Last Friday, Federal Judge Denise Casper (of Bulger trial fame) issued a ruling that allowed a voting rights lawsuit filed against Secretary of State Bill Galvin and other state officials to go forward and ordered the state to start turning documents over to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit (called Delgado v. Galvin, No. 12-cv-10872) alleges that the state has failed to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg et seq., for the curious) by failing to supply voter registration information and assistance at public assistance offices, including the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) and MassHealth.
You may remember that this case, the point of which is to get people who are already eligible to vote actually registered, caused a certain amount of hilarity while Elizabeth Warren was beating Scott Brown. Warren’s daughter Amelia is on the board of Demos, one of the voting rights groups behind the lawsuit here and in other states, which of course led to hysterical conspiracy charges from Brown after the state agreed to cure some (but not all) of the alleged violations. Brown lost; the case continued.
I’ve written up some details from Friday’s decision below. I think two things are especially noteworthy: (1) Alabama has agreed to settle a similar set of allegations, while Massachusetts finds itself slugging it out in federal court, which is a tad embarrassing; and (2) Martha Coakley, whose office is defending Galvin and the other agency officials in court, is running for Governor and seems unlikely to want to appear insensitive to allegations that the state is not looking out for low income people’s voting rights. One wonders how she will handle this going forward.
To quote Judge Casper:
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 mandates that public assistance offices provide voter registration services with each application, recertification, renewal or change of address to their clientele. Enacted to make voter registration more “‘convenient and readily available [for] the poor . . . who do not have driver’s licenses and will not come into contact with the other principle [sic] place to register under this Act [namely, motor vehicle departments],’” the NVRA requires all public assistance offices to distribute a voter preference form, which provides information to clients about the voter registration process. The agency must provide the client assistance with completing the form.
Several groups, including the NAACP-New England Area Conference and New England United for Justice, sued Secretary Galvin, former Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby, and former DTA Commissioner Daniel Curley, after sending a letter (as required by the statute) to Galvin and the others explaining the ongoing alleged violations and demanding that the state cure them. The state failed to do so to the groups’ satisfaction in response to the letter, so they filed suit.
Judge Casper’s decision is a fairly technical one – the main issue was whether the letter was sufficiently specific to give the state notice of what the claimed violations were. She held that the letter was adequate, and therefore that the suit could go forward. She also allowed the plaintiffs to add the Director of MassHealth as an additional defendant, and she ordered the state to produce a variety of documents regarding alleged NVRA violations at MassHealth, and also regarding communications between the agencies and Galvin’s office. Judge Casper’s decision did not make any finding that the state has done anything wrong, but it did permit the plaintiffs to gain access to a lot more information than they had before.
Demos, which has spearheaded a number of cases of this kind around the country, issued a statement in light of Judge Casper’s decision. Highlights:
Two months ago, the state of Alabama signed a settlement agreement regarding similar violations with that state’s NAACP, without the need for litigation. The Commonwealth has thus far refused to settle the case.
“We’re thrilled that the Court has refused to let Massachusetts derail this important suit to enforce the federal voting rights of Massachusetts’ low-income citizens,” said Catherine M. Flanagan, Project Vote’s Senior Election Counsel. “The decision clears the way for full investigation of the Commonwealth’s violations, the first step to a court order requiring Massachusetts to provide voter registration services to its most vulnerable residents.” …
The suit was filed in May of 2012 by community groups NAACP New England Area Conference (NAACP-NEAC) and New England United for Justice (NEU4J).
“Social service agencies provide a major opportunity in supporting families to become registered to vote and active participants in improving our communities,” stated Maude Hurd, president of NEU4J. “We will continue to work to ensure the state is following federal laws in supporting the families in becoming registered.”
Seems like settling this thing pronto would be in everyone’s best interests, no?
hesterprynne says
They couldn’t get enough of this story the first time around. Waiting for conspiracy tale about how Coakley will refuse to settle, which will result in the running up of a huge attorney’s fee tab, which will eventually end up lining the pocket of one Granny Warren. It’s all so obvious.
johnk says
with a sprinkle of Coakley?
