MotionPI Nemes

Case 3:20-cv-00407-CHB Document 4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 162
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
JASON NEMES, et. al. : Case No. 3:20-CV-407-CHB
v. :
CARL BENSINGER, et. al. :
PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
DECLARATIONS OF DR. STEVEN VOSS, JOHN HODGSON, AND BARBARA HEIL
IN SUPPORT
Plaintiffs, voters in Kentucky’s largest counties, seek emergency relief from this Court
associated with the June 23, 2020 primary election, and Defendants’ permitting only a single
polling precinct for in-person voting, in Kentucky’s largest counties. Because of the timing of
this matter, including the fact that this matter did not become ripe until June 3, 2020, due to the
actions of Defendants, emergency relief is required. Timing considerations will require
expeditious relief. A Memoranda in Support is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Plaintiffs seek an order, at a minimum, requiring that additional polling locations be opened in
Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Boone, and Campbell, counties and that this Court retain jurisdiction
over this matter, to deal with an all-too-predictable denial of fundamental voting rights. Dr.
Steven Voss has undertaken expedited analysis of the deprivation of rights that Defendants have
caused, and his analysis and report is appropriately considered in fashioning relief. A proposed
order is also attached.

Case 3:20-cv-00407-CHB Document 4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 163
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher Wiest___________

Christopher Wiest (KBA 90725)
Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC
25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
859/486-6850 (v)
513/257-1895 (c)
859/495-0803 (f)
chris@cwiestlaw.com
/s/Thomas Bruns_____________
Thomas Bruns (KBA 84985)
4750 Ashwood Drive, STE 200
Cincinnati, OH 45241
tbruns@bcvalaw.com
513-312-9890
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing, by express overnight mail, along with
the Complaint and Summons, this 9 day of June, 2020, upon each of the Defendants, and have
filed a copy of the foregoing in the Court’s CM/ECF system, and have served a copy by email of
this to the Defendants or their counsel the 10 day of June, 2020.

Case 3:20-cv-00407-CHB Document 4-1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 164

LOUISVILLE DIVISION
v. :
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EMERGENCY MOTION

FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITH
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DECLARATIONS OF DR. STEVEN VOSS, JOHN
HODGSON, AND BARBARA HEIL, IN SUPPORT
I. FACTS
A. The parties
Plaintiff Jason Nemes is the duly elected State Representative for Kentucky’s 33rd State
House District. Mr. Nemes’ district covers northeast Louisville, and parts of Oldham County.
(Pl.’s Ver. Compl., ¶21). His district includes one of the most diverse districts in the
Commonwealth, with a cross section of voters that include Democrats and Republicans, and a
substantial portion of minority voters. Id. The voters of Mr. Nemes’ district, including Mr.
Nemes himself, is and will be disproportionately impacted by the single polling precinct in this
matter. Id. Mr. Nemes is a U.S. citizen and a registered voter in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, and is a registered Republican, and voter within Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id.
Plaintiff James “Rich” Howland is age 72. Id. at ¶22. He is African American. Id. Mr.
Howland has COPD, and has knee and back problems that has resulted in his qualifying for
handicapped license plate status. Id Mr. Howland’s COPD is a co-morbidity condition for
COVID-19. Id Mr. Howland has election security concerns with mail-in ballots, and desires to
vote in person. Id He normally votes at an elementary school approximately ½ mile from his
house on South First Street in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id Mr. Howland is a
1
U.S. citizen and a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and is a registered
Republican, and voter within Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id Mr. Howland is and will be
disproportionately impacted by the challenged practices. Id He distrusts intends to vote in
person for the 2020 primary election, in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id
Plaintiff Ken Kearns is over the age of 60, and resides in Fayette County, Kentucky. Id.
at ¶23. Mr. Kearns is currently battling a severe form of cancer, which is a co-morbidity
condition for COVID-19. Id Nevertheless, he distrusts mail-in voting and desires to vote in-
person in Fayette County, Kentucky. Id He is a U.S. citizen who is also a lawfully registered
Kentucky voter, a registered Republican, and a voter within Fayette County, Kentucky. Id
Plaintiffs Aaron Gillum and Theodore Roberts reside in Boone County, Kentucky. Id. at
¶¶24-25. Plaintiff Tyson Hermes resides in Kenton County, Kentucky. Id. at ¶26. Plaintiff Erik
Hermes resides in Campbell County, Kentucky. Id. at ¶27. They all desire to vote in person, are
lawfully registered Kentucky voters and registered Republicans. Id. at ¶¶23-27.
Defendants Bensinger, Holsclaw, Aubrey, Huber, Blevins, Witt, Dishman, Miller,
Summe, Korzekborn, Kummich, Rogers, Crigler, Helmig, Shelton, Howard, Leuresen, Jansen,
Shroer, and Snodgrass, include the County Clerks, and County Board of Elections for Jefferson,
Fayette, Kenton, Boone and Campbell counties, who are all sued in their official capacities, as
they enforce and administer Kentucky’s voting laws within their counties, including the
challenged single precinct polling location in their counties. Id. at ¶¶28-32.
Defendants Chander, Whitehouse, Russell, Fitgerald, Brangers, Skolnik, Sears, and
Lewis are members of the Kentucky Board of Elections, all sued in their official capacities only,
and, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. § 117.015, the Kentucky Board of Elections has the authority to
“promulgate administrative regulations as necessary” to “administer the election laws of the
2
state.” Id. at ¶33.
Defendant Michael Adams is the Secretary of State and Chief Election official for
Kentucky, and sued in his official capacity only. Id. at ¶34.1 Defendant Andrew Beshear is the
Governor of Kentucky, and sued in his official capacity only. Id. at ¶35.
Pursuant to recently enacted H.B. 351, once the Governor declares a state of emergency
and issues an executive order altering the time, place, or manner of an election, the Kentucky
Board of Elections is responsible for establishing procedures for election officials to follow to
accommodate the alteration. Id. at ¶36. H.B. 351 then mandates that before the procedures can
take effect, the Secretary of State and the Governor must approve them. Id.
B. Facts for all claims
COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus that has spread
throughout the world at a rapid pace.2 Id. at ¶37. The virus “can infect organs throughout the
body, including lungs, throat, heart, liver, brain, kidneys and the intestines,” and contracting the
virus can ultimately result in death, blood clots, and/or severe and lasting damage to various
organs.3 Id. Virtually all aspects of life in the United States have been affected by the global
COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at ¶38. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(“CDC”), COVID-19 spreads aggressively, and even asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic
1
https://www.sos.ky.gov/elections/Pages/default.aspx (last visited June 1, 2020). Plaintiffs
reference a number of websites in support, particularly government websites, and suggest that
these matters may be judicially noticed. Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc., 954 F.3d 938 (6th
Cir. 2020).
2 CDC, What You Should Know about COVID-19 to Protect Yourself and Others (Apr. 15,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/2019-ncov- factsheet.pdf.

3 Maggie Fox, Covid-19 Infects Intestines, Kidneys and Other Organs, Studies Find, CNN Health
(May 13, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/health/wellness- covid-attacks-organs-

kidney/index.html
3
individuals can potentially infect others with whom they come into contact.4 Id. Americans of
all ages and from all walks of life have contracted the virus.5 Id.
Although COVID-19 has affected Americans of every age, public health experts
have warned that it can be particularly dangerous for certain demographics. Id. at ¶39.
The CDC has observed that current data on the COVID-19 pandemic “suggest a
disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups,”6 and
it has concluded that older persons and individuals with underlying medical conditions are
at risk for severe illness or death if they contract COVID-19.7 Id. “Social distancing”
measures and guidance imposed by federal, state, and local governments have been key to
preventing even wider infection and death. Id. at ¶40.
COVID-19 in Kentucky
Kentucky is no exception to COVID-19 case. As of the date of filing this complaint, the
virus has already infected 8,951 Kentuckians.8 Id. at ¶41. On March 22, 2020, Governor
Beshear issued a state-wide “healthy-at- home” order in response to the crisis and urged
residents to maintain social distancing in order to combat the virus’s spread.9 Id. at ¶42.
4 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How It Spreads (last updated May 22, 2020),
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covidspreads.html.
5 Robert Verity, PhD. et al., Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-
Based Analysis at 6, Lancet Infectious Diseases (Mar. 30, 2020),

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext
6 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups (last
updated Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-

precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html
7 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Clinical Care Guidance(last visited Apr. 6,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance- management-

patients.html; CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): At Risk for Severe Illness (May 14,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need- extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-
risk.html
8 Ky. Dep’t of Pub. Health, Kentucky Coronavirus Monitoring (last updated May 26, 2020 at
5:00 P.M. E.T.), https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19

9
Ky. Office of the Governor, State of Emergency, Exec. Order No. 2020-257 (Mar. 25, 2020),
4
Governor Beshear also ordered that all non-life-sustaining businesses had to cease in-person
services by March 23, 2020, and he advised that Kentucky’s schools should remain closed for
the rest of the 2019–2020 school year.10 Id. The Governor also deployed the National Guard
and additional law enforcement personnel to assist at hospitals and medical facilities. Id.
At the same time, Kentucky’s legislature passed emergency legislation granting new
powers to the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Board of Elections to modify
Kentucky’s existing voting procedures during a state of emergency. Id. at ¶43. See H.B. 351 §
74(1)(l).
On April 4, 2020, Governor Beshear and the Kentucky Department of Public Health
recommended that people wear cloth masks and observe social distancing practices in public to
slow the spread of the virus. Id. at ¶44. The mask guidance was followed by Executive Order
2020-275 on April 8, 2020, which limited the number of people inside essential businesses that
remain open by restricting shopping trips to one adult per household at a time. Id. In a move to
prevent crowds from congregating, Governor Beshear also announced the closure of several
state parks. Id. On April 21, the Governor announced the “Healthy at Work” initiative, which
hopes to help Kentucky businesses reopen safely. Id. at ¶45.
On April 23, the Secretary of State issued recommendations for how elections held in
June should be conducted due to the pandemic.11 Id. at ¶46. On April 24, the Governor issued
an Executive Order, pursuant to KRS Chapter 39A, directing the Kentucky Board of Elections
https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20200325_Executive-Order_2020- 257_Healthy-at-
Home.pdf This Court can take judicial notice of all of these public websites.
10
Ky. Office of the Governor, Kentucky’s Response to COVID-19 (May 17, 2020),
https://governor.ky.gov/covid19; Commonwealth of Kentucky, Gov. Beshear Advises Schools to
Remain Closed to In-Person Instruction (Apr. 20, 2020), https://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-
stream.aspx?n=GovernorBeshear&prId=135.
11
Letter from Sec’y of State Adams to Governor Beshear (Apr. 23, 2020),
https://governor.ky.gov/attachments/20200423_Ltr-from-Sec-of-State-Adams.pdf.
5
to promulgate regulations to change the procedures for the June elections to minimize the
spread of COVID-19.12 Id. The Board of Elections subsequently issued emergency
regulations which provided some COVID-19 related relief, but also required the submission of
a county-by-county plan to the board concerning the conduct of in-person elections.13 Id.
Governor Beshear announced that on April 27, 2020, the state would begin a “gradual
restart and reopening of our Phase 1 health care services and facilities, although even then they
will operate vastly differently than they did before the outbreak of the novel coronavirus 2019
(COVID-19).”14 Id. at ¶47. The Commonwealth is still taking intense precautions in long-term
care facilities and nursing homes, including “encouraging all residents to wear masks,
cancelling communal dining and social activities, minimizing entry into resident rooms,
restricting non-essential personnel from entering the building, daily temperature checks and
adopting a low threshold to transfer ill residents to a higher level of care.” Id.
On May 4, 2020, Governor Beshear announced that certain businesses could reopen on
May 11, 2020, including manufacturing, distribution, and supply chain businesses;
construction; vehicle or vessel dealerships; office-based businesses (at 50% pre-pandemic
capacity); horse racing (without fans in attendance); pet care, grooming, and boarding; and
photography. Id. at ¶48. On May 7, 2020, Governor Beshear announced a tentative schedule
for reopening other Kentucky businesses, under which restaurants could reopen on May 22
(with limited 33% capacity and outdoor seating), movie theaters and fitness centers could
12
Ky. Office of the Governor, State of Emergency Relating to Kentucky Elections, Exec. Order
2020-296 (Apr. 24, 2020), https://elect.ky.gov/SiteAssets/Pages/default/EO%202020-296.pdf
13
Ky. Bd. of Elections, Procedures for June 23, 2020 Election, 31 Ky. Admin. Regs. 4:190E
(2020),
https://elect.ky.gov/SiteAssets/Pages/default/SBE%20Covid19%20Emergency%20Regulation.p
df
14 Ky. Office of the Governor, Kentucky’s Response to COVID-19 (May 17, 2020),
https://governor.ky.gov/covid19
6
reopen on June 1, public and private campgrounds could reopen on June 11, and childcare
could reopen on June 15 (with reduced capacity; and potentially low-touch and outdoor youth
sports). Id. And on May 15, Governor Beshear announced that state parks would reopen on
June 1. Id.
Although the Governor provided guidance permitting Kentucky government offices to
begin reopening on May 18,15 several government offices— including ones that are critical to
Kentucky elections—citing safety reasons have declined to reopen.16 Id. at ¶49. As Fayette
County Clerk Don Blevins, Jr. has explained, “Most County Clerk offices will need to remain
closed to the public until after the Primary election in late June,” because they “simply cannot
risk a member of staff contracting the virus and forcing a quarantine of all or part of an office,”
which would “jeopardize [their] ability to support and conduct the election.” Id.
In-Person Voting During a Pandemic
The recent primary election in Wisconsin particularly highlights the issues of voting in-
person during the pandemic. Id. at ¶50. In the days leading up to the election, Wisconsin
election officials faced a huge backlog of requests for absentee ballots and questions about
voting absentee, including how to satisfy the state’s registration requirements, how to properly
request an absentee ballot, and how to return it in time to be considered.17 Id. Indeed, the
likely consequences were readily apparent, including “a dramatic shortfall in the number of
15
Phil Pendleton, Kentucky Government Offices Allowed to Reopen Monday, WKYT (May
18, 2020),
https://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Kentucky-government-offices-allowed-to- reopen-Monday-
570560991.html
16 Steve Rogers, Fayette Circuit Clerk, Others to Remain Closed, WTVQ (May 18, 2020),
https://www.wtvq.com/2020/05/18/fayette-circuit-clerk-others-remain-closed/.
17 Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Bostelmann, No. 20-CV-249-WMC, 2020 WL 1638374, at
*1 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2020)
7
voters on election day as compared to recent primaries” and “a dramatic increase in the risk of
cross-contamination of the coronavirus among in-person voters, poll workers and, ultimately,
the general population in the State.” Id.
When Wisconsin proceeded to hold its election without sufficiently addressing these
apparent issues, widespread disenfranchisement and electoral chaos predictably ensued.18 Id.
at ¶51. Cities in Wisconsin were forced to close polling locations, and these closures impacted
voters unequally. Id. The city of Madison had over 60 open polling sites, while in
Milwaukee—a city more than twice Madison’s size, with a population of roughly 600,000—
only 18,803 voters cast their ballots in person, because all but five of the city’s 180 polling
locations had closed.19 Id. The result in Milwaukee was large crowds, long lines, and
excessive wait times—all in the middle of a global pandemic. Id. at ¶52. As shown in the
image below, these conditions made social distancing almost impossible:20
18 Astead W. Herndon and Jim Rutenberg, Wisconsin Election Fight Heralds a National Battle
Over Virus-Era Voting, N.Y. Times (Apr. 6, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/wisconsin-primary-voting- coronavirus.html
19 Jason Calvi, ‘2Different Cities:’ Milwaukee Had 5 Polling Sites During COVID-19 Election;
Madison Had 60+, Fox 6 Now (Apr. 8, 2020), https://fox6now.com/2020/04/08/2-different-

cities-milwaukee-had-5-polling-sites- during-covid-19-election-madison-had-60/
20 David Bowen, Wisconsin’s Primary Subjected People of Color to Yet Another Covid- 19
Disadvantage, The Guardian (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-

