### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Febru ary 16, 20 06 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1142 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 00-02820 -CV -JEC -1 DEBORAH SCHWIER THEODORE SCHW IER MIC HAEL CRAIG, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , ve rs us CATHY COX, in h er of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s Se cr et ar y of S ta te of G eo rg ia D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 16 , 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L and F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *2

BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e: Appe llant C athy

Co x, in he r of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s S ec re tary

of S ta te of Ge orgia, a

ppeals the dist rict court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to Appellees D eb or ahS ch w ie r, T he odor e Sc hw ie r, and M ic ha el Cr ai g. Appe lle es a tte m pte d to re gis te r to v ote in the ir

r es pe ct ive c ount ie s. Whe n th ey r ef use d to dis cl ose the ir soc ia l se curi ty

num be rs ( SS N s) on the ir

vot er r eg istratio n f

orm s, how ev er , the counties reje cted their applications. Consequently , Appellees filed suit in federal district court, alleging Georgia’ s voter registration procedures and form s violated § 7 o f the P ri va cy

A ct of 197 4, P ub. L . N o. 93- 579, § 7, 88 S ta t. 189 6, 190 9 (1 974) ( co dif

ie d innot es to 5 U . S. C. § 55 2a( 2000 )) , and s ec tio n 19 71 o f the Voting Rights Ac t of 1870, 42 U.S .C. § 1971 (2000). W e co nsi de re d th e fi rs t a ppe al ari sin g f

ro m thi s c as e in Sc hw ie r v . Cox , 340 F. 3d 12 84 (11th Cir. 2003 ). O n May 14, 2002, the district court granted summ ary j udgm en t t o Appe llant, f ind ing § 7 of

the P ri va cy

A ct and § 197 1 of

the V oti ng Ri gh ts Act d o n ot crea te in di vi du al rig ht s en fo rceabl e u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . W e re ve rs ed

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t, hol din g Appe lle es c oul d br ing apr ivate ca use of a ct ionund er

§ 19 83 f or vio la tio ns o f § 7 o f the P ri va cy A ct and § 197 1 of th e Vot in g R ig ht s Act . Id
. at 1297. Additionally , w e re m anded to the dis trict co urt the f

oll ow ing thr ee iss ue s: (1 ) “ w he the r G eo rg iaqua lif ie s f or the3

‘ grandfather’ exception of section 7(a)(2)(B ) of the P rivacy Ac t”; (2) “ whether G eo rg ia ’ s V ote r Re gis tr at ionF orm c om pli es w iththe not ic e re qui re m en ts o f section 7(b) of the Privacy Ac t”; and (3) “ whether the disclos ure of a potenti al vot er ’ s [ SS N ] is ‘ m at er ia l’ in de te rm ini ng whe the r he or she is qua lif

ie d to vot e under Georgia law f

or purposes of section 1 971 o f the V oting Rights Act. ” Id
. O n January

31, 200 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e part ie s’ c ro ss- m oti ons for sum m ary j udgm ent on the three rem anded issu es. First, the district court co nc lud ed

G eo rg iadid

not r equir e al l vo te r ap pli cants to dis cl ose the ir S SN s pr ior to January

1, 1975, and thus did not qu alify for the § 7(a) (2)(B ) grandfather exception. It there fore held G eorgia violated § 7(a)(1) when it required Appellees to disclo se their SS Ns on their voter re gistration form s. S econd, the district court de te rm ine d G eo rg iam

ust r ev ise it s vo te r re gis tr at ionf orm s and i nstru ct ion s to co m ply w iththe not ic e re qui re m en ts o f § 7( b) , and, spe ci fi ca lly , m ust e xpr es sly inf orm vot er appl ic an ts the y

are not r equir ed to pr ovi de the ir

S SN s. T hir d, the district court held Georgia cannot m andate disclosu re of S SN s because such inform ation is no t “ m aterial” to a voter registration sy stem under § 197 1(a)( 2)(B) of the V oti ng R igh ts A ct . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d Appe lle es ’ m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent and denied Appellant’s m otion for sum m ary jud gm en t.4

W e af firm the district court’ s judgm ent for the re asons stated in the district co urt’ s m em or an dum

opi nio n, w hic h is pub lis he d a t __ _ F . S upp. 2d _

__, N o. 00- 0282 0-CV -JEC -1, 2005 W L 3738884 (N .D . G a. January 31, 2005). AFFIR MED.