Fish v. Schwab
| Decision Date | 29 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-3134,No. 18-3133,18-3133 |
| Citation | 957 F.3d 1105 |
| Parties | Steven Wayne FISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Donna Bucci, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Charles Stricker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Thomas J. Boynton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Douglas Hutchinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; League of Women Voters of Kansas, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Scott SCHWAB, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, Defendant - Appellant. State of Texas; State of Arkansas; State of Oklahoma; State of West Virginia; Paul LePage, Governor of Maine; State of Missouri; Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Amici Curiae. Cody Keener; Alder Cromwell, Plaintiffs, and Parker Bednasek, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Scott Schwab, Kansas Secretary of State, Defendant - Appellant. State of Texas; State of Arkansas; State of Oklahoma; State of West Virginia; Paul LePage, Governor of Maine; State of Missouri; Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Amici Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Toby Crouse, Solicitor General of Kansas, (Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, Jeffrey A. Chanay, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bryan C. Clark, Assistant Solicitor General, Dwight R. Carswell, Assistant Solicitor General, with him on the briefs), Office of Attorney General, Topeka, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellant.
Dale Ho, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York, (R. Orion Danjuma and Sophia Lin Lakin, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Mark P. Johnson, Curtis E. Woods and Samantha Wenger, Dentons US LLP, Kansas City, Missouri; Neil A. Steiner and Rebecca Kahan Waldman, Dechert LLP, New York, New York; Angela M. Liu, Dechert LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Lauren Bonds and Zal K. Shroff, ACLU Foundation of Kansas, Overland Park, Kansas; Lino S. Lipinsky De Orlov, Dentons US LLP, Denver, Colorado; Mark T. Emert, Fagan, Emert & Davis LLC, Lawrence, Kansas; Shannon Wells Stevenson, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Jeffrey C. Mateer, First Assistant Attorney General, Kyle D. Hawkins, Solicitor General, Matthew H. Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Beth Klusmann, Assistant Solicitor General, filed an amicus curiae brief for the States of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Paul R. LePage, Governor of Maine, in support of Defendant-Appellant.
Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, in support of Defendant-Appellant.
Before BRISCOE, McKAY,* and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
In these two consolidated appeals, we must determine whether a Kansas law requiring documentary proof of citizenship ("DPOC") for voter registration is preempted by section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 20504, or violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
We addressed the first of these questions, i.e., whether Kansas’s DPOC requirement is preempted by section 5 of the NVRA, in Fish v. Kobach ("Fish I "), 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016). Section 5 of the NVRA mandates that a voter-registration form must be a part of any application to obtain or renew a driver’s license. Such a registration form " ‘may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to’ prevent duplicate registrations and to ‘enable State election officials to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.’ " Id. at 715–16 (footnotes omitted) (quoting 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(2)(B) ). In Fish I , we held that—on the factual record then before this court—"the DPOC required by Kansas law [was] more than the minimum amount of information necessary [to perform the Kansas Secretary of State’s eligibility-assessment and registration duties] and, therefore, [was] preempted by the NVRA." Id. at 717. Thus, we held that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting [a] preliminary injunction [against the enforcement of the DPOC law] because the NVRA preempts Kansas’s DPOC law as enforced against those applying to vote while obtaining or renewing a driver’s license." Id. at 716. We remanded for a trial on the merits where Kansas’s Secretary of State would have an opportunity to demonstrate that the DPOC requirement was not more than the minimum amount of information necessary to perform his eligibility-assessment and registration duties.
On remand, the district court consolidated that statutory challenge with a related case that raises the second aspect of this appeal, i.e., whether the DPOC requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court and this court have evaluated challenges to state-voter-identification requirements under the Equal Protection Clause. See Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd. , 553 U.S. 181, 189–91, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008) (plurality opinion of Stevens, J.); ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes , 546 F.3d 1313, 1320 (10th Cir. 2008). Proceeding under that framework, the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the DPOC requirement is predicated on the idea that the DPOC requirement unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote because the interests asserted by the Kansas Secretary of State ("the Secretary") are insufficient to justify the burden it imposes on that right.
