The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit challenges whether the state has properly maintained its voter registration lists under federal law. This case matters to every registered voter in Oregon because the outcome could change how the state handles outdated, duplicate, or inaccurate records.
Conservative legal organizations argue that Oregon’s voter rolls contain far more names than there are eligible voters in some counties. The state pushes back, calling its maintenance practices compliant and its automatic voter registration system a model for the country.
In this article, you will find the full story behind the case. That includes who filed it, what federal law says, how courts have ruled so far, and what could happen in 2026. You will also learn how to check your own registration and whether this lawsuit could affect your ability to vote.
One striking claim in the case: certain Oregon counties allegedly had registration rates exceeding 100% of their voting-age population. That single data point has fueled the entire legal fight.
Oregon Voter Rolls Lawsuit 2026: What You Need to Know
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit in 2026 centers on whether the state has violated the National Voter Registration Act by failing to remove ineligible names from its registration database. The case has gone through initial filings, court hearings, and at least one significant ruling, with potential appeals keeping it alive heading into 2026.
At its core, this is a dispute about list maintenance. Federal law requires states to make reasonable efforts to keep voter rolls accurate. The plaintiffs say Oregon isn’t doing enough. The state says it is.
For everyday voters, the biggest question is simple: does this affect me? The short answer is that no individual voter has been removed because of this lawsuit. But the case could force systemic changes to how Oregon cleans up its rolls.
| Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Type of Case | Federal lawsuit under NVRA Section 8 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Oregon |
| Core Issue | Voter roll maintenance and accuracy |
| Status in 2026 | Ongoing; subject to appeals and further proceedings |
| Direct Voter Impact | No individual removals ordered by the court |
If you are registered to vote in Oregon, this case is worth following. Any court order to purge records could trigger review of your registration.
Oregon Voter Rolls Lawsuit Court Ruling Explained
The most significant court ruling in this case so far came from a federal judge in the District of Oregon who dismissed key claims brought by the plaintiffs. The judge found that the organizations challenging Oregon’s voter roll practices did not present sufficient evidence that the state was systematically violating the NVRA.
The ruling did not say Oregon’s voter rolls are perfect. It said the plaintiffs failed to prove the state acted with deliberate disregard for its federal obligations. That is a meaningful distinction.
Courts apply a specific test in NVRA cases. The plaintiff must show that a state’s voter roll maintenance program is so deficient that it amounts to a failure to comply with the law. Merely pointing to high registration rates in a few counties wasn’t enough to clear that bar.
The judge noted that Oregon has an active voter roll maintenance process. The state regularly sends address confirmation mailings. It processes death records from vital statistics. It handles duplicate registrations through its database.
- The dismissal does not prevent future lawsuits on similar grounds
- Plaintiffs can appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- The court did not order any changes to Oregon’s registration practices
Key point: a dismissal at the district level is not the final word. Appeals could bring this case back into active litigation in 2026.
Oregon Voter Registration Lawsuit Update
As of early 2026, the Oregon voter registration lawsuit remains in a post-ruling phase where plaintiffs are evaluating their next legal steps. The primary options include filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit or refiling with new evidence.
Legal observers expect at least one appeal. The organizations behind this case have pursued similar litigation in other states and have a pattern of pressing cases through the appellate process.
Oregon’s Secretary of State office has continued its standard voter roll maintenance during the litigation. There has been no injunction, no court order to halt any practices, and no mandate to purge records.
For voters, the practical update is straightforward. Nothing has changed about your registration. The state is not conducting any mass removal of names because of this lawsuit.
| Update Item | Current Status |
|---|---|
| District Court Ruling | Key claims dismissed |
| Appeal Filed | Under consideration by plaintiffs |
| Voter Roll Changes Ordered | None |
| Next Expected Development | Possible Ninth Circuit appeal in 2026 |
Stay aware of developments through the rest of 2026, especially if an appeal is filed. Ninth Circuit rulings carry weight across the entire western United States.
Key Takeaway: The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit has been partially dismissed at the district level, but the case is far from over, and an appeal could reshape the legal fight in 2026.
Who Filed the Oregon Voter Rolls Lawsuit
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a national organization focused on election integrity litigation. They have been joined at various stages by other groups and individual plaintiffs who share concerns about voter roll accuracy.
PILF has a long track record of filing NVRA lawsuits. They have sued states including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Illinois over similar voter roll maintenance claims. Oregon is one of several targets in what amounts to a national legal campaign.
The foundation is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. It was founded by J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. Adams has been a vocal critic of what he calls lax voter roll maintenance across the country.
On the other side, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office defended the case. The ACLU of Oregon and other voting rights organizations have monitored the proceedings closely, sometimes filing amicus briefs in support of the state.
- Plaintiff: Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF)
- Defendant: Oregon Secretary of State
- Supporting Parties: Various election integrity groups aligned with PILF
- Opposition Intervenors: Voting rights organizations, including ACLU of Oregon
Understanding who is behind this lawsuit helps you evaluate the motivations. PILF sees itself as enforcing federal law. Critics call these efforts voter suppression tactics dressed in legal language.
NVRA Lawsuit Oregon: The Federal Law Behind the Case
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly called the Motor Voter law, is the federal statute at the center of this Oregon case. Section 8 of the NVRA requires states to conduct a “general program that makes a reasonable effort” to maintain accurate voter registration lists.
That phrase, “reasonable effort,” is where all the fighting happens. The law doesn’t define exactly what reasonable means. Courts have to interpret it case by case.
Section 8 specifically requires states to remove voters who have died, moved out of the jurisdiction, or become otherwise ineligible. But it also includes strong protections against wrongful removal. States cannot cancel a registration just because someone hasn’t voted in a while.
The NVRA creates a tension between two goals. Keep the rolls accurate by removing people who shouldn’t be on them. Protect legitimate voters from being wrongly purged. Oregon’s case sits right in the middle of that tension.
| NVRA Requirement | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Section 8(a)(4) | States must conduct voter roll maintenance programs |
| Section 8(b)(2) | Cannot remove voters solely for not voting |
| Section 8(c)(1) | Must use address confirmation and notice procedures |
| Section 8(d) | Removal of deceased voters required |
| Section 8(i) | States must make voter roll data available for inspection |
The NVRA doesn’t tell Oregon exactly how many names to remove or how often. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. That ambiguity is why lawsuits like this one keep getting filed.
Oregon Voter Roll Cleanup Lawsuit Details
The Oregon voter roll cleanup lawsuit specifically targets the state’s processes for identifying and removing ineligible registrations. Plaintiffs argue that Oregon’s cleanup efforts fall short of what the NVRA demands, particularly in counties where registration numbers look suspiciously high.
The core evidence presented by PILF relies on comparing voter registration totals to census estimates of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). In several Oregon counties, the ratio of registered voters to estimated eligible voters exceeded 100%. Plaintiffs argue this is proof of inadequate list maintenance.
Oregon responds that high registration rates don’t automatically mean bad data. Several factors can explain the discrepancy:
- Census estimates have margins of error, especially in smaller counties
- Oregon’s automatic voter registration system captures more eligible voters than most states
- Some registered voters may have moved but not yet been processed through the confirmation mailing cycle
- The NVRA itself prevents immediate removal, requiring a waiting period
The state maintains that its cleanup process is ongoing and systematic. Oregon processes data from the Social Security Administration’s death records, the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, and returned mail from election offices.
Think of voter roll maintenance like maintaining a mailing list for a large organization. Some addresses go stale. Some people move. The question isn’t whether the list is perfect at any single moment. It’s whether the organization is making real, ongoing efforts to keep it current.
Key Takeaway: The cleanup lawsuit hinges on statistical comparisons between registration numbers and census data, but both sides disagree about what those numbers actually prove.
Oregon Automatic Voter Registration Lawsuit
Oregon’s automatic voter registration system, known as Oregon Motor Voter, is a secondary target in this litigation. Plaintiffs suggest the system adds names to voter rolls too easily and doesn’t do enough to verify eligibility before registration.
Oregon Motor Voter launched in 2016, making Oregon the first state in the nation to implement automatic voter registration. When residents interact with the DMV, they are automatically registered to vote unless they opt out. The system was designed to boost participation and reduce barriers.
Plaintiffs argue the system creates a pipeline of potentially ineligible registrations. They point to cases where noncitizens were inadvertently registered through DMV transactions. Oregon has acknowledged that small numbers of noncitizen registrations occurred and were later caught and removed.
The state counters that the system includes safeguards. DMV records are cross-referenced with citizenship data. Flagged records go through a verification process before becoming active registrations. When errors are found, they are corrected.
| Motor Voter Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Launch Year | 2016 |
| How It Works | DMV transactions trigger registration unless voter opts out |
| Error Rate | Small number of noncitizen registrations identified and removed |
| Safeguards | Citizenship cross-referencing, verification process |
| National Significance | First automatic voter registration system in the U.S. |
The legal question isn’t whether the system is flawless. No registration system is. The question is whether automatic registration creates NVRA violations by adding names faster than the state can clean them up.
Will I Be Removed From Oregon Voter Rolls
No individual voter has been removed from Oregon’s rolls as a direct result of this lawsuit. The case has not produced any court order requiring the state to purge specific names or categories of voters.
That said, if the case succeeds on appeal or in a refiled action, it could force Oregon to adopt more aggressive list maintenance. In other states where similar NVRA lawsuits succeeded, the result was increased removal of inactive registrations and more frequent address verification mailings.
Here’s what could potentially trigger your removal from Oregon’s voter rolls, regardless of this lawsuit:
- You moved out of state and a forwarding address was recorded
- You were sent an address confirmation notice and did not respond over two federal election cycles
- You are reported as deceased through vital statistics records
- You requested cancellation of your registration
- A court determined you are no longer eligible (felony conviction, mental incapacity in certain cases)
If none of those apply to you, your registration should be safe. But it’s smart to verify your status regularly, especially during years when legal challenges are active.
Quick Fact: Oregon law and federal law both prohibit removing voters simply because they skipped an election. Not voting is not grounds for cancellation.
How to Check Oregon Voter Registration Status
You can check your Oregon voter registration status through the Oregon Secretary of State’s online voter registration lookup tool, called My Vote. The system lets you verify your name, address, party affiliation, and registration status in real time.
To check, you will need your first and last name, date of birth, and either your Oregon driver’s license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number. The lookup takes about 30 seconds.
If the system shows your registration as “active,” you are good. If it shows “inactive,” that means the state sent you an address confirmation notice and hasn’t received a response. An inactive status does not mean you can’t vote. You can still cast a ballot and update your information at the same time.
Here’s what each status means:
| Status | What It Means | Can You Vote? |
|---|---|---|
| Active | Registration current and confirmed | Yes |
| Inactive | Address confirmation sent, no response | Yes, with address update |
| Cancelled | Registration removed (moved, deceased, request) | No, must re-register |
| Not Found | No record in system | Must register |
Check your status at least once a year. Check it again 30 days before any election. Treat it like checking your bank balance before a big purchase. A quick look prevents surprises.
Key Takeaway: Your registration is almost certainly unaffected by this lawsuit, but checking your status through My Vote takes 30 seconds and eliminates any uncertainty.
Oregon Voter Rolls Lawsuit Timeline
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit has followed a multi-year path through the federal court system. Here is a chronological breakdown of the major developments.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020 | PILF begins analyzing Oregon voter registration data using EAC reports |
| 2021 | PILF sends notice letter to Oregon Secretary of State alleging NVRA violations |
| 2022 | Formal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon |
| 2023 | Discovery phase; both sides exchange evidence and data |
| 2024 | Motions for summary judgment filed by both parties |
| 2024 | Federal judge issues ruling dismissing key claims |
| 2025 | Post-ruling evaluation; plaintiffs consider appeal options |
| 2026 | Potential Ninth Circuit appeal; case remains in legal limbo |
The NVRA requires plaintiffs to send a written notice to the state at least 90 days before filing suit. PILF followed this requirement, giving Oregon time to respond before going to court.
Each phase of the timeline matters. The discovery period revealed the actual data Oregon uses for list maintenance. The summary judgment ruling set legal precedent for how courts evaluate NVRA compliance in states with automatic voter registration.
If an appeal is filed in 2026, expect it to take 12 to 18 months for the Ninth Circuit to issue a decision. That means a final appellate ruling might not come until 2027 or 2028.
NVRA Voter Roll Maintenance Requirements
The NVRA requires every state to conduct a systematic and nondiscriminatory program to maintain accurate voter registration lists. This is not optional. It’s a federal mandate.
The law spells out specific obligations. States must use change-of-address data from the postal service. They must process death records. They must remove voters who confirm they have moved out of the jurisdiction.
But the NVRA is equally clear about what states cannot do. They cannot remove voters just for skipping elections. They cannot purge names within 90 days of a federal election. They must follow a notice-and-waiting procedure before removing anyone for a suspected address change.
This two-sided structure is intentional. Congress wanted clean voter rolls and protected voters at the same time. It’s a balancing act written into the statute itself.
- Must Do: Process death records, use NCOA data, send address confirmation notices
- Cannot Do: Remove for non-voting alone, purge within 90 days of federal election
- Must Provide: Public access to voter registration data for inspection
Oregon’s defense in this lawsuit rests heavily on showing that it follows all of these requirements. The state points to its regular mailings, its cross-referencing with federal databases, and its systematic processing of cancellation triggers.
The plaintiffs’ counterargument is that following procedures on paper doesn’t matter if the results show bloated rolls. They want outcomes, not process descriptions.
Oregon Voter Rolls Accuracy: What the Data Shows
Oregon’s voter rolls contain approximately 2.9 million active registrations as of early 2026. The state’s estimated citizen voting-age population is roughly 3.1 million, putting the statewide registration rate at about 93%. That’s high, but it’s consistent with Oregon’s automatic registration system.
The controversy centers on specific counties. In some smaller Oregon counties, the registration-to-CVAP ratio has exceeded 100% in certain reporting periods. Plaintiffs cite this as clear evidence of inflated rolls.
Oregon officials counter with several explanations:
- CVAP estimates from the American Community Survey have significant margins of error in small counties
- Registered voters who recently moved may still appear on rolls during the confirmation waiting period
- Oregon’s automatic registration captures more eligible voters than traditional systems
- High registration rates are not the same as high rates of ineligible registrations
| County Example | Registration Rate (approx.) | CVAP Estimate Margin of Error |
|---|---|---|
| Small rural county | 105% | +/- 8% |
| Medium suburban county | 98% | +/- 4% |
| Large urban county | 91% | +/- 2% |
The data tells different stories depending on who’s reading it. A registration rate over 100% sounds alarming. But when you factor in census estimation errors and the NVRA’s required waiting periods, the picture gets more complicated.
Election Assistance Commission data shows that Oregon processes hundreds of thousands of list maintenance transactions every election cycle. The state removes roughly 100,000 to 200,000 names per cycle through standard processes.
Key Takeaway: High county-level registration rates are the plaintiffs’ strongest talking point, but census data limitations and NVRA waiting periods explain much of the discrepancy.
Public Interest Legal Foundation Oregon Case
The Public Interest Legal Foundation is the primary organization driving the Oregon voter rolls lawsuit. PILF describes itself as a nonpartisan public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. Critics characterize it as a conservative legal group focused on voter roll purges.
PILF was founded in 2012 by J. Christian Adams. Before starting the foundation, Adams served in the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division under the George W. Bush administration. He resigned from the DOJ in 2010 and became a vocal commentator on election law issues.
The Oregon case fits PILF’s broader strategy. The foundation has filed NVRA lawsuits in more than a dozen states. Their approach follows a consistent playbook:
- Analyze voter registration data from EAC reports
- Identify counties with registration rates near or above 100% of CVAP
- Send the required 90-day notice letter to the state’s chief election official
- File a federal lawsuit if the state doesn’t make changes
PILF has achieved settlements or consent decrees in some states. In others, their cases have been dismissed. The outcomes depend heavily on the specific facts and the court’s interpretation of “reasonable effort” under the NVRA.
Quick Fact: PILF’s annual budget exceeds $3 million, funded primarily through donations. The organization publishes regular reports on voter roll data that form the basis of their litigation strategy.
In Oregon, PILF faces a state that has been relatively proactive about voter roll maintenance compared to some other targets. That may explain why the district court wasn’t persuaded by the initial claims.
Oregon Secretary of State Voter Rolls Response
The Oregon Secretary of State’s office has defended its voter roll maintenance practices as fully compliant with the NVRA. Secretary LaVonne Griffin-Valade and her predecessors have consistently argued that Oregon’s system is among the most effective in the country.
The state’s response to the lawsuit made several key arguments:
- Oregon conducts regular address verification using NCOA data from the postal service
- The state processes death records from Oregon Vital Records and the Social Security Administration
- Duplicate registrations are identified and merged through the statewide voter registration database (OCVR)
- Oregon Motor Voter includes citizenship verification safeguards
- The state removes or inactivates tens of thousands of records every year through routine maintenance
Oregon also argued that PILF’s statistical methodology was flawed. Comparing raw registration numbers to CVAP estimates ignores the margins of error inherent in census data, especially for smaller counties.
| Defense Point | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|
| Regular NCOA Processing | Address data updated every election cycle |
| Death Record Processing | Cross-referenced with state and federal death records |
| Duplicate Removal | Statewide database (OCVR) flags and merges duplicates |
| Citizenship Verification | DMV records cross-checked for Motor Voter registrations |
| Annual Removals | 100,000+ records removed or inactivated per cycle |
The Secretary of State’s office has also pointed out that the NVRA doesn’t require perfect rolls. It requires reasonable effort. Oregon’s position is that their multi-layered system meets and exceeds that standard.
Oregon Voter Purge Lawsuit Concerns
Many Oregon voters worry that the term “voter purge” means mass removal of legitimate registrations. That concern is understandable, but the Oregon voter rolls lawsuit has not resulted in any purge, and the legal framework makes mass purges extremely difficult.
The NVRA’s protections against wrongful removal are strong. A state cannot remove your registration without following specific steps. For suspected address changes, the state must send a confirmation notice. If you don’t respond, you stay on the rolls in “inactive” status through at least two more federal election cycles. Only then can the state cancel the registration.
There is a difference between a “purge” and routine list maintenance:
- Routine maintenance: Systematic, ongoing removal of deceased voters, confirmed movers, and duplicates following NVRA procedures
- Purge: Mass removal of names, often without proper notice or safeguards
What PILF is asking for in Oregon is closer to enhanced routine maintenance than a mass purge. They want the state to be more aggressive about identifying and processing potentially ineligible records. But even if they win, the NVRA’s procedural requirements would still apply.
Quick Fact: Oregon cannot remove any voter within 90 days of a federal election. This protection applies regardless of what happens in the lawsuit.
Voter advocacy groups including the ACLU of Oregon closely monitor any changes to list maintenance practices. If Oregon were ordered to increase removals, these groups would likely intervene to ensure procedural safeguards are followed.
Key Takeaway: No voter purge has occurred or been ordered in Oregon, and federal law makes mass removal of legitimate voters extremely difficult even if the lawsuit ultimately succeeds.
Oregon Voter Rolls Lawsuit Impact on Elections
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit could influence election administration in the state even if the final legal outcome is a full dismissal. The attention generated by the case has already prompted public discussion about voter roll accuracy and election integrity in Oregon.
If the lawsuit succeeds on appeal, the most likely impact would be:
- More frequent address confirmation mailings sent to voters
- Faster processing of returned mail and undeliverable ballot notices
- Increased removal of long-inactive registrations after the required waiting period
- Greater public reporting on list maintenance statistics
These changes wouldn’t prevent anyone from voting. They would clean up the administrative database. Think of it like a company updating its customer contact list. The people who actually want to engage can still do so. The outdated entries get removed.
