National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); 52 USC § 20507; Removal of dead voters from the voting list; § 20507(a)(4)(A); Private right of action; § 20510(b); Bellitto v Snipes (11th Cir); Help America Vote Act; §§ 20901–21145; Michigan election law statutes; MCL 168.509o(4); “Qualified voter file” (QVF); Discovery disputes; Quashing a subpoena; Standing to bring an action alleging failure to produce records; Campaign Legal Ctr v Scott (5th Cir); Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF); Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] Noting it had not previously considered “what efforts are enough to be considered reasonable” under the NVRA, the court held that a “state that actively makes efforts to remove dead registrants based on state and federal death records is engaging in an inherently rational, sensible attempt at maintaining accurate voter registration lists.” It concluded that “Michigan makes a reasonable effort” to maintain accurate voter rolls. Thus, it affirmed summary judgment for defendant-Benson in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State on plaintiff-PILF’s claim that she failed to comply with the NVRA by not removing dead registrants from voter rolls and by refusing to grant PILF access to public records relating to the rolls. The court first explained the relevant federal and state law pertaining to Michigan’s voter file, the QVF. It then considered the district court’s denial of PILF’s discovery motions and concluded that it could only review the one discovery appeal that PILF had filed in the district court—the quashed subpoena to appellee-ERIC. It held that PILF failed to show prejudice. It next reviewed Count I of PILF’s complaint alleging a NVRA violation for failure to conduct list maintenance. It agreed with the district court that states are required to make “only a ‘reasonable effort,’ not a perfect effort,” to remove registrants who have died. It rejected PILF’s interpretation of “reasonable efforts,” holding that “the plain language of the statute, not legislative history or the Justice Department’s actions, determine the law’s meaning." The district court reviewed what other courts have considered to be “reasonable efforts” and noted that federal data shows “‘Michigan is consistently among the most active states in cancelling the registrations of deceased individuals.’” It further “noted that Michigan undertakes a number of steps to ensure a well-functioning program, including: (1) comparing Social Security Administration death reports on a weekly basis to” the state’s software system (CARS) “list; (2) reconciling the QVF with the CARS driver file on a quarterly basis; and (3) manually reviewing the bimonthly ERIC reports, which are created by comparing the QVF to the Social Security Death Index.” The court held that the district court correctly determined “that Michigan’s programs fell squarely within the NVRA’s reasonable effort language.” As to Count II of the complaint, alleging failure to produce records, the court held that plaintiff lacked standing where “PILF is not a registered voter, nor has it claimed organizational standing on behalf of registered voters, in the voting jurisdiction at issue.”