Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/53

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 15- 135615- 1722

MYRNA COLN- MARRERO; J OSEFI NA ROMAGUERA AGRAI T,

Pl ai nt i f f s, Appel l ees; Cr oss- Appel l ant s,

GUI LLERMO SAN ANTONI O- ACHA, as El ect or al Commi ssi oner of t hePopul ar Democrat i c Par t y; J ORGE DVI LA, as El ect oral

Commi ssi oner of t he New Pr ogr essi ve Par t y,

Def endant s, Appel l ees

v.

LI ZA M. GARC A VLEZ, as Presi dent of t he Puer t o Ri co St ateEl ect i ons Commi ssi on,

Def endant , Appel l ant ; Cr oss- Appel l ee,

ROBERTO I . APONTE- BERR OS, as El ect or al Commi ss i oner of t hePuer t o Ri co I ndependence Par t y; J ULI O FONTANET MALDONADO, as

El ect oral Commi ssi oner of t he Movi mi ent o Uni on Sober ani st a;ADRI N D AZ- D AZ, as El ect oral Commi ssi oner of t hePuer t or i queos por Puer t o Ri co; LI LLI AN APONTE- DONES, as

El ect or al Commi ssi oner of t he Par t i do del Puebl o Tr abaj ador ,

Def endant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Car men Consuel o Cer ezo, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udges.


2/53

J os L. Ni et o- Mi ngo, wi t h whom Ni et o Law Of f i ces wer e onbr i ef , f or def endant - appel l ant / cross- appel l ee Gar c a Vl ez.

J or ge Mar t nez- Luci ano, wi t h whom Mar t nez- Luci ano &Rodr guez- Escuder o was on br i ef , f or def endant - appel l ee SanAnt oni o- Acha.

J oan Schl ump Pet er s, wi t h whom Andr s Gui l l emar d- Nobl e andNachman & Gui l l emar d, P. S. C. wer e on br i ef , f or def endant - appel l eeDvi l a.

Car l os A. Del Val l e Cr uz, wi t h whom Del Val l e Law, Car l os M.Her nndez Lpez, and Raf ael E. Garc a Rodn wer e on br i ef , f orpl ai nt i f f s- appel l ees/ cr oss- appel l ant s.

Febr uar y 1, 2016


3/53

- 3 -

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. We r evi si t i n t hi s case whet her

f eder al l aw f or bi ds Puer t o Ri co f r om r emovi ng i ndi vi dual s f r omi t s

act i ve vot er r egi st r y f or t he of f i ce of Resi dent Commi ssi oner - -

t he onl y f eder al el ect i ve posi t i on i n Puer t o Ri co - - based sol el y

on t hei r f ai l ur e t o vot e i n one gener al el ect i on. I n 2012, i n an

i nt er l ocut or y appeal br ought j ust weeks bef or e El ect i on Day, t he

panel maj or i t y hel d t hat t he Nat i onal Vot er Regi st r at i on Act

( "NVRA" ) does not appl y t o Puer t o Ri co and thus does not supersede

t he Commonweal t h' s vot er deact i vat i on pr ocedur es. See Col n-

Mar r er o v. Cont y- Pr ez, 703 F. 3d 134, 137 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( per

cur i am) . The maj or i t y al so concl uded, however , t hat pl ai nt i f f s

wer e l i kel y t o succeed on t he mer i t s of t hei r cl ai m t hat anot her

f eder al st at ut e - - t he Hel p Amer i ca Vot e Act ( "HAVA") - - does bar

Puer t o Ri co f r om r emovi ng vot er s f r om t he r egi st r y f or t he of f i ce

of Resi dent Commi ssi oner unl ess t hey f ai l t o par t i ci pat e i n t he

pr ecedi ng t wo gener al f eder al el ect i ons. I d. at 138. We

nonet hel ess r ef used t o or der pl ai nt i f f s' i mmedi at e r ei nst at ement

t o t he vot er r egi st r y, deemi ng such pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef

"i mpr ovi dent " gi ven t he uncer t ai n f easi bi l i t y of pr oper l y

r ei nst at i ng vot er s i n t he shor t t i me r emai ni ng bef or e t he el ect i on.

I d. at 139.

On r emand f or consi der at i on of t he mer i t s of pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai ms af t er t he 2012 el ect i on, t he di st r i ct cour t agr eed wi t h our

pr el i mi nar y assessment t hat HAVA i nval i dat es Ar t i cl e 6. 012 of


4/53

- 4 -

Puer t o Ri co Act No. 78 of 2011 i nsof ar as i t appl i es t o vot er

el i gi bi l i t yf or f eder al el ecti ons. I t t hus i ssued i nj uncti ve and

decl ar at or y rel i ef bar r i ng t he Puer t o Ri co St at e El ect i ons

Commi ssi on ( "SEC") f r om r emovi ng ot her wi se el i gi bl e vot er s f r om

t he act i ve el ect i on r egi st r y unl ess HAVA' s r equi r ement s ar e met .

Def endant Li za M. Garc a Vl ez, as SEC pr esi dent , now chal l enges

t hat r ul i ng. 1 I n a cross- appeal , pl ai nt i f f s ask us t o r econsi der

our concl usi on t hat NVRA does not appl y t o Puer t o Ri co, and t hey

f ur t her argue t hat excl udi ng t he Commonweal t h f r omNVRA' s coverage

woul d vi ol at e t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on.

Havi ng consi der ed each of t hese cl ai ms, we rei t er at e our

concl usi on t hat NVRA does not appl y t o Puer t o Ri co. I n addi t i on,

we r ej ect pl ai nt i f f s ' const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o t hat stat ut e' s

coverage. We al so adhere t o our pr el i mi nar y vi ew t hat HAVA, whi ch

compr ehensi vel y addr esses f eder al el ect i on admi ni st r at i on,

i nval i dat es Ar t i cl e 6. 012' s deact i vat i on pr ocedur e. We f ur t her

1 Over t i me, new def endant s have been subst i t ut ed f or t hei rpr edecessors upon t hei r appoi nt ment as pr esi dent of t he SEC orel ect oral commi ssi oner . Gar c a Vl ez, f or exampl e, succeededngel Gonzl ez Romn, who previ ousl y had succeeded Hct or Cont y-Pr ez as SEC pr esi dent and, as a r esul t of t hat r ol e, as a def endanti n t hi s case. I n addi t i on, cer t ai n el ect or al - commi ssi onerdef endant s r epr esent i ng par t i cul ar pol i t i cal par t i es, whoor i gi nal l y opposed pl ai nt i f f s ' r equest f or r el i ef , ar e ei t her notpar t of t hi s appeal or have adopt ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' posi t i on andj oi n t hem as appel l ees. Cur r ent l y, Gar c a Vl ez i s t he sol edef endant - appel l ant .


5/53

- 5 -

hol d t hat pl ai nt i f f s may br i ng a pr i vat e cause of act i on seeki ng

r el i ef under HAVA pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983. Accordi ngl y, we

af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .

I. Factual Background

A. The 2012 Litigation

Pl ai nt i f f s Myrna Col n- Mar r er o and J osef i na Romaguer a Agr ai t

f i l ed t hi s act i on i n Sept ember 2012 cl ai mi ng t hey wer e unl awf ul l y

r emoved f r omt he Commonweal t h' s act i ve vot er r egi st r y, pur suant t o

Ar t i cl e 6. 012, 2 f or havi ng "exer ci sed t hei r r i ght not t o vot e i n

t he 2008 el ect i on f or Resi dent Commi ssi oner . "3 Am. Compl . 1.

They asser t ed vi ol at i ons of NVRA, HAVA, and t he Const i t ut i on, and

sought decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef t hat i ncl uded

i nval i dat i on of Ar t i cl e 6. 012 and i mmedi at e r ei nst at ement of

t hemsel ves and al l si mi l ar l y si t uat ed per sons as el i gi bl e vot er s

2 I n per t i nent par t , Ar t i cl e 6. 012, P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 16, 4072 ( 2011) , pr ovi des:

I f a vot er f ai l s to exer ci se hi s/ herr i ght t o vot e i n a gener al el ect i on, hi s/ herf i l e i n t he Gener al Vot er Regi st r y shal l bei nact i vated. The Commi ss i on may excl udevot er s f r om t he Gener al Vot er Regi st r y on t hegr ounds pr ovi ded by t hi s subt i t l e orest abl i shed t hr ough r egul at i ons. Theexcl usi on of a vot er shal l not ent ai l t heel i mi nat i on of hi s/ her i nf or mat i on f r om t heGener al Vot er Regi st r y.

3 The onl y f eder al of f i ce f or whi ch Puer t o Ri co r esi dent sar e el i gi bl e t o vot e i s Resi dent Commi ssi oner - - a posi t i on t hatexi st s onl y i n Puer t o Ri co. See 48 U. S. C. 891; 52 U. S. C. 30101( 3) .


6/53

- 6 -

"i n t he upcomi ng el ect i on f or f eder al of f i ce. " I d. 2. 4 Under

bot h NVRA and HAVA, r egi st er ed vot er s r et ai n el i gi bi l i t y t o vot e

i n a f eder al el ect i on unl ess t hey have f ai l ed t o r espond t o a

not i ce seeki ng t o conf i r m el i gi bl e r esi dency and have not vot ed i n

t wo consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons f or f eder al of f i ce. See 52

U. S. C. 20507( b) ( 2) ( NVRA) ; i d. 21083( a) ( 4) ( A) ( HAVA) . 5

Pl ai nt i f f s al so asked f or an or der di r ect i ng t he def endant s "t o

abi de by al l t he vot er r egi st r at i on and ot her appl i cabl e mandat es

of t he NVRA, HAVA and t he f i r st , due pr ocess and equal pr otect i on

amendment s t o t he Const i t ut i on. " Am. Compl . 2.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed pl ai nt i f f s' r equest f or a

pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on, and Col n- Mar r er o ( but not Romaguer a

Agr ai t ) appeal ed. Af t er hol di ng a speci al or al ar gument sessi on

on Oct ober 11, 2012, a panel of t hi s cour t concl uded t hat Col n-

Mar r er o had shown a l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s of her

cl ai m f or r ei nst at ement . See Col n- Mar r er o, 703 F. 3d at 136. We

4 Pl ai nt i f f s est i mat ed i n t hei r compl ai nt t hat appr oxi mat el y500, 000 ot her wi se qual i f i ed vot er s wer e deact i vat ed f or t he 2012el ect i on " si mpl y because they di d not vot e i n t he 2008 gener alel ect i ons. " Am. Compl . 17. More t han 200, 000 of t hose vot er sused t he desi gnat ed r eact i vat i on pr ocedur e t o qual i f y t o vot e i n2012. See Col n- Mar r ero, 703 F. 3d at 136, 139; P. R. Laws Ann.t i t . 16, 4073. The deact i vat ed vot er s ar e known as "I - 8 vot er s. "

5 St at ut or y pr ovi si ons r el at i ng t o vot i ng and el ect i ons,i ncl udi ng NVRA and HAVA, r ecent l y wer e t r ansf er r ed f r om Ti t l es 2and 42 i nt o new Ti t l e 52, whi ch i s l abel ed "Vot i ng and El ect i ons. "See 52 U. S. C. Di sposi t i on Tabl e. Ot her t han i n quot i ng sour cest hat use the ol d code r ef er ences, we r ef er t o the new Ti t l e 52sect i on number s.


7/53

- 7 -

det er mi ned, however , t hat "ser i ous f act ual quest i ons r emai ned as

t o t he bal ance of har ms and t he publ i c i nt er est i n or der i ng t he

i mmedi at e r ei nst at ement of t he mor e t han 300, 000 vot er s who had

been st r i cken f r om t he r egi st r at i on r ol l . " I d. Accor di ngl y, we

r emanded t he case t o the di st r i ct cour t f or f act - f i ndi ng on t he

f easi bi l i t y of r eacti vat i ng t he af f ected vot er s i n t i me f or t he

November 6 el ect i on. See i d.

