Pulaski County and neighboring areas founded in 1968—just three years after Congress’ enactment of the Voting Rights Act. It is devoted to furthering racial equality and justice in Arkansas. In furtherance of its mission, has been involved in litigation relating to minority voting rights.
4. The Ministerial Alliance’s membership includes Black and other registered voters in Arkansas who are eligible to vote and wish to vote absentee in the March 31, 2020 runoff election, but who reasonably fear voting in-person or submitting absentee ballots in-person because the members themselves, or their family or friends, are susceptible to serious complications arising from exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus. I am afraid that those members who have already mailed-in their absentee ballots will not have those ballots counted because of the March 31, 2020 deadline or that members may risk the public health to vote in-person.
1

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 9-4 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2 5. Members of the Ministerial Alliance also face logistical barriers, such as lack of transportation and lower income, that make it more difficult for them to meet the challenged deadline. 6. Because of these concerns, the Ministerial Alliance signed a March 24, 2020 letter asking the Secretary of State to take other steps to address the concerns herein and otherwise secure the election in this crisis. To date, the Secretary has not responded to the letter or addressed all of its concerns. 7. I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct. Date: March 30, 2020
2

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 1 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 2 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 3 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 4 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 5 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 6 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 7 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 8 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 9 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 10 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 11 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 12 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 13 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 14 of 15

Case 4:2002-cv-00364715-JGMH DDooccuummeenntt91-85 Filed 1003/30/0220 Page 15 of 15

 
 Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION

DEBRA MAYS, JOHNNY SMITH, JR., and THE CHRISTIAN MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE

PLAINTIFFS

V.

No. 4:20-cv-341 JM

JOHN THURSTON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arkansas; and ASA HUTCHINSON, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Arkansas

DEFENDNATS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 3) that was filed on Friday, March 27, 2020, at 11:51 a.m.

seeking court action before the primary election to be held Tuesday, March 31, 2020.

Defendants, after filing a waiver of service, filed a response to the motion at 12:05 p.m. today;

Plaintiffs replied a little over two hours later.

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Hutchinson issued an Executive Order

on March 20, 2020 (EO 20-08), which declared a state of emergency in the State of Arkansas

and ordered in part the suspension of the following provisions of the Arkansas Code “to aid

County Officials and County Board of Election Commissioners to carry out their duties in

respect to the March 31, 2020 election deadlines”:

b. Provisions under Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-5-402 that require qualified electors be unavoidably absent or unable to attend an election due to illness or physical disability, so that all eligible qualified electors currently entitled to vote in the March 31, 2020 election may request the appropriate absentee ballots from their county of residence.

c. Provisions under Arkansas Code Annotated § 7-5-404(a)(3)(A)(ii) to allow county officials to act on an application for an absentee ballot that is received within seven (7) days before an election date and subsequently mail an absentee

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 4
ballot to the qualified elector who requested the ballot if the voter is otherwise entitled to vote in the election. The effect of this Executive Order is to allow anyone to request an absentee ballot, regardless of whether they are unavoidably absent or unable to attend, and to allow them to request the absentee ballot by mail within seven days before an election. Plaintiffs are asking that Governor Hutchinson do more to ensure that Arkansans are allowed to have their vote counted by absentee ballot. Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order “that requires Defendants to accept ballots that are postmarked before or on Election Day that arrive within 10 days of Election Day and to provide adequate notice to voters and election officials of this extension and the absentee voting process.” In determining whether preliminary injunctive relief should be granted or a temporary restraining order be entered, the court is required to consider the factors set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981). Whether a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order should be granted involves consideration of “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Id. Defendants argue that before the Court can reach these factors, it must consider whether Plaintiffs have standing. The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to actual cases and controversies by Article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution. Eckles v. City of Corydon, 341 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent; ” (2) proof that the injury is “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it must be “likely,” as opposed to
2

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 4
merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (internal citations omitted). “Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes—that the injury is certainly impending.” (Id. at 564) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs have failed to articulate an injury suffered at the hands of the Governor Hutchinson, the Secretary of State or any other state official. Plaintiffs’ right to vote during this global pandemic have been made easier by the Governor’s March 20 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.
Without standing, Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their complaint. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Defendants that a last-minute restructuring of the stateabsentee voting law, would add further confusion and uncertainty and impair the public’s strong interest in the integrity of the electoral process.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.
3

Case 4:20-cv-00341-JM Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4 IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2020.
___________________________________ James M. Moody Jr. United States District Judge
4