Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Brief in support of Virginia efforts to clean voter rolls

Brief in support of Virginia efforts to clean voter rolls

Brief in support of Virginia efforts to clean voter rolls

Page 1: Brief in support of Virginia efforts to clean voter rolls

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:17

Date Created:October 16, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 16, 2013

Tags:Democratic Party of Virginia v. Virginia State Board of Elections


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 286 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
VIRGINIA,
Plaintiff,
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD
ELECTIONS al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ
AMICI CURIAE BRIEF JUDICIAL WATCH AND
ALLIED EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Judicial Watch, Inc., and Allied Educational Foundation, respectfully submit this amici
curiae brief support the defendants and opposition the plaintiff motion for
preliminary injunction, filed October 2013.1 This brief intended address issues federal
election law raised the plaintiff, which amici have knowledge and expertise.
Background Facts.
The National Voter Registration Act 1993 NVRA U.S.C. 1973gg seq., was
intended both increase lawful voter registration and protect the integrity the electoral
process; and ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
U.S.C. 1973gg(b). further the goal electoral integrity, Section requires that each State
This brief filed concurrently with motion for leave court file amici curiae brief.
The grounds for the request for leave file this brief are contained the motion. party
counsel for party the above-captioned case authored this brief whole part, and
person other than the amici made monetary contribution intended fund the preparation and
submission this brief.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 287
shall conduct general program that makes reasonable effort remove the names
ineligible voters from the official lists eligible voters reason (A) the death the
registrant; (B) change the residence the registrant U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4).
States failing conduct the reasonable maintenance their voter registration lists required
the NVRA have been sued, both the United States and private plaintiffs. See, e.g., U.S.
Missouri, 535 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (suit the Justice Department); Judicial Watch, Inc.,
King, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174360 (S.D. Ind., Dec. 10, 2012) (ongoing private action).
Notwithstanding the requirements the NVRA, states have been inconsistent meeting
its mandates. Indeed, the routine failure certain states comply with their voter list
maintenance obligations, and the resulting poor condition many state voter rolls, are quickly
becoming national, nonpartisan issue. For example, the Pew Research Center the States
released astonishing report 2012 noting that [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have
active registrations more than one state. Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That
America Voter Registration System Needs Upgrade, PEW RESEARCH CENTER THE
STATES, Feb. 14, 2012, 1.2 That same report observed that million one every eight 
active voter registrations the United States are longer valid are significantly inaccurate, 
and that [m]ore than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed active voters. Id.; see
Jonathan Brater, Presidential Voting Commission Can Modernize Elections: Testimony the
Presidential Commission Election Administration, THE BRENNAN CENTER, Sept. 2013
Virginia State Board Elections appears have cited the Pew study key factor its
decision join multi-state effort identify ineligible voters. Doc. No. 7-1 21,
(Weinstein Decl., second page Ex. and Ex. D). This report available
http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-85899378437.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 288
system which records has serious errors raises the prospect fraud and
manipulation. ).3
Given the sorry condition voter rolls throughout the nation, states have adopted
variety approaches meet their federal obligations under the NVRA remove ineligible
voter registrations from the rolls. One approach has been undertake agreements between and
among groups states compare voter registration lists order find and remove duplicate
registrations. Indeed, the interstate compact which the plaintiff objects this lawsuit not
the only such agreement. For example, 2012, seven states the majority which have
Democratic legislatures and governors formed the Electronic Registration Information Center
(ERIC) for the same purpose. Virginia one the founding members ERIC. 2012, Virginia also joined the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program
(IVRCP). The basic mechanism utilized the IVRCP finding duplicate registrations
search for particular kind registration data match. robust search. explained
written guidance provided Virginia State Board Elections:
All voters identified the Crosscheck Program were matched based 100% exact
match first name, last name, date birth and last four digits their Social Security
Number. All these fields had the same their Virginia data and the other
state data.
Doc. No. Ex. (question 2).
When this search was applied the voter rolls the states participating the IVRCP,
produced list with the names approximately 57,000 Virginia voters. The large number
This testimony available http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/testimony-presidentialvoting-commission-can-modernize-elections. description the program available http://www.pewstates.org/research/featuredcollections/electronic-registration-information-center-eric-85899426022.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 289
voters whose registrations closely matched those other states suggests that the Pew study
had correctly gauged the national scope the problem duplicate registrations.
Virginia law permitted the removal all these registrations. Va. Code Ann. 24.2427(B)(iv). However, guidance issued the State Board Elections urged registrars
consider all information their disposal, and err the side caution: being listed the [IVRCP] report sufficient basis for cancellation?
Answer: Legally, yes; however, safeguard, each general registrar should examine
carefully any voter voting history and all available information the voter
registration record rule out any possibility subsequent registration activity since
the communication SBE received from the jurisdiction reporting new registration.
Doc. No. Ex. The guidance also told registrars that voter whose registration was
cancelled for any reason shows vote Election Day, that voter should offered
provisional ballot. Doc. No. Ex. (Question 10).
The State Board Elections also sent email registrars containing the following
text: important that you closely review the data provided against the identified
individual voter registration and voter history VERIS [the State database]. you
believe the match not accurate, that the individual may have registered Virginia after
their registration another state, there some other issue then you may wish hold
off cancellation until you have had the opportunity research the matter further.
Ultimately, you need use your best judgment.
Doc. No. Ex. (emphasis original). Both this and the foregoing guidance conveyed the same
instructions. They directed the registrars review all information available the voter
computerized registration record, and particular try determine there any new
registration Virginia after the registration that was recorded the other state. They also
conveyed general note caution, suggesting that any doubts about the accuracy multistate match should resolved favor keeping the registration.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 290
Virginia has been performing crosschecks pursuant the IVRCP since January 2013.
Doc. No. 12. October 2013, the plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging that the data used conduct registration crosschecks between and among participating states unreliable, and
also that the procedures used Virginia registrars process the information the IVRCP has
generated are arbitrary. The plaintiff contends that these problems beset the multi-state
crosscheck program that its use cancel duplicate registrations violates both the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause the 14th Amendment. Doc. No. 10-12.
The Plaintiff Has Presented Almost Evidence Support Request For
Injunction that Would Preserve Tens Thousands Invalid Registrations and
Actually Restore the Registrations Voters Who Not Live Virginia.
While the plaintiff motion long innuendo, inference, and implication,5
remarkably short evidence. Missing from the plaintiff complaint, from all its supporting
declarations and affidavits, and from its brief, any reference even single instance where
voter was erroneously and permanently removed from Virginia voter rolls because the
IVRCP data the procedures used registrars. The plaintiff has submitted one declaration
from voter whose registration was erroneously cancelled the stated ground that she was
believed have moved another state; but after the voter called her registrar, she was told her
removal had been error and that she had been restored the rolls. Doc. No. 7-2 (Declaration Ebony Wright), 2-4 and Ex. The plaintiff also has submitted hearsay declaration cannot let pass without comment the plaintiff repetitive use, almost every paragraph, inflammatory, attack word describe the removal ineligible voters: purging. 
Presumably was chosen suggest the political arrests, show trials, and summary executions totalitarian regime. See, e.g., ROBERT CONQUEST, THE GREAT TERROR: REASSESSMENT
(1990) Book The Purge Begins Aside from the obvious hyperbole implicit such
comparison, note that cancelling the voter registrations those who have died moved out
state expressly mandated federal law under the NVRA; that eminently sensible
policy that, among other things, reduces the opportunities for fraud; and that voters whose
registrations are cancelled because they live and vote elsewhere have lost rights.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 291
from one its employees who testified that the registrar Accomack County said that she had
restored voters (out 187) whose registrations had been erroneously cancelled. Doc. No. 10-5
(Declaration James Slattery), (There indication whether these voters had
contact the registrar restored.) Even crediting the hearsay, that means that, most,
voters had their registrations temporarily cancelled; and all had their registrations restored. This,
despite the fact that the plaintiffs have alleged this Court that the ICVRP data has been relied remove hundreds voters from Virginia voter registration lists. Doc. No. 29.
Unable point any voters who have been actually harmed the use
implementation the IVRCP, the plaintiff tries instead focus narrowly the perceived error
rate the duplicate registration lists the program generated. Although this the wrong focus 
surely the relevant fact whether any eligible voters have actually lost opportunity vote 
the plaintiff evidence this issue equally thin. The complaint and supporting affidavits rely part rough estimates offered during informal, telephonic interviews. For example, the
deputy registrar for the City Chesapeake, after initial review, reported have said that
the ratio lawfully registered voters the list duplicate registrations received for his
jurisdiction maybe percent. Doc. No. 24. Further, the cursory summaries and
conversations offered the plaintiff not allow either the Court the parties tell whether
registrars decisions designate particular voters eligible were made out abundance
caution, whether instead they reflect actual errors the IVRCP data. Even taking the
plaintiff allegations face value, however, the implied error rate low. While the complaint
relies descriptive phrases like riddled with errors countless errors, (Doc. No. 20),
the actual error rate suggested the allegations the complaint under 10%. See error rates
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 292
and duplicate totals Doc. No. 21, 22, 24-27 (alleging combined total 1,418 erroneous
designations out 14,916 registrations).
The plaintiff requested injunctive relief out all proportion these allegations.
Among other things, the Prayer for Relief requests the following: preliminary and permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants from
implementing Defendants process for purging voters from Virginia voter registration
lists, including preliminary and permanent injunction that prohibits the use the
SBE voter purging list and bars local election officials from exercising the standard-less
decision-making authority delegated the SBE preliminary and permanent injunction that (i) requires Defendants restore Virginia voter registration list all voters who were removed from those lists the
result Defendants unlawful purging; and (ii) requires the SBE restore
Virginia voter registration lists all voters who were removed from those lists the
result Defendants unlawful purging
Doc. No. 12-13 (emphasis added).
Despite the fact that 57,000 Virginia registrations show very close match with
registration records other states, paragraph would enjoin any future use whatsoever
Virginia IVRCP list. Even under the plaintiff gloomiest estimates regarding the list
accuracy, about 90% the 57,000 names that list say, 51,000 voters not live
Virginia and are not eligible vote there. The plaintiff requested relief would deliberately
prevent Virginia from using the list anything about that fact.
Paragraph even more radical. asks the Court restore Virginia rolls all voters
who were removed because data obtained through the multi-state crosscheck program. the
fact that eligible voters have been permanently removed from the rolls, and only eligible
voters have been temporarily removed, any indication Virginia likely error rate, that
means that all almost all the restored voters will ineligible vote Virginia because
they reside other states. But even accept the error rate implicitly alleged the plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 293 around 10%, the consequences this injunctive relief are stark. clear, the plaintiff
asking for injunction that would restore hundreds voters Virginia rolls, even though the
plaintiff believes that 90% these voters are not eligible vote Virginia because they reside another state.6
Note that, Virginia acted its own accomplish the same objectives the plaintiff
seeks that is, Virginia chose ignore 51,000 invalid registrations, and then intentionally
restored registrations for ineligible voters would violate Section the NVRA failing
 conduct general program that makes reasonable effort remove the names ineligible
voters from the official lists eligible voters. Indeed, the requested injunction worse than
improper exercise equitable power. requests unlawful relief. Section the NVRA
makes crime, punishable fines and five years prison, elections for federal office
knowingly and willfully deprive[], defraud[], attempt[] deprive defraud the
residents State fair and impartially conducted election process, the
procurement submission voter registration applications that are known the person materially false, fictitious, fraudulent under the laws the State which the
election held
The exacting standard review that applies all grants preliminary relief even more
searching when the preliminary injunctive relief ordered the district court mandatory rather
than prohibitory nature. Sun Microsystems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. (In Microsoft Corp.
Antitrust Litig.), 333 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2003), citing Taylor Freeman, F.3d 266, 270
n.2 (4th Cir. 1994) Mandatory preliminary injunctive relief any circumstance disfavored,
and warranted only the most extraordinary circumstances. preliminary injunctions
tendency preserve the status quo determines whether prohibitory mandatory. Pashby Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320 (4th Cir. 2013). explained the text, paragraph seeks restore cancelled registrations Virginia
voter rolls, notwithstanding that even the plaintiff appears believe that most these are
invalid. Compelling Virginia place ineligible registrations its voter rolls not returning lawful status quo ante. is, therefore, mandatory injunction, and should judged the
more searching standard the law imposes.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 294 U.S.C. 1973gg-10. Section 11(c) the Voting Rights Act makes crime, punishable
fines and five years prison, elections for federal office, conspire[] with another
individual for the purpose encouraging his false registration vote illegal voting
U.S.C. 1973i(c). And Virginia law makes felony, punishable fines and years
prison, procure[], assist[], induce[] another register vote more than one address
the same time, whether such registrations are Virginia Virginia and any other state
territory the United States. Va. Code Ann. 24.2-1004 (2013). Compelling Virginia
accept and restore invalid registrations would amount compelling violate federal and
state law. Cf. Northeast Savings, F.A. Director, Office Thrift Supervision, 770 Supp. 19, (D.D.C. 1991) (injunctive relief contrary the Tucker Act cannot granted because
contrary federal law. Plaintiff seeks, essence, order permitting plaintiff, and requiring
defendants, violate statutory and regulatory requirements. sum, the plaintiff, the basis almost evidence, asking this Court, sitting
equity, issue injunction that would retain and restore registrations that even the plaintiff
believes invalid thereby guaranteeing that Virginia voter rolls will become less accurate
than they are present. its face, this relief unreasonable and should denied.
II. Implementing the IVRCP, Virginia Has Successfully Incorporated
Reasonable Standards and Safeguards Order Protect Eligible Voters.
Notwithstanding the paucity evidence that there are problems with the IVRCP, the
plaintiff argues that the registrars are acting without standards deciding when remove
registrations. making this argument, the plaintiff repeatedly quotes the directive use your
best judgment contained email from the Board Elections the registrars, often without
quoting the text immediately preceding that statement. E.g., Doc. No. 32, 39; Doc. No. 10, 14, 15.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 295
But the context important. That paragraph starts directing registrars closely
review the data provided against the identified individual voter registration and voter history
VERIS, the State voter registration database, and instructs the registrars determine the
individual may have registered Virginia after their registration another state. Doc. No.
Ex. (emphasis original). This perfectly consistent with the guidance from the State Board
Elections that each general registrar should examine carefully any voter voting history and all
available information the voter registration record rule out any possibility subsequent
registration activity since the communication SBE received from the jurisdiction reporting
new registration. Doc. No. Ex. other words, the registrars were clearly told check the voter computerized records see the voter had registration Virginia after their last out-of-state registration. This
not only sensible advice, exactly what some the plaintiff own affiants testify having
done. See, e.g., Doc. No. 7-3 (Declaration Lawrence Haake), did more thorough
review the list and found that about 170-180 the Active registered voters the list showed more recent last registration date Virginia than the date they were reported have registered another state. Indeed, Mr. Haake declaration mostly relevant, not (as the plaintiff
appears believe) because shows that the IVRCP list had errors, but rather because shows
registrar following the exact procedure the State Board Elections had specifically prescribed least two separate written communications.
The plaintiff argument that the registrars acted arbitrarily without standards
primarily literary exercise, without substance. The plaintiff simply ignores the specific
instructions imparted the State Board Elections. The plaintiff focuses instead general
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 296
admonition act cautiously, and seeks re-characterize license whatever one likes.
But the two are not the same, and that not what the State Board Elections told its registrars.
This case readily distinguished from Bush Gore, 531 U.S. (2000), which the
plaintiff relies. that case, the Equal Protection violation arose from the application
completely different and wholly inconsistent bright-line rules, often among members the
same county board. These rules, moreover, concerned the fundamental question which
candidate ballot was intended cast for, any error was irretrievable. the Court noted: monitor Miami-Dade County testified trial that observed that three members
the county canvassing board applied different standards defining legal vote. And
testimony trial also revealed that least one county changed its evaluative standards
during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with
1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched rule
that considered vote legal any light could seen through chad, changed back the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense per rule, only have court
order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This not process with sufficient
guarantees equal treatment.
531 U.S. 106-107. contrast, the registrars Virginia all were given the same, simple
instructions: check the computer database for any match determine whether there were
subsequent registrations, and err the side caution.
The facts Hunter Hamilton Co. Bd. El., 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) are also very
different. that case, flatly inconsistent rules regarding how treat provisional ballots affected poll worker error resulted the acceptance ballots one description, and the
simultaneous rejection 849 ballots another category election, moreover, that was
initially decided mere votes. Id. 222, 235 passim. The application these
inconsistent rules was further complicated barrage new and often inconsistent directives,
issued the Secretaries State two different administrations. Id. 224, 227-230. The
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 297
welter conflicting rules and directives Hunter contrasts with the simple and consistent
instructions provided registrars Virginia Board Elections.
The potential deprivation rights Hunter was also far more severe. The dispute arose the counting stage the electoral process, and 849 voters were threatened with the
complete rejection their ballots. the Court observed:
Constitutional concerns regarding the review provisional ballots local boards
elections are especially great. recount, the review provisional ballots occurs
after the initial count regular ballots known. .This particular postelection feature
makes specific standards ensure equal application, Bush, 531 U.S. 106,
particularly necessary protect the fundamental right each voter have his her
vote count equal terms, id. 109. contrast more general administrative
decisions, the cause for constitutional concern much greater when the Board
exercising its discretion areas relevant the casting and counting ballots, like
evaluating evidence poll-worker error.
Hunter, 635 F.3d 235 (citation omitted). this case, comparison, the dispute over the cancellation registrations. The
plaintiff cannot identify single voter whose registration was, and remains, cancelled; but even
such voter existed, the potential harm she faced would far less significant than that
faced by, for example, the 859 voters identified Hunter. The primary reason this that
there still time correct faulty registration.
Indeed, contrast both Bush and Hunter, any registration error Virginia can
resolved favor the voter late Election Day allowing that voter cast provisional
ballot. Under federal law pertaining federal elections, [i]f individual declares that such
individual registered voter particular jurisdiction, but the name the individual does
not appear the official list eligible voters for the polling place election official asserts
that the individual not eligible vote, she may cast provisional ballot. U.S.C. 
15482(a). that voter was correct, the individual provisional ballot shall counted vote
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 298 that election accordance with State law. U.S.C. 15482(a)(4). Virginia law also
specifies number instances when voter must offered provisional ballot, including
when voter name omitted from pollbook and the general registrar cannot confirm that
the voter registered vote, that his registration has not been cancelled, and that his name
erroneously omitted from the pollbook. Va. Code Ann. 24.2-653(A) (cross-referring 
24.2-652). the electoral board determines that such person was entitled vote, the voter
provisional ballot opened and voted. Va. Code Ann. 24.2-653(B). After completion its
determination, the electoral board shall proceed count such ballots and certify the results its
count. Va. Code Ann. 24.2-653(B).
The plaintiff casually dismisses the value provisional ballots stating that [t]here assurance that provisional ballot will even accepted and, the typical case, such ballots
are not counted until days after election often after winner has already been declared. 
Doc. No. 14. This statement misconstrues the nature provisional ballots. Under both
federal and state law, provisional ballot will accepted and counted long was properly
cast eligible voter. See U.S.C. 15482(a); Va. Code Ann. 24.2-653(B). this did
not occur, then the ballot should not counted, and the person attempting cast can have
cause complain. The second objection makes sense. Provisional ballots are included the
formal vote count that determines the winner. Id. Many ballots absentee, overseas and
military, ballots delivered late counting authorities, and, indeed, all ballots counted after the
television networks have predicted winner election night are counted after winner has
been informally declared. There resulting prejudice voter long his her vote
accepted and counted.
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 299 conclusion, the State Board Elections has incorporated reasonably defined and
prudent procedures for removing invalid registrations (which procedures Virginia registrars
appear using). the event that voter registration erroneously removed, the error can corrected time (as already has happened). Finally, federal and state laws concerning
provisional ballots ensure that even voter whose registration was improperly cancelled can still
cast ballot Election Day. All these factors serve distinguish this action from the cases
relied the plaintiff.
III.
Virginia Implementation the IVRCP Part Reasonable Program
Designed Remove Ineligible Voters From Virginia Voter Rolls.
The NVRA requires states undertake general program that makes reasonable
effort remove the names ineligible voters from the official lists eligible voters reason change address the death registrant. U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4). One the few
courts attempt discern the meaning the term reasonable this context has noted:
The NVRA does not define reasonable effort and the Court has found authority that
describes the parameter the terms. Because the NVRA contains definition the
term reasonable effort, the Court will give its ordinary meaning. fundamental
canon statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words will interpreted taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. Perrin United States, 444
U.S. 37, 42, 100 Ct. 311, Ed. 199 (1979). reasonable effort one based reason and not improper purposes. The dictionary
defines the term reasonable agreeable reason not extreme excessive
 possessing sound judgment. Websters 7th New Collegiate Dictionary. The antonym for
effort do-nothingness, ease, inaction, lackadaisicalness, laziness.. Rogets New
Millennium Thesaurus First Edition (Vol. 3.1).
United States Missouri, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27640 (W.D. Mo. April 13, 2007), rev
part other grds., 535 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2008). this criterion, Virginia participation the IVRCP excellent example
reasonable, well-constructed and thoughtfully implemented program. The list generated the
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 300
multi-state comparison only indicates duplicate two records show 100% match first and
last names, dates birth, and the last four digits Social Security number.7 Yet, even where
there such match, registrars have been counseled review the database records for any
indication that the match might inaccurate, and resolve any doubts retaining
registration. The plaintiff own evidence supports the conclusion that they are doing this. result these efforts, tens thousands suspect registrations have been identified
and are being examined and removed, while registrations are known have been cancelled
erroneously and permanently. The plaintiff has identified more than voters whose
registrations, alleged, were erroneously cancelled temporarily. doubt the
combination robust data search along with the careful implementation the registrars that
has resulted there being few reported problems.
Virginia should lauded for its efforts and its program should serve model for
compliance with the NVRA. The plaintiff request enjoin this program should denied.
The duplicate registration outside Virginia could not accomplished without the written
assent the voter indicating that they have new residence address. See eg., U.S.C. 
1973gg-6(d)(1)(a).
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 301
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, amici curiae respectfully request that this Court DENY the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Dated: October 16, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
________/S/______________ Christian Adams (VA Bar #42543)
Election Law Center, PLLC
300 Washington St., Suite 405
Alexandria, 22314
Tel: 703-963-8611
Fax: 703-740-1773
adams@electionlawcenter.com
Robert Popper
Motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Filed
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street, SW, Ste. 800
Washington, 20024
202-646-5172 office
202-646-5199 facsimile
rpopper@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Case 1:13-cv-01218-CMH-TRJ Document 24-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page PageID# 302
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 16th day October, 2013, transmitted the foregoing
document the named parties emails means electronic filing pursuant the ECF
system. Christian Adams
____________________________ Christian Adams



Sign Up for Updates!