Common Cause v. Brian Kemp

714 F. App'x 990
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 12, 2018
Docket17-11315
StatusUnpublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 990 (Common Cause v. Brian Kemp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Common Cause v. Brian Kemp, 714 F. App'x 990 (11th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs/Appellants, Common Cause (“CC”) and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (“NAACP”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), appeal the district court’s order granting the Secretary of State’s (“Secretary of State” or “State”), motion to dismiss their claims challenging Georgia Code § 21-2-2B4 (“Section 234”), which codifies a program for removing ineligible voters from the voter registration rolls. Plaintiffs contend that the program violates federal voting rights law, specifically the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. § 20507 (“NVRA”), and the Help America Vote Act,' 52 U.S.C. § 21083 (“HAVA”), and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I.ISSUES

1. Whether Section 234 violates the National Voters Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

2. Whether Section 234 violates the First Amendment.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews de novo the district court’s order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. Blevins v. Aksut, 849 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (11th Cir. 2017).

This court also reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Burlison v. McDonald’s Corp., 455 F.3d 1242, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006).

III.DISCUSSION

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court’s order of dismissal and remand this case to the district court to consider in the first instance the United States Supreme Court’s pending disposition in A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 137. S.Ct. 2188, 198 L.Ed.2d 254 (2017) (argued January 10, 2018).

On remand, the district court should also conduct a more detailed analysis of the First Amendment question.

VACATED and REMANDED with directions. 1

1

. On remand, nothing precludes the Plaintiffs from moving the district court for a preliminary injunction to restore those removed voters from the voter registration rolls pending a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carolyn Burlison v. McDonald's Corporation
455 F.3d 1242 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Jon Husted
838 F.3d 699 (Sixth Circuit, 2016)
Elizabeth Blevins v. Seydi Vakkas Aksut
849 F.3d 1016 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 F. App'x 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/common-cause-v-brian-kemp-ca11-2018.