Frazier v. Fulton County Dep’t. of Registration and Elections

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) was passed in 1993 to help citizens register to vote. This includes various provisions governing its enforcement, such as requiring counties to respond to challenges brought under the NVRA within 10 business days. The NVRA also requires counties to conduct routine voter list maintenance in an effort to maintain accurate voter rolls. Additionally, the NVRA contains a 90-day “quiet period” leading up to federal elections in which voters cannot be removed from the voter roll without individualized proof of ineligibility to vote.  

On August 28, 2024, the plaintiffs (two private citizens in Georgia) filed a complaint against the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the NVRA. The suit argued that Fulton County failed to conduct routine voter list maintenance in violation of the NVRA, state law, and county regulations. Additionally, the complaint asserted that the county’s prohibition on removing voters identified by a challenger within 90 days of a federal election is illegal. The plaintiffs asked the court to issue an order declaring defendants violated the law, compelling the county to remove ineligible voters before the general election, and reinstating all challenges that were previously denied due to the “quiet period.” 

On September 12, 2024, League of Women Voters of Georgia (LWVGA) filed a motion to intervene along with the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP; Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Inc.; and Common Cause Georgia. The civil rights organizations sought intervention to protect their members’ right to vote and the organizations’ ability to perform core functions. 

On September 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the case without prejudice on the grounds that they failed to meet a legal condition required for seeking relief.  

On September 23, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice after the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed before the Court was able to rule on whether LWVGA and its partners would be admitted as intervenors.