Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v CA NVRA complaint 08948

JW v CA NVRA complaint 08948

JW v CA NVRA complaint 08948

Page 1: JW v CA NVRA complaint 08948

Category:

Number of Pages:28

Date Created:December 13, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:December 13, 2017

Tags:08948, registrations, inactive, NVRA, voter, notice, angeles, Plaintiffs, defendants, letter, California, complaint, defendant, COUNTY, filed, plaintiff, document


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:1
CHARLES BELL, JR. (SBN 60553)
Email: cbell@bmhlaw.com
Paul Gough (SBN 75502)
Email: pgough@bmhlaw.com
Brian Hildreth (SBN 214131)
Email: bhildreth@bmhlaw.com
Bell, McAndrews Hiltachk, LLP
13406 Valleyheart Drive North
Sherman Oaks, 91423
Tel.: (818) 971-3660/(916) 442-7757
Facs.: (818) 619-3791/(916) 442-7759
ROBERT POPPER*
Email: rpopper@judicialwatch.org
Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel.: (202) 646-5172
Facs.: (202) 646-5199 CHRISTOPHER COATES*
Email: curriecoates@gmail.com
Law Office Christopher Coates
934 Compass Point
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
Tel.: (843) 609-0800
*Application for admission pro hac vice
forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT
CALIFORNIA, INC., WOLFGANG
KUPKA, RHUE GUYANT, JERRY
Case No. _______________
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:2
GRIFFIN, and DELORES MARS,
COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs,
DEAN LOGAN, his official
capacity the RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk Los Angeles
County, California, and ALEX
PADILLA, his official capacity
the California Secretary State,
Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief compel the Los Angeles
County Registrar and the California Secretary State comply with their voter list
maintenance obligations and their record production obligations under Section the
National Voter Registration Act 1993 NVRA U.S.C. 20507. This Court has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant U.S.C. 1331, this action arises under the
laws the United States, and under U.S.C. 20510(b)(2), the action seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief under the NVRA.
Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C. 1391(b) because
defendant resides this district and all defendants reside California; and because
substantial part the events and omissions giving rise the claims herein occurred
this district.
PARTIES
Plaintiff JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Judicial Watch not-for-
profit, educational organization incorporated under the laws the District
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:3
Columbia and headquartered 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C.
20024. Its mission promote transparency, integrity, and accountability
government and fidelity the rule law. part this mission, Judicial Watch
regularly requests records from state and local governments pursuant federal and state
laws, analyzes the responses and disseminates both its findings and the requested records the American public inform about what the government to. Judicial Watch
will sue enforce compliance with federal and state laws concerning the provision
records, public integrity, government accountability, and voting rights. has undertaken
investigations and commenced other lawsuits enforce the NVRA.
Plaintiff ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. EIPC registered non-profit organization incorporated under the laws the State California and headquartered 27943 Seco Canyon Road #521, Santa Clarita,
California, 91350. EIPC seeks promote citizen engagement through education and
training protect the integrity the electoral process California. this end, EIPC
regularly requests voter registration records from jurisdictions California, analyzes
those records determine compliance with the NVRA list maintenance obligations,
and notifies the jurisdictions about their findings.
Plaintiff WOLFGANG KUPKA resident and registered voter Los
Angeles County, California, who has voted and intends vote the County.
Plaintiff RHUE GUYANT resident and registered voter Los
Angeles County, California, who has voted and intends vote the County.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:4
Plaintiff JERRY GRIFFIN resident and registered voter Los
Angeles County, California, who has voted and intends vote the County.
Plaintiff DELORES MARS resident and registered voter
Los Angeles County, California, who has voted and intends vote the County.
Defendant DEAN LOGAN the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
Los Angeles County, California (the Registrar and has served this capacity since
July 2008. The Registrar the designated local election official under California
law responsible for collecting and processing voter registration data. CAL. CODE REGS.
tit. 20108.1(i).
10.
Defendant ALEX PADILLA the California Secretary State and
has served this capacity since January 2015. The Secretary State
designated California law the chief state elections official responsible for
coordination the state responsibilities under the NVRA. CAL. ELEC. CODE
2402(a); see U.S.C. 20509.
