327 F. Supp. 3d 907
D. Maryland2018Background
- Plaintiff Dennis Fusaro, a Virginia resident and registered voter, applied to Maryland State Board of Elections for the Maryland registered-voter list but his application was rejected because he is not a Maryland registered voter.
- Fusaro sought the list to mail a letter criticizing Maryland State Prosecutor Emmet Davitt and urging his resignation after Fusaro was prosecuted (acquitted on retrial) for alleged Maryland campaign-law violations.
- Fusaro sued state officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, challenging: (Count I) the residency requirement in Md. Elec. Law § 3-506(a)(1); and (Count II) the statutory limits on permissible uses of the list (use must be "related to the electoral process").
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Fusaro moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of § 3-506 against him.
- The court considered statutory text, Fusaro’s application and rejection, and prior prosecutions; it granted the motion to dismiss as to Count I, declined to reach Count II, and denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3-506's residency requirement (only Maryland registered voters may obtain the list) violates the First Amendment by discriminating among speakers | Fusaro: restricting access to Maryland registered voters selectively disadvantages out-of-state speakers and limits his ability to communicate with Maryland voters | Defendants: statute regulates access to government records (not speech); no First Amendment right to obtain government-controlled information; residency is a reasonable threshold to subsidized state records | Court: No First Amendment right to obtain the list; Count I dismissed (statute constitutional as applied to Fusaro) |
| Whether § 3-506's use restriction (list only for purposes "related to the electoral process") is an unconstitutional content- or speaker-based restriction or unconstitutionally vague | Fusaro: prohibition burdens constitutionally protected political speech and is vague | Defendants: (not reached in ruling) statute limits harmful/unsanctioned uses and imposes oath/penalties; alternative avenues for speech exist | Court: Did not decide Count II because Fusaro lacks right to access the list; not reached |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief should issue | Fusaro: likely to succeed on the merits; irreparable harm from silencing his communications to Maryland voters | Defendants: Fusaro cannot succeed on the merits; ample alternative means of expression; public interest and equities favor defendants | Court: Denied preliminary injunction because plaintiff cannot show likelihood of success on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978) (First Amendment does not guarantee a right of access to government-held information)
- United Reporting Pub. Corp. v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 528 U.S. 32 (1999) (state denial of access to government-held information is not necessarily a First Amendment violation; access statutes regulate distribution of state-held data)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (state restrictions that are content- and speaker-based on the use of data can trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny)
- McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013) (no constitutional right to obtain all information provided by state freedom-of-information laws)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success on merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)