The ACLU, along with several partner organizations, have sought to intervene in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the state to conduct list maintenance and move voters to the inactive list on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this list maintenance activity would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”).

The ACLU, along with several partner organizations, have intervened in this case to represent the rights of voters and voting-rights organizations in a case that asks a federal court to compel the purge of nearly 2,000 Fulton County, Georgia voters from the state’s rolls on the eve of a presidential election. The relief that the private plaintiffs seek is presumptively unlawful because this purge would happen within 90 days of a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”).

The Georgia’s State Election Board recently passed two new rules about local election certification that threaten to disenfranchise thousands of Georgia voters. The rule changes are part of a nationwide effort by 2020 election-deniers to obtain positions on county election boards and weaponize certification for partisan ends at the expense of voters.

This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the “independent source” doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant’s cell phone. The Court’s opinion vacated Tatum’s conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state’s decision to seek the search warrant was “prompted” by the prior unlawful search.