Nelson v. Miller
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
170 F.3d 641 (1999)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
King Nelson and other Michigan citizens (plaintiffs) brought a class-action lawsuit against Candice Miller (defendant), the Michigan secretary of state, on behalf of all blind Michigan voters (blind voters) (plaintiffs) for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. State election laws stated that voters with visual disabilities who could not mark their ballots were permitted to choose an immediate family member or person over the age of 18 to assist in ballot marking. The state constitution also empowered the state legislature to enact election laws protecting the secrecy of the ballot. The blind voters claimed that the current election laws did not include an accessible voting option, like electronic voting, that preserved the secrecy of the ballot because blind people could not vote without another person’s assistance. The blind voters further argued that by failing to preserve the secrecy of the ballot through alternative voting methods, Miller denied blind voters their constitutional rights in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The blind voters sought a permanent injunction to force Miller to implement voting alternatives. Miller moved to dismiss the case, and the district court granted Miller’s motion. The blind voters appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Batchelder, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.