VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For a variety of reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ NVRA claims fail
as a matter of law. First, nearly all of Plaintiffs’ requests on which they base their
NVRA claims did not meet the notice and cure requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-
9(b). Second, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the Requested Documents they seek
in this case under the NVRA. Neither poll books nor absentee ballot applications and
envelopes fall within the NVRA Public Disclosure Provision. Mississippi’s Voter
Roll does fall within that provision, but Plaintiffs already have a copy of the Voter
Roll and Defendant Hosemann has conceded that it is disclosable under the NVRA
Public Disclosure Provision. Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to properly request Federal
Post Card Applications. Third, even if the NVRA required disclosure of the
Requested Documents, the NVRA would not require Defendants to supply Plaintiffs
with unredacted records disclosing birthdates under the facts of this case. For all
these reasons, summary judgment in favor of Defendants is appropriate on Plaintiffs’
NVRA claims
Magnolia Tribune
