Lawsuit Seeking Harris County Noncitizen Voter Records Can Proceed

(HOUSTON, TX.) – March 11, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) commended an order denying the Harris County Registrar’s request to dismiss a lawsuit seeking access to public records showing the extent of noncitizen voter registration in the county. (PILF v. Harris Bennett 4:18-cv-00981).

The federal district court in Houston, Texas, held that the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar’s motion to dismiss PILF’s case is denied and adopted the U.S. Magistrate’s Memorandum and Recommendation on Monday, March 11.

“Proponents of open and transparent government notched an important victory today,” PILF Communications and Research Director Logan Churchwell said. “Federal law empowers everyone access to inspect voter registration records to determine how well they are kept. Harris County has, for years, told the public about noncitizen voting to influence policy in Austin and Washington. This order brings us one step closer to demonstrating the true scale and causes.

Following the Monday order, the Court is slated to consider motions for summary judgment.

The case continues in tandem with a state court action brought by Harris County against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after his office opined that noncitizen records sought by PILF should generally be disclosed under state statutes as well.

PILF previously responded to claims made by Harris County suggesting that it had no right to data related to noncitizen voter registrants and that the federal case should be stayed pending a state court judgment in Austin, among other matters.

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to inspect “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,” the PILF noted in its original complaint.

A copy of the case fact sheet can be found, here.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case number is 4:18-cv-00981.

Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams and Noel H. Johnson. Brenham-based Andy Taylor of Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. serves as local counsel.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###

PILF Seeks to Intervene in the Texas Noncitizen Voter Removal Case

(SAN ANTONIO, TX.) – March 1, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed a motion to intervene in defense of Texas’ efforts to assist in the identification and removal of noncitizens registered to vote in the state.

The Foundation seeks to intervene in the ongoing case against Texas’ recent guidance to counties offering voter list maintenance leads on potential noncitizens registered to vote. PILF wishes to share its concerns about attacks on protected speech and attempts to chill reasonable efforts to clear voter rolls of ineligible registrants. The Motion to Intervene, filed today, notes:

By characterizing [the State of Texas’] reporting on efforts to maintain an accurate voter registration roll as “voter intimidation” designed to “create fear” and “stoke public anxiety,” this case presents an alarming attack on the power of public officials, and their ancillary rights to participate in the public discourse about the actions of their office … To allege that communications such as these constitute threats, coercion, and voter intimidation is an attack on both constitutionally protected speech and on the power of a state election official to manage elections and voter registration.

LULAC and its allies are heavily invested in chilling Texas’ ability to positively identify and remove noncitizens registered to vote,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This is the end-game for strategy for those who wish to confront the greater election integrity cause. If the plaintiffs prove successful, an official or private party could be accused of voter intimidation for simply communicating concerns about ineligible voter activity.”

The Foundation will make various arguments that it believes would not otherwise be made by the State of Texas.

LULAC’s interpretation of the voter intimidation portion of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional as applied

The VRA plainly requires intimidation, threats, or coercion to actually occur to properly invoke the statute. LULAC and others would have the court rule that communications regarding voter list maintenance efforts be deemed intimidating. LULAC’s allegations seek to expand the Voting Rights Act beyond what the drafters intended and what courts have allowed.

LULAC and others are pleading inadequate facts

The current complaint before the court contains allegations that even if there were found true, cannot entitle relief requested under the Constitution or Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

The Motion to Intervene as Defendant and Proposed Answer by Defendant-Intervenor PILF filings can be found, here. Case number 5:19-cv-00074 (LULAC et. al. v. Texas) is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – San Antonio Division.

Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams and Kaylan L. Phillips. Andy Taylor from the Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. serves as local counsel.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###

PILF’s J. Christian Adams on CPAC Election Integrity Panel

J. Christian Adams, the President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation will address a panel discussion on election integrity at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday March 1, 2019, at 1 pm, in the Chesapeake A room. 

I’ll be speaking at #CPAC2019 Friday on #voterfraud & #election integrity. 1pm. Chesapeake A with @johnfund and @HvonSpakovsky. #CPAC #ballotharvesting #immigration #voterID— J. Christian Adams (@ElectionLawCtr) February 28, 2019

The panel entitled The Threat of Stolen Elections: Protecting the Integrity of Elections will touch on the chaos in Florida, noncitizens voting in American elections, and how the majority in the House are seeking to radically transform American elections and remove barriers to voter fraud.  The event it sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.

PILF Applauds SCOTUS for Taking Census Case Early

PILF Submitted Brief in Support of Expedited Hearing

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – February 15, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) commended the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 2020 Census citizenship question case ahead of critical deadlines and standard appellate procedure.

The Court absolutely made the right move,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “This decision could give the Justice Department and private parties the chance to enforce the protections of the Voting Rights Act.”

The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.

The Foundation’s brief in favor of certiorari noted:

The district court erred. This error, if not corrected by this Court before the deadline for the printing of Census forms, will have long-lasting effects. The opportunity to collect the data on the 2020 Census, once gone, cannot be reclaimed. This “case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”

The Foundation offered two arguments in support of the Government’s request for an expedited Supreme Court hearing.

The citizenship question is plainly a matter of national importance.

Due to the simple facts that reliable citizenship data is mission-critical for any party wishing to enforce provisions of the Voting Rights Act and there are another four lawsuits not yet before the Supreme Court, the circumstances have clearly crossed a threshold whereby the Court is justified in bypassing typical appellate procedure.

Census deadlines are approaching too quickly for standard appellate procedure.

The Government has notified the Court that it is against a hard June 2019 deadline to finalize/print Census questionnaires. The brief argues the nation will suffer an “uncorrectable ripple effect into the future if this critical data … is not collected.”

The latest brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-966. Related filings can be found, here.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###

PILF to SCOTUS: Take the Census Case Now

PILF Submits Brief in Support of Expedited Hearing

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – February 11, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Department of Commerce’s request that the Court hear its case ahead of critical 2020 Census deadlines.

The United States is currently defending the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the general 2020 Census survey against multiple lawsuits brought by the State of New York and others. The questions now before the Court are whether the district court in New York erred in enjoining the Government’s Census plans and if the plaintiffs can go outside the administrative record to probe the intent behind the reinstatement of the citizenship question.

The Foundation was previously granted entry before the district court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court to share the value the citizenship data would have in federal voting rights law.

Time is running out to correct the errors of the trial court,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “If the Supreme Court doesn’t step in now, the Justice Department and untold scores of private parties will be handicapped in enforcing the Voting Rights Act on a national scale for at least a decade.”

The Foundation’s latest brief notes:

The district court erred. This error, if not corrected by this Court before the deadline for the printing of Census forms, will have long-lasting effects. The opportunity to collect the data on the 2020 Census, once gone, cannot be reclaimed. This “case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”

The Foundation offers two arguments in support of the Government’s request for an expedited Supreme Court hearing.

The citizenship question is plainly a matter of national importance.

Due to the simple facts that reliable citizenship data is mission-critical for any party wishing to enforce provisions of the Voting Rights Act and there are another four lawsuits not yet before the Supreme Court, the circumstances have clearly crossed a threshold whereby the Court is justified in bypassing typical appellate procedure.

Census deadlines are approaching too quickly for standard appellate procedure.

The Government has notified the Court that it is against a hard June 2019 deadline to finalize/print Census questionnaires. The brief argues the nation will suffer an “uncorrectable ripple effect into the future if this critical data … is not collected.”

The latest brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-966. Related filings can be found, here.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections. ###

PILF to Congress: H.R. 1 Invites Vulnerabilities in Elections

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – January 29, 2018: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams testifies today before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in opposition to H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019.

In prepared remarks, Adams notes that:

[H.R. 1] would mark the largest transfer of power over elections from the states to the federal government in the history of the nation.”

Adams argues that voter registration and access have never been easier—approaching the point where it is almost harder to avoid the system.

It has never been easier to register to vote and to vote in America than it is in 2019.In fact, it is difficult to avoid opportunities to register to vote.”

Adams cautions the Committee about flaws in the voter registration records across the nation being exacerbated by the effects of H.R. 1.:

“The voter rolls are currently full of ineligible voters who have died or moved out of the jurisdiction where they are registered. H.R.1 would make the problem worse by stripping the power of states to manage their own voter rolls to keep them clean using well-established best practices such as postal mailings and recurring inactivity of registrants in elections. H.R.1’s mandate that states stop using these tools is just bad public policy.”

Adams reminds the Committee about how decentralized powers over elections promote “freedom:”

“There is a reason states were given power to run their own elections, namely, decentralization promotes freedom. The Constitution decentralized control over elections to the states because when power is centralized, a single malevolent actor can exert improper or dangerous control over the process. This is not wild speculation; this is a simple historical fact. Decentralized elections are more democratic because each state develops systems more suited the wishes of their own citizens.”

Before his testimony, Adams penned two op-eds in the Washington Examiner and PJ Media discussing additional issues surrounding the proposed legislation. He warns that some of the high-profile failures witnessed in California’s automatic voter registration system can become federalized under H.R. 1.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has issued reports since 2016 detailing how flaws within the existing Motor Voter programs in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Georgia, New York, and Michigan are exposing ineligible noncitizens to the voter registration process—leading some to vote. These actions often surface when legal permanent residence seek a path to naturalization—only to risk rejection or deportation thereafter.

Read a copy of Adams’ testimony, here.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

###

95K Noncitizens Registered to Vote in Texas

(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – January 25, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended the State of Texas for revealing nearly 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote. A majority cast at least one ballot since 1996, according to state officials.

“This shows why Harris county must release the alien voting records we have sought for a year,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “We all know they exist. We all know aliens are voting in our elections.  It’s time Harris and other states stop hiding the documents. Attorney General Ken Paxton and Secretary David Whitley deserve full marks for pursuing this matter and recognizing that Texas does not have a mechanism to protect noncitizens from becoming registered to vote.”

The Foundation is currently involved in a federal lawsuit against Harris County to access the records detailing the extent of noncitizen voter registration and detection. For years, PILF touted the benefits of comparing driver licensing data against voter registration records to identify potential noncitizens.

Read more about PILF v. Harris County, here.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

###

Palm Beach FL Elections Chief Susan Bucher Suspended

(WEST PALM BEACH, FL.) – January 18, 2019: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today commended Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ decision to suspend Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher.

“Governor DeSantis is absolutely right to suspend Supervisor Bucher,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said. “Unlike the recently suspended supervisors in South Florida, the governor takes election integrity seriously.”

During the 2016 federal election cycle, Palm Beach County, by its own admission, did not remove a single registrant due to inactivity and unresponsiveness, according to federal law.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

###

PILF Threatens Virginia with Lawsuit over Voter Roll Maintenance Procedures

(ALEXANDRIA, VA.) – December 13, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) placed the Virginia Department of Elections on notice that litigation will commence unless it corrects voter roll maintenance procedures involving “non-citizen” removals under federal law.

The Foundation warns that Commonwealth election officials are wrongfully removing actual U.S.citizen registrants while detecting and clearing foreign nationals from the rolls. As part of this troubled process, the Commonwealth regularly publishes maintenance reports titled “Declared Non-Citizen” which display the names,residential addresses, and other pertinent information belonging to each former registrant. Not only are otherwise eligible citizen registrants harmed by the process, but any party, the Public Interest Legal Foundation included, who relies on such maintenance reports for public communication and policy reform discussions do so at great risk.

“Despite reasonable intentions,something is broken in Virginia’s system to identify and remove ineligible noncitizens from its voter roll,” PILF Communications and Research Director Logan Churchwell said. “Virginia election officials fought transparency efforts surrounding their list maintenance process in previous years — we are now beginning to see why.”

The notice outlines three areas of concern or action.

Virginia’s maintenance program results in the removal of some otherwise eligible U.S.citizens.

Virginia law requires that election officials collect driver and immigration data from state and federal sources to generate maintenance leads related to potential noncitizen registrants. Based on claims made in separate litigation, several current and former Virginia residents attest to being U.S. citizens, despite being named in reports or records furnished by the Commonwealth regarding noncitizen cancellations. 

Virginia’s maintenance program violates the National Voter Registration Act

Virginia’s procedure violates a core mandate of the NVRA, which was designed to “enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office.” (emphasis added) Based on records collected in some jurisdictions, it also appears that communications designed to be sent to potential noncitizen registrants were transmitted in English only—even in areas where bilingual communications are federally required.

Additional document disclosures are required to identify procedural failures

The Foundation seeks a variety of records which Commonwealth and local officials relied upon to process registrants for removal as “declared non-citizens.” These include referral documents from driver’s license offices and records matched against the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Records indicating that the removal process was communicated in any other language than English are also needed.

The notice also explains:

PILF relied upon the Department’s list maintenance records to publish reports discussing Virginia’s compliance with state and federal voting rights laws and identifying potential voter fraud occurring in the Commonwealth. Before publishing these reports, PILF had no way of verifying the accuracy of the government-created list maintenance records provided by the Department and registrars of cities and counties across Virginia without contacting each of the voters named—conduct that likely would have been characterized as threatening and intimidating. PILF, like all members of the public, is entitled to rely on the presumption that the Department is actually complying with its obligation under the NVRA to conduct lawful voter-removal programs and to maintain records that accurately reflect the circumstances of each voter’s removal from the registry.

The Foundation earned access to the original reportedly problematic maintenance reports after multiple federal lawsuits were filed against local jurisdictions in early 2017.

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” Ninety days must be given to the noticed jurisdiction to cure the matters before litigation can commence.

Read the notice letter here.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation(PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

###

7 Reasons for Summary Judgment in Harris County Noncitizen Voter Data Case

(HOUSTON, TX.) – November 21, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) filed a motion for summary judgment, citing a variety of undisputed facts regarding Harris County’s possession and refusal to disclose noncitizen voter records as required by federal law.

“The facts in this case are clear-cut and lead us to seek summary judgment to hopefully end the matter,” PILF Communications Director Logan Churchwell said. “Harris County officials are wasting taxpayer resources by trying to flaunt federal law by keeping the public in the dark about how voter rolls are maintained.”

The brief outlines seven core facts underscoring the necessity for a summary judgment on the case.

  1. Harris County admitted (in this case and in years prior) that it has records related to noncitizen voter registration.
  2. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter”) provides a freedom of information component that allows the public to physically inspect records held by officials regarding voter roll maintenance procedures and efforts. This mandatory public inspection right is designed to preserve the right to vote and ensure that election officials are complying with the law.
  3. In December 2017, the PILF cited Motor Voter inspection rights to review Harris County’s records detailing how noncitizen registrations were identified and removed from the voter roll.
  4. Harris County rejected PILF’s requests and even sought the help of the Texas Attorney General to block disclosures under state law.
  5. Congress clearly stated that “all” records regarding list maintenance efforts are meant to be publicly accessible within a prescribed period of time.
  6. Previous federal courts have ruled that “all records” means “all records.”
  7. Harris County has staked its position against the text of federal law, Congressional intent, and every prior federal court case on the issue, including the most recent U.S. Supreme Court case related to Motor Voter.

 The brief further states:

The Foundation’s right to records is not a close call … To adopt [Harris County’s] interpretation of the Public Disclosure Provision would allow election officials to conceal records related to their decision to wipe the names of eligible voters from the rolls and declare them to be ineligible, unless the decision to cancel the registration related to death or residency. All of the other touchstones of eligibility would be hidden from disclosure under [Harris County’s] version of the NVRA.

The Foundation is currently engaged in federal and state lawsuits to seek the release of records belonging to former registrants who were officially discovered or self-reported their ineligible noncitizen statuses to the Harris County Voter Registrar. The PILF previously responded to claims suggesting that it had no right to data related to noncitizen voter registrants and that the federal case should be stayed pending a state court judgment in Austin, among other matters. The Foundation also further briefed the Court in support of its motion for preliminary injunction to gain access to records.  

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows individuals to request inspection or seek copies of “records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,” the PILF noted in its original complaint.

A copy of the case fact sheet can be found, here.

The case is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The case number is 4:18-cv-00981.

Attorneys for the Public Interest Legal Foundation are J. Christian Adams, Noel H. Johnson, and Joseph Vanderhulst. Brenham-based Andy Taylor of Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C. serves as local counsel.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the nation’s most active public interest law firm dedicated to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and ensuring the integrity of American elections – bringing more than a dozen cases to enforce voter list maintenance obligations and inspection rights under federal law in federal courts across the nation in addition to serving as amicus in more than a dozen voting law cases. The Foundation also works with election officials and policymakers to improve the integrity of elections.

Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, the Foundation seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

###

Older Entries