GARDEN STATE I 4VM HOW OPPONENTS OF CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION FOR VOTING ARE PUTTING NEW JERSEY'S NONCITIZENS AT RISK OF DEPORTATION 17-2361-A-000563 PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION September 2017 Introduction Noncitizens are registering to vote across the United States.Some are voting.There are a variety of reasons this is happening, but until the problem is taken seriously, and the defects in the system are examined,the problem of alien voting will continue.This report reveals information obtained about alien registration and voting from election officials in New Jersey.The report documents a subset of alien registration and voting that,as far as we can tell, no one has ever sought to obtain before this report. New Jersey has statewide elections in 2017. Unfortunately,there is no time to implement solutions. Worse, both federal and state solutions are needed. Federal statutes impose mandates on states regarding voter registration, but those federal laws have proven inadequate to prevent alien registration. States like New Jersey could utilize more tools to detect alien registrations, but are not. Regardless,the first step to fixing the problem is to gather more facts about alien registration. The range of documents recovered vary between counties—even voters—depending on individual circumstances. Unlike PILF's previous work in Virginial, researchers were not given uniform reports of voters cancelled for reasons related to noncitizenship generated from a single database. Instead, PILE accessed handwritten letters, archived voter registration forms,interagency communications,and official mailings within voters' files that lay out individual fact patterns ranging from the initial application to record deletion. Reviewers could regularly discern motives for why an ineligible voter came forward to correct the record. Most often, noncitizens would reveal themselves in advance of or in reaction to their naturalization application being flagged amid the threat of a denial. Summary of Findings The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILE) conducted county-by-county surveys of voter registration records seeking records of aliens who registered to vote and later self-reported their status or were otherwise detected by the minimal procedures in place in New Jersey.The PILE survey revealed startling faults and findings across the Garden State regarding foreigners successfully registering to vote. In this limited survey, PILE found: El 616 admitted and officially recorded noncitizens in 11 counties engaged on some level with the statewide voter registration system.These were only the noncitizens who essentially self-reported. EI Equally surprising as the figures themselves are the starkly different responsive records reportedly maintained by the counties. Six jurisdictions (Hudson, Morris,Sussex, Union, Passaic, Camden) told PILE they had zero records indicating where noncitizens either engaged with or admitted to participating in the statewide voter registration system. Another four counties(Essex, Middlesex, Mercer,and Salem)still have yet to release any records(or declare to have none)since originally requested in March 2017. Failure to release information subjects these counties to a lawsuit by PILE under public records provisions of Motor Voter. Nine percent of the aliens who self-reported their alien status also cast ballots. When a noncitizen puts pen to paper on a voter registration application,they open the door to additional scrutiny and worse—should they choose to later become a naturalized citizen. Seventy-six percent of noncitizens found in New Jersey's voter registration system admitted their immigration status at the outset yet were processed anyway. Seventy-five percent of alien voter registration applicants were offered the opportunity to register during Motor Voter transactions.The lifespan of a noncitizen in New Jersey's voter registration system varies between levels of engagement.On average,it takes at least two years for a noncitizen to register, be discovered,and officially be "deleted"from the system. But despite being "deleted," their immigration and naturalization challenges are still ahead of them. 1 17-2361-A-000565 Margarta Fitzpatrick is not alone. PILF found hundreds like her in New Jersey, aliens who have registered to vote in a broken system. In every case, their personal legal jeopardy could have been mitigated with common-sense solutions, and the integrity of our elections would also benefit. Broken System: Motor Voter's Victims News organizations across the spectrum recently made note of the unfortunate case of Margarita Fitzpatrick, a Peruvian national previously living in Illinois with her American husband. In 2005,she visited her local driver's license office—presenting her foreign passport and Green Card to identify herself. As she tells it, despite first documenting that she did not want to register to vote,the DMV clerk offered again in the same transaction—leaving a confused Fitzpatrick to accept and later vote multiple times without incident. Years later, her actions resurfaced when working through the naturalization process, which set her on a track to eventually receive a one-way ticket back to Peru. A Broken System of Patchwork Maintenance Having now combed through records in New Jersey and Virginia, PI LF can declare with great certainty that the two states' approaches for identifying and eventually removing noncitizen voters have few commonalties between them. Whereas Virginia maintains some lines of communication between the motor vehicle agencies and voter registrars to help scrub ineligible voters, New Jersey remains in a passive, reactionary posture waiting for maintenance leads to arrive from third parties when voters themselves are not declaring ineligibility. This has led to aliens getting on the voter rolls, and staying on the rolls. In her many media appearances, Fitzpatrick put blame in a variety of places. She said the DMV clerk "misled" her.She said the system failed her:"Noncitizens should not be asked this question — period:' Her family attacked the National Voter Registration Act(Motor Voter),as a tool for "entrapment."2 New Jersey's only defense to alien registration is the hope that aliens who get on the voter rolls will self-report. Without proactive verification mechanisms built into the voter registration application process,cascading negative consequences are sure to follow for eligible and ineligible voters alike. Multiple news organizations reported on their failed attempts to better quantify the number of Margarita Fitzpatricks not garnering sympathetic headlines across the nation by requesting access to Department of Homeland Security data. PI LF hit the same wall in 2017.3 Are there more Margaritas out there? Did they get "trapped" by Motor Voter? Can your naturalization track be derailed even if you do not successfully register and vote? PI LF decided to work toward answering these questions in New Jersey in 2017 after finding Virginia had cancelled more than 5,550 registrants for citizenship defects.4 How were noncitizens trapped by the system? 466 500 400 New Jersey, like Virginia, will hold statewide elections in November 2017—the only two to do so. With critical races comes pressure to register more voters quickly and move numbers to the polls. Agencies tasked with Motor Voter obligations know their registration rates will be watched closely and will not wish to invite a federal lawsuit for registration rates some special interest groups deem too low. Canvassers will knock on doors for new voters. Campaign ads will flood the airwaves. In the fog of these contests, noncitizens will face confusing invitations and pressure to participate. Nobody knows whether their ballots will help decide close races in November.What is certain is that their legal troubles will follow them for years. 300 200 135 100 15 0 imminet Number of Noncitizens . Unclear III Self/Third-Party Drive . Motor Voter 2 17-2361-A-000566 These alien registrants commonly claimed that a mistake was made—either their own or on the part of an official—when the voter application was executed. Language barriers, errant checked boxes, and even pushy DMV employees were repeatedlyused explanations. Outside of Motor Voter transactions,some said they had no memory of submitting an application and would sometimes claim fraud.The available records did not specifically indicate that naturalization applications were pending for this category. However,the apparent urgency of requests and carefully worded letters of those professing poor English comprehension suggest that naturalization is an unwritten motive for seeking removal in most cases. Third,voter registrars were sometimes tipped off by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Rather than a voter coming forward, researchers from the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS contacted county officials seeking information on a potential alien registrant, which can eventually set a path toward deleting them from the statewide database. Methodology PILE consolidated more than a dozen triggers and channels that helped identify noncitizens within the voter registration system into four primary categories.The first are voters who declared their noncitizenship from the outset. In essence,election officials are forwarded voter registration applications, usually from a Motor Voter office, containing either a plain statement of noncitizenship, or a non-response to the citizenship question. Second,other aliens self-reported their status to election officials in an effort to get off the voter rolls and we obtained these documents in a number of counties in New Jersey.The immigration process has a question on the citizenship application whether the applicant ever registered to vote or actually voted.This question awakens some alien registrants to the fact they have illegally participated in our elections. Finally, a smaller but clearly defined cohort of registrants is identified as noncitizens thanks to jury clerks sharing their declination data with the appropriate county officials. The most common source of information came from federal district courts throughout the state. We sought and obtained these records from a number of counties. DEAR VOTER, IIIIS MICA IS P* SOU lin OF YOUR IIICISTRATION MIMI FROM A MOTOR ‘1,111C1.E ktilt!MN NERD tPOItAkt DOORMATIOIN RN OWNER TO TIROCT3S YOUR VOTZR RIMTRATICIN MAIM YOU A UtiTTID STATES CITIZIPI (YES) (NO) PLSASS CIRCLE NTS OR No What is'Motor Voter' Wt ALSO?MD YOUR SIGN Allin IN IN ••• The problems with the voter rolls in New Jersey and other states can be traced to 1993.Within months of assuming the Presidency, Bill Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act("NVRA"),a sweeping piece of legislation that proponents claimed would increase the number of registered voters and participation in our elections. One thing is for sure—defects in the legislation also increased the number of ineligible voters on voter rolls. •••• DA TT VOTER.SICNATLILI lb (AA° Cer,C12,01 t plettSt. E d;c1 not U ‘2K0 E/I;StiAt The NVRA,commonly known as"Motor Voter," requires each state to offer voter registration to any individual that applies for a driver's license. This provision of the law requires the applicant to swear to his or her citizenship under penalty of perjury, but does not explicitly authorize(nor explicitly deny) the state's ability to verify citizenship through formal documentation. Instead,the law provides that the states"may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to ... enable State election officials to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process." C4ea. eff -444 -vv.urtl WiStArce Plealit 1 Ott) Art 64 i.‘54 km) -ru red 0/04'i kiicw( Burlington County voter record. 3 17-2361-A-000567 Findings The Motor Voter Trap Attempts by various states to require registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship during registration for federal elections have been thwarted by lawsuits brought by left-leaning groups. Like other states, New Jersey requires applicants to only check a box in order to "prove" their citizenship status. It's the honor system. Recall Margarita Fitzpatrick,the alien voter who faces deportation for registering and voting. Despite her initial objections,she still completed a registration form and went on to participate in multiple federal elections before immigration authorities seized on her voting record. An immigrant in New Jersey looking for a driver's license need only take some preliminary steps— usually at the prompting of an official—to expose themselves to a similar fate. The honor system has proven to be inadequate.This honor system not only risks corrupting the voter file, but exposes noncitizens to potential legal difficulties later in life. Noncitizen voter registration experiences can follow a few different tracks. A common Motor Voter example is when a noncitizen is prompted to register and either indicates noncitizenship on the application or ignores the question altogether.The information is eventually transmitted to the county voter registrar where the person is enrolled,either as one declaring noncitizenship or holding an incomplete registration, pending follow-up mailings to confirm their status. At this point, a unique voter identification number is assigned to the person regardless of the application's outcome. If a voter later answers the question of U.S. citizenship in the negative,their record is marked as such and kept within the system.Should that noncitizen later choose to naturalize,the encounters could be called into question, whether they disclosed them or not. The victims of this honor system are both any unwitting alien registrant and also the integrity of our elections.The only beneficiaries of failures in the honor system are the politicians who receive the votes of these aliens and the interests that support them. Election officials must also "maintain for at least 2 years" and "make available for public inspection ... all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters." Nothing in federal law prevents records from being kept longer than two years. As detailed below,this two year requirement can pose additional difficulty for voters whose files are destroyed well before USCIS requires they be produced to keep a naturalization application from stalling, even declined. How were noncitizens discovered? 472 500 At some point,state voter registration policies and procedures must be based on common sense. New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission(MVC)and election officials in New Jersey must improve their policies and procedures to prevent aliens from registering to vote. 400 300 When a New Jersey noncitizen engages with state offices conducting voter registration, particularly when seeking a new driver's license,there are helpful cues to ascertain their current immigration status.The MVC requires that such customers follow a "6 Point ID Verification" protocol, demanding documents like foreign passports, alien registration cards, refugee documents,and re-entry permits be shown to help establish identity.5 A wide array of secondary documents must also be provided—leaving effectively no room for doubt on the immigration status for the person before them. 200 115 100 9 20 , Number of Noncitizens El Juror Declination M Official Inquiry Voter Corrected . Self Admission If a noncitizen checks "Yes" to the citizenship question in any setting,they are simply enrolled without any further verification,even if they presented a Green Card to identify themselves at the time of registration. It is incumbent on the ineligible voter or the limited patchwork of maintenance referral systems to correct records after the fact. After handling a person's valid foreign passport, asking them if they are a United States citizen interested in registering to vote invites genuine confusion, at best. 4 17-2361-A-000568 "Failure to do so may result in the denial of your application," the letter also stresses that timely and full submission "does not guarantee that this case will be approved." Recipients are required to provide voter records indicating the status of removal and voting history. Applicants are also instructed to "provide a handwritten affidavit indicating how your name became registered for voting eligibility and whether you have voted in an election." When applying for naturalization,the USCIS asks a short series of questions regarding previous claims of citizenship and voter participation.° The form asks Yes/No if the applicant"registered to vote in any Federal,state,or local election" and if they ever voted" in the same. Any answer in the affirmative requires an explanation on separate sheets of paper. Though PILE is unable to access individual naturalization applications, investigators did study numerous documents where noncitizens claimed to have no previous knowledge of registering or they explained how they felt pressured to do the same. Included in many voter registration files were correspondence between USCIS, noncitizen voters, and local election officials. After a voting investigation by USCIS is triggered, applicants typically saw form letters bearing their file and alien numbers,stating that"examination of your N400 application shows that additional information, documents,or forms are needed," within 30 days after the letter was printed. The typical naturalization applicant does not have the required documents on hand where voting is concerned, particularly when they are claiming prior unawareness to their status. Voter records regularly contained communications and handwritten side notes by local registrars indicating when a noncitizen came forward seeking their data. In turn,county officers printed letters showing dates of registration, removal,and whether they cast ballots. Some letters noted that not all USCISrequired files could be reproduced since they were generated well beyond retention statutes under Motor Voter.7 Case Studies Following are a few of the real life examples that the Public Interest Legal Foundation uncovered in this Garden State Gotcha investigation. For additional examples,the complete investigation file has been made available.8 Name: Kiran B. Shah9 County: Bergen Registration Year: 2012 Deletion Year: 2013 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Unspecified Name: Oscar Trujillo" County: Atlantic Registration Year: 2000 Deletion Year: 2012 Method: Self/Third Party Citizenship Checkbox Choice: No Shah registered in 2012 and later updated his residential address via Motor Voter. After registering, he began receiving election mail, particularly a sample ballot in 2013. A Bergen County letter reports that he tried to address his ineligible voter registration status by visiting the polling place to which he was assigned. There, poll workers reportedly told him that since he was receiving such mail, he was indeed eligible to vote— and ended up voting. Shah later made contact with the superintendent of elections and was advised "he voted illegally" and should expect to address the episode again if he applies for U.S. citizenship. 5 Oscar Trujillo filled a voter registration form in February 2000 and remained on the rolls without incident until December 2012 when he opted to naturalize. Records indicate that he successfully changed his residential address in 2005. Due to record retention caps,the county registrar could not reproduce his voter registration form. A letter to USCIS from Atlantic County reported that he did not ever believe he was registered, despite the fact that his name and signature were kept on file. The County adds that"from time to time persons have signed voter registration application forms out on the street, not aware of what they are signing:' Trujillo later managed to successfully naturalize in 17-2361-A-000569 2016. Name: Ashfaq Hussain12 County: Atlantic Registration Year: 2004 Deletion Year: 2011 Method: Self/Third Party Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Yes Name: Carlos Gamarrau County: Atlantic Registration Year: 2008 Deletion Year: 2012 Method: Self/Third Party Citizenship Checkbox Choice: No .allh. Mr. Hussain submitted a voter registration form in 2004 and was deleted in 2011. He later began the naturalization process around 2011. Paperwork indicates that he was rejected for citizenship that same year. A county letter dated in 2016 to USCIS reports that Hussain "did not recall" completing a registration application and never attempted to cast a ballot. It is unclear according to available records if his second attempt was successful. Atlantic County does not have a record of voter reinstatement following any naturalization. In September 2008,Carlos Gamarra completed a voter registration application that was later mailed to his local voter registrar's office for processing. Despite answering"No"to the question about U.S. citizenship, he was registered anyway and remained on the rolls until September 2012,at which point Gamarra was pursuing naturalization. After receiving a letter from USCIS demanding more information about his voting record,the Atlantic County Commissioner of Registration's office reported,"he did not realize that he had registered to vote" and "was never aware that he was a registered voter:' The letter and supplemental records indicated to PILF that he never attempted to vote in the interim. Ashfaq Hussain 12 South Spray Ave ##2 Atlantic City NJ 08401 New Jersey Voter RegistRtion Application DECISION On February 18, 2011, you appeared for ami examination of your application for naturalization, which was filed in accordance with Section 316(A)of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Are you a U.S.Citizen? 0Yes 0No(IfNo,DO NO mplete this form) .ili zEs ciudadano estaclounidense? 0 Si*(Si no es, NO conp este'ulatto) mlet 'Pursuant to the investigation and examination of your application 8 is determined that you are ineligible for naturalization for the following reason(s): . . „IL... oly Jo 18 years of age by the next elect' 0Yes 0No (If No, DO NOTcomplett LTendrb 18 esodaiparakorditome1 7 U SI G No (Si no to es, NO complete esti Mai/Mg Addrwe Seo Attachment(s) If you desire to request a review hearing on this decision pursuant to Section 336(a)ofthe Act,you must files request for a bearing within 30 of the date offhb notice. If no request for hearing Is filed within the time allowed, this decision is final. A request for hearing may be made to the District Director, with the Immigration and Naturalization office which made the decision, on Form N-336,Request for Hearing en a Decision in Naturalization PrOceedings under Section 336 of the Act,together with a Itt orsig. A brief or othor written statement In support of your request may be submitted with the Request for Hearing. "Dc affil 3 m'"mAUTO"SZIGIT 00232 CARLOS A CAMARRA 223PLEASANT AVE PLEASANTVILLE NJ M232-2419 Rotor to this file: NBC*0008671 Alien Numbori A 093 048 435 Dote: Aprli 5,2011 Sincerely, nook, dmwe;,4L " lo, HMIInstills MillisII Nieves Cardinale Field Office Director 6 17-2361-A-000570 Name:Cezarramo Guisandel3 County: Atlantic Registration Year: 2014 Deletion Year: 2014 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Yes Cezarramo Guisande presents one of the most disturbing cases reviewed in this effort. Accompanied by his mother, he visited a local driver's license office and was offered the opportunity to become a registered voter, despite the fact he presented his Green Card to identify himself. An Atlantic County letter to USCIS reports that his mother discouraged him from completing the form,saying he was ineligible. The letter continues: "However,the Division of Motor Vehicles employee told you that you could register to vote with a Green Card and that is the only reason you signed the voter registration form..." Guisande later tried to vote in the 2014 midterms but was stopped when his pollbook record contained incorrect address information—leading him to complete a provisional ballot. Without the pressure of others, he documented that he was not a citizen and was removed from the active registry shortly thereafter. Edward P. McGettigan,Atlantic County Clerk New Jersey Provisional Ballot Affirmation Statement FOR OFFICIAL 1. Reason for Provisional Ballot: (Check one) hin the county after registering, without notifying election office . Registration information missing from poll book Mov Ca Did not show required ID a Mail-In Ballot voter, but did not apply for, CI Poll book indicat receive, or ret such ba t / 4 5 / A50"lir4 AC W21)2* 3. I am 18 or olderears 01 No 2. lam a US citizen 1J t 4. Current Name 4 CeRr-AA ikelicA ,0 1 1Sicii4OETLast If your name was changed after reilifering to voierg;Miide.koOr.fortiier ti Suffix Former Name: Signature of Former Name: ( 5. Current Home Address: Mu ts-1 r.scrarlik Municipality hities.-mc_ County ;1 / 41-1-4b'sj-PCZIP Code (S ) Mailing Address, if differentfrom above: 7 17-2361-A-000571 Name: Yuan Vergeral5 County: Bergen Registration Year: 2012 Deletion Year: 2012 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Disputed Name: Hector R. Guerro Bernabell4 County: Atlantic Registration Year: 2014 Deletion Year: 2017 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Unspecified Yuan Vergera claimed in a letter to Bergen County that while he was renewing his driver's license as a noncitizen, an MVC employee "erroneously filled out a voter registration form with my information without my consent" after telling the clerk verbally that he was not interested in voting. Ms.Vergara asked that the application be disregarded and the record cancelled. It is unclear if he had naturalization paperwork pending at the time. Mr. Guerro-Bernabel's naturalization application was held up when it was discovered he was a registered voter.The paper trail for this specific file is thin because the county reported to USCIS that no actual voter registration application could be reproduced because there was none. Mr. GuierroDernabel became a voter through an online registration prompt,jeopardizing his naturalization track "simply by checking a box" in a different government transaction. 1111111.1111W Name: Jheiny Rodriguez Gonzales16 County: Bergen Registration Year: 2014 Deletion Year: 2014 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Unspecified Name: Anna Jasinskau County:Bergin Registration Year: 2016 Deletion Year: 2016 Method: Motor Voter Citizenship Checkbox Choice: Unspecified Ms.Jasinska promptly reported that a "mistake" was made when she was registered to vote while at a driver's license office. Her letter claimed she is not a fluent English speaker and even presented her Green Card prior to registration. It is unclear if she had naturalization paperwork pending at the time. Ms. Rodriguez-Gonzales was applying online to be a student at Bergen County Community College when she says she mistakenly clicked prompts that registered her to vote in June/July 2014.She requested removal in August after she began receiving official election mailings and correspondence from her state assemblywoman. The legal permanent resident clarified her status promptly. It is unclear if she had naturalization paperwork pending at the time. 8 17-2361-A-000572 County Numbers 279 Burrngton 144 Bergen 104 Monmouth _ 47 Atlantic 17 Somerset Warren U 8 Gloucester •7 Ocean I3 Cape May I3 Hunterdon I 2 2 Cumberland a 50 150 100 200 250 300 Data Limitations Sanctuary Counties The Public Interest Legal Foundation originally cast the widest nets possible when seeking records from counties,asking they search for "all registrants who were identified as potentially not satisfying the citizenship requirements for registration from any information source ... and actions taken regarding the registrant's registration!' Some New Jersey voting jurisdictions have joined the "sanctuary"trend for illegal aliens. The Garden State currently contains three counties which refuse to cooperate with immigration officials unless various conditions are met—depending on the severity alleged criminal's unlawful actions. Union, Middlesex,and Ocean Counties each declared such statuses in July/August 2014.With respect to aliens caught in the Motor Voter system and casting ballots, the sanctuary status could inform the stark differences in available data as opposed to nearby non-sanctuary jurisdictions. Union County, near New York City, claims to have zero records indicating ineligible noncitizens were found anywhere in the voter registration system. Ocean County could only identify three(3)similar cases. Middlesex, however, has yet to fully respond to PI LF's inquiries. Six jurisdictions(Hudson, Morris,Sussex, Union, Passaic, Camden)claimed they had zero records indicating where noncitizens either engaged with or admitted to participating in the statewide voter registration system. Another four counties(Essex, Middlesex, Mercer, and Salem)still have yet to release any records.The vast gulf in response between counties like Bergen and Hudson,especially where jurisdictions claim to have absolutely zero cases to share seems dubious, at best. 9 17-2361-A-000573 How can we fix this? EI The database, known as E-Verify,that is being used by U.S. employers to check the citizenship status of prospective employees should be made available to election officials and administrators to better identify registered voters and pending applicants who are not actually citizens. EI The U.S. Department of Homeland Security should open new information-sharing channels between agencies to include Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE), Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS) and Homeland Security Investigations(HSI) with state and local election officials to more easily identify non-citizens coming into contact with the federal immigration system. Ei Law enforcement at both the federal and state level should exercise their authority to prosecute cases of voter fraud. There are several reforms and procedural changes that New Jersey should consider going forward. 1:1 Institute a model for detecting more noncitizens caught in the voter registration system to address records before they vote or opt to naturalize. Virginia's model of establishing clear lines of communication between state agencies serving noncitizens and registrars to help scrub rolls—not fill them—can serve as a first step. The State of New Jersey should review procedures step-by-step within its Motor Voter system to identify efficiencies and keep ineligible voters out in the first place. Local clerks should review record retention procedures and discern better ways to help document cases where voters appear to be caught in a voter registration system despite their wishes in order to better help explain their activities before USC IS. El The registration process must be changed. The check box honor system most states are using is a complete failure and is facilitating voter fraud. All states should require voter applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship at the outset. Alternatively,states should utilize federal databases like SAVE to help identify noncitizens more quickly. States should use all available data,including jury recusal information,to help maintain accurate and current voter rolls. Conclusion The time has come to treat our voter registration system as we would any other government service, by verifying and validating the eligibility of those seeking to take advantage. Introducing citizenship verification serves two clear purposes: it reduces the risk of ballot dilution by those who would vote illegally; and protects immigrants who will mistakenly interact with the voter registration system,which only generates a paper trail that will haunt them later. Some of the case examples given above may seem outlandish.Some excuses for registering and voting might even prove false. But the same checkbox honor system that let them in, is the same one that allows lets them walk free with a story of their choosing—until immigration officers begin calling. Let's stop setting up our nation's newcomers to fail. Citizenship verification in voter registration protects us all. 10 17-2361-A-000574 PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION The Public Interest Legal Foundation relies on small contributions to conduct research and develop findings like those in this report PILF is the only organization performing this level of work with respect to voter registration system integrity. Time, travel, and technology help deliver new insights in our election systems to better educate regular citizens and policymakers alike. We also bring lawsuits to pry this information from government officials when necessary. None of this is possible without your support Please help us expand our efforts by visiting www.publicinterestlegal.org/donate to offer your fully tax-deductible gift today. September 2017 11 17-2361-A-000575 1 PILE: Alien Invasion II: The Sequel to the Discovery and Cover-up of Noncitizen Registration and Voting in Virginia(May 29,2017), https://pu bl icinterestlega I.org/blog/a I ien-invasion-ii-sequel-discoverycover-non-citizen-registration-voting-virginia/ NBC News; Grandmother Deported for Voter Fraud Leaves U.S. in Tears (August 5, 2017), https://www.n bcnews.com/politics/i mmigration/gra nd mother-deportedvoter-fraud-leaves-u-s-tears-n789766 2 3 Breitbart News; Immigration Officials Fail to Track Illegal Voting Rates,Say Reports(June 6,2017), http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/06/06/immigration-officials-failtrack-illegal-voting-rates-say-reports/ 4 PILE; Alien Invasion II: The Sequel to the Discovery and Cover-up of Noncitizen Registration and Voting in Virginia (May 29,2017), https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog/alien-invasion-ii-sequel-discoverycover-non-citizen-registration-voting-virginia/ 5 State of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission;6 Point ID Verification (Accessed September 5,2017), http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/6Pointl D.htm 6 USC IS Form N-400, Part 12 Questions 1-3 7 52 U.S.C. 20701 Records uncovered from the various counties may be reviewed here: https://publicinterestlegal.org/garden-state-gotcha/ 8 Kiran B.Shah voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/KiranShah.pdf 9 10 Oscar Trujillo voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/OscarTrujillo.pdf 11 Carlos Gamarra voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Carlos-Gamarra.pdf 17-2361-A-000576 12 Ashfaq Hussain voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Ashfaq-Hussain.pdf 13 Cezarramo Guisande voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Cezarramo-Guisande.pdf Hector R. Guerro-Bernabel voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Hector-Guerro.pdf 14 15 Yuan Vergera voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/YuanVergera.pdf 16 Jheiny Rodriguez-Gonzales voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Jheiny-Rodriguez-Gonzales.pdf 17 Anna Jasinska voter file exhibit: https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/AnnaJasinska.pdf 17-2361-A-000577 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5JRH-ORD1 -F04F-0000-00000-00&context=li HYPERLINK htipsillatIvance.lexis.coneapi/documenecollection=eases&id=urn:contentItenv5fRHORDI-F04.F-0000-00000-00&contert=1 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division March 30, 2015, Decided; March 30, 2015, Filed Civil Action No. DR-14-CV-0026-AM/CW Reporter. 166 F. Supp. 3d 779 *;2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177883 ** AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiff, v. TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR CINDY MARTINEZ-RIVERA,Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5JRN-8VN1-F04FC002-00000-00&context=]/HYPERUNK htips://advance.lexis.com/qpi/document?colfection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:5JRN-817N1-F04FC002-00000-00&conte vi j[HYPEIRLINK https:t'di'ance.lexis.comAlpi/documerecollection ses u contentitem:5 704.17C002-00000-00&context Case Summary Overview HOLDINGS: [11-Tax assessor was not entitled to dismissal of complaint alleging a violation of the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=1, by failing to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs because an injury in fact and causation was sufficiently alleged, at the current stage of the litigation, plaintiff was not required to prove a redressable injury, and plaintiff alleged a plausible claim for relief. Outcome Motion to dismiss and motion for leave denied. Counsel: For American Civil Rights Union, Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Law Office of H. Christopher Coates, Charleston, SC; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,Election Law Center, PLLC, Alexandria, VA; Craig Stephen Wolcott, Craig Wolcott,PLLC, Kerrville, TX; Eric Matthew Bayne, Attorney at Law,Del Rio, TX. For Cindy Martinez-Rivera, Defendant: Chad W Dunn,LEAD ATTORNEY,Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX;Donato D. Ramos,LEAD ATTORNEY,Donato D. Ramos, Jr., Law Offices of Donato D. Ramos,PLLC,Laredo, TX. Judges: I**1] ALIA MOSES,United States District Judge. 17-2361-A-000578 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Opinion by: ALIA MOSES by failing to make a reasonable [*7851 effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs.2 Opinion [*784] ORDER Pending before the Court are the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13) and the Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Not. to Amend, ECF No. 32). On March 6, 2015, the Honorable Collis White, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (Report, ECF No. 34) in which he recommends that both motions be denied. The Defendant timely filed Objections (Objections, ECF No. 36) and the Plaintiff responded (Response,ECF No. 38). For the reasons stated below, this Report and Recommendation will be ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint are DENIED. L BACKGROUND On March 27, 2014, Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union ("Plaintiff or "ACRU") filed suit against Defendant Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera ("Defendant") in her official capacity. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context1,1 The Complaint also briefly [**2] references the[ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislationezid=urn:contendtem:4YF7-GN01-NRF444WF-0000000&context=], codified at HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contendtem:5D3N-FR61-NRF4-4003-0000000&context=]. However, as Judge White notes in his Report, the ACRU is a nonprofit corporation, "which promotes election integrity, compliance with federal election laws, government transparency and constitutional government"(Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2, para. 4.) Pursuant to this goal, ACRU filed the instant [**3] Complaint in its individual and corporate capacities, and on behalf of its members who are registered to vote in the State of Texas. (Id.) The Fifth Circuit has held that [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislationezid=urn:contentftem:4YF7-GN01-NRF4-44WF'-0000000&context=} does not provide declaratory relief. See[HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontentItem:4SPX-DFNO-TXFX-72DH-00000-00&context=][ HYPERIINK hitps:Auity.rnee..le..tit e.:Fom/qpiiiiononent.?co leciion—cases UM X °went:Item: )77-00000-00&context ("I HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentftem:4YF7-GNOI-NRF4-44WF'-0000000&context=} does not itself create a private right of action." (citation omitted)). The Plaintiff has not objected to this recommendation and this Court fmds that it is not in clear error. See HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontentItem:3S4X-2V50-006F-M2KX-00000-00&context=[ HYPERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..1e.sit..comksi,/doczimen.?co Ad-UMX onievtitent:'S4X-2V50-006F-M2K_T-00000-00&mitext:::7; HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentItem:3S4X-D670-003B-508Y-00000-00&context=][. HYPERLINK hitps:A4ty.race..7exis.com1qpirdocumen.?co ?fln:c ontentliem. ,T(.1)670-n0 -508V-00000-nn&e:v.riaext:::,/. Therefore, this Order will only consider the Plaintiffs claims under the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentftem:419F7-GHR1-NR.F4-43YP-0000000&context=]. 2The Complaint also alleges that the Defendant failed to provide information in response to the Plaintiffs written requests and failed to produce records concerning the implementation of programs and activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Zavala County, in violation of[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentftem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 9, paras. 29-33.) On January 28,2015,the parties stipulated to the dismissal ofthis count. (Stipulation,ECF No. 31.) 17-2361-A-000579 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Complaint names the Tax Assessor-Collector as defendant because, under ACRU's interpretation of the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7and GIIR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] Texas Election law, she is the official responsible for ensuring that Zavala County complies with the list-maintenance provisions of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. ([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&context=][ PE h htips://advance.lexis.4-;oneqpiidocurnent?cc ,lection CaSeS(041=1071:contenthern:3S4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&context J.) According to the Complaint, the voter rolls for Zavala County have more registered voters than there are citizens in the County who are eligible to vote. HYPERLINK ([ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003BJIYPERL.JIVK 508Y-00000-00&context=][ https:t'Jvance.kxis comjapi/document?collection zzcases&id tirn:contendtem:3S4X-D670-0038508Y-00000-00&context /.) The Complaint supports this claim by comparing two figures: the number of Zavala County citizens eligible to vote in 2010-8,205 people—and the number of people actually registered to vote in Zavala County in March of 2014-8,623 people.3 (Id) The Plaintiff argues that these figures demonstrate an "implausible" registration rate of 105%. (Id) According to the Plaintiffs calculations, Zavala County has failed to maintain accurate voter rolls since at least 2008, when the County's registration rate was 102%. ([ 3 This figure includes 508 people who had been placed on the State's suspense list, as they are still [**4] eligible to vote. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at4 n.1.) HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-D670-003B) ?7. 508Y-00000-00&context=][ htips:/'461..14 ircontenthent:3,:4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&context .) When Zavala County's registration rate failed to improve, the Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the Defendant's failure "to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs in elections for federal office" violates [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]4 HYPERLINK HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] htip./Advanm.lexig.con. ayritdocumniloollfwtowYsigtt.es...1.q.iskaionait. vinuomteAllfacKAYPIr 17-2361-A-000580 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 because =statutes-legislation&id.=u.m:contentItem:4YF7the Plaintiff can demonstrate neither organizational GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. (See[ nor associational standing under Article III. ([ HYPERLINK HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/docurnent?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3S4X-D670-003B=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&contextthr HYPISRLDIK 508Y-00000-00&context=]f YPERLDIK https://advance.lexis.coms'api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.cvin/api/docitment?collection --cases .Tontentitem:3S X.D670-003B:content/tem:3S X.D670-003B50817-00000-00&contex 1.) The Plaintiff contends 508 '-000004 &contex Second, the that this violation has caused it harm by: (1) Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the Complaint undermining the confidence that ACRU and its for failure to state a claim under [ HYPERLINK members, including those registered to vote in https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection Texas, place in the integrity and legitimacy of the =statutes-legislation&id.=u.m:contentItem:5GYCelectoral process; (2) creating the risk of vote 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] because: dilution; and (3) causing ACRU to engage in a (1) ACRU did not fulfill the [ HYPERLINK months-long process to help bring Zavala County https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection into compliance with [*786] the [ HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection GH11.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] notice =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7requirement before filing suit and (2)the Complaint GIAR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. ([ fails to allege specific acts by the Defendant that HYPERLINK amount to a violation of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003B=statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7.HYPE1U.INK. GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. 508Y-00000-00&context=]L ([ https://advance.lexis.com/apiedoctiment?collection HYPERLINK ---e- sesc' '---u.-n:cautentitan..3S4 ,D670-0(i3.8https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection 508Y-00000-00&context -1; 6, para. 16; 8-9, paras. =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003B26-27.) The Complaint seeks declaratory [**5] and 508Y-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK injunctive relief as well as attorneys' fees and costs. htips://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collectifm HYPERLINK um:contentitem:3S4.A.'-.D670-0038([ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 508Y-00000-00&context..-1.) The Plaintiff filed a =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003BResponse in Opposition. (Resp. to Mot., ECF No. Y 3-1 V 14.) 508Y-00000-00&context=V https:// • vance.kxis.comjapi/document?colledion On February 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an ....cases&id urn:contentitem:3S4X-D670-0038Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended 508Y-00000-.00&context 1.) Complaint. (Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 32.) The On June 4,2014, the Defendant filed the instant Plaintiff sought to amend its original complaint in Motion to Dismiss, which presents two grounds for order to (1) add a member of[**6] ACRU who is dismissing the Complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF registered to vote in Texas as a plaintiff and (2) No. 13.) First, the Defendant claims that the conform the pleadings to a stipulation of dismissal Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject of Count Two ofthe original complaint.(Id.) matter jurisdiction under [ HYPERLINK On February 23, 2015, Judge White filed a Report https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection and Recommendation that recommended denying =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC17-2361-A-000581 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Report, ECF No. 34.) The Defendant timely filed Objections to the Report (Objections, ECF No. 36) to which the Plaintiff responded (Response, ECF No. 38). II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review Where no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 US.C. 636(b)(1). In such cases, the Court need merely review the report and recommendation to ensure that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003B.HYPERLINK. 508Y-00000-00&context=tr hyps://advance.lexis.comAy,document?rollection cases&id=urn:contendtem 3.S4X-D670-0031350811-00000-00&context-j. However, when a party objects to the findings or conclusions made in a report and recommendation,the Court is required to make a de novo determination of the portions of the report to which an objection was made. 28 US.C. 6360)(4 This review calls upon the Court to independently examine the record and assess the applicable law. The Court is not required to conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous,[**7] conclusive, or general in nature.[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-8WG0-001BHYPERLJNK K1VX-00000-00&context=][ ocument?col lion https,/, wax. cases& d um:content:item:3S4X-3.WG0-00IB-K1 VX-00000-00&context J. In the case at bar, Judge White's Report recommended that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied. The Defendant objected to five of the Report's conclusions: (1) ACRU established that it has organizational standing; (2) the Tax AssessorCollector is the proper defendant; (3) ACRU may use United States census data to demonstrate that the Defendant violated the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7(4) GHR.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]; ACRU adequately stated a claim for relief under[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=]; and (5) ACRU alleged sufficient notice, as required under the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. (Objections, ECF No. 36.) The Court will review these conclusions de novo. However, neither party objected to the conclusion that ACRU does not have associational standing or the recommendation that the Plaintiff's Motion to for Leave to Amend the Complaint be denied. Therefore, the Court will review those portions of the [1'787] Report for clear error. Lastly, the Report provides a clear explanation of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] and the pertinent portions of the Texas Election Code. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 4-6.) For the sake of brevity, that portion of the Report will not be reproduced in this Order, but incorporated into this Order by reference. B. Motion to Dismiss 1. Article III Standing I**8] Constitutional standing is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4KPY-37R0-0038.HYPERLINK X3SX-00000-00&contextlf htv:/:/advance.lex s.comi4ktocument?collection cases&id=arn:cauteniltem 410Y-37R0-0038X3SX-00000-0 &context which must be resolved as a threshold matter because "when 17-2361-A-000582 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera [jurisdiction] ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause," [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S53-89K0-004C.1111-1:1?LINK 1007-00000-00&context=][ htv:/i/ativance.lex-is.com/qpkiocument?rollection cases&id=urn:conientitem..3.853-89K0-00401007-00000-00&rontext-1 (citation omitted).5 As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate standing "with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-XF'70-003BHITERLINK R3RX-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.com.:api;doeument?collection .sesc w:cauteniltem:3,'447-- ''770-003i3R3R,...100000-00&contex. At the pleading stage, a court looks to the complaint in which the plaintiff must make general factual allegations that indicate that standing is plausible. [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-XF70-003BR3RX-00000-00&context=]. ("[O]n a motion to dismiss we 'presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." (citation omitted)); [ 51'his Order refers to HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF41-41007-0000000&context-=] as HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF41-41007-00000008ccontext=1" of the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4Y1.77-GHR1-NR114-43Y13-00000008ccontext=], as the provision appeared under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF41-4007-00000008ccontext=] when the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7-GHR1-NR114-43YP-00000008ccontext-=] [**9] was enacted as a session law. National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-31, g 8, 107 Slat 77 (1993). HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4W9Y-4KSO-TXFX?T 1325-00000-00&context=][ htips:Padvance.,e -'tcotn/aptidocurnent7col.ection cases&id....urn:contendtern:414/911-4KSO-TXTX.1325-00000-00&context L. To determine whether the plaintiff has met this burden, the court may consider "(1)the complaint alone;(2)the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of HYPERLINK disputed facts." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:450C-W220-0038X1YH-00000-00&context=][ hups:tiativac. i e exis.coneviidocument?cc ,lection cases&id=arn:contenthern:450C-W220-0038XIYH-00000-00&contextq (citation omitted). An organization can demonstrate standing in two ways: associational standing and organizational standing. In the instant case, ACRU alleged both associational and organizational standing. An organization that establishes associational standing can bring suit on behalf of its members even in the absence of injury to itself. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-9CY0-003BS1K0-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com/ivi/domment2collection =cases -lc -....urn:contentitem:3:4X-9 :170-003]3SIK0-00000-00rvcolitexi J. To do so, the organization must demonstrate that: (1) "its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right"(2)"the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and"(3) "neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in HYPERLINK the lawsuit." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-9CY0-003BHYPERLIN S1K0-00000-00&context=][ ?XiS,Will.''qpifflocument?co ection 17-2361-A-000583 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera cases&id contenthern:194X4CY0-003BSIKO-00000-00&context=1. Judge White's Report concluded that ACRU failed to demonstrate the first element because the injuries alleged in the complaint—undermined voter confidence and potential vote dilution—merely amount to generalized grievances about the government, which do not give rise to associational standing. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 15.) The Plaintiff did not object to this recommendation, so this Court reviews it for clear error. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003BHYPERLINK 508Y-00000-00&context=]/ https://a vance.lexis.comiapi/document?collection X-D670-003B----c sesktubzu -trcailtent. iem carefully 508Y-00000-00&contex After reviewing the record, the Court[ill] is of the opinion that ACRU lacks associational standing. An organization, like an individual, can establish standing to sue on its own behalf by demonstrating three elements: (1) the organization suffered an injury in fact this is both "concrete and particularized, [*788] and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;"(2)the injury is "fairly traceable to the challenged action ofthe defendant" and (3) it is likely, "as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a HYPERLINK favorable decision." https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentitem:3S4W-XF70-003BR3RX-00000-00&context=][ )11 I htips:/lativance.lexis,4-;onile,ptidocument?colle4-aion cases&id-.urn:contenthern:3,5'4W-X170-003BR3RX-00000-00&rontext I (footnote, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-5RB0-003BS1M3-00000-00&context=]f 11 .PERLINK htips://advance,lexis.com/api/document2colfection ---cases&id=urn:content/km:3,54X-5R80-003BS li/134)0000-00&cautext-1. The Defendant objected to the Report's conclusion that ACRU had sufficiently alleged all three elements. The first element of constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete and demonstrable injury. Therefore, allegations of injuries that merely amount to "generalized grievances about the conduct of Government," [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3RVB-1PV0-003BHYPERLINK S022-00000-00&context=][ htifts:/,(..civatwe, eris.comfapiidc..?cument?collection cvsesk -zd-urn:content. iern:3141.13-111/0-003BS022-00000-00&context 1, or "setback[s] to the organization's abstract social interests," [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-5RB0-003BS1M3-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK :advance,lexis.coreapi/documentnolfection ....rases&id um:content:item:3S4X-5100-0038Sild3-00000-00&cautext ,will not suffice. An organization can demonstrate injury "by [alleging] that it had diverted significant resources to counteract the defendant's conduct; hence, the defendant's conduct significantly and 'perceptibly impaired'[**11] the organization's ability to provide its 'activities—with the consequent drain on the organization's resources." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:51FM-NV21-652R.H11PERI:,INK 300C-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.com/apidocument?collection sesc --unrcontentliem:5111:1 1/21-652R300C-00000-00&cm mew-1 (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-5RB0-003BS1M3-00000-00&context=][ ITYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com/ividocument?collection --cases -1 urn:contentitem:3.,',1X-5,RB0-00373S -13-00000-00&context j). At the pleading stage, an organization need only broadly allege such an HYPERLINK injury. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-5RB0-003BS1M3-00000-00&context=][ hYPERL.LWc 17-2361-A-000584 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera 244 (5th Cir. 1994)("The mere fact that["12] an organization redirects some of its resources to litigation and legal counseling in response to actions or inactions of another party is insufficient to impart standing upon the organization.") Moreover, "general allegations of activities related to monitoring the implementation of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contenthem:4YF'7GUR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]" that are not paired with an allegation that such costs are fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, fail to confer organizational standing. [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3WP1-YX50-0038YPTE X0G1-00000-00&context=][ However, [n]ot every diversion of resources to htip,.s•:,:cidvance.lexis.coreapi/document?colfection counteract the defendant's conduct . . . establishes zzrases&id um:rontentitem:3W.P.1-YX50-0038an injury in fact." [ HYPERLINK X0674)0000-00&cautext-j. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection The presence of a conflict between the defendant's =cases&id=urn:contenthem:51FM-NV21-652R.HYPERLINK conduct and the organization's mission is 300C-00000-00&contextli htv:/i/advance.lexis.coin/qpiVocument?rollection "necessary—though not alone sufficient—to establish standing;" importantly, an organization's ---cases&id=arn:contentliem..511M-AW2.1-6521?300C-00000-00&context71. "[S]elf-inflicted claim to standing cannot rest on allegations of such injuries" cannot be used to establish standing a conflict alone. See [ HYPERLINK because they are not fairly traceable to a https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection defendant's conduct. HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038IIYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection XOG1-00000-00&contextt][ htips://advance.lexis.corthwi/documentnolfection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:3KT1-11X50-0038(citation omitted); see wnce.lexis.conth:ppi/document?collection XOG1-00000-00&cautex also HYPERLINK i:contentitem:3WPI-YX50-0038XOG.1-00000-00&context...1. Therefore, resources https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection expended in pursuit of litigation, including those =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3RVB-1PV0-003B11YPERLLAIK spent compiling statistical evidence, do not give S022-00000-00&contextqf rise to organizational standing. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/documerecollection asesc id m n:contentitem:31?1,73-1.1T0-00,.3Bhttps://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection 502.2-00000-00 7context ("[T]he essence of =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3WP1-YX50-0038standing is not a question of motivation but of X0G1-00000-00&context=]f H}TERI:INK htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfection possession of the requisite interest [*789] that is, or is threatened to be, injured by the ---cases&id=urn:contentitenn3W131-YX50-0038XOGI-00000-00&cautex ---1; Ass 'n for Retarded unconstitutional conduct."). Citizens of Dail. v. Dall. Cnty. Mental Health & In the present case, the Report finds that ACRU Mental Retardation Ctr. Bd. of Trs., 19 F.3d 241, htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:3S4X-5RBO-003BSL 13-00000-00&context-1. For example, the Supreme Court in [ HYPERL1NK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:51FM-NV21-652R300C-00000-00&context=] held that the plaintiff— organization had sufficiently alleged standing based upon a short description in the complaint: "Plaintiff HOME has been frustrated by defendants' racial steering practices in its efforts to assist equal access to housing through counseling and other referral services. Plaintiff HOME has had to devote significant resources to identify and counteract the defendant's [sic] racially discriminatory steering practices." Id. (alteration in original). 17-2361-A-000585 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera alleged three distinct injuries in the Complaint:(1) the Defendant's failure to remedy inaccurate voter rolls has undermined ACRU's and its members' confidence in the electoral system; (2) created the risk of vote dilution; and (3)the Defendant's [**13] continuing violation of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43'YP-00000-00&context=] has caused ACRU to expend resources to compel compliance.(Report, ECF No. 34 at 7.) The Report concludes that the first two injuries, undermined voter confidence and the risk of vote dilution, are speculative and, as such, are more akin to a generalized grievance about the government than an injury in fact. (Id. at 13-15.) Neither party objected to this conclusion, and this Court finds that it is not clearly erroneous. The source of the controversy is the Report's third conclusion: that ACRU sufficiently alleged an injury based upon diverted resources. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 10.) The Report's conclusion relies on the following facts set out in the Complaint:(1) ACRU sent Zavala County election officials a "statutory notice letter;" (2) ACRU and the Defendant conducted "numerous discussions over seven months" in an attempt to resolve the dispute; and (3) members of ACRU made "multiple visits" to the Defendant's offices. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5, para. 13; 6, para. 16.) "These allegations," the Report concludes, "sufficiently allege that Plaintiff, in promoting its core mission, has faced roadblocks that have required it to expend substantial resources to counteract [**14] what it perceives are violations of the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]." (Report, ECF No. 34 at 10.) The Defendant vigorously contests the Report's conclusion. Importantly, the Defendant does not refer to ACRU's activities in the language used in the Complaint and the Report: sending a notice letter, conducting discussions, and visiting the Defendant's offices. Instead, the Defendant argues that ACRU's allegations of injury are based on:(1) monitoring Zavala County,(2) compiling statistics, and (3) conducting settlement discussions. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 3, 4.) The Defendant proceeds to argue that monitoring costs do not demonstrate injury in fact under the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of injury in fact in [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=]. ([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentltem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=1) Further, the Defendant characterizes compiling statistical evidence and conducting settlement discussions as litigation-related activities that also do not fulfill the injury in fact requirement under[HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038XOG1-00000-00&context=]. (Id at 3-4.) Finally, the Defendant argues that ACRU has not alleged an injury because it has not "conducted any on-theground activity in Zavala County apart from gearing up for and filing this" suit; namely, it has not identified any ineligible voters on Zavala County's registration rolls 1**151 and sought their removal.(Id at 5.) ACRU filed a Reply, in which it argues that the Defendant's reliance on [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=} is misplaced because that case addressed organizational standing in the context of a motion for summary judgment.(Reply, ECF No. 38 at 3.) ACRU goes on to differentiate the discussions it conducted with the Defendant from litigation related activities by pointing to the Report's finding that the goal of these discussions was to bring Zavala County into compliance with the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. (Id at 4.) Further, ACRU argues that it is inappropriate to 17-2361-A-000586 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera compare its activities to those of organizations that HYPERLINK suit under [ brought https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context1 because organizations suing under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 will have different organizational goals than those suing under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context1 (Id. at 5.) Lastly, ACRU argues that it has properly alleged causation because it would not have conducted discussions with and visited the Defendant if the Defendant had [*790] been properly maintaining the voter rolls. (Id. at 5-6.) The Court agrees with the Report; ACRU has sufficiently alleged injury in fact and causation. The Court first notes that this issue arose in the context of a motion to dismiss. At this stage in litigation, "general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's [**16] conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038HYPER.1 X0G1-00000-00&context=]/ htips://advance.lexis.4-;oneqpi/document?co lection cases&id urn contenthern 314/1-'I-}7.X50-0038XOGI-00000-00&romext I (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Here, ACRU alleged that it conducted discussions with the Defendant that spanned seven months. The Court will not presume, as the Defendant urges, that these were settlement discussions. While the Defendant remains free to present evidence that these discussions merely amount to "litigation costs" under[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WF*1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=] on a motion for summary judgment, such an argument on a motion to dismiss is premature. Furthermore, the Court is unwilling to hold that an organization must conduct some "on-the-ground" activity as a prerequisite to bringing suit under the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. Although the organization in [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=] established standing based on voter registration campaigns it had conducted, the Fowler court focused less on the nature of the effort than on the fact that the effort was targeted at areas in which the state had failed to HYPERLINK the implement https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=1. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK htips:,:radvance.lexis.coreapi/document?colfectiol.i --cases&id=urn.'comenate SKT1-YX50-0038XOG.1-00000-00&contex Like the organization in HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3WP1-YX50-0038X0G1-00000-00&context=], ACRU has also targeted one area of Texas, Zavala County, that has allegedly failed to comply with the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHt1.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. In sum, the Court finds that [**17] ACRU's allegations that it conducted discussions with the Defendant and visited the Defendant's offices in an effort to bring Zavala County into compliance with the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] are sufficient to establish both injury in fact and causation. The Defendant's objections are 17-2361-A-000587 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera overruled. The Defendant raised three objections to the Report's conclusion that the alleged injury is redressable by a favorable decision: (1) it is not appropriate to rely upon statistics from the United States Census Bureau to conclude that the Plaintiff alleged a redressable injury;(2)the alleged injury is not redressable because any injunction the Court could order would merely direct the Defendant to comply HYPERLINK with the https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GIAR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]; and (3) a County Tax Assessor-Collector is not in a position to redress the alleged injury and therefore is not a proper party in an action brought pursuant HYPERLINK to https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GEIR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=].6 (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 6 n.1, 9.) The Court will examine these objections in the order presented. At this stage in the ["18] litigation, ACRU cannot point to any specific instances in which the Defendant or her predecessor violated the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GIAR1-NRF.4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. (See HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontentItern:5DHX-5V41-F04K-N20.111-00000-00&context=li HYPERLINK hitps://mity.mce.le.sis.comiqpildomment.?colle.clion,...cases onientitent:5DILY-5V "-P-04K-1,1 011-00000-00&context...1 (characterizing the Louisiana Secretary of State's argument that it is not a proper party to an [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:411F7-GHR1-NR114-43Y13-00000008ccontext=] suit because it lacks authority to enforce the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/docinnent?collection=statuteslegislation8cid=urn:contentitem:4YF7-GHR.1.-NRF4-43YP-00000008ccontext=} as "part of the standing question related to redressability"). 6See Response, ECF No. 14 at 10-11.) Instead, the Complaint relies on a comparison between the number of citizens eligible to vote in Zavala County—gleaned from the 2010 Census—and the number of citizens who were actually registered to vote in the County at the time ACRU filed its Complaint.7 (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5.) According to the Complaint, the latter number divided by the former yields an "implausible" registration rate of 105% and gives rise to the strong inference that the Defendant violated HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF'7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=h HYPERLINK htipszliadvance.lexk coneapiAloctunenacollection=sta tutes-1egislation&id=tinvcontentitern:4177-GH.R.1NRI4-43YP-00000-00&amtext=1. ([ HYPERLINK htgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-51741-F04KN20M-00000-00&context=k .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.comfapi,docziment?rollection cases&id=arn:cautentliem..51311X-51141-1704KN M-00000-00&conte.rttf.) Judge White's Report found that Census data is reliable, took judicial notice of certain statistics from the United States Census Bureau, and concluded that a favorable decision that lowered the registration rate would redress ACRU's injury. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 1112.) The Defendant objected to the Report's use of statistical data "to the extent that such data might be used as a factual finding in this litigation and to the extent such data is not in evidence." (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 9.) The Court agrees with the Report's conclusion that United States Census data is reliable and properly subject to judicial notice. A court "may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding." [ 7This figure includes both the people on Zavala County's voter registration[*19] rolls and those on the County's suspense list, who are still entitled to vote, as noted above in Footnote 3. (Complaint,ECF No. 1 at4 n.1.) 17-2361-A-000588 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection of matters of public record." (citation omitted)). Therefore, the Defendant's objection to the use of =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentitem:5GYC2991-FG36-11WV-00000-00&context=]. A "court Census data is overruled. may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately The Court also agrees with the Report's and readily determined from sources whose conclusion [**20] that the Plaintiffs injury would accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." [ be redressed by a favorable decision. The Report found that "[Ole voting-age population of Zavala HYPERLINK County in 2013 was approximately 8,448, yet there https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection were 8,623 people registered to vote in 2014," =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC2991-FG36-11WV-00000-00&context=]. The Fifth yielding a registration rate of 102%. (Report, ECF Circuit has recognized that figures from the United No. 34 at 12.) The Report concluded that injunctive States Census are properly subject to judicial relief ordering the Defendant to properly maintain notice. HYPERLINK voter rolls would likely improve Zavala County's registration rate and allow ACRU to direct its https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection resources elsewhere. ([ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:834G-N9S1-652R.HYI)MINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection 33D3-00000-00&context=]f =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4PPG-X8KO-TXFXht4s:/i/ativance.lexis.conv4kiocument?rollection 72BX-00000-00&context=1.) The Defendant cases&id=urn:cautentliem..834G-N9SI-6521?33D3-00000-00&conterfq ("United States census objected to this conclusion, arguing that the data is an appropriate and frequent subject of Plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the [ judicial notice." (citations omitted)); accord, e.g., [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context1 that an =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-01130-006Finjunction could correct. (Objections, ECF No. 36 M3NT-00000-00&context=][ 11YP ' vane,e.lexis.coinitpi/document2collection at 6-7.) According to the Defendant, the [ HYPERLINK ."'CC ses contentItem:1'4X-OH30-0O6F-M3NT-00000-00&context...1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] does not =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-1WBO-006Frequire counties to attain a specific registration HYPEI MOS5-00000-00&context=][ lexis,convqpiic ocument?collection ratio and does not supply a cause of action for the failure to meet some yet-to-be-defined benchmark. ses&id—.I -n:contentliem: W730-006FThe Defendant misinterprets the Report's MOS5-00000-00&romext I. Moreover, by taking judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable conclusion. The Report found that significantly dispute, a Court does not convert a motion to high registration rates, like those in Zavala County, dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. [ give rise to the inference that a county is not properly implementing a program to maintain an HYPERLINK accurate and current voter registration roll, in https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK violation of the =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4PPG-X8KO-TXFXcollection https ://advance. I exi s. com/api/document? 72BX-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.comicipi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. --cases :contentltem:4PPG-.X'KO: 72BX-00000-00&context-I ("[I]t is clearly proper (Report,[**21] ECF No. 34 at 12.) The Report did (7d.) 17-2361-A-000589 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera not state that a high registration rate, alone, demonstrates such a violation. The Plaintiff is not required, at this stage of the litigation, to prove a redressable injury; it is enough to make the HYPERLINK allegation. See https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=um:contentltem:3S4W-XF70-003BR3RX-00000-00&contextt ir HYPERLINK https://iadvance.lexis,com/api/doctintent?co lertion 4-gues urn:contentitem:3:4 ,70-003.13R3RX-00000-00&conten.,,,,L. The Court finds the Plaintiff has done so. Accordingly, the Defendant's objection is overruled. The Court now proceeds to the Defendant's last objection, that the Plaintiff failed to sue the proper party: the Texas Secretary of State. As previously HYPERLINK the noted, https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] requires each state to "ensur[e] the maintenance of an accurate [*792] and current voter registration roll for elections for Federal office" by, inter alia, "conduct[ing] a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters" after a registrant dies or changes residence. [ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. "The [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] centralizes [compliance] responsibility in the state and in the chief elections officer, who is the state's standin." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KN20M-00000-00&contextlf htips://advance.lexis.coreqpi/documentnollectioli ---cases&id=urn:contentltem:SDILXL-5V4.1404KN2OM-00000-00&contex. 1. The chief elections officer is "responsible for coordination of State responsibilities under" the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=unrcontentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-4009-00000-00&context=]. Under Texas law, the chief elections officer is the HYPERLINK of State. [ Secretary https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=unrcontentItem:5DDJBJ51-6MP4-00J5-00000-00&context1. The Secretary may assign "any function relating [**22] to the administration of elections that is under the Secretary's jurisdiction" to the staff in the elections division, and must assist and advise these election authorities on the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws. Id [ HYPERLINK https://ctdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJBJ51-6MP4-00.15-00000-00&contextq YPERLIN.K htips://advance.lexis.coreqpi/document2colfectioli ---statutes-legislation&id—unixontentItem:5DDIR151-6MP4-00,15-00000-0 L HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJBJ51-6MF'4-00J9-00000-00&context=]. However, the Secretary is ultimately responsible for maintaining "uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation" of the election laws. Id. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJBJ51-6MP4-00J8-00000-00&context=k HYPERLIN haps:// vance.lexiscaretwk'ocument?collection --statutes-.egisiation lixontentltern.:5DDJ17-2361-A-000590 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera 13,151-6MP4-00,..18-00000-00&context 1. If the Secretary determines that the actions of an election authority are impeding the "free exercise of a citizen's voting rights," the Secretary may order the authority to correct the offending conduct and, if that fails, seek enforcement of the order by a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction or mandamus. Id. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentltem:5DDJBJ51-6MP4-00.18-00000-00&context--] HYPERL.1N.K https://advance.lexis.conilqpi/doctiment?eollection ---statutes-legislation&id-unixontentitem:5,DIVBi51-6MP4-0a1B-00000-00&contex https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=1, the voter registrar has the additional duty of "correct[ing] an official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office in [**23] accordance with change of residence information." Id [ HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=1 HYPERLINK htips:/i/advance.lexis.comfapi/dorziment?collection statutes-legislation&id urn:ronient1iem:S1)3.N..1731-NRE4-4007-00000-00&rontext=1. By fulfilling these duties, the county tax assessorcollectors enable the Texas Secretary of State to Among these election authorities are the county tax maintain accurate and current voter registration assessor-collectors, who act as voter registrars for rolls, as mandated by the [ HYPERLINK each Id HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection county. htgis://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJGIAR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context1. See [ BJ51-6MP4-006V-00000-00&context=1 HYPERLINK HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https:/i/ativance.lexis.coin/qpkiocument?rollection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3Nslatutes-legislation&id urn:contentliem:51)111F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. .R.151-6A4P4-0061/-00000-00&contextl. The registrar's duties include maintaining a suspense list In the present case, ACRU brought suit against the of voters, Id. HYPERLINK Zavala County Tax Assessor-Collector for "failing https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection to implement a program" to reduce the number of =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJineligible voters on the county's registration rolls, BJ51-6MP4-00C3-00000-00&context=k in HYPERLINK violation of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https:t'dvance.lexis.cormipi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7-statutes- esis.lationk.'• ---u .mcontentitem.:5DD.1GHR.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. 13,151-6MP4-00C3-00000-00&context I, and (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5.) However, ACRU correcting the voter registration records, "including, neglected to join the Texas Secretary of State as a if necessary, deleting a voter's name from the defendant. The Defendant argues that this failure Id. HYPERLINK warrants dismissal of the Complaint because, under suspense list," https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection the HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5DDJhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection BJ51-6MP4-0OBJ-00000-00&contextq =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7HYPERLINK GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], she does http.c...//advance.lexis,cot thpi/document?collection not have the authority to implement a program to —.mantes-legislation remove ineligible voters from the rolls.(Objections, u n:contentliem:51.111),.I13.1.51-6MT4-00.13J-00000-00&context J. Under the ECF No. 36 at 6, n.1.) In its Response, ACRU HYPERLINK argues HYPERLINK that the 17-2361-A-000591 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] does impose the duty on voter registrars to use data from the United States Postal Service to update voter rolls. (Response, ECF No. 38 at 13.) Additionally, ACRU notes that Texas election law imposes a host of other duties on county voter registrars. ([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KN20M-00000-00&context=] HYPERUNK htips://advance.lexis.comkpi/document2colfection --cases&id=urn:contentitem:511)1IX-517 .14704KN2t M-000004)0&context-L) N20M-00000-00&context=ff .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apidocument?collection ties( w:cautentliem:5/3 IA5174 -1704 N20M-00000-00&comext----1 (holding that the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] "gives the Secretary of State enforcement authority" and imposes the "obligation to require . . . state agencies to comply with" the Act). Indeed, Scott highlights the role the Secretary of State plays in ensuring the state complies with the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7As the chief elections officer, the Texas Secretary GHR.1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], although of State has the power to enforce the [ [*793] it also notes that the obligation is to cause HYPERLINK the State agents comply with the Act.8 https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7HYPERLINK GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection and [**24] the "ongoing role" of remedying [ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KHYPERLINK N20M-00000-00&context=][ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/apildocurnerecollection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7=ca'c' id mnV41404KGBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] -00000-00 context-I 1. However, the Scott HYPERLINK court did not say that the Secretary of State is a violations. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection necessary party to an [ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04Khttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERUNK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7N20M-00000-00&contextlf. https://advance.lexis.comapi/docinnent?collection GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] suit. The cases(' --u w:conielalietn..5DH I, HYPERLINK N20M-00000-00&conie.1---1.. In the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7=cases&id=urn:content]tem:5DHX-5V41-F04KGHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] itself is N20M-00000-00&context=] case, that curiously also silent on the subject of necessary parties. See[ both parties failed to cite, the Fifth Circuit held that HYPERLINK the Texas Secretary of State is a proper party to an[ https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. In the =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7absence of a holding to the contrary, this Court is GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] suit. See unwilling to dismiss the instant Complaint on HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:5DHX-5V41-F04K8 Counties and [**25] their officials are state officials. 17-2361-A-000592 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera standing grounds for failure to join the Secretary of State. As previously noted, the Tax AssessorCollector has certain obligations under the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] as the designated voter registrar and state official. If the Defendant has failed to meet her obligations, ACRU can bring a civil suit against her. The Defendant's objection is overruled. 2. Failure to State a Claim The Defendant also moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, under [ HYPERUNK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYCThe 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] Defendant argues again that high registration rates do not demonstrate an [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] violation; in essence, that the facts in the Complaint do not plausibly demonstrate that ACRU is entitled to relief.(Mot. to Dis., ECF No. 13 at 12-15.) Judge White's Report concludes that the following allegations, contained in the Complaint, sufficiently plead a cause of action: (1) Texas election law and HYPERLINK the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] impose upon the Defendant the duty to maintain accurate and current registration rolls; (2) voter rolls maintained by the Defendant contain more voters registered to vote than there are citizens eligible to vote; (3) an implausible 105% registration rate gives rise to the strong inference that the Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable voter list maintenance program; and (4) ACRU's members are injured because of the resulting risk of voter fraud and vote dilution.(Report, ECF No. 34 at 18.) The Defendant objected, arguing that a high registration rate might be consistent with illegal conduct, but it is equally consistent with a "wide swath"[1-'161 of legal conduct. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 9-10); see [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&contexttlf HYPERI..INK https://advance.lexis.cotteapildocumerecollection ses v:contentitem:4N 1 '840-004C002M-00000-00&context J. The Court is unconvinced by the Defendant's objection. Under HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], a court may dismiss a complaint that "[fails] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1. Because motions to dismiss are "viewed with disfavor ,and. . rarely granted," [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:354X-2XN0-003BHYPERLLVK G2F4-00000-00&contextlf wnee. exisxormivil'ocument?collection zzrases&id um:rontentitem:3S4X-2,VAra-003BG.2F4-00000-00&cogext-1 (internal quotations omitted), a court must liberally cons favor, draw all inferences in favor ofthe plaintiffs claims, and take as true all factual allegations contained in the HYPERLINK See complaint. https://advance.lexis.conilapildocument?collection =casesctid=unvcontentltem:3S4X-9NGO-0039P4CM-00000-00&context=1 [ .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com.4i/document?colleetion .7-91v 30-0039=cases um:contend/elm P4CM-00000-00c. context...1. A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W9Y-4KSO-TXFX17-2361-A-000593 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera HYPERLINK 1325-00000-00&context=]/ https://advance.lexis.com/api;document?collection sesc" --u-n:cautentliem: Y).25-00000-00,1context.1 (quoting [HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentitem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&contextt]HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.coneapi/document?collection --cases :contentItem:,,N;' 840-004C002M-00000-00 -context D. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the HYPERLINK misconduct alleged." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&context=1 The Report concludes, and this Court agrees, that the Plaintiff alleged a plausible claim for relief. The high registration rate in Zavala County creates a strong inference that the Defendant has neglected her duty to maintain an accurate and current voter registration roll. The Defendant's argument that registration rates [**27] exceeding I*7941 100% could be the result of the County having a "reasonable purge system but an excellent registration system" or an "imperfect" purge system hampered by flawed data provided by the United States Postal Service is unconvincing. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 10.) While these factors may certainly contribute to an inflated registration rate, it is more likely that the Defendant's failure to maintain the voter rolls caused the registration rate to climb. The Court agrees with the Report that this "strong inference of a violation of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GliRl-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]" is adequate to survive a motion to dismiss under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=]. The Defendant's objection is overruled. 3. Notice Lastly, the Defendant objects to the Report's conclusion that the Plaintiff complied with the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioath d=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] notice requirement. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 10-11.) HYPERLINK The https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] requires9 9 Although the language in the [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation8cid=urn:contentItem:4YF7-GHRI-NRF4-43YP-0000000&context=] suggests that notice is not mandatory,"[a] person who is aggrieved by a violation ofthis chapter may provide written notice of the violation," HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=umcontentItem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=], the Fifth Circuit has held that notice is mandatory.[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntentltem:5DHX-5V41-F04K-N20M-00000-008ccontext=lf. HIT f. LINK htips:4'advance.le.lis.comrapi4loczement?eoikction...case..urn:e rintentriern:5,011X-5V41410 1.z"..-N2 sA1-00000-00&mgtest...1. The [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation8cid=urn:contentItem:4YF7-GHRI-NRF4-43YP-00000008ccontext=] notice provision is nonjurisdictional. See HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/doeument?collection=eases&id=mn:c ontenthem:54SX-KDHI-F04K-VO8S-00000-00&context=li, HYPERLINK hitps:Auity.rnee..1e.xis.com4asirdocumen.?co lection,...cases ?MIX onientitent:54a:KDR.I.F.4.K,V08S-00000-00&context..1 Therefore, when a plaintiff fails to fulfill the notice provision the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC-1WP1-6NI9-FOYW-00000008ccontext=], not HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC-1WP1-6NI9-FOYW-00000008ccontext=]. See HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/doeument?collection=eases&id=unve onteraltem:527Y-21W1-JCNII-Y018-00000-00&context=k RiPER/iNK /tps:z/advace.lexis.com.dôuement?collecticn —cases( ontenthem:527Y-21W1-jeN11-Y018-00000-00&aggextq. 17-2361-A-000594 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera potential plaintiffs to "provide written notice of the violation to the chief election official of the State involved." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. "If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a notice" the aggrieved person may file a civil suit. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. The Report noted the lack of case law in the Fifth Circuit interpreting the notice provision, but found that the "language and legislative [**281 history of the HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GFIR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] 'indicate that Congress structured the notice requirement in such a way that notice should provide states in violation of the Act an opportunity to attempt compliance before facing litigation." (Report, ECF No. 34 at 19-20); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S2J-8P10-00B1D17C-00000-00&context=][ la9P ' Mips, vance.lexis.coin4lpi/document2collection --ccses u rcontentitem:3S21-8P.10-00B1DI7C-00000-00&context 1; see also HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-51741-170, 1KN20M-00000-00&context=ff H.YPERL.IATK htips,.> vance.kxis.comivi/documerecolledion um:romentitem:5DILYL5V4.14'04KN20M-00000-00&context I(citing[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S2J-8P10-00B1D17C-00000-00&context=] favorably). To determine whether a party has provided adequate notice, a Court is not limited to the complaint alone, but may look to documents incorporated into the complaint by reference. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.conilapildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4P18-B380-004C002V-00000-00&contextt]f i1YPERLIM wnce.lexis.com./qpi/..ocument?collection ses ....um:content/km: >18 . 380-004C002V40000-00&rontext I ("[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling HYPERLINK on https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." (citation 1**291 omitted)). The document in question, a letter from ACRU to the Defendant, is attached to the Defendant's Answer (Answer, ECF No. 12 Exhibit 1) and was filed simultaneously with the Motion to Dismiss. See[HYPERLINK https://cdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:, I13C-XS20-0038X50H-00000-00&context=][ HYPERL.INA. hilps://advance.lexi:s%comfapkiocumenecollection cases&id....arn:contenthern:413(!-.XS20-0038X5011-00000-00&conteriq (noting a court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss). ACRU sent the letter to the Zavala County Clere stating that the County was [*795] "in apparent HYPERLINK violation of °Although [**30] the Plaintiff attempts to take credit for communication sent by third parties to the Defendant as early as 2012, it appears from the Complaint that the September 12, 2013 letter represents the first contact between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5.) Therefore, the Court disregards the earlier communication. See [ HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontent:Item:5DHX-5V41-F04K-N20M-00000-00&context=R: I:THEMiNK bur.//a vance lexis comlavildocument9collection—casevontendeent:51)1.1X-51/4149MK-N301A-00000-00&.context...1 (holding that one plaintiff who failed to give the defendant notice could not "piggyback" on the notice given by a second plaintiff in the same case). 17-2361-A-000595 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]." (Letter, ECF No. 12-1.) The letter went on to paraphrase and cite the provision of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] that the Defendant was allegedly violating: "election officials [must] conduct a reasonable effort to maintain voter registration lists free of dead voters, ineligible voters and voters who have moved away." (Id) The letter set out the evidence concerning the violation: Zavala County "has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible live voters." The letter urged the recipient to work toward full compliance HYPERLINK with the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR.1-NRF4-43'YP-00000-00&context=], warning that the failure to do so could result in a lawsuit and citing the provision of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF'7GHR1-NRF4-43'YP-00000-00&context=] that allows a private party to bring suit. (Id) Furthermore, it stated "[t]his letter serves as the statutory notice to your county." (Id.) (7d) The Defendant maintains that ACRU's letter was too vague to provide notice of an[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] violation because the "circumstance"—voter rolls containing more names than there are citizens eligible to vote—is not an HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] violation. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 11.) This argument is misplaced. The letter does not claim that a high registration rate is, in itself, a violation. Instead, it indicates that having too many registered voters on county registration rolls is evidence that the County has violated [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. The letter gives the Defendant enough information to diagnose the problem. At that point it was the Defendant's responsibility to attempt to cure the violation. Accordingly, the Defendant's objection that notice was [**31.] inadequate is overruled. C. Motion to Amend Complaint The Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint, seeking to add an additional plaintiff and to remove Count 2.(Mot. to Amend,ECF No. 32.)The Report recommended that the motion be denied for several reasons. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 22-23.) First, it is not necessary to amend a complaint after the parties stipulate to the dismissal of one of the HYPERLINK counts. ht4Is://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection =cases&id=unrcontentltem:413C-XS20-0038X50H-00000-00&contexit HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.contlapildocument?collection --cases&id=urn:contentitem:413C-X520-0038X5011-00000-0Mcontex Second, the additional plaintiff did not provide the requisite notice to bring suit under the [ HYPERL1NK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], and would be subject to immediate dismissal if she were joined as a plaintiff. (Id.) Third, the additional plaintiff does not have Article III standing to bring a claim because she did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact. (Id.) Neither party objected to the Report's recommendation and this Court does not find that it is erroneous. The Plaintiffs Motion to Amend is denied. III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge White. (ECF No. 34.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED and the 17-2361-A-000596 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is DENIED [**321 . SIGNED and ENTERED on this 30th day of March 2015. /s/ Alia Moses ALIA MOSES United States District Judge End of M•cumeill 17-2361-A-000597 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5M1 N-0M41 -F04D-1 ON R-00000-00&context=L iiYPERLINK https://advancelexis.cornAripihlocument?collection=rasesttid=urrixonten Item:5:111 N011141-1704D-10NR-00000-00&context ' , United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida October 25,2016, Decided; October 26, 2016, Entered on Docket Case No. 16-cv-61474-BLOOMNalle Reporter 221 F. Supp. 3d 1354 *; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148234 **; 2016 WL 6248602 FL. ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiffs, v. BRENDA SNIPES, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant, v. 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,Intervenor Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases8cid=urn:contentitem:5KS6-6541-F04D10.TX-00000-00&context=] [HYPER]INK vance.lexis.coniAlpi/document?colledion ."'CC ses u rcontentitem:5K.S6-654..-.170,010,1X-00000-00&context HYPERLINK htv:Padvance.lexis.com/qpkiocument?rollection ---cases&id=urn:comentliem:5K56-6541-1704D16UX.,00000-00&context-1 Counsel: [**1] For Andrea Bellitto, Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Joseph A. Vanderhulst, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Publix Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Mathew Daniel Gutierrez, LEAD ATTORNEY,Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, For American Civil Rights Union,Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Mathew Daniel Gutierrez, LEAD ATTORNEY,Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, FL. For Brenda Snipes, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant: Burnadette Norris-Weeks, LEAD ATTORNEY,Fort Lauderdale, FL; Michelle Austin Pamies,LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Burnadette Norris-Weeks PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL. For 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, Intervenor Defendant: Cameron Bell, Scott Novakowski, Stuart C. Naifeh, LEAD ATTORNEYS,[**2] PRO HAC VICE,Demos, New York, NY; Catherine M.Flanagan, Michelle Kanter Cohen,LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE,Project Vote, Washington, DC;Kathleen Marie Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEY,Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami, FL; Nicole G. Berner, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service 17-2361-A-000598 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes Employees International Union, Deputy General Counsel, Washington,DC;Trisha Pande, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service Employees International Union, Washington,DC. Judges: BETH BLOOM,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: BETH BLOOM Opinion [*1357] ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Brenda Snipes's Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [16] ("Defendant's Motion"), and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [36], ("1199SEIU's Motion") (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court has reviewed the Motions, all supporting and opposing filings, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and 1199SEIU's Motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union, Inc. ("ACRU") is a non-profit corporation "which promotes election integrity, compliance [**3] with federal election laws, government transparency, and constitutional government." ECF No. [12] ¶ 4 ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff Andrea Bellitto ("Bellitto") is a registered voter in Broward County and member of the ACRU. See id. 4g 5. Defendant Brenda Snipes ("Snipes" or "Defendant") is the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East("1199SEIU")is a labor union that represents approximately 25,000 healthcare workers and an additional 7,400 retired members in the State of Florida. See id. 4g 6; ECF No.[23] at 6-7. Plaintiffs ACRU and Bellitto (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated these proceedings on June 27, 2016 and filed an Amended Complaint thereafter, bringing two claims against Defendant under the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=].1 In Count I, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant "has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context1 [[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GN01-NRF4-44WF-00000-00&context=]]." Amended Complaint ¶ 28. In Count II, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant "has failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data, failed to produce or otherwise [**4] failed to make records available to Plaintiffs concerning Defendant's implementation of programs and activities for ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Broward County, As do the parties, the Court refers to [ HYPERLINK https://adyance.le)ds.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-00000008ccontext-=] interchangeably as "Section 8," reflecting the statute's original location at Section 8 ofPub. L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77. 17-2361-A-000599 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA, [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF'4-4007-00000-00&context1 " Id. eg 33. Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court (1) declaring that Defendant is in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA;(2)ordering Defendant to implement reasonable and effective registration list maintenance programs to cure failures to comply with the NVRA and ensure that non-citizens and ineligible registrants are not on Defendant's rolls; (3) ordering Defendant to substantively respond to Plaintiffs' written request for records concerning her implementation of programs and [*13581 activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of Broward County's voter registration list and provide access to election records; and (4) additional relief. See id. at 9-10. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on August 18, 2016, moving to dismiss these proceedings in their entirety under HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 of the Federal Rules. Thereafter, 1199SEIU filed a motion to [**5] intervene, which the Court granted. See ECF Nos. [23], [29], [53]. 1199SEIU filed its own Motion to Dismiss on September 21, 2016, moving to dismiss Count I only ofthe Amended Complaint. Both Motions are now ripe for adjudication. See ECF Nos.[21],[22],[54],[63]. 11. LEGAL STANDARD A.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collectio n=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP10119-TOYW-00000-00&context=] "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." [ HYPERL1NK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S65-JWF0-003BR1BW-00000-00&context=]r YPERLINK https://advanee.lexis.cotteapildocument?collection ses :contentitenn3S65-1WF -003B.R.IBW-000004 &..cc.mtext-.1 (internal citations omitted). "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-KXF0-003BRYPERLINK H19B-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.coreapi/document?collection zzrases&id um:romentitem:3S4X-KX470-0038111.9B4)0000-00&cautext-] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-9P90-003B737M-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK hilps://advance.lexis.comfapi,dorziment?rollection cases&id arn:contenthern:3S4X-9P90-003B737M-00000-00&contertq. A [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motion challenges the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and takes one of two forms: a "facial attack" or a "factual attack." "A 'facial attack' on the complaint 'require[s] the court merely to look and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of HYPERLINK the motion." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4PT3-CDNO-TXFX)E??INK G38P-00000-00&context=][ htips:Padvance.,exis.4-;onevklocurnenecollection cases&id arn:contenthern:4P113-CDNO-IXEXG38P-00000-00&romext I (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-OJKO-003B17-2361-A-000600 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes .HYPE1?1,INK. 51N0-00000-00&context=][ https://advatice.lexis.comiapi/docionent?collection sesc" •••••-ll -11:cautentliem:3,:-/ .-0..1K0-003B17)-00000-00&contexi-d.. "A 'factual attack,' on the other hand, challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on matters outside the pleadings." r*61 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:83M5-HR71-652HHYPERLJNK F3HP-00000-00&contextlf Mips_ , vance.kxis.,comitwi/document?colledion cases&id ttm:rontentitem:83M5-.11R7.1-6.52HF3H13-00000-00&eontext-1 (citing [HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentitem:3S4X-OJKO-003B51N0-00000-00&context=][ PE h htips://advance.lex1s.4-Awn/qpiidocument?cc ,lection eases&id arn:contenthem:35'4X-0,110-003B5.1N0-00000-00&context-j); see[ HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4S9R-GBTO-TXFXG3CY-00000-00&context=]HYPE] TK https:// • vance.kxiscotnlivi/documerecollection cases& d um:rontentitem:4S9R-GB G3CY-00000-00&eontext....1("By contrast, a factual attack on a complaint challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction using material extrinsic from the pleadings, such as affidavits or testimony."). "In assessing the propriety of a motion for dismissal under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentitem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], a district court is not limited to an inquiry into undisputed facts; it may hear conflicting evidence and decide for itself the factual issues that determine [ HYPERLINK jurisdiction." https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-GWV0-008HNTK VOFB-00000-00&context=][ htips,../.Wvance.le -'s.4-;oin/qpi/documentkollection eases&id....arn:contenthern:3S4X-GWV0-008HVOIT-00000-00&rontext Z. As such, "[w]hen a defendant properly challenges subject matter under HYPERLINK jurisdiction https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], the district court is free to independently weigh facts and 'may proceed as it never could under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] or [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]" HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?co collection .,1, 1e , =cases&id=u:contentitem:4SFW-P1NO-TX4Nm GOM5-00000-00&context=][ https:Pativance.,exis.4-;onee,pi/doeument?collection eases&id....arn:contenthern:4,STW-P/NO-72(4N:GOA15-00000-00&context Z(citing[HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:482X-6XN0-0038HYPERLJNK X43T-00000-00&contextlf hit s:t'idvance. exisxamiapi/. ocument2colEaton zzrases&id um:rontentitem:48241`.2V0-0038X431:-00000-00&contexi 1. B.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collectio n=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP161‘119-FOYVV-00000-00&context=1 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context1 of the Federal Rules requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context=] Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."[ 17-2361-A-000601 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004CHYPERL.1 002M-00000-00&context=][ htifts:/advance.levis.com/qpi/ /docurnen :. Go lectie.m cases&id....urn conIvnthern:4NSW-8840-004C00214-00000-00&rontext 1; see[ HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W9Y-4KSO-TATX.N 1325-00000-00&context=] https:/'x1vance.kxis.,comitwi/documeni?collection zzcases&id Zirrrrontentitent:4W9Y-4KS0-7XFX1325-000190-00&comext HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.com/iypi./dootnnent?collection VS =14'-n:contentigem..41/911-.-i 325-00000-00&coniext---- I HYPERLINK htips://advanmlexis.conilapi/doetiment?eolleetion=eas es&id=urn:contentittem:4W91) 4KSO-TXPX:432500000-004.teontexfq (explaining that HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.cotn/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context=rs pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"). In the same vein, a complaint may not rest on "naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement." [**71 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W9Y-4KSO-TXFX1325-00000-00&context=]f HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.coneapi/doctiment7collection --cases :content:Item:4 W9Y...-1KS 7;11.: .13.2, -9000 )..-0 7coniew (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004CHYPERLINK 002M-00000-00&context=11 https:/ vance.lexis.coneapi/document2co:leetion sesti'czd-zu -ii:c.4.•)ntent lenr r-8840-004Cin 002.4440000-00&context J (alteration original)). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C- HYPERLINK 002M-00000-00&context=][ https://acivance.lexis.com/apidoctnnent?collection cases -n:cautentliem: -«WO-004C02. -00000-00&contex These elements are required to survive a motion brought under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], which requests dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." When reviewing a motion under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], a court, as a general rule, must accept the plaintiffs allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FS0-0038X3KC-00000-00&context=][ .17.PERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/documerecollection =cases&idrn:contentJtem:46R6-5F'SO.-003R..3K(.'00{)t.)O'00&co;:?tvl,...1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4WBB-4KMO-TXFP.HYPERLINK K2NS-00000-00&contextlf https://achance.lexis.comthpidoctnnent?collection c ties( .1 --14-11:contentliem:414/813-4KVO-T IONS-00000-00&conter However, this tenet does not apply to legal conclusions, and courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&context=][ htt,s:/'jjyance.lexis.com/api/docwnenr?coi/ec.?tion ....cases&id taivrontentitem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&context...1; see[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4W9Y-4KSO-TATX?T 1325-00000-00&contextt]1. https://ae Pance.lexis.conevi/documenecol ection 17-2361-A-000602 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes cases&id um:conienthern:4W9Y-4KSO-IXEK1325-00000-00&rontext=1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4K2S-JP40-0038HYPERLINK X26S-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection ....cases&id um:rontentitem:4K2S,INO-0038X26S-00000-00&context...1. A court considering a[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motion is generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and attached exhibits, including documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the claim. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4VF6-H4DO-TXFXG3F5-00000-00&contexttlI HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.comicipi/document7collection --eases :content/km:41r;6,114,00-r G3.;3-00000-00&context [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4HX0-1YNO-0038HYPERLINK XOSJ-00000-00&context=]f https://advance.lexis.com/apiedocinnent?collection sesc' mcontentitan:411Xi9-Mr -0038XOSI-00000-00&conwxt j("[A] document outside the four corners of the complaint may still be considered if it is central to the plaintiffs claims and is undisputed in terms of authenticity.")(citing HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FRO-0038)7. HY X3K5-00000-00&context=][ htv:/i/advance.lexis.com/q)kiocument?rollection cases&id....urn:cchatenthem:46R6-5FRO-0038x3K5-00000-00&context-l. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5D4C-V601-F04D1229-00000-00&context=][ BYPERL N haps:// ocument?collection ses -um:content/km:5 4C4/601-17 ( 1229-00000-00&comext (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5114-D7M1-652HY .„-.INK FOOH-00000-00&context=][ htc/'&1yance. exisxaretwi/'ocument?colledion ....rases&id unvrontentitem: .14-D7M1-652.11FOOH-00000-00&context...1. "The movant must support its arguments[1-'81 for dismissal with citations to legal authority." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5P4TFXKO-004D-61TY-00000-00&context=]). "Where a defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] does not provide legal authority in support of its arguments, it has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing its entitlement to dismissal." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:7Y4C-D100-YBOMJO8K-00000-00&context=]f HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/documerecollection ccises&:contentftem:7 C4)IOCLYBOM.108K-00000-0Mcoiltext and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4N-C6N0-0039.HYPERLINK R3P7-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.comthpidocument?collection nes( irn:cautentliem.,'41 1-76N0-00.39"On a HYPERL1NK R3P7-00000-00&contex It is through these https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection lenses that the Court considers the Motions. =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 motion III. DISCUSSION to dismiss, 'Wile moving party bears the burden to show that the complaint should be dismissed." [ Defendant Snipes argues that the Court must dismiss the Amended Complaint because Plaintiffs HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000603 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Benin° v. Snipes (1)have not alleged a cognizable claim over which the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3)lack standing to bring their claims. Defendant's Motion at 9. 1199SEIU also moves the Court to dismiss Count I for Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, arguing that Plaintiffs lack a cause of action because Defendant has fully complied with the NVRA's "explicit safe harbor procedure." 1199SEIU's Motion at 1. As the issues relate to this Court's jurisdiction, the Court first reviews Defendant's arguments that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' [*1360] claims, and that Plaintiffs lack standing to file suit. A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1. j**9.1 Failure to include necessary party Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to sue Florida's Secretary of State or the State of Florida. Defendant claims that these are the only entities that a private party can sue under the NVRA. See Defendant's Motion at 9. Relatedly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff ACRU lacks standing because it did not provide pre-suit notice to Florida's Secretary of State, and that Plaintiff Bellitto lacks standing because she did not provide pre-suit notice at all. See id Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they only filed suit against Defendant Snipes, the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, but argue that the NVRA requires nothing more. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees. At Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring a claim against Defendant under Section 8([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]) of the NVRA,a statute that provides requirements for the "administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 mandates that each state "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason [**10] of -- [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] the death registrant; or [ HYPERLINK of the https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-1\IRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. At Count II of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring a claim under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3Nwhich F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], provides that: (1)Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of 17-2361-A-000604 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered. (2) The records maintained pursuant to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collect ion=statuteslegisl ation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collect ion=statuteslegisl ation&id=unt:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made. haps://advance.lexis.cotn/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], or within 20 days after receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court for declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to the violation. 1*1361] 3. If the violation occurred within 30 days before the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved person need not provide notice to the chief election official of the State under[ HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.cotn/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] before bringing a civil action under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contenthem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] of the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection NVRA governs the civil enforcement of Section 8, =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nproviding for enforcement by: F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. This Court's jurisdiction, therefore, stems directly from[ (a) Attorney General -- The Attorney General HYPERLINK may bring a civil action in an appropriate https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection district court for such [**11] declaratory or =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Ninjunctive relief as is necessary to carry out this F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], and chapter. Plaintiffs' standing to bring suit depends upon (b)Private right of action -compliance with the statute. 1. A person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may provide written notice "The NVRA centralizes responsibility in the state ofthe violation to the chief election official and in the chief elections officer, who is the state's ofthe State involved. stand-in." HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 2. Ifthe violation is not corrected within 90 =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04Kdays after receipt of a notice under [ N20M-00000-00&context=li HYPI.:1117,87K HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000605 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes htips:,:radvance.lexis.contlapildocument?collectioll ---eases&id=urn:contentftem:5DILX-51/414704KN20M-00000-00&context-1. Under the NVRA, "[t]he chief elections officer is 'responsible for coordination of[**12] State responsibilities." Am. Civil Rights Union v. Martinez—Rivera, 166 E Supp. 3d 779, 792 (WD. Tex. 2015) (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-4009-00000-00&context=]). And, in order to bring a private action under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], a party must notice "the chief election official of the State involved," which in Florida, is the Secretary of See State. HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8V6XN41-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=] ("The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state"). Defendant argues that based on [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] and the NVRA's overall structure, Plaintiffs can only file suit against the State of Florida or Florida's Secretary of State. See ECF No. [22] at 2. Defendant, however, has not cited to a single case that expressly supports this position. Unaware of any contrary authority, the Court finds persuasive the Honorable Alia Moses's recent analysis in a similar case filed in the Western District of Texas. In Martinez-Rivera, infra, Judge Moses analyzed the same statutory provisions and relevant case law relied upon by the parties in this case, and found that "the NVRA itself is . . . silent on the subject of necessary parties," and that Scott v. Schedler, infra, "did not say that the Secretary of State is a necessary party to an NVRA suit." Id at 793(citing HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04K, „INK N20M-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.coreapi/documentnollection zzrasescf:id um:rontentitem:5D11X-51/4.1-.1704KN20M-00000-00&context.--1. Reviewing Texas law, the court went on to find that the local defendant in that case — the Zavala County,[**13] Texas Tax Assessor-Collector — "has certain obligations under the NVRA as the designated voter registrar and state official." Id. Accordingly, and "[in the absence of a holding to the contrary," Judge Moses declined "to dismiss the. . Complaint on standing grounds for failure to join the Secretary of State." Id.; see HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=um:contentltem:4V5R-N4MO-TXFR51PV-00000-00&contextqf BYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,comiapjocument?collection =cases -IC unrcontentitem:41/5 A. 7- .71?51PV-00000-00&contex ("The Secretary's absence from this litigation does not affect this court's ability to accord complete relief among existing parties. Plaintiffs have sued local election authorities . . for their own violations of the NVRA and Missouri's implementing statutes." (analyzing HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=]) (emphasis in the original)). The Court similarly finds that Defendant Snipes has certain obligations under the NVRA. Defendant is the Supervisor of Elections for Broward County, Florida. In that position, Defendant is designated by Florida law to maintain the voter rolls in Broward County. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8D4051-DXC8-050E-00000-00&context1 ("the supervisor shall update voter registration information"). As Plaintiffs allege and Defendant does not challenge, list maintenance obligations in 17-2361-A-000606 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] BeHim)v. Snipes Florida are placed predominantly, and in many instances exclusively, on the Supervisors of Elections. See, e.g., [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation8rid=urn:contentItem:5JDR("voter 2J41-DXC8-005D-00000-0084context1 registration official" is defined as [**14] the supervisors of elections); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D405-00000-00&context=] (supervisors are responsible for following up on registration inadequate voter forms); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5G1GKMY1-DXC8-004T-00000-00&context=} (online applications, regardless of where received, are forwarded and processed by supervisors); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40K-00000-00&context=} (voter information cards are provided by the supervisors); HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D4ON-00000-00&context=}(changes of address are received and processed by the HYPERLINK supervisors); https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8D4051-DXC8-050E-00000-00&context=} (describing [*1362] the office and duties of the supervisors, including custody of registrationrelated documents); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislatioathd=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40T-00000-00&context=} (the statewide system enables the supervisors to "provide, access, and update voter registration HYPERLINK information"); https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context1 (supervisors responsible for determining eligibility HYPERLINK of applicants); https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context=} (supervisors responsible for removal of registrants); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context1 (supervisors responsible for maintaining and providing public access to "records concerning implementation of registration list maintenance programs and activities"); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context=} (street address information is provided by the supervisors department); [ HYPERLINK to the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D410-00000-00&context1 (supervisors remove deceased, criminal, and other ineligible registrants upon receiving information from the secretary of state); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D410-00000-00&context=} (describing procedures r*15] that must be followed by supervisors for removal of registrants upon receiving notice or information of ineligibility); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D413-00000-00&context=} (original registration applications are in the custody of the supervisors); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=urn:contentItem:5D6SHV81-DXC8-04T2-00000-00&context=] (supervisors have a duty to perform list maintenance regarding ineligible voters). In fact, a Florida Supervisor is required to "conduct a general registration list maintenance program to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of accurate and current voter registration records in the statewide voter 17-2361-A-000607 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes system." HYPERLINK and so, "[i]f the Defendant has failed to meet her registration https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection obligations, ACRU can bring a civil suit against =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8Vher." Martinez—Rivera, 166E ,Supp. 3d at 793. 6YB1-DXC8-044V-00000-00&context=]. And, while the Florida Secretary of State is tasked with 2. Standing "coordinat[ing] the state's responsibilities under the [NVRA] . . The secretary may delegate voter Defendant also challenges Plaintiffs' standing to registration duties and records maintenance bring suit, on account of Plaintiffs' alleged failure activities to voter registration officials. Any to send pre-suit notice as required by [ HYPERLINK responsibilities delegated by the secretary shall be performed in accordance with state and federal https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection law." HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. "Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5J8Vjusticiable controversy to obtain judicial resolution 6XMl-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=], of that controversy is what has traditionally been HYPERLINK referred to as the question of standing to sue." [ https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5J8Vcollection 6XM1-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=]; see [ https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? contentItem:354X-D8W0-003B=cases&id=urn: HYPERLINK HY S3HH-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ht4s://advance.lexis.com4..V,document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4T3J-V2HO-TX4Ncases&id....unrcontenthern:334X-D8WO-0038G1M7-00000-00&context=][ S3HH-00000-00&contextq. "The plaintiff has the hign::::ladvance.lexis.conv4)bdocument?rollection burden to clearly and specifically set forth facts cases&id urn conknthem 413,14)2110-1X4NGIA17-00000-00&context=1 ("By its plain sufficient to satisfy Art. III standing requirements." Id. (internal quotations and alternations omitted). In language, [Section 8] . . envisions the states will standing to bring a private action actively oversee a general program wherein many the context of pursuant I**171 to HYPERLINK of the duties not specifically assigned to the states https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection may be delegated."). =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], "failure to Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Snipes, like the Tax Assessor-Collector of Zavala I**161 provide notice is fatal." [ HYPERLINK County, Texas, has certain responsibilities under https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection Florida law. As the Florida official directly =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KHYPERLINK responsible for voter list maintenance in Broward N20M-00000-00&context=][ County, Defendant enables the Florida Secretary of https:/a .vance. exis.com/api/documerecollection casest' ,..c -zurnxontentlienv.:51)11X-5174 -1704KState to maintain accurate and current voter registration rolls as mandated by the NVRA. See[ N20A1-00000-00&context71. HYPERLINK Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs have standing https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection assuming they provided proper notice within the =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn contentItem:5D3Nof HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; see also meaning Martinez—Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 792. In this https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection case, the alleged violation occurred as a direct =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nresult of Defendant's actions in Broward County, F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. As to 17-2361-A-000608 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes Plaintiff ACRU,the Court need not decide whether notice to Defendant suffices because ACRU sent a copy of the Notice to the I*1363] Florida's Secretary of State, the "chief election official" of Florida. See Amended Complaint ¶ 18; ECF Nos. [12-1](the "Notice")2 =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context1 . . . [21] at 19; see also Martinez—Rivera, 166E Supp. 3d at 807 (adopting Magistrate's Report and Recommendation stating notification properly "sent to the Zavala County Clerk and copied to Defendant and the Texas Secretary of State"). at 2 ("This letter serves as the statutory notice to Regarding Plaintiff Bellitto, Plaintiffs concede that your county, required by [ HYPERLINK Bellitto did not send notice herself, arguing instead https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection that as a member of the ACRU, Bellitto derives standing through ACRU's notice. See ECF No.[21] at 20. Bellitto has the burden to clearly and 2u ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider specifically establish standing to bring suit, see[ an extrinsic document if it is(1) central to the plaintiffs claim; and HYPERLINK (2) its authenticity is not challenged." [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocument?collection=cases&id=urn:co ht43s://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ntentltem:7Y3F-DX20-YBOV-804B-00000-00&context=]T =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D8W0-003BHYPFRLLVK S3HH-00000-00&context=][ RYPERLINK htips:&mivanee. s.cong/aM41oentpent?collection 5eaid urn •e htipscidvance.lexis.coreapi/document?colfection ientItem:713' -20-171301 , 4048-00000-00&eontext-I (citing [ HYPERLINK ....rases&id um:romentitem:3S4X-D814'0-003Bhttps://advance.lexis.com/apldocwnent?collection=cases&id=um:co S31111-00000-00&comext=1, but has cited only to ntentltem:4F.19-1FW0-0038-XONW-00000-00&context=][ Scott, infra, in support of her position. Scott, HYPERLINK however, found that an individual plaintiff lacked htips: dvunee.je:tis.conylapi/document?colI&lion...casesA':id urn:e tentItem:4E1 14170-003840NW-000W-00cteontest,... 1. Here, standing to sue for failure to send [**18] notice, Plaintiffs specifically refer to the Notice, and the document is central and that said plaintiff could not "piggyback on the to Plaintiffs' claims. See Amended Complaint ¶ 18. In any event, HYPERLINK NAACP's notice." "[Alien a defendant properly challenges subject matter jurisdiction collection https ://advance. I exi s. com/api/document? under HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocument?collection=statutes=cases&id=um:contentitem:5DHX-5V41-F04Klegislation&id=urn:contentitem:5GYC-I WPI-6N19-FOYW-00000N20M-00000-00&context=]. Bellitto appears to 00&context=] the district court is free to independently weigh facts, cite Scott in an effort to distinguish it, stating that and 'may proceed as it never could under [ HYPERLINK there is "no indication that the individual plaintiff https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?eollection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contendtem:5GYC-1WPI-6N19-FOYW-00000in the Scott case was a member of the 00&context=} or HYPERLINK organizational plaintiff." ECF No. [21] at 20. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutesHowever, while it may be true that an "association legislation&id=urn:contendtem:5GYC-242I-6NI 9-F165-0000000&context=]." HYPERLINK has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members" [ https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co under certain circumstances, [ HYPERLINK ntentitem:4SFW-PINO-TX4N-00M5-00000-00&context=][. https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-9CY0-003Bhttps://adly.tnee..le.sis.contiqpildoonnent?eolle.Mion,...alses Ad-unix IIYPERLINK Owen:Item:4 Firf "IN" N (citing[ S1K0-00000-00&context=]/ HYPERLINK https:/ a .varice..exis.com/apildocurnerecollection https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co )-003B--casest urn:contenthem:3:4,ntentltem:482X-6XN0-0038-X43T-00000-00&context=p: S1K0-00000-00&contex.-1, it does not necessarily IIYPERLINK follow that a member confers standing through her Imps:AU:M.znee.le.sis.comiqpifilonon t?eolle.etion,...case3 .qc1.-?MIX ontewItem •• 2_ 1.7)10-00•3.8-.Y. V-00n00-00&context...1); see membership in that organization. -70.115-00000-00&co.nlext...1 Martinez—Rivera,166 E Supp. .3(1at 794("To determine whether a party has provided adequate notice, a Court is not limited to the complaint["19] alone, but may look to documents incorporated into the complaint by reference."). Under the facts of this case, the Court finds the analysis in Scott persuasive and analogous to the 17-2361-A-000609 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes issue of Bellitto's standing to bring a Section 8based claim. As in Scott, Bellitto did not herself comply with HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=rs notice prerequisite. Like the notice in Scott, the ACRU's letter did not mention Bellitto "by name" or even refer to ACRU members, and thus, the Court finds the "notice letter . . . too vague to provide . . . an opportunity to attempt compliance as to [Bellitto] before facing litigation." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KN20M-00000-00&context=]/. 111. htipsw wnee.lexisxonthpi/document?collection --rases uns:contenthem:5 '-5174.1,11 ). A2ONI-00000-00&context I (internal quotations omitted); see ECF No. [12-1] at 1 ("Dear Ms. Snipes: I am writing on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union . . . ."). Accordingly Bellitto "has no basis for relief because [s]he did not file notice." HYPERLINK https:lladvance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KHYPERLINK N20M-00000-00&context=][ https://a vance.lexis,comicipi/document?collection cases&id=u :content iem:5 -512'4 -1;194K.1.V.4( .1-00000-00&context=1; see Martinez— Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 794 n.10 ("Although the Plaintiff attempts to take credit for communication sent by third parties to the Defendant as early as 2012, it appears from the Complaint that the September 12, 2013 letter represents the first contact between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. . . Therefore, the Court disregards the earlier communication." (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:5DHX-5V41-F04K' N20M-00000-00&context=][ htips:Pae. Pance.le -'s.4-;oneqpiidocument?collection cases&id....arn:contenthern:51)11X-51/41,1;04K.N120A1-00000-00&context-1)). Bellitto has failed [**20] to meet her burden to establish standing to bring suit. Thus, Defendant's Motion is granted as to Plaintiff Bellitto's claims. [*13641 B. Failure To State A Claim Defendant also moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], arguing that the Amended Complaint "fail[s] to state how,if at all, Defendant failed to comply with any records requests," and fails to "account for the discretionary methods used by states for removal of registrants." Defendant's Motion lj 18; ECF No. [22] at 6. 1199SEIU similarly argues that the Court must dismiss Count I for Plaintiffs3 failure to state a claim, as the record shows that Defendant has exercised her discretion in a manner entirely consistent with the NVRA's "safe harbor" provision at HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See 1199SEIU Motion at 1-2. The Court addresses the movants' arguments jointly, as appropriate. In the Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that "Defendant has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of Section 8 of NVRA,[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context=]." Amended Complaint If 28 (Count I). Plaintiff also claims that "Defendant has failed to respond adequately [**21.1 to Plaintiffs' written request for data, . . . in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA,[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- 3 As Defendants Motion is granted as to Plaintiff Bellitto, the Court refers only to Plaintiff ACRU in the remainder ofthis Order. 17-2361-A-000610 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 " Id. ¶ 33 (Count II). Section 8 "provides an exhaustive list of circumstances justifying removal" of registered voters, and places restraints on a states' authority to remove individuals from voter lists.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=]/ llYPERLINK https://advanee.lexis.rom:afti;doctintent?collertion 4-xlms&k um:content Xi8 7.4 P1C2-00000-00&coMexl (hereinafter, "APR!"). While Count I does not list the specific subsection of Section 8 Defendant allegedly violated, Count I is entitled "Failure to Conduct List Maintenance," and Plaintiffs claims are premised on Defendant's alleged failure to use a "reasonable effort" to comply with the N'VRA. ACRU's claims, therefore, under HYPERLINK fall https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 of the NVRA, requiring that election officials "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of -- [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 the death registrant; or [ HYPERLINK of the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] (emphasis HYPERLINK Under added). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]: A State may meet the requirement of [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collect ion=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 by establishing a program under which -(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and (B) if it appears from information provided 1**221 by the Postal Service that - (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure in [ HYPERLINK described https://advance.lexis.com/api/documen t?collection=statuteslegislation&id=--um:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000611 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000=statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N00&context=} to confirm the change of F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK address. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection I*13651 HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection In F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nparticular, Plaintiff alleges that [ F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=1 (" HYPERLINK On information and belief, Defendant has been given reliable information regarding registered https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nvoters who have either died or no longer reside at the j**231 address listed in their registration F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]I'). In addition to these explicit NVRA provisions, the and has taken no action to remove them as HYPERLINK parties dedicate extensive argument to the required by of [ HYPERLINK expanse https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collect unwritten https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ion=statutes=statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nlegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-M6916SKW-D410-00000-00&context=} F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and On HAVA's alleged effect on Section 8. However, for information and belief, in the Wynmoor the purposes of the instant Motions, the Court finds community of Coconut Creek, for example, dismissal improper because Plaintiff has alleged Defendant has received information regarding over 200 registered voters who have either died that Defendant failed to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters by reason of death or or who no longer reside in the community. . . . change of address.4 By failing to implement a program which takes reasonable steps to cure these circumstances, See HYPERLINK Defendant has violated NVRA and other https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection federal list maintenance statutes. Amended Complaint IN 13-14 (emphasis added). The Court finds this factual allegation and other 4 The Court notes that the Sixth Circuit recently held that "[b]y the claims made in the Amended Complaint are HAVA's own terms, however, [its] language is not to be construed sufficient to state a claim under Section 8. to authorize or require conduct prohibited under . . . or to supersede, restrict, or limit the application of. . . [the NVRA]."[1-IYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentltem:5KSG-DG81-F04K-PIC2-00000-00&context=]1 .11.Y.P.ERLINK imps comiqpildoninum e.di -cases ontentitent:.50..7-DG8 "-1704K,PIC'-00000-00&con• t...71.11.Y.PERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..le.sis.comiqpiklommen&coile.cii ...cases UMX onientitent:5KS "-170 KJ)1 -00000-00&con• t I .11.Y.PERLINK hitp.v •l/cuity.r.nee. le. comiqpildocument..2c.xilledion,...alse,c onientitent:.50 J-DG8 "-1704K-1)1C7' -00000-00&con• t r .11.YPERLINK hitps://cuity.r.nee..le.sis.comiqpikloommt.?colle.th ...cases ?MIX ontentitem •50 7-TY38 .-17n4K-PIC'-nn000-00&con• I .11.Y.PERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..le.sis.comiqpiklonomm ecii ...cases °went/tem:50 .7-TY:18 .-1704K-PIC -00000-00&con• t (alternations added and in the original)(citations omitted). Both Defendant and 1199SEUI argue that ACRU's pleadings notwithstanding, Defendant complied HYPERLINK with https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], a "safe harbor provision" that bars the claims at Count I. The parties' Motions cite to little authority in support ofthis position,[**24] and no authority has been presented to support dismissal at the pleading stage based on a defendant's stated compliance with HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. See 17-2361-A-000612 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes 1199SEUIS Motion at 6-7 (citing only to guidance from the Department of Justice at[ HYPERLINK https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voterregistration-act-1993-nvra] , and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:40G4-5TNO-0038Y40D-00000-00&context=]f IIYPERJINK https://advance.lexis,corn/qpi/document?collection cases&id....umeontenthem:40G4-5170-0038Y40D-00000-00&contexi—j (providing a general overview of the NVRA)). However, last month, the Sixth Circuit explicitly referred to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] as the "socalled 'safe-harbor' procedure," noting that it "provide[s] states with an example of a procedure for identifying and removing voters who had changed residence that would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=][ BYP EP. ' hitps://advance.lex-is.corthipiVociiment?rollection cases&ic -II:content iem: P 2-00000-0Mcontext 11. .HYPERLINK hivs://advance.lexis.4-;onevi/dociirrientkollectie.m ,.,cases&:id=tirn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-FO4K. P 2-00000-00&contexi HYPI: , aINK htips://advance.lexis.comicipi/document?collection cases&id urn:romentitem:5KSG-DG8 PI 72 0000-004.context-jf HYPEI htips:/:•advance./exis.com/api/document2colfection -caws unrcontentitem:5 Xii.8 14( 7 P1(.72-00000-00&coniext HYP RUNK vance.lexisxmlilpi,4 ocument7collection ---cases&id-unrcontentlient:5KSG-D081-.F04K.P :2-00000-00&context-1 (emphasis added). Lacking guidance from the Eleventh Circuit, the Court finds persuasive the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in APR!, and finds that full compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] "would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." Id. 1199SEUI claims that a letter from Defendant, attached to the Amended Complaint at Exhibit B, establishes that Defendant fully complied with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and that Exhibit B is sufficient "to defeat Plaintiffs] claim that a legal violation has occurred." ECF No. [63] at 5 (citing APR!). APR!, however, addressed material distinct claims under Section 8 in the context of a motion for a permanent injunction. In this case,["25] Plaintiff does not concede that Defendant fully complied with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], but rather, specifically pleads that "[b]y failing to implement a program which takes reasonable steps to cure these circumstances, Defendant has violated NVRA and other federal list maintenance statutes." Amended Complaint 11 14. ACRU I*13661 has plead sufficient facts to support its claim that Defendant inadequately removed the names of registrants who have died or changed their address; whether Exhibit B establishes Defendant's full compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and defeats Plaintiff's claims is a fact-based argument more properly addressed at a later stage of the proceedings. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4CMB-D420-0038X2SX-00000-00&context=li. HYPERLINK ,exis.4-;on4,ukdocument?collection ...rases&id UM:rontentitem:404B-D420-0038-00000-00&contex zd. (court properly considers defense only where "the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense to bar the action" (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)). Relatedly, the Court finds the factual explanation proffered by 1199SEUI in its Motion, while plausible, is insufficient to warrant dismissal of Count I, particularly as the Court must evaluate all plausible inferences in favor of Plaintiff. See 1199SEUI's Motion at 9-10; Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337; HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection 17-2361-A-000613 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Be!lino Ar. Snipes =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FS0-0038X3KC-00000-00&context=]/ 111PEMINK hivs:Padvance lexis.conecfpFdoeurnent7calle4-;tion =eases&id=urn:contentliem 406-517SO-0038X3KC-00000-00&context ; see also Martinez— Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 794. Accordingly, ACRU's claims in Count I survive. [**261 The Court also finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim in Count II. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant "failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data. . . in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA, [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]." While Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to state "how" Defendant did not comply with Plaintiffs requests, HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-0084context1 requires, with exception, that Defendant "make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters. . . ." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context---] (emphasis added). Although the Amended Complaint does not specifically state that Defendant failed to provide all relevant records, the Court finds that Plaintiffs allegations, in conjunction with the attached Notice documenting in detail the information requested, is sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=unycontentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-0084context1. 1. Defendant Snipes's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [16], is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Bellitto's claims only; 2. 1199SEUI's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [36], is DENIED; 3. Defendant Snipes has until November [**27] 4, 2016 to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of October, 2016. /s/ Beth Bloom BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE End of Mconteni IV. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 17-2361-A-000614 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5POS-5CX1-F04D-1215-00000-00&context=p ilYPERLINK sitps:i2idvaiwe. comhzpihioculaienrcoilection=cases&id=urn:contentitem:SPOSSCX1-F049-I215-00000-00ttcontext—I United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida July 11, 2017, Decided; July 12, 2017, Entered on Docket Case No. 16-cv-61474-BLOOMNa11e Reporter 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107355 *;2017 WL 2972837 ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiffs, v. BRENDA SNIPES, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant, v. 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,Intervenor, Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERIANK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KS6-6541-F04D10JX-00000-00&context1 .