|
Home » Legal » Court Documents » Archives » Protecting Voting Rights: ACLU Complaint Challenging Constitutionality of Illinois Voter System
Protecting Voting Rights: ACLU Complaint Challenging Constitutionality of Illinois Voter System IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Civil Action No. 01 C 0208 Judge Ronald A. Guzman TIMUEL BLACK, CLARENCE DOSSIE, VINNI HALL, TONI LIETEAU, FERN WATTS, and CLEO WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WILLIAM M. McGUFFAGE, ELAINE ROUPAS, KAY D. HOLLOWAY, DAVID E. MURRAY, PHILLIP R. O’CONNOR, ALBERT PORTER, and WANDA L. REDNOUR, each in his or her official capacity as a member of the Illinois State Board of Elections; the CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; the COUNTY OF COOK; DAVID ORR, in his official capacity as Cook County Clerk; the EAST ST. LOUIS BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; the COUNTY OF ALEXANDER; and GLORIA PATTON, in her official capacity as Alexander County Clerk, Defendants. AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights class action brought by individual African-American voters pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973(f) and 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et. seq., challenging the non-uniform, unequal, and inadequate system of voting in Illinois as violative of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 2. Defendant members of the Illinois State Board of Elections William M. McGuffage, Elaine Roupas, Kay D. Holloway, David E. Murray, Phillip R. O’Connor, Albert Porter, and Wanda L. Rednour (“state defendants”), without justification treat voters unfairly by certifying and approving the following inadequate voting systems: (a) punch card voting systems; 3. Defendants the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (“Chicago Board”), the County of Cook (“Cook County”), David Orr (“Orr”), the East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners (“East St. Louis Board”), the County of Alexander (“Alexander County”), and Gloria Patton (“Patton”) (collectively, “local defendants”), without justification treat voters unfairly by selecting and/or using some or all of the inadequate voting systems identified in paragraph 2 above. 4. The certification and approval, and the selection and use of punch card voting systems and/or voting systems that lack error notification violates the Equal Protection Clause, because other election jurisdictions in the State of Illinois use optical scan voting systems (which have a substantially lower error rate than punch card voting systems), and/or voting systems that provide error notification (which have a substantially lower error rate than voting systems without error notification). 5. The certification and approval, and the selection and use of the inadequate voting systems identified in paragraph 2 above violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because these voting systems alone and in combination have a disparate impact on the rights of African-American voters to have their votes accurately recorded and counted, in that: (a) African-Americans reside and vote disproportionately in election jurisdictions that use some or all of these inadequate voting systems; and 6. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to insure that all voters in Illinois, and in particular African-American voters in Illinois, are afforded equal treatment and fundamental fairness in voting in elections. II. JURISDICTION 7. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4). III. VENUE 8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim arose in this district. IV. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs. 9. Plaintiffs Timuel Black, Clarence Dossie, Vinni Hall, Toni Lieteau, Fern Watts, and Cleo Wilson are U.S. citizens, residents of Illinois, and African-Americans. Each plaintiff has voted in past elections including the Presidential election of 2000, and intends to vote in future elections. Each plaintiff desires to vote and participate in the electoral process on an equal basis with other voters, to have his or her intended votes counted, and to insure that equal treatment and fundamental fairness are accorded to all voters in Illinois. Plaintiffs Black, Hall, and Wilson are residents and registered voters of the City of Chicago. Plaintiff Lieteau is a resident and registered voter in Richton Park in Cook County. Plaintiff Watts is a resident and registered voter of the City of East St. Louis. Plaintiff Dossie is a resident and registered voter of Alexander County. B. State defendants. 10. The state defendants are duly appointed under state law and charged with carrying out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to the Illinois State Board of Elections. Each member is sued in his or her official capacity. Under the Illinois Election Code (“Code”), 10 ILCS 5/1-1 et. seq., the state defendants are charged with the duties to provide general supervision over the administration of the election laws throughout the State of Illinois (5A-1); consult with election authorities concerning the conduct of elections in accordance with the laws of Illinois and the United States (5/A-8(2)); certify and approve electronic, mechanical and electric voting systems for use in individual election jurisdictions (24-1, 24A-3, 24B-3); ensure that these systems conform to the Election Code, including requiring these systems to register correctly every vote cast, and to not count votes for an office when the voter has cast more votes for such office than the voter is entitled to cast (24-1, 24A-16(b), 24B-16(e)); approve voting systems with precinct tabulation optical scan technology capability to ensure that said systems may be set to return any ballot on which the number of votes for an office or proposition exceeds the number of votes which the voter is entitled to cast, or any ballot which cannot be read by the automatic tabulating equipment (24B-4), and to ensure that any voter who spoils his or her ballot, makes an error, or has a ballot returned by the automatic tabulating equipment may return the ballot to a judge of election and get another ballot (24B-6); open and canvass the election returns in elections for the electors of the President and Vice-President of the United States and declare which set of candidates received the highest number of votes (21-2); and canvass the votes given for United States Senators and Representatives, State executive officers, judges of the Supreme Court, judges of the Appellate Court, judges of the Circuit Court, Senators and Representatives to the General Assembly, States Attorneys and Regional Superintendents of Schools, and transmit to the State Comptroller a list of the persons elected to the various offices and to the Supreme Court the names of persons selected to judgeships and those who failed to win retention (5/22-7). C. Local defendants. 11. Defendant Chicago Board is charged under the Illinois Election Code with selecting the system of voting used in elections and performing all other duties of an election authority within the election jurisdiction of the City of Chicago, including conducting elections. The Chicago Board has selected a punch card voting system with ballot counting in each voting precinct (“in-precinct counting”), and conducts elections with this system. The punch card voting system with in-precinct counting that it selected and uses cannot provide effective error notification. 12. Defendant Cook County, by and through its Board of Commissioners, is charged under the Illinois Election Code with selecting the system of voting used in elections within the election jurisdiction of Cook County. Cook County has selected a punch card voting system with in-precinct counting. The punch card voting system with in-precinct counting that it selected cannot provide effective error notification. 13. Defendant Orr is charged under the Illinois Election Code with the duties of an election authority within the election jurisdiction of Cook County, including conducting elections. Orr conducts elections with a punch card voting system with in-precinct counting. The punch card voting system with in-precinct counting that he uses cannot provide effective error notification. Orr is sued in his official capacity at Cook County Clerk. 14. Defendant East St. Louis Board is charged under the Illinois Election Code with selecting the system of voting used in elections and performing all other duties of an election authority within the election jurisdiction of the City of East St. Louis, including conducting elections. The East St. Louis Board has selected an optical scan voting system with ballot counting at one central location (“central counting”), and conducts elections with this system. This optical scan voting system with central counting is not capable of providing error notification. 16. Defendant Patton is charged under the Illinois Election Code with the duties of an election authority within the election jurisdiction of Alexander County, including conducting elections. Patton conducts elections with a punch card voting system with central counting. This punch card voting system with central counting is not capable of providing error notification. Patton is sued in her official capacity at Alexander County Clerk. V. PLAINTIFF CLASS ALLEGATIONS 17. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class and a sub-class of all persons similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff class consists of all voters in election jurisdictions in Illinois using punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design. The plaintiff sub-class consists of all African-American voters who reside in such election jurisdictions. 18. The plaintiff class and sub-class satisfy all of the prerequisites stated in Rule 23(a): (a) Millions of individual voters are required to vote in election jurisdictions with punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design. (b) There are questions of law and fact common to the class and the sub-class. The common questions include whether the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are violated by approval, certification, selection, or use of punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design. (c) The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class: the named plaintiffs reside and are registered to vote in election jurisdictions that use punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design. Also, the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the sub-class: the named plaintiffs are African-Americans. (d) The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and the sub-class. They have no interests antagonistic to the class or the sub-class. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the entire class and such relief will benefit all members of the class. Finally, they are represented by counsel who are competent and experienced in civil rights and class action litigation. 19. The plaintiff class and sub-class satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because the defendants have engaged in a course of conduct common to all members of the class and the sub-class, and final declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of the class and the sub-class is therefore appropriate. VI. FACTS A. Illinois’ non-uniform, unequal, inadequate system of voting. 20. The Illinois Election Code authorizes the use of a variety of systems for recording and counting votes cast during an election, including paper ballots, mechanical voting machines, electronic voting systems which use punch card ballots, and optical scan voting systems which use paper ballots. Also, the Code authorizes the counting of ballots centrally or in-precinct. 21. Selection of the voting system used to record and count votes in an election jurisdiction, and whether to count votes centrally or in-precinct, is left to the discretion of the local election authority of each of the 110 election jurisdictions in Illinois, subject to certification and approval by the state defendants. 22. With a punch card voting system, a voter places his or her punch card ballot in a vote recording device, presses a stylus through the hole in the vote recording device that corresponds to his or her preferred candidate, and in doing so detaches from the punch card the chad that corresponds to this candidate. Subsequently, the punch card is placed in a vote counting machine, which reads the ballot based on the passage of light through the spaces in the punch card created by detached chad. 23. With an optical scan voting system, voters use a special pen to mark their paper ballot sheet, either by filling in an oval or by completing an arrow. Subsequently, the ballot sheet is placed in a vote counting machine, which reads the ballot based on the reflection of light from the voter’s mark. 24. With a central counting system, ballots are counted at a central location. With such a system, it is not physically possible for a ballot to be placed in the vote counting machine while the voter is present, because ballots are cast at a precinct polling place and counted at a central counting location. 25. With an in-precinct counting system, ballots are counted at each election precinct. With such a system, if state law allows, ballots may be placed in the vote counting machine while the voter is still in the precinct. 26. At the time of the 2000 Presidential election, the state defendants approved and certified four voting systems in Illinois: (a) 10 election jurisdictions used optical scan voting systems with in-precinct counting, pursuant to section 24B-10.1 of the Code. (b) 3 election jurisdictions (including the City of East St. Louis) used optical scan voting systems with central counting, pursuant to section 24B-10 of the Code. (c) 2 election jurisdictions (the City of Chicago and Cook County) used punch card voting systems with in-precinct counting, pursuant to section 24A-10.1 of the Code. (d) 95 election jurisdictions (including Alexander County) used punch card voting systems with central counting, pursuant to section 24A-10 of the Code. 27. The state defendants have approved and certified, and some or all of the local defendants have selected and use voting systems with inadequate education for voters, inadequate training of and assistance from election judges, and inadequate ballot design. B. The nature and causes of ballot error. 28. A “residual vote” occurs when a voting system determines that a ballot does not contain a permissible vote in a particular race. There are two kinds of residual votes: (a) “Overvotes” occur when the voting system determines that the voter has cast more votes in a particular race than permitted in that race, notwithstanding the voter’s actual intent. Almost every overvote is an error and does not accurately reflect the intent of the voter to cast no more votes than permitted in a particular race. (b) “Undervotes” occur when the voting system determines that the voter has cast no vote in a particular race, notwithstanding the voter’s actual intent. The vast majority of undervotes at the top of a ballot, and many undervotes not at the top of a ballot, are errors and do not accurately reflect the intent of the voter to cast a vote. Undervotes are significantly more common than overvotes. (a) As the U.S. Supreme Court recently observed, “punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter.” Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. 525, 529 (2000). This failure is caused by the interface between punch card recording devices and ordinary voters. The result of this interface is improper placement of the punch card ballot into the vote recording device (e.g., not far enough in, backwards, or upside down), and improper application of the stylus to the vote recording device and the punch card ballot (e.g., with insufficient pressure, or at an angle). Problems are also caused by the buildup of chad in the machines, which may make it difficult or impossible to cleanly punch the card. These problems cause “hanging” chad that remain attached to the ballot by one, two, or three corners; “pierced” chad that are penetrated by the stylus but not dislodged from the ballot; and “dimpled” chad that are dented but not penetrated or dislodged. Light can never pass through dimpled chad, and often cannot pass through hanging and pierced chad. (b) Voters often cannot properly match the names of candidates on the recording device to the appropriate hole on the recording device and the corresponding chad on the punch card. Sometimes this results from mechanical inadequacies, such as misaligned equipment or equipment not easily read at the angle it is seen by the voter. Sometimes this results from confusing ballot design, such as the “butterfly ballot.” (c) Both of these problems are aggravated by the fact that voters cannot readily determine by looking at their completed punch card ballots whether the vote recording device has accurately recorded their intended votes. (d) Both of these problems may be created or aggravated by inadequate 30. Optical scan voting systems are prone to the following errors: (a) Voters may make a mark within the oval or completing the arrow that is not sufficiently large to be read by the vote counting machine. For example, voters may draw an “x” rather than fill in the entire area. (b) Voters may use their own marking implements rather than those supplied for their use. (c) Voters may mark the wrong area of their paper ballot sheets. For example, voters may draw a circle around the oval or their preferred candidate’s name, or draw a line through the non-preferred candidate’s name. (d) Voters may properly mark the oval or arrow for their preferred candidate, and also write in the name of their preferred candidate. The vote counting machine would reject both of these votes as overvotes. (e) The vote counting machine may identify stray marks as votes, which would lead to the rejection of the intended vote as an overvote. (f) All of these problems may be created or aggravated by inadequate ballot design, inadequate education of voters in the proper operation of the equipment, and/or inadequate training of and assistance from election judges. C. Error notification. 31. Unintentional overvotes and undervotes occur in both optical scan and punch card voting systems. This problem is aggravated by the fact that voters using both systems cannot readily determine by looking at their ballots whether the vote counting machine will not count their intended votes and instead consider them to be overvotes and/or undervotes. Accordingly, for both optical scan voting systems and punch card voting systems, voters must have an effective system of error notification to ensure that the vote counting machines will accurately count their intended votes. 32. Under section 24B-20 of the Illinois Election Code, optical scan voting systems with in-precinct counting must provide error notification to voters. Specifically, the voter may insert his or her ballot directly into the counting equipment, or the polling place personnel may do so while the voter is still in the polling place; the counting equipment must be programmed to reject any ballot with an overvote or which cannot be read; and the voter who has a ballot rejected must have the opportunity to correct the vote. This error notification substantially reduces the risk that a voter will not have his or her vote counted. 34. Voting systems with central counting, whether part of a punch card voting system (as in Alexander County) or an optical scan voting system (as in the City of East St. Louis), are not capable of providing error notification to voters, because the voter is not present when votes are placed in the vote counting machine. 35. Presently, defendants Chicago Board and Orr count votes on punch card ballots and provide error notification to voters with the “PBC 2100” machine. This punch card voting system with in-precinct counting is not presently capable of providing effective error notification to voters in certain circumstances, including the following: (a) If a ballot contains a single undervote, the PBC 2100 will not detect any overvotes. (b) In a race where a voter may vote for more than one candidate, the PBC 2100 will not detect any undervotes. (c) The PBC 2100 can detect only two residual votes at a time. Thus, if a punch card contains more than two residual votes, the voter must return to the punch card recording device two or more times in order to accurately record his or her votes. (d) Some voting precincts are “split precincts,” meaning they straddle a jurisdictional boundary. When some voters in a precinct are entitled to vote in a contested election but other voters are not, the PBC 2100 will improperly determine that every ballot cast by the latter voters contains an undervote. On March 28, 2001, the Cook County Circuit Court ruled that Orr may in such races deactivate the undervote notification. In municipal election held in suburban Cook County on April 3, 2001, this problem affected roughly 10% of all precincts and 10% of all races. (e) Where there is one candidate listed on the ballot and one certified write-in candidate, the PBC 2100 will sound the undervote alert upon a vote for the latter but not a vote for the former. Because of concern that this undervote alert differential might undermine voter secrecy, the Court County Circuit Court ruled that Orr may in such races deactivate the undervote notification. (a) Section 24A-10.1 of the Code provides that election judges in election jurisdictions using punch card voting systems with in-precinct counting shall enter the punch card ballots into the vote counting machines and generate a count of the votes only “after the closing of the polls.” At least through the November 2000 election, the state defendants, the Chicago Board, and Orr interpreted section 24A-10.1 to forbid election jurisdictions using punch card voting systems with in-precinct counting from providing error notification to voters. In 2000, these defendants supported legislation that would have explicitly allowed error notification in such election jurisdictions, but the legislation was never enacted. (b) Nonetheless, when related litigation was filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the Chicago Board and Orr recommended to the court and the state defendants did not oppose an interpretation of section 24A-10.1 that would grant local election jurisdictions using punch card voting systems with in-precinct counting discretion to decide whether or not to provide error notification to voters. On February 7 and March 8, 2001, the court for the purposes of a preliminary injunction adopted this interpretation. (c) Even if correct, this interpretation only permits and does not require election jurisdictions using punch card voting systems with in-precinct counting to provide error notification to voters. On the other hand, election jurisdictions using optical scan voting systems with in-precinct counting are required by the Illinois Election Code to provide error notification to voters. D. The 2000 Presidential election. 37. According to data released by the state defendants, the rate of residual votes for the entire State of Illinois in the 2000 Presidential election was approximately 3.85%. In every election jurisdiction, the vast majority of these residual votes were errors and did not accurately reflect the intent of the voter to cast one vote for President. 38. According to data released by the state defendants, the rate of residual votes in the 2000 Presidential election varied substantially among Illinois’ different election systems: (a) The rate of residual votes in the 10 election jurisdictions using optical scan voting systems with error notification was less than 1%. For example, the rate of residual votes in McHenry County was 0.32%. (b) The rate of residual votes in the 97 election jurisdictions using punch card systems (none of which provided error notification in November 2000) was more than 4%. For example, the residual vote rate was 7.06% in the City of Chicago, 12.59% in the 12th Ward of Chicago, and 36.73% in the 48th Precinct of the 29th Ward of Chicago. Similarly, the residual vote rate was 5.23% in suburban Cook County. Likewise, the rate of residual votes was 7.48% in Alexander County, and 11.32% in the “Cairo 2” Precinct of Alexander County. 39. Three patterns involving all voters emerge from the results of the 2000 Presidential election: (a) Voters living in election jurisdictions using punch card voting systems are significantly less likely to have their intended votes counted than voters who live in election jurisdictions that use optical scan voting systems. (b) Voters living in election jurisdictions that use voting systems that do not provide error notification are significantly less likely to have their intended votes counted than voters living in election jurisdictions that use voting systems that do provide error notification. (c) Voters living in election jurisdictions that use voting systems that do not provide adequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and ballot design are significantly less likely to have their intended votes counted than voters living in election jurisdictions that do provide voting systems with adequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and ballot design 40. Two patterns involving African-American voters emerge from the results of the 2000 Presidential election: (a) African-Americans reside and vote disproportionately in election jurisdictions that use punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design. For example, according to the 2000 census, African-Americans comprise 37% of the population of the City of Chicago and less than 1% of the population of McHenry County. In the 2000 Presidential election, the City of Chicago used a punch ballot voting system without error notification and had a residual vote rate of 7.06%, and McHenry County used an optical scan voting system with error notification and had a residual vote rate of 0.32%. (b) Within election jurisdictions that use punch card voting systems, voting systems that do not provide adequate error notification, and/or voting systems with inadequate voter education, training of and assistance from election judges, and/or ballot design, African-Americans reside and vote disproportionately in election wards and precincts with the highest rates of residual votes. For example, African-American voters comprise the vast majority of five of the six Chicago Wards that had a residual vote rate larger than 10% in the 2000 Presidential election, i.e., the 3rd, 9th, 20th, 29th, and 37th Wards. (Hispanics comprise the vast majority of the sixth such Ward.) On the other hand, white voters comprise the vast majority of all three Chicago Wards that had residual vote rates lower than 3% in the 2000 Presidential election, i.e., the 42nd, 43rd, and 44th Wards. 