Ill. Conservative Union v. Illinois
| Decision Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20 C 5542,20 C 5542 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CONSERVATIVE UNION; CAROL J. DAVIS; JANET L. SHAW; and LORETTA J. SAVEE, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; and BERNADETTE MATTHEWS, in her capacity as the Acting Executive Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Illinois Conservative Union, Inc. ("ICU"), Carol J. Davis, Janet L. Shaw, and Loretta J. Savee requested that the Illinois State Board of Elections (the "Board") produce electronic voter registration data for Illinois pursuant to Section 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ("NVRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. When the Board refused to produce the list in electronic format and restricted viewing to a computer terminal at the Board's office, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants the State of Illinois (the "State"), the Board, and Bernadette Matthews, in her official capacity as the Board's acting executive director. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' refusal to provide them with the requested information violates Section 8(i) of the NVRA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief that would require Defendants to produce the Illinois voter registration list in a usable, electronic format. Defendants have filed amotion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Because Plaintiffs have adequately alleged an injury in fact and plausible arguments exist that the restrictions on Plaintiffs' right of access to voter information violates Section 8(i) of the NVRA and the Equal Protection Clause, the Court allows Plaintiffs' claims to proceed. Although sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs from proceeding against the State and the Board on the equal protection claim, leaving only Matthews as a Defendant on that claim, the Court reserves ruling on whether Plaintiffs can pursue the NVRA claim against the State and the Board pending supplemental briefing.
Congress adopted the NVRA, which regulates voter registration, for several purposes, including to "protect the integrity of the electoral process" and "to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." 52 U.S.C. § 20501. Among other things, the NVRA requires states to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of" death or a change in residence. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). The NVRA otherwise prohibits states from removing names from the voter rolls unless the individual voter requests removal, state law requires removal, or the state removes the individual voter pursuant to a mandatory removal program. Id. § 20507(a)(3).
Section 8(i) of the NVRA provides for public disclosure of certain voter registration activities. Id. § 20507(i). Specifically, Section 8(i) provides:
Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.
Id. Section 8(i) further specifies that "records" include "lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in subsection (d)(2) are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made." Id.
Illinois has designated the Board, an independent state agency, as the responsible party for supervising the administration of voter registration and election laws throughout Illinois. The Board maintains the centralized voter registration database required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and has the authority to carry out rules necessary to implement the NVRA's prescribed voter registration form. Matthews, the Board's acting executive director, serves as the State's chief election official, with responsibility for coordinating the State's compliance with the NVRA.
ICU, a not-for-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(4) organization, seeks to engage and educate grassroots conservative activists in Illinois. Davis serves as ICU's chairman and Shaw is its vice-chair. Davis, Shaw, and Savee are all registered Illinois voters.
ICU and its members believe that the State's failure to comply with the NVRA's obligations could undermine election integrity and allow for improper or fraudulent voting. To address this concern, in recent years, ICU launched an election integrity program, which Shaw and Savee co-chair. The election integrity program has used the NVRA's public disclosureprovision to request and obtain records from Illinois jurisdictions about their voter list maintenance efforts.
As relevant to this litigation, on July 24, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a public records request pursuant to Section 8(i) of the NVRA to Steve Sandvoss, the Board's former executive director. Davis, Shaw, and Savee all signed the letter. Plaintiffs requested that the Board "make available to [it] all pertinent records by [the Board] or in [the Board's] possession, custody, or control concerning the 'implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency' of Illinois' official lists of eligible voters during the past 2 years." Doc. 1-1 at 1. Among other things, Plaintiffs requested the most recent voter registration list for Illinois, including fields for registered voters' names, full dates of birth, home addresses, most recent voter activity, unique voter IDs, and voting status. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought the names and addresses of all persons to whom the Board sent notices described in 52 U.S.C. § 20501(d)(2) and any responses to those notices, and manuals, training materials, and other documents concerning the Board's efforts to ensure the accuracy and currency of the voter list. Plaintiffs indicated they would use the records to ensure the accuracy and currency of the official list of eligible voters and not for other purposes. Plaintiffs included a check for $500, the standard fee charged to political committees for fulfilling statewide voter data requests.
On August 14, 2019, the Board's public information officer responded to Plaintiffs' request. The Board provided a disc containing a file of all registrations made inactive after January 1, 2017 and those voters' current status, which addressed Plaintiffs' request regarding the § 20501(d)(2) notices. The Board also sent Plaintiffs printed records of voter list maintenance activity summaries and electronic redacted versions of two manuals. But the Board denied Plaintiffs' request for the official list of eligible voters, maintaining that Illinois lawprohibited the electronic release of the full voter database to all but registered political committees and governmental bodies. The Board instead indicated that Plaintiffs could access information regarding Illinois' voter list maintenance efforts in person at the Board's main office in Springfield during normal business hours. The Board also returned Plaintiffs' $500 check.
On August 28, 2019, three ICU members, Shaw, Savee, and Nancy Hayes, visited the Board's main office to inspect and obtain copies of the official list of eligible voters in Illinois. Cheryl A. Hobson, the Board's deputy director of voter registration, informed them that they could not make copies of the statewide voter registration list, as Illinois law only allowed distribution to political committees and governmental bodies. The ICU members did review the voter records one at a time on a computer terminal, but they could not sort or organize the voter records and had only limited search abilities. Plaintiffs claim that, due to these restrictions, they could not assess the effectiveness of the State's efforts to ensure the accuracy and currency of the official list of eligible voters.
On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs sent another letter to the Board, providing it with statutory notice of violations of Section 8(i) of the NVRA because it did not provide Plaintiffs with the requested electronic voter registration information. Plaintiffs also clarified that their request included voter history from 2008 to 2018. Plaintiffs indicated that they would bring suit if the Board did not correct the violation within ninety days. The Board received the letter on November 27, 2019 but did not respond or produce the requested electronic voter registration data. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 18, 2020.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Where, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency ofthe allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction—a facial challenge—the Court "must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences" in the plaintiff's favor. Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 173 (7th Cir. 2015). "[W]hen evaluating a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction," the Court employs the Twombly-Iqbal "plausibility" standard, "which is the same standard used to evaluate facial challenges to claims under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id. at 174.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and...
To continue reading
Request your trial