The Alabama Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether a provision protecting voting assistance for people with disabilities also shields those who help them from prosecution under a state law restricting paid assistance with absentee ballot applications.
The dispute centers on Senate Bill 1, a 2024 law that criminalizes certain activities involving absentee ballot applications, including accepting payment for collecting, completing or delivering applications and paying someone else to perform those tasks.
In April 2024, the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Alabama and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, among other groups, filed a lawsuit against the state, including Attorney General Steve Marshall and Secretary of State Wes Allen.
At issue is whether an exemption allowing voters who are blind, disabled or unable to read or write to receive assistance from a person of their choice applies to both the law’s restrictions on submitting ballot applications and its restrictions on payments and gifts for assistance.
The court heard the case after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the state justices to clarify the exemption’s meaning as part of a federal lawsuit challenging the law.
Anuja Thatte, representing the challengers, argued that the exemption must apply consistently across the statute rather than protect voters under one provision while leaving their chosen assistants exposed to criminal penalties under another.
“Our position is straightforward, that as a textual matter, and to be consistent with other interpretive canons, the exemption must apply equally to both SB1’s submission restriction, and the payment and gift restrictions,” Thatte said.
Thatte argued that the legislature placed the exemption in a stand-alone section without limiting it to a particular restriction, even though other provisions of the law contain exceptions specific to those sections.
She also argued that limiting the exemption could undermine the right it was intended to protect if voters could choose an assistant but that person could still face prosecution for providing the requested help.
During questioning, Supreme Court Justice Will Parker suggested the court could resolve the dispute by finding that the state exemption mirrors a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, leaving federal courts to determine the precise scope of that protection.
Thatte said the court could take that approach without resolving every underlying issue.
“I don’t know that this court needs to go further,” Thatte said.
The attorney general’s representative, Barrett Bowdre, agreed that the exemption applies to both the submission and payment restrictions but urged the justices to avoid deciding the broader question of what types of paid assistance are permissible.
He argued that the legislature’s use of language nearly identical to Section 208 of the federal Voting Rights Act meant the state provision should be interpreted consistently with the federal protection.
“Our view is that Section E incorporates Section 208 to the Voting Rights Act,” Bowdre said.
Bowdre said the exemption serves as a safeguard for voters who need help but argued that it does not automatically shield every person or organization that provides ballot-related services from prosecution.
“The 11th Circuit suggested that Section E may function as a catch all term, that it would apply to all three provisions at issue to avoid even an inkling of conflict. We agree with that. We think Section E functions as a backstop so that you read the general provision,” Bowdre said.
Under the attorney general’s interpretation, the law’s general restrictions would remain in place, while the exemption would protect qualifying voters’ ability to receive assistance. The precise scope of that protection, he argued, did not need to be settled to answer the question sent to the state court.
The justices pressed Bowdre on how the law distinguishes between someone specifically paid to assist with absentee ballot applications and someone whose broader job includes helping people with disabilities.
Bowdre said the distinction could depend on the circumstances, including whether a person was paid specifically to provide ballot assistance and whether the person knew that was the purpose of the payment. He contrasted a campaign paying workers for each ballot application they assist with a home health care worker who receives a salary for providing broader services to a person with a disability.
The discussion also raised questions about whether an organization could pay an employee to perform a range of duties, including helping voters, without violating the law.
Bowdre said such cases would depend on the facts, including the purpose of the payment and the person’s knowledge.
Thatte challenged the state’s proposed distinction, arguing that it would be difficult to draw a consistent line between permissible assistance and prohibited conduct. She also maintained that federal law protects a qualifying voter’s choice of assistant without requiring the voter to prove that every other option is unavailable.
The justices returned several times to whether they needed to determine the full scope of the federal protection to resolve the certified question.
Bowdre said the court could answer the question by finding that the exemption mirrors Section 208 and applies to the other provisions of SB1. Thatte similarly argued that the justices could clarify state law while leaving the broader federal dispute to the 11th Circuit.
