Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

League of Women Voters v. United States

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2021 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAdministrative Procedure ActNational Voter Registration ActElection LawAPAarbitrary and capriciousNVRAFederal Form

Facts

The NVRA requires that the Federal Form include only information necessary to enable state election officials to assess applicant eligibility and administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. In 2016, Executive Director Brian Newby approved Kansas's, Georgia's, and Alabama's requests to add state-specific documentary proof of citizenship instructions to the Federal Form. In a contemporaneous memorandum, Newby stated that state-specific instructional changes were ministerial, that his role was only to review requests for accuracy and clarity, and that proof of citizenship itself was not the issue he was evaluating. He also rejected as irrelevant Kansas's examples offered to show the need for the requested changes.

Issue

Whether the Executive Director's approval of the states' requested Federal Form instructions violated the APA because he failed to make the necessity determination required by 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1) before approving the requests. A related question was whether the court could uphold the decisions based on later litigation explanations or alternative theories not reflected in the agency's contemporaneous reasoning.

Rule

Under 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b)(1), the Federal Form may require only information necessary to enable the appropriate state election official to assess applicant eligibility and administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. Under the APA, agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency applies the wrong legal standard, fails to consider a required statutory factor, or relies on post hoc rationalizations rather than a contemporaneous explanation supported by the administrative record.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Elections Assistance Board receives a request from Ohio to add a state-specific instruction to the national voter-registration form requiring applicants to attach a copy of a residency document. In an internal memo issued the same week, Executive Director Mara Fulton states that her job is only to confirm that requested state instructions are "clear, accurate, and consistent with state law," and that whether the extra document is needed is "for Ohio to decide."

If a voter-advocacy group challenges the approval under the APA, what is the strongest argument that the approval should be set aside?

Explanation. The majority opinion held that agency action is arbitrary and capricious where the agency applies the wrong legal standard and fails to consider the statutory necessity requirement. Accuracy and clarity are not substitutes for the required determination that the information is necessary to enable state officials to assess eligibility or administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. Here, the memo shows the agency expressly refused to make that determination. (Derived from League of Women Voters v. United States (n.d.).)