Federal Court Rejects Challenge Over Electronic Absentee Ballots in Alabama

On March 20, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of election officials in Tuscaloosa, Mobile, and Jefferson counties, denying a motion by voters with print disabilities and the National Federation of the Blind of Alabama (NFB-AL).

The lawsuit, filed under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sought access to an electronic ballot transmission and return system similar to the remote accessible vote-by-mail (RAVBM) program currently provided to military and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

The Dispute Over Absentee Voting

The plaintiffs—registered voters who are blind, have advanced glaucoma, or live with cerebral palsy—argued that Alabama's standard mail-in absentee voting system relies on paper ballots that they cannot independently read or mark. They asserted that denying them access to an accessible electronic system deprives them of the opportunity to vote privately and independently from home.

Alabama currently uses the OmniBallot platform by Democracy Live to administer remote ballots to overseas voters. The plaintiffs argued that refusing to extend this platform to voters with print disabilities constituted disability discrimination.

Evidence presented indicated that expanding OmniBallot statewide would cost $20,000 per election and $60,000 per election cycle, along with additional staffing and administrative burdens for local county election managers.

The Court's Legal Analysis

The court determined that while the individual voters and NFB-AL had standing, their ADA claims failed on the merits:

• Meaningful Access vs. Preferred Form: Relying on the precedent set in Alexander v. Choate, the court found that Title II requires "meaningful access" rather than identical access or a voter's preferred accommodation.
• Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act: The court highlighted Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10508), which guarantees voters requiring assistance due to blindness or disability the right to receive help from a person of their choice. The judge concluded that Congress specifically tailored Section 208 to address ballot access for voters with print disabilities, satisfying ADA accessibility standards.
• No Statutory Mandate for Ballot Secrecy: The court held that neither Title II nor its implementing regulations explicitly require independent secret voting without human assistance for remote absentee ballots.
• Reason for Exclusion: The court found no evidence that the state excluded the plaintiffs due to their disabilities. The electronic system was deployed solely to comply with federal mandates under UOCAVA and the MOVE Act for voters abroad, rather than as a state-initiated elective service.

Consequently, the court concluded that policy determinations regarding whether to extend electronic voting systems beyond federal statutory requirements belong to the legislative branch rather than the judiciary.

Read the full decision on govinfo.gov.