After holding a joint bench trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the DPOC requirement under both section 5 of the NVRA and the Equal Protection Clause. The Secretary has appealed. His appeal raises the two fundamental questions outlined above. First, in Bednasek v. Schwab , No. 18-3134, does the DPOC requirement violate the Equal Protection Clause? Second, in Fish v. Schwab , No. 18-3133, does section 5 of the NVRA preempt the DPOC requirement? Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we answer both questions in the affirmative and thus affirm the district court’s judgment enjoining enforcement of the DPOC requirement. In doing so, we summarize the relevant background, assure ourselves that the challengers possess standing, and then discuss both challenges to the DPOC requirement, taking up first (for organizational convenience) the constitutional challenge.
Both suits on appeal challenge Kansas’s DPOC requirement, and so we start by recounting Fish I ’s summary of the statute and regulations that constitute Kansas’s DPOC requirement:
Mr. Parker Bednasek—the only remaining plaintiff in Bednasek v. Schwab , No. 18-3134—moved from Texas to Kansas in order to attend the University of Kansas. While he was a full-time student at the University of Kansas, he canceled his Texas voter registration and applied to register to vote in Kansas. He did so because he "considered [him]self to be a resident in Kansas, and [he] wanted to vote in Kansas elections." Aplt.’s App., Vol. 38, at 9339 (Tr. of Bench Trial, Day 2, P.M. Session, filed Mar. 30, 2018). In applying, he swore that he was a Kansas resident and that he had abandoned his former residence. He later swore that he had "no intent to leave Kansas in the future." Id. , Vol. 48, at 11692 (Aff. of Parker Bednasek, filed Apr. 21, 2016). While at the University of Kansas, Mr. Bednasek paid out-of-state tuition, had a vehicle that he jointly owned with his parents that was registered in Texas, had a car insurance policy on that vehicle registered to his parents’ Texas home, and applied for and received a Texas driver’s license.
When he submitted his application to register to vote, Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VoteAmerica v. Schwab
...rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden plaintiffs’ rights. Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105, 1122 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059 ). The degree of scrutiny "will wax and wane with the severity of the bur......
-
Middleton v. Andino
...the interest will not suffice absent "evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights[.]" Fish v. Schwab , 957 F.3d 1105, 1133, (10th Cir. 2020) (affirming injunction against Kansas's documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration).93. "In pass......
-
Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State
...N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 U.S. 196, 205, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008).21 See, e.g., Fish v. Schwab , 957 F.3d 1105, 1121-23 (10th Cir. 2020) ; Harlan v. Scholz , 866 F.3d 754, 759-61 (7th Cir. 2017) ; Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen , 732 F.3d 382, 387-88 (5th......
-
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
...the more relaxed our scrutiny." Arizona Libertarian Party v. Hobbs , 925 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2019) ; see also Fish v. Schwab , 957 F.3d 1105, 1124 (10th Cir. 2020) ("We, and our sister circuits and commentators, have referred to this as a ‘sliding scale’ test."); Libertarian Party of ......
-
Reviving the Prophylactic VRA: Section 3, Purcell, and the New Vote Denial.
...been willing to reject entirely unsubstantiated references to fraud prevention as a state interest, see, for example, Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105, 1133-36 (10th Cir. 2020), and also rejected such claims broadly in the wake of the 2020 election. For more on this issue, see infra notes 311-......
-
The Constitutional Right of Self-Government.
...553 U.S. 181 (2008). (565.) See, e.g., Jones v. Governor of Florida, 975 F.3d 1016 (nth Cir. 2020). (566.) See, e.g., Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. (567.) 570 U.S. 529 (2013). (568.) See INAZU, supra note 5, at 20-117 (summarizing the history and doctrine of the right of assembly......