Skip to main content

Election Law Manual
Chapter 1: Federal Regulation of State and Local Electoral Practices

⤴ Up to Election Law Manual

Table of Contents

Subchapter 1: Introduction

The Constitution entrusts states with the power and authority to hold elections,1 but some federal constitutional and statutory requirements nonetheless shape and constrain the state’s regulatory power.

While federal constitutional protections apply to local, state, and federal elections, many federal statutes apply only to elections for federal offices. 2 In practice, this distinction may be irrelevant as local, state, and federal elections are frequently held in tandem because financial and logistical considerations generally preclude states from operating separate federal and state election systems. Thus, federal requirements tend to permeate most elections, although, in some instances, federal statutory rights that are expressly limited to federal elections may not have a state counterpart mandating the same requirement in state elections.3

This chapter provides an overview of the main federal constitutional and statutory requirements that affect elections.4 The chapter begins with a consideration of federal constitutional protections, then discusses the main federal statutes governing the conduct of federal elections and concludes with a brief overview of federalism considerations.

Subchapter 2: Federal Constitutional Considerations

The federal Constitution gives state legislatures broad authority over the time, place and manner of federal elections (I, § 4, cl. 1) and the power to appoint electors in presidential elections (U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2). The federal Constitution contemplates that Congress can alter state election rules a state legislature set under its Article I powers. The extent of a state legislature’s authority over elections has been under scrutiny.5

The Constitution protects the right of all qualified6 citizens to vote in state and federal elections.7 Constitutional amendments explicitly address voting rights and prohibit the following:

  • denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment),8
  • denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote because of sex (19th Amendment),9
  • denying the right to vote in a federal election because of the voter’s failure to pay any poll or other tax (24th Amendment),10 and
  • denying the right to vote because of age if the citizen is eighteen or older (26th Amendment).11

The Constitutional amendments also:

  • allow the reduction of a state’s congressional representation if otherwise qualified voters are denied the right to vote for reasons other than participation in a rebellion or other crime (14th Amendment),12 and
  • authorize the direct election of U.S. Senators by voters who are qualified to vote for the state’s most numerous legislative branch (17th Amendment).13

In addition to explicit protections for voting rights, other Constitutional guarantees are applicable to elections. These include:

  • freedom of speech or expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of association (1st Amendment),14 and
  • guarantees provided by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses (14th Amendment),15 including the Supreme Court’s description of voting as a fundamental right.16

The Constitution also defines and divides important elements and duties of the electoral system in the United States between the states and the Congress. The Constitution authorizes state legislatures to set the times, places, and manner of electing Senators and Representatives,17 while granting the power to judge the  elections, returns, and qualifications of its members to each congressional chamber.18 Congress and the states also divide power in presidential elections.

State legislatures determine how the state selects its presidential electors,19 while Congress establishes a uniform day when states will make their selections.20 Congress also selects the day the electors meet and cast their votes.21

Constitutional challenges to state election regulations typically do not involve the explicit voting guarantees found in the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. Instead, constitutional challenges to state election regulations usually focus on the protections and guarantees afforded under the First Amendment—particularly the rights of expression and association, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—or on protections afforded by the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that voting is one of the “fundamental rights” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although it is a right that the state can burden or constrain under certain circumstances.22

Subchapter 3: Federal Statutory Considerations

A. Help America Vote Act of 2002

Following Bush v. Gore, 23 Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 with overwhelming bipartisan support.24 HAVA addressed concerns about voting integrity, voter access, and voting technology. 25 Though HAVA itself does not allow private lawsuits,26 it is possible for individuals to sue under the state’s implementing statutes. 27

HAVA contains a mixture of mandatory and discretionary changes to state28 election administration. Among its provisions, HAVA:

  • mandates administrative compliance procedures for states opting to receive HAVA funding, 29
  • establishes the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which promotes state election “best practices,” including requiring every state to develop and implement a uniform statewide definition of a valid vote for each voting system used, 30
  • grants to states that choose to replace their punch card or lever voting machinery, 31
  • mandates adoption of error detection and voter notification standards for most voting technology used in federal elections held on or after January 1, 2006 regardless of whether the state opted to receive HAVA funding or not,32
  • stipulates circumstances under which states must offer provisional voting in federal elections,33
  • mandates design, implementation, and maintenance of a single, uniform, centralized, interactive statewide voter registration database by the states,34 and
  • provides a determination of when voters must offer identification to be able to vote in a federal election.35

The most significant HAVA provisions address voting technology requirements, provisional voting, statewide voter registration databases, and voter identification. In elections for federal office held on or after January 1, 2006, states must use voting technology that (1) allows the voter to review and correct a ballot before it is cast; (2) alerts the voter when the voter selects more candidates than the number of vacancies, and (3) produces a permanent paper record with a manual audit capability.36

Localities must also provide one voting station per polling location that is accessible to persons with disabilities.37

HAVA additionally requires that voters casting a ballot for federal offices must be offered the opportunity to vote by provisional ballot if the voter’s name is not on  the voter registration list, and the voter attests the voter is registered in the jurisdiction where the voter is trying to vote.38

HAVA requires that provisional ballots must be separated from other ballots and not counted until the voter’s eligibility is verified.39 Voters who vote in federal elections after the usual poll closing time solely because the hours were extended may only vote by provisional ballots, which must be separated from other provisional ballots.40 Provisional ballot voters must be able to determine if their votes were counted and, if they were not, the reason they were not.41

Under HAVA, each state must develop, implement, and maintain a computerized, statewide voter registration list.42 Voter registration applicants should not be added to the statewide database unless they provide their driver’s license number, the last four digits of their social security number, or attest that they have neither of these documents.43 If the applicant has neither of these documents, then the state must assign the applicant a unique identification number.44 States may only purge inactive voters from their registration database after following the requirements listed in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”). 45

Finally, HAVA addresses the circumstances under which federal election voters may be required to show identification before voting. First-time federal election voters who registered to vote by mail and did not provide identification documentation with the mailed-in form must present one of the HAVA specified forms of identification at the polls.46 These identification requirements set by HAVA are a floor that can be built upon by states.47 States are able to enact stricter identification requirements such as requiring photo identification at the polls48 or requiring prospective voters to present their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering to vote.49

 

B. Voting Rights Act of 1965

Amended several times, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) prohibits discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in any election in which an individual is otherwise qualified to vote.50

States and localities cannot use any law or practice that results in racial discrimination, even if this result was unintended 51 and cannot condition the right to vote on the voter’s ability to have another person vouch for the voter, or pass literacy, subject matter, or morals tests. 52 All states and localities must allow a voter who needs assistance because of blindness or other disability to receive assistance by a non-employer, non-union representative person of the disabled voter’s choice. 53 Voters who moved away from the jurisdiction fewer than thirty days before a federal election must also be permitted to cast an in-person or absentee ballot at their previous polling location for the offices of President and Vice President only. 54 Localities with single language minority population groups of a specified size who, as a group, have limited English proficiency and higher rates of illiteracy than the national rate must provide bilingual ballots, registration forms, instructions, and assistance to these groups. 55

The two most discussed and litigated sections of the VRA are Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 of the VRA states that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United Sates to vote on account of race or color ....”56 It prevents both vote dilution—practices that diminish the political influence of a person’s vote—and vote denial—practices that prevent people from voting.57 Section 5 requires certain districts to get preclearance from the federal government before approval of proposed election law changes.58 This section, however, has been largely dormant since the 2013 Supreme Court case, Shelby v. Holder. 59

 

C. National Voter Registration Act of 1993

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA),60 also known as “Motor Voter,” requires states to make federal election voter registration forms available to, and accept completed forms from, individuals who are applying for or renewing their  motor vehicle license or who are visiting state offices 61 that provide public assistance or services to persons with disabilities.62 These agencies must provide each applicant for in-person benefits with voter registration forms unless the applicant declares that they do not want to register or they do not return the declination form.63 If an individual is already registered and they go to their state’s department of motor vehicles, a submission of a change of address form for their driver’s license must also operate to update the motorist’s voter registration, unless the motorist requests otherwise.64 State agencies are not able to delegate these responsibilities to skirt the directive of the NVRA 65 and must ensure compliance.66

The NVRA requires states to make “reasonable” efforts to purge ineligible persons from voter registration lists and establishes procedures and limitations states must follow in doing so, including prohibiting states from purging registered voters solely for failure to vote. 67

