National Federation of the Blind v. Linda Lamone
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2238, 813 F.3d 494, 2016 WL 497187 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public entity's service or program, such as an absentee voting system, violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if it fails to provide disabled individuals an opportunity to participate that is as effective and equal to that afforded to others. A state must provide a reasonable modification to ensure such access unless it can prove the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program.
Facts:
- Maryland allows any registered voter to vote via absentee ballot, which can be obtained by mail, fax, or by downloading it from a website.
- The state's standard procedure required all absentee voters to mark a physical, hardcopy ballot by hand.
- The National Federation of the Blind and other voters with visual or manual dexterity disabilities were unable to mark a hardcopy ballot privately and independently, requiring them to rely on the assistance of others.
- Maryland's State Board of Elections (Board) had developed an "online ballot marking tool" that allowed voters to mark their choices electronically on a computer before printing the completed ballot for signature and return.
- This tool was compatible with personal assistive devices, such as refreshable Braille displays, used by voters with certain disabilities.
- The Maryland General Assembly enacted a law requiring the Board to certify any online ballot marking tool by a supermajority vote of at least four of its five members.
- Two independent security consultants hired by the Board concluded that the tool was secure.
- Despite positive security reports, the Board held a vote on the tool which failed to achieve the required four-vote supermajority (the vote was 3 to 1 in favor), and thus the tool was not certified for general use.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Federation of the Blind and individual disabled voters sued Maryland's State Administrator of Elections and the members of the State Board of Elections in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction requiring defendants to make an online ballot marking tool available.
- Following a three-day bench trial, the district court found that Maryland's absentee voting program denied plaintiffs meaningful access in violation of the ADA.
- The district court concluded the online tool was a reasonable modification that did not fundamentally alter the program and entered a permanent injunction ordering defendants to make it available.
- The defendant state election officials (Appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Maryland's absentee voting program, which requires all voters to mark a hardcopy ballot by hand, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by denying voters with certain disabilities a private and independent voting experience equal to that of non-disabled voters?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Floyd
Yes, Maryland's absentee voting program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. A public entity may not afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in a service that is not equal to that afforded others. Because Maryland's absentee ballot system allows non-disabled voters to vote privately and independently, while denying that same opportunity to disabled voters who cannot mark a paper ballot by hand, it violates the ADA's mandate for equal access. The court reasoned that the proper scope of analysis is the specific absentee voting program itself, not Maryland's entire voting system, because defining the benefit too broadly would undermine the ADA. The plaintiffs' proposed remedy, the use of the state-developed online ballot marking tool, is a reasonable modification because the tool was found to be accessible, secure, and had been previously used without incident. The state's argument that implementing the tool without the required state certification would fundamentally alter the program fails; federal law preempts a state's procedural requirements where necessary to prevent discrimination, and the state did not prove that using the tool would undermine the substantive purposes of election integrity that the certification process was meant to protect.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that under the ADA, courts must analyze the accessibility of a specific public service or program, like absentee voting, rather than viewing a state's services holistically. It establishes that the availability of an alternative accessible program (e.g., in-person voting) does not excuse a public entity from its duty to make a separate, specific program (e.g., absentee voting) accessible. The ruling also sets a strong precedent that state procedural requirements, such as certification statutes, cannot shield a state from its obligations under federal disability law unless the state can prove that waiving the procedure would fundamentally undermine the substantive purpose of the program, such as election integrity.
