Last Updated: October 7, 2019 at 11:14 AM
Martin v. Secretary of State of Georgia
Case Information
Date Filed: October 15, 2018
State: Georgia
Issue: Absentee Ballots
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S District Court Northern District of Georgia (Case 1:18-cv-04776)
Issue:
Whether Georgia gave vote-by-mail voters a reasonable opportunity to cure rejected applications for mail ballots consistent with the Due Process Clause; whether Georgia treated vote-by-mail voters differently than in-person voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Status:
Complaint filed 10/15/18. Temporary Restraining Order granted filed 10/15/18. Motion to Intervene filed 11/11/18. Order granting Motion to Intervene filed 11/1/18. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed 11/12/18. Motion to Intervene Granted 11/13/18. Motion for Reconsideration filed 11/15/18, denied 11/15/18. Name changed to Martin v. Secretary of State of Georgia filed 12/10/18. Case in the court of appeals closed 1/4/19. Comes Now Defendant, Brad Raffensperger, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Georgia and moves to have the docket in this matter corrected to reflect the correct Defendant name filed 2/27/29. Civil case terminated filed 4/17/19. Motion for attorney fees granted in part and Plaintiff awarded $51,013.28 (7/23/19).
District Court Documents
- Brief in Support
- Exhibit 1
- Exhibit 2
- Proposed Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
- Proposed Brief in Support
Court of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit
- Kemp's Emergency Motion for Stay
(10/30/18) - Brief in Opposition to Stay
(10/31/18) - Motion to stay Denied
(11/2/18) - Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(11/12/18) - Order Granting Motion to Intervene
(11/13/18) - Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal
(12/7/18) - Entry of Dismissal
(12/11/18) - Published Order
(3/21/19)


Commentary
Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test
Edward B. Foley
A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.
more commentary...