Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long
813 F. Supp. 2d 738
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Project Vote sought access to completed voter registration applications and related records under NVRA's Public Disclosure Provision, challenged Virginia's § 24.2-444 as barrier to disclosure.
- Defendants Long and Rodrigues (later Palmer) refused access, arguing records were not required to be disclosed and/or are protected by Virginia law.
- Court previously denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and addressed NVRA disclosure requirements in an October 29, 2010 Opinion.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment arguing NVRA requires public inspection/copying of the Requested Records; defendants argued the opposite and raised new statutory-interpretation arguments.
- Court held the NVRA requires disclosure of completed voter registration applications with SSNs redacted, and Virginia law is preempted to the extent it forbids such disclosure, granting declaratory relief and prospective injunctive relief but denying retrospective relief.
- Court ordered a permanent injunction to require disclosure of records completed after judgment with SSNs redacted, and to update Virginia procedures and forms to reflect public disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NVRA require public disclosure of completed registration applications? | NVRA Public Disclosure Provision mandates access to records relating to voter list accuracy. | Disclosures are not required; Virginia law protects confidentiality and NVRA does not compel disclosure. | NVRA requires disclosure with SSNs redacted. |
| Is NVRA preempted by Virginia law that restricts disclosure? | NVRA supersedes conflicting state law under Supremacy Clause. | State law should control; NVRA conflicts with other federal statutes and should limit disclosure. | NVRA preempts Virginia § 24.2-444 to the extent of disclosure required by NVRA. |
| What is the appropriate scope of injunctive relief? | Court should grant permanent injunction ensuring ongoing access to completed applications with SSNs redacted. | Disclosures should be limited and consider privacy expectations; retrospective relief may be inappropriate. | GRANTED prospective injunctive relief; retrospective relief denied; requires disclosure for records completed after judgment with SSNs redacted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (familiar summary judgment standards for genuine issues of material fact)
- Terry's Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 763 F.2d 604 (4th Cir. 1985) (summary judgment standard in the Fourth Circuit)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (Supreme Court 1974) (statutory schemes can be coexistent and harmonized)
- In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 66 F.3d 1390 (4th Cir. 1995) (duty to reconcile and harmonize statutes when construing multiple schemes)
- Ebay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (requirements for grant of permanent injunction)
- E. Tenn. Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004) (equitable relief when legal remedies are inadequate)
- Stephens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2009) (plain meaning and statutory interpretation in judicial review)
- In re JKJ Chevrolet, Inc., 26 F.3d 481 (4th Cir. 1994) (plain language interpretation guidance)
- Amzura Enters., Inc. v. Ratcher, 18 F. App'x 95 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished decision cited for procedural context)