Based on t est i mony pr esent ed at a two- day hear i ng on Oct ober

15 and 16, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound i t woul d be f easi bl e t o

r eact i vat e t he I - 8 vot er s i f t hi s cour t or der ed such r el i ef by

Oct ober 23 and devi sed a same- day r ecusal procedure that woul d

al l ow t he Commonweal t h to excl ude vot er s who had become i nel i gi bl e

f or r easons ot her t han Ar t i cl e 6. 012 ( such as movi ng out of t he

pr eci nct or t he Commonweal t h) . I d. at 136- 37. The di st r i ct cour t

cer t i f i ed i t s f i ndi ngs t o t hi s cour t on October 17. I n a br i ef

or der t he next day, t he appel l at e panel , wi t h one di ssent i ng

member , af f i r med t he deni al of pr el i mi nar y r el i ef because t he

di str i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs di d not al l evi at e t he maj or i t y' s

f easi bi l i t y concer ns.

Opi ni ons expl ai ni ng the Oct ober 18 rul i ng wer e i ssued on

November 2. Among other f actors, t he maj or i t y noted t hat Puer t o

Ri co l aw does not i ncl ude a mechani sm f or same- day chal l enges t o

vot er el i gi bi l i t y, whi ch t he di str i ct cour t had i dent i f i ed as

necessary, and t he maj or i t y obser ved t hat , " [ e] ven i f i t wer e


8/53

- 8 -

appr opr i at e f or a f eder al cour t t o pr escri be al t er nat i ve r ecusal

pr ocedur es, we woul d be i l l equi pped t o do so i n t he shor t t i me

r emai ni ng bef or e t he el ect i on. " I d. at 139. The maj or i t y al so

poi nt ed out t hat , al t hough pl ai nt i f f or i gi nal l y sought t o vot e

onl y f or t he f eder al posi t i on of Resi dent Commi ssi oner - - r at her

t han seeki ng t o vot e gener al l y i n t he el ect i on6 - - she had el i ci t ed

"scant evi dence" at t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he pr act i cal i t y of

a l i mi t ed r ei nst at ement . I d. at 138. As a r esul t , t he di st r i ct

cour t had made no f i ndi ng on t hat i ssue - - "a maj or concer n f or

t he maj or i t y because t he candi dates f or both Resi dent Commi ssi oner

and Gover nor appear on t he same bal l ot . " I d. at 138- 39. Moreover ,

t he panel expr essed concer n about t he pl ai nt i f f s' deci si on t o br i ng

t hi s act i on " l ess t han t wo mont hs bef or e a gener al el ect i on t hat

had l ong been schedul ed f or November 6. " I d. at 139.

Havi ng det er mi ned that , i n t hese ci r cumst ances, i t woul d be

"i mpr ovi dent t o gr ant pl ai nt i f f ' s r equest ed r el i ef wi t h onl y

ei ght een days r emai ni ng bef or e t he gener al el ect i on, " i d. , t he

panel r ef used t o gr ant a pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on and r emanded t he

case t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs. 7

6 Col n- Mar r er o rai sed t he br oader quest i on of a r i ght t o vot eon l ocal candi dat es and i ssues t o t he appeal s cour t f or t he f i r stt i me i n her suppl ement al br i ef i ng af t er t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f act -f i ndi ng. 703 F. 3d at 138.

7 The di ssent ar gued, i nt er al i a, t hat Puer t o Ri co i s cover edby bot h NVRA and HAVA, and t hat t he r equest ed prel i mi nar yi nj unct i on shoul d have been gr ant ed.


9/53

- 9 -

B. Proceedings on Remand

I n J une 2013, on r emand, t he par t i es agr eed to submi t t he

case t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or deci si on on t he mer i t s based on a

j oi nt st i pul at i on of f act s and memor anda of l aw. On Mar ch 31,

2014, t he di st r i ct cour t or der ed t he par t i es t o f i l e t he

st i pul at i on by Apr i l 30 and si mul t aneous memor anda by May 30, wi t h

r epl i es due by J une 20. The cour t descr i bed t he case at t hat poi nt

as f ol l ows:

Al t hough t he nat ur e of t he cont r over si eshas been wel l def i ned dur i ng t he pr el i mi nar yi nj uncti on r el i ef st age, pr i mar i l y dur i ng t her emand hear i ng and i n t he Fi r st Ci r cui t ' sopi ni on i ssued i n Col n- Mar r er o v. Cont y-Pr ez, 703 F. 3d 134 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , t hepar t i es ar e advi sed t hat t he scope of r el i ef- - whet her t he r emedy i s l i mi t ed t o t heel ect i on of t he Resi dent Commi ssi oner i nPuer t o Ri co or ext ends t o the gener al el ect i onpr ocess - - i s an open quest i on t hat shal l beaddr essed i n t he par t i es' br i ef s.

I n compl i ance wi t h t he or der , t he par t i es f i l ed a l i mi t ed

st i pul at i on of f acts st at i ng onl y t hat ( 1) t he t wo pl ai nt i f f s vot ed

i n t he 2004 gener al el ect i on, ( 2) di d not vot e i n t he 2008 gener al

el ect i on, ( 3) di d not f ol l ow t he r eact i vat i on r equi r ement of

Ar t i cl e 6. 012 t o r e- est abl i sh el i gi bi l i t y t o vot e i n 2012, and ( 4)

di d not vot e i n t he 2012 gener al el ect i on. I n t hei r memor anda,

t he l ast of whi ch was f i l ed on J une 20, 2014, t he par t i es pr esent ed

ar gument s on pl ai nt i f f s' HAVA and const i t ut i onal cl ai ms - - wi t h


10/53

- 10 -

al l par t i es agr eei ng t hat our 2012 r ul i ng gover ned on t he

appl i cabi l i t y of NVRA.

The di st r i ct cour t f ound i n f avor of pl ai nt i f f s on J anuar y

30, 2015, and ent er ed f i nal j udgment gr ant i ng decl aratory and

i nj unct i ve r el i ef on J une 4, 2015. 8 I n i t s deci si on, t he cour t

ci t ed t he undi sput ed f act t hat HAVA by i t s t er ms appl i es i n Puer t o

Ri co, see 52 U. S. C. 21141, and i t concl uded that t he HAVA

pr ovi si on set t i ng out t he t wo- el ect i on pr er equi si t e f or

deact i vat i ng vot er s i s not l i mi t ed t o j ur i sdi ct i ons cover ed by

NVRA. The cour t expl ai ned t hat t he per t i nent pr ovi si on i n HAVA

does not mer el y i ncorporate t he equi val ent NVRA pr ovi si on, but

"expl i ci t l y set [ s] f or t h" t he r equi r ement t hat a vot er mi ss t wo

consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons bef or e bei ng deact i vat ed.

The cour t t hus hel d t hat t he one- el ect i on deact i vat i on

st andar d of Ar t i cl e 6. 012 must gi ve way t o HAVA' s t wo- el ect i on

r equi r ement . I t f ur t her concl uded t hat , because "Puer t o Ri co has

a si ngl e vot er r egi st r at i on syst em, not t wo, " HAVA "necessar i l y

r egul at es t he r egi st r at i on l i st s f or t he gener al el ecti ons i n

Puer t o Ri co, whi ch al ways i ncl ude t he el ect i on f or t he Resi dent

8 I n i t s J une 4 or der , t he cour t gr ant ed f i nal j udgment onpl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m under HAVA and expl ai ned t hat , gi ven t he r el i efor der ed pur suant t o that cl ai m, i t was unnecessar y t o reachpl ai nt i f f s' NVRA and const i t ut i onal cl ai ms. That same day, t hecour t al so r ei ssued t he deci si on t hat i t had i ssued i n J anuar yunder t he t i t l e "Decl ar at or y J udgment " wi t h a new t i t l e:"Memor andum Opi ni on Decl ar i ng Ri ght s and Gr ant i ng Equi t abl eRel i ef . "


11/53

- 11 -

Commi ssi oner as an i nt egr al par t of t he gener al el ect i on pr ocess. "

The cour t permanent l y enj oi ned t he SEC " f r om r emovi ng f r om t he

of f i ci al l i st of el i gi bl e vot er s any r egi st r ant who di d not vot e

i n a si ngl e gener al el ect i on" and decl ar ed t hat " t he SEC i s

af f i r mat i vel y or der ed t hat no l awf ul l y r egi st er ed vot er may be

r emoved f r om t he of f i ci al l i st of el i gi bl e vot er s unl ess t hey have

not vot ed i n the t wo i mmedi atel y pr ecedi ng el ect i ons and have

r ecei ved and have been gi ven not i ce of an i nt ent t o remove them

f rom such l i st . "

These appeal s f ol l owed. Def endant Gar c a Vl ez chal l enges

t he gr ant of decl ar at or y and i nj uncti ve r el i ef f or pl ai nt i f f s based

on HAVA. I n t hei r cr oss- appeal , pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hi s cour t

shoul d r econsi der i t s r ul i ng t hat NVRA does not appl y t o Puer t o

Ri co, emphasi zi ng t hat "sai d det er mi nat i on was sol el y a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on revi ew as t o pr obabl e out comes. "

Al t er nat i vel y, pl ai nt i f f s seek a r ul i ng t hat excl udi ng Puer t o Ri co

f r omNVRA vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on. 9

9 Because pl ai nt i f f s sought an or der r equi r i ng t he def endant st o abi de by al l of NVRA' s r equi r ement s - - i ncl udi ng expandedmet hods of vot er r egi st r at i on - - i nval i dat i on of Ar t i cl e 6. 012' sdeact i vat i on pr ocedur e based on HAVA does not r ender t hei r othercl ai ms moot .


12/53

- 12 -

II. The Cross-Appeal: Applicability of NVRA

A. Statutory Construction

We decl i ne t o r evi si t our pr i or deci si on t hat NVRA does not

appl y t o Puer t o Ri co. Al t hough pl ai nt i f f s ar e cor r ect t hat we

r eached t hat deci si on i n t he cont ext of a r equest f or pr el i mi nar y

r el i ef , our exami nat i on of t he st at ut e was nei t her t ent at i ve nor

i ncompl et e. We concl uded t hat " [ t ] he t extual si gnal s and t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, t aken t oget her , const i t ut e per suasi ve

evi dence t hat Congr ess di d not i nt end t o i ncl ude Puer t o Ri co as a

' St ate' under t he NVRA. " Col n- Mar r er o, 703 F. 3d at 138. 10

I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t and par t i es have t r eat ed our anal ysi s

as deci si ve, and pl ai nt i f f s essent i al l y admi t i n t hei r br i ef t hat

t hey r ei t er at e t hei r NVRA st at ut or y const r uct i on ar gument out of

an abundance of caut i on. To el i mi nat e any ambi gui t y, we now

expl i ci t l y reaf f i r m our ear l i er det er mi nat i on t hat NVRA does not

appl y t o Puer t o Ri co f or t he reasons out l i ned i n our November 2012

opi ni on. See Col n- Mar r er o, 703 F. 3d at 137- 38.

B. The Constitutionality of NVRA

We al so f i nd unavai l i ng pl ai nt i f f s' t heor y t hat t hey ar e

ent i t l ed t o t he pr otect i ons pr ovi ded by NVRA because excl udi ng

Puer t o Ri co f r om t he st at ut e' s cover age vi ol at es t he Equal

Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. Pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat , absent NVRA' s

10 NVRA def i nes " St ate" as "a St ate of t he Uni t ed St ates andt he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. " 52 U. S. C. 20502( 4) .


13/53

- 13 -

pr ot ect i ons, ci t i zens resi di ng i nPuer t o Ri co have a ver si on of

t he r i ght t o vot e t hat i s unconst i t ut i onal l y i nf er i or t o t he r i ght

af f or ded ci t i zens resi di ng i n t he f i f t y st at es and t he Di st r i ct of

Col umbi a.

Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st suggest t hat Congr ess' s deci si on not t o

appl y NVRA t o Puer t o Ri co must be exami ned under st r i ct scr ut i ny.

They r el y on t he f act t hat a l egi sl at i ve cl assi f i cat i on i s subj ect

t o str i ct scr ut i ny i f i t " i mper mi ssi bl y i nt er f er es wi t h t he

exer ci se of a f undament al r i ght , " Mass. Bd. of Ret . v. Mur gi a, 427

U. S. 307, 312 ( 1976) , and t hat t he r i ght t o vot e " i s of t he most

f undament al si gni f i cance under our const i t ut i onal st r uct ur e, " I l l .

St at e Bd. of El ect i ons v. Soci al i st Wor ker s Par t y, 440 U. S. 173,

184 ( 1979) . But a necessar y pr er equi si t e t o st r i ct scr ut i ny i s a

showi ng t hat a f undament al r i ght has been bur dened, see Romer v.

Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 631 ( 1996) , and t he pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed at

t he t hr eshol d t o demonst r ate how NVRA' s excl usi on of Puer t oRi co

bur dens t hei r r i ght t o vot e. The mer e f act t hat a st at ut e concer ns

vot i ng does not est abl i sh t hat t he st at ut e i nf r i nges on a

f undament al r i ght . See I gar t ua de l a Rosa v. Uni t ed St at es, 32

F. 3d 8, 10 & n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( per cur i am) . Absent a showi ng

t hat NVRA subst ant i al l y bur dens t he r i ght s of Puer t o Ri co r esi dent s

t o vote i n f eder al el ect i ons - - and no such showi ng has even been

at t empt ed her e - - st r i ct scr ut i ny does not appl y.


14/53

- 14 -

I n t he absence of str i ct scr ut i ny, pl ai nt i f f s ' equal

pr ot ect i on chal l enge pr ompt s r at i onal basi s revi ew. See Romer ,

517 U. S. at 631. Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai m f ounder s on t hi s st andar d. To

be sur e, NVRA pr escr i bes mor e rest r i ct i ve deact i vat i on

pr er equi si t es t han does Ar t i cl e 6. 012 and, i n t hat r espect ,

ar guabl yof f er s gr eat er pr ot ect i on t o t he f eder al vot i ng r i ght s of

mai nl and ci t i zens. Yet , si gni f i cant f actual di f f er ences exi st

bet ween f eder al el ect i ons i n Puer t o Ri co and i n t he j ur i sdi ct i ons

cover ed by NVRA. Unl i ke i n t he st at es and t he Di st r i ct of

Col umbi a, gener al f eder al el ect i ons i n Puer t o Ri co occur on a f our -

year , r at her t han t wo- year , cycl e. See 48 U. S. C. 891 ( set t i ng

a f our - year t er m f or t he Resi dent Commi ssi oner ) . Ar t i cl e 6. 012

t husal l ows el ecti on of f i ci al s t o r emove i ndi vi dual s f r om acti ve

vot i ng r ol l s af t er t he same f our - year per i od pr escr i bed by NVRA -

- al bei t af t er one el ect i on r at her t han t wo.

I n addi t i on, t he onl y f eder al el ecti on i n Puer t o Ri co i s f or

t he of f i ce of Resi dent Commi ssi oner , a non- vot i ng posi t i on i n

Congr ess. Unl i ke t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, Puer t o Ri co does not

choose Pr esi dent i al el ect or s. See U. S. Const. ar t . I I , 1, cl . 2;

i d. amend. XXI I I . Pl ai nt i f f s do not expl ai n why Congr ess coul d

not r el y on t hose di st i nct i ons t o r ef r ai n f r om ext endi ng NVRA' s

obl i gat i ons t o the f eder al el ect i on pr ocess i n t he Commonweal t h. 11

11 We not e, however , t hat Congress vi a HAVA l at er i mposed t hesame pr er equi si t es f or r emovi ng Puer t o Ri co r esi dent s f r om t he


15/53

- 15 -

We thus concl ude t hat pl ai nt i f f s have not ar t i cul at ed a vi abl e

const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o NVRA based on t he excl usi on of Puer t o

Ri co f r om i t s scope.

III. The Appeal: HAVA and a Private Right of Action

At t he hear t of t hi s appeal i s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

decl ar at or y and i nj uncti ve r el i ef f or pl ai nt i f f s based on i t s

det er mi nat i on t hat HAVA' s t wo- el ect i on deact i vat i on t hr eshol d

super sedes t he si ngl e- el ect i on t r i gger of Ar t i cl e 6. 012. 12

Appel l ant Gar c a Vl ez, as SEC pr esi dent , chal l enges t hose

r emedi es on t wo separate gr ounds. She f i r st argues t hat t he

per t i nent pr ovi si on of HAVA - - l i ke t he equi val ent sect i on of NVRA

- - does not appl y t o Puer t o Ri co el ect i ons. Second, she i nsi st s

t hat , even i f Puer t o Ri co i s wi t hi n t he pr ovi si on' s scope, t her e

i s no pr i vat e r i ght of act i on t o seek a r emedy.

r egi st r y of el i gi bl e vot er s f or f eder al el ect i ons. See i nf r aSect i on I I I . A.

12 I n i t s Memor andum Opi ni on, t he di st r i ct cour t not ed t hatPuer t o Ri co has a combi ned vot er r egi st r at i on syst em f or f eder aland Commonweal t h el ect i ons and, hence, i t concl uded t hat " t hepr ovi si on set f or t h i n HAVA necessar i l y r egul at es t he r egi st r at i onl i st s f or t he gener al el ect i ons i n Puer t o Ri co, whi ch al ways

i ncl ude t he el ect i on f or t he Resi dent Commi ssi oner as an i nt egr alpar t of t he gener al el ect i on pr ocess. " We, however , of f er no vi ewas t o whether t he SEC i s abl e to compl y wi t h HAVA wi t hout al sochangi ng i t s r equi r ement s f or el i gi bi l i t y t o vot e f or Commonweal t hof f i ces. See Col n- Mar r er o, 703 F. 3d at 138 ( " [ I ] t i s an open anddi f f i cul t quest i on - - one not addr essed by pl ai nt i f f - - whet her HAVA woul d pr ovi de a basi s f or a f eder al cour t or der i ng t her ei nst at ement of vot er s i n Commonweal t h el ect i ons. " ) .


16/53

- 16 -

We consi der each of t hese i ssues of l aw i n t ur n. Our r evi ew

i s de novo. See Gen. Mot or s Cor p. v. Dar l i ng' s, 444 F. 3d 98, 107

( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

A. Does HAVA section 303(a)(4) Supersede Article 6.012's

Deactivation Procedure?

The November 2000 pr esi dent i al el ect i on "and i t s at t endant

cont r over si es" pr ompt ed Congr ess " t o r evi ew and ref or m t he

admi ni st r at i on of f eder al el ect i ons. " Fl a. St at e Conf . of t he

NAACP v. Br owni ng, 522 F. 3d 1153, 1155 ( 11t h Ci r . 2008) ; see al so

H. R. 107- 329, pt . 1, at 31 ( 2001) , 2001 WL 1579545, at *31 ( "The

ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he el ect i on t hat t ook pl ace i n November

2000 br ought an i ncr eased f ocus on t he pr ocess of el ect i on

admi ni st r at i on, and hi ghl i ght ed the need f or i mpr ovement s. " ) ;

Samuel I ssacharof f , Pamel a S. Kar l an & Ri chard H. Pi l des, The Law

of Democr acy 1169 ( 4t h ed. 2012) . HAVA was t he product of t hat

r evi ew, and t he st at ut e, i nt er al i a, r evi si t ed t he subj ect of vot er

r egi st r at i on t hat al so had been t he pr i mary f ocus of NVRA. See 52

U. S. C. 20501( b) ( st at i ng t hat t he pur poses of NVRA i ncl ude

"est abl i sh[ i ng] pr ocedur es t hat wi l l i ncr ease t he number of

el i gi bl e ci t i zens who r egi st er t o vot e i n el ect i ons f or Feder al

of f i ce" and "ensur [ i ng] t hat accur at e and cur r ent vot er

r egi st r at i on r ol l s ar e mai nt ai ned") ; 52 U. S. C. 21081- 85

( out l i ni ng HAVA r equi r ement s f or el ect i on t echnol ogy and


17/53

- 17 -

admi ni st r at i on) . 13 Unl i ke NVRA, however , HAVA by i t s express t er ms

appl i es t o Puer t o Ri co and t he Uni t ed St at es t er r i t or i es, i n

addi t i on t o t he st at es and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. I d. 21141.

The speci f i c HAVA pr ovi si on at i ssue i n t hi s case,

sect i on 303( a) , i s t i t l ed "Comput er i zed st at ewi de vot er

r egi st r at i on l i st r equi r ement s. " 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) . Wi t h an

except i on not r el evant her e, t he sect i on di r ect s t hat "each St at e

. . . shal l i mpl ement , i n a uni f or m and nondi scr i mi nat or y manner ,

a si ngl e, uni f or m, of f i ci al , cent r al i zed, i nt er acti ve comput er i zed

st at ewi de vot er r egi st r at i on l i st . . . t hat cont ai ns t he name and

r egi st r at i on i nf or mat i on of ever y l egal l y r egi st er ed vot er i n t he

St at e. " I d. 21083( a) ( 1) ( A) . Appel l ant f ocuses on HAVA

13 Al t hough the two st at ut es shar e a pur pose t o "prot ect t hei nt egr i t y of t he el ect or al pr ocess, " 52 U. S. C. 20501( b) ( 3) ; seeal so H. R. Rep. 107- 329, pt . 1, at 31 ( 2001) , 2001 WL 1579545, at*31 ( st at i ng t hat HAVA' s pur pose i s " t o i mpr ove our count r y' sel ect i on syst em") , NVRA' s pr i mary emphasi s i s on si mpl i f yi ng t hemet hods f or r egi st er i ng t o vot e i n f eder al el ect i ons, see Young v.For di ce, 520 U. S. 273, 275 ( 1997) , whi l e HAVA' s vot er r egi st r at i onpr ovi si ons ar e f ocused on achi evi ng gr eat er accur acy by i mpr ovi ngt echnol ogy and admi ni st r at i on, see 52 U. S. C. 21083.

NVRA, f or exampl e, " r equi r es each St at e t o per mi t pr ospect i ve

vot er s t o ' r egi st er t o vot e i n el ecti ons f or Feder al of f i ce' byany of t hr ee met hods: si mul t aneousl y wi t h a dr i ver ' s l i censeappl i cat i on, i n per son, or by mai l . " Ar i zona v. I nt er Tr i balCounci l of Ar i z. , I nc. , 133 S. Ct . 2247, 2251 ( 2013) ( quot i ng 52U. S. C. 20503( a) ) . HAVA' s r equi r ement s i ncl ude cr eat i on of a"[ c] omput er i zed st at ewi de vot er r egi st r at i on l i st " t o "ensur e t hatvot er r egi st r at i on r ecor ds i n t he St at e ar e accur at e and ar eupdat ed r egul ar l y. " 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) , ( a) ( 4) .


18/53

- 18 -

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) , whi ch i s t i t l ed "Mi ni mum st andar d f or accur acy

of St at e vot er r egi st r at i on r ecor ds" and pr ovi des:

The St at e el ect i on syst em shal l i ncl udepr ovi si ons t o ensur e t hat vot er r egi st r at i onr ecor ds i n t he St at e ar e accur at e and ar eupdat ed r egul ar l y, i ncl udi ng t he f ol l owi ng:

( A) A syst em of f i l e mai nt enance t hat makes ar easonabl e ef f or t t o r emove r egi st r ant s whoare i nel i gi bl e t o vot e f rom t he of f i ci al l i s tof el i gi bl e vot er s. Under such syst em,consistent with the National Voter

Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et

seq.), r egi st r ant s who have not r esponded t oa not i ce and who have not voted i n 2consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons f or Feder alof f i ce shal l be r emoved f r omt he of f i ci al l i stof el i gi bl e vot er s, except t hat no r egi st r antmay be r emoved sol el y by reason of a f ai l ur et o vot e.

( B) Saf eguar ds t o ensur e t hat el i gi bl e vot er sar e not r emoved i n er r or f r om t he of f i ci all i st of el i gi bl e voter s .

52 U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 4) ( emphasi s added) .

Based on t he hi ghl i ght ed l anguage above, appel l ant argues

t hat t hi s subsect i on of HAVA appl i es onl y t o t hose j ur i sdi ct i ons

gover ned by NVRA. Her cont ent i on i s t hat t he HAVA r equi r ement

woul d not be "consi st ent wi t h" NVRA i f i t i s appl i ed beyond t he

scope of t hat st at ut e gi ven t hat Congr ess excl uded Puer t o Ri co

f r om essent i al l y the same deact i vat i on r equi r ement under NVRA - -

i . e. , by l i mi t i ng NVRA' s cover age t o t he st at es and t he Di st r i ct


19/53

- 19 -

of Col umbi a. 14 The di st r i ct cour t concl uded ot her wi se, poi nt i ng

out t hat HAVA does not si mpl y i nvoke NVRA, " l eavi ng i t t o the

14

NVRA r ef er ences t he deact i vat i on pr er equi si t es i n t wodi f f er ent , but r el at ed, pr ovi si ons. The st at ut e r equi r es st at est o "conduct a gener al pr ogr am t hat makes a reasonabl e ef f or t " t or emove the names of no- l onger - el i gi bl e vot er s f r omt he act i ve vot err egi st r y on account of t hei r deat h or a change i n r esi dence. 52U. S. C. 20507( a) ( 4) . Requi r ement s f or such a pr ogr am, i ncl udi ngt he not i ce and f ai l ur e- t o- vot e l i mi t at i ons, ar e spel l ed out i n t hef ol l owi ng subsecti on, t i t l ed "Conf i r mat i on of vot er r egi st r at i on":

Any St at e pr ogr am or act i vi t y t o pr ot ectt he i nt egr i t y of t he el ect or al pr ocess byensur i ng t he mai nt enance of an accur at e and

cur r ent vot er r egi str at i on r ol l f or el ect i onsf or Feder al of f i ce- -( 1) shal l be uni f or m, nondi scr i mi nat or y,

and i n compl i ance wi t h t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Actof 1965; and

( 2) shal l not r esul t i n t he r emoval oft he name of any per son f r om t he of f i ci al l i stof vot er s r egi st er ed t o vot e i n an el ect i onf or Feder al of f i ce by reason of t he per son' sf ai l ur e t o vot e, except t hat not hi ng i n t hi sparagr aph may be const r ued t o pr ohi bi t a St ate

f r om usi ng t he pr ocedur es descri bed i nsubsect i ons ( c) and ( d) t o remove ani ndi vi dual f r om t he of f i ci al l i st of el i gi bl evot er s i f t he i ndi vi dual - -

( A) has not ei t her not i f i ed t heappl i cabl e r egi st r ar ( i n per son or i n wr i t i ng)or r esponded dur i ng t he per i od descr i bed i nsubparagr aph ( B) t o t he not i ce sent by theappl i cabl e r egi st r ar ; and t hen

( B) has not vot ed or appeared t o vote i n2 or mor e consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons f orFeder al of f i ce.

52 U. S. C. 20507( b) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The "pr ocedures descr i bed i n subsect i ons ( c) and ( d) " i ncl udet he second r ef er ence t o t he deact i vat i on pr er equi si t es. I ncombi nat i on, t hose t wo subsect i ons aut hor i ze use of Post al Ser vi cei nf or mat i on t o i dent i f y r egi st r ant s whose addr esses may havechanged, but bar r emoval of names f r om t he l i st of el i gi bl e vot er s


20/53

- 20 -

r eader t o r ef er t o t hat l aw t o det er mi ne i t s cont ent s, " but i nst ead

expl i ci t l y set s f or t h t he t wo- el ect i on r equi r ement f or

deact i vat i on of vot er s.

Our st ar t i ng poi nt i n di scer ni ng t he meani ng of a st at ut e i s

t he pr ovi si on i t sel f , and "[ t ] he pl ai n meani ng of a st at ut e' s t ext

must be gi ven ef f ect ' unl ess i t woul d pr oduce an absur d r esul t or

one mani f est l y at odds wi t h t he st at ut e' s i nt ended ef f ect . ' "

Ar nol d v. Uni t ed Par cel Ser v. , I nc. , 136 F. 3d 854, 858 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ( quot i ng Par i si ex rel . Cooney v. Chat er , 69 F. 3d 614, 617

( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) ; see al so Matamor os v. St ar bucks Cor p. , 699 F. 3d

129, 134 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "We assume t hat t he ordi nary meani ng of

t he st at ut or y l anguage expr esses t he l egi sl at ur e' s i nt ent , and we

r esor t t o ext r i nsi c ai ds t o st at ut or y const r uct i on ( such as

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y) onl y when t he wor di ng of t he st at ut e i s

f r ei ght ed wi t h ambi gui t y or l eads t o an unr easonabl e resul t . ") .

"Of cour se, we f ocus on ' t he pl ai n meani ng of t he whol e st at ut e,

not of i sol at ed sent ences. ' " Ar nol d, 136 F. 3d at 858 ( quot i ng

Beecham v. Uni t ed St at es, 511 U. S. 368, 372 ( 1994) ) .

on account of a change i n r esi dence absent wr i t t en conf i r mat i onf r om t he r egi st r ant or a f ai l ur e bot h t o r espond t o a not i ce andvot e i n t wo el ect i ons af t er t he not i ce has been sent . I d. 20507( c) , ( d) .


21/53

- 21 -

1. The Statute's Text

The pl ai n meani ng of sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) i s appar ent f r om

bot h i t s st r uct ur e and i t s wor di ng. Most si gni f i cant l y, t he

pr ovi si on' s mandat e i s st at ed i ndependent l y of t he "consi st ent

wi t h" phr ase t hat i s t he f oundat i on of appel l ant ' s ar gument . The

f i r st sent ence of t he subsect i on expl ai ns t hat a "syst em of f i l e

mai nt enance" must be cr eat ed " t o r emove r egi st r ant s who are

i nel i gi bl e t o vot e f r omt he of f i ci al l i s t of el i gi bl e vot er s, " and

t he second sent ence expl ai ns how "such syst em" must operat e. 52

U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 4) ( A) . These r equi r ed act i ons ar e not def i ned

by r ef er ence t o obl i gat i ons ar i si ng f r om NVRA.

Rat her , i n cl ear , af f i r mat i ve l anguage, t he second sent ence

di r ect s removal of r egi str ant s f r om"t he of f i ci al l i s t of el i gi bl e

vot er s" i f t hey have not r esponded t o a not i ce and di d not vot e i n

"2 consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons f or Feder al of f i ce. " I d. The

pr ovi si on t hen emphasi zes t he need f or both not i ce and a vot i ng

gap by st at i ng t hat r emoval i s bar r ed "sol el y by r eason of a

f ai l ur e t o vot e. " I d. The r ef er ence t o NVRA, by cont r ast , appear s

i n a subor di nat e cl ause i n t hat sent ence. I t s cont ent and

pl acement cl ear l y si gnal a col l at er al pur pose: t o i nst r uct

r esponsi bl e el ect i on of f i ci al s and ot her s ( i ncl udi ng t he cour t s)

t hat t he measur es r equi r ed by HAVA do not al t er NVRA' s r equi r ement s

and, hence, t hey shoul d be i mpl ement ed consi st ent l y wi t h NVRA.


22/53

- 22 -

Appel l ant i nsi st s t hat exami ni ng sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) i n

cont ext under mi nes t hi s t ext ual anal ysi s. She ar gues t hat , despi t e

t he expl i ci t i ncl usi on of Puer t o Ri co and t he t er r i t or i es wi t hi n

HAVA' s over al l scope, Congr ess expressl y exempted t hese

j ur i sdi ct i ons f r om obl i gat i ons t hat al so appear i n NVRA. We

di sagr ee.

2. The Statutory Context

As a pr el ude t o our di scussi on of appel l ant ' s cont ext ual

argument , we pause br i ef l y t o note t he det ai l ed l andscape of HAVA

sect i on 303. Sect i on 303 gover ns t wo di f f er ent cat egor i es of

pr escri pt i ons, as r ef l ect ed i n i t s over al l headi ng: "Comput er i zed

st at ewi de vot er r egi st r at i on l i st r equi r ement s and r equi r ement s

f or vot er s who r egi st er by mai l . " 52 U. S. C. 21083. Subsect i on

( a) addr esses t he st at ewi de r egi st r at i on l i st , and subsect i on ( b)

addr esses r egi st r at i on by mai l . Each of t hose subsect i ons i s

di vi ded i nt o f i ve par agr aphs, most of whi ch ar e f ur t her subdi vi ded

i nt o a number of subparagr aphs. A cont ext ual r evi ew t hus r equi r es

cl ose exami nat i on of mul t i pl e pr ovi si ons. To ai d t he r eader ' s

under st andi ng of our anal ysi s, and as a suppl ement t o t he speci f i c

pr ovi si ons wi t hi n sect i on 303 t hat ar e r epr oduced as par t of our

di scussi on, we pr ovi de t he f ul l t ext of sect i on 303( a) and ( b) i n

an appendi x t o t hi s opi ni on.

Appel l ant cl ai ms t hat t he i nappl i cabi l i t y of HAVA' s

deact i vat i on r equi r ement s t o Puer t o Ri co i s announced i n


23/53

- 23 -

sect i on 303( b) ( 5) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat "[ n] ot hi ng i n t hi s

subsect i on shal l be const r ued t o r equi r e a St at e t hat was not

r equi r ed t o compl y wi t h a pr ovi si on of t he Nat i onal Vot er

Regi st r at i on Act of 1993 bef ore Oct ober 29, 2002, t o compl y wi t h

such a pr ovi si on af t er Oct ober 29, 2002. " 52 U. S. C. 21083( b) ( 5)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Appel l ant ' s ef f or t t o pr ove her poi nt t hr ough

cont ext , however , r el i es on t aki ng t hi s par t i cul ar pr ovi si on out

of cont ext . As descr i bed above, subsect i on ( a) of HAVA sect i on 303

- - 52 U. S. C. 21083 - - addr esses t he "Comput er i zed st at ewi de vot er

r egi st r at i on l i st r equi r ement s, " whi l e subsecti on ( b) det ai l s

"Requi r ement s f or vot er s who regi st er by mai l . "

The l anguage appel l ant i nvokes ( "Not hi ng i n t hi s subsect i on

. . . . " ) i s the f i f t h, and f i nal , par agr aph of subsect i on ( b) - -

i . e. , t he subsect i on t hat addr esses r egi st r at i on by mai l . 15 Gi ven

i t s pl acement , sect i on 303( b) ( 5) can onl y reasonabl y be const r ued

t o r ef er t o t he r equi r ement s r el at ed t o vot i ng by mai l . Mor eover ,

paragr aph ( 5) by i t s t er ms mer el y st ates t hat HAVA i s not changi ng

t he scope of NVRA, i . e. , a st at e excl uded f r om NVRA' s r equi r ement s

15 The f i ve paragr aphs under t he headi ng "Requi r ement s f or

vot er s who r egi st er by mai l " are t i t l ed: ( 1) "I n gener al "; ( 2)"Requi r ement s"; ( 3) "I nappl i cabi l i t y"; ( 4) "Cont ent s of mai l - i nr egi st r at i on f or m"; and ( 5) "Const r uct i on. " The "Const r uct i on"par agr aph - - t he one appel l ant ci t es - - cont ai ns onl y t he l anguagequot ed above st at i ng t hat " [ n] ot hi ng i n t hi s subsect i on" shoul d beconst r ued t o requi r e a st at e' s compl i ance wi t h a pr ovi si on of NVRAi f i t was not pr evi ousl y r equi r ed t o do so. 52 U. S. C. 21083( b) ( 5)( emphasi s added) .


24/53

- 24 -

r emai ns excl uded f r omobl i gat i ons i mposed by NVRA. I t says nothi ng

about t he st at e' s addi t i onal obl i gat i ons under HAVA.

However , t wo pr ovi si ons wi t hi n subsect i on ( a) al so i nvoke

NVRA - - al t hough nei t her pr oves hel pf ul t o appel l ant . Bot h

pr ovi si ons appear wi t hi n t he subsect i on' s second par agr aph, whi ch

i s l abel ed "Comput er i zed l i st mai nt enance, " and, speci f i cal l y,

under subheadi ng ( A) of t hat par agr aph, l abel ed " I n gener al . "16

The i nt r oduct or y por t i on of sect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) di r ect s st at e and

l ocal el ecti on of f i ci al s t o "per f or ml i st mai nt enance wi t h r espect

t o t he comput er i zed l i st on a r egul ar basi s, " 52

U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 2) ( A) , and i t t hen speci f i es how t o do so i n

t er ms t hat r ef er t o NVRA.

One of t hose i nst r ucti ons states t hat , "[ i ] f an i ndi vi dual i s

t o be r emoved f r om t he comput er i zed l i st , such i ndi vi dual shal l be

r emoved i n accor dance wi t h the pr ovi si ons of t he Nat i onal Vot er

Regi st r at i on Act of 1993. " See i d. 21083( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) . Thi s

i nst r uct i on t hen l i st s sever al subsect i ons of NVRA t hat pr escr i be

r emoval pr ocedur es. I d. Among t hose pr ovi si ons i s one t i t l ed

16 The f i ve paragraphs of subsect i on ( a) ar e t i t l ed as

f ol l ows: ( 1) "I mpl ement at i on"; ( 2) "Comput er i zed l i stmai nt enance"; ( 3) "Technol ogi cal secur i t y of comput er i zed l i st ";( 4) "Mi ni mum st andar d f or accur acy of St at e vot er r egi st r at i onr ecor ds"; and ( 5) "Ver i f i cat i on of vot er r egi st r at i oni nf or mat i on. " 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) . Subsect i on ( a) ( 4) - - t he"Mi ni mum st andar d" pr ovi si on - - i ncl udes t he deact i vat i onl anguage.


25/53

- 25 -

"Removal of names f r om vot i ng r ol l s, " i d. 20507( d) , whi ch

cont ai ns t he not i ce and non- vot i ng pr er equi si t es f or r emoval ,

l i nked t o a change of r esi dence. See i d. 20507( d) ( 1) ( B) ; see

supr a n. 14. Ot her pr ovi si ons l i st ed cont ai n NVRA' s r equi r ement s

f or ( 1) t he cont ent of t he not i ce t hat must besent t o r egi st r ant s,

i d. 20507( d) ( 2) ; ( 2) "a gener al pr ogr am" t o remove the names of

i nel i gi bl e vot er s based on deat h or change i n r esi dence, i d.

20507( a) ( 4) ; and ( 3) pr ocedur es t o al l ow a r egi st r ant who has

moved wi t hi n a di st r i ct , wi t hout of f i ci al l y changi ng hi s addr ess,

t o vot e i n hi s ol d or new pol l i ng pl ace, i d. 20507( e) .

Thi s r el i ance on NVRA does not , however , descr i be a l i mi t at i on

of HAVA' s cover age. Rather , by i nvoki ng t hese NVRA pr ovi si ons,

and di r ect i ng t hat r emoval of vot ers under HAVA be done " i n

accor dance wi t h" NVRA, Congr ess i s si mpl y bor r owi ng t he ear l i er

st at ut e' s procedur es f or ef f ect uat i ng t he i ndependent HAVA

r equi r ement t o mai nt ai n an accur at e l i st of el i gi bl e vot er s. I t

i s t el l i ng t hat , whi l e Congr ess pi ggybacks i n

sect i on 303( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) on NVRA' s met hodol ogy, i t af f i r mat i vel y

set s out t he deact i vat i on pr er equi si t es i n a separ at e pr ovi si on -

- sect i on ( a) ( 4) ( A) r epr oduced above - - and l abel s t hose

r equi r ement s as el ement s of t he " [ m] i ni mum st andar d f or

accur acy. "17

17 Appel l ant ' s f ai l ur e t o acknowl edge HAVA' s af f i r mat i ver equi r ement s l eads her t o r el y i ncor r ect l y on an ami cus br i ef


26/53

- 26 -

To si mi l ar ef f ect i s t he ot her subparagraph wi t hi n

sect i on 303( a) ( 2) ( A) addr essi ng t he l i st mai nt enance r equi r ement s

i n r el at i on t o NVRA. Sect i on ( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) pr ovi des t hat , " i f a

St at e i s descr i bed i n sect i on 4( b) of t he Nat i onal Vot er

Regi st r at i on Act of 1993, t hat St at e shal l r emove t he names of

i nel i gi bl e vot er s f r om t he comput er i zed l i st i n accor dance wi t h

St at e l aw. " 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i i ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

St at es " descr i bed i n sect i on 4( b) " of NVRAar e t hose t hat ei t her

have no r egi st r at i on r equi r ement s f or vot i ng i n f eder al el ect i ons

or al l ow "al l vot er s i n t he St at e" t o "r egi st er t o vot e at t he

pol l i ng pl ace at t he t i me of vot i ng i n a gener al el ect i on f or

Feder al of f i ce. " I d. 20503( b) . Puer t o Ri co woul d not be such

a st at e even i f i t wer e i ncl uded wi t hi n NVRA' s def i ni t i on of

"St at e. " I ndeed, t hi s l i t i gat i on woul d be unnecessar y i f t hat

descr i pt i on appl i ed t o Puer t o Ri co.

Put si mpl y, HAVA' s l ook- back t o NVRA i n sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A)

i s sensi bl y under st ood onl y as an assur ance t hat t he obl i gat i ons

submi t t ed i n t he pr i or appeal by t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Di vi si on of t heDepar t ment of J ust i ce addr essi ng NVRA' s appl i cabi l i t y to Puer t oRi co. I n par t i cul ar , appel l ant emphasi zes t he br i ef ' s asser t i ons

t hat HAVA "does not expand t he cover age of t he NVRA" and t hat "HAVAdoes not add j ur i sdi ct i ons t o t he cover age of t he NVRA. " Rat hert han bol st er i ng appel l ant ' s ar gument , t hose st at ement s r ei nf or ceour concl usi on t hat HAVA sect i on 303( a) l eaves NVRA i nt act whi l ei ndependent l y creat i ng obl i gat i ons f or t he j ur i sdi cti ons i tcover s. I ndeed, t he DOJ br i ef r ecogni zes t hat "HAVA i mposesobl i gat i ons of i t s own on cover ed j ur i sdi ct i ons - - i ncl udi ng Puer t oRi co. "


27/53

- 27 -

and pr ocedur es r equi r ed by t hat HAVA subsect i on - - i . e. , a syst em

of f i l e mai nt enance t hat makes a r easonabl e ef f or t t o r emove

r egi str ant s who ar e i nel i gi bl e t o vot e f r om t he of f i ci al l i st of

el i gi bl e vot er s, but pr ot ects el i gi bl e vot er s - - al i gn wi t h t hose

pr evi ousl y mandat ed by NVRA. 18 By cont r ast , HAVA does not draw

upon NVRA f or t he f undament al l y di f f er ent mat t er of whi ch

j ur i sdi ct i ons i t cover s. Each st at ut e has i t s own def i ni t i on of

a cover ed "St at e. " Under NVRA, " t he t er m ' St at e' means a St at e of

t he Uni t ed St at es and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. " 52 U. S. C.

20502( 4) . Under HAVA, t he t er m "St at e" "i ncl udes t he Di st r i ct of

Col umbi a, t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, Guam, Amer i can Samoa,

and t he Uni t ed St at es Vi r gi n I sl ands. " I d. 21141.

Not hi ng i n t he t wo sent ences of sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) - - or i n

t he ot her pr ovi si ons wi t hi n subsect i on ( a) di scussed above - -

suggest s t hat , despi t e t hi s expl i ci t di f f er ence bet ween t he

st at ut es' cover age, t hi s HAVA pr ovi si on appl i es onl y t o

j ur i sdi ct i ons subj ect t o NVRA. I ndeed, i t i s i nconcei vabl e t hat

Congr ess woul d have made HAVA appl i cabl e to t hese j ur i sdi ct i ons,

but exempt ed t hem f r om t hi s aspect of HAVA wi t hout sayi ng so

cl ear l y. The f act t hat t he r emoval r equi r ement s i n t he t wo

st at ut es over l ap does not si gni f y t hei r i r r el evance t o Puer t o Ri co,

18 HAVA al so cont ai ns a gener al l y appl i cabl e sect i on st at i ngt hat i t has " No ef f ect on ot her l aws, " i ncl udi ng NVRA, ot her t hanas expl i ci t l y st at ed wi t h r espect t o cer t ai n r egi st r at i on- by- mai lr equi r ement s. See 52 U. S. C. 21145.


28/53

- 28 -

but r at her under scores t hei r per cei ved i mpor t ance as par t of any

ef f or t t o i mpr ove t he admi ni st r at i on of el ect i ons.

Nor i s i t i l l ogi cal t o hol d t hat HAVA r equi r es Puer t o Ri co

el ect i on of f i ci al s t o adopt vot er r egi st r at i on pr ocedur es f or t he

of f i ce of Resi dent Commi ss i oner t hat we have concl uded NVRA does

not r equi r e of t hem. Di f f er ent consi der at i ons, and exper i ence

over t i me, may have af f ect ed pol i t i cal j udgment s about t he need

f or uni f or m nat i onal r equi r ement s i n Puer t o Ri co even t hough

ci t i zens r esi di ng t her e el ect onl y one f eder al of f i ci al . I ndeed,

as descr i bed above, t he November 2000 el ect i on "brought an

i ncr eased f ocus on t he pr ocess of el ect i on admi ni st r at i on, and

hi ghl i ght ed t he need f or i mpr ovement s. " H. R. Rep. 107- 329, pt . 1,

at 31, 2001 WL 1579545, at *31. I n addi t i on, t he House Repor t on

HAVA obser ved t hat t he l egi sl at i on "f or t he f i r st t i me" pr ovi des

f i nanci al assi st ance f r omt he f eder al gover nment t o stat e and l ocal

gover nment s " t o i mpr ove thei r el ect i on i nf r ast r uct ur e, " maki ng

" f unds avai l abl e t o t hose j ur i sdi ct i ons t hat want t o moder ni ze

t hei r syst ems. " I d. at 32, 2001 WL 1579545, at *32. Ther e i s

not hi ng absur d or unr easonabl e i n a l egi sl at i ve j udgment t hat such

assi st ance shoul d be avai l abl e t o al l Uni t ed St at es j ur i sdi ct i ons,

al ong wi t h t he cor r espondi ng obl i gat i on t o compl y wi t h nat i onal

st andar ds f or mai nt ai ni ng accur at e vot er r egi st r at i on r ecor ds.

We t hus agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t - - and t he pr i or panel

- - t hat "a sensi bl e r eadi ng" of HAVA sect i on 303( a) ( 4) compel s t he


29/53

- 29 -

concl usi on t hat Congr ess i nt ended t he obl i gat i ons i t set s f or t h t o

appl y t o al l j ur i sdi cti ons wi t hi n HAVA' s def i ni t i on of "St at e. "

Col n- Mar r er o, 703 F. 3d at 138; Col n- Mar r er o, No. 12- 1749CCC,

2015 WL 3508142, at *3 n. 3 ( D. P. R. J une 4, 2015) ( quot i ng panel

opi ni on) . Accor di ngl y, we hol d t hat , under t he pl ai n l anguage of

HAVA sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) , Puer t o Ri co may not deact i vat e vot er s

unl ess t hey have not r esponded to a not i ce and di d not vot e i n two

consecut i ve gener al el ect i ons f or f eder al of f i ce. See 52 U. S. C.

21083( a) ( 4) ( A) .

B. May plaintiffs seek a remedy under HAVA?

Appel l ant ar gues t hat , even i f Puer t o Ri co el ect i on of f i ci al s

must compl y wi t h HAVA' s r equi r ement s, pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms must be

di smi ssed because i ndi vi dual s have no pr i vat e r i ght of act i on t o

seek a r emedy under t he st atut e. Al t hough t he par t i es debated

t hi s cont ent i on i n t hei r post - r emand memor anda t o t he di st r i ct

cour t , t he cour t di d not di r ectl y addr ess t he i ssue. I t s r ul i ng,

however , r ef l ect s an i mpl i ci t concl usi on t hat pl ai nt i f f s have

pr oper l y sought r el i ef under HAVA. To eval uat e t he cor r ect ness of

t hat det er mi nat i on, we must cl osel y exami ne t he st at ut e agai nst

t he backdr op of t he appl i cabl e pr ecedent .

1. HAVA's Enforcement Provisions

HAVA by i t s t er ms does not cr eat e a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on.

The st at ut e, however , does express l y pr ovi de t wo mechani sms f or

r emedyi ng gr i evances: ( 1) a ci vi l act i on br ought by t he At t or ney


30/53

- 30 -

Gener al , 52 U. S. C. 21111, 19 and ( 2) i n st at es r ecei vi ng f unds

under HAVA, " [ e] st abl i shment of St at e- based admi ni st r at i ve

compl ai nt pr ocedur es, " i d. 21112( a) . 20 St at es that do not r ecei ve

HAVA f unds must ei t her cer t i f y t hat t hey have a comparabl e

admi ni st r at i ve scheme or submi t a det ai l ed compl i ance pl an showi ng

"t he st eps t he St at e wi l l t ake t o ensur e t hat i t meet s t he

[ st at ut e' s] r equi r ement s. " I d. 21112( b) ( 1) ( B) . The code

sect i ons cont ai ni ng t hese t wo pr ocedur es const i t ut e a separ at e

subchapt er of HAVA t i t l ed "Enf orcement . " See i d. 21111, 21112.

19 Sect i on 21111 st at es i n f ul l :

The At t or ney Gener al may br i ng a ci vi l act i onagai nst any St at e or j ur i sdi ct i on i n anappr opr i at e Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or

such decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef( i ncl udi ng a tempor ar y rest r ai ni ng or der , aper manent or t empor ar y i nj unct i on, or ot herorder ) as may be necessary to car r y out t heuni f or m and nondi scr i mi nat or y el ect i ont echnol ogy and admi ni st r at i on r equi r ement s[ r equi r ed by HAVA] .

20 Under t he requi r ed admi ni st r at i ve scheme, "any person whobel i eves t hat t her e i s a vi ol at i on" of HAVA' s vot i ng andr egi st r at i on r equi r ement s may f i l e a compl ai nt wi t h t he st at e. 52

U. S. C. 21112( a) ( 2) ( B) . I f t he st at e det er mi nes t hat a vi ol at i onoccur r ed, i t must "provi de t he appr opr i at e r emedy. " I d. 21112( a) ( 2) ( F) . I f t he st at e f i nds no vi ol at i on, i t must"di smi ss t he compl ai nt and publ i sh t he r esul t s of t he pr ocedur es. "I d. 21112( a) ( 2) ( G) . I f t he st at e does not make a f i naldet er mi nat i on on t he compl ai nt wi t hi n 90 days, t he i ssue must ber esol ved "under al t er nat i ve di sput e r esol ut i on pr ocedur esest abl i shed" f or such pur pose. I d. 21112( a) ( 2) ( H) , ( I ) .


31/53

- 31 -

2. Governing Law

Even when a f eder al st at ut e does not expl i ci t l y pr ovi de f or

a pr i vat e remedy, t wo di f f er ent pat hs may be avai l abl e to

i ndi vi dual s seeki ng t o enf or ce t hei r r i ght s under t he pr ovi si on.

The st at ut e may ei t her i ncl ude an i mpl i ed r i ght of act i on under

t he pr ovi si on i t sel f or be enf or ceabl e t hr ough a cause of act i on

br ought under 42 U. S. C. 1983. See gener al l y Ci t y of Rancho Pal os

Verdes v. Abr ams, 544 U. S. 113, 119- 21 ( 2005) ; Gonzaga Uni v. v.

Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283- 85 ( 2002) . 21 The i nqui r i es t o det er mi ne

whet her such paths exi st are si mi l ar and begi n wi t h t he same

quest i on: di d Congr ess i nt end t o cr eat e a f eder al r i ght ? See

Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 283. One di f f erence between t he t wo

appr oaches i s t hat an i ndi vi dual seeki ng t o sue under an i mpl i ed

r i ght of act i on "must show t hat t he st at ut e mani f est s an i nt ent

' t o creat e not j ust a pr i vat e r i ght but al so a pr i vat e r emedy. ' "

I d. at 284 ( quot i ng Al exander v. Sandoval , 532 U. S. 275, 286

( 2001) ) . By cont r ast , an i ndi vi dual pur sui ng r el i ef under 1983

"do[es] not have t he bur den of showi ng an i nt ent t o create a

21 Sect i on 1983 does not i t sel f conf er any r i ght s, but "mer el ypr ovi des a mechani sm f or enf or ci ng i ndi vi dual r i ght s ' secur ed'el sewher e, i . e. , r i ght s i ndependent l y ' secur ed by t he Const i t ut i onand l aws' of t he Uni t ed St at es. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 285.


32/53

- 32 -

pr i vat e r emedy because 1983 general l y suppl i es a r emedy f or t he

vi ndi cat i on of r i ght s secur ed by f eder al st at ut es. " I d.

Pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case asser t a r emedy onl y under 1983,

and we t her ef or e exami ne t hat pat hway t o r el i ef . I f a pl ai nt i f f

sat i sf i es t he thr eshol d i nqui r y and demonst r at es t hat Congr ess

i nt ended t o conf er an i ndi vi dual r i ght , t he r i ght i s pr esumpt i vel y

enf or ceabl e by 1983. I d. To r ebut t he pr esumpt i on, t he

def endant must show t hat Congr ess " shut t he door t o pr i vat e

enf or cement ei t her expr essl y" i n t he st at ut e cr eat i ng t he r i ght ,

"or ' i mpl i edl y, by cr eat i ng a compr ehensi ve enf orcement scheme

t hat i s i ncompat i bl e wi t h i ndi vi dual enf or cement under 1983, ' "

i d. at 284 n. 4 ( quot i ng Bl essi ng v. Fr eest one, 520 U. S. 329, 341

( 1997) ) .

3. Does HAVA section 303(a)(4) create an individual right?

Taken as a whol e, HAVA i s ai med at "El ect i on Admi ni st r at i on

I mpr ovement " - - t he t i t l e of t he Uni t ed St at es Code chapt er i n

whi ch i t i s codi f i ed - - and many of i t s pr ovi si ons ar e t her ef or e

f r amed as r equi r ement s f or t he st at e of f i ci al s who ar e i n char ge

of t he el ect i on pr ocess. Subchapt er I , f or exampl e, pr ovi des f or

payment s t o st at es t o f aci l i t at e i mpr ovement s i n t hei r el ect i on

pr ocedur es and, among ot her t hi ngs, i t di r ect s st at es t o use such

f unds t o car r y out t asks such as educat i ng vot er s, t r ai ni ng pol l

wor ker s, or est abl i shi ng vot er f r aud hot l i nes. See 52 U. S. C.

20901. Subchapt er I I est abl i shes an i ndependent El ect i on


33/53

- 33 -

Assi st ance Commi ssi on, i d. 20921, t o "serve as a nat i onal

cl ear i nghouse and r esour ce f or t he compi l at i on of i nf or mat i on and

r evi ew ofpr ocedur es wi t h r espect t o t he admi ni st r at i on of Feder al

el ect i ons, " i d. 20922, and Subchapt er V est abl i shes t he "Hel p

Amer i ca Vot e Col l ege Pr ogr am, " i d. 21121. Subchapt er I I I - - t he

one di r ect l y per t i nent t o t hi s case - - i s t i t l ed "Uni f or m and

Nondi scr i mi nat or y El ect i on Technol ogy and Admi ni st r at i on

Requi r ement s. " See i d. 21081- 21085. I t s pr ovi si ons i ncl ude

HAVA sect i on 303, whi ch i t sel f i s t i t l ed "Comput er i zed st at ewi de

vot er r egi st r at i on l i st r equi r ement s and r equi r ement s f or vot er s

whor egi st er by mai l . " I d. 21083. Subchapt er I I I al so i mposes

r equi r ement s f or "vot i ng syst ems" gener al l y, 22 publ i c post i ng of

i nf or mat i on on el ect i on days, and pr ovi si onal vot i ng. I d.

21081- 82.

The f act t hat many of HAVA' s pr ovi si ons - - i ndeed, pr obabl y

most of t hem - - ar e cr af t ed i n r egul at or y t er ms r at her t han i n

t er ms of vot er s' r i ght s does not bar a concl usi on t hat a par t i cul ar

pr ovi si on conf ers an i ndi vi dual r i ght . The Supr eme Cour t has made

cl ear t hat gener al i zed l anguage i n some sect i ons of a st at ut e i s

22 These i ncl ude, f or exampl e, t hat a "vot i ng syst em used i nan el ect i on f or Feder al of f i ce" " pr ovi de t he vot er wi t h t heoppor t uni t y ( i n a pr i vat e and i ndependent manner ) t o change t hebal l ot or cor r ect any er r or bef or e t he bal l ot i s cast and count ed, "52 U. S. C. 21081( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) , and measur es t o ensur eaccessi bi l i t y f or i ndi vi dual s wi t h di sabi l i t i es , i d. 21081( a) ( 3) ( A) .


34/53

- 34 -

not a bar r i er t o a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on under anot her sect i on

of t he same st atut e. For exampl e, i n Bl essi ng, t he Supr eme Cour t

exami ned pr ovi si ons of Ti t l e I V- D of t he Soci al Secur i t y Act t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f s had r el i ed upon, concl udi ng t hat t hey di d not gi ve

r i se t o i ndi vi dual i zed r i ght s because t hey wer e desi gned " t o gui de

t he St at e i n st r uct ur i ng i t s syst emwi de ef f or t s at enf or ci ng

suppor t obl i gat i ons. " 520 U. S. at 344. The Cour t not ed, however ,

t hat some pr ovi si ons of Ti t l e I V- D mi ght conf er enf or ceabl e

i ndi vi dual r i ght s, and i t r et ur ned t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t

" t o det er mi ne exact l y what r i ght s, consi der ed i n t hei r most

concr et e, speci f i c f or m, r espondent s ar e asser t i ng. " I d. at 346;

see al so Sandoval , 532 U. S. at 288- 89 ( cont r ast i ng 601 of Ti t l e

VI of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964, whi ch cr eat es i ndi vi dual

r i ght s, and 602, whi ch does not ) .

