Fish v. Kobach
Decision Date | 17 May 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16-2105-JAR-JPO |
Citation | 189 F.Supp.3d 1107 |
Parties | Steven Wayne Fish, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kris Kobach, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Angela M. Liu, Dechert LLP, Chicago, IL, Dale E. Ho, R. Orion Danjuma, Sophia Lin Lakin, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Neal A. Steiner, Rebecca Kahan Waldman, Dechert, LLP, New York, NY, Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiffs.
Bryan J. Brown, Bryan Brown, Garrett Robert Roe, Kris Kobach, Secretary of State, Christopher M. Ray, M. J. Willoughby, Office of Attorney General, Joseph Brian Cox, Kansas Department of Revenue, Topeka, KS, for Defendants.
This lawsuit challenges the Kansas documentary proof of citizenship requirement as it applies to those who apply to register to vote in federal elections during the driver's license application or renewal process. The individual plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 18, 2016, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and Kansas Secretary of Revenue Nick Jordan. The Complaint alleges that the Kansas documentary proof of citizenship requirement and a related regulation are preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they are unconstitutional under the Elections Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on February 25, 2016 (Doc. 19). Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from enforcing K.S.A. § 25–2309(l), which requires voters to provide proof of United States' citizenship when they apply to register to vote at the same time they apply for or renew a driver's license, and K.A.R. § 7–23–15, which allows cancellation of voter registration applications that are incomplete for more than 90 days after application due to failure to prove United States' citizenship, until the case can be determined on the merits.
The Court allowed the parties to conduct limited, expedited discovery, and heard evidence and argument on the motion on April 14, 2016. At this time, the Court also considers Defendant Secretary of Revenue Nick Jordan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64) to the extent it asserts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These matters are fully briefed. The Court has considered the parties' briefs, the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the parties' oral arguments, and is prepared to rule. As explained more fully below, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted in part and denied in part.
In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"). The NVRA has four stated purposes:
The NVRA seeks to achieve these objectives by creating national registration requirements for federal elections through three methods: simultaneously with a driver's license application ("motor-voter"), by mail using the federal form approved by the Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"), or in person.3 This case deals with the first option only—applying to register simultaneously when applying for a driver's license.
Section 5 of the NVRA requires that every application for a driver's license, including license renewals, "shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office."4 Subsection (c) of section 5 provides:
Each State shall also:
The NVRA was passed after the House and Senate each passed voter registration bills and proceeded to conference committee. The Senate's bill contained several Republican-proposed amendments, referred to as a "core" package of amendments that allowed the bill to pass the Senate.8 Another amendment to the Senate bill, which was not part of the core amendments, but was in the Senate bill that went to conference, was a rule of construction that had been proposed by Senator Simpson ("the Simpson Amendment").9 That amendment provided "that nothing in this Act shall prevent a State from requiring presentation of documentation relating to citizenship of an applicant for voter registration."10 At the time the amendment was debated in the Senate, before it went to conference, Senator Ford, who sponsored the legislation, stated that the amendment was redundant because the bill did not preclude States from requiring documentary proof of citizenship.11 But the conference decided to follow the House bill instead, which did not include this provision. The conference report explains:
It is not necessary or consistent with the purposes of this Act. Furthermore, there is concern that it could be interpreted by States to permit registration requirements that could effectively eliminate, or seriously interfere with, the mail registration program of the Act. It could also adversely affect the administration of the other registration programs as well. In addition, it creates confusion with regard to the relationship of this Act to the Voting Rights Act. Except for this provision, this Act has been carefully drafted to assure that it would not supersede, restrict or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act. These concerns lead the conferees to conclude that this section should be deleted.12
When submitting the conference committee report on the Senate floor, Senator Ford discussed the amendment. After citing the same concerns raised in the report, he stated:
Mr. President, every State mandates that you must be a citizen of the United States to be eligible to vote. This bill requires that, on every application for registration, the requirements for eligibility must be clearly set forth, including citizenship. And every applicant signs a statement that they meet each and every requirement, and that statement is signed under penalty of perjury.13
The NVRA was ultimately passed without the proposed rule of construction amendment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Action NC v. Strach, 1:15-cv-1063
...of Transportation] possesses a sufficient connection to the alleged violation of federal law"); Fish v. Kobach , 189 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1128, 2016 WL 2866195, at *13 (D. Kan. May 17, 2016) (holding that the DMV is a responsible party under the NVRA and noting that "the DMV and Secretary of Sta......
-
VoteAmerica v. Schwab
...in minimizing voter confusion is connected to its broader legitimate interest in protecting election integrity. Fish v. Kobach, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1148 (D. Kan. 2016), aff'd, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016).With respect to voter confusion, Mr. Caskey testified that local election offices r......
-
Bednasek v. Kobach
...individuals who either register at the time they apply for a driver's license, or use a "Federal Form" to register. See Fish v. Kobach , 189 F.Supp.3d 1107 (2016), aff'd , 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) ; League of Women Voters v. Newby , 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), rev'g 195 F.Supp.3d 80 (......
-
League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby
...to vote in federal elections at the same time they apply for or renew a driver's license." Fish v. Kobach, No. 16–2105, 189 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1152, 2016 WL 2866195, *32 (D.Kan. May 17, 2016), appeal docketed No. 16–3175 (10th Cir. June 16, 2016). Her order, which went into effect on June 14, ......
-
New Tricks for an Old Dog: Deterring the Vote Through Confusion in Felon Disenfranchisement.
...sections of chapters 5 and 6 of the Wisconsin statutes). (10.) Id. (11.) Id. (12.) Id. (13.) Id. at 844. (14.) Fish v. Kobach, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1134 (D. Kan. 2016). The court enjoined the law and it remains enjoined while the case is on (15.) Id. at 1115-16. For most voters, DPOC is a ......