news/2020/apr/08/wisconsin-coronavirus-black-communities-inequality
8
Milwaukee was far from alone. Id. at ¶53. For example, “[t]here were also long lines in
Green Bay, where the usual 31 polling sites were consolidated to just two.”21 Id. Some Green
Bay voters waited in line for four hours, and some were unable to cast a vote until after
midnight. Id. A contact-tracing analysis conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Health
found that 52 persons who voted under these conditions tested positive for COVID-19, and
economists have found a “statistically and epidemiologically significant association between
in-person voting and the spread of COVID-19 two to three weeks after the election.”22 Id. at
¶54.
The health risks of in-person voting are especially severe for certain categories of
voters: voters with underlying medical conditions, Black voters, older voters, and voters
with disabilities. Id. at ¶55.
Black Voters
The current plans for a single polling location in Kentucky’s most highly populated
counties will disproportionately burden Black voters, who face heightened risks from
contracting COVID-19 because of disparities in health and health care that raise the stakes
for them at every step of the process. Id. at ¶56.
First, Black voters face a greater risk of contracting the virus on their way to the
polls. Black Americans are less likely to own cars than any other demographic of
21 Jason Calvi, ‘2 Different Cities:’ Milwaukee Had 5 Polling Sites During COVID-19 Election;
Madison Had 60+, Fox 6 Now (Apr. 8, 2020), https://fox6now.com/2020/04/08/2-different-
cities-milwaukee-had-5-polling-sites- during-covid-19-election-madison-had-60/
22 Chad D. Cotti et al., The Relationship Between In-Person Voting, Consolidated Polling
Locations, and Absentee Voting on COVID-19: Evidence from the Wisconsin Primary at 1–2,
National Bureau of Econ. Research (May 2020), https://www.nber.org/papers/w27187.pdf.
9
Americans,23and they “represent about one-quarter of all public transit users.”24 Id. at ¶57.
Additionally, Black people with low income more often face “driver’s license suspensions
because they cannot pay fines and fees charged for minor violations such as traffic and
parking tickets,” which similarly leaves them “dependent on friends or public
transportation, unable to practice the social distancing recommended by the CDC and
every Kentuckian has a family member, friend or coworker that has been affected by
chronic disease.”.25 Often, without access to private transportation, Black voters face
additional risks of contact with exposed individuals in close quarters on public
transportation when en route to their polling places
Second, Black voters are disproportionately burdened by long lines at the polls. Id.
at ¶58. For Black voters, these problems are exacerbated by existing racial disparities in
wait times: a recent study based on data from millions of smartphone users during the
2016 presidential election found that residents of entirely-Black neighborhoods waited
29% longer to vote and were 74% more likely to spend more than 30 minutes at their
polling place than residents of all-white neighborhoods.26 And Black voters can least
afford unnecessarily long wait times as the price to pay for “more likely to be working in
23 Jamelle Bouie, Why Coronavirus Is Killing African-Americans More Than Others, N.Y.
Times (Apr. 14, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-
racism-african- americans.html; National Equity Atlas, Car Equity (2015),
https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access
24 Rashawn Ray, Why Are Blacks Dying at Higher Rates from COVID-19?, Brookings (Apr. 9,
2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/04/09/why-are-blacks- dying-at-higher-

rates-from-covid-19/
25 ReNika Moore, If COVID-19 Doesn’t Discriminate, Then Why Are Black People
Dying at Higher Rates?, ACLU (Apr 8, 2020), https://www.aclu.org/news/racialjustice/if-covid-

19-doesnt-discriminate-then-why-are-black-people-dying-at-higherrates/
26 M. Keith Chen et al., Racial Disparities in Voting Wait Times: Evidence from
Smartphone Data (Nov. 14, 2019),

https://www.kareemhaggag.com/f/Racial_Disparities_in_Voting_Wait_Times.pdf
10
jobs without flexibility or paid sick leave,” which means any delays at the polls
disproportionately threaten their job security.27
Third, if Black voters contract the virus while voting in-person, they are more
likely to suffer serious and even deadly consequences, because they disproportionately
suffer from the underlying medical conditions that exacerbate the virus.28 Id. at ¶59.
Decades of research, statements from public health experts, and data from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services all reflect that Black Americans have
disproportionately high rates of asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity.29
The CDC has cited racial disparities in these underlying medical conditions as a
factor that influences the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the Black
community.30 Id. at ¶60. Dr. Georges E. Benjamin, executive director of the American
27 Laura Williamson, How to Build a Racially Inclusive Democracy During COVID-19 and
Beyond, Demos (Apr. 28, 2020), https://www.demos.org/policy-briefs/how-build-racially-
inclusive-democracy-during-covid-19-and-beyond ; Lonnie Golden, Limited Access: Disparities
in Flexible Work Schedules and Work-at-Home, 29 J. Family & Econ. Issues 86–109 (2008)
28 Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of COVID-19 in America,
N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-

covid-19.html (describing studies explaining how historic and present-day factors—such as
“environmental inequality” and “the physiological ramifications of an atmosphere of bias and
discrimination”—have led to higher rates of poor health outcomes for Black Americans)
29 Office of Minority Health, Profile: Black/African Americans, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum.
Servs. (Aug. 22, 2019), https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlID=61 ; see

also Joseph P. Williams, Rumor, Disparity and Distrust: Why Black Americans Face an Uphill
Battle Against COVID-19, U.S. News & World Report (Mar. 25, 2020),
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-03-25/why-black-
americans-face-an-uphill-battle-against-the-coronavirus ; Lisa B. Signorello et al., Comparing
Diabetes Prevalence Between African Americans and Whites of Similar Socioeconomic Status,
97(12) Am. J. Pub Health 2260–2267 (Dec. 2007) (“Prevailing statistics suggest that African
American adults are 50% to 100% more likely to have diabetes than are Whites.”)
30 CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups (last
updated Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-

precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html (citing A.P. Bartel et al., Racial and Ethnic Disparities
in Access to and Use of Paid Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from Four Nationally
Representative Datasets, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Jan. 2019); T.J. Cunningham et al.,
Vital Signs: Racial Disparities in Age-Specific Mortality Among Blacks or African Americans—
11
Public Health Association and emergency medicine physician, has explained that these
disparities gave public health leaders concern about the impact on Black communities
from the time of the earliest reports of the virus: “You had early evidence from Asia that
showed that older folks, older than 60 or 65, with chronic disease would do worse when
they got the infection. So when you put that together with the understanding that in this
country you already have a [Black] population disproportionately affected by disparities in
things like diabetes, heart disease and asthma, we understood that if those populations got
infected they would be more at risk.”31 Id. at ¶61.
Dr. Fauci spoke about these health disparities during a White House Coronavirus
Task Force briefing,32 explaining that Black Americans’ increased likelihood of
underlying medical conditions “wind them up in the ICU and ultimately give them a
higher death rate.”33 Id. at ¶62. This risk has already manifested in Kentucky, where
United States, 1999–2015, 66(17) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 444 (2017)); see also
Ibram X. Kendi, Stop Blaming Black People for Dying of the Coronavirus, The Atlantic (Apr.
14, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/race-and-blame/609946/
(“Without question, African Americans suffer disproportionately from chronic diseases such as
hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, obesity, and asthma, which make it
harder for them to survive COVID-19.”)
31Elizabeth Thomas & Dr. Nancy A. Anoruo, Coronavirus is Disproportionately Killing the
Black Community. Here’s What Experts Say Can Be Done About It, ABC News (Apr. 9, 2020),
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killingblack-community-
experts/story?id=70011986
32 Rashawn Ray, Why Are Blacks Dying at Higher Rates from COVID-19?, Brookings (Apr. 9,
2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/04/09/why-are-blacks-dying-at-higher-
rates-from-covid-19/ (“Health disparities have always existed for the African American
community,” Fauci stated, and COVID-19 is “shining a bright light on how unacceptable that is
because, yet again, when you have a situation like the coronavirus, they are suffering
disproportionately.”)
33
Elizabeth Thomas & Dr. Nancy A. Anoruo, Coronavirus is Disproportionately Killing the
Black Community. Here’s What Experts Say Can Be Done About It, ABC News (Apr. 9, 2020),
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killing-black-community-
experts/story?id=70011986
12
“Black patients in Fayette County have a higher rate of hospitalization than white
patients.”34
Fourth, if Black voters contract the virus while voting in-person, they are also
more likely to suffer serious consequences because of inequalities in our health care
system. Id. at ¶63. Numerous studies conducted by the American Journal of Public
Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other organizations over the
past few decades indicate that Black people are less likely to have insurance and access to
affordable medical testing.35 The CDC has cited “barriers to getting health care,
“including lack of health insurance coverage”, as one factor that “might make members of
many racial and ethnic minority groups especially vulnerable in public health emergencies
like outbreaks of COVID-19.”36 Additionally, “[r]esearch indicates African Americans are
more likely than whites to rely on hospital emergency rooms for primary care.37 And some
34
Beth Musgrave, Black Fayette County Patients More Likely to Be Hospitalized from
Coronavirus, Lexington Herald Leader (Apr. 7, 2020),
https://www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article241833116.html (“Approximately 30
percent of all blacks testing positive have had to be hospitalized with only 12 percent of whites
who have tested positive have needed inpatient treatment, the data shows. Of the 31 patients
hospitalized, more than half are black.”)
35
Elizabeth Thomas & Dr. Nancy A. Anoruo, Coronavirus is Disproportionately Killing
the Black Community. Here’s What Experts Say Can Be Done About It, ABC News (Apr. 9,
2020), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killingblack-community-
experts/story?id=70011986; Kenya Evelyn, ‘It’s a Racial Justice
Issue’: Black Americans Are Dying in Greater Numbers from Covid-19, The Guardian
(Apr 8, 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/its-a-racial-justiceissue-black-
americans-are-dying-in-greater-numbers-from-covid-19 (“African
Americans are twice as likely to lack health insurance compared with their white
counterparts, and more likely to live in medically underserved areas, where primary care
is sparse or expensive.”).
36
CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups
(last updated Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-
extraprecautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html
37
Joseph P. Williams, Rumor, Disparity and Distrust: Why Black Americans Face an
Uphill Battle Against COVID-19, U.S. News & World Report (Mar. 25, 2020),
13
studies have shown that, even when Black people can obtain healthcare, they receive
unequal quality of care.38
Fifth, if Black voters contract the virus while voting in-person, they also face
increased risks of spreading the virus to their loved ones and community. Id. at ¶64. As
discussed above, Black voters are more likely to rely on public transportation, and Black
voters are more likely to live in “subpar neighborhoods [that] are rooted in the historical
legacy of redlining” and in “densely populated areas, further heightening their potential
contact with other people.”39 Dr. Sarah Moyer, Louisville’s public health strategist, has
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-03-25/whyblack-
americans-face-an-uphill-battle-against-the-coronavirus (citing Dr. Lisa Cooper, internist and
social epidemiologist with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health).
38
Linda Villarosa, ‘A Terrible Price’: The Deadly Racial Disparities of COVID-19 in
America, N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-
disparities-covid-19.html (“In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences documented the effects
of bias in the medical system in a report that laid out the facts in damning detail. “Unequal
Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care” examined 480 previous
studies and found that in every medical intervention, black people and other people of color
received poorer-quality care than white people, even when income and insurance were equal.
This unequal treatment in the health care system persists today in numerous studies . . .”);
Elizabeth Thomas & Dr. Nancy A. Anoruo, Coronavirus is Disproportionately Killing the Black
Community. Here’s What Experts Say Can Be Done About It, ABC News (Apr. 9, 2020),
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killing-blackcommunity-
experts/story?id=70011986 (“Studies looking at manifestations of racial bias within the health
care system have found black patients are sometimes treated differently than whites, leading to
things such as undertreatment of pain and racial differences in what treatment is offered for a
heart attack.”); Kenya Evelyn, ‘It’s a Racial Justice Issue’: Black Americans Are Dying in
Greater Numbers from Covid-19, The Guardian (Apr 8, 2020)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/its-aracial-justice-issue-black-americans-are-
dying-in-greater-numbers-from-covid-19
(“Unconscious racial bias can also contribute to unequal health outcomes, especially
when health professionals are inexperienced with the culture of the community they
serve, according to the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The Century Foundation
found that healthcare providers located within majority African American or Latinx
neighborhoods tend to provide lower-quality care.”); Michael O. Schroeder, Racial Bias
in Medicine Leads toWorse Care for Minorities, U.S.News & World Report (Feb. 11,
2016), https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2016-02-11/racial-bias-in-
medicine-leads-to-worse-care-for-minorities .
39
Rashawn Ray, Why Are Blacks Dying at Higher Rates from COVID-19?, Brookings (Apr. 9,
14
echoed these concerns for Black Kentuckians, explaining that “[p]eople of color are more
likely than white counterparts to live in densely populated settings” and “rely on public
transportation,” which “makes it easier for COVID to spread.”40
These statistics are even more outsized in some counties—data from the
Lexington-Fayette County Health Department demonstrates that, as of early April, Black
people comprised roughly 30% of the county’s more than 188 coronavirus patients, though
only 15% of the county’s population is Black.41 Id. at ¶65. Lexington and Fayette County
do not stand alone—data from cities within this District, including Louisville, demonstrate
a disproportionate impact on Black residents as well. “Black people made up 23.5% of
[Louisville]’s population in 2019, according to U.S. Census data,” but constituted 42
percent of the deaths from the virus, “doubling their share of the populations of the states
the analysis included.”42
Older Voters
Coronavirus also disproportionately affects older voters. Id. at ¶66. If older voters
contract the virus while voting in-person, they are more likely to suffer serious and even
deadly consequences. Id. The CDC has warned that “[p]eople aged 65 years and older” are
2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/04/09/why-are-blacks- dying-at-higher-

