The defendants submitted the testimony of Frances Duncan, Director of Elections for the State of Georgia. Witness Duncan testified that the State has an interest in ensuring that the polling places of the state are “safe havens” in which the electors can exercise the franchise without hindrance or coercion. Indeed, the court agrees that this is a legitimate if not a compelling state interest. However, the court also concludes that the statute, with its 250 foot boundary, may be unconstitutionally overbroad to the extent that less restrictive means could have been used to serve the state's interests. A boundary which precluded solicitation near the entrances and exits of the polling places, thereby protecting the voting lines from congestion or undue disruption, but which permitted solicitation in other adjacent yet somewhat less proximate places, might perhaps pass constitutional muster.
Such a statute, carefully drafted to protect the rights of the speakers while furthering the state's legitimate interests, is not before the court today.
Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff will prevail on these issues at a final hearing.
See Calloway v. Block, 763 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir.1985) (where the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction is fully articulated).