Opinion ID: 3173811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Appeal: HAVA and a Private Right of Action

Text: At the heart of this appeal is the district court's grant of declaratory and injunctive relief for plaintiffs based on its determination that HAVA's two-election deactivation threshold supersedes the single-election trigger of Article 6.012.12 Appellant García Vélez, as SEC president, challenges those remedies on two separate grounds. She first argues that the pertinent provision of HAVA -- like the equivalent section of NVRA -- does not apply to Puerto Rico elections. Second, she insists that, even if Puerto Rico is within the provision's scope, there is no private right of action to seek a remedy. registry of eligible voters for federal elections. See infra Section III.A. 12 In its Memorandum Opinion, the district court noted that Puerto Rico has a combined voter registration system for federal and Commonwealth elections and, hence, it concluded that the provision set forth in HAVA necessarily regulates the registration lists for the general elections in Puerto Rico, which always include the election for the Resident Commissioner as an integral part of the general election process. We, however, offer no view as to whether the SEC is able to comply with HAVA without also changing its requirements for eligibility to vote for Commonwealth offices. See Colón-Marrero, 703 F.3d at 138 ([I]t is an open and difficult question -- one not addressed by plaintiff -- whether HAVA would provide a basis for a federal court ordering the reinstatement of voters in Commonwealth elections.). - 15 - We consider each of these issues of law in turn. Our review is de novo. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Darling's, 444 F.3d 98, 107 (1st Cir. 2006). A. Does HAVA section 303(a)(4) Supersede Article 6.012's Deactivation Procedure? The November 2000 presidential election and its attendant controversies prompted Congress to review and reform the administration of federal elections. Fla. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 2008); see also H.R. 107-329, pt. 1, at 31 (2001), 2001 WL 1579545, at  (The circumstances surrounding the election that took place in November 2000 brought an increased focus on the process of election administration, and highlighted the need for improvements.); Samuel Issacharoff, Pamela S. Karlan & Richard H. Pildes, The Law of Democracy 1169 (4th ed. 2012). HAVA was the product of that review, and the statute, inter alia, revisited the subject of voter registration that also had been the primary focus of NVRA. See 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b) (stating that the purposes of NVRA include establish[ing] procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office and ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained); 52 U.S.C. §§ 21081-85 (outlining HAVA requirements for election technology and - 16 - administration).13 Unlike NVRA, however, HAVA by its express terms applies to Puerto Rico and the United States territories, in addition to the states and the District of Columbia. Id. § 21141. The specific HAVA provision at issue in this case, section 303(a), is titled Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a). With an exception not relevant here, the section directs that each State . . . shall implement, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list . . . that contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State. Id. § 21083(a)(1)(A). Appellant focuses on HAVA 13Although the two statutes share a purpose to protect the integrity of the electoral process, 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3); see also H.R. Rep. 107-329, pt. 1, at 31 (2001), 2001 WL 1579545, at  (stating that HAVA's purpose is to improve our country's election system), NVRA's primary emphasis is on simplifying the methods for registering to vote in federal elections, see Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 275 (1997), while HAVA's voter registration provisions are focused on achieving greater accuracy by improving technology and administration, see 52 U.S.C. § 21083. NVRA, for example, requires each State to permit prospective voters to 'register to vote in elections for Federal office' by any of three methods: simultaneously with a driver's license application, in person, or by mail. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2251 (2013) (quoting 52 U.S.C. § 20503(a)). HAVA's requirements include creation of a [c]omputerized statewide voter registration list to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a), (a)(4). - 17 - section 303(a)(4), which is titled Minimum standard for accuracy of State voter registration records and provides: The State election system shall include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly, including the following: (A) A system of file maintenance that makes a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters. Under such system, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.), registrants who have not responded to a notice and who have not voted in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office shall be removed from the official list of eligible voters, except that no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote. (B) Safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed in error from the official list of eligible voters. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(4) (emphasis added). Based on the highlighted language above, appellant argues that this subsection of HAVA applies only to those jurisdictions governed by NVRA. Her contention is that the HAVA requirement would not be consistent with NVRA if it is applied beyond the scope of that statute given that Congress excluded Puerto Rico from essentially the same deactivation requirement under NVRA -- i.e., by limiting NVRA's coverage to the states and the District - 18 - of Columbia.14 The district court concluded otherwise, pointing out that HAVA does not simply invoke NVRA, leaving it to the 14 NVRA references the deactivation prerequisites in two different, but related, provisions. The statute requires states to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of no-longer-eligible voters from the active voter registry on account of their death or a change in residence. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). Requirements for such a program, including the notice and failure-to-vote limitations, are spelled out in the following subsection, titled Confirmation of voter registration: Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office-- (1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and (2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of eligible voters if the individual-- (A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(b) (citation omitted). The procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) include the second reference to the deactivation prerequisites. In combination, those two subsections authorize use of Postal Service information to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed, but bar removal of names from the list of eligible voters - 19 - reader to refer to that law to determine its contents, but instead explicitly sets forth the two-election requirement for deactivation of voters. Our starting point in discerning the meaning of a statute is the provision itself, and [t]he plain meaning of a statute's text must be given effect 'unless it would produce an absurd result or one manifestly at odds with the statute's intended effect.' Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854, 858 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Parisi ex rel. Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614, 617 (1st Cir. 1995)); see also Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., 699 F.3d 129, 134 (1st Cir. 2012) (We assume that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language expresses the legislature's intent, and we resort to extrinsic aids to statutory construction (such as legislative history) only when the wording of the statute is freighted with ambiguity or leads to an unreasonable result.). Of course, we focus on 'the plain meaning of the whole statute, not of isolated sentences.' Arnold, 136 F.3d at 858 (quoting Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 372 (1994)). on account of a change in residence absent written confirmation from the registrant or a failure both to respond to a notice and vote in two elections after the notice has been sent. Id. § 20507(c), (d). - 20 - 1. The Statute's Text The plain meaning of section 303(a)(4)(A) is apparent from both its structure and its wording. Most significantly, the provision's mandate is stated independently of the consistent with phrase that is the foundation of appellant's argument. The first sentence of the subsection explains that a system of file maintenance must be created to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote from the official list of eligible voters, and the second sentence explains how such system must operate. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(4)(A). These required actions are not defined by reference to obligations arising from NVRA. Rather, in clear, affirmative language, the second sentence directs removal of registrants from the official list of eligible voters if they have not responded to a notice and did not vote in 2 consecutive general elections for Federal office. Id. The provision then emphasizes the need for both notice and a voting gap by stating that removal is barred solely by reason of a failure to vote. Id. The reference to NVRA, by contrast, appears in a subordinate clause in that sentence. Its content and placement clearly signal a collateral purpose: to instruct responsible election officials and others (including the courts) that the measures required by HAVA do not alter NVRA's requirements and, hence, they should be implemented consistently with NVRA. - 21 - Appellant insists that examining section 303(a)(4)(A) in context undermines this textual analysis. She argues that, despite the explicit inclusion of Puerto Rico and the territories within HAVA's overall scope, Congress expressly exempted these jurisdictions from obligations that also appear in NVRA. We disagree. 2. The Statutory Context As a prelude to our discussion of appellant's contextual argument, we pause briefly to note the detailed landscape of HAVA section 303. Section 303 governs two different categories of prescriptions, as reflected in its overall heading: Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and requirements for voters who register by mail. 52 U.S.C. § 21083. Subsection (a) addresses the statewide registration list, and subsection (b) addresses registration by mail. Each of those subsections is divided into five paragraphs, most of which are further subdivided into a number of subparagraphs. A contextual review thus requires close examination of multiple provisions. To aid the reader's understanding of our analysis, and as a supplement to the specific provisions within section 303 that are reproduced as part of our discussion, we provide the full text of section 303(a) and (b) in