FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT April 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 15932

_____________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 4 0 2 - CV - 1 - SPM - W CS F L OR I DA S T AT E C ON F E R E NC E OF T HE NA T I ON AL ASSOCI ATI ON FOR T HE AD VA NCEM ENT OF C OLORED P E OP L E ( NA AC P ) , AS AN OR GA NI Z AT I ON AN D R E P R E S E NT AT I VE OF I T S ME MB E R S , HA I T I AN AME R I C AN GR AS S R OO T S C OA L I T I ON , AS AN ORGA NI ZATI ON AN D A ND RE PR ES ENTATI VE OF I TS M EM BE RS , SOUTHW ES T VOTER RE GI ST RATI ON EDUCATI ON PR OJ EC T, A S A N O RG A N I ZA TI O N A N D REPRESEN TA TI V E O F I TS CLI EN TS, P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , ve r s us K U R T S . B R O W N I N G , I N H I S O FFI CI A L CA PA CI TY A S SECRETA RY OF S T AT E F OR T HE S T AT E OF F L OR I DA , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

______________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt for the N orthern D i stri ctof F l ori da

_____________ ( A p r i l 3, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

T JO F L A T , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s i s a n app ea l of a pre l i m i nary i nj un ct i on barr i ng enforce m entof a F l ori da vo t erre gi stra t i on st atut e a s bei ng pree m pt ed by tw o d i ff er entfe dera l s t a tut e s . T he s t a t e l a w w oul d r e qui r e a s a pr e c ondi t i on of r e gi s t e r i ng t o vot e f

or the f i r s tt i m e i n F l or i da tha tthe vot e rdi s c l os e he rdr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e num be rorthe l a s tf ourdi gi t s of

he rS oc i a l S e c ur i ty num be ron the r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i on, a nd th a t th is n u m b e rm a tc h u p w ith th e n u m b e rf o rth is v o te rc o n ta in e d in th e s ta te dri ver’ s l i ce nse dat abas e or the S oci al S ec uri ty A dm i ni stra t i on ’ s dat abas e, r e s pe c t i ve l y . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tpl a i nt i f f s , s e ve r a l or ga ni z a t i ons r e p r e s e n tin g th e in te r e s ts o f m in o r ity c o m m u n itie s in F lo r id a , h a d s ta n d in g to chal l enge the st atut e, w ou l d l i kel y s ucce ed attri al on the m er i t s of thei r c l ai m that f e d e r a l la w p r e e m p ts th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

th e s ta te la w , a n d w o u ld s u f f e rirr e p a r a b le i nj ury a bs e ntpr ovi s i ona l r e l i e f . A c c or di ngl y , the c our tpr e l i m i na r i l y e nj oi ne d the e nf or c e m e ntof

the s t a t e s t a tut e . W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on pl a i nt i f f s ’ s t a ndi ng t o pr os e c ut e thi s a c t i on a nd r e ve r s e i t s de c i s i on gr a nt i ng the p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . I. I n the w a ke of

the N ove m be r2000 pr e s i de nt i a l e l e c t i on a nd i t s a tt e nda nt c ontr ove r s i e s , C ongr e s s unde r t ook t o r e vi e w a nd r e f or m the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of3

f e de r a l e l e c t i ons . T hi s l e gi s l a t i ve e f f or tr e s ul t e d i n the H e l p A m e r i c a V ot e A c tof 2 0 0 2 , P u b . L . 1 0 7 - 2 5 2 , 1 1 6 S ta t. 1 7 0 6 ( c o d if ie d a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 0 1 e t s e q .) ( “ H A V A ” ) . T i t l e I I I of H A V A , pe r t i ne ntt o thi s appe a l , i m pos e s a s e tof r e qui r e m e nt s upon the s t a t e s i n the a r e a s of vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on a nd e l e c t i on a d m in is tr a tio n . T h e A c t c h a r g e s th e s ta te s to im p le m e n t its a rr a y o f d ir e c tiv e s . S ee 42 U . S . C . § 1 54 85 . O ne such prov i si on m andat es thatea ch st at e c re at e a ce ntra l i ze d, peri od i ca l l y upd at ed dat abas e f or i t s r egi stra t i on rol l s, and t hatea ch r e g is te r e d v o te rm u s t b e lin k e d to a u n iq u e id e n tif ic a tio n n u m b e rin th is d a tab a s e . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 15483( a ) . V ot e r s a r e r e qui r e d t o pr ovi de on the i rr e gi s tr a t i on ap p lic a tio n f

o r m s e ith e rth e la s t f

o u rd ig its o f

th e irS o c ia l S e c u r ity n u m b e r s o rth e ir d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e n u m b e r s ; if a v o te rh a s b e e n is s u e d n e ith e rn u m b e r , th e n th e s ta te i s r e qui r e d t o a s s i gn t o tha tvot e ra uni que i de nt i f i c a t i on num be rf

ore ntry i nt o the da t a ba s e . S e e i d. a t§ 15483( a ) ( 5) ( A ) . H A V A a l s o di r e c t s e a c h s t a t e t o de t e r m i ne a c c o r d in g to its o w n la w s w h e th e rth e in f o r m a tio n p r o v id e d b y th e r e g is tr a n t “is s u f f ic ie n t to m e e t th e [ f

e d e r a l] r e q u ir e m e n ts .” I d . a t § 1 5 4 8 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( iii) . T he s t a t e s t a tut e c ha l l e nge d i n thi s c a s e , F l or i daS t a tut e s § 97. 053( 6) ( “ Su b s e c t i o n 6 ” ) , w a s e n a c t e d b y th e Fl o r i d a l e g i s l a tu r e i n 2 0 0 5 a n d b e c a me e f f e c t i v e o n J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a s p a r to f F l o r i d a ’ s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f HA VA . As a m e nde d, S ubs e c t i on 6 i m pos e s a ne w ve r i f i c a t i on pr oc e s s a s a pr e c ondi t i on of4

v o te rr e g is tr a tio n f

o rf ir s t- tim e r e g is tr a n ts in F lo r id a . S e e F la . S ta t. § 9 7 .0 5 3 ( 6 ) . U nd erF l ori da l aw , val i d regi stra t i on i s aprer equi si t e t o v ot i ng i n el ec t i on s. S ee F l a. C on st . art . V I, § 2 (“ E very ci t i ze n o f the U ni t ed S t at es w ho i s a tl ea stei gh t ee n ye ar s of a ge and w ho i s aperm anentre si dentof the st at e, i f r egi st er ed as prov i ded by l a w , s ha l l be a n e l e c t orof the c ounty w he r e r e gi s t e r e d. ” ) ; F l a . S t a t . § 97. 053( 2) (“ If the appl i ca ntfa i l s t o com pl et e hi s or hervo t erre gi stra t i on appl i ca t i on . . . such appl i ca ntshal l no tbe el i gi bl e t o v ot e i n thatel ec t i on . ”) . T o b e e l i gi bl e t o regi st er t o vot e , a pe r s on m us tbe a c i t i z e n of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , a pe r m a ne ntr e s i de ntof F l or i da , ove rthe a ge of e i ght e e n, a nd notha ve be e n c onvi c t e d of a f e l ony or ad j u d i cat ed m en t al l y i n cap aci t at ed . S ee F l a. S t at . § 9 7 . 0 4 1 . F l o ri d a l aw al so req u i res th e v o t er t o fi l e h er reg i strat i o n ap p l i cat i o n atl easttw en ty-n i n e d ays b e f o r e a s c h e d u le d e le c tio n , th e s o - c a lle d b o o k c lo s in g d a te , in o r d e rto b e e lig ib le to v o te in th a t e le c tio n . S e e F la . S ta t. § 9 7 .0 5 3 ( 3 ) - ( 4 ) ; § 9 7 .0 5 5 . T o com pl et e are gi stra t i on form , the appl i ca ntm ustdi sc l ose c ert ai n p er sonal i de nt i f y i ng i nf or m a t i on, i nc l udi ng the appl i c a nt ’ s na m e , hom e a ddr e s s , a nd da t e of b ir th . A d d itio n a lly , b o th S u b s e c tio n 6 a n d H A V A r e q u ir e e a c h ap p lic a n t to pr ovi de e i the rhe rF l or i da dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ( ors t a t e - i s s ue d non- dr i ve ri de nt i f i c a t i on) nu m ber or the l as tfour di gi t s of the appl i ca nt ’ s S oci al S ec uri ty num ber w henThose who a ffirm that they have ne ither a Social Security number nor a

Florida driver’ s 1 or identification number arenot require d to fill out that portion of the a pplication but instead mus t prov idea

c op y of an ide nti fy

ingdo c ument f

ro m a pre -a pp ro ve d li st. Both state a

nd federal ag encie s participatein the matchingproce ss. I f the a pplicant 2 supplied a F lorida identification number (driver’s license or non- driver identification issued by the DHSMV), the D HSMV will first attempt an automatic ele ctronic match by comparing the identification number a

nd the name of

the applica

nt ag ainst the number a

nd name in the DH SMV ’sdata

ba se . There sult w ille ith e r b ea matc h, no nmatc h, or

po ssiblematc h. Pos sib le matches a re then reviewed by

the Florida B urea

u of Voter

Reg istration Services within the Depa rtment of State, which will manually chec k the individual possible matches ag ainst the entries in the same DHSMV data base. N onmatches a

re returne d to the Supervisor of Ele ctions in eac h county

for f urther review. I f the a pplicant supplied the last four dig its of her Social Security number instead, her application information is forwarde d to the SSA for verific ation. The SSA protocol compares thea pp lic ant’ s So c ial Se c urity number, firs t na

me , la st n ame , a

nd ye ar a nd month o f b ir

th ag ainst the rec ords in its database. A ll four elements have to match e x actly with at least one entry for a living per son in the SS A databa se to be c onsidered a “match”by

Florida . Entries that match only

with dece ased persons in the SSA database a re f urther reviewe d by

the B urea

u of Voter Reg istration Services, a nd all nonmatches a

re reviewe d by

the county

Supervisors of Elections. 5 r e g is te r in g to v o te . S u b s e c tio n 6 a ls o r e q u ir e s th a t b e f o r e a n ap p lic a tio n is 1 accep t ed an d th e v o t er i s l i st ed as reg i st ered , th e F l o ri d a D ep artm en to f S t at e m u st fi rs tveri fy or m at ch the nu m ber provi ded i n the appl i ca t i on w i th the nu m ber a s s i gne d t o the appl i c a nt ’ s na m e by the s t a t e D e pa r tm e ntof H i ghw a y S a f

e ty a nd M o to rV e h ic le s ( “D H S M V ” ) o rth e S o c ia l S e c u r ity A d m in is tr a tio n ( “S S A ” ) . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

th e m a tc h in g p r o c e d u r e a r e a t th e c e n te ro f th is c o n tr o v e r s y . A f

te ra v o te rc o m p le te s th e r e g is tr a tio n ap p lic a tio n f o r m a n d tu rn s it i n t o the c ounty e l e c t i on of f i c i a l s , the D e pa r tm e ntof S t a t e t a ke s the i nf

or m a t i on on the appl i c a t i on f

or m a nd c om pa r e s i te l e c tr oni c a l l y a ga i ns tthe i nf or m a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the D H S M V a nd S S A da t a ba s e s . I f the i nf or m a t i on the appl i c a nt 2F lorida law re quire s o ff

ic ials to enter t

heinf or matio n re c e ive d f

ro m a pp lic antswi thin 3 thirteen da

ys of re ceivingthe application. Fla. Stat. § 97.053(7). State law also provides that elec tion officials must notify applicants within five business da ys of any failureto provide the ne c e ssa ry and c or re c t in fo rm atio n o n th ere g istra tio n a pp lic atio n. F la . St at. § 97 .0 52 (6 ). Thus , from the date the ele ction officials rece ive the application, they have up to a

maxi mum of eighteen da

ys to notify

the applica

nt of any error or omission – including a mismatch of the identification numbers – on theapplication. 6 f i l l s outon he rr e gi s tr a t i on f or m c a nnotbe m a t c he d t o the i nf or m a t i on he l d by the D H S M V o rth e S S A , th e r e g is tr a tio n w ill n o t b e c o m p le te d a n d th e ap p lic a n t w ill r e c e iv e a b r ie f

a n d g e n e r ic n o tif

ic a tio n th r o u g h th e m a il to th a t e f f e c t. 3 W ha tthe vot e rm us tdo t o c orr e c tthe m i s t a ke de pe nds on the na tur e of the e rr or , w hi c h unf

or tuna t e l y i s nota l w a y s m a de know n t o the appl i c a ntbe f or e s he goe s t o c or r e c ti t . I f

a n e rr orw a s m a de by the D e pa r tm e ntof S t a t e , e . g. , dur i ng the d at a en try o r m at ch i n g p ro cess so m eo n e tran sp o ses tw o d i g i t s o f a d ri v er’ s l i cen se nu m ber, then t he appl i ca ntneeds t o p re se ntdo cum ent ary proof, l i ke a c op y of her dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e orS oc i a l S e c ur i ty c a r d, t o the c ounty S upe r vi s orof E l e c t i ons show i ng thatthe i dent i fi ca t i on i nform at i on she s ub m i tt ed i n h erappl i ca t i on w as c o rr e c t. T h e v o te rc a n d o th is e ith e rb e f o r e e le c tio n d a y , o rs h e c a n g o to th e p o lls on e l e c t i on da y a nd c a s ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ota nd the n w i thi n tw o da y s br i ng the pr oof t o the S upe r vi s orof

E l e c t i ons . S e e F l a . S t a t . § 97. 053( 6) ; § 101. 048 ( s p e c if y in g th e p r o c e d u r e f

o rv a lid a tin g a p r o v is io n a l b a llo t) . H ow e ve r , i f

the e rr orw a s m a de by the appl i c a nthe r s e l f – e i the rby tr a ns pos i ng di gi t s i n the e ntry of the dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e num be rorby e nt e r i ng aThis rule has the practical effe ct of movingback thedate be foreeach elec tion by which 4 vo tersmus t re g ist e r, whic h isc ur rently se t at tw e nty-nineda

ys b e fo rethee le c tio n. Se eF la . St at. § 9 7. 05 5. Sin c ethereis alw ays a ri sk of makinga mis takeon

thefo rm , a

pp lic antsmus t kn owto file the a pplication early

enough so that they

can benotified of a mismatch a nd ref ile the application bef

ore thebook closingdate. It goe s without saying that this court’s interpretation of Subsection 6 for the pur poses of 5 thi s c halleng e , in c ludingbut no t limit e d tothepo st- e le c tio n cura bil ity of a pp lic ant- sidee rror s, is subject to different, a

uthoritative interpretations by the Florida state c ourts. 7 ni cknam e or m ai den n am e i nst ea d o f the preci se spel l i ng of her l egal nam e – then th e o n ly w a y to c u r e th e d e f e c t a n d b e e lig ib le to v o te in th e u p c o m in g e le c tio n is by f i l i ng a ne w appl i c a t i on w i th the c or r e c ti nf or m a t i on be f

or e the book c l os i ng da t e . S e e F l a . S t a t . § 97. 052( 6) ( a n appl i c a ntc a n c or r e c ta ny m i s s i ng i nf or m a t i on 4 on the re gi stra t i on form “ up un t i l the bo ok cl osi ng [dat e] for [ the] nextel ec t i on ”) ; § 97. 053( 6) ( a pr ovi s i ona l ba l l otw i l l be c ount e d onl y i f the appl i c a ntc a n ve r i f

y the a u th e n tic ity o f

th e id e n tif

ic a tio n n u m b e r s “p r o v id e d o n th e ap p lic a tio n ” ) . T h e r e is n o p o st -el ect i o n w ay t o fi x an ap p l i can t -si d e erro r, an d th e p ro v i si o n al b al l o tcast b y s u c h a v o te rw o u ld n o t b e c o u n te d b e c a u s e th e v o te rw o u ld h a v e f a ile d to r e gi s t e ri n t i m e . S e e F l a . S t a t . § 101. 048( 2) ( b) 2 ( “ I f i ti s de t e r m i ne d tha tthe pers on vo t i ng the prov i si on al bal l otw as no tre gi st er ed . . . then t he prov i si on al bal l otshal l no tbe coun t ed . . . . ”) . 5 II . P l a i nt i f f s a r e the F l or i da S t a t e C onf e r e nc e of the N a t i ona l A s s oc i a t i on f or the A dv ance m entof C ol ored P eopl e ( “ F l ori da N A A C P ”) , the S ou thw es tV ot er8

R e g is tr a tio n E d u c a tio n P r o je c t ( “S V R E P ” ) , a n d th e H a itia n - A m e r ic a n G r a s s r o o ts C o a litio n ( “H A G C ” ) . A ll th r e e p la in tif f o r g a n iz a tio n s w o r k , a m o n g o th e rg o a ls , to in c r e a s e v o te rr e g is tr a tio n a n d p a r tic ip a tio n a m o n g m e m b e r s o f r a c ia l a n d e th n ic m in o r ity c o m m u n itie s in F lo r id a . T h e F lo r id a N A A C P a n d th e H A G C a r e b o th um br e l l a or ga ni z a t i ons w i th l oc a l c hapt e r s thr oughoutthe s t a t e a nd ha ve ap p r o x im a te ly 1 3 ,0 0 0 a n d 7 0 0 m e m b e r s s ta te w id e , r e s p e c tiv e ly . S V R E P is n o t a m e m b e r s h ip o r g a n iz a tio n a n d h a s n o m e m b e r s in F lo r id a . P l ai nt i ff s f i l ed thi s s ui ti n the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i stri cto f F l o ri d a an d si m u l t an eo u sl y m o v ed fo r a p rel i m i n ary i n j u n ct i o n ag ai n st the F l or i da S e c r e t a ry of S t a t e , s e e ki ng t o bl oc k the e nf or c e m e ntof

S ubs e c t i on 6 p r io rto th e b o o k c lo s in g d a te f o rth e p r im a ry e le c tio n h e ld o n J a n u a ry 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . T he a m e nde d c om pl a i ntr a i s e s a hos tof c l a i m s f orr e l i e f unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983, a l l e gi ng tha tS ubs e c t i on 6 vi ol a t e s the f unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o vot e c ont a i ne d i n the F ir s t a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts , th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la u s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m en d m en t , an d th e D u e P ro cess C l au se o f th e F o u rt een th A m en d m en t . Ital so ra i se s s t atut ory c l ai m s, al l egi ng thatS ub se ct i on 6 con fl i ct s w i th and i s pre em pt ed by the f ol l w i ng: s e c t i on 303 of

H A V A , 42 U . S . C . § 15483; s e c t i on 2 of the V ot i ng R i ght s A c tof

1965, 42 U . S . C . § 1973; T i t l e I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964, 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ; a n d th e N a tio n a l V o te rR e g is tr a tio n A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . §Plaintif f S VREP ac kn ow le dg e s th at it do e s n ot h avea sso c iatio nal st andingbe c a us eit i s 6 not a member ship org anization. As we a re satisfied that plaintiffs havemet Article III ’s standingrequirements under the 7 alternative theories actually litigated – a s representatives of their members and a s org anizations dire c tly inj ure d – wepre termit c on side ratio n o f t heiss ueof

wh e ther p laintif

fshavesta

ndingto litigate theclaims of nonmember s in a representative capacity . 9 1 9 7 3 g g - 6 . T h e S ecret ary o p p o sed th e p rel i m i n ary i n j u n ct i o n an d al so m o v ed t o d i sm i ss al l of the coun t s i n the am ended com pl ai ntfor f ai l i ng t o st at e c l ai m s upo n w hi ch re l i ef ca n b e gra nt ed and for fai l i ng t o est abl i sh thatpl ai nt i ff s have s t andi ng un der A r tic le I I I o f

th e C o n s titu tio n to s e e k r e lie f . A f te re x p e d ite d d is c o v e ry , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t p la in tif f s h a v e A r tic le I I I s t a ndi ng i n thr e e di f

f e r e ntc apa c i t i e s . F i r s t , pl a i nt i f f s ha ve s t a ndi ng t o s ue on th ei r o w n b eh al f as o rg an i zat i o n s w h o se m i ssi o n s w o u l d b e i m p ed ed an d w h o se r e s o u r c e s w o u ld b e d iv e r te d a s a d ir e c t r e s u lt o f th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

S u b s e c tio n 6 . S ec on d, the F l ori da N A A C P and t he H A G C al so have st andi ng as re pres ent at i ves of thei r m em bers w ho ar e otherw i se el i gi bl e vot er s butno nethel es s f ac e a n i m m i ne ntthr e a tof

be i ng di s e nf

r a nc hi s e d by e nf

or c e m e ntof

S ubs e c t i on 6. T hi r d,

6 the c our the l d tha tpl a i nt i f f s a l s o ha ve thi r d- pa r ty s t a ndi ng t o s ue on be ha l f of no nm em ber e l i gi bl e vot er s i n F l ori da w ho w ou l d b e deni ed re gi stra t i on and h ence the vot e unde rS ubs e c t i on 6. 7 I n a s e pa r a t e or de ra nd opi ni on, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i onTh edis tric t c ourt did no t a sse ss t

helike lih oo d o f p laintif

fs ’ s uc c e ss o n th emerits in 8 the ir c on sti tution al c halleng e s, and ne ith e r s ideon

a pp e al ha s b ri e fe d th ec on sti tution al merits issues. These issues a

re theref ore not be foreus.

10 f orpr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on. I tf ound tha tpl a i nt i f

f s a r e l i ke l y t o s uc c e e d on the m e r its o f th e irc o n f

lic t p r e e m p tio n c la im s u n d e rH A V A a n d T itle I o f th e C iv il R i ght s A c tof

1964, 42 U . S . C . § 1971, a nd tha tw i thouta pr ovi s i ona l r e m e dy the p la in tif f s w o u ld lik e ly s u f

f e rirr e p a r a b le h a r m o n c e th e b o o k c lo s in g d a te p a s s e d . B e c a u s e th e s ta tu to ry c la im s u n d e rH A V A a n d § 1 9 7 1 w e r e s u f f ic ie n t to grantpl ai nt i ff

s’ m ot i on , the courtavoi ded d ec i di ng w hether the const i tut i on al chal l enges w er e l i kel y t o succe ed on the m er i t s. H ow ever , the courthel d that pl ai nt i ff s’ fa ctual al l egat i on s w er e s uffi ci entt o st at e c on st i tut i on al cl ai m s f or re l i ef an d th u s d en i ed th e S ecret ary’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss th o se cl ai m s. O n p l ai n t i ffs’ r e m a i ni ng tw o s t a tut ory c l a i m s – unde rS e c t i on 2 of the V ot i ng R i ght s A c ta nd u n d erth e N atio n al V o ter R eg istratio n A ct – th e c o u rt g ra n ted th e S ec re tary ’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he S e c r e t a ry now appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on s t a ndi ng a nd i t s or de rgr a nt i ng the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on. 8 II I. W e f ir s t r e v ie w w h e th e ra n y p la in tif f h a s s ta n d in g u n d e rA r tic le I I I to i nvoke the j ur i s di c t i on of the f e de r a l c our t s t o “ de c i de the m e r i t s of the di s put e or of pa r t i c ul a ri s s ue s . ” N a t ’ l A l l i a nc e f orthe M e nt a l l y I l l , S t . J ohn’ s I nc . v. B d. ofAlthough theSecretary on appeal does not question the other two factors af fec ting 9 sta nding , c a us atio n a nd re dre ssibil ity, w ereview n os tra sp ontewh e ther t

hey aresatis fi e d in

thi s caseand conc lude that they are . I f weacc ept the injury to be that Subsection 6 will hinder the org anizations’ ability

to car ry out their mission of reg isteringelig ible voters by forc ing plaintiffs to divert tim eand re so urc e s n e e de d toc omp ly wi th t hematc hingre quire ment, c a us atio n is apparent. An injunction ag ainst the enforcement of Subsection 6 would also redress this injury by doing a way with the matchingrequirement, thereby fre eingup the org anizations to get on with their business. Be causethese two re quirements of standingon plaintiffs’ own behalf a re me t, w ene e d n ot c on side r whe ther p laintif fswo uld alsome e t th e setw o s tandingre quire ments under theassociational or third-par ty theories. 11 C ounty C om m ’ r s , 376 F . 3d 1292, 1294 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng W a r th v. S e l di n, 422 U . S . 490, 498, 95 S . C t . 2197, 2205, 45 L . E d. 2d 343 ( 1975) ) . T hi s l i m i t a t i on f ol l ow s f r om A rt i c l e I I I ’ s gr a ntof j udi c i a l pow e rt o the f

e de r a l c our t s t o de c i de o n l y “ c a s e s ” a n d “ c o n tr o v e r s i e s . ” Se e A l l e n v . W r i g h t , 4 6 8 U . S. 7 3 7 , 7 5 0 , 1 0 4 S. C t . 3315, 3324, 82 L . E d. 2d 556 ( 1984) . T he c ons t i tut i ona l l y m i ni m um r e qui r e m e nt s f

ors t a ndi ng a r e thr e e - f

ol d. F i r s t , the pl a i nt i f

f m us tha ve s uf

f e r e d, or m ustfa ce an i m m i nentand n otm er el y hypothet i ca l prospectof suff er i ng , an i nva s i on of

a l e ga l l y pr ot e c t e d i nt e r e s tr e s ul t i ng i n a “ c onc r e t e a nd pa r t i c ul a r i z e d” i nj ury . S e c ond, the i nj ury m us tha ve be e n c a us e d by the de f e nda nt ’ s c om pl a i ne do f a c tio n s . T h ir d , th e p la in tif f’s in ju ry o rth r e a t o f

in ju ry m u s t lik e ly b e r e d r e s s ib le by a f a vor a bl e c our tde c i s i on. S e e L uj a n v. D e f e nde r s of W i l dl i f e , 504 U . S . 555, 5 6 0 - 6 1 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 2 1 3 0 , 2 1 3 6 , 1 1 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 5 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e s ta n d in g d is p u te in th is c a s e is e n tir e ly o v e rth e f ir s t f a c to r , th e d e m o n s tr a tio n o f in ju ry in f a c t. 9 P l a i nt i f f s a r gue d be l ow a nd pr e s e nt l y m a i nt a i n tha tthe y ha ve de m ons tr a t e d the12

im m in e n t th r e a t o f

in ju ry b o th to th e irm e m b e r s a n d to th e m s e lv e s .

A. 1. A n o r g a n iz a tio n h a s s ta n d in g to e n f o r c e th e r ig h ts o f

its m e m b e r s “w h e n its m em bers w ou l d o therw i se have st andi ng t o sue i n thei r ow n ri gh t , the i nt er es t s a t s t a ke a r e ge r m a ne t o the or ga ni z a t i on’ s purpos e , a nd ne i the rthe c l a i m a s s e r t e d nor the r e l i e f r e que s t e d r e qui r e s the pa r t i c i pa t i on of i ndi vi dua l m e m be r s i n the l a w s u i t . ” Fr i e n d s o f

th e Ea r th , I n c . v . La i d l a w En v t l . Se r v s . ( TO C) , I n c . , 5 2 8 U . S. 167, 181, 120 S . C t . 693, 704, 145 L . E d. 2d 610 ( 2000) ( c i t i ng H untv. W a s hi ngt on S t a t e A ppl e A dve r . C om m ’ n, 432 U . S . 333, 343, 97 S . C t . 2434, 2441, 53 L . E d. 2d 38 3 (19 77 )) ; se e a l so D oe v. S t i ncer , 17 5 F . 3d 87 9, 88 2 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e S ecret ary d o es n o tch al l en g e th e g erm an en ess p ro n g o f th i s i n q u i ry, a nd w e f i nd tha tthe i nt e r e s t s of

vot e r s i n be i ng a bl e t o r e gi s t e ra r e c l e a r l y ge r m a ne t o pl a i nt i f

f s ’ purpos e s . T he S e c r e t a ry l i ke w i s e doe s notc ont e s tthe thi r d pr ong, and w e a re m i nd ful thatw hen t he re l i ef soug hti s i nj un ct i ve, i nd i vi du al part i ci pat i on of the organi za t i on ’ s m em bers i s “ no tno rm al l y nec es sa ry . ” U ni t ed Fo o d & Co mme r c i a l W o r k e r s U n i o n Lo c a l 7 5 1 v . Br o w n G r o u p , I n c . , 5 1 7 U . S. 544, 546, 116 S . C t . 1529, 1531, 134 L . E d. 2d 758 ( 1996) . T he nub i s w he the rthe m e m b e r s th e m s e lv e s w o u ld h a v e s ta n d in g .13

T h e S e c r e ta ry a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e p la in tif f s h a v e n o t id e n tif

ie d a n y s p e c if

ic m em bers w ho have had t hei r r egi stra t i on deni ed du e t o a typog raph i ca l or cl er i ca l error, the m em bers and t here fore pl ai nt i ff s l ac k ass oci at i on al st andi ng . P l ai nt i ff s r e s p o n d th a t th is in f

o r m a tio n is u n d e r s ta n d a b ly u n a v a ilab le b e c a u s e th e y s e e k to pr e ve ntf utur e ha r m t o the l a r ge num be rof i ndi vi dua l s l i ke l y t o r e gi s t e ri n the u p c o m in g e le c tio n s in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 8 , a m o n g w h o m , p la in tif f s c o n te n d , a r e lik e ly to b e m e m b e r s o f

th e iro r g a n iz a tio n s . In law su it s s ee k in g a r em ed y f o r p as t v io lati o n s o f a n o rg an izatio n ’s m em bers ’ ri gh t s, i tm akes se nse that , af t ersom e di sc ov ery, the pl ai nt i ff be re qu i re d t o l i s ta tl e a s tone m e m be rw ho ha s be e n i nj ur e d. B uts e e S t i nc e r , 175 F . 3d a t884 ( “ [ U ] nde rA r t i c l e I I I ’ s e s t a bl i s he d doc tr i ne s of r e pr e s e nt a t i ona l s t a ndi ng, w e ha ve ne ve rhe l d tha ta pa r ty s ui ng a s a r e pr e s e nt a t i ve m us ts pe c i f i c a l l y na m e the i ndi vi dua l on w hos e be ha l f the s ui ti s br ought. . . . ” ) . T he c a s e s c i t e d by the S e c r e t a ry t e nd t o s uppor tthi s pr opos i t i on c onc e rni ng pa s tha r m s , butthe y do not n e c e s s a r ily e x te n d th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f p r e s e n tin g s p e c if

ic in ju r e d m e m b e r s to cl ai m s of f

uture harms. A nd er son v . C i ty of A l ph ar ett a, 77 0 F . 2d 15 75 (11t h C i r. 19 85 ) ( per c uri am ), af

fi rm ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s hol di ng thatthe N A A C P l ac ked asso ci at i o n al st an d i n g t o assertth e co n st i tu t i o n al cl ai m s o f i t s m em b ers b ecau se the organi za t i on had n otbeen abl e t o i dent i fy any m em ber w ho had b ee n p re vent ed14

b y th e c ity ’s p u ta tiv e ly u n c o n s titu tio n a l a c tio n s f r o m liv in g in p u b lic h o u s in g in A lp h a r e tta . I d . a t 1 5 8 2 - 8 3 . L ik e w is e , N a tio n a l A llia n c e f o rth e M e n ta lly I ll, S t. J ohns I nc . v. B oa r d of

C ounty C om m i s s i one r s of S t . J ohn’ s C ounty , 376 F . 3d 1292 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , a l s o i nvol ve d c l a i m s ba s e d on i nj ur i e s a l l e ge dl y c a us e d by th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p a s tv i o l a t i o n s . I d . a t1 2 9 5 . I ti s n o ts u rp r i s i n g th e n th a twe af fi rm ed di sm i ss al s i n these ca se s f or l ac k o f s t andi ng because the organi za t i on al p la in tif f s c o u ld n o t n a m e s p e c if ic m e m b e r s w h o h a v e a lr e a d y b e e n in ju r e d , a s th is i nabi l i ty t o d o so strong l y s up po rt ed the i nfer ence thatno m em bers w er e i n fac t in ju r e d . T he si tuat i on before us i s di ff er ent . W hen t he al l eged harm i s prospec t i ve, w e have notre qu i re d thatthe organi za t i on al pl ai nt i ff s nam e nam es because e very me mb e rf

a c e s a p r o b a b i l i ty o f

h a r m i n th e n e a ra n d d e f i n i t e f u tu r e . Th e Su p r e me C our tha s a c c e pt e d i m m i ne ntha r m a s s a t i s f y i ng the i nj ur y - i n- f

a c tr e qui r e m e ntof A r t i c l e I I I s t a n d i n g . I n Bab b i tv . U n i t e d Fa r m W o r k e r s N a t i o n a l U n i o n , 4 4 2 U . S. 289, 99 S . C t . 2301, 60 L . E d. 2d 895 ( 1979) , the C our ts t a t e d tha ta l though a pl a i nt i f f m us te s t a bl i s h “ a r e a l i s t i c da nge rof s us t a i ni ng a di r e c ti nj ur y a s a r e s ul tof the s t a tut e ’ s ope r a t i on ore nf or c e m e nt , ” i d. a t298, 99 S . C t . a t2308, he “ doe s not have t o aw ai tthe consum m at i on of threa t ened i nj ury t o o bt ai n p re vent i ve re l i ef . ” I d . ( q u o t i n g Ry . M a i l As s ’ n v . Co r s i , 3 2 6 U. S. 8 8 , 9 3 , 6 5 S. Ct . 1 4 8 3 , 1 4 8 7 , 8 9 L.15

E d. 20 72 (194 5)); 31 F ost erC hi l dren v. B ush, 32 9 F . 3d 12 55 , 12 65 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . “ I mmi n e n c e ” a s a d o c tr i n a l s t a n d a r d i s “ s o me w h a te l a s t i c , ” Lu j a n , 5 0 4 U . S. at56 4 n . 2, 11 2 S . C t . at21 38 n. 2, and app l yi ng i ti s notan exerc i se i n con ce ptual an al ysi s b u tan att em p tt o ad v an ce th e p u rp o ses b eh i n d th e case-o r-co n tro v ersy r e qui r e m e ntof

A r t i c l e I I I , i nc l udi ng the gua r a nty of a c tua l a dve r s i ty be tw e e n the pa r t i e s , the l i m i t a t i on on the pow e rof f e de r a l c our t s , s e e M i dr a s h S e pha r di , I nc . v. T ow n of S ur f s i de , 366 F . 3d 1214, 1223 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , a nd the r e s e r va t i on of j udi c i a l r e s our c e s t o r e s ol ve m or e c onc r e t e a nd pr e s s i ng di s put e s , s e e B ow e n v. F ir s t F a m ily F in . S e r v s ., I n c ., 2 3 3 F .3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . A n i m m i nenti nj ury i s one thati s “ l i kel y t o o cc ur i m m edi at el y. ” 31 F ost er C hi l dren, 32 9 F . 3d at12 65 . T he al l eged i nj ury i n thi s c as e, deni al of vo t er r e g is tr a tio n a n d h e n c e th e r ig h t to h a v e o n e ’s v o te c o u n te d , w ill o c c u rif a t a ll before the sc hedu l ed el ec t i on s i n N ov em ber 200 8. P l ai nt i ff s have a verr ed thatthey i nt e nd t o i nc r e a s e vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on e f f or t s a nd a nt i c i pa t e i nc r e a s e d r e gi s tr a t i on appl i ca t i on s a head of the up com i ng pres i dent i al el ec t i on . T hi s i s s uffi ci entt o m ee t the i m m e di a c y r e qui r e m e nta nd di s t i ngui s he s thi s c a s e f r om the s c e na r i o i n E l e nd v. B as ham , 47 1 F . 3d 11 99 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). In E l end, the pl ai nt i ff s s ou gh tan i nj unc t i on a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s S e c r e tS e r vi c e t o pr e ve ntthe l a tt e rf r om r e s tr ic tin g p la in tif

f s to s e q u e s te r e d “F ir s t A m e n d m e n t z o n e s ” d u r in g f u tu r e p r o te s ts16

a ga i ns tP r e s i de ntB us h. 471 F . 3d a t1203. W e uphe l d the di s m i s s a l f orl a c k of s ta n d in g b e c a u s e th e p la in tif f s f a ile d to a lle g e w h e n , w h e r e , a n d h o w s u c h p r o te s ts w e r e goi ng t o oc c uri n the f utur e . I d. a t1206- 07. G i ve n tha tj udi c i a l r e vi e w of s oc a lle d tim e , p la c e , a n d m a n n e rr e s tr ic tio n s u n d e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t a r e h ig h ly c ont e xt - s e ns i t i ve , s e e C l a r k v. C m ty f orC r e a t i ve N on- V i ol e nc e , 468 U . S . 288, 104 S . C t . 30 65 , 82 L . E d. 2d 22 1 (19 84 ), i tw as prop ert o fi nd thatthere w as atthat t i m e no j ust i ci abl e c as e or c on trovers y. In cont ra st , pl ai nt i ff s her e have al l eged w h e n a n d in w h a t m a n n e rth e a lle g e d in ju r ie s a r e lik e ly g o in g to o c c u r . I m m e di a c y r e qui r e s onl y tha tthe a nt i c i pa t e d i nj ury oc c urw i th s om e f i xe d pe r i od o f tim e in th e f

u tu r e , n o t th a t it h ap p e n in th e c o llo q u ia l s e n s e o f s o o n o rp r e c is e ly w i th i n a cert ai n n u m b er o f d ays, w eek s, o r m o n th s. S ee A d aran d C o n stru ct o rs, I nc . v. P e na , 515 U . S . 200, 211- 12, 115 S . C t . 2097, 2105, 132 L . E d. 2d 158 (199 5). T he re qu i re m entof i m m edi ac y i s s at i sf i ed; subst ant i al l i kel i ho od of future i nj ury poses a di ff

er entqu es t i on . T o b e l i kel y e no ug h, the threa t ened future i nj ury m u s t p o s e a “r e a lis tic d a n g e r ” a n d c a n n o t b e m e r e ly h y p o th e tic a l o rc o n je c tu r a l. H o w li k ely is e n o u g h is n ec es sa rily a q u alit ativ e ju d g m en t, se e W il d er n es s S o c’y v. A l cock, 83 F . 3d 38 6, 39 0 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ), and cou rt s s ho ul d l oo k for gu i dance f r om pr e c e de nti n the a na l ogi c a l s ty l e of the c om m on l a w tr a di t i on, s e e A l l e n v.Although L yons himself had been subject to such a choke hold on a prior enc ounter 10 with the police, the Court, followingits earlier decision in O’Shea

v. L ittleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct . 669, 38 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1974), emphasized that “past wrong s do not in themselves amount to t hat re al and

imm e diatethre at of

inj ur y ne c e ssa ry to m akeout a

c a seor c ontrov e rs y .”Lyon s, 461 U.S. at 103, 103 S. Ct . at 1666. 17 W r ig h t, 4 6 8 U .S . 7 3 7 , 7 5 1 - 5 2 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 3 3 1 5 , 3 3 2 4 - 2 5 , 8 2 L . E d . 2 d 5 5 6 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Th e l i n e o f

c a s e s i n c l u d i n g a n d f

o l l o w i n g Ci ty o f

Lo s A n g e l e s v . Ly o n s , 4 6 1 U . S. 95 , 10 3 S . C t . 16 60 , 75 L . E d. 2d 67 5 (19 83 ), prov i des s om e gui depo st s on fac t ors tha ta r e r e l e va ntt o thi s a s s e s s m e nt . I n L y ons , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f l a c ke d s t a ndi ng t o s e e k pr os pe c t i ve i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a ga i ns tthe C i ty of L os A nge l e s t o pr e ve ntthe C i ty ’ s pol i c e f r om appl y i ng a ki nd of

c hoke hol d on s u s p e c ts a b s e n t a th r e a t th a t th e s u s p e c t w o u ld u s e d e a d ly f o r c e to r e s is t a rr e s t. L y o n s , 4 6 1 U .S . a t 1 0 5 , 1 0 3 S . C t. a t 1 6 6 7 . L y o n s a lle g e d th a t th e C ity 10 autho ri ze d the po l i ce ’ s use of chok e hol ds i n v i ol at i on of, am on g o ther c o n s titu tio n a l p r o v is io n s , th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t, b u tth e C o u rtsu rm i sed th atth i s p o l i cy ev en i f p resen tw as n o ten o u g h t o est ab l i sh a lik e lih o o d o f

f u tu r e in ju ry to L y o n s . I d . a t 1 0 6 , 1 0 3 S . C t. a t 1 6 6 7 . S e v e r a l f a c to r s ap p e a rto u n d e r g ir d th e C o u r t’s d e n ia l o f s ta n d in g in L y o n s . F i r s t , the C our tnot e d tha tf orthe thr e a t e ne d i nj ury t o oc c ur , a s e que nc e of i ndi vi dua l l y i m pr oba bl e e ve nt s w oul d ha ve t o oc c ur : ( 1) L y ons w oul d ha ve t o do s o m e th in g to c a u s e a n o th e rru n - in w ith th e L o s A n g e le s p o lic e ; ( 2 ) th e c ity w o u ld18

ha ve t o ha ve a uthor i z e d a l l pol i c e of f i c e r s t o us e c hoke hol ds unne c e s s a r i l y ; ( 3) the pol i c e of f i c e r s i n tha ts pe c i f

i c e nc ount e rw oul d ha ve t o us e a c hoke hol d; a nd ( 4) the us e i n tha ts i tua t i on w oul d ha ve t o ha ve be e n unne c e s s a ry . S e e i d. a t105- 06, 9 3 S . C t. a t 1 6 6 7 . E a c h e v e n t’s o c c u rr e n c e w a s s p a tia lly a n d te m p o r a lly i n d e t e r mi n a t e , a s o p p o s e d t o b e i n g f i x e d t o e i th e ro c c u ro rn o to c c u ra ts o me t i me a n d p la c e . T h is o p e n - e n d e d n e s s a n d th e n u m b e ro f in d e p e n d e n t e v e n ts n e e d e d to br i ng a boutthe a l l e ge d i nj ury c om bi ne d t o c a s tthe i nj ur y i nt o the r e a l m of c o n je c tu r e a n d s p e c u la tio n . S e e id . a t 1 0 8 , 9 3 S . C t. a t 1 6 6 8 . S eco n d , th e th reat en ed i n j u ry i n L yo n s w as p red i cat ed o n th e p l ai n t i ff fi rst doi ng s om e thi ng tha ta tl e a s tw oul d gi ve a n of f i c e rpr oba bl e c a us e t o de t a i n or a rr e s t h im . T h e C o u r t v o ic e d its h e s ita n c e to a s s u m e th a t th e p la in tif f w ill r out i ne l y vi ol a t e the l a w i n the f utur e a nd thus be br oughtw i thi n a r m s ’ r e a c h of the po l i ce . S ee i d. at10 3, 93 S . C t . at16 65 . T hi rd, there w as an adequat e r em edy a t l a w f orthe thr e a t e ne d i nj ury i n L y ons , na m e l y a da m a ge s s ui ta ga i ns tthe C i ty a nd p o lic e s h o u ld a n o f

f ic e ru n c o n s titu tio n a lly c h o k e th e p la in tif f a t s o m e f

u tu r e p o in t. I d. a t111, 93 S . C t . a t1670. U np ac ki ng the C ou rt ’ s bas i s f or denyi ng st andi ng i n L yons re veal s thatthere i s no p erse rul e denyi ng st andi ng t o p re ventprob abi l i st i c i nj uri es . Indeed, si nce L yons w e have re peat edl y uph el d p l ai nt i ff s’ st andi ng w hen t he al l eged i nj ury w as19

p r o s p e c tiv e a n d p r o b a b ilis tic in n a tu r e . A y e a ra f te rL y o n s w a s d e c id e d , w e h e ld th a t a m e n ta lly ill p e r s o n w h o w a s n o t a t th e tim e in s ta te c u s to d y h a d s ta n d in g to c h a lle n g e th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f a n A lab a m a s ta te p r a c tic e o f p la c in g p e r s o n s in co u n ty j ai l s p en d i n g i n v o l u n t ary co m m i tm en tp ro ceed i n g s. S ee L yn ch v . B ax l ey, 744 F . 2d 1452, 1457 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . O bs e r vi ng c o- pl a i nt i f f P e a r c y ’ s hi s t or y of tr e a t a bl e butr e c urr e ntps y c hopa thol ogy , w e not e d tha t“ the r e i s e ve ry l i ke l i hood th a t a n y [ c o m m itm e n t] p e titio n f ile d a g a in s t P e a r c y w o u ld r e s u lt in h is in c a r c e r a tio n in [ c o u n ty ] ja il.” I d . O r d in a r ily , a c iv il c o m m itm e n t p e titio n w o u ld n o tl an d o n e i n j ai l . B u tg i v en th e l ack o f m en t al h eal th faci l i t i es i n so m e co u n t i es, “it is h ig h ly lik e ly th a t s ta te o f f ic ia ls w ill c o n tin u e to e m p lo y th e c o u n ty ja ils to det ai n” the nam ed pl ai nt i ff s a nd others . Id. T he L ynch panel di st i ng ui shed ca se s l i ke L yons on the basi s thatP ea rc y a nd others l i ke hi m coul d n otexer ci se any f orm of consci ou s c on trol ov erthe l i kel i ho od of the threa t ened i nj ury occ urri ng . Id. at 1457 n. 7; s e e a l s o 31 F os t e rC hi l dr e n, 329 F . 3d a t1266- 67 ( a f f i r m i ng s t a ndi ng of fost erchi l dren t o sue t o enj oi n future vi ol at i on s of s ub st ant i ve du e proces s bas ed on pr oba bi l i ty of

c hi l dr e n s uf

f e r i ng f utur e ha r m w hi l e i n f

os t e rhom e s ) ; C hur c h v. C i ty of H unt s vi l l e , 30 F . 3d 1332, 1339 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng L y ons a nd a f f ir m in g s ta n d in g o f

h o m e le s s p e r s o n s to s u e f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

to p r e v e n t c ity f r o m a u th o r iz in g p o lic e h a r a s s m e n t a n d a rr e s t o f h o m e le s s p e r s o n s w ith o u t c a u s e ) .Sub se c tio n 6 alre a dy prov ide s th at a

vo ter c an c a st a

prov isi on al ballo t and

c or re c t a 11 mismatch if the mismatch was c aused by a mistake by

the Depa rtment; however, under

state law if the mistake wa s on the application its elf, no cure a fter theelec tion date is possible. Data g athered betwe en January 1, 2006, the ef

fec tive date of

Subsection 6, and 12 September 30, 2007, show that there w ere14,326 applications re jected f or mismatches out of a total of 1,529,465 reg istration applications. 20 I n s um , pr oba bi l i s t i c ha r m i s “ e nough i nj ur y i n f a c tt o c onf

e r. . . s t a ndi ng i n the unde m a ndi ng A r t i c l e I I I s e ns e . ” T e nn. V a l l e y A uth. v. U . S . E nvt l . P r ot e c t i on A g e n c y , 2 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g N . S h o r e G a s C o . v . E n v tl. P r ot e c t i on A ge nc y , 930 F . 2d 1239, 1242 ( 7th C i r . 1991) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) ) . P la in tif f s p r e s e n t tw o k in d s o f

p r o b a b ilis tic in

ju r ie s to th e irm e m b e r s . F ir s t, the y c l a i m tha tS ubs e c t i on 6 i l l e ga l l y pr e ve nt s vot e r s w hos e r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i ons f

a i l t o m a t c h, due t o a n e rr orm a de e i the rby the m orby the s t a t e , f r om c a s tin g a r e g u la rb a llo t. S e c o n d , th e y c la im th a t S u b s e c tio n 6 ille g a lly p r e v e n ts vot e r s w hos e appl i c a t i ons f a i l t o m a t c h due t o the i row n m i s t a ke f r om c a s t i ng a prov i si on al bal l otthatul t i m at el y get s c ou nt ed. T he l i kel i ho od thatany gi ven 11 i ndi vi dua l w i l l e ve ntua l l y be i nj ur e d de pe nds on the l i ke l i hood tha ta n e rr orof s om e ki nd w i l l c a us e a m i s m a t c h. I ti s note nt i r e l y c l e a rf r om the r e c or d w ha tthe r e l e va nte rr orr a t e i s i n F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng pr oc e s s . H ow e ve r , e ve n us i ng the num be r s c i t e d i n the S e c r e t a ry ’ s br i e f , w e a rr i ve a ta r e

j e c t i on r a t e of

a boutone perc ent . A pp l yi ng thi s one perc entra t e goi ng forw ar d, the od ds thatany gi ven

12Ba sed on F lorida voter reg istration data, about oneperc ent of the total number of 13 re g istratio n a

pp lic atio ns through September 2 00 7 w e rere je c te d d ueto a mis matc h. Th esame d at a re v e alth atth erat eo f

re j e c t i o nam o n gA f

ri c an - Am e ri c an s an d

Lat i n o s w a s tw o p e rc e nt . If thereareeven 200 individuals amongthe 20,000 member s of the F lorida NAA CP and SVREP who are first-time reg istrants and thus subject to Subsection 6’s matchingrequirement, the prob a bil ity that no t e ven a

sing leon ewi ll b ere

je c te d through th ematc hingproc e ss i s o nly thirteen percent, if we use theone-percent error rate . I f weapply

the two-percent rate of reje ction for Af

rica n-Americans a

nd L atinos, the likelihood that at least one person out of 200 will fail to match incre ases to over ninety-eight perc ent.

21 ap p lic a tio n w ill b e r e

je c te d b e c a u s e o f

a m is m a tc h is a ls o o n e p e r c e n t. T o sat i sf y the re qu i re m ent s of a ss oci at i on al st andi ng , al l thatpl ai nt i ff s nee d t o est abl i sh i s thatatl ea ston e m em ber f ac es a r ea l i st i c danger of havi ng hi s or her appl i c a t i on r e

j e c t e d due t o a m i s t a ke n m i s m a t c h. G i ve n tha tthe N A A C P a nd S V R E P c o lle c tiv e ly c la im a r o u n d 2 0 ,0 0 0 m e m b e r s s ta te - w id e , it is h ig h ly u n lik e ly – even w i th o nl y aon e per ce ntchance of r ej ec t i on for a ny gi ven i nd i vi du al – that nota s i ngl e m e m be rw i l l ha ve hi s orhe rappl i c a t i on r e j e c t e d due t o a m i s m a t c h. 13 U n lik e th e a lle g e d th r e a t o f in ju ry in L y o n s , th e “o d d s ” o f a n in ju ry o c c u rr in g in th is c a s e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n c o n je c tu r e a b o u t h o w in d iv id u a ls w ill in te n tio n a lly a c ti n the f

utur e . R a the r , the i nj ur i e s a r e f or e s e e a bl e a nd the e xpe c t e d r e s ul t s of un consci ou s a nd l ar gel y unavo i dabl e hum an errors i n tra nscr i pt i on . M oreover, u n lik e in L y o n s , th e c h a in o f e v e n ts le a d in g to th e e v e n tu a l in ju ry d o e s n o t b e g in w i th an ass um pt i on thatsom eone w i l l com m i tan i l l egal ac t ; the chai n b egi ns w hen p e o p le try to r e g is te rto v o te . H um a n f a l l i bi l i ty be i ng w ha ti ti s , s om e one i s c e r t a i n t o ge ti nj ur e d i n the22

end. B y thei r nature, the ki nd s of m ec hani ca l , typog raph i ca l m i st akes that pl a i nt i f f s c l a i m w i l l i l l e ga l l y di s e nf r a nc hi s e vot e r s unde rS ubs e c t i on 6 c a nnotbe i de nt i f i e d i n a dva nc e . C f

. S a ndus ky C ounty D e m oc r a t i c P a r ty v. B l a c kw e l l , 387 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 4 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a r e th u s f a c e d w ith th e c h o ic e o f

d e c id in g th is ca se on the m er i t s now or w ai t i ng un t i l tho usands (i f notm ore) of re gi stra t i on s a re ac tual l y r ej ec t ed j ustw ee ks before the sc hedu l ed pres i dent i al el ec t i on i n N ov em ber 20 08 . T hi s quest i on of t i m i ng turns no ton st andi ng bu ton the re l at ed ju r is d ic tio n a l d o c tr in e o f r ip e n e s s . S e e W ild e rn e s s S o c ’y , 8 3 F .3 d a t 3 9 0 .

2. T w o c o n s id e r a tio n s p r e d o m in a te th e r ip e n e s s a n a ly s is : ( 1 ) “th e h a r d s h ip to the pa r t i e s of

w i thhol di ng c our tc ons i de r a t i on” a nd ( 2) “ the f i tne s s of the i s s ue s f

or j udi c i a l de c i s i on. ” A l a . P ow e rC o. v. U . S . D e p’ tof E ne r gy , 307 F . 3d 1300, 1310 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g A b b o tt L a b s . v . G a r d n e r , 3 8 7 U .S . 1 3 6 , 1 4 9 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 5 0 7 , 1 5 1 5 , 1 8 L . E d . 2 d 6 8 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ) . B o th c o n s id e r a tio n s w e ig h d e c id e d ly in f a v o ro f r e a c h i n g th e me r i t s o f

th i s ap p e a l s o o n e rr a th e rth a n l a t e r . Th e Su p r e me C o u r t h a s lo n g s in c e h e ld th a t w h e r e th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

a s ta tu te is c e r ta in , a p r e e n f o r c e m e n t c h a lle n g e w ill n o t b e r e je c te d o n r ip e n e s s g r o u n d s . S e e R e g ’l R a il R e or ga ni z a t i on A c tC a s e s , 419 U . S . 102, 143, 95 S . C t . 335, 358, 42 L . E d. 2d 320 (197 4). S i nce e nforcement of Su bsec t i on 6 i s aut om at i c f or al l new vo t er23

r e gi s tr a nt s , the r e i s no doubttha tthe s t a tut e w i l l be e nf or c e d a ga i ns ts om e of p la in tif f s ’ m e m b e r s . T h e h a r d s h ip to w o u ld - b e v o te r s is th a t if w e r e q u ir e th e m to w a i tunt i l a f

t e rthe i rappl i c a t i ons ha ve be e n r e j e c t e d t o c ha l l e nge S ubs e c t i on 6, there m ay no tbe enou gh t i m e t o rea ch a deci si on on the m er i t s bef ore the ac tual e le c tio n . W a i t i ng unt i l r e

j e c t i ons f

l ow i n e n m a s s e a l s o i m pos e s ha r ds hi ps on the S e c r e t a ry . I f

a c our te nj oi ns e nf

or c e m e ntof

S ubs e c t i on 6 w e e ks orda y s be f or e the N o v e m b e re le c tio n , it m a y b e s e v e r e ly b u r d e n s o m e f o rth e s ta te to r e c o n s titu te its r e gi s tr a t i on l i s t s i n t i m e . W or s e y e t , w a i t i ng m i ghtc a l l i nt o que s t i on the s t a tus of prov i si on al bal l ot s a l re ady c as tby vo t er s w ho se i nform at i on fa i l ed t o m at ch because of am i st ake on t he appl i ca t i on form i t se l f, an error i ncurabl e und er S ub se ct i on 6 b utpo t ent i al l y trum ped b y f eder al l aw . Judi ci al i nv ol vem enti n v ot ec o u n tin g in v a r iab ly in v ite s u g ly c o n s e q u e n c e s w ith w h ic h F lo r id a in p a r tic u la ris s o p a in f u lly f a m ilia r . A s f orthe s e c ond f

a c t or , the c l a i m s on appe a l a r e f i tf ora dj udi c a t i on be c a us e the y a r e pr e dom i na nt l y l e ga l que s t i ons a nd the c onf l i c tpr e e m pt i on a na l y s i s doe s notr e qui r e m uc h f a c tua l de ve l opm e nt . S e e P a c . G a s & E l e c . C o. v. S ta te E n e r g y R e s . C o n s e r v a tio n & D e v . C o m m 'n , 4 6 1 U .S . 1 9 0 , 2 0 1 - 0 3 , 1 0 3 S . C t. 17 13 , 17 20 -22, 75 L . E d. 2d 75 2 (19 83 ). S ub se ct i on 6 i s astra i gh t forw ar d st atut e,24

so w e a re no ti n a w orse po si t i on for al ac k o f ast at e c ou rtconstruct i on of i t . S ee id . W e c o n c lu d e th a t p la in tif f s h a v e s ta n d in g to s u e o n b e h a lf o f th e irm e m b e r s . B. O n th e iro w n b e h a lf

, p la in tif f s c o n te n d th a t S u b s e c tio n 6 w ill h in d e rth e ir a bi l i t i e s t o c a rry outthe i rm i s s i ons of r e gi s t e r i ng vot e r s i n the i rr e s pe c t i ve c o mmu n i t i e s . Sp e c i f

i c a l l y , p l a i n t i f

f s a r g u e th a tth e y w i l l h a v e t o d i v e r ts c a r c e t i me a nd r e s our c e s f

r om r e gi s t e r i ng a ddi t i ona l vot e r s t o he l pi ng appl i c a nt s c orr e c tthe a nt i c i pa t e d m y r i a d of

f a l s e m i s m a t c he s due t o e rr or s e i the rby the D e pa r tm e ntof S t at e o r b y th e ap p l i can t . M o reo v er, th ey cl ai m th atS u b sect i o n 6 w i l l d ecrease e le c to r a l p a r tic ip a tio n in th e s e c o m m u n itie s b y m a k in g it m o r e d if f ic u lt f o re lig ib le in d iv id u a ls to r e g is te rto v o te a n d th e r e b y u n d e r m in e th e o r g a n iz a tio n s ’ g o a ls . T h ese i n j u ri es are d i fferen ti n k i n d fro m th e al l eg ed i n j u ri es t o th e o rg an i zat i o n s’ m e m be r s , a l though both a r e tr a c e a bl e t o the e nf or c e m e ntof

S ubs e c t i on 6. In re spon se , the S ec re t ary m akes tw o argum ent s. F i rs t , he cont ends thatan a s s e r tio n th a t S u b s e c tio n 6 w ill im p e d e v o te rr e g is tr a tio n e f f o r ts is n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly c o n c r e te a n d p a r tic u la r iz e d to m e e t A r tic le I I I ’s r e q u ir e m e n t o f in ju ry in f a c t. S ec on d, he as se rt s thateven i f pl ai nt i ff s c an dem on stra t e thati tw i l l shi ftre source s aw ay fr om new re gi stra t i on s t o correc tm i sm at ches on pri or appl i ca t i on s, thi s s hi ft w i l l be an ent i re l y s el f- i nfl i ct ed i nj ury. In supp ortof hi s posi t i on , the S ec re t ary25

r e l i e s pr i nc i pa l l y on a r e c e ntdi s tr i c tc our topi ni on i n C om m on C a us e / G e or gi a v. B i l l ups , 504 F . S upp. 2d 1333 ( N . D . G a . 2007) , w hi c h he l d tha tor ga ni z a t i ons de di c a t e d t o r e gi s t e r i ng vot e r s do notha ve s t a ndi ng i n the i row n r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge a vot e rI D l a w . I d. a t1372- 73. T he opi ni on i n B i l l ups , i n tur n, r e l i e s he a vi l y on a di s tr i c tc our topi ni on i n I ndi a na D e m oc r a t i c P a r ty v. R oki t a , 458 F . S upp. 2d 775 ( S . D . I nd. 2006) , a f

f’ d s ub nom . C r a w f

or d v. M a r i on C ounty E l e c t i on B d. , 472 F .3 d 9 4 9 ( 7 th C ir .) , c e r t. g r a n te d 1 2 8 S . C t. 3 4 , 1 6 8 L . E d . 2 d 8 0 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T he R ok i t a c ou rthel d thatorgani za t i on s c anno tes t abl i sh i nj ury i n fac t th ro u g h “ i m p reci se an d sp ecu l at i v e cl ai m s co n cern i n g p o t en t i al fu tu re act i o n s” de s i gne d t o c om pe ns a t e f orthe e f f e c t s of the s t a tut e . 458 F . S upp. 2d a t816. A ny re source s thatthe organi za t i on s do end up expend i ng w ou l d, m oreover, be base d o n th a t o r g a n iz a tio n ’s “s o le a n d v o lu n ta ry d is c r e tio n .” I d . A lth o u g h th e S e v e n th C i r c ui ta f

f i r m e d the m e r i t s hol di ng i n R oki t a , i te xpr e s s l y he l d tha ta n or ga ni z a t i on s u f f e r s a n in ju ry in f a c t w h e n a s ta tu te “c o m p e l[ s ]” it to d iv e r t m o r e r e s o u r c e s to ac com pl i shi ng i t s goal s. C ra w ford, 47 2 F . 3d at95 1. M oreover, the courthel d that

“ [ t ] he f a c ttha tthe a dde d c os tha s notbe e n e s t i m a t e d a nd m a y be s l i ghtdoe s not a f f e c ts t a ndi ng, w hi c h r e qui r e s onl y a m i ni m a l s how i ng of i nj ury . ” I d. ( c i t i ng F r i e nds of

the E a r th, I nc . v. L a i dl a w E nvt l . S e r vs . ( T O C ) , I nc . , 528 U . S . 167, 180- 8 4 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 6 9 3 , 7 0 4 - 0 6 , 1 4 5 L . E d . 2 d 6 1 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) .The pre cise issue in Havens wa s whether the org anizational plaintiff had statutory 14 standingto sue under se ction 812 of the F air HousingAct of 1968, 42 U .S.C. § 3612. However, theCourt no te d th at be c a

us ese c tio n 8 12 had b e e n interp rete d to“ e xten d tothefull l imi ts o f Art . III ,” the inquiry

into statutory

standingcollapsed into the que stion of whether the injuries alleg ed met the ArticleIIIminimumof injury in fac t. Havens, 455 U .S. at 372, 102 S. C t. at 1121.

26 I n r e a c hi ng i t s de c i s i on on s t a ndi ng, the C r a w f or d c our tf

ol l ow e d a l i ne of c a s e s b e g in n in g w ith H a v e n s R e a lty C o rp . v . C o le m a n , 4 5 5 U .S . 3 6 3 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 1 1 1 4 , 7 1 L . E d . 2 d 2 1 4 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . H a v e n s h e ld th a t a n o r g a n iz a tio n h a s s ta n d in g to s u e o n its o w n b e h a lf

if th e d e f e n d a n t’s ille g a l a c ts im p a irits a b ility to e n g a g e in i t s p ro j ect s b y fo rci n g th e o rg an i zat i o n t o d i v ertreso u rces t o co u n t eractth o se i l l egal ac t s. Id. at37 9, 10 2 S . C t . at11 24 -25; se e a l so H ai t i an R ef ug ee C ent er , 14 I nc . v. N e l s on, 872 F . 2d 1555, 1561 n. 10 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . T he s e i nj ur i e s , the C ou rtdet erm i ned, w er e s uffi ci ent l y c on cr et e t o b e m ore than t he “ abstra ctsoci al i nt er es t s” no tcogn i zabl e a s i nj uri es un der A rt i cl e I II . S ee H avens, 45 5 U . S . at 3 7 9 , 1 0 2 S . C t. a t 1 1 2 4 . P la in tif f s h a v e m a d e a s u f

f ic ie n t s h o w in g th a t th e y w ill s u f f e ra c o n c r e te in ju ry u n d e rS u b s e c tio n 6 . T h e o r g a n iz a tio n s r e a s o n a b ly a n tic ip a te th a t th e y w ill have t o d i vertpers on nel and t i m e t o edu ca t i ng vo l un t ee rs and v ot er s on com pl i ance w i th S ubs e c t i on 6 a nd t o r e s ol vi ng the pr obl e m of vot e r s l e f

tof f the r e gi s tr a t i on r ol l s on e l e c t i on da y . T he s e r e s our c e s w oul d othe rw i s e be s pe nton r e gi s tr a t i on d r iv e s a n d e le c tio n - d a y e d u c a tio n a n d m o n ito r in g . S V R E P a n tic ip a te s th a t it w ill27

expend m any m ore hou rs than i totherw i se w ou l d h ave c on du ct i ng fol l ow -up w ork w i th r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a nt s be c a us e vot e r s w i l l ha ve the i rappl i c a t i ons de ni e d due t o m at chi ng fa i l ures . In H A G C ’ s c as e, com pensat i ng for the new ob st ac l es cr ea t ed by S ubs e c t i on 6 w oul d di ve r ts ubs t a nt i a l r e s our c e s a w a y f r om he l pi ng vot e r s w ho ma y n e e d l a n g u a g e - tr a n s l a t i o n a s s i s t a n c e o n e l e c t i o n d a y . Th e Fl o r i d a N A A CP pl a ns t o r e gi s t e rt e n pe r c e ntof the A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a ns e l i gi bl e t o vot e i n the upc om i ng e l e c t i on, a nd pe r s onne l tha tw oul d othe rw i s e be pa r tof thi s r e gi s tr a t i on e f f o r t w o u ld h a v e to b e d iv e r te d to r e s o lv in g m is m a tc h e s u n d e rS u b s e c tio n 6 . Inst ea d o f “ abstra ctsoci al i nt er es t s, ” the pl ai nt i ff s have a verr ed thatthei r a ctual a bi l i ty t o c onduc ts pe c i f i c pr oj e c t s dur i ng a s pe c i f i c pe r i od of

t i m e w i l l be frustra t ed by S ub se ct i on 6’ s e nforcement. E ven t ho ug h the i nj uri es ar e a nt i ci pat ed r a the rtha n c om pl e t e d e ve nt s , the y s a t i s f y the i m m e di a c y a nd l i ke l i hood r e qui r e m e nt s f

orthe s a m e r e a s ons a s di s c us s e d i n S e c t i on I I I . A , s upr a , a nd f or thos e r e a s ons , the S e c r e t a ry ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe or ga ni z a t i ona l i nj ur i e s a r e not co n cret e o r p art i cu l ari zed fai l s. T h e S e c r e ta ry ’s s e c o n d a r g u m e n t, th a t a n y d iv e r s io n o f r e s o u r c e s in r e s p o n s e to S u b s e c tio n 6 is v o lu n ta ry a n d h e n c e n o t a n in ju ry , a ls o f

a ils to pers uade. T he S ec re t ary a tt em pt s t o d ra w a di st i nct i on betw ee n an actor l aw negat i ng the ef

fort s of a n o rgani za t i on , w hi ch i s a dm i tt edl y a n i nj ury und er28

H avens, and an actor l aw m er el y c ausi ng the organi za t i on t o v ol un t ar i l y di vert re source s i n res po nse t o the l aw , w hi ch he cl ai m s i s notan i nj ury c og ni zabl e und er A r tic le I I I . T h is d is tin c tio n f in d s n o s u p p o r t in th e la w , a n d it m is s e s th e p o in t. F orthe pr opos i t i on tha t“ vol unt a ry ” di ve r s i on of r e s our c e s a r e noti nj ur i e s , the di stri ctcourti n B i l l up s c i t ed an op i ni on fr om the C ou rtof A pp ea l s f or the D i stri ct of C ol um bi a C i r c ui ts t a t i ng tha tc os t s of us i ng i ndi vi dua l “ t e s t e r s ” t o f e rr e tout ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on i n em pl oym entca se s c anno tcoun tt ow ar d the i nj ury i n fac t r e q u i r e m e n t . S e e F a i rE m p l o y m e n tC o u n c i l o f G r e a t e rWa s h i n g t o n , I n c . v . B MC M kt g. C orp. , 28 F . 3d 12 68 , 12 76 -77 (D . C . C i r. 19 94 ). B utthi s s i m pl y s ay s that pl ai nt i ff s c anno tbo ot strap the costof det ec t i ng and chal l engi ng i l l egal prac t i ce s i nt o i nj ury f

or st andi ng pu rposes . C ost s unrel at ed t o the l egal chal l enge are d if f e r e n t a n d d o q u a lif

y a s a n in ju ry , w h e th e rth e y a r e v o lu n ta r ily in c u rr e d o rn o t. T he courtexpres sl y hel d thatw hen a drai n o n an o rgani za t i on ’ s r es ou rc es ar i se s fr om “ the organi za t i on ’ s nee d t o ‘ coun t er ac t ’ the defendant s’ as se rt edl y i l l egal pr a c t i c e s , ” tha tdr a i n i s “ s i m pl y a nothe rm a ni f e s t a t i on” of

the i nj ur y t o the o r g a n iz a tio n ’s n o n e c o n o m ic g o a ls . I d . a t 1 2 7 7 . I n thi s c a s e , the di ve r s i on of pe r s onne l a nd t i m e t o he l p vot e r s r e s ol ve m atch in g p ro b lem s e ff

ec ti v ely c o u n tera cts w h at w o u ld o th er w ise b e S u b se ctio n 6 ’s ne ga t i on of

the or ga ni z a t i ons ’ e f

f or t s t o r e gi s t e rvot e r s . T he ne te f f e c ti s tha ttheThe other fac tors include whether the plaintiffs will li kely suffer irrepara

ble injury 15 absent a n injunction, whether thethreatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm the de fendant s uf

fersc omp lyingwi th t

heinj un c tio n, and

wh e ther t heinj un c tio n w ould b ea dv e rs eto the public intere st. See Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc. , 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 ( 11th Cir. 2004).

29 a ve r a ge c os tof

r e gi s t e r i ng e a c h vot e ri nc r e a s e s , a nd be c a us e pl a i nt i f f s c a nnotbr i ng t o b ea r l i m i t l es s r es ou rc es , thei r non ec on om i c goal s w i l l suff er . T here fore , p la in tif f s p r e s e n tly h a v e s ta n d in g o n th e iro w n b e h a lf to s e e k r e lie f

. I V . W e turn n ow t o the m er i t s of the appeal . P re l i m i nary i nj un ct i on s a re re vi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on , bu tthe l egal concl usi on s und erpi nn i ng them ar e st i l l su b j ectt o d e n o v o rev i ew . S ee E . R em y M art i n & C o . , S . A . v . S h aw -R o ss I nt ’ l I m por t s , I nc . , 756 F . 2d 1525, 1529 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . B e c a us e w e c onc l ude tha tthe f e de r a l s t a tut e s do notc onf l i c tw i th a nd pr e e m ptS ubs e c t i on 6, a nd th e r e f o r e th a t p la in tif

f s a r e u n lik e ly to p r e v a il o n th e m e r its o f th e s e c la im s a t tr ia l, w e n e e d n o t d is c u s s th e o th e rf a c to r s o f th e p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n a n a ly s is . T h is 15 P a r t a d d r e s s e s p r e e m p tio n u n d e rH A V A ; P a r t V d is c u s s e s § 1 9 7 1 o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 . W h e r e th e tw o c o n f

lic t, f e d e r a l la w tru m p s s ta te la w ; th a t w a s a lw a y s c le a r . S e e U .S . C o n s t. a r t. V I , c l. 2 ; G ib b o n s v . O g d e n , 2 2 U .S . ( 9 W h e a t.) 1 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 6 L . E d. 23 (182 4). W hatconst i tut es a c on fl i cti s oft en l es s c l ear. T he w el l -w orn t ax o n o m y o f p reem p t i o n d o ctri n e i d en t i fi es th ree catego ri es: (1 ) ex p ress30

p re em p ti o n ; (2 ) f

ield p re em p ti o n ; an d (3 ) c o n flict p re em p ti o n . S ee G ad e v . N at’l S ol i d W a s t e s M gm t . A s s ’ n, 505 U . S . 88, 98, 112 S . C t . 2374, 2383, 120 L . E d. 2d 73 ( 1992) ( O ’ C onnor , J . , c onc urr i ng) ; P ha r m . R e s e a r c h a nd M f r s . of A m . v. M ea do w s, 30 4 F . 3d 11 97 , 12 05 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). E xp re ss pree m pt i on occurs w hen C on gres s m ani fe st s i t s i nt entt o d i spl ac e ast at e l aw usi ng the t extof a f eder al st atut e. S ee M ea do w s, 30 4 F . 3d at12 05 . F i el d and confl i ctpree m pt i on i n turn have been consi dere d u nd erthe um brel l a t erm “ i m pl i ed preemp t i on . ” S ee G l ade, 50 5 U . S . at98 , 11 2 S . C t . at23 83 . F i el d p re em pt i on occurs w hen a cong re ss i on al l egi sl at i ve sc hem e i s “ so pervas i ve as t o m ake the re as on abl e i nfer ence that C ongr e s s l e f

tno r oom f

orthe s t a t e s t o s uppl e m e nti t . ” R i c e v. S a nt a F e E l e va t or C orp. , 33 1 U . S . 21 8, 23 0, 67 S . C t . 11 46 , 11 52 , 91 L . E d. 14 47 (194 7). C on fl i ct pr e e m pt i on oc c ur s e i the rw he n i ti s phy s i c a l l y i m pos s i bl e t o c om pl y w i th both the f e de r a l a nd the s t a t e l a w s orw he n the s t a t e l a w s t a nds a s a n obs t a c l e t o the o b j e c t i v e o f

th e f e d e r a l l a w . Se e Cr o s b y v . N a t ’ l Fo r e i g n Tr a d e Co u n c i l , 5 3 0 U . S. 3 6 3 , 3 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 2 8 8 , 2 2 9 4 , 1 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 3 5 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . C a t e gor i e s a nd l a be l s a r e he l pf ul , butonl y t o a poi nt , a nd the y t oo of t e n t e nd t o o bfusca t e i nst ea d o f i l l um i nat e. In thi s part i cul arar ea , the S up re m e C ou rthas ac kn ow l edged t he m i sl ea di ng no m encl ature f or i t s c at egori es and con ce ded t hat

“ fi el d p re em pt i on m ay be un ders t oo d as aspec i es of confl i ctpre- em pt i on . ”31

E ngl i s h v. G e ne r a l E l e c . C o. , 496 U . S . 72, 79, n. 5, 110 S . C t . 2270, 2275 n. 5, 110 L . E d . 2 d 6 5 (1 9 9 0 ). C o m m en t at o rs h av e al so q u est i o n ed w h eth er th ere i s a m ea ni ng ful di st i nct i on betw ee n “ expres s” and “ i m pl i ed” pree m pt i on , si nce “ w hen we s a y th a ta p a r t i c u l a rs e q u e n c e o f wo r d s i n a s t a tu t e ‘ i m p l i e s ’ a g i v e n ru l e , we a r e m e r e l y s a y i ng tha tthe rul e i s pa r tof w ha ttha ts e que nc e of

( e xpr e s s ) w or ds me a n s i n th e c o n t e x ti n wh i c h i s ap p e a r s . ” Ca l e b Ne l s o n , Pr e e mp t i o n , 8 6 Va . L. R ev. 22 5, 26 3 (20 00 ); se e a l so L aure nce H . T ri be, C on st i tut i on al L aw § 6 -25 at 48 1 n . 14 (2d ed. 19 88 ) ( no t i ng thatthe “ three ca t egori es of pree m pt i on ar e a n y th in g b u t a n a ly tic a lly a ir - tig h t,” a n d th a t “e v e n w h e n C o n g r e s s d e c la r e s its pr e e m pt i ve i nt e nti n e xpr e s s l a ngua ge , de c i di ng e xa c t l y w ha ti tm e a ntt o pr e e m pt o f te n r e s e m b le s a n e x e r c is e in im p lie d p r e e m p tio n a n a ly s is ” ) . A tbo tt om thi s i s aca se abou tst atut ory i nt erpret at i on , vi z. , w hether C on gres s i nt ended ei ther H A V A or § 1 97 1(a) (2) of the C i vi l R i gh t s A ctt o d i spl ac e s t a t e l a w s l i ke S ubs e c t i on 6. T he S e c r e t a ry ur ge s us t o appl y a pr e s um pt i on a ga i ns tpr e e m pt i on be c a us e s t a t e s ha ve tr a di t i ona l l y r e gul a t e d e l e c t i ons . A l though h is o b s e r v a tio n o f

th e s ta te s ’ tr a d itio n a l r o le is w e ll- ta k e n , in p r a c tic e it is d if f ic u lt t o u n d e r s t a n d wh a ta p r e s u m p t i o n i n c o n f l i c tp r e e m p t i o n c a s e s a m o u n t s t o , a s we a r e s u r e ly n o t r e q u ir in g C o n g r e s s to s ta te e x p r e s s ly th a t a g iv e n s ta te la w is p r e e m p te d u s in g s o m e f o rm u la o rm a g ic w o r d s . S e e I r v in g v . M a z d a M o to rC o rp .,32

1 3 6 F .3 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . E ith e rC o n g r e s s in te n d e d to d is p la c e c e r ta in s ta te la w s o rit d id n o t. F e d e r a l la w is n o t o b lig e d to b e n d o v e rb a c k w a r d s to ac com m od at e c on tra di ct ory s t at e l aw s, as shou l d b e c l ea r f rom the S up re m ac y C la u s e ’s b la n k e t in s tru c tio n th a t f e d e r a l la w is th e “s u p r e m e L a w o f th e la n d . . . any T hi ng i n the C on st i tut i on or L aw s of a ny S t at e t o the C on tra ry notw i ths t a ndi ng. ” U . S . C ons t . a r t . V I , c l . 2. T hus , w he the ra n a r e a of l a w i s one of tr a d itio n a l s ta te r e g u la tio n d o e s n o t a f f e c t w h e th e rw e w ill p u t a th u m b o n th e s c a le agai nstgi vi ng ef

fe ctt o w hatC on gres s i nt ended. B uthew i ng t o con gres si on al i n t en tcu t s b o th w ays. A l th o u g h w e w i l l n o tap p l y a p resu m p t i o n t o g i v e l ess pree m pt i ve ef

fe ctthan C on gres s i nt ended, w e w i l l al so no tappl y a n o verl y broad co n stru ct i o n o f th e st atu t e’ s su p p o sed o b j ect i v es t o g i v e m o re th an C o n g ress in te n d e d . H A V A r e pr e s e nt s C ongr e s s ’ s a tt e m ptt o s tr i ke a ba l a nc e be tw e e n pr om ot i ng vot e ra c c e s s t o ba l l ot s on the one ha nd a nd pr e ve nt i ng vot e ri m pe r s ona t i on f r a ud on the ot her. P l ai nt i ff

s a rgue thatS ub se ct i on 6 con fl i ct s w i th thi s bal ance i n three s e p a r a te in s ta n c e s . F ir s t, p la in tif f s a r g u e th a t H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( a ) c o n f lic ts w ith S ub se ct i on 6. S ec t i on 30 3(a) se t s f orth the re qu i re m ent s f

or the cr ea t i on of new s ta te v o te rr e g is tr a tio n d a tab a s e s . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 8 3 ( a ) . I t r e q u ir e s s ta te s to ke e p up- t o- da t e a nd a c c ur a t e r ol l s of r e gi s t e r e d vot e r s a nd t o e l i m i na t e r e dunda nt33

en tri es. S ee i d . § 1 5 4 8 3 (a)(4 ). A n o th er p ro v i si o n o f th e su b p arag rap h al so re qu i re s r egi stra t i on appl i ca nt s t o p rovi de a uni qu e i dent i fi ca t i on nu m ber – ei ther a dri ver’ s l i ce nse num ber, a S oci al S ec uri ty num ber, or a uni qu e num ber a ss i gn ed spec i fi ca l l y f

or thi s purpo se – and re qu i re s the st at e t o v er i fy thi s num ber on n ew v o ter r eg istratio n ap p li ca ti o n s in ac co rd an ce w ith a p ro ce d u re o f th e s tate’s c h o o s in g . S e e id . § 1 5 4 8 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) . P l ai nt i ff s c on t end t hatthe obj ec t i ve of se ct i on 30 3(a) i s t o ensure thatst at es ke e p a c c ur a t e r e c or ds of r e gi s t e r e d vot e r s , a nd tha ti tw a s noti nt e nde d t o pr e s c r i be m a t c hi ng a s a f

e de r a l pr e c ondi t i on f

orvot e rr e gi s tr a t i on. F ur the r , pl a i nt i f f s a r gue thatF l ori da m i sund er st oo d w hatse ct i on 30 3(a) re qu i re d and consequent l y a ct ed as th o u g h H A V A m a n d a te d m a tc h in g a s a p r e c o n d itio n to r e g is tr a tio n , r e s u ltin g in the enactm entof S ub se ct i on 6. T he negat i ve i m pl i ca t i on of se ct i on 30 3(a) ’ s a ctual obj e c t i ve i s , s o i tgoe s , tha tH A V A pr ohi bi t s s t a t e s f r om us i ng the i de nt i f

i c a t i on ve r i f i c a t i on pr oc e s s a s a ba s i s f ore xc l udi ng othe rw i s e e l i gi bl e vot e r s . A s s um i ng tha tpl a i nt i f

f s a r e r i ghttha ts e c t i on 303( a ) ( 5) of H A V A doe s noti m pos e m a t c hi ng a s a r e qui r e m e ntof

vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on, i ta l s o doe s nots e e m t o pr ohi bi ts t a t e s f r om i m pl e m e nt i ng i t . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 15483( a ) ( 5) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( “ T he S t a t e s ha l l de t e r m i ne w he the rthe i nf

or m a t i on pr ovi de d by a n i ndi vi dua l i s s uf f i c i e ntt o m e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of

thi s s ubpa r a gr aph, i n a c c or da nc e w i th S t a t e l a w . ” ) . N e i the rt e s tof34

c o n f lic t p r e e m p tio n p a n s o u t f o rth e p la in tif

f s . I t is c e r ta in ly p o s s ib le to c o m p ly w i th b oth H A V A se ct i on 30 3(a) and S ub se ct i on 6. Indeed, i f pl ai nt i ff s a re corr ec t thatse ct i on 30 3(a) i s r ea l l y j ustconcerned w i th m anagi ng dat abas es , then i thas nothi ng w ha t s oe ve rt o do w i th the r e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s of S ubs e c t i on 6 a nd c a nnotbe i n c onf

l i c tw i th i t . P l a i nt i f

f s ha ve f a i l e d t o s how how m a ki ng m a t c hi ng a prer equi si t e t o regi stra t i on un derm i nes the funct i on i ng of the dat abas e i t se l f, w hi ch i s , unde rpl a i nt i f

f s ’ ow n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the s t a tut e , the onl y obj e c t i ve of s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( a ) . S e c o n d , p la in tif

f s a r g u e th a t H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( b ) a ls o c o n f lic ts w ith S ub se ct i on 6. A tthe ou t se t , i ti s i m po rt antt o p oi ntou ta c ruci al di ff er ence be tw e e n the s ubj e c tm a tt e rof S ubs e c t i on 6 a nd of

s e c t i on 303( b) . S e c t i on 303( b) de pl oy s H A V A ’ s pr ovi s i ons a ga i ns tvot e ri m pe r s ona t i on f r a ud by i m pos i ng addi t i on al re stri ct i on s on tho se i nd i vi du al s w ho re gi st er ed by m ai l before they c an vot e e i the ra r e gul a rora pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot . I ti s nota f e de r a l r e gi s tr a t i on pr ovi s i on. E ve ry c om m a nd i n s e c t i on 303( b) appl i e s onl y t o vot e r s w ho ha ve a l r e a dy r e gi s t e r e d – s pe c i f i c a l l y , r e gi s t e r e d by m a i l i ns t e a d of i n pe r s on – ac cordi ng t o the l aw s of thatvo t er ’ s s t at e. S i m pl i fi ed, se ct i on 30 3(b) re qu i re s v o t ers w h o reg i st ered b y m ai l t o v eri fy th ei r i d en t i fy i n an y o n e o f th ree w ays be f or e c a s t i ng a r e gul a rba l l ot . F i r s t , the vot e rc a n pr e s e nts om e f or m ofTh is i s n ot to b ec on fu se d w ithHAVAse c tio n 3 03 (a)’ s re quire ment t hat st ate s re fu se 16 to p ro c e ss o r ac c ept re g ist ratio n a pp lic atio ns wi thout e ith e r a driver’ s li c e ns enumber, thela st four dig its of theSoc ial Se c urity

number, or

a uniquevo ter i denti fi c atio n numb e r. Se e42 U. S.C. § 15483(a) (5). The subsec tion contains a third set of e x ceptions to the identification requirement 17 cre ated by

other fe deral statutes that areinapposite here . See 42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(3) (C). 35 i de nt i f i c a t i on f r om a pr e - appr ove d s t a tut or y l i s ta tthe pol l i ng l oc a t i on ( ors e nd a c o p y o f th e id e n tif

ic a tio n w ith h e rm a il- in v o te ) . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 8 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . T he s e c ond a nd thi r d w a y s of ve r i f y i ng i de nt i ty i n or de rt o vot e oc c ura tthe poi nt of re gi stra t i on , bu tthey a re no tre gi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s und erse ct i on 30 3(b). A 16 v o te rc a n v e r if

y h e rid e n tity e ith e rb y p r e s e n tin g th e s a m e f o r m s o f a c c e p tab le i d en t i fi cat i o n o r b y m at ch i n g u p o n e o f h er i d en t i fi cat i o n n u m b ers (d ri v er’ s l i cen se or S oci al S ec uri ty) w hen she re gi st er s t o v ot e. Id. § 1 54 83 (b)( 3)(A )- (B ). 17 N o th in g in th is p r o v is io n s ta te s o rs u g g e s ts th a t C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to a lte rs ta te re gi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s, and cert ai nl y nothi ng i n the se ct i on sugg es t s thatvo t er s ca n b ypas s s t at e r egi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s e nt i re l y a s l on g as they s at i sf y f eder al id e n tif ic a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rv o tin g a r e g u la rb a llo t. T o s u c c e e d o n th i s a r g u m e n t , p l a i n t i f f s wo u l d h a v e t o d e m o n s tr a t e h o w a p r o v is io n d e a lin g e x c lu s iv e ly w ith v o tin g r e q u ir e m e n ts c a n b e tr a n s f o r m e d to c onf l i c tw i th a s t a t e s t a tut e on r e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s . T he onl y a r gum e ntm a de f o ra t e x tu a l c o n f

l i c ti s th a tu p h o l d i n g S u b s e c t i o n 6 wo u l d r e n d e rHA VA se ct i on 30 3(b)(3)(B) superfl uo us. P l ai nt i ff s c on t end t hatthi s s ec t i on , w hi ch36

e xe m pt s thos e vot e r s w ho pa s s the m a t c hi ng r e qui r e m e nta tr e gi s tr a t i on f r om s how i ng i de nt i f

i c a t i on a tvot i ng, w oul d be unne c e s s a ry i f S ubs e c t i on 6 s t a nds b ecau se ev ery v o t er w o u l d n eed t o m at ch th ei r S o ci al S ecu ri ty o r d ri v er’ s l i cen se num be r s a tr e gi s tr a t i on. T hi s utt e r l y m i s appl i e s the f a m i l i a rc a non of

c ons truc t i on tha t“ a s t a tut e ought , upon the w hol e , t o be s o c ons true d tha t , i f i tc a n be pr e ve nt e d, no cl ause , se nt ence , or w ord shal l be superf l uo us, vo i d, or i nsi gn i fi ca nt . ” T R W Inc. v. A ndr e w s , 534 U . S . 19, 31, 122 S . C t . 441, 449, 151 L . E d. 2d 339 ( 2001) ( quot i ng D uc a n v. W a l ke r , 533 U . S . 167, 174, 121 S . C t . 2120, 2125, 150 L . E d. 2 d 2 5 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) ) . T h is c a n o n ap p lie s w h e n c o u r ts a r e d is c e rn in g th e m e a n in g s o f d if f e r e n t p r o v is io n s o f

th e s a m e s ta tu te , a n d it i nstruct s thatno po rt i on of the st atut e s ho ul d b e r ea d thatw ou l d m ake a no ther part unne c e s s a ry . C l e a r l y thi s i s notthe c a s e he r e . P l a i nt i f f s of f e rno a uthor i ty or r e a s o n t o s u p p o rta n ap p l i c a t i o n o f th i s c a n o n t o two d i f

f e r e n ts t a tu t e s f

r o m two s e p a r a te s o v e r e ig n s , a n d s u c h a n ap p r o a c h w o u ld b e u n te n a b le a n y w a y . I f c o u r ts w e r e to a d o p t p la in tif

f s ’ in te rp r e tiv e m e th o d , th e n e v e ry f e d e r a l s ta tu te th a t is c o n s is te n t a n d p a r a lle l w ith a s ta te s ta tu te w o u ld , p a r a d o x ic a lly , h a v e th e o p p o s ite e f f e c tof pr e e m pt i ng the s t a t e s t a tut e s i nc e the s t a t e s t a tut e w oul d othe rw i s e m a ke th e f e d e r a l s ta tu te s u p e r f

lu o u s . T h i r d , p l a i n t i f

f s a r g u e th a tS u b s e c t i o n 6 c o n f l i c t s wi th HA VA37

se ctio n 3 0 3 (b )( 2 )( B )’s s o -c alled fa il -s af e v o ti n g p ro v isio n , w h ich states th at “[a]n i ndi vi dua l w ho de s i r e s t o vot e i n pe r s on, butw ho doe s notm e e tthe [ i de nt i f i c a t i on] r e qui r e m e nt s . . . m a y c a s ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot ” a s de s c r i be d i n s e c t i on 302( a ) of H A V A . 42 U . S . C . § 15483( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . S e c t i on 302( a ) of H A V A , i n turn, pr ovi de s tha ta vot e rw ho “ doe s notappe a ron the of f i c i a l l i s tof

e l i gi bl e vot e r s f

or th e p o llin g p la c e ” o rw h o is c la im e d b y th e e le c tio n o f f ic ia l n o t to b e a n e lig ib le v o te r , c a n c a s t a p r o v is io n a l b a llo t u p o n a f f ir m in g th a t th e v o te ris r e g is te r e d a n d is e l i gi bl e t o vot e . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 15482( a ) . O nc e the pr ovi s i ona l ba l l oti s c a s t , the el ec t i on offi ci al i s t o d et erm i ne w hether the i nd i vi du al i s “ el i gi bl e und erS t at e l aw to v o te ,” a n d th e o f

f ic ia l m u s t c o u n t th e b a llo t if th e v o te ris e lig ib le . S e e id . § 1 5 4 8 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) . Iti s notent i re l y c l ea r w hatpl ai nt i ff s’ i nt erpret at i on of H A V A ’ s provi si on al b a l l o tp r o v i s i o n s i s , o rwh e r e th e y th i n k th e c o n f l i c twi th S u b s e c t i o n 6 l i e s . HA VA se ct i on 30 2(a) desc ri bes genera l procedures f or ca st i ng and revi ew i ng prov i si on al bal l ot s; i tdo es no ti m po se any f eder al st andards on v ot erre gi stra t i on or vo t er e lig ib ility , b o th o f

w h ic h r e m a in s ta te d e c is io n s . S u b s e c tio n 6 its e lf s ta te s th a t a vo t erw ho has f

ai l ed t o regi st erdu e t o a m i sm at ch of the i dent i fi ca t i on nu m bers ca n c a s ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot , w hi c h w i l l be c ount e d i f the vot e rc a n ve r i f

y the in f o r m a tio n p r o v id e d w ith in tw o d a y s o f th e e le c tio n d a te . S e e F la . S ta t.Contra st thiswi th t he“proc e dural vi sio n”of prov isi on al vo ting , which me ans that “ if 18 theloc al e le c tio n b oa

rd never o ff ic ially re g ist e re d a

n indiv idu al be c a

us eof an in c omp le te re g istratio n f

or m . . . th eindivi du al is out of luc k. ”Ed

wa rd B . F oley , ThePromi seand Prob le ms of Provisional Voting, 73 G eo. Wash. L . Rev. 1193, 1195 (2005); seealso id. (“Theproce dural vision of provisional voting . . . mea n[s] that if an omission wereto be ca used by voter error

. . . the individual would be stuck with the conse quence s.”). 38 § 97. 053( 6) . H A V A s e c t i on 302( a ) e xpr e s s l y s t a t e s tha ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l otbe coun t ed on l y i f the vo t eri s e l i gi bl e und erst at e l aw t o v ot e i n thatpart i cul ar e l e c t i on. R e gi s tr a t i on i s a n e l i gi bi l i ty r e qui r e m e ntunde rthe F l or i da c ons t i tut i on an d statu tes. S ee F la. C o n st. art. V I; F la. S tat. § 9 7 .0 5 3 (2 ). S u b se ctio n 6 ’s p r o v is io n a l b a llo t m e a s u r e s a r e c o n s is te n t w ith H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 2 ( a ) , a s b o th st atut es w ou l d cou nton l y tho se prov i si on al bal l ot s c as tby vo t er s w ho w er e e lig ib le – in F lo r id a , r e g is te r e d – to v o te in th e e le c tio n . P erhaps pl ai nt i ff

s i nt erpretH A V A t o m ea n thatany vot erel i gi bl e t o regi st er u n d e rs ta te la w is e n title d to h a v e h e rp r o v is io n a l b a llo t c o u n t u n d e rs e c tio n 3 0 2 ( a ) . C om m ent at ors have c al l ed thi s i nt erpret at i on the “ subst ant i ve vi si on of prov i si on al vot i ng, ” w hi c h m e a ns tha t“ the pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ots houl d c ountw he ne ve rthe i ndi vi dua l w ho c a s t s the ba l l oti s s om e one w ho s ubs t a nt i ve l y ha s the qua l i f i c a t i ons n e c e s s a ry t o b e a r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r . ” Ed w a r d B. Fo l e y , Th e Pr o mi s e a n d Pr o b l e ms of P rovi si on al V ot i ng , 73 G eo. W as h. L . R ev. 11 93 , 11 94 (200 5). S uch an 18 in te rp r e ta tio n w o u ld tu rn s e c tio n 3 0 2 in to a s w e e p in g f e d e r a l in v a lid a tio n o f

s ta te vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s , a nd w hi l e t e xtua l l y pl a us i bl e i ti s not , i n our39

ju d g m e n t, th e in te n t o f

C o n g r e s s in e n a c tin g H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 2 . S e c t i on 302 s t a t e s tha ta vot e rw i s hi ng t o c a s ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l otm us tbe

“ re gi st er ed” t o v ot e i n h erst at e a nd m ustexec ut e aw ri tt en af fi rm at i on t o that e f f e c t. I t is o n ly a f

te rth e v o te ra f

f ir m s th a t s h e is r e g is te r e d a n d is e lig ib le to v o te thatshe c an even fi l l ou ta provi si on al bal l ot . T hese part s of s ec t i on 30 2 i n cl ea r t e r m s i ndi c a t e tha tC ongr e s s di d noti nt e nd t o do a w a y w i th the i m por t a nc e a nd consequences of s t at e r egi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s. O nce the prov i si on al bal l othas b e e n c a s t, th e s ta te e le c tio n o f f ic ia ls m u s t th e n “d e te r m in e [ ] th a t th e in d iv id u a l is e lig ib le ” to v o te b e f

o r e c o u n tin g th e b a llo t. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 8 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) . Iti s w orth n ot i ng thatal tho ug h C on gres s dre w a di st i nct i on betw ee n a vo t er b e in g r e g is te r e d a n d a v o te rb e in g e lig ib le e a r lie rin th e s a m e s u b s e c tio n , s e e id . § 15482( a ) ( 2) ( A ) - ( B ) , the ve r i f i c a t i on s ubs e c t i on s pe a ks onl y of de t e r m i ni ng w hether avo t eri s “ el i gi bl e und erS t at e l aw , ” notw hether the vo t erever s uc c e s s f ul l y r e gi s t e r e d. I ti s pl a us i bl e t o i nt e rpr e tthi s s ubs e c t i on, a nd i t s om i s s i on of tw o w ords l i ke “ and regi st er ed, ” t o m ea n thatC on gres s r ew rot e a l l st at e vot er r e g is tr a tio n la w to b e n o n m a n d a to ry f o rv o te r s w is h in g to c a s t a ( p r o v is io n a l) b a llo t, in e f

f e c t a d o p tin g th e p r o c e d u r a l v is io n o f p r o v is io n a l v o tin g , s e e s u p r a n o te 18. I nde e d thi s s e e m s t o be the di s s e nt ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng of C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e nt behi nd thi s provi si on . S ee po stat7 n . 11 . B utan equal l y pl ausi bl e t extualUnder the dissent’s interpretation of section 302(a), therewould be no re ason for 19 Congress to include the requirement that the voter a ffirm that she “ is a reg istered voter” since anyone elig ible to reg ister but who did not succe ssfully reg ister could still cast a provisional ballot. This interpretation greatly expands provisional voting beyond the group of voter s it was intended to protec t, namely those who had suc cessf

ully reg istered but were still somehow left off the rolls. The provisional voter s envisioned by the dissent would have already rec eived notice that their applications were inc omplete and that they areconsequently

not reg istered, making them ineligible to invoke se ction 302(a) . 40 i nt e rpr e t a t i on tha ti s m or e c ons i s t e ntw i th c ongr e s s i ona l i nt e nte vi de nc e d by the r e s t o f H A V A is th a t b y th e te r m “e lig ib le u n d e rS ta te la w ,” C o n g r e s s in te n d e d to i ncorpo ra t e s t at e l aw on the i ss ue i nst ea d o f c re at i ng a f eder al st andard. In ot her w ords, se ct i on 30 2(a) l et s the st at es deci de w hether avo t erw ho i s notre gi st er ed bu ti s otherw i se el i gi bl e t o v ot e s ho ul d h ave her provi si on al bal l otcoun t ed a ny w a y . C f

. S a ndus ky C ounty D e m oc r a t i c P a r ty v. B l a c kw e l l , 387 F . 3d 565, 576 (6th C i r. 20 04 ) ( di sc ussi ng st at e l aw thatm ay perm i tvo t er s t o cas tprov i si on al ba l l ot s out s i de of

the i rr e gi s t e r e d pr e c i nc t s ) . T hus , unde rH A V A s e c t i on 302, s t a t e s c a n s t i l l c hoos e w he the rthe y w i l l e f f e c t i ve l y w a i ve the r e gi s tr a t i on r e qui r e m e ntf

orvot e r s c a s t i ng pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot s . F l or i da ha s c hos e n nott o do s o, s e e F la . S ta t. § 9 7 .0 4 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 5 ) ; id . a t § 9 7 .0 4 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( 3 ) , a n d th a t d e c is io n c o n f lic ts wi th n e i th e rs e c t i o n 3 0 2 ( a ) n o rwi th s e c t i o n 3 0 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o f HA VA . 19 I ti s appr opr i a t e now t o l ook thr ough a w i de rl e ns , l e s tw e m i s s the f or e s tof C o n g r e s s ’s in te n t f

o rth e tr e e s o f

H A V A ’s c lu m s y s u b s e c tio n s a n d c la u s e s . P l ai n t i ffs’ p reem p t i o n arg u m en tco m es d o w n t o th e cl ai m th atH A V A p resen t s a41

f i xe d f e de r a l s t a nda r d f

orthe i de nt i f

i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s tha ts t a t e s m a y i m pos e on i n d i v i d u al v o t ers, an d th atan y st at e st an d ard m o re d em an d i n g o r b u rd en so m e m u st gi ve w a y . S ubs e c t i on 6 i s a nd w a s i nt e nde d t o be s uc h a n i de nt i ty ve r i f i c a t i on pr ovi s i on tha ti s unque s t i ona bl y m or e de m a ndi ng a nd l e s s f l e xi bl e tha n the a l t e rna t i ve m e thods of

i de nt i ty ve r i f

i c a t i on pr ovi de d by H A V A . T he que s t i on r e m a i ns w he the rS ubs e c t i on 6 s uf f i c i e nt l y i m pe de s H A V A ’ s obj e c t i ve s a s t o be pr e e m pt e d by i t . S e e G a de v. N a t ’ l S ol i d W a s t e s M gm t . A s s ’ n, 505 U . S . 88, 98, 112 S . C t . 2374, 2383 120 L . E d. 2d 73 ( 1992) ( “ [ T he ] ul t i m a t e t a s k i n a ny pr e - e m pt i on c a s e i s t o de t e r m i ne w he the rs t a t e r e gul a t i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th the stru ctu re an d p u rp o se o f th e s tatu te as a w h o le.”). P lain ti ff s a rg u e th at H A V A ’s s t a nda r ds f

orvot e ri de nt i f

i c a t i on a r e i n e f

f e c tthe na t i ona l m a xi m um ( a nd p r e s u m a b ly m in im u m a s w e ll) th a t a n y s ta te m a y im p o s e o n v o te r s . R ea di ng H A V A T i t l e I II as a w ho l e, w e a re no tconv i nced thati t s obj ec t i ves a r e t o f e de r a l i z e vot e ri de nt i f

i c a t i on s t a nda r ds . F i r s t , a tm ul t i pl e poi nt s thr oughout the s t a tut e , H A V A dy na m i c a l l y i nc orpor a t e s s t a t e l a w r e qui r e m e nt s i ns t e a d of prom ul gat i ng nat i on al st andards. S ee 42 U . S . C . § 1 54 82 (a )( 4); § 15483( a ) ( 5) ( A ) ( i i i ) ; § 15484; § 15485. R e pe a t e dl y a dapt i ng s t a t e l a w s doe s not r e f l e c ta n i nt e ntt o pr e s c r i be a uni f or m na t i ona l s t a nda r d i n the ge ne r a l l e gi s l a t i ve s c h e m e . S e c o n d , s e c tio n 3 0 4 o f H A V A s ta te s e x p lic itly th a t “[ t]h e r e q u ir e m e n ts42

es t abl i shed by thi s s ub chapt erar e m i ni m um re qu i re m ent s. ” I d. § 1 54 84 . P l ai nt i ff s poi ntouttha tthe s e c t i on goe s on t o s a y tha ts tr i c t e rs t a t e r e qui r e m e nt s f or“ e l e c t i on t ec hn ol og y a nd adm i ni stra t i on ” c anno tbe “ i ncon si st entw i th the F eder al r e qui r e m e nt s . ” I d. A l though thi s c ongr e s s i ona l he dge m e a ns tha tH A V A s e c t i on 304 i s nota s i l ve rbul l e tf orthe S e c r e t a ry ’ s pos i t i on, i ta l s o thr ow s s om e doubton pl ai nt i ff s’ cl ai m thatH A V A evi nces a uni form nat i on al vo t eri dent i fi ca t i on po l i cy a s i tc l e a r l y c ont e m pl a t e s the e xi s t e nc e of r e qui r e m e nt s m or e r e s tr i c t i ve tha n the f e de r a l m i ni m um . A s di s c us s e d a bove , pl a i nt i f f s ha ve be e n una bl e t o s how how S u b s e c tio n 6 is in c o n s is te n t w ith a n y o f th e s p e c if

ic “r e q u ir e m e n ts ” o f

H A V A . T he i ra r gum e nttha ti ti s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th s om e m or e ne bul ous c onc e pt i on of H A V A ’ s obj ec t i ve fa i l s once w e r ec og ni ze thaton i ss ues r el at i ng t o v ot er reg i strat i o n an d i d en t i fi cat i o n n o tsp eci fi cal l y ad d ressed b y H A V A , C o n g ress e s s e n tia lly p u n te d to th e s ta te s . T hi r d, i f H A V A w e r e i nt e nde d t o pr e e m pta l l s t a t e l a w s l i ke S ubs e c t i on 6, the n w e w oul d e xpe c tt o s e e a m or e c om pr e he ns i ve r e gul a t i on of vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on an d i d en t i fi cat i o n . In st ead , w h atw e actu al l y h av e i n H A V A sect i o n 3 0 3 (b ) i s a p r o v is io n c o v e r in g o n ly m a il- in r e g is tr a n ts . T h e r e is n o th in g a t a ll in th e s ta tu te tha tdi s c us s e s the r e qui r e m e nt s a nd pr oc e dur e s f ore s t a bl i s hi ng e l i gi bi l i ty a nd i de nt i ty of

i n- pe r s on r e gi s tr a nt s . T hus , s o f a ra s the s pe c i f

i c r e qui r e m e nt s of43

H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( b ) a r e c o n c e rn e d , w e m u s t c o n c lu d e th a t C o n g r e s s le f t it e n tir e ly u p to th e s ta te s to p r e s c r ib e th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rin - p e r s o n r e g is tr a n ts . U nd erpl ai nt i ff

s’ ow n i nt erpret at i on , se ct i on 30 3(b) w ou l d p re em ptS ub se ct i on 6 as appl i ed t o m ai l -i n regi stra nt s w ho se S oci al S ec uri ty a nd dri vers ’ l i ce nse num bers f a i l e d t o ma t c h , b u tn o ta s ap p l i e d t o i n - p e r s o n r e g i s tr a n t s w h o h a d th e s a me pr obl e m . Y e tthi s w oul d m e a n tha ts e c t i on 303( b) w oul d be m or e pr ot e c t i ve of m ai l -i n regi stra nt s – the very grou p u po n w ho m C on gres s i m po se d add i t i on al f e de r a l i de nt i f

i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s t o c ount e r a c tgr e a t e rpe r c e i ve d r i s ks of i m pers on at i on fr aud – than o f i n-pers on re gi stra nt s i n st at es l i ke F l ori da. If C o n g r e s s h a d w a n te d th e v e r if ic a tio n m e th o d s d e s c r ib e d in s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( b ) to ap p ly t o al l v o t ers n at i o n al l y, i tw o u l d h av e sai d so . If i th ad i n t en d ed ev en l ess de m a ndi ng m e thods t o appl y na t i ona l l y f ori n- pe r s on r e gi s tr a nt s , i tw oul d ha ve s a i d tha ta s w e l l . T he f

a c ttha tthe s t a tut e a ddr e s s e s onl y one s pe c i f i c s ubgr oup of r e g is tr a n ts is m o r e c o n s is te n t w ith th e S e c r e ta ry ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f H A V A – th a t it cr ea t ed som e m i ni m um veri fi ca t i on procedures f or on e s peci fi c group w here concerns of f

raud w er e par t i cul ar l y hi gh bu totherw i se l ef tthe st at es fr ee t o d ra w u p th e iro w n v o te rid e n tif ic a tio n m e a s u r e s .

V . W e n e x t c o n s id e rw h e th e rS u b s e c tio n 6 c o n f lic ts w ith § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) o f

th e C iv ilTh ere le va nt p or tio n o f t hestatut ere ads : 20 (2) No person ac ting under color of state law shall– (B ) deny the right of any

individual to vote in any elec tion becauseof an error or omission on any

rec ord or pa

per relatingto any

application [or] reg istration . . . if such error or omission is not m aterial in determiningwhether [the] indivi dual is qualified under State la

w to vote in such ele ction. 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2) (B ). 44 R ig h ts A c t. A s w ith th e a n a ly s is o f H A V A , th e ta s k w ith § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) is 20 de t e r m i ni ng w he the rS ubs e c t i on 6 s t a nds a s a n obs t a c l e t o the obj e c t i ve s of the f e d e r a l s ta tu te . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s n o t. S e c tio n 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) w a s o r ig in a lly e n a c te d a s p a r t o f T itle I o f

th e C iv il R i ght s A c tof

1964, P ub. L . 88- 352, § 101, 78 S t a t . 241. T he m e a s ur e w a s a tthe t i m e the l a t e s te ntry i n a s pur tof f e de r a l e nf

or c e m e ntof

vot i ng r i ght s a f

t e ra l ong s lu m b e rf

o llo w in g s y n c o p a te d e f

f o r ts d u r in g R e c o n s tru c tio n . S ta tu te s e n a c te d in 1 8 7 0 , 1 8 7 1 , 1 9 5 7 , a n d 1 9 6 0 h a d a ll b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l a tte m p ts to c o u n te r a c t s ta te a nd l oc a l gove rnm e ntt a c t i c s of us i ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , bur de ns om e r e gi s tr a t i on r e q u i r e me n t s t o d i s e n f

r a n c h i s e A f

r i c a n - A me r i c a n s . Se e Co n d o n v . Re n o , 9 1 3 F. S up p. 94 6, 94 9-50 (D . S . C . 19 95 ). T hi s l at es taddi t i on t o federa l l aw w as “n e c e s s a ry to s w e e p a w a y s u c h ta c tic s a s d is q u a lif y in g a n ap p lic a n t w h o f a ile d to l i stthe exactnu m ber of m on ths and d ay s i n h i s a ge. ” I d. at95 0. S uch t ri vi al i nform at i on se rved no pu rpose other than as am ea ns of i nd uci ng vo t er -genera t ed e rr o r s th a t c o u ld b e u s e d to ju s tif y r e je c tin g ap p lic a n ts . T h e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

S u b s e c tio n 6 a r e , o f

c o u r s e , n o t tr iv ia l o rirr e le v a n t in45

th e w a y th a t th e s p e c if

ic k in d s o f

in f o r m a tio n r e q u e s ts ta r g e te d b y C o n g r e s s in e n a c tin g § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) w e r e tr iv ia l. A lth o u g h S u b s e c tio n 6 d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a p a r a d ig m a tic v io la tio n o f § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , w e r e c o g n iz e th a t C o n g r e s s in co m b at i n g sp eci fi c ev i l s m i g h tch o o se a b ro ad er rem ed y. S ee P a. D ep ’ to f C o rrs. v . Ye s k e y , 5 2 4 U. S . 2 0 6 , 1 1 8 S . C t . 1 9 5 2 , 1 9 5 6 , 1 4 1 L . E d . 2 d 2 1 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; N. H. M ot orT r a ns p. A s s ' n v. R ow e , 448 F . 3d 66, 77 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) . T he t e xtof the r e s ul t i ng s t a tut e , a nd notthe hi s t or i c a l l y m ot i va t i ng e xa m pl e s of i nt e nt i ona l a nd o v e r t r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n , is th u s th e ap p r o p r ia te s ta r tin g p o in t o f in q u iry in d is c e rn in g c o n g r e s s io n a l in te n t. T he t e xtof

§ 1971( a ) ( 2) ( B ) pr ohi bi t s de ny i ng the r i ghtt o vot e ba s e d on e rr or s orom i s s i ons tha ta r e notm a t e r i a l i n de t e r m i ni ng vot e re l i gi bi l i ty . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 1971( a ) ( 2) ( B ) . T he t e r m “ m a t e r i a l ” nots urpr i s i ngl y s i gni f i e s di f f e r e nt degrees of i m po rt ance i n d i ff er entl egal cont ext s. In const i tut i on al i ze d cri m i nal p r o c e d u r e , e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e is “m a te r ia l o n ly if th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de f e ns e , the r e s ul tof

the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v, B a gl e y , 473 U . S . 667, 682, 105 S . C t . 3375, 3383, 87 L . E d. 2d 481 ( 1985) . I n the vol um i nous j ur i s prude nc e of

s e c t i on 10b of

the 1934 S e c ur i t i e s E xc ha nge A c ta nd R ul e 10b- 5, a m i sr epre se nt at i on or om i ss i on i s m at er i al i f a nd on l y i f there i s a“ subst ant i al46

l i ke l i hood tha tthe di s c l os ur e of the om i tt e d f

a c tw oul d ha ve be e n vi e w e d by the r e a s ona bl e i nve s t ora s ha vi ng s i gni f i c a nt l y a l t e r e d the ‘ t ot a l m i x’ of i nf or m a t i on m a d e a v a ilab le .” T S C I n d u s ., I n c . v . N o r th w a y , I n c ., 4 2 6 U .S . 4 3 8 , 4 4 9 , 9 6 S . C t. 21 26 , 21 32 , 48 L . E d. 2d 75 7 (19 76 ). H o w e v e r , in th e f

e d e r a l c r im in a l m a il a n d w ir e f r a u d c o n te x t, m a te r ia lity s e e m s to ta k e o n a m u c h lo w e re v id e n tia ry th r e s h o ld , f o r“a f a ls e s ta te m e n t is m a t e r i a l i f

i tha s a na tur a l t e nde nc y t o i nf l ue nc e , ori s c apa bl e of

i nf l ue nc i ng, the de c i s i on of

the de c i s i onm a ki ng body t o w hi c h i tw a s a ddr e s s e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ray, 3 6 7 F . 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 2 n . 1 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (q u o t i n g N ed er v . U n i t ed S t at es, 527 U . S . 1, 15, 119 S . C t . 1827, 1837, 144 L . E d. 2d 35 ( 1999) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) ) . S i m i l a r l y , i n the c ont e xtof s e nt e nc i ng r a nge e nha nc e m e nt s f or conceal i ng evi dence und erthe fe dera l S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, w e have observed thatthe thres ho l d for m at er i al i ty i s “ conspi cuou sl y l ow , ” s uch t hatm at er i al i nf or m a t i on i s “ i nf

or m a t i on tha t , i f

be l i e ve d, w oul d t e nd t o i nf l ue nc e ora f

f e c tthe is s u e u n d e rd e te r m in a tio n .” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e d e k e r , 9 6 1 F .2 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 5) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) ) . R oughl y s pe a ki ng, the r e appe a r s t o be tw o ki nds of “ m a t e r i a l i ty , ” one si m i l art o m i ni m al re l evance a nd the ot her c l osert o o ut com e- det erm i nat i ve. IfTo be sure , HAVA also does not requirethat states authenticate these numbers by 21 matchingthem ag ainst exi sting database s. It is explicit that states areto make determinations of validity in acc ordanc e with state law . States arethere forefre e to ac cept the numbers provided on application for

m, which at lea st in Florida are complete d with an oath or a ffirmation under penalty of per jury , as self- authenticating. This does not alter the materiality of the infor

mation itself. 47 m a te r ia lity in th e c o n te x t o f § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) m e a n s m in im a l r e le v a n c e , th e n it is c le a rth a t a f

a ilu r e to m a tc h th e in f

o r m a tio n r e q u ir e d u n d e rS u b s e c tio n 6 is

“ m a t e r i a l ” t o de t e r m i ni ng vot e re l i gi bi l i ty . A n appl i c a t i on tha tf a i l s t o m a t c h up th e id e n tif

ic a tio n n u m b e r s te n d s to m a k e it m o r e lik e ly th a t th e ap p lic a n t is n o t a q u a lif ie d v o te rth a n if

th e n u m b e r s h a d m a tc h e d . I f m a t e r i a l i ty m e a ns s om e thi ng m or e l i ke out c om e - de t e r m i na t i ve , the n the S e c r e t a ry w oul d ha ve t o m e e ta hi ghe rbur de n i n de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe i nform at i on re qu i re d t o m ake am at ch i s nec es sa ry or suff i ci ent , al on g w i th o ther i n fo rm at i o n av ai l ab l e, t o d et erm i n i n g el i g i b i l i ty. F o rtu n at el y fo r th e S ecret ary, C ongr e s s ha s a l r e a dy r e s ol ve d thi s pot e nt i a l l y di f f i c ul ti s s ue i n hi s f

a vorby enac t i ng H A V A se ct i on 30 3(a) . T he fa ctthatH A V A se ct i on 30 3(a) re qu i re s s t at es t o obt a i n the appl i c a nt ’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on num be r s be f

or e a c c e pt i ng a r e gi s tr a t i on ap p lic a tio n a n d a ls o to “d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e in f o r m a tio n p r o v id e d . . . is s uf f i c i e ntt o m e e t[ tha t ] r e qui r e m e nt [ ] ” i ndi c a t e s tha tC ongr e s s de e m e d the i dent i fi ca t i on nu m bers m at er i al t o d et erm i ni ng el i gi bi l i ty t o regi st erand t o v ot e. 21 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 8 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) ( iii) . M o r e o v e r , th e s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) is s u e s th isIn a wa y , this iss ue in this case is the mirror imag e of theone dec ided in Schwier v. 22 Cox , 412 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (N.D . Ga. 2005) , aff ’d 439 F .3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006). Schwier involved a challeng e to Georg ia’s Voter Reg istration Form, whic h had re quired the plaintiff applicants to disclose their f ull Social Security

numbers to be verified. Thedistrict court held, and weaff

irmed, that the Ge org ia law c onflicted with § 1971(a)(2) (B )’s materiality provision beca use Congress had made it illeg al in a different statute, se ction 7(b) of the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (note), to mandate the disclosureof one’ s complete Social Security number without providing c ertain information and notice to the individual. See Schwier, 412 F . Supp. 2d at 1274-75. B eca

use the Ge org ia re g istration form ra n afoul of thesection 7(b) of the Privac y Ac t, t heSoc ial Se c urity

number w a s p e r s eimm ateri al un der § 19 71 (a)( 2) (B ). Here , b e c a us e Congress re quired the identification numbers to be on voter re g istration applications, they are per sematerial under § 1971(a)(2) (B ). 48 d i rect i v e t o st at es “ n o tw i th st an d i n g an y o th er p ro v i si o n o f l aw , ” w h i ch o f co u rse i ncl ud es the t em po ra l l y pri or § 1 97 1(a) (2)( B ). S ee 42 U . S . C . § 1 54 83 (a )( 5)(A )( i ). W e dou btthatC on gres s w ou l d m andat e the gatheri ng of i nform at i on – i nd ee d, that it w o u ld m a k e th a t a p r e c o n d itio n f o ra c c e p tin g r e g is tr a tio n ap p lic a tio n – th a t it a ls o d e e m s im m a te r ia l. R e a d to g e th e r , H A V A s e c tio n 3 0 3 ( a ) r e m o v e s s p e c if ic ki nds of i nf or m a t i on f

r om § 1971( a ) ’ s dom a i n by m a ki ng thos e ki nds of in f o r m a tio n a u to m a tic a lly m a te r ia l. 22 P l a i nt i f f s a r gue tha tw he the rornotthe unde r l y i ng i nf or m a t i on s oughtby the r e g is tr a tio n is m a te r ia l, a n e rr o rc a u s e d b y a ty p o c a n n o t b e m a te r ia l b e c a u s e it doe s notr e f

l e c tthe a bs e nc e of

a ny a c tua l , s ubs t a nt i ve e l e m e nttha tm a ke s the appl i c a nti ne l i gi bl e . T he m i s t a ke n pr e m i s e i n thi s a r gum e nti s tha tthe m a t e r i a l i ty pr ovi s i on r e f e r s t o the na tur e of

the e rr orr a the rtha n the na tur e of the un derl yi ng i nform at i on re qu es t ed. If pl ai nt i ff s w er e c orre ctand m at er i al i ty r ef er sThe standa rd that the dissent propose s, that an er ror is immaterial if it would not 23 “pre c ludea

re a so na blee le c tio n o ff

ic ial f ro m ide nti fy

ingthea pp lic ant, ”po st at 15 , w or ks on ly when the a

pplicant has brought it to the ele ction official’s attention that the mismatch is in fact an er ror by presenting proof of her identity and elig ibility . Without this additi onal identifying inf or matio n, su c h a s a

c op y of thea pp lic ant’ s d

river’ s li c e ns e , it

wo uld beimp os sib leto t e ll whether the applica

nt’s error wa s major, minor, or indee d an er ror at all (as opposed to a n actual attempt at fra

udulently reg istering ). However, w ith this additional information, the ele ction official will always be ableto verify identity of the a pplicant. It is thi s additional information exclusively

– and not the degreeto which that new inf ormation deviate s from the infor mation on the re g istration application form, or the “nature of theerror,” post at 15 – that enables the elec tion official to asc ertain the identity of the voter . Thus, under this approach no error can e ver b emateri al. 49 t o the f a c tof the e rr ori t s e l f

, the n no e rr orw oul d e ve rbe m a t e r i a l be c a us e a n e rr or by de f i ni t i on m i s t a ke nl y a nd i nc or r e c t l y r e pr e s e nt s the unde r l y i ng s ubs t a nt i ve e l e m e ntof

e l i gi bi l i ty . A m or e s ound i nt e rpr e t a t i on of § 1971( a ) ( 2) ( B ) a s ks w he the r , a c c e pt i ng the e rr ora s true a nd c or r e c t , the i nf or m a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the error i s m at er i al t o d et erm i ni ng the el i gi bi l i ty of the appl i ca nt . A s di sc usse d abo ve, H A V A m a k e s th a t in f

o r m a tio n m a te r ia l. 23 U l t i m a t e l y , the thrus tof pl a i nt i f f s ’ a r gum e nti s nottha tthe i nf or m a t i on s oughtby H A V A a nd S ubs e c t i on 6 a r e i m m a t e r i a l , buttha tthe l i ke l i hood of e rr or c o m b in e d w ith th e c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e u n ju s tif iab ly b u r d e n s o m e o n th e ap p lic a n t in lig h t o f o th e ra v a ilab le a n d m o r e e rr o r - to le r a n t w a y s o f v e r if y in g id e n tity , a n d in l i ghtof the ove r a l l ba l a nc e of

e f f e c t s on s oc i a l ut i l i ty . T ha ti s a n a r gum e ntf or a nothe rda y . S e c t i on 1971( a ) ( 2) ( B ) doe s note s t a bl i s h a l e a s t - r e s tr i c t i ve - a l t e rna t i ve t es tfor vot erre gi stra t i on appl i ca t i on s i n the pl ai n t extof the st atut e, and w e a re50

una bl e t o di s c e rn the i m pos i t i on tha tt e s t s a s a n obj e c t i ve of the s t a tut e . F i ndi ng no c o n f l i c tb e twe e n S u b s e c t i o n 6 a n d § 1 9 7 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o f th e C i v i l R i g h t s Ac t , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e F lo r id a la w is n o t p r e e m p te d . V. F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on that pl a i nt i f f s ha ve s t a ndi ng t o pr os e c ut e thi s l a w s ui t , a nd w e r e ve r s e i t s de c i s i on grant i ng pl ai nt i ff

s aprel i m i nary i nj un ct i on . T he ca se i s r em anded for further pr oc e e di ngs noti nc ons i s t e nthe r e w i th. S O O R DE R E D.Only threeother states currently have schemes similar to Subsection 6. Most states that 1 adopted matc hing schemes have done a way with them. For e x ample, af ter implementing matchingscheme s, several states—includingPennsylvania, California , and Maryland—aba

ndoned those re g istration systems after thousands of elig ible voters were be ing denied the right to vote. See , e.g ., Cal. Code Reg s. tit. 2, §§ 20108.38(c), 20108.65(e ), 2 0 1 0 8 . 7 0 ( c ) , 2 0 1 0 8 . 7 1 ; M d . C o d eR e g s . § § 3 3 . 0 5 . 0 4 . 0 4 (A ) ( 3 ) , ( B ) ( 3 )

– ( 4 ) , 3 3 . 0 5 . 0 4 . 0 5 ( C ) ( 5 ) . In W as h i n gt o nS t at e, a d i s tri ctco urtre ce nt l y en j o i n edth e s t at e go v ernm entfr o men fo rc i n g a simil ar matchingscheme . See Wash. Ass’n of Churches v. Reed, 492 F . Supp. 2d 1264 (W.D. Wash. 2006). This requirement, however, applies only to new voter s, not to those already reg istered 2 prior to the enactment of Subsection 6, tre atingnew voters and “old”voters differently . 51 B A R K E T T , C ir c u it J u d g e , C O N C U R R I N G in p a r t, D I S S E N T I N G in p a r t: I a g r e e w ith th e m a

jo r ity th a t P la in tif

f s h a v e s ta n d in g in th is c a s e . H o w e v e r , I di ss entfr om the m aj ori ty’ s det erm i nat i on thatP l ai nt i ff s a re no tent i t l ed t o a pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on a ga i ns tthe e nf or c e m e ntof

F l or i da S t a tut e s § 97. 053( 6) (“ S u b sect i o n 6 ”), w h i ch i m p erm i ssi b l y d i sen fran ch i ses F l o ri d a ci t i zen s. In 2 0 0 6 , F l o ri d a ad d ed a p ro v i si o n t o i t s v o t er reg i strat i o n p ro cess, S u b s e c tio n 6 , th a t r e q u ir e s “m a tc h in g ” a v o te r ’s d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e o rs o c ia l s e c u r ity

1 n u m b e ro n h is o rh e rap p lic a tio n to a n o f f ic ia l d a tab a s e . F lo r id a a n d th e m a jo r ity 2 r e a d th is p r o v is io n to s a y th a t th e m a tc h f r o m th e o f

f ic ia l d a tab a s e m u s t b e , n o t to the a c tua l a nd va l i d dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ors oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r d, butt o the na m e a nd num be rpl a c e d on the r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i on. U nde rthe m a j or i ty ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of thi s provi si on , re gardl es s of a n app l i ca nt ’ s proof of el i gi bi l i ty, any provi si on al vot e l e gi t i m a t e l y c a s ti n a n e l e c t i on w i l l notbe c ount e d i f a n appl i c a nt ’ s na m e or n u m b e ris e rr o n e o u s ly c o p ie d o n to th e ap p lic a tio n f o r m . A n in d iv id u a l’s a b ility toBetween theeff ective da te of Subsection 6—i.e., January 1, 2006—and Oc tober 10, 3 2007, at least 14,326 F lorida citizens wereexcluded from the F lorida re g istration listbeca use of non-verification. As of theNovember 2006 g eneral elec tion, that number was 12,804. For example, Africa

n-Americans makeup 13% of the a pplicant pool, but 26% of the 4 unmatched voter pool. Simi larly, Hispanic-America ns comprise 15% of

the applica

nt pool, but 39% of the unmatched voter pool. To show the sharp c ontrast and illustrate how Subsec tion 6 a ff e c ts mino ritie s toa

much la rg e r e xtent, whit e s ma

keup 66 % o f t

hea pp lic ant p oo l but only 17% of the unmatched voter pool. Be causeminority

communities often havenames that a re unfamiliar to data -entry

proce ssors, and bec ause they aremore likely

than whites to have hy phenate d or compound names, the data base entries are morelikely to not match for minorities. 52 ca sta provi si on al bal l otthere fore turns no ton w hether he or s he i s e l i gi bl e t o v ot e, b u to n w h eth er th e n am e o r n u m b er o n th e reg i strat i o n ap p l i cat i o n co n t ai n s a m is ta k e . S uc h a r e qui r e m e ntf

orvot i ng vi ol a t e s the H e l p A m e r i c a V ot e A c tof 2002 ( “ H A V A ” ) , the V ot i ng R i ght s A c t , a nd the F i r s ta nd F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt s of the C on st i tut i on . M oreover, I c anno tbel i eve thatthi s i nt erpret at i on w as i nt ended b y th e F lo r id a le g is la tu r e . I t is in c o n c e iv a b le th a t a s ta te w o u ld in te n d th a t a ty pogr aphi c a l ortr a ns pos i t i ona l e rr oron a r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i on c oul d notbe corr ec t ed throu gh i rr ef

ut abl e proof of a val i d d ri ver’ s l i ce nse or s oci al se curi ty c ar d t o p erm i ta F l o ri d a ci t i zen ’ s v o t e t o b e co u n t ed . T h e ri g h tt o v o t e i s a

“ f unda m e nt a l m a tt e ri n a f r e e a nd de m oc r a t i c s oc i e ty . ” R e y nol ds v. S i m s , 377 U .S . 5 3 3 , 5 6 1

– 6 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , a n d p u r s u a n t to S u b s e c tio n 6 , F lo r id a h a s im p e r m is s ib ly depri ved a cl as s of over 14, 00 0 ci t i ze ns — the vastm aj ori ty of w ho m ar e 3 m in o r itie s — th a t f

u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t. 4The matc hing scheme in itself is problematic be causeof the numerous administrative 5 and tec hnologic al bar

riers, suc h as computer

g litches or human error

that make the possibility of no n- matc he s f

or qu alif ie d v otersa

stron gpo ssibil ity . H ow e ver, Ifo c us thi s diss e nt, prima ri ly the statutory

sections, on the fact that if a mistake is madeby an applica

nt who then votes prov isi on ally, th at vo tewi ll n e ver b ec ounte d even if thea pp lic ant p ro vide s v alid documentation—either

a driver’s license or soc ial security card—which cle arly

verifie s the voter’s identity . Most other states do not havethis problem. For e x ample, in California, if a n ap p l i cantcann o tb e m at ch edt o a d at ab as e b uti s o th erwi s e e l i gib l e t o v o t e, th e s t at e c anas s i gn that applicant a

unique identifying number. Cf. Cal. Code Reg s. tit. 2, §§ 20108.38(c), 20108.65(e) , 20108.70(c) , 20108.71 Under Florida law, “[a] voter re g istration application is complete a nd become s the 6 official voter re g istration rec ord of that a pplicant when all information nece ssary to establish the applicant’ s elig ibility

pursuant to s. 97.041 is rec eived by a voter reg istration official a

nd verifie d pursuant to [S ubsection 6].” Fla. Stat. § 97.053(2) . Se c tio n 9 7. 04 1 s e ts f

or th t he“ qu alif ic atio ns to re g ist e r to v ote ,”whic h in c ludethat a 7 person ( 1) must be at lea st eighteen year s of ag e, (2) is a U.S. citiz en, (3) is a leg al re sident of Florida , (4) is a le g al re sident of the county in which they

seek to re g ister, (5) ha s not been adjudicate d mentally

incapacitated, a

nd (6) ha s not been c onvicted as a felon. I d. § 97.041. An applica

nt may also provide a

n identification number f

rom a F lorida identification 8 c ard iss ue d p ur su ant to F lorida Statut e s § 32 2. 05 1. Througho ut t hisdis sent, Ish all re fer to “driver’s license numbers”for both driver’s license numbers a s well as identification card numbers . D river’ s li c e ns enumbersand so c ial se c urity

numberssh all c oll e c tiv e ly bere ferre d to as “identifying numbers,” “ applicants’ numbers,” or “number s.” 53 I . F l or i da ’ s “ M a t c hi ng” R e qui r e m e nt 5 F ora vot e rr e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i on t o be “ c om pl e t e , ” a n appl i c a ntm us tnot 6 on l y s at i sf

y the qu al i fi ca t i on s t o regi st ert o v ot e, bu tthe st at e m ustal so m at ch 7

“ [ t ] he appl i c a nt ’ s . . . dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e num be r ” or“ the l a s tf ourdi gi t s of

the appl i c a nt ’ s s oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be r ” t o the da t a ba s e of e i the rthe F l or i da 8 D epar tm entof H i gh w ay S af ety a nd M ot or V ehi cl es (“ D H S M V ”) or the S oci al S e c u r i ty Ad m i n i s tr a t i o n ( “ S S A” ) . F l a . S t a t . § 9 7 . 0 5 3 ( 5 ) ( a )

– ( b ) , ( 6 ) . An

“ i nc om pl e t e ” appl i c a t i on be c a us e of non- m a t c hi ng w i l l be r e j e c t e d a nd theAlthough a voter c ould cureher non- match prior to the reg istration book-closing 9 deadline, se e F la. Stat. § 97.052, this i s not always possible, beca use voters of

ten re ceivenotices of “inc omplete” a

pplications after

the book-c losing de adline. F urthermore, for a voter who reg isters, for e x ample, on the last da y before the book- closingdeadline a nd the state de termines that her a pp lic atio n isunmatc he d, thereis n o w ay in which s hec ould cureher n on -m atc h p ri or to the book-c losing de adline. In Florida , the book-c losing de adline is on the twenty-ninth day before an e lection. See id. § 97.055. F or example, the book-c losing de adline for the J anuar

y 28, 2008 presidential preferenc e primar y was De cember 29, 2007. The a pplicant was previously

g iven threedays to verify the authenticity

of her application but as pa

rt of the 2007 a

mendment to Subsection 6 (s. 13, ch. 2007-30) , the Florida leg islature substituted “sec ond day” for “third day,” now g iving a n applicant only

forty-eight hours to provide documentation matchingher a pplication information. This amendment took e ff e c t on Janu ary 1, 20 08 . Thestateha s sought p re c le ara nc eof thi s amendment withtheU. S. Attorney General. How ever , on J anuar y 23, 2008, the U.S. Depa

rtment of Just ice infor

med the state that bec ause theU.S. District Court for the Nor thern District of F lorida had enjoined enforcement of Subsection 6, the proposed chang e wa s not ripe for review by the U.S. Attorney General. 54 ap p lic a n t’s n a m e w ill n o t b e p la c e d o n th e v o te rr o lls p r e p a r e d f o re le c tio n d a y . H ow e ve r , s uc h a n appl i c a ntc oul d vot e pr ovi s i ona l l y , the va l i di ty of tha tvot e be i ng su b j ectt o th e ap p l i can tco rrect l y “ co m p l et i n g ” h er ap p l i cat i o n w i th i n tw o d ays f ol l ow i ng a n e l e c t i on. 9 T he s t a t e a nd the m a

j or i ty t a ke the pos i t i on tha ts uc h a pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot m a y be c ount e d onl y i f

the s t a t e m a de the m i s t a ke i n the m a t c hi ng pr oc e s s butnot i f thatvery sa m e m i st ake w as m ade by the appl i ca nt . If an el ec t i on offi ci al tr a ns pos e s tw o num be r s orom i t s a l e tt e r , hy phe n, ors uf f i x f r om a na m e on a re gi stra t i on appl i ca t i on w hen ent er i ng thati nform at i on i nt o the st at e’ s vot er dat abas e, re sul t i ng i n a no n-m at ch w i th ei ther the D H S M V or S S A dat abas e, that ap p li ca n t’ s p ro v isio n al b allo t w il l b e c o u n ted u p o n p re se n tati o n o f a v alid d riv er ’sAs an additional ex ample, if a blind or otherwise physically-disabled a pplicant nee ds 10 the assistanceof an e lection offic ial in filling out her a pplication and an error

results on her application, are weto assume that the applica nt ga ve the e lection offic ial an incor rec t sequenc e of numbers or

that the elec tion official simply misunderstood the applica nt in transposing two numbers on her

application? 55 l i ce nse or s oci al se curi ty c ar d. Id. § 9 7. 05 3(6). H ow ever , i f the appl i ca ntm akes the ve ry s a m e m i s t a ke on he rappl i c a t i on, the n no m a tt e rw ha ti rr e f ut a bl e pr oof

s he pr ovi de s of

he ri de nt i ty a nd e l i gi bi l i ty t o vot e , i nc l udi ng a va l i d dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e or s o c ia l s e c u r ity c a r d , h e rp r o v is io n a l b a llo t w ill n e v e rb e c o u n te d . T hi s i nc ons i s t e nc y i n the tr e a tm e ntof pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot s i s c om pounde d by th e factth atth ere i s n o p ro v i si o n u n d er F l o ri d a l aw th atad d resses d i sp u t es r e g a r d in g w h e th e rth e m is ta k e w a s m a d e b y th e ap p lic a n t o rb y a n e le c tio n o f f ic ia l. F or exam pl e, an appl i ca ntm ay w el l ar gu e thather app l i ca t i on i s c orre ct , bu tthatan e le c tio n o f

f ic ia l m is r e a d th e ap p lic a tio n b y s e e in g a “7 ” w h e r e th e ap p lic a n t w r o te th e n u m b e r“1 ,” o rb y c o n s tru in g th e n u m b e r“5 ” a s th e le tte r“S .” 10 F o rth e r e a s o n s m o r e f

u lly e x p la in e d b e lo w , p e r m ittin g F lo r id a to di s e nf r a nc hi s e vot e r s unde rthi s s c he m e vi ol a t e s both f e de r a l l a w a nd the C o n s titu tio n . I I . S u b s e c t i o n 6 C o n f

l i c t s Wi th HA VA . A s are sul tof the vo t i ng di ff i cul t i es experi ence d d uri ng the 20 00 pres i dent i al e l e c t i on, C ongr e s s pa s s e d H A V A i n or de rt o m a ke s w e e pi ng r e f or m s t o our56

n a tio n ’s v o tin g p r o c e s s e s , in c lu d in g s ta te s ’ r e g is tr a tio n p r o c e s s e s . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 0 1 etseq . A n y m eth o d u sed b y a st at e i n co n d u ct i n g v o t er reg i strat i o n m u st now t a ke i nt o a c c ountH A V A ’ s goa l s i n pr om ot i ng m e thods of vot i ng a nd ad m i n i st eri n g el ect i o n s w h i ch are “th e m o stco n v en i en t , accessi b l e, an d easy t o u se f orvot e r s ” a nd w hi c h a r e “ nondi s c r i m i na t ory a nd a f f or d e a c h r e gi s t e r e d a nd e lig ib le v o te ra n e q u a l o p p o r tu n ity to v o te a n d h a v e th a t v o te c o u n te d .” I d . § 1 5 3 8 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) & ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . Am o n g th e m e th o d s u t i l i z e d t o p r o m o t e th e s e g o a l s , S e c t i o n 3 0 2 o f HA VA pr ovi de s f

orthe c a s t i ng of

pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot s . S e e i d. § 15482. U nde rS e c t i on 30 3(b)(2)(B) (the “ fa i l -s af e vot i ng ” provi si on ), an i nd i vi du al w ho do es no tm ee t the i de nt i f

i c a t i on r e qui r e m e nt s f

orvot i ng i n- pe r s on orby m a i l unde rS e c t i on 303( b) ( 2) ( A ) m a y c a s ta pr ovi s i ona l ba l l oti n a c c or da nc e w i th S e c t i on 302( a ) . I d. § 1 54 83 (b)( 2)(A )–(B ). If an i nd i vi du al do es no tappear on a re gi stra t i on l i stor an el ec t i on offi ci al det erm i nes thatshe i s notel i gi bl e t o v ot e, S ec t i on 30 2(a) prov i des th a t a n in d iv id u a l “s h a ll b e p e r m itte d to c a s t a p r o v is io n a l b a llo t” if s h e a f f ir m s to an el ec t i on offi ci al thatshe i s are gi st er ed and el i gi bl e vot er . Id. § 1 54 82 (a )( 2)(A )– ( B ) . T h is m u s t s im p ly m e a n th a t th e v o te rb e lie v e s h e r s e lf to h a v e a d e q u a te ly re gi st er ed. T here af

t er , an el ec t i on offi ci al m ustdet erm i ne on l y thatthe i nd i vi du al i s “ e l i gi bl e unde rS t a t e l a w ” t o vot e , i n w hi c h c a s e he rpr ovi s i ona l ba l l otw i l l beNowhere in that subsection is therea re quirement that the e lection offic ial verify that 11 the applica

nt is reg istered to vote. Themajority conce des that this is a “plausible” inter pretation of Section 302(a) but chooses to interpret HAVAdifferently , thereby allowingFlorida ’s matchingschemeunder Subsec tion 6. Given the full purposes of HAVA a nd the constitutional problems raised by

such an inter

pretation, which the majority ignores, its analysis of provisional balloting under HAVA is much too narrow and incomplete . The majority

takes the position that therewould be no re ason to havea voter aff irm that she “is a reg istered voter” if a nyone elig ible to reg ister but who was not succ essful in reg istering can still cast a provisional ballot. (Maj. Op. at 40 n.19.) Themajority fails to take into ac count vo ter re g istratio n p ro c e sse s, wh e revo tersall t oo of ten do n ot re c e ivethere quisi teno tic eto know whether they

have be en succ essfully

reg istered a

nd will go to the polls believing themselves re g istered to vote. Theaff irmation requirement under Sec tion 302(a) is distinct from the verification proc ess. It require s that the voter simply claim that she be lieves her self to be reg istered, not that the statehas in fac t reg istered her to vote. Ido not addre ss the other two a rguments relate d to HAVA, that ( 1) Subsection 6 12 conflicts with Section 303(b)( 3)(B ) of HAVA and ( 2) that Subsection 6 violates the purposeand meaningbehind HAVA ’s “Computerized Statewide Voter Reg istration L ist Requirements.” Whil e I think these claims havemerit, as I noted ea rlier, the greatest conflict betwe en HAVA and Sub se c tio n 6 is thee ff

a c e ment o f p ro vis ion al ballo tingfo r a c e rt ain group of

oth e rwise elig ible voters. 57 c o u n te d . I d . § 1 5 4 8 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) . T h e in te n t b e h in d th is s e c tio n w a s to p e r m it v o te r s to 11 prov e w i thi n a re as on abl e t i m e a ft eran el ec t i on thatthey a re , i n fac t , el i gi bl e vot er s a n d th e s ta te ’s in itia l v ie w to th e c o n tr a ry w a s e rr o n e o u s . H ow ever , S ub se ct i on 6 com pl et el y e vi sc er at es prov i si on al bal l ot i ng for a gr oup of othe rw i s e e l i gi bl e vot e r s w ho m a ke a m i norm i s t a ke on the i rr e gi s tr a t i on ap p lic a tio n s . S u b s e c tio n 6 p e r m its v o te r s to c a s t a p r o v is io n a l b a llo t w h ic h w ill

12 be coun t ed on l y i f app l i ca nt s pre se ntevi dence— thei r dri ver’ s l i ce nse or s oci al se curi ty c ar d— w hi ch veri fi es the nu m ber “ prov i ded o n [thei r] appl i ca t i on , ” F l a. S t at . § 9 7. 05 3(6) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hi s i s i m po ss i bl e i f a n app l i ca nthas m ade a m in o rm is ta k e in w r itin g h e rn a m e o rn u m b e ro n h e rap p lic a tio n . A n a c tu a l, v a lidContrary to t hestate ’sargument, thereis n o p re sumption ag ains t pre e mption . A s this 13 court ha s stated, “[w]hen consideringimplied preemption, no presumption ag ainst preemption 58 dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ors oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be rw i l l ne ve rm a t c h the r e gi s tr a t i on appl i c a t i on upon w hi c h tw o num be r s m i ghtha ve be e n tr a ns pos e d, orupon w hi c h a le tte ro rh y p h e n m ig h t h a v e b e e n in a d v e r te n tly o m itte d f r o m a n a m e . A c c o r d in g to th e s ta te , it is th e m a tc h its e lf , n o t th e v a lid ity o f

th e r e q u e s te d in f

o r m a tio n , th a t is de t e r m i na t i ve of

a vot e be i ng c ount e d. T hus , w he n a n appl i c a ntm a ke s a m i nor m is ta k e o n h e rr e g is tr a tio n ap p lic a tio n , th e m a jo r ity s a y s th a t F lo r id a is f r e e to di sr egar d H A V A ’ s provi si on s f or prov i si on al bal l ot i ng . T hi s vi ew nu l l i fi es pr ovi s i ona l ba l l ot i ng f

orthos e vot e r s w ho a r e c l e a r l y e l i gi bl e butf ora m i nore rr or o n th e irap p lic a tio n s . A s the m a

j or i ty not e s , “ [ t ] he que s t i on r e m a i ns w he the rS ubs e c t i on 6 suff i ci ent l y i m pedes H A V A ’ s obj ec t i ves a s t o b e pre em pt ed by i t . ” ( M aj . O p. at 41. ) F ora ny c our t , “ [ the ] ul t i m a t e t a s k i n a ny pr e - e m pt i on c a s e i s t o de t e r m i ne w h e th e rs ta te r e g u la tio n is c o n s is te n t w ith th e s tru c tu r e a n d p u rp o s e o f th e s ta tu te as a w ho l e. ” G ade v. N at ’ l S ol i d W as t es M gm t . A ss ’ n, 50 5 U . S . 88 , 98 (199 2). If a c ha l l e nge d s t a t e l a w “ s t a nds a s a n obs t a c l e t o the a c c om pl i s hm e nta nd e xe c ut i on of the ful l pu rposes and o bj ec t i ves of C on gres s, ” then i ti s pre em pt ed by fe dera l l aw . H i n es v . D av i d o w i t z, 3 1 2 U . S . 5 2 , 6 6

– 6 7 (1 9 4 1 ); P h arm . R esearch & M frs. of A m e r i c a v. M e a dow s , 304 F . 3d 1197, 1205 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . I n de t e r m i ni ng 13exis ts.” Irvingv. Mazda Motor Corp., 136 F.3d 764, 769 ( 11th Cir. 1998). “Under the

Supremac y

Clause of the F ederal Constitut ion, the relative importanceto the State of its own law is not material when there is a c onflict with a valid fe deral law, for a ny state law, how ever clea rly within a State’s ac knowledg ed power, which interferes with or is contra ry to federal law , must yield.” L ewis v. B runswick Corp., 107 F .3d 1494, 1502 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citingFe lder v. Casey , 487 U.S. 131, 138 (1988)). “ F or wh e n th equ e sti on

is whe ther a

F e deral a c t ov e rride s a

statelaw, thee ntiresc heme 14 of thestatut emus t of

c ours ebec on side re d a

nd that which n e e ds mus t beimp lie d isof no le ss forc e than that whic h is expresse d. I f the purposeof the act ca nnot otherwise be acc omplished—if its operation within its chosen f ield else must be fr

ustrated a nd its provisions be re fused their

natural effe ct—the state la w must yield to the regulation of Congress within the s p h e reo f i t s d e l e g at e d

p o w e r . ”S av ag ev . J o n e s , 2 2 5 U . S . 5 0 1 , 5 3 3 ( 1 9 1 2 ) , qu o t e d i nC ro s b y, 530 U.S. at 373. 59 w ha ti s a “ s uf

f i c i e ntobs t a c l e , ” w e l ook t o the f e de r a l s t a tut e a s a w hol e a nd id e n tif y its p u rp o s e a n d in te n d e d e f f e c ts . C r o s b y v . N a t’l F o r e ig n T r a d e C o u n c il, 53 0 U . S . 36 3, 37 3 (20 00 ). 14 T he m a j or i ty r e a ds H A V A a s a uthor i z i ng the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve m a t c hi ng of n u m b e r s a n d le tte r s a s a p r e c o n d itio n to r e g is tr a tio n . T h is m is r e a d in g c le a r ly confl i ct s w i th H A V A ’ s obj ec t i ves of prom ot i ng ac ce ss i bl e a nd no n-di sc ri m i nat ory m etho ds of vo t i ng thatm i ni m i ze vo t erdi se nfra nchi se m ent . T hese obj ec t i ves pr e c l ude s t a t e s f

r om us i ng the i de nt i f

i c a t i on- ve r i f

i c a t i on pr oc e s s a s a ba s i s f or e xc l udi ng a c tua l l y qua l i f i e d vot e r s . W hi l e I c e r t a i nl y a gr e e tha ts t a t e s ha ve the r i ghtt o “ de t e r m i ne w he the rthe i nf or m a t i on pr ovi de d by a n i ndi vi dua l i s s uf f i c i e nt to m e e t th e r e q u ir e m e n ts [ f o rv o te rr e g is tr a tio n u n d e rH A V A ], in a c c o r d a n c e w ith S t at e l aw , ” s ee 42 U . S . C . § 1 54 83 (a )( 5)(A )( i i i ), they c anno tdo so i n a w ay thatTh ema jority argue s th at be c a

us eSe c tio n 3 03 (b ) o f HAVA o nly a pp lie s tomail- in 15 reg istrants, Congress left it “entirely” up to the states to dec ide what the requirements for inpers on re g istra ntssh ould b e . ( Ma

j. Op. at 42–4 3. ) That c ann ot b ethec a se . Astateis n ot f re eto enac t whatever in-per son, or mail-in, reg istration laws it wants without reg ard f or the underlying purp os e s o f HAVA a s w e ll a s any prov isi on

of HAVAwhic h ma

y c on fl ic t w itha

state ’ssp e c if

ic choiceof re g istration laws. 60 w o u ld p r e v e n t a c le a r ly a n d u n d is p u te d ly e lig ib le v o te rf r o m h a v in g h e rv o te c ount e d. A l tho ug h the m aj ori ty s t at es thatw e s ho ul d l oo k atH A V A throu gh a “ w i der l e ns ” s o tha tw e do notove r l ook C ongr e s s ’ i nt e nti n e na c t i ng H A V A a tthe e xpe ns e of

“ H A V A ’ s c l um s y s ubs e c t i ons a nd c l a us e s ” ( M a j . O p. a t40) , the m a j or i ty f a i l s t o do w ha ti ts a y s : t o s pe c i f i c a l l y l ook a tS ubs e c t i on 6 i n l i ghtof H A V A ’ s purpo se s. Inst ea d, the m aj ori ty begs the qu es t i on by ho l di ng that S ub se ct i on 6 i s perm i ss i bl e bec ause C on gres s di d n oti nt end t o p re sc ri be un i form nat i on al st andards f

or bo th v ot erre gi stra t i on and i dent i fi ca t i on . (S ee i d. at42 –4 4. ) T he m aj ori ty r ea sons thatbecause C on gres s di d n oti m po se un i form nat i on al st andards f

or vo t erre gi stra t i on w hen i tenac t ed H A V A , the i m pl i ca t i on i s that C on gres s l ef

troom for s t at es t o “ supp l em ent ” H A V A ’ s provi si on s w i th l aw s s uch a s S ubs e c t i on 6. ( S e e i d. a t31–32 ( c i t i ng R i c e v. S a nt a F e E l e va t orC orp. , 331 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 ( 1 9 4 7 ) ) ; s e e a ls o id . a t 4 2

– 4 4 .) B u t H A V A d o e s n o t n e e d to p r e s c r ib e u n if

o r m n a tio n a l s ta n d a r d s f o rv o te rr e g is tr a tio n in o r d e rf o rH A V A to pr e e m ptS ubs e c t i on 6. A l though notpr e e m pt i ng a l l s t a t e r e gi s tr a t i on a nd 1561

i de nt i f i c a t i on l a w s , unde rthe doc tr i ne of c onf l i c tpr e e m pt i on, H A V A w i l l pr e e m pt thos e s t a t e l a w s tha ta c ta s “ obs t a c l e [ s ] t o the a c c om pl i s hm e nta nd e xe c ut i on of the f u ll p u rp o s e s a n d o b

je c tiv e s o f

C o n g r e s s .” H in e s , 3 1 2 U .S . a t 6 6

– 6 7 ( e m p h a s is a dde d) . T he S upr e m e C our tw a s e xpl i c i tw he n i ts t a t e d tha ti f the r e i s “ a ny c onf l i c t ” w i th a f

e de r a l s t a tut e , the s t a t e l a w i n que s t i on i s pr e e m pt e d. C r os by , 530 U . S . a t372 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t i ng C a l i f or ni a v. A R C A m . C orp. , 490 U . S . 93, 1 0 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ) . S u b s e c tio n 6 is s u c h a la w , a n d th u s , p r e e m p te d b y H A V A . F ur the r m or e , a s e xpl a i ne d l a t e rhe r e i n, by i nt e rpr e t i ng H A V A a s a l l ow i ng F l or i da t o m a ke a dm i ni s tr a t i ve m a t c hi ng a nd ve r i f i c a t i on a pr e c ondi t i on of el i gi bi l i ty, S ub se ct i on 6 fai l s t o p as s c on st i tut i on al m ust er . G i ven t he choi ce betw ee n tw o i nt erpret at i on s of afe dera l st atut e, w e s ho ul d cho ose the on e thatdo es n o t d e p r iv e c itiz e n s o f

th e irf u n d a m e n ta l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . I f w e a r e to s e r io u s ly s tr iv e in u p h o ld in g th e in te g r ity o f e le c tio n s , c itiz e n s m u s t b e g iv e n a t a b a r e m in im u m a f

a iro p p o r tu n ity to v o te . T h e s ta te ’s c o n c e rn w ith f r a u d is n o t a one - w a y s tr e e t : notonl y m us tthe gove rnm e ntm a ke s ur e tha ti ndi vi dua l s a r e not vot i ng f r a udul e nt l y , butthe gove rnm e ntm us tnotf r a udul e nt l y de pr i ve i t s c i t i z e ns o f th e irla w f

u l r ig h t to v o te . W ith n o e v id e n c e o f v o te rf r a u d in F lo r id a , a n d w ith th e u n d is p u te d f

a c t th a t o v e r1 4 ,0 0 0 in d iv id u a ls to d a te h a v e b e e n d e n ie d th e ir r ig h t to v o te s im p ly b e c a u s e th e irap p lic a tio n s h a v e n o t b e e n a d m in is tr a tiv e lyFor purposes of § 1971, “vote” include s “all ac tion necessa ry to make a voteeff

ective 16 inc luding , b ut n ot l imi te d to , re g istratio n o r o ther ac tio n re quire d b y Statelaw p rere quisi teto voting, c astinga ballot, and having such ballot counted and inc luded in the appropriate totals of votes ca st with respec t to candidates f or public off

ice a nd propositions for which votes a re rec eived in an e lection.” 42 U.S.C. § 1971(e) . 62 m at ched, even tho ug h they m ay be abl e t o p rove thei r e l i gi bi l i ty t o v ot e, S u b s e c tio n 6 c o n f

lic ts w ith H A V A a n d is p r e e m p te d b y it. I I I . S u b s e c tio n 6 V io la te s th e V o tin g R ig h ts A c t. F lo r id a ’s m a tc h in g s c h e m e a ls o v io la te s th e V o tin g R ig h ts A c t ( “V R A ” ) . T he V R A , “ and i t s gra ntof autho ri ty t o the fe dera l court s t o u ncov eroffi ci al e f f o r ts to a b r id g e m in o r itie s ’ r ig h t to v o te , h a s b e e n o f v ita l im p o r ta n c e in e r a di c a t i ng i nvi di ous di s c r i m i na t i on f r om the e l e c t or a l pr oc e s s . ” M i l l e rv. J ohns on, 515 U . S . 900, 927 ( 1995) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the V R A pr ovi de s tha tno pe r s on s ha l l be de ni e d the r i ghtt o vot e “ be c a us e of a n e rr ororom i s s i on on a ny r e c or d or p ap e rr e la tin g to a n y ap p lic a tio n , r e g is tr a tio n , o ro th e ra c t r e q u is ite to v o tin g , if s u c h e rr o ro ro m is s io n is n o t m a te r ia l in d e te r m in in g w h e th e rs u c h in d iv id u a l is qu al i fi ed un der S t at e l aw t o v ot e i n such el ec t i on . ” 42 U . S . C . § 1 97 1(a) (2)( B ). 16 T h is p r o v is io n — k n o w n a s th e “m a te r ia lity p r o v is io n ”

— w a s c r e a te d “to el i m i nat e pra ct i ce s thatcoul d encum ber a n i nd i vi du al ’ s abi l i ty t o regi st ert o v ot e. ” F ri edm an v. S ni pes, 34 5 F . S up p. 2d 13 56 , 13 71 (S . D . F l a. 20 04 ); se e a l so M cK ay v. A l t obe l l o, N o. 96- 3458, 1996 U . S . D i s t . L E X I S 16651, a t*3 ( E . D . L a . O c t . 31,63

1 9 9 6 ) ( T h e m a te r ia lity p r o v is io n “is a n a n ti- d is c r im in a tio n s ta tu te d e s ig n e d to e l i m i na t e the di s c r i m i na t ory pr a c t i c e s of r e gi s tr a r s thr ough a rbi tr a ry e nf or c e m e nt o f r e g is tr a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts . I t a d d r e s s e s e rr o r s a n d a c c id e n ta l o m is s io n s in r e gi s tr a t i on, notthe i nt e nt i ona l r e f us a l t o pr ovi de r e qui r e d i nf or m a t i on. ” ) ; C ondon v. R e no, 913 F . S upp. 946, 949 ( D . S . C . 1995) ( not i ng tha tC ongr e s s e na c t e d the V R A t o “ deal w i th the prob l em of re gi st er i ng as a det erre ntt o v ot i ng ”) . A l th o u g h th e m aj o ri ty ack n o w l ed g es th atC o n g ress en act ed th e V R A as a m e a n s o f c o m b a tin g “b u r d e n s o m e [ s ta te ] r e g is tr a tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts to di se nfra nchi se A fr i ca n-A m er i ca ns, ” i t s t es tof “ m at er i al i ty” pays on l y l i p-se rvi ce to , a n d w o u ld f

ru s tr a te , th a t v e ry p u rp o s e . ( M a j. O p . a t 4 3

– 4 5 .) T o de t e r m i ne w he the ra n e rr ori s m a t e r i a l , the m a j or i ty ’ s t e s ti gnor e s the na tur e of the e rr ora nd a s ks s ol e l y w he the rthe unde r l y i ng i nf or m a t i on c ont a i ni ng the error i s r el evanti n d et erm i ni ng an appl i ca nt ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty t o v ot e. I a gree that thi s i s a ne c e s s a ry f

i r s ts t e p. I f

the i nf or m a t i on i s notm a t e r i a l i n de t e r m i ni ng the el i gi bi l i ty of the appl i ca nt , i tfol l ow s thatany e rr or or om i ss i on i n report i ng that i nf or m a t i on ne c e s s a r i l y w oul d notbe m a t e r i a l a nd the r e w oul d be no ne e d f or f u r th e ra n a ly s is . S e e , e .g ., S c h w ie rv . C o x , 4 3 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . B utC ongr e s s r e c ogni z e d i n pa s s i ng the V R A tha tdi s c r i m i na t ory r e gi s tr a t i on r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e m o r e s o p h is tic a te d a n d p e rn ic io u s th a n s im p ly a s k in g ap p lic a n tsIdo not believe this to be the c ase a s HAVA doe s not requirestates to verify an 17 applicant’ s identifying number. I f a stateis not required to verify an applica

nt’s identifying 64 for i m m at er i al i nform at i on . It s c on ce rn w as no tm er el y w i th o vert l y di sc ri m i nat ory re qu i re m ent s thatas k for i rr el evanti nform at i on , bu tal so w i th requi re m ent s that as k for re l evanti nform at i on bu tdi spropo rt i on at el y penal i ze appl i ca nt s f or tri vi al m i st ak es. F ore xa m pl e , the c our ti n C ondon r e c ogni z e d tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d the V R A t o el i m i nat e the pract i ce of di squal i fy i ng appl i ca nt s w ho m ake m i st akes w h e n a s k e d t o “ l i s tth e e x a c tn u mb e ro f mo n th s a n d d a y s i n [ th e i r ] a g e . ” 9 1 3 F. S upp. a t950. T he m a

j or i ty r e c ogni z e s tha tC ongr e s s s oughtt o e nd s uc h i ns i di ous p r a c tic e s , ( s e e M a

j. O p . a t 4 4 ) , b u t u n d e rits te s t f o rm a te r ia lity , it w o u ld h a v e to f i nd the pr a c t i c e di s c us s e d i n C ondon pe r m i s s i bl e be c a us e the unde r l y i ng s u b s ta n tiv e in f

o r m a tio n s o u g h t— th e a g e o f th e ap p lic a n t— is m a te r ia l in d eter m in in g w h eth erth e a p p li ca n t i s e li g ib le. A s th is ap p li ca ti o n o f th e m ajo rity’s t e s tm a ke s c l e a r , i ti s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o l ook s ol e l y a tthe “ na tur e of the unde r l y i ng i nf or m a t i on r e que s t e d, ” ( i d. a t48) , t o de t e r m i ne the m a t e r i a l i ty of a n e rr oror o m is s io n . T h er ef o re , ev en tak in g as tru e th e m ajo rity’s co n ten ti o n th at an ap p li ca n t’ s d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e o rs o c i a l s e c u r i ty n u m b e ri s p e rs e m a t e r i a l b e c a u s e o f HA VA , ( w hi c h I do not ) , tha tf a c ta l one doe s note nd the m a t e r i a l i ty i nqui ry i n a s s e s s i ng 17number, then HAVA doe s not automatically make suc h information material beca use an individual in a state without a matchingschemecould provide her driver ’s licenseor social security number a nd even though she may

have transposed two number s of her application, that immaterial er

ror would not prevent her from votingin that state. Fur thermore , the information cannot beper sematerial beca use HAVA provides f

or the a ssignment of

a unique identify

ing number, whic h does not haveto be matche d, for those individuals who do not havea driver’s license or social security

number. Theinformation also ca nnot be per

se material if a state such as North Da

kota is allowed to hold federal e lections without any reg istration requirements. The majority

argues that this standard—that a n error is immaterial if it does not 18 prec lude a reasona

ble elec tion official from identifying theapplicant—only works if the applicant presents proof

of her identity or elig ibility . (Maj. Op. at 49 n.23.) This is simply not true. I f all of a

n applicant’ s reg istration information matches a databa se but for a

missing hy phen, this minor error

would not prec lude a reasona ble elec tion official from determiningthat a voter is eligible ba sed solely

on the information provide d on the application its elf, not base d on the applica

nt presentingadditional identifying inf ormation. Additionally , the majority argues no error could ever bematerial if the natureof the error is considere d beca

use an e lection offic ial will always be ableto verify the identity

of an a pplicant if she presents additional identify ing information. (I d.) This also misconstrues the inquiry . Therearecer tain errors that are of sufficient magnitude that a re asonableelec tion official would not be a ble to verify

an applica

nt’s elig ibility reg ardle ss of the additional identifying inf ormation provided. F or example, if an unmatched a

pplicant wrote“José L opez” as his name on his a pplication but later pre sented identifying inf

ormation with the name “ Juan L obo,” a reasona ble elec tion official would not be able to determine the a

pplicant’s elig ibility . The materiality of this error , or the de greeto which the new inf

ormation deviate s from the infor mation on the application, is of such magnitude that the applica

nt could not be re g istered ba sed simply on the additional identifying inf ormation, 65 e rr or s unde rF l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng s c he m e . T he na tur e of the e rr orm us ta l s o be c o n s i d e r e d . U n d e rFl o r i d a ’ s s c h e me , a n ap p l i c a n tw i th a h y p h e n a t e d l a s tn a me w oul d ha ve he rappl i c a t i on de ni e d i f the da t a ba s e s di d noti nc l ude the hy phe n; s im ila r ly , a n ap p lic a n t w h o f a ile d to in c lu d e a s u f

f ix s u c h a s “J r .” o r“S r .” w o u ld h a v e h is ap p lic a tio n d e n ie d . E v e n th o u g h th e in f o r m a tio n s o u g h t is c le a r ly r e l e va nt , the s e s m a l l i nc ons i s t e nc i e s w oul d notpr e c l ude a r e a s ona bl e e l e c t i on offi ci al fr om i dent i fy i ng the appl i ca ntand, thu s, shou l d n otbe consi dere d ei ther a m a t e r i a l e rr o ro ro m i s s i o n . S i m i l a r l y , th e a c c i d e n t a l tr a n s p o s i t i o n o f two 18thereby

ensuringthat applicants a re not fraudulently

attempting to reg ister. The state a

rgues that the materiality

provision only

applies to errors or omissions “on 19 any rec ord or pa

per”whereas this ca se is only about er rors in the tre atment or proc essingof voter re g istration applications. This argument is meritless. The state’ s interpre tation of the materi ality

prov isi on

wo uld le a d tothea

bs urd re sult that th estatec ould c ommit a n in ordin ate number o f error s and

omi ssi on s and

remain immunefrom challeng eun der 4 2 U .S. C. § 1 97 1( a)( 2) (B ) b e c a

us ethee rror s o r o mis sio ns did no t oc c ur on thea pp lic atio n f

or ms themselves. Under this leg al re g ime, the state would befre e to treat and proc ess applications however it deeme d appropriate, with no safe guards f or voters under the materiality provision. By confiningthe materiality provision to voter reg istration application forms, the stateis seeking to flout the g oals behind the VRA, providing itself “ an excuse to disqualify potential voters.” Schwier, 340 F .3d at 1294. The materiality provision applies to errors or omissions on “any rec ord or pa

per.”Nowhere does thestatute define“re cord or paper” as me aningonly

application fo rm s. 66 num be r s f

r om adr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ors oc i a l s e c ur i ty num be ri s nota m a t e r i a l e rr or unde rthe V R A . T he s e a r e the ve ry m i s t a ke s tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d t o pr e ve nt 19 s ta te s f r o m u s in g a s “b u r d e n s o m e ” b a rr ie r s to r e g is tr a tio n . F urtherm ore, the st at e’ s ow n p ra ct i ce s c on fi rm thata m i no r e rr or on an ap p lic a tio n , in a n d o f

its e lf , is n o t im m u tab ly m a te r ia l. A t o r a l a r g u m e n t, th e s ta te ad m i tt ed th atw h en i tm ak es si m i l ar m i st ak es, ap p l i can t s are al l o w ed t o cu re th o se m i st akes af

t erca st i ng a provi si on al bal l ot . T hu s, i f a n app l i ca nti s abl e t o correc t a n e rr orm a de by the s t a t e , a s i m i l a re rr orm a de by a vot e rw i thouta m e a ni ngf ul o p p o r tu n ity to c u r e th a t e rr o rc a n n o t b e m a te r ia l in d e te r m in in g e lig ib ility . T he V R A s i m pl y doe s notc ount e na nc e the i nhum a nl y s tr i c tpr e c i s i on dem anded b y F l ori da’ s m at chi ng sc hem e.Th edis tric t c ourt did no t re a c h th emerits o f P laintif fs ’ c on sti tution al c laims be c a us eit 20 found the statutory

claims sufficient to grant Plaintiffs’ re quest for a preliminary

injunction. Ho wever, thec ourt

foun d th at Plaintif

fs ’ alle g atio nsweresu ff

ic ient to s tatec on sti tution al c laims and therefore, denie d the state’s motion to dismis s those claims. The F ourteenth Amendment provides, in re levant par t: “No State shall make or enforce 21 any law which shall abridg e the privilege s or immuniti es of c itiz ens of the United States; nor 67 I V . S ubs e c t i on 6 V i ol a t e s the U . S . C ons t i tut i on. A l tho ug h I re cogn i ze thatthe const i tut i on al qu es t i on s w er e notdeci ded be l ow , i ti s ne c e s s a ry t o a ddr e s s the m he r e be c a us e the m a j or i ty ’ s r e a di ng of H A V A a nd the V R A l e a ve s F l or i da c i t i z e ns w i thouta ny s t a tut ory ba s i s upon w hi ch t o con t es tthe l aw ful ness of S ub se ct i on 6. W hi l e i ti s a“ pri nci pl e of j ud i ci al r e s tr a i nt ” tha tc our t s s houl d “ a voi d r e a c hi ng c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i ons i n a dva nc e of the ne c e s s i ty of

de c i di ng the m , ” L y ng v. N w . I ndi a n C e m e t e ry P r ot e c t i ve A s s ’ n, 48 5 U . S . 43 9, 44 5 (19 88 ), thi s pri nci pl e does notdi ct at e thatconst i tut i on al que s t i ons be a voi de d a ta l l c os t s , butr a the rtha ta c our ta ddr e s s s t a tut or y que s t i ons before c on st i tut i on al on es . U ni t ed S t at es v. O do m , 25 2 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 93 (11t h C i r. 2001) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d s o, r e s ol vi ng the i s s ue w i thouti m pl i c a t i ng a ny c ons t i tut i ona l c onc e rns . H ow e ve r , F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng s c he m e , a s e na c t e d a nd 20 i m pl e m e nt e d by the s t a t e a nd va l i da t e d by the m a j or i ty , vi ol a t e s both the D ue P roce ss and E qu al P rot ec t i on C l ause s of the F ou rt ee nth A m endm entand p l ac es an u n d u e b u r d e n o n th e r ig h t to v o te in v io la tio n o f th e F ir s t a n d F o u r te e n th A m en d m en t s. 21shall any

State depriveany

person of life, liberty, or property , without due proce ss of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the la ws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 68 A . S u b s e c tio n 6 V io la te s th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t. W hen an el ec t i on proces s “ re ac he[s ] the po i ntof pat entand fun dam ent al unf a i rne s s , ” the r e i s a due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on. R oe v. A l a ba m a , 43 F . 3d 574, 580 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c itin g C u rry v . B a k e r , 8 0 2 F .2 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . W hi l e there i s no b ri gh tl i ne i n d et erm i ni ng w hen an el ec t i on proces s has re ac hed th e le v e l o f

“p a te n t a n d f

u n d a m e n ta l u n f

a irn e s s ,” th is is n o t a n “o r d in a ry d is p u te o v e rth e c o u n tin g a n d m a r k in g o f b a llo ts ” o ra s im p le “d e v ia tio n f r o m a b s o lu te a c c ur a c y . ” S e e C urry , 802 F . 2d a t1316. R a the r , w e a r e f a c e d w i th a r e gi s tr a t i on s y s t e m pl a gue d by the i na de qua c y of not i c e s s e ntt o unm a t c he d r e gi s tr a nt s , the la c k o f a d e q u a te p r o c e s s to c o rr e c t m in o rm is ta k e s , a n d th e o u tr ig h t r e f u s a l to c o u n tp r o v i s i o n a l b a l l o t s b e c a u s e o f mi n o rmi s t a k e s . A l l o f th e s e c r i t i c a l p r o b l e ms w i th F l or i da ’ s r e gi s tr a t i on s y s t e m r e nde rthe e l e c t i on pr oc e s s unde rS ubs e c t i on 6 pat ent l y a nd fund am ent al l y unfai r. U n d e rF lo r id a ’s m a tc h in g s c h e m e , F lo r id a ’s s ix ty - s e v e n c o u n tie s a r e f r e e to p r o v id e , a n d a c tu a lly d o p r o v id e , n o tic e s d if f e r e n t in c o n te n t a n d f

o r m to ap p lic a n ts w h o s e r e g is tr a tio n ap p lic a tio n s h a v e b e e n r e je c te d . T h e s e n o tic e s to u n m a tc h e d ap p lic a n ts a r e w h o lly in a d e q u a te to e n s u r e th a t v o te r s a r e g iv e n a f a irI f a pp lic antsdo no t kn owwh at make s th e ir a pp lic atio ns“ inc omp le te ,”they may g o to 22 theSup e rv iso r o f E le c tio ns ’ o ff ic ewi thout t

heprop e r documentatio n toveri fy the ir a pp lic atio ns . 69 oppor tuni ty t o notonl y c a s ta ba l l ot , butt o ha ve the i rba l l otc ount e d. A s the m a jo r ity c o n c e d e s , th e n o tic e s s e n t to u n m a tc h e d ap p lic a n ts a r e “g e n e r ic ,” s im p ly advi si ng an appl i cantthatshe i s notre gi st er ed because her app l i ca t i on w as

“ i ncom pl et e” or “ i ncorrec t . ” T he “ generi c” no t i ce s do n ott el l appl i ca nt s w hati s r equi re d t o cure an e rr one ous appl i c a t i on. T he r e i s no e xpl a na t i on tha tthe r e j e c t i on w a s due , f

or exam pl e, t o an u nm at ched dri ver’ s l i ce nse or s oci al se curi ty num ber. N or i s there a n y n o tic e a t a ll th a t if

a n ap p lic a tio n c o n ta in in g a n e rr o rm a d e b y th e ap p lic a n t is notc orr e c t e d be f

or e the book- c l os i ng da t e , the pr ovi s i ona l ba l l otc a s tby the appl i c a ntpur s ua ntt o H A V A a nd S ubs e c t i on 6 w i l l notbe c ount e d. M o r e o v e r , th e “g e n e r ic ” n o tic e s m a y n o t, a n d o f te n d o n o t, r e a c h ap p lic a n ts i n the m a i l unt i l i ti s t oo l a t e t o r e c t i f y a ny m i s t a ke s on the i rappl i c a t i ons be f or e the book- c l os i ng de a dl i ne . E ve n i f a n appl i c a ntt i m e l y pr e s e nt s he r s e l f a ta n e l e c t i on offi ce w i th a pass po rtor bi rth cer t i fi ca t e i n res po nse t o the no t i ce thather appl i c a t i on i s “ i nc om pl e t e , ” he re f f or tw i l l ha ve be e n t o no a va i l . I f s he doe s not ha ve he rdr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e ors oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r d w i th he rt o m a t c h the na m e or n u m b e ro n h e rap p lic a tio n , h e rap p lic a tio n w ill r e m a in “in c o m p le te ” a n d s h e w ill notbe r e gi s t e r e d. H a vi ng t o go t o a n e l e c t i on of f i c e i s bur de ns om e e nough f or 22B e ingpermitt e d tofax or m ail a c op y of the ir do c umentatio n toveri fy

the ir a pp lic atio ns wo uld not solve the problem. An a pplicant might send a photocopy of her driver’ s license when the real problem was matc hing her social se curity number. TheSupervisor of Ele ctions’ offic e might n ot even tr

y to m atc h th enewly

prov ide d d

river’ s li c e ns enumber to th eDH SMVdata ba se beca use that wa s not the initi al problem. Even if it does try , if the driver ’s licensewas obtaine d prior to the applica

nt getting mar

ried a nd chang ing her name , or if her driver’ s license doe s not inc ludea hy ph e n where a s th ea

pp lic atio n doe s, it w illsti ll n ot m atc h. I f t hea pp lic ant re c e ive s a second noticethat is identical to the first, letting her know her application is “incomplete” or “incor rec t,” she will find her self in a vicious c ycle of guessingas to what is wrongwith her application. This of c ourse a ssumes that elec tion officials send out a se cond notice a nd that there is sufficient time to send out that second noticebefore the book- closingdeadline. The state c ontends that voters c an faxor e- mail copies of the require d evidenc e instead 23 of g oing to the Super

visor of Elec tions’ office . Plaintiffs, on the other hand, a rgue that the no tic e s do n ot c ontain a

fax numb e r o r a

n e -m ail add

re ss. Mo re ov e r, a s n ote d a bo vein f oo tno te 21 , f axingor mailingmay

no t so lvetheprob le ms a ri singfrom a

“ g e neri c ”no tic ethat simply says an application is “incomplete.” See Division of Elec tions, Florida Department of State, V oter Reg istration: Voter 24 Reg istration Application, http:// elec tion.dos.state.fl.us/regtovote/reg form.shtml (last visited Mar. 25, 2008). The website simply

states what will happen if an a pplication is complete: “I f your 25 application is complete a

nd you arequalified a s a voter, theSupervisor of Ele ctions for your respe ctive county

of re sidencewill send you a voter information ca

rd. This ca

rd will serveas of fi c ial no tif

ic atio n o f your re g istratio n. I f you do no t re c e iveyour c ard

wi thin thre ewe e ks , o r i f 70 m os ti ndi vi dua l s w ho m a y notha ve the m e a ns t o ge tt o a n e l e c t i on of f i c e orc a nnot t ake the t i m e f

rom w ork t o d o so; an addi t i on al tri p w i th the neces sa ry doc um e nt a t i on i s e ve n m or e s o. 23 E ve n the s t a t e ’ s “ V ot e rR e gi s tr a t i on” w e bs i t e , w hi c h i s m i s l e a di ng, doe s not prov i de adequat e not i ce . T he w ebsi t e does notprov i de vo t er s w i th any no t i ce re gardi ng F l ori da’ s m at chi ng sc hem e. Itdo es no ton ce m ake m ent i on of a 24 m a tc h in g p r o g r a m , n o rd o e s it s ta te th a t if a v o te rr e g is tr a tio n ap p lic a tio n is “in c o m p le te ,” a n o tic e w ill b e m a ile d to th e ap p lic a n t. F u r th e r m o r e , th e w e b s ite 25you have a ny questions reg ardingyour re g istration, please c all your county Supervisor of Elections.” Id. Just above this languag e, the website lists the qualifications to become a reg istered 26 voter in F lorida, as enumerated under Florida Statutes § 97.041, a provision which does not menti on thefi lingof

a mis take -f

re ea pp lic atio n a s a

pre re quisi teto h avean a

pp lic ant’ s v ote counted. Id. 71 st at es th at“ [i ] n o rd er t o reg i st er, ” an ap p l i can tm u stp ro v i d e h er d ri v er’ s l i cen se nu m ber or the l as tfour di gi t s of hersoci al se curi ty num ber, w hi ch w i l l “ be used o n ly fo r v o ter r eg istratio n p u rp o se s,” a n d n o t as a d eter m in an t o f a n ap p li ca n t’ s e lig ib ility . A s ta te r e g is tr a tio n s y s te m , th e s p e c if ic s o f w h ic h a r e n o t e x p lic itly 26 m a d e k n o w n to p o te n tia l v o te r s , th a t le a v e s p o te n tia l v o te r s in th e d a r k a s to its ef fe cton a vot er ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty a nd thatfa i l s t o g i ve vo t er s afa i r opp ortun i ty t o cure m i norm i s t a ke s , i s f

unda m e nt a l l y unf

a i ra nd vi ol a t i ve of

the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e of th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t. B . S u b s e c tio n 6 V io la te s th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la u s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t. S u b s e c tio n 6 a ls o v io la te s th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la u s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m en d m en t . W h en a st at e ad o p t s an el ect o ral syst em , th e E q u al P ro t ect i o n C l au se o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t g u a r a n te e s q u a lif ie d v o te r s a s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h t to pa r t i c i pa t e e qua l l y w i th othe rqua l i f i e d vot e r s i n the e l e c t or a l pr oc e s s . R e y nol ds v. Si ms , 3 7 7 U . S. 5 3 3 , 5 6 6 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; s e e a l s o H a rp e rv . V a . Bd . o f El e c t i o n s , 3 8 3 U . S. 6 6 3 , 6 6 5 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . I n a n y s ta te - a d o p te d e le c to r a l s c h e m e , “[ t]h e r ig h t to v o te is72

pr ot e c t e d i n m or e tha n the i ni t i a l a l l oc a t i on of the f r a nc hi s e . E qua l pr ot e c t i on ap p lie s a s w e ll to th e m a n n e ro f its e x e r c is e . H a v in g o n c e g r a n te d th e r ig h t to v o te on e qua l t e r m s , the S t a t e m a y not , by l a t e ra rbi tr a ry a nd di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e nt , va l ue one pe r s on’ s vot e ove rtha tof a nothe r . ” B us h v. G or e , 531 U . S . 98, 104–05 (200 0); se e a l so D avi s v. B andem er , 47 8 U . S . 10 9, 12 4 (19 86 ) ( no t i ng that “e v e ry o n e [ h a s ] th e r ig h t to v o te a n d to h a v e h is v o te c o u n te d ” ) . H a vi ng gr a nt e d i t s c i t i z e ns the r i ghtt o vot e , F l or i da m us tnotonl y a l l ow qu al i fi ed vo t er s t o p art i ci pat e e qu al l y i n el ec t i on s, i tm ustal so ensure thatqu al i fi ed vot e r s a r e gi ve n a n e qua l oppor tuni ty t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n e l e c t i ons . H ol tC i vi c C l ub v. T us c a l oos a , 439 U . S . 60, 81 ( 1978) ( B r e nna n, J . , di s s e nt i ng) ( quot i ng H a dl e y v. Juni or C ol l . D i st . , 39 7 U . S . 50 , 56 (197 0)). D es pi t e thi s c on st i tut i on al m andat e, F lo r id a ’s m a tc h in g s c h e m e r e s u lts in th e a rb itr a ry a n d d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t o f its c itiz e n s b a s e d o n th e irc o u n ty o f r e s id e n c e . I t is w e ll- e s tab lis h e d th a t w h e n a s ta te a c c o r d s a rb itr a ry a n d d is p a r a te tre atm entt o v ot er s i n d i ff er entcoun t i es , w hi ch re sul t s i n thei r vot es bei ng w ei gh ed d i fferen t l y, th o se v o t ers are d ep ri v ed o f th ei r co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s t o d u e p ro cess a nd e qua l pr ot e c t i on. B us h, 531 U . S . a t107 ( c i t i ng G r a y v. S a nde r s , 372 U . S . 368, 3 7 9

– 8 0 (1 9 6 3 ); M o o re v . O g il v ie, 3 9 4 U .S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 (1 9 6 9 )) . F lo rid a’s r e g is tr a tio n s c h e m e is “n o t a p r o c e s s w ith s u f f ic ie n t g u a r a n te e s o f

e q u a l tr e a tm e n t”See supra at note 4. 27 73 b e c a u s e it is c o m p le te ly d e v o id o f s p e c if ic s ta n d a r d s to e n s u r e th a t th e r ig h t to v o te is av ailab le eq u ally to all p o ten ti al v o ters . S ee id . at 1 0 5

– 0 7 (f in d in g th at F lo rid a’s r e c o u n t m e c h a n is m s to d is c e rn th e “in te n t o f th e v o te r ” w e r e a rb itr a ry a s th e s ta te l ac ked speci fi c s t andards t o ensure thei r e qu al appl i ca t i on ). F rom the l ac k o f a pr oc e dur e t o di s c e rn w he the rthe s t a t e orthe appl i c a nthe r s e l f c om m i tt e d a m at chi ng error, t o the di ff er i ng no t i ce s a nd proces se s t o correc tun m at ched appl i c a t i ons , F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng s c he m e i s s ubj e c tt o di s pa r a t e i m pl e m e nt a t i on am on g F l ori da’ s s i xty- se ven cou nt i es . E ven i f S ub se ct i on 6 m andat ed un i form n o ti ce an d m eth o d s f

o r d eter m in in g to w h o m a m istak e is a ttrib u tab le, F lo rid a’s m a tc h in g s c h e m e w o u ld s till r e s u lt in u n e v e n tr e a tm e n t o f v o te r s w ith in c o u n tie s . W i thoutthe r e qui s i t e pos t - “ non- m a t c h” s a f e gua r ds i n pl a c e t o e ns ur e the no n-arbi tra ry tre atm entof i t s vot er s, F l ori da’ s m at chi ng sc hem e s t ands as an u n n e c e s s a ry , a d d itio n a l b a rr ie rto r e g is tr a tio n , r e s u ltin g in s y s te m ic e rr o r s a s to appl i c a nt s ’ e l i gi bi l i ty a nd the r e by c r e a t i ng une qua l oppor tuni t i e s f orF l or i da ci t i ze ns t o v ot e. Indeed, thi s c on cl usi on i s r ei nforced by the fa ctthatthi s e rr orpr one s y s t e m ha s r e s ul t e d i n a s tr ong s t a t i s t i c a l l i ke l i hood tha tthe r e gi s tr a t i on pr oc e s s w i l l be s ubs t a nt i a l l y m or e di f f i c ul tf ora m i nor i ty vot e rtha n f ora nonm i nor i ty vot e r . S ubs e c t i on 6’ s di s pr opor t i ona t e i m pa c ton m i nor i t i e s c a nnotbe 27Thereis no bright line separating a permissible elec tion-relate d regulation from an 28 unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment free doms. Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Par ty , 520 U.S. 351, 359 (1997); seealso Storer v. B rown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (notingthat thereis “no litmus-paper test for separatingthose restric tions that are valid from those that areinvidious” and that there“is no substitut e for the hard judgments that must be made” ). 74 d is r e g a r d e d in a s s e s s in g th e s c h e m e ’s c o n s titu tio n a lity . C . S u b s e c tio n 6 P la c e s a n U n d u e B u r d e n o n th e R ig h t to V o te . F lo r id a ’s m a tc h in g s c h e m e lik e w is e f a ils u n d e rth e F ir s t a n d F o u r te e n th A m e ndm e nt s be c a us e i ti m pos e s a s e ve r e r e s tr i c t i on on the r i ghtt o vot e tha ti s not j us t i f i e d by a c om pe l l i ng s t a t e i nt e r e s t . S e e B ur di c k v. T a kus hi , 504 U . S . 428, 434 ( 1992) . A n i ndi vi dua l ’ s f unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o vot e m us tbe w e i ghe d a ga i ns tthe st at e’ s p o w er t o reg u l at e el ect i o n s. S ee U . S . C o n st . art . I, § 4 , cl . 1 ; see al so T a s h jia n v . R e p u b lic a n P a r ty , 4 7 9 U .S . 2 0 8 , 2 1 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . W e m u s t a s s u r e th a t in ba l a nc i ng the tw o, w e t a ke i nt o a c c ountboth “ the c ha r a c t e ra nd m a gni tude of the assert ed i n

j u ry t o th e ri g h t s p ro t ect ed b y th e F i rstan d F o u rt een th A m en d m en t s” and “ the preci se i nt er es t s putforw ar d b y the S t at e a s j ust i fi ca t i on s f or the bu rden i m po se d b y i t s rul e. ” B urdi ck, 50 4 U . S . at43 4 (qu ot i ng A nd er son v . C el ebre zz e, 46 0 U . S . 78 0, 78 9 (19 83 )) . 28 W h e n a n in d iv id u a l’s F ir s t a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts a r e s u b je c t to

“ se vere ” r es tri ct i on s, the st at e e l ec t i on l aw m ustbe “ narr ow l y dra w n t o adv ance a s t a t e i n t e r e s to f

c o mp e l l i n g i mp o r t a n c e . ” I d . a t4 3 4 ; N o r ma n v . Re e d , 5 0 2 U . S.See Craw ford v. Ma rion County

Election B d., 484 F.3d 436, 438 ( 2007) (en banc) 29 (Wood, J ., dissenting) (“Rec ent national ele ction history tells us . . . that disenfranchising even a tiny perc entag e of voters ca

n be enough to swing e lection outcomes”[refer ringto, amongother rac e s, thegub e rn atorial ra c ein Wa sh ington Statein 2 00 4, whic h w a s d e c ide d b y on ly 12 9 v ote s] and “ [e]v e n if

on ly a sing lec iti zen

is deprive d c omp le te ly

of her right to v ote. . . this i s stilla ‘severe’ injury

for that pa

rticular individual.”) . 75 2 7 9 , 2 8 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e a l s o Bu c k l e y v . A m. Co n s t i tu t i o n a l La w Fo u n d . , 5 2 5 U . S. 18 2, 21 6 (19 99 ) ( O ’ C on no r, J. , concurri ng i n p art , di ss ent i ng i n p art ). In thi s c as e, w e d o n o t h a v e a s ta te e le c to r a l s c h e m e th a t te e te r s o n th e c u s p o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng s c he m e c l e a r l y i m pos e s a “ s e ve r e ” r e s tr i c t i on on 14, 000 i nd i vi du al s— and cou nt i ng — as i tre qu i re s the m at chi ng of an i dent i fy i ng nu m ber a s a pr e r e qui s i t e t o vot e re l i gi bi l i ty . S e e C om m on C a us e / G e or gi a v. B i l l ups , 439 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 5 0 ( N .D . G a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o tin g th a t th e d e p r iv a tio n o f th e r ig h t to vo t e i s “ un deni abl y dem oral i zi ng and ext re m e” ). 29 S ubs e c t i on 6 s e ve r e l y r e s tr i c t s the r i ghtt o vot e by a ddi ng a l a y e rof c o m p le x ity a n d p r e c is io n to v o te rr e g is tr a tio n th a t is u n d u ly b u r d e n s o m e . A ll unm a t c he d vot e r s a r e s ubj e c t e d t o a ddi t i ona l bur e a uc r a t i c , a dm i ni s tr a t i ve , a nd t ech n o l o g i cal b arri ers t o v o t i n g . P ri o r t o th e b o o k -cl o si n g d ead l i n e, i n o rd er t o cast a r e gul a rba l l oton e l e c t i on da y , unm a t c he d vot e r s m us tt a ke s t e ps t o pr ovi de t o the appr opr i a t e e l e c t i on of

f i c i a l the ne c e s s a ry doc um e nt a t i on t o ve r i f y the i rappl i c a t i on i nf or m a t i on. T hi s e nt a i l s tr a ve l i ng t o a n e l e c t i on of f i c e a nd na vi ga t i ng thr ough a c o m p le x b u r e a u c r a c y w ith o u t c le a rg u id a n c e .76

F orthos e w ho r e m a i n unm a t c he d pa s tthe book- c l os i ng de a dl i ne , S ubs e c t i on 6 p l aces ev en m o re o n ero u s b u rd en s o n th e ri g h tt o v o t e. F o r th o se v o t ers w h o se appl i c a t i ons w e r e unm a t c he d due t o s t a t e e rr or , a nd thr ough no f a ul tof the i row n, the appl i c a nt s w i l l now ha ve t o go t o a n e l e c t i on of f i c e w i thi n f

orty - e i ghthour s of c a s tin g a p r o v is io n a l b a llo t. W ith in th is s h o r t- w in d o w o f tim e , th e ap p lic a n ts w ill h a v e to v e r if

y n o t o n ly th a t th e s ta te m a d e a m is ta k e , b u t a ls o c o n f ir m th e ir ap p lic a tio n in f

o r m a tio n to th e s a tis f

a c tio n o f a n e le c tio n o f

f ic ia l in th e irc o u n ty . H ow e ve r , i f

the s t a t e de t e r m i ne s tha ta n appl i c a nt ’ s ow n m i s t a ke l e d t o the nonm a t c h, tha tappl i c a ntw i l l ne ve rha ve a c ha nc e t o c ur e he rm i s t a ke a f t e rvot i ng prov i si on al l y e ven i f s he pres ent s i nd i sput abl e docum ent ary e vi dence of her e l i gi bi l i ty . S ubs e c t i on 6’ s bur de ns om e r e qui r e m e nt s a r e a l l the m or e tr oubl i ng because, as no t ed ea rl i er , the st at e does noteven have a unif orm procedure i n p l ac e to d e te r m in e w h e th e ra m is ta k e w a s m a d e b y th e s ta te o rb y th e ap p lic a n t h e r s e lf . T o j ust i fy these bu rdensom e r equi re m ent s thathave al re ady di se nfra nchi se d ov er14 , 00 0 F l ori da ci t i ze ns, the st at e has advanced tw o i nt er es t s: prevent i ng vo t er fr aud and m ai nt ai ni ng the i nt egri ty of the el ec t oral proces s. T he st at e c on t ends that S ub se ct i on 6 “ se cure s t o l aw ful vo t er s the excl usi ve enj oym entof thei r pol i t i ca l pri vi l eges ” a nd thatvo t erre gi stra t i on fr aud “ po i son[s] the w ho l e s ph er e of c i t i ze n p a r tic ip a tio n in a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e d e m o c r a c y .” ( A p p e lla n t’s B r . a t 4 3 .) W h ile b o thWhen there a re le ss burdensome mea

ns to achievea state’ s g oal of preventingvoter 30 fra ud, we should be very

hesitant to uphold a reg istration system that decrease s the number of reg istered voter s and, as a result, chisels aw ay

at “the f oundation of our repre sentative for m of Gover nment.” H.R. Rep. No. 85- 291 (1957), reprinted in 1957 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1966, 1977. (“Th[e] right to vote . . . is . . . the foundation of our repre sentative for m of Gover

nment. It is the sole means by

which the principle of c onsent of the g overne d as the sourc e of g overnmental a uth ority is m a dea

liv ingthing . D eprivatio n o f t heri ght to v oteis t

hefirs t st ep o n th ero a d to ty ranny and dictator ship. . . . [ T]he sovereign . . . must preservethis fundamental and ba sic right ag ainst any

and all unlawf

ul interference .”). 77 o f th e s e a r e c o m p e llin g in te r e s ts , S u b s e c tio n 6 is n o t n a rr o w ly d r a w n s u c h th a t its r e s tr i c t i ons on the r i ghtt o vot e pa s s c ons t i tut i ona l m us t e r . I n e f f e c t , S ubs e c t i on 6 se cure s onl y t o som e l aw ful vo t er s the excl usi ve enj oym entof thei r pol i t i ca l pri vi l eges w hi l e denyi ng thatvery sa m e r i gh tt o o ther l aw ful vo t er s. A nd i f vot er re gi stra t i on fr aud p oi sons the very fabri c of our repre se nt at i ve dem ocra cy , then S u b s e c tio n 6 is ju s t a s p o is o n o u s in d e n y in g o th e rw is e e lig ib le v o te r s a c h a n c e to h a v e a v o ic e in o u rd e m o c r a c y . T he st at e’ s a rgum entthatS ub se ct i on 6 i s the “ on l y r el i abl e barri er ” ( A p p e lla n t’s B r . a t 4 0 ) in p r e v e n tin g c e r ta in v o te rf r a u d p r a c tic e s is c o m p le te ly un supp ort ed. T here i s nothi ng “ es se nt i al ” abo uta r egi stra t i on sy st em thatdepri ves th o u s a n d s o f

o th e rw is e e lig ib le v o te r s o f a f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t, a n d it is d e f in ite ly n o t th e o n ly m e a n s o f

e n s u r in g r e liab ility in th e in te g r ity o f e le c tio n s . T h e s ta te c o u ld s im p ly r e q u ir e p h o to id e n tif ic a tio n to a c h ie v e th e s a m e e n d . O r , a s in 30 C al i forni a, F l ori da coul d si m pl y i ss ue a uni qu e i dent i fy i ng nu m ber t o u nm at ched appl i ca nt s a nd thu s provi de a r ea sonabl e s af eguard for vote rs w ho ar e unm at chedEven within Florida , various groups are not subject to Subsection 6. Fir st, Florida’ s 31 matchingschemedoes not apply to voters re g istered prior to the enactment of Subsection 6. Addition ally, th ematc hingre quire ment doe s n ot a pp ly to t ho sea pp lic antswh o do n ot p os se ss a driver’ s license or

social security

card. Those applica

nts do not have to g o through the matching proce ss beca

use the state provides them with a sepa ratenumber. They

only have to a ffirm that they do not possess a driver ’s licenseor social se curity number. SeeFla. Stat. § 97.053(5) (a) (5). It make s li ttl esens eto de vis ea re g istratio n p ro c e ss t

hat deprive s a

n in div idu al of

theri ght to vo tefo r t ruthf ully prov idingher d

river’ s li c e ns eor

so c ial se c urity

number but who senumber i s not matched, while at the same time simply assigning a

random number

to another individual who does not havean identifying number and spa ringher f rom the bure aucratic mishaps of Subsection 6. For all of the re asons discussed a bove, Plaintiffs havedemonstrated a substantial 32 likelihood of succe ss on the merits. Fur thermore , Plaintiffs have also satisfied the other thre e fac tors nece ssary

for a preliminary

injunction, having demonstrated that the preliminary injunction is necessar

y to prevent irrepa

rableinjury , the threatened injury outweighs any

harm the pre liminary

injunction would cause to the state , and the grantingof the pre liminary injunction will nothave a n adver se ef

fec t on the public interest. See Johnson & Johnson Vis ion Care, I nc. v. 1-800 Contac ts, Inc., 299 F .3d 1242, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2002); Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons &Paroles 275 F .3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001) (c iting Z ardui-Q uintana v. Richard, 768 F .2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 1985)). 78 bu totherw i se el i gi bl e t o v ot e. S ee C al . C od e R egs. t i t . 2, § 2 01 08 . 70 (c ) ( “ If a dri ver’ s l i ce nse or s t at e i dent i fi ca t i on nu m ber c anno tbe i dent i fi ed or veri fi ed throu gh [the m at chi ng dat abas e] and t he re gi stra nti s otherw i se el i gi bl e t o v ot e, th e n a u n iq u e id e n tif

ic a tio n n u m b e rs h a ll b e is s u e d . . . .” ) ; s e e a ls o id . § 2 01 08 . 38 (c ). If

the vastm aj ori ty of other s t at es do no thave a m at chi ng sc hem e, how a r e the y a bl e t o c onduc tl e gi t i m a t e a nd f unc t i ona l e l e c t i ons ? B y i m pos i ng 31 an un du l y s ever e r es tri ct i on on F l ori da ci t i ze ns’ ri gh tt o v ot e, the st at e has turned back the cl ock o n the fund am ent al ri gh tt o v ot e by di sr egar di ng the const i tut i on al sa fe gu ar ds enac t ed t o p rohi bi tprec i se l y the types of un l aw ful re stra i nt s e m bo di ed i n S ubs e c t i on 6. 32Sub se c tio n 6 fu rt her ac ts a s a

n additi on al ba

rrier in p ro motinghigher v oter t ur no ut in 33 theUnite d St ate s, wh e revo ter p artic ipatio n alre a dy lag s “we ll b e hin d”pa

rtic ipatio n rate s in oth e r de mocraticc ountrie s. L e agueof Unite d L atin

Am . Ci tizens v. Pe rr

y , 5 48 U. S. 3 99 , 1 26 S. Ct. 25 94 , 2 64 0 n .1 0 ( 20 06 ) ( c itingTre vo r P ott e r &Ma ri ann eH. Vira

y , E le c tio n Re fo rm : Ba rrier s to Participation, 36 U. Mich. J .L . Reform 547, 575–76 (2003) ). Averag e voter turnout for other democratic countries (in alphabetical order as of 2003): Australia, 82.7% ; Austria, 79.6%; Ba

hamas, 67.6%; B arbados, 66.7%; Be lgium, 84.1%; B otswana, 44.6% ; Canada, 60.1% ; Colombi a, 33.8%; Costa Rica, 81% ; Denmar k, 81.7%; Finland, 71.5% ; Fra nce, 60.6% ; Ger many, 72.7%; Gre ece , 84.7%; I cela nd, 88.3%; India, 60.1%; I rela nd, 70.2%; I srae l, 83.2%; Italy, 9 0. 2% ; Jam aic a , 4 6. 4% ; Jap an, 57 %; Luxe mbourg , 6 0. 5% ; Malta , 9 6. 7% ; Ma uritius , 79.8%; Netherlands, 75.2%; New Z eala nd, 80.4%; Norwa

y , 75.7%; Papua New Guinea , 72.4%; Portugal, 78.4%; Spain, 79%; Sweden, 82.6%; Switzerland, 37.7%; Trinidad a nd Tobag o, 68.8%; United King dom, 72.4%; and Venezuela, 49.9%. Theaverag e voter turnout for the United States is 44.9%. See Potter &Viray, at 576 n.200. Cf. Crawf

ord v. Marion County

Election B d., 472 F.3d 949, 955 ( 7th Cir. 2007) 34 (Evans, J., dissenting) (“ The potential for mischief with this law is obvious. Does the name on the ID ‘c onform’ to the na me on the voter

reg istration list ? I f the last nameof a newly marrie d wo man ison

theID b ut h e r m aiden n ameis o n th ere g istra tio n li st, do e s it

c on fo rm ? I f a

nameis misspelled on one—Schmit versus Schmitt—does it conform? I f a ‘ Terence’ appea rs on one a

nd a s h o rt en ed‘T erry ’ o nth e o th er , d o es i tco n fo rm ? ”) . Al lo f th e s ce n ari o s l ai d o utb y Ju dge Evans would re sult in unm atche d applications under Subsection 6. 79 V . C onc l us i on T h e r ig h t to v o te is a “f

u n d a m e n ta l p o litic a l r ig h t, b e c a u s e p r e s e r v a tiv e o f a ll r i ght s . ” Y i c k W o v. H opki ns , 118 U . S . 356, 370 ( 1886) . F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng re qu i re m entun der S ub se ct i on 6, despi t e the st at e’ s c on t ent i on s, i s nothi ng m ore than a grave i m pedi m entt o F l ori da ci t i ze ns’ fund am ent al ri gh tt o v ot e. 33 S u b s e c tio n 6 le a v e s a la r g e n u m b e ro f o th e rw is e e lig ib le v o te r s w ith o u t a v o ic e in o u r d em o cracy, si m p l y b ecau se o f al p h ab et i cal an d n u m eri cal m i sh ap s. W e m u st 34 notf or ge ttha ti tw a s onl y j us tove rf i f ty y e a r s a go tha tthe S upr e m e C our the l d theHar per v. V a. B d. of Elec tions, 383 U.S. 663 (1966). 35 Ore g on v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). 36 Cf. Crawf

ord, 484 F .3d at 438 (en banc) (Wood, J ., dissenting) (“I n this case, the 37 plaintif fsa ssert that th estatevo ter i denti fi c atio n la w i s c a us ingthewh ole sale disenfra nchisement of someelig ible voters. To the e x tent that it operate s to turn them away from the polls, it is jus t as insidious as the poll tax es and literacy tests that wererepudiated long ag o.”). Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 147 (Doug las, J ., concur ringin part, dissentingin part). 38 See Craw ford, 484 F .3d at 439 (“ Finally, this court should not ignorethis country ’s 39 history . Unfortunately , voting regulations have be en used in the not-so- distant past for discriminatory

rea sons. The law challeng ed in this case will harm an identifiable a nd often marg inalized group of voters to some undetermined de gree . This court should take significant care, includingsatisfac torily consideringthe motives behind such a la w, bef ore discountingsuch an injury .”). 80 p o l l i n g t ax t o b e u n co n st i tu t i o n al as a q u al i fi cat i o n fo r v o t i n g , an d i tw as o n l y j u st 35 ov erthi rty- fi ve ye ar s a go thatthe C ou rtup hel d C on gres s’ po w ert o b arl i t er ac y t es t s. S ub se ct i on 6, t o the ext enti tac t s a s a n u nl aw ful i m pedi m entt o v ot i ng that 36 d i sp ro p o rt i o n at el y affects m i n o ri t i es, m u stb e v i ew ed w i th i n th i s fram ew o rk o f p ast di s c r i m i na t ory pr a c t i c e s w i th r e s pe c tt o vot i ng. 37 F l or i da ’ s m a t c hi ng s c he m e i s nota n a ddi t i ona l s a f e gua r d i n e ns ur i ng the i nt egri ty of e l ec t i on s; ra ther, i ti s a no ther i n a l on g l i ne of “ di sc ri m i nat ory w e apon[ s ] ” tha tha ve be e n us e d t o di s e nf r a nc hi s e othe rw i s e e l i gi bl e vot e r s . T he 38 39 st at e’ s goal of prevent i ng vo t erfr aud d oes notm ake are gi stra t i on sc hem e that di spropo rt i on at el y depri ves m i no ri t i es of thei r r i gh tt o v ot e a ny m ore l egi t i m at e. It i s a tt i m es such as these thatw e a re re m i nd ed of ho w fr agi l e our ri gh t s c an be,Har per, 383 U .S. at 670; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1973g g (a) (1)–( 3) (“ [T] he right of citizens 40 of the United States to vote is a f undamental right,”and “it is the duty of the F ederal, State, and loc al g ov e rnmentsto p ro mot ethee xerc iseof that right”be c a

us e“ dis c rimin ator

y and un fair re g istratio n la

ws and proc e dure s c an h avea

dire c t and

damag inge ff

e c t on vo ter p artic ipatio n in e le c tio ns fo r F e deral of

fi c eand disprop or

tio nate ly ha rm vo ter p artic ipatio n b y

va ri ou s group s, including racial minoriti es.” ( emphase s added) ); Dunn v. B lumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972) (notingthat the right to vote is a “fundamental political right” (quotingRey nolds, 377 U.S. at 562)); Ill. St ate B d. of Elec tions v. S ocialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979) (“ [V] oting is of the most fundamental significanc e under our constitutional structure.” ). 81 e s p e c ia lly f

o rc e r ta in g r o u p s w h ic h h a v e h is to r ic a lly b e e n d e p r iv e d o f c e r ta in fu n d am en t al ri g h t s w h i ch o u r C o n st i tu t i o n g u aran t ees t o ev ery ci t i zen , reg ard l ess of r a c e ore thni c i ty . I tc a nnotbe tha ta c c i de nt a l l y tr a ns pos i ng tw o num be r s on a vo t erre gi stra t i on appl i ca t i on i s asuff i ci entbasi s upo n w hi ch t o d epri ve an o th e rw is e e lig ib le v o te ra r ig h t w h ic h is “to o p r e c io u s , to o f u n d a m e n ta l”

— its

40 f unda m e nt a l na tur e s t e m m i ng f r om “ the e qua l di gni ty ow e d t o e a c h vot e r , ” B us h, 531 U . S . a t104, w hi c h i s “ a tthe he a r tof ourde m oc r a c y , ” B ur s on v. F r e e m a n, 504 U .S . 1 9 1 , 1 9 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) .