19
New York Sheds Voter Roll Lawsuit as DOJ Loses 12th Case (news.bloomberglaw.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/law@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Justice Department can’t access New York’s unredacted voter roll, a judge said in handing the federal government yet another loss in court in its quest to obtain the lists from all 50 states.

DOJ’s demand to state elections officials didn’t state a proper “basis” and “purpose” required by federal law to obtain the voter registration records it seeks, Judge Mae A. D’Agostino of the US District Court for the Northern District of New York said July 10 as she dismissed the lawsuit.

However, the federal government’s claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 “fails at the outset for an even more fundamental reason” because it “is simply not entitled” to the state roll complete with sensitive voter infomration, wrote D’Agostino, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

Am I the only one confused about the article's title? What does it mean to "shed" a lawsuit? Is it falling off like dead skin? This makes it sound like they came to an out-of-court settlement, so that the "problem" would just go away.

Surely the correct verb is "win". I would even accept "repel" since New York State was the defendant.

Opinion link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.150197/gov.uscourts.nynd.150197.101.0.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think they didn’t use “win” because the case was dismissed before it proceeded to oral arguments because the DOJ doesn’t have standing. The case wasn’t actually heard so it wasn’t strictly won.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    The fact that New York had to answer the suit -- thus entering the adversarial phase -- with a motion to dismiss means that they had something they wanted to ask from the court, which the federal government contested. In this case, New York State won their motion to dismiss with prejudice, on the grounds that the federal government failed to state a claim.

    All federal district courts are of limited jurisdiction, meaning they have to satisfy jurisdiction at the earliest onset. That the court is already looking into the sufficiency of the claims means that standing wasn't a barrier here. Indeed, the federal government -- if only they would competently follow the statute's requirements -- would definitely have standing. It's just that they had no case.

    New York State made an ask (motion to dismiss) and got it with flying colors. This cannot be construed as anything but a successful defense. Aka, a win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent