Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 12 of 153 II. JOINDER OF MUNICIPALITIES CONDUCTING NOVEMBER 2019 ELECTIONS The State Defendants assert that Plaintiffs lack standing to obtain the relief sought because “State Defendants have no control over the upcoming municipal elections” and therefore “any injunctive relief against State Defendants would not achieve Plaintiffs’ desired results.” (Resp., Doc. 472 at 12-13.) According to the State, each of the Georgia municipalities that conduct their own elections are necessary parties and Plaintiffs’ failure to join them in this suit precludes relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. This Court has previously rejected variations of this argument in its prior Orders on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. For example, Defendants argued that an injunction prohibiting the State Defendants from using DREs would not actually stop the deployment of DREs because the State is not the entity that enforces the law requiring DREs and county officials not included in this suit would continue to use DREs. Recall that this Court found: (i) the State Defendants play a critical role in directing, implementing, programming, and supporting the DRE system throughout the State, (ii) the Secretary of State has the authority and obligation under Georgia law to take appropriate corrective action in connection with the continued use of the DRE system, and (iii) the State Defendants are in a position to redress the Plaintiffs’ injury because the requested injunctive relief as to the suspended use of the DRE voting system would enjoin both the State Defendants as well as counties required to use the 12