216 F. Supp. 3d 597
M.D.N.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (three individual voters and three voter-registration organizations) sued North Carolina officials alleging violations of Sections 5 and 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) for failing to provide or transmit voter-registration services in DMV (motor-voter) and public-assistance contexts.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a preliminary injunction before the 2016 general election; Defendants moved to dismiss.
- Key factual allegations: (1) several voters cast provisional ballots in 2014 that were not counted after DMV transactions; (2) Organizational Plaintiffs allege systematic noncompliance at DHHS/public-assistance offices (field investigations, aggregate statistics); and (3) DMV had transmission gaps and did not offer NVRA-compliant online services until 2016.
- Procedural posture: District Court considered motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion; Denied dismissal motions and granted in part / denied in part the preliminary injunction.
- Relief ordered (narrow, time-sensitive): court required limited prospective relief protecting certain provisional voters tied to in-person DMV transactions and enforcement of DMV’s written-declination policy; broader mailing and mandatory interim procedures were denied as impracticable or beyond scope for preliminary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Individuals) | Individuals were denied the effective right to vote in 2014 and face future risk from DMV noncompliance, so they seek prospective relief | Strach: Individuals have since registered, so no ongoing injury or redressable prospective injury; moot | Individuals plausibly alleged injury and reasonable expectation of recurrence; standing sustained for preliminary-injunction posture |
| Organizational standing | Orgs diverted scarce resources to remedial registration work (Havens theory) due to state noncompliance | Strach: Allegations speculative/on information and belief; lack causal linkage to DMV/DHHS offices | Organizations alleged diversion of resources with supporting declarations; standing sustained except for a thin disclosure-specific claim where causation was not shown |
| Scope of NVRA (remote transactions) | NVRA’s use of "each" and "any" makes Sections 5 and 7 apply to remote (online/mail/telephone) as well as in‑person transactions | Defendants: statutory language ("office" and Section 4) limits coverage to in‑person, physical office transactions | Court held Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits that Sections 5 and 7 cover remote as well as in‑person transactions (for preliminary‑injunction standard) |
| Treatment of blank voter-preference forms under §7 | Plaintiffs: a failure to check either box is not a written declination; agencies must still provide a registration form though assistance may be excused | Defendants: blank forms constitute a written declination and relieve agency of providing the form | Court adopted the Valdez approach: failure to check is not a written declination for §7(a)(6)(A); orgs likely to succeed on this claim |
| Pre‑suit NVRA notice (§20510) | Organizational Notice (May 8, 2015) gave statewide data and field findings showing systemic noncompliance and offered cooperation | Defendants: notice lacked office-specific particulars, so insufficient to enable cure within 90 days | Court found the Notice sufficient to satisfy NVRA’s pre‑suit notice requirement for §7 at the preliminary stage |
| Preliminary relief requested (mailings, interim procedures, counting provisional ballots) | Plaintiffs sought broad mailings to affected DMV and DHHS clients, interim procedures for remote transactions, and an order counting provisional ballots linked to DMV transactions | Defendants: relief is impracticable before election, retrospective, Eleventh Amendment concerns, and administratively burdensome | Court denied broad mailings and mandatory interim procedures as impracticable/retrospective; granted narrow, prospective relief protecting provisional voters who attest to in‑person DMV registration and for whom no written declination exists, and ordered enforcement of DMV’s written‑declination policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir.) (NVRA reflects voting as a fundamental right)
- Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997) (NVRA statutory framework and motor‑voter background)
- Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir.) (injury to statutory voting rights can support standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing via diversion of resources)
- National Coal. for Students with Disabilities Educ. & Legal Def. Fund v. Allen, 152 F.3d 283 (4th Cir.) (interpretation of "office" under NVRA and expansive reading of "all offices")
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (official‑capacity suits for prospective relief against state officers exception to Eleventh Amendment)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)