Full title: PROJECT VOTE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Brian KEMP, in his official capacity as…
Court: United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
Case no: 1:16-cv-2445-WSD
Date published: Sep 19, 2016
Fact:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brian Kemp’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss [20]. Also before the Court is Plaintiff Project Vote, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction [12].
I. BACKGROUND
A. Summary
Plaintiff seeks the disclosure, pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20501, et seq. , of certain records relating to the reasons Defendant rejected, canceled, or otherwise did not add voter registration applicants to Georgia’s voter roll. Plaintiff requests these records be produced prior to Georgia’s October 11, 2016, voter registration deadline. Defendant contends the records Plaintiff seeks are not subject to disclosure under the NVRA.
Issue:
CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Brian Kemp’s Motion to Dismiss [20] is DENIED .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Project Vote, Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [12] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and Defendant shall, on or before October 7, 2016, disclose to Plaintiff the following records with respect to canceled, rejected, or pending applicants:
Defendant should make reasonable efforts to produce the records as they are processed. If there is any problem in completing the production of the Section 8(i) Records by October 7, 2016, the Court should be advised immediately.
——–
(1) The date voter registration applications were signed by an applicant.
(2) The date applications were entered into the Database.
(3) Each change in an applicant’s voter registration status.
(4) The creation date of Database-generated letters to applicants, only to the extent the letters concern the status or completeness of an individual’s application or otherwise relate to the evaluation of an individual’s eligibility to vote.
(5) Whether an election official manually, instead of mechanically, changed the status of one or more applicants, only to the extent these records are stored on the Database.
(6) Reasons other than the most recent reason why an applicant was rejected, canceled, or otherwise not added to the voter roll.
(7) The specific reason why applicants, assigned a status reason of “Error,” “Hearing,” or “Reject,” were canceled, only to the extent these records are stored on the Database.
(8) Records for canceled applicants with a status reason other than one of the eleven options in the drop-down menu in the Database.
(9) Copies of Database-generated letters sent to applicants, only to the extent the letters concern the status or completeness of an individual’s application or otherwise relate to the evaluation of an individual’s eligibility to vote.
(10) The date of, and any response to, all letters sent to applicants, only to the extent the letters concern the status or completeness of an individual’s application or otherwise relate to the evaluation of an individual’s eligibility to vote.
(11) Copies of letters, not generated by the Database, that were sent to applicants, only to the extent the letters concern the status or completeness of an individual’s application or otherwise relate to the evaluation of an individual’s eligibility to vote.
The records disclosed must have redacted from them the following personal information:
• All but the final four digits of an applicant’s telephone number;
• All but the final four digits of an applicant’s Social Security number;
• All characters preceding the @ symbol in an applicant’s email address; and
• An applicant’s birth date.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED with respect to the remainder of the Requested Records.