Background
The Justice Department sought Michigan’s unredacted statewide voter-registration list, known as the Qualified Voter File, to assess the state’s compliance with federal voter-roll-maintenance requirements. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson provided a redacted file but withheld voters’ identifying information. The United States sued under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling production.
The district court dismissed the case, and a divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed. The panel concluded that the statewide list did not “come into” the Secretary’s possession within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 20701 because Michigan officials created it, and that the government’s written demand did not adequately state its basis and purpose in a single demand as required by § 20703. The United States petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc and moved to expedite consideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing en banc because fewer than a majority of active judges voted to rehear the case. The original panel also declined panel rehearing, although Judge Nalbandian would have granted it for the reasons stated in his dissent from the panel decision. The court granted the motion to expedite only in part.
The denial left the panel’s judgment affirming dismissal intact; it did not issue a new merits ruling on the scope of Title III. Judge Murphy, joined in relevant part by several judges, concurred because he understood the panel decision to rest on curable defects in the Justice Department’s letters and believed the government could send a new, clearer demand. Judges Griffin and Thapar filed separate dissents arguing that the full court should have reheard and corrected the panel’s interpretation.
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc leaves in place the panel decision rejecting the Justice Department’s attempt to compel production of Michigan’s unredacted statewide voter-registration list.
- The order itself decides only whether to grant rehearing; the competing separate opinions debate the panel decision’s reasoning but do not alter its holding.
- Several judges indicated that the Justice Department may still demand underlying individual voter records through a new letter that clearly identifies the requested records and states the demand’s factual and legal basis and purpose.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves circuit precedent limiting the Justice Department’s use of Title III to obtain a state-generated, aggregate voter file and requiring close compliance with the statute’s written-demand provisions. That precedent may affect similar federal efforts to inspect state voter-registration databases within the Sixth Circuit.
The separate opinions also show substantial disagreement over Title III’s reach, including whether internally generated election records “come into” an official’s possession and whether a demand’s basis and purpose may be supplied through multiple letters. Because related disputes are pending elsewhere, those questions may return in a later case presenting a clearer demand or different election records.