aaron craft for the state this is appeal is less about the meaning of b and b are eight and more about the equitable a federal courts indeed the state and the organizations agree that absent confirmation or the notice and waiting correct in thinking that only eleven states require provide that light for the project type language that language says and i wish to cancel my registration and replace i believe that it's true your honor  i don't think every state has adopted that and i don't believe the federal registration form has that language so we understand there are eleven states that do but everybody else the other thirty nine and maybe don't have the certification language that that is not sufficient in and of itself to confirm that the voter does not want to be registered in indian is that correct yes that's right that's correct judge  just in your tone of voice emphasize the word requires and i've spent a fair amount of time preparing for this argument staring at subsection f and particularly two and i am at a l to find any requirement i mean there could be a local county official who asks for that or decides not to ask for it in a particular case but short of rewriting the statute which would be an extraordinary thing for a federal court to do i just don't see the requirement what is so i think the v the statute is good and big it was and i want to be clear on that we're not suggesting that the directly by a voter registration office another state senator so in this discussion of a written information written notice you know you can look through the rest of the statute and it does not anywhere include some requirement that there be a statement from the voter i don't really actually care whether the statement from the voters at least for present purposes purposes of this question whether the statement from the honor is that the introductory clause of f refers to written information in it that written information is the that is what both the state in the county needed in so that written information sort of flows consistently throughout the statute now it minutely f to who uses the term written notice instead of written information but we think they best just ignore full draftsmanship and that we read the written information to be the information that could be provided that doesn't include a copy of the voter signature because now i want refers back to this information and then goes on to say you must also provide a copy of the voter side registration application think i see your point i guess what we're reading the statute is basically taking that idea of written information in f one and being the same idea in x two to is based on your briefs that that information is the same as written information and let's assume that's the same as written notice that just for purposes of argument if the written information  one included that the signed out of state voter registration where the individual is authorizing cancellation then why would you have to say in f one that that information also has to include that certification so i guess i was reading the i see the point i guess what i was viewing and the way we view the statute is that if one is really just talking about if the information is directed from out of state to the county this is what it has to be and we think the same information directly from august state to the election division written information i understand your argument to be that written information has to include the authorized cancellation correct yes so if that's true when after one prefers back to that information under a plain reading why would you need to have the clause after the comma that says it also has to provide the individual authorized cancellation creates difficulties with sub part two was well but i actually want to go back to subsections eight is c of the statute when you look at this idea of written notice or written information and all certainly for this present purpose assume that on that same thing the the written information that indiana has is going to be this data the i d e a data that they have not something from the voter necessarily so it's the data that they're going to be sending along which and on top of that the county is instructed to to presume the county should consider this notice as confirmation that the individual is registered in another jurisdiction and has requested cancellation even though you have just agreed earlier that in thirty nine states there's no reason at all to think that there's further and author of to verify that the voter not only registered in another state but it's authorized the cancellation of removal and really what f is doing is trying to define what it means f indiana county official if that written notice didn't include a request for cancellation the problem is that's that so did another state is going to furnish notice under this i program which frankly looks to me quite a bit like cross check to put that to one side but you're not going to get than the notice if there is no request you could forward any written notice from another state to a county in the county is supposed to take that as confirmation that that person is requesting cancellation even though that's exactly the presumption that we said couldn't be sustained in the discretion to either follow or not follow contested line of action then the case isn't moot you know you have a case that needs to be adjudicated and there's absolutely nothing in part yes that requires the election division to obtain a direct instruction from the voter i don't care how many hands it went through but you've got to find that direct instruction from the voter before you can go ahead with the removal of that voter without following the nv are a procedures we understand that your honor and just to clarify the reason we haven't raised  a sort of separate argument in our briefing because it really doesn't get us anywhere and less you agree with our interpretation of the statute now and i also want to you know we concede there are problems with our interpretation  we think there are also problems with the organizations interpretation and that is why we think the statutes ambiguous in that our reading is reasonable because it's avoids a conflict with the n p r a it's consistent the general assembly responded to this court's concern in did not act in defiance of them we also think that our interpretation harmonizes with the rest of indiana voter registration law which in general requires a written authorization before cancellation so before you before you go on in that vein i you know we we have read your briefs i would like you to spend just a minute before you have to sit down on the assumption perhaps that we're not persuaded by these merits arguments but you've also raised a concern about the scope of the injunction and i would like you to address that if you would think the judge would it and that's why don't we if you disagree with our interpretation be injunction still needs to be reversed there overbroad for two reasons st the enjoying subsection f two on its face but i think everyone agrees that even if two is broader it certainly includes a written authorization of cancellation from another state that is sent to the election division and then forwarded on that would be it would be lawful under the n p r aide for a state to enjoin subsections d e n f one and all d does it say that the county has to verify that the voter has authorized cancellation east as if it had if they make that determination they shall cancel the registration if not they have to go d through the notice and confirmation or notice and waiting procedure then has outlined that below was the focus of the prefigured the arguments it looked like f two was the focus of both sides arguments below is that a fair characterization i think that is a fair characterization around here which is why it it's somewhat puzzling that the district court thought it needed to enjo those other provisions and you know admittedly our position below was that new injunction should be issued but this court has long held that sort of general waiver principles give way when we're talking about the of an injunction courts have an independent obligation to issue injunctions that are narrowly tailored to remedy only the violation in the only conduct that this statute would permit under the organization's interpretation that violates the n b r a is if under section five point five f to a cancellation could occur without having the signed form from the other state authorizing removal so the injunction if the court were to agree with your positions interpretation and disagree with ours and determine that some to jump to relief is warranted it should go no further than that i think that the organization's position to the contrary was that this all works together as a whole and even in the determination whether the individual has authorized the cancellation there's nothing about whether that's the subject of an inference from the nd registration to vote or whether it's literally you know looking at a thing says i hereby authorize you to tell indiana that i'm cancelling you know i never want to go back to indiana again never want to look at it so please remove me from the voter rolls so so you don't quite have the specificity about directness even in  opinion and what i said a few minutes ago favorably to the state was that if if you can trace it back to the voter herself or himself saying i wish to cancel my indiana registration then if the voter gives it to his lawyer the voter gives it to his mother in law and or somebody sends that piece of paper from the voter to the indiana dorothy i'm willing to call that direct and so in the eleven states maybe the voters saying to you know virginia please tell indiana that i wish to cancel my registration average and you may want to do that or not i mean i don't even know virginia or the other states in this i d e a program regularly transmit this information if they do then it's just that it's just indiana's version of crosschecked i think well and i think this is court point in common cause one the problem with cross check was not be existence across to itself it was that indiana relied exclusively on cross checked and this case this statute doesn't do that because de three and f again in our view but f one clearly requires that the state about directly i think that you know whether it goes through the us mail or through u p s or through other states it's still a communication from the voter making a request or  and acknowledge that the state has not at all committed or promised to a page in an n p r a compliant way at best they are urging or to find a torture reading of judgment motion and an injunction that comports with the very reading that they are asking this court to find plausible now am i correct that they did not incorporate the reading they're now urging in the revised indiana voter registration guide book they did not your honor they did not issue guidance that they were statutorily required to the examples of what would be appropriate written notices from the sponsor did not include registration forms these are the drafter of the legislation did not confirm that a registration form was required statements of a lawyer is not evidence and the district court below had to construe the facts in front of you to all appropriate in princes in favor of a nonmoving party and was not persuaded that indiana was going to indiana's argument that either if the cancellation form comes in from one of those eleven states that have this very direct statement from the voter or perhaps just  some public spirited county official who says well i'm not taking anybody off the books until i hear from them is that enough to defeat a facial challenge and your honor i want to leave aside whether or not suppose indiana passed some implementing statute that says the following communications will be sufficient to show a direct communication from the voter one  letter from the voter to the state registrar indicating that they wish to cancel indiana registration to the signing of a voter registration form in another state if that form also includes an affirmative statement that the voter wishes to cancel all registrations in other states and maybe there's a three in a for two you know but in other words is the voter is if the state adopted a procedure under which the voter could woodgate the responsibility to send the message back to indiana that they want to cancel without comply with the n p r a your view yes your honor in fact we would have expected something like this in the implementing language that they were required to issue we would have expected something like this in the stipulation that never came we would have expected something like this in testimony from either the sponsor or the draft or none of that happened instead what you're hearing is an argument that only has appeared in the course of a public briefing about a tortured reading and about what the what the statute means the one of our clients specifically indicated before laws in the text in multiple ways twice before hearings and public arguments lawyers notifying opposing counsel the state made no attempt to try and address the in burma d s and right now they're offering a legal position which again is not x and was not before the lower court below that there is some wasn't all interpretation ambiguity under indiana's they law it needs to be construed against the drafter which the state was we only want to protect our voters that is the only thing that we are asking for and we have a clear direction from this or that there needs to be written communication directly from a voter and there needs to be notice and waiting and the state thus far as not provided the barest shred of evidence that they're going to act in a way that is and we are in compliance this present if if there is a construction of the statute as the state argues that would permit the election division to receive written authorization of cancellation by the voter that would comply with the federal statute given that the statute hasn't requirement that would allow us to take this up at this point well your honor the concern is discrete and well defined we know and the labor to fit though it it you also have to establish the likely to occur which is what my focus is right we know that in the end it is going to be doing let's meet once we know that there are operating under an injunction and that injunction is  clear in the draft or who is responsible for implementing the legislation and did not commit to requiring an out of state registration form on top of that we have the plain text which doesn't require it but if plaint the plain text may not require it but if the plain text of f two permits it again given that this is has not been implemented yet how have you established likely to occur to do we need something else to meet that likely to occur under consulates that you have to establish no your honor and i believe my colleague sophia will have more to add to this the the reason we don't your honor is because we have a statute on its face violates the n p r or a we have the implementers indicating that they do not intend to comport we have all of the administrative action t so the fact that they have not acted in accordance with their statute in adopting implementing legislation indicating compliance is highly relevant is that dish was of this lawsuit is that why they were here on take you know their actual nothing's of it and sorry you didn't finish i know it's hard over to presume is the reason or is there any evidence to support the argument that they haven't taken these actions as required under the statute because of this lawsuit no your honor and i would point out that nothing in the injunction prevents them from doing the legal argument that they're taking right now nothing about the injunction precludes them from taking a voter registration form and using that as the basis of moving voters it is a mischaracterization of the injunction to say that they can't do anything they've merely can't do as to and the way that it d of the way th much broader than that the injunction applies to way more than just enough to know that it d e and after a member of your honor has to do with what needs to be determined has to do what happens once they make that determination after is the way in which they can make that determinations of the three put together but importantly the state has not done one single thing including the issuance of an affidavit or a cancellation directly from the voter but a reading of f two it's possible that so the statute doesn't say you don't have to have this but if we find data aspect  us i don't think you can use the plain language of the statute for your likely to occur argument you're on our i would i would i would add that at the state itself even agrees that the statue plausibly permit what evidence do you need or what exactly do you need to meet the likely to occur standard that the supreme court has set out in good solace given that this statute has not been implemented and your hon it here it's that there is that reasonable expectation that the actions of the organizations about organizations have taken in response rationed for the implementation of us that it that they have no reason to believe will not be implemented in the way the text are met so let me let me ask you are following up on that you know obviously there's a legal standard and you've put into the record evidence and i'm i want to go back again to the indiana voter registration guide book which does which was revised to take into account act three hundred and thirty four dollars but in that revision didn't offer the brief the saving reading if we assume that's what it is that the state is suggesting that we have and so there's that and there's also just the language of the st the the primary part of the county voter registration office may rely on written information provided either directly by a voter registration office another state or forwarded from the election to do so then we you know we get into the rest of this language and i guess it's wants to under this exception it can proceed without a signature from the voter but that's not to our understanding of f q a so long as it comes through the id being instead of directly to the counties themselves and i you know we were there is it actually jury definition of the term written notice that we talked about before that included that said something doesn't count as written notice unless there is a voter signature requesting cancellation would we be here what to think about it what i meant to getting at is that the term written notice if i look at the statute seems to refer to these confidence factors the i d e a data is not something that actually is communication from the voter but i guess everybody agrees that in those states where the voter actually says i wish to cancel my indiana registration that that's good enough would you take issue with that no your honor we don't take issue with that one of the concerns i think is less what the the the definition of a written notice although that could presumably be one way to solve the problem in the statute but it is with respect to the term authorization of the voter to cancel that registration without following the n b a area notice process the statute has been has been pointed out doesn't contain a definition fall of authorization of the voter  status to be canceled if the written notice is forwarded by the election division yes your honor that language itself demonstrates very clearly expressed especially in contrast to what is required under f one to demonstrate that the state's not contemplating having that communication made by the voter of possessing it before a county is permitted to remove that voter and the state and the county doesn't need to follow the n p r you notice process of account is you have no information other than relying on the state to one the meaning of whether an individual authorizes cancellation because that's the must be coming directly from the register to vote for him from the other state that specifically says  a thirty three for the remainder without subsection f to the can that operate within and the area guidelines your honor this gets to the to the point that i was making before about the lack of a definition  authorisation in the statute and the fact that it includes the offending language in f you that's demonstrating that authorization without some sort of limitation is in  just the for the procedure that would be followed then then that is correct but it's not as f is not an exhaustive and so there are many other ways a county court constitute authorisation of the voter under the statute and so while we think that this report injunction provides the clarity that's needed here i'm sworn to under the circumstances of the case if this quart believes that the injunction is overly broad we are certainly asked the court we now into the district court for a narrower injunction something the state itself could have asked the district court to do many times before but we ask that it provides that clarity and leaves no doubt that indiana must hear directly from the voter or have assigned  anything further mr craft yes just would like to make a few points st off on the evidence required to show it's likely to occur the record reliance on the representatives letter and on mr keene statements and in the hearing her proper for two reasons st it's well established under both video and federal law that the statements of a single legislator or someone testifying doesn't signal legislative intent but more importantly nothing they said is actually contradictory mr westover representative wesco attash notices to his letter but he did not say in his letter that these notices would suffice under f t them do you how do you plan to implement f two we don't know what the legal task that might be evidence you're arguing what support it but how do we apply a legal test to determine likely to  or i think that is just you know given a broad statute is there evidence that the state officials have taken the position that they will implement it in the unlawful way and there is no evidence of that here