VoteAmerica v. Schwab
| Decision Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 21-2253-KHV |
| Citation | 576 F.Supp.3d 862 |
| Parties | VOTEAMERICA and Voter Participation Center, Plaintiffs, v. Scott SCHWAB, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Kansas; Derek Schmidt, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Kansas; Stephen M. Howe in his official capacity as District Attorney of Johnson County, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Alice Huling, Pro Hac Vice, Aseem Mulji, Pro Hac Vice, Danielle M. Lang, Pro Hac Vice, Hayden Johnson, Pro Hac Vice, Robert N. Weiner, Pro Hac Vice, Dana Paikowsky, Pro Hac Vice, Jade Ford, Pro Hac Vice, Campaign Legal Center, Washington, DC, Brooke Jarrett, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Pro Hac Vice, Meredith D. Karp, Pro Hac Vice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, NY, Mark P. Johnson, Wade P. K. Carr, Dentons US, LLP, Reid Day, Tedrick A. Housh, III, Lathrop Gpm, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.
Bradley Joseph Schlozman, Krystle M. S. Dalke, Scott R. Schillings, Hinkle Law Firm LLC, Wichita, KS, for Defendants.
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, United States District Judge VoteAmerica and Voter Participation Center bring suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against Scott Schwab in his official capacity as Kansas Secretary of State, Derek Schmidt in his official capacity as Kansas Attorney General and Stephen M. Howe in his official capacity as District Attorney of Johnson County. Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief (Doc. #1) filed June 2, 2021. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and breached the Dormant Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against enforcement of two provisions of HB 2332, which will be codified as K.S.A. § 25–1122 : (1) Section 3(l)(1), which bars persons and organizations that are not residents of or domiciled in Kansas from mailing or causing to be mailed advance mail ballot applications to Kansas voters and (2) Section 3(k)(2), which criminalizes mailing personalized advance ballot applications.
On September 8, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. #26) filed July 9, 20211 and Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #24) filed July 8, 2021.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court assumes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and determines whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim which is plausible—not merely conceivable—on its face. Id. at 679–80, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). To determine whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the Court draws on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
The Court need not accept as true those allegations which state only legal conclusions. See id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Plaintiffs make a facially plausible claim when they plead factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer that defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. However, plaintiffs must show more than a sheer possibility that defendants have acted unlawfully—it is not enough to plead facts that are "merely consistent with" defendants’ liability. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A pleading which offers labels and conclusions, a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement will not stand. Id. Similarly, where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but has not "shown"—that the pleaders are entitled to relief. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The degree of specificity necessary to establish plausibility and fair notice depends on context; what constitutes fair notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) depends on the type of case. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008).
When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court does not analyze potential evidence that the parties might produce or resolve factual disputes. Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002). A motion to dismiss does not ask the Court to analyze plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits; rather, the Court must find only a reason to believe that plaintiffs have a "reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for the claims," Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007), and that their claims are "plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
Highly summarized, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges as follows:2
A. Voting In Kansas
Kansas law permits any eligible voter to cast an advance ballot. Kansas has two types of advance voting: advance voting in person (i.e., early voting) and advance mail voting.3 Advance voting requires a voter to apply to a county election officer for a mail-in ballot. The Secretary of State coordinates advance voting statewide by creating uniform procedures and forms. County election officers administer voting locally by accepting and processing applications, providing ballots to eligible voters, receiving ballots that have been cast and ultimately accepting or rejecting ballots. County election officers also prepare and maintain lists of persons who have filed advance voting applications. During the 2020 election cycle, the advance voting application form was publicly available on the web sites of the Kansas Secretary of State, local election offices and various third parties.
To apply for an advance mail ballot, a voter must provide a Kansas driver's license number, a Kansas nondriver's ID card number or another specified form of identification. A county election officer must verify that the voter's signature matches the signature on file in voter registration records. Voters may cast advance ballots on or before Election Day, either by mailing completed ballots or dropping off their ballots at a local election office.
In 2020, Kansas voters of all political persuasions turned out in historic numbers. Particularly given COVID-19, Kansas also saw a steep increase in advance mail voting. More than 1.3 million Kansans voted in the 2020 general election, nearly six per cent more than in 2016. More Kansans voted by advance mail ballot in November of 2020 than the elections in 2016 and 2018 combined. Shortly after the 2020 election, the Secretary of State's office stated that
In March of 2021, the Kansas Legislature introduced HB 2332 to regulate the advance ballot application process. Governor Laura Kelly vetoed the bill on April 23, 2021. On May 3, 2021, the Kansas Senate and House overrode the Governor's veto, and HB 2332 will become effective on January 1, 2022. HB 2332, § 11.
HB 2332 contains two provisions (collectively, "Ballot Application Restrictions") that are at issue in this action.
HB 2332 bans any person from mailing an advance voting application or causing an application to be mailed, unless the sender is a resident of Kansas or domiciled in Kansas. HB 2332, § 3(l)(1) (the "Out-of-State Distributor Ban"). This ban applies whether the sender is mailing a single application in response to a request from an individual Kansas voter or is engaged in mass mailing of unsolicited applications.
The legislation imposes a civil penalty of $20.00 for "[e]ach instance in which a person mails an application for an advance voting ballot." HB 2332, § 3(l)(3). Anybody can file a complaint alleging a violation of the Out-of-State Distributor Ban, and the attorney general must investigate all complaints. HB 2332, § 3(l)(2). The attorney general may also file suit against anyone who violates this provision.
The "Personalized Application Prohibition" prohibits the mailing of any advance mail ballot application that has been personalized with a voter's information, even where the voter has personally provided that information. The Prohibition applies to any person who by mail solicits a registered voter to apply for an advance voting ballot and includes in such mailing an application for an advance voting ballot. HB 2332, § 3(k)(1).
Personalized application violations are class C nonperson misdemeanors, which are punishable by up to one month in jail and/or fines. HB 2332, § 3(k)(5); K.S.A. § 21-6602(a)(3). The Personalized Application Prohibition does not apply to state or county election officials or to entities which must provide information about elections under federal law. HB 2332, § 3(k)(4).
B. Parties
Plaintiffs are out-of-state, nonpartisan organizations which provide voter information, applications and forms to facilitate political engagement by voters, including advance mail ballot applications. Such organizations have long played a vital role in democracy by persuading citizens to engage with the political process.
VoteAmerica is a California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. Its core mission is to help eligible voters engage in the electoral process, emphasizing voting by mail. VoteAmerica believes that voting by mail is the most effective way to ensure the broadest participation in elections. To empower voters to exercise their votes, VoteAmerica provides access to trusted election information, open platform technology and...
To continue reading
Request your trial