our third piece for argument this morning is frank against walker system i want to make two arguments are today first the district forced injunction is widely overbroad and to no relief at all should have issued on the record there because there was no shoring to the states procedures list why don't why don't you have an id lack of transportation lack of birth certificate work schedules disability or illness family responsibilities with all due respect there is no voter who does not have voter id and cannot honestly check one of those boxes at under our system you get a free id with one trip to the d m v while might someone not take one trip to the d m v well everyone's got some family responsibilities everyone's got some work schedules some people have ill if there are three categories of a legit show the falls i'd like to discuss today because those track the three categories that this court flag and its frank two opinion first those without birth certificates for example of bush it was destroyed in a fire that was an example that was used in frank there is simply no requirement that a voter produce a birth certificate home bible early school records and any other proof yet ministry to deem sufficient is enough but more than that d look they will try to put the pieces of the puzzle together even if none of those things exist with the goal of getting every voter a hard id card and while that hard process is off ongoing and they go to extreme lengths to try to verify the claims of the applicant the person has a photo id receipt credential that is good for both the second name mismatches the rules in wisconsin are clear if you have a significant name mismatch between an underlying document and what your sent your see your name is  need security card for data simply not true are lost in the regulations see the proof of identity can be established by any authentic document identifying the person by name being the person signature or reproduction of the person signature there is no record evidence of a single voter that does not have a document like that there's no further questions thank you  ninety nine percent of voters can get id easily that does not fix the problem the remaining voters are entitled to believe and the just reports preliminary remedy recently insures that the personal right to vote of these vulnerable fodor's is no longer at the mercy of the d m v at the end of the say this case like many other plenary injunction cases is about whether the district court abused its discretion at the time that it entered decision and last july and there was no abuse here after being processed was there any particular advantage you can think of and having the same issue being litigated simultaneously in the western district of wisconsin in the eastern district  i just point out two things this case our case as is now five years old or a no but of course you don't want to take on all the other issues that have been raised in western wisconsin  themselves adopted the exact same abb david remedy that north carolina and south carolina and now texas have adopted in response to go to id litigation and all for a class of voters that this court has expressly held is entitle to relief and if that's an abuse of discretion it's very hard to imagine what isn't because adopting defend its extreme position would open the floodgates to endless micro manager and by this court of countless plenary and judging decision argument in the corporate logo and it's for good reason because it's just not true the d m v has never been that expansive the only change is this website change in august after the district force a situation which the party  relevant for this court to consider and certainly doesn't establish voluntary secession as far as people with name spellings in their purse documents the d m v does deny id to those people the it does not cover and this is a point that's being lost in their briefs it does not cover people who have name misspellings in their social security wreckers those people are forced to amend their birth certificate or amend their social security records which is patently unreasonable and name change affidavit which defendants allege is the panacea for all ills for voters without birth documents who get temporary i d s now at the start of the id those i d s will expire if the voters birth documents cannot be found through no fault of the voter now defendant say all these people have to do is stay in contact with the d m v that's not what the record actually reflects if you look at appendix one twenty seven it says and this is straight from the  boss provide new information that can advance the investigation if they want that to keep their temporary ids they do not just pick up the phone and say hey i'm alive please renew my id and there are already was in place that was not clearly erroneous the text of the rule itself also does not change many of many of the anecdotes that we describe of people not getting id to actually touch that rule does not change the circumstances of those rule does now provide and a temporary at the start of the process for the text of the roll also says that those i d s will be expired if the if the voter if they can't find that birth documentation now the heart of this appeal is whether the just reports remedy wasn't use of discretion and today defendants have made some arguments about the various risks in equities in the type of affidavit that the district court crafted and it's essentially asking this court to redo the district  remedy from scratch and that's not this court's role the district court has already weighed those competing risks and the balancing of those risks against the real risk of disenfranchisement was not an abuse of discretion the fenice don't that voters outside the class will improperly sign the affidavit and that's because voters who can easily get ideas are not going to expose themselves to criminal liability by signing the affidavit when they can easily get how on how does it expose them to criminal liability when the district george said that nothing in that affidavit can be questioned by anyone the reasonableness of the reason offered cannot be questioned i don't think that what the district judge said th nothing can be questioned throw somebody treacly over box and says i'd rather go to a packers game that person is entitled to vote and that statement can't be questioned the reasonableness and that's do what other states have done rather than start from scratch as as this and as this court explained previously this entire balancing process isn't something that's susceptible to mathematical quantification of formalization which is why it's abuse it's reviewed for abuse of discretion and that it wasn't abuse here and the in terms of the hypothetical gray area hisses that i think this poor alluded to for people who may or may not fall into the class the  existence of hypothetical gray area cases doesn't make a remedy invalid and brown the potter you had a class of people with quote serious i believe it's serious medical needs and of course we can debate forever about what's a serious medical need or particular case of but that doesn't make the remedy and valid and again there's especially no abuse of discretion here when the plane just were the only party that proposed remedy the fairness in a proposed any and this is the exact same thing other states have done and in fact the  districts remedy the id people around me those under by the western district doesn't undermine the need for relief in this case in addition to all the problems with it that the wall is concent plaintiffs are discussed it a focuses solely on posters who enter the i the affidavit catches the voters who don't and as well as the inevitable mistakes that always happen whenever the d m v changes its rules which it's been doing now for five years we need a strong safety net we cannot keep playing this cat and mouse game that this court is being dragged into that the d m v is actually being dragged into we need a strong safety net at the polls to make sure that vulnerable voters are no longer the victims of this never ending process the district process is not susceptible to that magical quantification of formalization which is why it's reviewed for abuse of discretion and deviating from that standard here will really open the floodgates to endless micromanagement if the score has no further questions for i think not to thanks to both counsel the case has taken under advisement