11.
Both Defendants are sued their official capacities only.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Statutory Background
12.
The NVRA requires states conduct general program that makes
reasonable effort remove the names ineligible voters from the official lists
eligible voters. U.S.C. 20507(a)(4).
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:5
13.
Section 8(i) the NVRA requires that each state shall maintain for
least years and shall make available for public inspection and photocopying
reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation programs and activities
conducted for the purpose ensuring the accuracy and currency official lists
eligible voters. U.S.C. 20507(i).
14.
Under federal law, voter becomes ineligible, and the voter name
subject removal from jurisdiction voter rolls, when the voter moves out the
jurisdiction; specifically asks removed from the rolls; dies; disqualified from
voting under state law because criminal conviction mental incapacity; when
erroneous registration record corrected, when registrant has registered the wrong
jurisdiction noncitizen. U.S.C. 20507(a)(3), (4)(A), 4(B), (c)(2)(B)(ii).
15.
The NVRA provides that the registration voter who believed have
moved out jurisdiction only subject removal from the voter rolls (1) the voter
confirms this move writing, (2) the voter fails respond address confirmation
notice, and then fails vote during statutory waiting period extending from the date
the notice through the next two general federal elections. U.S.C. 20507(d)(2)(B).
16.
California law provides that inactive voter voter for whom county
has received returned confirmation residency mailing without forwarding address
the same county, voter who has been identified the United States Postal Service
National Change Address database having moved outside the county. CAL. CODE
REGS. tit. 20108(l).
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:6
17.
Under both the NVRA and California law, voters whose registrations are
designated inactive may still vote election day. U.S.C. 20507(d)(2)(A);
CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 20108(l).
18.
Because voters with inactive registrations may still vote election day,
inactive registrations must counted part county voter registration list.
Los Angeles County Excessive Registration Rate
19. June each odd-numbered year, the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission EAC required law release report regarding state voter
registration practices. U.S.C. 20508(a)(3).
20.
States are required federal regulations provide various kinds
registration data the EAC for use this biennial report. This data must include the
total number registered voters statewide, including both active and inactive voters such distinction made the state, for the last two general federal elections.
C.F.R. 9428.7(b)(1), (2).
21. June 2017, the EAC published its most recent report well datasets
containing voter registration statistics based information provided the states. This
report and these datasets are available https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/electionadministration-voting-survey/.
22.
Judicial Watch analyzed the data provided the EAC June 2017 and
compared the most recent census data determine the adult citizen registration rates
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:7
for United States counties. Judicial Watch was able this for 2,958 the
approximately 3,100 counties county equivalents the United States.
23.
Whenever jurisdiction has more voter registrations than resident citizens
over the age 18, meaning that its registration rate, including active and inactive
registrations, greater than 100%, strong indication that that jurisdiction not
taking the steps required law cancel the registrations ineligible registrants.
24.
Approximately 15% the United States counties for which data available
from the EAC and the Census Bureau have adult citizen registration rates including
active and inactive registrations exceeding 100%.
25.
Eleven California counties have registration rates exceeding 100%
the age-eligible citizenry.
26.
Los Angeles County has more voter registrations its voter rolls than has
citizens who are old enough register. Specifically, according data provided and
published the EAC, Los Angeles County has registration rate 112% its adult
citizen population.
27.
The entire State California has registration rate about 101% its
age-eligible citizenry.
28.
The high registration rates Los Angeles County and and throughout the
State California indicate that Defendants have failed conduct general program that
makes reasonable effort cancel the registrations ineligible registrants.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:8
Los Angeles County Excessive Number Inactive Registrations
29.
Removing registrations that have been inactive status for more than
two general federal elections necessary part any effort comply with the NVRA
mandate conduct general program that makes reasonable effort remove the
registrations ineligible registrants.
30.
Having high number inactive registrations strong indication that
state jurisdiction not removing inactive registrations after two general federal
elections.
31.
Inactive registrations which may voted mail person election
day are particularly vulnerable fraudulent abuse third party, because voter who
has moved different state unlikely monitor the use communications
concerning old registration.
32.