Hence, t he quest i on bef or e us i s whet her t he speci f i c

pr ovi si on on whi ch pl ai nt i f f s r el y - - HAVA sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) -

- cr eat es a pr i vat e r i ght . The Supr eme Cour t has i dent i f i ed t hr ee

f act or s t o gui de t he i nqui r y i nt o whet her Congr ess has

"unambi guousl y conf er r ed [ a] r i ght t o suppor t a cause of act i on

br ought under 1983. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 283.

Fi r st , Congr ess must have i nt ended that t hepr ovi si on i n quest i on benef i t t he pl ai nt i f f .Second, t he pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e t hatt he r i ght asser t edl y pr ot ect ed by t he st at ut ei s not so "vague and amorphous" t hat i t senf or cement woul d st r ai n j udi ci al compet ence.Thi r d, t he st at ut e must unambi guousl y i mpose


35/53

- 35 -

a bi ndi ng obl i gat i on on t he St at es. I n ot herwor ds, t he pr ovi si on gi vi ng r i se t o t heasser t ed r i ght must be couched i n mandat ory,r at her t han pr ecat or y, t er ms.

Bl essi ng, 520 U. S. at 340- 41 ( quot i ng Wr i ght v. Roanoke Redev. &

Hous. Aut h. , 479 U. S. 418, 431 ( 1987) ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Est abl i shi ng t he f i r st f actor - - t he i nt ent t o benef i t t he

pl ai nt i f f - - r equi r es mor e t han a showi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i s an

i nt ended benef i ci ar y of t he st at ut e or "wi t hi n t he gener al zone of

i nt er est t hat t he st at ut e i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect . " Gonzaga Uni v. ,

536 U. S. at 283. Rat her , " t he pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e t hat t he

f eder al st at ut e creat es an i ndi vi dual l y enf or ceabl e r i ght i n t he

cl ass of benef i ci ar i es t o whi ch he bel ongs. " Rancho Pal os Ver des,

544 U. S. at 120; see al so Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 281 ( "Si nce

t he [Adopt i on Assi st ance and Chi l d Wel f ar e Act of 1980] conf er r ed

no speci f i c, i ndi vi dual l y enf or ceabl e r i ght s, t her e was no basi s

f or pr i vat e enf or cement , even by a cl ass of t he st at ut e' s pr i nci pal

benef i ci ar i es. " ( ci t i ng Sut er v. Ar t i st M. , 503 U. S. 347, 357

( 1992) ) ) ; Cal i f or ni a v. Si er r a Cl ub, 451 U. S. 287, 294 ( 1981) ( "The

quest i on i s not si mpl y who woul d benef i t f r om t he Act , but whet her

Congr ess i nt ended t o conf er f eder al r i ght s upon t hose

benef i ci ar i es . " ) .

The t ar geted por t i on of HAVA sect i on 303( a) ( 4) f i t s

comf or t abl y among t hose st at ut or y pr ovi si ons f ound t o cr eat e

i ndi vi dual l y enf or ceabl e r i ght s because of t hei r "unmi st akabl e


36/53

- 36 -

f ocus on t he benef i t ed cl ass. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 287

( quot i ng Cannon v. Uni v. of Chi . , 441 U. S. 677, 691 ( 1979) ) .

Al t hough sect i on 303( a) ' s pr i mar y f ocus i s t he obl i gat i on of st at es

t o adopt measures t o ensur e accur at e r egi st r at i on r ecor ds, and

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) f ur t her s t hat obj ect i ve by di r ect i ng st at e

of f i ci al s t o i mpl ement cer t ai n saf eguar ds f or vot er r ol l

mai nt enance, t he f act t hat a st at ut or y command i s di r ect ed at st at e

of f i ci al s as par t of a br oader pl an f or i mpl ement at i on does not

pr ecl ude i t f r om l i kewi se creat i ng pr i vat el y enf or ceabl e r i ght s.

Language t hat di r ect s st at e of f i ci al s i n t he i mpl ement at i on of

st at ut or y obj ect i ves may st i l l cr eat e an enf or ceabl e r i ght wher e

i t "ment i ons a speci f i c, di scret e benef i ci ar y gr oup wi t hi n t he

st at ut or y t ext " and "speaks i n i ndi vi dual i st i c t er ms, r at her t han

at t he aggr egat e l evel of i nst i t ut i onal pol i cy or pr acti ce. " Ri o

Gr ande Cmt y. Heal t h Ct r . v. Rul l an, 397 F. 3d 56, 74 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ; accor d Br yson v. Shumway, 308 F. 3d 79, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

The r el evant t ext of sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) sat i sf i es t hese

r equi r ement s. I t speci f i es a di scr et e cl ass of benef i ci ar i es - -

"r egi st r ant s" - - and descr i bes speci f i c pr ocedur es f or r emovi ng

i ndi vi dual r egi str ant s f r om t he stat e' s act i ve vot er r ol l s ,

i ncl udi ng t he r equi r ement of not i ce and f ai l ur e t o vot e i n

consecut i ve el ect i ons. 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 4) ( A) . Mor eover , t he

command of t he pr ovi si on' s f i nal cl ause, t hat "no regi st r ant may

be r emoved sol el y by reason of a f ai l ur e t o vot e, " i d. , r esembl es


37/53

- 37 -

t he l anguage i n Ti t l es VI and I X of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964

t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has hi ghl i ght ed as i ndi cat i ve of Congr ess' s

i nt ent t o cr eat e an i ndi vi dual r i ght : "No per son . . . shal l . . .

be subj ect ed t o di scr i mi nat i on. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 287

( quot i ng 20 U. S. C. 1681( a) ; 42 U. S. C. 2000d) . On i t s f ace,

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) conf er s a "r i ght " on ever y "r egi st r ant " not

t o be r emoved f r om a st at e' s acti ve r egi st r y f or f ai l ur e t o

par t i ci pat e i n one gener al el ect i on.

The r i ght s- cr eat i ng r ol e of t hi s l anguage i s r ei nf or ced by

t he cont r ast dr awn by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Gonzaga Uni ver si t y

bet ween the l anguage quoted above f r om Ti t l es VI and I X and the

l anguage of t he Fami l y Educat i onal Ri ght s and Pr i vacy Act of 1974

( "FERPA") under r evi ew i n t hat case. The Cour t poi nt ed out t hat

t he FERPA pr ovi si ons " speak onl y to t he Secr et ar y of Educat i on,

di r ect i ng t hat ' [ n] o f unds shal l be made avai l abl e' t o any

' educat i onal agency or i nst i t ut i on' whi ch has a pr ohi bi t ed ' pol i cy

or pr act i ce. ' " 536 U. S. at 287 ( quot i ng 20 U. S. C. 1232g( b) ( 1) ) .

The Cour t obser ved t hat " [ t ] hi s f ocus i s t wo st eps r emoved f r om

t he i nt er est s of i ndi vi dual st udent s and par ent s and cl ear l y does

not conf er t he sor t of ' i ndi vi dual ent i t l ement ' t hat i s enf or ceabl e

under 1983. " I d. ( quot i ng Bl essi ng, 520 U. S. at 343) . The Cour t

t hus concl uded t hat t he FERPA pr ovi si ons under scr ut i ny do not

conf er enf or ceabl e r i ght s. I d.


38/53

- 38 -

Si mi l ar l y i l l ustr at i ve i s the Cour t ' s deci si on i n Bl essi ng.

Ther e, t he Cour t obser ved t hat a pr ovi si on r equi r i ng chi l d suppor t

pr ogr ams t o oper at e i n "subst ant i al compl i ance" wi t h Ti t l e I V- D of

t he Soci al Secur i t y Act "[ f ] ar f r om cr eat [ es] an i ndi vi dual

ent i t l ement t o ser vi ces, " and i nst ead pr ovi des a "st andar d [ t hat ]

i s si mpl y a yar dst i ck f or t he Secr et ar y t o measur e . . . syst emwi de

per f ormance. " 520 U. S. at 343. The Cour t i n Sandoval l i kewi se

f ound t he necessary " ' r i ght s- cr eat i ng l anguage' " absent f r om 602

of Ti t l e VI of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964. 532 U. S. at 288

( quot i ng Cannon, 414 U. S. at 690) . The Cour t expl ai ned:

Whereas 601 decrees t hat " [ n] o person. . . shal l . . . be subj ect ed t odi scr i mi nat i on, " 42 U. S. C. 2000d, t he t extof 602 pr ovi des t hat " [ e] ach Feder aldepar t ment and agency . . . i s aut hor i zed anddi r ect ed t o ef f ect uat e t he pr ovi si ons of[ 601] , " 42 U. S. C. 2000d- 1. Far f r omdi spl ayi ng congr essi onal i nt ent t o cr eat e new

r i ght s, 602 l i mi t s agenci es t o"ef f ect uat [ i ng] " r i ght s al r eady cr eat ed by 601.

I d. at 288- 89. The Cour t t hen ut i l i zed t he " t wo st eps r emoved"

i mager y t o whi ch i t r et ur ned t he next year ( as quoted above) i n

Gonzaga Uni ver si t y, 536 U. S. at 287:

And the f ocus of 602 i s t wi ce removed f r om

t he i ndi vi dual s who wi l l ul t i mat el y benef i tf r om Ti t l e VI ' s pr ot ect i on. St at ut es t hatf ocus on t he per son r egul at ed rat her t han thei ndi vi dual s pr ot ect ed cr eat e "no i mpl i cat i onof an i nt ent t o conf er r i ght s on a par t i cul arcl ass of per sons. " Sect i on 602 i s yet a st epf ur t her r emoved: I t f ocuses nei t her on t hei ndi vi dual s pr ot ect ed nor even on t he f undi ng


39/53

- 39 -

r eci pi ent s bei ng r egul at ed, but on t heagenci es t hat wi l l do t he r egul at i ng.

Sandoval , 532 U. S. at 289 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Si er r a Cl ub,

451 U. S. at 294) .

By cont r ast , no gap exi st s bet ween the oper at i ve t ext of HAVA

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) and t he per sons whose i nt er est s ar e at st ake.

The st at ut or y pr oscr i pt i on - - "no r egi st r ant may be r emoved" - -

di r ectl y and expl i ci t l y pr ot ects i ndi vi dual vot er s. That r i ght s-

cr eat i ng l anguage expl ai ns why appel l ant i ncor r ect l y i nvokes t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s one- paragr aph deci si on i n Br unner v. Ohi o

Republ i can Par t y, 555 U. S. 5 ( 2008) ( per cur i am) , i n suppor t of

her vi ew t hat pl ai nt i f f s may not br i ng a pr i vat e act i on under

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) . I n Br unner , t he Cour t vacat ed a t empor ar y

r est r ai ni ng or der di r ect i ng Ohi o' s Secr et ar y of St at e t o updat e

t he st at e' s vot er r egi st r at i on dat abase, havi ng concl uded t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s wer e not suf f i ci ent l y l i kel y t o pr ove t hat HAVA

sect i on 303 gave t hem a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on. 555 U. S. at 5-

6. The subsect i on of sect i on 303 at i ssue i n Br unner , however ,

di r ect s act i on by t he stat e' s chi ef el ect i on of f i ci al , 23 and i t

23 The subsect i on, 52 U. S. C. 21083( a) ( 5) ( B) ( i ) , st at es:

The chi ef St at e el ect i on of f i ci al and t heof f i ci al r esponsi bl e f or t he St at e mot orvehi cl e aut hor i t y of a St at e shal l ent er i nt oan agr eement t o mat ch i nf ormat i on i n thedat abase of t he st at ewi de vot er r egi st r at i onsyst emwi t h i nf or mat i on i n t he dat abase of t hemot or vehi cl e aut hor i t y to the ext ent r equi r edt o enabl e each such of f i ci al t o ver i f y the


40/53

- 40 -

l acks any l anguage showi ng an i nt ent t o cr eat e i ndi vi dual l y

enf or ceabl e r i ght s. Thus, Br unner does not gover n t he pr i vat e-

r i ght quest i on her e. 24 Cf . Sandusky Ct y. Democr at i c Par t y v.

Bl ackwel l , 387 F. 3d 565, 572- 73 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) ( per cur i am)

( hol di ng t hat t he r i ght s- cr eat i ng l anguage of HAVA 302( a) ( 2) , 52

U. S. C. 21082( a) ( 2) - - st at i ng t hat i ndi vi dual s "shal l be

per mi t t ed t o cast a pr ovi si onal bal l ot " - - i s unambi guous) .

Mor eover , i t i s not ewor t hy t hat HAVA, i ncl udi ng

sect i on 303( a) ( 4) , was enact ed pur suant t o Congr ess' s aut hor i t y

under t he El ect i ons Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on. See H. R. Rep.

107- 329, pt . 1, at 57, 2001 WL 1579545, at *57; U. S. Const . ar t .

I , 4, cl . 1. The Supr eme Cour t has observed t hat s t at ut es

enacted under Congr ess' s spendi ng power r arel y gi ve r i se to

enf or ceabl e i ndi vi dual r i ght s, as "t he t ypi cal r emedy f or st at e

noncompl i ance wi t h f eder al l y i mposed condi t i ons [ i n spendi ng

l egi sl at i on] i s not a pr i vat e cause of act i on f or noncompl i ance

but r ather act i on by t he Federal Gover nment t o termi nate f unds t o

accur acy of t he i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded onappl i cat i ons f or vot er r egi str at i on.

24 We r ef use t o dr aw any si gni f i cance f r omt he Supr eme Cour t ' sbr oad r ef er ence t o sect i on 303, r at her t han t o t he speci f i csubsect i on at i ssue, when i t r ai sed doubt s about t he avai l abi l i t yof a pr i vat e r emedy. The Br unner Cour t r epr oduced t he speci f i cpr ovi si on i t was consi der i ng, see 555 U. S. at 5 n. *, and - -par t i cul ar l y gi ven t he one- par agr aph per cur i am - - i t woul d beabsurd t o const r ue t he deci si on as pr ecedent on another subsect i onwhose l anguage i t di d not exami ne.


41/53

- 41 -

t he St ate. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 280 ( quot i ng Pennhur st

St ate Sch. & Hosp. v. Hal der man, 451 U. S. 1, 28 ( 1981) ) . The Cour t

f ur t her comment ed t hat i t s " mor e r ecent deci si ons . . . have

r ej ect ed at t empt s t o i nf er enf or ceabl e r i ght s f r omSpendi ng Cl ause

st at ut es, " absent l anguage t hat unambi guousl y conf er s such r i ght s

on t he st at ut e' s benef i ci ar i es. I d. at 281. Her e, t he pr ovi si on

at i ssue i s bot h aut hor i zed by const i t ut i onal aut hor i t y mor e

speci f i c t han t he spendi ng power and cont ai ns l anguage

unambi guousl y conf er r i ng i ndi vi dual r i ght s.

The ot her t wo f act or s of t he pr i vat e- r i ght i nqui r y descr i bed

i n Bl essi ng ar e easi l y sat i sf i ed by sect i on 303( a) ( 4) . Enf or ci ng

t he r i ght t o r et ent i on on a st at e' s act i ve vot er r egi st r y woul d

i mpose no "st r ai n [ on] j udi ci al compet ence, " as t he r i ght i s

concr et e and wel l - def i ned. Bl essi ng, 520 U. S. at 341. The

speci f i ci t y of t he pr ovi si on' s di r ecti ves shi el ds agai nst

pot ent i al l y di spar at e out comes, bol st er i ng t he concl usi on t hat t he

l anguage i s r i ght s- cr eat i ng. See Rul l an, 397 F. 3d at 75. The

st at ut e' s r equi r ement s ar e al so "couched i n mandat or y, r ather t han

pr ecatory, t er ms, " and "unambi guousl y i mpose a bi ndi ng

obl i gat i on. " I d. ; accor d Sandusky, 387 F. 3d at 573 ( " [ T] her e can

be no doubt t hat HAVA as a whol e i s ' couched i n mandat ory, r at her

t han pr ecat or y, t er ms. ' ") .

We t her ef or e concl ude t hat pl ai nt i f f s ar e ent i t l ed t o a

pr esumpt i on t hat HAVA sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) pr ovi des t hem wi t h a


42/53

- 42 -

r i ght t hat i s enf or ceabl e under 1983. Appel l ant makes no

meani ngf ul at t empt t o r ebut t hi s pr esumpt i on, and we coul d thus

end our anal ysi s her e. Recogni zi ng t he i mpor t ance of t hi s i ssue,

however , we expl ai n why t he r at i onal es t he Supreme Cour t has f ound

adequat e t o def eat such a pr esumpt i on do not appl y here.

4. Did Congress manifest an intent to foreclose a remedy

under 1983?

Congr essi onal i nt ent t o "shut t he door t o pr i vat e

enf or cement " of a f ederal st at ute may be shown by means of l anguage

i n t he act i t sel f speci f i cal l y f or ecl osi ng a r emedy under 1983

or by i mpl i cat i on f r om Congr ess' s cr eat i on of "a compr ehensi ve

enf or cement scheme t hat i s i ncompat i bl e wi t h i ndi vi dual

enf orcement under 1983. " Gonzaga Uni v. , 536 U. S. at 284 n. 4

( quot i ng Bl essi ng, 520 U. S. at 341) . We have f ound no expr ess

l anguage i n HAVA r ej ect i ng a pr i vat e remedy under 1983 f or

vi ol at i on of t he i ndi vi dual r i ght t hat we have det er mi ned i s

cr eated by sect i on 303( a) ( 4) ( A) . We t hus must consi der whet her an

i ndi vi dual r emedy under 1983 i s compat i bl e wi t h t he enf orcement

mechani sms t hat HAVA does pr ovi de "f or t he depr i vat i on of [ t he]

f eder al l y secur ed r i ght " i t cr eat es. Wr i ght , 479 U. S. at 424

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Supr eme Cour t has caut i oned agai nst " l i ght l y concl ud[ i ng]

t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o pr ecl ude r el i ance on 1983, " i d. at

423- 24 (quot i ng Smi t h v. Robi nson, 468 U. S. 992, 1012 (1984) ) , and


43/53

- 43 -

t he avai l abi l i t y of a pr i vat e r emedy t hr ough an admi ni st r at i ve

mechani smi s not necessar i l y enough t o show such i nt ent , see, e. g. ,

Gol den St at e Tr ansi t Cor p. v. Ci t y of Los Angel es, 493 U. S. 103,

106 ( 1989) . Rat her , t o conf i ne i ndi vi dual s t o a st at ut or y r emedy,

t he l egi sl at i on must r eveal Congr ess' s pur pose t o excl ude

i ndependent r el i ef i n f eder al cour t pur suant t o 1983. See, e. g. ,

Wi l der v. Va. Hosp. Ass' n, 496 U. S. 498, 523 ( 1990) ( f i ndi ng no

"i ndi cat i on t hat Congr ess speci f i cal l y i nt ended t hat [ t he

st at ut e' s] admi ni st r at i ve pr ocedur e r epl ace pr i vat e r emedi es

avai l abl e under 1983") .

The r ar i t y of t hat del i berat e excl usi on was not ed i n Rancho

Pal os Verdes, see 544 U. S. at 121, wher e t he Supreme Cour t obser ved

t hat i t pr evi ousl y had r ej ect ed 1983 as an avai l abl e r emedy f or

vi ol at i ons of f eder al st at ut or y ri ght s i n onl y two cases: Mi ddl esex

Count y Sewer age Aut hor i t y v. Nat i onal Sea Cl ammer s Associ at i on,

453 U. S. 1 ( 1981) , and Smi t h, 468 U. S. at 1012. I n Sea Cl ammers,

t he envi r onment al st at ut es at i ssue cont ai ned "unusual l y el abor at e

enf or cement pr ovi si ons, " al l owi ng "any i nt er est ed per son" t o

chal l enge act i ons of t he Admi ni st r at or of t he Envi r onment al

Pr ot ect i on Agency i n f eder al appeal s cour t s, 453 U. S. at 13- 14,

and, i n addi t i on, "aut hor i z[ i ng] pr i vat e per sons t o sue f or

i nj uncti ons t o enf or ce t hese st at ut es, " i d. at 14. Si mi l ar l y, i n

Smi t h, t he Cour t f ound t hat "t he car ef ul l y t ai l or ed admi ni st r at i ve

and j udi ci al mechani sm, " 468 U. S. at 1009, i n t he Educat i on of t he


44/53

- 44 -

Handi capped Act mani f est ed "Congr ess' i nt ent t hat each chi l d' s

i ndi vi dual educat i onal needs be worked out t hr ough a pr ocess t hat

begi ns on t he l ocal l evel and i ncl udes ongoi ng par ent al

i nvol vement , det ai l ed pr ocedur al saf eguar ds, and a r i ght t o

j udi ci al r evi ew, " i d. at 1011. Hence, t he Cour t concl uded t hat

Congr ess meant t o f or ecl ose " t he abi l i t y of a handi capped chi l d t o

go di r ect l y t o cour t wi t h an equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m. " I d.

I n Rancho Pal os Ver des, t he Cour t added a t hi r d exempl ar t o

t he shor t l i st of st at ut es f ound t o pr ecl ude r el i ef under 1983

f or vi ol at i on of a f eder al r i ght . See 544 U. S. at 120- 21. The

st at ut e at i ssue, a pr ovi si on of t he Tel ecommuni cat i ons Act of

1996 ( "TCA") , 42 U. S. C. 332( c) ( 7) , cont ai ns a r emedi al syst em

t hat i ncl udes j udi ci al r evi ew, but "l i mi t s r el i ef i n ways t hat

1983 does not . " I d. at 122. The st at ut or y per i od f or f i l i ng a

cl ai m i s shor t er , t he di st r i ct cour t must hear t he cl ai m on an

expedi t ed basi s, and t he avai l abl e r emedi es do not i ncl ude

at t or ney' s f ees and cost s. I d. at 122- 23. The Cour t concl uded

t hat enf or cement of 332( c) ( 7) t hr ough 1983 woul d "di st or t

t h[ i s] scheme of expedi t ed j udi ci al r evi ew and l i mi t ed r emedi es. "

I d. at 127. The Cour t t hus hel d t hat " t he TCA - - by pr ovi di ng a

j udi ci al r emedy di f f er ent f r om 1983 i n 332( c) ( 7) i t sel f - -

pr ecl uded r esor t t o 1983. " I d. 25

25 The Cour t emphasi zed i n Rancho Pal os Verdes t hat t heavai l abi l i t y of a pr i vat e j udi ci al r emedy under a st at ut e does not


45/53

- 45 -

I n i t s di scussi on, t he Cour t i n Rancho Pal os Ver des observed

t hat , f or st at ut or y vi ol at i ons, t he "di vi di ng l i ne bet ween t hose

cases i n whi ch we have hel d t hat an act i on woul d l i e under 1983

and those i n whi ch we have not " has been "t he exi st ence of a mor e

r est r i cti ve pr i vat e r emedy" i n t he st at ut e i t sel f . I d. at 121.

I mpor t ant l y, however , i t i s not a remedy of any t ype t hat has

suppor t ed an i nf er ence t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o f or ecl ose pr i vat e

enf or cement t hr ough 1983. "[ A] pl ai nt i f f ' s abi l i t y t o i nvoke

1983 cannot be def eat ed si mpl y by ' [ t ] he avai l abi l i t y of

admi ni st r at i ve mechani sms t o pr ot ect t he pl ai nt i f f ' s i nt er est s. ' "

Bl essi ng, 520 U.

Documents

Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez, 1st Cir. (2016)