43 F. Supp. 3d 693
S.D. Miss.2014Background
- Plaintiffs sought unredacted NVRA records from Mississippi’s June 24, 2014 Republican primary runoff to audit potential irregularities and challenge the outcome.
- Defendants include Secretary of State Hosemann, County Election Commissions, and the Republican Party; county circuit clerks hold or gatekeep relevant records subject to redaction laws.
- Mississippi law requires redaction of birthdates (and SSNs) in public records; NVRA Public Disclosure Provision requires disclosure of certain records but contemplates privacy exemptions.
- Plaintiffs filed suit July 9, 2014 and sought preliminary relief; NVRA notice-and-cure requirements (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-9) are central to bar analysis.
- Court held most NVRA claims procedurally barred or not entitled to unredacted disclosure; poll books and absentee ballot applications/envelopes are not within NVRA Public Disclosure Provision; Voter Roll is disclosable but moot because already in Plaintiffs’ possession.
- Final orders adjudicated NVRA claims against multiple defendants, denying injunctive relief, denying sanctions, and granting some summary judgments; Mississippi redaction provisions were not preempted by NVRA for birthdates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Republican Party a proper NVRA defendant? | True the Vote contends NVRA applies to state-maintained records; party should be covered as a party to the action. | Republican Party is not a State and not subject to NVRA Public Disclosure Provision. | Republican Party not a proper NVRA defendant. |
| Are the County Defendants proper NVRA defendants? | Counties and their election entities maintain records; joinder and reach of NVRA extend to local officials. | Some counties argue only circuit clerks were addressed; yet courts have recognized county/ local officials as proper parties in NVRA actions. | County Defendants are proper parties; dismissal on this basis denied. |
| Does § 1973gg-9 preclude the NVRA claims here? | Plaintiffs complied with notice and cure where applicable and should proceed on all requested records. | Most alleged violations occurred after the runoff; pre-suit notice and cure bars apply to those claims; only a narrow pre-election preclusion survives for Engelbrecht. | § 1973gg-9(b)(2) acts as procedural bar to the majority of NVRA claims; only True the Vote’s post-election claim against Hinds and Rankin survives to the extent specified. |
| Does the NVRA require disclosure of the requested documents and does it preempt Mississippi redaction law? | NVRA’s Public Disclosure Provision requires broad disclosure of records; birthdates should be disclosed to investigate cross-over voting. | NVRA does not mandate unredacted birthdates; Mississippi redaction provisions are compatible and not preempted. | NVRA does not require unredacted birthdates; NVRA does not preempt Mississippi redaction provisions on these facts. |
| Do the Mississippi redaction provisions survive with respect to the NVRA scope here? | Birthdates should be disclosed under NVRA to promote transparency and election integrity. | Birthdates are uniquely sensitive and subject to privacy protections; redaction is permissible and not preempted. | Mississippi redaction provisions survive; birthdates not required to be disclosed under NVRA in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012) ( NVRA public disclosure scope includes records relating to voter registration; discusses 'official lists' and disclosure limits)
- Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2013) (NVRA pertains to records maintained by the State; limits on scope to state-maintained records)
- United States v. Missouri, 535 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (Elections Clause preemption considerations; state responsibility for nondisclosure)
- Siebold v. Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) (Congress preempts conflicting state election regulations under Elections Clause)
- Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) (Elections Clause preemption scope and state regulation of times, places, and manner)