rates-from-covid-19/
40
Jon Hale, Kentucky Forms Regional Partnership, African American COVID-19
Deaths Rise in Louisville, Louisville Courier Journal (Apr. 15, 2020), https://www.courier-
journal.com/story/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-kentuckypolitics-heats-up-despite-beshears-
stance/5136206002/.
41
Beth Musgrave, COVID-19 Has Hit Kentucky, Lexington’s Black Population
Especially Hard. Why?, Lexington Herald Leader (Apr 9, 2020),
https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayettecounty/article241884161.html
42
Jon Hale, Kentucky Forms Regional Partnership, African American COVID-19
Deaths Rise in Louisville, Louisville Courier Journal (Apr. 15, 2020),
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-kentuckypolitics-heats-up-
despite-beshears-stance/5136206002/
15
at higher risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19, because “[t]he immune
systems of older adults weaken with age, making it harder to fight off infections,” and
“older adults commonly have chronic diseases that can increase the risk of severe illness
from COVID-19.” Id. Thus, “the older you are, the higher your risk of serious disease.”43
Id.
Studies reveal that the death rate associated with the virus increases significantly
with age: a large study of COVID-19 patients in China showed that the virus killed 1.3%
of patients between the ages of 50 and 59, 3.6% of patients between the ages of 60 and 69,
8% of patients between the ages of 70 and 79, and 15% of patients ages 80 and older.44 Id.
at ¶67.
Maintaining a single polling location will result in long lines and an inability to
practice adequate social distancing. Id. at ¶68. These conditions, taken together, will
subject older voters and poll workers to a serious risk of infection at their polling places—
and, with it, a greater risk of illness. Id.
Voters with Disabilities
The single polling location in Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Boone, Campbell and
other counties will disproportionately burden voters with certain disabilities, especially
those who need to vote in-person during the pandemic. Id. at ¶69.
Voters with certain disabilities face an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19
at the polls or on their way to polling locations. Id. at ¶70. Many voters with disabilities
43
CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): At Risk for Severe Illness (May 14,
2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groupsat-
higher-risk.html
44
Roni Caryn Rabin, Coronavirus Threatens Americans With Underlying Conditions,
N.Y. Times (Mar. 14, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/health/coronavirus-midlife-conditions.html
16
are unable to drive to the polls and will therefore need to share transportation to the polls
with other drivers or passengers, which increases their risk of exposure to COVID-19. Id.
“Many people with disabilities cannot mark paper ballots without assistance, so they rely
on special voting machines” with features like touch screens, other manual input devices,
and earphones to vote, any of which could carry the COVID-19 virus from previous users
and poll workers.45 Id. Additionally, social distancing practices are more difficult for
voters with certain disabilities—for example, voters who are blind or have limited vision
cannot see visual markers on the ground instructing voters to line up six feet apart from
each other. Id. Voters such as Mr. Howland have difficulty standing in line for hours at a
time, such as will be the case in Jefferson County. Id.
These difficulties are compounded by the fact that an inability to use paper ballots
without assistance forecloses many voters with disabilities from voting by mail.46 Id. at
¶71. Because many voters with disabilities are unable to submit mail-in absentee ballots
without assistance or accommodations, they will continue to need to vote in-person during
the pandemic, despite the risks posed by in-person voting, which can’t be eliminated, only
minimized. Id.
As a result, the use of a single polling location will unnecessarily pack tens of
thousands of voters at a single polling location, needlessly increasing the risk of
45
CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How It Spreads,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covidspreads.html
(noting that while the virus spreads most easily from person-to-person, it “may be possible that a
person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then
touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes”) (last visited May 21, 2020).
46
Matt Vasilogambros, How Voters With Disabilities Are Blocked From the Ballot Box,
Pew Research Center (Feb. 21, 2018), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-
andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2018/02/01/how-voters-with-disabilities-are-blocked-fromthe-ballot-
box
17
transmission: larger crowds will result in exposure to more people, and longer lines will
result in prolonged exposure, both of which place voters with certain disabilities at
increased risk of contracting the virus. Id. at ¶72.
General Burdens
To reduce the risk that individuals who need to vote in-person will be exposed to
COVID-19, the CDC has issued specific guidelines for voting during the pandemic, which
recommend that states “[e]ncourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct
contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.”47 Id. at ¶73. While
Kentucky officials have implemented many of these measures, the congregation of tens of
thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters at a single polling location in Jefferson,
Fayette, Kenton, Boone, Campbell, and other counties makes it difficult, if not impossible,
to facilitate these measures. Id. at ¶74.
Notwithstanding efforts in other states, including Indiana in its recent primary, to
encourage absentee or advance voting from home, substantial voter turnout, in person, on
election day, has been the norm rather than the exception.48 Id. at ¶75. Collectively, in
light of COVID-19, the single polling location in Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Boone,
Campbell, and other counties burdens the fundamental right to vote. Id. at ¶76.
Historical voting registration and turnout statistics in these most populated counties
is the baseline of expert analysis that demonstrates severe voter suppression, particularly
among minority, elderly, and economically disadvantaged persons. Id. at ¶77.49 There are
47
CDC, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Recommendations for Election Polling
Locations (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/election-
polling-locations.html
48 https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/06/02/indiana-primaries-see-turnout-
clark-floyd-despite-covid-19/5310210002/ (last visited 6/3/2020).
49 See https://elect.ky.gov/statistics/Pages/turnoutstatistics.aspx
18
615511 registered voters in Jefferson County, 243008 registered voters in Fayette County,
137830 registered voters in Kenton County, 108279 in Boone County, and 77902
registered voters in Campbell County.50 Id. at ¶78.
On June 3, 2020, the Kentucky Board of Elections conducted a meeting to discuss
and/or approve the plans for the 2020 elections. Id. at ¶79. At that meeting, Clerk Blevins
for Fayette County indicated that he did not wish to open more polling locations because if
he did “people would use them,” admitting his knowledge that expanded in-person voting
would increase voter participation. Id. Mr. Blevins also indicated that they were planning
for 100,000 to 120,000 voters, but had only received 46,000 requests for absentee ballots
to date.51 Id. at ¶80.
At that meeting, Clerk Holsclaw for Jefferson County, indicated that she did not
wish to open more polling locations because she did not think more locations would be as
administratively easy to conduct the election from; she also anticipated more than 130,000
voters, but likewise had only received 47,000 requests for absentee ballots to date. Id. at
¶81. She acknowledged that there would be long lines. Id.
At that meeting, Clerk Summe indicated that she did not wish to open more polling
locations because she thought that everyone who voted from home was their own precinct
and that was sufficient; she also anticipated more than 60,000 voters, but likewise had only
received 10,000 requests for absentee ballots to date. Id. at ¶82.
The County Board of Elections Defendants repeatedly cited poll worker shortages
for the single polling location in Kentucky’s largest counties; nevertheless, Plaintiffs have
obtained declarations from individuals, and anecdotal accounts from yet other individuals,
50 https://elect.ky.gov/Resources/Documens/voterstatscounty-20200515-084530.pdf
51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwE74EqN9_w (last visited 6/5/2020).
19
who volunteered to serve as poll workers in Jefferson, Fayette, Boone, Kenton, and
Campbell counties, in particular, but were told they were not needed. Id. at ¶83;
Declaration Hodgson.
Furthermore, Defendants deliberately avoided seeking volunteers to fill poll worker
positions. Id. at ¶83. Nevertheless, it is not too late to do so. Id. In other words,
notwithstanding that the purported poll worker shortage that was the public justification
for the single poll option, in actuality, Defendants put administrative convenience over the
exercise of fundamental rights, and at the expense of a severe burden on the fundamental
right to vote. Id. at ¶85. In the end, the Kentucky Board of Elections approved the use of
a single precinct in these counties. Id. at ¶86.
Furthermore, for voters that have requested absentee mail in ballots, County Clerks
have been unable to fully process and keep up with these requests; it appears that a
substantial number of voters will not receive their ballots in time for it to be completed and
returned in a timely manner. Id. at ¶88. The sole safety valve for this problem is in person
voting. Id. Again, the single polling precinct will disenfranchise these voters. Id.
Expert Testimony
The attached declaration, and report, of Dr. Stephen Voss, establishes substantial voter
suppression from the Defendants’ acts and practices. (Decl. Voss). As Dr. Voss explains, the
alternatives to in-person voting have come too late to be effective substitutes. Id. Dr. Voss’
report and testimony also establish a substantial and disproportionate impact on minority
communities, as well as the indigent. Id. Long lines at the in-person voting places, lasting
multiple hours, well into the night can be expected. Id. Dr. Voss’ report establishes that opening
additional polling places is necessary to alleviate disenfranchisement in Kentucky’s largest
20
counties. Id. Dr. Voss concludes that at least 5% of voters in voters in Jefferson County will be
disenfranchised with the current arrangement, with disproportionate impacts on minority
communities. Id. Because of late changes and announcements of mail-in ballots, that number
may be significantly higher. Id.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Standard
When deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,
the court must consider the following four factors: (1) Whether the movant has demonstrated a
strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) Whether the movant would suffer irreparable
harm; (3) Whether issuance would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) Whether the public
interest would be served by issuance. Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998);
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir.
2006). These "are factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met." In re DeLorean
Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985).
When analyzing a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, "the
'likelihood of success' prong is the most important [factor] and often determinative in First
Amendment cases." Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258, 277 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Aristotle Pub.
v. Brown, 61 F. App'x 186, 188 (6th Cir. 2003). The standards for preliminary injunctions and
permanent injunctions are essentially the same, with the exception that for a permanent
injunction the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than the likelihood of
success. ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary County, Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 445 (6th Cir. 2010). With
respect to the ‘likelihood of success’ prong, and because First Amendment rights are at issue, it
is the Defendants, not Plaintiffs, who bear the burden of establishing the constitutionality of the
21
challenged legislation. U.S. v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000).
B. Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits
In cases where the fundamental right to vote is burdened, the court first determines
the severity of the burden on the right to vote by evaluating the character and magnitude of
the asserted injury. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983). If the restriction on the right to vote is a severe burden, then it is
subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 434. Strict scrutiny requires the restriction to be “narrowly
drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434
(quoting Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992))
Furthermore, strict scrutiny is triggered by discriminatory requirements that fall
unequally on certain groups of Plaintiffs. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 (1968);
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 790, 793-794 (1983); Reform Party of Allegheny County
v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 315 (3d Cir. 1999); Fulani v.
Krivanek, 973 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1992); Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 791 F.3d 684
(6th Cir. 2015).
In the alternative, if the Court finds that the single polling location being offered
does not constitute a severe burden on the rights of the Plaintiffs, then they constitute more
than a minimal burden, and do not pass muster under the flexible analysis that weighs the
burdens on Plaintiffs against the Commonwealth’s asserted interest and chosen means of
asserting it, under the prevailing U.S. Supreme Court cases of Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460
U.S. 760 (1983) and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
Case law from the United States Court of Appeals from the Sixth Circuit notes that these
circumstances, i.e. causing long lines to vote, and the associated voter disenfranchisement
22
therefrom, is unconstitutional. Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656
(6th Cir. 2016). Johnson resolved the issue not in terms of single polling precinct in large
counties, but instead on a more general (and less severe) longer line problem associated with the
removal of straight-ticket voting in Michigan, finding that the state’s interests were not sufficient
to warrant the burden on the right to vote.
In addition, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of a Section 2 claim under
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. 10301, as to Jefferson and Fayette Counties,
which provides, in relevant part:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or

procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) [52 USCS § 10303(f)(2)], as provided in
subsection (b).
African American citizens of Kentucky, as a group, have historically used in
person voting as their primary means of voting. Approximately 60% of African American
Kentuckians reside in two counties: Jefferson and Fayette counties.52 African American
voters in Kentucky have suffered discrimination in housing, employment, income, and
education, and most of them have a high school education or less. Id.
Long wait times, queuing, and disenfranchisement will severely disproportionately
impact the African American communities in Louisville and Lexington. Id. Given
literacy and educational achievements of African Americans compared to other
demographics, assistance is more likely to be required by these voters as a group, resulting
in more of this demographic needing to participate in in-person voting; at the same time,
52
https://kchr.ky.gov/reports/Documents/Reports/AAStatus2010.pdf (last visited 6/3/2020)
https://kchr.ky.gov/reports/Documents/Reports/WhitePaperRevised.pdf (last visited 6/3/2020)
23
public transportation needs and distance from polling locations is likely to more heavily
impact these voters. Id. Single polling locations in Fayette and Jefferson counties will
have the effect of suppressing African American voters in violation of Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301). Id.
The single polling location in Fayette and Jefferson counties will result in the
denial or abridgement of the right to vote of individual Plaintiffs and others on account of
their race or color in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
10301). Id. The single polling location in Fayette and Jefferson counties will interact with
social or historical conditions – which themselves are largely due to discrimination – in
areas of employment, housing, health services, and voting to cause an inequality in the
opportunities enjoyed by African Americans to elect their preferred representatives.
Under the total of circumstances, the single polling location in Fayette and Jefferson counties
will result in dilution of African American voting strength and the denial of African Americans’
right to vote in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301). Id.
See, also, Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding
a violation in similar circumstances).
C. The remaining factors are also met
"Preliminary injunctions in constitutional cases often turn on likelihood of success on the
merits, usually making it unnecessary to dwell on the remaining three factors." Roberts v.
Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14933 (6th Cir. 2020) Given these circumstances,
“no one can fairly doubt that time is of the essence.” Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear,
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14213. See, also, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (irreparable
harm from violation of rights); Foster v. Dilger, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95195 (EDKY 2010) (no
24
substantial harm to others, even where registry incurred printing costs, where constitutional
rights at stake). "It is in the public interest not to perpetuate the unconstitutional application of a
statute." Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir. 1982); see also G &
V Lounge v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is always
in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights.").
In light of the record herein, an injunction should issue. We have proposed an
appropriate order.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have established that a preliminary injunction should issue.

Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC
25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
859/486-6850 (v)
513/257-1895 (c)
859/495-0803 (f)
chris@cwiestlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing, by express overnight mail, along with the
Complaint and Summons, this 9 day of June, 2020, upon each of the Defendants, and have filed
a copy of the foregoing in the Court’s CM/ECF system, and have served a copy by email of this
to the Defendants or their counsel the 10 day of June, 2020.

25

LOUISVILLE DIVISION
v. :
ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court, being fully apprised, hereby orders and decrees, based on the evidence in Plaintiffs’
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction, that Defendants, and their
agents, attorneys, and others acting in concert with them under FRCP 65, are hereby ordered and
enjoined as follows:1
1. The Jefferson County Board of Elections shall open at least 16 polling locations for the
primary election for in person voting on June 23, 2020, spread out throughout Jefferson
County;
2. The Fayette County Board of Elections shall open at least 9 polling locations for the
primary election for in person voting on June 23, 2020, spread out throughout Fayette
County;
3. The County Board of Elections in Boone, Campbell, Daviess, Franklin, Hardin, Kenton,
Laurel, Maddison, Oldham, Pike, Pulaski, Scott, and Warren Counties shall open at least
2 polling locations, for the primary election for in person voting on June 23, 2020, spread
out throughout their counties.
4. Because of inevitable difficulties with the upcoming primary election and the potential
for voter disenfranchisement with respect to the June 23, 2020 primary, the Court retains
jurisdiction to enter such other orders as may be appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
____________________
1The formula utilized was looking at 2018 turnout,

https://elect.ky.gov/Resources/Documents/voterturnoutcounty-2018P-20180824-072344.pdf, and then
dividing polling locations per 6,750 voters that turned out for the primary; and then rounding down or up
to the nearest whole number.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6675CE7F-FE03-4E36-8A63-D950820C5D98

LOUISVILLE DIVISION
v. :
DECLARATION OF DR. STEPHEN VOSS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, the undersigned, Dr. D. Stephen Voss, makes the following
declaration, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the
facts contained herein are true and correct and based upon my personal knowledge:
1. My name is Dennis George “Stephen” Voss, Jr. I have a Ph.D. in Government from
Harvard University, an A.M. in Government from Harvard, and am currently an
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kentucky.
2. I have been retained by the Plaintiffs to testify in this matter.
3. A true and accurate copy of my C.V. is attached as Exhibit A hereto; this C.V. includes
my publications authored in the last 10 years and any court cases I have testified in, in the
past 4 years (i.e., none).
4. A true and accurate copy of the report I have generated is attached as Exhibit B hereto,
which contains my opinions, the facts and data supporting them, exhibits relied on (either
attached or links to same). I render these opinions to a reasonable degree of certainty.
The methodology I have utilized is reliable, and follows standard practice in my
disciplinary field. It is rendered upon sufficient facts and data to reach the conclusions I
have reached.
5. The key conclusions and opinions I have reached, to a reasonable degree of certainty,
based on a combination of primary and secondary research, are as follows:
A. First, the voting options that Kentucky has made available will suppress voter
turnout in Kentucky’s largest counties, as outlined in my report;
B. Second, opening only a single, in-person polling station in each county will
greatly increase the costs of voting and result in less political participation than
otherwise would have taken place. Those costs are twofold: figuring out
where/how to vote, and then devoting the time needed to do it.
i. Figuring out where/how to vote: Voting is habitual. When a polling
station moves, it shakes voters loose because it forces them to
identify the new polling place and figure out how to get there. Most
Kentucky voters will face such a disruption under the current plan, a
barrier to voting accentuated by the way counties were slow to set up
their single in-person voting location and/or delayed publicizing the
location.
ii. Paying the cost of voting: Using only a single location greatly
increases the cost of voting on Election Day by adding to travel
distance. Our report, in the tables and graphs, will illustrate these
costs on election day, for Kentuckians as a whole as well as among
specific racial/ethnic categories.
a. The effect of distance from the polling station is most severe in

urban, densely populated areas – including neighborhoods with
large minority populations. Whereas most voters in urban areas
used to live within a mile of their polling station, Kentucky’s
single-location plan will require most voters in densely population
counties to travel for miles if they want to cast a traditional vote.
b. Distance also matters to suburban voters, although for them a

distance of 2.5 miles seems the more-critical rule of thumb. Again,
using only a single polling station greatly increases how many
people live more than 2.5 miles from where they would need to go
to vote. My report offers tables and graphs to illustrate these
claims.
iii. Some research has promoted the idea of a “voting center” as a
benefit rather than an impediment to voting, looking at how they
increased turnout in Colorado and Texas. However, research on
behalf of voting centers is limited, and what Kentucky is doing does
not resemble the approaches taken in the exemplary states. Indeed,
what these states implemented was closer to the approach advocated
by the Plaintiffs, namely some reduction in number of precincts, but
still multiple precincts in the largest counties. Colorado’s guideline
was one voting center for every 10,000 active voters. I have
included tables illustrating this point.
C. Allowing in-person voting through the use of ballot drop boxes or vote centers
can encourage participation among citizens who are not comfortable with voting
by mail – but only if it gives voters some flexibility as to where they need to vote.
(For example, this policy allows voters to submit a ballot not near their residence
but instead someplace they might pass on the way to work or school. The biggest
Kentucky counties only set up one location for voting this way, however. So,
voters not only had to pay the usual cost of learning a new location where they
could vote, they had to do so at a single location just as with traditional voting,
which takes away the advantages of such an approach.

