CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 1

Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

Martin v. Kemp (1:18-cv-4776) and Georgia Muslim Voter 

Project v. Kemp (1:18-cv-4789) (Leigh Martin May) 

and Democratic Party of Georgia v. Crittenden 

(Steve C. Jones, 1:18-cv-5181) (N.D. Ga.) 

Not quite two weeks before the 2018 general election, a district 

judge ordered election officials to regard absentee ballots with signatures apparently not matching signatures on file as provisional 

ballots with an opportunity for the voters to resolve discrepancies. 

Before the election, the judge declined to order immediate relief 

from the rejection of absentee ballots for clerical errors. After the 

election, while absentee ballots were being counted, the judge ordered a county to not reject absentee ballots that arrived with a 

missing or incorrect year of birth, because only eligible voters 

would have received absentee ballots. In another case with election 

officials for an additional county as defendants, another judge issued a similar order on the following day. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

early voting; signature matching; provisional ballots; class action. 

Georgia voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Georgia 

on Monday, October 15, 2018, seeking relief from the possible disfranchisement of mail voters.1

 According to the complaint, 

Mail ballots are frequently rejected because of a perceived signature discrepancy—a determination that can be made by election staff without signature analysis training on a subjective and arbitrary basis without oversight of supervisors or of authorized pollwatchers appointed by political 

parties and candidates. 

Another common discrepancy is the unintentional voter error of dating 

the oath with the current date rather than the required date of birth.2

Defendants were election officials for Georgia and Gwinnett County, a 

county northeast of Atlanta.3

Four days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.4

Three days after that, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a vot1. Complaint, Martin v. Kemp, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2018), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Martin Complaint]; Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1304 (N.D. Ga. 

2018); see Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262, 1262, 1264–65 (11th Cir. 2019); 

see also Tyler Estep, Voting, Rights Groups Focus on Absentee Ballots, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 

17, 2018, at 1B. 

The caption named five plaintiffs, but only four were identified in the complaint. Martin

Complaint, supra, at 1, 8–10. 

2. Martin Complaint, supra note 1, at 3 (paragraph numbers omitted). 

3. Id. at 10–13. 

4. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2018), 

D.E. 4; Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1305. 
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

er-participation coalition as a sixth plaintiff.5 An amended preliminaryinjunction motion followed on the next day.6

Two other voter-participation organizations filed a similar complaint in 

the Northern District on October 16, alleging, among other things, 

A person’s signature . . . may vary for a variety of reasons, both intentional 

and unintentional. Unintentional factors include age, physical and mental 

condition, disability, medication, stress, accidents, and inherent differences 

in a person’s neuromuscular coordination and stance. Variants are more 

prevalent in people who are elderly, disabled, or who speak English as a second language.7

A day later, the organizations filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.8

Judge Leigh Martin May began an October 23 hearing on both cases9

with an observation that there were less clear ways to address signature mismatches than other absentee-ballot discrepancies and a reflection that she 

did not herself know what her signature looked like when she first registered 

to vote at age 18.10 Sheordered that briefing in the first case conclude by October 31.11

On Wednesday, October 24, she issued a thirty-one-page injunction 

opinion.12

Because the Electors just filed a motion for preliminary injunction on 

Friday and an amended motion for preliminary injunction on Tuesday 

morning (the day of the hearing), the Court will only consider the Electors’ 

arguments as to signature mismatch. All other Elector claims will be addressed by the Court at a later time, after Defendants have had an opportunity to be heard.13

The opinion concluded with a proposed injunction, and Judge May gave the 

parties until noon on the next day for comments as to clarity.14 The decision 

5. First Amended Complaint, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 22, 2018), D.E. 

10. 

All five voter plaintiffs were identified in the amended complaint. Id. at 8–10. 

6. Amended Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Oct. 23, 2018), D.E. 19; see Martin v. 

Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2018). 

7. Complaint at 3, Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, No. 1:18-cv-4789 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 

16, 2018), D.E. 1; see Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1304–05; see also Estep, supra note 1. 

8. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Ga. Muslim Voter Project, No. 1:18-cv-4789 

(N.D. Ga. Oct. 17, 2018), D.E. 5; see Martin, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1329. 

9. Minutes, Ga. Muslim Voter Project, No. 1:18-cv-4789 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2018), D.E. 

27; Minutes, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2018), D.E. 22; see Tyler Estep, 

Judge Mulls Action on Ga. Absentee Ballots, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 24, 2018, at 6A. 

10. Transcript at 6–7, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2018, filed Oct. 26, 

2018), D.E. 28. 

