CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/29/2023 1

Citizenship Verification 

Morales v. Handel (Jack T. Camp, N.D. Ga. 1:08-cv-3172) 

A naturalized citizen sued Georgia for its efforts to purge noncitizens from voter-registration rolls. A three-judge district court determined that section 5 preclearance was required for the efforts 

and granted interim relief. Georgia eventually was able to establish 

procedures that earned preclearance. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Citizenship; 

registration challenges; Help America Vote Act (HAVA); section 5 

preclearance; three-judge court. 

On October 9, 2008, a naturalized U.S. citizen filed a federal class action in 

the Northern District of Georgia’s Atlanta courthouse complaining that 

Georgia’s secretary of state was improperly challenging citizens who registered to vote as possibly not being citizens.1

 With his complaint, he filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order, for a preliminary injunction, and 

to convene a three-judge district court to hear his claim that Georgia had 

failed to preclear changes to its registration procedures as required by section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act.2

In September, the plaintiff completed a voter-registration application on 

campus; he was a student at Kennesaw State University.3

 He received a notice 

from the county registrar that there was a question about his citizenship.4

 On 

September 26, the plaintiff proved his citizenship by presenting his passport 

at the registrar’s office.5

 On October 10, the day after he filed his complaint, 

he was notified that his status as a registered voter was confirmed.6

The court assigned the case to Judge Jack T. Camp, who ordered the parties to appear in his Newnan courtroom on the morning of October 10.7

 Af1. Complaint, Morales v. Handel, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2008), D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (Oct. 9, 2008), D.E. 2; see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 

§ 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to 

voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination and requiring 

that preclearance disputes be heard by a three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

3. Order at 2–3, Morales, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2008), D.E. 36 [hereinafter 

Oct. 27, 2008, Morales Order]; Order at 2, id. (Oct. 16, 2008), D.E. 19 [hereinafter Oct. 16, 

2008, Morales Order]. 

4. Oct. 27, 2008, Morales Order, supra note 3, at 3; Oct. 16, 2008, Morales Order, supra

note 3, at 3. 

5. Oct. 27, 2008, Morales Order, supra note 3, at 3; Oct. 16, 2008, Morales Order, supra

note 3, at 3. 

6. Oct. 27, 2008, Morales Order, supra note 3, at 3. 

7. Order, Morales, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2008), D.E. 5. 

Judge Camp retired on November 19, 2010. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 
Citizenship Verification 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/29/2023

ter that proceeding, he approved the request for a three-judge court,8 which 

the circuit’s chief judge empaneled four days later.9

On October 16, Judge Camp determined that a central question was 

whether Georgia’s application of the Help America Vote Act10 database requirements in checking registered voters for evidence of citizenship required 

section 5 preclearance.11 Judge Camp decided that immediate injunctive relief was not necessary in advance of a determination by the three-judge court 

on that issue.12

The three-judge court conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 22 

in Atlanta.13 It suggested that the parties reach a compromise agreement over 

the lunch break, but that was not to be.14 After the hearing, the court determined that preclearance was required and noted that although the secretary 

did not believe preclearance was required she had responded to this action 

by seeking it.15 If preclearance would remain unresolved during the upcoming November 4 election, Georgia was ordered to allow voters whose citizenship was in doubt to cast provisional ballots.16

On December 15, the Justice Department asked Georgia for additional 

information.17 On March 10, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint 

adding three civil rights organizations as plaintiffs.18

On May 29, 2009, the Justice Department informed Georgia that “the 

state’s proposed procedures for verifying voter registration information are 

seriously flawed. This flawed system frequently subjects a disproportionate 

number of African-American, Asian, and/or Hispanic voters to additional 

and, more importantly, erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote.”19

8. Order, Morales, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008), D.E. 7; Minutes, id. (Oct. 

10, 2008), D.E. 10. 

9. Order, id. (Oct. 14, 2008), D.E. 18. 

10. Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002), as amended, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901–21145. 

See generally Marie Leary & Robert Timothy Reagan, The Help America Vote Act (Federal 

Judicial Center 2012); Symposium, HAVA @ 10, 12 Election L.J. 111 (2013). 

11. Oct. 16, 2008, Morales Order, supra note 3, at 5–6. 

12. Id. at 11. 

13. Minutes, Morales, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 22, 2008), D.E. 29; see Order, id.

(Oct. 16, 2008), D.E. 20; Oct. 16, 2008, Order, supra note 3, at 11–12.

14. See Bill Rankin, Countdown 2008: Road to the White House, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 

23, 2008, at A18. 

15. Oct. 27, 2008, Order, supra note 3, at 21–22; see Aaron Gould Sheinin & Julia 

Malone, State Responds to Voter ID Challenge, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 15, 2008, at C7; Aaron 

Gould Sheinin & Bill Rankin, Flagged Voters Can Cast Ballots, Atlanta J.-Const., Oct. 28, 

2008, at A1. 

16. Oct. 27, 2008, Order, supra note 3, at 23–27. 

17. Justice Department Letter (May 29, 2009) [hereinafter May 29, 2009, Justice Department Letter], attached as Ex. 2, Complaint, Georgia v. Holder, No. 1:10-cv-1062 (D.D.C. 

June 22, 2010), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Georgia Complaint]. 

18. Amended Complaint, Morales, No. 1:08-cv-3172 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2009), D.E. 55 

(adding as plaintiffs the NAACP, the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, and the 

Center for Pan Asian Community Services). 

19. May 29, 2009, Justice Department Letter, supra note 17. 
Citizenship Verification 

Federal Judicial Center 8/29/2023 3

On June 22, 2010, Georgia sought judicial preclearance by filing an action in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.20 In response to an August 17, 2010, submission to the Justice Department, Georgia’s procedures 

were precleared by the department on the following day.21 On November 2, 

the district court in the District of Columbia granted a voluntary dismissal of 

the action for judicial preclearance.22

20. Georgia Complaint, supra note 17. 

21. Justice Department Letter (Aug. 18, 2010), attached as Ex. 2, Motion to Dismiss, 

Georgia, No. 1:10-cv-1062 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2010), D.E. 46; Georgia v. Holder, 748 F. Supp. 

2d 16, 18 (D.D.C. 2010); see Aaron Gould Sheinin, State Wins Voter ID Case, Atlanta J.-

Const., Aug. 24, 2010, at A1. 

22. Georgia, 748 F. Supp. 2d 16.