D. Voting early/absentee by mail – Kentucky election officials stress this method of
voting in much of their messaging, an option that (if used widely and equitably) might
justify the extremely limited options for in-person voting. Peer reviewed literature does
not give much confidence that Kentucky’s approach will come close to making up for
how they’ve constricted in-person options, however.
i. This reform in general does not increase voter participation much
compared to what states see from in-person voting. The effect primarily appears
among those already likely to vote. Thus, voting-by-mail can reinforce existing
biases in the political system, rather than repairing the deficiencies of other
options. That’s especially true in a state like Kentucky that lacks any custom of
voting by mail; the benefits of election reforms tend to kick in after citizens
become habituated to them.
ii. The limited evidence on behalf of this voting method as an equalizer relies
on states where people are sent ballots, so the steps needed to vote are equal or
even reduced compared to traditional methods. By requiring registered voters to
request an absentee ballot, on the other hand, Kentucky’s process actually
increased the necessary steps in order to vote, which tends to exclude resource-
poor citizens. We will not know for a week exactly how many people request
ballots – numerous voters could be waiting until the last minute – but in other
states the experience has been that only a fraction of those who request ballots
take the next step and submit them.
iii. Resource-poor citizens are not as accustomed to processing paperwork, and
the act of casting a valid ballot can be especially challenging or alienating for
them. That is one reason sophisticated, politically active citizens are most likely
to use this method. Meanwhile, resource-poor citizens who do try to vote by mail
are more likely to have their ballots discarded.
6. One reason absentee and mail-in balloting can empower resource-poor voters, despite the
problems mentioned above, is that they can get help from political-party activists or
churches or friends when trying to complete the process. Because this system was set up
to help citizens avoid the contagion risks associated with such interactions, however, the
social side of “convenience voting” is not likely to be available to alleviate the serious
detrimental effects of the single polling location. If anything, the negative side of mail-in
voting will be accentuated.
7. The 2020 Kentucky primary will be like no election ever held before. Both major parties
wrapped up their presidential nomination contest relatively early, removing one of the
usual sources of election excitement, and campaign organizations up and down the ballot
have been forced by the pandemic to depart from their traditional electioneering
practices. At the same time, the contest takes place during a period of rising voter turnout
in response to a polarized political environment – nationwide, race-tinged protests over
the use of force by law-enforcement officers being the most recent – and Kentucky has
changed a whole series of election policies at the same time. Any attempt to predict voter
turnout would require extrapolating far beyond known experience, nor does the timeline
allow the sort of painstaking quantitative analysis that would be required to attempt such
an extrapolation. Nonetheless, applying existing political-science models for the impact
of polling-station distance allows a best guess as to the impact of reducing voting choices
to a single precinct. Based on published quantitative models, I believe that more than
15% of the Jefferson County electorate who would have turned out with the full range of
polling-station options will not do so given only a single choice. The numbers improve
as polling places are added, and adding five, or better yet ten, polling locations in
Jefferson county decreases voter suppression.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and that such facts are made based on my personal knowledge.
6/9/2020
Executed on ________________. _______________________________
D. Stephen Voss

D. STEPHEN VOSS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR • DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
Office Phone: (859) 257-4313 1639 Patterson Office Tower

Mobile Phone: (859) 333-0423 Lexington, KY 40506-0027
UK email: dsvoss@uky.edu
Personal email: doubledennyconsulting@gmail.com
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Harvard University: Government 1998-2000

Dissertation: “Familiarity Doesn’t Breed Contempt:
The Political Geography of Racial Polarization”
Committee: Gary King (chair), James Alt, Bradley Palmquist
A.M. Harvard University: Government 1990-1993; 1995-1998

Focus Field: Political Methodology (advisor: Gary King)
B.A. Louisiana State University: History, minor in Political Science 1986-1990

B.A.J. Louisiana State University: (Print) Journalism, minor in Sociology 1986-1990
Graduated: Summa Cum Laude
PUBLICATIONS
Peer-Reviewed Articles, Books, and Chapters
Voss, D. Stephen, and Penny Miller. 2017. “The Phantom Segregationists: Kentucky’s 1996
Desegregation Amendment and the Limits of Direct Democracy.” Commonwealth Review of Political
Science 4(1): 21-38.
Peshkopia, Ridvan, and D. Stephen Voss. 2016. "The Role of Ethnic Divisions in People's Attitudes
toward the Death Penalty: The Case of the Albanians." Punishment and Society 18 (December): 610-630.
Peshkopia, Ridvan, and D. Stephen Voss. 2016. "Attitudes toward the Death Penalty in Ethnically Divided
Societies: Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro." Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences 3(1): 29-40.
Voss, D. Stephen, Jason E. Kehrberg, and Adam M. Butz. 2013. “The Structure of Self-Interest(s):
Applying Comparative Theory to U.S. Immigration Attitudes.” In Gary P. Freeman, Randall Hansen, and
David L. Leal (eds.), Immigration and Public Opinion. New York: Routledge. Pp. 93-125. Chap. 4.
Voss, D. Stephen, and Donald Gross. 2011. “Poster Child for the Tea Party: Rand Paul of Kentucky.” In
William J. Miller and Jeremy D. Walling (eds.), Tea Party Effects on 2010 Senate Elections: Stuck in the
Middle to Lose. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Pp. 141-172. Chap. 8.
Voss - 1
Bartilow, Horace A., and D. Stephen Voss. 2009. “Market Rules: The Incidental Relationship between
Democratic Compatibility and International Commerce.” International Studies Quarterly 53(March): 103-
124.
Bartilow, Horace A., and D. Stephen Voss. 2006. “[No Guns, No Butter:] International Politics and the
Disaggregation of Major-Power Trade, 1962-1997.” International Politics 43 (July): 362-383.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2004. “Using Ecological Inference for Contextual Research: When Aggregation Bias Is
the Solution as Well as the Problem.” In Gary King, Ori Rosen, and Martin Tanner (eds.), Ecological
Inference: New Methodological Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 69-96.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2003. “The Missing Middle: Why Median-Voter Theory Can’t Save
Democrats from Singing the Boll-Weevil Blues.” Journal of Politics 65(February): 227-37.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2002. “Context and Francophone Support for Sovereignty: An
Ecological Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(March):75-101.
Voss, D. Stephen, and Penny Miller. 2001. “Following a False Trail: The Hunt for White Backlash in
Kentucky’s 1996 Desegregation Vote.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1(March):63-82.
Voss, D. Stephen, and David Lublin. 2001. “Black Incumbents, White Districts: An Appraisal of the 1996
Congressional Elections.” American Politics Research 29(March): 141-82.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2001. “Huddled Masses or Immigrant Menace? The Black Belt Hypothesis Did Not
Emigrate.” American Review of Politics 22(Summer):217-32.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2000. “Racial Redistricting and Realignment in Southern State
Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science 44(October):792-810.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 2000. “Boll-Weevil Blues: Polarized Congressional Delegations into
the 21st Century.” American Review of Politics 21(Fall & Winter): 427-50.
Lublin, David, and D. Stephen Voss. 1998. “The Partisan Impact of Voting Rights Law: A Reply to Pamela
S. Karlan.” Stanford Law Review 50(February):765-77.
Voss, D. Stephen. 1996. “Beyond Racial Threat: Failure of an Old Hypothesis in the New South.” Journal
of Politics 58:1156-70. [Followed by an exchange with Giles & Buckner.]
Voss, D. Stephen, Andrew Gelman, and Gary King. 1995. “Preelection Survey Methodology: Details 3
from Eight Polling Organizations, 1988 and 1992.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59:98-132.
Other Professional Publications
Voss, D. Stephen. Under contract. Chapter on Kentucky Political Participation and Voting. In James C.
Clinger and Michael W. Hail (eds.): Kentucky Government, Politics, and Public Policy. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky. Second edition.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2018. “An Evaluation of Automatic Voter Registration & Fayette County Registration
Rates.” Lexington, KY: doubleDenny Consulting.
Voss - 2
Voss, D. Stephen. 2016. "The End of Kentucky's Dual Partisanship?" P.S.: Political Science & Politics
49(2): 234-235.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2016. “Will Superdelegates Pick the Democratic Nominee?” The Washington Post
Monkey Cage blog (February 26). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/02/26/will-superdelegates-pick-the-democratic-nominee-heres-everything-you-need-to-know
Peshkopia, Ridvan, Mergin Cahani, Festim Cahani, and D. Stephen Voss. 2014. “SKUTHI: Developing a
Tablet-Based Survey Technology and its Application in Teaching Research Methods in Social Sciences.”
Applied Technologies & Innovations 10(3): 91-100.
Kreis, Doug, Roy E. Sturgill, Jr., Brian K. Howell, Chris Van Dyke, and D. Steve Voss. 2014. Inland
Waterway Operational Model & Simulation along the Ohio River. Lexington, KY: Kentucky
Transportation Center. Research Report KTC -14-13/MTIC3-14-1F.
Fiorina, Morris P., Paul E. Peterson, Bertram Johnson, D. Stephen Voss, and William G. Mayer. 2008.
America’s New Democracy. New York: Longman. Fourth edition. Coauthor of the three previous versions
as well.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2005. “Review of The New Electoral Politics of Race, by Matthew J. Streb.” Journal of
Politics 67(Feb.): 301-302.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2004. “Multicollinearity.” In Kimberly Kempf-Leonard (ed.), The Encyclopedia of

Social Measurement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2004. “Aggregation.” In Kimberly Kempf-Leonard (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Social
Measurement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fine, Jeffrey A., and D. Stephen Voss. “Politics, Use of Polls In.” In Kimberly Kempf-Leonard (ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fine, Jeffrey A., and D. Stephen Voss. “Polling Companies, History of.” In Kimberly Kempf-Leonard
(ed.), The Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fiorina, Morris P., Paul E. Peterson, Bertram Johnson, and D. Stephen Voss. 2004. The New
American Democracy. New York: Longman. Fourth edition.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2002. “King, Gary.” In Glenn H. Utter and Charles Lockhart (eds.), American Political
Scientists: A Dictionary. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Second edition. Pp. 206-209.
Voss, D. Stephen. 2002. “Review of Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander, by Gary W. Cox and Jonathan N.
Katz.” American Review of Politics 23(Spring/Summer): 74-76.
Soifer, Paul, Abraham Hoffman, and D. Stephen Voss. 2001. CliffsQuickReview American
Government. Indianapolis, IN: Hungry Minds.
Michie, Jonathan (ed.). 2001. Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Chicago and London: Fitzroy
Dearborn. Voss authored entries on: Race and Politics; Civil Rights (US); Martin Luther King, Jr.;
Congress; the New Deal; and Opinion Polls.
Voss - 3
Voss, D. Stephen. 1999. “Racial Redistricting and the Quest for Legislative Diversity.” Extensions of
Remarks: APSA Legislative Studies Section Newsletter: 22(July):11-14.
Voss, D. Stephen and David Lublin. 1998. “Ecological Inference and the Comparative Method.” APSA-
CP: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 9(1):25-31.
Shrum, Wesley, Carl L. Bankston III, and D. Stephen Voss. 1995. Science, Technology, and Society in the
Third World: An Annotated Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press
RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE
POLITICAL ANALYST, WTVQ ABC-36 2013-present

Appearing in studio for coverage of elections and election-related events (unpaid post).
POLITICAL ANALYST, LEX-18 2019

Appeared in studio for coverage of Kentucky statewide elections (unpaid post).
CONSULTANT AND DATA ANALYST, Fayette County Clerk 2018

Study of Kentucky registration and turnout data, with a focus on determining the likely impact of automatic voter
registration.
CONSULTANT AND DATA ANALYST, Kentucky Transportation Center 2013
CONSULTANT AND DATA ANALYST, Zooknic, Inc. 2007-2013

Specialist in matters related to Internet domain pricing and e-commerce activity:
Analyst for APTLD: Asian Internet domain sellers (Fall, 2007)
Analyst for CENTR, European Internet domain sellers (Summer 2008)
Analyst for Verisign Market (2009)
Analysis for CENTR, European Internet domain sellers (2012)
CONSULTANT AND DATA ANALYST for Kroger, Gardis, and Regas

Specialist in voting-rights cases.
Borst v. Peterson (Winter 2003): affidavit submitted; trial testimony given
Dillard v. Lawrence (Fall 2006): affidavit submitted
METHODOLOGICAL CONSULTANT for Perlman Law Offices, Lexington, KY

• Vaughn v. DaimlerChrysler (Spring 2004): affidavit submitted
• Weuchtler v. GM (Fall 2004): affidavit submitted
• Aldridge v. DaimlerChrysler (Spring 2005): affidavit submitted
• Robins v. Wayne (Fall 2006): affidavit submitted
• Harrison v. DaimlerChrysler (Summer 2007): affidavit submitted
METHODOLOGICAL CONSULTANT in Auto Liability Cases, Coben & Associates (Scottsdale, AZ)
• Turner v. Suburu (Fall 2004 - Spring 2005): affidavit and phone deposition
• Varelas v. GM (Summer 2005): brief consultation only
• Hinkle v. Dorel (Fall 2005 - Spring 2006): retained, listed as rebuttal witness
• Ricci v. Volvo (Summer 2007): brief consultation only
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, University of KY 1998-2004
Voss - 4
TECHNICAL EDITOR, Politics for Dummies 2002

RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR GARY KING. Job included: writing & editing 1992 edition of Judge-It manual,
gathering data, replicating results (Budge & Hofferbert, Green & Krasno), producing graphs & charts (e.g.
consulting work for Ohio redistricting case), indexing (Designing Social Inquiry). (1991-1995)
CONSULTANT AND DATA ANALYST for the Washington, D.C., law firm of Baker and Hostetler in
New York state redistricting litigation, working under Gary King (Summer 1992).
RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR DEREK BOK, Harvard President Emeritus. Job included: methodological
consultant for a sweeping project predicting the failure of U.S. social policies. (1992-1998)
RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR PAUL E. PETERSON. Job included: out-of-sample forecasting for
Welfare Magnets model to produce chapter 5 of The Price of Federalism; producing charts and
graphs, preparing survey data for analysis. (1991- TBA)
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of Let’s Go: USA, 1992 edition, the year’s top-selling travel guide for the
entire United States. (Summer 1991).
LEGISLATIVE AIDE to Louisiana State Sen. Sydney Nelson, D-Shreveport. Job included: legal
research, legislative tracking, public relations (Spr.-Sum. 1990).
Voss - 5
RECENT CONFERENCE INVOLVEMENT
2018 Poster Advisor, Midwest Political Science Association, “Elections, Campaigns, and
Candidates” session (April 6)
2018 Discussant, Midwest Political Science Association, “Representation” session (April 7)
2018 Poster Advisor, Midwest Political Science Association, “Political Communication II”
session (April 7)
2018 Poster Advisor, Midwest Political Science Association, “Politics of Immigration” session
(April 7)
2018 Co-Presenter, Kentucky Political Science Association, “Why Does Education Lead to
Increased Tolerance for Migrants.” (March 2)
HONORS AND AWARDS
A&S Summer Research Fellowship 2013
Student Activities Board faculty partner award 2012
College of Arts & Sciences Outstanding (Social Sciences) Teacher Award 2007-2008
College-wide award granted to one faculty member each year that recognizes excellence and
outstanding contribution in all aspects of teaching, not just classroom performance.
Pi Sigma Alpha Award for Excellence in Scholarly Writing 2006

University award given to the best paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political
Science Association.
Pi Sigma Alpha Award for Excellence in Scholarly Writing 2006

Award given to the best paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southern Political Science Association.
Great Teacher Award 2003

University award granted to six faculty members annually by the UK
Alumni Association.
National Science Foundation Grant, “The Federal Elections Project” 2001-2002

Grant totaling $140,000 used to collect the 2000 federal election
precinct level results and match them with demographic data from the
2000 U.S. Census. Voss share: $50,607
Voss - 6
Faculty Summer Research Grant 1999, 2001

Grant awarded to outstanding faculty to allow tenure-track
assistant professors without summer support to launch programs
or finish a project involving their research or creative activities.
Voss portion $5,000
Lights of Liberty Award, Advocates for Self-Government 2001

Recognition for public service that advanced liberty in the United States.
Mellon Dissertation Completion Fellowship Spring 1995-Fall 1996

Grant given to outstanding students toward defrayment of
living costs during the pursuit of a degree.
Mellon Dissertation Research Fellowship Summer, 1994

Grant given to outstanding students toward defrayment of
living costs during the pursuit of a degree.
Paul Solis Top Scholar Award 1990
Kappa Tau Alpha Top Scholar Award 1990

Award presented by each chapter to the graduating senior or
graduate student with the highest grade-point-average.
GRADUATE STUDENTS ADVISED
Primary Adviser
Kaiser, Steven J., Jr. (Ph.D., expected 2020)

