PILF Argues States Must Be Treated Equally Under Federal Election Law and Disclose Public Information to Federal Appeals Courts

Published On: February 26th, 2025

PILF Suing Wisconsin to Comply with NVRA | Suing Hawaii for Voter Roll Access

(Alexandria, VA) – February 26, 2025: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) argued that election records must be public to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and that states must be treated equally under the NVRA to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. PILF filed briefs in two federal appellate courts late last week in its cases to advance public access rights to voter registration data management in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Both cases relate to public inspection rights enshrined in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). 

In 2024, PILF sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission under Section 8 of the NVRA – despite the State’s 1993 exemption to the law thanks to its same-day voter registration regime. PILF is testing the exemption based on state equality requirements and the advancement of same-day registration more broadly in the United States. In 1993, Wisconsin’s same-day regime was seen as a rarity and more potent than the “motor voter” requirement the NVRA would mandate for the rest of the country. Today, Wisconsin’s system is common, with 20 states plus D.C. offering similar functions at the polls. The states that adopted same-day laws after the NVRA was passed did not get exemptions like Wisconsin. California and North Carolina’s same-day registration regimes are subject to public inspection thanks to the NVRA – but not in Wisconsin. PILF argues this dynamic favoring Wisconsin deprives other states of equal sovereignty, considering Shelby County v. Holder (2013).

PILF’s brief to the Seventh Circuit reads in part:

When Congress passed the NVRA, it gave a small number of states then-offering voter registration on Election Day an exemption from the entire Act. This appeal narrowly asks whether Congress’s decision to exempt one of those states—Wisconsin—from the NVRA’s Public Disclosure Provision, is unconstitutional because (1) it deprives other states of equal sovereignty without justification, and (2) there is insufficient “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.”

PILF sued the Hawaii Office of Elections after attempting to secure an official copy of the statewide voter roll in 2023. Hawaii told the Foundation to contact the Hawaii counties to receive a list of registered voters. Access was further denied because of a Hawaii law that does not allow access to the voter roll unless it is for an election or government purpose. Hawaii is in violation of the NVRA’s requirements to maintain and provide a statewide voter roll for public inspection. Further, Hawaii law that restricts who can access the voter roll violates the NVRA’s public disclosure provision. PILF is appealing a case dismissal ruling from the lower court to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

PILF’s brief to the Ninth Circuit reads in part:

This case presents the simple question of whether a state election official must comply with the plain statutory terms of the National Voter Registration Act requiring records they possess to be disclosed … The question presented here, therefore, is when is a NVRA claim ripe. Hawaii’s Chief Election Officer elected to not produce a copy of Hawaii’s eligible voter list to the Foundation within ninety days of receiving the notice to cure letter. Is more required to ripen a claim? Mr. Nago argues that a party seeking records that are subject to disclosure under the NVRA must first request a subset of those records from third parties under state procedures before a claim is ripe. No such requirement to comply with an arbitrary state procedure exists in the NVRA.

“If PILF’s case is successful in Wisconsin, local voters will be one step closer to realizing the powerful rights given to most Americans when they seek deeper insights into government decisions about voting rights. A victory in the Ninth Circuit would build upon PILF’s record of securing private investigative rights into voting records like in the First and Fourth Circuit Courts. — PILF President, J. Christian Adams.

###

Public Interest Legal Foundation