Inactive registrations are also inherently vulnerable abuse voters who
plan fraudulently double-vote two different jurisdictions the same election day.
33.
About 21% all California voter registrations, more than one
five, are designated inactive.
34.
California has the highest rate inactive registrations any state the
country.
35.
According data provided and published the EAC, Los Angeles
County has reported 1,515,330 inactive registrations.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:9
36.
Los Angeles County has the highest number inactive registrations any
single county the country.
37. information and belief, significant number Los Angeles County
inactive registrations have been inactive for period time extending years beyond the
most recent two general federal elections.
38.
Los Angeles County high total number inactive registrations indicates
that Defendants have failed conduct general program that makes reasonable effort cancel the registrations ineligible registrants.
The Higher Registration Numbers Reported Directly Judicial Watch
39. June 15, 2017, Judicial Watch made telephone call the Los Angeles
County Office the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk determine whether the website
listing total registration included both active and inactive registrants. employee the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder office told Judicial Watch during that
call that the published number displayed only active registrants and that total inactive
registrants were not publicly available. When asked how many total active and total
inactive registrations were Los Angeles County June 15, 2017, the employee told
Judicial Watch that there were currently 5,238,465 active registrations, and 3,475,328
inactive registrations, which more than twice the 1,515,330 inactive registrations
previously reported the EAC.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:10
40. total 3,475,328 inactive registrations means that Los Angeles
County adult citizen registration rate about 144%, which one the ten
highest registrations rates among the thousands counties the United States.
41.
That number inactive registrations Los Angeles County raises
the statewide percentage inactive registrations California almost 27%, not
21% reported the EAC.
42.
That number inactive registrations means that 40% Los Angeles
County registrations are inactive.
43. November 16, 2017, Plaintiff Judicial Watch sent request under
the California Public Records Act (CPRA), CAL. GOV CODE 6250 seq.,
behalf Plaintiff Delores Mars the office the Los Angeles County
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk seeking [a]ll public records dated created
after April 10, 2017, that concern, refer to, state, estimate, predict the number
inactive registrations the voter rolls Los Angeles County.
44. November 28, 2017, representative Defendant Logan
responded that there are responsive documents available.
45. November 29, 2017, Plaintiff Judicial Watch sent second request
under the CPRA behalf Plaintiff Delores Mars the office the Los
Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk seeking [a]ll public records
dated created between January 2016 and April 10, 2017, that concern, refer
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:11
to, state, estimate, predict the number inactive registrations the voter rolls Los
Angeles County.
46. December 11, 2017, representative Defendant Logan responded
this second request that there are responsive documents available.
47. information and belief, the data Judicial Watch received from the Los
Angeles County Registrar-Recorder office June 2017 accurately reflects the true
number inactive registrations Los Angeles County.
Defendants Are Violating the NVRA Refusing Cancel Old, Inactive Registrations
48.
California law provides that the voter registration any voter whose name
has been placed the inactive file for failure respond address verification
mailing who does not vote offer vote for two federal general elections may canceled. CAL. ELEC. CODE 2226 (emphasis added).
49.
The California NVRA Manual, updated August 2015 and issued
Defendant Padilla, which available the Secretary State website, states that the
registration voter who does not return address confirmation notice may
cancelled, adding that California law makes removal this instance permissive rather
than mandatory.
50. about August 2017, Defendant Logan told reporter for the
Sacramento Bee that inactive registrations were being maintained the voter rolls
fail-safe for voters who may have moved but were eligible vote.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:12
51.
California reported the EAC that Los Angeles County removed
zero registrations between November 2014 and November 2016 for [f]ailure
respond notice sent and failure vote the two most recent Federal elections.
52.
The plain terms the NVRA and related statutes require the removal registration where voter fails respond address confirmation notice
and then does not vote two general federal elections.
53.
The NVRA contains extensive provisions regarding the sending
address confirmation notices and the processing and removal registrations where
voters not respond such notices vote during the statutory waiting period. U.S.C. 20507(d). Simply refusing cancel the registrations voters who
failed respond confirmation notice and vote during the prescribed waiting
period, Los Angeles County doing, renders the NVRA provisions regarding
address confirmation notices superfluous and meaningless.
