Democratic Party of Va. v. Brink
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:21-cv-756-HEH |
| Parties | DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT H. BRINK, in his official capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Elections, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Administering an election in a modem democracy is complex and demanding. To complete such a formidable task and govern its elections, the Commonwealth of Virginia has implemented a scheme of statutes and regulations. While election administration is chiefly the providence of the state legislature and the executive federal courts must ensure that Virginia's election administration comports with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. See Marcellus v. Va. St. Bd. of Elections, 849 F.3d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 2017).
It is within this purview that the Democratic Party of Virginia (“DPVA”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC” and collectively “Plaintiffs”) challenge two of Virginia's election laws before this Court. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No 1.) Those laws include the requirements that (1) an applicant must disclose their full ninedigit social security number (“SSN”) to register to vote (the “full SSN requirement”); and (2) in order to receive mandatory notice of a defect on an absentee ballot envelope, a voter must submit their ballot by the Friday before election day and such voter will have until noon on the following Friday to cure the defect (the “notice and cure process”). (Id)
Currently before the Court are Defendants' two Motions to Dismiss seeking to reject this lawsuit in its entirety. (“State's Motion, ” ECF No. 29; “RPV's Motion, ” ECF No. 42.) The parties submitted extensive memoranda on the Motions and the Court heard oral argument on April 11, 2022. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motions in part and deny them in part. Plaintiffs' challenges to the full SSN requirement will survive (Counts I, II, III, and VI), while their challenges to the notice and cure process (Counts IV and V) will be dismissed.
DPVA is the officially recognized state party committee for the Democratic Party in Virginia. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Relevant here, part of DPVA's mission is to help its members register to vote and ultimately vote in person or by absentee ballot. (Id.) DPVA often runs registration drives for potential voters and assists its members in voting absentee by sending them reminders and monitoring the status of their ballots. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) DCCC is the national congressional campaign arm of the national Democratic Party. (Id. ¶ 22.) DCCC's mission is to elect Democrats to Congress in all states, including Virginia. (Id.) To that end, DCCC partners with state party organizations like DPVA to win elections. (Id.) DCCC “coordinates with and relies on DPVA and other similar organizations to conduct voter registration drives in Virginia.” (Id.) Additionally, DCCC plans to run its own voter registration drives and monitor absentee ballot requests in Virginia in 2022[2] (Id. ¶ 23.)
Defendants Robert H. Brink, Jamilah D. Lecruise, and John O'Bannon, all hold various positions on the Virginia State Board of Elections (the “Board”). (Id. ¶ 24.) Defendant Christopher E. Piper is the Commissioner of the Department of Elections (the “Commissioner”).[3] (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs sued the State Defendants in their official capacities as they are the state employees that ultimately enforce Virginia's election laws. (Id. ¶¶24-25.)
On January 12, 2022, the Republican Party of Virginia (“RPV”) filed a Motion to Intervene in this action as a defendant. (ECF No. 27.) The Court granted the Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 40), and RPV subsequently filed their Motion to Dismiss.[4] RPV is the officially recognized state party for the Republican Party in Virginia. (RPV's Mem. Supp. Mot. Intervene at 1, ECF No. 28.) RPV's mission is to elect Republicans to public office in Virginia and ensure that elections are fair and accurate. (Id. at 2.) While the State Defendants seek to defend Virginia's election laws without regard for the political repercussions, RPV likely seeks to defend voting laws that it believes will benefit its candidates and voters.
Plaintiffs challenge Virginia's full SSN requirement and notice and cure process. The full SSN requirement obligates an applicant to disclose their full nine-digit SSN to register to vote. (Compl. ¶ 1.) This regulation is enshrined in the Virginia Constitution adopted in 1971. “Applications to register [to vote] shall require the applicant to provide the following information on a standard form: full name; date of birth; residence address; [and] social security number, if any...Va. Const, art. II, § 2 (1971). The full SSN requirement is repeated in Virginia statutes regulating paper and electronic voter registration forms. Va. Code Ann. §§ 24.2-418, 416.7.[5] When an applicant does not include their full SSN on the registration form, the registrar must deny the applicant and notify them of the denial within five days. 1 Va. Admin. Code § 20-40-40; Va. Code. Ann. §§ 24.2-418, 422. The applicant will have a chance to submit another form or appeal the denial, but the registrar will never allow an applicant to register without disclosing their full SSN. 1 Va. Admin. Code § 20-40-40; Va. Code. Ann. §§ 24.2-418, 422.[6]
The notice and cure process that Plaintiffs challenge is more complex. Virginia allows all voters to vote absentee, by mail or in person, without a specific reason. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 24.2-700, 416.1. Only the procedures for voting absentee by mail are relevant here. After a voter requests an absentee ballot, the state mails them an absentee ballot and a ballot envelope 45 days before election day or, if requested closer to election day, within three business days. Id. § 24.2-612. Once a voter has filled out their absentee ballot, they must seal it inside the ballot envelope. Id. § 24.2-707(A). On the outside of the ballot envelope, the voter must fill out various information that verifies the authenticity of the absentee ballot. Id. Then, the voter can either seal the ballot envelope inside a mailing envelope and mail it the registrar or the voter can return the ballot envelope in person to the registrar's office or an approved drop off location. Id. § 24.2-707(B). A voter must return their absentee ballot in person by 7:00 p.m. on election day or, if returned by mail and postmarked by election day, by noon on the Friday after election day. Id. § 24.2-709.
The registrar must reject an absentee ballot if the ballot envelope omitted material information such as: (1) the voter's first or last name; (2) the voter's full address; (3) the voter's signature; or (4) a witness' signature. 1 Va. Admin Code § 20-70-20(B). If a ballot envelope omits material information and the registrar receives it by the Friday before election day, the registrar must notify the voter of the error in writing or by email and give them an opportunity to correct the error (the “notice deadline”). Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-709.1(C). If a voter submits their absentee ballot after the Friday before election day, however, the registrar need not alert the voter of any defect on their ballot envelope.[7]See id. A voter may correct a mistake on their ballot envelope by the Friday after election day at noon (the “cure deadline”). Id.
On December 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief challenging these two election provisions. (Compl.) Plaintiffs argue that the full SSN requirement unconstitutionally limits their First Amendment right to associate with voters (Count I); violates a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 52 U.S.C. § 10101 (Count II); violates the Privacy Act of 1974 (Count III); and unconstitutionally burdens their members' right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count VI). (Id.) Plaintiffs additionally contend that the notice and cure process denies their members procedural due process as required by the Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV) and unconstitutionally burdens their members' right to vote (CountV).[8] (Id.)
As a remedy, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment declaring that the full SSN requirement and notice and cure process violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law. (Id. at 39-40.) Plaintiffs further ask that the Court enjoin the State Defendants from enforcing the challenged regulations and award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. (Id.) Defendants move that the Court dismiss each of Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (State's Motion; RPV's Motion.)
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “does not resolve contests surrounding facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 387 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)). “A complaint need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Tobey, 706 F.3d at 387). However, a “complaint must provide ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Turner v. Thomas, 930 F.3d 640, 644 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“Allegations have facial plausibility ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Tobey, 706...
To continue reading
Request your trial