Complaint
Bigby and Curley have both recently left, Curley not in the best light and Polanowicz job seems to be cleaning up their mess.
Plus, the Alabama reference pissed me off, Demos is not doing themselves any favors by trying to frame MA as worse than Alabama. That’s crap and it make them seem untrustworthy. Crissakes you a good case and cause, no need for the BS.
What I am interested in is what MA had planned and the impasse with Demos. I can’t find that anywhere.
fenway49 says
is the top elections official in the state and the lead named defendant in the suit. Coakely, as lawyer for the state, is defending. It’s not clear which of them is driving the decision to defend the suit, but the AG’s office generally doesn’t fight hard on suits unless the agency in question wants it.
I think you’re overreacting to “the Alabama reference.” The linked press release said, in the middle, “Two months ago, the state of Alabama signed a settlement agreement regarding similar violations with that state’s NAACP, without the need for litigation. The Commonwealth has thus far refused to settle the case.” That’s a simple factual statement. It just so happens that Alabama was the other state sued recently. It could have been Vermont or Delaware just as easily. David, rather than Demos, is making the explicit assertion that Massachusetts being behind Alabama is something to be ashamed of.
I’d hope that, having failed to get the suit dismissed, the Commonwealth will move quickly to settle.
johnk says
but from reading this, you don’t get what’s actually going on. There has been some serious issues and concerns on oversight within the HHS and DTA that is coming to light. As for the Alabama reference, the origin of the voting rights act, that was no accident and it comes across poorly.
Hopefully we’ll get some details on the issues and see how this is settled.
David says
The alleged violations are laid out pretty clearly in the letter Demos et al. sent to Galvin, which is linked in my post and again here.
As for Alabama, well, the claimed violations were similar, and Alabama settled them. So, there you go.
johnk says
come on, very poor.
johnk says
what is done within the state now …. we get the exact circumstances for the lawsuit, but what if anything was offered via HHS, was it a reasonable? anything at all, we have nothing. I think we would have a better idea on what’s going on if we knew …. you know ,,,, what’s going on. Demos press release makes them sound like clowns, that’s disappointing.
fenway49 says
The press release from Demos? It’s common, when there are multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, to identify the case by the first of each. Nothing odd there to me.
The plaintiffs’ concern is that this particular law is not being followed. That may be because of broader disarray at those departments, but if they’re turning the corner why can’t they just settle and promise to comply? How hard is it to have voter registration materials available at HHS and DTA sites?
On Alabama: Demos identified another state that settled a similar lawsuit recently. I think they’d have cited that precedent even if it had been Vermont. That the state happens to be one with a history of denying voter access to some of its citizens is a separate issue. But I don’t see how it “comes across poorly.” I agree with David: We should not, in fact, be behind Alabama on any voter access issues.
sue-kennedy says
reciprocal action from agencies that don’t always have mutual priorities.
Can the AG pick and choose when to defend the Commonwealth?
The Elections Director from the SOS apparently sent a letter outlining their efforts towards compliance: supplying agencies with posters, multi language voter registration cards and trainings for agency employees.
The suit logically points out that as clients of the agencies were not being registered that enough is not being done.
As clients are not being offered and assisted to fill out voter registration, the easiest manner to cure the problem is for someone in the chain of authority to see that the law is followed. This is not complicated. Let your employees know you expect them to register their clients to vote. Hopefully, the new Secretaries have already accomplished this. Governor Patrick, pick up the phone and ask your newly appointed Secretaries to make the a priority!
David says
Yes, but deciding not to is a big deal – tends to make the news, because it’s very unusual.
sue-kennedy says
is that it sounds like MassHealth, Snap DTA were once complying with the law and made a decision to stop and resisting the very small effort required to ensure voting access to those they are committed to serving.