3. Jocelyn Heredia

Plaintiff Jocelyn Heredia grew up in Banks County. Tr. 540:16–21 Her family is originally from El Salvador, and both of her parents have become citizens since coming to the United States. Tr. 541:3–9. She has a younger brother who she has helped care for over the course of his adolescence and her adult life. Tr. 541:10–17.

Heredia graduated from University of Georgia in 2019 and took an internship in Atlanta following graduation. Tr. 543:7–12. During this internship, Heredia lived in Alpharetta, Georgia, and commuted to Atlanta for work. Tr. 543:13–22. She would frequently return to Banks County on weekends and holidays to be with her family. Tr. 543:23–544:1. This internship eventually led to a one-year contract of employment, and so she obtained an apartment in Decatur, Georgia, with a lease beginning in February 2020. Tr. 544:2–545:23. Heredia filed a National Change of Address when she moved to her Decatur apartment, but did not update her car registration, her driver’s license, or her voter registration because she “still considered Commerce or Banks County to be [her] home.” Tr. 545:16–546:11. Heredia continued to travel frequently between Decatur and Banks County. Tr. 546:9–10. Her doctors and other appointments also largely remained in Banks County. Tr. 573:18–20. Once the Covid-19 pandemic arose, Heredia spent even more time in Banks County and, in 2020, would have considered it to have been her permanent residence. Tr. 547:5–14.

Heredia eventually obtained a full contract of employment and signed a new lease in Atlanta, Georgia. Tr. 567:3–25. The following year she moved to another unit in the same apartment building. Tr. 568:20–23. Heredia “understand[s]” that these moves may make it confusing for someone to determine her residency and that someone may even reasonably assume she lived in Atlanta. Tr. 571:21–3, 591:19–592:7. She maintains that even as of the date of her trial testimony she is “still back and forth with Banks County” and spends “weeks at a time” in Banks County. Tr. 572:7–9. Nevertheless, there is no documentation of her submitting a change of address back to Banks County after February 2020. Tr. 574:5–19.

Heredia considers voting to be “very important” to her. Tr. 547:18. She consistently voted in elections from 2016 to 2020. Tr. 547:25–548:5. When voting in the Senate runoff election, however Heredia waited in line for 30-45 minutes before being told that she had been challenged as a voter. Tr. 548:16–549:7. A poll worker was unable to explain what the challenge meant but indicated that Heredia was required to provide additional papers confirming her address in Banks County. Tr. 549:2–7. Heredia had this documentation in her car and was able to provide it to the poll worker after waiting in line again. Tr. 549:13–550:7. While waiting to vote the second time, Heredia experienced stress and nervousness about whether her mail would be accepted. Tr. 549:18–23. The poll workers made a copy of her additional documentation and allowed her to vote via paper ballot. Tr. 550:1–7. A poll worker stood next to Heredia while she voted and she did not “feel[ ] like it was a private experience.” Tr. 550:8–11. It took Heredia several hours to vote in the Senate runoff election and required her to later “recollect[ ]” herself. Tr. 550:20–25. She has not voted in an election since. Tr. 555:13–18.

No one screamed, threatened, or coerced Heredia while she was at the polling place. Tr. 588:9–14. Heredia does admit that she had been uncomfortable in the polling place prior to discovering that she had been challenged. Tr. 584:10–25. She specifically describes her reaction to discovering she was a challenged voter as “confused.” Tr. 551:1–9. She did not know if she was being accused of committing a crime and was not given information about the basis or substance of the challenge against her. Tr. 551:1–9. She attributes her nervousness to having “jump through the hoops” to vote while others did not. Tr. 585:21–24. She also testified that the poll watcher standing close to her while she cast her ballot increased her stress and that she kept wondering if she was “going to get in trouble for voting.” Tr. 586:16–20. Plaintiffs elicited no testimony about who this poll worker was or why the poll worker reacted in this manner.

Heredia also learned after she had voted that her name had been published on the Banks County website as a challenged voter. Tr. 552:1–7. In fact, her name appeared twice, as she had been being challenged once by Jerry Boling10 and once by Dan Gasaway, neither of whom she has any familiarity with or has ever met. Tr. 554:10–555:1, 587:24–588:2. She furthermore cannot connect either Boling or Gasaway to any of the Defendants.11 Tr. 588:3–8. She describes her reaction to her name being published as “kind of . . . scared” because she was, again, afraid of being in trouble for trying to vote. Tr. 555:4–12. In sum, she was “scared, nervous, and [ ] wanted to know more about why [her] name was on the list.” Tr. 555:11–12.

Heredia could not name any of the Defendants in this case. Tr. 582:15–23. She has not spoken with or had any direct communication with any Defendant. Tr 582:24–583:4. She nevertheless believes that Defendants are the reason that she was challenged as a voter. Tr. 582:22–23.

In sum, the Court generally finds Heredia’s testimony to be credible and that she was testifying truthfully about her experience and perceptions as a challenged voter.12 The Court thus considers her testimony in reaching its legal conclusions infra.