CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/29/2023 1

Bundling Voter Registrations 

Nu Mu Lambda Chapter v. Cox 

(William C. O’Kelley, 1:04-cv-1780) and ACORN v. Cox 

(Jack T. Camp, 1:06-cv-1891) (N.D. Ga.) 

A 2004 complaint alleged that Georgia improperly required newly 

registered voters to submit their voter-registration forms directly to 

the government rather than to coordinators of voter-registration efforts. Thirteen days after the complaint was filed, the court granted 

the plaintiffs injunctive relief. The court of appeals affirmed the relief in 2005. In 2006, a similar complaint alleged that Georgia was 

not complying with the earlier precedent. Again, the court granted 

the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief. Two years later, the court 

vacated the preliminary injunction because the parties had not 

moved the case forward. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; National Voter Registration Act; enforcing orders; 

interlocutory appeal. 

Two federal Cases challenged Georgia’s restrictions on voter registrations 

collected by private organizations. 

First Case 

On June 18, 2004, a fraternity alumni chapter filed a federal action in the 

Northern District of Georgia’s Atlanta courthouse complaining that Georgia 

had wrongfully rejected a package of voter registrations that the fraternity 

had mailed to Georgia’s secretary of state.1 The forms were rejected because 

they were mailed in bulk, and the secretary understood Georgia law to proscribe private organizations’ collecting voter-registration forms.2

 By amended complaint five days later, an affiliated foundation, four fraternity members, and a would-be voter substituted themselves as plaintiffs.3

 With the 

amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.4

Judge William C. O’Kelley heard the motion in Gainesville on June 29.5

He had chambers in both Atlanta and Gainesville.6 It was his policy to hear 

1. Complaint, Nu Mu Lambda Chapter v. Cox, No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. June 18, 

2004), D.E. 1; Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1351 (11th Cir. 2005); 

see Transcript at 6, Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. June 

29, 2004, filed Oct. 6, 2004), D.E. 22 [hereinafter Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Transcript]. 

2. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., 408 F.3d at 1351; Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. 

Cox, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1361–62 (N.D. Ga. 2004). 

3. Amended Complaint, Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. 

June 23, 2004), D.E. 3; see Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Transcript, supra note 1, at 12–14. 

4. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., No. 1:04-cv-1780 

(N.D. Ga. June 23, 2004), D.E. 4. 

5. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Transcript, supra note 1; Minutes, Charles H. Wesley 
Bundling Voter Registrations 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/29/2023 

Atlanta cases in Atlanta and Gainesville cases in Gainesville if at all possible.7

He heard the motion on a day he was in Gainesville, which is a bit more than 

an hour northeast of Atlanta, because of the case’s time pressure.8 Atlanta 

lawyers frequently practiced in Gainesville as well.9

On July 1, Judge O’Kelley determined that Georgia’s rejecting voter registrations mailed in bulk violated the National Voter Registration Act.10

On Friday, July 16, while the injunction was on appeal,11 the plaintiffs alleged that Georgia was not complying with the injunction and moved for a 

finding of contempt and sanctions.12 Judge O’Kelley held a telephone conference in the motion on Monday13 and then heard the motion on November 

17.14 At the hearing, he denied the sanctions motion as moot.15

On May 12, 2005, the court of appeals affirmed the injunction.16 The case 

was finally resolved by a consent decree issued on March 2, 2006,17 and a 

stipulated award of $60,000 in attorney fees and costs on April 20.18

Second Case 

On Monday, August 14, 2006, four organizations and an individual filed a 

federal complaint in the same district alleging that Georgia was violating the 

holdings of the earlier case by requiring that voter registrations collected by 

private parties be individually sealed and forbidding their copying.19 With 

Educ. Found., No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. June 29, 2004), D.E. 8; Charles H. Wesley Educ. 

Found., 324 F. Supp. 2d at 1360. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge O’Kelley for this report by telephone on July 20, 2012. 

Judge O’Kelley died on July 5, 2017. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges [hereinafter FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

6. Interview with Hon. William C. O’Kelley, July 20, 2012. 

7. Id. 

8. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Transcript, supra note 1, at 2 (“while I’m going to be 

in Atlanta tomorrow, I felt I’ve got a full day there and this was about the only day I could 

work this matter in and try to meet the schedule that my law clerk tells me the state indicated we needed to address”). 

9. Interview with Hon. William C. O’Kelley, July 20, 2012. 

10. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., 324 F. Supp. 2d at 1365–68; see Pub. L. No. 103-31, 

107 Stat. 77 (1993), as amended, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20501–20511. See generally Robert Timothy 

Reagan, Motor Voter: The National Voter Registration Act (Federal Judicial Center 2014). 

11. Notice of Appeal, Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. 

Ga. June 23, 2004), D.E. 11. 

12. Sanctions Motion, id. (July 16, 2004), D.E. 12. 

13. Docket Sheet, id. (June 18, 2004) [hereinafter Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Docket 

Sheet]. 

14. Minutes, id. (Nov. 17, 2004), D.E. 31. 

15. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. Docket Sheet, supra note 13. 

16. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005). 

17. Consent Decree, Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. June 

18, 2004), D.E. 93. 

18. Docket Sheet, supra note 13; Proposed Consent Order, Charles H. Wesley Educ. 

Found., No. 1:04-cv-1780 (N.D. Ga. June 18, 2004), D.E. 95. 

19. Complaint, ACORN v. Cox, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2006), D.E. 1; see

Carlos Campos, Election Board Faces Lawsuit Over Voter Registration Rules, Atlanta J.-
Bundling Voter Registrations 

Federal Judicial Center 6/29/2023 3

their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite20 consideration of a 

motion for a preliminary injunction.21

The court assigned the case to Judge Jack T. Camp, who, on Wednesday, 

ordered a status conference for the following Monday.22 At the conference, 

he discussed with the parties an outline of merits issues.23 At the conclusion 

of the conference, he asked the parties to gear up for a preliminaryinjunction hearing in early September.24

On September 28, following a September 13 hearing,25 Judge Camp 

granted the plaintiffs relief.26 He determined that the requirement of sealing 

and the proscription against copying meant that the plaintiffs were “unable 

to utilize their quality control measures to ensure that the [registration] 

workers are not submitting fraudulent registration applications” in violation 

of their First Amendment rights.27

As the case moved on to trial, Judge Camp issued a discovery order on 

October 26, 2007, that favored the defendants.28 In response to a mandamus 

petition, the court of appeals determined, “We cannot discern from the district court’s October 26, 2007, order the extent to which the court considered 

and rejected Petitioners’ assertions of associational privilege protected by the 

First Amendment.”29 Judge Camp clarified that “the remaining [discovery] 

dispute primarily involved the production of copies in Plaintiffs’ possession 

of voter registration applications collected by Plaintiffs in Georgia and signin sheets used at voter registration drives conducted by the Georgia State 

Conference of the NAACP Branches and the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Inc.”30 Judge Camp noted that in addition to ordering discovery he had also invited presentation of a proposed protective order.31 The 

court of appeals denied a renewed mandamus petition on September 24, 

2008.32

Const., Aug. 17, 2006, at B2; Daniel P. Tokaji, Voter Registration and Election Reform, 17 

Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 453, 485–86 (2008). 

20. Motion to Expedite, ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2006), D.E. 3. 

21. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Aug. 14, 2006), D.E. 2. 

22. Order, id. (Aug. 16, 2006), D.E. 5. 

Judge Camp retired on November 19, 2010. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 5. 

23. Transcript, ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2006, filed Oct. 24, 2006), 

D.E. 42. 

24. Id. at 37; Minutes, id. (Aug. 21, 2006), D.E. 7. 

25. Minutes, id. (Sept. 13, 2006), D.E. 36. 

26. Preliminary Injunction, id. (Sept. 28, 2006), D.E. 37 [hereinafter ACORN Preliminary 

Injunction]; see Carlos Campos, Ruling Favors Voters’ Groups, Atlanta J.-Const., Sept. 29, 

2006, at D6. 

27. ACORN Preliminary Injunction, supra note 26, at 11–19. 

28. Order, ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2007), D.E. 92. 

29. Opinion, In re ACORN, No. 07-15688 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2008), filed as Notice, 

ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2008), D.E. 104. 

30. Order at 6, ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. June 20, 2008), D.E. 105. 

31. Id. at 7. 

32. Order, In re ACORN, No. 08-14419 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2008), filed as Notice, 

ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2008), D.E. 109. 
Bundling Voter Registrations 

4 Federal Judicial Center 6/29/2023 

On November 7, observing that neither party had sought to move the 

case forward, Judge Camp vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed 

the action without prejudice.33

33. Order, ACORN, No. 1:06-cv-1891 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2008), D.E. 110.