Ledford, Chris (Ph.D., 2019)
East, Jack (Ph.D., 2014)
Darmsteadt, Donald (left program)
Advisory Committee
Bailey, Mandi Bates (Ph.D., 2007)

Bond, Maurey (M.A., 2006)
Camp, Corey Chaise (left program)
Chick, Sean - History (2011, left program)
Crumrine, Chris (Ph.D., still in program
Ferrell, Samantha (left program)
Fine, Jeffrey A. (Ph.D., 2006)
Glenn, Jim (left program)
Hall, Matt – History (Ph.D.)
Voss - 7
Jeong, Hanbeom (Ph.D., 2010)

Karimian, Cyrus (left program)
Ke, Yanyu (Ph.D.)
Kehrberg, Jason (M.A.)
Martin, Andrew (Ph.D., still in program)
Martin, Tom (Ph.D., 2008)
Mattei, Nick – Computer Science (Ph.D., 2012)
Motamedi, Hossein (Ph.D., left program)
Morgan, Michael (M.A.)
Olson, Jeremiah (M.A.)
Ouyang, Yu (Ph.D., still in program)
Partin, Daniel (M.A.)
Peshkopia, Ridvan (Ph.D., 2011)
Poe, John (Ph.D.)
Prince, David (Ph.D., 2005)
Schoellhammer, Ralph (Ph.D., still in program)
Sharma, Ramesh (Ph.D., 2012)
Taylor, Travis (Ph.D., expected 2020)
Wallace, Candice – Geography (Ph.D.)
Weinberg, Erik – History (Ph.D., 2012)
Undergraduate Advising
Dickerson, Nathan - Gaines Center Jury Project

Timmerling, Sylvia - Gaines Center Jury Project
Glaser, Luke - Gaines Center Jury Project
plus a lot of Political Science Honors theses
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Kentucky Political Science Association (President, 2012-2013)
I also, off and on, have been a member of the following:
American Political Science Association

Midwest Political Science Association
Southern Politics and Policy Quarterly
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Administrator, UK Political Science Undergraduate program

2015-2019 Publicity Director (also 1999-2002)
2014-2015 Internship Director (also 2005, 2010-2011)
2012-2014 Associate Chair
Voss - 8
2005-2013 Director of Undergraduate Studies (sabbatical 2007-2008, hiatus 2010-2011)

2004-2005 Co-Director of Undergraduate Studies
2003-2004 Assistant Director of Undergraduate Studies
1998-2002 Undergraduate Program Committee member
Scholarship Committees
• 2019 Schwarte, Gorman, and Jewell awards committees
• Trunzo Scholars Program (2015-2017)
• Arts & Sciences Scholarship Committee (2004-2008)
• T. Marshall Hahn, Jr., Graduate Fellowship Selection Committee (2005, 2009-2010)
• Interdisciplinary Program (IDP) Committee, American Studies Rep. (2005-2006)
Arts & Sciences Educational Policy Committee

• Chair (2006 - 2007)
• Member (2004 - 2007, 2009-2011)
• Member, Area B Curriculum Committee (2003 - 2004)
Department of Political Science Faculty Merit Evaluation Review Committee

Member, 2010-2011
Member, 2008-2009
Member, 1999-2000
Department of Political Science Search Committee Member

Judicial Politics position, Fall, 2008
American Institutions, Fall 2006
Judicial Politics, Fall, 2006
International Relations, Fall, 2006
Chair Search Fall, 2006
American Politics senior search, Fall, 2001
Department of Political Science Field Committee

Chair, Policy Field Committee, Spring 2020
Member, Policy Field Committee, Spring 2019
American Studies Committee

• Acting Director (2005-2006)
• Steering Committee Member (2003-2007)
UK President’s Commission on Diversity

• Member (2003 - 2006)
• Chair, Campus Environment Subcommittee (2004 - 2005)
• Print Journalism (Contact for UK Public Relations 2000-present; list of articles too long to list
General Education U.S. Citizenship Vetting Committee

• Chair, 2009-2010
Voss - 9
Award Committees and Judge Panels

• UK Homecoming judge (2012)
• Singletary Service and Leadership Award Committee (2003-2006)
• Oswald Undergraduate Research Award Committee (2003)
• UK Homecoming Queen competition interviewer (2002)
• UK Homecoming King competition interviewer (2001)
Faculty Adviser for campus groups

• Phi Alpha Delta pre-law fraternity (2004-2008)
• Pi Sigma Alpha poli sci honorary (2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2012)
• UK-NAACP (2001)
• UK Liberty Club (Fall 2000)
Faculty Senate member (2005-2007)
Section Head
Southern Political Science Association meeting, 2009
Southern Political Science Association meeting, 2006
V.O. Key Book Award Committee

Chair, 2002
Member, 2001
Peer-Reviewed Articles for:
 American Journal of Political Science
 American Politics Quarterly/Research
 American Review of Politics
 American Political Science Review
 Comparative Politics
 Electoral Studies
 International Politics
 Journal of Politics
 Political Research Quarterly
 Political Analysis
 Political Behavior
 Politics and Polity
 Social Forces
 Sociological Methods and Research
 State Politics and Policy Quarterly
INVITED TALKS & PUBLIC APPEARANCES
 2020 New Leaders Council of Kentucky (18 April)

 2019 Moderator, “Gun Control,” with John Lott, UK Student Activities Board (29 Jan.)
 2018 Bluegrass Activist Alliance: “What Went Wrong in the 6th District and Where Do
Progressives Go from Here.” (18 Nov.)
Voss - 10
 2018 Japanese Embassy delegation, “Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District Race.” (Oct.
25)
 2018 UK College of Arts & Sciences Dean’s Circle, “Undergraduate Research.” (Oct.
19)
 2018 UK College of Arts & Sciences Ambassadors, “The Undergraduate Political
Science Degree at UK.” (Oct. 1)
 2018 Bellarmine University, “Voting Rights and Election Reforms.” (Sept. 17)
 2018 Henry Clay Congress (May 17)
 2018 New Leaders Council of Kentucky (April 21)
 2018 UK College of Law Federalist Society, “Partisan Gerrymandering”
 2018 Harvard University Center for Public Leadership, “Kentucky’s Culture, Challenges,
and Opportunities.”
 2018 UK Lewis Honors College, “American Social-Welfare Policy” (Aug. 22)
 2017 Henry Clay Congress, “Polarization and Distrust in American Politics” (June 13)
 2008 Moderator, election debate between the UK College Democrats & College
Republicans (28 October)
Republicans (26 September)
 2007 Moderator, policy debate between the UK College Democrats & College
Republicans (Spring)
 2006 Moderator, Mayoral Candidate Debate sponsored by UK Student Government
Association (Fall)
 2006 Moderator, SGA Presidential Candidate Debate, sponsored by UK’s G-PAC
(Spring)
 2005 Moderator, screening of Steven Greenstreet’s “This Divided State” (18 April)
 2005 Moderator, SGA Presidential Candidate Debate, sponsored by UK’s G-PAC
(Spring)
 2004 Discussant, screening of “School of the Americas, School of Assassins,” sponsored
by Amnesty International of UK (4 November)
Republicans (Fall)
Moderator (selected examples)

• Discussant, screening of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” sponsored by the Cats’ Den (18
Oct. 2004)
• University-Affiliated Conferences and Symposia
• Presenter, “Probabilities in the Courtroom: How Expert Witnesses (Mis)Use Risk Analysis,”
Judith Goldsmith’s UK colloquium on the psychology of probabilities (Fall 2008)
• Panelist, Diversity Dialogue (23 January 2007)
• Participant, General Education Process Planning Workshop (August 2006)
• Moderator and Discussant, “History of Race Relations in 1940s US,” Fifteenth Annual Bluegrass
Symposium (7-8 April 2006)
• Panelist, Diversity Dialogue, “Uses, Misuses, and Abuses: Race, Ethnicity, Diversity, and
Related Concepts” (30 March 2004)
Voss - 11
• Panelist, “Education Beyond Brown: Future Perspectives,” UK President’s Commission on

Diversity and African American Studies and Research Program (26 March 2004)
• Videographer, “Affirmative Action Forum: How Brown vs. Board of Education Affected You,”
sponsored by UK-NAACP and UK President’s Commission on Diversity (18 Nov. 2003)
• Panelist, campus NAACP forum, “Affirmative Action: Under Siege and Under Fire” (26 Feb.
2003)
• Chair and Discussant, National Council on Undergraduate Research (2001)
• Presenter, How to Express & Explain Your Results,” Quantitative Methods Committee in the
Social and Behavioral Sciences (7 Dec. 2000)
• Panelist, Gaines Center forum on the 2000 elections (2000)
Guest Speaker (selected examples, service to Univ. of Kentucky only)

• Bourbon County High School Candidate Forum (6 Oct 2014)
• #TrendingTopics Debate: Immigration (2014)
• See Tomorrow speaker series, “UK’s Partnership with the Commonwealth (9 Sept 2014)
• American University of Tirana, on online instruction (2012)
• American University of Tirana, on the presidential election (2012)
• Bellarmine University, Constitution Day address (2012)
• UK College of Arts & Sciences podcast on the presidential election (Sept 2012)
• UKC 180 course on elections taught by A&S Dean Kornbluh & Prof. Kathy Kern (2012)
• Student Activities Board Trending Topics Obamacare Debate (2012)
• National Assn. of Women Business Owners, Lexington Chapter (21 Oct 2008)
• Fayette County Chapter of UK Alumni Association (2004)
• Clark County Chapter (23 Sept 2004)
• Sorority Rush, “Surviving UK Academics” (2002)
• Guest Speaker, Lexington Catholic High School, National Honor Society Induction Ceremony
(20 Feb. 2002)
• Lexington Catholic English class (2001, 2002)
• Bryan Station H.S. political science class (11 Sept. 2001)
• Emerging Leader Institute Presenter (Fall 2005, Spring 2005, Fall 2004)
COMPUTER SOFTWARE KNOWN
Microsoft Office (i.e., Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Outlook)

STATA
I have also used: R, SPSS, GAUSS, Camtasia, the Adobe suite.
Voss - 12
Curtailing Election-Day
Voting Opportunities:
What Does the Research
Literature Say?
By
D. Stephen Voss, Ph.D.
Version 1.1
8 June 2020
Independent research funded by attorney Christopher Wiest.
The research and conclusions are the responsibility of Voss alone, not
of Wiest, of Voss’ assistants, or of Prof. Voss’ employer.

Curtailing Election-Day Voting Opportunities: What Does the Research Literature Say?
By D. Stephen Voss, Ph.D.
Kentucky’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic

Kentucky responded to the Covid-19 pandemic by increasing the options available to
potential voters. For the rescheduled June 2020 primary election, the Commonwealth
liberalized access to absentee voting – that is, Kentucky temporarily switched to no-excuse
absentee voting – and the state gave voters a longer time span in which to submit such ballots
either by mail or in-person. Voters with special needs could arrange appointments for assisted,
in-person voting. Finally, voters could cast a traditional in-person vote on Election Day, at a
centralized polling station set up in each county.
Other things equal, increasing the avenues for casting a vote encourages turnout, and
therefore empowers citizens. Having more options lowers the barriers to voting faced by
resource-poor citizens, including racial/ethnic groups that have faced discrimination in the past,
and therefore promotes constitutionally and legislatively protected voting rights (albeit at
greater expense and greater administrative complexity). Furthermore, Kentucky included
among the options a few policy changes – (1) early voting, (2) voting by mail, and (3) centralized
vote centers – that election reformers and allied researchers have long promoted as beneficial.
In broad outline, then, Kentucky’s solution sounds to be about the best one could hope in the
face of the risk of contagion, so when I began this report, I anticipated that I would find little to
criticize.
Comparing Kentucky’s actual 2020 election policies to the lessons of the relevant
scholarly literature, however, does not lead to optimistic conclusions. Kentucky’s voting-by-
mail (VBM) option required registered voters to request an absentee ballot, thereby adding an
additional barrier to exercising the franchise beyond the standard registration requirement.
Early in-person voting either required making an appointment with a government worker or
required visiting, at least in many cases, a single drop-box location. Finally, and most
C u r t a i l i n g E l e c t i o n - D a y V o t i n g O p p o r t u n i t i e s ( V o s s ) P g . 2 | 31
importantly, the Commonwealth’s shift to establishing a single county polling station discards
most benefits of the existing precinct-based voting system while offering almost none of the
benefits promised by supporters of vote centers – instead creating a significant obstacle to
Kentuckians who wish or need to exercise their voting rights in person. Most of these
deficiencies in Kentucky’s plan appear likely to erect particular barriers to voting by resource-
poor citizens and by residents of densely populated counties, including racial and ethnic
minorities who are more likely to reside in urban environments.
Sharply reducing the available number of polling locations may pose the biggest threat
to voter participation in Kentucky, but the relevance of that change depends on the extent to
which anyone actually wishes to vote in person. If almost everyone who cares about the 2020
elections votes by mail, as elections officials on the whole have tried to convince voters to do,
then the quality of in-person voting options can have little effect. This report begins, therefore,
with early voting and voting-by-mail policies to explain why they are no cure-all when it comes
to securing the franchise. Only after having established the continued significance of polling
stations – and their particular importance for urban and minority voters – will I turn to the
implications of imposing a single voting location on entire counties.
The Effect of Early Voting
One popular election reform intended to make voting easier – allowing citizens to cast
ballots before Election Day – on the whole actually seems to discourage voter participation
(Burden et al. 2014; Giammo and Brox 2010; Larocca and Klemanski 2011; Kousser and Mullin
2007). Early voting tries to remove one of the major “costs” of voting that are thought to drive
down turnout – in this case, the need to vote on a single day, a Tuesday. “For voters, the ability
to cast a ballot early reduces the costs of participation … by making it more convenient to vote
on one’s own schedule,” Giammo and Brox (2010, p. 295) write. The state of Oregon was an
early adopter, and their experience seemed positive enough that other states followed suit –
but context matters, and outcomes around the country did not mimic Oregon’s:
• California sometimes requires registered voters in less-populous precincts to cast their

ballots early through the mail. Kousser and Mullin (2007) compare those registered
voters with matching citizens living in places that required voting at the precinct station.
They found that the convenience of voting from home did not increase turnout in 2000
and 2002. Indeed, in the high-profile presidential and gubernatorial contests,
participation fell 2-3 percentage points lower among those invited to vote by mail from
home. The analysts attribute this unexpected outcome to the difficulty of managing
early voting through the mail.
• Another high-profile study of early voting, by Giammo and Brox (2010), looked at in-
person early voting and came away equally pessimistic. They examined voting rates in
500 counties over eight presidential elections, after implementation of policies intended
to make voting easier, and found that turnout ended up at a lower level than where it
started. Early voting provided a convenience for some of the people who would have
voted anyway – it especially favors political mobilization by older and more-partisan
voters (Ashok et al. 2016) – but it did not expand the electorate.
• Larocca and Klemanski (2011) compared the effect of early voting with four other
electoral reforms, using turnout estimates from the Census Bureau for 2000, 2004, and
2008. Even after taking into account a host of influences on whether someone votes,
the authors conclude that in all three presidential elections, individuals living in
locations with in-person early voting were less likely to vote than those living in
locations that required most voters to show up on Election Day. Larocca and Klemanski
(2011, pp. 92-93) attribute
this surprising result to the “…in all three presidential elections, individuals
living in locations with in-person early voting were
way political parties and news less likely to vote than those living in locations that
organizations react to the required most voters to show up on Election Day.”
knowledge that voting is
spread out rather than concentrated in a single day. With a single election day,
organizations generate a lot of hoopla that pulls people to the polls, whereas party
efforts and media coverage cannot mobilize as many people in states that spread voting
out over multiple days.
• Using county turnout data in addition to individual Census reports, Burden et al. (2014)
reach the same negative conclusion about Early Voting. Early voting has the direct
effect of making voting easier, which might seem as though it would increase turnout,
but they argue that indirectly it undermines a voter’s motivation to show up. “Rather
than building up to a frenzied Election Day in which media coverage and interpersonal
conversations revolve around politics, early voting makes voting a more private and less
intense process. Social pressure is less evident, guidance on how and where to vote is
less handy, and the prospect of positive social interactions at the polls is decreased,”
Burden et al. (2014, p. 97) explain. Political parties and national campaigns also neglect
states with early voting, because they get less bang for their buck. “When much of the
eligible population has already voted in advance of Election Day, there is less payoff for
continued get-out-the-vote activities,” they write (2014, p. 98).
I have no reason to assume that early voting would work better in Kentucky than it has
performed elsewhere. Indeed, features of the 2020 Kentucky context worsen the prospects.
First, Kentucky lacks a tradition of early voting. Voting is habitual, and Kentuckians have not
developed a habit of early voting yet. So whatever the long-term benefits of permitting early
voting, having it available in 2020 will not eliminate the need for viable in-person options on
Election Day.
Second, Kentucky did not implement early voting through the use of in-person voting
locations, although county clerks sometimes used that language. For all intents and purposes,
the “in-person” early voting option for most voters was to submit an absentee ballot at a drop-
off location – which is to say, it’s not really “early voting” in the sense scholars typically discuss
it. Assessing Kentucky’s electoral experiment requires assessing how the state handled
absentee voting in general, including voting by mail. I turn to that topic in the next subsection.
Voter-Registration Laws & No-Excuse Absentee Balloting
Early researchers made boldly positive claims for the effect of voting-by-mail (VBM).
Looking at Oregon’s early implementation of the policy, scholars claimed that the convenience
of being able to mail in a ballot pulled masses of previously demobilized voters into the
electorate, increasing voter turnout by as much as 10% (Richey 2008; Southwell and Burchett
2000). Election reformers anticipated that the convenience of this voting method would lead to
greater political equality.
These early claims did not hold up to careful scrutiny (Gronke and Miller 2012; Hanmer
and Traugott 2004). The increased turnout facilitated by VBM is modest at best, and the
elections for which it makes a difference already have such abysmally low turnout that no one
would call the result a triumph of democracy (Karp and Banducci 2000; Kousser and Mullin
2007). Nor did VBM allow great strides toward equalization of the electorate. Rather, filling
out and mailing in a ballot fits well
with the workplace skills required of
“Filling out and mailing in a ballot fits well with the
workplace skills required of upper-middle-class upper-middle-class professionals and
professionals … Voting by mail accentuates, rather other white-collar workers.
than diminishes, the political system’s bias toward
Transferring those habits over to the
empowering the affluent.”
voting process is relatively easy.
Working-class citizens, and other
resource-poor voters, may not develop the same habits at their workplaces. Their lifestyles
may not involve pushing a lot of paper, and having to do so in order to exercise the franchise
can pull them out of the usual comfort zone – leading to lower participation rates. (Technically,
political scientists would say that resource-poor voters have a lower sense of “efficacy” when it
comes to voting by mail, and so they’re less likely to engage in it.) “Voting only by mail is likely
to increase turnout among those who are already predisposed to vote, such as those with
higher socioeconomic status” (Karp and Banducci 2000). Voting by mail accentuates, rather
than diminishes, the political system’s bias toward empowering the affluent (Berinsky et al.
2001; Rigby and Springer 2011; Kousser and Mullin 2007; Springer 2012; Berinsky 2005).
The short-term prospects of VBM in Kentucky are worse than what researchers have
seen nationally. True VBM involves sending ballots to the addresses of registered voters. It
parallels the traditional voting process: A citizen registers, then a citizen votes. That two-step
process comes under frequent criticism. Requiring a two-step electoral process discourages
political participation (Nickerson 2015). Eligible adults, especially younger citizens who have
not yet formed the habit of voting, may forget to register in time to meet the deadline for an
election that interests them (Holbein and Hillygus 2016). They may gain interest in an election
only after the registration deadline has passed (Wang 2016). They may have moved residences
and neglected either to register in their new communities or to pursue the absentee-ballot
process in their old communities (Highton 2000). These different barriers add up: Scholars
overwhelmingly agree that voter-registration laws discourage turnout in elections, compared to
what voter participation would be with an easier process (Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980).
Analysts show less agreement when they attempt to quantify that discouragement, and
in turn they differ in the effect they would anticipate from reforms intended to make
registration easier or to eliminate the
need for voter registration altogether.
“The consensus among researchers is that adding
Early research on the subject steps to the voting process reduces political
estimated that, nationwide, voter- participation, for good or ill.”
registration laws were running off
perhaps 10% of potential voters. More-recent research, using both historical and
contemporary data, casts doubt on those dramatic claims, however, suggesting that it might
only be a few percentage points (Ansolabehere and Konisky 2006; Engstrom 2012). Still, the
consensus among researchers is that adding steps to the voting process reduces political
participation, for good or ill.
My point is not that Kentucky necessarily should discard the requirement that voters
register in advance of an election. A
“…citizens of low socioeconomic status do not voter-registration system brings
appear to mobilize when the costs of voting go
benefits as well, helping ensure that
down.”
an election is more secure and
efficient to administer. Nor would Kentucky necessarily improve the situation by allowing
citizens to register closer to election day, because not even allowing same-day election
registration increases voter participation much (Burden et al. 2014; Knack and White 2000;
Larocca and Klemanski 2011; Wang 2016), nor does it live up to the promise of equalizing
political participation between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, because citizens of low
socioeconomic status do not appear to mobilize when the costs of voting go down (Nickerson
2015; Knack and White 2000; Mitchell and Wlezien 1995; Springer 2012).
Rather, the knowledge that adding steps to the voting process runs off potential voters,
especially resource-poor voters, informs how optimistic our expectations ought to be with
Kentucky’s experiment this year. Kentucky did not set up a true voting-by-mail system, in which
ballots were sent to all registered voters. Rather, Kentucky only switched from a conventional
absentee-voting system to a no-excuse absentee system that allowed everyone to request a
ballot. Voting by mail in the primary required three, not the usual two, steps: registering to
vote, requesting a ballot, and submitting that ballot. Nor was this system set up long in
advance, such that voters had plenty
of time to learn of it and adapt; due to
“The coming primary election erects extra barriers to
political participation compared to Kentucky’s the surprise Spring pandemic, the shift
traditional election system” … It will “demobilize to voting by mail had to be conducted
Kentuckians, especially poor and minority citizens,
on the fly. The coming primary
unless large numbers of them can engage in … in-
person voting. election erects extra barriers to
political participation compared to
Kentucky’s traditional election system. We have every reason to believe that switching to the
current vote-by-mail system will demobilize Kentuckians, especially poor and minority citizens,
unless large numbers of them can engage in the backup option of traditional Election Day in-
person voting. Instead, across Kentucky, election officials have opted to establish only a single,
centralized voting location for each county. I turn to the implications of that decision in the
next section.
Estimating the Effects of Only Opening One Election-Day Voting Center
Kentucky’s switch to a single voting location for each county will occur at the same time
it liberalized absentee-voting rules, and the Commonwealth made all of these policy changes
over a mere matter of months. No state has ever changed so much about its electoral system
so quickly, so trying to anticipate the effect of this rapid experimentation requires extrapolating
beyond any context that researchers have studied in the past. However, in this section I made
a good-faith attempt to estimate the effect that switching to a single voting location will have
on voter turnout. Knowing that I have been retained by a Plaintiff critical of the new system, I
have tried intentionally to apply existing research literature in a conservative way, one that
minimizes the predicted negative impact of the new system.
Drawing up precinct boundaries and selecting polling locations seems like a technical
process, in a way that policies shaping eligibility to vote might not. Yet determining where
people may vote can significantly shape their ability to exercise the franchise, by either raising
or lowering the costs of doing so – a process that can infringe on a citizen’s voting rights either
accidentally (Brady and McNulty 2011; Haspel and Knotts 2005) or possibly intentionally (Amos
et al. 2017).
The politics of precinct location can raise the costs of voting, and therefore suppress
voter turnout, in two ways. First, any change in voting location forces voters to learn where
their new voting location is. Second, precinct placement determines the distance voters must
travel to exercise the franchise.
Changing the voting location imposes “information costs” on a voter. They have to
know that their polling location has moved, and they need to determine where it moved.
Kentucky’s solution to the pandemic election imposes that burden on almost everyone,
because almost all precinct polling locations have been shut down, leaving everyone with a
single in-person option on Election Day. It might seem as though, whatever the cost of getting
to that single polling station and going through the process of voting there, this solution at least
has the benefit of simplifying information costs. No one needs to look up where their precinct
votes; the answer is the same for everyone in the county. Indeed, some scholars argue that
reducing polling stations actually can encourage turnout, because having one easily identifiable
voting location might seem to reduce information costs (Cortina and Rottinghaus 2019; Stein
and Vonnahme 2008, 2012). As it turns out, however, even this step might have been a burden
for voters, depending on their county of residence.
I attempted to learn the voting location for a handful of Kentucky counties when I began
my research for this report, and for most of them, it was no simple matter. Neither the state
Board of Elections nor the Secretary of State’s office reports polling locations even under
normal circumstances. Voters do have the ability to request information about their own
polling place, if they’re willing to enter personal information into the Board of Elections Web
page, but they cannot use it to determine voting locations for the primary because the service
has been shut off. Instead, voters who try to follow the “find my polling place” link will be
directed to a page allowing them to “Check your Absentee Ballot status here.”
If they know that the County Clerk administers elections locally, they might then have
turned to the Web page for that officer – but what they would find varies wildly from county to
county. Some counties offer only rudimentary election information, and as late as the start of
June, most still had not updated their Web pages to say much about how the primary would be
conducted. Even the larger counties, with their greater staff resources, mostly had not updated
their Web pages so that it would be easy for voters to learn where they needed to vote on
Election Day. Some required voters to click through links and scroll down text to find that
information. In other cases, I actually had to call the County Clerk’s office to learn where the
centralized voting location would be. And in one of those cases, Daviess County, the voting
location given to me over the phone (and the voting location announced in multiple newspaper
articles in the region) changed a couple of days later! The source code for their Web page
shows that the new voting location was posted less than a month before the scheduled
election, on June 2, and any voter who already paid the cost of investigating the polling station
might not learn of the need to check again.
C u r t a i l i n g E l e c t i o n - D a y V o t i n g O p p o r t u n i t i e s ( V o s s ) P g . 10 |
31
To be fair, the state as well as county clerks worked much harder to publicize absentee
voting opportunities, reducing information costs for that option. Indeed, when I called clerk’s
offices asking where in-person Election Day voting would take place, the response always
started with a litany of other ways I could/should vote before I received the answer I sought.
The discouragement to exercise voting rights only applied to citizens who wanted to vote in the
traditional way. Nonetheless, one of the most-prominent studies of the politics of precinct
location argues that learning where to vote demobilizes potential voters even more than the
need to travel to the polling station, at least when a voting station remains nearby after the
change (Brady and McNulty 2011). Kentucky’s approach, with the last-minute announcements
and active discouragement of in-person voting, seems guaranteed to shake voters loose.
Now that Web pages are being updated, and voters might be starting to look forward to
the election in two weeks, finding the single voting location might become easier and less of a
barrier to political participation. For late-moving voters, such as those who hoped to vote
absentee but missed the deadline, they may be able to learn of the centralized voting location
fairly easily – which raises the possibility that having a single vote center might increase
turnout. Some research, conducted in Colorado and Texas, argues that reducing precincts and
concentrating voting in a few identifiable vote centers might increase political participation
(Cortina and Rottinghaus 2019; Stein and Vonnahme 2008, 2012). However, the situation
studied in the vote-center literature does not at all resemble what Kentucky is doing.
First, neither Colorado nor Texas only offered a single vote center for an entire county.
Colorado’s Larimer County, studied in detail by Stein and Vonnahme (2008) in early work on
this topic, is not especially large, with the bulk of the population concentrated in Fort Collins.
31
It contained 181,864 registered voters in 2008, only around a third of Jefferson County’s size
and notably smaller than Fayette County. Yet the county set up two dozen vote centers there
(Stein and Vonnahme 2012). More generally, Colorado guidelines expected one vote station for
every 10,000 active registered voters (Stein and Vonnahme 2008). This table indicates the
quantity of vote centers employed in a handful of Colorado counties (Stein and Vonnahme
2012):
31
Second, the advertised virtue of vote centers, compared to precinct polling stations, is
that they are located near places of employment rather than in residential areas, and instead of
voters being required to use an assigned vote center, they could go to whichever they liked –
which is to say, the one most conveniently reached when commuting to/from work or when
shopping. Such flexibility can prevent long lines at peak voting times, another disincentive that
discourages voting (Stein et al. 2019).
Fayette’s centralized voting system offers almost none of the virtues of vote centers as
described in the scholarly literature. Instead of offering flexibility, it is just as inflexible as the
traditional precinct-based system. It does not bring the voting location closer to the electorate
than residential polling stations would, given high current unemployment and the sheltering in
place that cautious Kentuckians have continued to uphold. Rather, it will require many
Kentuckians – including those worse off financially do to job loss – to leave their neighborhoods
and travel across the county. Rather than being understood as a vote center, Kentucky’s single-
station plan is effectively the equivalent of turning the entire county into a single precinct, and
is best understood in terms of the research literature that studies the effect of polling-station
accessibility on voter turnout.
Precinct placement can increase or decrease the difficulty of getting to the polling
station in order to exercise the franchise. Scholars differ in their estimates, but research
consistently shows that the probability of voting declines as a polling station moves away from
the voter (Amos et al. 2017; Brady and McNulty 2011; Haspel and Knotts 2005; Kudrnáč 2019;
Mann and Stein 2019).
A body of work by James Gimpel at the University of Maryland stresses that the
disincentive to vote created by inconvenient precinct placement does not impact communities
equally (Gimpel et al. 2006; Gimpel and Schuknecht 2003). Rather, voters in rural areas
typically must travel longer distances for all of their needs, and therefore driving to a polling
station does not deter them much. A six-mile drive to the polling place might not be much
harder than a five-mile drive, and the traffic is light enough that it might be a quick trip. Denser
populations, as seen in cities like Louisville and Lexington, will make any journey longer than a
31
mile fairly inconvenient, and even in a suburban setting, being asked to travel more than two
miles to a polling place becomes a significant deterrent. Add in the concern that potential
voters have with the risk of long lines – which tend to be more common in densely populated
areas – and it is almost certain that the shift to centralized voting locations will hinder urban
and minority voters to a greater extent than it will other Kentuckians. Creating such barriers
could hinder supporters of some primary candidates more than others, and could hinder
Democratic candidates more than Republicans. I try to quantify the barriers to voting created
by this policy decision in the following two subsections of my report.
Quantifying the Increased Distance Voters Must Travel
Identifying polling locations is no easy matter. The state does not provide a list of
polling locations around the state – I attempted to get such information from the State Board of
Elections, but the staffer with whom I spoke never got back to me – and County Clerks vary
significantly in terms of the quality of information provided on their Web pages. Jefferson
County actually provides Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps that pinpoint polling-
station locations, while Warren County and many smaller counties provide no information.
My research assistants and I succeeded at identifying and geocoding (i.e., pinpointing

the latitudinal and longitudinal location of) precincts in seven of Kentucky’s eight most-
populous counties, either the ones they’d planned for 2020 or the ones they used in 2019:
Jefferson, Fayette, Kenton, Boone, Campbell, Daviess, and Hardin. We combined that
information with the locations of all of the Census block groups in those counties, a
geographical unit for which the Census Bureau estimates population by race every two years.
GIS software allows us to identify the geographic center of each block group, a rough estimate
for where the voters in that Census block group live. Putting those two pieces of information
31
together allows us to estimate the distance “as the crow flies” between the block group and a
variety of possible polling-station locations.1
Traditionally, most urban voters live within a mile of their voting location, a distance
that most people can walk, bike, or at least drive conveniently. Using a single voting location,
on the other hand, means that the vast majority of voters must travel more than a mile, which
past research has established as a significant barrier to exercising the franchise. This first set of
graphs shows how far block groups in our seven counties are from their closest voting location,
as well as how far they are from the planned centralized voting location.
Most voters are seeing a massive increase in their travel distance, mostly through an
urban transportation system, if the state relies entirely on one polling station per county on
Election Day. Plaintiff wanted me to determine how much those distances could be reduced
with the introduced of 10 polling stations instead. Unfortunately, I do not know which past
polling stations would be able to handle either the increased traffic that centralized might
cause or the precautions needed to protect poll workers from covid-19 – and obviously distance
depends on the location of the additional nine polling stations. To provide that estimate,
therefore, we simulated the answer to Plaintiff’s question: randomly selecting nine additional
voting locations, computing distances from those, then randomly selecting nine locations again,
1
An ideal approach would have been to identify where the central mass of a block group’s population actually
lived, and also to identify distance according to driving patterns (or at least the blocks nature of human movement
that a “Manhattan distance” would have allowed, but we had neither the time nor the budget to engage in such a
deep dive given the rapid approach of the primary election. At least by using Euclidean distance, we are
minimizing the estimated travel distances, resulting in conservative estimates.
31
and so on until we’d generated 500 possible configurations of ten polling stations. Our “pick
10” estimates use the average distances that ten polling locations would produce. We also
created simulations for the possibility of only five polling locations. Here is how the distances
look with each compromise between one polling location and all of them:
Adding nine more voting locations, or even four more, clearly reduces the distance
between polling locations and most block groups. Nonetheless, even with ten, a lot more
voters will need to travel more than a mile to exercise the franchise in person.
Those same results, in tabular form, appear on the next page.
31
Plaintiff also asked me whether this burden would be greater for minority, and
especially black, voters than it would be for others. The obvious answer is yes, because urban
voters suffer more as polling locations move away from them, and because Kentucky’s minority
population tends to be concentrated in densely populated areas, the current solution
disproportionately impacts them. Among urban voters specifically, however, white urbanites
and black urbanites are impacted about equally, with black neighborhoods being
inconvenienced more in some counties and white neighborhoods more in others. Unlike
31
previous graphs, these look at the amount of the population in each voting block rather than
just counting them:
Similarly, the Pick 10 and Pick 5 solutions show no clear pattern in terms of whether they help
black voters or white voters more.
31
31
Quantifying the Disenfranchising Effect of Increased Distance