11. Order, id. (Oct. 23, 2018), D.E. 21. 

12. Martin, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326; Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262, 

1262–63, 1265–67 (11th Cir. 2019). 

13. Martin, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1329; see Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1305 

(N.D. Ga. 2018). 

14. Martin, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1341–42; see Tyler Estep, U.S. Judge Sides with Absentee 
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 3

required election officials to regard mail ballots with apparently mismatched 

signatures as provisional, and it required them to provide voters with opportunities to resolve the discrepancies.15

On October 30, Judge May declined the secretary’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.16 On November 2, the court of appeals declined to 

stay the injunction or expedite the appeals from each case, which the court 

consolidated.17 One month after the election, the appeals were voluntarily 

dismissed.18 The circuit judges issued their concurring and dissenting opinions on the denial of a stay on March 21, 2019.19

Judge May decided the amended preliminary-injunction motion in the 

first case, which was filed on the day of the hearing, on November 2, 2018.20

She declined to order immediate relief from rejected mail-in ballots for reasons other than signature mismatches.21 A mismatching signature needed a 

resolution opportunity, but clerical errors could be avoided by carefully following instructions.22 “This does not mean that the Court is not troubled by 

some of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Motion. Instead, it merely holds that 

there is not enough time to adequately implement the more wide-ranging 

solutions proposed.”23

On election day, November 6, “a state judge ordered three precincts in 

suburban Gwinnett County—a populous swing county in metro Atlanta—to 

extend their polling hours, one of them as late as 9:25 p.m.”24 At the end of 

the day on November 7, one day after the election, Brian Kemp had 50.33% 

Voters, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 25, 2018, at 1B. 

15. Martin, 341 F. Supp. 3d at 1341–42; Temporary Restraining Order, Martin, No. 1:18-

cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2018), D.E. 26; see Amy Gardner, Georgia Must Stop Tossing Absentee Ballots Over Signatures, Wash. Post, Oct. 25, 2018, at A6; Cameron McWhirter, Judge 

Orders Georgia to Ease Ballot Rules, Wall St. J., Oct. 26, 2018, at A4; Mark Niesse, Your 

Guide to Georgia Voting Integrity, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 2, 2018, at 6A; Glenn Thrush, Audra D.S. Burch & Frances Robles, Parsing Signatures, Not Chads, in Florida Vote, N.Y. 

Times, Nov. 15, 2018, at A1. 

16. Opinion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2018), D.E. 38; Ga. Muslim 

Voter Project, 918 F.3d at 1266. 

17. Order, Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, No. 18-14502 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018). 

18. Voluntary Dismissals, id. and No. 18-14503 (Dec. 7, 2018). 

19. Ga. Muslim Voter Project, 918 F.3d 1262. 

Dissenting, Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat argued, “When, as here, it is impracticable for a 

state like Georgia to provide pre-deprivation process for erroneous signature reviews because the state must conduct over half a million reviews in short order, a post-deprivation 

suit against election officials in state court is a constitutionally sufficient remedy.” Id. at 

1285. 

20. Injunction-Denial Opinion at 2, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2018), 

D.E. 41.

21. Id. at 10–11. 

22. Id. at 9. 

23. Id. at 10–11. 

24. Bill Barrow & Ben Nadler, Long Lines and Technical Issues as Georgians Vote for Governor, Miami Herald, Nov. 7, 2018, at 10A. 
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

4 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

of the votes counted for governor, slightly more than the amount necessary 

to avoid a runoff election.25

On Sunday, November 11, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a 

temporary restraining order preventing Gwinnett County election officials 

“from rejecting absentee ballots containing immaterial errors or omissions, 

including those cast by” three voters26 whom the plaintiffs would move on 

the following day to add as additional plaintiffs.27

Also on November 11, a candidate for Congress and a voter filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs.28 Judge May granted the motion two days later.29

In her November 13 decision, Judge May ordered Gwinnett County not 

to reject absentee ballots solely for an omitted or incorrect year of birth.30

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids the disqualification of a voter for an 

omission or error that is not material to the voter’s eligibility.31 A voter need 

not show the voter’s age when returning an absentee ballot, because only eligible voters receive absentee ballots.32

Unlike Plaintiffs’ arguments with respect to missing or incorrect birth 

years, Plaintiffs offer only conclusory statements and no supporting authority for their claim that a missing signature, incorrect address, or other clerical errors are immaterial pursuant to the Civil Rights Act. Thus, Plaintiffs 

have not met their high burden on this point and the requested broader injunction is not granted.33

25. See Alan Judd, Abrams Faces Long Odds to Prolong Campaign, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 

8, 2018, at 10A; see also Alan Judd & Bill Rankin, Security Doubts Not Over After Race Ends, 

Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 18, 2018, at 1A (“this year, Georgia experienced its tightest race for 

governor in 52 years”). 

26. Amended Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. 

Ga. Nov. 11, 2018), D.E. 44 (adding reference to three additional proposed plaintiffs); Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Nov. 11, 2018), D.E. 42; Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F. 

Supp. 3d 1302, 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2018). 

27. Complaint-Amendment Motion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2018), 

D.E. 53. 

28. Intervention Motion, id. (Nov. 11, 2018), D.E. 45; Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1305; see

Tamar Hallerman, Tyler Estep & Amanda C. Coyne, U.S. House Candidate Seeks Delay of 

Vote Certification, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 13, 2018, at 1B. 

29. Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1306–07; see Intervention Complaint, Martin, No. 1:18-cv4776 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 13, 2018), D.E. 56. 

30. Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1308–11; see Opinion, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. 

Nov. 15, 2018), D.E. 59, 2018 WL 9943564 (denying the intervening plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration); see also Greg Bluestein & Mark Niesse, Vote Count Plays Out in Counties, 

Courts, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 14, 2018, at 1A; Allison McCann & Karen Yourish, In Some 

Races, Results May Still Be Weeks Away, N.Y. Times, Nov. 14, 2018, at A18. 

31. Pub. L. No. 88-352, § 101(a)(2)(B), 78 Stat. 241, 241 (1964), as amended, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 10101(a)(2)(B); see Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1308; see also Judd & Rankin, supra note 25.

32. Martin, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1308–09. 

33. Id. at 1308 n.4; see Tamar Hallerman & Tyler Estep, Gwinnett’s Result: Woodall Wins 

by 419, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 16, 2018, at 4A. 
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 5

Amended complaints remained pending in both cases into 2019.34 An 

appeal in the first case by Gwinnett County’s election officials was dismissed 

voluntarily.35

A third federal case was filed in the Northern District on November 11, 

2018, by the campaign of a candidate for governor and her nominating party 

against election officials for Georgia, Gwinnett County, and DeKalb County—a county between Atlanta and Gwinnett County—that sought courtordered counting of valid absentee and provisional ballots.36 On the following day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.37 Judge Steve C. Jones heard the case one day after that,38 and he promised a ruling by 

noon on the case’s fourth day.39

The complaint included the words “class action” in its caption, and text 

stated that the plaintiffs asserted claims against a class of defendants comprised of election officials for Georgia’s 159 counties, but absent a request to 

certify a class Judge Jones declined to consider relief against a class.40

On November 14, Judge Jones extended Judge May’s decision proscribing the rejection of absentee ballots for failure to include the voter’s correct 

year of birth: “for the sake of statewide uniformity and assurance that all absentee mail-in ballots are equally treated, the Court adopts the rationale set 

forth in Judge May’s Order and holds that absentee mail-in ballots rejected 

solely because of an omitted or erroneous birth date must be counted.”41

Judge Jones declined to provide the plaintiffs with relief on provisional 

ballots.42 “[T]here is a lack of evidentiary support for Plaintiffs’ contention 

that there has not been enough time to cure the provisional ballots filed in 

the 2018 General Election.”43 Respecting provisional ballots cast in the wrong 

county, “Plaintiffs do not present sufficient evidence to show that the State’s 

34. Second Amended Complaint, Martin, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2018); 

Amended Complaint, Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Kemp, No. 1:18-cv-4789 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 

29, 2018), D.E. 41; see Order, Nos. 1:18-cv-4776 and 1:18-cv-4789 (Mar. 18, 2019), D.E. 82 

and 58, respectively (substituting the new secretary of state Brad Raffensperger as the lead 

defendant). 

35. Order, Martin v. Kemp, No. 18-15148 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019). 

36. Complaint, Democratic Party of Ga. v. Crittenden, No. 1:18-cv-5181 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 

11, 2018), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Democratic Party of Ga. Complaint]; Democratic Party of Ga. 

v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2018); see Democrat Abrams Files New 

Suit in Too-Close-to-Call Ga. Governor’s Race, Miami Herald, Nov. 12, 2018, at 8A. 

37. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Democratic Party of Ga., No. 1:18-cv-5181 (N.D. Ga. 

Nov. 12, 2018), D.E. 4; Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1330. 

