The Justice Department today filed a statement of interest in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire supporting the right of private plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit challenging robocalls as intimidating, threatening or coercive in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. This brief is one of several filed by the Justice Department explaining the prohibition against voter intimidation in Section 11(b) and supporting the longstanding principle that private plaintiffs can sue to vindicate important rights protected by the Voting Rights Act.
“Voter intimidation, whether carried out in person or by way of robocalls, disinformation campaigns, or other tactics, can stand as a significant barrier for voters seeking to exercise their voice in our democracy,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Every voter has the fundamental right to cast their ballot free from intimidation, threats and coercion. Since enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, impacted voters, advocacy groups and organizations, have had full ability to turn to the courts to enforce the Act’s ban on voter intimidation across the country. The Justice Department has vigorously enforced this ban and will continue to challenge voter intimidation and defend the right of private citizens and organizations to do the same.”
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of New Hampshire remains committed to protecting voting rights using all enforcement tools available to us. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act is a valuable aid in this effort, as it allows for voters to assist in the enforcement process by bringing private suits against anyone that intimidates, threatens or coerces another person in the exercise of their fundamental right to vote,” said U.S. Attorney Jane E. Young for the District of New Hampshire. “Robocalls in particular can violate voting rights by incentivizing voters to remain away from the polls, deceive voters into believing false information and provoke fear among the targeted individuals. The U.S. Attorney’s Office commends any private citizen willing to stand up against these aggressive tactics and exercise their rights to participate in the enforcement process for the Voting Rights Act.”
The department filed its statement of interest in League of Women Voters of New Hampshire v. Kramer, a lawsuit filed by private plaintiffs who seek a preliminary injunction against a violation of Section 11(b) in connection with robocalls in the 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary election. Defendants moved to dismiss arguing among other things that there is no private right of action under Section 11(b) and that robocalls do not violate Section 11(b).
The statement of interest affirms that private parties may enforce Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. It further explains that conduct violates Section 11(b) if it is objectively intimidating, threatening or coercive to a reasonable voter. That conduct may include robocalls containing false information about the time, place or manner of voting. Whether such robocalls violate the Voting Rights Act depends on such factors as the content and any deceptive features of the calls, the context and timing of the calls, the targeting of any particular group and other historical and social conditions. Federal law prohibits intimidation, threats and coercion throughout the voting process, including registration, casting a ballot and counting or tallying votes. Furthermore, federal law protects against both actual and attempted intimidation, coercion and threats.