208 F. Supp. 3d 1320
N.D. Ga.2016Background
- Project Vote sued Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) §8(i), seeking disclosure of records about voter registration applicants who were rejected, canceled, or not added to the rolls (including reasons, status-change history, and related database fields).
- Georgia stores registration data in an electronic statewide database (ENET GVRS) managed by a vendor; many responsive items exist in database audit tables and required custom reports to extract.
- Project Vote sent NVRA notice in July 2015 after prior document exchanges; the Secretary produced partial data and argued many requested items either were not "records" under §8(i), were unduly burdensome to produce, or were protected by other statutes.
- The court considered three threshold questions: whether electronic database contents are "records" under §8(i); whether §8(i) covers records concerning implementation of programs/activities (including individual applicant-level records); and which specific requested items must be disclosed.
- The court concluded §8(i) covers electronic records and includes applicant-specific records that relate to implementation/operation of voter-registration programs, but allowed redaction of sensitive personal data and excluded certain categories not shown to concern implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are database contents "records" under NVRA §8(i)? | Electronic data in the GVRS are "records" and must be disclosed. | "Records" should be limited to physical documents or printable files; DB contents are not necessarily records. | Database contents are "records" under §8(i); electronic format does not exempt them. |
| Does §8(i) require disclosure of records "concerning implementation of programs and activities," including individual applicant records? | §8(i) encompasses records about both processes and individual applications when they concern implementation of list-maintenance programs. | §8(i) is limited to general list-maintenance process documentation, not applicant-level data. | §8(i) includes individual applicant records to the extent they relate to implementation/performance of voter-registration programs and activities. |
| Are any requested categories outside §8(i) or not shown to concern implementation? | All listed items (dates, status changes, letters, phone numbers, etc.) are relevant and should be produced. | Many items (e.g., phone numbers, receipt dates, certain dispositions) are irrelevant, private, or nonexistent; production is unduly burdensome. | Court ordered production of most status-history and processing-related fields but found insufficient showing to require phone numbers, certain receipt-date records, and ambiguous "disposition" entries. |
| Are redactions permitted for sensitive personal data? | Plaintiff does not seek sensitive unredacted personal data; redactions are appropriate when necessary. | Concerns about privacy and database security support withholding or limiting disclosure. | Redactions required: all but final 4 digits of phone numbers and SSNs, local-part of email addresses, and birth dates; other privacy protections recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Louisiana, 196 F. Supp. 3d 612 (M.D. La. 2016) (describing NVRA’s primary emphasis on simplifying registration and protecting electoral integrity)
- Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012) (interpreting §8(i) disclosure obligations to include application-review processes and applicant information)
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. United States, 455 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) (statutory-construction principles: plain meaning and context govern interpretation)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-part preliminary-injunction standard governs extraordinary relief)