holding “that Congress structured the notice requirement [in § 20510(b)(l)-(2)] in such a way that notice would provide states in violation of the Act an opportunity to attempt compliance before facing litigation,” so that the official required to receive notice under state law must also have the concomitant power to cure a violation
How later courts described this case
- holding “that Congress structured the notice requirement [in § 20510(b)(l)-(2)] in such a way that notice would provide states in violation of the Act an opportunity to attempt compliance before facing litigation,” so that the official required to receive notice under state law must also have the concomitant power to cure a violation
- "We agree with the district court that the [NVRA] is constitutional, and that all of the involved plaintiffs are entitled to bring suit."
- although the NVRA registration obligations “will likely affect registration procedures associated with state and local elections, this result will arise as a matter of convenience and not because the [NVRA] requires it.”
- “[L]anguage and legislative history of [the NVRA] indicate that Congress structured the notice requirement in such a way that notice would provide states in violation of the [NVRA] an opportunity to attempt compliance before facing litigation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result.