I missed this ruling back in March in PILF v. Simon in the District of Minnesota. It’s on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and it’s a case to watch. “Equal sovereignty” after Shelby County v. Holder has not had a lot of traction, but one never knows. From the brief summary of the district court’s decision (lightly edited):

PILF sued, alleging that Minnesota’s refusal violates the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1). Congress enacted the NVRA to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” “enhance[] the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office,” “protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” § 20501. Also known as the “Motor Voter Law,” the NVRA “directs states to establish at least three methods of voter registration for federal elections: ‘(1) by application made simultaneously with an application for a motor vehicle driver’s license,’ ‘(2) by mail application’ using a federally prescribed form, and ‘(3) by application in person’ at designated voter registration agencies.” Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331, 334 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting § 20503(a)). “It further requires that states conduct a general program to remove ineligible voters from official voter lists without engaging in improper voter removal.” Id. (citing § 20507(a)(3)–(4)). And finally, it “mandates public disclosure of voter registration activities.” Id. (citing § 20507(i)(1)). Covered states must “make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters.” § 20507(i)(1).

But not all states are covered. Section 4(b)(1) exempts states that have not required voters to register since August 1, 1994. § 20503(b)(1). And Section 4(b)(2) exempts states that have provided election-day registration at the polls since that date. § 20503(b)(2).

As PILF admits, Minnesota is exempt under Section 4(b)(2). But PILF contends that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because it violates the equal state sovereignty principle and is not congruent and proportional to the harm it seeks to remedy.

. . .

While it is less settled that Congress may establish nonuniform rules under the Elections Clause, “neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever applied [the equal sovereignty] principle as a limit on” Congress’s Article I powers. This comes as no surprise because where the Framers thought Congress should treat states equally, they said so. Id. at 312. Unlike some of its Article I counterparts, the Elections Clause does not require uniformity. Quite the opposite—it was designed as “the Framers’ insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal Congress,” Inter Tribal, 570 U.S. at 8, so it
granted Congress the power to “make or alter” state regulations of federal elections, see Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366–67 (1932) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1).

The Court therefore finds that Congress’s Elections Clause powers are not limited by the equal sovereignty principle. In doing so, the Court joins a host of courts that have rejected equal sovereignty challenges to Article I legislation.