IN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
(Northern Division) THE NATIONAL FEDERATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OF THE BLIND, INC., At Jernigan Place Baltimore, MD 21230, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, 15 Charles Plaza, # 3002 Baltimore, MD 21201, JOEL ZIMBA, 3601 Greenway, Unit 206 Baltimore, MD 21218, RUTH SAGER, 7634 Carla Road Pikesville, MD 21208, and MARIE COBB, 810 Hidden Bluff Circle Catonsville, MD 21228, Plaintiffs, v. LINDA H. LAMONE, STATE ADMINISTRATOR, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in her official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, MICHAEL R. COGAN CHAIRMAN, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in his official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, Civil Action No.:
Case 1:19-cv-02228-SAG Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 20
PATRICK J. HOGAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in his official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, WILLIAM G. VOELP, MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in his official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, KELLEY A. HOWELLS, MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in her official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, and MALCOLM L. FUNN, MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, in his official capacity, 151 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, MD 21401, Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * oo0oo * * * * *
COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs the National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”), the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland (“NFB-MD”), Joel Zimba, Ruth Sager, and Marie Cobb bring this action against Defendants Linda H. Lamone, in her official capacity as State Administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections (“the Board”), Michael R. Cogan, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board, Patrick J. Hogan, in his official capacity as Vice Chairman of the Board, and William G. Voelp, Kelley A. Howells, and Malcolm L. Funn, in their official capacities as members of the Board, for denying blind individuals an equal opportunity to vote in person by 2
Case 1:19-cv-02228-SAG Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 20
secret ballot in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. On the basis of these violations, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other available relief. 2. Plaintiffs, two blind advocacy organizations and several blind individuals who are registered to vote in Maryland, wish to exercise their right and the right of their members to vote in a manner that is equal to that afforded to individuals without disabilities. 3. Since 2016, Maryland has maintained two separate and unequal voting systems: one for voters with disabilities and one for everyone else. The Board has made hand marking paper ballots the default voting option in Maryland. For voters with disabilities who cannot hand mark print ballots, such as blind voters, the Board offers a voting machine that electronically marks and then prints paper ballots (“Ballot Marking Device” or “BMD”) as an accessible alternative. Although Board policy has been to require at least two voters per precinct to use the Ballot Marking Device, in each election since 2016, numerous polling places have had only one voter use the device. Because the ballots produced by the BMD differ in shape, size, and content from the hand-marked ballots, they are readily distinguishable from hand-marked ballots. Thus, when only one voter uses the BMD in her precinct, her ballot becomes easily identifiable, destroying the secrecy of her vote. 4. In addition, because the BMDs are a secondary, poorly used voting option, poll workers are not as familiar with how to operate them, sometimes even failing to plug them in before a voter requests to use one. Maryland’s use of dual voting systems, therefore, renders the lesser used system an inferior voting option for those who must use the BMD to vote independently. 3
Case 1:19-cv-02228-SAG Document 1 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 20