2. Scott Berson

In 2020, Plaintiff Scott Berson was a Muscogee County voter who was challenged in the Georgia Senate runoff election.7 Tr. 97:1–2. Berson had lived in Georgia since 1999 (Tr. 82:7–8) but, at the time of the Senate runoff election, he was attending graduate school at Auburn University in Alabama. Tr. 87:14–21. Part of the reason he chose to attend Auburn University was its proximity to his home in Georgia, which he frequently visited while attending Auburn. Tr. 88:9–13, 91:18–21. While at Auburn, Berson maintained his Georgia driver license, car registration, and voter registration. Tr. 89:1–23; see also Tr. 90:23–25 (“[I]t never crossed my mind. I always considered myself a Georgian, and a Columbusite is how they say it. I never intended to become an Alabama resident.”). He did change his mailing address to his apartments in Alabama (Tr. 89:24–90:1), but always intended to return to Muscogee County once he completed his studies (Tr. 93:2–6).

Berson voted in the 2020 primary and general elections without incident. Tr. 92:9–16. He planned to and eventually attempted to vote in-person for the Senate runoff election. Tr. 95:13–17. Prior to voting in the Senate runoff election, Berson read a news article about voter challenges for people with out-of-state mailing addresses. Tr. 95:21–96:23. He later received a phone call from a “community organizing group” informing him that he had been challenged as a Muscogee County voter. Tr. 97:4–15. Learning that he was a challenged voter “overwhelmed” and “discouraged” him. Tr. 97:20–21. In his words, “it was intimidating to me to be told that somebody had accused me of doing something wrong.” Tr. 97:24–25. Berson was unable to remember who called him and cannot connect this phone call to any Defendant. Tr. 116:5–21. Nor could he connect Alton Russell, who submitted the Section 230 challenge against him, to Defendants. Tr. 112:9–15.

He subsequently went to vote in-person for the runoff election. While he typically voted in-person, he also thought that it would be easier to deal with his voter challenge face-to-face. Tr. 98:17–99:8. When Berson went to vote, he was pulled out of line and taken aside to fill out a provisional ballot because of the voter challenge. Tr. 99:11–15. This treatment made him feel “othered” and “isolate[ed].” 8 Tr. 99:21–22. He then had to submit several pieces of documentation in support of his Muscogee County residency, which was “actually quite difficult to find” given that he was temporarily living in Alabama. Tr. 100:14–101:13. He eventually submitted his driver’s license and an insurance bill to officially cast his ballot.9 Tr. 100:11–13. The whole process of finding additional documentation took “several hours.” Tr. 128:3–10. Berson testified that his chaotic personal circumstances only amplified the frustrations and difficulty of the experience. Tr. 93:5–8, 102:1–4.

The Court accepts Berson’s testimony regarding the difficulty of finding additional documentation to show his residency in Muscogee County. Berson credibly testified that he had moved his mailing address for many reoccurring payments to Alabama. Tr. 174:15–20 (“Over the years, many of [the accounts’ (e.g., car loan, bank accounts, cell phone)] [mailing addresses] had been changed to Alabama. The mailing address is on the official documents that were being sent so that I could receive them. It did originate in Muscogee County, yes.”).

Throughout the “ordeal of being challenged, no Defendant contacted Berson, nor did he speak knowingly with any of them. Tr. 104:6–105:22. The only Defendant that Berson could name was True the Vote. Tr. 104:13–17. Berson suggested that he thought his voter challenge was the reason he had to submit additional proof of his residency (beyond his driver’s license), but he did not “have further information [that] [any Defendant] directly in that way caused anything.” Tr. 110:4–11. The Court finds it to be significant that Berson candidly admitted that he would not have sued anyone had someone not approached him about it. Tr. 137:18–23, 138:1–7, 139:14–20.

The Court ultimately finds Berson’s testimony to be credible in recounting his experience as a challenged Georgia voter. Berson’s testimony was largely consistent and his perceptions were reasonable.