Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA); The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA); The Help America Vote Act (HAVA); Michigan’s “qualified voter file” (MCL 168.509m(2)(b) & 168.509o(1)); Whether Michigan’s qualified voter file is subject to Title III; Whether the government complied with 52 USC § 20703’s requirements

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that defendant-Michigan Secretary of State Benson did not violate Title III by refusing to produce Michigan’s unredacted qualified voter file at the federal government’s demand. The government demanded that Benson provide the state’s voter rolls, and “also the dates of birth, partial social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers of every” Michigan registered voter. Benson provided the public version of Michigan's qualified voter file, but no more. The government sued to compel her to produce the unredacted records. The district court dismissed the case, finding no government authority under Title III. This case arose following issuance of an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to “prioritize enforcement of” certain statutes to restrict non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and to enforce the NVRA and HAVA’s “‘list maintenance requirements.’” On appeal, the court reviewed federal laws affecting the States’ conduct of federal elections. It held that Michigan’s qualified voter file did not fall under Title III where “Benson did not acquire, obtain, or receive the qualified voter file from a third party. Instead, Michigan officials created it themselves.” The file “is an internally generated electronic database, not a record acquired from an outside source.” Further, that “Michigan election officials and others must constantly change information in the qualified voter file” showed that it was not subject to Title III. While Title III requires officials to “retain and preserve” records, the NVRA and the “HAVA require Michigan election officials to alter the qualified voter file routinely as part of their ‘reasonable effort[s]’ to ensure accuracy.” The court concluded that it “should not adopt a reading that would place election officials in violation of one federal law for trying to comply with others.” While the government cited an opinion from the Department of Justice OLC, which was issued “the day before oral argument here,” the court rejected it as it was “not contemporaneous with the passage of Title III” and it conflicted with Title III’s plain language. Additionally, the court held that the Title III claim failed because the government did not comply with § 20703, which required it “to submit a demand to Benson containing a statement of both the basis and purpose of its request.” As a result, “Benson did not violate Title III by refusing to produce the unredacted qualified voter file.” Affirmed.