BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY et al. on application for stay

555US1 Unit: $$U2 [10-19-10 16:59:14] PAGES PGT: OPINBX �
5 OCTOBER TERM, 2008
Per Curiam
BRUNNER, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE v. OHIO
REPUBLICAN PARTY et al.
on application for stay
No. 08A332. Decided October 17, 2008
The District Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing
the Ohio secretary of state to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registra
tion Database to comply with § 303 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (HAVA), 42 U. S. C. § 15483(a)(5)(B)(i). The Sixth Circuit denied
the secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The secretary then filed the
instant application to stay the TRO.
Held: The application is granted, and the TRO is vacated. Respondents
are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress
has authorized the District Court to enforce HAVA § 303 in an action
brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283.
Application granted and stay vacated.
Per Curiam.
On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restrain
ing order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secre
tary of State (Secretary), to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter
Registration Database to comply with § 303 of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C.
§ 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V).* The United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s
motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an appli
cation to stay the TRO with Justice Stevens as Circuit
Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter
*Section 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) states, in relevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State
motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match
information in the database of the statewide voter registration system
with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the
extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the
information provided on applications for voter registration.”

555US1 Unit: $$U2 [10-19-10 16:59:14] PAGES PGT: OPINBX �
6 BRUNNER v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY
Per Curiam
to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District
Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its rul
ing on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on
the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented.
Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail
on the question whether Congress has authorized the Dis
trict Court to enforce § 303 in an action brought by a private
litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ.
v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532
U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant the application for
a stay and vacate the TRO.
It is so ordered.