400 F.Supp.3d 706
M.D. Tenn.2019Background:
- Tennessee enacted H.B. 1079 (the "Act") regulating voter-registration drives, effective Oct. 1, 2019, imposing: pre-drive registration and state training for drives collecting 100+ applications; a 10-day turn-in deadline; civil penalties for filing 100+ "incomplete" applications in a year; prohibition on retaining applicant data without consent; and mandatory disclaimers on public communications about registration status.
- Plaintiffs are several non-profit civic organizations (League of Women Voters TN, MCLC, AMAC, MSPJC, HeadCount, Rock the Vote, etc.) that run voter-registration drives and claim the Act will chill, burden, and effectively halt their activities.
- The Act authorizes criminal misdemeanor charges for certain violations and civil fines (Class 1 and 2 scales) tied to counts of incomplete forms; county and state election bodies handle notices and penalties.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging multiple provisions as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments (speech, association, vagueness/overbreadth). Defendants are state election officials sued in their official capacities.
- The district court applied First Amendment doctrines (invoking Meyer/Buckley exacting scrutiny for election-related advocacy, and Anderson–Burdick where applicable), found substantial evidence of burdens and little state justification in the record, and granted the preliminary injunction enjoining the challenged provisions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-drive registration & mandatory state training for drives collecting ≥100 apps | Creates prior-approval burden, chills volunteers/association, inserts government into private advocacy; not narrowly tailored | Law regulates logistics and protects election integrity; lesser scrutiny applies | Court: Likely unconstitutional under Meyer/Buckley (exacting scrutiny); plaintiffs likely to succeed; enjoined |
| 10-day turn-in deadline combined with penalties for incomplete forms | Forces timely submission of incomplete forms and exposes groups to heavy fines; penalizes effectiveness and wide geographic work | Deadlines and penalties ensure prompt processing and deter fraud | Court: Likely unconstitutional; regime arbitrary (punishes volume not error rate) and chills speech; enjoined |
| Civil penalties for filing ≥100 incomplete applications in a year (and county-by-county fines) | Unconstitutionally burdens speech/association; vague and discriminatorily applied across paid vs. unpaid actors | Penalties target incompetence/fraud, protect voter-roll integrity | Court: Likely unconstitutional under exacting scrutiny and vague; enjoined |
| Prohibition on retaining applicant data without consent | Prevents follow-up political communications and organizing; unduly burdens advocacy and is unnecessary | Protects privacy and prevents misuse of voter data | Court: Likely unconstitutional; plaintiffs likely to succeed because harms to follow-up organizing outweigh asserted benefits |
| Mandatory disclaimers on public communications regarding registration status | Compelled speech that stigmatizes groups and is not narrowly tailored; vague scope and "prominent/ not easily overlooked" standard unworkable | Disclaimers are factual, prevent confusion about government affiliation, and are permissible | Court: Likely unconstitutional as compelled speech and vague; enjoined |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (political-campaign/initiative petition circulation restriction subject to exacting scrutiny; struck down limits on paid circulators)
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (struck down Colorado restrictions on petition circulators; emphasized precision and danger of speech diminution)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (exacting scrutiny for laws restricting election-related speech; protection for anonymous political advocacy)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson–Burdick balancing framework for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (clarified balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
- NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (precision required for laws that touch on advocacy and associational activity)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (statute that discriminates against small or unpopular groups drawing on paid help triggers scrutiny)
- Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (compelled disclosures of speech are content-based and must meet strict scrutiny)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (First Amendment protects political speech and courts guard against diminution of speech)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)