Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96745375/JWvK-Doc-1-Complaint-f061112
Timestamp: 2015-04-20 01:28:34
Document Index: 51153928

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1973', '§ 1331', '§ 1973', '§ 1391', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 15483', '§ 15483']

JWvK Doc 1 Complaint f061112
P. 1JWvK Doc 1 Complaint f061112JWvK Doc 1 Complaint f061112Ratings: (0)|Views: 532|Likes: 17Published by Judicial Watch, Inc.More info:Published by: Judicial Watch, Inc. on Jun 11, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/96745375/JWvK-Doc-1-Complaint-f06111207/25/2013pdftextoriginal 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANAINDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., in its )individual, corporate capacity and )on behalf of certain of its members; )and TRUE THE VOTE, in its )individual, corporate capacity, ))
, ) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-800)v. ))J. BRADLEY KING and TRENT )DECKARD, Co-Directors of the )Indiana Election Division, in their )official capacities; and CONNIE )LAWSON, Indiana Secretary of )State, in her official capacity, ))
. )___________________________________ )
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, bring this action for violations of Section 8 of the NationalVoter Registration Act of 1993 (
“NVRA”
), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6.1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendants’ compliance
with Section 8 of the NVRA. Specifically, Defendants have violated Section 8 by failing tomake a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs in elections for Federaloffice and by failing to produce records related to those efforts, as required by Section 8.Plaintiffs thus seek a declaration and an injunction requiring Defendants to conduct and executevoter list maintenance programs in a manner that is consistent with federal law and furtherrequiring Defendants to produce records about its list maintenance efforts.
Case 1:12-cv-00800-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as theaction arises under the laws of the United States, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-9(b)(2), as theaction seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under the NVRA.3. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a substantialpart of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
4. Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.
(“Judicial Watch”)
is a non-profit organization thatseeks to promote integrity, transparency, and accountability in government and fidelity to therule of law. Plaintiff Judicial Watch brings this action in its individual, corporate capacity andon behalf of its members who are registered to vote in the State of Indiana.5. Plaintiff True the Vote is a non-profit organization that seeks to restore truth,faith, and integrity to local, state, and federal elections. Plaintiff True the Vote brings this actionin its individual, corporate capacity only.6. Defendants J. Bradley King and Trent Deckard are the Co-Directors of theIndiana Election Division. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 3-7-11-1, the Co-Directors of the IndianaElection Division are the State officials
responsible for the coordination of state responsibilitiesunder NVRA.
Pursuant to Ind. Code § 3-7-11-2, the Co-
Directors must “oversee the
implementation and administration of NVRA
by state, county, and local officials, and mustdirectly execute statewide NVRA Section 8 obligations. Defendants King and Deckard are beingsued in their official capacities.7. Defendant Connie Lawson is the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana. AsSecretary of State, Defendant Lawson is responsible for overseeing elections through the Indiana
Case 1:12-cv-00800-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
3Election Division, which is one of the four main divisions of the office of the Secretary of State.Defendant Lawson is being sued in her official capacity.
8. Section 8 of the NVRA requires that
[i]n the administration of voter registrationfor elections for Federal office, each State shall
conduct a general program that makes areasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible votersby reason of – (A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant. . .
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(4). Section 8 of the NVRA also requires that
State shallcomplete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federaloffice, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligiblevoters.
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A). Section 8 of the NVRA mandates that any such listmaintenance programs or activities
be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance withthe Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973
42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(b)(1).9.
obligations under Section 8 of the NVRA are augmented by the Help
America Vote Act (“HAVA”)
, which requires each State to create a
single, uniform, official,centralized, interactive, computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and
administered at the State level.”
42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(1)(A). HAVA also requires that
States’ computerized lists be maintained on a regular basis
, specifies how the maintenance shallbe performed, and mandates
that the States’ election systems “shal
l include provisions to ensure
that voter registration records in the State are accurate and updated regularly,” including “[a]
system of file maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove registrants who areineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters.
42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(2) and (a)(4).
Case 1:12-cv-00800-WTL-TAB Document 1 Filed 06/11/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
Activity (19)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsJustice2 liked thisJames Renwick Manship, Sr. liked thisDerek Evangelisti liked thisDerek Evangelisti liked thisDerek Evangelisti liked thisJames Renwick Manship, Sr. liked thisJames Renwick Manship, Sr. liked thisJames Renwick Manship, Sr. liked thisLoad more
Similar to JWvK Doc 1 Complaint f061112Complaint Ohio NVRAJudicial Watch, Inc.Ohio Demand Letter -- NVRA FINALJudicial Watch, Inc.JW Tennessee BriefJudicial Watch, Inc.Sibley v Alexander - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, for S...Jack RyanTaitz v MDEC - ECF 89 - 2012-12-20 - MDEC Opp to Grinols ...Jack Ryan
RecommendedComplaint Ohio NVRAJudicial Watch, Inc.Ohio Demand Letter -- NVRA FINALJudicial Watch, Inc.JW Tennessee BriefJudicial Watch, Inc.Sibley v Alexander - Defendants' Moti...Jack RyanSibley v Alexander - DDC - ECF 09 - 2012-12-19 - DEF Motion to Dismiss for St...Taitz v MDEC - ECF 89 - 2012-12-20 - ...Jack RyanTaitz v MDEC - ECF 89 - 2012-12-20 - MDEC Opp to Grinols Motion to IntervenePrevious|NextPage 1 of 2