Nat'l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, No. 13-15077 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, three civil rights organizations, filed suit alleging that Nevada violated, and continues to violate, Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. 20506(a)(2)(A). Section 7 requires states to distribute voter registration materials and to make assistance available to people who visit, and make certain requests of, public assistance offices. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs have Article III standing by plausibly alleging they have suffered injury in fact fairly traceable to the State’s noncompliance with Section 7 of the NVRA. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have also satisfied the statute’s notice requirement in two ways. First, they notified the State that violations were occurring 120 days before an election, thus authorizing them to file suit after waiting 20 days from the date of their notification. Second, they plausibly alleged that the State was violating Section 7 within 30 days of a federal election, thus permitting them to file suit without first notifying the State (even though plaintiffs in fact had done so). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. The court denied as moot plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice and instructed the district court to assign the case to a different district judge.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by the National Council of La Raza and the Las Vegas and Reno-Sparks chapters of the NAACP alleging that Nevada’s Secretary of State and Director of the Department of Health and Human Services violated, and continue to violate, Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Section 7 requires states to distribute voter registration materials and to make assistance available to people who visit, and make certain requests of, public assistance offices. Plaintiffs alleged that Nevada’s failure to comply with Section 7 of the Act caused them to expend additional resources, and that “but for” the State’s failure they would have spent these resources to accomplish other aspects of their organizational missions, such as voter education and registering voters not covered by the Act. The district court NAT’L COUNCIL OF LA RAZA V. CEGAVSKE 3 dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III and statutory standing. The panel held that plaintiffs satisfied the standing requirement of Article III by plausibly alleging they suffered injury in fact fairly traceable to the State’s noncompliance with Section 7 of the Act. The panel also held that plaintiffs satisfied statutory standing in two ways. First, they notified the State that violations were occurring 120 days before an election, thus authorizing them to file suit after waiting 20 days from the date of their notification. Second, they plausibly alleged that the State was violating Section 7 within 30 days of a federal election, thus permitting them to file suit without first notifying the State (even though plaintiffs in fact had done so). The panel remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion and instructed the Chief Judge of the District of Nevada to assign the case to a different district judge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.