by denying access as a pretext residence for registering voters status the law blocks the content excuse me the still effectively serves to censor mr sorrow and anyone else not register to vote in maryland the museum most effective political tool the reason for the court below dismissed this was largely following united courting decision but it overlooked important health united reporting by six of seven judges in the majority opinion in two separate concurrence who dress that is when you deny access to a public record but it is provided to others other people for specific below did not do not acknowledge i think this we need look no farther than the actual oath signed by these other third party standard kate this is not just about government denial of the public record this is about government they're not of this is about  law also provides a two allows the board of elections to to add to this search to draft this oath and we see that that anyone signing this am aware of that if i use the list for commercial solicitation or any other purpose is not related to the electoral process or made the list of available to the public or third parties or publish or republic the list in a way that allows it to be used in that manner i will be guilty upon conviction of a misdemeanor and subject on a this is another important distinction from a night of reporting as far as a facial challenge this is not just mr few sorrow saying hey i'm being denied access and others might be denied access to now we have criminal penalties here if the access is even from third parties i just charges for them but charges for himself too because we have a separate statute section sixteen  family services or accessing property records these things all serve a different governmental function here we have in this opposing counsel's brief really details i mean political tool that is drawn that right now that is correct your honor but the fact remains that this list is nevertheless provided to other other people to register voters strictly for a specific content purpose and in that way it circle clever form of censorship a clever way of saying hey wait two years for a parade purpose by going finding this information yourself or possibly buying a list from mythical person who's built one but not quite natives in the history court i think in libertarian party virginia versus judge shut down radical when they do direct forms of censorship but now we have sort of an indirect they can operate in the same way as we describe in our itself will not overturn or very young that will not open up the floodgates to constitutional claims of first amendment claims i mean rather what i'm holding the court below will basically not open the doors to not of my libertarian party gather signatures but he said no all those instructions those are all going to be public records and where he's not out yet the about wouldn't raise constitutional problems i think it's highly problematic and i think this but really a first you know possibly a first step in that direction upholding report what he raises raises that threat i think it's most important here again to really look at it i own a cell versus sorrell and that's again this is which itself distinguished from united reporting in discussing that but we have criminal implications here for third parties for mr sorry and tries to get it from third parties or we have and we also moreover have someone who's actually filled out the list themselves actually applying it's not merely hypothetical and i think that's again going back to section sixteen dash five one we have serious problems here that trying to get it from third parties and that third party pro maryland registered voters a copy of a list of a clue provided they swear an oath that the list is not intended to be used for commercials the patient and it's not intended to be used for any other purpose and he purposely not related to the electoral information held entirely zeshan state the state has no first amendment duty to provide that information the statement condition access to that information on its possession so long as it does so on bases that are not constitutionally suspect the bases on which is jose scrutiny arises from the balancing test in that case that applies to urns imposed by election laws then paid by the supreme court's decision in andersen versus celebrates a and bernie versus the cash under that test and election regulation that imposes a severe burden is subject to strict scrutiny and will help only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in that case the libertarian party to its members association all rights were impeded by the restriction on their ability to hire out of state tuition circulators to obtain bal access in this case mr few sorrow disclaims in the electoral purpose he does not intend to use this for any level purpose at all so therefore this is the framework at issue and judges simply doesn't ions this is a first amendment case and it's governed by the office he's not running for an office and he's not seeking to use the list to speak to any proper process in the state university or go after the prosecutor he wants to as i understand it he wants to send a letter to maryland voters and he attached this letter it was plain he wanted to send a letter to marilyn voters complaining about the treatment he received at the state prosecutors and when he was tried for i put it all some of the up of campaign finance of the state prosecutor is not elected demand or to ask maryland voters to demand that mr abbott resign and you say he could get all these allers information through another source there are third party companies that made available voter data i don't know how they compile specific letter does not ask the people to impress upon governor hogan to force mr davidge but that's what it that's that ultimate is what you're trying to do right if you could if you know the person is not elected what you know the person who wants him is elected then language well i don't believe his letter your honor of references the governor at all i think it's it's strictly focused on the what were his the statues the statute uses purposes related to the electoral process electoral yes selectorial pro yes your honor and i think that mr a few sorrow identifies other provisions in the maryland election law article that also use that term electoral process and i think from from those other provisions you can tease out what what kind of s e that frey should have and i'm happy to go into that to help the court but i want to i'd let me step back and remind the court that this electoral process issue was not the reason why mr starr was denied access to the list in the first place  he does not have standing to assert a claim on the basis of the electoral process for which the judge very good to have you standing the judge found that his claim wasn't right and he even it says much just now that this plan will be will be right as soon as he's able to come into possession of  list his problem is he can't come into possession of the list because he doesn't all eyes in maryland registered voter we've got to get it from somewhere else that's true very good to live he can get the list and there's no indication that the list that he might get from other parties a list that was provided by the state of maryland is subject to the restrictions in the in the statute other political parties other entities compile this information using data and public domain they they are able to generate this information on their own and it's maybe they would give the information a maryland voter would present the same application that mr few sorrow presented the application doesn't include includes an oath that says i intend to use this or no other inmates and the attach the record here record he has he attached it to his complaint saying this is what i intended we're going to write it and it has nothing to do with the electoral process he wants to challenge that electoral process provision as his draft of his letter in such a way so as to be able to bring a challenge and then my position before the court the states that he should not because he was not a resident myra was not a registered voter of matter registered voter in maryland one condition of which is being a resident registered voter yes but the point is that well what's the rational basis that only registered voters should have this information well i think registered voters understand that when they submit an application to register to vote there they are turning over sensitive information to the government or and the restaurant which only wall in on the mural was with told by the city that they had to cover it up the artist sued saying this is a violation of my first many rights and his his suit was rejected because he didn't have standing it wasn't his mural anymore he had also made the argument well that well some other restaurant might want to hire me i may want to get hired put another marilyn another restaurant and but for the fact that this begun overbroad ordinance would deterrence and other another restaurant hiring the co the speak their mind about politics or whatever you want to talk about you think with the say you have to be a resident of maryland be able to speak on that on the square it's not a public square case your honor it's an access to information  is that the form though is that the forum you're keeping them from the forum to speak that's the platform this is not the right is not a physical place where you know now we have this artificial intelligence world of cyber experience two nine of the election law article and that refers to a little bit information regarding the electoral process including the text of the election code relevant portions of the maryland constitution and information gathered regarding elections and so i think that those two cases read together paint a broad but clearly defined picture of what the electoral process is the still on the basis of these provisions of play only refers to any aspect of the mechanics of elections or out an election itself including another candidate a must they take some specific action but is vagueness challenges to the electoral process restriction that which never applied him there was never applied to him you're right your honor i'm making this argument district court ruling was a million right and should be affirmed or it does not reach the electoral process provision of the statute this case is more than just access to information compile kept by  outside electorial that's the point is or if we wrongly stipends access to political questions political issue is not the most firm thing that we want to have access to well what the state does your honor it is when people provide their information in order to register to vote the state says to the people in a fax we understand you're giving us sensitive information you're getting this information to us so that you can participate in the electoral process if somebody and people may have different reasons but ultimately the purpose is so that they can be on the list of voters and show up and be able to well that's a political part i don't disagree your honor it's an electoral purpose as well but they have to he it's very tempting to go down this path that this can be that the residents here registered voters requirement can be so so conveniently removed from the prohibitions on electoral process and that's simply not true and we go to united reporting particularly concurrences which are made up to the appearances by six justices who made up the majority and they said this is going to be different it's going to be different when you're providing a public record to other people for certain her content related purposes that's going to raise a different issue at least in the as a black context and you know the reporting the rejected on a facial challenge went back to california where district where there was a settlement by the l a p d and united reporting got so i think it's very important to keep this in mind we i appreciate this panel really getting to me here the problems with the vagueness your problems with this electoral process because when we look at this and first of all i do want to say that restriction he's now waiting to get prosecuted before he challenges this is a preemptive strike on that front but he has not this claim that he would use this you know should he get it for the electoral process unless he won his challenge to that concept voters in maryland and as you came here commercial purposes but it goes a step further it goes to the point where this or anyone else who already has this list cannot provide it to other people at you know we see this and get the vagueness problems a lecture on purpose or only amplified in the old where if you make the list available to the public or third parties or publisher republi denying third parties even provision of this list so go out and buy it from some third party and by the time you know they've built that it's probably an accurate go build it yourself using other public records by the time that's done it's probably an accurate  and you really are getting to the meat here this is of a political tool drawn from other from a large database for this one specific purpose for the electoral process of  and they're going to allow certain citizens to having use it and we're going to deny other and this idea that out just a public right now i think at the very least in the as apply caught this is different and there's even in return to where we began this is a an exception to public records opera it's a clever form of censorship and i urge you to take a very gentle to the very post look at these these public records cases and understand it's probably i