Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Simon

Background

Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. (PILF) sued Steve Simon, identified in the opinion as Minnesota’s Secretary of State, under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). PILF requested Minnesota’s registered-voter list and 2020–2023 reports concerning deceased voters received from the Electronic Registration Information Center. Minnesota denied the request because PILF was not a registered Minnesota voter, and Minnesota law limits access to the requested public-information list to specified uses by a registered Minnesota voter.

The NVRA requires covered states to conduct voter-registration and voter-list-maintenance programs and to make certain records available for public inspection. But the NVRA exempts states that have provided election-day registration at the polls since August 1, 1994. PILF admitted that Minnesota qualified for this exemption. It nevertheless argued that the exemption violated the constitutional equal-sovereignty principle and the requirement that congressional enforcement legislation be congruent and proportional to the constitutional injury it addresses. The United States intervened to defend the exemption.

Standing

The court first considered Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy the injury. The court held that PILF had standing. Assuming PILF would succeed on its constitutional challenge, the requested records would be subject to public disclosure. The court also found that PILF adequately alleged that denial of the records impaired its work educating the public, election officials, and members of Congress about voter rolls and voting-law compliance.

The court further held, for standing purposes, that declaring the exemption unconstitutional could provide a remedy by putting states on equal footing. The court described this as a possible “leveling down” remedy: removing an exemption rather than extending the exemption to other states. The court did not decide whether PILF had prudential standing to assert states’ rights, explaining that prudential standing is not jurisdictional and that PILF’s claim failed on the merits. The court also did not decide the Secretary’s argument that organizations lack a private right of action under the NVRA.

Merits

The court rejected PILF’s equal-sovereignty argument. It explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder addressed a coverage formula under the Voting Rights Act and did not establish a general limit on all exercises of congressional power. Unlike the Voting Rights Act provision at issue in Shelby County, the NVRA regulates federal elections and is based on Congress’s authority under the Elections Clause of Article I. The court held that Congress’s Elections Clause power is not limited by the equal-sovereignty principle.

The court also rejected PILF’s argument based on the congruence-and-proportionality standard from City of Boerne v. Flores. That standard applies to congressional enforcement legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment, while the court concluded that the NVRA is Article I legislation. The court found no requirement that a statute supported by one constitutional power also be supported by every other constitutional power mentioned in the statute’s purposes. It also reasoned that exempting states that had adopted election-day registration did not make the NVRA disproportionate to its goals.

Disposition

The court concluded that Section 4(b)(2) of the NVRA is constitutional and that PILF’s claim failed as a matter of law. Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.