In 2024, Alabama enacted SB1, a law that criminalizes third-party assistance for absentee ballot applications. The statute prohibits paying or giving gifts to third parties for distributing, completing, or delivering applications, and it bans individuals from submitting another person's application. Plaintiffs, including the NAACP and disability advocacy groups, provide assistance to blind, disabled, and illiterate voters, often using paid staff, volunteers, and supplies like pens or food. They sued the Alabama Attorney General, arguing that SB1 violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees voters with disabilities the right to assistance from a person of their choice. The district court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing SB1 against these plaintiffs, finding that the law likely preempts the state restrictions. The Attorney General appealed, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and would not succeed on the merits.
The Eleventh Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the preemption claim or the preliminary injunction. Instead, the court focused on two threshold issues: jurisdiction and comity. First, the court noted that standing requires a credible threat of prosecution. Because SB1 contains vague terms and potentially conflicting provisions, the court could not determine if the plaintiffs' conduct actually violated the law. If the law does not criminalize the plaintiffs' actions, they lack standing. Second, the court emphasized principles of federalism and comity, stating that federal courts should not interpret ambiguous state criminal statutes without guidance from the state's highest court. The opinion highlighted four specific ambiguities: whether Section 17-11-4(e) creates a blanket exception for disabled voters that overrides the payment and submission restrictions; the precise scope of prohibited verbs like 'completing' or 'delivering'; whether a general wage or supplies like t-shirts count as a 'payment' or 'gift' for the specific purpose of assistance; and whether paid health aides or prison officials count as 'third parties.'
The case is vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to await the Alabama Supreme Court's response to the certified questions. The preliminary injunction remains in effect pending the state court's decision. If the Alabama Supreme Court rules that SB1 does not criminalize the plaintiffs' conduct, the plaintiffs may lose standing and the case could be dismissed. If the court clarifies that the law is broad, the federal court will then proceed to decide whether Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act preempts those state restrictions.