54. practical matter, given that Los Angeles County has the highest
number inactive registrations any county the country, the registrations
those placed the inactive list for two general federal elections after failing
respond address confirmation notices must removed comply with the
NVRA mandate conduct general program that makes reasonable effort
remove the registrations ineligible registrants.
55.
Los Angeles County practice refusing cancel the registrations ineligible registrants, and any California law guidance sanctioning that
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:13
practice, conflict with the NVRA, are superseded and preempted it, and are invalid
and unenforceable matter federal preemption law.
56.
Los Angeles County practice refusing cancel the registrations
ineligible registrants violates the NVRA.
Defendants Are Violating the NVRA Failing Send Enough Address Confirmation
Notices
57.
California reported the EAC that Los Angeles County sent 187,329
address confirmation notices during the period from November 2014 November 2016.
This about 93,664 confirmation notices each year.
58.
California reported the EAC that Los Angeles County has about
5,238,894 active registrations. This means that about those holding active
registrations Los Angeles County receive confirmation notice each year.
59.
The Census Bureau reports that about 13% the residents Los Angeles
County move each year.
60.
Los Angeles County sending few address confirmation notices relative the size its registration list that failing conduct general program that makes reasonable effort remove the registrations ineligible registrants.
61.
Los Angeles County failure send enough confirmation notices allow conduct proper list maintenance violates the NVRA.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:14
Defendants Are Violating the NVRA Number Ways Identified the Los
Angeles County Auditor-Controller
62. May 2016, local media outlet reported that 265 deceased voters, 215
them from Los Angeles County, had voted California elections. Thirty-two had voted eight elections each. The reporter found that 212 these voters were still registered
and eligible vote the 2016 primaries. David Goldstein, CBS2 Investigation
Uncovers Votes Being Cast from Grave Year After Year, CBS LOS ANGELES, May 23,
2016, http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-
being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/.
63. May 24, 2016, response this report, the Los Angeles County Board Supervisors instructed the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller report
protocols relating voter file maintenance.
64. August 25, 2016, the Auditor-Controller submitted the Board
follow-up review (the Review previous recommendations regarding number
topics, including duplicate registrations.
65.
Referring earlier report from February 2015 regarding duplicate
registrations, the Review noted that six ten prior recommendations had been only
partially implemented, including recommendations relating employee training.
66.
The Review noted that there was ongoing issue with the submission
new registrations that did not contain birthdate, and that that information was crucial
any effort identify duplicate registrations. The Review further noted that test
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:15
registrations without birthdate showed that four (27%) appear duplicate
registrations based their signed voter affidavits.
67.
The Review suggested that the Registrar should more accurately ensure that
voting privileges are timely suspended the Data Information Management System for
individuals ineligible vote. The Review noted that updates voter registrations
concerning those deemed ineligible vote account felony convictions, mental
incompetence, duplicate registrations were frequently made only after considerable
lapse time, and that the State computer system was limited its ability produce
exception reports and audit trails. The Review noted that the Auditor-Controller
recommendations these issues were only partially implemented.
68. information and belief, Los Angeles County failing properly
conduct the list maintenance required the NVRA failing properly train
employees, failing require and enter registrants birthdates, and failing timely
process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are
mentally incompetent, have registered twice.
Plaintiffs Statutory Notice Letters Defendants
69. August 2017, Judicial Watch sent letter email and certified
mail Defendants Padilla and Logan, along with election officials ten other California
counties (the First Notice Letter behalf itself, EIPC, and individuals,
including all the individual plaintiffs this action.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:16
70.
The First Notice Letter observed that there were more registered voters than
citizens voting age each the identified counties, including Los Angeles County.
71.
The First Notice Letter stated that these kinds registration rates
indicate failure comply with the voter list maintenance requirements the
NVRA, and asked Defendant Padilla and, the extent that they wish respond
separately, each county identified this letter, please respond this letter
writing later than days from today informing the steps being taken
come into compliance with the NVRA.
72.
Citing Section 8(i) the NVRA, U.S.C. 20507(i), the First
Notice Letter also requested that:
your [Defendant Padilla office and, the extent that they keep
records separately from your office, each county named this letter, make available all pertinent records concerning the
implementation programs and activities conducted for the purpose ensuring the accuracy and currency California official eligible
voter lists during the past years.
