Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
MARK P. MEUSER (SBN: 231335)
mmeuser@dhillonlaw.com
GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814)
gmichael@dhillonlaw.com
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 Post Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17

ROXANNE HOGE, an individual; ALI Case Number:
MAZAREI, an individual; CORRIN
RANKIN, an individual,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs,
v.

18
19
20
21
22

ALEX PADILLA, in his official
capacity as the California Secretary of
State; STEVE GORDON, in his official
capacity as Director of California
Department of Motor Vehicles,

23

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28

Complaint

Case No.

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 20

1

Plaintiffs Roxanne Beckford Hoge, Ali Mazarei, and Corrin Rankin (collectively,

2

“Plaintiffs”), bring this action against Alex Padilla in his official capacity as

3

California Secretary of State, and Steve Gordon in his official capacity as Director of

4

California Department of Motor Vehicles (collectively, “Defendants”), for declaratory

5

and injunctive relief for violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993

6

(“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. §20501, et seq., as set forth below.
INTRODUCTION

7
8
9

1.

The NVRA was enacted “to ensure that accurate and current voter

registration rolls are maintained.” 52. U.S.C. § 20501(b)(4). The Supreme Court has

10

ruled that “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral process is essential to the

11

functioning of our participatory democracy. … Voters who fear their legitimate votes

12

will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.” Purcell v. Gonzalez

13

549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006).

14

2.

The California Secretary of State owes a duty to the residents of California

15

to ensure the integrity of California elections by making sure that only United States

16

citizens who are eligible to vote, are placed on the voter rolls and receive balloting

17

materials.

18

3.

In direct violation of his duties to ensure that only eligible voters are placed

19

on the voter rolls, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has established a pattern and

20

practice of doing nothing to verify that a potential voter is a United States citizen, thus

21

causing non-citizens to be placed on the voter rolls.

22

4.

The Secretary of State has forsaken his duty to ensure that non-citizens are

23

never placed on the voter rolls, and has relegated his office to that of a glorified clerk

24

simply transmitting the data from the voter registration application to the counties for

25

data entry purposes.

26

5.

When the Secretary of State allows non-citizens to be placed on the voting

27

rolls, the state mails balloting material to these ineligible voters. This creates confusion

28

in the minds of non-citizens as to whether they are eligible to vote in federal elections,
2
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 3 of 20

1

and enables non-citizens who deliberately registered to vote, to vote illegally, in

2

violation of federal laws.

3

6.

In addition to the Secretary of State abdicating his duty to verify eligibility

4

of all voters, the Department of Motor Vehicles does not transmit to the Secretary of

5

State’s office the information that enables the Secretary of State to assess the eligibility

6

of the applicant.

7

7.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent

8

continued violations of the NVRA, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees from

9

Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10
11

8.

This action arises under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52

12

U.S.C. § 20501, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28

13

U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 52

14

U.S.C. § 20510(b)(2).

15

9.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

16

one or more of the Defendants reside in this district and all Defendants reside in

17

California, and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the

18

claims herein occurred in this district.
PARTIES

19
20

10.

Plaintiff Roxanne Beckford Hoge is a California resident and U.S. citizen,

21

and a registered voter of Los Angeles County, California, who has voted in prior

22

elections for Federal office and intends to vote in future elections for Federal office. As

23

an immigrant to the United States who became a citizen in 2000, Hoge is concerned

24

about the lack of performance by the Secretary of State in ensuring the integrity of the

25

voting rolls to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote. She believes that her

26

legitimate vote is being diluted by the illegal votes of non-citizens.

27
28

11.

Plaintiff Ali Mazarei is a California resident and U.S. citizen, and a

registered voter of Riverside County, California, who has voted in prior elections for
3
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 4 of 20

1

Federal office and intends to vote in future elections for Federal office. As an immigrant

2

to the United States who became a U.S. citizen on March 17, 1995, Mazarei is

3

concerned about the lack of performance by the Secretary of State in ensuring the

4

integrity of the voting rolls to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote. He believes

5

that his legitimate vote is being diluted by the illegal votes of non-citizens.
12.

6

Plaintiff Corrin Rankin is a California resident and U.S. citizen, and a

7

registered voter of San Mateo County, California, who has voted in prior elections for

8

Federal office and intends to vote in future elections for Federal office. Rankin is a

9

natural born citizen and is concerned about the lack of performance by the Secretary of

10

State in ensuring that only citizens are registered to vote. She believes that her legitimate

11

vote is being diluted by the illegal votes of non-citizens.

12

13.

Defendant Alex Padilla (“Padilla”) is the California Secretary of State and

13

has served in this capacity since January 5, 2015. The Secretary of State is designated by

14

California law as the “chief state elections official responsible for coordination of the

15

state’s responsibilities under” the NVRA. Cal. Elec. Code § 2402(a); see also 52 U.S.C.

16

§ 20509. Padilla is sued herein in his official capacity as Secretary of State.

17

14.

Defendant Steve Gordon (“Gordon”) is the Director of the California

18

Department of Motor Vehicles and has served in this capacity since July 23, 2019. The

19

California DMV is designated as an office to perform voter registration activities. 52

20

U.S.C. § 20504. Gordon is sued herein in his official capacity as the Director of the

21

DMV.

22
23

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF NVRA TO PADILLA
15.

On May 23, 2019, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §20510(b), Plaintiffs sent a

24

notice of violations of the NVRA by certified mail to Defendant Padilla, as the chief

25

election official of California. 52 U.S.C. §20510(b)(1).

26
27
28

16.

The Padilla Notice Letter revealed how Padilla was violating the NVRA

by failing to ensure eligibility of voters prior to putting their names on the voter rolls.
17.

The Padilla Notice Letter made four demands:
4

Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 5 of 20

a. Start receiving from the DMV documentation regarding an individual’s

1
2

citizenship, so that you may fulfill your NVRA requirements to ensure

3

eligibility prior to placing a registrant on the voter rolls;

4

b. Begin reviewing all voter registrations and compare the voter registration

5

with databases maintained by the state of California to ensure that all

6

registrants are eligible to vote before you place them on the California voter

7

rolls;

8

c. Review all current California registered voters to determine eligibility and

9

send notices to all non-citizens who happen to be on the voter rolls; and
d. Update the California NVRA Manual to specifically lay out the

10
11

responsibilities of the registrar of voters in verifying eligibility with state

12

and county databases to determine eligibility.

13

18.

On August 21, 2019, Padilla, by and through Steve Reyes, Chief Counsel

14

for the office of Secretary of State, sent a formal response to Plaintiffs regarding their

15

notice of violation of the NVRA.

16
17

19.

The Response Letter from Padilla states that the Padilla does not believe

that he is violating the NVRA, and therefore declined to make any changes.

18
19

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF NVRA TO DMV
20.

On June 3, 2019, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §20510(b), Plaintiffs sent a

20

notice of violations of the NVRA by certified mail to then-Acting Director of the

21

DMV, Kathleen Webb.

22

21.

The DMV Notice Letter discussed how the DMV was violating the

23

NVRA by failing to transfer to the Secretary of State’s office any citizenship

24

information from all applications for a California motor vehicle driver’s license,

25

which information is necessary for Padilla to determine eligibility.

26
27

22.

The DMV Notice Letter made two demands:
a. To the extent that it is not doing so already, California DMV must begin

28

recording in its databases the citizenship information that it receives from
5
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 6 of 20

all applicants for a California driver license; and

1
2

b. California DMV must begin transmitting to the California Secretary of

3

State, any citizenship information from all applications for a California

4

driver license.

5

23.

On August 21, 2019, the DMV, by and through Kari M. Johnson,

6

Attorney for the California DMV, sent a formal response to Plaintiffs regarding their

7

notice of violation of the NVRA.

8
9

24.

The Response Letter from the DMV states that the DMV does not believe

that its office is violating the NVRA, and therefore declined to make any changes.

10
11

RELEVANT FACTS
25.

The purposes of the NVRA are “(1) to establish procedures that will

12

increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal

13

office; (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement

14

[the NVRA] in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters

15

in elections for Federal office; (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and

16

(4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” 52

17

U.S.C. § 20501(b).

18

26.

The NVRA establishes California’s duties in administering the voter rolls.

19

27.

The NVRA requires California to (1) “ensure that any eligible applicant is

20

registered to vote,” and (2) “to send notice to each applicant of the disposition of the

21

application.” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a).

22

28.

