Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

MARC VEASEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-193 (NGR)

GREG ABBOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS
EDUCATION FUND, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC
COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 11

TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
v.
CARLOS CASCOS, et al.,
Defendants.

LENARD TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-348 (NGR)

STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants

UNITED STATES MOTION TO ENFORCE INTERIM REMEDIAL ORDER
On August 10, 2016, this Court entered an Order directing the State of Texas, Secretary
of State Carlos Cascos, and other officials to implement a set of directives for the November 8,
2016 election. Veasey v. Perry, No. 2:13-cv-193, Order Regarding Agreed Interim Plan for
Elections (“Remedial Order”) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2016) (ECF No. 895). The Court ordered:
Commencing with any elections held after the entry of this Order
and until further order of the Court, Defendants shall continue to
educate voters in subsequent elections concerning both voter
identification requirements and the opportunity for voters who do
not possess SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably obtain it to cast a
regular ballot.
Remedial Order ¶ 11 (second emphasis added).
Despite the Remedial Order’s clarity, Texas’s voter education and poll worker training
documents depart from it. Rather than educating voters and poll officials about opportunities to
1

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 11

cast a regular ballot for those who “do not possess SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably obtain it,”
the State has recast that language to limit the opportunity to cast a regular ballot solely to those
voters who present SB 14 ID or who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID. That
standard is incorrect and far harsher than the Court-ordered standard it would displace. By
recasting the Court’s language, Texas has narrowed dramatically the scope of voters protected by
the Court’s Order. Moreover, the standard the State’s training and educational materials
currently describe has already been rejected by this Court and the Fifth Circuit. At this critical
stage, such materials should maximize accuracy and minimize confusion. Texas’s materials do
neither.
Plaintiffs have objected to the State’s language repeatedly to attempt to resolve the matter
short of court involvement, but Texas has refused to conform all voter education and poll worker
training materials to the standard ordered by this Court that voters who “do not possess SB 14 ID
and cannot reasonably obtain” SB 14 ID may cast a regular ballot. The State is about to begin a
mass media campaign that should educate voters to whom this Court has restored the ability to
cast a regular ballot, and an erroneous message would compound—rather than cure—the harm
caused by SB 14. The United States therefore respectfully moves to enforce the Remedial Order.
I.

The Remedial Order Establishes Clear Standards Under Which Voters Without
SB 14 ID May Cast a Regular Ballot.
This Court’s August 10 Remedial Order mandates that
Voters who appear on the official list of registered voters and
present a valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth
certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government
check, a paycheck, or any other government document that
displays the voter’s name and address and complete and sign a
reasonable impediment declaration shall be permitted to vote using
a regular ballot.

2

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 4 of 11

Remedial Order ¶ 2. The Court directed the State to use a form attached to the Remedial Order
as the English-language reasonable impediment declaration. Remedial Order ¶ 3. This form in
turn instructs poll workers that “If a voter appears on the official list of registered voters, but
does not possess an acceptable form of photo identification . . . due to a reasonable impediment,
. . . steps shall be taken by the election officer to allow the voter to cast a regular ballot.”
Remedial Order Ex. 1 at 1 (emphasis omitted). The Court then ordered Texas to educate voters
and poll workers concerning the “opportunity for voters who do not possess SB 14 ID and cannot
reasonably obtain it to cast a regular ballot.” Remedial Order ¶¶ 11-12.
The Remedial Order thereby established clear guidelines governing who may use a
reasonable impediment declaration and present non-SB 14 identification to establish identity at
the polls. There are two criteria only. First, the voter must not “possess” SB 14 ID. Remedial
Order ¶ 11, Ex. 1 at 1. Second, the lack of SB 14 ID must result from “a reasonable impediment”
or the fact that the voter “cannot reasonably obtain it.” Id.
II.

Plaintiffs Have Attempted in Good Faith to Resolve this Issue, but Texas Has
Refused to Change its Incorrect Voter Education and Poll Worker Training
Materials.
On August 12, private plaintiffs alerted the State that VoteTexas.gov described the

Remedial Order using language more restrictive that the Order’s actual terms. They pointed to a
press release and website content suggesting that only voters who are “not able to obtain” SB 14
ID can vote using a reasonable impediment declaration, but without explanation, Texas declined
to correct these materials. See Email from Jennifer Clark to Angela Colmenero (Aug. 12, 2016)
(Ex. 1). On August 17, private plaintiffs similarly identified an improper update to
VoteTexas.gov stating that only “voters who have not been able to obtain” SB 14 ID can vote
using a reasonable impediment declaration.” Required Identification for Voting in Person,

3

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 5 of 11

VoteTexas.gov, at http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id (Ex. 2). On August 19, the
State responded to these persistent objections and denied that the language was misleading or
inconsistent with the Remedial Order. That same day, Texas reissued its press release with
language restricting availability of a reasonable impediment declaration to voters who “cannot
obtain” SB 14 ID. Press Release, Office of the Texas Secretary of State, Voters Who Cannot
Obtain One of Seven Forms of Approved Photo ID Have Additional Options at the Polls (Aug.
19, 2016), available at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2016/081916.shtml (Ex. 3).
The United States and private plaintiffs have continued to identify and object to
restrictive language that the State has incorporated in voter education and poll worker training
materials, including the Texas Poll Watchers Guide, Election Inspector Handbook, Early Voting
Ballot Board Handbook, Qualifying Voters Handbook, and Toolkit for Community
Organizations and Elected Officials. On August 30, the United States formally requested that
Texas eliminate any language limiting availability of a reasonable impediment declaration to
voters who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID from voter education and poll
worker training materials. See Email from Daniel J. Freeman to Angela Colmenero (Aug. 30,
2016) (Ex. 4) (noting objections made on August 22, 23, 29, and 30). The United States
requested that the State respond by September 2. On September 6, Texas responded to the
United States’ email and asserted that the “cannot obtain” or “unable to obtain” standard is
consistent with the Remedial Order. Email from Angela Colmenero to Daniel J. Freeman (Sept.
6, 2016) (Ex. 5). 1 The United States then met and conferred with the State by telephone to

1

The State bases its refusal in part on the claim that it “did not learn about your concerns until several
days after this language was made public on the Secretary of State’s website.” Id. This waiver argument
is incorrect and unavailing. As noted above, private plaintiffs informed Texas on September 12—the day
after the State first circulated proposed voter education materials—that a press release and a section of
VoteTexas.gov “suggest[] that the declaration is only available to those ‘not able to obtain ID’ rather than
those that have a ‘reasonable impediment’ or difficulty obtaining ID.” Email from Jennifer Clark to

4

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 6 of 11

confirm that the parties are at an impasse and that the State would not modify language currently
posted on VoteTexas.gov.
III.

The State’s Training and Educational Materials Rewrite the Reasonable
Impediment Standard Agreed Upon by the Parties and Ordered by this Court.
Texas’s failure to communicate the Remedial Order’s actual language and meaning

undermines this Court’s efforts to protect the voting rights of all Texas citizens. By instructing
its citizens and poll officials that the reasonable impediment process is available just to voters
who “have not obtained” SB 14 ID, Texas would prevent from casting a regular ballot those
voters who “do not possess” SB 14 ID but nonetheless are eligible to cast a regular ballot under
the Remedial Order. For instance, voters whose identification has expired by more than four
years, whose identification has been lost or stolen, and who have surrendered identification to the
State have all “obtained” SB 14 ID but no longer “possess” it. 2 Texas’s instructions would
require its poll officials to deny those voters access to a regular ballot. Those instructions
contravene the Court’s Remedial Order.
More critically, Texas would have its citizens and poll officials believe that only those
voters who “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID are eligible to cast a regular ballot without presenting
appropriate identification. But that of course is not so. The scope of this Court’s remedy is set
in plain language (to which the State agreed): those voters who have “a reasonable impediment”

Angela Colmenero ¶ 5, bullets 2-3. More importantly, moving forward, Texas can and should educate
voters and poll workers accurately concerning all opportunities to cast a regular ballot under the Remedial
Order.
2

“Possess” means “to have and hold as property.” Possess, Merriam Webster, at www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/possess (last accessed Sept. 6, 2016). The United States does not therefore
contend that voters who have obtained SB 14 ID and have continued, ready access to it do not “possess”
such identification if they do not have it on their person when they appear to vote at a polling place. For
example, voters who arrive at polling places only to realize that their valid SB 14 ID remains at home
nonetheless “possess” SB 14 ID. To the extent that the State is now concerned that the language to which
it agreed is unclear, it may further clarify that language to voters and poll workers with a message such as,
“If you forget your wallet at home, you still ‘possess’ your driver license for voting purposes.”

5

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 7 of 11

to obtaining SB 14 ID or “cannot reasonably obtain it” must be offered the opportunity to cast a
regular ballot. The State’s instructions would unduly restrict that opportunity.
That the State has stripped the word “reasonably” from the Court-ordered phrase “cannot
reasonably obtain” matters significantly. That is because impediment—and not metaphysical
impossibility—is the linchpin of the Remedial Order. See Order at 1 (ECF No. 859) (directing
the parties to develop remedial plans that incorporate “an impediment or indigency exception”).
The State’s excessively rigid “cannot obtain” standard appears to impose an impossibility
standard on affected voters not contemplated by the parties’ agreement or this Court’s Remedial
Order. That Order is of limited use if Texas refuses to train poll workers and educate voters
accurately on its plain language and scope.
This issue is not new. The Fifth Circuit decisively rejected the State’s claim that only
voters who “cannot obtain” required documents are injured by strict voter identification
requirements and held that SB 14 abridged the voting rights of individual plaintiffs who faced
“excessive burdens” or “a substantial obstacle to voting.” Veasey v. Abbott, No. 14-41127, 2016
WL 3923868, at *25 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) (en banc); see also id. at *42 (Higginson, J.,
concurring) (“[I]f a Section 2 burden is cognizable only if it is impossible for some minority
voters to comply with the challenged law, Justice Scalia must have mistakenly stated that Section
2 would be violated if ‘a county permitted voter registration for only three hours one day a week,
and that made it more difficult for blacks to register than whites.’” (quoting Chisom v. Roemer,
501 U.S. 380, 408 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). Texas thus appears to resurrect here the very
issue it lost in litigation. See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 686, 694-98 (S.D. Tex.
2014), aff’d in relevant part, No. 14-41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) (en banc)
(concluding that SB 14 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, despite

6

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 8 of 11

declining to find that “any particular voter absolutely cannot get the necessary ID or vote by
absentee ballot.”).
By now effectively reworking the Remedial Order’s text —text to which the State agreed,
see Jnt. Submission of Agreed Terms ¶ 11 (ECF No. 877); Supp. to Submission of Agreed Terms
Ex. A at 1 (ECF No. 893-1)—Texas undermines that Order and perpetuates the discriminatory
impact of SB 14. The inaccurate standard the State has published to its poll officials and voters
is an erroneous substitute for the plain language of this Court’s Remedial Order. That standard
has been previously rejected by this Court and the Fifth Circuit. It should be rejected again here,
now, and with finality.
IV.

Expedited Relief Is Necessary to Preserve This Court’s Remedy.
The Remedial Order contemplated that details of the State’s plan for educating voters and

training election workers might be “addressed in one or more future orders.” Remedial Order at
4. Texas’s refusal to communicate the actual language of the Remedial Order to voters and poll
workers now necessitates a further order. But time is short. The State is developing printed
materials and mass media advertising that improperly narrow the Remedial Order. Voters are
receiving inaccurate or misleading information that suggests they will not be able to cast ballots
that count in November. Limited funds are being used on inaccurate materials. This Court’s
opinion finding that SB 14 violates the Voting Rights Act identified the importance of accurate
voter education concerning complex voter identification procedures. See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F.
Supp. 3d at 642, 649, 651, 667-68, 677-79; see also Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 WL 3923868, at *16,
25-26. Therefore, the United States respectfully requests that this Court expedite any responsive
briefing and schedule any argument at the Court’s earliest convenience.
The United States respectfully requests that the Court enforce the Remedial Order by
further enjoining the State to comply with the Remedial Order in the following specific respects:
7

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 9 of 11

•

Update and redistribute all electronic resources to reflect that all voters who do not
possess SB 14 ID and have a reasonable impediment to obtaining such identification may
cast a regular ballot using a reasonable impediment declaration, including VoteTexas.gov
and the Toolkit for Community Organizations and Elected Officials.

•

Issue corrections to past press releases and other public statements by the State of Texas,
the Secretary of State, counsel for the State, and other state officials that improperly
restrict the availability of a reasonable impediment declaration and incorporate such
corrections in electronic archives.

•

Correct all voter education and poll worker training materials that have not yet been
printed to reflect the text of the Remedial Order.

•

Print and distribute corrections to accompany voter education and poll worker training
materials that already have been printed with inaccurate descriptions of the Remedial
Order.

•

Ensure that all future print, radio, and television advertisements accurately reflect the text
of the Remedial Order.

•

Cease any further communications that inaccurately reflect the availability of a
reasonable impediment declaration under the Remedial Order.

A proposed order is attached to this motion as Exhibit 6. Private plaintiffs join the filing of this
motion.

8

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 10 of 11

Date: September 6, 2016
Respectfully submitted.
KENNETH MAGIDSON
United States Attorney
Southern District of Texas

VANITA GUPTA
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
/s/ Daniel J. Freeman
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR.
MEREDITH BELL-PLATTS
RICHARD A. DELLHEIM
BRUCE I. GEAR
DANIEL J. FREEMAN
AVNER SHAPIRO
SAMUEL OLIKER-FRIEDLAND
Attorneys, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Counsel for the United States

9

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 6, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served via the Court’s ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Daniel J. Freeman
Daniel J. Freeman
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Room 7123 NWB
Washington, D.C. 20530
daniel.freeman@usdoj.gov

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 3
Freeman, Daniel (CRT)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Clark, Jennifer [clarkj@mercury.law.nyu.edu]
Friday, August 12, 2016 10:36 AM
angela.colmenero@TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov;
matthew.frederick@texasattorneygeneral.gov; Perez, Myrna
VOTTexasID (CRT); All Texas Voter ID
Education and Training: Input
2016-08-12 Input on Poster and Website.docx; 2016-08-12 Supplemental CBOs.docx;
2016-08-12 Supplemental Elected Officials.docx; 2016-08-11 Identified Website Concerns.rtf

Good morning, Angela: 
Private plaintiffs write in advance of this morning's conversation to provide 5 pieces of input. 
1.  Attached to this email please find suggested edits to the poster and the website updates you shared with us 
yesterday, and which you agreed to review should we provide them to you by noon today. 
2.  Also attached to this email please find a non‐exhaustive list of CBOs to supplement the document you kindly shared 
with us yesterday.  We cross‐checked this list with yours to avoid duplications.  Please confirm that these entities will be 
added to your distribution and outreach list. 
3.  Also attached to this email please find a non‐exhaustive list of elected officials/bodies we would like to receive the 
elected official toolkits.  Please confirm that these elected officials/bodies will be added to your distribution and 
outreach list. 
4.  Your August 11 email indicated that there are particular pages on VoteTexas.gov and on the SOS’s main website that 
will be updated by COB Monday. Some of those pages overlap with our feedback reflected in the attached chart. We 
urge you to consider our feedback as you update these sites. Note that we also have identified at least one page on the 
DPS site that requires updating. 
5.  We also have reviewed the updates to VoteTexas.gov that you identified and offer the following feedback: 
         The banner language on this page, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/sos_espanol.shtml, which provides a 
statement in Spanish translation, should also be translated into Spanish: “Notice: The Office of the Secretary of 
State is in the process of updating its websites to reflect a court order issued on August 10, 2016, relating to 
identification requirements for voting.”  
         We reiterate our issues with the “Press Release: Voters in November election have additional ID options 
announces Secretary Cascos,” including that it fails to inform voters that (1) the reason given for being unable to 
obtain SB 14 ID cannot be questioned and (2) the address on the supporting documentation need not match the 
current registration address. The statement also suggests that the declaration is only available to those “not able 
to obtain ID” rather than those that have a “reasonable impediment” or difficulty obtaining ID and does not 
include other examples of qualifying ID such as out‐of‐state ID. 
         Though you have updated the (now called) “Voter ID Education Resources” section of VoteTexas.gov in 
English and Spanish (http://www.votetexas.gov/resources/voter‐id‐education‐materials, the location of the 
language in this document suggests that the alternative documents, used in support of a RI declaration, also 
have a four year expiration point. However, the expiration period only applies to SB 14 IDs. We suggest that this 
language be moved up in the document to the section just below where SB 14 IDs are identified. The document 
should also note that the address on the supporting documentation need not match the registration address. 
1

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 3
And the statement also suggests that the declaration is only available to those “not able to obtain ID” rather 
than those that have a “reasonable impediment” or difficulty obtaining ID 
         Though you updated the document at this link, http://www.votetexas.gov/es/recursos/folletos‐educativos‐
sobre‐identificacion‐para‐votar), we urge you incorporate the same suggestions as above, though in Spanish 
translation. 
Thank you, 
Jennifer L. Clark 
Counsel, Democracy Program 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law 
161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12 
New York, NY 10013‐1205 
Direct line: (646) 292‐8332  
Fax: (212) 463‐7308 
jenniferl.clark@nyu.edu 
 
www.brennancenter.org 
 
This message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e‐mail 
from your system. 

2

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-2 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT

VoteTexas.gov » Need ID?

1 of 4

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-2 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 5
Mobile Version

Required Identification for Voting in Person
Press Release: Voters who cannot obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID have
additional options at the polls
Frequently Asked Questions
On August 10, 2016, a federal district court entered an order changing the voter identification
requirements for all elections held in Texas after August 10, 2016 until further notice. As a result,
voters who have obtained an acceptable form of photo identification for voting listed below are still
required to present it in order to vote in person in all Texas elections. The acceptable form of photo
identification may be expired up to four years. Voters who have not been able to obtain one of the
forms of acceptable photo identification listed below, and have a reasonable impediment or
difficulty to obtaining such identification, may present a supporting form of identification and
execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable impediment to
obtaining an acceptable form of photo identification, and stating that the voter is the same person on
the presented supporting form of identification.
This requirement is effective immediately.
Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the identification must be current or have
expired no more than 4 years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.
Election Identification Certificates are available from DPS driver license offices during regular
business hours. Find mobile station locations here.
Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter cannot
obtain, and has a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining one of the forms of
acceptable photo ID:
Valid voter registration certificate
Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
Copy of or original current utility bill
Copy of or original bank statement
Copy of or original government check
Copy of or original paycheck
Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if
it contains a photograph)
After presenting a supporting form of ID, the voter must execute a Reasonable Impediment
Declaration.
Procedures for Voting

9/5/2016 11:06 PM

 VoteTexas.gov » Need ID?

2 of 4

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-2 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 5
Switch to ou

When a voter arrives at a polling location, the voter will be asked to present one of the seven (7)
acceptable forms of photo ID that is current or expired no more than four years. If a voter has not
been able to obtain one of the seven (7) acceptable forms of photo ID, and has a reasonable
impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, the voter may present a
supporting form of ID and execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s
reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, and stating that the voter is the
same person on the presented form of supporting form of ID.
Election officials will still be required by State law to determine whether the voter’s name on the
identification provided matches the name on the official list of registered voters (“OLRV”). After a
voter presents their ID, whether it’s an acceptable form of photo ID or a supporting form of ID, the
election worker will compare it to the OLRV. If the name on the ID matches the name on the list of
registered voters, the voter will follow the regular procedures for voting.
If the name does not match exactly but is “substantially similar” to the name on the OLRV, the voter
will be permitted to vote as long as the voter signs an affidavit stating that the voter is the same
person on the list of registered voters.
If a voter possesses an acceptable form of photo ID but does not have it at the polling place, the voter
will still be permitted to vote provisionally. The voter will have (six) 6 days to present an acceptable
form of photo identification to the county voter registrar, or fill out the natural disaster affidavit
referenced in the Exemption/Exceptions section below), or the voter’s ballot will be rejected.
Exemption/Exceptions:

Voters with a disability who do not have an acceptable form of photo ID may also apply with the
county voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written
documentation from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing he or she has been
determined to have a disability, or from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a
disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition, the applicant must state that he or she has no
acceptable form of photo identification. Those who obtain a disability exemption will be allowed to
vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting the exemption, and will not need to
execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration. Please contact your county voter registrar for more
details.
Voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed and voters who do not
present any form of acceptable photo identification as a result of certain natural disasters as
declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor, may vote a provisional ballot,
appear at the voter registrar’s office within six (6) calendar days after election day, and sign an
affidavit swearing to the religious objection or natural disaster, in order for your ballot to be
counted. Please contact your county voter registrar for more details.
Frequently Asked Questions

1. What kind of photo identification is required to qualify to vote in person??
The following is a list of acceptable photo IDs at the polling place: Texas driver license issued by
the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport
2. My acceptable photo ID is expired. Will it still work?
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the acceptable photo identification must be
current or have expired no more than 4 years before being presented for voter qualification at the
polling place.
3. What if a voter does not have any of the acceptable forms of photo ID?
If a voter cannot obtain an acceptable form of photo ID, and the voter has a reasonable impediment
or difficulty to obtaining such ID, the voter may still cast a regular ballot by presenting a supporting
form of ID and executing a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable

9/5/2016 11:06 PM

 VoteTexas.gov » Need ID?

3 of 4

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-2 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 4 of 5
impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, and stating that the voter is the same
person as the person on the presented form of supporting form of ID.
Here is a list of supporting forms of ID:
Valid voter registration certificate
Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
Copy of or original current utility bill
Copy of or original bank statement
Copy of or original government check
Copy of or original paycheck
Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if
it contains a photograph)
A permanent exemption is available for voters with documented disabilities who have not
obtained one of the acceptable forms of photo ID. Voters with a disability may apply with the county
voter registrar for a permanent exemption. The application must contain written documentation
from either the U.S. Social Security Administration evidencing the applicant’s disability, or from the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs evidencing a disability rating of at least 50 percent. In addition,
the applicant must state that he or she has no valid form of acceptable photo ID. Those who obtain a
disability exemption will be allowed to vote by presenting a voter registration certificate reflecting
the exemption.
If a voter (a) does not have one of the acceptable forms of photo identification listed above, which is
not expired for more than four years, and a voter does not have a reasonable impediment to
obtaining one of these forms of identification or (b) has, but did not bring to the polling place, one of
the seven forms of acceptable photo identification listed above, which is not expired for more than
four years, the voter may cast a provisional ballot at the polls. However, in order to have the
provisional ballot counted, the voter will be required to visit the voter registrar’s office within six
calendar days of the date of the election to either present one of the above forms of photo ID OR
submit one of the temporary affidavits addressed below (e.g., religious objection or natural disaster)
in the presence of the county voter registrar while attesting to the fact that he or she does not have
any of the required photo IDs.
Affidavits are available for voters who have a consistent religious objection to being photographed
and for voters who do not present a form of acceptable photo identification as a result of certain
natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or the Texas Governor within 45
days of the day the ballot was cast.
4. What is a reasonable impediment?
Reasonable impediments include lack of transportation, disability or illness, lack of birth certificate
or other documents needed to obtain acceptable photo ID, work schedule, family responsibilities,
lost or stolen photo ID, or photo ID applied for but not received. You may also describe another
reasonable impediment you have on the Reasonable Impediment Declaration form.
5. What if a voter does not have any form of ID with them at the polling place and they
do not have a disability exemption?
If a voter has not obtained an acceptable form of photo ID, and does not have or does not bring a
supporting form of ID to present in connection with a Reasonable Impediment Declaration, if the
voter does not have a reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, or if the
voter has, but did not bring with them, an acceptable form of photo ID, the voter may cast a
provisional ballot at the polls. However, in order to have the provisional ballot counted the voter will
be required to visit the county voter registrar’s office within six calendar days of the date of the
election to either present an acceptable form of photo ID OR submit one of the temporary affidavits
addressed above (religious objection or natural disaster) in the presence of the county voter
registrar.
6. My name on my approved photo ID and/or my supporting ID document does not
exactly match my name on my voter registration card. Can I still vote?
Election officials will review the ID and if a name is “substantially similar” to the name on their list of
registered voters, you will still be able to vote, but you will also have to submit an affidavit stating
that you are the same person on the list of registered voters.

9/5/2016 11:06 PM

 VoteTexas.gov » Need ID?

4 of 4

http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-2 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 5 of 5
7. What does “substantially similar” mean?
A voter’s name is considered substantially similar if one or more of the following circumstances
applies:
1. The name on the ID is slightly different from one or more of the name fields on the official list
of registered voters.
2. The name on the voter’s ID or on list of registered voters is a customary variation of the voter’s
formal name. For example, Bill for William, or Beto for Alberto.
3. The voter’s name contains an initial, middle name, or former name that is either not on the
official list of registered voters or on the voter’s ID.
4. A first name, middle name, former name or initial of the voter’s name occupies a different field
on the presented ID document than it does on the list of registered voters.
In considering whether a name is substantially similar, election officials will also look at whether
information on the presented ID matches elements of the voter’s information on the official list of
registered voters such as the voter’s residence address or date of birth.
8. Is there any change in the process for voting by mail?
There is no change in the process for voting by mail for most voters. Specifically, there is no change
in procedure for voters who are voting by mail after their first time voting by mail, and for first time
voters who would otherwise not be required to present identification under the federal Help
America Vote Act in order to vote by mail.
9. Does the address on my ID have to match my address on the official list of
registered voters at the time of voting in order for it to be acceptable as ID?
No. There is no address matching requirement.
10. Is the DPS Election Identification Certificate still going to be available?
Yes. The Election Identification Certificate is now available, and will be still be a form of acceptable
photo ID. Information regarding how to obtain an election identification certificate can be found
at www.dps.texas.gov. You may also contact DPS by telephone at (512) 424-2600 for more
information.
We hope you have found this information helpful. Should you need additional information, please
contact our office via telephone at 1-800-252-VOTE (8683) or email us.

9/5/2016 11:06 PM

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-3 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT

Voters who cannot obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID ha...

1 of 2

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2016/081916.shtml

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-3 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 3

The Office of the Secretary of State is in the process of updating its websites to reflect a court order issued on August
10, 2016, relating to identification requirements for voting
More about Identification Requirements for Voting
Note - Navigational menus along with other non-content related elements have been removed for your convenience. Thank you for visiting us online.

En Español
August 19, 2016
Contact: Alicia Pierce or Mari Bergman
512-463-5770

AUSTIN, TX – Today, Texas Secretary of State Carlos H. Cascos reminded Texans that voters who cannot
obtain a form of approved photo ID now have additional options when voting in person. These additional
options apply to current and upcoming school tax elections and the November General Election.
“Currently, Texas voters who cannot obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID have additional
options when casting their ballots,” said Secretary Cascos. “My agency is working to make sure Texans
know about these changes and that all qualified voters are ready to cast a ballot.”
As provided by court order, if a voter is not able to obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID, the
voter may vote by (1) signing a declaration at the polls explaining why the voter is unable to obtain one of the
seven forms of approved photo ID, and (2) providing one of various forms of supporting documentation.
Supporting documentation can be a certified birth certificate (must be an original), a valid voter registration
certificate, a copy or original of one of the following: current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or
paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter, although
government documents which include a photo must be original and cannot be copies. If a voter meets these
requirements and is otherwise eligible to vote, the voter will be able to cast a regular ballot in the election.
The seven forms of approved photo ID are:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport
With the exception of the U.S. citizenship certificate, the approved photo ID must be current or have expired
no more than four years before being presented for voter qualification at the polling place.

9/5/2016 11:08 PM

 Voters who cannot obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID ha...

2 of 2

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2016/081916.shtml

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-3 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 3
Voters with a disability may continue to apply with the county registrar for a permanent exemption to showing
approved photo ID (which now may be expired no more than four years) at the polls. Also, voters who (1)
have a consistent religious objections to being photographed or (2) do not present one of the seven forms of
approved photo ID because of certain natural disasters as declared by the President of the United States or
the Texas Governor, may continue apply for a temporary exemption to showing approved photo ID at the
polls.
Voters with questions about how to cast a ballot in these elections can call 1-800-252-VOTE.
###

9/5/2016 11:08 PM

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-4 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-4 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 3
Freeman, Daniel (CRT)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Freeman, Daniel (CRT)
Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:52 PM
Colmenero, Angela; Frederick, Matthew
alltexasvoterid@dechert.com; VOTTexasID (CRT)
Voter Education and Poll Worker Training Materials

Angela and Matt, 
  
We write concerning the State of Texas’s repeated statements in voter education and poll worker training materials that 
only voters who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID may vote using a Reasonable Impediment 
Declaration.  Despite repeated objections from the United States and private plaintiffs, the State has incorporated this 
and similar language in numerous documents.  We think that language is inaccurate and potentially misleading.  
Moreover, it conflicts with the Court’s Interim Remedial Order (ECF No. 895), as well as the legal standard applied in 
Veasey v. Abbott, No. 14‐41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) (en banc).  We write in the hope that the State 
will reconsider use of this language and eliminate it from all future documents and communications with the public and 
election officials regarding the interim remedy. 
  
