Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed August 21, 2009 (Doc. 78). The Court held a hearing on October 13, 2009. Plaintiffs American Association of People with Disabilities, Federation of Women’s Clubs Overseas, Inc., New Mexico Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, and Southwest Organizing Project challenge four aspects of New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law: (i) a requirement that third-party registration agents complete a pre-registration process and provide personal information; (ii) a limitation on the number of registration forms an organization or individual may receive; (iii) a requirement that third-party registration agents return completed registration forms to the County Clerk or Secretary of State within forty-eight hours; and (iv) criminal and civil penalties for parties who do not comply with third-party registration laws. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court’s prior denial of a preliminary injunction compels the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action for failure to state claims for which relief can be granted; (ii) what standard of review — strict scrutiny, rational basis, or something else — applies to evaluating the constitutionality of New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law, NMSA 1978, § 1-4-49; (iii) whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that NMSA § 1-4-49 imposes an undue burden on the Plaintiffs’ First-Amendment rights (Count I); (iv) whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that § 1^-49 is unconstitutionally overbroad or void for vagueness (Count II); (v) whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-l to 1973gg-10 preempts NMSA 1978, § 1-4-49 (Count III); (v) whether § 1-4 — 19 violates Article II, Section 8 (Count IV) and Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution (Count V); (vi) whether the Plaintiffs’ have sufficiently alleged the training requirement imposed by the County Clerks violates New Mexico’s constitutional principle of non-delegation (Count VI); and (vii) whether the training requirement violates the due-process clause of the United States Constitution (Count VII). Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts to establish that the New Mexico voter-registration law implicates their FirsL-Amendment rights and have adequately alleged that the State has burdened those rights, and have also alleged sufficient facts to establish that the voter-registration law burdens their rights under Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution, the Court will deny the Secretary’s motion as to Count I and Count V. As a matter of law, the Court finds that § l-A-43 is not void for vagueness or unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore grants the Secretary’s motion to dismiss Count II. The Court also finds that the NVRA does not preempt New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law, nor do the laws violate Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution, and therefore the Court also dismisses Count III and Count IV. Finally, the Court finds that the New Mexico Election Code includes a requirement that County Clerks train and educate registration agents, and therefore the Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims that the training requirement violates the New Mexico constitutional principle of non-delegation and the due-process clause, and therefore dismisses Count VI and Count VII. The Court, therefore, will deny the Secretary’s motion in part and grant it in part. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Plaintiffs are four nonprofit organizations that engage in volunteer-run voter-registration activities in what the Plaintiffs contend are politically under-represented communities. See Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ¶¶ 11-14, at 5-7, filed August 14, 2009 (Doc. 75)(“Am. Complaint”). In 2005, the New Mexico Legislature enacted legislation that restricted the voter-registration activities of third-party organizations. See Am. Complaint ¶ 16, at 7-8. The legislation has imposed restrictions on the Plaintiffs’ ability to help fellow citizens register to vote — through NMSA 1978, § 1-4-49; its implementing regulations, 1.10.25.7-10 NMAC; and the manner in which the Secretary has allowed the law to be enforced. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 16-25, at 7-11. These restrictions and requirements apply to all individuals and organizations except state or federal agencies. The Plaintiffs challenge all of these laws. More background on the lawsuit is set forth in the Court’s earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order. See American Assoc. of People with Disabilities, et al. v. Herrera, 580 F.Supp.2d 1195 (D.N.M.2008) (Browning, J.). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs repeatedly allege that they have engaged in expressive conduct, which the First Amendment protects, by conducting volunteer voter-registration drives. See Am. Complaint ¶¶2, 3, 26, 31, 32, 33, 38, 45, 46, 47, 53, 100-02, at 2, 11-14, 17-20, 33. The Plaintiffs allege that they intend to convey a message with their voter-registration efforts and that anyone who observe the Plaintiffs’ efforts is likely to understand this message. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 3, 11-14, 26-28, 31-34, 36-39, 45-47, 53, 56-58, 60, 101, 102, at 2, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, 17-22, 33. The Plaintiffs have alleged that their volunteer voter-registration activities are so intertwined with their political speech regarding the importance of registering to vote that one cannot be regulated without affecting the other. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 3, 26, 33-35, 37, 38, 45, 47, 56, 59, 103-07, at 2, 11-12, 14-15, 17-22, 34-35. The Plaintiffs’ first claim alleges that the challenged laws impose burdens that severely and unjustifiably hamper the Plaintiffs’ voter-registration activities. See Am. Complaints ¶ 102. at 33-34. The Plaintiffs also contend that these burdens lack any adequate justification. See id. ¶ 114, at 37. The Plaintiffs contend that their voter-registration activities constitute core political speech and expressive association. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 103-113, at 34-36. They identify two separate acts of speech at issue: (i) the speech act intertwined with registering someone to vote; and (ii) the incidental speech that takes place when registering voters. See Am. Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. They also contend that § 141-49 is over-broad on its face and void for vagueness. See id. ¶¶ 121-129, at 39-41. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court did not agree with the Plaintiffs’ argument that § 1-4-49 is vague and overbroad. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed September 17, 2008 (Doc. 49), 580 F.Supp.2d 1195. The Plaintiffs argue that New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law and implementing regulations and requirements violate the NVRA, and to the extent that they are inconsistent with the NVRA, are subject to preemption. See Am. Complaint ¶ 140, at 43. Additionally, the Plaintiffs argue that § 1-4-49 violates Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution, which requires that “[a]ll elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage,” by imposing severe financial and administrative burdens on the Plaintiffs. Am. Complaint ¶ 149, at 44. They also contend that § 1^4-49 violates Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution, which protects free speech. In addition to challenging the New Mexico third-party voter-registration law, the Plaintiffs also allege that the training the County Clerks require of third-party registration agents is a violation of the New Mexico constitutional principle of non-delegation. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 158-163, at 46-49. The Plaintiffs further contend that the training requirement is irreconcilable with the demands of procedural due process. See Am. Complaint ¶¶ 164-166, at 47. The Secretary has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She contends that § 1-4-49 is a reasonably restricted means of accomplishing an important state interest, namely safeguarding the integrity of the elective franchise. See Motion at 6. She contends, using the test that the Supreme Court articulated in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), for evaluating constitutional challenges to state election laws, that the factors weigh in favor of the constitutionality of the New Mexico third-party voter-registration law because it does not impose as severe a restriction on the Plaintiffs’ speech rights as the Plaintiffs contend, and the law serves New Mexico’s legitimate interest in a manner no more burdensome than necessary in light of the magnitude of that interest. See Motion at 5. She further contends that § 1^4^49 is not in conflict with the NVRA because it merely regulates the conduct of a third-party registration agent, and does not prohibit or limit the use of federal voter registration forms that the State must accept under the NVRA. See Motion at 15. The Secretary also argues that the Plaintiffs have confused alleged restrictions on free speech with interference with free and open elections, and that the right to free and open elections does not extend to the right to register voters — thus the Plaintiffs’ claim under Article II, Section 8 of the New Mexico Constitution must fail. See Motion at 16. Additionally, she argues that the Plaintiffs have not pled a sufficient separate cause of action under Artiele II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution. See Motion at 17-18. With regard to the training requirement, the Secretary argues that the County Clerks are her agents and that there is no prohibition against delegating authority from one executive agent to another. See Motion at 19. Moreover the Secretary argues that the Plaintiffs do not adequately describe what process they believe they are due, nor do they describe the manner in which the County Clerks exercise of discretion has allegedly violated their rights, and thus the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. See id. The Plaintiffs’ filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on October 16, 2009. See Doc. 81 (“PI. Opp.”). The Plaintiffs argue that they have adequately alleged that the voter-registration law places unjustified burdens on their message: that the Plaintiffs believe in civic participation and are willing to expend the resources to broaden the electorate to include underserved communities. See Pl. Opp. at 9. They argue that anyone that has observed the Plaintiffs’-efforts would understand their intended message. See id. The Plaintiffs argue that the merits of the First Amendment claims turn on factual matters not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. See Pl. Opp. at 16. The Plaintiffs argue that they have pled a sufficient preemption claim because New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law strikes against the core purpose of the NVRA — to liberalize voter-registration laws and to facilitate eligible voter registration. See Pl. Opp. at 25. The Plaintiffs argue that New Mexico’s third-party voter-registration law creates an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress in passing the NVRA. See Transcript of Hearing at 82:3-8 (taken Oct. 13, 2009)(“Hearing Tr." (Brenner). The Plaintiffs also contend that they have sufficiently stated claims under the New Mexico Constitution. They argue that Article II, Section 8 extends beyond the act of casting a ballot and extends to other parts of the election process, such as voter registration. See Pl. Opp. at 28 (citing Perkins v. Lucas, 197 Ky. 1, 246 S.W. 150 (1922)). The Plaintiffs also argue that their free speech rights and associational rights under Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution, and their rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are co-extensive and should both be analyzed under the Anderson standard. See Pl. Opp. at 5 n. 3. The Plaintiffs further argue that they have adequately alleged that the training requirements imposed by the County Clerks violate the non-delegation doctrine of the New Mexico Constitution, because such delegations must be clearly circumscribed and because the training at issue is not dictated by § 1-4-49 or the rules promulgated thereunder by the Secretary. See Pl. Opp. at 32. At the hearing, Scott Fuqua, attorney for the Secretary, conceded that the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction is not dispositive of any issue in the motion to dismiss. See Hearing Tr. at 7:10-14(Court, Fuqua). Mr. Fuqua also conceded that the First Amendment protects the incidental speech that occurs when the Plaintiffs speak with people registering, however, Mr. Fuqua maintains that there is no clear message conveyed in the act of registering voters and thus that is not speech which the First Amendment protects. See id. at 9:14-17, 12:8-25 (Court, Fuqua). In regards to the four challenged portions of § 1^1-49, Charles Borden, the Plaintiffs’ attorney, argued that the Court should apply strict scrutiny because the political conduct at issue is so intertwined with protected speech. See id. at 29:19— 30:16 (Borden). With regards to whether § 1-4-49 puts an undue burden on the Plaintiffs and whether the assessment of that question is one of law or fact, Mr. Fuqua argued that, of the four challenged prongs of § 1-4-49, the Court does not need to allow for factual development on the registration and manner in which fines are imposed. See id. at 45:17-21 (Fuqua). Mr. Fuqua conceded, however, that there may be factual determinations necessary regarding the burden that the fifty-form-limit' and forty-eight-hour-return requirements in § 1-4-49 causes. See id. at 47:8-11 (Fuqua). Both parties conceded at the hearing that the Court may make a legal determine whether there is an additional right of registration which the First Amendment protects, without the need for further factual development. See id. at 25:6-26:4 (Court, Borden); id. at 26:7-11 (Court, Fuqua). Both parties also conceded at the hearing that a jury demand has not been made in this matter. See id. at 41:8-12 (Court, Fuqua); id. at 51:25-52:1 (Borden). Mr. Fuqua further conceded that, if the Court waits for further factual determinations with regards to the First Amendment claims, it would need to do the same thing for the New Mexico Constitutional claims. See id. at 97:15-18 (Fuqua). Mr. Borden argued that substantial factual development about the collective burden that the requirements of § 1-4-49 put upon the Plaintiffs will be necessary. See id. at 55:16-21 (Borden). On the issue whether § 1-4-49 is vague or overbroad, both parties conceded that the determination is purely legal and not factual. See id. at 60:21-61:1 (Borden); id. at 61:18-62:2 (Fuqua). The Plaintiffs argue that the term “assist” in § 1-4-49 is vague and open to multiple meanings, See PI. Opp. at 23 n. 13; Hearing Tr. at 68:18-69:15 (Borden). The Plaintiffs also argue that it is vague how they are supposed to comply with the statute’s forty-eight-hour-delivery requirement. See PI. Opp. at 24; Hearing Tr. at 70:11-71:16 (Borden). . On the issue of the training requirement and non-delegation, Mr. Fuqua conceded that any burden caused by the training requirement would also require some factual development. See Hearing Tr. at 49:17:21 (Fuqua). He also stated that “it’s a little odd that the training requirement doesn’t appear in the statute and that the training requirement doesn’t appear in anything that the Secretary of State has promulgated, in any rules or regulations, but there doesn’t seem to be any question that the County Clerks do in fact require that training.” Hearing Tr. 100:15-20 (Fuqua). Mr. Fuqua conceded that, if the argument the Plaintiffs are making is that the County Clerks should not be imposing a training requirement because it has no basis in either the statute or rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, then the appropriate relief would be to enjoin the County Clerks from having a training requirement. S.ee id. at 102:5-10 (Fuqua). He clarified, however, that the Plaintiffs have not asked for injunctive relief, but rather contend that the requirement is an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the Secretary and noted that the County Clerks are not parties to this action. See id. at 102:14-^22 (Fuqua). The Plaintiffs maintain that the County Clerks are the Secretary’s agents and that she has the power to restrain them. See id. at 110:4-7 (Brenner). Both parties concede that the Court may decide the issues of non-delegation and due process without further factual development. 114:7-115:3 (Court, Brenner, Fuqua). LAW REGARDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS A preliminary injunction motion is a request for an “extraordinary remedy.” Greater Yellowstone Coalit. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir.2003), namely, to restrict the parties from altering the status quo until the merits of their disputes may be resolved, see Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inventory Distrib., LLC, 562 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 (10th Cir.2009). The court’s inquiry on such a motion requires, among other things, review of the likelihood of the movant’s success on the merits, which necessitates an assessment of the facts underlying the movant’s claims. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cruce, 972 F.2d 1195, 1198 (10th Cir.1992); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 354-55 (10th Cir.1986). A preliminary injunction requires the court to make predictions about the plaintiffs likelihood of success. “ ‘[T]he findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits.’ ” Attorney Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)). LAW REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS “[T]he standard on a motion to dismiss is quite different from the standard for granting a preliminary injunction.” Lawrence v. Town of Brookhaven Dep’t of Hous., Cmty. Dev. & Intergov. Affairs, No. 07-CV-2243, 2007 WL 4591845, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2007). In contrast tó a motion for a preliminary injunction, a motion to dismiss requires that the court determine, while accepting all facts pled in the complaint as true and granting all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff, whether the complaint states a cause of action for which relief can be granted. See Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co., 442 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir.2006). This standard remains intact even after the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decisions on the pleading requirements of rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”); Christensen v. Park City Mun.Corp., 554 F.3d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir.2009) (“Even after Twombly, the factual allegations need only contain enough allegations of fact ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ”)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Thus, a motion to dismiss does not ask the court to analyze the plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits; rather, the court must find only a reason to believe that the plaintiff has a “reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for the claims,” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir.2007), and that their claims are “ ‘plausible,’ ” Christensen v. Park City Mun. Corp., 554 F.3d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). A motion to dismiss is a request to dismiss a case before discovery has taken place and thus permits only an assessment whether a complaint is sufficient on its face. In adjudicating a motion to dismiss, a court may neither grant the motion because it believes it is unlikely the plaintiff can prove the allegations, see Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir.2008), nor may it “weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial” in assessing the motion’s merit, Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir.2001)(quoting Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir.1999)). LAW REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE ELECTION LAWS Increasingly, challenges to voting procedures have taken center stage in voter-related litigation. The Supreme Court has stated that, “as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997) (holding “that States may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election-and-campaign-related disorder.”). The Supreme Court has noted, however, that state - voting laws, “whether [they] govern[] the registration and qualification of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects — at least to some degree — the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564). 