3the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”
(internal citationsomitted) (
, 550 U.S. at 557).In addition, when analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), acourt must “tak[e] all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true and view them in the lightmost favorable to the plaintiff.”
Arnett v. Webster
, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (
Santiago v. Walls
, 599 F.3d 749, 756 (7th Cir. 2010)). “[A] plaintiff’s claims should survivedismissal if relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with theallegations.”
McMillan v. Collection Professionals, Inc
., 455 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2006).
III. ARGUMENT.A. The State of Indiana Received Ample Notice of The Violation.
On February 6, 2012, Judicial Watch, Inc. sent Defendants a detailed, four-page, single-spaced letter notifying them that the State of Indiana was in violation of Section 8 of the NVRAand advising them that a lawsuit may be brought against them to ensure compliance with therequirements of the law. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 19, 21; ECF No. 21 at Exhibit 1;
42 U.S.C. §1973gg-9(b)(1) and (2). The letter explained that, under Section 8 of then NVRA, the State of Indiana was required to undertake a uniform, nondiscriminatory voter registration listmaintenance program that complies with the Voting Rights Act. ECF No. 21 at Exhibit 1. Itfurther explained that Section 8 required the State to make a reasonable effort to remove thenames of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters due to (A) “the death of theregistrant or (B) “a change in the residence of the registrant” to a place outside the jurisdiction inwhich he or she is registered.
The letter continued:Based on our review of 2010 census data and publicly available eligible voterlists, it appears that Indiana is failing to comply with the voter registration list
Case 1:12-cv-00800-WTL-TAB Document 26 Filed 08/29/12 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 90