Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Husted v. Randolph Institute Ohio JW amicus 980

Husted v. Randolph Institute Ohio JW amicus 980

Husted v. Randolph Institute Ohio JW amicus 980

Page 1: Husted v. Randolph Institute Ohio JW amicus 980

Category:

Number of Pages:23

Date Created:March 8, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:March 15, 2017

Tags:mailing, confirmation, Sixth, settlement, Ohio, Husted, Supplemental, randolph, agreement, Voter Fraud, voter, Amicus, notice, process, Institute, Circuit, Supreme Court, states, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

No. 16-980 THE
Supreme Court the United States
_________
JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY STATE,
Petitioner, PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE NORTHEAST OHIO
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, AND LARRY HARMON,
Respondents.
_________ Petition for Writ Certiorari the United
States Court Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
_________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL
WATCH, INC. SUPPORT PETITIONERS
_________
Robert Popper
Counsel Record
Chris Fedeli
Lauren Burke
Eric Lee
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
rpopper@judicialwatch.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Dated: March 10, 2017
LEGAL PRINTERS
LLC,
Washington 202-747-2400 legalprinters.com
TABLE CONTENTS
TABLE AUTHORITIES ......................................
INTERESTS THE AMICUS CURIAE .................1
SUMMARY ARGUMENT.....................................4
ARGUMENT ...............................................................6
The Sixth Circuit Interpretation the
NVRA Counter-Textual ................................6 The Plain Language the NVRA Allows
States Decide How Conduct List
Maintenance and When Send
Registrant Confirmation Notice ..............6 The Sixth Circuit Ruling Disregards
the Plain Meaning Section the
NVRA ...........................................................9
II. Important that the Court Address this
Issue Now .......................................................14
CONCLUSION ..........................................................18
TABLE AUTHORITIES
Cases
Common Cause and the Georgia State Conference
the NAACP Kemp,
1:16-cv-452-TCB (N.D. Ga. 2016) .......................16
Crawford Marion Cnty. El. Bd.,
553 181 (2008).........................................15,
Doe Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) ..............................18
Ebert Poston,
266 U.S. 548 (1925)...............................................8
Ill. Pub. Telcoms. Ass FCC,
752 F.3d 1018 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................8
Iselin United States,
270 U.S. 245 (1926)...............................................8
Judicial Watch King,
993 Supp. 919 (S.D. Ind. 2013) ...................4 Mart Corp. Cartier,
486 U.S. 281 (1988)...............................................9
Ohio Phillip Randolph Institute Husted,
No. 16-3746 (6th Cir. July 27, 2016) ......
Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP Valladolid,
565 U.S. 207 (2012).............................................13
iii
Purcell Gonzalez, 549 U.S. (2006)......................17
Sebelius Cloer,
133 Ct. 1886 (2013).........................................12
United States Atlantic Research Corp.,
551 U.S. 128 (2007).......................................11,
United States Missouri,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27640,
2007 1115204 (W.D. Mo. 2007) .....................7
United States Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.,
489 U.S. 235 (1989)...............................................8
Federal Statutes U.S.C. 20501(b)(3) ...............................................6 U.S.C. 20501(b)(4) ...............................................6 U.S.C. 20507 ................................................1, U.S.C. 20507(a)(4) ...........................................6, U.S.C. 20507(b)(1) ...............................................7 U.S.C. 20507(b)(2) ............................... 10, U.S.C. 20507(c)(1)(A) ...........................................7 U.S.C. 20507(d)(1) .........................................8, U.S.C. 20507(d)(2) ...............................................8
State Statutes
MO. REV. STAT. 115.181 ..........................................16
MONT. CODE ANN. 13-2-220(1)(c) ...........................16
TENN. CODE ANN. 2-2-106(c)...................................16
W.VA. CODE 3-2-25(j) ..............................................17
Other Authorities
ANTONIN SCALIA BRYAN GARNER, READING LAW:
THE INTERPRETATION LEGAL TEXTS (2012) ............8
Pippa Norris, Holly Ann Garnett and Max mping,
Why Don More Americans Vote? Maybe
Because They Don Trust U.S. Elections,
Wash. Post, December 26, 2016, available
goo.gl/zAXsiW .....................................................17 Rep. 103-6 (1993) ...................................................6
Settlement Agreement, January 10, 2014, available https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content
/uploads/2014/01/01-14-Ohio-Voter-Rolls-Settle
ment.pdf ................................................................2
INTERESTS THE AMICUS CURIAE1
Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch nonpartisan, public interest organization headquartered Washington, D.C. Founded 1994, Judicial
Watch seeks promote accountability, transparency
and integrity government, and fidelity the rule law. furtherance these goals, Judicial Watch
regularly files amicus curiae briefs and prosecutes
lawsuits matters believes are public
importance. Judicial Watch has appeared amicus
curiae multiple federal courts numerous
occasions.
Judicial Watch has major and particular
interest the issues stake this litigation,
deriving from its own prior NVRA litigation against
Ohio. Judicial Watch filed federal lawsuit under
Section the National Voter Registration Act NVRA U.S.C. 20507, 2012 against Ohio
Secretary State Jon Husted.2 that complaint,
Judicial Watch alleged that Ohio had been failing
make reasonable effort maintain the accuracy
Judicial Watch states that counsel for party this
case authored this brief whole part; and person
entity, other than amicus and its counsel, made monetary
contribution intended fund the preparation and submission this brief. Judicial Watch sought and obtained the consent
all parties the filing this amicus brief more than ten days
prior the date was due.
Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch, Inc. Support
Defendant-Appellant and Affirmance, Ex. Ohio Phillip
Randolph Institute Husted, No. 16-3746 (6th Cir. July 27,
2016), ECF No. 37, available https://www.scribd.com/doc/10
4449069/Complaint-Ohio-NVRA.
and currency its voter rolls violation the
NVRA. Id. 25. Judicial Watch argued that its
members were injured due Ohio alleged failure maintain accurate voter rolls.
Specifically,
Judicial Watch alleged Ohio violations undermined
Judicial Watch members confidence the
legitimacy Ohio elections, causing them doubt
whether their votes would cancelled out votes
cast the name outdated registrations, thereby
discouraging them from voting begin with. Id.
32-33.
Judicial Watch litigated its case against Ohio for
over sixteen months. Judicial Watch attorneys spent
over 400 hours trying the case, incurring significant
unrecovered legal fees addition out-of-pocket
litigation expenses, including expert fees, local
counsel fees, court costs, deposition costs, and travel
costs. January 2014 the parties settled the
lawsuit, agreeing terms for Ohio perform
certain NVRA Section list maintenance practices
through November 2018.3 key provision this
Settlement Agreement was Ohio agreement
perform annual list maintenance Supplemental
Mailing voters who had contact with Ohio
January 10, 2014 Settlement Agreement Settlement
Agreement available https://www.judicialwatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/01-14-Ohio-Voter-Rolls-Settlement.
pdf; see Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch, Inc. Support Defendant-Appellant and Affirmance, Ex. 39, Ohio
Phillip Randolph Institute Husted, No. 16-3746 (6th Cir. July
27, 2016), ECF No. (Settlement Agreement; First
Amendment Settlement Agreement).
election offices two years.4
The Settlement
Agreement required Ohio send the Supplemental
Mailing every year, whereas Ohio had previously
been sending the mailing every two years. The
Supplemental Mailing portion the Settlement
Agreement was important the parties that they
subsequently negotiated amendment solely
give Ohio greater flexibility over which month the
year initiate the Supplemental Mailing. Id. 44.
Judicial Watch never would have agreed the
Settlement Agreement with Ohio and dismissed its
lawsuit believed that the Supplemental Mailing
was legally impermissible. the Sixth Circuit
ruling this case allowed stand, this key
provision Judicial Watch Settlement Agreement
could voided. This would undermine Judicial
Watch extensive efforts protect the integrity
elections for its Ohio members. Judicial Watch
therefore has significant interest the subject
matter this litigation, along with genuine
organizational interest protecting its members
voting rights and ensuring that its past efforts have
not been wasted.
Judicial Watch also has institutional interest the cause election integrity. This interest
shared with the people all states whose electoral
laws have been put question the Sixth Circuit
flawed decision. this case particular, Ohio
voter rolls are not maintained current and
accurate condition consistent with the NVRA, Ohio
citizens could have their votes diluted cancelled
Id. 41.
out unlawful ballots cast the names outdated duplicate registrations. Public confidence the
integrity the electoral process important
interest, shared this case the State and people Ohio well Judicial Watch. See Judicial
Watch King, 993 Supp. 919, 924 (S.D. Ind.
2012) the state has legitimate interest
preventing that harm from occurring, surely voter
who alleges that such harm has befallen him her
has standing redress the cause that harm.
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
The structure Section the National Voter
Registration Act 1993 (NVRA), makes clear that
states are assigned the primary responsibility for
ensuring that their voter rolls contain only eligible
voters. U.S.C. 20507. The statute gives states
considerable discretion determine what measures
will constitute the reasonable efforts necessary
comply with Section particular, the NVRA says
nothing about what sorts events would warrant
the sending statutorily prescribed notice
voter who believed have moved elsewhere.
2002 amendment Section moreover, clarified
that the statute restriction removing voter for
failing vote did not apply removals under the
subsection dealing with that statutory notice. enjoining Ohio Supplemental Process, the
Sixth Circuit 2-1 ruling misapplied principles
statutory construction way that inverted the
plain meaning Section The Sixth Circuit
contended that reading the 2002 amendment
create exception for state procedures like Ohio
Supplemental Process would render the language
that amendment superfluous. fact, the 2002
amendment merely clarifies what had been
apparent conflict the NVRA, whereby Sections
8(b) and 8(d) seemed say different things about
whether voter could removed for failing vote.
The Sixth Circuit argument also ignored the
meaning supplied the structure the entire
statute, which indicates that states are free send
confirmation notices any nondiscriminatory and
uniform basis. exists, Ohio Supplemental Process allows
the sending statutory confirmation notice any
registrant has not had any voting-related activity for
two years.
After that, the registrant may
removed from the rolls there response
further activity for two general federal elections.
The Sixth Circuit further erred holding that this
sequence events amounts removing voter for
failing vote. the contrary the failure vote
only leads the sending notice. Subsequent
removal due the failure respond that notice
for period time that may extend four years.
The Sixth Circuit attempt argue otherwise relies misuse the plain language the NVRA.
The Sixth Circuit decision affects the interests the voters and government the State Ohio;
Judicial Watch, which has NVRA-related
Settlement Agreement with the State; other states
whose electoral laws are now peril; and the people the United States, who grow ever more jaded
about the integrity their electoral system. The
Sixth Circuit error should rectified the Court.
ARGUMENT
The Sixth Circuit Interpretation the
NVRA Counter-Textual. The Plain Language the NVRA Allows
States Decide How Conduct List
Maintenance and When Send
Registrant Confirmation Notice.
Section the integrity provision the NVRA,
requires states maintain accurate voter rolls.
U.S.C. 20507; see U.S.C. 20501(b)(3) and (4)
(NVRA stated purposes include protect[ing] the
integrity the electoral process and ensur[ing]
that accurate and current voter rolls are
maintained. Rep. 103-6 17-18, 103rd Cong., 1st
Sess. (1993) (extolling accurate and up-to-date voter
registration lists
The core requirement Section the mandate
that each State shall conduct general program
that makes reasonable effort remove the names ineligible voters from the official lists eligible
voters. Id., 20507(a)(4). This provision does not
list any particular steps that general program
must incorporate, specify exactly how state
should about complying. Rather, its plain
language, only requires that states make
reasonable effort. The precise meaning this
clause subject interpretation state
legislatures and, ultimately, federal courts. See
United States Missouri, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
27640 *19, 2007 1115204 (W.D. Mo. 2007),
aff part, rev part other grds., 535 F.3d
844 (8th Cir. 2008) The NVRA does not define
reasonable effort and the Court has found
authority that describes the parameter the
terms.
The rest Section makes sense the context the fact that the statute does not describe what
state must comply. Accordingly, Section 8(b)
provides that, whatever else such effort might
entail, must meet certain baseline requirements.
