COMMON CAUSE NAACP v. KEMP (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

COMMON CAUSE, Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Brian KEMP, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Georgia, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 17-11315

Decided: March 12, 2018

Before WILSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge.

Emmet J. Bondurant, II, Jason J. Carter, Chad Lennon, Benjamin Williams Thorpe, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cristina Maria Correia, Julia B. Anderson, Christopher Michael Carr, Josiah Benjamin Heidt, Attorney General's Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Sophia Lin Lakin, Dale E. Ho, Sean J. Young, ACLU of Georgia, Atlanta, GA, Naila S. Awan, Demos, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Paul Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc., Allied Educational Foundation

Plaintiffs/Appellants, Common Cause (“CC”) and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (“NAACP”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), appeal the district court's order granting the Secretary of State's (“Secretary of State” or “State”), motion to dismiss their claims challenging Georgia Code § 21–2–234 (“Section 234”), which codifies a program for removing ineligible voters from the voter registration rolls. Plaintiffs contend that the program violates federal voting rights law, specifically the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507 (“NVRA”), and the Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S.C. § 21083 (“HAVA”), and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I. ISSUES

1. Whether Section 234 violates the National Voters Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

2. Whether Section 234 violates the First Amendment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews de novo the district court's order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. Blevins v. Aksut, 849 F.3d 1016, 1018–19 (11th Cir. 2017).

This court also reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Burlison v. McDonald's Corp., 455 F.3d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006).

III. DISCUSSION

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court's order of dismissal and remand this case to the district court to consider in the first instance the United States Supreme Court's pending disposition in A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2188, 198 L.Ed.2d 254 (2017) (argued January 10, 2018).

On remand, the district court should also conduct a more detailed analysis of the First Amendment question.

VACATED and REMANDED with directions.¹

FOOTNOTES

1. On remand, nothing precludes the Plaintiffs from moving the district court for a preliminary injunction to restore those removed voters from the voter registration rolls pending a ruling from the Supreme Court.

PER CURIAM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law