"Brnovich called into question the usefulness of some of the Gingles factors in evaluating a vote denial claim under § 2 of the VRA and offered alternate factors that a court may consider." United States v. Georgia, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1252 n.5 (N.D. Ga. 2021); see also Sixth Dist. of Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (including a similar discussion about Brnovich's greater relevance to vote denial claims under Section 2 of the VRA). Regulating voter registration and poll access is more akin to counting and collecting votes in Brnovich than to reapportionment and voter dilution in Gingles.

However, “two distinct types of discriminatory practices and procedures are covered under section 2: those that result in ‘vote denial' and those that result in ‘vote dilution.'” Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1196 (11th Cir. 1999). See Sixth Dist. Of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1273 n.9 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 9, 2021) (“VRA § 2 claims generally constitute allegations of vote dilution (e.g., challenges to election districting schemes) or vote denial (e.g., challenges to time, place or manner restrictions in voting)); People First of Ala. v. Merrill, 491 F.Supp.3d 1076, 1167 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2020) (“A plaintiff may file two types of cases under Section 2: vote denial/abridgement and vote dilution” (citation omitted)).

Denial of the statutory right to vote under Section 101 is complete when a particular application or carrier envelope is rejected; an opportunity to cure the rejection, submit another application, or cancel a mail ballot does not negate the denial of the statutory right to vote. See La Unión del Pueblo Entero, 604 F. Supp. 3d at 541; see also Vote.org v. Ga. State Election Bd., No. 1:22-cv-1734, 661 F.Supp.3d 1329, 1339 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2023) (rejecting the "argument that the opportunity to cure an error rehabilitates any potential violation"); Sixth Dist. of Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1282 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (same). Recycling arguments that were already rejected at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the State Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants insist that Sections 5.07 and 5.13 do not violate the Materiality Provision because they do not deny the right to vote.

See La Union del Pueblo Entero, 604 F.Supp.3d at 541; see also Vote.org v. Ga. State Election Bd., No. 1:22-cv-1734, 2023 WL 2432011, at *7 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 9, 2023) (rejecting the “argument that the opportunity to cure an error rehabilitates any potential violation”); Sixth Dist. of Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1282 (N.D.Ga. 2021) (same).

However, as the Court explained in its prior orders denying County Defendants' motions to dismiss, County Defendants must enforce S.B. 202 and "are 'responsible for the day-to-day operations of running elections' in their respective counties." E.g., Sixth Dist. of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1272 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (citation omitted). Therefore, County Defendants' traceability and redressability arguments lack merit.

52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B). See Respondents' Br. at 49 (citing La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, No. 5:21-CV-0844-XR, 2022 WL 1651215 at *21 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2022); Sixth Dist. of Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, 574 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1282 (N.D.Ga. 2021); Martin v. Crittenden, 347 F.Supp.3d 1302, 1308-09 (N.D.Ga. 2018); League of Women Voters of Ark. v. Thurston, No. 5:20-CV-05174, 2021 WL 5312640 at *4 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 15, 2021)); see also Common Cause v. Thomsen, 574 F.Supp.3d 634, 636 (W.D. Wis. 2021) ("[T]he text of § 10101(a)(2)(B) isn't limited to race discrimination or voter registration.").

52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B).See Respondents’ Br. at 49 (citing La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott , 604 F.Supp.3d 512, 540 (W.D. Tex. 2022) ; Sixth Dist. of Afr. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp , 574 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1282 (N.D. Ga. 2021) ; Martin v. Crittenden , 347 F.Supp.3d 1302, 1308-09 (N.D. Ga. 2018) ; League of Women Voters of Ark. v. Thurston , No. 5:20-CV-05174, 2021 WL 5312640 at *4 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 15, 2021) ); see also Common Cause v. Thomsen , 574 F.Supp.3d 634, 636 (W.D. Wis. 2021) ("[T]he text of § 10101(a)(2)(B) isn't limited to race discrimination or voter registration."). III. Analysis