Greene v. Raffensperger

599 F.Supp.3d 1283

Marjorie Taylor GREENE, Plaintiff,

v.Brad RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as Georgia Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-cv-1294-AT

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed April 18, 2022

James Bopp, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Melena Siebert, Pro Hac Vice, The Bopp Law Firm, PC, Terre Haute, IN, Kurt Robert Hilbert, Christopher James Gardner, The Hilbert Law Firm, LLC, Roswell, GA, for Plaintiff.

Charlene S. McGowan, Elizabeth Marie Wilson Vaughan, Lee M. Stoy, Jr., Russell D. Willard, Attorney General's Office-Atl Department of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Mr. Brad Raffensperger, Mr. Charles R. Beaudrot.

OPINION AND ORDER

AMY TOTENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION...1287

II. BACKGROUND...1288

A. The Challenge Statute and Related Procedures...1288

B. Intervenors’ Challenge and the OSAH Proceedings Thus Far...1290

C. The Instant Lawsuit...1292

III. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LEGAL STANDARD...1293

IV. THRESHOLD PROCEDURAL AND JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES...1294

A. Standing and Ripeness...1294

B. Does Plaintiff Have a Cause of Action to Bring a Claim Under the 1872 Amnesty Act and Does the Court Have Jurisdiction to Address this Claim Under Count IV?...1295

C. Federal Court Abstention under the Younger Doctrine...1297

1. Sprint Category Two: Civil Proceedings Akin to Criminal Prosecutions...1299

2. Sprint Category Three: Civil Proceedings Implicating a State's Interest in Enforcing Orders and Judgments of its Courts...1301

V. PLAINTIFF'S SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION...1304

A. Plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment Claims [Counts I and II]...1304

1. Anderson/Burdick Step 1...1305

2. Anderson/Burdick Step 2...1311

3. The Disqualification Provision of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1872 Amnesty Act...1312

B. Plaintiff's Claims Under Article I, Section 5 [Count III]...1316

VI. CONCLUSION...1319

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are Plaintiff Marjorie Taylor Greene's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. [Docs. 4, 5.] Plaintiff's Complaint and Motions contest the constitutionality of Georgia's "Challenge Statute" as applied to Plaintiff as well as facially. The Challenge Statute allows voters to challenge whether individual candidates in their districts meet the requisite legal qualifications to run for their prospective positions via an administrative proceeding before Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings ("OSAH"). Under the Challenge Statute, an OSAH administrative law judge ("ALJ") recommends factual and legal findings, which are then submitted to the Georgia Secretary of State for review and final ruling. That decision in turn may be appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia as well as to the Georgia Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e).

This controversy began when five voters in Plaintiff's district filed a challenge to Plaintiff's candidacy on March 24, 2022, triggering the OSAH process. On April 1, Plaintiff filed this action seeking to (1) halt ongoing OSAH proceedings initiated by the voters’ challenge and (2) enjoin the assigned ALJ and the Secretary of State from enforcing the Challenge Statute against her. The Court quickly scheduled an expedited briefing schedule and oral argument of several hours’ duration that was held on April 8, 2022.

"In this Circuit, [a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites" for an injunction. Siegel v. LePore , 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). In assessing the question of whether a party is entitled to injunctive relief, the Court is required to apply rigorous standards. This case raises novel and complex constitutional issues of public interest and import. "After a thorough analysis of the evidentiary and legal issues presented in this complex matter involving unsettled questions of law, the Court finds Plaintiff has not carried her heavy burden to establish a strong likelihood of success on the legal merits in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. [Docs. 4, 5.] The state proceedings under the Challenge Statute may therefore proceed.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Marjorie Taylor Greene currently serves as a member of the United States House of Representatives for Georgia's 14th Congressional District. (Stipulated Facts, Doc. 38 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff is running for reelection in the 2022 midterms and filed her candidacy for that election on March 7, 2022. (Id. ¶ 2.) She then filed an amended notice of candidacy on March 10, 2022. (Id. ) Two weeks later, on March 24, five registered voters in Georgia's 14th Congressional District ("Intervenors" in this action) challenged Plaintiff's qualifications to serve as a member of Congress by filing an official challenge with the Georgia Secretary of State's office under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 ("the Challenge Statute"). The Challenge Statute is described below.

In their challenge, Intervenors allege that Plaintiff "does not meet the federal constitutional requirements for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and is therefore ineligible to be a candidate for such office." (See Doc. 3-1, Notice of Challenge ¶ 1.) Specifically, Intervenors assert that Plaintiff "voluntarily aided and engaged in an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power, disqualifying her from serving as a Member of Congress under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ...." (Id. ; Stipulated Facts ¶ 5.) Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits certain individuals and office holders, who had previously taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, from holding federal or state office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.

Plaintiff took her oath of congressional office on January 3, 2021, when members of the 117th Congress were sworn in.¹ Intervenors’ challenge sets forth, in a 42-page complaint, a broad range of contextual information as to the alleged insurrection, Plaintiff Greene's alleged activities, and relevant legal background and argument. (See, e.g. , Notice of Challenge ¶¶ 43–45.)

A. The Challenge Statute and Related Procedures

The Challenge Statute provides that "any elector" who is eligible to vote for a candidate may "challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). This challenge must be initiated within two weeks after the deadline for candidate qualifying. Id. Upon receiving the challenge, "the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor." Id. Additionally, the Secretary of State "shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings" and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing. Id. Although not in the statute itself, the Georgia Supreme Court has instructed that, in the context of a challenge under the Challenge Statute, the burden is on the candidate to affirmatively establish her eligibility for office. Haynes v. Wells , 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430, 433 (2000). That said, under Georgia Regulations, an ALJ acting pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 50-13-13, 50-13-40(c), and 50-13-41 may determine, prior to the commencement of the hearing, "that law or justice requires a different placement of the burden of proof." See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 616-1-2-.07.² As discussed later, the ALJ issued a decision on April 13, 2022, shifting the burden of proof to Intervenors. (Doc. 48-1.) The statute provides for the ALJ to report his written findings to the Secretary of State after completion of the administrative hearing process. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

At that point, the Secretary of State "shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering." Id. § 21-2-5(c). If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the statute directs that he shall withhold the candidate's name from the ballot or strike such candidate's name from the ballots, if the ballots have already been printed. Id. However, as discussed further below, counsel for Defendants represented at the Court's April 8 oral argument that the ballots for the May primary at issue here are already printed, that Plaintiff's name is on the ballot, and that it will remain on the ballot, "no ifs, ands, or buts about that." (TRO Hr'g Tr. ("Tr."), Doc. 39 at 29.) The statute further provides that, if there is insufficient time for withholding or striking a candidate's name, "a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification" and "all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted." O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(c).

In the event the Secretary of State rules against the...