Luther Scott, Jr. v. Tom Schedler
771 F.3d 831
5th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs: Luther Scott, Jr. (individual) and Louisiana NAACP sued Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler, DCFS, and DHH alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) tied to public-benefits transactions.
- Scott visited DCFS in 2009–2010; on some visits he returned a declination form with neither box checked and did not receive a voter-registration form; he later learned he had been registered earlier but was unaware.
- The NAACP alleged it diverted resources (voter-registration drives outside benefits offices) because state agencies were not complying with the NVRA; it sent a notice letter to Schedler before suing.
- The district court found NVRA violations: (1) failure to provide registration forms to applicants who left the declination form blank, (2) failure to provide forms for remote transactions, and (3) other compliance deficiencies; it enjoined the defendants. DCFS and DHH did not appeal.
- On appeal Schedler challenged plaintiffs’ standing and notice, his enforcement authority under NVRA §10, whether §7(a)(6) applies to remote transactions, and whether a blank declination requires providing a registration form.
- Fifth Circuit: dismissed Scott for lack of NVRA notice and Article III standing; held NAACP has standing only as to in-person transactions, concluded Secretary of State has enforcement/coordinating authority under §10, and ruled that an unchecked declination form constitutes a written declination (so no form need be provided).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVRA notice requirement (Scott) | Scott argued he could rely on NAACP's prior notice to Schedler | Schedler argued Scott failed to give the required written NVRA notice | Held: Scott failed to give proper notice; his claims dismissed (Miller exception rejected as non-textual and inapplicable) |
| Article III standing (Scott & NAACP) | Scott asserted personal injury; NAACP claimed diversion of resources (registration drives) | Schedler argued lack of injury, causation, and redressability (esp. if he lacked enforcement power) | Held: Scott lacks standing; NAACP has standing for in-person transactions based on diversion of resources, not for remote transactions |
| Secretary of State enforcement authority under NVRA §10 | Plaintiffs argued chief state election official may be sued and must enforce/coordinate NVRA compliance | Schedler argued §10 ‘coordinate’ is non-enforcement, administrative only | Held: §10 includes ongoing enforcement/coordination duties; Secretary has authority/responsibility to ensure state agencies’ NVRA compliance |
| Effect of blank declination form under §7(a)(6) | Plaintiffs (district court majority in some respects) argued blank form should trigger providing registration form | Schedler argued unchecked boxes should be treated as declination only for limited purposes; Valdez-style view that blank does not equal written declination | Held: Fifth Circuit majority held plain text (all-caps notice) makes an unchecked declination a written declination — no registration form required; concurrence dissented on this point and would require forms when no box is checked |
Key Cases Cited
- Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1997) (notice requirement and futility exception discussion)
- Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008) (chief election official bears implementation and enforcement role under NVRA)
- United States v. Missouri, 535 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (state and secretary must make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance; may not dodge responsibility)
- Valdez v. Squier, 676 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2012) (holds blank declination requires providing registration form; reached opposite result on §7(a)(6))
- Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (organizational standing via resources devoted to counteracting unlawful practices)