Plaintiff asked how many voters will be disenfranchised in Jefferson County by the
increased distance to in-person polling locations. Because we have no basis for judging how
many voters will use mail-in or early-drop-off voting, any attempt to quantify how many voters
will be run off requires numerous assumptions and can be questioned by others. Nor do we
have enough time to build an entire voter-turnout analysis unique to Kentucky.
To produce my best estimates, I applied an individual-level model for probability of

voting developed by Haspel and Knotts (2005) for Atlanta.2 Using their model to determine
racial implications is a conservative decision, because they developed it in an election with a
2
Aside from the distance variables, others are set at their means. I assume it’s not an open seat, that they’ve been
registered for five years and so are not new voters. I estimate black probability of turnout separately from that for
others, to use their race variables.
31
prominent African-American woman running for mayor. Then, to determine how many of the
displaced voters would switch to absentee voting, I used the estimates provided by Brady and
McNulty (2011). Again, this is a very conservative approach. They estimated that distance to
the polling station mattered less than other scholars had estimated, in part because they used
data from California, a state with a much stronger tradition of voting-by-mail than Kentucky
has. I view the combined results of these two models as something of a floor, producing
especially conservative estimates of voter disenfranchisement.
Based on the Haspel and Knotts model for probability of voter turnout, I estimate that at
least 15-16% of the electorate would be disenfranchised by the increased distance imposed by
using a single voting location. That includes at least 15.4% of Louisville’s black voters being
disenfranchised. Increasing polling locations to 5 voting locations decreases that
disenfranchisement, and increasing to 10 locations decreases the disenfranchisement even
more.
So how many voters are disenfranchised? Based on the assumption from Brady and
McNulty that ¾ of voters will switch to absentee voting if their polling location moves more
than a mile, and that a smaller percentage will shift to absentee voting with a closer move, I
estimate that at least 3% of Louisville voters will fail to overcome the new obstacles to voting.
That being said, it is highly unlikely that Kentuckians will take to mail-in balloting at the same
speed as Californians did, given how few voters previously used that method in the
Commonwealth. More likely, using a single voting location disenfranchises more than 5% of the
Jefferson County electorate, with the statewide implications being greater disenfranchisement
in minority communities.
D. Stephen Voss, Ph.D.
31
REFERENCES
Amos, Brian, Daniel A. Smith, and Casey Ste. Claire. 2017. "Reprecincting and Voting Behavior." Political
Behavior 39 (1):133-56.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and David M. Konisky. 2006. "The Introduction of Voter Registration and Its
Effect on Turnout." Political Analysis 14 (1):83-100.
Ashok, Vivekinan, Daniel Feder, Mary McGrath, and Eitan Hersh. 2016. "The Dynamic Election: Patterns
of Early Voting Across Time, State, Party, and Age." Election Law Journal 15 (2):115-28.
Berinsky, Adam J. 2005. "The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States."
American Politics Research 33 (4):471-91.
Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. 2001. "Who Votes by Mail? A Dynamic Model
of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems." The Public Opinion Quarterly
65 (2):178-97.
Brady, Henry E., and John E. McNulty. 2011. "Turning Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to
the Polling Place." The American Political Science Review 105 (1):115-34.
Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2014. "Election Laws,
Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform." American
Journal of Political Science 58 (1):95-109.
Cortina, Jeronimo, and Brandon Rottinghaus. 2019. "Vote centers and turnout by election type in
Texas." Research & Politics 6 (3):2053168019864224.
Engstrom, Erik J. 2012. "The Rise and Decline of Turnout in Congressional Elections: Electoral
Institutions, Competition, and Strategic Mobilization." American Journal of Political Science 56
(2):373-86.
Giammo, Joseph D., and Brian J. Brox. 2010. "Reducing the Costs of Participation: Are States Getting a
Return on Early Voting?" Political Research Quarterly 63 (2):295-303.
Gimpel, J. G., and J. E. Schuknecht. 2003. "Political participation and the accessibility of the ballot box."
Political Geography 22 (5):471-88.
Gimpel, James G., Joshua J. Dyck, and Daron R. Shaw. 2006. "Location, Knowledge and Time Pressures in
the Spatial Structure of Convenience Voting." Electoral Studies 25 (1):35-58.
Gronke, Paul, and Peter Miller. 2012. "Voting by Mail and Turnout in Oregon: Revisiting Southwell and
Burchett." American Politics Research 40 (6):976-97.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. 2004. "The Impact of Voting by Mail on Voter Behavior."
Haspel, Moshe, and H. Gibbs Knotts. 2005. "Location, Location, Location: Precinct Placement and the
Costs of Voting." The Journal of Politics 67 (2):560-73.
Highton, Benjamin. 2000. "Residential Mobility, Community Mobility, and Electoral Participation."
Political Behavior 22 (2):109-20.
Holbein, John B., and D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2016. "Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration
on Youth Turnout." American Journal of Political Science 60 (2):364-82.
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. 2000. "Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout."
Knack, Stephen, and James White. 2000. "Election-Day Registration and Turnout Inequality." Political
Behavior 22 (1):29-44.
Kousser, Thad, and Megan Mullin. 2007. "Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to
Analyze a Natural Experiment." Political Analysis 15 (4):428-45.
31
Kudrnáč, Aleš. 2019. "A poll too far? A study of the moderating effects of obesity and poor health on the
distance to the ballot station and probability to vote relationship." Party
Politics:1354068819867414.
Larocca, Roger, and John S. Klemanski. 2011. "U.S. State Election Reform and Turnout in Presidential
Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (1):76-101.
Mann, Christopher, and Robert M. Stein. 2019. "The Impact of Polling Places on Voting." In Election
Science Reform and Administration Conference. Philadelphia, PA.
Mayse, James. 2020. "Daviess Clerk's Office Outlines Plan for June Primary." Messenger-Inquirer, May 8.
Mitchell, Glenn E., and Christopher Wlezien. 1995. "The Impact of Legal Constraints on Voter
Registration, Turnout, and the Composition of the American Electorate." Political Behavior 17
(2):179-202.
Nickerson, David W. 2015. "Do Voter Registration Drives Increase Participation? For Whom and When?"
The Journal of Politics 77 (1):88-101.
Pickens, Katie. 2020. "Clerk's Office Details Plans for June Primary Election." Owensboro Times, May 7.
Richey, Sean. 2008. "Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon." Social Science
Quarterly 89 (4):902-15.
Rigby, Elizabeth, and Melanie J. Springer. 2011. "Does Electoral Reform Increase (or Decrease) Political
Equality?" Political Research Quarterly 64 (2):420-34.
Southwell, Priscilla L., and Justin I. Burchett. 2000. "The Effect of All-mail Elections on Voter Turnout."
American Politics Quarterly 28 (1):72-9.
Springer, Melanie J. 2012. "State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In Presidential Elections,
1920–2000." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (3):252-83.
Stein, Robert M., Christopher Mann, Charles Stewart, Zachary Birenbaum, Anson Fung, Jed Greenberg,
Farhan Kawsar, Gayle Alberda, R. Michael Alvarez, Lonna Atkeson, Emily Beaulieu, Nathaniel A.
Birkhead, Frederick J. Boehmke, Joshua Boston, Barry C. Burden, Francisco Cantu, Rachael Cobb,
David Darmofal, Thomas C. Ellington, Terri Susan Fine, Charles J. Finocchiaro, Michael D. Gilbert,
Victor Haynes, Brian Janssen, David Kimball, Charles Kromkowski, Elena Llaudet, Kenneth R.
Mayer, Matthew R. Miles, David Miller, Lindsay Nielson, Yu Ouyang, Costas Panagopoulos,
Andrew Reeves, Min Hee Seo, Haley Simmons, Corwin Smidt, Farrah M. Stone, Rachel VanSickle-
Ward, Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Abby Wood, and Julie Wronski. 2019. "Waiting to Vote in the 2016
Presidential Election: Evidence from a Multi-county Study." Political Research Quarterly 73
(2):439-53.
Stein, Robert M., and Greg Vonnahme. 2008. "Engaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter
Turnout." The Journal of Politics 70 (2):487-97.
———. 2012. "Effect of Election Day Vote Centers on Voter Participation." Election Law Journal 11
(3):291-301.
Wang, Sam. 2016. "How behavioral science could get more Americans to vote." Washington Post, June
15.
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
31
Appendix A - Full Bibliography
This report singled out only a subset of the work on which I drew when devising my analysis, reaching
my conclusions, and writing it. A full list of sources appears here:
Addonizio, Elizabeth M., Donald P. Green, and James M. Glaser. 2007. "Putting the Party Back into
Politics: An Experiment Testing Whether Election Day Festivals Increase Voter Turnout." PS:
Political Science and Politics 40 (4):721-7.
Alvarez, R. Michael, Dustin Beckett, and Charles Stewart. 2013. "Voting Technology, Vote-by-Mail, and
Residual Votes in California, 1990—2010." Political Research Quarterly 66 (3):658-70.
Alvarez, R. Michael, Ines Levin, and J. Andrew Sinclair. 2012. "Making Voting Easier: Convenience Voting
in the 2008 Presidential Election." Political Research Quarterly 65 (2):248-62.
Amos, Brian. 2017. "Precinct results for: When Boundaries Collide: Constructing a National Database of
Demographic and Voting Statistics." Harvard Dataverse.
Amos, Brian, Daniel A. Smith, and Casey Ste. Claire. 2017. "Reprecincting and Voting Behavior." Political
Behavior 39 (1):133-56.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Maxwell Palmer, and Amanda Lee. 2014. "Precinct-Level Election Data."
Harvard Dataverse.
Anzia, Sarah F. 2011. "Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups." The Journal of
Politics 73 (2):412-27.
Arbour, Brian K., and Danny Hayes. 2005. "Voter Turnout in the California Recall: Where Did the Increase
Come From?" American Politics Research 33 (2):187-215.
Ashok, Vivekinan, Daniel Feder, Mary McGrath, and Eitan Hersh. 2016. "The Dynamic Election: Patterns
of Early Voting Across Time, State, Party, and Age." Election Law Journal 15 (2):115-28.
Atsusaka, Yuki, Andrew Menger, and Robert Stein. 2019. "Compositional Effects of Vote by Mail
Elections on Voter Turnout." In Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.
Bali, Valentina A., and Brian D. Silver. 2006. "Politics, Race, and American State Electoral Reforms after
Election 2000." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (1):21-48.
Baringer, Anna, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. 2020. "Voting by Mail and Ballot Rejection:
Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus."
Barreto, Matt A., Mara Cohen-Marks, and Nathan D. Woods. 2009. "Are All Precincts Created Equal? The
Prevalence of Low-Quality Precincts in Low-Income and Minority Communities." Political
Research Quarterly 62 (3):445-58.
Barreto, Matt A., Matthew J. Streb, Mara Marks, and Fernando Guerra. 2006. "Do Absentee Voters
Differ from Polling Place Voters? New Evidence from California." The Public Opinion Quarterly 70
(2):224-34.
Bauer, John R. 1990. "Patterns of Voter Participation in the American States." Social Science Quarterly 71
(4):824-34.
Berinsky, Adam J. 2005. "The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States."
Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. 2001. "Who Votes by Mail? A Dynamic Model
of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems." The Public Opinion Quarterly
65 (2):178-97.
31
Biggers, Daniel R., and Michael J. Hanmer. 2015. "Who Makes Voting Convenient? Explaining the
Adoption of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting in the American States." State Politics & Policy
Quarterly 15 (2):192-210.
Bitzer, J. Michael. 2020. "A Matter of Electoral Convenience: Early Voting in North Carolina, 2004-2018."
In Citadel Symposium on Southern Politics. Charleston, SC.
Bonica, Adam, Jacob M. Grumbach, Charlotte Hill, and Hakeem Jefferson. 2020. "All-Mail Voting in
Colorado Increases Turnout and Reduces Turnout Inequality."
Brady, Henry E., and John E. McNulty. 2011. "Turning Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to
the Polling Place." The American Political Science Review 105 (1):115-34.
Brown, Robert D., Robert A. Jackson, and Gerald C. Wright. 1999. "Registration, Turnout, and State Party
Systems." Political Research Quarterly 52 (3):463-79.
Brown, Robert D., and Justin Wedeking. 2006. "People Who Have Their Tickets But Do Not Use Them:
“Motor Voter,” Registration, and Turnout Revisited." American Politics Research 34 (4):479-504.
Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2014. "Election Laws,
Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform." American
———. 2017. "The Complicated Partisan Effects of State Election Laws." Political Research Quarterly 70
(3):564-76.
Burden, Barry, Robert M. Stein, and Charles Stewart, III. 2020. "More Voting by Mail Would Make the
2020 Election Safer for Our Health. But it Comes with Risks of Its Own." Washington Post.
Coppock, Alexander, and Donald P. Green. 2016. "Is Voting Habit Forming? New Evidence from
Experiments and Regression Discontinuities." American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):1044-
62.
Cortina, Jeronimo, and Brandon Rottinghaus. 2019. "Vote centers and turnout by election type in
Texas." Research & Politics 6 (3):2053168019864224.
Davenport, Tiffany C. 2015. "Policy-Induced Risk and Responsive Participation: The Effect of a Son's
Conscription Risk on the Voting Behavior of His Parents." American Journal of Political Science 59
(1):225-41.
de Kadt, Daniel. 2019. "Bringing the Polls to the People: How Electoral Access Encourages Turnout but
Shapes Political Inequality." SocArXiv.
Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Gretchen A. Kalsow. 1996. "Comparing Absentee and Precinct Voters: A View over
Time." Political Behavior 18 (4):369-92.
Dyck, Joshua J., and James G. Gimpel. 2005. "Distance, Turnout, and the Convenience of Voting." Social
Science Quarterly 86 (3):531-48.
Engstrom, Erik J. 2012. "The Rise and Decline of Turnout in Congressional Elections: Electoral
Institutions, Competition, and Strategic Mobilization." American Journal of Political Science 56
(2):373-86.
Enos, Ryan D., Anthony Fowler, and Lynn Vavreck. 2013. "Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV
Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate." The Journal of Politics 76 (1):273-88.
Fitzgerald, Mary. 2005. "Greater Convenience But Not Greater Turnout: The Impact of Alternative Voting
Methods on Electoral Participation in the United States." American Politics Research 33 (6):842-
67.
Folz, David. 2014. "Vote Centers as a Strategy to Control Election Administration Costs: Findings From a
Pilot Project." SAGE Open 4.
Fraga, Bernard L. 2016. "Candidates or Districts? Reevaluating the Role of Race in Voter Turnout."
American Journal of Political Science 60 (1):97-122.
31
Fullerton, Andrew S., and Casey Borch. 2008. "Reconsidering Explanations for Regional Convergence in
Voter Registration and Turnout in the United States, 1956-2000." Sociological Forum 23 (4):755-
85.
Fullmer, Elliott B. 2015. "Early Voting: Do More Sites Lead to Higher Turnout?" Election law journal. 14
(2):81.
Garnett, Holly Ann. 2019. "Early Voting: Comparing Canada, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland."
Election Law Journal 18 (2):116-31.
Gasper, John T., and Andrew Reeves. 2011. "Make It Rain? Retrospection and the Attentive Electorate in
the Context of Natural Disasters." American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):340-55.
Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, and Seth J. Hill. 2013. "Identifying the Effect of All-Mail Elections on
Turnout: Staggered Reform in the Evergreen State." Political Science Research and Methods 1
(1):91-116.
Giammo, Joseph D., and Brian J. Brox. 2010. "Reducing the Costs of Participation: Are States Getting a
Return on Early Voting?" Political Research Quarterly 63 (2):295-303.
Gibson, John, Bonggeun Kim, Steven Stillman, and Geua Boe-Gibson. 2013. "Time to vote?" Public Choice
156 (3/4):517-36.
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Hanna Wass, and Maria Valaste. 2016. "Political Socialization and Voting: The
Parent-Child Link in Turnout." Political Research Quarterly 69 (2):373-83.
Gimpel, J. G., and J. E. Schuknecht. 2003. "Political participation and the accessibility of the ballot box."
Political Geography 22 (5):471-88.
Gimpel, James G., Joshua J. Dyck, and Daron R. Shaw. 2006. "Location, Knowledge and Time Pressures in
the Spatial Structure of Convenience Voting." Electoral Studies 25 (1):35-58.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. 2007. "Early Voting and Turnout." PS:
Political Science and Politics 40 (4):639-45.
Gronke, Paul, and Peter Miller. 2012. "Voting by Mail and Turnout in Oregon: Revisiting Southwell and
Burchett." American Politics Research 40 (6):976-97.
Gross, Terry. 2020. "How Protecting Voter Safety with Mail-In Ballots Became a Partisan Issue." National
Public Radio.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. 2004. "The Impact of Voting by Mail on Voter Behavior."
Hansford, Thomas G., and Brad T. Gomez. 2010. "Estimating the Electoral Effects of Voter Turnout." The
American Political Science Review 104 (2):268-88.
Hart, Austin. 2013. "Can Candidates Activate or Deactivate the Economic Vote? Evidence from Two
Mexican Elections." The Journal of Politics 75 (4):1051-63.
Haspel, Moshe, and H. Gibbs Knotts. 2005. "Location, Location, Location: Precinct Placement and the
Costs of Voting." The Journal of Politics 67 (2):560-73.
Herron, Michael C., and Daniel A. Smith. 2014. "Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting Early
Voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election." Political Research Quarterly 67 (3):646-65.
Hersh, Eitan. 2012. "Primary Voters Versus Caucus Goers and the Peripheral Motivations of Political
Participation." Political Behavior 34 (4):689-718.
Hersh, Eitan D., and Clayton Nall. 2016. "The Primacy of Race in the Geography of Income-Based Voting:
New Evidence from Public Voting Records." American Journal of Political Science 60 (2):289-303.
Hicks, William D., Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. "A Principle or a
Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States." Political
Research Quarterly 68 (1):18-33.
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Jan E. Leighley. 1999. "Racial Diversity, Voter Turnout, and Mobilizing Institutions in
the United States." American Politics Quarterly 27 (3):275-95.
31
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Sarah A. Treul. 2014. "Assessing strategic voting in the 2008 US presidential
primaries: the role of electoral context, institutional rules, and negative votes." Public Choice
161 (3/4):517-36.
Hobbs, William R., Nicholas A. Christakis, and James H. Fowler. 2014. "Widowhood Effects in Voter
Participation." American Journal of Political Science 58 (1):1-16.
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Aaron C. Weinschenk. 2014. "Campaigns, Mobilization, and Turnout in
Mayoral Elections." Political Research Quarterly 67 (1):42-55.
Inter-university Consortium for, Political, and Research Social. 2013. "General Election Data for the
United States, 1950-1990." Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
[distributor].
Jewitt, Caitlin E. 2014. "Packed primaries and empty caucuses: voter turnout in presidential
nominations." Public Choice 160 (3/4):295-312.
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. 2000. "Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout."
———. 2001. "Absentee Voting, Mobilization, and Participation." American Politics Research 29 (2):183-
95.
Kasara, Kimuli, and Pavithra Suryanarayan. 2015. "When Do the Rich Vote Less Than the Poor and Why?
Explaining Turnout Inequality across the World." American Journal of Political Science 59
(3):613-27.
Kim, Kamyoung. 2020. "A Spatial Optimization Approach for Simultaneously Districting Precincts and
Locating Polling Places." ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9 (5).
Koch, Michael T., and Stephen P. Nicholson. 2016. "Death and Turnout: The Human Costs of War and
Voter Participation in Democracies." American Journal of Political Science 60 (4):932-46.
Kousser, Thad, and Megan Mullin. 2007. "Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to
Analyze a Natural Experiment." Political Analysis 15 (4):428-45.
Kropf, Martha E. 2012. "Does Early Voting Change the Socio-Economic Composition of the Electorate?"
Poverty & Public Policy 4 (1):1-19.
Kudrnáč, Aleš. 2019. "A poll too far? A study of the moderating effects of obesity and poor health on the
distance to the ballot station and probability to vote relationship." Party
Politics:1354068819867414.
Larocca, Roger, and John S. Klemanski. 2011. "U.S. State Election Reform and Turnout in Presidential
Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (1):76-101.
Li, Quan, Michael J. Pomante, II, and Scot Schraufnagel. 2018. "Cost of Voting in the American States."
Election Law Journal 17 (3):234-47.
Lyons, William, and John M. Scheb. 1999. "Early Voting and the Timing of the Vote: Unanticipated
Consequences of Electoral Reform." State & Local Government Review 31 (2):147-52.
Mann, Christopher, and Robert M. Stein. 2019. "The Impact of Polling Places on Voting." In Election
Science Reform and Administration Conference. Philadelphia, PA.
McClendon, Gwyneth, and Rachel Beatty Riedl. 2015. "Religion as a Stimulant of Political Participation:
Experimental Evidence from Nairobi, Kenya." The Journal of Politics 77 (4):1045-57.
McNulty, John E., Conor M. Dowling, and Margaret H. Ariotti. 2009. "Driving Saints to Sin: How
Increasing the Difficulty of Voting Dissuades Even the Most Motivated Voters." Political Analysis
17 (4):435-55.
Menger, Andrew, and Robert M. Stein. 2020. "Choosing the Less Convenient Way to Vote: An Anomaly
in Vote by Mail Elections." Political Research Quarterly 73 (1):196-207.
Menger, Andrew, Robert M. Stein, and Greg Vonnahme. 2018. "Reducing the Undervote With Vote by
Mail." American Politics Research 46 (6):1039-64.
31
Meredith, Marc, and Neil Malhotra. 2011. "Convenience Voting Can Affect Election Outcomes." Election
Law Journal 10 (3):227-53.
Michelson, Melissa R., Neil Malhotra, Andrew Healy, Jed Greenberg, Allison Carnegie, and Ali Adam
Valenzuela. 2012. "The Effect of Prepaid Postage on Turnout: A Cautionary Tale for Election
Administrators." Election Law Journal 11 (3):279-90.
Montjoy, Robert S. 2010. "The Changing Nature . . . and Costs . . . of Election Administration." Public
Administration Review 70 (6):867-75.
Nickerson, David W. 2015. "Do Voter Registration Drives Increase Participation? For Whom and When?"
The Journal of Politics 77 (1):88-101.
Oliver, J. Eric. 1996. "The Effects of Eligibility Restrictions and Party Activity on Absentee Voting and
Overall Turnout." American Journal of Political Science 40 (2):498-513.
Pacheco, Julianna, and Jason Fletcher. 2015. "Incorporating Health into Studies of Political Behavior:
Evidence for Turnout and Partisanship." Political Research Quarterly 68 (1):104-16.
Patterson, Samuel C., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1985. "Mailing In the Vote: Correlates and Consequences
of Absentee Voting." American Journal of Political Science 29 (4):766-88.
Rakich, Nathaniel. 2020. "Few States Are Prepared to Switch to Voting By Mail. That Could Make for a
Messy Election." FiveThirtyEight, April 27.
Richey, Sean. 2008. "Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon." Social Science
Quarterly 89 (4):902-15.
Rogowski, Jon C. 2014. "Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation." American
Shelley, Fred M., and Ashley M. Hitt. 2016. "The Millennial Vote in the 2016 Democratic Primary
Elections." Southeastern Geographer 56 (3):273-82.
Smith, Keith, and Dari E. Sylvester. 2013. "Is It the Message or the Person? Lessons from a Field
Experiment About Who Converts to Permanent Vote by Mail." Election Law Journal 12 (3):243-
60.
Sondheimer, Rachel Milstein, and Donald P. Green. 2010. "Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of
Education on Voter Turnout." American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):174-89.
Southwell, Priscilla L., and Justin I. Burchett. 2000. "The Effect of All-mail Elections on Voter Turnout."
American Politics Quarterly 28 (1):72-9.
Stein, Robert M., and Patricia A. García-Monet. 1997. "Voting Early but Not Often." Social Science
Quarterly 78 (3):657-71.
Stein, Robert M., Christopher Mann, Charles Stewart, Zachary Birenbaum, Anson Fung, Jed Greenberg,
Farhan Kawsar, Gayle Alberda, R. Michael Alvarez, Lonna Atkeson, Emily Beaulieu, Nathaniel A.
Birkhead, Frederick J. Boehmke, Joshua Boston, Barry C. Burden, Francisco Cantu, Rachael Cobb,
David Darmofal, Thomas C. Ellington, Terri Susan Fine, Charles J. Finocchiaro, Michael D. Gilbert,
Victor Haynes, Brian Janssen, David Kimball, Charles Kromkowski, Elena Llaudet, Kenneth R.
Mayer, Matthew R. Miles, David Miller, Lindsay Nielson, Yu Ouyang, Costas Panagopoulos,
Andrew Reeves, Min Hee Seo, Haley Simmons, Corwin Smidt, Farrah M. Stone, Rachel VanSickle-
Ward, Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Abby Wood, and Julie Wronski. 2019. "Waiting to Vote in the 2016
Presidential Election: Evidence from a Multi-county Study." Political Research Quarterly 73
(2):439-53.
Stein, Robert M., and Greg Vonnahme. 2008. "Engaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter
Turnout." The Journal of Politics 70 (2):487-97.
———. 2012a. "Effect of Election Day Vote Centers on Voter Participation." Election Law Journal 11
(3):291-301.
———. 2012b. "When, Where, and How We Vote: Does it Matter?" Social Science Quarterly 93 (3):692-
712.
31
Thompson, Daniel M., Jennifer Wu, Jesse Yoder, and Andrew B. Hall. 2020. "The Neutral Partisan Effects
of Vote-by-Mail: Evidence from County-Level Roll-Outs." Stanford University: Institute for
Economic Policy Research (SEIPR).
Thompson, Dennis F. 2004. "Election Time: Normative Implications of Temporal Properties of the
Electoral Process in the United States." The American Political Science Review 98 (1):51-64.
Utych, Stephen M., and Cindy D. Kam. 2013. "Viability, Information Seeking, and Vote Choice." The
Journal of Politics 76 (1):152-66.
Valentino, Nicholas A., Ted Brader, Eric W. Groenendyk, Krysha Gregorowicz, and Vincent L. Hutchings.
2011. "Election Night's Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation." The
Journal of Politics 73 (1):156-70.
Voting, and Team Election Science. 2018. "2016 Precinct-Level Election Results." Harvard Dataverse.
———. 2020. "2019 Precinct-Level Election Results." Harvard Dataverse.
Wagner, Aiko, and Josephine Lichteblau. 2020. "Germany Going Postal? Comparing Postal and Election
Day Voters in the 2017 German Federal Election." German Politics:1-24.
Weaver, Russell. 2015. "The Racial Context of Convenience Voting Cutbacks: Early Voting in Ohio During
the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections." SAGE Open 5 (3):2158244015591825.
Williams, Laron K., and Guy D. Whitten. 2015. "Don't Stand So Close to Me: Spatial Contagion Effects and
Party Competition." American Journal of Political Science 59 (2):309-25.
Winer, Stanley L., Lawrence W. Kenny, and Bernard Grofman. 2014. "Explaining variation in the
competitiveness of U.S. Senate elections, 1922–2004." Public Choice 161 (3/4):471-97.
31
Appendix B – The Daviess County Central Voting Location
In late May, I could not find Daviess County’s in-person voting location on the County
Clerk’s Web page. I called, and they informed me that Election Day voting would take place at
the county courthouse. This information did not reflect an error made by a stray office
employee because subsequently I confirmed that the same location appeared in news coverage
of the topic (Mayse 2020; Pickens 2020).
Soon afterward, I returned to the Daviess County Clerk’s Office Web page, and they had
added to the introductory portal a clear statement on the June 23 primary. However, the in-
person voting location had changed to Owensboro Sportscenter, a location approximately 1.6
miles away from the previous voting site. Source code for the Web page showed that this
announcement was posted only on June 2, three weeks before the scheduled primary (see next
page).
Of the seven counties in my analysis, Daviess is the only one that appeared to have
changed the location while I worked on my report. However, other Clerk’s pages also did not
get updated to provide convenient voting-location information until less than a month before
the election. One notable exception was the Fayette County Clerk’s Office, which had full and
relatively well-organized textual information by the middle of May (although they have since
updated the site with slick multimedia content that is even more accessible to voters).
31
31

