Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez
813 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Colón‑Marrero and Romaguera sued after being inactivated from Puerto Rico’s active voter registry under Article 6.012 for failing to vote in the 2008 general election; they sought reinstatement and statutory/constitutional relief.
- NVRA (National Voter Registration Act) generally bars removal for failure to vote unless notice is unresponded to and the registrant misses two consecutive federal general elections; the First Circuit earlier held NVRA does not cover Puerto Rico.
- HAVA (Help America Vote Act) expressly includes Puerto Rico and contains a §303(a)(4)(A) requirement setting a two–election nonvoting plus notice prerequisite for removal from voter rolls.
- The district court (on remand after interlocutory proceedings) held HAVA §303(a)(4)(A) preempts Puerto Rico’s one‑election deactivation rule and enjoined the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (SEC) from removing registrants unless HAVA’s two‑election/notice standard is met.
- Defendant (SEC President García Vélez) appealed, arguing HAVA’s deactivation rule does not apply to Puerto Rico and that no private right of action exists; plaintiffs cross‑appealed asking the court to reconsider NVRA coverage and asserting an equal‑protection theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of NVRA to Puerto Rico | NVRA should cover Puerto Rico (court should revisit its prior panel conclusion). | NVRA does not apply because its definition of "State" excludes Puerto Rico. | Court reaffirms prior holding: NVRA does not apply to Puerto Rico. |
| Equal Protection challenge to NVRA exclusion | Excluding Puerto Rico from NVRA denies an equal level of voting protection; triggers strict scrutiny. | No fundamental‑right burden shown; rational‑basis review applies. | Plaintiffs failed to show a burden on the fundamental right; rational‑basis review applies and upholds Congress’s classification. |
| Scope of HAVA §303(a)(4)(A) (two‑election rule) | HAVA §303(a)(4)(A) does not incorporate NVRA limits and therefore applies to Puerto Rico; HAVA explicitly includes Puerto Rico in its definition of "State." | The clause "consistent with NVRA" limits HAVA’s two‑election rule to NVRA jurisdictions; HAVA (or its context) exempts territories from this requirement. | §303(a)(4)(A) is an independent, mandatory provision that applies to all jurisdictions HAVA covers (including Puerto Rico); it preempts Article 6.012’s one‑election rule. |
| Private right of action / §1983 enforcement of HAVA §303(a)(4)(A) | Individual registrants may enforce HAVA §303(a)(4)(A) via §1983 because the provision creates an individual right and HAVA does not preclude §1983 relief. | HAVA’s enforcement scheme and administrative remedies mean Congress did not intend a private §1983 remedy. | §303(a)(4)(A) confers an individually enforceable right; Congress did not clearly foreclose §1983 relief, so plaintiffs may sue under §1983. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colón‑Marrero v. Conty‑Pérez, 703 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2012) (earlier panel opinion assessing NVRA/HAVA issues and preliminary relief)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (tests for when a statute creates an individual right enforceable under § 1983)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (framework for determining whether statutory provisions create individually enforceable rights)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (limits on private rights of action implied from statute)
- Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (when a statutory remedial scheme can preclude § 1983 actions)
- Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008) (per curiam) (addressed availability of private enforcement under HAVA in a different subsection)
- Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (example of statute with elaborate enforcement that precludes § 1983)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (statutory scheme replacing § 1983 relief in special‑education context)