CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 1

Computerized Voter-Registration List 

United States v. Alabama 

(W. Keith Watkins, M.D. Ala. 2:06-cv-392) 

The attorney general sued to enforce Alabama’s compliance with the 

Help America Vote Act’s requirements for voter-registration databases. The judge appointed the governor as a special master to order 

compliance. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Help America Vote 

Act (HAVA); special master. 

Five weeks before Alabama’s June 6, 2006, primary election, which included 

primaries for federal offices, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales filed a federal 

action seeking enforcement of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)1 in the 

Middle District of Alabama, the district that includes Montgomery, the state’s 

capital.2 With the complaint, the government filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction.3 On the following day, the court assigned the case to Judge W. 

Keith Watkins.4

Alabama was not in compliance with HAVA’s section 303 respecting 

“computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and requirements for voters who register by mail.”5

 On May 3, the lawsuit’s third day, 

Judge Watkins issued an order to show cause on May 30 why he should not 

issue a preliminary injunction forbidding failure to comply with HAVA and 

requiring a plan of compliance.6 He issued the order on papers alone, without 

a proceeding, as a way to get the case moving.7

At the May 30 hearing, Judge Watkins issued preliminary-injunction instructions orally.8

 A written order followed one week later, the day after the 

1. 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). 

2. Complaint, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. May 1, 2006), D.E. 1; 

see Mary Orndorff, U.S. Sues State Over Voter Database, Birmingham News, May 3, 2006, at 

6C. 

3. Preliminary-Injunction Brief, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. 

May 1, 2006), D.E. 3; Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (May 1, 2006), D.E. 2. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (May 1, 2006). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Watkins for this report by telephone on June 6, 2012. 

5. Preliminary Injunction at 2, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. June 

7, 2006), D.E. 16 [hereinafter United States v. Alabama Preliminary Injunction], 2006 WL 

1598839; see HAVA § 303, 52 U.S.C. § 21083; see also Transcript at 10, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. May 30, 2006, filed June 30, 2006), D.E. 26 [hereinafter

United States v. Alabama Transcript] (“The State has admitted to an actual violation . . . .”). 

6. Order to Show Cause, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. May 3, 

2006), D.E. 4. 

7. Interview with Hon. W. Keith Watkins, June 6, 2012. 

8. United States v. Alabama Transcript, supra note 5, at 36–40; Minute Entry, United States 

v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. May 30, 2006), D.E. 14. 
Computerized Voter-Registration List 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 

primary election.9

The preliminary injunction required Alabama to present a compliance 

plan by June 29, to be reviewed at a July 20 hearing.10 At the hearing, Judge 

Watkins ordered compliance by August 31, 2007, in time for the 2008 primary 

election.11

Because Alabama’s secretary of state said that she could not ensure compliance with the court’s order, Judge Watkins appointed Alabama’s governor 

as a special master to supervise compliance.12 Before he appointed the governor, Judge Watkins consulted with a former secretary of state, who told the 

judge that only the governor had the authority to achieve HAVA compliance.13

Anyone else would have to seek numerous compliance orders from the 

judge.14

Over the couple of weeks following the July 20 hearing, the chair of Alabama’s Democratic Party15 and the chair of the Alabama Democratic Conference16 moved to intervene to challenge appointment of the Republican governor as the special master. Judge Watkins held a public hearing on the motions;17 he thought it was important to hear the concerns in open court.18 He 

held, however, that the motions were not timely.19

On October 24, 2007, Judge Watkins determined that Alabama was in 

compliance with HAVA.20 Governor Bob Riley submitted his twenty-first and 

final status report on August 22, 2008.21 The court entered a final order and 

judgment on September 18.22 The governor’s special-master work was considerably more successful than Judge Watkins even imagined it would be.23

In resolving this case, Judge Watkins was mindful that political considerations should not have anything to do with how a federal judge resolves an 

election case, and this was much more about technology than it was about policy.24

9. United States v. Alabama Preliminary Injunction, supra note 5. 

10. Id. at 11; United States v. Alabama Transcript, supra note 5, at 39. 

11. Order at 4, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. July 21, 2006), D.E. 

38 [hereinafter July 21, 2006, United States v. Alabama Order]. 

12. Special-Master Order, id. (Aug. 8, 2006), D.E. 64; July 21, 2006, United States v. Alabama Order, supra note 11, at 4–5. 

13. Interview with Hon. W. Keith Watkins, June 6, 2012. 

14. Id. 

15. Motion to Intervene, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. July 27, 

2006), D.E. 42. 

16. Motion to Intervene, id. (Aug. 1, 2006), D.E. 56. 

17. Minutes, id. (Aug. 2, 2006), D.E. 59. 

18. Interview with Hon. W. Keith Watkins, June 6, 2012. 

19. Opinion at 12–17 & n.14, United States v. Alabama, No. 2:06-cv-392 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 

8, 2006), D.E. 63, 2006 WL 2290726. 

20. Final Order and Judgment at 2, id. (Sept. 18, 2008), D.E. 160 [hereinafter United States 

v. Alabama Final Order and Judgment]. 

21. Final Special-Master Status Report, id. (Aug. 22, 2008), D.E. 153. 

22. United States v. Alabama Final Order and Judgment, supra note 20. 

23. Interview with Hon. W. Keith Watkins, June 6, 2012. 

24. Id. 
Computerized Voter-Registration List 

Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 3

In 2006, Attorney General Gonzales also filed a HAVA action against New 

York in the Northern District of New York.25 Three weeks later, Judge Gary L. 

Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction requiring New York to submit to the 

court a plan for compliance.26 Court supervision of New York’s compliance 

efforts continued until December 3, 2014.27

25. Complaint, United States v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:06-cv-263 (N.D.N.Y. 

Mar. 1, 2006), D.E. 1; see Michael Cooper, New York Is Sued by U.S. on Delay of Vote System, 

N.Y. Times, Mar. 2, 2006, at A1 (“The first lawsuit the federal government has filed to force a 

state to comply with the voting guidelines enacted by Congress after the 2000 election debacle.”); Michael Cooper, U.S. Warns Albany of Suit Over Slow Vote Modernization, N.Y. Times, 

Jan. 12, 2006, at B1; Orndorff, supra note 2. 

26. Preliminary Injunction, N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:06-cv-263 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 

2006), D.E. 38. 

27. Docket Sheet, id. (Mar. 1, 2006) (D.E. 450); see Status Report, id. (June 10, 2014), D.E. 

444 (183d status report).