218 F. Supp. 3d 488
S.D.W. Va2016Background
- West Virginia provides a statewide online voter registration system run by the Secretary of State; applicants must have a WV driver’s license or state ID and a signature on file with the DMV or other approved database.
- For all other WV counties, online registrations are processed electronically; in Cabell County, Clerk Karen Cole mails a paper registration form to anyone who attempts to register online and does not process the online application herself.
- The paper form asks for essentially the same information as the online system (the online system in fact requires both a driver’s license number and last four SSN digits while the paper form requires one or the other); signatures are transferred electronically from DMV for online filings.
- The letter Cole sends: (1) inaccurately states the online system does not provide legally required information, (2) instructs applicants to mail back the paper form (omitting that personal delivery or returning at the polling place and casting a provisional ballot are options), and (3) does not explain timeliness rules for late-arriving paper forms.
- As of the October 25, 2016 hearing, over 4,500 Cabell residents had used the online system and more than 2,200 had not returned the paper form and therefore were not registered; Plaintiff Mullins completed an online application on October 16 but was not registered under Cole’s policy.
- Plaintiff sued for class relief and emergency injunctive relief to compel Cole to process online registration applications; the court converted the TRO motion into a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing and granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clerk may refuse to process online registrations and require mailed paper return | Mullins: Cabell policy disenfranchises online applicants and places a severe burden on voting rights; Secretary of State’s system and electronic signatures are sufficient | Cole: No constitutional right to register online; statute gives clerk discretion to accept or reject electronically transmitted signatures; paper form preferred | Court: Policy unconstitutional; clerk may not reject all electronically transferred signatures absent legitimate justification; injunction granted |
| Whether the burden is severe enough to trigger strict scrutiny or heightened review | Mullins: Disparate treatment vs. other counties and thousands disenfranchised demonstrates a severe burden | Cole: Applicants can still register by paper—no fundamental right denied | Court: The additional steps and practical disenfranchisement of >2,200 voters constitute a severe burden requiring close scrutiny and defeat Cole’s weak interests |
| Whether the Secretary of State’s procedures satisfy verification/legitimacy concerns | Mullins: Online system collects required info and transfers DMV signatures; adequate for registration | Cole: Online system allegedly lacks some contact fields and electronic signatures are inferior | Court: Online system collects required information (in fact more in some respects); Cole provided no legitimate verification-based justification; electronic signatures are acceptable |
| Whether injunctive relief is appropriate (preliminary injunction factors) | Mullins: Likely success on merits, irreparable harm (disenfranchisement), equities/public interest favor relief | Cole: Acts in good faith; no constitutional right to online registration; administrative discretion | Court: Plaintiff met all four Winter factors; injunction required to prevent irreparable harm and protect equal protection and voting rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights: reasonable restrictions vs. severe burdens requiring compelling state interest)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (franchise and voting as central to representative government)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (restrictions on voting strike at core of representative government)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (right to participate in elections on equal basis; restrictions on access implicate Equal Protection)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for evaluating burdens on voting rights: balance character and magnitude of injury against state interests)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions requiring likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection concerns where nonuniform treatment among counties affects voting)