Regardless of whether the Secretary of State’s office receives the voter

23

registration from the DMV (52 U.S.C. § 20504), by a printed voter registration form

24

(52 U.S.C. § 20505), or from a Voter Registration Agency (52 U.S.C. § 20506), it is

25

the duty of Padilla to “ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote.” 52

26

U.S. C. § 20507(a)(1). Thus, if the voter is not eligible, he or she should not be

27

registered to vote.

28

29.

The mere act of a putative voter filling out a voter registration application,
6

Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 7 of 20

1

does not establish that the individual is automatically registered or eligible to vote.
30.

2

The NVRA makes clear that Padilla has a duty to send notice to each

3

applicant letting them know the “disposition of the application.” 52 U.S.C. §

4

20507(a)(2).
31.

5
6

In order to have a “disposition,” this means that Padilla must actually

review the application to “ensure” that the applicant is “eligible.”
32.

7

The NVRA defines person who is eligible to vote as a United States citizen.

8

See, e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 20504(c)(2)(C)(i); 52 U.S.C. § 20506(a)(6)(A)(i)(I); 52 U.S.C. §

9

20508(b)(2)(A).

10

33.

While the NVRA does not define “ensure,” the standard dictionary

11

definition of “ensure” according to Merriam-Webster is “to make sure, certain, or safe:

12

guarantee.”1

13

34.

The NVRA requires Padilla to guarantee that only eligible citizens are

14

registered to vote. Put another away, the NVRA requires Padilla to make a

15

determination whether someone is a citizen, and if that person is not a citizen, or is

16

otherwise ineligible to vote, to send to him or her a notification that he or she is not

17

registered to vote.

18

35.

The Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of

19

Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013) found that while states cannot mandate that voters

20

produce proof of citizenship when they register to vote, “it does not preclude States

21

from denying registration based on information in their possession establishing the

22

applicant’s ineligibility.” Id. at 15.

23

36.

Padilla is violating the NVRA in that he has no procedure in place for

24

determining citizenship of a putative voter prior to enrolling the voter on the rolls.

25

Padilla’s staff does nothing more than to examine the voter application to confirm

26

that the applicant checked the box attesting to being a U.S. citizen. See California

27

National Voter Registration Act Manual, March 2019, Chapter 4, p. 4. No further

28

1

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ensure.
7

Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 8 of 20

1
2

inquiry is made into an applicant’s citizenship status.
37.

According to the California NVRA Manual, all Padilla does to determine

3

citizenship is review the application to make sure the form is filled out correctly and

4

confirm that the voter is not in prison. See California NVRA Manual, March 2019,

5

Chapter 4, p. 3 (“the applicant’s name, place of residence, mailing address if different

6

than the place of residence, date of birth, country of birth, driver license (or state

7

identification card) number or last four digits of social security number, and that the

8

applicant is not in state or federal prison for a felony conviction.”).

9

38.

Further evidence that Padilla is not ensuring that voter registrants are

10

citizens may be found in the Secretary of State’s Response Letter, in which the process

11

that Padilla uses to ensure eligibility was explained:

12

Voter registration eligibility checks are performed on all new registrants pursuant

13

to automated processes. Other processes confirm the eligibility of existing

14

registrants, including checks which identify duplicate voter registrations, process

15

voter-initiated changes to a registration record, and compare existing registration

16

records with state administrative records regarding changes of address, felony

17

histories, and deaths.

18

39.

Nowhere in this Response Letter does Padilla indicate that he is checking

19

state administrative records for citizenship information relevant to the determination

20

of eligibility for placement on the voter rolls.

21

40.

Since citizenship is at the core of voter eligibility, Padilla is violating the

22

NVRA by omitting a citizenship verification as a part of the eligibility verification

23

process.

24
25
26
27
28

41.

The NVRA requires the states to guarantee that the voter is eligible to

vote, and to notify the applicant of whether or not they are registered to vote.
42.

The state of California has in its possession administrative records that

contain the citizenship status of most California residents.
43.

In order for a California resident to obtain an original driver’s license in
8

Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 9 of 20

1

California, the individual is required to submit satisfactory proof “that the applicant’s

2

presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.” Cal. Veh. Code §

3

12801.5.

4

44.

In California, at the time a person first obtains a driver’s license, the

5

DMV must review evidence of an individual’s citizenship or lawful presence in the

6

United States (“Proof of Identity Documents”).

7

45.

By law, individuals who have failed to submit satisfactory proof of

8

authorized presence in the United States are not eligible to vote. Cal. Veh. Code §

9

12801.9.

