Amicus Curiae Brief — Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc., Petitioner v. Scott T. Nago, Chief Election Officer of the State of Hawaii

No. 26-98

In the Supreme Court of the United States

PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Hawaii’s

Chief State Election Officer,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

_________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL

WATCH, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

_________

ERIC W. LEE

Counsel of Record

ROBERT D. POPPER

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

425 Third Street, SW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 646-5172

elee@judicialwatch.org

T. RUSSELL NOBILE

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

P.O. Box 6592

Gulfport, MS 39506

(202) 527-9866

Counsel for Amicus

Curiae

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii

INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................3

ARGUMENT ...............................................................6

I.

The Voter Registration List Concerns the

Implementation of Programs and Activities

Conducted to Ensure an Accurate List ............ 6

II.

Disclosure of the Voter Registration List

Advances the Statutory Purposes of the

NVRA. .............................................................. 10

A. Transparency Improves Citizen

Confidence of and Participation in the

Democratic Process .................................... 11

B. The Voter Registration List is a Record

that Reveals Compliance with the

List Maintenance Provisions of the

NVRA .......................................................... 12

CONCLUSION ..........................................................16

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page(s)

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.,

570 U.S. 1 (2013).................................................10

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399 (2020) ...........................7

Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania,

Inc.,

447 U.S. 102 (1980)...............................................6

Coventry Health Care of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils,

581 U.S. 87 (2017) ................................................7

Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd.,

553 U.S. 181 (2008).............................................12

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst.,

584 U.S. 756 (2018)................................... 3, 13, 14

Illinois Conservative Union v. Illinois,

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102543

(N.D. Ill. June 1, 2021) .........................................2

Judicial Watch v. Grimes,

No. 17-94 (E.D. Ky. 2017) .....................................2

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Griswold,

554 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (D. Colo. 2021) .............2, 15

iii

Judicial Watch v. Lamone,

399 F. Supp. 3d 425 (D. Md. 2019) ...................2, 8

Judicial Watch v. Logan,

No. 17-8948 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................2

Judicial Watch v. North Carolina,

No. 20-cv-211 (W.D.N.C. 2020) ..........................15

Judicial Watch v. Pennsylvania Sec. of State,

No. 20-708 (M.D. Pa. 2020) ..................................2

Judicial Watch v. Read,

No. 24-1783 (D. Or. 2024) ...............................2, 14

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,

494 U.S. 827 (1990)...............................................6

Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling,

584 U.S. 709 (2018).............................................10

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,

504 U.S. 374 (1992)...............................................7

New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (2019) ......6

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022) .................... 6-7

Project Vote v. Long,

682 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 2012) .................... 4, 11, 12

Pub. Int. Legal Found., Inc. v. Bellows,

92 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2024) .........................4, 8, 13

iv

Public Interest Legal Found. v. Nago,

174 F.4th 664 (9th Cir. 2026) .........................9, 10

Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)......................12

Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn.,

534 U.S. 533 (2002)...............................................6

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) ................10

United States v. Menasche,

348 U.S. 528 (1955)...............................................9

Voter Reference Found., LLC v. Torrez,

160 F.4th 1068 (10th Cir. 2025) .....................4, 11

Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273 (1997) .......................3

Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 552 ..............................................................1

52 U.S.C. § 20501 ..................................................3, 10

52 U.S.C. § 20507 ..................................... 1-4, 6, 13-15

52 U.S.C. § 21083 ........................................................8

Regulations

11 C.F.R. § 9428.2 .....................................................13

v

Other

Jacob Jaffe, et al., “Trust in the Count:

Improving Voter Confidence with

Post-election Audits,” Public Opinion

Quarterly (2024) Vol 88 Special Issue ...............11

Judicial Watch, Judicial Watch: 372,000

Inactive Voters Removed from Colorado

Voter Rolls after Lawsuit and Settlement,

(Apr. 8, 2026) ........................................................2

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

(11th ed. 2008) ......................................................7

Pew Center on the States,

Election Initiatives Issue Brief (Feb. 2012) .......14

Sippel, Evan, “Restoring Confidence in Our

Elections: An Analysis of Post-Election

Audits in South Dakota” (2025) .........................11

1

INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”) is a notfor-profit educational foundation dedicated to fostering accountability, transparency, integrity in government, and fidelity to the rule of law. In pursuit of its

public interest objectives, Judicial Watch routinely

requests access to public records from federal, state,

and local agencies, which it subsequently disseminates to its members and the public at large.

Since its founding in 1994, Judicial Watch has

submitted thousands of public records requests under

the nation’s public-disclosure laws, and sues to enforce those law when requests are denied. Judicial

Watch litigates and enforces public records requests

under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5

U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i) – the

statute at issue here. The records obtained through

Judicial Watch’s efforts are vital to enhancing public

understanding of government operations.

As part of its NVRA enforcement, Judicial Watch

frequently requests state election records under

§ 20507(i), including the voter registration list. When

state law imposes an obstacle to disclosure of the

voter registration list under the NVRA, Judicial

Amicus state that no counsel for a party to this case authored this brief in whole or in part; and no person or entity,

other than Amicus and their counsel, made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission of this

brief. Pursuant to Rule 37.2, counsel of record for each party received timely notice prior to filing this amicus brief.

1

2

Watch, on its own or on behalf of others, sues to compel disclosure. Judicial Watch v. Lamone, 399 F.

Supp. 3d 425 (D. Md. 2019); Illinois Conservative Union v. Illinois, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102543 (N.D. Ill.

June 1, 2021).

Judicial Watch’s public records requests under

Section 20507(i) are critical in evaluating NVRA compliance. As a result of its use of the state’s voter registration list and other election-related information

and records published by the Election Assistance

Commission, Judicial Watch’s efforts have led to the

identification and removal of over six million outdated and ineligible names from voter rolls across

nearly a dozen states. 2 See, e.g., Judicial Watch v.

Grimes, No. 17-94 (E.D. Ky. 2017) (ECF No. 39) (consent decree entered with the Commonwealth of Kentucky to settle NVRA claims); Judicial Watch v. Logan, No. 17-8948 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (NVRA settlement

agreement with Los Angeles County and the State of

California); Judicial Watch v. Griswold, No. 20-2992

(D. Colo. 2020) (NVRA settlement agreement with the

State of Colorado); Judicial Watch v. Pennsylvania

Sec. of State, No. 20-708 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (NVRA settlement agreement the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania); Judicial Watch v. Read, No. 24-1783 (D. Or.

2024).

Amicus Judicial Watch has a strong interest in

the issues presented in this petition and the proper

Judicial Watch, Judicial Watch: 372,000 Inactive Voters Removed from Colorado Voter Rolls after Lawsuit and Settlement,

(Apr. 8, 2026), https://www.judicialwatch.org/inactive-voters-removed-colorado-voter-rolls/.

2

3

scope of Section 8(i) of the NVRA. Section 8(i) is an

important public-disclosure law that allows the public to evaluate the accuracy and currency of a state’s

voter list maintenance and registration practices. Judicial Watch respectfully submits this brief in support of Petitioner. The Court should grant certiorari

on the question of whether the statewide voter registration list falls within the scope of the NVRA’s disclosure provision. As shown below, the Ninth Circuit’s decision is not only wrong, but it creates an irreconcilable circuit split and poses issues for individuals and organizations seeking to enforce the list

maintenance provisions of the NVRA.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The NVRA “requires States to provide simplified

systems for registering to vote in federal elections,”

Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 275 (1997), and to

increase “the participation of eligible citizens,” while

also “protect[ing] the integrity of the electoral process” by “ensur[ing] that accurate and current voter

registration rolls are maintained.” 52 U.S.C. §

20501(b)(2)-(4). For the latter goal, the NVRA mandates “states to ‘conduct a general program that

makes a reasonable effort to remove the names’ of

voters who are ineligible ‘by reason of’ death or

change of address.” Husted v. A. Philip Randolph

Inst., 584 U.S. 756, 761 (2018) (citing 52 U.S.C. §

20507(a)(4)).

Consistent with these purposes, the NVRA

grants the public insight into the state’s list maintenance practices. Subject to a few limited exceptions,

4

it requires states to “maintain” and “make available”

to the public “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official

lists of eligible voters.” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i) (emphasis added). This provision evinced “Congress’s intent

to support the transparency and circulation of voter

data among the public to help detect and correct errors.” Voter Reference Found., LLC v. Torrez, 160

F.4th 1068, 1081 (10th Cir. 2025) (citing Pub. Int. Legal Found., Inc. v. Bellows, 92 F.4th 36, 54 (1st Cir.

2024)); Project Vote v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 339 (4th

Cir. 2012) (“State officials labor under a duty of accountability to the public in ensuring that voter lists

include eligible voters and exclude ineligible ones in

the most accurate manner possible.”).

The plain meaning and ordinary terms of Section

8(i) clearly encompass the official list of eligible voters. It is the primary and ultimate end product that

concerns the implementation of all state programs

and activities to ensure an accurate voter registration list. As this Court has held, terms similar to “all”

and “concern” encompass great breadth. When Congress employs such terms, the Court’s role is to interpret and apply them in accordance with their ordinary meaning.

The Ninth Circuit departed from this framework,

holding that the voter registration list is not a record

that concerns the implementations of programs and

activities to ensure an accurate voter list. This ruling

is not only wrong, but it also threatens electoral

5

transparency nationwide and undermines the purposes for which Congress passed the NVRA.

It also limits the ability of organizations such as

Judicial Watch to enforce the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA. Judicial Watch often uses the

statewide voter registration list to determine if jurisdictions are complying with the list maintenance requirements of the NVRA. The voter registration list

is key to determining whether jurisdictions are

properly inactivating and then cancelling registrants

who have changed address. The voter registration

list will show a voter’s status and whether a voter has

been changed from active to inactive after receipt of

a forwardable address confirmation notice. It can

also find violations whenever a jurisdiction fails to

cancel a registrant as required by the NVRA after notice and the passage of two general federal elections.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision would allow states to

withhold such critical records and to hide a failure to

implement programs and activities necessary ensure

an accurate list.

This Court should grant certiorari to reaffirm

that the voter registration list is a record covered under the NVRA; resolve the entrenched split; and prevent the Ninth Circuit’s error from further obstructing the transparency Congress mandated under the

NVRA.

6

ARGUMENT

I.

The Voter Registration List Concerns the

Implementation of Programs and Activities

Conducted to Ensure an Accurate List.

As in all statutory interpretation cases, the starting point “is the language of the statute itself,” which

must “ordinarily be regarded as conclusive,” absent a

“clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,

494 U.S. 827, 835 (1990) (quoting Consumer Product

Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102,

108 (1980)). In reviewing the statutory language,

“words generally should be ‘interpreted as taking

their ordinary … meaning … at the time Congress

enacted the statute.’” New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 586

U.S. 105, 113 (2019) (citations omitted).

Section 8(i)(1) of the NVRA provides each “state

shall maintain” and “make available for public inspection … all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official

lists of eligible voters.” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1). The

ordinary, plain meaning of the language suggests

Congress intended the NVRA’s disclosure provision

to have substantial reach. Congress’ “use of the word

‘all’ [as a modifier] suggests an expansive meaning

because ‘all’ is a term of great breadth.” Project Vote,

682 F.3d at 336 (citation and internal quotations

omitted); see also Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of

Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541 (2002); cf. Patel v. Garland,

7

596 U.S. 328, 338 (2022) (“As this Court has ‘repeatedly explained,’ ‘the word “any” has an expansive

meaning.’” (quoting Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399, 405

n.2 (2020))).

The record must also “concern” the implementation of programs and activities to ensure an accurate

list. Like “all,” “concerning” is a similarly broad term.

See Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th

ed. 2008) (“Concern” includes “relate to,” “be about,”

“bear on,” “have an influence on,” “INVOLVE”). This

Court has repeatedly held the phrase “relating to,”

which is one of the meanings of “concerning,” to have

expansive and broad reach. See Coventry Health Care

of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils, 581 U.S. 87, 95-96 (2017) (Congress’ use of the term “relate to” is “expansive” and

“employs the phrase to reach any subject that has ‘a

connection with, or reference to,’ the topics the statute enumerates”

(citations

omitted));

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378390 (1992).

When viewed in this light, the voter registration

list clearly is a record that concerns programs and

activities to ensure that the voter registration list is

more accurate and current. The statewide registration list has a “connection with” and “reference to” all

the programs and activities mandated by the NVRA

to ensure an accurate voter registration list. Coventry Health, 581 U.S. at 95-96. Indeed, the “process of

creating, updating, and auditing registrations ‘is a

“program” … because it is carried out in the service

of a specified end—maintenance of voter rolls—and

it is an ‘activity’ because it is a particular task . . . of

8

[Maryland] election employees.’” Judicial Watch, 399

F. Supp. 3d at 439 (citations omitted). Simply put,

the voter registration list is an aggregate dataset reflecting the outcome of all the programs and activities conducted by the state or county to ensure that

the records are accurate and up to date. 3

That is why a unanimous panel of the First Circuit had no problem finding that Maine’s statewide

voter registration list was a record mandated to be

disclosed by the NVRA. The Maine voter registration

list “plainly relates to” the implementation of programs and activities for an accurate list since it “reflects the additions and changes made by Maine election officials … as part of Maine’s voter list registration and maintenance activities.” Bellows, 92 F.4th

at 47. In essence, it is “the output and end result of

such activities.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit, however, found otherwise. In

departing from the plain text and ordinary meaning

of the NVRA—and contrary to the First Circuit’s

holding in Bellows—the Ninth Circuit in Nago re-

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”) only reinforces

the argument that the statewide voter registration list is a “record” that “concerns” the implementation of programs and activities to ensure an accurate list. Prior to HAVA, many jurisdictions

kept their list solely in a paper format. But the passage of HAVA

mandated all states establish a “uniform” “computerized

statewide voter registration list,” with “the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State.”

52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(1)(A). That “computerized list” must be updated on a “regular basis” in accordance with the removal provisions of Section 8 of the NVRA. Id. § 21083(a)(2).

3

9

markably held that Hawaii’s statewide voter registration list is not a record that concerns implementation of programs and activities to ensure an accurate

list. The Ninth Circuit impermissibly slighted the

broadening language of “all records” and “concerning” by focusing predominantly on the terms “implementation” and “programs and activities” to narrowly “cabin[] the disclosure requirement.” Public Interest Legal Found. v. Nago, 174 F.4th 664, 679-80

(9th Cir. 2026). According to the court of appeals, the

term “concerning” is solely the object of the term “implementation” of “relevant programs,” which in turn,

limits the records that “relate to active processes or

the plan for carrying them out, not the outcome of

those processes.” Id. at 680.

But the records that embody the final “outcome”

of list maintenance “processes” concern or relate to

the implementation of those programs just as much

as the program itself. Any other reading of the NVRA

would diminish the word “concerning.” Courts must

“give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a

statute,” United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528,

538-39 (1955) (citation omitted), and restricting the

breadth of the term “concerning” to only those direct

records of list maintenance programs and activities

would do the exact opposite. If Congress wanted to

limit the disclosure mandate to “all records on the

implementation of programs and activities that ensure an accurate and current list,” it could easily

have done so. But it did not. Congress intentionally

chose the broad language of “concerning” to expand

the disclosure’s reach, not only to direct evidence of

list maintenance programs and activities, but also

10

the final product itself (i.e., the statewide voter registration list). See Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v.

Appling, 584 U.S. 709, 719 (2018) (declining to limit

the reach of “respecting” to include only a certain

subset of financial records when “Congress did not

use such narrow language.” (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)).

Nago’s textual departure from the NVRA and the

subsequent conflict with the First Circuit warrants

this Court’s review and resolution.

II. Disclosure of the Voter Registration List

Advances the Statutory Purposes of the

NVRA.

The NVRA is a “complex superstructure of federal regulation atop state voter-registration systems.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.,

570 U.S. 1, 5 (2013). It has two main objectives: first,

“increase the number of eligible citizens who register

to vote” and “enhance[]” their “participation … as

voters in elections for Federal office”; and second, “to

protect the integrity of the electoral process” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration

rolls are maintained.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b). Disclosure of the voter registration list under the NVRA

serves all objectives by enhancing voter participation

and protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

11

A. Transparency Improves Citizen Confidence of and Participation in the Democratic Process.

Public disclosure of election documents improves

citizen confidence in the integrity of the process. As

many empirical studies have found, transparency in

the electoral process bolsters citizens’ confidence in

the integrity of the election results. See Jacob Jaffe,

et al., “Trust in the Count: Improving Voter Confidence with Post-election Audits,” Public Opinion

Quarterly (2024) Vol 88 Special Issue, 585–607,

available

at

https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/88/SI/585/7712445; Sippel, Evan, “Restoring Confidence in Our Elections: An Analysis of Post-Election Audits in South Dakota” (2025). Honors Thesis

351, available at https://red.library.usd.edu/honorsthesis/351.

In finding that completed voter registration applications were “records” that “concerned the implementation of programs and activities” for an accurate

voter list, the Fourth Circuit noted that “disclosure

promotes transparency in the voting process, and

courts should be loath to reject a legislative effort so

germane to the integrity of federal elections.” Project

Vote, 682 F.3d at 339-340. “Without such transparency, public confidence in the essential workings of

democracy will suffer.” Id. at 339. See also Torrez,

160 F.4th at 1082 (“prohibiting certain uses of New

Mexico’s voter data, the Use Restrictions obstruct the

NVRA’s primary goal of providing broad transparency and circulation of such voter data.”).

12

Disclosure of voter data increases public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, which

serves both of the main objectives of the NVRA, to

enhance voter participation and to ensure accurate

and current voter registration lists. “[P]ublic confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen

participation in the democratic process.” Crawford v.

Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 197 (2008).

That is because “fraud drives honest citizens out of

the democratic process and breeds distrust of our

government.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4

(2006) (per curiam). “Voters who fear their legitimate

voters will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel

disenfranchised.” Id. Disclosure of the voter registration list allows the public to audit the statewide list

for fraud and errors and enhances the public’s confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

B. The Voter Registration List is a Record

that Reveals Compliance with the List

Maintenance Provisions of the NVRA.

The document disclosure provision of the NVRA

was designed to allow the public to scrutinize list

maintenance practices and determine the accuracy of

the voter registration lists. “[D]isclosure” under the

NVRA “will assist the identification of both error and

fraud in the preparation and maintenance of voter

rolls.” Project Vote, 682 F.3d at 339. “State officials

labor under a duty of accountability to the public in

ensuring that voter lists include eligible voters and

exclude ineligible ones in the most accurate manner

13

possible.” Id. at 339. And disclosure of the voter registration file “is necessary if members of the public,

or organizations … are ever to identify, address, and

fix irregularities in states’ voter rolls by exercising

their private right of action under the NVRA.” Bellows, 92 F.4th at 54 (citation omitted).

The NVRA provides that the registrations of

those who have moved out of a jurisdiction may only

be cancelled in two ways. First, those who confirm a

change of address in writing are removed from the

rolls. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(d)(1)(A). Second, registrants,

who have been sent a “postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card” by forwardable mail asking

them to confirm their address and who fail to respond

to that notice and then fail to “vote[] or appear[] to

vote” for two general federal elections are removed

from the voter registration list. Id. § 20507(d)(1)(B),

(d)(2). A registrant who fails to respond to a notice is

designated “inactive” for the duration of that statutory waiting period of two to four years. 11 C.F.R. §

9428.2(d). Such a registrant is still a registered voter

and may still vote during that period, which stops the

NVRA removal process and returns the voter to “active” status. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(e). But unless that

happens, states must remove that registration after

the second general federal election of inactivity. See

Husted, 584 U.S. at 767 (outlining the NVRA’s address confirmation notice and removal process under

52 U.S.C. § 20507(d)).

Judicial Watch’s NVRA enforcement efforts focus

predominantly on the change-of-address procedure

under Section 8(d). Oftentimes, jurisdictions will fail

14

to timely mark a registrant inactive who received a

confirmation notice, or will fail to remove the inactive

registrant after the second general federal election of

inactivity, leaving registrants who have long moved

out of state on their rolls for years or sometimes decades. State voter registration lists then become filled

with ineligible registrants and people registered in

multiple states. As a result, “24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—

are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”

Husted, 584 U.S. at 760 (citing Pew Center on the

States, Election Initiatives Issue Brief (Feb. 2012)).

One of the best and most reliable ways to obtain

evidence of a jurisdiction’s failure to timely remove

an inactive registrant for change of address is

through the statewide registration list. Any given

state’s voter registration list will contain fields such

as the voter’s name, residential address, voter’s status, including active or inactive, and voter history for

a period of time. The voter registration list will show

whether an inactive registrant has been so for more

than two general federal elections without any further voting history. If this happens regularly it suggests that a jurisdiction is failing to remove old, inactive registrations as required by NVRA Section

8(d)(1)(B).

Many of allegations in Judicial Watch’s suits allege there are large numbers of inactive registrants

who have no voting history for two or more general

federal elections. See e.g., Judicial Watch v. Read,

No. 24-1783 (D. Or. 2024) ECF 12, ¶ 55 (“Oregon’s

15

voter rolls contain over 640,000 inactive registrations that show no voter activity for three or more

consecutive general federal elections”); Judicial

Watch v. North Carolina, No. 20-cv-211 (W.D.N.C.

2020) ECF No. 1, ¶ 55 (voter registration data in

North Carolina “indicates that many of the inactive

registrations in Mecklenburg and Guilford Counties

have shown no voting activity for longer than the prescribed statutory waiting period of two general federal elections.”). Courts have relied on these types of

allegations as plausible evidence of a Section 8 violation of the NVRA. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Griswold,

554 F. Supp. 3d 1091, 1107 (D. Colo. 2021) (reliance

on public records such as Colorado having “too high

a number of inactive voters on the rolls” plausibly alleged “Colorado’s list maintenance program does not

comply with the NVRA”).

Clearly, the voter registration list is a record that

“concern[s] the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring” an accurate voter registration list. At a minimum, it concerns the specific change-of-address program mandated by Section 8(d), since the list is the aggregate

of data concerning registrants who should have been

removed. The Ninth Circuit below erred in finding

otherwise.

16

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari

should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC W. LEE

Counsel of Record

ROBERT D. POPPER

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

425 Third Street, SW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024

(202) 646-5172

T. RUSSELL NOBILE

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.

P.O. Box 6592

Gulfport, MS 39506

(202) 527-9866

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

August 21, 2026