Voting for America, Inc. v. Andrade
888 F. Supp. 2d 816
S.D. Tex.2012Background
- National nonprofit voter registration groups Challenge Texas third‑party voter registration regime; Texas requires volunteer deputy registrars (VDRs) with tight appointment/training rules and prohibits certain compensation practices.
- 2011 Texas amendments added: only Texas residents may be VDRs; mandatory training; new compensation restrictions; in‑county appointment rules
- Organizational Plaintiffs allege TX rules raise costs, hinder drives, restrict speech/association, and withhold election records; claim NVRA preemption and First/ Fourteenth Amendment violations
- Galveston County residents Brad Richey and Penelope McFadden joined with Project Vote and Voting for America; Defendants are Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade and Galveston County Tax Assessor Cheryl Johnson
- Court denies some relief but grants partial preliminary injunction on several challenges, concludes standing and likelihood of success on some preemption and First Amendment claims
- Proceedings included lengthy evidentiary hearing; court balanced equities under Fifth Circuit standards for preliminary relief
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVRA/Elections Clause preemption scope | Plaintiffs (Organizational Plaintiffs) argue NVRA preempts Photocopying Prohibition and Personal Delivery. | Secretary/Johnson contend TX law governs and preemption limited. | Substantial likelihood of preemption for Photocopying Prohibition and Personal Delivery requirements. |
| First Amendment protection for voter registration activities | Registration drives constitute protected speech/association; restrictions burden core rights. | State may regulate to prevent fraud and maintain election integrity. | Substantial likelihood of success for In‑State Restriction, County Limitation, and parts of Compensation Prohibition under Anderson‑Burdick; strict scrutiny applied where appropriate. |
| In‑State Restriction constitutionality | Ban on non‑Texas residents as VDRs burdens speech/association. | State interest in fraud prevention justifies restriction. | Likely violation of First Amendment; substantial burden with insufficient tailoring. |
| County Limitation constitutionality | County-by-county appointment/training burdens statewide drives; lacks nexus to fraud prevention. | Regulatory scheme aids enforcement and fraud prevention. | Likely burden on First Amendment; the restriction is not shown to meaningfully reduce fraud. |
| Compensation Prohibition breadth | Covers performance‑based employment decisions, essential to staff management; overbroad. | Prevents fraud by limiting incentives; some provisions narrowly tailored. | Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) bear substantial risk of unconstitutional overbreadth under First Amendment; partial injunction warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.2008) (standing to challenge NVRA-like provisions; local officials as proper parties)
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir.2012) (Election Clause preemption analysis; NVRA preemption applied to state restrictions)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir.2001) (en banc; standing when defendant has duty/ability to affect enforcement)