The First Notice Letter added that [t]hese records should include, but are not limited
six particular subcategories records described further detail the letter. The First
Notice Letter asked Defendants either provide records within days advise
Judicial Watch when they would made available.
73. date Defendant Padilla has made independent response the
First Notice Letter, except indirectly way press statements, comments
reporters, and tweets.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:17
74.
Defendant Logan responded letter August 16, 2017 (the Response
Letter which copied Defendant Padilla, although did not specifically claim
respond for him.
75.
The Response Letter briefly suggested that inactive registrations should not considered, and that without them Los Angeles County registration rates were
acceptable levels.
76.
The Response Letter did not mention any steps that Los Angeles County
planned take comply with the NVRA. Instead, the Response Letter posed series
inquiries Judicial Watch regarding its sources and methods.
77.
The Response Letter made mention the First Notice Letter general
request for all records from the past two years concerning the implementation
programs and activities designed ensure the accuracy and currency the State voter
rolls.
78.
Instead, the Response Letter purported specifically address the six
subcategories record requests contained the First Notice Letter. Ultimately, the
Response Letter refused make available single record response any the
subcategories record requests, other than identify Advisories County Election
Officials posted the Secretary State website.
79. August 31, 2017, Judicial Watch wrote back (the Second Notice
Letter both Defendants, objecting the Response Letter, disputing its assumption
that inactive registrations were irrelevant list maintenance, and pointing out that its
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:18
claims that there were responsive records suggested either that Defendants were
not conducting list maintenance activities that there had been serious effort response.
80.
The Second Notice Letter notified Defendants that they were
violation Section 8(i) the NVRA, U.S.C. 20507(i).
81.
The Second Notice Letter invited further response the matters
discussed. date there has been further response.
Defendants Are Violating the NVRA Failing Provide Requested Records
82.
requests for records pursuant Section 8(i) the NVRA, U.S.C. 20507(i).
Defendant Padilla made response any the First Notice Letter
83. response the First Notice Letter request for Los Angeles
County voter registration list, Defendant Logan the Response Letter refused
provide that list the grounds that did not maintain separate records the
statewide California database, and that disclosure was barred U.S.C.
20504(b) and various State laws.
84.
The stated reasons are faulty, given that Defendant Logan can access
the voter registration database, that U.S.C. 20504(b) refers information
relating applicant failure sign voter registration application, which the
First Notice Letter did not seek, and that any California statutes purporting
proscribe the right obtain access records described Section 8(i) are
superseded and preempted federal law.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:19
85.
Defendant Logan contended the Response Letter that knows
other records responsive any the other requests the First Notice Letter (except for
advisories posted the Secretary State website). This contention demonstrably
incorrect.
86.
The May 24, 2016 correspondence from the Los Angeles County Board
Supervisors the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller, and the August 25, 2016
Auditor-Controller follow-up review, discussed above, and other records they
incorporate refer to, were records concerning activities conducted for the purpose
ensuring the accuracy and currency California voter list, and should have been
provided response the First Notice Letter.
87.
California law mandates the creation many different kinds records that
should have been produced response the First Notice Letter request. See, e.g.,
CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 20108.55 (Secretary State must transmit counties notices potential matches persons who have died been convicted disqualifying
felonies) (emphasis added); CAL. ELEC. CODE 2205 (local registrar births and deaths
must contact county election officials with monthly report) (emphasis added); CAL.
CODE REGS. tit. 20108.25 (registration records that are missing substantive
information are returned the submitting local official along with deficiency
notice) (emphasis added); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 20108.60 (Secretary State must
check for duplicate registrations and send notices duplicates county officials)
(emphasis added).
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:20
88. information and belief, Los Angeles County, with over million
active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary
State California have exchanged emails responsive the First Notice Letter
request for all email other communications between the Secretary Office and
all California County voter registration officials concerning [i]nstructions the
counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations and
[n]otices the counties concerning any failure comply with their voter list
maintenance obligations. Such emails should have been produced.
