In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 08-3765

JOSEPH LAKE, individually and on behalf

of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LANGDON D. NEAL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 2742—Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 14, 2009—DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 2009

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and

EVANS, Circuit Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge. The Duck Test holds that if it

walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a

duck, it’s a duck. Joseph Lake, the plaintiff in this suit,

flunks the Duck Test. He says, in effect, that if it walks

like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,

it sure as heck isn’t a duck.
2 No. 08-3765

18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-25. 1

42 U.S.C. § 1973. 2

The crux of Lake’s argument in this appeal is that a

voter registration form is actually a motor vehicle record. He argues that the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (Board) violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) —which regulates motor vehicle 1

records—by disclosing personal information it obtains

from voter registration records that were completed at

an office of the Illinois Department of Motor Vehicles

(DMV). After a parallel claim in state court was dismissed

with prejudice, Lake instituted this class action suit

against the Board. Recognizing a fatal flaw in Lake’s

argument, the district court granted the defendants’

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Because this case comes to us on an appeal from an

order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, we accept as true all well-pleaded facts alleged,

drawing all possible inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

Lachmund v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 191 F.3d 777, 782

(7th Cir. 1999). Here are the facts.

In 1998, Lake applied for a driver’s licence at an office

of the Illinois DMV. Pursuant to the National Voter

Registration Act (NVRA), he exercised an option to

2

register to vote at the same time. He filled out and submitted a voter registration form, which was attached to

the driver’s license application. The completed voter

registration form was transmitted to the Board. In 2007,

a fellow named Peter Zelchenko acquired Lake’s personal
No. 08-3765 3

Although we are required to accept as true the facts as pled, 3

we have a hard time believing that the Board, in this day and

age, would intentionally release a registered voter’s social

security number.

information—he says it was his name, date of birth, sex,

address, former address, phone number, and social security number —by simply asking the Board for it. Zelchenko 3

informed Lake that he acquired his personal information

from the Board.

Lake raises two issues on appeal, but we need only

discuss one: Did his complaint state a cause of action

under the DPPA?

The district court dismissed the complaint for failure

to state a claim after it determined that a voter registration form filled out at the DMV under the NVRA is not

a motor vehicle record under the DPPA. We review

grants of motions for failure to state a claim de novo.

Hickey v. O’Bannon, 287 F.3d 656, 657 (7th Cir. 2002).

A bit of background on the two statutes is necessary.

The DPPA regulates the ways a DMV can disclose information. Congress passed the DPPA in response to

safety and privacy concerns stemming from the ready

availability of personal information contained in state

motor vehicle records. The most prominent example of

the realization of these concerns was the 1989 murder of

actress Rebecca Schaeffer, star of the television series

“My Sister Sam.” See 137 Cong. Rec. 27, 327 (1993). An

obsessed fan stalked and killed the actress, in her own

apartment, after he obtained her unlisted address from
4 No. 08-3765

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2004). 4

the California DMV. The second statute, the NVRA,

allows eligible citizens to register to vote while applying

for a driver’s license. Congress passed the NVRA to

(1) make it easier to register to vote and (2) to help

protect the integrity of the process by ensuring that

accurate voter registration rolls are maintained.

The basis for plaintiff’s claim is § 2724 of the DPPA,

which creates a private cause of action against “[a] person

who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not

permitted under this chapter . . . .” The DPPA defines

a motor vehicle record as “any record that pertains to a

motor vehicle operator’s permit, motor vehicle title,

motor vehicle registration, or identification card issued

by a department of motor vehicles[.]” The issue for us

is whether the voter registration form that Lake filled

out at the DMV is a “motor vehicle record” under the

DPPA. It qualifies as such only if it “pertains” to one of

the documents mentioned in the statute.

The plain language of both statutes makes it clear that

a voter registration form filled out pursuant to the

NVRA does not “pertain” to any of the listed DMV documents. The dictionary tells us that “pertain” means “to

belong as a part, member, accessory, or product.” The 4

voter registration form, which is filled out separately

and at the applicant’s option, is not a part, member,

accessory, or product of a motor vehicle operator’s permit. Other than the fact that it is filled out simultaneously
No. 08-3765 5

with a driver’s license application, the voter form has

nothing to do with, nor does it “pertain” to, a motor

vehicle operator’s permit.

Finally, we would not accept Lake’s argument even if a

literal interpretation of the DPPA would seem to

compel it because that would “lead to an absurd

result . . . . ” Castellon-Contreras v. INS, 45 F.3d 149, 153 (7th

Cir. 1995) (citing Born v. United States, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991)).

The Board receives voter registration forms from a

variety of sources. The Illinois DMV, pursuant to the

NVRA, is one such source. All voter registration forms

contain the same basic information, which the Board

must—according to Illinois state law—make available

to the public. See 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/6-35 (2009).

Accepting Lake’s argument would lead to an absurd

situation: the Board violates federal law when it

discloses the personal information it receives from the

DMV pursuant to the NVRA but does not violate

federal law when it discloses the same personal information it receives from other sources. This result also

likely contravenes the purpose of the NVRA, which is to

increase voter registration in federal elections. If it is

against federal law for the Board to disclose the voter

information it receives from the DMV, but against state

law to not make it publicly available, the Board will

likely be forced to stop accepting voter registration

forms received from the DMV. That would nullify an

important purpose of the NVRA.

Since a voter registration form filled out at the DMV is

not a motor vehicle record under the DPPA, the Board
6 No. 08-3765

could not have violated the DPPA by disclosing Lake’s

personal information to the extent that it did.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

11-6-09