The political impact is harder to predict. Voter roll maintenance is a polarized issue in American politics. One side sees cleanup as necessary to prevent fraud. The other side sees it as a pretext for suppression. Oregon sits in the middle, with a system that registers more voters automatically than almost any other state.
| Potential Impact | Likelihood if Lawsuit Succeeds |
|---|---|
| More frequent confirmation mailings | High |
| Faster inactive-to-cancelled processing | High |
| Changes to Motor Voter procedures | Medium |
| Direct impact on election outcomes | Low |
| Reduction in registration rates | Moderate |
For the 2026 midterm elections, the practical impact is minimal. No court orders are currently in effect. Voter rolls are being maintained under existing procedures. Any changes from the lawsuit would likely take effect in a later election cycle.
States Sued Over Voter Roll Maintenance
Oregon is not alone. PILF and similar organizations have filed NVRA voter roll maintenance lawsuits in more than a dozen states. The results vary widely depending on the evidence, the court, and the state’s existing maintenance practices.
Some notable examples:
- Pennsylvania: PILF sued over counties with high registration rates. The case resulted in a settlement agreement requiring enhanced list maintenance.
- North Carolina: A similar lawsuit led to a consent decree with the State Board of Elections.
- Michigan: Litigation produced mixed results, with some claims dismissed and others settled.
- Illinois: PILF alleged multiple counties exceeded 100% registration rates. The state agreed to improved procedures.
- Kentucky: The state settled and committed to additional voter roll cleanup efforts.
Not every state loses these cases. Courts have dismissed NVRA claims in states where the evidence was weak or where the state demonstrated active maintenance programs. Oregon’s dismissal fits this pattern.
| State | NVRA Lawsuit Outcome |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | Settlement |
| North Carolina | Consent decree |
| Michigan | Mixed (partial dismissal, partial settlement) |
| Illinois | Settlement |
| Kentucky | Settlement |
| Oregon | Dismissed at district level (appeal possible) |
The nationwide pattern tells an important story. NVRA enforcement is happening primarily through private lawsuits, not through the Department of Justice. That means organizations like PILF are functioning as de facto enforcers of federal voter roll maintenance law.
Oregon voters should watch what happens in other states. A Ninth Circuit ruling in Oregon’s case would set precedent for Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Key Takeaway: Oregon’s lawsuit is part of a national wave of NVRA litigation, and the outcomes in other states provide a useful preview of what could happen here.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Oregon voter rolls lawsuit about?
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit alleges that the state violates the National Voter Registration Act by failing to maintain accurate voter registration lists.
Plaintiffs claim certain Oregon counties have more registered voters than eligible residents.
The state argues its maintenance practices fully comply with federal law.
Has the Oregon voter rolls lawsuit been decided?
A federal judge in the District of Oregon dismissed key claims in the case.
The dismissal is not necessarily final because the plaintiffs may appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
No court order has been issued requiring Oregon to change its voter roll practices.
Can I be removed from Oregon’s voter rolls because of this lawsuit?
No voter has been removed as a result of this lawsuit.
Even if the case succeeds on appeal, the NVRA requires specific procedures before any registration can be cancelled.
You cannot be removed simply for not voting or because of a court ruling about statewide practices.
How do I check if I am still registered to vote in Oregon?
You can verify your registration through the Secretary of State’s My Vote lookup tool.
You will need your name, date of birth, and driver’s license number or last four SSN digits.
Check at least once a year and again 30 days before any election.
What does the NVRA require states to do about voter rolls?
The NVRA requires states to make a reasonable effort to maintain accurate voter registration lists.
States must process death records, use postal service address data, and send confirmation notices to suspected movers.
States cannot remove voters solely for not voting or within 90 days of a federal election.
The Oregon voter rolls lawsuit is a developing legal story that every Oregon voter should track. Whether or not the case succeeds on appeal, it highlights how voter roll accuracy will remain a contested issue in 2026 and beyond.
Check your voter registration status now. Don’t wait until election season. Verify your information, confirm your address, and make sure your record is current.
If the case moves to the Ninth Circuit, the outcome could set precedent for the entire western United States. Keep an eye on court filings and be ready to act if your registration status changes.