89.
records responsive First Notice Letter requests. information and belief, Defendants made effort search for
90.
Defendant Padilla failure make any response either the general the six specific requests for records contained the First Notice Letter violates
his obligations under Section 8(i) the NVRA.
91.
Defendant Logan failure the Response Letter answer
acknowledge the First Notice Letter general request for records well his
inadequate responses the First Notice Letter six specific requests for records
violate his obligations under Section 8(i) the NVRA.
Plaintiffs Interest Compliance With the NVRA
92. part its mission promote transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law, Plaintiff Judicial Watch regularly requests
records from state and local governments pursuant Section 8(i) the NVRA. Judicial
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:21
Watch analyzes all responses, well federal, state, and local data from any available
source, determine whether jurisdictions are properly maintaining accurate voter rolls
required Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA. believes that jurisdiction not
complying with Section the NVRA, Judicial Watch will sue under U.S.C.
20510(b) enforce that statute.
93.
Judicial Watch recently wrote eleven other states besides California
inform them perceived violations the NVRA and request NVRA-related
documents. Judicial Watch has current NVRA lawsuit against Montgomery County,
Maryland, and the Commonwealth Kentucky, and the recent past has sued and
resolved NVRA cases against Ohio and Indiana. Judicial Watch also has submitted
several friend-of-the-court briefs all levels the federal court system cases
concerning enforcement the NVRA.
94.
Defendants failure comply with Section the NVRA has caused and
will cause Plaintiff Judicial Watch expend significant additional time and resources
achieve its basic organizational mission.
95. part its institutional mission, Plaintiff EIPC requests voter registration
records from California counties and analyzes those records determine compliance
with the NVRA list maintenance requirements. The purpose such analysis
produce what known Findings Report, which then typically presented the
county administration. Findings Report sets forth EIPC statistical analysis
county voter registration rolls, detailing, for example, the number voter registrations
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:22
exceeding the age-eligible population; the number same-address duplicate registration;
suspected duplicate registrations other California counties; deceased registrants
matching State death record; registrants who are either underage older than 105
based their listed birth dates; registrations missing crucial information; and suspected
instances double voting deceased voting.
96.
EIPC previously submitted several Findings Reports various California
counties recent years, including Los Angeles County. EIPC currently preparing
another Findings Report for Los Angeles County.
97.
Defendants failure comply with Section the NVRA has made
Plaintiff EIPC basic organizational mission more difficult accomplish and has
caused and will cause EIPC expend significant, additional time and resources
accomplish this mission.
98. person becomes member Judicial Watch making financial
contribution, any amount, the organization. The financial contributions members
are far the single most important source income Judicial Watch and provide the
means which the organization finances its activities support its mission.
99.
Judicial Watch has approximately 160,734 members the State
California, and 22,205 members Los Angeles County. membership
organization, Judicial Watch represents the interests these members, many
whom are lawfully registered vote and have the right vote California and
Los Angeles County, including the right vote elections for federal office.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:23
100. Judicial Watch solicits the views its members carrying out activities
support its mission, including the views its members Los Angeles County. The
views Judicial Watch members significantly influence how Judicial Watch chooses
activities engage further its mission.
101. About 2600 Judicial Watch Los Angeles County members have
email address and have contributed more Judicial Watch within the past two
years. these, 375 who are lawfully registered vote Los Angeles County have
directly informed Judicial Watch that they are concerned about Los Angeles County
failure satisfy its obligations under Section the NVRA, and wish Judicial Watch
take legal action their behalf protect their rights. The views Judicial Watch
members were substantial factor weighing favor initiating this lawsuit.
102. Protecting the rights Judicial Watch members who are lawfully registered vote Los Angeles County and ensuring compliance with the voter list maintenance
obligations Section the NVRA are part Judicial Watch mission. They also are
well within the scope the reasons why members Judicial Watch join the
organization and support its mission.
103. Members Judicial Watch who are lawfully registered vote Los
Angeles County not only have the constitutional right vote state elections, including
elections for federal office, but they also have statutory right the safeguards and
protections set forth the NVRA.
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:24
104. Plaintiffs Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores
Mars, are lawfully registered voters Los Angeles County and members Judicial
Watch.