10

46.

The DMV does not transfer to the Secretary of State the citizenship

11

information obtained from the Proof of Identity Documents, although it is required

12

by the NVRA to transfer to the Secretary of State “a completed voter registration

13

portion of an application for a State motor vehicle driver’s license accepted at a State

14

motor vehicle authority.” NVRA §20504(e). The voter registration application

15

portion of an application for a driver’s license includes the information necessary to

16

“enable State election officials to assess the eligibility of the applicant”. NVRA

17

§20504(c)(2)(B).

18

47.

The citizenship information obtained from the Proof of Identity

19

Documents is important to enable Padilla to access the eligibility of an applicant prior

20

to enrolling the individual on the voter rolls.

21

48.

Individuals who are unable to submit satisfactory proof of authorized

22

presence in the United States are still required to produce identifying documents to

23

obtain a DMV-issued license. Cal. Veh. Code § 12801.9 (also known as AB 60

24

driver’s licenses).

25
26

49.

According to an April 4, 2018 Press Release, the CA DMV has issued over

1 million AB 60 driver’s licenses – licenses which are only available to individuals

27
28
9
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 10 of 20

1

who are not U.S. citizens and also not legal U.S. residents.2

2

50.

The list of 1 million plus individuals who have received an AB 60

3

Driver’s License is a state administrative that can be used by Padilla pursuant to

4

Section 8 of the NVRA (52 U.S.C. § 20507) to determine the eligibility of voters

5

prior to placing an applicant on the voter rolls

6

51.

Another state administrative record that indicates the citizenship of millions

7

of Californians that Padilla does not use to fulfill his duties under the NVRA is produced

8

by jury service reports.

9

52.

According to the Institute for Fair Elections, in just one year, 449,404

10

Californians swore under penalty of perjury that they received a jury service summons

11

and they were not citizens.3

12

53.

California law provides that the source list used for selecting jurors shall

13

come from the “list of registered voters and the Department of Motor Vehicles’ list of

14

licensed drivers and identification cardholders resident within the area served by the

15

court.” The court is to take these “two source lists, when substantially purged of

16

duplicate names, [which are] considered inclusive of a representative cross section of

17

the population.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 197.

18

54.

Padilla may fulfill his duty to ensure voter citizenship by comparing the

19

voter registration application to the DMV administrative records, the jury service

20

records, and/or other administrative records that contain citizenship data.

21
22

55.

citizenship and thus eligibility to vote.

23
24

56.

27
28

Padilla is not reviewing any administrative records or government

databases to ensure that the applicant is eligible to vote.

25
26

Padilla has no policy or procedure in place to verify the applicant’s

57.
2

While the DMV is transmitting information to Padilla to prevent

See https://recorder.countyofventura.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/180905-DMVLetter-to-Alex-Padilla.pdf.
3
See Statewide Annual Juror Service Reports 2016-2017,
http://instituteforfairelections.org/statewide-annual-jury-data-report-2016-2017/.
10
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 11 of 20

1

duplicate voter registrations, it is not transmitting citizenship information, as required

2

by the NVRA.

3

58.

In 2015, the state of California passed the California New Motor Voter

4

Program (“Motor Voter law”) to specify how the state would fulfill its duties under

5

the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20504.

6

59.

The Motor Voter law (Cal. Elec. Code § 2260, et al.) is intended to work

7

in conjunction with the NVRA towards the common purpose of increasing “the

8

number of eligible citizens who register to vote.” Cal. Elec. Code § 2261(b).

9

60.

In passing the Motor Voter law, it was the intent of the Legislature to

10

provide “California citizens additional opportunities to participate in democracy

11

through exercise of their fundamental right to vote.” Cal. Elec. Code § 2261(c).

12

61.

The Motor Voter law was designed to establish a program to increase

13

voter registrations for “qualified” voters. Cal. Elec. Code § 2262(a). According to

14

California Constitution, Article II, § 2, a qualified voter is a United States Citizen and

15

someone who is over 18 years of age.

16

62.

The Motor Voter law made clear that the DMV is not required to

17

determine eligibility, as the “Secretary of State is solely responsible for determining

18

eligibility for voter registration.” Cal. Elec. Code § 2262(b).

19

63.

The Motor Voter law provides in § 2263 the list of documents that are to

20

be produced by the DMV to the Secretary of State. This section reveals they include

21

“[a] notation that the applicant has attested that he or she meets all voter eligibility

22

requirements, including United States citizenship, specified in Section 2101.” Cal.

23

Elec. Code § 2263(b)(1)(K).

24

64.

Nowhere in the list of 14 items stating what the DMV is to transfer to the

25

Secretary of State does it list that the DMV is to transfer to the Secretary of State

26

proof of authorized presence in the United States. However, proof of authorized

27

presence in the United States is information necessary to enable Padilla to assess the

28

eligibility of the applicant to vote and thus should be transmitted to Padilla as a part
11
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 12 of 20

1

of the completed voter registration portion of an application. Cal. Elec. Code §

2

2263(b)(1).
65.

3

Thus the Motor Voter law requires the Secretary of State to determine

4

eligibility, but does not require the DMV to transfer to the Secretary of State the

5

Proof of Identity Documents it has reviewed showing that the individual has proven

6

citizenship, proven legal presence in the United States, or failed to provide

7

satisfactory evidence that the individual legally is in the United States, as necessary

8

for Padilla to fulfill his statutory duties under both the NVRA and the Motor Voter

9

law.
66.

10

The fact that an individual is legally in the United States and has a

11

driver’s license, does not mean that he or she is eligible to vote. A legal resident non-

12

citizen could have a driver’s license, but not be eligible to vote.
67.

13

The effect of California’s Motor Voter law is to thwart the Secretary of

14

State from reviewing information that is necessary for Padilla to fulfill his duties to

15

determine eligibility, such as a certified copy of birth certificate, valid unexpired

16

passport, Certification of Naturalization, or numerous other documents that provide

17

satisfactory “proof of legal presence.”4

18
19

68.

of putative voters by cross-referencing it with DMV data.

20
21

Upon information and belief, many states confirm the citizenship status

69.

Shortly after the launch of the Motor Voter law, it became clear that some

legal non-citizens were placed on the voter rolls.5

22

70.

California is not the only state that has had issues with the integrity of its

23

elections due to non-citizens being registered to vote when they obtain their driver’s

24

license. For example, in Pennsylvania, due to a glitch in the state’s motor vehicle

25

bureau computers, 11,198 non-citizens found themselves on the Pennsylvania voter

26

4

27
28

See https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/0d71782a-9301-4b4a-968caf5f670be82f/federal_noncompliant_dl_docslist.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.
5
See CBS Sacramento, October 8, 2018,
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/10/08/dmv-voter-registration/.
12
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 13 of 20

1

rolls.6

2
3

71.

registering voters – a role that the DMV was and is manifestly not prepared to fulfill.

4
5

California’s Motor Voter law envisions a critical role by the DMV in

72.

In fact, the entire roll out of the Motor Voter law has been full of

glitches, as clear from multiple news publications:

6

a. One voter, two registration forms: Errors reported in rollout of

7

California’s ‘motor voter’ system, in which it was reported that “State

8

election officials said a software error affected some 77,000 voter

9

records”;7

10

b. More than 23,000 Californians were registered to vote incorrectly by
state DMV;8

11
12

c. California DMV finds 3,000 more unintended voter registrations;9

13

d. Layered on top of previous mistakes, California’s DMV finds an
additional 1,500 people wrongly registered under new system;10

14
15

e. CA keeps Motor Voter, adds review amid DMV errors;11

16

f. Did non-citizens vote last year? California officials still can’t say;12

17

g. Election officials said DMV wasn’t ready to launch Motor Voter.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

See Pennsylvania admits to 11,000 noncitizens registered to vote, Washington Times,
Jan. 30, 2019, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/30/pennsylvania11000-non-citizens-registered-vote/.
7
Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-camotor-voter-registrations-errors-20180524-story.html.
8
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 5, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-dmvvoter-registration-error-20180905-story.html.
9
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 20, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-cadmv-additional-voter-registration-errors-20180920-story.html.
10
Los Angeles Times, Oct. 8, 2018, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-dmvmore-voter-registration-errors-20181008-story.html.
11
The Sacramento Bee, Oct. 22, 2018, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/capitol-alert/article220334800.html.
12
The Sacramento Bee, Jan. 4, 2019, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/capitol-alert/article223886630.html.
13
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 14 of 20

California went ahead anyway;13

1
2

h. Hackers attacked California DMV voter registration system marred by
bugs, glitches;14

3
4

i. Deleted texts and “show stopper defects”: California tech official raced
to launch Motor Voter;15

5
6

j. California DMV won’t face independent review over handling of Real
ID, Motor Voter;16

7
8

k. Six Californians who shouldn’t have been registered voted last year due
to ‘DMV errors’;17

9
10

l. Nearly 84,000 duplicate voter records found in audit of California’s
‘motor voter’ system.18

11
12
13

73.

These glitches revealed that Padilla had no procedure in place to ensure

that an applicant was eligible to vote prior to placing them on the voter rolls.

14

74.

The administration of the Motor Voter law has resulted in the eligible

15

voters of California, including Plaintiffs, having serious concerns about the integrity

16

of the administration of California voter rolls.

17
18

75.

Padilla must follow the NVRA and make a determination of the

eligibility of each applicant prior to putting each one on the voting rolls.

19

76.

However, because Padilla has no process of guaranteeing that the voter

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

Modesto Bee, Jan. 31, 2019,
https://www.modbee.com/news/california/article224696945.html.
14
Los Angeles Times, Apr. 9, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-cacalifornia-motor-voter-problems-investigation-20190409-story.html.
15
The Sacramento Bee, May 8, 2019, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/capitol-alert/article229967789.html.
16
The Sacramento Bee, June 26, 2019, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/capitol-alert/article231984402.html.
17
The Sacramento Bee, Aug. 9, 2019, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politicsgovernment/capitol-alert/article233729662.html.
18
Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/201908-09/duplicate-voter-records-audit-california-motor-voter-system.
14
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 15 of 20

1

rolls do not contain non-citizens, the integrity of California elections has been

2

jeopardized repeatedly, with systematic errors in the voting enrollment system that

3

perpetuate the problems and enroll non-citizens on the voter rolls.

4

77.

California is free to “conduct her elections and limit her electorate as she

5

may deem wise, save only as her action may be affected by the prohibitions of the

6

United States Constitution or in conflict with powers delegated to and exercised by

7

the National Government.” Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 657 (1944).

8

Failure of Padilla to Produce Documents pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 20507(i)

9

78.

10

As a part of their Notice of Violation of NVRA letter to Padilla, Plaintiffs

made 10 document requests:

11

a. Request 1: Copies of the most recent California voter registration database,

12

including fields indicating name, home address, mailing address, date of

13

birth, place of birth, most recent voter activity, and active or inactive status;

14

b. Request 2: Copies of all emails or other communications sent or received

15

by the California Secretary of State Election Division relating to processing

16

of voter registration forms to determine voter eligibility over the last two

17

years;

18

c. Request 3: Copies of all emails or other communications sent or received

19

by the California Secretary of State Election Division and the California

20

Department of Motor vehicles in which the subject of voter’s eligibility is

21

mentioned over the last two years;

22

d. Request 4: California’s policies and procedures, formal and informal,
related to eligibility of a California resident to vote;

23
24

e. Request 5: California’s policies and procedures, formal and informal,

25

related to the processing of voter registration forms to determine if a

26

registrant is eligible to vote prior to adding them on the voter rolls;

27

f. Request 6: A list of all databases that you use to help determine if a voter

28

registration applicant is eligible to vote;
15
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 16 of 20

g. Request 7: A list of names, addresses, and date of birth of all voter

1
2

registration applicants over the last two years who were notified that they

3

were not put on the voter rolls because they did not attest that they were a

4

citizen of the United States;
h. Request 8: A list of names, addresses, and date of birth of all voter

5
6

registration applicants over the last two years who upon being notified that

7

they failed to attest that they were a citizen of the United States corrected

8

this defect and are now registered to vote;
i. Request 9: A list of names, addresses, and date of birth of all voter

9
10

registration applicants over the last two years who were notified that they

11

were not put on the voter rolls because it was determined that they were not

12

eligible to vote even though they had attested that they were eligible to

13

vote;
j. Request 10: All documents and records of communications received from

14
15

registered voters, legal counsel, claimed relatives, or other agents in the last

16

two years requesting a removal or cancelation from the voter roll for any

17

reason related to non-U.S. citizenship/ineligibility. Please include any

18

official records indicating maintenance actions undertaken thereafter.

19

79.

In Padilla’s Response Letter, Padilla only produced limited documents

20

pursuant to Requests 4 and 5. Padilla refused to produce any other documents pursuant

21

to the other document requests.

22

Failure of DMV to Produce Documents pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 20507(i)

23

80.

24
25

As a part of their Notice of Violation of NVRA letter to the DMV,

Plaintiffs made three document requests:
a. Request 1: Copies of all emails or other communications sent to or received

26

by the California Secretary of State relating to processing of voter

27

registration forms over the last two years;

28

b. Request 2: Copies of all emails or other communications sent or received
16
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 17 of 20

1

by the California Secretary of State in which the subject of voter’s

2

citizenship is mentioned over the last two years;
c. Request 3: California’s policies and procedures, formal and informal,

3
4

related to data distributed to the Secretary of State as a part of the voter

5

registration process.
81.

6
7

In the DMV’s Response Letter, the DMV refused to produce any

documents.

8

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

Violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(1)

10

(By All Plaintiffs against Defendant Padilla)
82.

11
12

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
83.

13

Defendant Padilla has failed to fulfill the state’s obligations under Section

14

8(a)(1) of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. §20507(a)(1) to ensure that only eligible applicants are

15

registered to vote.
84.

16

Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury as a

17

direct result of Padilla’s failure to fulfill the state’s obligation to comply with Section

18

8(a)(1) of the NVRA.

19

85.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

20

86.

As a direct and proximate consequence of Padilla’s failure to ensure

21

citizenship as required by the NVRA, Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer irreparable

22

injury that cannot fully be compensated by an award of monetary damages.
87.

23

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to

24

vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of

25

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20510(c).

26
27

///

28

///
17
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 18 of 20

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of Section 5(e) of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20504(e)

3

(By All Plaintiffs against Defendant Gordon)

4
5
6

88.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
89.

Defendant Gordon has failed to fulfill its obligations under Section 5(e) of

7

the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. §20504(e) to transfer to the Secretary of State a completed voter

8

registration portion of an application for a State motor vehicle driver’s license accepted

9

at the DMV.

10

90.

Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury as a

11

direct and proximate result of Gordon’s failure to fulfill his obligation to comply with

12

Section 5(e) of the NVRA. Plaintiffs’ injury cannot be fully compensated by an award of

13

monetary damages.

14

91.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

15

92.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to

16

vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of

17

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20510(c).

18

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

Violation of Section 8(i) of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)

20

(By All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)

21
22
23

93.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
94.

Defendants have refused to fulfill their obligations under Section 8(i) of the

24

NVRA, 52 U.S.C. §20507(i) to make available to Plaintiffs “all records” within the past

25

two years “concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the

26

purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”

27
28

95.

Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury as a

direct result of Defendants’ failure to fulfill their obligations under Section 8(i) of the
18
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 19 of 20

1

NVRA.

2

96.

Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

3

97.

Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to

4

vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of

5

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20510(c).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6
7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court:

8

i.

9
10

declare Defendant Padilla to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the

NVRA, and declare Defendant Gordon to be in violation of Section 5(e) of the NVRA;
ii.

permanently enjoin Defendants from violating the NVRA, in the ways

11

discussed above;

12

iii.

declare that Section 8(a)(1) of the NVRA supersedes and preempts any

13

conflicting California law, including those portions of the Motor Voter Law that

14

conflict with the NVRA;

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

iv.

order Defendant Padilla to develop and implement a program that ensures

only eligible applicants for voter registration are registered to vote;
v.

declare that Section 8(i) of the NVRA supersedes and preempts any

contrary California law;
vi.

declare that Defendants are in violation of Section 8(i) of the NVRA by

refusing to allow Plaintiffs to inspect and copy the requested records;
vii.

permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to allow Plaintiffs to inspect

and copy the requested records;
viii. order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, including
litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20510(c); and
ix.

awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just

and proper.

27
28
19
Complaint

 Case 2:19-cv-01985-MCE-AC Document 1 Filed 10/01/19 Page 20 of 20

Respectfully submitted,

1
2

Date: September 25, 2019

3

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
By: /s/ Harmeet K. Dhillon
HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
MARK P. MEUSER (SBN: 231335)
mmeuser@dhillonlaw.com
GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814)
gmichael@dhillonlaw.com
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 Post Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Attorneys for Plaintiff

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20
Complaint