Common Cause v. Brian Kemp

Case: 17-11315 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11315
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00452-TCB
COMMON CAUSE,
GEORGIA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
versus
BRIAN KEMP,
individually and in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of the State of Georgia,
Defendant – Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 12, 2018)
Before WILSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, * Judge.
*
Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
Case: 17-11315 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 2 of 3
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 § 21–2–234 (“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).
2
Case: 17-11315 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 Page: 3 of 3
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. Phillip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699
(6th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2188 (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.
3