1. Levels of Scrutiny and the Anderson v. Celebrezze Test When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, the allocation of the burden of proof depends on the level of judicial scrutiny that a plaintiffs claims invoke. Under rational-basis review, courts presume the constitutionality of a law and will sustain the law if the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 84, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); Seegmiller v. LaVerkin City, 528 F.3d 762, 771-72 (10th Cir.2008) (“Absent a fundamental right, the state may regulate an interest pursuant to a validly enacted state law or regulation rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”). The individual challenging the statute’s constitutionality bears the burden of proving that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Under intermediate scrutiny, the State must articulate an important state interest, and the court must determine whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve the important state interest. See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). Under strict scrutiny, the State must assert a significant and compelling state interest, and the law must be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling state interest. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983); Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1181 (10th Cir.2009) (“If a legislative enactment burdens a fundamental right, the infringement must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.”). Although state voting laws create barriers for citizens, the Supreme Court has found that “to subject every voting regulation to strict scrutiny and to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest ... would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. at 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059. Instead of applying strict scrutiny to all state election laws which create a burden on voters, the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze set forth a two-step process to evaluate the constitutionality of challenged election laws. The Supreme Court stated: Constitutional challenges to specific provisions of a State’s election laws ... cannot be resolved by any “litmus paper test” that will separate valid from invalid restrictions. Instead, a court must resolve such a challenge by an analytical process that parallels its work in ordinary litigation. It must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate. It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interest, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional. Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564 (internal citations omitted). In Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Supreme Court held that an Ohio statute, which imposed a statutory early-filing deadline for independent candidates, was an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of an independent candidate’s supporters and was not justified by Ohio’s asserted interest in political stability. See 460 U.S. at 805-06, 103 S.Ct. 1564. In Burdick v. Takushi, the Supreme Court applied the Anderson v. Celebrezze test to determine whether Hawaii’s voting law prohibiting write-in voting infringed upon Hawaii citizens’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059. The Supreme Court explained: Under this standard, the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to “severe” restrictions, the regulation must be “narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992). But when a state election law provision imposes only “reasonable non discriminatory restrictions” upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, “the State’s important regulatory interest are generally sufficient to justify” the restrictions. Anderson [v. Celebrezze ], 460 U.S. at 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564; see also id., at 788-89, n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1564. We apply this standard in considering petitioner’s challenge to Hawaii’s ban on write-in ballots. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059. Applying the Anderson v. Celebrezze standard, the Supreme Court in Burdick v. Takushi found that, “in light of the adequate ballot access afforded under Hawaii’s election code, the State’s ban on write-in voting imposes only a limited burden on voters’ rights to make free choices and to associate politically through the vote.” 504 U.S. at 438-39, 112 S.Ct. 2059. Because the Supreme Court found that Hawaii’s voting law created only a slight burden, “the State need not establish a compelling interest to tip the constitutional scales in its direction.” Id. at 439, 112 S.Ct. 2059. Hawaii justified the write-in prohibition because it “avoid[ed] the possibility of unrestrained factionalism at the general election” and was “necessary to guard against party raiding.” Id. at 439, 112 S.Ct. 2059 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s interests were legitimate and outweighed the burden imposed on Hawaii’s voters, and therefore the voting law was constitutional. See id. at 441, 112 S.Ct. 2059. The Supreme Court recently applied the Anderson v. Celebrezze test in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 170 L.Ed.2d 574 (2008), to determine the constitutionality of an Indiana voting law requiring voters to produce valid photographic identification at the polls before being allowed to vote. Justice Stevens, in announcing the judgment of the Court upholding the voting law, and delivering an opinion that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined, referred to the Anderson v. Celebrezze test as a “balancing approach.” 128 S.Ct. at 1616 (“In later election cases we have followed Anderson’s balancing approach.”). Indiana asserted several state interests that justified its voting law — deterring and detecting voter fraud, modernization of election procedures, and safeguarding voter confidence — which Justice Stevens characterized as “unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” 128 S.Ct. at 1616. Justice Stevens acknowledged that “[tjhere is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.” Id. at 1619. He also expressed that “the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.” Id. Considering the Indiana voting law’s broad application to all Indiana voters, the Supreme Court concluded that it imposed only a limited burden on voters’ rights and the “precise interests” of the State were sufficient to defeat the facial constitutional challenge. Id. at 1623 (quoting Burdick v. Takushi 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059). Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, filed a separate concurrence in which he argued that Anderson v. Celebrezze is not a balancing test. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S.Ct. at 1624 (Scalia, J. concurring). Scalia argued that, “[ajlthough the opinion in Burdick [v. Takushi ] quoted Anderson [v. Celebrezze ], Burdick forged Anderson’s amorphous ‘flexible standard’ into something resembling an administrable rule” which created a “two-track approach” to evaluating voting laws. 128 S.Ct. at 1624. According to Justice Scalia, under the two-track approach, a court should first determine the severity of the burden that an election law places on Firsh-Amendment rights. If the burden is severe, the court applies strict-scrutiny. See 128 S.Ct. at 1624. If the burden is non-severe and non-discriminatory, the court applies a “deferential ‘important regulatory interests’ standard.” Id. (quoting Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. at 433-34, 112 S.Ct. 2059). Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, responded to Justice Scalia’s approach, stating: “To be sure, Burdick rejected the argument that strict scrutiny applies to all laws imposing a burden on the right to vote; but in its place, the Court applied the ‘flexible standard’ set forth in Anderson. Burdick surely did not create a novel ‘deferential important regulatory interests standard.’ ” 128 S.Ct. at 1616 n. 8. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has characterized the Anderson v. Celebrezze test as a “highly fact specific inquiry.” Libertarian Party v. Herrera, 506 F.3d 1303, 1308 (10th Cir.2007). The Tenth Circuit recently applied the Anderson v. Celebrezze test, as articulated in the lead opinion of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, in determining whether a city voting law in Albuquerque, New Mexico, violated the equal-protection clause of the United States constitution. See ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes, 546 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2008) (“As the Supreme Court recently confirmed in Crawford, the appropriate test when addressing an Equal Protection challenge to a law affecting a person’s right to vote is to ‘weigh the asserted injury to the right to vote against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.’ ’’(quoting Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S.Ct. at 1616). The Tenth Circuit found that the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico correctly identified the Anderson v. Celebrezze test, which the Tenth Circuit characterized as “the intermediate scrutiny standard established in Burdick v. Takushi,” as the proper standard of review for a constitutional challenge to the city voting law. ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes, 546 F.3d at 1321. The Tenth Circuit, however, found that the district court erred in its determination that the voting law imposed a significant burden on the right to vote. See id. at 1321-22. The Tenth Circuit found that the Albuquerque law was no more burdensome than the Indiana law the Supreme Court upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd, and that the district court had “placed too high a burden on the City to justify the law.” ACLU of N.M. v. Santillanes, 546 F.3d at 1325. 2. Third-Party Voter-Registration Statutes and the Anderson v. Celebrezze Test. The Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze stated that state-election codes regulating registration of voters may burden, at least to some degree, the individual’s right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. See 460 U.S. at 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564. Other courts have found that voter-registration regulations are “intertwined with speech and association,” and that laws regulating voter registration are subject to scrutiny under the Anderson v. Celebrezze test. League of Women Voters v. Cobb, 447 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1332-34 (S.D.Fla.2006). See Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F.Supp.2d 694, 701 (N.D.Ohio 2006); Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Cox, No. 1:06-CV-1891, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87080, at *15 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 27, 2006) (“The Court’s determination that the Anderson test applies in this case is consistent with the conclusions recently reached by other district courts analyzing the constitutionality of restrictions placed on private voter registration drives.”). In League of Women Voters v. Cobb, the plaintiffs challenged Florida’s third-party voter-registration law holding third-party-organizations strictly hable for prompt delivery of registration forms that the organizations collect. See 447 F.Supp.2d at 1322-23. The plaintiffs argued that, because the third-party voter-registration law burdened their core political speech, the court should apply strict scrutiny. The defendants argued that the Anderson v. Celebrezze test is used only in ballot-access cases, and that the court should apply rational-basis review. The Southern District of Florida rejected both arguments, and determined that the third-party voter-registration law was “most appropriately viewed as an election regulation” and thus the Anderson v. Celebrezze test applied. League of Women Voters v. Cobb, 447 F.Supp.2d at 1332 n. 21. In applying the Anderson v. Celebrezze test, the Southern District of Florida found that Florida had an important state interest in ensuring that the failings of third7 parties did not strip Florida citizens of their right to vote; however, the court found that Florida did not state an adequate justification for exempting political parties from the third-party voter-registration law. See 447 F.Supp.2d at 1386-37. The court also found that Florida’s interests in ensuring that all voter registrations were properly and timely submitted, in holding third-party organizations accountable for the voter-registrations they collect, and in preventing fraud were “indisputably important”, however, in its preliminary injunction opinion, the Southern District of Florida found that Florida’s Secretary of State had not demonstrated how the third-party voter-registration law’s penalties and exclusion of political parties advanced Florida’s interests, or why such provisions were necessary. See 447 F.Supp.2d at 1339. The court did not discuss whether a ten-day deadline was burdensome; rather the court focused on the severity of the fines imposed. See id. at 1338-39. Applying the Anderson v. Celebrezze test, “balancing • Defendants’ asserted interests against the character and magnitude of the constitutional burdens the new Law imposes,” the Southern District of Florida held that the third-party voter-registration law was unconstitutional. 447 F.Supp.2d at 1338-39 (“While the Court is extremely reluctant to set aside an enactment of the Legislature, given the magnitude of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedoms at stake in this case, the Third-Party Voter Registration Law’s civil penalties scheme and exclusion of political parties is unconstitutional.”). In 2007, the Florida legislature altered the challenged third-party voter-registration statute, rendering the plaintiffs’ complaint moot. See League of Women Voters v. Cobb, No. 06-21265, Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Dismissing Case as Moot, filed April 24, 2008 (Doc. 83). The new law reduced the fines, implemented a $1000.00 cap on the amount of fines levied against a third-party registration organization, removed the exception for political parties, and waived the fine upon a showing that failure to deliver voter-registration applications promptly was based upon force majeure or impossibility. See League of Women Voters v. Browning, 575 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1304 (S.D.Fla.2008). The Southern District of Florida again applied the Anderson v. Celebrezze test to the amended law because the court determined that the amended law constituted an “election regulation.” League of Women Voters v. Browning, 575 F.Supp.2d at 1319. The Southern District of Florida rejected an application for a preliminary injunction against the amended law and refused to declare the amended law unconstitutional. See League of Women Voters v. Browning, 575 F.Supp.2d at 1323. In Project Vote v. Blackwell, the plaintiffs challenged an Ohio third-party voter-registration law subjecting voter-registration workers to felony charges if registration forms are not returned to an appropriate state agency within ten days of being collected. See 455 F.Supp.2d at 699. The Northern District of Ohio found that, to determine whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate, the court had to determine the proper level of scrutiny, and stated: This is because under Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), this Court must determine the character and magnitude of the asserted constitutional injury and then weigh that against the State’s articulated justifications for the burdens causing that injury. Id. at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564. If the burden on constitutional rights is severe, the Court must employ strict scrutiny. If the burden is less substantial, the inquiry may be more relaxed. Id. 455 F.Supp.2d at 701. The district court determined that “intermediate scrutiny” was appropriate because, “while the interests impacted by the regulations are critical First Amendment rights, the burden imposed upon them by the regulations— though substantial .. . — are not likely properly characterized as ‘severe.’ ” 455 F.Supp.2d at 701. In Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Cox, the plaintiffs challenged a voter-registration law proscribing acceptance of completed voter-registration forms unless the registration applicant sealed his or her own registration form before submitting it to’ a third-party. See 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87080, at *7. The plaintiffs challenged the law as violating their First-Amendment rights and contended that it should be subject to strict scrutiny. See 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87080, at *16 n. 1. The Northern District of Georgia rejected the plaintiffs’ argument: “This situation ... is not one in which ‘a State’s election law directly regulates core political speech.... ’ Buckley v. Am. Const. Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999). The Regulation does not directly prohibit participation in the political process but has only a tangential effect.” 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87080, at *16 n. 1. The district court stated that “[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly held that courts should analyze constitutional challenges to a state’s election laws pursuant to the framework established in Anderson v. Celebrezze,” The district court therefore found that the law regulating the manner in which private parties conduct voter-registration drives was “most appropriately construed as an election law,” and the district court thus applied the Anderson v. Celebrezze test. See 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87080, at *15. RELEVANT FIRST-AMENDMENT LAW REGARDING VOTER REGISTRATION To undertake the Anderson v. Celebrezze analysis, a court must first determine whether the challenged law implicates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The Northern District of Ohio found that “[t]he interactive nature of voter registration drives is obvious: they convey the message that participation in the political process through voting is important to a democratic society.” Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F.Supp.2d at 707. Here, the Plaintiffs argue that NMSA 1978, § 1-4-49 imposes an undue burden on their Firsb-Amendment rights. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that voter-registration drives constitute three types of rights that the First Amendment protects: (i) expressive conduct; (ii) core political speech; and (iii) associational rights. The Plaintiffs argue that “[e]aeh of these First Amendment rights are well established in Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit case law, and therefore subject to the Anderson framework.” PL Opp. at 6. 1. Expressive Conduct. The First Amendment protects political expression manifested through conduct, as well as through speech. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968) (“[W]hen speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.”). To determine whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, courts look to whether there was (i) intent to convey a particularized message; and (ii) a great likelihood that those who viewed the conduct would have understood the message. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533. That the person engaging in the expressive conduct intends to convey a particularized message requires that the person is attempting to express a point of view, but the activities that the Supreme Court has deemed to constitute expressive conduct exemplifies that the range of activities which fall into expressive conduct is broad: (i) burning a flag to express general displeasure with the policies of a presidential administration, see id. at 405-06, 109 S.Ct. 2533; (ii) wearing black armbands to protest American military activity, see Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 505, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969); (iii) conducting a sit-in to protest segregation, see Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141-42, 86 S.Ct. 719, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966); (iv) wearing American military uniforms in a dramatic presentation to criticize involvement in Vietnam, see Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 62, 90 S.Ct. 1555, 26 L.Ed.2d 44 (1970); (v) picketing about a wide variety of causes, see, e.g., Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308, 313-14, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968); United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983); (vi) contributing money to a political campaign, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976); and (vii) dancing in the nude to express an erotic message, see Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 565, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991). Expressive conduct need not be targeted at any particular audience, be it for the flag burner, the protester, The nude dancer, or the political contributor; they do not predetermine who will be a witness to the promulgation of their ideas. See id. at 409, 109 S.Ct. 2533 (finding that a flag with a peace symbol displayed outside an apartment window was protected expressive conduct even though the “stipulated facts fail to show that any member of the general public viewed the flag”). The Supreme Court has noted, “the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word.” R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 422, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (quoting Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 406, 109 S.Ct. 2533). See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). The Tenth Circuit has held that “[t]he intermediate scrutiny standard of [United States u] O’Brien applies to laws that restrict ‘expressive conduct’ such as flag burning, nude dancing, or sitting at a segregated lunch counter.” Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1102 (10th Cir.2006) (en banc), cert. denied., 549 U.S. 1245, 127 S.Ct. 1254, 167 L.Ed.2d 145 (2007). 2. Core Political Speech. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. at 422, 112 S.Ct. 2538. “Core political speech occupies the highest, most protected position; commercial speech and nonobscene, sexually explicit speech are regarded as a sort of second-class expression; obscenity and fighting words receive the least protection of all.” Id. Laws that restrict core political speech are subject to “exacting scrutiny” — even if they leave citizens with “other means to disseminate their ideas.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 420, 424, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). See Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d at 1099. The Supreme Court has indicated that certain acts are so intertwined with speech that it is impossible for the government to regulate the conduct without burdening the speech. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. at 422, 108 S.Ct. 1886; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). In Meyer v. Grant and in Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, the Supreme Court found that -certain activities, such as circulating a petition or soliciting charitable contributions, necessarily “involve a variety of speech interests— communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes — that are within the protection. of the First Amendment.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. at 422, 108 S.Ct. 1886 (quoting Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. at 632, 100 S.Ct. 826). The Supreme Court recognized that, as a practical matter, it was impossible to regulate such activities without affecting the associated speech and .vice versa, and therefore held in Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment that a legislature must give “due regard” to “the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease.” 444 U.S. at 632, 100 S.Ct. 826. In Meyer v. Grant, the Supreme Court struck down a law restricting petition-circulating activity because the Supreme Court found that the restriction necessarily burdened the speech associated with the petition-circulating activity, and the State of Colorado failed to show a compelling justification for the burden. See 486 U.S. at 428, 108 S.Ct. 1886. The Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny because the law restricted political expression in two ways: First, it limits the number of voices who will convey appellees’ message and the hours they can speak and, therefore, limits the size of the audience they can reach. Second, it makes it less likely that appellees will garner the number of signatures necessary to place the matter on the ballot, thus limiting their ability to make the matter the focus of statewide discussion. Id. at 422-23, 108 S.Ct. 1886. See also Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 866 (7th Cir.2000) (stating that “circulating nominating petitions [for political candidates] necessarily entails political speech”); Toledo Area AFL-CIO Council v. Pizza, 154 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir.1998). “Having decided to confer the right, the State was obligated to do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution because.... this case involves core political speech.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. at 420, 108 S.Ct. 1886 (internal quotations omitted). 3. Expressive Association. “[P]olitical belief and association constitute the core of those activities protected by the First Amendment.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 359, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). An organization’s attempt to broaden the base of public participation in and support for its activities is conduct “undeniably central to the exercise of the right of association.” Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 214-15, 107 S.Ct. 544, 93 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986). The Supreme Court has consistently held that “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 'Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973) (stating that “[t]here can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of ‘orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment”). See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963) (stating that “there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.”); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-23, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960) (stating that “[l]ike freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government based upon the consent of an informed citizenry.”). The Supreme Court has recognized that abridgment of the right of association, even if unintended, may inevitably flow from varied forms of governmental action. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. at 461, 78 S.Ct. 1163. 4. Permissible Regulations of Speech. A state may constitutionally regulate the time, place, and manner of an organization’s speech. See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 196-97, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992) (stating that “the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of the expressive activity, so long as such restrictions are content neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternatives for communication.”) The federal courts have upheld laws that require groups to obtain permits or licenses before gathering, marching, or protesting in public. See, e.g., Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 576, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049 (1941) (upholding a New Hampshire law criminalizing parades or marches conducted without a permit); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 978, 73 S.Ct. 1119 (1953) (upholding the same law against a challenge by a group holding a religious meeting in a public park); Stonewall Union v. City of Columbus, 931 F.2d 1130, 1137 (6th Cir.1991) (upholding an ordinance requiring groups to pay a fee and to obtain a permit before conducting a parade). When the limitation on expressive activity is content-neutral, the law is subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny. See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 635, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994) (“[R]emulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny.”). 5. The First Amendment and Third-Party Voter-Registration Regulations. The Southern District of Florida, in League of Women Voters v. Cobb, determined that the third-party voter-registration law issue before the court was “analogous to that in Meyer v. Grant,” because the law “reduee[d] the total quantum of speech.” 447 F.Supp.2d at 1332. The court stated: There is no dispute that Plaintiffs, all of whom are dedicated to increasing voter registration and voting, have shut down their voter registration drives because of the Law’s heavy, strict, and joint and several liability penalties. This has, in turn, reduced the quantum of political speech and association, as the Plaintiffs all testified that as part of their voter registration drivers, they persuade others to vote, educate potential voters about upcoming political issues, communicate their political support for particular issues, and otherwise enlist like-minded citizens in promoting shared political, economic, and social positions. 447 F.Supp.2d at 1333. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the collection and submission of voter registration applications regulates only conduct, and not the speech accompanying such conduct. The court found the plaintiffs’ voter-registration activities were similar to the door-to-door charitable solicitations at issue in Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, which the Supreme Court held were worthy of First-Amendment protection, because the communication of ideas and the advocacy of causes accompanied the charitable solicitations. See 444 U.S. at 632, 100 S.Ct. 826. The Northern District of Florida found that, “[bjecause the collection and submission of voter registration drives is intertwined with speech and association; the question is not whether Plaintiffs’ conduct comes within the protections of the First Amendment, but whether Defendants have regulated such conduct in a permissible way.” League of Women Voters v. Cobb, 447 F.Supp.2d at 1334. The court also found that “the First Amendment protects the instant Plaintiffs’right to select what they believe to be the most effective means of conducting their voter registration drives to ensure their voices are heard in the political process.” ■ Id. Finally, the Southern District of Florida determined that the third-party voter-registration law discriminated against third-party organizations not associated with political parties. See id. at 1335. In Project Vote v. Blackwell, the Northern District of Ohio, in its decision to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the third-party voter-registration law, found that the third-party voter-registration law implicated the First Amendment, stating: After reviewing all the briefs submitted by the various parties, and following careful consideration of the relevant case law, the Court is satisfied that participation in voter registration implicates a number of both expressive and associational rights which are protected by the First Amendment. These rights belong to — and may be invoked by — not just the voters séeking to register, but by third parties who encourage participation in the political process through increasing voter registration rolls. See, e.g., Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968)(Court must guard against impingement on different, though overlapping kinds of rights — “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.”). 455 F.Supp.2d at 700-01. In an order reaffirming its preliminary injunction decision, the Northern District of Ohio again rejected any argument that voter-registration activities do not implicate First Amendment interests and entered a declaratory judgment that the challenged provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, as well as its accompanying regulations and administrative practices, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the NVRA, and the court permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing those provision. See Project Vote v. Blackwell, No. 1:06 cv 1628, Order at 8, 2008 WL 397585, filed February 11, 2008 (Doc. 59). THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT The NVRA, which Congress enacted in 1993, requires States to provide simplified systems for registering to vote in federal elections. The States must provide a system for voter registration by mail, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4, a system for voter registration at various state offices (including those that provide “public assistance” and those that provide services to people with disabilities), see § 1973gg-5, and a system for voter registration on a driver’s license application, see § 1973gg-3. The NVRA specifies various details about how these systems must work, including, for example, the type of information that States can require on a voter registration form, see §§ 1973gg-3(c)(2), 1973gg-7(b). It also imposes requirements about just when, and how, States may remove people from the federal voter rolls. See §§ 1973gg-6(a)(3)-(4). The NVRA adds that it does not “supersede, restrict or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” and that it does not “authorize or require conduct that is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” § 1973gg-9(d). 1. The NVRA’s Objectives. The NVRA has four stated objectives: (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office; (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office; (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(b). The NVRA is concerned not only with enhancing voter registration and participation, but also with protecting the overall integrity of the electoral process and the accuracy of voter registration rolls. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S.Ct. at 1617 (“In the [NVRA], Congress established procedures that would both increase the number of registered voters and protect the integrity of the electoral process.”). The NVRA sets forth that “Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right” and “it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg(a). 2. The NVRA and Voter Registration. Under the NVRA, a federal mail voter-registration form was developed for elections for federal office. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(2). The NVRA requires that states make the federal voter-registration forms “available for distribution,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-4(b), that the states accept and use those forms, see id. § 1973gg-4(a), and that any state-created voter-registration forms made available in addition to the federal form conform to certain statutory requirements, see id. §§ 1973gg-4(a)(2), 1973gg-7(b). The state-made forms must include on their face “such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(l). Finally, the NVRA requires that the state ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election “in the ca