(a) Declare that Defendants are in violation of the NVRA by refusing to grant access for inspection and photocopying of the requested records;
(b) Declare that Defendants are in violation of the NVRA by redacting voter birth dates from voter rolls and registration materials and imposing the costs of such redaction on the public;
(c) Permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to permit access to any requesting party for copying and/or inspection of voter registration applications, absentee voting envelopes, absentee ballot applications and any associated applications therewith, voters rolls, voter poll books, voter registration applications and federal post card applications, as sought by Plaintiffs in this matter;
I noticed that there is no allegation of 'fraud' in the Complaint. Why, then, did the judge state that the case was not about voter fraud? This sounds like a straw-man argument.
See #19 for a link to the 2nd refiled lawsuit in the Southern District wherein the petition was amended and modified from the 1st. Many affidavits were submitted that witnessed fraud during and after the election.
I believe the Judge in addressing fraud was attempting to narrow the scope from a decision regarding fraud to one of access.
But I am afraid that access and fraud are intertwined in this case. Access to redacted copies of records would assure the fraud committed would go on undetected because the usage of white-out does not show up on copies. So there is no way to know if copies reflect the faithful image of the original.
We will see how astute the judge in this case is.