105. Los Angeles County failure comply with the NVRA inflicts burden
the constitutional right vote those members Judicial Watch who are lawfully
registered vote Los Angeles County, including the individual plaintiffs this
action, undermining their confidence the integrity the electoral process,
discouraging their participation the democratic process, and instilling them the fear
that their legitimate votes will outweighed fraudulent ineligible ones.
106. Los Angeles County failure satisfy its voter list maintenance obligations
under Section the NVRA infringes the statutory rights those members Judicial
Watch who are lawfully registered vote Los Angeles County, including the
individual plaintiffs this action. These individuals have statutory right vote
elections for federal office that comply with the procedures and protections required
the NVRA, including the voter list maintenance obligations set forth Section
107. Absent action Judicial Watch, unlikely that any individual
member Judicial Watch would have the ability the resources take legal
action protect their rights redress their injuries with respect Los Angeles
County failure satisfy its voter list maintenance obligations under the NVRA.
108. Judicial Watch; its Los Angeles County members, including
Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores Mars; and EIPC are
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:25
all persons aggrieved violation the NVRA, set forth U.S.C.
20510(b)(1).
109. The First Notice Letter and the Second Notice Letter constitute statutory
notice, pursuant U.S.C. 20510(b)(1), violations Sections 8(a)(4) and 8(i)
the NVRA.
First Claim for Relief
(Violation Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA, U.S.C. 20507(a)(4))
110. Plaintiffs reallege all preceding paragraphs fully set forth herein.
111. Defendants have failed fulfill Los Angeles County obligations under
Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA conduct general program that makes reasonable effort cancel the registrations registrants who are ineligible vote California federal
elections.
112. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue suffer, irreparable injury
direct result Defendants failure fulfill Los Angeles County obligations comply
with Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA.
113. Plaintiffs have adequate remedy law.
Second Claim for Relief
(Violation Section 8(i) the NVRA, U.S.C. 20507(i))
114. Plaintiffs reallege all preceding paragraphs fully set forth herein.
115. Defendants have failed fulfill their obligations under Section 8(i) the
NVRA make available Plaintiffs all records within the past two years concerning
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:26
the implementation programs and activities conducted for the purpose ensuring the
accuracy and currency official lists eligible voters.
116. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue suffer, irreparable injury
direct result Defendants failure fulfill their obligations under Section 8(i) the
NVRA.
117. Plaintiffs have adequate remedy law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for entry judgment:
Declaring Defendants violation Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA;
Permanently enjoining Defendants from violating Section 8(a)(4) the
NVRA;
Declaring that Section 8(a)(4) the NVRA supersedes and preempts any
contrary California law;
Ordering Defendants develop and implement general program that
makes reasonable effort remove from Los Angeles County rolls the registrations
ineligible registrants;
Declaring that Section 8(i) the NVRA supersedes and preempts any
contrary California law;
Declaring that Defendants are violation Section 8(i) the NVRA
refusing allow Plaintiffs inspect and copy the requested records;
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:27
Permanently enjoining Defendants from refusing allow Plaintiffs
inspect and copy the requested records;
Ordering Defendants pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees, including
litigation expenses and costs; and
Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief this Court deems just and
proper.
Dated:
December 13, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
CHARLES BELL, JR. (SBN 60553)
Email: cbell@bmhlaw.com
Paul Gough (SBN 75502)
Email: pgough@bmhlaw.com
Brian Hildreth (SBN 214131)
Email: bhildreth@bmhlaw.com
Bell, McAndrews Hiltachk, LLP
13406 Valleyheart Drive North
Sherman Oaks, 91423
Tel.: (818) 971-3660/(916) 442-7757
Facs.: (818) 619-3791/(916) 442-7759
ROBERT POPPER*
Email: rpopper@judicialwatch.org
Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel.: (202) 646-5172
Facs.: (202) 646-5199 CHRISTOPHER COATES*
Email: curriecoates@gmail.com
Law Office Christopher Coates
934 Compass Point
Charleston, South Carolina 29412
Tel.: (843) 609-0800
Case 2:17-cv-08948 Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Page #:28
*Application for admission pro hac vice
forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs