The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 1 of 30
FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-13111
____________________
ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALABAMA
EDUCATION FUND,
GREATER BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES,
ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,
Defendant-Appellant,
WILLIAM R. ADAIR, et al.,
Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 2 of 30
2 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00420-RDP
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In 2024, Alabama enacted SB1. That statute makes it unlaw-
ful to give a third party, and for a third party to receive, payment or
a gift for several forms of absentee-ballot-application assistance.
See ALA. CODE §§ 17-11-4(d)(1)–(2) (2025). The law also prohibits a
person from submitting an absentee-ballot application, other than
his own, to a county Absentee Election Manager. Id. § 17-11-
4(c)(2).
Plaintiffs are organizations that fear they will be prosecuted
under SB1 for absentee-ballot-application assistance they provide
to blind, disabled, and illiterate voters. They contend that Section
208 of the Voting Rights Act preempts SB1. Section 208 states that
“[a]ny voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness,
disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a
person of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or
agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.” 52
U.S.C. § 10508. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and prelim-
inarily enjoined the Alabama Attorney General from enforcing the
challenged provisions of SB1 with respect to blind, disabled, and
illiterate voters. Now, the Alabama Attorney General appeals that
order.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 3 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 3
But SB1 is not a very clear law. It contains several vague and
undefined terms, as well as what seem to be conflicting provisions.
Those include a provision that repeats nearly verbatim the text of
Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Without a single decision
from an Alabama state court interpreting the scope of the law, we
aren’t sure what conduct it criminalizes—though penalties for vio-
lating SB1 can be stiff: up to twenty years in prison and a $30,000
fine. But if the correct interpretation of the law creates no liability
for Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may lack an injury-in fact to establish stand-
ing.
So with respect for comity and federalism, we certify several
questions to the Alabama Supreme Court. These questions seek to
determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged that they seek to engage
in any conduct that SB1 prohibits. Because the Alabama Supreme
Court is the ultimate arbiter of state law—and its interpretation of
SB1 may resolve this election-law case—we respectfully certify the
questions below to the Alabama Supreme Court.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statutory Background
Alabama law generally permits absentee voting in only eight
limited scenarios. A voter must (1) be absent from her county on
Election Day; (2) be ill or have a physical disability that prevents her
from going to the polls; (3) be working a required shift of at least
ten hours during polling hours; (4) be a student at a school outside
her residential county, which prevents her from going to the polls;
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 4 of 30
4 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
(5) be a member of, or spouse or dependent of a member of, the
Armed Forces of the United States or similarly qualified to vote ab-
sentee under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Vot-
ing Act; (6) be an appointed election officer or poll watcher at a
polling place other than her regular polling place; (7) be a caregiver
for a family member, to the second degree of kinship, who is con-
fined to his home; or (8) be incarcerated in prison or jail, but not
convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. ALA. CODE § 17-
11-3(a) (2025).
Those who qualify to vote absentee, in general, must follow
several steps to apply to do so. First, a voter must obtain the absen-
tee-ballot application form, which they can (1) download online
and print, (2) receive in hard copy from the voter’s county Absentee
Election Manager; or (3) receive by mail after mailing a written re-
quest to the Absentee Election Manager. Ala. Sec’y of State, Absen-
tee Voting Information, https://perma.cc/TN8U-BRBG (last ac-
cessed Oct. 5, 2025). Second, after acquiring the absentee-ballot
application form, a voter must complete it and return it in hard
copy. See id. That requires filling out the form and providing a
printed copy of the voter’s photo ID. See id. And, finally, third, the
voter must submit the physical application packet to their Absentee
Election Manager in person or by mail or commercial carrier. ALA.
CODE § 17-11-4(c)(1) (2025). Once the Absentee Election Manager
approves the application, that Manager either mails or hands in per-
son the absentee ballot to the voter. Ala. Sec’y of State, Absentee
Voting Information, supra.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 5 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 5
In March 2024, the Alabama Legislature enacted SB1, codi-
fied at Alabama Code Section 17-11-4 (2025). The act, which the
Alabama Attorney General asserts “seeks to protect voters from
self-interested ballot harvesters . . . ,” places restrictions on the how
assistance on absentee-ballot applications may be provided. Plain-
tiffs challenge three subsections of SB1 here.
The first two are the Payment and Gift Provisions. Under
Alabama Code Section 17-11-4(d)(1), it is “unlawful for a third party
to knowingly receive a payment or gift for distributing, ordering,
requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or deliver-
ing a voter’s absentee ballot application.” This provision defines a
Class C Felony, so it carries a sentence of between one-year-and-
one-day’s and ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $15,000.
ALA. CODE §§ 13A-5-6(a)(3), 13A-5-11(a)(3), 17-11-4(d)(1) (2025).
For its part, Section 17-11-4(d)(2) separately makes it “unlawful for
a person to knowingly pay or provide a gift to a third party to dis-
tribute, order, request, collect, prefill, complete, obtain, or deliver
a voter’s absentee ballot application.” It is a Class B felony, exposing
the offender to a sentence of between two and twenty years’ im-
prisonment and a fine of up to $30,000. Id. §§ 13A-5-6(a)(2), 13A-5-
11(a)(2), 17-11-4(d)(2).
The third provision is the Submission Restriction. The Sub-
mission Restriction makes it “unlawful for an individual to submit
a completed absentee ballot application to the absentee election
manager other than his or her own application . . . .” Id. § 17-11-
4(c)(2). But it allows “an application for a voter who requires
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 6 of 30
6 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
emergency treatment by a licensed physician within five days be-
fore an election . . . [to] be submitted to the absentee election man-
ager by an individual designated by the applicant.” Id. Violation
of the Submission Restriction is a Class A Misdemeanor, subject to
penalties of imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to
$6,000. Id. §§ 13A-5-7(a)(1), 13A-5-12(a)(1); 2024 ALA. LAWS 33, § 2.
The Payment and Gift Provisions and the Submission Re-
striction have two additional exceptions. First, none applies in sit-
uations when Alabama Code Section 17-11-3(f ), which governs
states of emergencies, does. See id. §§ 17-11-4(c)(2) & (d)(1)–(2).
And second, under Section 17-11-4(f ), “[v]oters voting by absentee
ballot through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Vot-
ing Act are not subject to” the provisions.
SB1 also contains a provision to protect the rights of blind,
disabled, and illiterate voters. 1 Under Section 17-11-4(e), “[a]ny
voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disa-
bility, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by an
individual of the voter’s choice, other than the voter’s employer or
agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter’s union.”
This provision takes its cue directly from Section 208 of the Voting
Rights Act, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10508, which has identical lan-
guage except the term “an individual” is “a person” in that statute.
1 As this paragraph explains, both Alabama Code Section 17-11-4(e) and Sec-
tion 208 of the Voting Rights Act grant a right to assistance to a voter with an
“inability to read or write.” For ease of writing, this opinion sometimes refers
to those voters by the shorthand “illiterate.”
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 7 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 7
To date, we are unaware of any decision by an Alabama state
court interpreting any provision of SB1.
B. Plaintiffs
The case before us began with an action that five non-profit,
non-partisan organizations brought. These organizations have of-
ten assisted blind, disabled, and illiterate voters with absentee-bal-
lot applications (collectively “Plaintiffs”). They include the Greater
Birmingham Ministries (“GBM”), the Alabama State Conference of
the NAACP (“Alabama NAACP”), the League of Women Voters of
Alabama and League of Women Voters of Alabama Education
Fund (together “LWVAL”), and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy
Program (“ADAP”). We offer a brief explanation of the work of
each.
GBM describes itself as “a multi-faith, multi-racial, non-
profit membership organization that provides emergency services
to people in need and engages people to build a strong, supportive,
and engaged community and to build a more just society for all
people.” Established in 1969 during the Civil Rights Movement,
the organization primarily serves Birmingham and Jefferson Coun-
ties. There, it engages in voter education and assistance, including
around absentee-ballot applications. The organization does a lot
of work with eligible incarcerated voters who must vote by absen-
tee ballot.
The Alabama NAACP is the state conference of the Na-
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.
(“NAACP”), with members who include Black registered voters
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 8 of 30
8 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
who are senior citizens, disabled, and undereducated. The organi-
zation describes itself as “the oldest and most significant civil rights
organization in Alabama” with a “mission . . . to ensure the politi-
cal, educational, social, and economic equality of Black Americans
and all other Americans and to eliminate racial discrimination in
the democratic process.” The Alabama NAACP characterizes “vot-
ing and encouraging voting” as “foundational values,” so it engages
in absentee-ballot application assistance for blind, disabled, and il-
literate voters.
Founded in 1920 out of the Alabama Equal Suffrage Associ-
ation, LWVAL consists of a membership organization (and its edu-
cation fund) that “seek[s] to encourage the informed and active par-
ticipation of citizens in Alabama government through participation
in public policy and voting.” It views its work as “build[ing] on the
history of the women’s suffrage movement, which spurred [its] cre-
ation.” LWVAL’s members include voters who are over the age of
65 and disabled, and its work includes assisting these voters with
absentee-ballot applications.
Finally, ADAP is Alabama’s federally funded Protection and
Advocacy agency for people with disabilities. Part of a federal net-
work of these agencies established in 1974, its mission is to “pro-
vide legal advocacy services to protect and promote the civil rights,
well-being, and equality of opportunity for individuals with disabil-
ities, including in voting.” Every disabled Alabamian is a constitu-
ent of ADAP.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 9 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 9
For their work on voting, ADAP receives a federal grant
called the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Accessibility grant,
under Section 291 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L.
No. 107–252, 116 Stat. 1666, 1702–03. Because many disabled vot-
ers rely on absentee voting, ADAP uses these grant funds in large
part to assist individuals with absentee-ballot applications. ADAP
also works with staff at residential facilities and mental-health hos-
pitals that take care of individuals with disabilities.
Collectively, Plaintiffs assist blind, disabled, and illiterate vot-
ers with absentee ballots in several ways. On a broader scale, they
hold events to teach on the availability and rules for absentee vot-
ing, and they train individuals to assist voters with applications.
They also create and disseminate physical and online materials on
the availability and rules for absentee ballot.
On the individual level, Plaintiffs assist at every point in the
application process. When in contact with a voter, Plaintiffs inform
them about the option of absentee voting and answer any ques-
tions the voter has. When a voter decides to vote absentee, Plain-
tiffs help the voter obtain an absentee-ballot application. In this
respect, Plaintiffs send voters links to download the application and
help them access the internet as needed. And when offering in-
person assistance, Plaintiffs print applications and hand-out readily
available forms.
Once a voter has an absentee-ballot application, Plaintiffs
help them fill out the application if the voter needs assistance.
Plaintiffs provide voters with supplies to complete an application,
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 10 of 30
10 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
including pens and envelopes and stamps for later mailing. They
also give instructions on the mechanics of filling out the applica-
tion.
Besides these functions, Plaintiffs offer more involved assis-
tance. If a voter is unable to read the application, for example, be-
cause they are blind or have intellectual disabilities, Plaintiffs may
read the application out loud to the voter. Plaintiffs also explain the
meaning of any terms in the application that require a high level of
reading comprehension. And Plaintiffs walk the voter through the
application section by section to ensure they fill it out properly.
If the voter is physically unable to fill out the application,
sometimes because of mobility or dexterity issues, Plaintiffs pre-
pare the application at the voter’s direction. They also review the
completed application to ensure it contains no errors that would
prevent its acceptance.
Once an application form has been filled out, Plaintiffs assist
with the remainder of the submission process. They make photo-
copies of IDs that a voter must include with an application and
serve as witnesses for voters who sign the application with a mark.
also ensure proper submission to an Absentee Election Manager,
including by placing completed applications in the mail. And if
Plaintiffs are concerned that the voter’s legal rights have been vio-
lated at any point in this process, Plaintiffs may refer the voter to a
voting-rights attorney.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 11 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 11
Plaintiffs have both paid staff and volunteers who perform
these forms of assistance.2 Plaintiffs often provide snacks, other
food, and water to volunteers to sustain them during their work.
They have also given their volunteers gas stipends and branded ma-
terials for or in connection with their work. These items include t-
shirts, pens, buttons, bracelets, stickers, and voter educational ma-
terials. To further their mission, Plaintiffs train volunteers and give
them access to supplies necessary to assist voters, including enve-
lopes, pens, stamps, paper, printed absentee-ballot applications,
tents, tables, clipboards, printers, and postage.
Plaintiffs provide access to many of these listed things of
value to voters and individuals accompanying them when they re-
ceive assistance. And they have assisted with absentee-ballot appli-
cations in connection with other charitable services, including giv-
ing food, financial, and clothing assistance; providing donated ma-
terials for health and wellness, such as oxygen machines, walkers,
wheelchairs, and compression socks; and offering life assistance, in-
cluding help applying for jobs, expunging records, and treating
drug addiction.
C. The Lawsuit
In April 2024, Plaintiffs sued the Alabama Attorney General,
the Alabama Secretary of State, and 42 Alabama District Attorneys
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Al-
abama. They sought to secure preliminary and permanent
2 LWVAL has no paid employees or staff, but the remainder of Plaintiffs do.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 12 of 30
12 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
injunctions against enforcement of the Payment and Gift Provi-
sions and Submission Restriction. 3
Plaintiffs alleged that SB1 violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments
of 1982, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. With respect to
their Section 208 claim, Plaintiffs asserted that although Alabama
Code Section 17-11-4(e) “repeats the text of Section 208, it does not
obviate the unlawful restrictions placed by SB1 on the right of dis-
abled, blind, or illiterate voters . . . .” Specifically, Plaintiffs contend
that SB1 (1) doesn’t expressly state that engaging in conduct to as-
sist blind, disabled, or illiterate voters removes liability under the
Payment and Gift Provisions and Submission Restriction and (2)
doesn’t cite Section 208 or expressly incorporate its protections and
definitions. 4
In April 2024, the district court dismissed the District Attor-
neys for purposes of streamlining the action by agreement of the
parties. But the dismissal order provides that the District Attorneys
shall be bound by any injunctive, declaratory, or other non-
3 Plaintiffs also challenged Alabama Code Section 17-11-4(b)(2). That provi-
sion makes it “unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute an absentee
ballot application to a voter which is prefilled with the voter’s name or any
other information required on the application form.” The district court dis-
missed all claims against this provision, and it is not at issue in this appeal.
4 The complaint asserts that Alabama Code Section 17-11-4(d) repeats the text
of Section 208. This appears to be a clerical error, as only Alabama Code Sec-
tion 17-11-4(e) does so (though not identically).
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 13 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 13
monetary relief against the Alabama Attorney General and Secre-
tary of State.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction in early May,
and the Alabama Attorney General and Secretary of State moved
to dismiss later that month.
To support their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plain-
tiffs presented a transcript of Alabama legislative committee pro-
ceedings and declarations from representatives of their organiza-
tions. The declarations explained that Plaintiffs’ organizations,
their paid staff, and their volunteers risk criminal exposure from
SB1 and will have to forego their efforts to assist voters with their
absentee-ballot applications, including suspending the activities
we’ve mentioned. See Part I.B., supra. They also worried that dis-
abled Alabamians, all of whom are constituents of ADAP, may not
be able to obtain assistance because of criminal exposure for the
paid health aides and healthcare workers who treat them. And,
they said, eligible incarcerated voters may not be able to vote ab-
sentee if paid prison and jail officials and chaplains face criminal
liability.
Besides these materials, Plaintiffs also submitted declara-
tions by four disabled voters explaining how SB1 would interfere
with their ability to vote by absentee ballot. Louis G. Courie and
Terry Michael McKee, respectively, signed the first two. Courie is
an 83-year-old voter who had two strokes. His partner, McKee, is
76 years old and has Parkinson’s Disease. Their conditions have
rendered them homebound and have severely limited their
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 14 of 30
14 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
mobility and ability to perform major life activities. Courie and
McKee would have liked assistance from their neighbor of nearly
25 years who is a member of LWVAL and has assisted them in the
past. But they believed that neighbor was at risk of criminal liabil-
ity from SB1 because LWVAL has given her pens and t-shirts. They
thought that counted as a “gift” to assist with an absentee-ballot
application. Courie and McKee also believed their paid caregivers
could not help because the caregivers are “paid” to generally assist
them.
Lauren Faraino also submitted a declaration. Faraino has ar-
throgryposis multiplex congenita, a condition which has deprived
her of use of her arms. She can write with difficulty with her feet,
but it is impossible for her to put an absentee-ballot application in
an envelope or open a mailbox to send it. She would have liked
assistance from her mother to complete and submit the form, but
she planned not to vote absentee for fear of criminal exposure for
her mother. In the past, she has hired health aides and may again
in the future. And she expects they would assist her with an absen-
tee-ballot application if she did.
Eric Peebles provided the final declaration. Peebles has cer-
ebral palsy and quadriplegia. As a result, his control of his motor
skills is equivalent to that of an average nine-to-sixteen-month-old.
Peebles can’t hold a pen or physically complete a paper application.
In the past, ADAP has assisted him by sending him a link to the
application and helping him complete it. Peebles also requires as-
sistance to place the application in an envelope, seal it, affix a stamp,
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 15 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 15
and mail it. At the time of his declaration, he would have liked
ADAP to have assisted him with his absentee-ballot application.
And he would not ask his paid health attendants because he doesn’t
want to create criminal exposure for them.
On August 21, 2024, after a hearing and supplemental brief-
ing, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part the motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court granted the
motion to dismiss as to all counts but Plaintiffs’ Section 208 claim.
As part of its ruling, the court also concluded that the Alabama At-
torney General was the only proper party defendant and dismissed
the Secretary of State.
The court offered an extensive analysis of the Section 208
claim in its order addressing the motion to dismiss. Characterizing
Plaintiffs’ Section 208 challenge as a “classic conflict preemption
claim,” the court concluded that a presumption exists against
preemption of state laws in “areas of traditional state responsibil-
ity . . . such as the regulation of parties, elections, and bal-
lots . . . absent a clear statement to the contrary.” The Court relied
on a Senate Judiciary Committee Report that provides that “[s]tate
provisions would be preempted only to the extent that they unduly
burden the right recognized in this section, with that determination
being a practical one dependent upon the facts.” S. Rep. No. 97-417
at 63.
Turning to the provisions of SB1 at issue, the court found
that Section 208 preempted the Submission Restriction because the
Submission Restriction unduly burdened the right by
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 16 of 30
16 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
“criminaliz[ing] the act of returning anyone else’s absentee ballot
application,” with “no exception made for blind, disabled, or illit-
erate voters” and thereby unduly burdening their right to voting
assistance. Then, the court also found that the Plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that the Payment and Gift Provisions unduly burden a
voter’s right to “assistance by a person of their choice.” These pro-
visions do so, the court reasoned, by, among other things, restrict-
ing the ability of organizations with paid employees and volunteers
who receive things of value to assist blind, disabled, and illiterate
absentee voters.
About a month after ruling on the motion to dismiss and
one-and-a-half months before the 2024 election, the district court
entered an order preliminarily enjoining the Alabama Attorney
General from enforcing the Payment and Gift Provisions and the
Submission Restriction with respect to blind, disabled, and illiterate
voters.
The Alabama Attorney General now appeals the grant of
the preliminary injunction to Plaintiffs.5
5 The same day the district granted the motion for a preliminary injunction,
the Alabama Attorney General moved for a stay pending appeal. The district
court denied that motion, and the Alabama Attorney General moved for a stay
pending appeal in our court. We similarly denied that motion, holding that
the Alabama Attorney General “ha[d] not made a strong showing that he [was]
likely to succeed on the merits, . . . [the Alabama Attorney General] w[ould]
not be irreparably harmed if a stay [were] denied, the issuance of a stay would
injure the plaintiffs (and other Section 208 voters), and the public interest d[id]
not weigh in favor of a stay.”
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 17 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 17
II. DISCUSSION
The Alabama Attorney General challenges the district
court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. He argues that Plaintiffs
have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of
their claim that Section 208 preempts the Payment and Gift Provi-
sions and the Submission Restriction. Nor, the Alabama Attorney
General contends, have Plaintiffs shown they will suffer an irrepa-
rable harm without an injunction. Ordinarily, we would review
that challenge to the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunc-
tion for abuse of discretion. Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d
1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2020).
But we decline to reach those questions at this stage of the
appeal for two reasons.
First, we first seek to confirm that we, in fact, have authority
to answer them. After listening to the parties’ positions at oral ar-
gument, we’re unclear about whether SB1 precludes Plaintiffs
from engaging in any of their desired activities. If it doesn’t, we
lack jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit in its
current form. And we have an independent duty to figure this issue
out before reaching the merits, even if no party raises it. See
FW/PBS Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230–31 (1990) (“Alt-
hough neither side raises the issue here, we are required to address
[standing] even if the courts below have not passed on it, and even
if the parties fail to raise the issue before us. The federal courts are
under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction,
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 18 of 30
18 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
and standing is perhaps the most important of the jurisdictional
doctrines.” (cleaned up)).
Second, we cannot assess the district court’s conclusion that
that SB1 “unduly burdens” the right provided by Section 208 with-
out first understanding what SB1 prohibits as a matter of state law.
For their part, the parties strongly disagree on the scope of SB1’s
prohibitions. The Attorney General argues that SB1 is a limited
measure that, among other things, includes an exception to the
Submission Restriction for disabled voters, allows a disabled voter
to “choose and receive assistance from his paid caregivers,” and
does not prohibit a voter from paying anyone for help or giving a
gift to a helper. The Plaintiffs argue that SB1 is a far-reaching re-
striction and the Attorney General’s limited reading is not con-
sistent with the text of the statute.
Based on the parties’ arguments, we’re not sure whether and
how SB1 creates criminal exposure for any of Plaintiff’s conduct or
any other form of assistance to blind, disabled, and illiterate voters.
Several disputed points stand out about the text of SB1, and we
have no decision from any Alabama court clarifying them. So in
this discussion, we first explain our concerns about the meaning of
SB1. Then, we certify several questions to the Alabama Supreme
Court.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 19 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 19
A. Ambiguity in SB1
In reviewing the text of SB1, four major points stand out. As
a result of these sticking points, we are not sure what conduct SB1
actually criminalizes.
1. The Meaning of Section 17-11-4(e)
First, it’s not clear what effect Section 17-11-4(e), which
guarantees that blind, disabled, and illiterate voters may receive as-
sistance from an individual of their choice, has on the scope of the
Payment and Gift Provisions and the Submission Restriction. The
Alabama Attorney General argues that Section 17-11-4(e) implicitly
exempts assistors of blind, disabled, and illiterate voters from crim-
inal liability from the Submission Restriction. But he still reads as-
sistors of blind, disabled, and illiterate voters to be subject to crim-
inal liability if they violate the Payment and Gift Provisions. And
it’s not clear how or why Section 17-11-4(e) would carve out an
exemption from one part of SB1 and not the other if either stood
as an obstacle to a blind, disabled, or illiterate voter receiving their
right to assistance.
We may be able to read Section 17-11-4(e) as a catch-all term
to ensure blind, disabled, and illiterate voters have access to the as-
sistor of their choice. But we think it would have to apply to all
three provisions at issue. That reading would avoid even an inkling
of conflict between the Payment and Gift Provisions and the Sub-
mission Restriction, on one hand, and Section 17-11-4(e), on the
other. Cf. ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW: THE
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 20 of 30
20 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 180 (2012) (“[T]here can be no
justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if they
can be interpreted harmoniously.”).
On the flip side, Plaintiffs argue Section 17-11-4(e) does not
create an exemption from either the Payment and Gift Provisions
or the Submission Restriction. To begin, Section 17-11-4(e) guar-
antees a right of assistance to “any [blind, disabled, or illiterate]
voter,” but not any right to a person to assist. So the provision
might exempt the voter who receives assistance from prosecution
for that assistance. But it does not expressly say anything about
liability for the “assistor” himself. So an “assistor” could be liable
for helping a blind, disabled, or illiterate voter, even if that assistor
is the assistor of the voter’s choice. After all, presumably, an assis-
tor could not violate another part of Alabama law to “assist” a
blind, disabled, or illiterate voter. An incarcerated person does not
get to break out of jail to assist a blind, disabled, or illiterate voter.
And the Payment and Gift Provisions separately criminalize paying
someone for assistance (an action a voter would take) and receiving
payment for assistance (an action an assistor would take). See ALA.
CODE §§ 17-11-4(d)(1)–(2) (2025).
Plus, the Submission Restriction and Payment and Gift Pro-
visions have undisputed exceptions that look very different from
Section 17-11-4(e). The Submission Restriction contains three ex-
press exceptions: it does not apply in states of emergency, to voters
subject to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act, and for voters who require emergency treatment within five
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 21 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 21
days of an election. See id. §§ 17-11-4(c)(2) & (f). The former two
exceptions apply to the Payment and Gift Provisions as well. See
id. §§ 17-11-4(d)(1)–(2) & (f). But Section 17-11-4(e) does not ex-
pressly exempt anyone from any part of SB1.
2. The Meaning of “Distributing, Ordering, Requesting, Collect-
ing, Completing, Prefilling, Obtaining, or Delivering”
A second point about the text of SB1 warrants clarification:
SB1 does not criminalize all forms of absentee-ballot application
“assistance,” only a subset of conduct. The Submission Restriction
bars only “submit[ting] a completed absentee ballot application to
the absentee election manager other than [one’s] own application.”
At the same time, the Payment and Gift Provisions prohibit only
giving or receiving payment or gifts for “distributing, ordering, re-
questing, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering
a voter’s absentee ballot application.” See ALA. CODE §§ 17-11-
4(d)(1)–(2) (2025). The statute defines none of these verbs, and it’s
not clear whether they encompass the full gamut of absentee-ballot
application “assistance.”
Plaintiffs express concern that all their conduct—from hold-
ing events informing voters about absentee voting to filling out ap-
plications at a blind, disabled, or illiterate voter’s direction to plac-
ing completed applications in the mail—runs headfirst into the Pay-
ment and Gift Provisions. And certainly the district court shared
their concern. But it’s not clear to us whether any or all of Plain-
tiffs’ intended conduct counts as “distributing, ordering,
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 22 of 30
22 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or deliver-
ing” an application.
3. The Meaning of “Payment” and “Gift”
We are similarly uncertain about a third point about the
text: we have substantial doubt as to what counts as “knowingly
receiv[ing] a payment or gift for” engaging or “knowingly pay[ing]
or provid[ing] a gift to” engage in this prohibited conduct. See id.
§§ 17-11-4(d)(1)–(2). For example, the parties dispute whether the
Payment and Gift Provisions categorically bar a paid health aide or
healthcare worker from assisting his patient with an absentee-bal-
lot application. Such an aide generally receives a wage or salary for
assisting his charge in many ways. One way might include assisting
the voter with an absentee-ballot application. If so, under SB1, that
health aide may then receive money “for” the absentee-ballot-ap-
plication assistance he provides.
That the statute attaches criminal liability for “knowingly”
providing or receiving a payment tends to support that reading.
Under Alabama law, “[a] person acts knowingly with respect to
conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an of-
fense when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the
circumstance exists.” Id. § 13A-2-2(2) (emphasis added). So a per-
son who pays or receives a wage may act “knowingly” if he is aware
that the duties that wage encompasses include application assis-
tance.
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 23 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 23
At the same time, the Alabama Attorney General argues that
a paid health aide may assist a patient with an absentee-ballot ap-
plication, as long as she doesn’t receive a “bonus” for that assis-
tance. If he’s right about that, then only when the voter or some-
one on his behalf makes a separate payment to the health aide for
the specific purpose of compensating assistance in the absentee-bal-
lot application process does a person act “knowingly” and a pay-
ment is considered “for” assistance.
We have similar questions about the meaning of giving or
receiving a “gift for” absentee-ballot application assistance. See id.
§§ 17-11-4(d)(1)–(2). The statute offers no definition of the term
“gift,” and we are aware of no Alabama authority identifying the
word as a term of art. Plaintiffs list several different things of
value—from food and water to branded t-shirts to the very supplies
an assistor uses to assist with an absentee-ballot application—that
could plausibly be construed as “gifts.” And if these items can be
“gifts,” we are not certain what counts as having given or received
them “for” assistance or “to” assist with an absentee-ballot applica-
tion. For example, the parties dispute whether Courie and McKee
may lawfully obtain assistance from their neighbor who has previ-
ously received t-shirts and pens from LWVAL.
4. The Meaning of “Third Party”
Fourth and finally, the Payment and Gift Provisions don’t
criminalize giving a “person,” or a “person[’s]” receiving, payment
or a gift for absentee-ballot-application assistance. Instead, they
criminalize only activities where a “third party” receives the
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 24 of 30
24 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
payment or gift. See id. But the statute doesn’t define the meaning
of “third party,” and we’re not sure what it encompasses. We have
questions about whether paid health aides and healthcare workers,
staff and volunteers of Plaintiffs’ organizations, and prison or jail
officials count as “third part[ies]” subject to the Payment and Gift
Provisions’ prohibitions.
***
All these points of ambiguity in the text leave us uncertain
of the scope of SB1. And as we’ve noted, no Alabama state court
decisions elucidate any of these areas of concern. As for the Ala-
bama Attorney General’s position, that may help us reach the right
answer, but “an [Alabama] attorney general’s opinion is only advi-
sory; it is not binding on [the Alabama Supreme] Court and does
not have the effect of law.” Health Care Auth. for Baptist Health v.
Cent. Ala. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 292 So. 3d 623, 635 (Ala. 2019)
(citation omitted). So we have no binding authority to guide us on
the meaning of this major piece of Alabama election law.
B. Certified Questions
Rather than stumble around in the dark, we humbly ask the
Alabama Supreme Court to turn on the lights. “When faced with
substantial doubt on a dispositive state law issue, our ‘better option
is to certify the question to the state supreme court.’” WM Mobile
Bay Env’t Ctr., Inc. v. City of Mobile Solid Waste Auth., 972 F.3d 1240,
1251 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Mooney, 812 F.3d 1276, 1283
(11th Cir. 2016)). “[A]s a matter of federalism and comity,
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 25 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 25
dispositive issues of Alabama law should be first presented to the
Alabama Supreme Court to decide.” Id.
So we certify the following four questions to the Alabama
Supreme Court under Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 18:
1) The meaning of Subsection (e): Does Alabama Code
Section 17-11-4(e) create an exception to the prohibitions
in Alabama Code Section 17-11-4(c) and/or (d)? More
specifically, for each of the provisions, does Section 17-
11-4(3) immunize from criminal liability (1) a person who
gives assistance to a blind, illiterate, or disabled person;
(2) a person who receives assistance; and/or (3) the per-
son who pays or gives a gift to a person who gives assis-
tance? If so, what is the extent of that exception?
