Crowley v. NEVADA EX REL. NEVADA SECRETARY
678 F.3d 730
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Crowley ran for Churchill County Justice of the Peace in 2006 and lost by 26 votes, prompting a recount.
- The recount occurred on November 21, 2006, and confirmed the original results; VVPAT was not used in the recount.
- VVPATs had been removed from machines on election night and stored at the Churchill County Administrative Office.
- Crowley alleged HAVA violations, including failure to use VVPAT and related procedures, in six claims against the Clerk and the Nevada Secretary of State.
- The district court dismissed declaratory-relief claims and granted summary judgment on §1983 claims alleging HAVA violations.
- On appeal, Crowley challenges the district court's rulings on declaratory relief and on §1983 claims, arguing HAVA §301 creates a private right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HAVA §301 create a private right enforceable via §1983? | Crowley contends §301 benefits voters/candidates and supports §1983 claims. | Defendants contend §301 does not confer private rights for local recounts. | No private right; §301 not enforceable through §1983 for local recounts. |
| Can Crowley pursue declaratory-relief claims under HAVA §301? | Crowley argues HAVA creates a private right to declaratory relief. | Defendants argue HAVA provides no private declaratory-relief right. | Declaratory-relief claims dismissed; no private right established. |
| Are Crowley’s §1983 due-process claims viable under HAVA §301? | Crowley asserts due-process violations from not using VVPAT in recount. | Nevada officials argue no federal right actionable under §1983 for local recounts. | Not viable; no intended beneficiary under §301 for local elections. |
| If §301 could confer a private right, could Crowley rely on it for recount procedures in a county election? | Crowley seeks relief for county-recount procedures under §301. | Even if §301 creates rights, Crowley isn’t within the intended beneficiary class. | Even assuming a right exists, Crowley isn’t an intended beneficiary for county recounts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 F.3d 273 (U.S. 2002) ( §1983 rights require an enforceable federal right in statute)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) (test for private rights via §1983: beneficiary, definable right, mandatory language)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1979) (implied private rights require text addressing beneficiaries)
- Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (HAVA §301/private-right debate, though not binding here)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (framework for evaluating §1983 claims; constitutional rights via statute)
- ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes, 546 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2008) (HAVA reach and scope in federal elections)
- Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (U.S. 2008) (per curiam; private-right implications of statutes)
- Lovell ex rel. Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 1996) (state-law violations and §1983 redress interplay)
- Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1986) (private-right prerequisites under §1983 for state actions)
- Boatowners & Tenants Ass'n v. Port of Seattle, 716 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1983) (standing and statutory right interpretation in public-interest suits)