326 F. Supp. 3d 646
S.D. Ind.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Indiana NAACP and League of Women Voters of Indiana) challenge Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 442 (SEA 442), amending Ind. Code § 3-7-38.2-5(d)-(e) to change how Crosscheck data is used to remove voters from rolls. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction.
- NVRA requires a state not remove a registrant for change of residence unless (A) the registrant confirms in writing or (B) fails to respond to a mailed confirmation notice and does not vote in the next two federal general elections. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(d)(1).
- SEA 442 deleted statutory requirements that counties (1) determine whether the voter authorized cancellation of prior registrations and (2) send an address-confirmation notice when authorization is not confirmed; it directed cancellation when a county determines a Crosscheck match is the same voter and the out-of-state registration post-dates Indiana registration.
- Indiana uses the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program (matches on first name, last name, birthdate) and forwards matches to county officials; Crosscheck and state systems lack consistent registration-date data and underlying source documents, and counties exercise divergent practices.
- Plaintiffs contend SEA 442 violates the NVRA (notice-and-wait protections and uniformity requirement) and risks disenfranchisement; Defendants (Secretary of State, NVRA officials) argue Crosscheck out-of-state registrations can serve as written confirmation/request to cancel and that confidence-factors and fail-safe voting mitigate harm.
- The court found Plaintiffs have organizational standing (diversion of resources) and granted a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of SEA 442 pending final resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SEA 442 violates NVRA's written-confirmation or notice-and-wait requirement before removing voters for change of residence | SEA 442 eliminates the NVRA-required written confirmation or notice-and-wait when cancellation is not authorized by the voter; Crosscheck output is third‑party data and not a voter's written confirmation | Out-of-state voter registration constitutes written confirmation/request for removal; confidence factors improve match reliability | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; Crosscheck/out‑of‑state registration does not substitute for NVRA's written confirmation or notice-and-wait requirement |
| Whether Indiana's list‑maintenance under SEA 442 is uniform and nondiscriminatory as required by NVRA | State leaves large discretion to counties and co-directors give inconsistent guidance, producing non‑uniform application and risk of disparate impact | State provides training/manuals and now codified "confidence factors"; counties follow statutory duties | Court: Evidence suggests nonuniform implementation; likelihood of NVRA violation on uniformity ground supports injunction |
| Standing: whether Plaintiffs have organizational standing to sue | Plaintiffs diverted resources to counter SEA 442 and face imminent harm to mission and members; diversion confers standing | Defendants say no concrete injury yet (law not implemented), and cancellations are done by counties—not named defendants | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; diversion-of-resources and traceability to NVRA officials suffice |
| Irreparable harm and balance of equities/public interest for preliminary relief | Wrongful cancellations will cause disenfranchisement, loss of election information, burdensome provisional/fail‑safe voting, and diversion of organizational resources | Defendants: No irreparable harm because SEA 442 not yet implemented and fail‑safe voting preserves ability to vote; public interest favors accurate rolls | Court: Irreparable harm likely; equities and public interest favor preventing potential disenfranchisement—preliminary injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2010) (preliminary-injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing from diversion of resources to counteract challenged conduct)
- Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007) (standing may be shown by minimal diversion-of-resources injury)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (denial of right to vote constitutes irreparable harm)
- Grace Schs. v. Burwell, 801 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2015) (articulating preliminary injunction factors in context of likelihood and public interest)
- Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S.A., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) (relationship between likelihood of success and other injunction factors)
- Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy)
- Project Vote, Inc. v. Kemp, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (limitations on voter-registration activities can cause irreparable organizational injury)
- League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Browning, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (wrongful denial of voting opportunity is irreparable)
- Frank v. Walker, 196 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Wis. 2016) (denial of voting opportunity is irreparable)
- Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975 (2d Cir. 1996) (court may waive bond requirement when injunction imposes no monetary injury on defendants)