Public Interest Legal Foundation Inc v. Sandvoss

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL )

FOUNDATION, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3190

)

BERNADETTE MATTHEWS, in her )

official capacity as Executive )

Director of the Illinois State Board )

of Elections, KYLE THOMAS, in )

his official capacity as Director of )

Voting Systems and Registration, )

CHERYL HOBSON, in her official )

capacity as Deputy Director of )

Voting and Registration, and the )

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF )

ELECTIONS, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration and

Clarification (d/e 40) filed by Defendants Bernadette Matthews, Kyle

Thomas, Cheryl Hobson, and the Illinois State Board of Elections

(the “Board”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants do not raise

any new issue, argument, or facts not considered by the Court in

the Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment entered on March 8,

2022 (d/e 37). However, the Court will allow a minor clarification

as to the production of the statewide voter registration list as

detailed in the Order. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (d/e 40) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. ANALYSIS

On March 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff the Public

Interest Legal Foundation’s (the “Foundation”) Motion for Summary

Judgment and denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment1.

See (d/e 37). The Court held that the statewide voter registration

list maintained by the Board is a “record” within the meaning of

Section 8(i)(1) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993

(“NVRA”). 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1). That section, referred to as the

Public Disclosure Provision, states

Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years

and shall make available for public inspection

and, where available, photocopying at a

reasonable cost, all records concerning the

implementation of programs and activities

conducted for the purpose of ensuring the

accuracy and currency of official lists of

eligible voters.

1 The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of this case as stated in the Court’s

Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment (d/e 37) and so does not repeat the facts here.

Id. The Court further held that the Illinois state law which

prohibited the disclosure of the statewide voter registration list, 10

ILCS 5/1A-25, conflicts with and is preempted by the Public

Disclosure Provision. See Op. & Order (d/e 37) p. 25–27.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Defendants to

implement policies and procedures which

make available to the public the statewide

voter registration list, allowing for redaction of

telephone numbers, Social Security Numbers,

street numbers of home addresses, birthdates,

identifiable portions of email addresses, and

other highly sensitive personal information.

Id.

On April 4, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion for

Reconsideration and Clarification in which they request that the

Court reverse the Opinion and Order. In the alternative,

Defendants request the Court “clarify its order granting Plaintiff an

injunction by specifying in detail the policies and procedures

Defendants must take to make the statewide voter registration list

available to the public.” Defs.’ Mot. (d/e 40) p. 2.

A party may move a Court to reconsider a previous ruling and

judgment for reasons including mistake, newly discovered evidence,

fraud, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function; to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered

evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246,

251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co.,

561 F.Supp. 656, 665–66 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388 (7th

Cir. 1984)). Relief under Rule 60(b) is “an extraordinary remedy

and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” McCormick v.

City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting

Dickerson v. Bd. of Educ. Of For Heights, Ill., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116

(7th Cir. 1994)).

In this case, reconsideration under Rule 60(b) is not

warranted. Defendants request the Court reverse its Opinion and

Order but do not present any new evidence, fraud, or excusable

neglect. Instead, Defendant’s present the same arguments already

made in their Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically,

Defendants argue that the Public Disclosure Provision does not

include the statewide voter registration list because the Public

Disclosure Provision references “all records concerning the

implementation of programs and activities conducted for the

purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of

eligible voters.” Defs.’ Mot. for Recons. (d/e 40) pp. 3–5; Defs.’

Mem. for Summ. J. (d/e 30) pp. 8–11. The Court disagreed, holding

that the statewide voter registration list was necessarily included in

the term “all records” in the Public Disclosure Provision. Op. &

Order (d/e 37) pp. 17–21. Defendants do not now raise any new

arguments other than those previously addressed by the Court.

The Court, therefore, finds that Defendants have not presented a

“manifest error of law” warranting “an extraordinary remedy” under

Rule 60(b).

Defendants also request that the Court clarify the terms of the

injunctive relief granted in the Opinion and Order. The terms of an

injunction are governed by Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Rule 65(d) states that an injunction must “state the

reasons why [the injunction] was issued; state [the injunction’s]

terms specifically; and describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or

acts restrained or required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d).

In the Court’s Opinion and Order, the Court stated,

Section 5/1A-25 conflicts with, and is

preempted by, the Public Disclosure provision

insofar as Section 5/1A-25 prohibits the

photocopying and duplication of the same list.

Op. & Order (d/e 38) p. 26. In the Judgment entered alongside the

Opinion and Order, the Court ordered Defendants to

implement policies and procedures which

make available to the public, and photocopying

at a reasonable cost, the statewide voter

registration list, allowing for redaction of

telephone numbers, Social Security Numbers,

street numbers of home addresses, birthdates,

identifiable portions of email addresses, and

other highly sensitive personal information.

J. (d/e 38).

Defendants request the Court specify “in detail the policies

and procedures Defendants must take to make the statewide voter

registration list available to the public.” Defs.’ Mot (d/e 40) p. 5.

Defendants further request that the Court advise Defendants

whether the list must be made available electronically or otherwise

or whether the list must be made available for download or be

printed. Id.

But “[t]here is a limit to what words can convey. The more

specific the order, the more opportunities for evasion (‘loopholes’).”

Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1431 (7th

Cir. 1985). As the Foundation points out, and as Defendants

admitted in their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, Defendants have already established procedures and

policies for providing Illinois state entities and political committees

the statewide voter registration list. See Defs.’ Resp. (d/e 32) p. 2

(admitting to Plaintiff’s statement that “Illinois permits only certain

entities to obtain” the statewide voter registration list). To now

specify how exactly Defendants are to comply with the Court’s order

would be to inappropriately announce a list of pre-approved

measures which, in turn, would imply the unlawfulness of all

others, which the Court will not do. Scandia Down, 772 F.2d at

1431 (Upholding an injunction while noting that “[t]here are

millions of possible [lawful alternatives to the prohibited conduct] to

which [defendant] could have turned. Any effort to identify and

prohibit one million of them would have left another million or more

subject to dispute.”) Instead, the Court will reiterate below the

order from the Judgment (d/e 38), with the only clarification that

Defendants are ordered to treat requests from the public for viewing

and photocopying, at a reasonable cost, the statewide voter

registration list the same as Defendants treat those requests by

governmental or political entities.

II. CONCLUSION

Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to the

extraordinary relief available under Rule 60(b). However, the Court

will allow a minor clarification to the previously entered Order.

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification

(d/e 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Lastly,

because Plaintiff was required to prepare a response to Defendants’

Motion, the Court allows Plaintiff’s request for additional time to

supplement its motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. See

Pl.’s Resp. (d/e 41) n. 1. Plaintiff shall file its supplemented motion

by April 28, 2022. All other unmodified orders are to remain the

same.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

that:

1) Illinois Code Title 10 Section 5/1A-25 conflicts with,

and is preempted by, the Section 8(i)(1) of the Notional

Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1),

insofar as Section 5/1A-25 prohibits the availability,

photocopying, and duplication of the same list; and

2) Defendants are hereby ORDERED to implement policies

and procedures which make available to the public, and

photocopying at a reasonable cost, the statewide voter

registration list in as identical a manner as practicable

as those procedures used to effect the same for Illinois

governmental and political entities, allowing for

redaction of telephone numbers, Social Security

Numbers, street numbers of home addresses, birthdates,

identifiable portions of email addresses, and other

highly sensitive personal information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 20, 2022.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Sue E. Myerscough____________

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE