The arguments contained in the amicus brief were solicited by the counsel of record, Andrew Barr. When organizations are asked to submit amici briefs, it is a matter of decorum and courtesy that the arguments contained therein are not counter-productive and do not conflict, substantively, with the primary brief being submitted on behalf of the party properly before the court. NARSOL is not advancing an alternate identifying code as its preference, but is merely conceding that the alternative exists, is available to the Court as a remedy, and is surely less harmful to the bearers of state-issued ID’s than the words “sex offender” stamped across their photos. But, the main take-way here (and what NARSOL is learning as we proceed) is that nobody gets to argue whatever they want to argue in an amici setting. There is a lot of coordination, compromise, and a lot of moving parts to consider. The alternative is no amici at all (which is not a preferable option).