2) The scope of prohibited conduct: Does any of the following
count as “distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, com-
pleting, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering” an absentee bal-
lot application under the Payment and Gift Provisions:
a) Giving the voter a copy of an absentee-ballot ap-
plication
b) Providing the voter with a pen, envelope, or
stamps to fill out and submit an absentee-ballot ap-
plication
c) Informing the voter about the option of and rules
for absentee voting
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 26 of 30
26 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
d) Answering questions on the availability of and
rules for absentee voting
e) Creating or giving to (or both) the voter physical
materials that include information on applying for
and voting by absentee ballot
f) Creating or sending to (or both) the voter online
materials that provide information on applying for
and voting by absentee ballot
g) Printing an absentee-ballot application
h) Sending to the voter a link to an absentee-ballot
application
i) Helping the voter access the internet to download
an absentee-ballot application
j) Providing instructions to the voter for how to fill
out an absentee-ballot application
k) Reading out loud to the voter the absentee-ballot-
application requirements
l) Helping the voter fill out their absentee-ballot ap-
plication, including but not limited to by walking
the voter through the application section by sec-
tion to ensure they are completing the form accu-
rately
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 27 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 27
m) Physically filling out an absentee-ballot applica-
tion for the voter at the voter’s direction
n) Explaining the meaning of complex terms in an
absentee-ballot application
o) Serving as a witness for the voter submitting an
absentee-ballot application signed with a mark
p) Making a copy of the voter’s ID to complete their
absentee-ballot application
q) Looking over the voter’s absentee-ballot applica-
tion to correct any errors
r) Submitting an absentee-ballot application on the
voter’s behalf to an Absentee Election Manager
s) Putting the voter’s absentee-ballot application in
an envelope, sealing it, and adding postage.
t) Placing the voter’s absentee-ballot application in
the mailbox
u) Referring the voter to a voting-rights attorney
when it appears their right to vote absentee has
been violated
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 28 of 30
28 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
v) Holding an event to educate on the availability
and rules for absentee voting and assist with ab-
sentee-ballot applications
w) Training individuals to assist the voter with their
absentee-ballot application
3) The meaning of “payment” and “third party”: The Attor-
ney General argues that employees who are paid to assist
voters generally, such as healthcare workers, may assist vot-
ers in filling out absentee ballot applications or delivering
those applications despite the prohibitions in (c) and (d)
“[u]nless they get a bonus for absentee ballot application ser-
vices.” Does an employee with GBM, the Alabama NAACP,
or ADAP, a voter’s health aide or healthcare worker, or a
prison or jail official, face criminal liability if they assist a
voter in completing or delivering an absentee ballot applica-
tion as part of their job? Does the person or organization
who pays them, including the voter herself, face criminal li-
ability if the person knows that the employee, health
worker, or prison/jail official is likely to assist the voter in
completing or delivering the absentee ballot application?
Does the ADAP federal grant create criminal liability under
these provisions?
4) The meaning of “gift”: Does a volunteer with GBM, the
Alabama NAACP, LWVAL, or ADAP, who receives snacks,
other food, or water; gas stipends; branded items or supplies
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 29 of 30
24-13111 Opinion of the Court 29
that may be useful for their volunteer work, in exchange for,
in connection with, or during their volunteer work, face
criminal liability if they “distribute, order, request, collect,
prefill, complete, obtain, or deliver” an absentee ballot appli-
cation? Does the person or organization who provides the
individuals with these items face criminal liability?
Depending on the answer to these questions, one or more
of the Plaintiffs may have failed to establish that they face a credible
threat of prosecution from SB1. If the Alabama Supreme Court
elects to exercise its discretion and answer our questions, its hold-
ing will be “conclusive” on these points. Edwards v. Kia Motors of
Am., Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 945 (11th Cir. 2009).
Still, as always when we certify questions to the Alabama Su-
preme Court, these questions are “intended only as a guide.” United
States v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 1131, 1133 (11th Cir. 2015). “We do not
mean to restrict the Alabama Supreme Court's consideration of the
issues or its scope of inquiry.” W.M. Mobile Bay Env’t Ctr., Inc., 972
F.3d at 1251. And, of course, “[t]he Alabama Supreme Court may,
as it perceives them, restate the issues and modify the manner in
which the answers are given.” Id. We hope that “if we have over-
looked or mischaracterized any state law issues or inartfully stated
any of the questions we have posed . . . the Alabama Supreme
Court will feel free to make the necessary corrections.” Spain v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 230 F.3d 1300, 1312 (11th Cir.
2000).
USCA11 Case: 24-13111 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 12/15/2025 Page: 30 of 30
30 Opinion of the Court 24-13111
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we defer our decision in this case
until the Alabama Supreme Court has had the opportunity to con-
sider our certified questions and determine whether to exercise its
discretion in answering them. The entire record of this case, in-
cluding the parties’ briefs, is transmitted to the Alabama Supreme
Court.
QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.