League of Women Voters of Ind v. Holli Sullivan, 5f4th714

Background:

In 2017 Indiana enacted Act 442, using Crosscheck data to identify presumed duplicate registrations and allowing county officials to cancel Indiana registrations without direct voter contact; Common Cause I (7th Cir.) preliminarily enjoined that scheme as preempted by the NVRA.
Indiana repealed Act 442 and enacted Act 334, ending Crosscheck but creating IDEA, a functionally similar interstate voter-list matching program that forwards presumptive matches from the state Election Division to counties.
Act 334’s key provisions: subsections (d)–(e) require counties to (1) verify identity, (2) verify later out-of-state registration date, and (3) confirm the registrant authorized cancellation; if (3) cannot be confirmed, NVRA notice-and-wait procedures apply.
Act 334 added subsection (f)(2), which instructs counties to treat written notice forwarded by the Election Division as confirmation that the registrant requested cancellation — permitting cancellation without a signed authorization on file.
Plaintiffs (NAACP Indiana, League of Women Voters, Common Cause Indiana) moved for summary judgment; district court found (f)(2) preempted by the NVRA and entered a permanent injunction broadly enjoining enforcement of subsections (d)–(f).
On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment (invalidating (f)(2) under the NVRA), held the case was not moot, but vacated the injunction insofar as it enjoined (d)–(e), remanding to narrow and clarify the injunction (including whether an out-of-state signed authorization forwarded to Indiana qualifies as a “direct” request).

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 334 §3-7-38.2-5.5(f)(2) is preempted by the NVRA (allows removal without direct voter request or NVRA notice/wait)	(Orgs) (f)(2) permits automatic cancellation whenever Election Division forwards IDEA match; conflicts with NVRA §20507(d)	(Indiana) (f)(2) is ambiguous and should be read to require a signed authorization on file (saving construction)	Court: (f)(2) unambiguous; it treats Election Division “written notice” (IDEA presumptive matches) as separate from signed authorizations and is preempted by NVRA; affirmed invalidation of (f)(2).
Mootness (whether repeal of Act 442 moots the challenge to Act 334)	(Orgs) Act 334 retains the same gravamen — automatic cancellations — so case not moot	(Indiana) Repeal of Act 442 moots litigation; plaintiffs must file anew	Court: Not moot; replacement statute is substantially similar in the respect challenged.
Facial/pre-enforcement challenge standard (whether plaintiffs had to show no valid applications exist)	(Orgs) Pre-enforcement challenge appropriate; plaintiffs identified a likely, concrete application because IDEA does not include authorization forms	(Indiana) Plaintiffs mounted a facial challenge and failed Salerno: there exists at least one set of circumstances (Election Division happens to possess signed authorizations) where (f)(2) would be valid	Court: Treated as facial but held (f)(2) invalid even under Salerno; Indiana’s hypothetical circumstances are incompatible with Act 334’s structure and operation.
Scope and clarity of injunction (whether district court’s injunction was overbroad/vague)	(Orgs) Broad injunction necessary to prevent implementation of the unlawful provision; proposed language reasonable	(Indiana) District court improperly enjoined (d)–(e) and failed to clarify whether an out-of-state signed authorization forwarded to Indiana counts as a direct request	Court: District court abused discretion by enjoining (d)–(e) (those provisions mirror NVRA procedures); injunction was vague about what qualifies as a direct voter communication — remanded to narrow and clarify that a signed out-of-state authorization forwarded to Indiana does qualify as a direct request.

Key Cases Cited

Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson, 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (prior Seventh Circuit decision invalidating Indiana’s Act 442 under the NVRA)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard: statute invalid only if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid)
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013) (NVRA enforcement and preemption in elections context; no presumption against preemption)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (preemption analysis and relevance to facial/preemption challenges)
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947) (presumption against preemption generally applied outside election-regulation context)
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (mootness and jurisdictional principles)
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (preenforcement/as-applied challenge framework)