Trump Indictment: A Naked Threat and Act of Intimidation

In the last ten years, no organization public or private has obtained more statewide settlement agreements or consent decrees against chief state election officials for violations of the NVRA. As part of its list maintenance enforcement efforts, Judicial Watch also routinely requests public records of voter registration activities in various states under Section 8(i) of the NVRA, and has sued on its own behalf and on behalf of others to enforce it.

The public disclosure provision of the NVRA embodies Congress’ intent that Americans’ right to vote “must not be sacrificed to administrative chicanery, oversights, or inefficiencies.” … The NVRA’s public disclosure provisions mandates that “State officials labor under a duty of accountability to the public in ensuring that voter lists include eligible voters and exclude ineligible ones in the most accurate manner possible.” … The NVRA provides an avenue for citizens to check that and to ensure that only eligible registrants remain on the rolls by providing the full voter registration list open to public inspection. “Without such transparency, public confidence in the essential workings of democracy will suffer.”

No court has adopted Appellant’s [State of Maine] argument here. Rather, all courts presented with this issue have found that the voter registration list is a record subject to disclosure under the NVRA. This Court should reject Appellant’s argument.

The ability to inform the public on matters of genuine and profound public interest is an essential aspect of free speech rights. The Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision upholding the lower court’s permanent injunction amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that must be corrected. In addition to the constitutional injuries Petitioners will continue to suffer, the public continues to suffer as well, by being purposefully prevented from learning the facts regarding an exceptionally important issue. Abortion affects not only personal choices, but national choices like elections, federal funding, and agency regulations. It is absolutely essential that the public have the full story of what transpired on Petitioners’ videos. 

The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold the district court is a blow to First Amendment rights that rises to the level of significant public importance. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rubberstamp viewpoint discrimination has caused substantial adverse consequences for the Petitioners in this case, including an especially unjust and onerous monetary award, the inability to use the videotapes as evidence in their criminal trial, and a chilling of their First Amendment rights. But the damage of the Ninth Circuit’s decision goes far beyond the Petitioners. The decision has also caused substantial adverse consequences for the public in general. The freedom of speech logically incorporates the right to receive the speech as well. The right to speak is rendered meaningless without an audience free to listen. 

By permanently silencing the Petitioners’ speech, the general public is subsequently harmed by not being able to receive the information contained on the videotapes. The importance of the information on the videotapes being suppressed by the Ninth Circuit cannot be overstated. As Amicus will demonstrate, the videotapes that were released changed the national and state landscape in dramatic ways. The general public was largely unaware of the shocking underbelly of the abortion lobby which Petitioners exposed through the release of the videotapes. Petitioners videos changed federal and state laws, spurred federal and state investigations, changed private business changes, and led to severe public backlash. By suppressing the further release of information, the Ninth Circuit effectively blocked access to information the public had a right to know. Absent this Court’s intervention, the Petitioners and public are left with no avenue for legal relief for the adverse consequences they have suffered and will continue to suffer.