Language limiting the availability of a Reasonable Impediment Declaration to voters who have not and “cannot obtain” 
SB 14 ID is currently found on VoteTexas.gov and in the Poll Watchers Guide, the Election Inspector Handbook, the Early 
Voting Ballot Board Handbook, the Qualifying Voters Handbook, and the Toolkit for Community Organizations and 
Elected Officials.  For example, the homepage of VoteTexas.gov currently states, “Voters who cannot obtain one of the 
seven forms of approved photo ID have additional options at the polls.”  Similarly, the Toolkit for Community 
Organizations and Elected Officials entreats readers to distribute information to voters “including what approved photo 
ID they need to bring to the polls and what options they have if they cannot obtain an approved photo ID.”  The United 
States and the private plaintiffs have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding this language, including on August 18, 22, 
23, 29, and 30. 
  
Our concerns are rooted in the plain language of the District Court’s Interim Remedial Order.  That order directs the 
State to educate voters concerning “the opportunity for voters who do not possess SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably 
obtain it to cast a regular ballot.”  Interim Remedial Order ¶ 11.  Statements that limit the availability of a Reasonable 
Impediment Declaration to voters who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID improperly exclude voters 
who have obtained SB 14 ID in the past but no longer possess it and voters who cannot reasonably obtain SB 14 ID (even 
though, theoretically, they might be able to obtain that identification through expenditures of time or money needed to 
overcome substantial obstacles).  The Court similarly ordered the State to use a Reasonable Impediment Declaration 
that instructs poll workers to allow a voter who “does not possess an acceptable form of photo identification . . . due to 
a reasonable impediment” to complete the Declaration and cast a regular ballot.  Interim Remedial Order Ex. 1 at 1.  
Language narrowing the set of eligible voters to those who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID 
improperly excludes some voters protected by the Court’s Interim Remedial Order.   
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
                                                
This issue is not new.  In Veasey v. Abbott, the Fifth Circuit rejected the State’s argument that only those voters who 
“cannot obtain” SB 14 ID are injured by voter identification requirements.  Rather, the Court held SB 14 abridged the 
rights of individual plaintiffs who faced “excessive burdens” or “a substantial obstacle to voting because of SB 14.” 
 Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 WL 3923868, at *25; see also id. at *42 (Higginson, J., concurring) (“[I]f a Section 2 burden is 
cognizable only if it is impossible for some minority voters to comply with the challenged law, Justice Scalia must have 
mistakenly stated that Section 2 would be violated if ‘a county permitted voter registration for only three hours one day 
a week, and that made it more difficult for blacks to register than whites.’” (quoting Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 408 
(1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting)); Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 686 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (concluding that SB 14 violated 
Section 2 despite finding that “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any particular voter absolutely cannot get the 
necessary ID or vote by absentee ballot”), aff’d in relevant part, No. 14‐41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) 
1

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-4 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 3
(en banc).  The Fifth Circuit notably considered the burden on an individual voter who eventually managed to procure a 
birth certificate necessary to obtain SB 14 ID, albeit only with the assistance of a relative traveling through his state of 
birth.  See Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 WL 3923868, at *26.  Communicating that Reasonable Impediment Declarations are 
available only to voters who “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID would therefore improperly exclude individuals harmed by a 
Voting Rights Act violation from the remedy on remand.  
  
We hope that the State will reconsider using this language in voter education and training materials.  We request a 
response to these concerns by no later than Friday, September 2, and we are available to discuss this matter at any time.
 
Regards, 
 
Dan 
 
Daniel J. Freeman 
Trial Attorney 
Voting Section, Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 
NWB Room 7123 
Washington, DC 20530 
(202) 305‐4355 
daniel.freeman@usdoj.gov 
 

2

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 10
Freeman, Daniel (CRT)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Colmenero, Angela [angela.colmenero@texasattorneygeneral.gov]
Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:22 AM
Freeman, Daniel (CRT); Frederick, Matthew
alltexasvoterid@dechert.com; VOTTexasID (CRT)
RE: Voter Education and Poll Worker Training Materials
Education and Training: Input; Re: Education and Training: Input; Ex A -MCDP News August
25, 2016.pdf; Ex B -- Reasonable Impediment Declaration executed in Denton County.pdf;
VoteTexas Toolkit_Elected Official_Spanish.pdf; VoteTexas Toolkit_Community_English
9-2-16.pdf; VoteTexas Toolkit_Community_Spanish.pdf; VoteTexas Toolkit_Elected
Official_English 9-2-16.pdf; Qualifying Voters Handbook (Updated September 2016).pdf;
Early Voting Ballot Board Handbook 2016.pdf; Election Inspector Handbook 2016.pdf; Poll
Watchers Guide 2016.pdf

Thank you for the comments to the handbooks we sent you on August 19 and the digital toolkits we sent
you on August 29. We intend to send finalized versions of the handbooks to the list of election officials
today and also upload that information to the SOS homepage, where the handbooks are ordinarily posted.
Additionally, we intend to begin distribution of the toolkits and upload the finalized versions to the
website today. We have attached the finalized versions of the handbooks and toolkits to this email, and as
you will see, we included many of your proposed suggestions.
As an initial matter, we have received correspondence from the Private Plaintiffs and DOJ objecting to the
State’s language indicating that a voter can use a reasonable impediment declaration if they are unable to
obtain a form of SB 14 ID. This language was first proposed in the “Register to Vote: Need ID?
Procedures for Voting” webpage we circulated for your review on August 11. During the meet and confer
process, we explained to you and the Court that we sent the draft language before it was finalized because
the information contained therein would be used throughout our training materials. You were provided
with an opportunity to object to the language and the State’s use of “unable to obtain” or “cannot obtain.”
The revisions we received from you did not object to this language, but instead incorporated our language
into your changes. See Email from J. Clark dated Aug. 12, 2016 (attached). We did not learn about your
concerns until several days after this language was made public on the Secretary of State’s website. See
Email from L. Aden dated Aug. 17, 2016 (attached).
Private Plaintiffs have advocated for language suggesting that an individual who “does not have” an
acceptable form of SB ID can execute a reasonable impediment declaration while DOJ proposes that the
declaration should be available to individuals who “do not possess an acceptable for of ID.” The State is
unwilling to incorporate either proposal in the training materials that will be sent to election officials and
posted on the website today. Nor is the State willing to modify information that has already been posted to
the Secretary of State’s website since August 12 and incorporated in press releases, training materials
already distributed to the counties, and scripts for television commercials that were filmed this week.
The State chose to use the “cannot obtain” or “unable to obtain” language in its guidance because it is
consistent with the language used in the Court’s Interim Remedy Order. See, e.g., Interim Remedy Order
(ECF No. 895) at 2 (“The reasonableness of a voter’s impediment to obtain SB 14 ID shall not be
questioned by election officials.”), 3 (“Defendants shall continue to educate voters in subsequent elections
concerning both voter identification requirements and the opportunity for voters who do not possess SB 14
ID and cannot reasonably obtain it to cast a regular ballot.”). The Reasonable Impediment Declaration
makes clear that a person must affirm that he faces “a reasonable impediment or difficulty that prevents
[him] from getting an acceptable form of photo identification.” See id.

1

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 10
There are two prerequisites to demonstrating eligibility to vote using the Reasonable Impediment
Declaration. Not being able to obtain a form of SB 14 ID is only one of them, so not only is the use of the
word “have” or “possess” not accurate, the Private Plaintiffs’ and DOJ’s requested changes to only
instruct voters that they need to meet one criterion—i.e., only not “have” or “possess” a form of SB 14 ID
to vote using a reasonable impediment declaration, are inaccurate because they ignore the second
criterion. The existence of a reasonable impediment is the other requirement. The State’s guidance about
these prerequisites must incorporate both requirements to be accurate, and we believe we have achieved
that with our language. We want it to be very clear what is required when a voter comes to the polls. For
this reason, we will not agree to anything that would suggest someone could vote without an ID because
they left it at home.
Your objection appears to focus on the first part of the “Register to Vote: Need ID? Procedures for
Voting” where the State explains that “[v]oters who have not be been able to obtain one of the forms of
acceptable photo identification listed below” can utilize the reasonable impediment declaration, but your
concerns are addressed in the second part of the sentence (underlined below), which means exactly what
you want it to say:
Voters who have not been able to obtain one of the forms of acceptable photo identification
listed below and have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining such identification,
may present a supporting form of identification and execute a Reasonable Impediment
Declaration, noting the voter’s reasonable impediment to obtaining an acceptable form of
photo identification, and stating that the voter is the same person on the presented
supporting form of identification.
See http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/ (emphasis added).
Additionally, you have expressed concerns that individuals who have lost their ID may think they don’t
fall into the “cannot obtain” category and then assume they cannot vote. First, as noted above, voters who
have lost their ID may in fact qualify as being “unable to obtain” an ID, but they still must also have a
reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining a replacement ID. Numerous SOS references to “unable
to obtain” follow with instructions to, or a reference to, completing the declaration and/or having a
reasonable impediment or difficulty, which reflects all of the qualifications required to complete the
reasonable impediment declaration. The “Qualifying Voters Handbook,” which will be distributed to all
election judges, specifically states that “a voter with a lost, stolen, suspended, or expired more than four
years, form of photo ID listed above could be considered to have not obtained one of the acceptable forms
of photo ID for purposes of being eligible to execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.” See
Qualifying Voters Handbook at 22. As is made clear in the handbook, the next question to the voter would
be “do you have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID?” The
“Register to Vote: Need ID? Procedures for Voting” on the VoteTexas.gov website also includes a
reference to “lost or stolen ID.” See http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/.
At no time has the Court or any of the parties intended the Reasonable Impediment Declaration to be a
convenience document, and the State will not use language to suggest that is true in any of its voter
education materials. Indeed, we have already seen the danger in suggesting that voters who “do not have”
a form of SB 14 ID may execute a Reasonable Impediment Declaration in the communication sent from
the Montgomery County Democratic Party Chair and a reasonable impediment declaration executed in
Denton County in a tax ratification election held on August 27, 2016. See Exhibit A, Email from
Montgomery County Democratic Party Chair; Exhibit B (reasonable impediment declaration executed by
individual who states her reasonable impediment is that “[she] forgot her wallet”). As a result, the State
will not agree to modify its current language to provide inaccurate information to voters and election
officials about the purpose of the Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
2

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 4 of 10
We have provided an explanation below describing the reasons we rejected some of your other proposals.
Poll Watcher’s Guide
In the Poll Watcher’s Guide, we have declined to include your suggested language regarding stolen, lost,
suspended, or expired IDs (first appearing on page 3 and then elsewhere in the guide) for the reasons
stated above.
We will also not agree to include the list of examples of “other government documents” because it is
unnecessary in this guide. The guide is not directed to voters or persons who will be accepting the
government documents. SOS has provided a list of specific examples of “other government documents” in
the Qualifying Voters Handbook that tracks the examples already provided in the training materials
provided to the counties (see PowerPoint presentation available on VoteTexas.gov).
We are not inclined to include the proposed language on page 12 that is labeled as “Note.” We believe it
is redundant of the guidance provided on page 3 and do not believe there is a reason to include it again.
We will not accept your proposed language on page 15. These detailed types of explanations are more
appropriate for the Qualifying Voters Handbook.
Early Voting Ballot Board Handbook
We will not modify the language in the handbook using the “has not been able to obtain” phrase to
include your suggested language regarding stolen, lost, suspended, or expired IDs for the reasons provided
above.
We will also not agree to include the list of examples of “other government documents” because it is
unnecessary for the intended audience. This handbook is not directed to voters or persons who will be
accepting the government documents. SOS has provided a list of specific examples of “other government
documents” in the Qualifying Voters Handbook that tracks the examples already provided in the training
materials provided to the counties.
Election Inspector Handbook
We will not agree to include the proposed language discussing the notice to provisional voters. The point
of the notice is to provide the voter with what they need to do to cure the provisional ballot. Your
language discussing supporting IDs on here as it relates to the reasonable impediment declaration is
confusing because it suggests to the voters that they can bring a supporting ID in order to cure the
provisional ballot. Because a voter cannot use a supporting ID to cure a provisional ballot, there is no
reason to include your language.
We will not agree to include your list of “other government documents” for the reasons explained above.
We will not agree to include the “Note” you have proposed in response to Question No. 5 on page 9. We
do not believe it is necessary and see it as another attempt to introduce language we have previously
rejected.
 
Qualifying Voters Handbook
 Response to DOJ Comments
o The State will not modify the use of the word “obtain” on pages 13-14 and 18 for the reasons
discussed above. Lost, stolen, suspended, or expired more than four years IDs are covered
3

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 5 of 10
on page 15 as part of the explanation of the meaning of not able to obtain an acceptable
form of photo ID.
o As to the comment on page 18, we disagree that “the Handbook appears to place the onus on
the voter to ask for a reasonable impediment declaration.” In fact, the step-by-step
instructions in the handbook include a question to the voter who has not obtained an
acceptable form of photo ID as to whether the voter has a reasonable impediment or
difficulty. See Qualifying Voters Handbook at 14, at b. (“If the voter states that they have not
obtained an acceptable form of photo ID, the poll worker should ask the voter if they have a
reasonable impediment or difficulty in obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID”). That
said, we have decided to include a more specific description of that process and have
accepted the edit which relates to the asking of a question to the voter, but mirrored the
language to that on page 14 at b. as to the remainder. Accordingly, the first paragraph on
page 18 reads as follows: “The voter states that they have not obtained an acceptable form
of photo identification listed on page 13, and the voter is asked if they have a reasonable
impediment or difficulty in obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, and states that they
do have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID.
[Docket No. 895].”


Response to Private Plaintiffs Comments
o We accepted the addition of the reference to http://www.votetexas.gov on the first page of
the handbook.
o We will not accept the proposed language at the bottom of page 11. Because there is no other
mention of specific irregularities noticed by the poll watcher in this section, mentioning the
reasonable impediment declaration here seems out of place and out of context.
o We will not agree to accept the following language suggested by the Private Plaintiffs’ in
various places: “The purpose of the reasonable impediment declaration is not to trap
unwary citizens who wish to cast their ballots into mistakenly filling out a sworn statement,
but rather to give people who in good faith believe they do not have SB 14 ID an
opportunity to vote.” We do not agree that declarations under penalty of perjury on their
face, are to be signed lightly, or that the seriousness of executing a false statement should be
dismissed.
o We will not accept the addition of “such ID was subsequently stolen, lost, suspended, or
expired by more than four years” as an alternative to not been able to obtain. As noted
above, elsewhere in the document there is language which includes stolen, lost, suspended,
or expired by more than four years IDs as situations in which a voter may be unable to
obtain an acceptable form of photo ID.
o We rejected your language in the change on page 13: “If a voter indicates that the voter does
not have with them…” but moved up example a. above the bolded language, since that
dealt with a situation in which a voter had obtained an acceptable form of photo ID. The
section now looks like this:
If the voter states that they have obtained an acceptable form of photo ID, but
they did not bring it to the polling place, the election officer should explain
that the voter may take one of two actions:
a. The voter may leave the polling place and return with their acceptable form
of photo ID.
b. The voter may cast a provisional ballot, and “cure” by appearing at the
county voter registrar’s office within 6 calendar days of election day and
presenting an acceptable form of photo ID, or completing a natural disaster
4

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 6 of 10
affidavit because the voter’s acceptable photo ID is inaccessible due to certain
natural disasters. The presiding judge will follow the procedure prescribed in
Situation 7.
If a voter indicates that the voter has not been able to obtain an acceptable
form of photo ID, the election officer will need to follow the guidelines below
depending on the situation:
If the voter states that they have not obtained an acceptable form of photo ID…
o On page 14, we did not accept the deletion of “of the voter” after “forms of supporting ID,”
to the extent Plaintiffs are making any suggestion that the voter could present someone
else’s utility bill or other supporting document and vote with a Reasonable Impediment
Declaration.
o On pages 15 and 19, we rejected Plaintiffs’ additional examples of government documents,
which were beyond those listed in the PowerPoint presentation posted on SOS’s website.
We also are not inclined to list your examples because they are confusing. For instance,
social security cards would not be accepted because they don’t contain addresses. Public
college or university IDs probably would not be accepted because we are not aware of any
with a student’s address on it. We believe that giving the examples similar to those in the
PowerPoint Presentation posted online is sufficient.
o On pages 15 and 19, we reject Plaintiffs’ change relating to the address on the government
document not needing to match. It is confusing and underinclusive. The address on any of
the supporting IDs or, for that matter, the acceptable 7 photo IDs doesn’t have to
match. Also, as noted above, the lack of address matching is covered at the bottom of page
16. Instead of accepting the change on page 15, we added words to the note on page 16 such
that it is clear the address does not need to match on either a supporting form or an
acceptable form of photo ID. “NOTE: The address on an acceptable form of ID or a
supporting form of ID does not have to match the address on the list of registered voters.”
o We accepted Plaintiffs’ edit on page 15 that added into the example related to lack of
transportation a reference to “challenge how the voter came to the polling site,” but fixed
the grammar in the rest of the sentence to account for this addition. It now reads: “The
election officer may not question the reasonableness of the voter’s reasonable impediment or
difficulty or the truth of the declaration. For example, if the voter checks “lack of
transportation”, the election officer may not challenge how the voter came to the polling
site, or the voter’s access to a bus route or other means of transportation.”
o We will agree to outline the concept that voters who would otherwise have a reasonable
impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID, but just did not bring
a supporting form of ID to the polling place, may come back during early voting or election
day and vote a regular ballot at the polling place if they bring back an acceptable form of
supporting identification and execute the Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
o On page 15, we edited the Note relating to those who did not bring a supporting form of ID
with them to the polls as follows:
NOTE: A voter who would otherwise have a reasonable impediment or
difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID but just did not bring a
form of supporting ID to the polling place may opt to leave the polling place,
and return at a later time with their acceptable form of supporting ID and vote
a regular ballot after executing a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
However, a voter who would otherwise have a reasonable impediment or
5

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 7 of 10
difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of photo ID who did not bring a
supporting form of ID to the polling place may not “cure” at the county voter
registrar’s office by showing an acceptable form of supporting ID and
executing a reasonable impediment declaration at the county voter registrar’s
office. For voters who vote in person at the polling place, the Reasonable
Impediment Declaration process is an election day/early voting procedure
only, and there is no “cure” option involving the execution of a reasonable
impediment declaration or the presentation of supporting ID at the county
voter registrar’s office.
o Page 26 (relating to who may vote a provisional ballot) has been revised to read:
A voter who has not obtained an acceptable form of photo ID, and does not
have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of
photo ID (including if the voter did not provide a form of supporting ID in
connection with a Reasonable Impediment Declaration). NOTE: A voter
who would otherwise have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining
an acceptable form of photo ID but just did not bring a form of supporting ID
to the polling place may opt to leave the polling place, and return at a later
time with their acceptable form of supporting ID and vote a regular ballot
after executing a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
o For consistency, we added a similar note to the poll watcher’s guide (because that guide also
mentioned that the voter who did not bring their acceptable form of photo ID could bring
back the ID and vote). The note on page 14 of the Poll Watcher’s Guide now reads as
follows:
NOTE: If a voter has an acceptable form of photo ID but does have it with
them at the polling place and there is enough time left when polls are open,
the voter may choose to return at a later time with an acceptable form of
photo ID, or the voter may vote provisionally. A voter who would otherwise
have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining an acceptable form of
photo ID but just did not bring a form of supporting ID to the polling place
may also opt to leave the polling place, and return at a later time with their
acceptable form of supporting ID and vote a regular ballot after executing a
Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
Digital Toolkits
We reject all deletions of the words “cannot obtain” which attempt to replace the phrase with “does not
possess” for the reasons set forth above. We will agree to add in “and have a reasonable impediment or
difficulty to obtaining” where that language was not previously included.
We will replace the language in the constituent email to state that a voter “may vote by signing a
declaration at the polls explaining the reasonable impediment or difficulty that the voter has to obtaining
one of the seven forms of approved photo ID.” This change incorporates your proposed suggestion.
We will not agree to include your list of “other government documents” for the reasons explained above.
We will not agree to emphasize “an” before “an address” when discussing a government document. It is
under-inclusive and non-matching is not new. We have added a note stating that addresses do not have to
6

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 8 of 10
match on either an acceptable form of photo ID or a supporting form of ID (not just a government
document) on the constituent email. We will not add it to the press release on the first page of the toolkit
because it is not a new requirement and it clutters those pages.
Their edits to the last Instagram caption are underinclusive (because they ignore the exemptions), and they
also make it too long and don’t refer to the Reasonable Impediment Declaration. We have incorporated
some of their edits and it now reads as follows:
There are seven approved forms of photo ID in Texas – a Texas driver license, a Texas
Election Identification Certificate, a Texas personal identification card, a Texas license to
carry a handgun, a US military photo ID card, a US citizenship certificate containing a
photo or a United States passport. Voters who have not obtained an approved photo ID and
have a reasonable impediment or difficulty to obtaining one have additional options,
including the ability to fill out a declaration at the polls explaining why they are unable to
obtain approved photo ID together with presenting a supporting document, like a current
utility bill or bank statement. Learn more about ID requirements at www.VoteTexas.gov
#VoteTexas
We have accepted the singular of “religious objection” instead of “religious objections.”
Thanks,
Angela
Angela V. Colmenero
Chief, General Litigation Division
Office of the Attorney General
512.475.4100 (direct)

From: Freeman, Daniel (CRT) [mailto:Daniel.Freeman@usdoj.gov]  
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:52 PM 
To: Colmenero, Angela <angela.colmenero@texasattorneygeneral.gov>; Frederick, Matthew 
<matthew.frederick@texasattorneygeneral.gov> 
Cc: alltexasvoterid@dechert.com; VOTTexasID (CRT) <VOTTexasID@usdoj.gov> 
Subject: Voter Education and Poll Worker Training Materials  
 
Angela and Matt, 
  
We write concerning the State of Texas’s repeated statements in voter education and poll worker training 
materials that only voters who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID may vote using a Reasonable 
Impediment Declaration.  Despite repeated objections from the United States and private plaintiffs, the State 
has incorporated this and similar language in numerous documents.  We think that language is inaccurate and 
potentially misleading.  Moreover, it conflicts with the Court’s Interim Remedial Order (ECF No. 895), as well 
as the legal standard applied in Veasey v. Abbott, No. 14‐41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) (en 
banc).  We write in the hope that the State will reconsider use of this language and eliminate it from all future 
documents and communications with the public and election officials regarding the interim remedy. 
  
Language limiting the availability of a Reasonable Impediment Declaration to voters who have not and “cannot 
obtain” SB 14 ID is currently found on VoteTexas.gov and in the Poll Watchers Guide, the Election Inspector 
7

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 9 of 10
Handbook, the Early Voting Ballot Board Handbook, the Qualifying Voters Handbook, and the Toolkit for 
Community Organizations and Elected Officials.  For example, the homepage of VoteTexas.gov currently 
states, “Voters who cannot obtain one of the seven forms of approved photo ID have additional options at the 
polls.”  Similarly, the Toolkit for Community Organizations and Elected Officials entreats readers to distribute 
information to voters “including what approved photo ID they need to bring to the polls and what options 
they have if they cannot obtain an approved photo ID.”  The United States and the private plaintiffs have 
repeatedly expressed concerns regarding this language, including on August 18, 22, 23, 29, and 30. 
  
Our concerns are rooted in the plain language of the District Court’s Interim Remedial Order.  That order 
directs the State to educate voters concerning “the opportunity for voters who do not possess SB 14 ID and 
cannot reasonably obtain it to cast a regular ballot.”  Interim Remedial Order ¶ 11.  Statements that limit the 
availability of a Reasonable Impediment Declaration to voters who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” 
SB 14 ID improperly exclude voters who have obtained SB 14 ID in the past but no longer possess it and voters 
who cannot reasonably obtain SB 14 ID (even though, theoretically, they might be able to obtain that 
identification through expenditures of time or money needed to overcome substantial obstacles).  The Court 
similarly ordered the State to use a Reasonable Impediment Declaration that instructs poll workers to allow a 
voter who “does not possess an acceptable form of photo identification . . . due to a reasonable impediment” 
to complete the Declaration and cast a regular ballot.  Interim Remedial Order Ex. 1 at 1.  Language narrowing 
the set of eligible voters to those who “have not obtained” and “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID improperly excludes 
some voters protected by the Court’s Interim Remedial Order.   
                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                 
This issue is not new.  In Veasey v. Abbott, the Fifth Circuit rejected the State’s argument that only those 
voters who “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID are injured by voter identification requirements.  Rather, the Court held 
SB 14 abridged the rights of individual plaintiffs who faced “excessive burdens” or “a substantial obstacle to 
voting because of SB 14.”  Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 WL 3923868, at *25; see also id. at *42 (Higginson, J., 
concurring) (“[I]f a Section 2 burden is cognizable only if it is impossible for some minority voters to comply 
with the challenged law, Justice Scalia must have mistakenly stated that Section 2 would be violated if ‘a 
county permitted voter registration for only three hours one day a week, and that made it more difficult for 
blacks to register than whites.’” (quoting Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 408 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting)); 
Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 686 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (concluding that SB 14 violated Section 2 despite 
finding that “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any particular voter absolutely cannot get the necessary ID 
or vote by absentee ballot”), aff’d in relevant part, No. 14‐41127, 2016 WL 3923868 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) (en 
banc).  The Fifth Circuit notably considered the burden on an individual voter who eventually managed to 
procure a birth certificate necessary to obtain SB 14 ID, albeit only with the assistance of a relative traveling 
through his state of birth.  See Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 WL 3923868, at *26.  Communicating that Reasonable 
Impediment Declarations are available only to voters who “cannot obtain” SB 14 ID would therefore 
improperly exclude individuals harmed by a Voting Rights Act violation from the remedy on remand.  
  
We hope that the State will reconsider using this language in voter education and training materials.  We 
request a response to these concerns by no later than Friday, September 2, and we are available to discuss 
this matter at any time. 
 
Regards, 
 
Dan 
 
Daniel J. Freeman 
8

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-5 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 10 of 10
Trial Attorney 
Voting Section, Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 
NWB Room 7123 
Washington, DC 20530 
(202) 305‐4355 
daniel.freeman@usdoj.gov 
 

9

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-6 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-6 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 2 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

MARC VEASEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-193 (NGR)

GREG ABBOTT, et al.,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
TEXAS LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS
EDUCATION FUND, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-263 (NGR)
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC
COUNTY JUDGES AND COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-6 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 3 of 4

TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP
BRANCHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-291 (NGR)
v.
CARLOS CASCOS, et al.,
Defendants.

LENARD TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-348 (NGR)

STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Having reviewed the United States’ Motion to Enforce the Remedial Order (ECF No.
_____), the motion is hereby GRANTED. Defendants shall conform all voter education and
poll worker training documents to the standards articulated in the Remedial Order (ECF No.
895). Specifically, Defendants shall include language stating that all voters who do not possess
SB 14 ID and cannot reasonably obtain it may cast a regular ballot after signing a reasonable
impediment declaration and presenting identification of the type listed on the declaration.
Defendants shall not include language limiting access to reasonable impediment declarations to
voters who have not obtained and cannot obtain SB 14 ID. Specifically, Defendants shall
comply with the Remedial Order in the following specific respects:

1

 Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 924-6 Filed in TXSD on 09/06/16 Page 4 of 4

•

Update and redistribute all electronic resources to reflect that all voters who do not
possess SB 14 ID and have a reasonable impediment to obtaining such identification may
cast a regular ballot using a reasonable impediment declaration, including VoteTexas.gov
and the Toolkit for Community Organizations and Elected Officials.

•

Issue corrections to past press releases and other public statements by the State of Texas,
the Secretary of State, counsel for the State, and other state officials that improperly
restrict the availability of a reasonable impediment declaration and incorporate such
corrections in electronic archives.

•

Correct all voter education and poll worker training materials that have not yet been
printed to reflect the text of the Remedial Order.

•

Print and distribute corrections to accompany voter education and poll worker training
materials that already have been printed with inaccurate descriptions of the Remedial
Order.

•

Ensure that all future print, radio, and television advertisements accurately reflect the text
of the Remedial Order.

•

Cease any further communications that inaccurately reflect the availability of a
reasonable impediment declaration under the Remedial Order.

SO ORDERED.
Date:
________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2