PROJECT VOTE/VOTING FOR AMERICA, INC. v. Long
752 F. Supp. 2d 697
E.D. Va.2010Background
- Project Vote/Voting For America, Inc. (a Louisiana nonprofit) sues Norfolk General Registrar Long and VA Secretary Rodrigues in the E.D. Va. for allegedly violating the NVRA Public Disclosure Provision by denying access to records related to voter registration in 2008.
- Plaintiff seeks completed voter registration applications and related reasons for rejection under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(i)(1); Virginia code Va. Code § 24.2-444 was invoked to deny access.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (standing) and 12(b)(6) (records not within Public Disclosure Provision); plaintiff responds, and briefing completes by mid-April 2010.
- NVRA provides a private right of action for aggrieved parties under § 1973gg-9(b)(1); plaintiffs allege an informational injury from denial of access.
- The court denies both motions: standing is found based on informational injury, and the NVRA Public Disclosure Provision covers voter registration records (with SSNs redacted); preemption/claims are addressed on the merits later in the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Project Vote have standing to sue under the NVRA? | Project Vote has informational injury due to denial of records. | Plaintiff lacks injury-in-fact and lacks a right to the records sought. | Plaintiff has standing; informational injury suffices at this stage. |
| Do voter registration applications fall within the NVRA Public Disclosure Provision? | Applications concern the implementation of voter registration procedures and thus must be disclosed. | Public Disclosure Provision covers only records related to removal or maintenance, not applications. | Yes; applications are within the provision as records concerning implementation of registration procedures. |
| Should the NVRA require disclosure of a voter's SSN in publicly disclosed applications? | Public Disclosure does not categorically exclude SSNs; disclosure should be allowed with limitations. | SSNs are sensitive and should be kept confidential to avoid burden on voting rights. | SSNs must be redacted; other information may be disclosed consistent with NVRA purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (public right to information; denial constitutes injury-in-fact when statute requires disclosure)
- Federation of American Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? [Note: use actual case as in text], Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice (1989) (reiterates injury-in-fact from failure to obtain information under a statute)
- Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (public disclosure creates a right to information; injury arises from inability to obtain information)
- Pitt County v. Hotels.com, 553 F.3d 308 (2009) (standing turns on statutory construction; merits inquiry not required for standing)
- Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344 (1993) (SSN disclosure issues; public disclosure limits based on protecting voting rights)
- Salt Institute for Public Policy v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156 (2006) (informational injury requires a right to information and concrete harm from denial)
- Willenbring v. United States, 559 F.3d 225 (2009) (plain meaning governs when no legislative history undermines statute's purpose)