First, state effort must uniform,
nondiscriminatory, and compliance with the
Voting Rights Act. U.S.C. 20507(b)(1). And
second, must not remove person from the voter
rolls reason the person failure vote. Id.,
20507(b)(2). 2002, that provision was modified
add that nothing this paragraph may
construed prohibit State from using the
procedures described subsections [8](c) and [8](d) remove ineligible voters from the rolls.
Section 8(c), again implicitly recognizing the
indeterminate nature NVRA compliance, provides
that states may meet their list maintenance
obligations using change-of-address information
supplied the Postal Service. U.S.C.
20507(c)(1)(A). Finally, Section 8(d) provides that,
unless they confirm writing that they have moved,
registrants may not removed from the rolls for
changing addresses unless they fail respond
statutory notice (the confirmation notice and fail vote during the time period defined the next
two general federal elections. Id., 20507(d)(1), (2).
Subject the foregoing restraints, the NVRA
allows states wide latitude designing general
program that makes reasonable effort remove
ineligible registrants from the rolls. U.S.C.
20507(a)(4). particular relevance here the fact
that the NVRA says nothing about the kinds events
that states may rely grounds for sending
confirmation notices those who are believed have
moved. All that the NVRA requires that
confirmation notice must sent prior the
commencement the statutory waiting period
two
general
federal
elections.
Id.,
20507(d)(1)(B)(ii). There simply basis for
reading any other requirements into the statute. See
Ill. Pub. Telcoms. Ass FCC, 752 F.3d 1018, 1023
(D.C. Cir. 2014) will not read into the statute
mandatory provision that Congress declined
supply citing ANTONIN SCALIA BRYAN GARNER,
READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION LEGAL TEXTS (2012) (omitted-case canon); Ebert Poston, 266
U.S. 548, 554 (1925) casus omissus does not
justify judicial legislation. (citation omitted); Iselin United States, 270 U.S. 245, 251 (1926)
supply omissions transcends the judicial function.
(citations omitted); United States Ron Pair
Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) where, here, the statute language plain, the sole
function the courts enforce according its
terms. (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the NVRA would not prevent Ohio
from sending confirmation notices every year
every registrant the State, although this
undoubtedly would quite expensive. equally
clear that the NVRA would not prohibit Ohio from
sending confirmation notices uniform and
nondiscriminatory basis any meaningful subset the foregoing, for example, residents who have
ceased filing state tax returns, which may suggest
that they have moved. the same vein, nothing
the NVRA prohibits Ohio from sending
confirmation notice all registered voters who have
not engaged any voter activity the preceding
two years, per the State Supplemental Process.
The State leeway fully consistent with
the design the NVRA, which generally accords
states great deal freedom crafting their list
maintenance programs. See Mart Corp. Cartier,
486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) the plain meaning [a]
statute depends the particular statutory
language issue, well the language and
design the statute whole. (citations
omitted).
Finally, the conclusion that Ohio may use any
reasonable basis trigger the sending
confirmation notices only made more compelling the 2002 amendment the NVRA.
That
amendment made clear that the bar contained
Section 8(b) any removal from the rolls reason [a] person failure vote did not apply
removal for failing respond confirmation
notice. Id., 20507(b)(2). The Sixth Circuit Ruling Disregards
the Plain Meaning Section the
NVRA. holding that the NVRA proscribes Ohio
Supplemental process, the Sixth Circuit misapplied
canons statutory construction and ultimately
mandated outcome that disregards, and even
contrary to, the plain meaning Section
The Sixth Circuit was first compelled explain
the 2002 amendment the NVRA.
This
amendment qualified Section proviso that one
could removed from the voter rolls reason
[their] failure vote, adding that nothing
this paragraph may construed prohibit State
from using the procedures described in, inter alia,
Section 8(d), remove voter from the rolls.
U.S.C. 20507(b)(2). other words, Section 8(b)(2)
was amended precisely order make clear that
state procedures like Ohio Supplemental Process
that involved sending Section 8(d) confirmation
notices were not proscribed that paragraphs
other restriction removals for failure vote. This
amendment seems bar the very arguments made Respondents below and accepted the Sixth
Circuit. response this point, the Sixth Circuit
contended that reading Section 8(b)(2) exception mere reiteration Section 8(d)(1) would make
the exception superfluous, contrary accepted
canons statutory construction. App. 18a.
Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the
amendment must have been intended apply the
prohibition contained all statutes. App. 20a.
this reasoning, the 2002 amendment was seen
specially refer rather than specially except
statutes like Ohio Supplemental Process. the course its reasoning the Sixth Circuit
misapplied
the
statutory
canon
regarding
superfluous language. Prior its amendment, the
NVRA merely provided that person may
removed from the rolls reason the person
failure vote. U.S.C. 20507(b)(2). However,
two subsections down from that clause, the NVRA
provided that person who has changed residence
and who has failed respond confirmation
notice may removed she has not voted
appeared vote election during the period
beginning the date the notice and ending after
the date the second general Federal election. Id.,
20507(d)(1)(B)(ii).
These provisions appear openly conflict.
Perhaps reviewing court would have found the
proper way reconcile these provisions using
appropriate canons statutory construction. any
event, the 2002 amendment removed all doubt,
resolving the conflict clarifying that that Section
8(b) did not bar the use Section 8(d) remove
ineligible registrants.
Statutory language that
clarifies provision not superfluous. United
States Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 137
(2007) The phrase any other person performs
significant function simply clarifying that
subparagraph (B) excludes the persons enumerated subparagraph (A).
The Court Atlantic
Research Corp. also issued pertinent warning,
when observed that our hesitancy construe
statutes render language superfluous does not
require avoid surplusage all costs.
appropriate tolerate degree surplusage rather
than adopt textually dubious construction that
threatens render the entire provision nullity.
Id. The Sixth Circuit has adopted just such
dubious construction, insisting that language
plainly intended exempt the use confirmation
notices was actually meant include and refer
them.
The Sixth Circuit next innovation even more
misguided. After determining that Section 8(b)(2)
did not contain exception for procedures like the
Supplemental Process, the Court asked whether that
process result[s] the removal voters for failing vote. App. 21a (internal citation and quotation
omitted). finding that does, the Sixth Circuit
defined result strict, but-for causation, however
attenuated. Id.
That interpretation not consistent, however,
with the ordinary meaning the words the
statute. Sebelius Cloer, 133 Ct. 1886, 1893
(2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted). ordinary language, when said that one event the result another, the initiating event
usually the one closest time the caused event. put more concretely, ordinarily would said
that the Supplemental Process resulted
confirmation notice being sent. turn, the failure respond that confirmation notice, along with
the passage time until the second general federal
election, resulted registrant being removed
from the rolls. one ordinary speech uses the
terms result cause consequence refer
back indiscriminately and equally all prior causes,
however remote, causal chain. Ordinary speech
limits the reference sense nearness.
And lawyers have word for this. The term
proximate cause shorthand for concept: Injuries
have countless causes, and not all should give rise
legal liability. Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP
Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207, 223 (2012) (Scalia, J.,
concurring judgment) (citation omitted). Life
too short pursue every event its most remote,
but-for, consequences, and the doctrine proximate
cause provides rough guide for courts cutting off
otherwise endless chains cause-and-effect. Id.
(citation omitted). Applying this principle here, the
proximate cause the removal voters under the
Supplemental Process their failure respond
confirmation notice, along with the passage
statutory period time.
Registrants are not
removed for failing vote. reach the conclusions that did, the Sixth
Circuit majority engaged needlessly convoluted
analysis the language Section Circuit Judge
Siler, who dissented from the majority approach
the NVRA, had right when observed that [t]his
seems much simpler process than outlined the majority opinion. App. 33a.
The State cannot remove the registrant
name from the rolls for failure vote only,
and Ohio does not so. removes
registrants only (1) they have not voted
updated their registration for the last two
years, (2) also failed respond the
address-confirmation notice, and (3) then
failed engage any voter activity four
consecutive years, including two consecutive
Federal elections following that notice.
App. 34a.
II. Important that the Court Address this
Issue Now.
The Court guidance urgently needed
restore the meaning and efficacy the NVRA. The
correct interpretation Section that statute has
significant consequences for the State and people
Ohio, for Judicial Watch, for other states whose
electoral statutes are placed risk the Sixth
Circuit flawed interpretation, and for the people
the United States, who share common interest
electoral integrity.
Ohio has legitimate interest fostering
election integrity removing ineligible voters from
the rolls. the Court has observed:
There question about the legitimacy
importance the State interest counting
only the votes eligible voters. Moreover,
the interest orderly administration and
accurate recordkeeping provides sufficient
justification for carefully identifying all
voters participating the election process.
While the most effective method
preventing election fraud may well
debatable, the propriety doing
perfectly clear.
Crawford Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S.
181, 196 (2008).
For its part, Judicial Watch institutionally
devoted the cause election integrity. This
interest was clearly demonstrated when Judicial
Watch sued the State Ohio 2012 under Section the NVRA for alleged failure conduct
proper list maintenance. January 2014, the
parties executed Settlement Agreement resolving
the matter, which expires November 10, 2018.
Amicus Curiae Brief Judicial Watch, Inc.
Support Defendant-Appellant and Affirmance, Ex. Ohio Phillip Randolph Institute Husted, No.
16-3746 (6th Cir. July 27, 2016), ECF No. 37. The
centerpiece that Settlement Agreement
provision requiring the sending confirmation
notices annual basis voters who have not
engaged voting-related activity for two-year
period. Id. 41, 44. The legal status this
provision obviously called into doubt the Sixth
Circuit ruling. Moreover, the fact that crucial
term may invalid renders the status the entire
Settlement Agreement questionable, not clear
that Judicial Watch has received its bargained-for
consideration. Certainly the value the agreement Judicial Watch considerably diminished.
practical matter, these developments raise the real
prospect further litigation.
The Sixth Circuit ruling calls into question the
previously settled electoral laws number other
states.
Most obviously, affects the State
Georgia, which has been sued over similar statute.
See Common Cause and the Georgia State
Conference the NAACP Kemp, 1:16-cv-452-TCB
(N.D. Ga. 2016). But also likely lead
lawsuits other states, especially given the fact
that the Sixth Circuit decision undermines the use voter inactivity anywhere the chain events
leading the cancellation registration.
Montana, election administrators are required
conduct list maintenance procedures every other
year, and one their options targeted mailing,
which may forwardable confirmation notice,
voters who failed vote the preceding federal
general election. MONT. CODE ANN. 13-2-220(1)(c)
(2015). Missouri, election officials conduct
canvasses every two years, and may canvass all
voters, only those voters who did not vote the
last general election. MO. REV. STAT. 115.181 R.S.
Mo. (2016). Tennessee law requires that, where
voter fails vote update his her registration
over period two consecutive November elections,
the county must mail confirmation notice. TENN.
CODE ANN. 2-2-106(c). West Virginia law provides
that addition the NCOA procedure, all counties
using the NCOA information from the U.S. Postal
Service shall also, once each four years conduct
the same procedure mailing confirmation notice those persons who have not updated their
voter registration records and have not voted any
election during the preceding four calendar years.
W.VA. CODE 3-2-25(j) (2016). Nor Judicial Watch
able represent here that the foregoing list
exhaustive.
Finally, ruling resolving the dispute about the
correct operation the NVRA the interest
the people the United States. easy find
polls and surveys showing that Americans have little
faith the integrity their elections and
postulating that this partly explains low voter
Restoring public confidence the
turnout.5
integrity elections the national interest.
Crawford, aside from states interest preventing
fraud, the Court identified this second important
interest, namely, public confidence the integrity the electoral process, which has independent
significance,
because
encourages
citizen
participation the democratic process. 553 U.S.
197; see Purcell Gonzalez, 549 U.S. (2006) Confidence the integrity our electoral
processes essential the functioning our
participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest
citizens out the democratic process and breeds
distrust our government. see also Doe Reed,
561 U.S. 186, 197 (2010) (the State interest
preserving the integrity the electoral process was
See, e.g., Pippa Norris, Holly Ann Garnett and Max mping, Why Don More Americans Vote? Maybe Because
They Don Trust U.S. Elections, Wash. Post, December 26,
2016, available goo.gl/zAXsiW
particularly strong with respect efforts root out
fraud, citing Crawford and Purcell).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, amicus Judicial Watch
respectfully request that the Court grant the petition
for writ certiorari.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Popper
Counsel Record
Chris Fedeli
Lauren Burke
Eric Lee
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
rpopper@judicialwatch.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
March 10, 2017