CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 1

Requiring Social Security Numbers 

for Voter Registration 

Schwier v. Cox (Julie E. Carnes, N.D. Ga. 1:00-cv-2820) 

On October 26, 2000, two voters filed a federal complaint challenging a requirement that they provide Social Security numbers as part 

of their voter registrations. On Friday, November 3, the district 

judge ruled that to vote the plaintiffs could file their Social Security 

numbers with election officials and with the court under seal; depending on the resolution of the case, the numbers would be either 

unsealed or destroyed. In 2002, the district judge ruled that an uncodified provision of the Privacy Act did not provide the plaintiffs 

with rights of action, but the court of appeals determined in 2003 

that the uncodified provision was nevertheless applicable law that 

did afford private rights of action. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; voter identification; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; attorney fees. 

On October 26, 2000, two voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern 

District of Georgia challenging a requirement that they provide Social Security numbers as part of their voter registrations.1

 With their complaint, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

 On the following day, 

the court directed the defendant, Georgia’s secretary of state, to respond to 

the motion by the close of business on October 31.3

 On Friday, November 3, 

Judge Julie E. Carnes granted the plaintiffs immediate relief: in order to vote, 

they could file their Social Security numbers with election officials and with 

the court under seal; depending on the ultimate resolution of the case, the 

numbers would be either unsealed or destroyed.4

On May 14, 2002, Judge Carnes granted summary judgment to the secretary, finding that an amended complaint was not supported by private rights 

of action.5 The court of appeals reversed on August 11, 2003.6

1. Schwier v. Cox, 439 F.3d 1285, 1285–86 (11th Cir. 2006); Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 

1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003); Docket Sheet, Schwier v. Cox, No. 1:00-cv-2820 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 

26, 2000) (D.E. 1). 

2. Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 3); Schwier v. Cox, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1268 (N.D. 

Ga. 2005). 

3. Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 4).

4. Schwier, 340 F.3d at 1286 & n.2; Schwier, 412 F. Supp. 2d at 1268; Docket Sheet, supra

note 1 (D.E. 8). 

Judge Carnes was elevated to the court of appeals on July 31, 2014. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Schwier, 439 F.3d at 1286; Schwier, 340 F.3d at 1286; Schwier, 412 F. Supp. 2d at 1269; 

see Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (noting that a February 20, 2001, amended complaint added a 

third plaintiff, D.E. 14 to 16). 

6. Schwier, 340 F.3d 1284; Schwier, 439 F.3d at 1286; Schwier, 412 F. Supp. 2d at 1269; see

Bill Rankin, Court Revives Challenge to Voter ID Rules, Atlanta J.-Const., Aug. 13, 2003, at 

A1. 
Requiring Social Security Numbers for Voter Registration 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 

Section 7 of the Privacy Act provides, “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.”7

 Some provisions of the Privacy 

Act were codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, but this provision was instead added as 

a note to the section.8 The court of appeals determined that it created a federal right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.9

The Voting Rights Act proscribes irrelevant voter registration information: 

No person acting under color of law shall . . . deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record 

or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to 

voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether 

such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election . . . .10

The court of appeals determined that this provision also was enforceable 

through section 1983.11

On remand, Judge Carnes granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs 

on January 31, 2005.12 The court of appeals affirmed her decision on February 16, 2006.13 A June 27, 2006, consent decree awarded the plaintiffs 

$175,000 in attorney fees and costs.14

7. 5 U.S.C. § 552a note; Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 7(a)(1), 88 Stat. 1896, 1909 (1974). 

8. Schwier, 340 F.3d at 1288–89. 

9. Id. at 1290–92, 1297; see Daniel P. Tokaji, Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: 

The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws, 44 Ind. L. Rev. 113, 140–41 (2010). 

10. 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B). 

11. Schwier, 340 F.3d at 1294–97. 

12. Schwier v. Cox, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (N.D. Ga. 2005); Schwier v. Cox, 439 F.3d 1285, 

1286 (11th Cir. 2006); see Carlos Campos, Voters Win Suit Over Registration, Atlanta J.-

Const., Feb. 2, 2005, at B6. 

13. Schwier, 439 F.3d 1285. 

14. Consent Decree, Schwier v. Cox, No. 1:00-cv-2820 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2006), D.E. 90.