Surely if we made this ruling, it would have to extent to every de-registration since the reset (as IIRC we had a law in place beforehand to allow de-registration, but older members may remember better than me)
Forgive me for being dense (which I can blame on jet lag) but I can't see what's special about the 4 individuals. Why are other people who have requested de-registration since the reset not also part of the case?
Some of the other people who requested de-registration should indeed be part of the case, but this is not universal. There are people who should not have been removed from the voter rolls at the time they "deregistered", but have since become legally removed as a result of not having voted in the past three regular elections. We still have legal basis for removing people from the rolls after missing three regular elections, just no legal basis for removing people by their own request.
If the court rules that deregistration at will is unconstitutional, it would become the responsibility of the court or a person designated by the court to comb through the list of deregistrations since the reset and figure out which remain invalid and which have become valid as a result of inactivity.
