American Civil Rights Union v. Philadelphia City Commissioners
872 F.3d 175
3rd Cir.2017Background
- ACRU, a nonprofit focused on voter-roll integrity, notified Philadelphia City Commissioners in 2016 that they were failing to purge ineligible voters (specifically people incarcerated for felony convictions) in violation of the NVRA and requested list-maintenance documentation.
- ACRU sued under the NVRA seeking injunctive relief and records; the Commissioners explained they do not remove or flag currently incarcerated felons from the rolls and do not coordinate with law enforcement to identify them.
- The District Court denied ACRU’s preliminary-injunction motion (criticizing ACRU’s statutory characterization), then dismissed the amended complaint, holding the NVRA and HAVA do not require purging incarcerated felons from rolls.
- Pennsylvania law suspends voting rights only during incarceration (not permanently) and does not mandate canceling registration for that period; re-registration is not required after release.
- HAVA requires computerized state voter databases and some coordination with state records but contains no private right of action; NVRA provides a private right to sue for specified violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NVRA §8 requires removal of registrants incarcerated for felony conviction | NVRA §8(a)(3) and (a)(4), read with HAVA, obligate reasonable-effort purges of registrants who are ineligible under state law due to felony incarceration | NVRA permits removal for criminal conviction but does not require list purges; mandatory list-maintenance duties apply only to death and change of residence | Court: NVRA does not require purging incarcerated felons; §8(a)(3) is permissive, §8(a)(4) mandates removal only for death or change of residence |
| Whether HAVA augments NVRA to create a privately enforceable duty to purge incarcerated felons | HAVA’s list-maintenance and coordination provisions expand NVRA duties and require removal/flagging of ineligible felons | HAVA must be read consistent with NVRA; HAVA lacks a private right of action and does not create a new private enforcement mechanism or a requirement to purge incarcerated felons | Court: HAVA does not create a privately enforceable duty to purge; even on merits HAVA does not mandate purging incarcerated felons |
| Whether statutory information-sharing/reporting provisions require local officials to act on felony-conviction data by purging/flagging registrants | Reporting/coordination provisions (NVRA §20507(g), HAVA §21083) exist so local officials can identify and remove or flag ineligible felons | Information-sharing supplies data for state law compliance but does not itself impose an obligation to remove or notate registrants contrary to state rules | Court: Data-sharing obligations do not compel local purges/notations; they merely provide information states may use consistent with their laws |
| Whether removing incarcerated felons would further NVRA’s goals | ACRU: purging ensures accuracy/integrity of rolls | Commissioners: mandatory purges would disenfranchise voters upon release and frustrate NVRA’s participation goal; purges risk erroneous removals | Court: Forcing purges would conflict with NVRA’s goal of promoting participation and risk improper disenfranchisement; statutes read to protect voters from improper removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (statutory plain-meaning principle governs interpretation)
- United States v. Moreno, 727 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- Welker v. Clarke, 239 F.3d 596 (3d Cir. 2001) (NVRA protects registered voters from improper removal)
- Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (right to vote is fundamental)
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (Congress’s deliberate grant or omission of private remedy informs interpretation)
- In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 684 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2012) (inference from differing statutory language across related statutes)
- United States v. McQuilkin, 78 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 1996) (inclusio unius canon of statutory construction)
- Mixon v. Commonwealth, 759 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (Pennsylvania suspends voting during confinement but restores franchise on release)