CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/26/2023 1

Strict Voter-Registration Rules 

Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections v. Vu 

(Paul R. Matia, N.D. Ohio 1:04-cv-2147) 

In a challenge to a county’s voter-registration procedures, claiming 

that they were so strict as to disfranchise voters, the court determined, on the case’s third day, that provisional-ballot procedures 

were sufficient to protect voters from disfranchisement. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; provisional ballots. 

On October 25, 2004, citizens’ organizations and would-be voters sued 

Cuyahoga County’s board of elections in the Northern District of Ohio’s 

Cleveland courthouse claiming that the county’s overly strict enforcement of 

voter-registration requirements and insufficient efforts to assist would-be 

voters in correcting registration errors would disfranchise voters, especially 

minority voters, in the general election eight days later.1

 With the complaint, 

the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

The court assigned the case to Judge Paul R. Matia,3 who, on the following day, ordered a hearing at 2:30 p.m.4

 The hearing lasted an hour and a 

half;5

 on the third day, Judge Matia denied the plaintiffs immediate relief because “the provisional vote mechanism will allow voters whose names do not 

appear on the final list of registered voters to cast ballots that will be counted 

if it is later determined that their names should have been listed.”6

On the day before election day, two voters moved to intervene to defend 

the county’s strict enforcement of registration requirements.7

 On election 

day, Judge Matia set that day as the due date for opposition papers.8

 Plaintiffs 

responded by voluntarily dismissing the action.9

1. Complaint, Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections v. Vu, No. 1:04-cv-2147 (N.D. Ohio 

Oct. 25, 2004), D.E. 1; see Amended Complaint, id. (Oct. 26, 2010), D.E. 6; see also John 

Caniglia, Suit Says Cuyahoga County Board Botched Voter Registrations, Cleveland Plain 

Dealer, Oct. 26, 2004, at B4; Edward B. Foley, The Promise and Problems of Provisional Voting, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1193, 1197 (2005); Daniel P. Tokaji, Voter Registration and Election Reform, 17 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 453, 477 (2008). 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Citizens Alliance, No. 1:04-cv-2147 (N.D. 

Ohio Oct. 25, 2004), D.E. 4. 

3. Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Matia for this report by telephone on May 1, 2012. 

Judge Matia on May 31, 2005. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III 

Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Order, Citizens Alliance, No. 1:04-cv-2147 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2004), D.E. 8. 

5. Minutes, id. (Oct. 26, 2004), D.E. 9. 

6. Order at 3–4, id. (Oct. 27, 2004), D.E. 10. 

7. Intervention Motion, id. (Nov. 1, 2004), D.E. 11. 

8. Order, id. (Nov. 2, 2004), D.E. 13 (noting that opposition papers were due at 4:00 

p.m.). 

9. Order, id. (Nov. 2, 2004), D.E. 15; Notice, id. (Nov. 2, 2004), D.E. 14. 
Strict Voter-Registration Rules 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/26/2023 

Although Judge Matia acted quickly in this case, he strove to take enough 

time to rule correctly.10

10. Interview with Paul R. Matia, May 1, 2012.