221 F. Supp. 3d 1354
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Plaintiffs ACRU (an organization) and Andrea Bellitto (a Broward County voter) sued Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes under the NVRA, alleging failure to conduct reasonable voter-list maintenance (Count I) and failure to provide records about list-maintenance activities (Count II).
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring improved list maintenance and production of records; ACRU sent a written notice to Snipes and copied Florida's Secretary of State; Bellitto did not send individualized notice.
- Snipes moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of standing (for failure to provide statutorily required pre-suit notice), and failure to state claims; intervenor 1199SEIU moved to dismiss Count I, arguing Snipes complied with NVRA’s §20507(c)(1) “safe harbor.”
- The Court treated statutory notice and jurisdiction issues first, analyzed whether a county supervisor (Snipes) is a proper defendant under the NVRA, and whether plaintiffs satisfied §20510(b)'s notice requirement for a private NVRA suit.
- The Court concluded Snipes, as Florida’s local voter registration official, may be sued under the NVRA; ACRU’s notice (copied to the Secretary of State) sufficed for ACRU’s standing, but Bellitto lacked standing because she did not herself provide adequate notice.
- On the merits-pleading challenge, the Court found ACRU pleaded sufficient factual allegations that Snipes failed to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible registrants and failed to produce records, so dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was inappropriate; facts about Snipes’s compliance with §20507(c)(1) raised factual disputes for later stages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant under NVRA | Suits against local election officials are permitted; ACRU sued Snipes only | NVRA private actions must be brought against the State or Secretary of State | Court: local supervisor (Snipes) may be sued; she has NVRA duties under Fla. law, so dismissal for missing State defendant denied |
| Pre‑suit notice / standing | ACRU provided notice to Snipes and copied Secretary of State; Bellitto is a member of ACRU so derives standing | Plaintiffs failed to give statutorily required notice to chief election official; Bellitto gave no notice | Court: ACRU had standing (notice copied to Secretary); Bellitto lacks standing (no individualized notice) |
| Failure to state a list‑maintenance claim (Count I) | Complaint alleges specific neighborhoods and over 200 allegedly ineligible registrants and inadequate programmatic response | Snipes and 1199SEIU contend Snipes complied with NVRA §20507(c)(1) safe‑harbor, so no violation | Court: Complaint states plausible claim under §20507(a)(4); alleged facts survive 12(b)(6); safe‑harbor compliance is a factual defense for later stages |
| Failure to state records‑request claim (Count II) | Plaintiffs requested records and allege inadequate response under §20507(i) | Snipes argues Plaintiffs fail to specify how requests were denied | Court: Allegations plus attached notice sufficiently plead a §20507(i) claim to survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (plaintiff bears burden to show Article III standing)
- Scott v. Schedler, 771 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2014) (failure to provide NVRA pre‑suit notice is fatal to private suit)
- A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing §20507(c)(1) safe‑harbor as an example of compliant procedure)
- Am. Civil Rights Union v. Martinez‑Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 779 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (local election officials may be proper NVRA defendants where state law assigns them duties)
- Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (defense may be considered at pleading stage only if complaint clearly shows defense is conclusive)