942 F.3d 715
5th Cir.2019Background
- Texas DPS offers paper and online driver-license/address-change processes; paper forms transfer "yes" voter-registration responses automatically to the Secretary of State, while the DPS online system supplies a link to a printable registration form and does not transmit registrants' data to the Secretary.
- Plaintiffs (Stringer, Hernandez, Woods) used the DPS online system to change addresses, selected the system's voter-registration prompt, believed they had updated registration, but were not registered in their new counties and were unable to have some provisional ballots counted in 2014–2015.
- Plaintiffs sued Texas officials under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), including § 20504(d), and the Equal Protection Clause, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and enjoined Texas practices; Texas appealed on standing and other grounds.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they showed only past injury and failed to establish a substantial risk of future injury (necessary for prospective injunctive/declaratory relief).
- Judge Ho concurred: he agreed Plaintiffs suffered an irrecoverable past injury but lacked a redressable future injury, so the court could not reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for injunctive/declaratory relief | Plaintiffs argued their prior inability to update registration via DPS and the system's noncompliance with NVRA/EPC create a risk they will be injured again and so justify prospective relief | Texas argued plaintiffs' harms were past; no substantial risk they will be injured again, so no standing for forward-looking relief | No standing: past injuries alone insufficient; plaintiffs failed to show a "substantial risk" of future injury or redressability |
| Imminence/substantial-risk standard (future injury) | Plaintiffs pointed to plans to transact online and Census migration data to show likelihood of future moves/use of DPS | Texas asserted plaintiffs offered no plaintiff-specific evidence they will move, become unregistered, and be eligible to renew online at the same time | Held plaintiffs' evidence (prior moves, aggregate migration data) was too speculative; no plaintiff-specific probability of future injury |
| Precedent (Wesley/Cox, Arcia) | Plaintiffs relied on Eleventh Circuit precedents finding prospective injury where state action threatened voters/registrants | Texas distinguished those cases as involving pending removal/rejection of forms or realistic probability of misidentification | Court found Cox and Arcia inapposite; those records showed more concrete, imminent risks than here |
| Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine | Plaintiffs argued the injury could recur and evade review | Texas argued (and court noted) the doctrine is a mootness exception and does not create standing when none existed at filing | Doctrine inapplicable: it does not cure lack of Article III standing at commencement of suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (threatened future injury must be concrete, particularized, and imminent; substantial risk standard)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence requirement; speculative harms insufficient)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires likelihood of future injury to plaintiff)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness and capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review context)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (generalized grievances do not confer standing)
- Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005) (standing where state rejected NVRA forms and relief would remedy plaintiff’s specific injury)
- Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (standing where record showed realistic probability of future misidentification/removal)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (reciting standing elements)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (states have authority to regulate elections; balancing of burdens on voting rights)