From: To: Ailgn, Michael QMD Lamps, Lee 3 (1mm Subject: FW: Supplemental Letter to John H. Thompson US Dept. of Commerce/US Census Bureau - Re: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:48:00 PM Attachments: Mike Lee Census bureau called to ask if DOJ still wants to request inclusion of new questions relating to the LGBT populations as part of the 2020 Census. This was an initiative of CRT, the Associate?s Office and ODAG over the last couple of years, culminating in the letter I sent on November 4. l?d like to consult with you about how to raise this question to the new leadership. Of those I worked with before, onIyJohn Elias is still among us. Census needs to finalize the questions by the end of March, but will be going to print early in March. They are currently preparing one version with the questions and one without, in order to bide time till the final cutoff. Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department of Justice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202?514?3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is priviieged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient?s agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. if you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediateiy and destroy all copies. From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:29 PM To: Guzman, Javier M. (OAAG) Levitt, Justin (CRT) Elias, John (OAAG) Subject: FW: Supplemental Letter to John H. Thompson US Dept. of Commerce/US Census Bureau Re: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions Gentlemen ?the letter to Census is going out in the mail this evening. Have a good weekend. Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202?514?3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. if you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: Ailen, Michelle (JMD) Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 5:27 PM To: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: Supplemental Letter to John H. Thompson US Dept. of Commerce/US Census Bureau - Re: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions As Requested. Michelle From: To: mum" Subject: AC3 Questions: DOJ Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 6:07:00 PM Attachments: Mr. Robinson "the attached letter regular mail. Arthur E. Gary General COunsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. it may contain information that is privileged, con?dential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. US. Department of Justice Justice Management Division O?z?ce of General Counsel ??shinglan, 116'. 20530 March 7, 2017 Barry K. Robinson Chief Counsel of Economic Affairs US. Department of Commerce Of?ce of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20230 RE: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions Dear Mr. Robinson: This letter is in response to your letter of March 1, 2017, concerning proposed new content on the American Community Survey (ACS) for the 2020 Census. The Department of Justice(Department) officially advised you on July 1, 2016, that, consistent with recent practice, it had no need to amend the current content or to request new content in the ACS. A subsequent Department letter of November 4, 2016, suggested new topics for the ACS. Your March 1, 2017, letter asks if the Department still wishes to maintain that request, and you have further indicated that a response is needed immediately. Because such a request requires thorough analysis and careful consideration, the Department is unable to reaf?rm its request of November 4, 2016. Accordingly, the Department stands by its earlier position articulated in the July 1, 2016 letter. Sincerely, Amber 6 Arthur E. Gary General Counsel From: WM To: Lofthus, Lee A Ig_r_1, Michael (JMD Subject: Fw: AC5 Questions: DOJ Date: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 4:17:00 PM Attachments: FYI closed this out last night on request from James McHenry. Today i got a call from Commerce OGC thanking us for the letter and appreciative of the ?adroit? language, given the sensitivity of the issues. It wasn?t my language, but i accepted the appreciation! From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 6:11 PM To: _@doc.gov' -@doc.gov> Subject: AC5 Questions: DOJ Mr. Robinson the attached letter regular mail. Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. if you received this email in error, piease notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient {or the recipient's agent), you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. if you received this emaii in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: mm To: Lo?husl Mu ro Shann L. JMD Subject: attaching my last letter to Census about the POSSIBLE new questions November 2016 Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:44:00 PM Attachmentsgot was asking Census to consider new information uses (no mention of ?questions? explicitly) Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department oflustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202?514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email {including any attachments} is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is priviieged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this emaii or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: WWI- To: Cc: Subject: Re: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LGBT category Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:07:36 PM Wow! This went at lightening speed. 011 Mar 29, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Gary, Arthur (JMD) wrote: Well that was fast. Check out the first item below! From: GovExec PM update Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:02 PM To: Arthur Gary Subject: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LG BT category GOVEXGG PM Problems viewing? View as a web page Update Bureau calls inclusion in proposed 2020 questionnaire a mistake. Heather White Nobody wants to be but the law aims to make federal reductions in force relatively humane. Brought to you by Riverbed illu?lt .3: Cloud is a must, but it is full of complexities, disconnects and blind spots that impede agility, visibility and performance. So how do you triumph over these IT challenges with a realistic and holistic approach? To help managers tasked with achieving application performance goals, We: provides the latest insights on understanding the current state of applications performance, the opportunities and challenges ahead, and the tools available for your agency. John Kamensky There's a broad ecosystem of federal programs to bolster careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. tit" t- mrlMaxde Haldevang Some of the U.S.'s most important foreign partners, including China, India, Japan, the U.K., and Canada, don?t have a top representative. Waxing? Ross Gianfortune According to Jimmy Fallon, the president is less popular than wet doorknobs. Mohana Ravindranath The agency is currently transferring about 532 million Obama administration ?les into its archives. Dave Nyczepir Non-domestic gun violence-related crimes in "forecast zones" decreased 40 to 60 percent month?to?month between March and May of last year. Brought to you by Riverbed I l' Cloud is a must, but it is full of complexities, disconnects and blind spots that impede agility, visibility and performance. 'So how do you triumph over these IT challenges with a realistic and holistic approach? Tohelp maha'g't?rs tasked'with achieving application performance goals, provides the latest insights on understanding the current state of applications performance, the" opportunities and challenges ahead, and the tools available for your agency. Wm EXEQLJIJVE mm l?_E WI This message was sent from Government Executive to W. You have been sent GovExec PM Update because you have opted in to receive it. Note: It may take our system up to two business days to process your unsubscribe request and during that time you may receive one or tw0 more newsletters. Thank you for reading GovExec PM Update. . Government Executive Media Group, 600 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 From: hu MD To: gang, Arthur Munro, Shannon L. (JMD) Subject: RE: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LGBT category Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:32:57 PM Yep From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3: 15 PM To: Munro, Shannon L. usdoj.gov> Cc: Lofthus, Leel (JMD) Subject: RE: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LGBT category This will be yet another painful lesson in version control. From: Munro, Shannon L. (JMD) Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:08 PM T0: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Cc: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) 'md. ov> Subject: Re: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LGBT category Wow! This went at lightening speed. On Mar 29, 2017, at 3 :05 PM, Gary, Arthur (JMD) wrote: Well that was fast. Check out the first item below! From: GovExec PM update [maiItoznestengegeggom] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:02 PM TO: Arthur Gary Subject: How to prepare for a reduction in force at your agency; Census questionnaire reappears without LG BT category mug-l GovExec PM W, roblems viewing?V we a Update Bureau calls inclusion in proposed 2020 questionnaire a mistake. WWI Heather White Nobody wants to be but the law aims to make federal reductions in force relatively humane. Brought to you by Riverbed I l' Cloud is a must, but it is full of complexities, disconnects and blind spots that impede agility, visibility and performance. So how do you triumph over these IT challenges with a realistic and holistic approach? To help managers tasked with achieving application performance goals, MW provides the latest insights on understanding the current state of applications performance, the opportunities and challenges ahead, and the tools available for your agency. MW John Kamensky There's a broad ecosystem of federal programs to bolster careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. a or]! Maxde cr- Haldevang Some of the U.S.'s most important foreign partners, including China, India, Japan, the and Canada, don't have a top representative. Ross Giantortune According to Jimmy Fallon, the president is less popular than wet doorknobs. Manama Ravindranath The agency is currently transferring about 532 million Obama administration ?les into its archives. Dave Nyczepir Non-domestic gun violence-related crimes in "forecast zones" decreased 40 to 60 percent month-to?month between March and May of last year. Brought to you by Riverbed Cloud is a must, but it is full of complexities, disconnects and blind spots that impede agility, visibility and performance. So how do you triumph over these IT challenges with a realistic and holistic approach? To help managers tasked with achieving application performance goals, Wm provides the latest insights on understanding the current state of applications performance, the opportunities and challenges ahead, and the tools available for your agency. WW ngEBNMgur 1r games it my Primacy 29;,ch was. This message was sent from Government Executive to W. You have been sent GovExec PM Update because you have opted in to receive it. Note: It may take our system up to two business days to process your unsubscribe request and during that time you may receive one or two more newsletters. Thank you for reading GovExec PM Update. 3_ Government Executive Media Group, 600 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 From: MW To: Loft Lee MD Allen, Michael (JMD Cc: mammal Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:22:58 PM Page 53-54 ofthis draft American Community Survey has citizenship questions. CRT is identified as a component next to selected statutory uses of the data. Drafttidocument/p75/a373524 From: Posner, Morton] (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to DOJ to consult on a to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LG BT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. I?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. From: Iang, Eggiyn To: Posner, Morton] Lo JMD Allen ichael MD DAA Cc: Subject: RE: Census Date: Fn?day, September 08, 2017 3:23:03 PM For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LGBT issue. From: Posner, Mortoni (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lot-thus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to to consult on a FOIA to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LG BT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. l?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. Morty From: Tu: Tang, Evelyn Posner, ,1 Ailgn, Michael page: CC: meantime) Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:24:35 PM Any knowledge of anyone at CRT or elsewhere working on citizenship ques?ons? From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:23 PM To: Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Lotthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LGBT issue. From: Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to DOJ to consult on a to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LGBT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. l?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. Morty From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) To: Po MD Lofth Lee MD 'Aligg, Michael (JMD Cc: Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:28:20 PM Sorry, I got the name wrong ?it was Justin Levitt Voting Rights Section. From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:23 PM To: Posner, Morton (JMD) Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LG BT issue. From: Posner, Morton] (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Subject: Census From Census? request to to consult on a to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LGBT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. I?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. Morty From: To: Lee; Eosner, Mortgn Allen, Mighael (JMD DAAG: Cc: Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 03, 2017 3:31:58 PM In what context? I have heard of oniy minor issues relating to SEPS or OARM (revising forms) but nothing reflecting any major changes or new policies. From: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:25 PM To: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census Any knowledge of anyone at CRT or elsewhere working on citizenship questions? From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:23 PM To: Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LGBT issue. From: Posner, Morton (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to to consult on a to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LG BT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. I?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. From: To: Tagg, Evelyn Posner, Mortgn (Jmm; Allen. Michael (JMD QAAG) Cc: MW Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:33:42 PM Something about removing a question or questions about a person?s From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:32 PM To: Lotthus, Lee} (JMD) Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census in what context? 1 have heard of only minor issues relating to SEPS or OARM (revising forms) but nothing reflecting any major changes or new policies. From: Lotthus, Leei (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08,2017 3:25 PM To: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Posner, Morton] (JMD) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census Any knowledge of anyone at CRT or elsewhere working on citizenship ques?ons? From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:23 PM To: Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) gym!) Subject: RE: Census For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LGBT issue. From: Posner, Morton] (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to DOJ to consult on a FOIA to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LGBT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. I?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. Morty EV To: Lo hus Le Posne:I Aien Michae MD CC: Subject: RE: Census Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:48:07 PM Probably not what you are looking for but earlier this summer OARM changed their website to allow Honor?s Program applicants to apply even if they are non citizens. This was previously not permitted by the online application system. There have always been exceptions to the prohibition on hiring noncitizens so this wasn?t really a policy change. i haven?t heard of anything specifically about removing questions about citizenship. From: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:34 PM To: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Posner, MortonJ (JMD) Alien, Michael (JMD DAAG) Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census Something about removing a question or questions about a person's From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08 2017 3:32 PM To: Lofthus LeeJ (JMD) ofth gigging. iisin gov Posner MortonJ (JMD) Allen Michael (JMD DAAG) CC: Gary: Arthur (JMD) gamma? Subject: RE: Census In what context? have heard of only minor issues relating to SEPS or OARM (revising forms) but nothing reflecting any major changes or new policies. From: Lofthus, Lee] (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08 2017 3:25 PM To: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) ; Posner MortonJ (JMD) Subject: RE: Census Any knowledge of anyone at CRT or elsewhere working on citizenship questions? From: Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:23 PM To: Posner, Morton] (JMD) Lofthus, LeeJ (JM D) Allen, Michael (JMD DAAG) all 'm .u ov> Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: RE: Census For what it?s worth, based on email traffic, Josh Levitt, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, had apparently been the one working with the Census Bureau on the LGBT issue. From: Posner, Morton] (JMD) Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:17 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JR/imam), Allen, Michael (JMD DAAGJ Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) ; Tang, Evelyn (JMD) Subject: Census From Census? request to to consult on a FOIA to it, Evelyn is aware of this correspondence from Art regarding LGBT census questions, that was later reported. John Thompson is the name of the census person, not in JMD. Art then responded to Census in March that the Department would not pursue the LGBT questions. You?ll notice Art copied CRT on the letter, but no one in particular. I?m unable to discover anything about citizenship questions. Let me know if you want me to follow up further. From: 1 To: Art JMD Subject: Can you cal! me or Lee if you get this before COB Friday? Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:56:42 PM Thanks. Sorry to interrupt but have an unexpected question from OAG about the Census AC5 questions. Mike From: MW To: Eosner, MMQQ (2M0) Subject: FW: please proof read 8L print the attached for my signature BUT BEFORE YOU Date: Monday, November 06, 2017 4:54:00 PM Attachments: . 4 2 From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:35 PM 1?0: Allen, Michelle (JMD) Subject: please proof read print the attached for my signature BUT BEFORE YOU Before you finalize 8: print, let?s talk about the best way to handle the as well as the attachment. ?Commerce OGC Letter.Use of ACS data CRT 24 2104.docx>> Thanks, Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. it may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (orthe recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: MW To: Subject: . FW: Close Hold: Dralt Letter Date: Friday, November 03, 2017 5:17:00 PM Attachment: - Here ya go! From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 5:11 PM To: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: Close Hold: Draft Letter Art: The draft letter that we discussed eariier this week is attached. Let's touch base early next week once you?ve had a chance to review it. Thanks, and have a great weekend. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division US. Department ofJustice From: ?ery, A?nur To: Allg?, Mighelle Subject: Please set up for my signature Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:21:00 AM Attachments: i hi I .N Hi Michelle? i will need to send this out via mail on Friday. I know you won?t be here, so can you set this up today with Friday?s date? It can probably wait till Monday to mail, but still if you can do up an envelope to the Office of the Director I?d appreciate it. How does postage work? Thanks, Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.SOO 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514?3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments} is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. it may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient {or the recipient?s agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this emaii or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy ail copies. From: ammo) To: Cc: WEI.) Subject: revised letter Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:29:00 PM Attachments: Re for itizen i form i 2 The only change is in Dr. Jarmin?s title. It?s awkward, but i called the director?s office it?s what they want. On the envelope too! Thanks, Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.SOO 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 main line) This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. it may contain information that is privileged, con?dential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. if you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient?s agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all comes. From: A ?h To: Gang, Aghur Subject: Census Bureau Request for 2020 Questionnaire Dr. Ron Jan?nin Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:24:33 PM Attachments: r. in Art, As requested attached is your copy. i will leave envelope on my desk for mailing. If things go well tomorrow, I may come in for a few hours on Friday. Of course i will let you know. Thanks, Michelle From: gag, Arthur (JMQ) To: A ten Michelle MD Subject: Request for Citizenship InformationDec 11 FINAL Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 7:01:00 PM AttachmentS: Michelle?here?s the final (hoping!) version of this letter. Please proofread set up for signature. Thanks! Art From: Alley? Migngug (JMD) To: A JMD Subject: U. 5. Census Bureau Dr. Jarmin (Revised Dec. 12th).pdf Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:37:51 PM Attachments: . I . 2 Art, As Requested. Michelle U.S. Department of Justice Justice Management Division O??ice of General Counsel Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 1 2 2017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr. Ron Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director US. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20233?0001- Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. armin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation?s civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In ?lrtherance of that commitment, I write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so-called ?long form? census. This data is critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting?age pepulation in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens? voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single?member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 US. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote-dilution case, citizen voting?age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single- member district. See, Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote?dilution claim by reference to citizen voting?age pepulation). The purpose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens.? Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single?member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, US. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population Housing?Appendix at B-7 (July 2007), available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); US. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance .with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sainpling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at Information Guide.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age p0pulation. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the ?rst cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting-age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total pOpulation data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite signi?cantly. Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three?year, and ?ve? year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. - The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent con?dence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size?and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US. Census Bureau, Glossary: Con?dence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. - Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting-age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours, 6 ArthurE. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division From: To: Go Jo CRT Subject: FW: U. 5. Census Bureau Dr. Jarmin (Revised Dec. 12th).de Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:44:00 PM Attachments: John this is going out in the mail this afternoon. Art From: Allen, Michelle (JMD) Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 1:38 PM To: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: U. 5. Census Bureau Dr. Jarmin (Revised Dec. 12th).pdf Art, As Requested. Michelle U.S. Department of Justice Justice Management Division Of?ce of General Counsel Washington, DC. 20530 DEC 1 2 2017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr. Ron Jannin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, DC. 20233-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. Jarmin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation?s civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment, I write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so?called ?long form? census. This data is critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suSpected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens? voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See hamburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote?dilution case, citizen voting-age p0pu1ation is the pr0per metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single- member district. See, Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023?24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1 141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote?dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). The purpose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 .3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens.? Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single?member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting?age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, US. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census ofPopulation HomingwAppendix at (July 2007), available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); US. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance .with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at Information Guide.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the ?rst cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting-age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: - Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data ?om the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite signi?cantly. . Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three-year, and five- year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting?age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. - The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent con?dence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size?and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US. Census Bureau, Glossary: Con?dence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. 0 Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform ?rrther estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting-age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours, Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division From: i Mic To: gag; Arthur (JMD) Subject: Letter to Dr. Jarmin - US Census Bureau Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:12:00 PM Art, Mr. Davidson(Dept. of Commerce) called to say that Dr. Ron Jarmin hasn?t received the letter via ?Certified Return Receipt? yet. He wanted to know if] would fax a copy over to Dr. Jarmin. Any objections? Thanks, Michelle From: To: gag, 35mm (gMDl Subject: FW: Letter to Dr. Jan'nin - US Census Bureau Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:22:35 PM now OLA wants a PDF of the letter as well. Anela Mangum (OLA) wants me to PDF her a copy. From: Allen, Michelle (JMD) Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:12 PM To: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: Letter to Dr. Jarmin - US Census Bureau Art, Mr. Davidson(Dept. of Commerce) called to say?that Dr. Ron Jarmin hasn?t received the letter via ?Certified Return Receipt? yet. He wanted to know if! would fax a copy over to Dr. Jarmin. Any objections? Thanks, Michelle U.S. Department of Justice Justice Management Division O?ice of General Counsel Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 1 2 2017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr. Ron armin Performing the Non?Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, DC. 20233-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. armin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation?s civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment, I write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so?called ?long form? census. This data is critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens? voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote-dilution case, citizen voting-age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single? member district. See, Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023?24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 .3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp, 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote?dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). The purpose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our . political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race Campos v. City of Houston 113 3d 544, 548 (5111 Cir. _.1997) Importantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 1 13 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting?age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six; households during each decennial census. See, US. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population d: Housingw?Appendix at B-7 (July 2007), available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); US. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance .with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at Information Guide.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the ?rst cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting-age p0pulation data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: - Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one-person, one?vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite signi?cantly. Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three?year, and ?ve- year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data ?-om the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. - The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent con?dence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size?and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US Census Bureau, Glossary: Con?dence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform ?thher estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting?age p0pulation at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would" greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514?3452, or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours, 74m? 5. Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division From: To: Ga hur MD Subject: RE: Census ietter Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:11:08 PM You off with John yet or still talking? From: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:10 PM To: Lofthus, LeeJ (JMD) Subject: Census letter Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department ofJustice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or othenivise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (orthe recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: Justin Elliott To: Pre? Cc: mammal Subject: DOJ Census story (Deadline 2:45pm) Date: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:47:53 PM Hi, i?m a reporter with ProPublica in New York. l?m working on a story today on Arthur Gary?s Dec. 12 letter to Dr. Ron Jarmin of the Census Bureau requesting that the Census add a question about immigration status. I?ve pasted the full text of the letter below. My deadline is 2:45 pm EST today (Friday). My questions: do you respond to criticism that adding an immigration question would, in the words of one observer, ?drive the response rate down enormously? by disincentivizing undocumented immigrants from participating in the census? (Source: s: on . im i tion-s 1lg??bf6f-3Q1b6b44362? Stom,h1ml?gtm 13 123722 ??Are there specific examples of cases in which the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been hindered by the issue you raise in the letter? ??Has Commerce/Census made a decision about whether an immigration question will be added? ??ls there anything else i should know? Feel free to give me a call to discuss further. I?m at 774-826-6240. Best, Justin Justin Elliott Reporter ProPublica Of?ce: (917) 512-0223 Signal: (774) 826-6240 . . 1. LCIB Dec. 12 2017 Dr. Ron Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director US. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington. DC. 20233-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. Jarmin: The Department ofJustice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. in furtherance of that commitment. i write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so?called ?long form" census. This data is critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements. the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most apprOpriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens' voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 ofthe Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 US. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote?dilution case, citizen voting?age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single- member district See, Reyes v. City ofFarmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023?24 (5th Cir. 2009),- Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699,704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563,1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 P.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136,1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 US. 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). The propose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens.? Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single?member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting?age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting?age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so?called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, e. U. S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population 8: Housing?Appendix at 7 (July 2007), available pdfi (last visited Nov 22, 2017), U. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22,2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty?eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at Information Guidepdf (last?visited Nov. 22,2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting?age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the first cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting?age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one?person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwelv. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4,2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite significantly. 0 Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three-year, and five- year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census thatjurisdictions already use in redistricting. The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent confidence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size .. -- and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22,2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. 0 Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3,5,10. Accordingly, redistrictingjurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting?age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request can be reached at (202) 514?3452, or at Sincerely yours, Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division From: To: Cc: WW W: Subject: FW: DOJ Census story (Deadline 2:45pm) Date: Friday, Dewnber 29, 2017 1:04:00 PM Attadimnm WM Sarah John - I?ve received both the email below (as has OPA) and a VM asking about my letter to Commerce/Census, which I sent on December 18 on behalf of the Department at the request of leadership, working with John. A copy of my letter is attached. I?m in all afternoon -- happy to discuss. My direct line is -. Thanks, Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department of Justice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email {including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies. From: Justin Elliott Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:47 PM To: Press Cc: Gary, Arthur (JMD) Subject: 00] /Census story (Deadline 2:45pm) Hi, I?m a reporter with ProPubllca in New York. I?m working on a story today on Arthur Gary's Dec. 12 letter to Dr. Ron Jarmin of the Census Bureau requesting that the Census add a question about immigration status. I?ve pasted the full text of the letter below. My deadline is 2:45 pm EST today (Friday). My questions: ?-How do you respond to criticism that adding an immigration question would, in the words of one observer, "drive the response rate down enormously? by disincentivizing undocumented immigrants from participating in the census? (Source: lle6?bf6f?301b6b443624 ?Are there specific examples of cases in which the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been hindered by the issue you raise in the letter? -?Has Commerce/Census made a decision about whether an immigration question will be added? there anything else I should know? Feel free to give me a call to discuss further. I?m at 774-826?6240. Best, Justin Justin Elliott Reporter ProPublica Of?ce: (917) 512-0223 Signal: (774) 826-6240 Dec. 12 2017 Dr. Ron Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington. DC. 20233-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. Jarmin: The Department ofJustice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation?s civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment. I write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so?called ?long form" census. This data is critical to the Depa rtment?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements. the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting?age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens' voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gina/es, 478 US. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote?dilution case, citizen voting?age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single? member district See, Reyes v. City ofFarmers Branch, 586 F.3d.1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City ofChicago, 141 F.3d 699,704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City ofMiami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563,1567?69 (11th Cir. 1997),- Romero v. City ofPomona, 883 P.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136,1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 US. 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote?dilution claim by reference to citizen voting?age population). The propose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City ofHouston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). lmportantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens.? Id. indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single?member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting?age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so?called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, US. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population HousingmAppendix at (July 2007), available (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); US. CenSus Bureau, index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22,2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. in the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at information Guide.pdf (last?visited Nov. 22,2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting?age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the first cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting?age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: 0 Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4,2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite significantly. 0 Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three?year, and five- year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting?age population data from the census thatjurisdictiOns already use in redistricting. The ACS estimates are reported ?at a ninety percent confidence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size--and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22,2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. 0 Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3,5,10. Accordingly, redistrictingjurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interj'ect further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting?age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department fOrmally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at W. Sincerely yours, Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division US. Department of Justice Justice Management Division Of?ce of General Counsel Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 1 2 2017 VIA RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr. Ron Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director US. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20233-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. armin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation?s civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment, I write on behalf of the Department to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, formerly included in the so?called ?long form? census. This data is critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens? voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ?vote dilution? by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See hornburg v. thgles, 478 US. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote-dilution case, citizen voting-age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single- member district. See, Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 .3d 1019, 1023?24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567?69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399, 423?442 (2006) (analyzing vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). The purpose of Section 2?s vote-dilution prohibition ?is to facilitate participation in our political process? by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, S48 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, ?[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens.? Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ?[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship? and that ?[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote.? Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but ?continued to be defeated at the polls? because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2?s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called ?long form? questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, e. US. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population Housing?Appendix at B-7 (July 2007), available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); US. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2?s protections against racial discrimination in voting. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the ?long form? questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See US. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at Information Guide.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau?s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the ?rst cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau?s only citizen voting?age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, however, does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: - Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution?s one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite signi?cantly. Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three-year, and ?ve- year estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting?age population - data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. - The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent con?dence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size-?and, thus, the geographic area?decreases. See US. Census Bureau, Glossary: Con?dence interval (American Community Survey), available at Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast, decennial census data is a full count of the population. 0 Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting-age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that decennial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. Accordingly, the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this. new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours, 74m 65er Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division From: Stromberg. Stephen To: Subject: From Washington Post Editorial Board Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 2:21:41 PM Dear Mr. Gary, 1 am an editorial writer with the Post. i?m working on a piece about the letter you sent to the Census Bureau last month, as reported by ProPublica. How do you respond to those who ta ke your stated concerns about voting rights as an ominous signal about the ad ministration?s intentions in possibly changing Census questions? For purposes of Section 2 cases, how much harder is it to use ACS data? Does the additional hassle really justify changing Census forms in a way that might well drive up costs and deter population counting? I understand you may not want to comment publicly, but any insight you might be able to provide would be very helpful as we determine our views on this. Thanks very much in advance. Best, Steve Steve Stromberg The Washington Post Of?ce: (202) 334-6370 From: To: Subject: Gary, Arthur OMO) Lofthus, lee J OMO) Date: Census letter Monday, December 18, 2017 5:09:00 PM Attachments: Dr Ron Jarmin - LJS Census Bureau ndf Art Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Justice Management Division U.S. Department of Justice Two Constitution Square, Suite 8E.500 145 N. Street, NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-3452 (OGC main line) NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that ls privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. Jf you are not the intended recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies.