Alabama justices tackle felony risk for helping disabled voters with absentee ballots

A certified question from the 11th Circuit asks the state high court to clarify when SB1’s criminal penalties apply to people assisting blind, disabled or low-literacy voters.(CN) — The Alabama Supreme Court adjourned Wednesday tasked with drawing a clean line between protecting vulnerable voters and blocking paid ballot harvesting. The case could decide whether nonprofits, health aides and other helpers risk felony charges for assisting blind, disabled or low-literacy residents with absentee ballot applications.The justices took a certified question from the 11th Circuit under submission. At issue is how to read SB1, a 2024 law making it a crime to submit someone else’s completed absentee application or to pay or give gifts for such help, while also including language nearly identical to Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act guaranteeing that voters who need assistance “may be given assistance by a person of the voter’s choice.”The 11th Circuit certified the question because the statute’s structure left it unclear whether the assistance provision shields both the act of submitting an application and the payment of helpers. A narrow reading could chill routine help from organizations and paid staff; a broader one would largely track the federal guarantee and undercut the state’s preemption fight.Anuja D. Thatte, a Legal Defense Fund attorney arguing for the civil rights and disability groups, told the court the assistance language in subsection E is a free-standing exemption that must apply evenly.“The legislature plainly knows how to make an exemption specific to one part of the statute and not the other, and pointedly chose not to do so,” she explained.Thatte emphasized that other provisions already contain limited carve-outs for emergencies and treating subsection E as applying only to submission, not payment, would create an inconsistent statute and leave the exemption with no real effect against the most severe criminal penalties.Justice Will Parker asked whether the court could simply declare that subsection E is “coextensive with” Section 208 and leave the rest to the federal courts. Thatte said that would be one workable path, but she also argued state law canons independently require uniform application.On the practical reach of any exemption, she said a voter’s right to choose an assistor does not force the state to free an incarcerated person or ignore other laws, but a rule that systematically removes categories of trusted helpers can still conflict with the federal right.“It’s a broad right of the voters to choose who they want to assist them,” she argued.Solicitor General Alexander Barrett Bowdre, for the Attorney General, agreed subsection E functions as a “backstop” for both the submission and payment rules so a blind or disabled voter who needs help is not left without it. He said the Legislature’s near-verbatim adoption of Section 208 language means the state provision carries the federal meaning.But he rejected the idea that applying subsection E to the payment rules wipes out all restrictions on paid assistance. He said the statute targets organizations paying people specifically to go out and assist voters — especially in settings like nursing homes — while still allowing a home-health aide or neighbor paid for broader duties.“In all of this litigation, plaintiffs have not been able to find an individual in Alabama who says, ‘the only person who I can find to assist me is someone being paid by a campaign or some organization to be the assister,’” Bowdre said.Pressed by Justice William B. Sellers and Justice Kelli Wise on the difference between a paid campaign worker and a pastor who sometimes helps without compensation, Bowdre said the distinction turns on whether the payment is specifically for serving as an assistor.“The law prohibits organizations from paying people to serve as assistors,” he said. Voters can still choose unpaid helpers, he added, and the state is trying to prevent coercive contact with vulnerable people.Justice Chris McCool sought clarity on the common ground. Both sides agreed subsection E is coextensive with Section 208 and applies to the rest of the statute, but they differed on how far that application reaches.In rebuttal, Thatte noted the attorney general’s brief had previously said the exemption reached only the submission ban, not the payment ban.“If it has in fact been cleared up, then I do think we agree on that point,” she said.The court’s answer will return to the 11th Circuit, which is weighing whether Alabama’s restrictions are preempted by federal law and whether a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement should stand. The decision will shape how much organized or paid help remains available to thousands of Alabamians who need assistance simply to complete an absentee application.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads