Notes of Decisions
Colon-Marrero v. Garcia-Velez, 813 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016).
“52 U.S.C. § 21112 (a)(2)(B). If the state determines that a violation occurred, it must "provide the appropriate remedy.”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Don M. Millis, 166 F.4th 627 (7th Cir. 2026).
· cites it 5× “” 52 U.S.C. § 21112 (a)(1). “Any person who believes that there is a viola- tion” of HAVA “may file a complaint” with an authorized state agency.”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Don M. Millis, 166 F.4th 627 (7th Cir. 2026).
· cites it 5× “” 52 U.S.C. § 21112 (a)(1). “Any person who believes that there is a viola- tion” of HAVA “may file a complaint” with an authorized state agency.”
Linn Cnty. Auditor Joe Miller v. Iowa Voter Reg. Comm'n, No. 23-0661 (Iowa Oct. 11, 2024).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiffs instead went to federal court, alleging that “the WEC’s conduct related to the 2022 and 2023 administrative complaints violated Plaintiffs’ right to an administrative complaint process, a hearing on the record, 11 and an appropriate remedy under 52 U.S.C. § 21112…”
PA Fair Elections v. PA DOS, Sec'y. of the Com. A. Schmidt, No. 372 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 28, 2025).
· cites it 3× “” Section 5 402(a)(2)(F) of HAVA, 52 U.S.C. § 21112 (a)(2)(F). Petitioners assert that, as the codified version of Pennsylvania’s HAVA administrative procedure states, the OGC shall issue a final determination and remedial plan if necessary.”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Millis, 720 F. Supp. 3d 703 (E.D. Wis. 2024).
· cites it 2× “They maintain that the WEC’s conduct related to the 2022 and 2023 administrative complaints violated Plaintiffs’ right to an administrative complaint process, a hearing on the record, and an appropriate remedy under 52 U.S.C. § 21112 . Id. ¶¶ 39, 43 . Plaintiffs also allege that…”
Kramer, No. 2:25-cv-04257 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2026).
· cites it 2× “52 U.S.C. §21112 (a)(2) (emphasis added).”
Iowa Voter All. v. Black Hawk Cnty., No. 6:20-cv-02078 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 20, 2020).
“This is a different provision from the one at issue here but nothing in 52 U.S.C. § 21112 suggests a different conclusion.”
Minnesota Voters All. v. City of Minneapolis, No. 0:20-cv-02049 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2020).
“The fact that HAVA requires states to create an administrative procedure to allow filing of HAVA complaints that provides the “appropriate remedy” if the state determines that there was a violation, 52 U.S.C. § 21112 (a), and that Plaintiffs consider Minnesota’s procedure to be…”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Millis, 764 F. Supp. 3d 793 (E.D. Wis. 2025).
“It was [Brown]’s understanding the Commission had to make a decision, but he did not get a decision, which concerns him because he will file HAVA complaints in the future.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.