Judicial Watch is a not-for-profit, educational organization that filed suit on October 2024 on behalf of the Oregon Constitution party against the State of Oregon and the Secretary of State for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by not maintaining the Oregon voter rolls. That action was challenged by a motion to dismiss and the response, promised on June 18th for a decision in two weeks, didn’t come through until nearly seven weeks later. On August 5th, U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane finally released his 23-page “OPINION AND ORDER” granted in part and dismissing in part.

Perhaps the DOJ’s Statement of interest made him pause when he read it. It begins: “This case presents important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act, ... for the limited purpose of addressing the requirements under the NVRA for states to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters”.

“Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in Oregon are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “States have specific obligations under the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA, and the Department of Justice will vigorously enforce those requirements.”

The case doesn’t refute the public’s increased concern that “the integrity of elections” is impaired by “the opportunity for ineligible voters to receive and cast ballots” which undermines “confidence in the integrity of the electoral process”. This could discourage “participation in the democratic process”; and cause “fear that their legitimate votes will be nullified or diluted by unlawful” votes. It also doesn’t deny the cause of those uncertainties, which is that “Oregon failed to conduct a general program to remove ineligible voters from voter registration rolls”.

The suit was originally structured on two premises. The court concluded that only the Constitution Party has plausibly alleged standing. This denied the standing of the individual voters named in the suit in the first count. It is troubling to consider that their possible disenfranchisement by potential fraud has no value according to the judge.

The court accepted, however, the plaintiffs’ allegations that their confidence had been undermined, “finding those allegations not speculative because the fear already existed and not generalized because there was “no indication those fears were shared by all”. That acknowledgement came as a surprise to local researchers who have already heard these reactions from the public. These investigators, who spent hours categorizing the anomalies in the voter rolls and verifying accuracy and applicable law, agree that “all” is currently a very large number.

Notable admissions from the opinion includes “the Constitution Party’s ability to contact eligible voters is impeded “because Defendants’ failure to conduct list maintenance required by the NVRA causes Oregon’s voter rolls to have many more outdated and ineligible registrations—both on its active and inactive voter lists—than they otherwise would.”

”As a result, the Constitution Party “waste[s] significant time, effort, and money trying to contact voters . . . who are listed on the rolls but who no longer live at the registered address or who are deceased.” The costs and decreased results have forced the Constitution Party “to adjust its activities.”

The Constitution Party raises one allegation that gave the Court pause: “The voter rolls also allow the Constitution Party to keep track of its own members whose registrations have become inactive.” Of all the alleged harms, this one rises above a mere ‘frustration-of-purpose argument.’ If the Constitution Party cannot monitor its members, it is plausible that it could lose its status as a minor party and no longer be entitled to limited liability or to nominate candidates. “Accepting the allegations in the FAC as true and construing them in favor of Plaintiffs, the Constitution Party has plausibly alleged that outdated or inaccurate voter lists impair a core function of that organization. The Court finds that the Constitution Party has properly established standing.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Ominously, Judge DeShane concludes, “the Constitution Party has adequately pled that its core-functions, which involve monitoring voter registration and increasing voter participation, have been hindered by non-compliance with the NVRA’s list maintenance provision. The Court therefore declines to dismiss the Constitution Party’s claim on a “zone of interest” argument at this time”.

The second count considered whether Judicial Watch “failed to provide adequate notice before commencing a lawsuit on the public records claim”, and when such notice would have been due. The discussion demonstrated the ambiguity of Oregon election law which lists various if-when possibilities which are confusing. The judge did not make a response as to which one was the definitive answer.

The most interesting claim is from a responsive email from the Secretary of state’s office that was sent in September, estimating that 5,000 hours of labor would be required to complete one aspect of Plaintiffs’ public records request for “a list of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices ... were sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person responded to the notice”.

It said, “After internal review, we have identified significant additional labor cost to provide a full data set of returned voter notification cards (VNCs). Counties have historically used slightly different processes and have latitude to define some process steps in our current system. Researching this historical information would require significant consultation with county officials, including some who may have retired, and significant additional review of data by the SOS after such consultation. We estimate this work would take approximately 5,000 hours to complete due to the level of customization required for each of the 36 counties in Oregon.”

The county clerks bill their time at $100 per hour so the cost adds up to $500,000, but the final total could be even higher. At that point, Judicial Watch did not respond, which confused the SOS. “Instead of replying to this correspondence, Plaintiffs sent a notice letter on July 10, 2024, threatening to commence a lawsuit because “Oregon is not complying with its list maintenance obligations”. Judge McShane explained how this led to his dismissal of the second count, without mentioning the ridiculously high estimate (the definition of estimate implies a judgment, considered or casual, that precedes or takes the place of actual measuring or counting or testing out).

Now that everyone has thrown down the gauntlet, the public eagerly awaits the next episode of this legal maneuvering, and the costs to Oregon and national taxpayers continue to go up as each participant responds.


--Virginia Hall

Post Date: 2025-08-14 11:47:35

Last Update: 2025-08-14 17:22:50