Elections – Public Interest Legal Foundation’s Standing – National Voter Registration Act of 1993

Listen to this article

The district court has to determine whether the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has Article III standing to seek disclosure of South Carolina’s voter registration list under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

We remanded to the district court to address the issue of PILF’s standing.

An appeal arose after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the PILF, ordering the South Carolina Election Commission to disclose the state’s voter registration list pursuant to the NVRA.

PILF is a Virginia-based nonprofit organization that promotes election integrity by analyzing state voter list maintenance practices. Relying on Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA, which requires states to make records related to voter list accuracy and maintenance available for public inspection, PILF requested access to South Carolina’s statewide voter registration list. The South Carolina Election Commission denied the request, asserting that state law permits disclosure of the voter list only to individuals who are registered South Carolina voters.

After providing statutory notice to the state’s chief election official, PILF filed suit in federal court seeking to compel disclosure. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court ruled in PILF’s favor, holding that the NVRA required disclosure of the voter list and that federal law preempted any conflicting state restriction. The district court also denied the Election Commission’s motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, the Election Commission raised, for the first time, the argument that PILF lacked Article III standing. Specifically, it contended that PILF failed to demonstrate an injury-in-fact resulting from the refusal to disclose the voter list. The Commission relied on recent decisions from the Third and Sixth Circuits, which dismissed similar NVRA disclosure suits brought by PILF for lack of standing based on insufficient evidence of an informational injury.

Because the standing issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the Fourth Circuit found the record insufficiently developed to resolve the question. Determining whether PILF suffered a concrete informational injury would require factual findings, a task reserved for the district court rather than an appellate court. Accordingly, the court declined to address standing in the first instance.

The Fourth Circuit therefore remanded the case to the district court to allow PILF to present evidence supporting its claim of informational injury and for the district court to determine whether PILF satisfies Article III’s standing requirements. The court expressly declined to reach the merits of the NVRA disclosure dispute, leaving those issues open for potential future review if jurisdiction is established.

Remanded.

Public Interest Legal Foundation Inc. v. Wooten (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-022-26, 8 pp.) (Nicole G. Berner, J.)  Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. (Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., J.) ARGUED: Tracey Colton Green, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carolyn Carter Valdes, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Elizabeth Crum, Michael R. Burchstead, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; Thomas W. Nicholson, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Christian Adams, Noel H. Johnson, PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Christopher Mills, SPERO LAW LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Amicus Center for Election Confidence, Inc. Lee E. Goodman, Michael A. Columbo, Josiah Contarino, DHILLON LAW GROUP INC., Alexandria, Virginia, for Amicus Republican National Committee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit