CHICAGO — A conservative political organization has won a chance to proceed with part of its federal lawsuit accusing the Illinois State Board of Elections of violating federal law by limiting access to the state's voter registration database, and restricting the group's ability to audit the data for irregularities.
In an opinion issued June 1, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis denied the state's motion to dismiss the complaint from the Illinois Conservative Union. The ICU had sued the ISBE and its acting executive director, Bernadette Matthews.
According to Ellis, the complaint alleges violations of the federal National Voter Registration Act, as well as the 14th Amendment. The complaint stems from what the ICU said was the state's refusal to provide electronic voter registration data “and restricted viewing to a computer terminal” at the ISBE’s Springfield office.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis
Under the 1993 NVRA, states have to implement programs to remove from voting rolls the names of people who move out of state or die. As part of that requirement, states must document their programs and make those records available for public inspection.
ICU officials sent a public records request to the ISBE in July 2019, along with a $500 check to cover “the standard fee charged to political committees for fulfilling statewide voter data requests,” Ellis wrote. Although the ISBE did provide some information, it returned the check and denied a request for an “official list of eligible voters, maintaining that Illinois law prohibited the electronic release of the full voter database to all but registered political committees and governmental bodies,” Ellis wrote.
During an in-person visit to the main ISBE office, “Cheryl A. Hobson, the Board’s deputy director of voter registration, informed them that they could not make copies of the statewide voter registration list” on similar grounds, Ellis wrote. “The ICU members did review the voter records one at a time on a computer terminal, but they could not sort or organize the voter records and had only limited search abilities. Plaintiffs claim that, due to these restrictions, they could not assess the effectiveness of the state’s efforts to ensure the accuracy and currency of the official list of eligible voters.”
After the ISBE ignored a follow-up information request, the ICU filed suit in September 2020.
The state asked Ellis to toss the case on the grounds it didn’t deprive the ICU of the requested data, only that it didn’t give it to the ICU in their desired format. The state also said the ICU, while expressing concern about voter registration accuracy, didn’t demonstrate how the requested lists would remedy those issues. Although the ICU said that demonstration isn’t required to establish standing, it did detail plans for examining the lists, Ellis noted.
The judge said the ICU indicated it wished to review the data to determine how many people on the state's voter rolls were "improbably old" or deceased, or were also registered to vote in other states.
Ellis also rejected the state’s interpretation of NVRA requirements, “failing to provide any legal authority” supporting the position it needs only to disclose voter roll maintenance details and not the rolls themselves. She said courts that have weighed in on the issue “uniformly reached the conclusion” supporting the ICU’s position.
While allowing the ISBE has legitimate grounds to restrict release of certain personal data, such as birthdates and Social Security numbers, Ellis said the state didn’t identify a law protecting the information the ICU requested. At this stage, she continued, the ICU successfully alleged the prohibition on photocopying “frustrates the NVRA’s purpose of providing voter information to the public to help ensure the accuracy and currency of voter registration rolls.”
With regards to the equal protection claims, Ellis said the NRVA doesn’t “place restrictions on public access to voter records” and allowed the ICU to proceed with its allegations regarding the policy of limiting access to governmental bodies and political committees.
However, Ellis concluded by noting sovereign immunity protections preclude the ICU from pursuing 14th Amendment claims against the state and ISBE under an 11th Amendment limit on suing state agencies in federal court, so Matthews remains the lone defendant on that element. She requested supplemental briefs from both parties, by July 2, on the ICU’s contention the NVRA does not allow the state to use the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" to escape lawsuits under the NVRA.
The ICU is represented in its case by attorneys Stephen F. Boulton, of the firm of Anthony J. Peraica & Associates, of Chicago; David J. Shestokas, of Shestokas & Pastor, of Lemont; and Eric W. Lee, of Judicial Watch, of Washington, D.C.
The state defendants are represented by the Illinois Attorney General's office.