Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Commonwealth

524 F.Supp.3d 399

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff

v.Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-708

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed March 8, 2021

Eric W. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Robert D. Popper, Pro Hac Vice, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, H. Christopher Coates, Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of H. Christopher Coates, Charleston, SC, Jonathan S. Goldstein, Shawn M. Rodgers, Goldstein Law Partners, LLC, Hatfield, PA, T. Russell Nobile, Pro Hac Vice, Judicial Watch, Inc., Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff.

Nicole J. Boland, Office of Attorney General Civil Litigation Section, Stephen Moniak, PA Office of Attorney General, Civil Law Division, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar.

Christina C. Matthias, Pro Hac Vice, Michele D. Hangley, Mark A. Aronchick, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Bucks County Commission, Bucks County Board of Elections, Bucks County Registration Commission, Thomas Freitag, Chester County Commission, Chester County Board of Elections, Chester County Registration Commission, Sandra Burke, Delaware County Council, Delaware County Board of Elections, Delaware County Registration Commission, Laureen Hagan.

MEMORANDUM

Christopher C. Conner, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., commenced this civil action against various state and county election officials pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA"), 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. Judicial Watch alleges that all defendants have failed to fulfill their list-maintenance obligations under the NVRA, and that certain defendants have also violated the NVRA's disclosure requirements. The county defendants move to dismiss Judicial Watch's claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, we will grant the motion to dismiss.

I. Factual Background & Procedural History

Judicial Watch is a nonprofit educational organization. (See Doc. 1 ¶ 4). Judicial Watch describes its mission as "promot[ing] transparency, integrity, and accountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law." (Id. ¶ 29). It fulfills this mission "through public records requests and litigation, among other means." (Id. )

Judicial Watch names 14 defendants in its complaint. We refer to the first two defendants, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Veronica Degraffenreid, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,¹ as the "Commonwealth defendants." (See id. ¶¶ 5-6). We refer to all other named defendants as the "county defendants." The county defendants are the Bucks County Commission; the Bucks County Board of Elections; the Bucks County Registration Commission; Thomas Freitag, Elections Director for Bucks County; the Chester County Commission; the Chester County Board of Elections; the Chester County Registration Commission; Sandra Burke, Director of Elections for Chester County; the Delaware County Council; the Delaware County Board of Elections; the Delaware County Registration Commission; and Laureen Hagan, Chief Clerk of the Elections Bureau for Delaware County. (See id. ¶¶ 5-18). The individual defendants are sued in their official capacities only. (See id. ¶¶ 6, 10, 14, 18).

In June of 2019, the United States Election Assistance Commission ("EAC") published its biennial report to Congress as required by law.² Federal regulations require states to provide various kinds of election data to the EAC for use in this report. See 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7(b) ; (Doc. 1 ¶ 26). Among the data to be reported are: (1) the total number of active and inactive voters registered in the state for each of the last two general federal elections, see 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7(b)(1)-(2), and (2) the number of registrations removed from the state's official voter lists "for whatever reason" between the past two elections, see id. § 9428.7(b)(5). The EAC collects this data by sending a survey to each state, to be completed by the state's chief election official "in consultation with their county and local officials." (Doc. 1 ¶ 35); 11 C.F.R. § 9428.7(a). The EAC publishes its underlying datasets—a massive spreadsheet documenting each state's responses to the 2018 EAC Survey questions to the jurisdictional level—together with its annual report.³ The EAC published revised datasets for the 2018 EAC Report on October 22, 2019, February 18, 2020, and July 15, 2020.⁴

Judicial Watch reviewed the 2018 EAC Report after its release. (Doc. 1 ¶ 36). Judicial Watch also reviewed the February 18, 2020 datasets accompanying the report. (See id. ¶ 35). Judicial Watch concluded that the three county defendants reported too few registration removals in response to Question A9e of the 2018 EAC Survey, which requested the number of registrations removed for "[f]ailure to respond to notice sent and failure to vote in two most recent federal elections."⁵ Judicial Watch believed the number of removals reported in the February 18, 2020 datasets for Question A9e—eight in Bucks County, five in Chester County, and four in Delaware County—were "absurdly small," indicating "a multi-year failure by those jurisdictions to comply with the core requirements of Section 8(d)(2) of the NVRA." (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 39-41, 43-44); see also 52 U.S.C. § 20507(d)(1)(B), (2).

Judicial Watch also analyzed the total voter registrations reported in the 2018 EAC Report and, using "the best available census data," calculated each defendant county's "registration rate." (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 51-52). To calculate these rates, Judicial Watch divided each county's total voter registrations by the number of voting-age citizens within the county. (See id. ¶ 52). These calculations produced registration rates of 96 percent for Bucks County and 97 percent for both Chester County and Delaware County. (Id. ¶¶ 53-55). Judicial Watch alleges that these rates "are high in comparison to other counties in Pennsylvania, and high in comparison to other counties throughout the U.S." and "are abnormally high." (Id. ¶¶ 56-57). It claims that this too indicates a failure to comply with the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements. (See id. ¶ 58).

On December 11, 2019, Judicial Watch sent letters to each group of county defendants and to former Secretary Boockvar outlining its concerns. (See id. ¶ 59; Docs. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). In each letter, Judicial Watch articulated the above conclusions, stated its belief that the defendant county was committing a "clear violation[ ]" of the NVRA by failing to properly maintain its voter lists, and warned that "if the foregoing violations are not corrected within 90 days of your receiving this letter, Judicial Watch and those on whose behalf it has sent this letter may commence an action against you in federal court." (See Doc. 1-2 at 1-3; Doc. 1-3 at 1-3; Doc. 1-4 at 1-3). Each letter also included specific requests for documents pertaining to the county defendants’ list-maintenance activities. (See Doc. 1-2 at 3-4; Doc. 1-3 at 3-4; Doc. 1-4 at 3-4). Bucks County and Chester County sent responsive letters directing Judicial Watch to reports compiled by the Pennsylvania Department of State. (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 63-76). Delaware County did not respond or provide any documents to Judicial Watch. (Id. ¶¶ 77-79).

Judicial Watch filed its complaint in this case on April 29, 2020, asserting violations of the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements (Count I) and its disclosure requirements (Count II). The Commonwealth defendants answered the complaint, and the county defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition.⁶

II. Legal Standard

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002) ). In addition to reviewing the facts contained in the complaint, the court may also consider "exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, [and] undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) ).

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide "the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 232 (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). To test the sufficiency of the complaint, the court conducts a three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2010). In the first step, "the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’ " Id. at 130 (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). Next, the factual and legal elements of a claim must be separated; well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions may be disregarded. Id. at 131-32 ; see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Once the court isolates the well-pleaded factual allegations, it must determine whether they are sufficient to show a "plausible claim for relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A claim is facially plausible when the...