American Council of the Blind of Indiana v. Indiana Election Commission

2022 WL 702257 (2022)

From our private database of 47,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

American Council of the Blind of Indiana v. Indiana Election Commission

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
2022 WL 702257 (2022)

Facts

Indiana voters could vote in person on election day or via one of four absentee-voting options. The first option allowed a voter to cast an absentee ballot in person at authorized locations before the election. Those unable to mark the ballot themselves could choose someone to assist them. The second option allowed certain voters, including voters with disabilities, to receive a paper ballot by mail and return it by mail or delivery to an election office. Those who could not mark the ballot themselves were required to vote in front of an absentee voter board. The third option allowed a voter with a disability to request a traveling absentee voter board. Members of a traveling voter board would visit the voter’s house. If the person could not mark the ballot himself or herself, then a board member would assist. The fourth option allowed voters with print disabilities, meaning disabilities making it difficult to read printed text, to request an absentee-ballot application by mail, email, fax, or a web application, and then cast their ballot by mail, email, or fax. However, the state had failed to develop a system making the fourth option sufficiently accessible for the blind. Consequently, the only absentee options available to blind persons were in-person early voting, voting in front of an absentee board, or voting at home in front of a traveling-board member. No option allowed voting privately from home, which was an option for nondisabled persons. The American Council of the Blind and others (collectively, ACBI) (plaintiffs) sued various Indiana entities and officials (defendants), claiming that the state’s exclusion of blind voters from private home voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. On February 7, 2022, ACBI petitioned for a preliminary injunction leading up to the May 3, 2022, primary election. ACBI sought an injunction that required the state to (1) adopt an online Remote Accessible Vote by Mail program that allowed persons with print disabilities to vote electronically using screen-reading assistive technology and (2) allow voters with print disabilities to vote by mail from home with the assistance of a person of their choosing rather than a traveling-board member.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Magnus-Stinson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 903,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 903,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 903,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,100 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership