IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DONNA CURLING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIAN KEMP, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:17-CV-2989-AT

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 258]. Additionally, still pending before the Court is
the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Third Amended
Complaint [Doc. 234].
Assuming that the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint properly
asserts grounds for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction as well as viable
constitutional claims for relief, the Court turns to a pressing challenge posed by the
Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. While the Coalition
Plaintiffs seek to vindicate the public interest in the integrity and security of the
voting system, their brief devotes little attention to the flip side of their request for
immediate relief: Would statewide implementation of the requested relief in an
expedited, limited time frame actually compromise the reliability and functionality

 of the voting system and therefore adversely impact the public interest in this 2018
election cycle? Specifically, the Coalition Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit
Defendants “from conducting the November 2018 general election and the related
December 2018 runoff election through direct recording electronic (DRE) voting
units for in-person voting.” (Coalition Pls.’ Motion, Doc. 258 at 1.) Furthermore,
they ask the Court to order Defendants instead to “conduct such elections using
paper ballots” and to “promulgate rules requiring and specifying appropriate
procedures for conducting precertification audits of the results of both such
elections and, to order the Defendant Secretary of State, before October 1, 2018, to
conduct an audit of and correct any identified errors in the DRE system’s electronic
pollbook data that will be used in both such elections.” (Id. at 1-2.) This is no small
request, especially given that the State conducts the 2018 elections in
approximately three months and that preparations for the requested relief might
entail major planning and resources in the months prior to the election.
The Court appreciates the gravity and importance of the constitutional
issues that the Coalition Plaintiffs raise in their Motion. At the same time, the
Court needs as a priority to assess the concrete reality of the challenges involved in
implementing the Coalition’s requested injunctive relief in the compressed time
frame available. Thus, the Court DIRECTS Defendants in their response brief to
particularly focus on the public interest factor – i.e., the practical realities
surrounding implementation of the requested relief in the next one to three
months. If the Coalition Plaintiffs file a reply brief, the Court DIRECTS them to
2

 focus their brief accordingly as well.

Furthermore, the Court ORDERS

Defendants to file their response no later than August 14, 2018, and the Court
ORDERS the Coalition Plaintiffs to file their reply, if any, no later than August 20,
2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2018.

_____________________________
Amy Totenberg
United States District Judge

3