Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. BellowsPublic Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Bellows
Jonathan R. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Thomas A. Knowlton, Deputy Attorney General, were on brief, for appellant.
Noel H. Johnson, with whom Kaylan L. Phillips and Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc., were on brief, for appellee.
Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Tovah R. Calderon, and Noah B. Bokat-Lindell, Attorneys, Civil Rights Division, were on brief for the United States of America, amicus curiae.
Caitriona Fitzgerald, John Davisson, Tom McBrien, and Suzanne Bernstein, were on brief for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, amicus curiae.
Michael Bekesha, and Eric W. Lee, were on brief for Judicial Watch, Inc., amicus curiae.
GELPÍ, Circuit Judge. This appeal presents two questions. The first is whether Section 8(i)(1) of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA“), which requires public disclosure of “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,”
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statutory Background
In 1993, Congress enacted the NVRA, Pub. L. No. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 (codified as amended at
(1) Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter
registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.
In 2002, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA“), Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1668 (codified as amended at
Pursuant to HAVA, Maine created the Central Voter Registration system (“CVR“), a statewide electronic system designed to standardize and centralize Maine voter registrations. The CVR is a “browser-based” system that consists of (1) a “software application for carrying out the voter registration functions required by federal and state law” and (2) a “relational database for storage of thе voter registration information and related municipal data . . . entered through the application.” The CVR‘s database contains personal information about every registered voter in Maine, including nearly all the information that a voter provides in his or her registration form, such as name, address, party affiliation, and date of birth, as well as other information inputted by municipal registrars, such as voter participation history.1
Using the CVR‘s software application, Maine election officials can generate reports from the CVR‘s database. One of those reports is the Voter File, which captures the following information for each registered voter eligible to vote in Maine as of the date the Voter File is generated:
[T]he voter‘s name, residence address, mailing address, year of birth, enrollment status, electoral districts, voter status, date of registration, date of change of the voter record if applicable, voter particiрation history, voter record number and any special designations indicating uniformed service voters, overseas voters or township voters.
The CVR became fully operational in 2007. In 2005, however, Maine enacted legislation to regulate public access to CVR data (hereinafter the “Privacy Law“). The Privacy Law provides that “information contained electronically in the [CVR] and any information or reports generated by the [CVR] are confidential and may be accessed only by municipal and state election officials for the purposes of election and voter registration administration.”
B. Relevant Facts
Plaintiff-Appellee Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. (“PILF“) is a nonprofit organization that “seeks to promote the integrity of elections nationwide through research, education, remedial programs, and litigation.” PILF‘s regular programmatic activities include evaluating whether states are complying with voter list maintenance laws; pursuing legal action to enforce state and federal voter list maintenance laws; educating the public through published reports, blog posts, press releases, newsletters, and emails; and providing voter list maintenance leads and potentially irregular registration data to state governments. Defendant-Appellant Shenna Bellows, the Maine Secretary of State (hereinafter the “Secretary“), “is the coordinator of [Maine‘s] responsibilities under the [NVRA].”
On October 17, 2019, PILF sent a letter to the then-Maine Secretary of State requesting a copy of the Voter File pursuant to Section 8(i)(1) but acknowledging that, under Exception B of the Privacy Law, PILF was “prohibit[ed] from receiving the [Voter File] and using it for research, commentary, and other purposes.” After further communication with PILF, Maine Deputy Secretary of State Julie L. Flynn denied PILF‘s request on February 5, 2020, concluding that she did not have authority under Exception B to provide PILF with a copy of the Voter File. To date, PILF has not been provided with a copy of the Voter File.
On February 19, 2020, PILF filed suit against the then-Maine Secretаry of State in the United States District Court for the District of Maine alleging that the denial of access to the Voter File was a violation of Section 8(i)(1). The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. However, in June 2021, while the cross-motions were pending, the Maine legislature amended the Privacy Law to add a new exception, Exception J. Under Exception J, “[a]n individual or organization that is evaluating the State‘s compliance with its voter list maintenance obligations may[] . . . purchase . . . the [Voter File] from the [CVR] by making a request to the Secretary of State.”
(1) Sell, transfer to another person or use the voter information or any part of the information for any purpose that is not directly related to evaluating the State‘s compliance with its voter list maintenance obligations [(hereinafter the “Use Bаn“)]; or
(2) Cause the voter information or any part of the information that identifies, or that could be used with other information to identify, a specific voter, including but not limited to a voter‘s name, residence address or street address, to be made accessible by the general public on the Internet or through other means [(hereinafter the “Publication Ban“)].
Under the amended Privacy Law, a violation of Exception J is “a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $1,000 may be adjudged.”
C. Procedural History
On November 29, 2021, PILF filed an amended complaint against the Secretary, alleging three violations of the NVRA. Count I alleged that Exception J impermissibly denied PILF access to the Voter File. Count II alleged that Exception J was preempted by the NVRA. Count III alleged that the fines imposed by the Privacy Law for each violation of Exception J were similarly preempted by the NVRA. The Secretary moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness,
On March 4, 2022, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Secretary‘s motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Count I as moot on the basis that “no live controversy exist[ed] regarding access to the [Voter File]” since PILF could obtain a copy of the Voter File through the newly created Exception J. The district court then declined to dismiss Counts II and III. The district court first determined “that the Voter File is a ‘record[] concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters’ within the meaning of [Section 8(i)(1)] and thus is subject to disclosure under the NVRA.” The district court then concluded that PILF “ha[d] pleaded sufficiеnt facts that, when taken as true, establish[ed] a plausible claim of obstacle preemption.” Both parties moved for summary judgment on Counts II and III.
On March 28, 2023, the district court granted summary judgment for PILF on both counts. First, the district court declined to reconsider its prior determination that Section 8(i)(1) applies to the Voter File. Second, the district court determined that PILF‘s challenge to Exception J is an as-applied challenge. As to Count II, the district court “conclude[d] that the NVRA preempts Exception J” because, “by limiting the disclosure of information within the ambit of [Section 8(i)(1)], [Exception J] poses ‘sufficient obstacle[s]’ to the accomplishment and execution of Congress‘s purposes.” Accordingly, as to Count III, the district court found “that [Section 8(i)(1)] preempts the fines imposed by [
The Secretary timely appealed.2
A. Standard of Review
This appeal involves two questions of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. See DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81, 85 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Troy, 618 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2010).
B. Section 8(i)(1) and the Voter File
We begin with the Secretary‘s argument that “[t]he plain language of [Section 8(i)(1)] cannot be reasonably construed” to encompass the Voter File. “[O]ur inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous.” BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004). “Courts properly assume, absent sufficient indication to the contrary, that Congress intends the words in its enactments to carry ‘their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.‘” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P‘ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)). “It is a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.‘” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989)).
Section 8(i)(1) provides that “[e]ach State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.”
Federal law requires Maine to conduct activities for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of the state‘s official lists of eligible voters. HAVA, for example, requires Maine‘s election system to “include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the State are accurate and are updated regularly.”
Maine law follows suit. The state‘s election statute provides that “[t]he registrar
Thus, both federal and state law require Maine election officials to create and update voter registration records in the CVR. By their very nature, these activities (hereinafter “voter list registration and maintenance activities“) fall within Section 8(i)(1). The activity of “expeditiously” inputting voter registration information into the CVR is conducted to ensure that Maine is keeping an accurate and current account of its official lists of eligible voters as Maine citizens register to vote. See
In the Secretary‘s view, however, the term “ensure” in Section 8(i)(1) “indicates Congress‘s intent to direct [the provision‘s] retention and disclosure obligation not toward day-to-day administrative functions such as adding individual registrants to the system[] . . . but rather toward the government‘s oversight activities and programs to make sure that data, once it is in the system, remains accurate and current.” Not so. The Secretary admits that “ensure” means “‘to make certain’ or ‘guarantee.‘” See Ensure, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ensure (last visited Dec. 8, 2023). And “[i]t is unclear what other purpose [the input of voter registration information into the CVR] would serve” other than to make certain that Maine is keeping an accurate and current account of those who are eligible to vote in the state. See Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 335 (4th Cir. 2012). Indeed, “the establishment, and proper administration, of voter registration procedures, about which the NVRA seems primarily concerned, directly informs whether the lists of eligible voters are current and accurate,” for “‘official lists of eligible voters’ would be inaccurate and obsolete” if they did not contain accurate and current voter registration information. See Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 752 F. Supp. 2d 697, 706 (E.D. Va. 2010).
The Secretary further contends that agency interpretation of the NVRA supports her position that Section 8(i)(1) does not extend to the activities of processing additions, removals, and changes to Maine‘s official lists of eligible voters. We are unpersuaded. In 1994, the Federal
The question then becomes whether the Voter File “concern[s] the implementation of” Maine‘s voter list registration and maintenance activities.
The Voter File is an electronic report generated from the CVR, the database through which Maine carries out its voter list registration and maintenance activities. The Voter File captures voter record and voter participation history information from the CVR on eligible Maine voters as of the date the Voter File is generated. Accordingly, as of the date it is generated, the Voter File reflects the additions and changes made by Mainе election officials in the CVR pursuant to federal and state law as part of Maine‘s voter list registration and maintenance activities. The Voter File can thus be characterized as the output and end result of such activities. In this way, the Voter File plainly relates to the carrying out of Maine‘s voter list registration and maintenance activities and is thereby subject to disclosure under Section 8(i)(1).
The Secretary counters that Section 8(i)(1) does not apply to the Voter File because, “[b]y limiting the scope of records available to those concerning ‘implementation,’ [the provision] targets only . . . records that would describe, document, or otherwise concern how the relevant ‘programs and activities’ were put into practice[,]”
The Secretary then turns to the structure of Section 8(i), arguing that Section 8(i)(2) limits the reach of Section 8(i)(1). Section 8(i)(2) provides:
The records maintained pursuant to [Section 8(i)(1)] shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in subsection (d)(2) are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made.
In resorting to the structure of Section 8(i), the Secretary ignores the last clause of Section 8(i)(1). There, Congress explicitly exempted from disclosure records that “relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.”
If anything, the structure of the NVRA further reinforces our conclusion that Section 8(i)(1) covers records that are related to the carrying out of Maine‘s voter list registration and maintenance activities. The statute itself is titled the “National Voter Registration Act,” Pub. L. No. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77 (emphasis added). Section 8(i)(1), in turn, is located in a section titled “Requirements with respect to administration of voter registration,”
For the above reasons, Maine‘s Voter File is a “record[] concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters” and is thus subject to disclosure under Section 8(i)(1).
Before proceeding to our preemption analysis, we first address the Secretary‘s argument that PILF lacks standing to challenge Exception J‘s Use Ban because “the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have expressly . . . disclaimed any intent to enforce [the Use Ban] in the manner that PILF claims to fear.” We disagree.
The “[f]irst and foremost” element of standing analysis under Article III of the Constitution is the requirement that the plaintiff establish injury in fact. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env‘t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998)). “To establish an injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.‘” Id. at 339 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). An “injury is imminent if it is certainly impending or if there is a substantial risk that harm will occur.” Reddy v. Foster, 845 F.3d 493, 500 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014)).
Under the Use Ban, a recipient of the Voter File may not “[s]ell, transfer to another person or use the voter information [in the Voter File] or any part of the information for any purpose that is not directly related to evaluating the State‘s compliance with its voter list maintenance obligations.”
For purposes of summary judgment, however, Maine Deputy Secretary of State Julie L. Flynn submitted a declaration in which she stated that the Elections Division would not view the following activities as a violation of Exception J: “using Maine data to evaluate other states’ voter list maintenance practices” and “us[ing] the Voter File in judicial proceedings relating to list maintenance or the integrity of voter lists.” The declaration further stated that “[t]he Secretary of State agrees with these interpretations.” The Office of the Maine Attorney General represented that it held the same view.
We are unpersuaded that, on the face of these representations, “PILF is under absolutely no threat . . . that it would be subject to an enforcement action for engaging in” the above activities. These representаtions do not promise nonenforcement of the Use Ban but rather state that the Elections Division would not view PILF‘s intended activities as violations of Exception J. As the district court noted, these statements do not have the force of law and are not binding on future officeholders. Indeed, Supreme Court “precedent warns against accepting as ‘authoritative’ an Attorney General‘s interpretation of state law when ‘the Attorney General does not bind the state courts or local law enforcement authorities,‘” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 940 (2000) (quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass‘n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 395 (1988)), “as is the case in
To this end, the Secretary points to two cases in which we have purportedly “accepted similar statements as legally sufficient.” Neither case is apposite here. First, in National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, we accepted the defendants’ proposed narrowing construction of specific terms in the challenged statutes. 649 F.3d 34, 66-67 (1st Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021). However, our adoption of the narrow construction there had no bearing on standing. See id. at 67. Importantly, as opposed to the case here, see infra Part II.D.1, the proposed and adopted narrow construction in McKee was not contrary to the plain language of the challenged statutes. McKee, 649 F.3d at 67. Second, in Reddy v. Foster, we held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a pre-enforcement action in part because the state had affirmatively disavowed prosecution unless and until certain preconditions were met according to the challenged statute‘s terms. 845 F.3d at 502. At issue here, however, are not unmet preconditions, but rather state officials’ nonbinding representations to adopt one of multiple interpretations of Exception J, a provision that carries significant fines. See
D. Federal Preemption4
Having concluded that the Voter File is subject to disclosure under Section 8(i)(1) and that PILF has standing to challenge the Use Ban, we now turn to the Secretary‘s argument that the Use Ban and the Publication Ban, as applied to PILF, are not preempted by the NVRA.
“The Supremacy Clause sits at the epicenter of every preemption question.” Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60, 63 (1st Cir. 2013). It instructs, in relevant part, that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“In all [preemption] cases, . . . we ‘start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.‘” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Such assumption, however, “does not hold
There are three types of preemption: conflict, express, and field. Murphy v. Nat‘l Collegiate Athletic Ass‘n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1480 (2018). At issue here is conflict preemption. Conflict preemption may occur “where the challenged state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.‘” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 399 (2012) (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)). “What is a sufficient obstacle is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.” Crosby v. Nat‘l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000); see also Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (“[T]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every [preemption] case.” (quoting Lohr, 518 U.S. at 485)). With this in mind, we turn to the purposes and intended effects of the NVRA.
“For many years, Congress left it up to the States to maintain accurate lists of those eligible to vote in federal elections, but in 1993, with the enactment of the [NVRA], Congress intervened.” Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833, 1838 (2018). The NVRA “erected a complex superstructure of federal regulation atop state voter-registration systems.” Arizona, 570 U.S. at 5. In enacting the NVRA, Congress found that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;” that “it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and” that “discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.”
As stated by Congress, the purposes of the NVRA are “to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;” “to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office;” “to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and . . . to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.”
1. Use Ban
The Use Ban provides that a person obtaining the Voter File under Exception J may not “[s]ell, transfer to another person or use the voter information or any part of thе information for any purpose that is not directly related to evaluating the State‘s compliance with its voter list maintenance obligations.”
On appeal, the Secretary does not directly challenge the district court‘s finding of preemption as to the Use Ban. Instead, the Secretary argues that Exception J‘s use of the singular “State[]” should be read to include states other than Maine. In doing so, the Secretary posits that “the only interpretation consistent with [Exception J‘s] legislative purpose is one that allows cross-state analyses.” As textual support for her argument, the Secretary cites Maine‘s equivalent of the Dictionary Act, which provides thаt “‘State,’ used with reference to any organized portion of the United States, may mean a territory or the District of Columbia.”
This argument fails. We need not inquire into the purpose of Exception J, for the language of the Use Ban plainly refers to “the State[]” as opposed to “states.” See Desjardins v. Reynolds, 162 A.3d 228, 234 (Me. 2017) (“[W]e look first to the plain language of the provision. If that language is unambiguous, we interpret it according to its unambiguous meaning.” (citations omitted)). Thus, we agree with the district court that, given its singular, capitalized form and its placement in Maine‘s election statute, “the State[],” as employed by the Use Ban, refers to Maine and only Maine. There is ample support throughout Maine‘s election statute for such conclusion. See
Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the plain language of the Use Ban would prohibit PILF “from using the Voter File to evaluate another state‘s compliance with its voter list maintenance obligations” or from “using the Voter file to enforce the NVRA when the basis for such action was the evaluation (via Maine‘s Voter File) of another state‘s voter list maintenance obligations.” These restrictions, in turn, are preempted by the NVRA.
As stated above, the NVRA seeks “to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and . . . to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.”
2. Publication Ban
The Publication Ban provides that a person obtaining the Voter File under Exception J may not:
Cause the voter information or any part of the voter information that identifies, or that could be used with other information to identify, a specific voter, including but not limited to a voter‘s name, residence address or street address, to be made accessible by the general public on the Internet or through other means.
Section 8(i)(1) requires the public release of the Voter File by mandating “all records concerning the implementation of” Maine‘s voter list registration and maintenance activities to be “ma[d]e available for public inspection.”
The Secretary, however, asserts that the Publication Ban is not preempted by Section 8(i)(1) because the ban furthers the NVRA‘s purpose of “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office” by “provid[ing] assurance to Mainers that registering to vote will not expose their personal data to [] inappropriate uses” as well as “safeguard[ing] Maine voters from . . . invasions of privacy.” In advanсing this argument, the Secretary urges us to consider “the myriad federal statutes that already existed when the NVRA was enacted that protect personal privacy and protect voters from harassment and intimidation.”
We are unpersuaded. First, our task is to determine whether Exception J “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 399 (emphasis added). In doing so, we must “examin[e] the [NVRA] as a whole” to “identify[] its purpose and intended effects.” Crosby, 530 U.S. at 373 (emphasis added). And, for the aforementioned reasons, even if the Publication Ban does further the NVRA‘s objective of enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters, it nonetheless creates an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress as stated in
Second, let us be clear in our recognition of the privacy concerns implicated by the public release of the Voter File to which the Secretary calls our attention. However, “[i]t is not [our] рrovince . . . to strike the proper balance between transparency and voter privacy.” Project Vote, 682 F.3d at 339. Instead, such function is well within the legislative sphere of Congress, which has already determined that “[w]ithout [the] transparency [afforded by public disclosure], public confidence in the essential workings of democracy will suffer.” Id. It is not our call to revisit the careful balance struck by Congress in weighing the privacy risks posed by public disclosure against the interests favoring the same.
Third, as the Secretary indicates, there are federal statutory frameworks already in place that aim to protect voters from potential invasions of privacy, intimidation, discrimination, and harassment. See, e.g.,
In addition, nothing in the text of the NVRA prohibits the appropriate redaction of uniquely or highly sеnsitive personal information in the Voter File. See, e.g., Matthews, 589 F. Supp. at 942 (“[T]o the extent that political committees and governmental entities are able to protect privacy in the way general public disclosure of the [Voter File] cannot, the Court believes that proper redaction of highly sensitive information can be accomplished without an undue burden on the State.“); Project Vote, Inc. v. Kemp, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1320, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (“Section 8(i) requires the disclosure of individual voter registration records, but it does not require the disclosure of sensitive information that implicates special privacy concerns.“); True the Vote v. Hosemann, 43 F. Supp. 3d 693, 739 (S.D. Miss. 2014) (“[T]he NVRA Public Disclosure Provision does not require the disclosure of unredacted voter registration documents, including voter registrant birthdates.“); Project Vote, 752 F. Supp. at 711-12 (finding that the NVRA does not preclude redaction of Social Security Numbers in voter registration applications before public disclosure of such applications). Nor does the NVRA prohibit the redaction of personal information that can be particulаrly sensitive in certain circumstances, including those circumstances explicitly recognized by federal courts. See, e.g., Pub. Int. Legal Found., Inc. v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, 996 F.3d 257, 267 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that information subject to redaction can include personal information of those subject to criminal investigations and those citizens initially identified as potentially failing to meet citizenship requirement for voter registration but ultimately exonerated). Accordingly, the proper redaction of certain personal information in the Voter File can further assuage the potential privacy risks implicated by the public release of the Voter File.
For the above reasons, the Publication Ban, as applied to PILF, is preempted by the NVRA.
3. Fines
Because Exception J‘s Use Ban and Publication Ban are preempted by the NVRA, the fines stemming from violations of such restrictions, see
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.