Opinion ID: 1043362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: nvra

Text: Under the Constitution’s Election Clause, Congress may enact laws that preempt state election laws concerning federal elections. See Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69, 118 S. Ct. 464, 466 (1977). When it does, the federal legislation renders any conflicting state laws inoperative. See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 384 (1879). “To this end, state election laws cannot ‘directly conflict’ with federal election laws on the subject.” Andrade II, 488 F. App’x at 896 (citing Voting Integrity Project, Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3d 773, 775 (5th Cir. 2000)). Against this background, we examine whether the challenged provisions of the VDR Law conflict with the NVRA and require preemption. Photocopying Provision The NVRA mandates that “[e]ach State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(i)(1). The Photocopying Provision states that a VDR “may distribute voter registration application forms throughout the county and receive registration applications submitted to the deputy in person.” Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 38.038. As interpreted by Steen, this provision limits VDRs’ conduct to collecting and delivering completed applications and implicitly precludes photocopying. Appellees contend that because completed voter registration applications in the possession of VDRs are “public records,” the restriction against photocopying them violates the NVRA. However, Appellees disregard a crucial distinction: the NVRA only pertains to records “maintain[ed]” by the State, 29 Case: 12-40914 Document: 00512395979 Page: 30 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 No. 12-40914 while the Photocopying Provision only applies to voter registration applications in the hands of VDRs, before they are officially received or maintained by the State. For this reason, the district court misplaced reliance on Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012), a case that specifically addressed the denial of access to voter registration applications in the government’s long-term possession, rather than those in the hands of VDRs. The question here is not whether such applications will be made available for photocopying but how. Thus, we disagree with the district court’s reasoning that the applications received and delivered by VDRs are within the “constructive possession” of the state. For one thing, this conclusion is not supported by any statutory text and is contrary to state law prohibiting VDRs from “maintaining” the applications. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 13.038 (deputizing VDRs to receive and deliver voter registration applications, not to “maintain” them for the state); § 13.042(b) (requiring VDRs to deliver the voter registration applications to the county within five days). Moreover, allowing VDRs indiscriminately to photocopy registration applications places at risk the private information, e.g., social security numbers, they contain, because Steen and counties have limited means to enforce privacy protections against temporary volunteers. Because the NVRA and Texas law do not conflict, Appellees cannot prevail in this preemption claim. Personal Delivery Provision The NVRA requires states to “accept and use” a federal voter registration application sent through the United States mail. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(a)(1). The Personal Delivery Provision mandates that VDRs deliver completed voter registration applications to the county registrar in person. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. 30 Case: 12-40914 Document: 00512395979 Page: 31 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 No. 12-40914 § 13.042(a). State law neither prevents prospective voters from mailing in their voter registration applications nor prohibits counties from accepting those applications. Significantly, county registrars must accept every application received by mail, even those sent by VDRs in violation of the Personal Delivery Provision. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 13.071–.072. These facts differentiate Texas law from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. InterTribal of Arizona, 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013), in which the Court overturned, as inconsistent with the NVRA, the imposition of additional conditions by the state on its acceptance of voter registrations. Also distinguishable is Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc., v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2005), where the Eleventh Circuit rejected Georgia’s argument that the state could refuse to accept voter registration applications mailed by third-party organizations that did not meet additional state requirements. Moreover, as the court emphasized, the NVRA “simply requires that valid registration forms delivered by mail and postmarked in time be processed.” Id. at 1355. Texas law ensures this requirement is met. Because the laws do not conflict, Appellees have failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the Personal Delivery Provision is preempted by the NVRA.