Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Lamone
1:17-cv-02006 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed Date: July 18, 2017
Closed Date: May 26, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about whether a political not-for-profit was entitled to copies of Maryland’s then-most recent voter registration rolls under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 50 U.S.C. §20507(i), or, in the alternative, Maryland state election law.
In April 2017, the president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative not-for-profit educational organization and D.C. corporation, wrote a letter to the several members of the Maryland State Board of Elections (including the State Administrator, Director of the Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance, Secretary, general members, and substitute member). In the letter, plaintiff noted that the number of registered voters in Montgomery County, Maryland exceeded the number of citizens over the age of 18 who were eligible to register. The plaintiff sought from defendants records of Maryland’s registered voter lists programs and copies of the then-most recent voter registration base for Montgomery County, including sensitive information such as name, date of birth, home address, and active voter status. In a series of exchanges over the course of summer 2017, Maryland state and Montgomery County election officials responded to Judicial Watch’s request for documents related to the state’s voter list maintenance program, but would not comply with its request for Montgomery County’s most recent registered voter list because it was not in accordance with state election law.
In July 2017, after being denied access to voter registration information, plaintiff initiated an action in the District of Maryland. Plaintiff named Maryland’s State Administrator of Elections, officers and members of the Maryland State Board of Elections, Maryland’s Director of the Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance, and officers and member of the Montgomery County Board of Elections as defendants. Maryland state election law restricted the access of voter registration lists to “Maryland registered voter[s]” (Maryland Election Law Article 3-506) whereas the NVRA had no similar requirements or restrictions. In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the conflict between the NVRA and Maryland state election law meant that the state law was preempted and superseded. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney’s fees.
In September 2017, defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgement. Defendants argued that because the NVRA did not mandate disclosure of voter registration lists, it did not preempt Maryland state-law provisions governing access to voting registration lists and that the plaintiff plainly admitted that they were not entitled to the list under Maryland state law. Further, the plaintiff asserted policy in support of its motion, including that Maryland’s voter registration program is NVRA-compliant, the privacy concerns of allowing any person or entity to access the sensitive information contained in voter registration lists, and states’ general prohibition on the use of voter data for commercial use. In its memo in opposition of defendants’ motion to dismiss in October 2017, the plaintiff reiterated its arguments that the plain language of NVRA section 8(i) established Maryland’s voter registration list as a “record” subject to disclosure and that the NVRA preempted Maryland state election law.
Judge Ellen L. Hollander, in her June 2018 memorandum opinion on the parties’ motions and cross-motions to dismiss, ordered that if the Montgomery County registration database contained materials beyond the scope of NVRA section 8(i), then the defendants ought to seek a protective order to the information contained. In other terms, the Maryland state defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. Further, Judge Hollander upheld the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against Montgomery County’s election officials because, since the County had merely been copied on the plaintiff’s correspondence with the State the County had not failed to respond to or produce requested documents, no case or controversy existed between the county defendants and the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint against the Montgomery County election officials was dismissed.
Plaintiff and the Maryland state defendants conducted discovery through the fall and winter of 2018-2019. In the spring and early summer of 2019, the parties once again filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
In August 2019, Judge Hollander considered whether there existed a meaningful legal difference between “voter registrations” and “voter lists” in her August 2019 memorandum. Judge Hollander held that while voter registrations contain individual voter data, voter lists only contain a subset of the data and are a “pared down compilation of voter registrations.” Further, the Judge Hollander provided that the Maryland state election statute at issue undermined NVRA Section 8(i) by obstructing access to voter lists. Because the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) contravenes the general presumption that Congress must clearly intend to preempt state law by empowering Congress to make or alter state election regulations, and because courts had concluded that the NVRA preempted state law in different contexts, Judge Hollander held that the Maryland state election law frustrated Congress’s stated objectives in enacting NVRA Section 8(i). Despite this, Judge Hollander declined to order that the Maryland state election officials disclose sensitive birth date information due to limited briefing on the matter and the threat of identity theft. Therefore, Judge Hollander ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to the voter registration list for Montgomery County including the names, addresses, most recent voter activity, and activity status (but not the birthdate information) of Montgomery County voters.
Following Judge Hollander’s August 2019 memorandum and instructions to present additional briefing on the issue of disclosure of voter registrant birthdates as the issue was presented in Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012), both parties submitted additional briefing on the issue of voter birthdate disclosures.
Judge Hollander issued a final memorandum on the matter in April 2020, deciding that despite the valid privacy interests in withholding voter birthdate information, the defendants were nonetheless required to submit it to the plaintiff. Among its other arguments, the plaintiff asserted its need for birthdate information in order to remove duplicative voter registrations in Montgomery County. Unlike names and addresses, the plaintiff asserted, birthdates are unchanging over the course of a person’s lifetime and a more reliable datapoint in removing duplicative registrations. The defendant asserted that not only did other states generally limit or prevent the disclosure of voter birthdate information, but the privacy concerns of preventing identity theft made birthdate information akin to Social Security numbers. Ultimately Judge Hollander ordered that while voter privacy rights are important in an age of sophisticated identity theft schemes, there was nothing that suggested that the State of Maryland took affirmative steps to legislate or regulate the protection of voter birthdate information. Further, the court provided that Long was not controlling on the issue of birth dates because the 4th Circuit did not address whether birth dates can or should be redacted from voter registration applications. Thus, Judicial Watch’s motion for summary judgment was granted and the State of Maryland’s was denied.
Following Judge Hollander’s final memorandum decision, the parties submitted a joint status report on May 15, 2020. As of May 26, 2020, the court entered a settlement order which provided that the action was dismissed in its entirety.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Kelsey Lutgen (3/10/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7039409/parties/judicial-watch-inc-v-lamone/
Hollander, Ellen Lipton (Maryland)
Coates, H. Christopher (Maryland)
Cotca, Ramona Raula (Maryland)
Lee, Eric William (Maryland)
Karpinski, Kevin Bock (Maryland)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7039409/judicial-watch-inc-v-lamone/
Last updated July 11, 2026, 6:51 a.m.
Docket for: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Lamone
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 18, 2017
Closing Date: May 26, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Judicial Watch is a conservative not-for-profit, educational organization whose mission is to promote transparency, integrity and accountability in government.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
President, Montgomery County Board of Elections
Secretary, Montgomery County Board of Elections
Substitute Member, Montgomery County Board of Elections
Vice-President, Montgomery County Board of Elections
State
Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections
Director of the Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance, Maryland State Board of Elections
Members of the Maryland State Board of Elections
State Administrator of Elections for Maryland
Vice-Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 1:17-cv-02006
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: N/A
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Lamone, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44881/ (last updated 3/10/2025).