League of Women Voters of Mo. v. Ashcroft, Case No. 2:18-CV-04073-BCW

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
• Citation: 336 F.Supp.3d 998
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:18-CV-04073-BCW
• Parties: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John R. ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 26 September 2018

336 F.Supp.3d 998

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
John R. ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-CV-04073-BCW

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division.

Signed September 26, 2018

336 F.Supp.3d 1000

Allison Boldt, Chiraag Bains, Davin M. Rosborough, Pro Hac Vice, Denise Debra Lieberman, Sabrina Shermin Khan, Pro Hac Vice, Sarah Brannon, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Joshua B. Picker, Pro Hac Vice, Saad U. Rizwan, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, Naila S. Awan, Pro Hac Vice, New York, NY, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Kansas City, MO, Jessie Steffan, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Doug Shull, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, MO, Russell J. Keller, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Kansas City, MO, David D. Dean, Missouri Attorney General's Office, St. Louis, MO, Ryan Lee Bangert, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER AND OPINION

JUDGE BRIAN C. WIMES

336 F.Supp.3d 1001

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 31). The Court, being duly advised of the premises, grants in part and denies in part said motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2018, Plaintiffs League of Women Voters of Missouri, St. Louis A. Philip Randolph Institute, Greater Kansas City A. Philip Randolph Institute (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed claims against Defendants John R. Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, and Joel W. Walters, in his official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue ("Defendants"), alleging violation of the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20501, et seq. ("NVRA").

Plaintiffs are organizations engaged in voter registration activities in Missouri. Ashcroft, as Missouri Secretary of State, is the designated chief state election official for purposes of the NVRA. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.136. Walters, as the Missouri Director of the Department of Revenue, oversees the Driver License Bureau.

The Driver License Bureau, a division of the Department of Revenue (hereinafter, "the Department"), administers driver's licenses and nondriver's identification cards¹ in Missouri pursuant to state law. To obtain a Missouri driver's license, an applicant must be a Missouri resident, and provide documentary verification of Missouri residency. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.171. Once the license application is approved, this verified residential address is printed on the physical license card itself, and is also encoded on the back of the license card. 12 C.S.R. 10-24.430.

The Department also requires a license holder to provide, in addition to a residential address, a mailing address. The mailing address does not appear on the license card itself. Rather, the license holder's mailing address is used for the Department to communicate with the license holder. The license holder's residential address and mailing address, as well as other identifying information associated with the license holder, are separately entered and stored by the Department in the Missouri Driver's License Information Database ("MODL").

Missouri license holders may change their address information. The appropriate procedure for changing address information varies based on whether the license

336 F.Supp.3d 1002

holder wishes to change the residential address or the mailing address associated with his or her license.

Under the Department's current procedure, license holders can make changes to their residential addresses in person only. A change of residential address requires documentary verification. If a license holder makes a change to their residential address, they may, but are not required to, pay a fee for the Department to print a new license card reflecting the updated residential address. If a license holder elects to avoid this fee, a change in residential address will be changed in MODL only. Any change to a license holder's residential address need not impact the mailing address associated with the license and stored in MODL.

Likewise, a change in mailing address need not impact the residential address associated with a license and stored in MODL. License holders may also change the mailing address through which the Department communicates license-related information. A change of mailing address does not require documentary verification.

Under the scenarios described above, in which a license holder goes into a license office, the Department offers voter registration services in connection with a change of residential address and/or change of mailing address.

By contrast, the Department's current procedures allow license holders to change the mailing address associated with their licenses, in person, online, or by mail. If a license holder updates their mailing address in person at a license office, the Department offers them voter registration services in connection with that mailing address change. However, if a license holder updates their mailing address online or by mail, the Department does not offer voter registration services.

Plaintiffs assert that Missouri's current processes for change-of-mailing-address-online and change-of-mailing-address-by-mail violate Section 5(d) of the NVRA because Defendants do not provide voter registration services in connection with these change-of-mailing-address transactions ("Subject Transactions"). Plaintiffs seek entry of a preliminary injunction against this alleged violation of the NVRA before the November 6, 2018 federal election. Defendants dispute the Department's current processes for the Subject Transactions violate the NVRA.

On August 8, 2018, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion. Having considered the record and the parties' arguments during the hearing, the Court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated a right to preliminary injunctive relief.

LEGAL STANDARD

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy," and the burden of establishing the propriety of a preliminary injunction is on the moving party. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court must consider the following factors: (1) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties to the litigation; and (4) the public interest. Rogers Grp., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, Ark., 629 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) ). Likelihood of success on the merits is the "most significant" factor, and "the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits strongly suggests that preliminary injunctive relief should be denied." Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013). "The party seeking injunctive relief

336 F.Supp.3d 1003

bears the burden of proving all the Dataphase factors." Watkins, 346 F.3d at 844.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs argue this Court should enter preliminary injunctive relief against Defendants because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits relative to their claim that Defendants' failure to offer voter registration services in connection with the Subject Transactions violates the NVRA. Plaintiffs further assert that the other Dataphase factors also weigh in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' assertions, arguing the NVRA requires voter registration services in association with residential address changes only. Defendants also argue Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm, and the balance of the harms weighs against preliminary injunction. Finally, Defendants argue a preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.

A. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATE A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS.

Plaintiffs assert a likelihood of success on the merits that Defendants' current processes for the Subject Transactions violate Section 5(d) of the NVRA. Defendants assert Plaintiffs have not established an NVRA violation because Section 5(d) requires voter registration services "for purposes of a State motor vehicle driver's license." Whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits is a question of statutory interpretation.

Section 5(d) of the NVRA provides:

Any change of address form submitted in accordance with State law for purposes of a State motor vehicle driver's license shall serve as notification of change of address for voter registration with respect to elections for Federal office for the registrant involved unless the registrant states on the form that the change of address is not for voter registration purposes.

52 U.S.C. § 20504(d).

Analysis of...