CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 1

Complaints Against Widespread VoterRegistration Challenges Based on Possibly 

Inaccurate Change-of-Address Records 

Majority Forward v. Ben Hill County Board of Elections 

(Leslie A. Gardner, M.D. Ga. 1:20-cv-266) and Fair Fight 

v. True the Vote (Steve C. Jones, N.D. Ga. 2:20-cv-302) 

Two federal complaints filed less than two weeks before a senatorial 

runoff election in Georgia alleged that an organization was improperly challenging voter registrations based on unreliable change-ofaddress records. One week after the complaints were filed, a district 

judge in the Middle District of Georgia curtailed one county’s canceling voter registrations based on the change-of-address records 

alone. On the following day, a district judge in the Northern District of Georgia declined to impose immediate relief on the organization, but the case remains pending. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration challenges; 

National Voter Registration Act; recusal; provisional ballots; Covid19; case assignment. 

Two federal complaints filed in Georgia on December 23, 2020—thirteen 

days before a senatorial runoff election—alleged that widespread efforts by a 

Texas-based organization to challenge voter registrations were based on unreliable change-of-address records. 

The Middle District of Georgia 

A complaint filed in the Middle District of Georgia alleged that election officials for Ben Hill County and Muscogee County were cooperating with the 

organization by accepting voter-registration challenges based on “notoriously unreliable” records.1

 The plaintiffs were an “organization created to support voter registration and voter turnout efforts” and a voter who had moved 

temporarily to California for contract work.2 On the following day, Judge 

Leslie A. Gardner set the case for hearing on December 30.3 On December 

27, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requiring 

election officials to accept regular ballots from challenged voters.4 On De1. Complaint, Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. 

Ga. Dec. 23, 2020), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Majority Forward Complaint]; Majority Forward v. 

Ben Hill Cty. Bd. of Elections, 509 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1352, 1354 (M.D. Ga. 2020). 

“In-person early voting in the Runoff Elections began on December 14, 2020.” Majority 

Forward, 509 F. Supp. 3d at 1353. 

2. Majority Forward Complaint, supra note 1; Majority Forward, 509 F. Supp. 3d at 1352. 

3. Order, Majority Forward, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 24, 2020), D.E. 2; Majority 

Forward, 509 F. Supp. 3d at 1354. 

4. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Majority Forward, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga. 

Dec. 27, 2020), D.E. 5; Majority Forward, 509 F. Supp. 3d at 1352–53. 
Complaints Against Widespread Voter-Registration Challenges 

Based on Possibly Inaccurate Change-of-Address Records 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

cember 28, Judge Gardner granted the plaintiffs the requested temporary restraining order, to remain in effect for eight days (through election day).5

Also on December 28, Muscogee County election officials moved to sever 

claims against them from the rest of the case.6

 On December 29, the plaintiffs 

filed an amended complaint,7

 and the Muscogee County defendants filed a 

motion to stay the temporary restraining order.8

On the day of the all-day December 30 evidentiary hearing,9 Judge Gardner issued a preliminary injunction against Muscogee County election officials—finding insufficient evidence justifying relief against Ben Hill County 

election officials—on finding a violation of section 8 of the National Voter 

Registration Act.10 A published opinion followed on January 4, 2021.11

Section 8(d) specifies information requirements for the cancelation of a 

voter’s registration for change of residence.12 In addition, section 8(c) prohibits the systematic cancelation of voter registrations fewer than ninety days 

before an election.13

The plaintiffs had moved on December 28, 2020, for the recusal of Judge 

Gardner, “the sister of Stacey Abrams, a Georgia politician and voting rights 

activist who was the Democratic candidate in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial 

election.”14 On December 31, Judge Gardner ruled that her oath of office required her to accept assignment of the case and decide it impartially.15

Twenty days after the election, the parties stipulated dismissal of the action.16

5. Majority Forward, 509 F. Supp. 3d at 1348. 

6. Severance Motion, Majority Forward, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 2020), D.E. 

8, 11. 

7. Amended Complaint, id. (Dec. 29, 2020), D.E. 20. 

8. Stay Motion, id. (Dec. 29, 2020), D.E. 24. 

9. Transcript, id. (Dec. 30, 2020, filed Jan. 27, 2021), D.E. 40; Minutes, id. (Dec. 30, 2020), 

D.E. 31. 

“Defendant Muscogee County called one witness.” Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cty. Bd. 

of Elections, 512 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1357–58 (M.D. Ga. 2020). 

10. Preliminary Injunction, Majority Forward, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2020), 

D.E. 27 [hereinafter Majority Forward Preliminary Injunction], 2020 WL 9074825; see 52 

U.S.C. § 20507; see also Susan McCord, Federal Judge Rejects Georgia Voter Challenges, Augusta Chron., Dec. 30, 2020, at A4; Mark Niesse, Judge Rejects Challenges to 4,000 Voters, 

Atlanta J.-Const., Dec. 30, 2020, at 5B; David Wickert, Judge Is Skeptical of Challenges to Ga. 

Voters’ Eligibility, Atlanta J.-Const., Jan. 3, 2021, at 15A. See generally Robert Timothy 

Reagan, Motor Voter: The National Voter Registration Act (Federal Judicial Center 2014). 

11. Majority Forward, 512 F. Supp. 3d 1354. 

12. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(d); see Majority Forward Preliminary Injunction, supra note 10, at 

1–2. 

13. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(c)(2)(A); see Majority Forward Preliminary Injunction, supra note 

10, at 2. 

14. Recusal-Motion Brief at 4, Majority Forward, No. 1:20-cv-266 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 

2020), D.E. 7-1. 

15. Opinion, id. (Dec. 31, 2020), D.E. 28. 

16. Stipulation, id. (Jan. 25, 2021), D.E. 39. 
Complaints Against Widespread Voter-Registration Challenges 

Based on Possibly Inaccurate Change-of-Address Records 

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 3

The Northern District of Georgia 

A political action committee and two anonymous voters filed a complaint in 

the Northern District of Georgia against the Texas-based organization at issue in the Middle District case, an “organization whose stated purpose is to 

combat voter fraud,” and four persons affiliated with the organization, claiming that the organization “has spearheaded a coordinated attack on Georgia’s 

electoral system threatening voters with entirely frivolous claims of fraudulent and illegal voting that have reached feverish heights in the weeks leading 

up to the January 5, 2021 [senatorial] runoff.”17 The complaint further alleged that the organization “in partnership with electors in each Georgia 

county, intended to preemptively challenge the eligibility of more than 

364,000 Georgians to vote on the grounds that these voters no longer reside 

in the State of Georgia.”18 The individual plaintiffs sought permission to 

proceed anonymously, alleging that they feared “retaliation from Defendants 

and their supporters for having filed the lawsuit.”19

Senior Judge Richard W. Story exercised his prerogative as a senior judge 

on December 29 and declined assignment of the case.20 That day, Judge Steve 

C. Jones set the case for a videoconference hearing on December 31.21 Judge 

Jones noted that the complaint sought immediate injunctive relief and ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion to that effect.22 On December 29, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

injunction.23

At his hearing, Judge Jones and the parties acknowledged Judge Gardner’s injunction.24

Judge Jones informed the plaintiffs’ attorney that he would need to know 

additional information about the individual plaintiffs to establish standing 

for them to bring their claims, and Judge Jones said that if the individual 

plaintiffs were concerned about their safety, then the information should be 

physically brought to him that day, but it should not be emailed.25 The hearing ended at 1:15 p.m.26 After the hearing, the plaintiffs filed declarations that 

had been executed on December 24 by the two anonymous plaintiffs, and 

Judge Jones filed copies of the declarations in the public record, redacting 

17. Complaint, Fair Fight, Inc. v. True the Vote, No. 2:20-cv-302 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 

2020), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Fair Fight, Inc. Complaint]; see Order, id. (Jan. 1, 2021), D.E. 28 

(changing the name of a defendant in the case from True the Vote to True the Vote, Inc.). 

18. Fair Fight, Inc. Complaint at 2, supra note 17. 

19. Motion to Proceed Anonymously, Fair Fight, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-302 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 

2020), D.E. 2. 

20. Order, id. (Dec. 29, 2020), D.E. 5. 

21. Order, id. (Dec. 29, 2020), D.E. 6. 

22. Id.

23. Motion, id. (Dec. 29, 2020), D.E. 11. 

24. Transcript at 19–22, 38–41, 71–82, 103, id. (Dec. 31, 2020, filed Jan. 26, 2021), D.E. 

46. 

25. Id. at 12–14. 

26. Minutes, id. (Dec. 31, 2020), D.E. 25. 
Complaints Against Widespread Voter-Registration Challenges 

Based on Possibly Inaccurate Change-of-Address Records 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

identifying information.27 Following the defendants’ response,28 Judge Jones 

decided late on January 1, 2021, that the individual plaintiffs could proceed 

anonymously.29

This Court finds, in light of the current climate surrounding this runoff 

election, their fears to be reasonable. Since the general election, Georgia 

election workers and officials have reported receiving threats predicated on 

unfounded claims of voter fraud. The atmosphere has been serious enough 

for state officials to make a public plea for the accusations to stop before 

people are seriously harmed or killed.30

But Judge Jones denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.31 Although Judge 

Jones expressed “grave concerns regarding Defendants’ coordinated, broadstrokes challenge to more than 360,000 Georgia voters on the eve of an unprecedented two-seat Senate runoff,”32 “the evidence provided to date does 

not show that Defendants have harassed or intimidated voters.”33

An amended complaint filed on March 22 included three individual 

plaintiffs, one of them anonymous.34 The complaint offered an explanation 

for each individual plaintiff’s recently relocating to where the plaintiff intended to vote.35 Judge Jones determined on March 9, 2023, that only some 

of the case’s issues could be resolved by summary judgment.36

On September 13, Judge Jones denied an August 14 defense motion for a 

jury trial: relief at issue was only equitable, the request was “extremely delayed,” and the requested change in procedure would be disruptive to the 

court and parties and prejudicial to the plaintiffs.37 Trial began on October 

26.38

27. Declarations, id. (Jan. 1, 2021), D.E. 26. 

28. Letter, id. (Jan. 1, 2021), D.E. 27. 

29. Opinion at 18–19, id. (Jan. 1, 2021), D.E. 29 [hereinafter Jan. 1, 2021, Fair Fight, Inc. 

Opinion]; see Wickert, supra note 10. 

30. Jan. 1, 2021, Fair Fight, Inc. Opinion, supra note 29, at 18–19. 

31. Id. at 21–28 (citations omitted). 

32. Id. at 11; see id. at 15 (noting that many Georgia voters might have been “temporarily 

out of state for various COVID-19 related reasons”). 

33. Id. at 26. 

34. Amended Complaint, Fair Fight, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-302 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2021), D.E. 

73 [hereinafter Fair Fight, Inc. Amended Complaint]; see also Opinion, id. (Aug. 17, 2021), 

D.E. 111 (dismissing earlier counterclaims). 

35. Fair Fight, Inc. Amended Complaint, supra note 34, at 7–8. 

36. Opinion, Fair Fight, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-302 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2023), D.E. 222, modified 

by Order, id. (May 3, 2023), D.E. 235. 

37. Opinion, id. (Sept. 13, 2023), D.E. 244; see Motion, id. (Aug. 14, 2023), D.E. 237. 

38. Docket Sheet, id. (Dec. 23, 2020).