Opinion ID: 2744274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Voluntary-Cessation Exception

Text: Citizen Center argues that we should apply the voluntary-cessation exception to the mootness doctrine. Citizen Ctr.’s Reply Br. at 8-11. This exception does not apply. A defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice rarely moots a federal case because a “‘party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to defeat a judgment, by temporarily altering questionable behavior.’” Unified Sch. Dist. No. 259 v. Disability Rights Ctr. of Kan., 491 F.3d 1143, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278, 284 n.1 (2001)). Nonetheless, a defendant’s voluntary cessation moots a case when a challenged regulation is repealed and the government does not openly express intent to reenact it. Camfield v. City of Okla. City, 248 F.3d 1214, 1223-24 (10th Cir. 2001). But a case is not moot if a challenged regulation is repealed and there are “‘clear showings of reluctant submission [by government actors] and a desire to return to the old ways.’” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010) (alteration in 12 original) (quoting 13C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur M. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.6, at 311 (3d ed. 2008)). Citizen Center makes two arguments: (1) The Secretary of State has revised its regulations multiple times during this litigation, allowing emergency regulations to lapse. (2) The clerks have expected some regulations to be “overturned or modified.” Citizen Ctr.’s Reply Br. at 10-11. We reject both arguments. First, the Secretary of State’s revisions do not indicate a desire to return to old ways. With each revision, the Secretary has enacted stricter or substantively similar regulations, and Citizen Center does not suggest that the new regulations will be watered down. 5 Second, the clerks have not threatened to defy the Secretary’s new regulations. Disagreeing with a regulation is not the same as refusing to follow it, especially when the clerks’ ballot plans require approval by the Secretary of State. Thus, the voluntary-cessation exception does not apply and Citizen Center’s challenges are moot with respect to the use of unique numbers and batching after certification of the vote. 5 Although the Secretary of State allowed the emergency regulations to lapse between December 2012 and May 2013, Citizen Center does not claim that any elections took place during that time. See Citizen Ctr.’s Reply Br. at 4. 13