NVRA enforcement actions may be brought by the U.S. Attorney General or private citizens. 68

Prevailing private plaintiffs may be awarded attorney’s fees. 69

 

D. Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 70 delineates federal and state responsibilities for ensuring that absent uniformed services members and overseas citizens 71 can vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, or runoff elections for federal office. 72 To fulfill this mandate, states must:

  • accept the standardized federal write-in absentee ballot in general elections for federal offices from voters who requested an absentee ballot for that election, 73
  • establish a “single office” to handle all absentee ballot requests from uniformed and overseas voters, 74
  • advise rejected absentee ballot applicants of the reason for the rejection, 75
  • not reject absentee ballot applications from eligible persons because the application was submitted too early, 76
  • consider an absentee ballot application from a uniformed services member or overseas voter to be an automatic application for an absentee ballot for the next two regularly scheduled federal elections plus any run-off elections, 77
  • accept absentee ballots without a stamp from uniformed services members, 78 and
  • report the number of absentee ballots issued to and returned by uniformed and overseas absentee voters. 79

States determine whether the ballot is valid and can require it be returned by the state-established deadline. 80

The U.S. Attorney General enforces UOCAVA by suing in federal district court for the declaratory and injunctive relief necessary to carry out the Act. 81 UOCAVA provides for fines and/or the imprisonment of individuals who intentionally deprive an individual of a UOCAVA right to vote, make false assertions of UOCAVA eligibility to vote, or attempt to influence a uniformed services member’s vote. 82

 

E. Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals because of a disability.83 Title II prohibits discrimination in the provision of public services, programs, or activities.84 Title III prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or public accommodations.85 ADA-based voting-related lawsuits occur over polling place accessibility and accommodations that must be made to allow disabled individuals to cast a private ballot.86


F. Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984

The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) 87 was intended to improve access to voter registration facilities and polling places for federal elections for elderly and handicapped individuals. 88 The VAEHA is enforced through restricted private causes of action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against non-compliant state and political subdivisions. 89 Compliance with this law does not preclude claims under the ADA. 90

Subchapter 4: Federalism Considerations

The basis of a state court’s decision may have a bearing on the losing party’s success in pursuing additional redress in the federal courts, particularly if the losing party did not initiate the federal lawsuit until after the state court made its decision.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which circumscribes federal court review of state court actions in certain circumstances, arose out of two Supreme Court cases decided sixty years apart 91 and had its contours sharpened in 2005. 92 Rooker-Feldman prevents federal district courts from hearing cases filed by a state court losing party that: 1) were filed after the state court rendered its judgment, 2) complain of injuries created by the state-court judgment, and 3) ask the federal  court to review and reject the state court’s judgment. 93 Mere entry of a state court judgment is insufficient to trigger Rooker-Feldman if parallel state and federal litigation existed when the state court issued its opinion.94 Independent claims presented by would-be federal district court plaintiffs that are not “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment can be heard by federal courts, with the caveat that the state law on preclusion determines if the federal court can proceed.95

Because state courts must be able to develop their jurisprudence without federal interference,96 if a state court’s decision rests on bona fide independent and adequate state grounds, the result stands regardless of how a federal court might resolve the federal issues.97 If the state court’s rationale is ambiguous or obscure, then the Supreme Court is able to review the validity of the state’s action under the federal Constitution.98

Subchapter 5: Conclusion

While states are given power over the administration of elections, the federal government nonetheless maintains influence through U.S. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Although some provisions only apply to federal elections, the financial and logistical consideration that would be involved in holding fully separate federal and local elections often make that distinction irrelevant. The federal government is therefore able to indirectly introduce its legislative objectives into state elections.

