are (1) whether Ohio’s Secretary of State, designated by Ohio’s implementing legislation as the chief election official, has a role in ensuring Ohio’s compliance with the NVRA, and (2) whether the Director of the DJFS has a role in ensuring Ohio’s compliance with the NVRA. We first address the statutory framework and then address each defendant in turn. A. The NVRA and Ohio’s Implementing Legislation 1. The NVRA Congress enacted the NVRA, 107 Stat. 77, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq., to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office,” to “protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and to “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.” Id. § 1973gg(b); see also ACORN v. Miller, 129 F.3d 833, 835 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). This case involves Section 7 of the NVRA,
holding that registration requirements that aid in the collection of taxes are valid exercise of congress power to tax holding that congress passed the nvra in an attempt to reinforce the right of qualified citizens to vote by reducing the restrictive nature of voter registration requirements holding it is not the policy of the state of south dakota to disenfranchise its citizens of their constitutional right to vote holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal