Thus, is the end of the at 1874-75 (citing 467 U.S. at 842); Id. Chevron, see also “that matter.” 31 F. Supp. 3d at 1367-68. A.R. ex rel. Root v. Dudek, The United States Has Complied With All Of The Administrative Prerequisites For Filing A Suit Harris County next claims that the United States has not complied with the regulatory procedures for bringing a lawsuit because it has not alleged that the investigation was prompted by a complaint from an individual with a disability, and because it did not issue a separate Letter of Findings after the survey during the 2016 election. MTD at 8-10. Neither claim Department’s is meritorious. First, the investigation was properly begun as a compliance review. Although some Title II investigations are initiated after complaints are filed, 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(a), the regulation see also states that designated agency may conduct compliance reviews of public entities in “[t]he order to ascertain whether there has been a failure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of this 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(b). The term is widely part.” “compliance review” understood to mean an investigation that need not be prompted by an individual complaint. See, 28 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Title VI regulations, providing that the Department of Justice will e.g., conduct compliance and will conduct investigations whenever “[p]eriodic reviews” “a compliance review, report, complaint, any other information indicates a possible failure to or comply”). With respect to Harris second argument, the County does not dispute that the County’s United States sent a detailed Letter of Findings in 2014 after it surveyed polling places (“LOF”) during the January 2013 election. Harris County claims, however, that the United States was required to issue a separate LOF after the May 2016 election. Harris County misunderstands both the 2014 LOF and the purpose of the United review of polling places in 2016. The 2014 States’
Thus, “that is the end of the matter.” Id. at 1874-75 (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842); see also A.R. ex rel. Root v. Dudek, 31 F. Supp. 3d at 1367-68. The United States Has Complied With All Of The Administrative Prerequisites For Filing A Suit Harris County next claims that the United States has not complied with the regulatory procedures for bringing a lawsuit because it has not alleged that the investigation was prompted by a complaint from an individual with a disability, and because it did not issue a separate Letter of Findings after the Department’s survey during the 2016 election. MTD at 8-10. Neither claim is meritorious. First, the investigation was properly begun as a compliance review. Although some Title II investigations are initiated after complaints are filed, see 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(a), the regulation also states that “[t]he designated agency may conduct compliance reviews of public entities in order to ascertain whether there has been a failure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of this part.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(b). The term “compliance review” is widely understood to mean an investigation that need not be prompted by an individual complaint. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Title VI regulations, providing that the Department of Justice will conduct “[p]eriodic compliance reviews” and will conduct investigations whenever “a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply”). With respect to Harris County’s second argument, the County does not dispute that the United States sent a detailed Letter of Findings (“LOF”) in 2014 after it surveyed polling places during the January 2013 election. Harris County claims, however, that the United States was required to issue a separate LOF after the May 2016 election. Harris County misunderstands both the 2014 LOF and the purpose of the United States’ review of polling places in 2016. The 2014
harris_county_opp_mtd.docx