Footnotes

  1. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 729-30 (1974).
  2. See generally Karen L. Shanton, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL45549, The State and Local Role in Election Administration: Duties and Structures (2019) (examining how state and local administration of elections might be regulated by federal legislation by providing relevant listings of past federal statutes).
  3. For example, while federal law requires states to offer some voters provisional ballots in federal elections, it does not require states offer provisional ballots in state elections held the same day. Instead, state law governs the voter’s eligibility for a state provisional ballot. See infra Chapter 7: Election Day for additional information on provisional voting.
  4. Campaign finance regulations and the nuances of congressional districting are beyond the scope of this manual.
  5. For academic discussion of the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine,” see Hayward H. Smith, History of the Article II Independent State Legislature Doctrine, 29 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 731, 733 (2001); Michael Morley, The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State  Constitutions, 55 GA. L. REV. 1, 1 (2021). See also infra at Chapter 12, Section V Independent State Legislature Theory.
  6. See infra, Chapter 5: State Regulations of Voters for additional information on the requirements to be considered a qualified voter.
  7. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554 (1964).
  8. U.S. CONST. amend. XV, § 1.
  9. U.S. CONST. amend. XIX.
  10. U.S. CONST. amend. XXIV, §1.
  11. U.S. CONST. amend. XXVI, §1.
  12. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 2.
  13. U.S. CONST. amend. XVII.
  14. U.S. CONST. amend. I (incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment).
  15. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
  16. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) (identifying voting as “a fundamental political right” because it is “preservative of all rights”).
  17. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (granting Congress the authority to override a state legislature’s decision except for the place of choosing Senators).
  18. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 1. See Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 19, 23-26 (1972) (holding which contestant should be seated in Congress was a nonjusticiable question, but Article I, Section 5 does not prohibit a state from conducting its own recount as the Senate is still able to conduct an independent evaluation).
  19. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27-35 (1892) (finding that the state legislature’s power to determine the selection method of electors is rooted in the United States Constitution and not reviewable by the state judiciary); see 3 U. S. C. § 5 (2000) (Safe Harbor provision) (protecting a state’s presidential elector from challenge if the state’s determination is finalized six days before the Electoral College meets).
  20. See 2 U.S.C. § 7 (2000) (establishing the Uniform Federal Election Day which is to be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November on every even-numbered year).
  21. See 3 U.S.C. § 7 (2000) (setting the date for when the Electoral College meets as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December).
  22. Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 370; Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 187 (1999) (noting that the Court has recognized that elections require “substantial regulation” to promote fairness and order (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974))).
  23. 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
  24. Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. §§ 20901-21112).
  25. H.R. REP. NO. 107-329, at 14 (2001) (describing the purpose of the development committee as “to ensure the usability, accuracy, security, accessibility, and integrity of voting systems and voting equipment”).
  26. 52 U.S.C. § 21111 (limiting enforcement to civil actions filed in federal district court by the Attorney General, who can sue states or localities for injunctive or declaratory relief).
  27. See, e.g., Kuznik v. Westmoreland County Bd. Of Comm’rs, 588 Pa. 95, 101 -103, 149-150 (Pa. 2006) (finding that HAVA compliance preempted state law after a Pennsylvania County was sued for purchasing EVS machines without a referendum); Fla. State. Conf. of the NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153,1175 (11 Cir. 2008) (reversing the district court’s preliminary injunction preventing Florida from implementing requirements for in-person registrants because HAVA did not restrict states from making such regulations); Guare v. State, 167 N.H. 658, 668 (N.H. 2015) (holding that a New Hampshire law’s ambiguous language was an undue burden on the right to vote despite being written to comply with HAVA).
  28. 52 U.S.C. § 21141 (defining “state” to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands).
  29. 52 U.S.C. § 21112.
  30. 52 U.S.C. § 20921-2.
  31. 52 U.S.C. § 20901.
  32. 52 U.S.C. § 21081 (requiring the test error rate to be no greater than 1 per 500,000 ballot positions). See U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMM’N, EAC ADVISORY 2005-005: LEVER VOTING MACHINES AND HAVA SECTION 301(a) (Sept. 8, 2005) (explaining that lever voting systems conflict with HAVA’s objective in creating permanent, auditable records).
  33. 52 U.S.C. § 21082.
  34. 52 U.S.C. § 21083 (requiring states to follow the voter registration purge requirements found in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
  35. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(5).
