whom it's the only thing that makes sense that the registrant has changed residence i don't know it seems to me that that language requires a direct communication from the registrant to the state to say i'm done register my registration i moved from indianapolis to do morning good bye and i don't you're reading troubles me very much that the registrants act it through its registration i don't think it has to be specific to the state i think when you've got a system that has state to state communication over new registration seems to me you're communicating with the you know with both states got the the the matches so to speak but the matches were played with false positives but we also don't know if that yielded any erroneous canceled registrations all we know is some you know it some intermediate step there were some variations  you know different local officials wanted to do it there was no analysis of what that yielded and i know this because until this past federal election there had not been sufficient lection cycles to cancel anyone's registration coming out of the  speaking this system is one that says really gives states two options you can get rid of somebody that you think is a double registry and if you ask them or you can go through this lengthy or process eligible voters except they at the request of the registrant right and that's what we've got i don't see how you know when i register at my request indiana to do anything what a weird interpretation word request i don't understand how it's at all weird to say that a new registration is implicitly a request to cancel the old one why don't you want to be registered in two separate places because you don't know where you're going to live you've got to say i mean that's that's part of the system as we want to deter crime we don't want to have  only going to vote in one place but of course the congress decided that bloated voter registration rolls were right for fraud that's why we have this entire back part of the act well there's a so what do you make of the fact that in states it's not unlawful ok that the national conference of state legislature worse has a january four study called double voting which reports that having to open up voter registrations is not illegal in any state except indiana well i think that's something that in the end it's because it's private and i certainly think also if you look at that but i'm just saying if somebody is going to iowa they're not violating the law of iowa maybe they start out in indiana and they go to iowa or maybe they start out in illinois and i'm still trying to understand the legitimacy of having to open voter registration but because because you don't know where you're going to live i think you have some obligation to make that commitment when you're trying to decide whether you're going where you're registering to vote now i think then you only vote in one place i understand but that the federal statutes on this don't put in the position of having to do exactly what other states are doing and i think you don't know certainly but i'm just again that's why i get back to the literal language of the statute which is all well and really rich and it's on removing names registrants unless the registering confirm writing and you know you're leveraging that language pretty far well i think look you do have focused on the cut the confirm so i'm probably not going to persuade you there but maybe if we focus on the register and then minnesota reports to cancer that this person john smith jr has registered in minnesota and the kansas people report back to indiana secretary of state that john smith jr is now in minnesota and that person reports over to the county official the john smith jr is in minnesota in the meantime john smith jr who moved to minnesota lost the job that he moved to minnesota for and realizes gee i'm not really going to be in minnesota on election day after all i'm moving back to indianapolis where at least i have some family support and luckily i'm still registered in indiana and never heard steps foot in the state of minnesota again i think in that scenario it's crazy to say that the minnesota registration is request not to be registered in indiana i certainly don't think it's crazy i would have thought john smith jr having been vigilant enough to register to vote in minnesota when he thought he was going to be there would also be the sort that would be vigilant enough to check on it at the very least once he moves back to indiana i don't understand why you know whether the statute requires him to though and of course if he gets mixed up with his father john smith sr and they toss him off the voter rolls  changed residence to a place outside regardless of who that confirmation has to go to and it has to come from the precious moment and here indiana is relying on cross check i think you've conceded you don't look at the change of registration form that's not what you're relying on you're purely relying on this cross check system how is that confirmation from the phone or well so two points first of all i mean again i don't want to go to legislative history  determination is the same person that the indiana registration which was the earlier of the two but they're not required to go back and look at the voter's registration in the other state i understand we can do that through to two respons we don't have any experience implementing the statute we don't know what directives the election division may come up with that would tell the local officials what to do they have their own duties and responsibilities i'm not trying to suggest that there is an ability to control what they do what i'm saying is we don't have any guidance and we don't have any response to that guides to know exactly what they're going to do but based on the record from an elementary injunction hearing they're not required to go back and look at what actually came from the suppose there is no statutory directi plain language of the statute it is the voter who has to confirm in writing that the voter has changed residence again regardless of who that confirmation goes to how if you're relying on cross check and there's no requirement that you look you indiana look at that confirmation from the voter how is it that you're relying on the voters confirmations writing because i think the question that you're raising is a question applies equally to anything that would be even more direct how do we know that the letter that comes in the door is really from this first you know we are not scouts that's a different matter altogether i think you know if it's a different entity human being company you know state reach something to you then you have the next layer which is what we have here  rely on the mail we rely on direct communications somebody walks in the door you die if you walk in the door do i really know that you're tom fisher actually i do but you know i wouldn't if i didn't know you ok and i think you were starting to go confirmation right and when you're relying on a third party system and have no idea if it's a registrant i don't think it's fair to say we have no idea i think it's perfectly reasonable for us to rely on what the other cross check states are uploading what we're being told by  other systems in place to safeguard against erroneous matches now with respect to i could talk about that for just a minute we can come back to this registrant point i know you're realigned significantly on the confidence factor requirements under the more  t additions to the law but most of them well a lot of seem to me as a practical matter impossible and i can only add up sixty five points of the ones that i think you're going to have and that's not enough because you think seventy five so full social security number gets forty points but the record in this case suggests that that's basically never there and that in fact almost every government including medicare and everyone else is going away from  social security numbers because identity fraud is she's just so much for that and that's the last four digits of the social security number gets ten points not clear that that's even coming through on this record see i don't know why the other state would have the indiana driver's license or identification card number that gets fifty points but because you don't have a regional form the judge said he was talking about you're not going to have  what the other state thinks the driver's license number is your only maybe you'll have the indiana number but it's not a matching date of birth sure twenty five points last name first name thirty points together fifteen apiece fine middle name five points suffix five points second stuff sixty five read address i don't know why that's a matching factor and i don't know why zip code is so i don't think these confidence factors assumptions of regularity of administrative process sees what would cause one to think that the state that has reported to the kansas secretary of state is somehow making and best cross check output comes from the voter registration database not from the voter registration form and there is evidence in the record that there are inherent errors in vot dr macdonald's exhibit indicated that we may do these large scale matching because workflow processes are different you're going to have problems in the in the merging of the records to have one one database talk to another but what i think it's highly relevant in this instance is that plaintiffs are not disputing that a completed voter registration form in another state might qualify as a request of the registrant or a written confirmation registration forms are uploaded and indiana or anybody else could actually observed up it is not even proport to be derived from the voter registration database and there's one really key part of this and that is the date of  alone there were in fact thirteen's of the thirty states participating and cross check that didn't even provide a definition so we don't know what that looks like in the state of washington it's just when someone decided to update part of their mailing address so when one is using identify the right person and the record evidence is that there is a high probability that voters are going to get confused so the change i'm just trying to imagine what kinds of changes it would not trigger the concerns under the statute but yet change from your maiden name to your married name and still be you right so what's what's relevant your honor is that one cannot rely on the date that is provided in the cross check out as an indication of a boat or requesting to be removed or requesting to be registered in another state because it doesn't even ask for that and again to the extent to which they count a state is choosing to use the date of voter registration from the database as as their voter initiated change then it's going to inherit whatever errors are already in the database and as i indicated earlier there's at least a two percent error with most of the da registration now can i just clarify something yes as i have looked at this case i don't see anything at all wrong with indiana using the cross check database as a trigger for inquiry to the voter so they can get there and they can say you know the following two hundred people we're just not sure of and if they then send a direct letter to the voter and use that system i take it you wouldn't have any problem that is correct your honor and that's what indiana did prior what they used to happens in that instance a voter or an individual fills out a piece of paper that says i want my mail move somewhere else it gets compiled gets put into a database that database gets sent to election and then straight hours well actually mentions are able to look at it but they have to send  notice and they have to send the waiting period and i think cross check is best understood to be a twentieth century version of the national change of address because it does not have the directness coming from the voter going to the election administrator  indiana state you did to impair each of your clients operation sure certainly your honor and again this was a matter on preliminary relief and therefore we are alleging both what we have already had we've already been the education of voters and they usually educate voters on things like polling places locations and other election rules and this one and this as a four four two required them to spend a bulk of their time doing that and it took up a number of the moments that they had to spend monitoring calls because they all take calls and from voters and instead of being able to answer other calls they had to spend a disproportionate amount of time explaining this because it is hard to understand it was   like the plaintiffs have standing when they have to divert their resources and frustrate their mission so we're going to talk about that i mean so there's a diversion theory since it isn't enough to satisfy injury in fact but what i found a particularly important part of things and so it seemed to need that injury in fact certainly could occur from diversion of resources which was what happened in the now  s to increase their expenditures i think an incremental increase in expenditures would also certainly be an injury in fact it's concrete it's particularly i missed well we do know your honor that at least two of the plaintiffs that register voters and that's the league of women voters and then double a c p had hat were able to register fewer voters and they weren't able to do things like driving voters to the polls because they had to be instead driving to election administrators to understand how they were going to operate  had to give they were unable to get voter rides that they had to not do things like better education forums because they were spending things like this they were having to deal with longer phone calls and that kind of thing but i also want to talk about what would happen if it went into effect and the four you get that the district court made that specific finding yes you're at the diversion she did not make a finding of that increase in funds but she did make a specific finding about diversion yes you did your honor but like let's imagine what then they would have to spend all these resources trying to monitor whether or not their folks stayed on the rolls and then they would have to if they were removed from the rolls would have to do the advocacy to get them back on the rolls and talking them into getting reregistered again so i think we have more than met our standard for injury in this instance and it has been that the theory that that state is pronouncing flies in the face of over forty years of standing they are effectively trying to say that because we have a mission of making the election process function better and bring more people into the system that we don't have a cause for standing and that your honor would be like telling you it's a little weird you department just because it's their mission to put out fires and that is inconsistent with not only what the supreme court has said on standing but what the court has said in accepting the diversion of resources theory of standing and in this case they are not contesting that our clients have had to be injured they're not disputing that we have i had to spend time talking to voters that we've not been able to do advocacy like country trying to make sure that they haven't been tossed why also again that is just what what's in the docket and what has been put before the record is the injuries that have happened thus far again if cross check were to go into effect we would have to expend more resources monitoring to make sure that our the voters at the end of c p and the legal in voters registered weren't removed from the rolls and that is not too dissimilar from what this court concluded in the corporate case which is the democratic party instead of being able to take members of your organizations who would be impacted by this law did not your honor what we did submit in the record was that the end of the a c p was especially concerned because cross check has had a habit  disproportionately flagging people of color because of the prevalence of certain names among communities of color and the district court did acknowledge and give and credit that particular person or we didn't know that in the r c a in the eleventh circuit case in the sandusky case in the sixth circuit that when it was a purge that had not happened yet we were expected to identify a particular person in this instance because of the haphazard nature of crosschecked and because they took away the notice we were not able to identify specific people we would be in a very very different posture we think your honor if they had been providing notice and then we came and said we couldn't identify anybody we're not going to find out who's been injured till election and was that reason was there anything in the record below about what percentage of indiana's registered voters belong to any of your organizations and what was in the record your honor is that the combined total of all of them was about eight hundred thousand people so  d i would be very very clear that those three organizations in addition to having their own members have a larger constituency they have a zone of interest that goes about protecting everyone's right to vote and they would not den registration if someone call them in one of their hotline even if it wasn't a member so at this point in time we have not identified an additional lemberg but when we're talking about three implementation relief we believe that the  imagine all sorts of hypotheticals but something that didn't impact voters and something that you know changed the change how election ministers are supposed to put paper on  know indicated the change of the ballot provided that it wasn't readable the standing doctrine is does demand that we show an injury and in this instance we've shown it because this is something that is going to be harming voters and it's something problem probably not the probably not your honor because it would just be one method of online registration versus another i want to answer your question the judge and the plaintiffs qualify as someone who can bring a private right of article three standing as far as it would go so right now we have clients who have been injured we have clients who will be injured and we have clients who are understood to be in the zone of interests protected by the national voter registration act from our perspective to what happened to your his ations what was the nature of the diversion of resources how many resources what was different before and after the law and that's what i'm struggling with and if you can more detail your honor i do know that the there there's more there in the record again the all three of the plaintiff's declarations indicate that they were not able to educate voters to the extent they were not able to do advocacy they had to take more phone calls  answering these questions and that in the future they're going to have to spend more resources i mean this is going to take away from the important i would note that none of these plaintiffs are challenge to at the prior version of  and importantly because the plaintiffs are folks who can sue on behalf of n p r or a byelection is it would be very peculiar to not conclude that they don't have standing in this interest especially under a statute i mean i would note that no fewer than eight courts in the last ten years have found that organizations like my clients have found standing to challenge an n p r a case including one in the southern district and that's not even talking about the case like the houston case which went all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled and it wasn't even listed and that's also your honor not including the scores and scores of cases in which plaintiffs challenge other provisions  s we more than sufficiently have shown that we have diverted resources and our missions have been frustrated and importantly they will be so more if this preliminary injunction is lifted because they will have to spend time monitoring voters because they will not know if any one of the persons that they registered is going to stay on the rolls long enough to be on election day they're going to have to observe and follow up they're going to have potentially have to reregister other voters and that is more than sufficient for what standing has been found in this instance all right thank you very much includes to confirm the date to make sure that the date of the right of the out of every just ration is after the indiana now we haven't ever had to implement this or you would have been able to implement this we don't know what that's going to look like and that's part of the problem with this as a pre enforcement challenge what really ought to be an operational challenge of anything it's not good but given a chance to operate now with respect to the use of cross check as a system for conveying information about voters i also want to draw the court's attention to page seventy nine state desks through the state and territorial exchange of vital events system so i just want to point out there are other scenarios where we use these common systems to convey information it's not always coming directly from the original source  just that's the end of it i mean if there is no request or confirmation that's our theory of the case there are a whole point is there was a request in confirmations and then backed up by the confidence factors but i don't understand the other side of the now disputing that there was a request and the dispute now is whether that has to come directly or