432 F.Supp.3d 285
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- New York marks voters "inactive" when one of five proxies (e.g., returned mail, National Change of Address matches, DMV data, other-state or county reports) suggests the registrant moved; inactive names are omitted from poll books and kept only at county offices.
- Inactive voters cannot use regular voting machines; they may vote only by affidavit (provisional) ballot or seek a court order to cast a regular ballot; affidavit ballots are reviewed after Election Day and may be rejected for various defects.
- Trial findings: tens of thousands of registrants (Meredith estimated at least ~45,000 in 2016) were incorrectly marked inactive due to overinclusive or error-prone proxies (Postal Service and NCOA); affidavit procedures produce substantial delay, poll-worker confusion, and occasional wrongful rejection of valid affidavit ballots.
- Two counties (Columbia, Nassau) keep supplemental inactive lists at polling places, which officials and expert testimony showed reduces confusion and delay; Common Cause diverted organizational resources (training, outreach, monitoring) because of the practices.
- Procedural posture: bench trial held October 2019; Court found Common Cause had standing and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on Equal Protection and NVRA as-applied claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (organizational) | Common Cause diverted resources to assist affected voters and thus suffered concrete injury. | State contested aspects of injury but did not overcome diversion theory. | Held: Common Cause has organizational standing based on diversion of resources. |
| Refusal to provide inactive-voter list at polling places (Equal Protection) | Omitting inactive names burdens (1) inactive registrants who remain at their registration address and may be denied or delayed affidavits and (2) all voters via poll-worker bandwidth and longer waits. | State argued exclusion protects precinct integrity, aids efficiency, and is tied to NVRA compliance. | Held: Policy burdens voters and advances no legitimate state interest; violates Equal Protection; State ordered to provide inactive lists (either in poll books or supplemental lists). |
| Requirement that inactive voters use affidavit ballots (Equal Protection) | Affidavit ballots unduly burden voters (extra time, risk of rejection, ripple delays). | State asserted affidavit ballots serve important interests: confirming address, correcting poll-worker error, protecting closed-primary integrity, and complying with NVRA/HAVA. | Held: Affidavit-ballot requirement imposes burdens but is justified by multiple legitimate and weighty state interests; constitutional. |
| NVRA as-applied claim | State's practices de facto remove or deny voting to registrants without following NVRA notice-and-wait procedures. | State asserted general compliance and discretionary list-maintenance methods. | Held: Court found three discrete NVRA violations as to individual voters (Goldberg; Denise and Angela Roberts) whose eligible votes were wrongly denied or not counted; declared violations for those instances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018) (interpreting NVRA list-maintenance and notice requirements)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson-Burdick balancing framework for voting regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applying flexible balancing test to voting restrictions)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (fundamental nature of the right to vote and importance of fair suffrage)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing: injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing: imminent/concrete injury standard)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing via diversion of resources)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (states may enact reasonable regulations to prevent electoral disorder)
- Price v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 540 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (applying Anderson-Burdick in the Second Circuit)