MotionPI Nemes

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

MotionPI Nemes

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case 3:20-cv-00407-CHB Document 4 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 162

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JASON NEMES, et. al. : Case No. 3:20-CV-407-CHB

CARL BENSINGER, et. al. :

PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR

actions of Defendants, emergency relief is required. Timing considerations will require

expeditious relief. A Memoranda in Support is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

order is also attached.

/s/ Christopher Wiest___________

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Christopher Wiest___________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JASON NEMES, et. al. : Case No. 3:20-CV-407-CHB

CARL BENSINGER, et. al. :

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EMERGENCY MOTION

disproportionately impacted by the challenged practices. Id He distrusts intends to vote in

person for the 2020 primary election, in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id

lawfully registered Kentucky voters and registered Republicans. Id. at ¶¶23-27.

Defendants Bensinger, Holsclaw, Aubrey, Huber, Blevins, Witt, Dishman, Miller,

challenged single precinct polling location in their counties. Id. at ¶¶28-32.

Defendants Chander, Whitehouse, Russell, Fitgerald, Brangers, Skolnik, Sears, and

“promulgate administrative regulations as necessary” to “administer the election laws of the

state.” Id. at ¶33.

B. Facts for all claims

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus that has spread

(“CDC”), COVID-19 spreads aggressively, and even asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic

2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/2019-ncov- factsheet.pdf.

(May 13, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/health/wellness- covid-attacks-organs-

preventing even wider infection and death. Id. at ¶40.

Based Analysis at 6, Lancet Infectious Diseases (Mar. 30, 2020),

updated Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-

2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance- management-

5:00 P.M. E.T.), https://govstatus.egov.com/kycovid19

hopes to help Kentucky businesses reopen safely. Id. at ¶45.

spread of COVID-19.12 Id. The Board of Elections subsequently issued emergency

construction; vehicle or vessel dealerships; office-based businesses (at 50% pre-pandemic

Although the Governor provided guidance permitting Kentucky government offices to

In-Person Voting During a Pandemic

the general population in the State.” Id.

image below, these conditions made social distancing almost impossible:20

Madison Had 60+, Fox 6 Now (Apr. 8, 2020), https://fox6now.com/2020/04/08/2-different-

Disadvantage, The Guardian (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-

midnight. Id. A contact-tracing analysis conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Health

economists have found a “statistically and epidemiologically significant association between

with disabilities. Id. at ¶55.

for them at every step of the process. Id. at ¶56.

parking tickets,” which similarly leaves them “dependent on friends or public

additional risks of contact with exposed individuals in close quarters on public

transportation when en route to their polling places

2016 presidential election found that residents of entirely-Black neighborhoods waited

2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/04/09/why-are-blacks- dying-at-higher-

Dying at Higher Rates?, ACLU (Apr 8, 2020), https://www.aclu.org/news/racialjustice/if-covid-

Smartphone Data (Nov. 14, 2019),

disproportionately threaten their job security.27

factor that influences the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the Black

N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/magazine/racial-disparities-

Servs. (Aug. 22, 2019), https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlID=61 ; see

updated Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-

country you already have a [Black] population disproportionately affected by disparities in

infected they would be more at risk.”31 Id. at ¶61.

Task Force briefing,32 explaining that Black Americans’ increased likelihood of

like outbreaks of COVID-19.”36 Additionally, “[r]esearch indicates African Americans are