Statements of Material Fact

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 90
  • Published : April 2, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROY FERRAND, LUTHER SCOTT, JR.,CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00926 and LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE LMA – JCW
OF THE NAACP, for themselves and all
other persons similarly situated

v.

TOM SCHEDLER, in his official capacity
as the Louisiana Secretary of State, RUTH
JOHNSON, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Children & Family Services, and BRUCE
D. GREENSTEIN, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Health & Hospitals

DEFENDANT JOHNSON’S STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS WHICH PRESENT GENUINE ISSUES IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant, Ruth Johnson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, hereinafter referred to as “Secretary Johnson” or “Defendant Johnson”, pursuant to Local Rule 56.2, submits this statement of genuine issues in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 112 and 112-1). Items 1 through 101 below correspond to the alleged facts presented in Plaintiffs’ Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (R. Doc. 112-1). Defendant Johnson asserts that there exist genuine issues of material fact in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1.Defendant Johnson agrees that the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg, et seq.; however, the codification of the NVRA is not at issue and it is a statement of law, not material fact.

2.Defendant Johnson agrees that in enacting the NVRA, Congress found the following; but the same is not a statement of material fact and Plaintiffs are simply citing a statement of law:

(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and

(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.

42 U.S.C. 1973gg(a).

3.Defendant Johnson agrees that Congress stated that the purpose of the NVRA is, inter alia, to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b)(1).

However the same is not a statement of material fact and Plaintiffs are simply citing a statement of law.

4.Defendant agrees that the House Conference Report to the NVRA states that Section 7 of the NVRA was designed specifically to increase the registration of “the poor and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s licenses and will not come into contact with the other principal places to register under this Act.”

H.R. Rep. No. 103-66, at 16, reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 140, 144. See also S. Rep. No. 103-6, at 13 (stating that Section 7 was designed to “enable[] more low income and minority citizens to become registered”).

However the same is not a statement of material fact and is not an issue before the Court.

5.Defendant agrees that the House Conference Report to the NVRA states that Section 7(a)(6) requires public assistance offices to provide voter registration services to their clients “because [such offices] are considered most likely to serve persons of voting age who may not have driver licenses and therefore are not served by the motor-voter provisions.”

H.R. Rep. No. 103-9, at 11, reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N 105, 116.

However the same is not a statement of material fact and is not an issue before the Court.

6.Defendant Johnson agrees that the Senate Report to the NVRA states that the “government should do all it can to make registration widely and easily available.” S. Rep. No. 103-6,...
tracking img