Do genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Michigan failed to make a 'reasonable effort' to remove deceased registrants under the NVRA when there is evidence that Michigan's chief election official kept tens of thousands of deceased registrants on the voter roll, was subject to state audits documenting the same problem, and ignored credible evidence of deceased registrants on the voter roll?

Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) to increase and enhance registration and voting by “eligible citizens,” “protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1)-(4). States must “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” in relevant part, due to “the death of the registrant,” 52 U.S.C. § 20507(a)(4), and make public “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency” of the voter roll. 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1). The Public Interest Legal Foundation marshalled credible and weighty facts supporting its challenge to the reasonableness of Michigan’s efforts to remove deceased registrants from the voter roll. Yet, the district court found “Michigan’s program fell squarely within the NVRA’s reasonable effort language.” (Pet.App. 24a-25a.) The appellate court affirmed and found the Foundation lacked standing to redress the denial of public records. The questions presented are: 1. Do genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Michigan failed to make a “reasonable effort” to remove deceased registrants under the NVRA when there is evidence that Michigan’s chief election official kept tens of thousands of deceased registrants on the voter roll, was subject to state audits documenting the same problem, and ignored credible ii evidence of deceased registrants on the voter roll? 2. Did the appellate court err by using TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez , 594 U.S. 413 (2021), to determine Article III standing in a case involving the denial of public records?