National Council of La Raza v. Barbara Cegavske
800 F.3d 1032
9th Cir.
2015

Background

  • Plaintiffs: National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and Las Vegas and Reno‑Sparks NAACP chapters sued Nevada officials under Section 7 of the NVRA, alleging public assistance offices failed to distribute voter‑registration forms and assistance.
  • Plaintiffs conducted field investigations in December 2011 showing widespread noncompliance (clerks gave forms only on request; some offices lacked forms; required notices often absent) and sent a notice letter to Nevada on May 10, 2012 (33 days before a federal primary).
  • Plaintiffs filed suit on June 11, 2012 (one day before the primary), alleging ongoing, systemic violations and that the State’s noncompliance caused their organizations to divert resources to voter‑registration work.
  • The district court sua sponte granted (with prejudice) a previously withdrawn State motion to dismiss, holding Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing (no changed behavior/injury) and lacked statutory standing under the NVRA notice provision.
  • Ninth Circuit reversed: (1) organizations adequately alleged diversion‑of‑resources injuries and associational/member injury; (2) Plaintiffs satisfied the NVRA notice rule by plausibly alleging ongoing violations within the 120‑ and 30‑day windows; (3) dismissal without leave to amend and sua sponte grant of the withdrawn motion were improper. Case reassigned on remand.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Article III standing — organizational injury Organizations alleged diversion of resources (extra staff/volunteer time) caused by State noncompliance Plaintiffs were doing the same voter‑registration work anyway; no changed behavior or concrete injury Plaintiffs alleged sufficient concrete, particularized diversion‑of‑resources injury; standing satisfied
Associational/member standing NAACP chapters alleged members were not offered registration at DHHS offices, causing member injury Members must be specifically identified to show injury (per Summers) Identification by name not required at pleading stage; if needed, denial without leave to amend was error
NVRA notice timing — 120/20/90/30 day rules Notice (May 10) alleged ongoing, systemic violations and was within 120 days of the election; complaint alleged ongoing violations within 30 days Because investigations occurred in Dec. 2011, Plaintiffs should have given 90 days or identified discrete violations during the 120/30 day windows Allegations that violations were ongoing within the relevant time windows satisfy the statute; discrete in‑period observation not required
Remedy — dismissal procedure and reassignment Plaintiffs sought leave to amend and challenged district judge’s procedures State relied on procedural rulings and withdrawal stipulation Dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend was abuse of discretion; judge’s procedural conduct justified reassignment on remand

Key Cases Cited

  • Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (framework for Article III causation and redressability)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements at pleading stage)
  • Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational diversion‑of‑resources injury establishes standing)
  • Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (limits on associational standing where member injury speculative)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
  • Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123 (application of plausibility standard)
  • Fair Hous. Council v. Roommate.com, LLC, 666 F.3d 1216 (organizational standing where activities diverted to combat wrongdoing)
  • Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (leave to amend — refusal without explanation reversible)
  • Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (standards for denying leave to amend)
  • Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (plain meaning of statute governs)
  • Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (statutory interpretation principles)
  • Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (membership organizations and when courts may request identifying information)
  • Scott v. Schedler, 771 F.3d 831 (NAACP compliance with NVRA notice by alleging systematic, ongoing violations)
  • Arcia v. Florida Sec’y of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (timing and injunctive relief under NVRA)
  • Valdez v. Squier, 676 F.3d 935 (upholding relief for alleged ongoing NVRA violations)
  • Georgia State Conference of NAACP v. Kemp, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (organizational diversion allegations satisfy Article III)
Read the full case