Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nathan Bellamy, a federal enforcement official acting in his official capacity, asks the Court to place a temporary hold on ballots associated with approximately 20,000 registrants flagged for citizenship verification. Elena Duarte, a state election official acting in her official capacity, opposes a blanket hold. She offers review of specifically documented cases and preservation of related ballot records, while acknowledging that the review is incomplete and that a mentioned sample is not attached. 2. The record consists of party submissions and presented copies of the state’s signed response. The plaintiff’s statements are arguments and allegations, not independent proof of the underlying list or the basis for its flags. The state response is evidence that the defendant made the stated offer and raised the stated objections; it does not establish that the flags are wrong or that the proposed review has been completed. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the plaintiff has shown reliable support for delaying the ballots associated with the flagged registrants. The plaintiff bears the burden because he seeks that relief. The second issue is whether the record supports a narrower court-ordered review or other safeguard. The parties’ positions and the proportionality of the requested remedy are relevant to that issue. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff says approximately 20,000 registrants were flagged and asserts that notice was sent to the defendant on October 19. He characterizes the requested hold as temporary and intended to allow citizenship verification, rather than as a finding that anyone is guilty or ineligible. He asks for a safeguard but does not provide the notice itself, the list, the criteria used to flag registrants, or examples of underlying records. 5. The defendant argues that a federal flag and notice do not establish that each affected voter is currently ineligible. The defendant offers to review cases specifically documented in the notice and preserve related ballot records. She asks the Court to deny the blanket hold or limit any safeguard to documented cases. She acknowledges that the state’s review is incomplete, that the sample mentioned in its response is not attached, and that the response does not provide a detailed timetable. Evidence and findings 6. The plaintiff’s submissions establish that he requests a hold and asserts that about 20,000 registrants were flagged. His later submissions repeat the October 19 notice assertion. Those statements do not independently establish the contents or delivery of a notice, the accuracy of the number, the method used to flag registrants, or the eligibility of any individual. No list, notice document, flag criteria, or individual example appears in the record. 7. The defendant’s signed response, presented as exhibits 2-e2, 4-e2, and 6-e2, supports that the state objects to delaying all associated ballots, offers immediate review of specifically documented cases, and offers preservation of related ballot records. The repeated exhibits are not separate corroborating sources; they present the same response. The response also acknowledges incomplete review and refers to a small sample that is not attached. The Court therefore gives the response weight as evidence of the defendant’s position and offer, but not as proof that the list is inaccurate or that the proposed review is complete. 8. The record does not establish that any flagged registrant is ineligible. It also does not establish that all flags are erroneous. The absence of proof on either point does not shift the plaintiff’s burden to the defendant to disprove the requested hold. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1: The Claim Needs Proof, the party asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts, and Rule 8 provides that suspicion is not proof. The plaintiff’s assertion of a large flagged group and an October 19 notice may explain why verification is sought, but neither assertion, without the underlying records or examples, shows that delaying all associated ballots is warranted. The plaintiff has not met his burden on the first issue. That finding concerns the sufficiency of this record; it is not a finding that the flags are false or that any particular registrant is eligible or ineligible. 10. The requested remedy also must match the support shown. Rule 6 favors a remedy tied to the demonstrated concern rather than one broader than the proof warrants. The defendant’s offer of case-specific review and preservation is a narrower alternative, and the plaintiff has not explained why a blanket hold is necessary instead. At the same time, the defendant has not supplied a detailed timetable, completed review, or attached sample establishing how the proposed process would operate in practice. Under Rule 7, those procedural gaps matter when assessing the reliability and fairness of a proposed process. 11. The Court therefore does not convert the defendant’s offer into a mandatory court order. The record does not define a sufficiently specific schedule or other terms for such an order. Nor does the Court order a blanket hold: the plaintiff has not supplied the evidence needed to justify that broader relief. The second issue is not proven as a basis for either requested blanket relief or a separately defined court-ordered targeted safeguard. This conclusion does not prevent the defendant from carrying out the review and preservation she offered; it simply does not impose additional terms unsupported by this record. 12. The plaintiff’s repeated reliance on the notice assertion does not cure the missing underlying support. The defendant’s candid acknowledgment of the limits of her review is relevant, but it does not make the plaintiff’s flags proof of individual ineligibility. The competing arguments thus do not alter the allocation of the burden or the result. Final order 13. The plaintiff’s request for a temporary hold on ballots associated with approximately 20,000 flagged registrants is DENIED. No finding is made that any registrant is ineligible, and no finding is made that the flags are inaccurate. 14. The Court does not impose a separate targeted-review order or timetable on this record. The defendant’s stated offer to review specifically documented cases and preserve related ballot records remains an offer described in the evidence, not a court-ordered obligation under this judgment. No monetary relief is requested or awarded. Judgment is entered for the defendant on the requested relief.