Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee
673 F.3d 192
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- In 1982 the RNC and DNC entered a national consent decree restricting ballot security activities and mandating disclosure when ballot security materials are used.
- 1987 modifications defined ballot security to include ballot integrity and added a 20-day preclearance notice for programs to the Court and DNC.
- 1990 enforcement addressed a North Carolina program; the court required RNC to provide copies or information about the Decree with future materials.
- 2004 Malone enforcement action concluded the RNC violated the Decree by coordinating with the Ohio Republican Party on a minority-targeted voter list and ballot security efforts.
- 2008 DNC sued in New Mexico; district court denied preliminary injunction, finding no RNC violation of the Decree in that action.
- In 2009 the district court denied vacatur of the Decree but modified it, shortening preclearance to 10 days, expanding definitions, and adding an expiration date with potential eight-year extension; RNC appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Decree should be vacated or modified under Rule 60(b)(5). | RNC contends changed conditions require vacatur or broader modification. | DNC argues Decree remains workable and necessary to prevent voter suppression. | District court did not abuse discretion; modifications affirmed. |
| Whether the Decree violates the First Amendment as applied to private contract enforcement. | RNC claims it restrains political speech and association. | DNC argues waiver and state action considerations keep Decree constitutional. | No First Amendment violation; waiver and state-action analysis support upholding. |
| Whether Rufo factors justify modification of the Decree due to changed circumstances. | RNC urges significant factual/law changes demand vacatur or broader modification. | DNC shows changes are not significant enough or tailored; decree remains appropriate. | Rufo factors do not warrant broader vacatur; modifications are properly tailored. |
| Whether the district court properly applied BCTC factors in evaluating modification. | RNC asserts past compliance and reduced risk justify vacatur. | DNC notes Malone violations and ongoing risk of minority voter suppression absent the Decree. | BCTC analysis supports continued enforcement with tailored modifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (establishes standard for modification of consent decrees)
- Building & Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 64 F.3d 880 (3d Cir. 1995) (flexible equity approach; remedial modifications should be tailored)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Assoc. of Steel Haulers, 601 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir. 1979) (consent decree enforcement principle; choice to settle)
- Keefe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Insurance Co., 203 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2000) (appellate jurisdiction and enforcement of settlement orders)
- Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 901 F.2d 1384 (3d Cir. 1990) (recognizes appellate jurisdiction to enforce settlement orders)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (waiver of constitutional rights requires voluntary, knowing, intelligent intent)