Opinion ID: 1043362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Photocopying Provision

Text: 46 Case: 12-40914 Document: 00512395979 Page: 47 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 No. 12-40914 With respect to the Photocopying Provision, plaintiffs challenge the Secretary’s interpretation of §13.038. The Secretary argues that the Texas Election Code prohibits VDRs from photocopying registration applications because state law does not explicitly authorize this activity and because these documents are considered confidential under § 13.004. The plaintiffs contend that the NVRA’s public disclosure provision4 preempts the prohibition on photocopying. I agree with the district court that voter registration applications are “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters” under the relevant provision of the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(I); Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). VDRs are deputized to act in the place of the county registrar when they distribute and receive voter registration applications. TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 13. 031. Section 1973gg-6(I) does not require that the records be in the hands of the state. It merely requires the state to maintain the records and make them available for public inspection. The myriad of regulations governing VDRs are 4 The NVRA provision covering “Public disclosure of voter registration activities,” states: Each 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, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identify of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(I). 47 Case: 12-40914 Document: 00512395979 Page: 48 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 No. 12-40914 based on the assumption that the state has the ability to protect that application by regulating how it is handled until it is in the hands of the local registrar. In doing so, the state (through the VDR) “maintains” the completed voter registration applications until they are submitted to the local registrar. Thus, a completed application in the hands of a VDR is a record that must be made available for photocopying under the NVRA. I agree with the district court that it would be an absurd result to forbid private parties from copying applications they are authorized to receive on behalf of the state before they are submitted to the state, when the NVRA requires the state to allow them to make a copy once the record has been submitted. The privacy concerns raised by the Secretary are also answered by the NVRA. As stated in Long, “[i]t is not the province of this court . . . to strike the proper balance between transparency and voter privacy . . . . Congress has already answered the question by enacting [section 1973gg-6(I)], which plainly requires disclosure of complete voter registration applications.” 682 F.3d at 339. This conclusion is buttressed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona that no presumption against preemption applies in these election clause cases.