This particular USE of database in fact succumbed to constitutional challenge by those appointed to 9th. Then reversed AND upheld by another appointed panel, SCOTUS.
Given that fact, the federal attacks success is not based upon whether a panel is appointed or elected, but on the merits. Robin, is having a tough time expressing the actual liberty deprivation experienced in the N.C. case. Concretely pinpointing the actual effects to the court proves difficult to acheive, especially on paper. This method of approach offers no record as a trial by jury does. As example, the state claims the people opted for the registry for safety, but it that how the people actually use it? No! The people use it to impose affirmative disability, (See Kennedy in Packingham & 6ths ruling in MI). By this rout there’s no way to challenge INTENT.
In a failure to provide information case a defendant could call witnesses who have used the electronic lists for other reasonably refute state’s claims.
IMHO complaining to courts is a path sustained by Madison v. Marbury, but the best path is to the people themselves, a jury of peers. Show them how insane they really are. This can best be accomplished one jury at a time. The fed had no real reason to limit government database use but the people themselves do. The control of private or personal information will be an issue in the very near political future. The first group “sold out” to big data was the SO, the rest of the population came shortly after.