COMMON CAUSE OF COLORADO v. Buescher
750 F. Supp. 2d 1259
D. Colo.2010Background
- Colorado’s 20-day registration review rule cancels new registrations if the mail notification is undeliverable within 20 days, affecting SCORE active status and potential eligibility to vote; NVRA § 8(d) governs removals for changed residence and is central to the dispute; SCORE lists electors as active, inactive, or cancelled, with cancelled not eligible to vote; parties pursued cross-motions for summary judgment after settlement resolved Counts II–IV; court held the 20-day Rule conforms to NVRA and HAVA after detailed statutory interpretation and distinction between initial eligibility verification and subsequent removals; the decision addresses standing, organizational injury, and redressability before ruling on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 20-day Rule violate NVRA § 8(d)? | Land applies; returned-mail cancellations are removals subject to § 8(d). | Rule confirms initial eligibility, not removals; § 8(d) not triggered for new registrations. | No; Rule complies with NVRA § 8(d) as applied. |
| Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the 20-day Rule? | Organizations have organizational and associational standing under NVRA to challenge impediments to voter registration. | Standing limitations apply; argue lack of direct injury. | Plaintiffs have Article III and organizational/associational standing. |
| Is the 20-day Rule consistent with NVRA and HAVA goals to register eligible voters and maintain accurate rolls? | Rule wrongly purges active registrants, undermining NVRA/HAVA goals. | Rule facilitates accurate initial eligibility and reduces ineligible names; aligns with NVRA/HAVA. | Yes; Rule furthers NVRA/HAVA objectives and is not precluded by § 8(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Student Ass’n Found. v. Land, 546 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008) ( NVRA § 8(d) application to deactivations; state vs federal definition of registrant)
- ACORN v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (Congress intended NVRA standing to extend to organizations)
- Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005) (organizational standing for voter-registration matters)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standing analysis in NVRA context; injury-in-fact)
- Land v. Kentucky (referenced dissent by Vinson), 546 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (majority’s view on registrant timing; dissent cited)