University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Marley v. Denney PR-ID-0001
Docket / Court CV01-17-12594 ( State Court )
State/Territory Idaho
Case Type(s) Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Case Summary
As this a state case, most of the information and documents were found online.

On May 11, President Donald Trump announced an executive order, authorizing the President Advisory Committee to “study the ... read more >
As this a state case, most of the information and documents were found online.

On May 11, President Donald Trump announced an executive order, authorizing the President Advisory Committee to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections” and advise Trump on its findings. The Commission was announced following Trump’s allegations of voter fraud in the 2016 elections. On June 28, 2017, Mr. Kobach sent letters to all 50 states on behalf of the Commission, requesting a list of all registered voters, and the following voter information if publicly available: their full names, the last four digits of the social security numbers, dates of birth, political affiliation, voting history, addresses, phone numbers, felony convictions, military status, overseas voting records. In response, 44 states partially or fully refused to comply with the Commission’s request.

On July 10, 2017, an elector in the State of Idaho and the Idaho Democratic Party (IDP) filed a suit against Lawrence Denney, the Secretary for the State of Idaho, in the District Court of Idaho. The suit was filed in response to Idaho’s press release statement on July 3, 2017, that it will comply, in part, with Trump’s Commission to send voter data. Specifically, the defendant stated that Idaho would treat the Commission’s letter requesting voter information as if it were a public records request, therefore, information deemed public record under Idaho law would be provided to the Commission.

Meanwhile, on July 3, 2017, a Washington-based organization focused on privacy filed a separate suit against the Commission on the same issue. The organization, named Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), alleged that the Commission violated voters’ right to informational privacy under the Fifth Amendment and therefore the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The EPIC suit was expected to result in a ruling on an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the Commission’s letter to prohibit the collection of voter data by the Commission.

However, plaintiffs noted that the defendant could still send the information requested by the Commission, as Idaho is not party to the federal case. Regardless of whether the EPIC suit resulted in a TRO, plaintiffs argued that the defendants releasing voter information would be in violation of Idaho state law for the following reasons. First, while Idaho only allows a “person” to demand public records, Kobach’s letter instructed states to send requested information to the Commission instead to Kobach personally, which according to the plaintiff, is a federal agency and does not qualify under the definition of “person.” Therefore, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant has no statutory authority to release any information pursuant to a public records request. Plaintiffs also argued that such information will be used for impermissible commercial purpose, prohibited by Idaho law. Lastly, plaintiffs alleged that the Commission’s methods of data transfer from the states were insecure, while Idaho law requires transfer of public records to be secure. The plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction and an Emergency TRO barring the defendant from disclosing any voter information to the Commission for the duration of the case.

On July 18, 2017, the parties reached a settlement, requiring the defendant to provide 10 days’ notice prior to releasing any information to the Commission. On January 3, 2018, Trump terminated the Commission on an executive order. The IDP was the first state party that sought to prevent the state from releasing voter information.

The case is now closed.

Averyn Lee - 06/07/2019

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action State law
Defendant(s) Lawrence Denny
Plaintiff Description An elector in the State of Idaho and the Idaho Democratic Party.
Class action status sought No
Class action status outcome Not sought
Filed Pro Se Unknown
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Unknown
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Filed 07/10/2017
Case Closing Year 2017
Case Ongoing No
Court Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
State Trial Court
Complaint for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and/or a Writ of Prohibition
PR-ID-0001-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Source: Public.Resource.Org
Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief
PR-ID-0001-0004.pdf | External Link | Detail
Source: Public.Resource.Org
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 40] (266 F.Supp.3d 297)
PR-ID-0001-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | External Link | Detail
Source: Public.Resource.Org
U.S. Court of Appeals
Opinion (878 F.3d 371)
PR-ID-0001-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | External Link | Detail
Source: Public.Resource.Org
show all people docs
Judges Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (D.S.C., D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen (FISC, D.D.C.) show/hide docs
Williams, Stephen Fain (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Butler, Alan (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
Fuhrman, William A (Idaho) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -