The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) today filed an amicus brief in Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson (No. 25-437), urging the Supreme Court to grant review and to overturn the Sixth Circuit’s blessing of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s efforts to “eviscerate[] the purpose of the National Voter Registration Act” and undermine both election integrity and transparency through her failure to conduct an “effective” list maintenance program.

The brief asserts that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires effective, not merely “rational” or “sensible,” efforts by states to maintain accurate voter rolls and that the Sixth Circuit’s overly deferential interpretation leaves the Act “an effective nullity.” CEC also defends the concept of informational standing under the NVRA, arguing that TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez does not apply to questions of public disclosure.

CEC begins by warning that the “continued erosion of voter confidence in elections necessitates this Court’s review.” Citing Purcell v. Gonzalez and Brnovich v. DNC, the brief stresses that public faith in elections depends on maintaining accurate voter rolls. “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy,” it quotes. Evidence of widespread deficiencies can be found in recent discoveries that California has five million inactive registrants; the District of Columbia had eleven percent of its mail ballots returned undeliverable in 2020; Virginia found nearly 19,000 deceased registrants still on the rolls; and Pew reported that 24 million registrations (one in eight) were invalid nationwide.

Such failures enable “vote dilution” and “an invitation to fraud”. As an example, CEC notes that PILF identified 25,000 ineligible Michigan voters, a number exceeding the 20,000-vote margin in Michigan’s 2024 U.S. Senate race, showing that poor maintenance could “swing a statewide election.”

The brief contends that “reasonable effort” must entail detectable success, as Congress intended effective list maintenance, not symbolic gestures. CEC writes:

“Pretend NVRA compliance is a marathon. Congress mandated that every runner (state) must at least finish the race… The Sixth Circuit decided that all Michigan needs to do to get a finisher’s medal is to put on its shoes.”

CEC analogizes to other civil rights law, noting that statutes like the ADA, Title VII, and USERRA all interpret “reasonable” obligations as requiring effective results, not merely rational actions.

CEC also warns that, if allowed to stand, this “everyone-gets-a-medal” standard would yield absurd results, allowing states to leave deceased voters on rolls indefinitely and giving cover to inaction. It concludes that “[t]he NVRA must not become a dead letter.”

CEC next defends PILF’s informational standing to sue for access to Michigan’s voter-roll records. It argues that Congress explicitly granted the public a right to transparency through 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1) and a private right of action under § 20510(b). CEC calls transparency “a twin pillar” of the NVRA, meant to ensure accountability through citizen oversight.

“The famous maxim that ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’ is inherent in the statutory structure of the NVRA.”

CEC likens the NVRA’s disclosure mandate to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): both require public inspection of government records and allow private enforcement.

CEC quotes the First Circuit’s decision in PILF v. Bellows (2024): “The very text of the statute evinces Congress’s belief that public inspection… is necessary to accomplish the objectives behind the NVRA.”

CEC contends that the Sixth Circuit and others have misapplied TransUnion by reading it as limiting standing in public-disclosure contexts. TransUnion, it explains, explicitly distinguished itself from such cases: “This case does not involve such a public-disclosure law.” Therefore, precedent from Public Citizen v. Department of Justice and FEC v. Akins, where denial of public records was a concrete injury, remains controlling. CEC cites multiple circuits (First, Fourth, D.C., and Seventh) reaffirming this approach, concluding that denial of NVRA-mandated information causes a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing.

“The failure to disclose information is itself the harm where Congress has stated that the right to public disclosure has value.” 

CEC urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and to reverse, allowing PILF to “exercise its right under the NVRA to enforce the public disclosure of the voter list maintenance records that law requires Michigan and other states to maintain.” This is essential to preserving both election integrity and public confidence.

The Center for Election Confidence thanks Phillip M. Gordon, Mark W. Altman, and Abbi White Harris of Naman Howell for their representation in this matter.