38. Minutes, Democratic Party of Ga., No. 1:18-cv-5181 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 13, 2018), D.E. 

34; Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1330. 

39. See Bluestein & Niesse, supra note 30. 

40. Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1335–36; Democratic Party of Ga. Complaint, supra note 36, at 1–2, 14–16. 

41. Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1341; see Hallerman & Estep, supra note 

33; Judd & Rankin, supra note 25. 

42. Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1341–45; see Greg Bluestein & Tia Mitchell, Judge: More Ballots Must Be Counted, Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 15, 2018, at 1A. 

43. Democratic Party of Ga., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 1342. 
Record Mismatches on Absentee Ballots 

6 Federal Judicial Center 10/30/2023 

interest in preventing voter fraud is unreasonable, nor do they show that the 

restriction was applied in a discriminatory manner.”44

Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams conceded Kemp’s gubernatorial victory on November 16.45

On April 2, 2019, Governor Kemp signed legislation that required election officials to regard an absentee ballot with an apparently mismatching 

signature as a provisional ballot affording the voter an opportunity to resolve 

the apparent discrepancy.46 Stipulated dismissals in the first two cases followed.47

Judge Jones conducted a bench trial from April 11 to June 23, 2022,48 in a 

November 27, 2018, action generally challenging Georgia’s oversight of elections.49 He did not find any flaws in the way that Georgia conducted elections 

requiring a judicial remedy.50

44. Id. at 1344. 

The case was dismissed by stipulation on January 11, 2019. Stipulation, Democratic Party 

of Ga. v. Crittenden, No. 1:18-cv-5181 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2019), D.E. 47. 

45. See Alan Blinder & Richard Fausset, Democrat Ends Bid in Georgia for Governor, N.Y. 

Times, Nov. 17, 2018, at A1; Greg Bluestein & Tia Mitchell, Abrams: Kemp Is Next Governor, 

Atlanta J.-Const., Nov. 17, 2018, at 1A. 

46. 2019 Ga. Laws Act 24, www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/ 

316. 

47. Stipulated Dismissal, Martin v. Raffensperger, No. 1:18-cv-4776 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 

2019), D.E. 85; Stipulated Dismissal, Ga. Muslim Voter Project v. Raffensperger, No. 1:18-

cv-4789 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2019), D.E. 62. 

48. Minutes, Fair Fight Action v. Crittenden, No. 1:18-cv-5391 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2022), 

D.E. 852; Minutes, id. (Apr. 11, 2022), D.E. 789; Fair Fight Action, Inc. v. Raffensperger, 634 

F. Supp. 3d 1128, 1148 (N.D. Ga. 2022) (“[a]fter a delay in the start of trial due to the Omicron variant of COVID-19”); id. at 1143 (“what is believed to have been the longest voting 

rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia”). 

49. Docket Sheet, Fair Fight Action, No. 1:18-cv-5391 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2018); Second 

Amended Complaint, id. (Dec. 3, 2020), D.E. 582; Amended Complaint, id. (Feb. 19, 2019), 

D.E. 41; Complaint at 39–41, id. (Nov. 27, 2018), D.E. 1; see Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger, 413 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (denying a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on standing, mootness, and other grounds, but dismissing the state election board 

from some claims for sovereign immunity); Opinion, Fair Fight Action, No. 1:18-cv-5391 

(N.D. Ga. Nov. 15, 2021), D.E. 636 (denying the state summary judgment on whether requiring an exact match between names in voter registrations and other databases is racially 

discriminatory); Opinion, id. (Mar. 31, 2021), D.E. 617 (narrowing claims); Opinion, id.

(Feb. 16, 2021), D.E. 612 (narrowing claims, some as moot); Opinion, id. (Dec. 27, 2019), 

D.E. 188 (denying a preliminary injunction to restore voter registrations that were canceled 

for inactivity); see also Valerie Bauerlein, Suit Alleges Georgia Curbed Black Voters, Wall St. 

J., Nov. 28, 2018, at A4; Richard Fausset, Supporters of Candidate Who Lost Georgia Race 

Take the State to Court, N.Y. Times, Nov. 28, 2018, at A19; Vanessa Williams, Lawsuit by 

Abrams’s PAC Alleges Voter Suppression in Georgia, Wash. Post, Nov. 30, 2018, at A4. 

50. Fair Fight Action, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 3d 1128; see Matthew Brown, Judge Upholds Ga. 

Law in Challenge Brought by Abrams After 2018 Loss, Wash. Post, Oct. 2, 2022, at A8.