  36. 52 U.S.C. § 21081(a)(2) (permitting jurisdictions that use paper ballots to substitute increased voter education and outreach for the notification requirements).
  37. 52 U.S.C. §21081(a)(3) (requiring at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place).
  38. 52 U.S.C. § 21082(a).
  39. Id.; see infra Chapter 9: Election Contests for additional information on provisional ballots.
  40. 52 U.S.C. § 21082(c). In contrast, voters who were in line before closing are permitted to vote by regular ballot.
  41. 52 U.S.C. § 21082(a).
  42. 52 U.S.C. §21082(a)(5). States that do not require voter registration in federal elections are exempt from this requirement.52 U.S.C. §20503(b).
  43. 52 U.S.C. §121083(a)(5) (exempting states that ask voter registration applicants to provide their complete social security number under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a note, from this requirement).
  44. Id. (exempting states that ask voter registration applicants to provide their complete social security number under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a note, from this requirement).
  45. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(2)(A). For examples of voter registration purges see Husted v. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S.Ct. 1833, 1850 (2018) (holding that Ohio law utilizing failure to vote as evidence that a registrant moved does not violate the NVRA); American Civil Rights Union v. Philadelphia City Comm’rs, 872 F.3d 175, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (affirming the District Court’s dismissal of ACLU’s suit claiming NVRA required the Commissioners to purge voter rolls of individuals incarcerated due to felony conviction); Bellito v. Snipes, 935 F.3d 1192, 1210 (2019) (finding that the county’s chief elections officer made reasonable effort to purge voters in compliance with the NVRA).
  46. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(b)(4) This requirement is not applicable to individuals entitled to vote under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEHA) or other federal statutes. 52 U.S.C. § 21083(b)(3).
  47. See Sandusky Cnty. Dem. Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that HAVA does not require provisional ballots cast outside of the voter’s precinct of residency in violation of state law to be counted as legally cast votes as the state law requirements ask less of voters than HAVA permits) (“HAVA's requirements [‘]are minimum requirements,[’] permitting deviation from its provisions provided that such deviation is [‘]more strict than the requirements established under[’] HAVA in terms of encouraging provisional voting, and is [‘]not inconsistent with the Federal requirements[’] mandated by HAVA.”); Cnty. of Nassau v. New York, 724 F.Supp.2d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“HAVA statute gives the states substantial discretion on how to implement its requirements…. [HAVA states] [t]he requirements established by this subchapter are minimum requirements and nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent a State from establishing election technology and administration requirements that are more strict than the requirements established under this subchapter so long as such State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements.”).
  48. Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 193 (2008) (“Of course, neither HAVA nor NVRA required Indiana to enact SEA 483, but they do indicate that Congress believes that photo identification is one effective method of establishing a voter's qualification to vote and that the integrity of elections is enhanced through improved technology.”).
  49. Florida State Conf. of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 533 F.3d 1153, 1172 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that HAVA does not prevent states from requiring those registering to vote to provide either their driver’s license number or the last 4 digits of their social security number) (“[HAVA] clearly contemplates the existence of requirements more restrictive than the federal minimum”).
  50. Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437 (codified as amended in sections of 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301-10314).
  51. 52 U.S.C. § 1031(a) (stating laws may not be “imposed or applied…in a manner which results in denial or abridgment of the right…on account of race or color….”).
  52. 52 U.S.C. § 10303.
  53. 52 U.S.C. § 10508 (stating that voters under this section may choose who will assist them in voting).
  54. 52 U.S.C. § 10502(e).
  55. 52 U.S.C. § 10503(b)(2).
  56. 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a) (2014).
  57. Daniel P. Tokaji, The New Vote Denial: Where Election Reform Meets the Voting Rights, 57 S.C. L. REV. 689, 691 (2006). See, e.g., Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (challenging voter photo ID law); Holloway v. City of Virginia Beach, 2021 WL 1226554 (E.D.Va. 2021) (challenging cities at-large election structure as vote dilution); Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) (challenging a state statute concerning out of state ballots and third-party ballot collection).
  58. 52 U.S.C.A. § 10304 (West).
  59. 133 S. Ct. 2612, 2631 (2013) (striking down Section 5’s coverage formula—described in Section 4 of the VRA—that determines which districts qualified as needing to obtain preclearance because the court believed it was antiquated, imposed substantial burdens on the covered jurisdictions, and was not narrowly tailored).
  60. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. § 20503-04).
  61. Such as government agencies, including but not limited to the Department of Motor Vehicles, public libraries, public schools, offices of city and county clerks (including marriage license bureaus), fishing and hunting license bureaus, government revenue offices, unemployment compensation offices, and public assistance or state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities. 52 U.S.C. § 20506 (1993).
