Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05196/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 16-5196 September Term, 2016

 FILED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2016

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

BRIAN D. NEWBY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:16-cv-00236)

Before: ROGERS, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH*, Senior Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This case came to be heard on the record of the United States District Court and was

argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, and as will be explained more fully in opinions to

be filed at a later date, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the District Court denying the motion for

a preliminary injunction be reversed. Appellants have demonstrated irreparable harm, a

likelihood of success on the merits, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Election Assistance Commission (“the

Commission”), and anyone acting on its behalf, be enjoined from giving effect to the January 29,

2016, decisions of its Executive Director, Brian D. Newby, approving requests by Kansas,

Alabama, and Georgia to add a proof of citizenship requirement to the state-specific instructions

that accompany the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the “Federal Form”). It is 

USCA Case #16-5196 Document #1635095 Filed: 09/09/2016 Page 1 of 3
FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission take all actions necessary to restore the

status quo ante, pending a determination on the merits, including promptly removing from the

state-specific instructions those requirements directing voter registration applicants to submit

proof of their United States citizenship, informing Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia that Federal

Form applications filed since January 29, 2016 should be treated as if they did not contain the

now-stricken state-specific instructions, and promptly posting on the Commission’s website the

modified version of the Federal Form. 

Our dissenting colleague claims that a Constitutional issue “would arise if a court issued a

final injunction in this case forbidding the Commission from including the states’ requirements.” 

But that issue is not presented in this case because the Leagues seek only to enjoin the

Commission (or its agents) from giving effect to the January 29, 2016 decisions of Executive

Director Newby. Neither this preliminary injunction nor a final judgment would forbid the

Commission from including a proof-of-citizenship requirement if it determined that such a

requirement was necessary to “effectuate [the States’] citizenship requirement[s].” Arizona v.

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2260 (2013). Like Arizona after ITCA,

the States here remain free to renew their “request[s] that the [Commission] alter the Federal

Form to include information the State[s] deem[] necessary to determine eligibility.” Id. If the

Commission refuses those requests (or fails to act timely), the States here (like Arizona) will

have the “opportunity to establish in a reviewing court” that their proof-of-citizenship

requirements are necessary to enable them to assess eligibility. Id.; see 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1). 

Because they have yet to do so, our review of the agency action here presents no Constitutional

issue.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Amy Yacisin

Deputy Clerk

* Senior Circuit Judge Randolph would affirm the order denying the preliminary injunction. A

separate dissenting statement by Senior Circuit Judge Randolph is attached.

2

USCA Case #16-5196 Document #1635095 Filed: 09/09/2016 Page 2 of 3
Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: 

I would affirm the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on the ground that

appellants have not demonstrated irreparable harm.

The Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. recognized that

under Article I, § 2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states – not

the federal government – have the power to establish “voting requirements” in federal elections.

133 S.Ct. 2247, 2258-59 (2013). 

The Court also held that it would “raise serious constitutional doubts” if the Election

Assistance Commission prevented a state from “enforcing its voter qualifications” and that the

Commission may be “under a nondiscretionary duty to include [a state’s proof of citizenship

requirements] on the Federal Form.” Id. at 2259-60. That issue is not presented because the

Commission’s Executive Director granted the requests of Kansas, Georgia and Alabama to

include their requirements on the Federal Form. But the issue would arise if a court issued a final

injunction in this case forbidding the Commission from including the states’ requirements. 

3

USCA Case #16-5196 Document #1635095 Filed: 09/09/2016 Page 3 of 3