41. As a consequence of these inequities, plaintiffs and other African-American voters are significantly less likely to have their votes counted than non-minority voters. Thus, in elections at all levels, including municipal elections, African-American voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to fully participate in the electoral process, to form coalitions with like-minded voters, and to elect representatives of their choice. These disparities result from the approval, selection, and use of punch card voting systems; voting systems that lack error notification; and voting systems with inadequate education of voters, inadequate training of and assistance from election judges, and inadequate ballot design. E. Necessity of injunctive relief. 42. Unless enjoined by this Court, future elections will be conducted under the non-uniform, unequal, inadequate systems set forth above. 43. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Illinois’ system of voting. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 44. The following practices, alone and in combination, have a disparate impact on the rights of African-American voters to have their votes accurately recorded and counted, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: (a) the punch card voting system, which is certified and approved by the state defendants, and selected and/or used by the Chicago Board, Cook County, Orr, Alexander County, and Patton; (b) voting systems that lack any error notification or lack effective error notification, which are certified and approved by the state defendants, and selected and/or used by the Chicago Board, Cook County, Orr, the East St. Louis Board, Alexander County, and Patton; and (c) voting systems with inadequate education of voters, training of and assistance from election judges, and ballot design, which are certified and approved by the state defendants, and selected and/or used by some or all of the local defendants. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS 45. The following inequalities deprive plaintiffs of their rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: (a) the state defendants’ simultaneous and arbitrary certification and approval of punch card voting systems and optical scan voting systems, and the use and/or selection of punch card voting systems by the Chicago Board, Cook County, Orr, Alexander County, and Patton; and (b) the state defendants’ simultaneous and arbitrary certification and approval of voting systems with error notification, with no error notification, and with ineffective error notification, and the use and/or selection of voting systems with no error notification or with ineffective error notification by the Chicago Board, Cook County, Orr, the East St. Louis Board, Alexander County, and Patton. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request the following relief: (A) Entry of a declaratory judgment that: (1) the state defendants’ certification and approval of the punch card voting system, and its selection and use by local election authorities, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) the state defendants’ certification and approval of voting systems without any error notification or without effective error notification, and their selection and use by local election authorities, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) the state defendants’ certification and approval of voting systems with inadequate education of voters, inadequate training of and assistance from election judges, and inadequate ballot design violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (B) Entry of a preliminary injunction, and following a trial on the merits a permanent injunction: (1) prohibiting the state defendants from certifying and approving, and local election authorities from selecting or using punch card voting systems; (2) prohibiting the state defendants from certifying and approving, and local election authorities from selecting or using voting systems that lack any error notification or that lack effective error notification; (3) prohibiting the state defendants from certifying and approving, and local election authorities from selecting or using voting systems with inadequate education of voters, inadequate training of and assistance from election judges, and inadequate ballot design; and (4) requiring the state defendants to certify and approve, and the local election authorities to select and use voting systems that do not have a disparate impact upon the voting strength of minority voters. (C) In the event defendants fail to or are unable to conduct future elections in a manner that complies with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, entry of an order providing for elections under the Court’s supervision that comport with all federal constitutional and statutory requirements. (D) Award plaintiffs the costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19731(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (E) Enter such other and further relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. DATED: April __ , 2001 HARVEY GROSSMAN WILLIAM T. BARKER ELLEN E. DOUGLASS LAUGHLIN McDONALD |
|