  62. 52 U.S.C. § 20504. The Act does not apply to states that do not require registration to vote in federal elections or which permit polling-place registration on Election Day. 52 U.S.C. § 20503.
  63. Scott v. Schedler, 771 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2014).
  64. 52 U.S.C. § 20504(d).
  65. Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008).
  66. U.S. v. New York, 255 F.Supp.2d 73 (E.D.N.Y. 2003).
  67. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4). But see Husted v. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S.Ct. 1833 (holding that an Ohio law purging voters from polls who did not respond to a notice and had not participated in two or more subsequent elections did not violate the NVRA). For more reading on the implications of Husted, see L. PAIGE WHITAKER, CONG. RSCH. SERV., LSB10053, SUPREME COURT TO HEAR VOTER ROLL CASE: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? (2018).
  68. 52 U.S.C. § 20510.
  69. 52 U.S.C. § 20510(c).
  70. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Pub. L. No. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924 (1986) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 608-09, 39 U.S.C. § 3406 & 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301 – 20311).
  71. 52 U.S.C. § 20310 (defining an “absent uniformed services voter” as “a member of a uniformed service on active duty who, by reason of such active duty, is absent from the place of residence where the member is otherwise qualified to vote; [] a member of the merchant marine who, by reason of service in the merchant marine, is absent from the place of residence where the member is otherwise qualified to vote; and [] a spouse or dependent of a member referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) who, by reason of the active duty or service of the member, is absent from the place of residence where the spouse or dependent is otherwise qualified to vote” and an “overseas voter” as “an absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty or service is absent from the United States on the date of the election involved; [] a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States; or []a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States.”).
  72. 52 U.S.C. § 20302.
  73. 52 U.S.C. § 20303.
  74. 52 U.S.C. § 20302(b).
  75. 52 U.S.C. § 20302(d).
  76. 52 U.S.C. § 20306(e).
  77. 52 U.S.C. § 20102.
  78. 52 U.S.C. § 20104.
  79. 52 U.S.C. § 20308.
  80. 52 U.S.C. § 20302(h).
  81. 52 U.S.C. § 20307.
  82. 18 U.S.C. §§ 608-09.
  83. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 103-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12189).
  84. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
  85. 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
  86. See, e.g., Hernandez v. NY State Board of Elections, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1, 20 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying a preliminary injunction requiring New York to provide a Remote Accessible Vote-by-Mail (“RAVBM”) system for blind voters in advance of the 2020 election as the State had already agreed to provide another method with substantially similar capabilities); American Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Harris, 647 F.3d 1093, 1107 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that optical scan voting systems were not “facilities” to be regulated under the ADA); Nelson v. Miller, 950 F.Supp. 201, 204-05 (holding that the ADA did not extend a right to secret ballots for blind voters).
  87. Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, Pub. L. 98-435, 98 Stat. 1678 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. §§ 20101-7).
  88. 52 U.S.C. § 20101. The VEAHA has been held to apply only to federal elections. NAACP v. Philadelphia Bd. of Elections, No. 97-7085, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8861 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 1998).
  89. 52 U.S.C. § 20105 (requiring the voter to first notify the state’s chief election officer of the non- compliance and wait forty-five days for a response before filing). See, e.g., NAACP v. Philadelphia Bd. of Elections, 1998 WL 321253 (E.D. Penn. 1998) (holding that the VAEHA can be applied to non- federal elections and upheld a directive mandating accessible polling places and alternative ballots be available for all elections).
  90. Amer. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp.2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
  91. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416-417 (1923) (holding that the only federal court with appellate jurisdiction to review state court judgments is the Supreme Court); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483-88 (1983) (holding that federal district court review of state court final judgments is barred when judgment stems from a judicial proceeding but is not barred when the state court proceeding is non-judicial in nature). See also Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013) (articulating the standard as “forbidding a losing party in state court from filing suit in federal district court complaining of an injury caused by a state court judgment and seeking federal court review and rejection of that judgment”).
  92. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 282 (2005) (finding “when there is parallel state and federal litigation, Rooker-Feldman is not triggered simply by the entry of judgment in court).
  93. Id. at 283-84.
  94. Id.
  95. Id. at 292-93.
  96. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1039, 1041 (1983).
  97. See id.
  98. Id. at 1041.

Explore Related Documents