Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long
682 F.3d 331
4th Cir.2012Background
- NVRA Section 8(i)(1) requires public disclosure of all records concerning the implementation of programs maintaining accurate and current voter rolls.
- Project Vote sought completed Virginia voter registration applications (with SSNs redacted) and reasons for rejection under NVRA § 8(i)(1).
- Virginia officials refused disclosure; district court held Section 8(i)(1) applies to completed applications.
- District court determined disclosure could be redacted for SSNs; NVRA does not require disclosure of actionable non-public data.
- Defendants appealed, arguing limits from HAVA and MOVE Act and privacy concerns; district court’s ruling in favor of disclosure stood.
- This court affirms the district court and remands for further proceedings consistent with the decision that completed applications are within § 8(i)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 8(i)(1) requires disclosure of completed applications | Project Vote: completed applications fall within § 8(i)(1) as records implementing the program. | Virginia: § 8(i)(1) covers only removal records, not applications. | Yes; completed applications are within § 8(i)(1). |
| Do § 8(i)(1)’s exceptions apply to completed applications | Records not excluded by the two exceptions; applicability remains. | Exceptions apply to declines to register or agency identity only. | No; the two exceptions do not shield completed applications. |
| Does § 8(i)(2)’s wording limit § 8(i)(1) disclosures | § 8(i)(2) imposes a floor; § 8(i)(1) remains broad. | § 8(i)(2) limits what must be disclosed. | No; § 8(i)(2) is non-exhaustive and does not limit § 8(i)(1). |
| Do HAVA or MOVE Act conflict with disclosures under § 8(i)(1) | No conflicts; NVRA governs disclosure of registrations. | Privacy provisions in HAVA/MOVE Act implicate overlapping concerns. | No conflict; NVRA controls disclosure with redacted SSNs. |
| Do privacy concerns override public disclosure under § 8(i)(1) | Transparency promotes integrity of elections and accountability. | Personal data privacy may at times justify restraint. | Not; policy questions delegated to legislature; disclosure upheld with redactions. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Coalition for Students with Disabilities Educ. & Legal Def. Fund v. Allen, 152 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 1998) (use of 'shall include' is expansive and not exhaustive)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (statutory interpretation and breadth of lists)
- P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69 (1979) (explanation of 'shall include' rejecting narrow readings)
- In re JKJ Chevrolet, Inc., 26 F.3d 481 (4th Cir. 1994) (textual interpretation guidance for statutory language)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. FTC, 420 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2005) (shall include not exhaustively described records)
- Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (statutory text interpretation and limits of tailoring)