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com.wi;document?collertion vsc'id=a. w:cautentitem:5KS6-654I 10.1X-00000-00&context YPE htips:Pae. Ponce.lexis%conevi/documentkollection anes&id=urn:contenthern:MOW-6541-1'194.1)laiX"--00000-00&context FL. For Brenda Snipes, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant: Burnadette Norris-Weeks, LEAD ATTORNEY,Fort Lauderdale, FL; Michelle Austin Pamies,LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Burnadette Norris-Weeks PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Kathleen Marie Phillips, Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami,FL. For 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, Intervenor Defendant: Cameron Bell, Stuart C. Naifeh, LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE, Demos, New York, NY; Carrie F. Apfel, Jessica Ring Amunson,Kali N. Bracey, Marina K. Jenkins, LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE, Tassity S. Johnson, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington,DC; Catherine M.Flanagan, Michelle Kanter Cohen, Counsel: [*1.1 For Andrea Bellifto, American Civil LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,[*2] Project Vote, Washington,DC; David Slutsky, Rights Union,Plaintiffs: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Levy LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Ratner PC, New York, NY; Katherine RobersonFoundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams, Young, LEAD ATTORNEY,SEIU, Miami,FL; LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Joseph A. Kathleen Marie Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEY, Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami,FL; Trisha Pande, Vanderhulst, Kaylan L. Phillips, LEAD LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Indianapolis, INT; Mathew Daniel Employees International Union, Washington, DC; Lucia Piva, Phillips, Richard, Rind,P.A., Miami, Gutierrez, Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, FL. 17-2361-A-000615 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes Judges: BETH BLOOM,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: BETH BLOOM Opinion ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union's ("Plaintiff' or "ACRU") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II of the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. [117] ("ACRU's Motion"), Defendant Brenda Snipes' ("Defendant" or "Snipes") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, ECF No.[145]("Snipes' Motion"), and Snipes and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East's ("Intervenor Defendant" or "United") Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. [142] (the "Snipes/United Motion"). United has also filed a Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony [*3] of Proposed Experts, ECF No. [144] (the "Daubert Motion"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record, all supporting and opposing filings, the exhibits attached thereto, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, ACRU's Motion, Snipes' Motion, and the Snipes/United Motion are denied. United's Daubert Motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND ACRU is a non-profit corporation "which promotes election integrity, compliance with federal election laws, government transparency, and constitutional government." ECF No. [12] at ¶ 4. Snipes is the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida and has been since November 2003. United is a labor union that focuses on representing healthcare workers and those who work in healthcare facilities.' Defendant Snipes' and Defendant-Intervenor United's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.[143]("Snipes/United Count I Supporting SOF")at ¶112-3.2 A. ACRU's Initial Requests and the Commencement of this Lawsuit On January 26, 2016, the President of ACRU, Susan A. Carleson ("Carleson"), sent a letter to Snipes notifying [*4] her that, based on ACRU's research, Broward County was "in apparent violation" of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=].3 ECF No.[12-11 The letter explained that based on ACRU's "comparison of publicly available information published by the U.S. Census Bureau [("Census Bureau")] and the federal Election Assistance Commission [("EAC")]," Broward County at the time "ha[d] an implausible number of registered voters compared to the number of eligible living citizens." Id. at 2. The letter expressed ACRU's hope that the Broward County Supervisor of Elections' Office ("BCSE0") would work toward compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- 1 On September 19, 2016, United filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted on September 20, 2016. See ECF Nos. [23],[29]; see also ECF No.[53]. 2Where a fact, as it is specifically incorporated herein, is uncontroverted by the opposing party, the Court cites only to the originating statement offacts. 3M do the parties, the Court refers to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=] interchangeably as "[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentitem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]," reflecting the statute's original location at Section 8 ofPub. L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107Stat. 77. 17-2361-A-000616 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 as well as ACRU's intention to file a lawsuit under the statute if such compliance was not achieved. Id. at 3. The letter also stated that if the information referenced therein was no longer accurate, "it would be helpful if[Snipes] could provide" documents related to the following: updated registration data since the publication of information reported by the EAC for 2014 from the November 2014 election (the "2014 EAC Report"); records obtained or received from federal and state courts, including jury recusal forms, regarding lack of citizenship, death, or relocation; the number of[1.5] ineligible voters removed by category and by date; the source agency that provided the identifying information of the removed deceased and when the data was provided; the number of notices sent to inactive voters since the publication of the 2014 EAC Report, including the date, scope, and contents of any mailing sent to all registered voters; the names of the staff responsible for conducting list maintenance obligations; the number of ineligible voters removed for criminal conviction, together with the underlying data and communications with law enforcement agencies; the total number of voters registered in Broward County as of the date of any response; any records indicating the use of citizenship or immigration status for list maintenance activities; and all list maintenance records including federal voter registration forms containing citizenship eligibility questionnaires for the previous 22 months. Id. at 3-4. Citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], the letter informed Snipes of the requirement that her office "make available for public inspection all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters." Id. at 4. The [*61 letter invited Snipes to call Carleson in order to arrange a time to discuss the matter and to arrange an inspection. Id. letter with a letter of her own. See ECF No. [12-2] at 1-2. Snipes' letter refuted as "implausible" the assertion that Broward County's voter rolls were filled with more voters than living persons residing in the county, advising ACRU that the State of Florida "has a statewide database" and that Broward County "adheres strictly to the State of Florida guidelines regarding management of the voter rolls." Id. The letter included two forms of certifications spanning the previous several years— "Address List Maintenance Activities" certifications and "Eligibility Records certifications—which it Maintenance" characterized as "documenting actions taken by [Snipes'] office to manage removal of voters no longer eligible to vote in Broward County."Id at 2; see also id. at 3-23. The letter also stated that Broward County "follows up on information received from credible sources that a person may no longer be eligible to vote." Id. at 2. The letter closed by directing ACRU to BCSEO's General Counsel "[s]hould [ACRU] require further information" and BCSEO's website [*7I as "an additional source ofinformation." Id. at 3. About two months after the exchange of letters, legal representatives of ACRU contacted Snipes via telephone on April 5, 2016, "offer[ing] to set up a meeting to discuss [ACRU's] letter and inspect the requested records." Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Supporting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II, ECF No. [118]("ACRU Count II Supporting SOF") at If 6. According to Snipes, during that phone call she "provided the contact information for [her] General Counsel in order to coordinate inspection and follow-up" and mentioned that there would be a cost for "technology time." Defendant Snipes' Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. [128]("Snipes Count II Response SOF") at ¶ 6. ACRU asserts, however, that Snipes "refused to meet to discuss remedies and permit inspection of records[,] . . . stat[ing] that she would meet with ACRU's representatives only if election officials from six other Florida counties were also present at On February 8, 2016, Snipes responded to ACRU's the meeting." ACRU Count II Supporting SOF at ¶ 17-2361-A-000617 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes 7 (emphasis omitted). Snipes denies that she ever refused to provide documents or allow for an inspection of records, asserting that she "explained I*8] that an inspection meeting needed to be coordinated with [General Counsel] given the threat of litigation and the fact that the caller was an attorney." Snipes Count II Response SOF at ¶ 7. Nearly three months later, on June 27, 20164 —and apparently without any further communications having taking place between ACRU and Snipes—ACRU and Andrea Bellitto ("Bellitto"),5 one of ACRU's members, initiated these proceedings, bringing two claims against Snipes under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See ECF No. [1]. Under Count I of its Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that Snipes "has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF'4-4003-00000-00&context=] [[ HYPERLINK 4As a matter of timing, the NVRA requires a potential plaintiff to "provide written notice of[a] violation [of this chapter] to the chief election official of the State involved." [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentftem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=]. "If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of[the] notice[,]" the aggrieved person may file a civil suit.[ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=stattiteslegislation&id=um:contentftem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=]. 50n October 26, 2016, the Court dismissed all claims brought by Bellitto after fmding that Bellitto lacked standing to bring suit See ECF No.[64]. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GT11-NRF4-431V-00000-00&context=1]." ECF No. [12] at ¶ 28. Under Count II of the Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that Snipes "has failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data, [and] failed to produce or otherwise failed to make records available to Plaintiffs concerning Defendant's implementation of programs and activities for ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Broward County, in violation of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]." Id. at lj 33. For relief, ACRU seeks an order from this Court (1) declaring that Snipes is [*9] in violation HYPERLINK of https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N(2) F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; ordering Snipes to implement reasonable and effective registration list maintenance programs to cure failures to comply with the NVRA and ensure that non-citizens and ineligible registrants are not on Broward County's voter rolls; (3) ordering Snipes to substantively respond to ACRU's written request for records concerning her implementation of programs and activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of Broward County's voter registration list and providing access to election records; and (4)additional relief. See id. at 9-10. B.BCSEO Records Produced throughout Discovery Following this case's inception, the discovery conducted by the parties revolved primarily around ACRU's records requests. First, on October 31, 2016, ACRU served discovery requests on Snipes requesting admissions and responses to interrogatories regarding list maintenance activities as well as any new documents. ACRU Count II Supporting SOF at ¶ 9. In response to ACRU's discovery requests, Snipes did not produce any new documents other than the certifications she had 17-2361-A-000618 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes provided with her February 8, 2016 letter, though C.BCSEO's Voter Registration and List Snipes did offer to allow an inspection of BCSEO's Maintenance Procedures voter registration database. [*10]See id. at 1N 12Along with Snipes, BCSEO's responsibilities 13. relating to voter registration and list maintenance On January 13, 2017, ACRU conducted an in- are primarily carried out by Jorge Nunez person inspection of BCSEO's voter registration ("Nunez"), BCSEO's Information Technology database. Id at if 14. Certain categories of Director who maintains BCSEO's voter registration documents were not available during the inspection database; Mary Hall ("Hall"), BCSEO's Voter because they were either not contained in the Services Director who helps maintain the voter registration database or required "additional rolls; and Sonia Cahuesqui ("Cahuesqui"), a voter assembly" before they could be made available. Id registration clerk. Snipes/United Count I Shortly thereafter, on January 26, 2017, Snipes Supporting SOF at In 4-7. provided ACRU with a CD containing a PDF file of a current active voter roll for Broward County In accordance with requirements of the Florida and a PDF file of a table list of mailings sent out by Department of State's ("DOS") Division of Elections ("DOE"), Nunez prepares twice-yearly BCSEO.Id. at lj 15. certifications summarizing Snipes' list maintenance On February 1, 2017, Snipes supplemented its activities, which are in turn signed and certified by initial response to ACRU's October 31, 2016 Snipes and then provided to DOE. Id. at ¶ 6; discovery requests. See ECF No. [111-2]. In the Plaintiff ACRU's Opposition to Defendant Snipes' supplemental response, "which did not include any and Defendant-Intervenor United's [*12] Statement additional documents, [Snipes] objected to 'the of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of their production of documents dating back beyond a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. period of two years from the date of the filing of [160]("ACRU's Count I Response SOF") at ¶ 6. subject Complaint' and asserted that responsive The two types of certifications include: (1) documents'within the last two years [] have already "Certification of Address List Maintenance been made available for public inspection and Activities" that reports the actions taken by Snipes copying on January 13, 2017." ECF No.[126] at 2- to identify registrants who have changed residence, 3 (quoting ECF No.[111-2] at 3).6 cancel the registrations of individuals who no longer reside in Broward County, and update the On February 9, 2017, Snipes provided ACRU with registrations of individuals who have moved within two CDs [*11.] containing a number of different Broward County; and (2) "Certification of responsive documents. See ACRU Count II Eligibility Records Maintenance" that reports the Supporting SOF at ¶ 17. Additionally, on March 8, actions taken by Snipes to remove registrants who 2017, Snipes provided ACRU with amended are or have become ineligible because of death, versions of the certifications she had initially felony conviction, mental incapacity, or a lack of provided with her February 8, 2016 letter. See id. at United States citizenship. Snipes/United Count I ¶ 18 (citing ECF No.[111-4]). Discovery closed on Supporting SOF at 14. Nunez is also responsible ¶ March 10, 2017. for placing orders with, and sending data files to, Commercial Printers, Inc.("Commercial Printers"), the third-party vendor that performs printing and mailing services related to Snipes' list maintenance. 6Snipes and ACRU disagree as to the scope of an agreement that Id. atif 6. took place between them at the January 13, 2017 inspection. See generally id. at 4-6. According to Snipes, ACRU agreed to limit all documents contemplated in its discovery request to records spanning the previous two years. See id. at 5. With respect to voter registration generally, BCSEO asserts that, like most other Florida 17-2361-A-000619 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes counties, Broward County uses a voter registration database system [*13] commonly referred to as the "VR System" that was developed by VR Systems, Inc.("VR Systems"), an outside vendor with which BCSEO contracts. Id. at IN 9-10. According to Snipes, the VR System "interfaces directly with" the Florida Voter Registration System ("FVRS"), a statewide voter registration database that Florida maintains pursuant to HAVA. Id. at 1]¶ 8-9. With respect to new voter registration applications, BCSEO sends applications it receives to DOE, which runs certain clearance checks—including screening for duplicate registrations by checking the new applicant's information against the FVRS—before advising BCSEO that the applicant has been cleared for registration. Id. at ¶ 11. In addition, DOE regularly provides Florida's election supervisors, including Snipes, with lists of current registrants who are deceased or have been convicted of a felony. Id. at 11 15. In turn, BCSEO uses that information, which is transmitted electronically by way of direct interaction between FVRS and VR Systems, to update Broward County's voter registration database and to remove voters who have become ineligible. Id. In total, between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed approximately[11.4] 240,028 registrants from Broward County's voter rolls. Id at If 39. Between January 7, 2015 and January 10, 2017, Snipes removed approximately 192,157 registrants from Broward County's voter rolls. Id. at ¶ 40. With respect to other updates unrelated to registrant removal, approximately 148,645 registered voters living within Broward County who were registered as of January 7, 2015 and who were still registered in Broward County as of January 10, 2017 updated their address on record to a new address within Broward County. Id. at If 41. I. Procedures Relating to Residence Changes According to Snipes, BCSEO uses the following three mailings—all of which are conducted by Commercial Printers—to identify and update or remove voters from the Broward County voter rolls when voters have changed residence: (1) notifications to voters who have filed a forwarding address with the United States Postal Service ("USPS");(2) mailings related to voting matters to all registrants in the county; and (3) targeted mailings to registrants who have not voted for a certain period oftime.7 Id. at IN 16-17. BCSEO certifications produced by Snipes reflect that Snipes utilized information received from USPS's National [*15] Change of Address ("NCOA") program as part of her list-maintenance activities in 2009,2011, 2013, and 2015.8 Id. at ¶ 19. "To identify voters with changes of address, Defendant sends voter data from VR Systems to Commercial Printers, which is licensed and certified by [USPS] to use a program called NCOALink. Using NCOALink, Commercial Printers receives updated, computerized change-ofaddress information on a regular basis." Id. at 11 20 (internal citation omitted). Snipes then receives an "updated file" from Commercial Printers, which it "imports into a software program called Voter Focus." Id at ¶ 21. From there, BCSEO's Voter Services team processes records identified based on the "data comparison" as having changes in accordance with VR System's instructions, and "a forwardable notice is automatically scheduled to be sent to the appropriate voters[.]" Id. If a voter does not respond to a "Final Notice" within 30 days, the voter's status is changed from "active" to "inactive" in the VR System database. Id at '1] 22. If the voter does not vote or contact BCSEO in two general election cycles, the voter's status is changed to 7ACRU disputes "whether Defendant updates the addresses of registrants before sending out address change notices[,]" asserting that "[a]t the very least, no records have been produced showing [USPS National Change of Address] database information received so that the registrations could be updated first." ACRU's Count I Response SOF at if 16(citing EU'No.[160-2] at 12). 8ACRU asserts that "[t]he source of the supposed NCOA database information are 'yellow stickers' on returned mail and not from the NCOA database." ACRU's Count I Response SOF at ¶ 16 (citing ECF No.[160-3] at 6). 17-2361-A-000620 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes "ineligible" and the voter is no longer registered to contained in the notice.9 vote. [*16] Id at ¶ 23. The most recent "NCOA comparison" was conducted in May 2015. Id. at lj Id If no reply is received within 30 days, BCSEO publishes a notice in the newspaper. Id If no reply 24. is received within 30 days from the newspaper publication, the registrant is automatically removed 2. Procedures Relating to Deceased Voters from the voter rolls. Id Between January 1, 2014 On a daily basis, DOE provides Snipes through and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed 5,102 FVRS with a verified electronic list of voters who registrants from Broward County's voter rolls that have recently died. Id. at1126. Upon receipt of such were determined to have a felony conviction. Id. lists, Snipes then cancels the relevant voter registration records. Id On an occasional basis, 4. Procedures Related to Non-Citizens Snipes receives information indicating that a registrant is deceased from sources other than DOE. Like the National Voter Registration Form, Id. at If 27. In those cases, BCSEO will make Florida's voter registration form requires applicants efforts to obtain a copy of the death certificate to affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury. [* before removing the registrant from the voter rolls. Id at If 35. Occasionally, 18] the U.S. Id If BCSEO is unable to obtain a copy of the Department of Homeland Security sends death certificate, BCSEO will send additional individuals applying for United States citizenship to notices to the registrant's last known address and BCSEO in order to obtain documentation indicating will request DOE to investigate the voter's status. whether or not they have registered to vote as nonId Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, citizens. Id The individuals found to have 2016, Snipes removed 37,095 registrants from registered to vote as non-citizens are removed from Broward County's voter rolls that were determined the voter rolls. Id Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed four to be deceased.Id at If 28. registrants from Broward County's voter rolls as non-citizens. Id at ¶ 37. 3. Procedures Related to Duplicate Registrations and Felony Convictions IL LEGAL STANDARDS On a daily basis, BCSEO receives notifications of potential duplicate registrations from DOE via A. Expert Testimony FVRS, and then consolidates the registration HYPERLINK so [*1.7] that only one registration is active. Id. at 11 https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 29. BCSEO determines the correct county of =statutes-legislation&id=unrcontentItem:5GYCresidence by the most recent update to the voter's 2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=1 governs the record. Id Between January 1, 2014 and December admissibility of expert testimony. When a party 31, 2016, Snipes removed more than 9,000 proffers the testimony of an expert under [ duplicate registrants. Id. at ¶ 30. HYPERUNK Similarly, on a daily basis, BCSEO also receives an https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection electronic list of individuals with a felony =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYCconviction from DOE. Id at 11 32. BCSEO then 2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=], the party generates a letter to mail to each registrant on those offering the expert testimony bears the burden of lists, which a registrant has 30 days to reply to by laying the proper foundation, and that party must either confirming or contesting the information 9 The mailings to individuals convicted of a felony are handled by BCSEO directly, rather than by Commercial Printers. Id. 17-2361-A-000621 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes demonstrate admissibility by a preponderance of HYPERLINK evidence. See [ the htgis://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4F.JR-03C0-0038X0VR-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https:h'advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfeetion ....cases&id um:contentitem:41;:fR-03C0-0038X01/7?-00000-00&contert-1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3X9B-F5J0-0038Xl5G-00000-00&context=][ RYP.ERUiYK ht4s://advance.leA-is%conv4nVocument?collection eases&id-- urn coi tenthern:3X9B-17,5„10-0038X150000-00&contert . To determine whether expert testimony or any report prepared by an expert may be admitted, the Court engages in a three-part inquiry, which includes whether: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application I*191 of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. See[HYPERLINK https://ctdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3V14-G310-0038X1D8-00000-00&context=][ HYPERIINK https://oe. Ponce. r:sonhk4lidocument7col1ection eases&id....urn conkwhen? 3V14-G310-0038X1D8-00000-00&context I(citing [HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BY 3-I V R3R6-00000-00&context=][ https:/ ' , • vance.kxisxormivi/document?colledion zzcases&id um:contentitem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&eontex(-1). The Eleventh Circuit refers to each of these requirements as the "qualifications," "reliability," and "helpfulness" prongs. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.coms'api/document?collection :contentitem:4D,IR-0730-0038N'3P8-00000-00&contert-I. While some overlap exists among these requirements, the Court must individually analyze each concept. See id. An expert in this Circuit may be qualified "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or HYPERLINK education." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:57VJ-5W41-F04D. 11S5-00000-00&context=][ httln::41dvance.,eris.com/qpi/document2coliection cases&id....arn:coiitenthem:57V1-51f41-1-7041).11S5-00000-00&context j (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4PW6-BSCO-TXFPY.PE ,INKK2RS-00000-00&context=][ https:// wrice. exisxonilapil'ocument?collection zzcases&id um:contentitem:4PW6-BS(7O-7ATPK2RS-00000-00&contexi [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentitem:5GYC2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=]). "An expert is not necessarily unqualified simply because [his] experience does not precisely match the matter at hand." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:437H-H490-0038X1MT-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLLVK https:/'Jvance. exisxontjapil'ocument?collection urn:contentitem:437H-11490-0038X1441-00000-00&context J. "[S]o long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise go to credibility and weight, not admissibility." See[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:54VH-XF91-F04D113C-00000-00&context=] [ YPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apalocument?collection ca,se,sc id mn:contentItem:54' P9. 4704D113.7-00000-00&context-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4X3G-2R70-TXFP.HYPERUNK K3CG-00000-00&contextlf https://advance.lexis,comiapidoeument?collection se:5c' -,w11:cautenthem: 3 , .7-,n‘,/ K3 ;40000-00&context=1. "After the district court undertakes a review of all of the relevant 17-2361-A-000622 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes issues and of an expert's qualifications, the determination regarding qualification to testify rests within the district court's discretion." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:57VJ-5W41-F04D11 S5-00000-00&context=]r HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.cvms'api/docttment?colleetion ses :content/tem:57 -5 W4 4:10 D./ S'5-00000-00&context-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-2510-0039HYPERLINK MOR3-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis,comthpi/document?collection --urn.xonteniliem.:3S4X-25]0-0039MOR3-00000-00&contex When determining whether an expert's testimony is reliable, "the trial judge must assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology [*20] properly can be applied to the in HYPERLINK issue." facts https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4DJR-0730-0038HYPE' X3P8-00000-00&context=][ litips:,:tvonce.lexis.convqpiicocument?co,lection ses&id-ii II:content. ienv.0,11Z-073"-0" 38(internal formatting, X3P8-00000-00&context quotation, and citation omitted). To make this determination, the district court examines: "(1) whether the expert's theory can be and has been tested;(2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community."[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=]. (citing [HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=][ IlYP .i2)1; Mips_ , vance.kxiscotn.lipi/document?collection rcontemitem:48BM-W8110-0038ses XOKS-00000-00&conteri. II. "The same criteria that are used to assess the reliability of a scientific opinion may be used to evaluate the reliability of non-scientific, experience-based testimony." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ ...HYPER/INK https://axivance.lexis,com/ividocument?collection caws i contel:Mem:4... .1A7)- 7 0-0038) 8-00000-0 &context-1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPERLINK 000J-00000-00&context=][ /14j)S;1dVQflCC.1escoIcqpLcJouffient?cO1icct1on -n:content. ienv3W30-.2X60-00.1C000J-00000-00&contex j the Thus, aforementioned factors are non-exhaustive, and the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized that alternative questions may be more probative in the context of determining reliability. See Id Consequently, trial judges are afforded "considerable leeway" in ascertaining whether a particular expert's testimony is reliable. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK h#,c:/'dvance.Icxis.cong4i/'ocument?collection ses u rcontentitem:413JR- 7.30-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=I (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance. exis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPERLIN 000J-00000-00&context=][ htips:::&lvance. -)XiS,C0117.ViidOCUMent?C0 eetie.m d=u -n:contenthem:314130-2,V60-004C0001-00000-00(k2ntext j)). The final element, helpfulness, turns on whether the proffered testimony "concern[s] matters that are beyond the understanding of the average lay person." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5D72-FDJ1-F04KX0VT-00000-00&context=11. 111. kips:// vance. exisxoneipi,4. ocumeneco.ection ,s'es unt.:contentitem:5..)7' 1-.FY 4 17-2361-A-000623 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes (quoting X01,7-00000-00&con HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ Y „TAT htips://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?rolfeetion cases&id urn:contentitem:4D,./R-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context-I) (formatting omitted). "[A] trial court may exclude [*21] expert testimony that is 'imprecise and unspecific,' or whose factual basis is not adequately explained." Id. (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4FNP-JF30-0038X1HW-00000-00&context=][ MP EP 1) Mips_ , unce.lexisxormipi/document?collection ."'CC ses urn:contentitem: r VE30-0038XIHW-00000-00&context . To be appropriate, a "fit" must exist between the offered opinion and the facts of the case. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:4F03-7JF0-0038X1B1-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.com/apkioeument?collection eases&id-amcontentitem:4F03-7,1F0-0038X1B1-00000-0Mcontert=1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3S4W-XDRO-003BY ..NK R3R6-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfeetion cases&id um:contentitem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&context-1). "For example,there is no fit where a large analytical leap must be made between the facts and the opinion." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3RR5-5720-004CHYPERLINK 300R-00000-00&context=][ https:/ vance.lexis,coneapi/doctunent?collection ses&zd=u :content tern:NM, I20-004C300R-00000-00&contex.-1. Under Daubert, a district court must take on the role of gatekeeper, but this role "is not intended to supplant the adversary system or the role of the HYPERLINK jury." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=]/. i1YPhRLLM haps::, ,ance.lexis.com/qpi/docwnenr?coliection ,s'es rcontentitem:48BM-W8110-0038XOKS-00000-00&context I (internal quotations and citations omitted). Through this function, the district court must "ensure that speculative, unreliable expert testimony does not reach the HYPERLINK jury." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46DW-9CGO-0038.HYPERLINK XOBT-00000-00&context=][ http.c://advance.lexis,com/apidocument?collection ..... wsesc' --urn:contentitem:46DP 7-9070-0038X0. 3T-00000-00&contexi J. "[I]t is not the role of the district court to make ultimate conclusions as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038IJYPERL„INK XOKS-00000-00&context=][ htt,s:t'Ivance.1exis.com/:ipi/. ocument2colection casescf:id um:contendtem:4813M-W8110-0038X00-00000-00&context (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, the district court cannot exclude an expert based on a belief that the expert lacks personal credibility. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:4FJR-03C0-0038XOVR-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =c se 77:content/tem: VIR-03(.::0-0038.,1701/7?-00000-00 .,.context...1. To the contrary, "vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:48BM-W8H0-0038.HYPERLINK XOKS-00000-00&context=][ ht4s:.,:/advance.lexis.com4klocument?eollection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:48BM-W8H0-0038(quoting XOKS-00000-00&context-1 HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000624 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection G2KN-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.eam/api/docionent?colleetion =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&context=][ BYP EP. tsesc 7wcautentliem:4K119h:t'idvance.krisxomAlpi/document?collection 740000-00&context=1 (quoting rcontentitem: 1120-003BHYPERLINK R3R6-00000-00&context...1); see[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-6H80-0039=cases&id=urn:contentItem:7.XF9-G020-YBONI'N37M-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK HYPERIINKhttps://ar vance.lexis.eam/iri/doctonent?colleetion W029-00000-00&context=][ https:Jranee, ocument?collection cases' Jrn:contentitem:3:4X-6H804)039sesk -id-urn:content tem: r'9-G020at-. B IV341:-00000-00&context-1. A fact is material if it W029-00000-00&context 1 (quoting I*221 [ "might affect the outcome of the suit under the HYPERLINK governing law." Id (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4W-XFY0-001B=cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-6H80-0., 0 9-T y K1WJ-00000-00&context=][ N37M-00000-00&context=][ httfts:Padvanee.fexis.4-;onile,ptidocument?co,iection https:Padvanee.,exis.4-;onee,plidoeument?collection eases&id....urn:contentIteyn:354W-XFYO-001Bcases&id....arn:contentitern:3S4X-61.180-0039KiWT-00000-00&context I ("On cross- N37M-00000-00cf:context-1). The Court views the examination, the opposing counsel is given the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving opportunity to ferret out the opinion's weaknesses party and draws all reasonable inferences in the HYPERLINK favor. See to ensure the jury properly evaluates the testimony's party's weight and credibility.")). ht4is://advcrnce.lexis.com/api/document?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:4K4H-9MA/10-0038B. Summary Judgment X2V7-00000-00&context=j[ .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,eamthpidoctnnent?colleetion A court may grant a motion for summary judgment ---c ties( "if the movant shows that there is no genuine 2 7-00000-00&contex . "The mere existence dispute as to any material fact and the movant is of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonentitled to judgment as a matter of law." [ moving party's] position will be insufficient; there HYPERLINK must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection find for the [non-moving party]." [ HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYChttps://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection 2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]. The parties =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-6H80-0039may support their positions by citation to the JTYPERL.INk N37M-00000-00&context=][ record, including, inter aha, depositions, ht4s://advance.lexis.com4kdocument?co1lection documents, affidavits, or declarations. See [ cases&id=urn:contenthern 3S4X-6H80-0039HYPERLINK N37M-00000-00&contextq. The Court does not https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection weigh conflicting evidence. See[HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYChtgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]. An issue is =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NMW-P8N0-0038genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return XOGD-00000-00&context=][ .HYPERLINK judgment for the non-moving party." [ htv://advance.lexis.comfgpktocument?collection HYPERLINK ---cases&id=arn:contentitem:4A1MW-P8NO-0038https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection XOGD-00000-00&context=1 (quoting =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4RV9-CF90-TXFXHYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000625 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-YP40-0039P40E-00000-00&context=] [ i1YPERLIAIK https:t'x1vance.kxiscom/qpi/document?collection 40-0039rcontentitem:3„'4W-Y1) cases&/d P40E-00000-00&context=/. The moving party shoulders [*23] the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of HYPERLINK fact. See material https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:4V13-14110-TXFXG2NC-00000-00&context=ll HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com4b4 ocianent?co lection --4-gzses urn:contentItem: 1/13-.14H0-7:k1XG2, :-00000-00&context=1. If a movant satisfies this burden, "the nonmoving party 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W2P-BORSO-TXFXY NK G3B2-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance,lexis.com/api/document?collection cases&id um:content:Item:4W2P-.11160-1X.FXG,02-00000-00&context-] (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-7P90-0039N51W-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLDIK htips://advance,/exis.conilapi/document2colfection =cases&id=um:contentltem:334,XL71"90-0039N51147-00000-00&context-1. Instead, "the nonmoving party 'must make a sufficient showing on each essential element of the case for which he has the burden of proof." Id. (quoting [HYPERLINK https://advance.I s com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-6HCO-0039HYPERIJIVK N37R-00000-00&context=1/. h1g.).9.74kIvancw.lexis.contivi/docurnent?co lectiem eases&id-urn:contentliern:. S4X- ..00-0039N371?-00000-00&rontext::::J. The non-moving party must produce evidence, going beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designating specific facts to suggest that a reasonable jury could find in the non- moving favor. [ HYPERLINK party's https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4V13-14HO-TXFX) ?7. G2NC-00000-00&context=][ htips:Padvance.,e -.tcotn/aptidocument7cal ection cases&id....urn:contentliern:41713-14110-.1X.F,IG2M7-00000-00&context Z. A district court's disposition of cross-motions for summary judgment, like the cross-motions filed with respect to Count II in this case, employs the same legal standards applied when only one party files a motion. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&contexttl [ HYPERLINK htv://advance.lexis.comfapi,document?rollection rases&.id urn:cogentliern:334W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&eontext=1 ("Cross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not genuinely disputed.") (quoting HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4X-3BD0-0039HYPERLINK M1JS-00000-00&context1f https:t'zJvance. exisxamivi/documerecollection zzrases&id um:romentltem:3S4X-3100-0039M113-00000-00&contexi /.10 A court must consider each motion on its own merits, "resolving [*24] all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under HYPERLINK consideration." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5D9H-4MB1-F04D22HC-00000-00&context=][ HYPERL.INK 1°In HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntentltem:3S4W-Y7N0-0039-W22N-00000-008ccontext=p" .. HUT 'LINK bnys:,;advance.lexis.contral.n4loczenzent?caiketion...eases&ial....urn:e omentitem; W-Y7N0-003.90000-00&eante,xt...1 (en bane), the court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981. 17-2361-A-000626 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document2collection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:5D911-4A4B1-1•04D2211C-00000-00&contex (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4G4P-SNTO-0038HITE1?1,,INK. X08R-00000-00&context=]/ htv:/i/ativance.lexis.com*kimument?rollection cases&id=urn:contendtem..4G4P-SIV TO-0038X08.1?-00000-00&conterfq. "Cross-motions may, however, be probative of the absence of a factual dispute where they reflect general agreement by the parties as to the controlling legal theories and material facts." Id (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&context=][ HYP.ER.UNK htips:tiadvance.lexis.4-;onegplidocument?cc ,lection cases&id urn contenthem:3,94W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&context::::1); see also [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3S4X-3BDO-0039M1JS-00000-00&context=]I hign://advance.lexis.com/aiii/document?rollection ceYses&id--arn:contenthern:3,94X-3BDO-003.9LIS-00000-00&:context--1 III. DISCUSSION With this backdrop in mind, United moves for summary judgment on Count I(ACRU's claim for failure to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs), and ACRU and Snipes, respectively, move for summary judgment on Count II (ACRU's claim for failure to disclose). In addition, United moves to strike ACRU's two proposed expert witnesses who it appears will, if allowed, offer testimony that supports ACRUts claim under Count I. The Court will therefore address ACRU's Daubert Motion first, and will then turn to the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. A. United's Daubert Motionl 1 "The Court notes that United failed to meet and confer with ACRU United seeks to exclude ACRU's proposed experts, Dr. Steven Camarota ("Dr. Camarota") and Scott Gessler ("Gessler"), on the bases that both are unqualified to offer any opinion in this case and that the entirety of their respective opinions is unreliable,[*25] speculative, and/or unhelpful. For the most part, the Court disagrees.12 I. Dr. Camarota United challenges the testimony of Dr. Camarota prior to filing its Daubert Motion as required by [ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentltem:5P4T-FXKO-004D-61TY-0000000&context=] and this Court's initial Scheduling Order, ECF No. [127] at 2—an independent basis for denial. The Court will nevertheless consider the Daubert Motion on the merits. 12 The merits aside, ACRU argues that because this case is set for a bench trial, United's Daubert Motion is inappropriate, and that "the prudent course is to permit ACRU's experts to offer testimony during trial, where its relevance and reliability can be judged in the context of ACRU's legal arguments in support of its claims." ECF No.[156] at 2-4. However, none of the cases ACRU cites to in support of this proposition involved evidentiary determinations made in contemplation ofsununary judgment. Here,by contrast, resolution of the Snipes/United Motion tarns in part on the admissibility of ACRU's proposed experts. It is axiomatic, as explained by the Eleventh Circuit, that "[e]vidence inadmissible at trial cannot be used to avoid summary judgment" [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntenatem:4MWB-N660-0038-X3G4-00000-00&context=][; HITERLINK hitpv//calyx:nee. comkpirdommereco °went:Item:. 11TPB-N660-0038-X. G4-00000-00(temtext... 7 (quoting HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntentltem:3S4X-2240-0039-M550-00000-00&context=][. HYPERLINK hitpsilhuitmee..le.sit..comksiteiocumen.?co ?MIX ontentitent: ' S4X-2240-003941/1550-00000-0Mconext...7 (alteration in original); see also HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentltem:5GYC-2421-6N19-F165-0000000&context=] ("A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . showing that. . . an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentltem:5GYC-2421-6N19-F165-0000000&context=]("A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence."). Thus, the Court fmds it both appropriate and necessary to consider United's Daubert Motion. 17-2361-A-000627 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes under the first two elements of Daubert—that is, qualifications and reliability. In United's view, because Dr. Camarota "is not versed in voter registration policy and is not a statistician, he is [] wholly unqualified to offer an opinion—let alone an expert opinion—on the issues in dispute in this case." ECF No. [144] at 2. United's assessment, however, misconstrues the primary purpose for which ACRU seeks to introduce Dr. Camarota's testimony and, in turn, understates Dr. Camarota's credentials to that effect. As ACRU correctly points out, the essence of Dr. Camarota's expert opinion is an assessment, based in part on data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, of the ratio in Broward County of the total number of registered voters to the voting-eligible citizen population as a whole, compared to the same ratios elsewhere in Florida and throughout the country. See id. at 34("Taken at face value, these numbers indicate that nearly every eligible person in Broward County is registered to vote. . . . In sum, the registration rates for Broward [*26] County. . . are much higher than the rates in Florida, the nation, and any other state."). It is with this specific purpose in mind that the Court will measure the qualifications of Dr. Camarota and the reliability of his testimony. Regarding qualifications, Dr. Camarota received a master's degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in public policy analysis from the University of Virginia. While completing his doctorate, Dr. Camarota "was focused on analysis of primarily Census Bureau data . . looking at . . . issues associated with U.S. immigration." Id. at 70. Dr. Camarota is currently the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)—a research institute that focuses on examining the consequences of immigration on the United States—where he has worked since completing his doctorate. Notably, Dr. Camarota has previously served as an expert witness in a number oflawsuits, at least one of which required him to analyze "population estimates and Census Bureau data[.]" See id. at 80-81. Dr. Camarota has also "served as the lead researcher on a contract with the Census Bureau examining the quality of immigration data in the [Census Bureau's] American [*27] Community Survey [("ACS")]." Id. at 27. As is evident, Dr. Camarota has extensive experience and familiarity with analyzing data provided by the Census Bureau, including the Census Bureau's ACS. In light of that experience, the Court is satisfied that Dr. Camarota is at least minimally HYPERLINK qualified. See https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4PW6-BSCO-TXFPK2RS-00000-00&context=i HYPERLINK htips:,:radvance.lexis.coralapildocument?colfectioll ---cayes&id=urn:contentitem:4171f6-BSCO-7XFPI S-00000-00&contexi- 1 ("An expert is not necessarily unqualified simply because [his] experience does not precisely match the matter at hand."). Specifically, it is a Census Bureau ACS estimate—namely, the total number of votingeligible citizens in Broward County—that serves as the denominator of the voter registration rates from which Dr. Camarota intends to testify. Although United is not wrong to point out that Dr. Camarota is not a statistician and "has no formal statistical training outside of a three-month [course] he attended. . . during graduate school[,]" id. at 6, the voter registration rates he seeks to offer constitute a straightforward division calculation. Above the denominator mentioned above, the numerator purports to be the total number of actual registered voters—an EAC Election Administration Voting Survey ("EAVS") estimate that is based on data compiled and submitted by state and local election officials[1'28] themselves. See ECF No.[144] at 23. In this sense, the Court finds Dr. Camarota's statistical background, or lack thereof, to be largely irrelevant. Dr. Camarota is therefore qualified to offer testimony as to the purported voter registration rates he has compiled. That said, Dr. Camarota's lack of statistical expertise is relevant insofar as Dr. Camarota intends to take his voter registration rates a step further by testifying as to their overall accuracy. In defending Dr. Camarota's qualifications, ACRU initially contends that his testimony "is simply what 17-2361-A-000628 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes the publically available data, including statements by the Defendant herself, show the ratio of registrants over eligible voters to be." Id. at 16 (emphasis added). But even ACRU recognizes that Dr. Camarota intends to testify to more than that. See id. (characterizing the "subject matter" of Dr. Camarota's testimony as "repeating publically available registration and demographic data and why they are reliable") (emphasis added). This concern with the reliability of the voter registration rates speaks to opinions offered by United's expert, Dr. Daniel A. Smith ("Dr. Smith"). Dr. Smith asserts that population counts from the ACS should [*29] not be used to calculate registration rates because the ACS, being a survey, contains sampling error. See ECF No. [150] at 9-10. In an effort to rebut that position, Dr. Camarota opines that the margins of error for the ACS estimates are easily quantifiable and small, thereby rendering the ACS estimates accurate overall. See ECF No.[144] at 34-35. Dr. Camarota may be right about this, but the statistical nature of this opinion, which is obvious, renders it beyond the scope of his expertise. See id. at 9 ("[A] survey's natural imprecision can be quantified using basic statistics to produce a confidence interval around any particular estimate. . . Table 2 and Table 3 report confidence intervals using margins of error at different significance levels. The margins of error are small, and subsequently the variation in likely registrations rates in the county is also small.") (emphasis added). Thus, although Dr. Camarota is qualified to offer testimony as to the purported voter registration rates he has compiled (e.g., presenting the figures themselves and comparing them to similar figures related to other localities), he is not qualified to offer testimony as to the degree of accuracy of those [*30] rates—a statistical inquiry. See, e.g., [ HYPERLINK htgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-71D0-003B52B0-00000-00&context=:1 1111-1:1?LiNK htv:/:/advance.lexis.con,v'api,document?rollection (.7ases&id-arn:conientlian..3.S4X-71D0-003B52B0-00000-004-conter (finding no error in excluding testimony from a political scientist regarding statistical disparities in employment decisions where the witness did not have training or significant experience as a statistician); Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 558, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)("While [the excluded expert] may have used statistics in his work (as most people do to one extent or another) this does not mean that he is sufficiently qualified to testify to the statistical significance of[his proposed expert findings].").13 Turning to reliability, United challenges the reliability of Dr. Camarota's testimony by attacking the methods he employed to calculate the voter registration rates and, to an extent, some of the underlying data upon which he relied for those calculations. See ECF No. [144] at 16-19. United asserts: "Simply put, the analysis used by [] Dr. Camarota . . . compares different sets of numbers reflecting different periods of time, which therefore are not at all comparable." Id. at 19. The Court does not share United's reliability concerns. First, United calls into question the reliability of Dr. Camarota's testimony on the basis that there is no evidence that Dr. Camarota's methodology has been subject to peer I*31.1 review, used by other statisticians, or involves reliable, recognized statistical techniques. Id at 16. With respect to peer review and use by other statisticians, the Court does not find the absence of such to be dispositive under the circumstances. See [ HYPERLINK httpsiktdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4I/J9-BRIO-TXFXG2TV-00000-00&contextql. HYPERL.JNK htv://advance.lexis.comfapfdocumenecollection cases&id....arn:coiitenthern:41719-13W0-.11XfiX02171-00000-00&context-1 of ("Standards scientific reliability, such as testability and peer review, do not apply to all forms of expert testimony. For nonscientific expert testimony, 'the 13ACRU also argues that "if a degree in statistics was necessary to opine on the voter registration and population data relevant to this case,[Dr. Smith] would need to be disqualified[] [because he] is not a statistician and his credentials are similar to Dr. Camarota. . . ." ECF No. [156] at 16. However, for purposes of this Order, it is Dr. Camarota's testimony, not Dr. Smith's,that is under scrutiny. 17-2361-A-000629 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes PERLINK D4N6-00000-00&context=lf https://advance.lexis.com/apidocument?collection ties( w:cautentliem:3,. ,G4D0-0013.1D4N6-00000-00&context-1 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5MXP-H101-F04DROHK-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.le:vis.com/api/document?collection so'fid m.n:contentitem:SMXP-11101-1•041)ROHK-00000-00&context ("The court notes that there is nothing inherently wrong with VIP-NC's reliance on census data to support its claim.") (citing Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 779, 791 (W.D. Tex. 2015)). United argues that Dr. Camarota's comparison of the EAVS registration number to the ACS population estimate is flawed because it compares "an actual registration number to an estimated population number[.]" ECF No. [144] at 18 (emphasis in original). As such, United appears to take issue with the use of estimates in Dr. Camarota's figures. Contrary to what United suggests, however, there is nothing inherently problematic with the use of a population estimate in measuring data, especially As for the purported lack of recognized statistical where, as here, there is no indication that the techniques in Dr. Camarota's methodology, there is estimate was tainted in any way. The Eleventh a presumption that the data sets used by Dr. Circuit has explained in another voting rights case: Camarota—particularly the Census Bureau's ACS voting-eligible population estimates—are accurate [W]e would [] uphold the district court's and involve reliable [*32] statistical techniques. consideration [*33] of the citizenship statistics, e.g., HYPERLINK See, even though those statistics are based on https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection sample data. The use of sample data is a long=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3YTP-2T.10-0038standing statistical technique, whose limits are XOCB-00000-00&context=liknown and measurable. We will not reject the htips:Podvance.1, :1,com/qpi/docurrien ?collectkm citizenship statistics solely because they are cases&ki urn:contenthem 31711)-21A-0038based on sample data without some indication .X003-00000-00&context...1 ("The presumption is that the sample was tainted in some way. There that census figures are continually accurate. . . . were no arguments before the district court that And, this court has previously said, in a voting the sample was skewed in a statistically rights case, that statistical evidence derived from a significant way due to improper sampling sampling method, using reliable statistical method, small sample size, or sheer random techniques, is admissible on the question of error. determining the relevant population.") (citing [ HYPERLINK HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-G4D0-00B1=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-G4D0-00B1trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.") (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004C000J-00000-00&context=]/ HYPERLDIK https://advance.lexis.coms'api/document?collection --cases :content/km:3 413 60-004Coo(Am00004 f &context 1) . citation (internal omitted); see also HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4AIR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context77f HYPERLINK https:/.a .vance.lexis.comicipi/document?collection cases&k -n:contenthem 41AR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&4-xmtext . What Dr. Camarota has essentially done is take publically available data that was compiled by governmental agencies and perform straightforward division calculations with that data. Dr. Camarota then seeks to offer figures reflecting those calculations. In the Court's view, this does not necessarily require peer review. 17-2361-A-000630 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes .HYPERLINK D4N6-00000-00&context=][ https://acivance.lexis.com.7piidocument?collection sesc' rcontendiem -G4D0-0013I.D4N6-00000-00&context j (recognizing that because the challenged Miami Beach citizenship information from the Census Bureau was "based upon a sample population, it [could not] be as precise as [] census data[] . . based upon the entire population[,]" but nevertheless rejecting the plaintiffs attempt to call into question the accuracy of that information). Thus, to the extent that the ACS population estimates used by Dr. Camarota do not lend to the kind of precision an exact value might, such a concern speaks to the weight of Dr. Camarota's figures, not their admissibility. See[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3YIP-21:10-0038XOCB-00000-00&contextt][ HY.PERLLAIK https://advance.lexis.c..omicipi/document7collection --cases :content/km:SY7P-27:10-0038.,170 3-00000-00&context-1 ("If the evidence is admissible, that voter registration data might not be as reliable as some other measures [*34] of population goes to the weight of the evidence, but does not preclude use of the figures by the district court."). Second, United argues that Dr. Camarota's comparison of the EAVS registration number to the ACS population estimate is flawed because it compares "a registration number at a single point in time when registration rates are highest to an average population number over a five-year period." ECF No. [144] at 18 (emphasis in original). Regarding that five-year period, Dr. Camarota's "five-year" ACS data—which include five-year estimates reported in 2010, 2012, and 2014—reflects information collected during the five-year period of time that ends in the respective reporting year that is then "totaled back and weighted to a midyear control point." See id at 29 n.8; id. at 48; id at 49-50 ("[T]hink of it this way: [the five-year ACS data] has basically the same effect as if you were to take all the years and average them together. . . . So you can think of it as the midyear of that year."). United contends that it is problematic that Dr. Camarota, in calculating the voter registration rates, "divide[d] the EAVS registered voter figure by ACS eligible population estimatesfor the same year." Id. at 18 (emphasis in original). "In other 1*35I words, the 2006-2010 5year ACS estimate, the median year of which is 2008, should not be used as a denominator for a 2010 EAVS numerator." Id. According to United, "the 2010 EAVS numerator should be compared against a denominator that more closely estimates the 2010 population, which would come from the 2008-2012 5-year ACS data." Id. Importantly, however, Dr. Camarota used "single-year ACS data" as well, which appears to do just that—that is, offer a denominator that more closely estimates the EAVS numerator. See id. at 33 (calculating voter registration rates based on both one-year and fiveyear ACS eligible population estimates for the years 2010, 2012, and 2014). The Court notes that United makes no mention of Dr. Camarota's use of single-year ACS data. To the extent that Dr. Camarota will testify as to voter registration rates he calculated using both single-year ACS data and five-year ACS data, the Court believes that "vigorous[] cross-examin[ation]" and the testimony of United's own witnesses, such as that of Dr. Smith, are the proper vehicles to address United's HYPERLINK concerns. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=1/ 11.I'PER:LINK https://azivanee.lexis.com,opidocitinent?co lertion =case: un conte igiem:48&11-1478 0-0038XOKS-00000-00&contexi j. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the testimony Dr. Camarota seeks to offer is admissible, but with one qualification. [*36] Dr. Camarota may testify as to the voter registration rates that he has calculated (as reflected in his expert report), but he may not testify as to the degree of accuracy ofthose rates. 2. Gessler 17-2361-A-000631 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes After reviewing Florida's law on voter list maintenance and the evidence in this case related to the voter list maintenance practices utilized by BCSEO,see ECF No.[144] at 4-12, Gessler opines that Snipes "has not . . . taken reasonable steps to address well-known or easily identified problems with its list maintenance programs[,]" including "[b]loated voter rolls"—which "serve as a warning sign that problems exist"—and the presence of deceased voters on the voter rolls, id. at 49,142, 45; id. at 55, 11 75. Gessler concludes his proposed expert report with recommendations of "reasonable steps Broward County should take in order to develop a general program and maintain the accuracy of the county voter rolls." Id. at 57, lj 87. United challenges the testimony of Gessler on all HYPERLINK of three prongs https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&context=]. Turning first to qualifications, Gessler's general credentials include a law degree from the University of Michigan and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University. Id at 38, If 4. More pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Gessler [*37] served as Colorado's Secretary of State from January 2011 to January 2015. Id. at 39, 11 5. In that capacity, Gessler was Colorado's chief election officer, a position that required him to oversee election officials in Colorado counties, review the election practices and procedures of Colorado counties, maintain the voter database and voter registration systems for Colorado, and maintain Colorado's voter rolls. Id. Additionally, Gessler handled "statewide coordination and compliance with all federal election laws, including the [NVRA][and] the [HAVA]. . . ." Id. Gessler details in his expert report his experience in identifying, creating, and implementing list maintenance policies and practices as well as his experience identifying and responding to perceived deficient policies and practices related to the voter registration lists he oversaw—including responding to the threat of a lawsuit alleging noncompliance with HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See generally id. at 39,79-10. Despite the particular experiences of Gessler as the chief elections officer of Colorado, United argues that Gessler "is unsuited to provide an expert opinion in this case." Id. at 3. The primary rationale for that argument is that Gessler "lacks any knowledge [*38] of Broward County's voting registration policy or voter roll maintenance, the voting policy of any state other than Colorado, or the implementation of such policy at the county level[.]" Id at 2-3. United elaborates that, "[e]xcluding his preparation for this case, Mr. Gessler has little—if any—knowledge of Florida's or Broward County's voter registration and voter roll maintenance systems[,]" and emphasizes that in Colorado, "the duty of implementing election policy belongs to the state's counties." Id at 9. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Gessler is at least minimally qualified to offer an expert opinion in this case (with one caveat, as explained below) given the apparent overlap between his unique experiences as Colorado's Secretary of State and the issues in this case. Most notably, Gessler's knowledge and expertise in the field of voter roll list maintenance are tied directly to the same federal standard under the NVRA with which Snipes is required to comply. In the Court's view, the particular concerns raised by United speak to the level of Gessler's expertise, and therefore the weight to be afforded his opinions. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC(basing 2991-FG36-1205-00000-00&context=] qualifications on a proposed expert's "knowledge, skill, experience, training,[*391 or education"); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ HYMN, V Mips:// vance.lexis.com/qpiidocwnenr?coliection ,s lc unt:contentitem:413,1R-0730400.3817-2361-A-000632 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes X3P8-00000-00&context...1 (explaining that, in addition to scientific training or education, "experience in a field may offer another path to expert status"); HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KGB-NC -F04D13R0-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK' https://advance.lexis.comicipildocumerecollection --cases :contentitenn5KGB-N -FWD1.31W-00000-00&4-;ontext..1 ("[S]o long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise go to credibility and admissibility.") (quoting [ weight, not HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:54VH-XF91-F04D113C-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLJNK htip,.s•:,:cidvance.lexis.com/api/document?rolfection zzeases&id um:rontentitem:541111-XE91-F04D113C-00000-00&contexi (alteration in original). That said, the Court notes that like Dr. Camarota's expert report, Gessler's expert report compares Census Bureau ACS data with EAVS data to support some of the opinions stated therein, such as the following: "An unusually high percentage of registered voters serves as one of the main indicators that a jurisdiction does not take reasonable steps to maintain voter registration lists. Broward County is a classic example of a jurisdiction that has alarmingly high voter registration rates . . . ." ECF No.[144] at 49, ¶ 43. The Court is not convinced that Gessler has the requisite expertise in analyzing this kind of data to offer opinions that make assessments as to Broward County's voter registration rates. By comparison, ACRU has shown that Dr. Camarota has extensive experience in analyzing Census Bureau data, like the ACS, and other population related data. [*40] No comparable showing has been made with respect to Gessler, a lawyer by trade. Thus, although Gessler is certainly qualified to offer opinions concerning the specific list maintenance policies and procedures utilized (and not utilized) by Snipes, the Court does not find that he is qualified to offer data-driven opinions relating to Broward County's voter registration rates. With respect to reliability, United contends: "No clear methodology is discernible from Mr. Gessler's opinion. He appears to have arrived at his conclusions by simply applying his personal knowledge of Colorado's voter registration system at the state level and his review of Florida law to the information about Broward County found in documents produced and the data sources generated for this case." Id. at 10. Importantly, United's reliability attacks focus almost entirely on Gessler's opinions concerning Broward County's voter registration rates—a subject that in any event Gessler is unqualified to testify about. See, e.g., id. at 10 (describing Gessler's methodology as "rel[ying] on two data sets drawn from calculations and analysis of population statistics"); id. at 11 (emphasizing that "Mr. Gessler is not a statistician[,]" "has little familiarity[*41] with EAVS data[,]" and "has no basis for determining at what level a registration rate becomes potentially problematic"); id. at 16 (collectively addressing "Dr. Camarota's and Mr. Gessler's methodology" by noting, among other things, that "the methodology used in both reports" lacks evidence of an "error rate" and "reliable, recognized statistical techniques"); id. at 17 (stating that "Dr. Camarota's and Mr. Gessler's methodology consists of a flawed comparison between dissimilar data points"). The only discernible challenge by United as to the reliability of Gessler's opinions concerning the list maintenance policies and procedures employed by Snipes—a subject that Gessler is qualified to testify about—is that Gessler "[cites] no comparative studies of state voter registration systems, no national guidelines, and no widely accepted best practices . . . [and offers] no explanation of how his limited Colorado experience suffices as support for his opinions on Broward County's practices." Id. at 14. However, the Court finds that Gessler's testimony is sufficiently reliable based "upon [his] personal knowledge [and] experience." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004C17-2361-A-000633 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES BeHitt° . Snipes HYPERLINK 000J-00000-00&context=]/ https://advance.lexis.comiapi/document?collection sesc" =u 71:cautentliem:31;1130-2X60-004 000,1-00000-00&context He has formed his opinions based on his personal experiences in attempting to maintain [*42] compliance with the NVRA as Colorado's chief elections officer and his review of the evidence in this case. The Court does not find that Gessler's testimony is rendered unreliable simply because he has not served as an election official in Florida or Broward County or cited comparative studies or national guidelines. HYPERLINK See https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:437H-H490-0038X1MT-00000-00&context=11. ht4:s:tiadvance.lexis.4-;onile,ptidocument?co eaws&id urn contenthem:4371141490-0038XIMI-00000-00&context....1 ("[Defendants] assert that Schwartz's testimony is not reliable because it is based largely on his personal experience rather than verifiable testing or studies. Although Daubert applies to all expert testimony, . . . there is no question that an expert may still properly base his testimony on 'professional study or personal experience.' Defendants' objection is unfounded on this record. . . . Defendants' objections plainly go to the weight and sufficiency of Schwartz's opinions rather than to their admissibility.") (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPEI At. 000J-00000-00&context=][ is.cotniqpiic ocument?coliection -n:contentliem:30'3 -2 q)--0(i,1C00a1-00000-00&context ) (internal citations omitted). Finally, United argues that Gessler's testimony will not assist the factfinder, but will instead "improperly usurp[] the role of the fact-finder." ECF No.[144] at 19. Specifically, United suggests that Gessler has merely weighed the evidence in this case by "review[ing] only the documents and sources of data prepared for or [*431 generated by this litigation, and evaluat[ing] the veracity of statements made by Dr. Snipes and other witnesses regarding Broward County's voter registration and voter roll maintenance practices." Id. But Gessler's expert report purports to do more than just simply weigh the evidence in this case. For example, Gessler intends to identify list maintenance practices that in his opinion Snipes should employ, but does not. See, e.g., id. at 50, ¶IJ 48-52 (use of driver license data); id. at 51, ¶¶ 53-55 (use ofjury notices). In doing so, Gessler will opine on industry practices he is familiar with, what he perceives as deficiencies in BCSEO's list maintenance program, and how he believes such deficiencies can be remedied. See id. at 51-57. In the Court's view, this kind of testimony, though not scientific, is "beyond the understanding of the average lay person" and will lend assistance to the factfinding in this case.[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038HYPERLIN X3P8-00000-00&context=]/ hvs.7:101-Ivance.,exis,4-xmilapi/doeument?colle4-;tion 7i:content lem:41111. -07_ 0-0038X3P8-00000-00&rontext . However, as United correctly points out, Gessler also provides an opinion on the ultimate legal question raised by ACRU's claim under Count I. See ECF No.[144] at 41, If 12 (opining that Snipes "has failed to conduct a general program and has failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the accuracy of the county [*44] voter rolls"). Gessler is precluded from giving testimony that ultimately states legal conclusions. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:5G09-H5B1-F04D12H6-00000-00&contextt][ ilYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com/ividocument?collection . P.1 E011)-cas'es&d....unicontc,:iItem:.G09H I2H6-00000-0 &contex ("[A]n expert may offer his opinion as to facts that, if found, would support a conclusion that the legal standard at issue was satisfied, but he may not testify as to whether the legal standard has been satisfied.") (citation omitted)(alteration in original). 17-2361-A-000634 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the testimony Gessler seeks to offer is admissible, so long as that testimony does not relate to Broward County's voter registration rates or to any legal conclusions. cases&id....umeontenthem:51H0-251).1-652118007-00000-00&context=7. "Those sometimes conflicting mandates are reflected in the language of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NB.Summary Judgment Motions F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] . . . ." [ HYPERLINK I. Claimfor Failure to Make Reasonable Efforts to https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection Conduct Voter List Maintenance Programs(Count =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KI) P1C2-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLLVK htv://advance.lexis.comfapi/documenecollection a. The Snipes/United Motion14 cases&id....urn:rontenthern:51M-DG8.1404KPIC2-00000-00(teontext-l. "Congress' stated purposes in enacting the NVRA were, inter alia, 'to establish procedures that will HYPERLINK increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office; ... https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection [and] to ensure that accurate and current voter =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nregistration rolls are maintained." [ HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] states that "[i]n the administration of voter registration for https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection elections for Federal office, each State shall . . =cases&id=um:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04Kprovide that the name of a registrant may not be P1C2-00000-00&context=][ IIT removed from the official list of eligible voters htipsw,/ unce.lexisxormipi, ocument?collection except" under certain circumstances. [ -PY P1C2-00000-00&cmtexi I, cert. granted, 198 L. HYPERLINK collection Ed 2d254, 2017 WI 515274 (U.S. 2017)(quoting https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? slation&id=um: contentItem :5D3N=statutes-legi HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; see also S. https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection Rep. No. 103-6, at 19(1993)("[O]ne of the guiding =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=]). "These principles of [the NVRA is] to ensure that once purposes counterpose two general, sometimes registered, a voter remains on the rolls so long as he conflicting, mandates: To expand and simplify or she is eligible to vote in that jurisdiction."); H.R. voter registration processes so that more Rep. No. 103-9, at 18 (1993). [ HYPERLINK collection individuals I*45] register and participate in federal https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? slation&id=um: contentItem :5D3N=statutes-legi elections, while simultaneously ensuring that voter then lists include only eligible . . . voters." [ F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] provides an exhaustive list of the circumstances HYPERLINK justifying removal: "criminal conviction or mental https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection incapacity as provided by state law, the death ofthe =cases&id=um:contentitem:51H0-25P1-652Hregistrant, or . . . a change of the registrant's HYPEI At. 8007-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK ocument?co Iection residence." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4V70-WR20-TXFX14Although Snipes and United have requested a hearing, see ECF 82RC-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK No. [142] at 19, the Court finds the matters presented in the Mips:// vance. exisxormipi/documenecollection Snipes/United Motion suitable for a dettamination on the papers and ses .k unt:contentitem: 1/70-WR20-'' without oral argument. 17-2361-A-000635 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes 82RC-00000-00&conteri 1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]). Under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]—which ACRU's claim under Count I is brought pursuant to—states are required to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of(A)the [*461 death of the registrant; or(B)a change in the residence of the registrant[]" HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=] (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]) (alteration and emphasis in original). This procedure, which the Snipes/United Motion relies upon first and foremost, has been come to known as the "safeharbor' procedure." Id.; see ECF No. [142] at 3 ("Because the undisputed facts of this case demonstrate that Defendant is implementing the NCOA program in accordance with the safe harbor provision, the county's program meets the HYPERLINK of requirements https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFinally, as noted by the Sixth Circuit in Husted,"in F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. For this HYPERLINK reason alone, summary judgment is warranted on https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection Count I."). =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], Congress As a preliminary matter, both Snipes and United provided states with an example of a procedure for initially raised the safe-harbor provision when they identifying and removing voters who had changed previously moved to dismiss Count I. See[ residence that would comply with the NVRA's HYPERLINK mandates and accompanying constraints. That htq,s://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection subsection provides that '[a] State may meet the HYPERLINK the registrant has changed residence" without first subjecting the requirement of https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection registrant to the confirmation notice procedure outlined in that subsection. HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutesF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] by legislation8cid=um:contendtem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-00000establishing a program under which' voters who 00&context=]. That mandatory confitmation notice procedure is as appear to have moved based on information follows: "a forwardable postage prepaid and pre-addressed form is contained in the NCOA database are sent [ sent to a voter, and the voter is removed from the rolls if(1)he or she does not respond to the confirmation notice or update his or her HYPERLINK registration, and (2) he or she does not subsequently vote during a https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection period offour consecutive years that includes two federal elections." =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection=cases&id=untco F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] ntentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04K-P1C2-00000-00&context=][ . confirmation notices."15 15[ HYPERLINK https://adrance.lexis.cornlapi/doctmerecollectiontatutes• Iegislation&i&urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-N RF4.4007-00000-00&context=] establishes that states "shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that HYPERLLVK halgArdwrncelesis.com4apildomment2colleciion—cases&id-UMC ontenthem..5, 7.• -PLIK-PIC2-On000-00&contelv-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation8tid=um:contendtem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]). 17-2361-A-000636 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes =cases&id=urn:contentitem:5M1N-0M41-F04DHYPERLINK 10NR-00000-00&context=][ https:tia vance.lexis.comicipildocumerecollection 4Dses& xantentliem:5 1Y-0114 HYPFRJPYTK .10.1V.R-00000-00&eontextqf htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfection ....cases&id um:rontentitem:5M1N-OM41-FO4DAgreeing with IONR-00000-00&contexi . reasoning in Husted, this the [*47] Sixth Circuit's Court noted that "full compliance with [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislafton&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] [(the safeharbor provision)] would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=][ IlYPE1?Ll.NK https://acivance.lexis,comthpi4 ocument?collection um:contentitem:1 LA. 141-171 10NR-00000-00 !-contexi j. (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KHYPER/INK P1C2-00000-00&context=]/ https://a vance.lexis.coms'api/documerecollection - 04. cases zzu xonteniliem:5 .P 0000-00(leontext-1) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The Court nonetheless declined to dismiss Count I on the basis of the safe-harbor provision, explaining that whether Snipes fully complied with the safe-harbor provision "is a fact-based argument more properly addressed at a later stage of the proceedings." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=][ IIYP haps,. wnce.lexis.cormilpi/documerecollection ses' ic --urn:contentItem:5 4 -FWD10NR-00000-00&contexi I. Even in addressing Snipes and United's reliance on the safe-harbor provision at this stage of the proceedings, however, the Court does not take the view that, as a matter of law, full compliance with the safe-harbor provision necessarily absolves an election official of any under HYPERLINK liability https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Husted, "[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]'s language pairs the mandate that states maintain accurate voter rolls with multiple constraints on how the states may go about doing so." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=] (emphasis added). In this Court's view, the Sixth Circuit's attentiveness to the constraints imposed upon election officials in their efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls directly informed its treatment of the safe-harbor [*481 provision. More specifically, the Sixth Circuit viewed the safe-harbor provision as Congress having provided states with "an example" of a residence-change procedure "that would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=][.HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.convdocument?collection gsesc aircontentlian:5 S(i-i)r81- 4 -V .P1(72-00000-00&contexi j(emphasis added). But the Sixth Circuit did not appear to view the safeharbor provision—though an example of a procedure that complies with the NVRA (including its constraints on election officials)—as an example of a procedure that satisfies all of an election official's duties under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. Indeed, quite the contrary, the Sixth Circuit appeared to take a much more limited view, merely recognizing that the defendant's NCOA process, in mirroring the safe-harbor procedure, "is thus permissible 17-2361-A-000637 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes under the NVRA." M (emphasis added). It is also worth noting that Husted concerned alleged violations of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 based on the removal of(as opposed to a failure to remove) registered voters from the subject voter rolls—in particular, removals that were based only on changes of residence. See [ HYPERLINK htgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=unvcontentltem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=]1. .1111-1:1?LINK. https://advance.lexis,comthpi/document?collection WI!:cautentliem:5 S!,-7----)G8 1)IC2-00000-00&contexi-1. Here, with no authority having been presented to suggest otherwise, this Court holds that although an election official's particular NCOA process for identifying and removing [*49] voters who have changed their residence is "permissible under the NVRA" if it mirrors the safe-harbor provision in HYPERLINK outlined https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], such a process does not necessarily demonstrate full satisfaction of all the duties owed by that election official under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=1. Id. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] contemplates removal of ineligible voters from a state's voter rolls based on two specific circumstances: a registrant's change of residence and the death of a registrant. See [HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. As "an example" of a "permissible" change-of-residence procedure under the NVRA, [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=]1. HYPER],N ,ance. exisxareqpi/'ocument?collection I:content/km:SKS j-DG81-1704.K.c ,s'es PK:2-00000-00&contew I, the safe-harbor provision says nothing of an election official's "mandates and accompanying restraints" as they relate to deceased registrants. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=]I HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.coreapi/documentnolfection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:SKSG-DG81-F04KPIC2-00000-00&contew-1. The point is made especially apparent in this case, as the Amended Complaint specifically alleges that Snipes inadequately removed the names of registrants who have died. Cf. HYPERLINK htq3s://ctdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=lir Mips:// wnce. exisxamiapi/. ocumerecotection casescf:id um:content:item:5KSG-IX;81 P1(72-00000-00&contexi I/ ("This case concerns the final circumstance justifying removal—change of residence—which is subject to its own mandate and accompanying constraints."). Accordingly, even if Snipes has fully complied with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NsafeF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]'s harbor provision—a determination the Court need not make at this point—such compliance does not in and of itself entitle her to judgment as a matter [*50] oflaw on Count I. HYPERLINK with Compliance https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=rs safeharbor provision aside, Snipes and United also move for summary judgment on Count I on the basis that the undisputed facts definitively establish that Snipes' removal program is "reasonable under 17-2361-A-000638 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes the statutory standard."16 ECF No.[142] at 13. Snipes and United emphasize the evidence pertaining to all of the list maintenance activities that Snipes employs, and those activities are undoubtedly extensive. See id. at 14-15 (e.g., receiving and acting on daily updates from DOE; soliciting responses from registrants with felony convictions; reviewing and consolidating registration records identified as duplicates; employing specific procedures for registrants who appear to have died). Snipes and United further contend that "[t]he objective results of Defendant's general program and list maintenance activities demonstrate that her program has a real, substantial outcome in terms of the removal of registrants deemed ineligible". They point out that Snipes removed from the Broward County voter rolls over 240,000 registrants between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, and 192,000 registrants between January 7, 2015 and January 10, 2017. Id. at 15. Notwithstanding the extensiveness 1*511 of Snipes' removal efforts and the substantial amount of removals that those efforts have resulted in, ACRU has presented admissible evidence—by way of the analyses of Dr. Camarota—of very high voter registration rates in Broward County compared to voter registration rates throughout the country. See ECF No. [144] at 26-36. In some instances, according to Dr. Camarota, Broward County has had more or close to the same amount of persons registered to vote as it has had voting-age citizens in total. See id. at 33-4 (calculating rates in Broward County at 108.5% in 2010 and 96.7% in 2014, and opining that, "Waken at face value, these numbers indicate that nearly every eligible person in Broward County is registered to vote"). As for the voter registration rates nationally and in Florida as a whole, according to Dr. Camarota's expert report: "Nationally, the [Census] Bureau reported 16 Notably-,Snipes and United make no effort to identify exactly what that statutory standard for reasonableness is and what its parameters are. 65.1% of voting-age citizens were registered in 2010, 71.2% were registered in 2012(a presidential election year), and 64.6% in 2014. In Florida as a whole, the corresponding figures for these same years were 63%, 68.3%, and 62.6%." Id. at 34. Of course, Dr. Smith—Snipes and United's expert witness—claims that Dr. Camarota's analyses are misleading. But,[*521 in addressing whether Snipes and United are entitled to summary judgment on Count I, the Court must accept the evidence provided by ACRU,the non-movant, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. See[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3W5S-RXMO-0038N: X313-00000-00&context=ff htips:Padvai ce. exis.4-xmee,pi/de.)cument?eollection cases&id....urn:contenthern:314/19-RX4!O-003813.13-00000-00&context L. Other than moving to exclude Dr. Camarota and his expert report, Snipes and United do not address the voter registration rates in Dr. Camarota's expert report other than to say, without any supporting authority, that "the NVRA has no outcome-based criteria for compliance." ECF No.[142] at 16. The Court does not agree with Snipes and United that outcomes bear no significance whatsoever when it comes to determining whether an election official has met her duties under a statute through which one of Congress' stated purposes is to "ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KHY P1C2-00000-00&context=][ htv://advance.lexis.com*bdocument?collection cases&id....arn:contenthern:51Mj.)G8.1404K(quoting PIC2-00000-00(teontext---1 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=]). In any event, such a position undercuts Snipes and United's own emphasis on the amount of registered voters that BCSEO has removed—which this Court also deems relevant to such a determination. 17-2361-A-000639 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes Ultimately, taking ACRU's evidence as true, the voter registration rates extrapolated from Broward County's voter rolls at the very least create a reasonable inference that Snipes,[*531 despite all of the stated list maintenance efforts she has undertaken, has failed to meet the reasonableness requirement under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See, e.g., Martinez—Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 793-94("The high registration rate in Zavala County creates a strong inference that the Defendant has neglected her duty to maintain an accurate and current voter registration roll."); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5NDCP-H101-F04DHYPERLINK ROHK-00000-00&context=1/ htips://advance.lexis.corwapkiocument?rollection (.7ases&id—urn:contentliem..5MAT-H10147041)ROHK-00000-00&context--1 (drawing inference in favor of the plaintiff alleging an NVRA violation where the plaintiff alleged that "voter rolls maintained by [the defendant] contain or have contained more registrants than eligible voting-age citizens" and disregarding at the motion to dismiss stage the "potentially reasonable explanation for the high registration rate"). As such, the Court finds that Snipes and United have not shown the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Snipes, in light of those voter registration rates, has conducted a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of a registrant's death or a resident's change in residence. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. As such, Snipes and United are not entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw with respect [*54] to Count I. 2. Claimfor Failure to Disclose (CountII) HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] mandates public disclosure of all records related to voter registration and list-maintenance activities. It provides in relevant part as follows: "Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters . . . ." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. "This language embodies Congress's conviction that Americans who are eligible under law to vote have every right to exercise their franchise, a right that must not be sacrificed to administrative chicanery, oversights, or inefficiencies." [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=uni:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04K17P .„.INK M322-00000-00&context=][ hit s:t'dvance. exisxarnitwi/'ocumerecol ection zzrases&id um:rontentitem:55WAI-M761-E04KM322-00000-00&coliext-1 In moving for summary judgment on Count II, ACRU argues that Snipes has failed to comply with this public disclosure mandate by failing to provide or make available for inspection the following categories of documents it requested in its January 26,2016 letter: (1) updated registration data since the publication of information reported by the EAC for 2014 from the 2014 EAC Report; (2)the number of notices sent to inactive voters since the publication [*55] of the 2014 EAC Report, including the date, scope, and contents of any mailing sent to all ("not just [] active") registered voters; (3) the total number of voters registered in Broward County as ofthe date of any response; (4)any records indicating the use of citizenship or immigration status for list maintenance activities; and 17-2361-A-000640 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes (5) all list maintenance records including federal voter registration forms containing citizenship eligibility questionnaires for the previous 22 months, which, according to ACRU, contemplates the following: (a) copies of all invoices and statements from any outside vendors Snipes works with in doing list maintenance mailings; (b) records of complaints received regarding list maintenance issues; (c) communications from and to the DOS office; (d) records related to USPS NCOA database requests and usage; and (e) a current list of all registered voters (active and inactive). ECF No. [117] at 14-15. Snipes counters in her motion for summary judgment on Count II by emphasizing that "thousands of public records have been produced" to ACRU thus far, and further claiming that "there are no documents requested and available from Defendant Snipes that has not already [*561 been provided." ECF No. [145] at 23. The Court will address each motion and their respective arguments in turn. As a preliminary matter, however, insofar as ACRU seeks under Count II a declaration from the Court that Snipes has violated the public disclosure under HYPERLINK requirement https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], see generally ECF No. [12] at 9 (praying for a declaration "that Defendant is in violation of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1"), the Court considers the operative time period to be the time between ACRU's January 26, 2016 letter and the filing of this suit on June 27, 2016. Under [ HYPERLINK haps://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], a potential defendant is allowed 90 days following receipt of a notice of a purported NVRA violation to correct that violation before the potential plaintiff may bring suit. In this case, that notice was the January 26, 2016 letter, and so Snipes had at least 90 days from the date she received that letter to correct the potential public disclosure violation identified therein.17 It is precisely that claimed violation—which encompasses all of the communications and interactions that took place between ACRU and 17 The parties appear to be in agreement that the January 26, 2016 letter constituted sufficient notice for purposes of ACRU's failure to disclose claim under Count II. Nonetheless, and despite the issue having not been raised on summary judgment or at any other time during these proceedings, the Court questions whether the letter can constitute sufficient notice for purposes of ACRU's claim for failure to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs under Count I and ACRU's failure to disclose claim under Count II. Specifically, the letter contemplated one potential NVRA violation,the violation claimed under Count I. See ECF No.[12-1] at 2 ("[T]he list maintenance requirements of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=][] ensure that ineligible voters are not participating in the political process .. . . The American Civil Rights Union has [] taken on the task of notifying you of your county's violation."). The letter did not contemplate the NVRA violation claimed under Count II, nor could it have; being the first correspondence between ACRU and Snipes, the letter represents the first time ACRU requested list maintenance records from Snipes. In other words, although the letter notified Snipes of a potential NVRA violation for her alleged failure to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, as far as public disclosure is concerned, the letter merely requested for the first time Snipes' list maintenance records. See id. at 4("We would like to discuss with your office how to implement a remedial plan which could cure what appears to be a violation of[ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:content'tem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]. We also request the opportunity to inspect the list maintenance documents outlined above.") (emphasis added). It would seem to follow, then, that Snipes was never provided written notice of the potential NVRA violation claimed under Count II or afforded 90 days after such written notice by which to cure the potential violation—the lapse of which gives rise to the private cause of action. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contendtem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contendtem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=] 17-2361-A-000641 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes Snipes from January 26, 2016 to June 27, 2016— and Snipes alleged failure to correct it up to the commencement of this suit that[*57] is reflected in the Amended Complaint. See, e.g., ECF No.[12] at 11 33 ("Defendant has failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs written request for data, failed to produce or otherwise failed to make records available to Plaintiffs concerning Defendant's implementation of programs and activities for ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Broward County, in violation of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] . . . . Defendant has rebuffed efforts to meet to discuss and implement remedial plans to cure this violation.")(emphasis added). To the extent that the Court considers the efforts undertaken by Snipes since the filing of this suit—which seems to be the primary focus of ACRU's and Snipes' respective motions for summary judgment on Count II—the Court does so only for the purposes addressing ACRU's request for an injunction requiring Snipes to "substantively respond to [ACRU's] written request for records concerning her implementation of [list maintenance] programs and activities . . and provide access to election records." ECF No. [12] at 10. a. ACRU's Motion At the outset, the Court notes that ACRU's Motion is premised on Snipes' alleged failure to provide [*58] records throughout the course of this litigation. See ECF No.[117] at 14-15. With that in mind, the Court makes a seemingly obvious but nevertheless important—indeed dispositive— observation. In support of its motion for summary judgment, ACRU cites to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:55WM-M161-F04KHYPER M322-00000-00&context=][ htips:/ladvance.le.ri.com./api4 ocument?co Jection cases(C,i('-urn:content. iem ss A 161-F KA4322-00000-00&rontext 1. See ECF No. [117] at I. 10-13. In Long, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff organization that sought records under the NVRA,whereby the district court HYPERLINK that concluded https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=l's public disclosure requirement applies to completed voter applications. [ HYPERLINK registration hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04Kplaintiff The M322-00000-00&context=]. organization had specifically requested from the defendant—a city official responsible for processing voter registration applications—all voter registration applications submitted during a certain time period, but the defendant repeatedly denied the request. See HYPERLINK htV://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-1704KHYPERL.INK M322-00000-00&context=1[ htt,s:t'mdvance. exisxomitwi/ cument7coliedion zzrasescf:id um:content/km:55WAI-A/1161,E0 M322-00000-00&coliext-1. The defendant's denial was based on her contention that the text of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 does not require public disclosure of completed voter registration applications, but instead applies only to records concerning programs and activities "related to the purging of voters from the list of registered voters." HYPERLINK https:lladvance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KHYPERLINK M322-00000-00&context=11 https:,, a .vance..exisxontiapi./ ocumerecollection --case& -id -n:contentliem:554.: 41161-F04. .111.322-00000-00&context 1(emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit rejected that interpretation,[*59] concluding that "the phrase 'all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters' 17-2361-A-000642 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes unmistakably encompasses completed voter registration applications[.]" [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KHYPERLINK M322-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.convOi/document?collection zzeases&id um:rontentitem:55WAI-M76.1-FO4KM32.2-00000-00&context-j (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]). Similarly, in HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:5KRV-MCT1-F04D23F9-00000-00&context=][ RYP.ER htips:Padvance.lexis.4-;otniqpiidocument?cc ,lection cases(041 arn:contenthem:SAIRV-MCTI,E04D23F9-00000-00&conwci L also cited to by ACRU, see ECF No. [117] at 13-14, the Northern District of Georgia rejected the argument that records stored in electronic form are not subject to[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]'s public disclosure requirement. The court reasoned: "Interpreting 'records' to exclude information contained within electronic databases also would allow States to circumvent their NVRA disclosure obligations simply by choosing to store information in a particular manner. Given the ubiquity and ease of electronic storage, this would effectively render[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] a nullity."[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KRV-MCT1-F04D.HPERL.1WK 23F9-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.contiapildocument?collectiol zzeases&id um:roraentitem:5KRV-MCTI-FO4D23F9-00000-00&coniext...I. imply that Snipes has withheld the production of certain relevant records on the bases that such records either exceed the NVRA's two-year retention period or are stored only in electronic form. ECF No. [117] at 13. More specifically, ACRU asserts as follows: The same reasoning [in Long] should apply to the two-year retention I*60] requirement. That is a floor, not a ceiling. If an election official maintains records for longer than two years, they must be subject to disclosure. Finally, electronic records housed within databases are also subject to the public disclosure and inspection provisions of the NVRA. To the extent that any records that have not been disclosed by Defendant Snipes are housed electronically, they are subject to the NVRA's disclosure provision. Id. However, other than these vague assertions, ACRU offers no clarity whatsoever as to which specific category of records it has requested that Snipes has refused to produce expressly on account of the above mentioned bases. Quite the contrary, Snipes' opposition to ACRU's Motion—as well her own motion for summary judgment on Count II— posits that no documents requested by ACRU have been withheld. See ECF No.[129] at 7("Snipes has made no attempt to be uncooperative in the production of documents. There has been no refusal or objection to providing any document(s). Even where Plaintiff was not clear in its litigation discovery request, . . . the documents were still provided. Thousands of documents have been provided to date."); ECF No. [145] at 3 [*61] ("At this time, there are no documents requested and available from Defendant Snipes that has not already been provided."). In other words, Snipes— unlike the defendants in [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KM322-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5KRV-MCT1-F04DIn relying on Long and Kemp, ACRU appears to 23F9-00000-00&contextl—does not concede that 17-2361-A-000643 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes she has refused to provide records that ACRU has requested, let alone offer an express rationale justifying any refusal on her part to provide such records. In this sense, this case is very different from those cases. In both Long and Kemp there was no dispute that a certain and definitive category of records had been withheld from the requesting plaintiffs—i.e., voter registration applications and all information contained within electronic databases—and the defendants maintained their reasoning for refusing disclosure of the requested records throughout the respective litigations in unequivocal fashion. The courts' respective rulings were specific to those circumstances. See HYPERLINK https://advance. collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KHITERLINK M322-00000-00&context=] htv:/i/ativance.lexis.coneapkiocument?rollection cases&id=urn:cautentliem..55WM-A4761-FO4KM322-00000-0 &conter ("The question here is whether HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contenthem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 . . . applies to completed voter registration applications."); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:5KRV-MCT1-F04D.HYPERLINK 23F9-00000-00&context=]/ htv:/i/advance.lexis.coinkpkiocument?rollection ---cases&id=ww:contentliem..5KR17-MCD-F041323179-00000-00&contex (rejecting defendant's "implicit[] argu[ment] that the Requested Records maintained in electronic format on the Database are not 'records'[under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contenthem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]] because that term is limited to physical documents"). The same simply cannot [*62] be said here. To that extent, ACRU's reliance on Long and Kemp is inapposite. Importantly, the distinction illuminates what amounts to a factual dispute that is material with respect to the injunctive relief ACRU seeks under Count II—that is, an injunction "commanding Defendant to permit inspections of election records pursuant to HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contenthem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]." ECF No. [12] at 111. Down to its simplest form, the parties dispute whether in fact Snipes has provided all of the records requested by ACRU—a dispute that goes to the heart of the relief ACRU seeks in under its HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] claim. See HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contenthem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] (requiring that each State "make available for public inspection . . . all records" concerning programs and activities related to voter registration and list maintenance). As alluded to earlier, Snipes claims that she has fully complied with ACRU's records requests, having handed over to ACRU thousands of BCSEO documents. To the extent that there are requests by ACRU that have gone unfulfilled, Snipes contends that some of the requests in ACRU's January 26, 2016 letter required "the creation of new records. . . or required the reviewer to guess the nature ofthe [request]." ECF No.[129] at 5. ACRU contends, on the other hand, that [*631 the January 26, 2016 letter "did not call for the creation of new records or require any guessing as to what was requested. . . . [and] outlined specific categories of list maintenance records."18 Is To be sure, ACRU does not argue in its motion for summary judgment on Count II that Snipes has, in addition to allegedly failing to provide requested records, failed to maintain any records that[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislationezid=urn:contendtem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=] requires the maintenance of. See generally IHYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=unve ontentltem:5KRV-MC77-F041.)-23F9-00000-00&context=li 17-2361-A-000644 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes ECF No. [130] at 3. However, it is not for the Court to weigh at the summary judgment stage the competing interpretations as to the achievability or clarity of ACRU's requests. Rather, in this context, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences against ACRU, whose motion for summary judgment is under consideration. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4G4P-SNTO-0038X08R-00000-00&context=ff HYPERLINK htv://advance.lexi:ss.corthq.)Wocument?rollection cases&id-- urn:coi tenthern 4G4I)-,SN TO-0038X08.1?-00000-00&contertq. Other than its own conclusory assertions, ACRU has made no meaningful attempt to explain why Snipes' contention that some of ACRU's requests call for records that are not in existence or are otherwise unclear is an unreasonable one. And the Court does not consider such an inference unreasonable given the circumstances, especially in light ofthe fact that ACRU has received from Snipes—through substantial discovery—documents numbering in the thousands. For example, ACRU offers no explanation as to why or how the thousands of documents that Snipes has provided are not responsive to any of the categories of documents that ACRU maintains that Snipes has continued to withhold. [*64] Nor has ACRU specified whether any of those categories of documents are indeed both in existence and in the possession of Snipes. generally I See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S42-C2N0-008HVOD8-00000-00&context=ff )11 K htv://advance.lexis.com.*Wocument?rollection cases&id-.urn cautenthein:3,942-C210-008HVOD8-00000-00&contert- ("judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs."); [ -cases -urn:c ontendtem.SKR •i:04i)-2.3F9-On000-00&con vt-7 ("Whether a record is required to be maintained is different from a claim that a maintained record is required to be disclosed. The question whether Defendant failed to maintain one or more records is not presently before the Court"). HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:53D4-FCN1-JCNJ? 60GG-00000-00&context=][ https:/'t IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. ACRU's Motion, ECF No. [117], is DENIED. 2. Snipes' Motion, ECF No. [145], is DENIED. a. ACRU's Motion to Strike Defendant Brenda Snipes's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II, ECF No. [149], is DENIED as moot.21 3. The Snipes/United Motion, ECF No. [1421, is DENIED. a. Snipes[1.72] and United's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Summary Judgment 22 21 ACRU's Motion to Strike Defendant Brenda Snipes's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II seeks the same relief as did the motion ACRU filed at ECF No. [153], which the Court denied on June 5,2017.See ECF No.[154]. Snipes and United's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Evidence requested that the Court strike evidence ACRU submitted in support of its opposition to the Snipes/United Motion that, ultimately, this Court did not consider in denying the Snipes/United Motion. 17-2361-A-000648 [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn :contentltem:5MXP-H101-F04D-ROHK-00000-00&context="][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=u rn :contentltem:5MXP-H101-F04D-ROHK-00000-00&context="] United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division February 21,2017, Decided; February 21, 2017, Filed NO: 5:16-CV-683-BR Reporter 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23565 * VOTER INTEGRITY PROJECT NC,INC., Plaintiff, v. WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS,Defendant, and JENNIFER MORRIS,EDWARD JONES,and SIOBHAN MILLEN,Defendant-Intervenors. Counsel: r1]For Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc., Plaintiff: Benton G. Sawrey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Narron, O'Hale and Whittington,PA,Smithfield, NC; John C. Adams, Kaylan L. Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEYS,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Alexandria, VA. For Wake County Board ofElections, Defendant: Allison Pope Cooper, Claire Hunter Duff, Roger A. Askew,LEAD ATTORNEYS,Wake County Attorney's Office, Raleigh, NC; Scott Wood Warren, LEAD ATTORNEY,Raleigh, NC. For Jennifer Morris, Edward Jones, Siobhan Millen, Intervenor Defendants: Allison Jean Riggs, LEAD ATTORNEY,Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham,NC. Judges: W.Earl Britt, Senior United States District Judge Opinion by: W. Earl Britt Opinion ORDER This matter is before the court on the motions to dismiss of defendant Wake County Board of Elections ("WCBOE") and defendant-intervenors Jennifer Morris, Edward Jones, and Siobhan Millen. (DE ## 14, 27.) Plaintiff Voter Integrity Project NC, Inc.("VIP-NC") has filed responses in opposition to the motions. (DE ## 19, 30.) Defendant-intervenors filed a reply. (DE # 33.) This matter is therefore ripe for disposition. I. BACKGROUND VIP-NC is an organization which "has dedicated significant time and resources to ensure that voter [*2] rolls in the state of North Carolina, and in Wake County, are free from ineligible registrants, non-citizens, individuals who are no longer residents and individuals who are registered in more than one location." (Compl., DE # 1, ¶ 3.) On 18 July 2016, it filed this action alleging that WCBOE has violated [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000649 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ], and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On 10 August 2016, WCBOE filed its answer,(DE # 13), and motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to [ HYPERLINK "hftps://advance.lexis comJapi/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" 1. On 3 October 2016, defendant-intervenors, three individuals who are actively engaged in voter registration and related work, filed a motion to intervene. (DE # 22.) On 1 December 2016, the court allowed that motion. (DE # 26.) The following day, defendant-intervenors filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context="] In HYPERLINK a "haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colIec tion=statuteslegislation&id=urn: contentItem:5GYC-1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ] context, the reviewing court must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." This directive ordinarily limits a [*3] court's review to the "well-pled facts in the complaint[, which it must view] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." While no absolute bar exists, a motion to dismiss under[ HYPERLINK "https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP16N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ] does not typically resolve the applicability of defenses to a well-pled claim. II. DISCUSSION HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection Both motions to dismiss are filed pursuant to [ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GBJ-2HM1-F04KHYPERLINK MO5S-00000-00&context1[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GBJ-2HM1-F04K1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" I. ' MO5S-00000-00&context=" ] (citations omitted) (alteration in original). With this standard in mind, the court will consider VIP-NC's NVRA claims. Because WCBOE filed its answer with its motion to dismiss, its The NVRA reflects the view of Congress that motion technically is one for judgment on the pleadings under[ the right to vote "is a fundamental right," that HYPERLINK government has a duty to "promote the exercise "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection of that right," and that discriminatory and =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYCunfair registration laws can have a "damaging 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ]. See r effect on voter participation" and HYPERLINK "disproportionately harm voter participation by https://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocumenecollection=cases&id=urn:co ntentItem:450S-W420-0038-X24S-00000-00&context=] [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:450S-W420-0038X24S-00000-00&context=" ]. "However, the distinction is 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context="]motions.[ HYPERLINK https:Hadvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntentItem:450S-W420-0038-X24S-00000-00&context=][ one without a difference," as the court applies the same standard as[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:450S-W420-0038X24S-00000-00&context=" ]. HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC- 17-2361-A-000650 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections various groups, including racial minorities." Congress enacted the NVRA in order to "increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote" in federal elections, "enhance[ ] the participation of eligible citizens as voters," "protect the integrity of the electoral process," and "ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal office," the aggrieved person may file a suit. Id.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. VIP-NC alleges WCBOE violated [ HYPERLINK HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N=cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. In Count M322-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK I, VIP-NC asserts that WCBOE has failed to make "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection a reasonable effort to conduct voter list under HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04Kmaintenance M322-00000-00&context=" ] (citing [ "https lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" 1.2 =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4'YF7GM91-NRF4-42X1-00000-00&context=" ] (now In Count II, it asserts that WCBOE has failed to codified at HYPERLINK respond to VIP-NC's written requests for data and "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection failed to provide records in accordance with [ HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=" 1)) "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection (alteration in original). [ HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] of the Act, which is at issue here, imposes [*4] various duties and obligations regarding voter registration. The NVRA provides a private right of action to "[a] person who is aggrieved by a violation of [the NVRA]." HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. The aggrieved party must first provide "written notice of the violation to the chief election official of the State involved," id. unless "the violation occurred within 30 days before the date of an election for Federal office," id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. "If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a notice . . ., or within 20 days after WCBOE initially argues that because the mandates of the NVRA are directed to states, it, as a local government unit, is not a proper party. WCBOE is correct that the particular subsections at issue are phrased in terms of state [*5] obligations. "[E]ach State" is required, "[in the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, . . . [to] conduct a general program that makes a reasonable 2 VIP-NC also claims WCBOE violated a provision of the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA"), [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context=" ], which requires the appropriate state or local election official to perform regular voter list maintenance.(Compl., DE # 1,1 30.)It recognizes that the HAVA does not provide a private right of action but contends that the provision is relevant to determining "whether the Defendant has a 'reasonable' program for voter list maintenance." (Resp. Oppin WCBOE Mot. Dismiss,DE # 19, at 6 n.3.) 17-2361-A-000651 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections effort to remove the names ofineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of—(A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant . . . .").[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. "Each State" must also "maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters . . . ." Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5D3N]. F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" However, the NVRA also contemplates local government involvement in carrying out the State's obligations. $ee HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=" ] (finding "it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right" to vote),(b)(2)(recognizing one of the purposes of the NVRA is "to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office"). In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections ("SBOE")[*61 is charged with adopting a program to comply with the NVRA's list maintenance HYPERLINK requirement. See "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]. However, North Carolina law also designates local county boards of elections as the entities directly responsible for performing list maintenance in accordance with that program. See id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]("Each county board of elections shall conduct systematic efforts to remove names from its list of registered voters in accordance with this section and with the program adopted by the State Board."). Pertinent here, each county board of elections is required to remove from its voter registration records any person who is listed as deceased on a monthly report from SBOE, id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]; to "conduct a systematic program to remove from its list of registered voters those who have moved out of the county, and to update the registration records of persons who have moved within the county, id.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&d=uni:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]; and to remove a person from its list who has moved after following statutorily mandated procedures, id. Based on WCBOE's explicit list maintenance obligations, the court concludes that WCBOE is a proper party. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04DHYPERLINK 10NR-00000-00&context=] [ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=" ](denying motion to HYPERLINK dismiss "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] claims against the defendant local election official [*7] where the plaintiffs had not sued the Secretary of State or the State of Florida and recognizing that because the local election official has obligations under the NVRA based on state law, the plaintiffs may bring an action against her for her alleged failure to meet those obligations); Am. Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 779, 791-93 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (rejecting the defendant county tax assessor-collector's argument for dismissal of HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000652 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] claim responsible, those local officials, not the Secretary, because the plaintiff had not sued the Texas are the proper parties to this lawsuit." [ HYPERLINK Secretary of State). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection The decision of [ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 81R4-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advancelexis.comJapi/document?collection 81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. The court[*8] =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXconcluded that the state could not abdicate its 81R4-00000-00&context=" ], on which WCBOE responsibility under the NVRA through delegation relies, does not support a different result. There, the to local officials and that the Secretary specifically plaintiffs sued Ohio's Secretary of State and the was responsible for implementation and Director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family enforcement HYPERLINK of Services ("DJFS") for failure to comply with "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection Section 7 ofthe NVRA.3 =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" ]. [ The Eighth Circuit considered "whether states HYPERLINK should be held responsible for implementing the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK requirements of =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" 1." [ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. Accordingly, the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection court held the Secretary, as the designated chief =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXelection official, was a proper party. [ HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" 1. The Secretary of HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ State argued she should not be held responsible for "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection any NVRA violations. Specifically, she claimed her =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXonly duty was to coordinate the state's 81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. responsibilities under the Act, "[a]nd, because Ohio chose to implement its requirements through the The Harkless court went on to consider whether the county departments and to make local officials Director of DJFS, a state agency, could also be liable under the NVRA. A portion of its analysis bears repeating: 3In the context of Harkless, [ HYPERLINK Because Ohio law authorizes the statewide "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection DJFS (and thus the Director) to ensure =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK compliance with F731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context="]requires that "any time a person enters a DJFS office to receive food stamps, "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collec Medicaid assistance, welfare, or disability benefits assistance, that tion=statutesperson should receive a voter registration form for federal elections legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731and assistance in filling out the form." [ HYPERLINK NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" ], the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentltem:4TX8-M880-TXFX-81R4-00000-00&context=]. 17-2361-A-000653 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections Director relies on the following curious proposition: because local authorities have the independent responsibility to comply with the NVRA, the Director should not be held accountable. True, the Ohio General Assembly has tasked the county offices with implementing the NVRA; but, as previously explained, the General Assembly also tasked the Director with the power to enforce any county transgressions of federal law. This is not an either-or proposition. The fact that some states, like Ohio, delegate the administration of public assistance programs to counties or municipalities should not mean that those states are free of I*9] all statutory obligations. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ "https://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" ] (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The court held that the Director was also a proper party based on her responsibilities for meeting the requirements of the NVRA distinct from the Secretary of State's HYPERLINK responsibilities. See hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/docum ent?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ "https://advance.lexis com/api/docum ent?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. Contrary to WCBOE's suggestion, the court did not hold that the state (or a state official) is the (only) proper party in a NVRA action. HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context="]by failing to conduct a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters from its rolls and identified the basis for this belief: the "county has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible living citizen voters." (Compl., Ex. A.) VIP-NC also requested that WCBOE make available for public inspection records under [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. The letter states, among other things, that it serves as the statutory notice required by [ HYPERLINK "htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] and that if the county did not fully comply with [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?coltection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ], VIP-NC may file suit under the NVRA within 20 days after receipt. (Id.) The Executive Director of SBOE was [*10] copied on the letter.4 4 When notice of the violation is required, the NVRA obligates the aggrieved party to provide the notice to the state chief election official. See HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ], [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.comJapi/docum ent?collection WCBOE next appears to argue that VIP-NC's letter =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nto WCBOE dated 2 June 2016 did not comply with F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. In North the notice provision of [ HYPERLINK Carolina, the Executive Director of SBOE is designated as the chief "https://advance.lexis.com/api/docum ent?collection election official for purposes of the NVRA.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N=statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5N29F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] before N8D0-004F-P4Y4-00000-00&context=" ]. Therefore, filing suit. By that letter, VIP-NC notified WCBOE having provided the Executive Director with a copy of the 2 June that WCBOE was apparently in violation of [ 2016 letter, VIP-NC satisfied its obligation to provide written notice ofthe violation to the chief election official. 17-2361-A-000654 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections In HYPERL1NK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=ll HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=" ], the court summarized the notice requirements of [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] as follows. systematic violation is occurring at the time the notice is sent or, if no notice is sent, when the complaint is filed within 30 days of a federal election. Neither the notice nor the complaint needs to specify that the violation has been actually observed, and that there is thus a "discrete rill violation," during the 120—day or 30—day period. It is enough that the notice letter and the complaint plausibly allege the existence of an ongoing violation within the appropriate time period, whether or not it was "discrete" during the period. Whether the aggrieved person is required to give notice and how long the person must wait to file suit after giving notice depends on the timing of the next federal election. When the violation upon which a suit is based occurs a substantial time before the next federal election, the aggrieved person must notify the state ofthe alleged violation and must then wait 90 days before filing suit. [[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. However, "if the violation occurred within 120 days" of a federal election, the aggrieved person must wait only 20 days after notifying the state before bringing suit. Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. "If the violation occurred within 30 days" of a federal election, the aggrieved person does not need to give any notice before bringing suit. Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. Furthermore, HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context="](citations omitted). Here, WCBOE emphasizes that "plaintiffs lawsuit was initiated forty-six (46)days after the date ofthe letter" and "the letter was dated five(5)days before the June 7, 2016 North Carolina Congressional Primary."(Mem.,DE # 15, at 9(footnote omitted).) WCBOE then argues that "the 'violation' plaintiff alleges, even if. . . taken as true, occurred in 2014." (Id. at 10.) While not explicitly saying so, WCBOE's contention appears to be that because the alleged violation occurred more than 120 days before a federal election, VIP-NC was required to wait 90 days after WCBOE's receipt of the notice letter to file suit. VIP-NC has, however, alleged an of [ HYPERLINK violation ongoing "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] in that WCBOE is continuing to violate the NVRA's list maintenance requirements.(See Compl.,DE # 1, in 14, 15.) Because VIP-NC alleges an ongoing violation at the time of the notice letter, its filing of suit 46 days after the 2 June 2016 letter complied with the [*12] notice requirement of [ A plaintiff can satisfy the NVRA's notice HYPERLINK provision by plausibly alleging that a ongoing, "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 17-2361-A-000655 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. See r HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:SGV5-Y071-F04KHYPERLINK V001-00000-00&context=1[ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=" ]. Finally, both WCBOE and defendant-intervenors contend that VIP-NC's allegations are insufficient to show a violation of the obligation to conduct a program that makes a reasonable effort at voter list maintenance.' In support of this claim, VIP-NC alleges that "voter rolls maintained by [WCBOE] contain or have contained more registrants than eligible voting-age citizens." (Id. If 9.) Further, it cites to 2014 data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau. (Id. 10, 11.) Using that data, it alleges "the registration rate in Wake County has been 104.75 percent during the conduct of a federal election." (Id. ¶ 12.) It also cites to more recent data, as of 2 July 2016, from SBOE,(id. ¶ 13), and based on that data along with the 2014 census bureau data, alleges "the registration rate in Wake County remains in excess of 104 percent of eligible citizens residing in Wake County," (id. lj 14). Also, as an example of WCBOE's "failure to reasonably maintain the voter rolls," VIP-NC alleges WCBOE "undertakes absolutely no effort whatsoever to use data available from the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court obtained from jury excusal communication" [*131 to identify "residents who 5Defendant-intervenors move only to dismiss Count I. Although WCBOE generally contends that VIP-NC's factual allegations fail to support a cause of action under the NVRA,(Mem., DE # 15, at 3), WCBOE make no specific arguments to support dismissal of Count II other than continuing its argument that VIP-NC has sued the wrong party, (id. at 8-9). For the reasons set forth above, the court disagrees and concludes WCBOE,to the extent it maintains records concerning implementation of its list maintenance activities (which incidentally it does not deny that it does), is required to make such records available for public inspection. self-identify as non-citizens or non-residents" or to identify "potentially obsolete mailing addresses of registrants." (Id. ¶ 19.) WCBOE characterizes VIP-NC's reliance on 2014 census bureau data of eligible voters (which is based on an average from 2010 to 2014) as a "threadbare basis" to support its allegation that the number of registered voters in Wake County remains in excess of 104 percent of eligible voters. (Mem., DE # 15, at 10.) Somewhat relatedly, defendant-intervenors argue VIP-NC's conclusion based on the cited data is "oversimplified" because it disregards the NVRA's requirement that, absent his/her written request, a registered voter cannot be removed from the official list of eligible voters on the ground of a changed residence without written notice and only after two federal general elections after the notice.(Mem., DE # 28, at 8.) See also[ HYPERLINK "https:lladvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. "Thus, [according to defendant-intervenors,] it is entirely plausible that the number of registrants would exceed the eligible voting age population in a jurisdiction with high voter participation and a relatively transient population."(Mem.,DE # 28, at 9(emphasis in original).) The court notes that 1*14] there is nothing inherently wrong with VIP-NC's reliance on census data to support its claim. See Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 791 (recognizing "that United States census data is reliable"); id. at 805 (report and recommendation) (taking into consideration registration rate based on census data to determine whether the plaintiff stated a claim for failure to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list under HYPERLINK maintenance "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]). While reliance on older data might arguably weaken an inference of wrongdoing, VIP-NC used the most recent census data available at the time of the filing 17-2361-A-000656 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections of its complaint. $ee [ HYPERLINK "https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/voting_age_popu lation_by_citizenship_and_race_cvap.html" ] (last visited 2/16/17)(2011-2015 data published 2/1/17). And, while defendant-intervenors have advanced a potentially reasonable explanation for the high registration rate, that being the two-election cycle waiting period to remove a registrant from the official voter list, the validity of that explanation is not appropriate for determination at this early stage of the litigation, where the court views the factual allegations and inferences drawn therefrom in favor of VIP-NC. A State may meet the requirement of [ HYPERLINK "https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statutesIegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" by I establishing a program under which— (A)change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and (B)if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that— Both WCBOE and defendant-intervenors take issue with VIP-NC's supporting its claim with the allegation that WCBOE has failed to use data from jury excusal I*151 communication. The parties all appear to wee that the NVRA does not mandate that election officials use a particular tool to conduct a voter list maintenance program, rather the Act provides election officials with discretion in how to conduct that program. Thus, the fact that WCBOE does not use a "readily available tool," (Compl., DE # 1, 11 19), to remove ineligible voters does not mean in and of itself that WCBOE has failed to make a reasonable effort at voter list maintenance. However, it, along with other evidence, may be relevant to determine the reasonableness of WCBOE's efforts at voter list maintenance. As such, the court will consider the allegation along with VIP-NC's other allegations to determine whether it has stated a claim under the NVRA. (i) a registrant [*16] has moved to a e [ HYPERLINK different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?c ollection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] to confirm the change of address. "https.11advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" Vs 'saft "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection —statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N'frAZ at o F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" J. HYPERLINK voter Defendant-intervenors a direct the court to "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection registration guideline SBOE has adopted which =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. Under implements a program whereby the SBOE compares quarterly the statewide voter registration the "safe harbor" provision, database against the Postal Service's National Change of Address Program and makes available to 17-2361-A-000657 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections the county boards of election a report showing voters with changes of address.(Mem., DE # 28, at 7 (citing 23:20 N.C. Reg. 2019-20 (Apr. 15, 2009)).) In accordance with the guideline, the county boards of election are required to check the report and follow certain procedures for any registered voter who is likely to have moved. 23:20 I*171 N.C. Reg. 2019-20(Apr. 15, 2009). registration rate—gave a strong 11 ,:,:.•: ere ,,,, plausiEle a violatio.a of the N VRr and stated claim forhef Accordingly, the .„: court ,,,,, . : it s, yip; .,,,,,,, • stated.::NC,,, has. claim for viola HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5133NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" Given the stage of this proceeding, the court has no information about WCBOE's compliance with those procedures. Whether WCBOE's compliance is sufficient to satisfy the "safe harbor" provision is best resolved after further development of the HYPERLINK record. See https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M I N-0M41-F04DHYPERLINK 10NR-00000-00&context=1[ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=" ] (concluding that whether a letter attached to the amended complaint from the defendant local election official "establishes Defendant's full compliance with [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] and defeats Plaintiffs claims is a fact-based argument more properly addressed at a later stage of the proceedings"). Them WWJmgritb find that t ,ar III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss are DENIED. This 21 February 2017. Is/ W.Earl Britt W.Earl Britt Senior U.S. District Judge Enti Doeugno/ 17rP , S a egatio ere voterOn ake CountV7 ,teeded, tinues to exceed, t e numbrfeligible ers, wch a.i1egation 1$111in turn sutpp led reliable data and WB Rufailure to use vaila excuse;information, aHreasonable infence eat' beTdrawn:that''WCBOE'is not mak:in a reasonable effort to conduct a voter lisrmaintenance rogram in accordance with the NVRA See artinezRivera 166 E Stipp. 3d at 793-94 mg that stered allegations of voter rolls containing voters than citizens 1481 eligily 17-2361-A-000658 1/9/2018 Commission Action Request From: Christian Adams To: 'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP' Cc: 'Christy McCormick' Kris Kobach' 'Mar R o es' ;'von Spakovsky, Hans' ; matthew.dunlap • 'King, Alan' ;'Lawson, Connie (SOS)'(SOS)' ; Subject: Commission Action Request Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2017 1:54 pm Andrew: I would suggest that you request as soon as possible the annual report of the Election Crimes Branch over at the Criminal Div for 2016. It has not been posted at the DOJ website yet and is usually available by now. I would strongly suggest you request form the same office the number of voter fraud cases prosecuted over the last 9 or 10 years. As far as I can tell, there has not been a single prosecution whatsoever for any double voting or any non-citizen voting. I know with certainty that multiple instances of double voting and alien voting have been brought to the attention of the appropriate federal officials, and no action has been taken. Of course when you don't prosecute crimes, you tend to have more crimes. The cross check program in which at least two Commission members participate has yielded a demonstrable inventory of potential double voting. It is not possible that every single one of those is a false positive, and those that are not represent likely federal felonies. I know in some instances these matches were brought to the attention of the appropriate federal officials. Understanding the extent of un-prosecuted and known election crimes can inform the Commission's recommendations. To summarize: 1) Would you please take steps to request from the Election Crimes Branch of the Justice Department their report that should have been produced for CY 2016 regarding election crimes. 2) Would you please take steps to request from the OPA or the Election Crimes Branch (or both)the aggregate number of voter fraud prosecutions from 2008 to present by category, particularly for non-citizen voting and double voting. Christian Adams 17-2361-A-000659 https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/1 1/9/2018 Suggested data request for Commission From: Christian Adams To: 'Dunlap, Matthew' ;'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP' ;'Kris Kobach' cwlawson ; nsty c ormic o es' - 'von S akovsky, Hans' , ar ;'Alan L. King"King,Alan' Subject: Suggested data request for Commission Date: Mon, Nov 20, 2017 4:54 pm Andrew and Kris: I would suggest that when you have the opportunity, that the Commission should obtain some public information prior to our next meeting. You may recall that shortly before our Sept. 12 New Hampshire meeting, the Public Interest Legal Foundation released a preliminary report finding 616 non-U.S. citizens in the state of New Jersey in the voter registration system. A copy of the initial report entered into the record on September 12 can be found, here. The figure is no doubt under-inclusive as it represents only those who admitted to their foreign citizenship status. After our last meeting, we completed our survey of every New Jersey county, a survey that was merely inprogress on September 12. The results should be of interest to the Commission. The completed survey of self-reported alien voter registration in New Jersey nearly doubled the preliminary finding. In all, 1,069 noncitizens were given unique voter identification numbers. Many of them managed to vote, sometimes repeatedly. Seventy-five percent of these cases resulted from a flawed Motor Voter transaction system —typically from the DMV and community college admissions documents. Based on the records returned, PILF could comfortably determine that pending naturalization applications were the core drivers for noncitizens to self-report their unlawful registration. Registration and voting by noncitizens violates both state and federal law, and are grounds for removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(6). Our systems should work better for the sake of citizens and immigrants alike. After all, even when an alien unwittingly registers to vote, they are jeopardizing their efforts to naturalize. The Commission should: Gathering similar cancellations/deletions of noncitizen registration like those found in the New Jersey survey. This isn't complicated, and I am surprised that nobody attempted to catalog this before PILF began doing so in 2016. Federal law already provides any requestor full access to this information in all but six states. Contact the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services to access metadata or reports, where available, involving the number of applicants for citizenship whose applications were frozen, denied, or approved given their answers to questions involving registration and voting activity. Question 12 on the N-400 federal form specifically gathers such information from each prospective American. Many applicants note they have been registered to vote and are voting. We should find the actual volume on federal records. Who could deny this is relevant information to the extent of problems with election integrity and squarely within the charge of the Commission? Obtain from the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the Justice Department of all current and past immigration court cases where aliens were considered removable due to their unlawful participation in elections under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(6). We should discuss building a survey or interview framework for each of the states subject to the NVRA to identify best practices and Motor Voter configurations in need of upgrades/fixes. I raise this issue in light of recent revelations in Pennsylvania, where state officials admitted that their registration system offered voter registration opportunities to all driver's license customers--even those with Green Cards--dating back to the mid1990s. The state official responsible for the statewide election system resigned subsequent to the revelation that aliens were systematically getting on the voter rolls. It's worth noting that a cursory search of the most vocal 17-2361-A-000660 https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/2 1/9/2018 Suggested data request for Commission critics of the commission in the mercenary media have failed to mention the circumstances in Pennsylvania even once, as if they do not exist. I realize you have quite a bit to do right now. But beginning to do real research about the extent of alien registration and voting isn't difficult, and shouldn't be controversial. After all, who wouldn't want to improve a system that is showing real empirical flaws? I'm happy to discuss with any of you this suggestion. J. Christian Adams 17-2361-A-000661 https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 2/2 Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [/0=EXCHANGE ORGANIZATION/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=39FF6C312E514F0FAC9DD16139907782-KO] Sent: 6/27/2017 3:44:14 PM To: Agen,Jarrod P. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b57cadaa254248adb080547bfOfb882e-Ag]; CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=8aba9b5542f6420a92cc812de2026bb8-Pa]; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=4f932f0d4b284d1c8583feab97894024-Mo] Subject: Agenda for 6/28 Organizational Call: Election Integrity Comm'n Attachments: Organizational Conference Call 6.28.2017.docx Importance: High Jarrod and Kris, Please see the attached agenda for tomorrow's organizational call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Administration. We'd like to send this by noon today, if possible. If you have any edits or questions, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew 3. Associate Office of Cell. Email: n Kossack counsel the Vice President rew. ossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000662 [ EMBED Acrobat.Document.11 ] Organizational Conference Call June 28, 2017 11:30 a.m. ET Call Agenda 1. Welcome Remarks — Chairman, Vice President Pence 2. Overview of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity — Vice Chairman, Secretary Kris Kobach; Mark Paoletta, Counsel to the Vice President - First Meeting —July 19th - Location: Washington, D.C. - Agenda - Overview of Election Integrity Commission staff - Andrew Kossack - Ron Williams - Support from the General Services Administration - Future meetings - August, September, November, January - Information Requests 3. Financial disclosures — Matt Morgan 4. Questions from Members 17-2361-A-000663 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Agenda Second Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 10:00 a.m. EST New Hampshire Institute ofPolitics, Saint Anselm College 1. Welcome Remarks — Vice Chairman Kris Kobach and Secretary Bill Gardner 2. Panel One: Historical Election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence • • • Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor ofPolitical Science, University of New Hampshire Kimball Brace, President, Election Data Services, Inc. Dr. John Lott,President, Crime Prevention Research Center and Author,Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates(2006) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members 3. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence • Donald Palmer,Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center • Robert Popper, Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch • Ken Block,President, Simpatico Software Systems • Hans von Spakovsky Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member,PACEI • Q&A and Discussion — All Members 4. Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 • Thaire Bryant, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, New Hampshire • T. Patrick Hines, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor,New Hampshire Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer 5. • • • • Dr. Andrew Appel,Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University Dr. Ronald Rivest,Professor of Commuter Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hand Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs Q&A and Discussion — All Members 6. Discussion and Other Business - All Members 7. Closing Remarks — Vice Chairman Kobach and Secretary Gardner 8. Adjourn 17-2361-A-000664 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Agenda Second Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Tuesday, September 12,2017, 10:00 a.m. EST New Hampshire Institute ofPolitics, Saint Anselm College 1. Welcome Remarks — Vice Chairman Kris Kobach; Secretary Bill Gardner; Former New Hampshire Governor and Chief of Staff to Former President George H.W.Bush,John H.Sununu 2. Panel One: Historical Election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence • • • Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor ofPolitical Science, University of New Hampshire Kimball Brace, President, Election Data Services, Inc. Dr. John Lott,President, Crime Prevention Research Center and Author,Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates(2006) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members 3. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence • • • • • 4. Donald Palmer, Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center Robert Popper,Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch Ken Block,President, Simpatico Software Systems Hans von Spakovslcy, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member,PACEI Q&A and Discussion — All Members Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 • Thaire Bryant, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, New Hampshire • T. Patrick Hines, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor,New Hampshire 5. Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer • • • • Dr. Andrew Appel,Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University Dr. Ronald Rivest,Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harri Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs Q&A and Discussion — All Members 6. Discussion and Other Business - All Members 7. Closing Remarks — Vice Chairman Kobach and Secretary Gardner 8. Acl'ou rn 17-2361-A-000665 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: von Spakovsky, Hans [Hans.VonSpakovsky@heritage.org] 9/8/2017 3:55:28 PM Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Andrew, would like to request seats for two guests at the Sept. 12 meeting Flag: Follow up John Fund Fred Lucas Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institutefor Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 ritage.org 17-2361-A-000666 Message From: Sent: To: Kris Kobach 6/29/2017 4:50:52 PM 'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov];'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP' [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: Another possible witness Attachments: 170428 The Real Problem with the 2016 Election - Voter Fraud and Illegal Voting.docx From: Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D.(IMI) Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 8:50 AM To: Cc: Kris Kobach - Kansas Secretary of State Subject: RE: Take 2: Vote fraud in Kansas + more Secretary KobachCongratulations on your appointment to co-chair the vote integrity commission. Now I can get over your not getting the DHS Deputy slot, which is what I was rooting for. Maybe. Attached please find a document I put together with extensive help from fraud in one place. It summarizes all my research on voter In addition, here is a podcast from today welcoming your appointment by Frank Gaffney,just FYI. Hope it is helpful. Please let us know what more we can do to lend a hand to your critical efforts! -Chris Christopher C. Hull,Ph.D. President and Campaign Manager Issue Management, Inc. 4536 46th St. NW Washington, DC 20016 Issue Management, Inc. From: Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:02 AM To: Kris Kobach - Kansas Secretary of State Cc: Dr. Christopher C. Hull Ph.D. - Issue Management Inc.; Christopher Hull Subject: Take : Vote fraud in Kansas + more Hi, Kris: 17-2361-A-000667 As we discussed the other night, I am re-sending the April 15 e-mail that I sent to you and fellow Harvard man Dr. Christopher Hull,Ph.D. He has a fine proposal to study illegal voting by foreigners and then publicize the results of his research. Given your mutual interest in this vital matter, I hope you two will be in touch very soon. Chris, why don't you get the ball rolling by sending Kris your proposal and a few words of greeting? Kris, please follow up after that. I think you two would benefit from the acquaintance and hope you will communicate. Many thanks and best wishes, New York City P.S. Chris and Kris. How about that? From: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:17 PM To: Kris Kobach - Kansas Secretary of State 17-2361-A-000668 Subject: Vote fraud in Kansas + more Iii, Kris: Congrats and THANK YOU for convicting Victor David Garcia Bebek. Nice work. I wish you had 500 more like him. BTW,now that you have nailed this alien for defrauding American voters, will you push for his deportation? PLEASE do so. $5,000 and probation are nothing. He should be booted from this country, and very visibly. He should serve as a high-profile cautionary tale for any other non-citizens who might be tempted to nullify the legitimate votes of citizens. Don't be nice, Kris. Kick this bastard's ass out of the country! Meanwhile, I love how I just looked up this story and found several others that say that there is no "massive" vote fraud in America, and it's neither "widespread" nor "epidemic." Therefore: Shut up and go back to sleep. By this logic,if we do not have 1 million people dropping dead from influenza annually, we should cancel the flu vaccine. After all, this problem is neither massive, nor widespread, nor epidemic. So,let's not fight it or even try to prevent it, not even a little bit. In fact, let's pass a new law that bars flu vaccines to vote-fraud deniers until this ailment is massive, widespread, and epidemic. Disgusting! 17-2361-A-000669 Please keep me posted on your anti-vote fraud efforts. This is one of my bugaboos. I really hope Vice President Mike Pence drills deeply into this issue, proves that it is a problem, and then works closely with DOJ and statelevel folks like you to hose out the manure-clogged barn that is America's voting system. Finally, the more we can prove that vote fraud is the Democrats' secret weapon,the harder we'll make it for them to fight it, and the more elections they will lose. So, please, please keep pounding them like a sledge hammer! Best wishes, P.S. I have copied here my very bright and highly promising research director, He has helped me research an article or two on this topic. I will ask him to keep his eyes open for more examples like this one. Also copied: Dr. Christopher Hull,Ph.D. Chris was chief of staff to Rep. Steve King(R - Iowa). He now runs Issues Management,Inc. in Washington. He is keenly interested in this issue and has a proposal for a project to document non-citizen voting in Nov. 2016 as a vivid example of foreign 17-2361-A-000670 influence in U.S. elections.(Where have I heard that expression?) If you want to learn more about what Chris is trying to do,I am sure he would be happy to tell you. Also,as I think of it, you two very likely were at Harvard at the same time. Please chat with each other. http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crirne/article144233919.html Wichita man pleads guilty to voter fraud www.kansas.com Victor David Garcia Bebek of Wichita pleaded guilty last week in Sedgwick County District Court to three counts of voting without being qualified, which is a misdemeanor. Bebek voted in a 2012 special election, the 2012 general election, and the 2014 general election. 17-2361-A-000671 The Real Problem with the 2016 Election: Illegal Voting Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D. To widespread[ HYPERLINK "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trumpcongress-democrats.html" ], President Trump has[ HYPERLINK "https://twittercom/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664" I[ HYPERLINK "https://twittercom/realDonaldTrump/status/803033642545115140" ][ HYPERLINK "http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/trump-repeats-voter-fraud-lie-in-meeting-withlawmakers.html"] perhaps the largest example of unlawful interference in the 2016 election: Ineligible voters voting fraudulently. While media reports continue to include phrases like "[ HYPERLINK "http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/11/28/team-trump-offers-evidence-for-millionsvoting-illegally!" I" in their coverage of the President's charges, mostly[ HYPERLINK "http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-millionundocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-I" I on a single Twitter troll whose charges have not been validated, they simply ignore: 1. The[ HYPERLINK "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-vonspakovsky-why-trum ps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.htm I" I which the Democratic candidate won by under 1,000 votes, and an investigation by a House committee found 624 invalid votes by noncitizens in that one California congressional district 2. [ HYPERLINK "http://www.nationalreview.com/article/291289/ghosts-voters-past-deroymurdock" I[ HYPERLINK "https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/The%20Impact%20of%20the%20National%20Vo ter%20Registration%20Act%20on%20Federal%20Elections%202007-2008.pdf" ], according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, registered voters totaled: a. 101.6% of the voting-age population in North Dakota b. 101.9% of the voting-age population in Michigan c. 102.2% of the voting-age population in Alaska; and d. 103.9% of the voting-age population in Maine 3. That in[ HYPERLINK "https://pjmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-notto-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rollsr ], Obama Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes[ HYPERLINK "http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247724/opinion-just-deroy-murdock" ][ HYPERLINK "http://www.nationalreview.com/article/291289/ghosts-voters-past-deroy-murdock" ] Department of Justice staffers of the Voting Section that although the 1993 Motor Voter Law "[ HYPERLINK "https://pjmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-toenforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rollsr I the states to ensure that no ineligible voters were on the rolls -- including dead people, felons, and people who had moved", 17-2361-A-000672 "[ HYPERLINK "https://pjmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-toenforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rollsr ] have no interest in enforcing this provision of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it." 4. A[ HYPERLINK "https://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-dodemocrats-fear-trumps-probe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853" ][ HYPERLINK "http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/11/28/team-trump-offers-evidence-formillions-voting-illegallyr I that said: a. 1.8 million dead Americans were registered to vote b. 2.75 million Americans were enrolled in two states each c. 68,725 were enrolled in three; and d. "[ HYPERLINK "http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/11/28/team-trumpoffers-evidence-for-millions-voting-illegallyr 1 24 million, or one out of every eight, voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate" 5. The[ HYPERLINK "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-vonspakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html"]by New York City officials who "found they could vote in someone else's name 97 percent of the time without detection" 6. That in April, 2014, North Carolina "[ HYPERLINK "https://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democrats-fear-trumpsprobe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853"]that 13,416 dead voters were registered, of whom 81 recently had voted" 7. A[ HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973"] published in Electoral Studies Journal that found that in 2008 and 2010: a. More than 25% of non-citizens were estimated to be registered to vote b. Non-citizens may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes c. "Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress"; and d. "Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress" 17-2361-A-000673 8. A[ HYPERLINK "http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/11/28/team-trump-offersevidence-for-millions-voting-illegallyr ]finding that "more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 elections indicated they were registered to vote" 9. A September, 2016[ HYPERLINK "https://publicinterestlegal.orefiles/Report_Alien-Invasion-inVirginia.pdf" ] by a non-partisan organization that found more than 1,000 illegal aliens had registered to vote in just eight counties in Virginia, nearly 20% of whom voted, as well as Virginia Democratic Gov. Terry McCauliffe's veto of a[ HYPERLINK "http://freebeacon.com/issues/mcauliffe-vetoes-bill-investigate-virginia-voter-rolls-registeredeligible-votersr Ito require investigations of jurisdictions in the state whose voter rolls contain more registered voters than citizens who are eligible to vote 10. That in January, 2017, it was reported that a[ HYPERLINK "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-von-spakovsky-whytrumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html" I "has estimated that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 people called for jury duty from voter-registration rolls over a two-year period were not U.S. citizens" 11. A[ HYPERLINK "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-vonspakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html" I that "[ HYPERLINK "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http3A login.voicebroadcasting.com_pollresults.wr-3Fpollid3D95719801960513001063615996390581&d=DwMFaQ&c=cnx1hd0QtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=ka AUPcZhp01MvBc6jwa0VBiGZWXka6ART1tFuyOjLfc&m=OBB9v4e4EMEaAmP7i2J1d9IVcNcAiSD6i hYpYoaWFtU&s=fS_Fqi2Y4f200oz4BKDYpb1MILmDfeHV8K-ZLO8x4MR4&e=" \t "_blank" I that 2.1 percent of noncitizens voted in the Nov.8 election" 12. There has been mysterious[ HYPERLINK "6.%09https:/townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democrats-feartrumps-probe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853"] by Democratic elected officials that: a. By even raising the question of voter fraud, the "president is doing[ HYPERLINK "http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-election-idUSKBN1591FP" Ito himself and to our country"; and b. Even more suspiciously if voter fraud doesn't exist,[ HYPERLINK "6.%09https:/townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democratsfear-trumps-probe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853"]their allies "Fight it NOW!" Moreover, if the President's charges are indeed baseless, then there should be[ HYPERLINK "1.%09httpsitownhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democrats-fear-trumpsprobe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853" Ito federal investigators requesting and, if necessary, subpoenaing or[ HYPERLINK "http://law.justia.comicasegfederal/appellatecourts/F2/306/222/89984/"][ HYPERLINK "https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010- 17-2361-A-000674 title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap2O-subchapll.htm"][ HYPERLINK "http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/306/222/89984/"]voter records from all 50 states and cross-referencing them with federal lists such as: 1. The Department of Homeland Security(DHS)Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements ([ HYPERLINK "https://www.uscis.gov/save/about-save" ]) that one election law expert[ HYPERLINK "https://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democratsfear-trumps-probe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853" ]"the ultimate alien database,"[ HYPERLINK "https://www.uscis.gov/save/about-save"]"Verifies an applicant's immigration or citizenship status within seconds," given that it[ HYPERLINK "https://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2017/01/28/why-do-democrats-fear-trumpsprobe-of-fake-voter-fraud-n2277853"]"green card holders, foreign tourists, exchange students, and those on work visas as well as illegals who have broken the law or otherwise surfaced on Uncle Sam's radar", and/or separately 2. The[ HYPERLINK "https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_lpr_pe_2012.pdf" I Legal Permanent Residents ([ HYPERLINK "http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/green-cardholders-and-legal-immigration-united-states" ]) in the United States, that is, the non-citizens with Green Cards 3. The[ HYPERLINK "http://tprorg/post/imm igrants-working-illegally-us-file-tax-returns-withoutfear-deportation" \I "stream/OPrivacy" ]individuals with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers([ HYPERLINK "http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/General-ITIN-Information" ]) issued by the IRS,[ HYPERLINK "http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/25/john-fund-and-hans-vonspakovsky-why-trumps-probe-voter-fraud-is-long-overdue.html" Ito illegal aliens 4. The[ HYPERLINK "https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DACA-3-year-statusreport-2015-08-14.pdf"]recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ([ HYPERLINK "https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca" ]), Barack Obama's first illegal and unconstitutional amnesty; or 5. The[ HYPERLINK "http://www.brycs.org/aboutRefugees/refugee101.cfm"] refugees and asylees still in the United States who have not become naturalized citizens or LPRs. Such an inquiry should be able to identify concerns nationwide, and remedy them with updates to voter rolls, criminal investigations, and appropriate sentences, including deportations. Regardless of what mainstream media outlets[ HYPERLINK "https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html" ], voter fraud and illegal voting is widespread in America, and should be reduced or eliminated to ensure the integrity of our representative republic. 17-2361-A-000675 Message From: Sent: Subject: von Spakovsky, Hans [Hans.VonSpakovsky@heritage.org] 9/21/2017 12:32:21 PM As Evidence of Election Fraud Emerges, the Media Wants to Keep You in the Dark >http://dailvsignal.com/2017/09/20/evidence-election-fraud-emerges-media-wants-keep-darkk iTHEDAILY SIGNAL As Evidence of Election Fraud Emerges, the Media Wants to Keep You in the Dark Hans von Spakovsky / September 20, 2017 If you have no idea what happened at the second meeting of President Donald Trump's Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in New Hampshire on Sept. 12, I'm not surprised. Though a horde of reporters attended the meeting, almost all of the media stories that emerged from it simply repeated the progressive left's mantra that the commission is a "sham." Almost no one covered the substantive and very concerning testimony of 10 expert witnesses on the problems that exist in our voter registration and election system. The witnesses included academics, election lawyers, state election officials, data analysts, software experts, and computer scientists. The existing and potential problems they exposed would give any American with any common sense and any concern for our democratic process cause for alarm. The first panel included Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire, Kimball Brace of Election Data Services Inc., and John Lott. They testified about historical election turnout statistics and the effects of election integrity issues on voter confidence. Lou also testified that his statistical analyses show that contrary to the narrative myth pushed by some, voter ID does not depress voter turnout. In fact, there is some evidence that it may increase turnout because it increases public confidence in elections. >>> Read the written testimony of witnesses who testified at the commission meeting. 17-2361-A-000676 In a second panel, Donald Palmer,the former chief election official in two states—Florida and Virginia— testified about the problems that exist in state voter registration systems. He made a series of recommendations to improve the accuracy of voter rolls, including working toward "interoperability" of state voter lists so that states "can identify and remove duplicate registration of citizens who are registered to vote in more than one state." Robert Popper, a former Justice Department lawyer now with Judicial Watch,testified about the failure of the Justice Department to enforce the provisions ofthe National Voter Registration Act that require states to maintain the accuracy of their voter lists. He said there has been a "pervasive failure by state and county officials" to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, and complained about the under-enforcement of state laws against voter fraud. Ken Block of Simpatico Software Systems gave a stunning report on the comparison that his company did of voter registration and voter history data from 21 states. He discussed how difficult and expensive it was to get voter data from many states—data that is supposed to be freely available to the public. According to Block,"the variability in access, quality, cost, and data provided impedes the ability to examine voter activity between states." Yet using an extremely conservative matching formula that included name, birthdate, and Social Security number,Block found approximately 8,500 voters who voted in two different states in the November 2016 election, including 200 couples who voted illegally together. He estimated that"there would be 40,000 duplicate votes if data from every state were available." Ofthose duplicate voters, 2,200 cast a ballot in Florida—four times George W.Bush's margin of victory in 2000. His analysis "indicates a high likelihood [of] voter fraud" and that there is "likely much more to be found." As a member of the commission, I testified about The Heritage Foundation's election fraud database. That noncomprehensive database has 1,071 examples of proven incidents offraud ranging from one illegal vote to hundreds. It includes 938 criminal convictions, 43 civil penalties, and miscellaneous other cases. Heritage is about to add another 19 cases to the database. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since many cases are never prosecuted and there is no central source for information on election fraud. The commission also heard about a report published by Shawn Jasper, the Republican speaker ofthe New Hampshire House of Representatives. That report stated that over 6,500 individuals in 2016 used an out-of-state driver's license to take advantage of New Hampshire's same-day registration law to register and vote on Election Day. Despite a law that requires an individual with an out-of-state license to obtain a New Hampshire license within 60 days of establishing residency in the state, only 15.5 percent have done so. Many have tried to explain this away be saying those voters must all have been college students living in New Hampshire. Perhaps that is true. But it may also be true that voters from Massachusetts and other surrounding states decided to take advantage of New Hampshire's law to cross the border and vote in a presidential and Senate race, which were decided by only 3,000 and 1,000 voters, respectively. 17-2361-A-000677 Of course, we won't know the truth of what happened unless we do what should be done, and what the commission's critics don't want to be done: investigate these cases. Finally, the commission heard from three computer experts—Andrew Appel ofPrinceton University, Ronald Rivest of MIT, and Ham Hursti of Nordic Innovation Labs. Their testimony about the ability of hackers to get into electronic voting equipment and just about every other device that uses the internet(and even those that don't) was chilling. As Appel stated, our challenge is to ensure that when voters go to the polls, they can "trust that their votes will be recorded accurately, counted accurately, and aggregated accurately." He made a series of"technological and organization" recommendations for achieving that objective. All in all, the Sept. 12 meeting, which was hosted by Bill Gardner, New Hampshire's longtime Democratic secretary of state, was both informative and comprehensive. But anyone who didn't attend would never know that based on the skimpy and biased coverage it received in the media. The hearing is evidence ofthe good work the commission is already doing in bringing to light the problems we face in ensuring the integrity of our election process. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institutefor Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington,DC 20002 heritage.org 17-2361-A-000678 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Kobach [ ] 7/4/2017 1:05:14 PM 'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov];'Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP' [Marc.E.Lotter@ovp.eop.gov];'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP'[Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] At least our supporters are fired up Here's the column on Brietbart. Top article at the moment, with over 5,000 comments. Have a great holiday guys! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/03/kobach-why-states-need-to-assist-the-presidentialcommission-on-election-integrity/ 17-2361-A-000679 Second Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:00 a.m. EST New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College Agenda 1. Welcome Remarks — Vice Chairman Kris Kobach and Secretary Gardner (I0:00am10:15am) 2. Panel One: Historical Election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence • Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire (10:15am-10:30am) • Kimball Brace,President, Election Data Services, Inc. (10:30am-10:45am) • Dr. John Lott, Crime Prevention Research Center(10:45am-11:00am) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members(11:00am-11:20am) 3. Break (11:20am-11:30am) 4. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence • • • • Peter Schweizer, President, Government Accountability Institute (11:30am-11:45am) Robert Popper, Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch (11:45am-12:00pm) Donald Palmer, Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center(12:00pm-12:15pm) Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member,PACE! (12:15pm-12:30pm) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members(12:30-12:50pm) 5. Break (12:50pm-1:45pm) 6. Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 • Thaire Bryant, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton,New Hampshire • T. Patrick Hines, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor, New Hampshire 7. Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer • Voting machine demonstration — Secretary Gardner(1:45pm-1:55pm) • Dr. Andrew Appel,Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University(1:55pm-2:10pm) • Dr. Ronald Rivest, Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2:10pm-2:25pm) • Hamri Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs(2:25pm-2:40pm) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members(2:40pm-3:00pm) 8. Discussion — All Members(3:00pm-3:30pm) DRAFT AS OF 8.31.2017 17-2361-A-000680 9. Other Business - All Members(3:30pm-3:50pm) 10. Closing Remarks- Vice Chairman Kobach and Secretary Gardner(3:50pm4:00pm) 11. Adjourn (4:00) DRAFT AS OF 8.31.2017 17-2361-A-000681 ;IVASS -4 \ National Association of Secretaries of State NASS Resolution Calling for Federal Agency Assistance in Maintaining Accurate and Comprehensive State Voter Registration Lists Adopted Summer 2012 Reauthorized Summer 2017 WHEREAS,current federal law requires that only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections; and, WHEREAS,the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)and the Help America Vote Act(HAVA)require most states to affirmatively register to vote those citizens who interact with certain government agencies, keep voter registration lists accurate and current, and require the creation of list maintenance programs; and, WHEREAS,the Department of Homeland Security, through its various agencies, has data that may assist states in keeping their voter registration lists accurate and current and ensuring eligible voters,and only eligible voters, are registered to vote; and WHEREAS,other federal agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services, may also have data useful for the maintenance of accurate voter rolls;and, WHEREAS,federal statute—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c)—states that the federal government "shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law,by providing the requested verification or status information"; and, WHEREAS,access to federal data,including information concerning citizenship,could assist states in determining which individuals are eligible to vote under state and federal law;and, WHEREAS,this same data could be used to help ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote are registered to vote; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the members of NASS believe that the United States Government should provide this data in accordance with all applicable federal laws and regulations to assist them in maintaining the most accurate and comprehensive voter registration list possible;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the members of NASS further believe that each state should only use this information in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner to assist in determining if individuals are eligible to vote in accordance with the United States Constitution, as well as state and federal law,and to take all steps necessary to protect the voting rights of all eligible voters. Adopted the 10th day ofJuly 2017 in Indianapolis,Indiana Expires: Summer 2022 Hall of States,444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.,Suite 401,Washington,DC 20001 (202)624-3525 Phone(202)624.3527 Fax www.nass.org 17-2361-A-000682 PRESS REGISTRATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ELECTION INTEGRITY - Sept 11, 2017 @ 5:00pm First Name Last Name Dan Murphy Chris Durrance Goodman Barak Holly Ramer Media Outlet American Bridge 21st Century Ark Media Documentary Ark Media Associated Press Bloomberg News Documentary Reporter Andrew Aaron Harris Nicodemus James Eric Ethan Pamela Pindell Bradner Bloomberg BNA The Boston Globe CNN DeWitt Baker Concord (NH) Monitor Courthouse News Martosko Pierce Daily Mail Esquire/esquire.com David Charles Damien Fisher Kayana Szymczak Michael Memoli Dartunorro Clark Paul Steinhauser Casey McDermott Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien Lauren Dezenski Josh Gerstein Robert Ellis Smith Jessica Huseman Zachary Goelman Nate Raymond No camera Reporter Reporter NBC NBC Photographer Reporter Reporter NH1 NHPR No camera Reporter Nutfield News Politico Politico Privacy Journal ProPublica Reuters TV State Rep Reporter Graham Slate CONTINUED CONTINUED Reporter NBC Altschiller TBD Howard Ruth Radio Reporter Reporter Nashua Telegraph Reuters News The Saint Anselm Crier The Saint Anselm Crier Seacoast Media Group TBD Notes CONTINUED Reporter Reporter Reporter Reporter Reporter Photographer Reporter Reporter CONTINUED CONTINUED CONTINUED 17-2361-A-000683 1 Name vid Last Name Lane Media Outlet Notes Tom David Roy Solomon Union Leader Union Leader Union Leader Trent Spiner Union Leader I Exec Editor Amy Eskind Zach Allison Caldwell You Call This A Democracy? Vice News Vice News Book author Some cnctn to HBO? Some cnctn to HBO? Jim Keaney JoeIle Martinez Vice News Vice News John Chris Ray David Ryan Adam Wagner McDevitt Brewer Faulkner The Washington Post WMUR-TV WMUR-TV WMUR-TV Some cnctn to HBO? Some cnctn to HBO? Some cnctn to HBO? Videographer Reporter Murphy Sexton WMUR-TV WMUR-TV , John DiStaso WMUR.COM I McCann I AM Photographer I PM Photographer I Columnist Tech Videographer Reporter Reporter 17-2361-A-000684 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A B C D 1 PARK FIRST LAST 2 'Adams rJim -•-s, 3 Comm iet4a41„Adams . J. Christian ) ;Appel Dr. Andrew 4 Panel 3 r 'Badger 5 'Comm staff , :Ben 6 I BaldaSaro _ !Al -1 7 Bates David l !Berry 8 Jake i 9 I Berube :Roger 1 ::Regina 10 iBirdsell 11 :Ken 12 1Comm filoadCBlackwell 1___ 13 Panel 2 • , ; i Ken !Block -7,-.A-: 1— ' 1 Kimball 14 Panel 1 iLtoatlia Brace 15 Handicap .Bryant Thaire 16 /610/2e.. i Buckley :Raymond 17 Burford Brian Organization Saint AnseIm College Pres and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Fnd - Commission Member Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University - Panel 3 , advance for the Office of the VP l'ih(.., I NH House - Rockingham- District 05 NH State Representative Office of Congresswoman Kuster NH House Strafford- District 18 NH Senate - (R-Hampstead) rivate Citizen :Former Secretary of State of Ohio - Commission Member : ;President, Simpatico Software Systems - Panel 2 President, Election Data Services, Inc. - Panel 1 Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, NH - Demo , Chairman NH Democratic Party SoS 18 1111111111111=111111111111.111111.11rivate Citizen 19 _ :Burling ;Peter iFormer NH State Senator 20 Private Citizen 21 wAirr-etynf— i Private Citizen 22 Chadwick ;Ray iRegion 4 Vice Chair 23 •Private Citizen 24 i Chapman iAIIe ra Common Cause 25 Private Citizen 26 Private Citizen 27 !Cloutier Dan SoS 28 Corkery Catherine NH Sierra Club 29 Private Citizen 30 Davis iKrishana America Votes ; 31 DeSantis iMaddie Office of CSP, Consituent Services 32 Dexter ;Dean SoS 17-2361-A-000685 , Sept 12 meeting - Master List FIRST 1 PARK LAST Organization 33 Front Steven "President Saint AnseIm College DiSa1v0 . r 34 I Doucette !Fred NH House - Rockingham- District 08 35 Private Citizen I 36)Comm I Dunlap Matthew Secretary of State of Maine - Commission Member 37 i Comm 40L,Ai Dunn David Former Arkansas State Representative - Commission Member 38 IElliott iJosh SENATE MAJORITY POLICY DIRECTOR I 39 Private Citizen .i 40 comm staff 1Federighi iCarol Department of Justice .. -I-. 41 :Fields ;Dennis NH House - Belknap- District 04 42 IForcier ,Eric SoS 43 batA,d Forrester Jeanie Chairman NHGOP ; 44 Freeman Lisa NH State Representative/Election Comm 45 Frost Sherry NH State Representative 46 Comm - Guest .Fund John guest of Hans von Spakovsky(Comm) 47)Comm Gardner Bill Secretary of State of New Hampshire -Commission Member 48k-emnrstaff i Gast— 4catt--Counsel's Office 0 iGiuda 49 Bob I NH Senate -(R-Warren) 50 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. 51 Goulette ;Aaron SR LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT 52 Graham IJohn i NH House - Hillsborough- District 07 53 iGray .James i NH Senate - (R-Rochester) i 54 !Greenbaum Jon i Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law :Griffin Barbara 55 ,NH State Representative/Election Comm 56 F-Handicap *Handicap 57 58 Private Citizen 59 Private Citizen 60 1 'Heath Nancy NH Democrats 61 !Dick I Hinch NH House - Hillsborough- District 21 62 I Hines Patrick Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor, NH - Demo 63 1 son of T Patrick - Demo Assist IT. 17-2361-A-000686 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 13 1 PARK FIRST LAST 64 i 65 i Hoelzel !Kathleen 66 !Huot 'David , 67 Panel 3 i Hursti Harri / 68 Front a;t2t1 Jasper Shawn 69 Timothy ,Josephson !Kenney Joseph 70 , • Kris 71 Comm C..., i Kobach .Kossack Andrew 'i•72 Comm staff Kurk 73 .-- . Neal 74 75 LaRochelle --iAndrian •••? iConnie ,76 Comm 614V, Lawson 77 'Neil Levesque Lopez — Tomas 78 79 Panel 1 • Lott :Dr. John , Fred 80 Comm - Guest Lucas 81 82 Marion (7 - -. ;John 1. 83 Panel -guest i McAlpine 1-1 !Maggie --l 84 i McCormack . iColleen 7-Th\-, ' 85 Comm lebaik,;McCormick , , Christy 86 _ 87 . 88 89 90 WAIT - conf Mikailov iGwen 91 Mirski !Paul 92 93 O'Brien Michael 94 Packard Sherman C (4) . 0(TX, D Organization Private Citizen NH House - Rockingham- District 03 Election Law Committee, NH House Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs - Panel 3 NH House Speaker - Hillsborough- District 37 NH State Representative .... ......... . !Exec Council - District 1 Secretary of State of Kansas, Vice-Chair - Commission Member Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity NH House - Hillsborough- District 02 SoS Secretary of State of Indiana - Commission - Commision Member Executive Director, NHIOP, SAC Brennan Center for Justice iPresident, Crime Prevention Research Center - Panel 1 guest of Hans von Spakovsky(Comm) Private Citizen iCommon Cause .. iwife of Harri Hursti (Panel) iSoS Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission - Commission Member Private Citizen _ Private Citizen .Private Citizen iNH League of Women Voters .:Grafton County Register of Probate Private Citizen America Votes NH House -Rockingham- District 05 17-2361-A-000687 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A B C D 1 PARK :FIRST Organization :LAST 95 Panel 2 Palmer -...„`•-.., Donald Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center - Panel 2 , Z.... ' I Mark , Paoletta r96 Comm staff -1-_i_ Counsel to the VP C i :Pearson !William A. Election Law Committee, NH House 97 --1 98 !Pelle !Michael Brennan Center for Justice 99 !Penney • i Paula SoS ---) 400 Aatik-Ct.„ 1Pfaff Terry •HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 1 101 Private Citizen ...._... 102 103 Panel 2 :Popper iRobert :Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch - Panel 2 , . 104 'Mar'orie iNH State Representative _ _:Porter 105 Private Citizen 106 _ 107 !Rainier Todd Hooksett Clerk , 108 !Rand Steven NH State Representative 109 Rice Hawkins _ ._ , _ Zandra Granite State Progress 4._4 Dr. Ronald 110 Panel 3 Rivest Professor of Computer Science, MIT- Panel 3 _ 111 Carol Roberts NH State Representative 112 Ronan 'Wyatt Communications Director, NH Dem Party r113 iRouillard Claire i NH House - Hillsborough- District 06 'Adam 114 SoS .iSchroadter 115 Comm - Guest jSchulze.Muszyn 146 risten ME SoS Director of Comms(Comm) J.6: 7e.boil -c7E:!Schumacher Amb Terry iNHIOP Advisory Board 117 Private Citizen 118 Private Citizen 119 Front - Panel Smith Z..,-,, Dr. Andrew Associate Professor of Political Science, UNH - Panel 1 ,ik 420 ieeux.A.,0L ,Soucy Donna NH Senate -(D Manchester) 121 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II Private Citizen 122 'Stevens Anthony SOS I 123 Stone Megan HOUSE LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT 124 IStrakalaitis Judith Chair, NH Supervisors of the Checklist , 7 125 Front Sununu Gov John H former Governor of NH,WH Chief of Staff President George H. W. Bush .itha4.. aticue 17-2361-A-000688 Sept 12 meeting - Master List 1 PARK 126 127 128 129 Panel 2 130 131 132 133 134 135 Comm staff 136 137 138 13, 14C 141 :LAST FIRST !von S akovsk Weiser ;Wells .Wendy ;Natalie Williams :Wolf !Woodburn !Zink Ron Terry !Jeff !Olivia ( Organization Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen :Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member, PACEI - Panel 2 rivate Citizen Brennan Center for Justice Election Law Committee, NH House Private Citizen Private Citizen Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity NH House - Hillsborough- District 07 NH Senate - (D-Whitefield) Open Democracy 17-2361-A-000689 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A :Attendee 1 Private Citizen 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Organization 2 3 4 5 6 Tomas Lopez John Marion :Michael Pelle 'r :Michael O'Brien 8 9 :Zandra Rice Hawkins :Brennan Center for Justice iCommon Cause :Brennan Center for Justice :America Votes Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen iGranite State Progress 12 13 II 12 Private Citizen Private Citizen 14 13 America Votes 15 16 14 17 18 16 17 19 20 21 18 19 20 22 21 23 24 22 „. 23 !Timothy Josephson 24 Catherine Corkery 25 26 5 25 27 28 26 27 29 28 30 29 31 30 — 31 32 1Olivia Zink Jon Greenbaum Wendy Weiser Private Citizen Open Democracy Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law :Brennan Center for Justice Private Citizen Private Citizen !Allegra Chapman Marjorie Porter Sherry Frost Common Cause Private Citizen Private Citizen :NH State Representative iNH Sierra Club SH State Representative iN11 State Representative Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen 17-2361-A-000690 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 33 32 34 35 36 33 34 35 37 36 38 39 40 37 38 39 B i.Attendee Carol Roberts I Paul Mirski Private Citizen Former NH State Senator Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen 41 40 41 42 43 Steven Rand Nancy Heath 45 46 47 48 44 45 Judith Strakalaitis 51 52 53 46 47 48 57 58 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 58 54 55 __ 56 i David Bates 49 50 51 NH State Representative Grafton County Register of Probate Private Citizen Private Citizen 42 43 44 49 50 C Organization b Gi Griffin ,i Barbara i ;Lisa Freeman IRaymond Buckley !Wyatt Ronan I Amb Terry Schumacher !Jim Adams peanie Forrester .1. !Ray Chadwick , 1 ... :NH State Representative iNH Democrats Private Citizen .iChair, NH Supervisors of the Checklist Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen iNH State Representative Private Citizen NH State Representative/Election Comm NH State Representative/Election Comm ;Chairman NH Democratic Party .Communications Director, NH Dem Party ,:NHIOP Advisory Board ::Saint Anselin College ;Chairman NHGOP , i Region 4 Vice Chair • 60 61 62 59 ;William A. Pearson 63 64 60 61 ;Natalie Wells ,:David Huot ;Election Law Committee, NI-II-louse ,iElection Law Committee, NH House .iElection Law Committee, NH House 17-2361-A-000691 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 65 62 66 67 68 63 64 65 69 70 66 67 71 72 68 69 73 74 — 75 76 77 70 71 7") 73 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 75 76 77 85 86 87 88 89 B Attendee t• Maggie McAlpine ;John Fund Ken Block Kristen Schulze Muszynski r : Ron Williams , Andrew Kossack ,Mark Paoletta :Ben Badger Carol Federighi 1:Scott Gast C Organization wife of Harri Hursti (Panel) , guest of Hans von Spakovsky (Cornin) guest of Peter Schweizer(Panel) ME SoS Director of Comms(Comm) Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity , -Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity -Counsel to the VP advance for the Office of the VP Department of Justice Counsel's Office 74 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 90 86 87 91 88 92 93 89 90 94 91 95 96 :Muddle DeSantis , :Neil c. :Dr. DiSalvo iEric Forcier :Andrian LaRochelle 'r :Dan Cloutier , :Orville(Bud) Fitch :Office of CSP, Consituent Services :SAC , ;SAC SoS SoS 92 i Paula Penney iDean Dexter ..SoS :SoS iSoS iSoS 93 r [Adam iSoS r Schroadter 17-2361-A-000692 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A B 97 94 ,Attendee ,Anthony Stevens 98 99 100 95 96 97 101 98 99 100 101 1 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 121 117 118 122 123 119 120 124 125 121 126 127 128 122 123 124 125 ,Colleen McCormack :Brian Burford i Dennis Fields i Roger Berube ; -, . , : : , iJosh Elliot .• :Sen Giuda :Sen Birdsell i Sen Gray intake Bryant .• T. Patrick Hines 1:Son of one of the above , . :Kris Kobach iConnie Lawson Bill Gardner ,:Matthew Dunlap , :Ken Blackwell , i Christy McCormick i David Dunn --..] ,.Organization C :SoS ., :SoS i SoS :NH Rep iNH Rep *Handicap iSenator Morse Office . ::. Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, NH .Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor, NH , ,.Secretary of State of Kansas, Vice-Chair Secretary of State of Indiana Secretary of State of New Hampshire of State of Maine Former Secretary of State of Ohio , rSecretary ..Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission Former Arkansas State Representative :Hans von Spakovsky ::J. Christian Adams -----Andrew Smith Senior Legal Fellow and Manager or Election Law Reform Initiative, Edwin Meese Center for L, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation , :Associate Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire , iKimball Brace Dr. John Lott .. i Donald Palmer i President, Election Data Services, Inc. :President, Crime Prevention Research Center :i Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center 17-2361-A-000693 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 129 130 131 132 — 133 134 135 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 B Attendee )• :Robert Popper ;Ken Block 'Hans von Spakovsky ,Dr. Andrew Appel r 'Dr. Ronald Rivest Harri 1-Iursti Gov John H Sununu C Organization Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch , Simpatico Software Systems :President, ,. Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member,PACEI , ,Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University 1Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs ... .. .. 17-2361-A-000694 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Attendee 1 Michelle Whittaker 3 Tomas Lopez John Marion 4 5 Michael Pelle :Michael 'Brien 6 7 8 9 10 Zandra Rice Hawkins Krishana Davis 15 16 15 Olivia Zink 17 18 19 20 21 16 17 Jon Greenbaum Wendy Weiser 18 19 20 Allegra Chapman 23 Organization Private Citizen Brennan Center for Justice iCommon Cause :Brennan Center for Justice :America Votes Private Citizen Private Citizen i Private Citizen :Private Citizen iGranite State Progress Private Citizen Private Citizen 11 12 13 14 22 1 :America Votes Private Citizen Open Democracy Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Brennan Center for Justice Private Citizen Private Citizen Common Cause 21 Private Citizen 22Private Citizen 23 !Timothy Josephson 26 27 24 25 26 1.1Catherine Corkery :Marjorie Porter 28 '77 Private Citizen 29 Private Citizen 30 28 •-)9 31 30 Private Citizen 32 31 Private Citizen 24 25 ;Sherry Frost :NH State Representative iN14 Sierra Club iSH State Representative :NH State Representative Private Citizen 17-2361-A-000695 Sept 12 meeting - Master List Attendee 'Carol Roberts 1 33 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 45 46 47 48 49 50 60 61 57 58 'Tammy Siekmann 62 59 !Glenn Cordelli 'Paul Mirski Peter Burling Steven Rand Nancy Heath Christina Pretorius Judith Strakalaitis David Bates Organization NH State Representative Grafton County Register of Probate Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen :Former NH State Senator 3rivate Citizen 3rivate Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen iNH State Representative :NH Democrats :Private Citizen Chair, NH Supervisors of the Checklist Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen iNH State Representative nvate Citizen ........ ...... 51 52 53 54 ;Gwen Mikailov 55 56 Private Citizen Private Citizen N1-1 League of Women Voters Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Londonderry Democratic Committee Private Citizen iNH State Representative 17-2361-A-000696 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A :Attendee 4. 1 Kimberly Meuse Jane Johnson 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 72 73 69 70 74 71 75 72 Jeanne Ludt 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Toni Pappas Sarah Steinberg Heiler David Scott 87 88 89 90 Timothy McKernan Gary Coapland I Barbara Coa a land David Holt Barbara Griffin 'Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien Mary Till Peter Ramsey Ellen Read Zach Roberts Organization :Portsmouth Democrats INH Republican Party Private Citizen IGranite State Progress !Manchester Christian Church I Manchester Christian Church Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen NH State Employees' Association NH State Representative Former NH State Representative Supervisor ofthe Checklist (Amherst) !Hillsborough County I Commissioner Peterborough Democrats jFormer NH State Representative rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen Town Moderator(Derry) The Palace Theatre Private Citizen Private Citizen _ . iNH State Representative I Palace Investigative Fund rivate Citizen 17-2361-A-000697 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A :Attendee 1 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 _ 120 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 'Andrew Levchuk Organization Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP rivate Citizen Town Moderator (Manchester) !Jim Townsend Private Citizen 1111111111111111111111111. Katy Cutshall !Bedford Democrats Elizabeth HanselMonadnock !Progressive Alliance Private Citizen Steven Lance Yale Law School 4 Harvard University Daniel Curl Joyce Curl !Harvard University 'Windham NH School District Moderator Elizabeth Dunn UMIMPrivate Citizen Susan Treleaven NH State Representative Yvonne Dean-Bailey NH State Representative Private Citizen 11111.Private Citizen Private Citizen Linda Tanner State Representative Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Lee Oxenham NH State Representative i -James Rousmaniere, Jr. !Selectman(Town of Roxbury) Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen Christopher Messier ;Town Moderator (Manchester) Private Citizen INH 17-2361-A-000698 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 121 122 123 124 125 126 118 119 120 121 122 123 :Attendee Organization 'Ed Naile :Coalition of NH Taxpayers !Penelope Hamblin League of Women Voters 0===l1private Citizen 'Heidi Hamer Ward Clerk(Manchester) 'Kathleen Bollerud !Monadnock United Andrea Polizos Monadnock Progressive Alliance William Foster !Jim Beard Joe Pitre !Linda Rhoades 127 128 129 130 124 125 126 127 131 128 Laurie Katz 132 129 lArnie Alpert 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 :Robin Rousseau Connie E ich Lisa Freeman ;independent New Boston Voters Against Voter Suppression iPrivate Citizen INH State Representative iPrivate Citizen 1-larrisville Community Action 1Group i American Friends Service Committee former Zoning Board Member (Portsmouth) Private Citizen 1 Fine Artist rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen rivate Citizen NH _ State _ Representative _ __ Private Citizen Private Citizen .... 148 17-2361-A-000699 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 149 150 151 , Attendee 12 jAri Berm'an Ca$ey:Mcp.erzott.. Orzanization iMother Jones New Hampshire Public Radio 25 26 27 Jessica Ilusernan. Pam Fesslet Howard Altschiller ProPubbca New Hamysture Public Radio 157 29 76 " 77 96 David Martosko Damien Fisher Joshua Gerstein' Allison McCann:::• 158 149 Amy..Eskjp.d... The Daily Nashua Telegrap Politico. Vice News Freelance Journalist 152 153 154 155 156 Seac(ikst:M.Wia;:01 . 0.4 : 17-2361-A-000700 u s Brian 15 16 ; 17 1Burlin Peter 18 19 a 'Chadwick 20 21 !Chapman Allegra 22 23 24 Cloutier •Dan 25 .Catherine :Corkery 26 1Covert Susan i 27 !Davis Krishana 28 1DeSantis Maddie 29 !Dexter :Dean 30 Front DiSalvo Steven 31 Fred :Doucette 32 .7a 3 Organization :Saint Anselm College :Pres and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Fnd - Commission Member Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University - Panel 3 advance for the Office of the VP NH State Representative NH House Strafford- District 18 NH Senate - (R-Hampstead) rivate Citizen :Former Secretary of State of Ohio - Commission Member , President, Simpatico Software Systems - Panel 2 :President, Election Data Services, Inc. - Panel 1 , :Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, NH - Demo :Chairman NH Democratic Party iSoS Private Citizen :Former NH State Senator Private Citizen :Region 4 Vice Chair Private Citizen !Common Cause Private Citizen Private Citizen SoS iNH Sierra Club , iPrivate Citizen , iAmerica Votes , iOffice of CSP, Consituent Services , SoS President Saint Anseim College NH House - Rockingham- District 08 Private Citizen 17-2361-A-000701 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 PARK Comm Comm 8 :LAST 'Dunlap Dunn Elliott Comm staff IFederighi 1 1 Fields .._ *Forcier Forrester ;Freeman , Frost Comm - Guel Fund Comm Gardner Comm staff !Gast Giuda 49 50 51 52 IGoulette 1Graham Gray .. . . Greenbaum Griffin C FIRST Matthew David 1 Josh Organization Secretary of State of Maine - Commission Member , Former Arkansas State Representative - Commission Member , SENATE MAJORITY POLICY DIRECTOR Private Citizen Department of Justice jNH House - Belknap- District 04 SoS J ,Chairman NHGOP ,NH State Representative/Election Comm ,NH State Representative ...guest of Hans von Spakovsky(Comm) ,Secretary of State of New Hampshire - Commission Member Counsel's Office INH Senate .. - (R-Warren) Carol Ii Dennis l Eric Jeanie Lisa Sherry John Bill Scott ;Bob ISR LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT Aaron 1 John James IJon !Barbara , iNH House - Hillsborough- District 07 ,NH Senate - (R-Rochester) .. Lawyersi Committee for Civil Rights Under Law iNH State Representative/Election Comm .. . Handicap 53 F-Handicap 54 55 56 _. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 i Heath i I Winch Hines Hines Nancy 1Dick ,11`. Patrick Curtis Hines Hoelzel I Huot I !Kathleen 1David • ,..•,,.-------.", D Ege Private Citizen Private Citizen :NH Democrats :NH House - Hillsborough- District 21 :Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor, NH - Demo , :son of T Patrick - Demo Assist Private Citizen :NH House - Rockingham- District 03 , :Election Law Committee, NH House , . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 17-2361-A-000702 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A B LAST Panel 3 Hursti Front Jasper *Josephson _ Comm Kobach Comm staff Kossack Kurk FIRST IHarri Shawn Timothy !Kris !Andrew !Neal LaRochelle Lawson Levesque Lopez Lott !Andrian . !Connie !Neil !Tomas i !Dr. John 1 PARK 64 65 66 67 68 69 C D Organization , Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs - Panel 3 , NH House Speaker - Hillsborough- District 37 NH State Representative . , Secretary of State of Kansas, Vice-Chair - Commission Member Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity . NH House- Hillsborough- District 02 . 70 . „:SoS 72 Comm :Secretary of State of Indiana - Commission - Commision Member 73 „:Executive Director, NHIOP, SAC 74 „:Brennan Center for Justice :President, Crime Prevention Research Center - Panel 1 75 Panel 1 76 ,---------------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPrivate Citizen John 1Marion 77 „:Common Cause Maggie i wife of Harri Hursti (Panel) 78 Panel - guest,McAlpine - McCormack Colleen 79 iSoS ! 80 Comm Christy :McCormick :Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission - Commission Member , 81 Private Citizen 71 . . . . . • 82 83 _ 84 85 _ .... !Mirski I1 Paul 86 O'Brien 88 Packard 89 Panel 2 ,Palmer 90 Comm staff iPaoletta 91 Pearson 1 92 i. Pelle 93 , Penney _ 87 94 • 1 Pfaff 'Michael Sherman Donald ; Mark !William A. ! !Michael 11 Paula ,Terry Private Citizen Private Citizen :Grafton County Register of Probate Private Citizen :America Votes , :NH House -Rockingham- District 05 :Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center - Panel 2 , :Counsel to the VP „ :Election Law Committee, NH House , :Brennan Center for Justice , iSoS :HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 17-2361-A-000703 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 PARK :LAST FIRST 95 96 Panel 2 Popper Robert 97 !Porter Marjorie 98 99 Rand Steven 100 Rice Hawkins Zandra 101 Panel 3 Rivest Or. Ronald 102 Roberts Carol 103 Ronan Wyatt 104 Rouillard Claire Schroadter Adam 105 106 Comm - GueiSchulze Muszynski iKristen 107 'Schumacher iAmb Terry 108 109 110 Front - Panel Smith Dr. Andrew 111 !Soucy Donna 112 113 Stevens Anthony ,114 Stone 'Megan 115 Strakalaitis iJudith 116 Front Sununu Gov John H 117 118 119 120 Panel 2 :von Spakovsky 1Hans 121 :Ward 1Janet 122 iWeiser !Wendy 123 'Wells Natalie 124 125 Organization Private Citizen Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch - Panel 2 NH State Representative Private Citizen NH State Representative Granite State Progress Professor of Computer Science, MIT - Panel 3 :NH State Representative :Communications Director, NH Dem Party :NH House - Hillsborough- District 06 :SoS :ME SoS Director of Comms(Comm) NHIOP Advisory Board Private Citizen Private Citizen iAssociate Professor of Political Science, UNH - Panel 1 iNH Senate -(D Manchester) Private Citizen iSoS HOUSE LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT iChair, NH Supervisors of the Checklist former Governor of NH,WH Chief of Staff President George H. W. Bush Private Citizen Private Citizen Private Citizen !Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member, PACEI - Panel 2 iPrivate Citizen Brennan Center for Justice Election Law Committee, NH House Private Citizen Private Citizen 17-2361-A-000704 Sept 12 meeting - Master List A 1 PARK B :LAST C :FIRST 126 Comm staff 'Williams :Ron 127 Wolf 128 Woodburn Terry . :Jeff ! iOlivia 129 1Zink D Organization , Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity , .NH House - Hillsborough- District 07 ..: NH Senate - (D-Whitefield) . , Open Democracy 130 131 133 iKenney --i.:.IBaldasaro Rainier 134 ' 132 !Joseph Exec Council - District 1 IAI NH House - Rockingham- District 05 'Todd i Hooksett Clerk 135 136 WAIT - conf 'Gwen Mikailov 137 WAIT - conf ,Patricia Casciano 138 139 L :NH League of Women Voters , : Private Citizen ; 1 I i 1 1 )1A05cro — C11,-, 17-2361-A-000705 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Monday, August 21, 2017 9:28 AM Mark Rhodes RE: please HOLD for next meeting Great! Thanks, Mark. I'll be back in touch with more details soon. Hope you're doing well. Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Mark Rhodes[mailto:mrhodes@woodcountywv.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:32 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: please HOLD for next meeting Andrew, I can make a meeting on the 12th. Mark Rhodes, Clerk Wood County Commission Original Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [mailto:Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 5:49 PM To:'Kris Kobach' cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick Mark Rhodes ; von Spakovsky, Hans ; Christian Adams ; Alan L. King matthew.dunlap@maine.gov Cc: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP ; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Subject: please HOLD for next meeting Dear Members, Please mark your calendars for Tuesday, September 12th for our next meeting. You'll likely want to plan to travel the afternoon/evening of the 11th. We'll be back in touch early next week with additional details. Thanks for your patience as we lock down all the logistics. If you have any questions or concerns at this point, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew 1 17-2361-A-000706 Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 2 17-2361-A-000707 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Monday, August 21, 2017 9:28 AM Mark Rhodes RE: please HOLD for next meeting Great! Thanks, Mark. I'll be back in touch with more details soon. Hope you're doing well. Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Mark Rhodes[mailto:mrhodes@woodcountywv.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 7:32 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: please HOLD for next meeting Andrew, I can make a meeting on the 12th. Mark Rhodes, Clerk Wood County Commission Original Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [mailto:Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 5:49 PM To:'Kris Kobach' cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick Mark Rhodes ; von Spakovsk Hans ; Christian Adams ; Alan L. King matthew.dunlap@maine.gov Cc: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP ; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Subject: please HOLD for next meeting Dear Members, Please mark your calendars for Tuesday, September 12th for our next meeting. You'll likely want to plan to travel the afternoon/evening of the 11th. We'll be back in touch early next week with additional details. Thanks for your patience as we lock down all the logistics. If you have any questions or concerns at this point, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew 1 17-2361-A-000708 Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 2 17-2361-A-000709 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Subject: Almeida Cassidy, Christina Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2.5/ FM Mark Rhodes election integrity commission Good afternoon, Mr. Rhodes. I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself. I am a reporter with The Associated Press, and I work on national projects. Voting issues, particularly voter fraud and voter ID, were key coverage areas for me in the lead up to the 2016 election. I have been out much of the year on maternity leave, but I am back now and wanted to check in with you about your role on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Would you have time for a phone call sometime this week or next? I also wanted to let you know that I have submitted a records request to your county administrator related to your emails with other members of the commission. This request is aimed at helping us understand the discussion prior to the various letters being sent to states requesting certain voter information as well as other information that has been shared among commissioners. My apologies in advance if this creates work for you. My hope is that a few email searches would suffice. I look forward to speaking with you. Best number for me is my cell, Christina Cassidy AP Christina Almeida Cassidy AP State Government Team ASSOCIATED PRESS 101 Marietta St. NW,Ste 2450 Atlanta, GA 30303 Twitter: @AP_Christina The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1500 and delete this email. Thank you. 1 17-2361-A-000710 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:03 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Cc: Subject: Mark Rhodes; von Spa ovs y, Hans; C ristian A ams; A an L. King; matt ew. un ap@maine.gov Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP September Meeting - 9/12 in Manchester, New Hampshire Dear Members, Thank you for holding September 12th for our next meeting, and for your patience as we worked through some logistical details. I am excited to share that Secretary Gardner has kindly offered to host the Commission in New Hampshire at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 12th, and we expect to finish no later than 4:00 p.m. Please feel free to proceed with making your travel arrangements. As a reminder, here are the instructions for booking travel through GSA's travel services: Booking Travel to New Hampshire Instructions Members or their support staff who have established traveler accounts with GSA can call the travel agent directly to book their travel. ADTRAV(GSA travel agent): 877-472-6716, available 24/7 Key Information when calling the travel agent: • ADTRAV will recognize members by first and last name and agency--which is the General Services Administration (GSA)for the purposes of this travel. • Have a personal credit card available--hotel will be booked using a personal card. Members can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed up to the maximum per diem rate for Manchester, NH ($108/night)(keep hotel receipts) • The committee has budgeted for travel for up to 3 days per member between 9/11 and 9/13. Arrangements should be made within those parameters. • Members(or their staff) should tell the agent the traveler's date of birth if making airline reservations. This is a requirement in order for tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow federal regulations governing travel. Key points: • • • • • • Hotel: Max lodging per diem rate reimbursed for Manchester, NH in September: $108(keep hotel receipts-reimbursed up to $108. Lodging taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) The travel agent can help members find rooms at or below per diem. Airfare: Must use coach class and the contract carrier fare (booked by travel agent) o Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified--e.g., Timing of contract fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive Meals & Incidental Expenses(MI&E): reimbursed $64 per day for Manchester; $48 on first & last day of travel (no receipts needed, reimbursed $64 for full day and $48 for first and last day of travel) Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee--e.g., to/from airport, to/from committee meetings(keep receipts) Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. All other approved travel expenses (hotel; MI&E; taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subsequently be reimbursed. Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completion of the travel. 1 17-2361-A-000711 If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't hesitate to have the members' staff reach out to Valerie Whittington or Kris Palmer. valerie.whittingtonaqsa.gov kris.palmeragsa.gov We will share more information about the meeting and agenda soon. If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 2 17-2361-A-000712 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:03 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; ; Christy McCormick; ; Mark Rhodes; von Spakovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP September Meeting - 9/12 in Manchester, New Hampshire Cc: Subject: Dear Members, Thank you for holding September 12th for our next meeting, and for your patience as we worked through some logistical details. I am excited to share that Secretary Gardner has kindly offered to host the Commission in New Hampshire at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. AnseIm College. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 12th, and we expect to finish no later than 4:00 p.m. Please feel free to proceed with making your travel arrangements. As a reminder, here are the instructions for booking travel through GSA's travel services: Booking Travel to New Hampshire Instructions Members or their support staff who have established traveler accounts with GSA can call the travel agent directly to book their travel. ADTRAV(GSA travel agent): 877-472-6716, available 24/7 Key Information when calling the travel agent: • ADTRAV will recognize members by first and last name and agency--which is the General Services Administration (GSA)for the purposes of this travel. • Have a personal credit card available--hotel will be booked using a personal card. Members can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed up to the maximum per diem rate for Manchester, NH ($108/night)(keep hotel receipts) • The committee has budgeted for travel for up to 3 days per member between 9/11 and 9/13. Arrangements should be made within those parameters. • Members(or their staff) should tell the agent the traveler's date of birth if making airline reservations. This is a requirement in order for tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow federal regulations governing travel. Key points: • • • • • • Hotel: Max lodging per diem rate reimbursed for Manchester, NH in September: $108(keep hotel receipts-reimbursed up to $108. Lodging taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) The travel agent can help members find rooms at or below per diem. Airfare: Must use coach class and the contract carrier fare (booked by travel agent) o Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified--e.g., Timing of contract fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive Meals & Incidental Expenses(MI&E): reimbursed $64 per day for Manchester; $48 on first & last day of travel (no receipts needed, reimbursed $64 for full day and $48 for first and last day of travel) Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee--e.g., to/from airport, to/from committee meetings(keep receipts) Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. All other approved travel expenses (hotel; MI&E; taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subsequently be reimbursed. Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completion of the travel. 1 17-2361-A-000713 If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't hesitate to have the members' staff reach out to Valerie Whittington or Kris Palmer. valerie.whittingtongigsa.gov - 202-501-3395 kris.palmeragsa.gov - 202-501-0525 We will share more information about the meeting and agenda soon. If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 2 17-2361-A-000714 Mark Rhodes From: Sent: To: Subject: Allison McCann Friday, August 25, 2017 3:27 PM Mark Rhodes Media inquiry for Vice News Dear Mr. Rhodes, My name is Allison McCann and I'm a reporter with Vice News. I was hoping you might have some time to speak with me ahead of the Election Integrity Commission meeting in a few weeks, which I am planning to attend (should my registration be approved!) I was hoping to discuss more broadly the goals of the commission, as well as the varied responses from secretaries of state across the country to the commission's request for voter information. Please let me know if you might be able to speak briefly over the phone. Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Best, Allison Allison McCann Data Reporter VICE News 1 17-2361-A-000715 From: To: Subject: - DOJ Statistician Date: Tue. Aug 15. 2017 4:16 pm Attachments: Resume-Commission.doc (65K), Kobach letter.docx (17K), Analysis.docx (17K) Christy, I enjoyed lunch with you today. I have attached a resume a brief letter, and a short analysis ofthe turnout comparison from 2010 to 2014 in Kansas,for Chris Kobach. I already had these mostly ready when we met. Please let me know what you think. And forward any of this to anyone you think would be interested. My wife suggested that I engage you further regarding any opportunities with EAC as well. I am looking to move forward with my career in any statistical direction. I cant thank you enough for the effort you have already put into this, and greatly appreciate everything you are still willing to do. Thanks again, 17-2361-A-000716 From: To: Subject: - DOJ Statistician Date: Tue. Aug 15. 2017 4:16 pm Attachments: Resume-Commission.doc (65K), Kobach letter.docx (17K), Analysis.docx (17K) Christy, I enjoyed lunch with you today. I have attached a resume a brief letter, and a short analysis of the turnout comparison from 2010 to 2014 in Kansas,for Chris Kobach. I already had these mostly ready when we met. Please let me know what you think. And forward any of this to anyone you think would be interested. My wife suggested that I engage you further regarding any opportunities with EAC as well. I am looking to move forward with my career in any statistical direction. I cant thank you enough for the effort you have already put into this, and greatly appreciate everything you are still willing to do. Thanks a ain, 17-2361-A-000717 From: Christy To: Subject: Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2017 11:53 pm Attachments: Resume-Commission.pdf(467K), Kobach letter.docx (17K), Analysis.docx (17K) Mr. Secretary, Attached is resume, his letter to you, and the analysis he did on Kansas Voter ID. It was good to talk to you earlier today. Please send my regards to Heather and your family. Best always, Christy 17-2361-A-000718 From: To: Subject: Date: Wed; Aug 16, 2017 9:46 am Christy, I emailed in the front office. She suggested I get in contact with you. She says she has no information about the detail request. Is it possible it did not get sent over here properly? or was denied somewhere else? by Pence and or Kossak? Thanks much for everything. 17-2361-A-000719 Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP From: Sent: To: Subject: Luis Borunda -SOS- Monday, June 26, 2017 1:56 PM Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP Elections in Maryland Mark we wanted to provide you with the background on the roles that the Office ofthe Secretary of State has in regard to Elections. These roles fall into three categories. Presidential Election, Referendums,and Certification. I hope this is of help to you. Presidential Elections In Maryland, there are two ways that a U.S. Presidential candidate may have his or her name placed on the primary election ballot. 1) The first method is a determination by the Secretary of State as provided by Election Law Article, §8-502 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It specifically provides that "[t]he Secretary ofState shall certify the name of a presidential candidate on the ballot when the Secretary has determined, in the Secretary's sole discretion and consistent with party rules, that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland. 2) The second method for a U.S. Presidential candidate to be placed on the primary election ballot is through the petition process. This is for Presidential candidates who have not obtained a sufficient level of media recognition to be selected by the Secretary of State. Other individuals who believe they should be added to the primary election ballot based on media recognition should provide the Secretary ofState's Office sufficient documentation Referendums VVith regard to elections, the Secretary of State receives petitions to bring Acts of the General Assembly to referendum, and publishes them together with constitutional amendments to be voted upon in the general elections (Const., Art. XVI; Code Election Law Article, sec. 6-205) and delivers them to the State Board of Elections for verification. The Secretary of State also prepares the ballot title for each constitutional amendment and each referendum question. Certification The Secretary of State along with the Comptroller, the State Treasurer, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals and the Attorney General, sits as a member of the Board of State Canvassers. The Board meets after each State election to examine the voting totals to determine and declare what candidates have been elected to each office 1 17-2361-A-000720 Luis E.Borunda Deputy Secretary of State Office ofthe Secretary of State 16 Francis Street CHANGING Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Maryland luis.borunda@maryland.gov for the Barer 410-260-3868(office) cell) Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey 2 17-2361-A-000721 Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP • From: Sent: To: Subject: Luis Borunda Monday, July 3, 2017 2:18 PM Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP Resignation Mark,thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Election Integrity Commission.I tender my resignation effective immediately and ask that my name be removed from all public facing media. Luis E. Borunda 1 17-2361-A-000722 Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP Ts,001:061.0191011511,901..1 , From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP Monday, June 26, 2017 2:10 PM Luis Borunda -SOSKris Kobach Re: Elections in Maryland Thanks Mark Paoletta Counsel to the Vice President 202 456 2734(work) ell) Sent from my iPhone • On Jun 26,2017, at 1:56 PM,Luis Bortmda -SOS- wrote: Mark we wanted to provide you with the background on the roles that the Office ofthe Secretary of State has in regard to Elections. These roles fall into three categories. Presidential Election, Referendums, and Certification. I hope this is ofhelp to you. Presidential Elections In Maryland, there are two ways that a U.S. Presidential candidate may have his or her name placed on the primary election ballot. 1) The first method is a determination by the Secretary of State as provided by Election Law Article, §8-502 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It specifically provides that "[t]he Secretary of State shall certify the name of a presidential candidate on the ballot when the Secretary has determined, in the Secretary's sole discretion and consistent with party rules, that the candidate's candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland. 2) The second method for a U.S. Presidential candidate to be placed on the primary election ballot is through the petition process. This is for Presidential candidates who have not obtained a sufficient level of media recognition to be selected by the Secretary of State. Other individuals who believe they should be added to the primary election ballot based on media recognition shouldprovide the Secretary ofState's Office sufficient documentation Referendums With regard to elections, the Secretary of State receives petitions to bring Acts of the General Assembly to referendum, and publishes them together with constitutional amendments to be voted upon in the general elections (Const., Art. XVI; Code Election Law Article, sec. 6-205) and delivers them to the State Board of Elections for verification. The Secretary of State also prepares the ballot title for each constitutional amendment and each referendum question. 17-2361-A-000723 Certification The Secretary of State, along with the Comptroller, the State Treasurer, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals and the Attorney General, sits as a member of the Board of State Canvassers, The Board meets after each State election to examine the voting totals to determine and declare what candidates have been elected to each office Luis E. Borunda Secretary of State 41 al Deputy Office ofthe Secretary of State 3 16 Francis Street CHANGING Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Maryland luis.borunda@marvland.gov for the Better 410-260-3868 (office) cell) Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey 2 17-2361-A-000724 Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP From: Sent: To: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP Monday, July 3, 2017 4:56 PM Luis Borunda Re: Resignation Luis, I just left a vm for you on your cell. Please call me when you have a moment. Mark Mark Paoletta Counsel to the Vice President 202 456 2734(work) cell) Sent from my 'Phone > On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Luis Borunda > Mark,thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Election Integrity Commission. I tender my resignation effective immediately and ask that my name be removed from all public facing media. > > Luis E. Borunda I 17-2361-A-000725 Message From: on behalf of Sent: To: CC: Subject: von Spakovsky, Hans [/0=THF/OU=THFDC/cn=Recipients/cn=spakoskyh] von Spakovsky, Hans 7/6/2017 7:58:39 PM Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] J. Christian Adams [a@electionlawcenter.com] good piece by Byron York - and I am cohosting WMAL's morning news talk show tomorrow morning where I am sure this topic may come up http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-why-the-rebellion-over-trump-voter-commission/article/2627849 17-2361-A-000726 Message From: Sent: To: Kris Kobach [ 7/17/2017 6:47:36 PM Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=39ff6c312e514f0fac9dd16139907782-Ko] CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=8aba9b5542f6420a92cc812de2026bb8-Pa] Subject: By laws draft Attachments: PACEI By-Laws 7.16.2017 with KWK edits.docx My edits in red line. 17-2361-A-000727 Draft as of 7.16.2017 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity By-Laws and Operating Procedures The following By-Laws and Operating Procedures("By-Laws") will govern the operations ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"). Section I: Purpose, Organization, and Operation Pursuant to Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017,the Commissidif§ matentwitfrapp1teabJ study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections. The Commtssion shall be sotejp advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies those laws, rules, policies activities. strategies, and practices that enhance the Amencattieople's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections: those kivirg'-niles policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undemiine the American peoples confideneelgithe integrity of voting processes used in Federal elections; and those vulnerabilities in voting systems and firactices used for Federal elections that could lead to ill-topper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent Ping. tfhe commission shall pros its advice.and recommendations, analysis, and.information,directly. th the President. L Comment [KAJE1]: Verbatim from F.O. Comment [KAJE2]: Section 5 of the charter.) Section II: Authority The Commission was established by Executive Order 13799 of May 11,2017,and by the authority vested in the President ofthe United States by the Constitution and the laws ofthe United States of America. The Commission shall eilleaVer to iopilidel_in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended(5 U.S.C. App.)("FACA"). The Commission filed a charter on June 23,2017, with the General Service Administration's Committee Management Secretariat. comment [KAJE.31: Intended to show rrClunIsriIy compliiege with lrACA. Wifl #0.1 to weigh in. Section III: Membership (A)In General. The Commission shall be composed ofthe Vice President anclidl*re than fifteen (15)additional members. The remaining 15 members shall be appointettbmitiiiIN'esident and shal include individuals with ktiowledge and experience in elections,electioittlalgement,election fraud detection,- and votefilite ity efforts. and aiw other individuals with kiietV edge or experiende .... determiib$h..i:kbtifvalue to the Commission. The members of the Commission mayinelud . both ailment Employees and Special Government Employee$ The (B)Chair and Vice Chair. The Vices resident shall effiir the Commission. seteetaNrieeChair from among those members appointed by the President dutiesoftheebair ifso directed hYithe Vice President.., (C)Commission Staff. VAddi on Pies en etennineszecessa lane, fe Ira 0 Int Comment [KAJE.4]: 1.0.1anguage ,........... Comment [KAJES]: This lastlIA0#4tan MCA boilerplate that appears lintmeth versions we've seen. Flagging flitillOThec s of the litigation on this point. Comment[K61: At a minimum delme this phrase, which doesn't make sense. 11111115$1011( tomisaton. -0)will be alittLftMe-effieei (D)Designated Federal Officer. e De:atediFderal Officer(4DF eta the ea ed by the Administrator, pursuant to 41 CFR „ ,;ieyeeo ..; overnmni § 10243.105 and in consultation with the ChWMthe :c--e mission. The DIFO will approve or call all Commission meetings, prepare altiiiiieting iige.iiditiaittend all meetings, and adjourn any meeting when the DFO determines adji5Urnineatelieitithe public interest. Should the Chair designate any subcommittees, the DEO will similarly approve or call all subcommittee meetings, prepare all subcommittee meeting agendas, attend all subcommittee meetings, and adjourn any subcommittee meeting when the DM determines adjournment to be in the public interest. In the DFO's discretion, the 1)10may utilize other Federal employees as support staff to assist the DIF0 in fulfilling these responsibilities. Comment[KAJE71: Consistent with E.() and 11(c) on the charter. Comment [KAJE8]: Section it L charter. Comment[KAJE9]: Straight out of section 8 of the charter 17-2361-A-000728 J Draft as of 7.16.2017 Section IV: Meetings (A)In General. flie Commission shall ineetaS' regtieillyag' Called and apprOV ittes at a frequency of DFO. It is estimated the Commission will meet approximate approximately 30 days between meetings, subject jicube.4g '''' -edules and other consideratie"'' The Chair will preside at all Commission meetmgs5 unless the Chair directs the Vice Chair t%pejtggmiuch duties. Members who cannot attend meetings in person may participate by meall.s of:conference telephone or similar communications equipment if all members can hear one anollxerat the same timeidAd members of the public entitled to hear them can do so. A member w1to41? 'cipates by such means will be counted as present for purposes ofa quorum,and the hi ''ny participate in any vot&itindother business as ifthe,mq0er were physically,. piertt .t ffiCfneeting.1. (B)Notice. IA notitieHiteach Commission meeting e ptibliSh e era egiStefatleaStI5' calendar days before the meetiniz, except in exceptional circumstances. The notice will include(1) the hame of the Commission;(2)the time, date, place, and purpose of the meeting;(3)a summary 6 'agenda:(4)a statement as to whether all or part ofthe meeting is open to the public and,if any art is closed, a statement as to why,citing the specific exemption(s) of the Government in the Otinshine Act(5 U.S.C. § 552b(c))("GISA")as the basis for closure; and(5)the name and telephone number of the DEQ.oy otherO "Ojai who may be contacted for additional information Wiicerning,ilie meeting.' (C)'Agenda. The Chair or the Vice Chair shall'eitab eigeitdalbr all DK)will prepare and distribute the agenda to the members before each meeting and will make available copies ofthe agee.l,, members of the public. Items for the agenda may be submitted to the Chair by any membexr teMmav alsol*suggested by any memberofthe public. (D)Quorum. CommissiOti meetings vvill quorum is defined as simple tnajorttSr Commission.' Comment [KAJE10]: Consistent with charter Comment[KAJE11]: Consistent with commission Comment[KAJE12]: This is my language. Not sure it's necessary, but I thought it could avoid some ambiguity down the road. Comment IKAJE131: Unchanged from opioid commission,except for removal of references to ONDCP. when a quorum is present. For this purpose, a 418asibers (including the Chair) then servuig on the.. (E)9pen Meetings. Untessotherwistifetenmotiftoadvaow ortomastoomeatitt ovi ,,,, en N6the public either in person as space permits or through means as ektpt' ;:ed y CAL..._,---iComment IKAJE141: Flagging for 001 and its implementing regulations, Once an opeitOtteedliglias begun, it will not becosed for any mason. However,if, during the course ofaniOtioy'iiieetiiig, matters inappropriatefOfpublic BiSclosure arise during discussion, the Chaxrshtl Order such discussion to cease and will schedule' the matter for closed session in accordance With ACALi1 materials brought before,orpresented __,---- Comment [KAJE151: Flagging for 001 i ng will be available to the public for tdthecoinmission duringthteonduetof at The All such materials will be made ing the of 1 i also ran fime so b1ondhe Cothiiitg website ass66 Tithe able. (F) ll2'.'3 1O the following aeft'ttes of teqUireiteritsgeontained tit =moots. consitint with 41 CF12 germs, the proiiedural missss AMMO,6;, t.reparatory work. Meetings of two or more Commission members or subcommittee goo*.p„convened solely to gatherJrigithiation, conduct research,or analyze relevant' isslacts in preparalibh,fortCommission meeting, or to draft position papers for deliberation by the Commission, and • work ëetiiifttio or more Commtsmo imantbggsmr subenmmtttee ffiehibers convened solely to diSetiSS administrative oftheCcnnmssion orb ideeive administrativeinformationfroma Federal officems (G)Closed Mrigmo onlyot tout noidll ottoomatanoce: 17-2361-A-000729 Draft as of 7.16.2017 NW' ance with applicablela Who DFO has determined in advance 111'1115MM tneeltng will disclose matters inappropriate for public disclosure, an advance notice ofa closed feting will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with GISA. (H)Hearings. The Commission may hold hearings to receive testimony or oral cownients, recommendations, and expressions of concernfrom the public. The CommisSfpyi may hold hearings at open meetings or in closed session in accordance with the standards in thailliy-Laws for closing meetings to the public. The Chairitk specirpreasonable guidelinegargtprocediires for and written conducting orderly hearings,such as reqt faiiientsraiiilitnitting requests ..... testimony in advance and placing limitation,ton.fl„,,,, of persons who may and the durigiOn of their testimony. Mliufes.ThDFO will PrePare minutes Oft4telt meeting;'distributeW40.010'OaCtM4TIber, and ensure that the Chair certifies the accuracy ofall minutes within 90*War daysofftiemeeting to Which they relate. Minutes of open or dosed meetings will be available to the public, subject to the withholding of mattets which are exempt from disclosutv under the greedom of Information Act(5 U.S.C. § 552)(FOIA). The minutes will include:(1)the time, date. dif Vtice oft, „gpipiniSsion meeting,(2)a list of the persons *rho were present at the meeting,(3)air' 11 non of ,,Or each matter discussed and the resolution, if any, made by the Commissiortregar mg:sue matter, and (4)copies of each report or other document received, issued, or approved by the Commission at the meeting. (J) may attend any meeting that is not closed to the public Corn ern ers of hair, offer oral comment at such meeting The Chair may ermie nationo and may,at t decide in advaneetO exclukor ublic comment during a meeting,„imw cliiiSe the meeting; announcement published in thgiederal Register will note that orlcoonimI.00,,,, excluded and will invite writteriUomment as an alternative. MeniberS'Otifie'Pnblie'May stibinit written statements to the,Coihmssio 'Any wiitten comments,sharedwitkthe etiyailable to the commission membership w4 ,r Comment[KAJE16]:This is all consistent with the opioid commission Comment [KAJE17]: My addition 'section V: Vo (A)In General, When a decision or recommendation of the Commission is required, the Chaii-shall request or accept a motion for a vote. Any member,including the Chair, may make a motion for a Is'*. No second after a proper motion . le4urtedto liming any issue or recommendation to a Auorummustbe presentwhenaVo e is taken. (B ) (C . g.fligibility. Only the members, including. the Chair, may vote on a =non. uns. Votes will ordinarily be taken and tabulated by a show of hands. Comment [KAJE18]: Same as °plaid commission Section VI: Subcommittees The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the DFO,is authorized to create subcommittees as necessary to support the Commission's work. Subcommittees may not incur costs or expenses without prior Stitten approval of the Chair or the Chair's designeeandtheD1-70. Subcommittees must report directly to tlióinmission, and must not provide advice iVtakiThts directly to the President, or any other , A....f4TAgc4q1,4L Comment[KAJE19]: Verbatim from section 12 of the charter Section VII: Administrative Support and Funding Pursuant to Executive Order 13799, tO the extent permitted by law,and subject to the availability of appropriations, the General Services Administration("GSA”)shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment,and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission, to the extent permitted by law and on a reimbursable basis. However,the President's designee will be responsible for fulfilling the requirements ofsubsection 6(b)of the FACA. Comment IKAJE201: Verbatim from th.e.m 1.0. 17-2361-A-000730 Draft as of 7.16.2017 Section IX: Records The rec lithmission a FACA1 antittifirni teal iteetirdarieW den Comment[KAJE21]: Section 13 of the Section X: Termination Inie—COMMiSiiiiii-ahaft-teiiiii nate no more than two(2)years from the date of the Executive Order establishing the Commission, unless extended by thomA4cpt.,or thirty (30)days after it presents its final report to the President, whichever occurs first. Comment [KAJE22]: Section 6 of the section 10 of the charter Section XI: Amendment of By-Laws !Amendments tOgelly'-Laws must conform to the requirements of MCA and the Executive Order and charter establishArthe:,cointnission and be agreed to by Iwo-thirds Ofthe members.'fhe DFQ„tmisteusiL_ that all members:: 4cgtrfrof the proposed amendment before any vote is taken on Comment [KAJE23]: Note the 2/3 vote requirement Comment [KAJE24]:Same as opioid commission 17-2361-A-000731 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Kobach I 6/30/2017 5:49:42 AM Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov; Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov; Matthew.E.Morgan@ovp.eop.gov California official bristles at Trump voter fraud panel's records request - San Francisco Chronicle This is what the follow up letter will need to address in part http://www.sfchroni cl e.com/poli ti cs/arti cl e/Cal i forni a-official -bri stl es-at-Trump-voter-fraud11257803.php Alternatively we start punching now in the press... Sent from my i Phone 17-2361-A-000732 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 7/4/2017 7:36:10 PM Kris Kobach Call w VP We are tracking 5 pm tomorrow. Signal always likes two cell numbers, can we use your wife's cell number as backup number? Mark Paol etta Counsel to the Vice President 202 456 2734 (work) (cell) Sent from my iPhone 17-2361-A-000733 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Christian Adams [a@electionlawcenter.com] 9/13/2017 2:51:51 PM 'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov]; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov];'Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP'[Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov] CBS News.com https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-let-the-voter-fraud-commission-do-its-work/ 17-2361-A-000734 Message From: Sent: To: Kris Kobach [ ] 7/3/2017 9:02:16 PM 'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.god 'Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP' [Marc.E.Lotter@ovp.eop.god 'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP'[Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: Column I'm publishing Attachments: Kobach-Brietbart Column 02 - State Voter Rolls.docx Guys, I'm about to publish this column at Breitbart. It is basically the same arguments that I made on TV on Friday, now in written form. If you have any comments please let me know this evening. I'll be submitting it in a few hours. Thanks. Kris 17-2361-A-000735 Why States Need to Assist the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity Kris W. Kobach Last Thursday, the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity officially asked each state's chief election official for a copy of the publicly-available information on the state's voter rolls, in order to better investigate voter fraud across the nation. I'm the Vice Chair of that Commission, and the letter went out under my signature. Immediately thereafter, several prominent Democrats declared that they would not comply with this request. California secretary of state Alex Padilla stated, "[ HYPERLINK "http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-stop-elections-officer-1498771356-htmlstory.html" 1." Similarly, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe fumed,"[ HYPERLINK "https://governor.virginia.govinewsroominewsarticle?articleld=20595" 1." Governor McAulliffe's declaration was particularly amusing, because only three days earlier In Virginia, a college student had been convicted of fraudulently registering 18 dead people. Evidently, there's plenty of voter fraud occurring in Virginia. Apparently, McAuliffe is ignorant of what's going on in his own state. The hyperventilating on the Left about this request is particularly strange, since the Commission only requested information is already publicly available. Any person on the street can walk into a county election office anywhere in America and obtain a publicly-available copy of that state's voter rolls—which usually includes voter name, address, date of birth, and the recent elections in which the voter participated. During any campaign season, there are literally hundreds of candidates and campaign staffers in every state who possess these same voter rolls. Although more private information like the last four numbers of a voter's social security number is sometimes included in a state's voter database, that information is usually not publicly available. The Commission didn't request that 17-2361-A-000736 information. Thus, there is no threat that the Commission's work might compromise anyone's privacy. The Commission's chief goal is to measure the amount of voter fraud in that country. The voter rolls are the obvious starting point for the Commission's work. Indeed just about every investigation that the Commission undertakes will require a copy of the publicly-available voter rolls for it to be meaningful. For example, if a witness testifies before the commission that a certain person voted fraudulently in a given state, the Commission needs to confirm that such a person even exists on the voter rolls and actually cast a ballot in the relevant election. On a larger scale, the Commission is likely to look at the phenomenon of fraudsters registering and/or voting the names of the dead. As the Virginia convictions illustrate, this is very much a live problem. Last year, the Pew Foundation estimated that 1.8 million deceased individuals are still registered to vote. And Pew concedes that their estimate is likely on the low side. The Commission could determine the exact number (rather than relying on an estimate) by running the states' voter rolls against federal and state databases containing the names of deceased individual. More importantly, the Commission could answer the question of how many of those deceased individuals were recorded as casting a vote in the 2016 election. The number may be large, or it may be small. But the American public deserves to know what it is, either way. Another important question is how many aliens are illegally registered to vote. And of those who are registered, how many have actually cast a ballot? Up to this point, the federal government has refused or obstructed state requests to compare state voter rolls to the names on federal databases of known (legal) aliens residing in the United States. But now the Commission may be able to do that research. If the same person appears on a state's voter rolls with the indication that he cast a ballot in 2016, and he also appears on the federal 17-2361-A-000737 government's list of aliens living in the United States, we have a clear indication that an alien has likely voted. That research has never been done before. Many people, myself included, would like to see just how big this problem is on the national level. Every time an alien votes, it effectively cancels out the vote of a United States citizen. In my own state of Kansas, an academic expert has estimated that the number of aliens on the voter rolls may exceed 18,000. In a state such as California, that number is likely to be much, much larger. Why doesn't the California Secretary of State want the Commission to look at his state's voter rolls and find out what that number is? Is there something he's trying to hide? Finally, some of these opponents of the Commission have suggested that by studying the problem of voter fraud, the Commission will end up "suppressing votes" in future elections. This is truly an idiotic argument. How in the world can studying these statistics and providing information to the American public suppress votes? It is an exercise in transparent government, informing the public debate with important information. The Commission's report (which will not contain any voter's names) won't cause any voters to stay at home in the 2018 election. It might however, shine some public light on voter fraud and encourage some fraudsters to reduce their activity. Maintaining the integrity of American elections is crucial to the health of our republic. It's also crucial to giving voters confidence that elections will not be stolen. The bottom line is that without these publicly-available copies of the voter rolls, the Commission will be unable to effectively measure the extent of voter fraud in America. Maybe that's the real objective of the state officials who are standing in the way. 17-2361-A-000738 Fr001; Sent; Tgx Subject Kossack, Andrew J. EOPIOVP f.AvicirewAraea(rDovp.eop..govi Money Augot 07,2017 11:40 AM Paula Penney RE;Ensiling irnage29694(2)pdf Thank you.,Paola. Andrew .L Kama Executive Director & Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity rorn:Page Penney fmalito:P4vW.Piennayt25()S,N14.<;0\i„i Sent: Monday, August 7,2017 9:23 AM ism Xossack, Andrew EOP1OVP 4,AndreeLlKossackev.,n,e2.2dep Subjett: Emalling imaee2.9594(2j,pdf From Secretary Gardner 17-2361-A-000739 Pania Penney From:. Sent To; Subject: Attachments: Paula Penney Friday, July 14,2017 4‘,C11 PM `Andre,,y,J,Kossatkelovb,eop.goV Ernaiting - $104 CeS4e17071416020,pd1 SKM C$S4a1707141t5020.pdf Attached is the information Secretary faardner spoke with yo4 about, Please let me know if you have any questions. 17-2361-A-000740 BILL GARDNER SeC112TARY orST= STATg Nsw felmrstim :$;4f71 /44, to„,„ 0144, -I. Au,v.4;44 Lc, 1.41, el..v_b 2oi7 em.ct 4e;34 Adrian S. Lalloch elle Adrian Lsitochelle is an attorney with the New Hampshire Depazttnent ofState where he has represenled the Department in both legal and legislative activities since .2011. Additionally, Adrian often assists tito Department in the administration of both state and federal elections, Before working, for the Department, Adrian,taught computer prograrrimina and design in BaltimoreMaryiand. Adrian bolds a B.A, M Computer Science and Religious Studies from. Colby College in Waterville, Maine and a J.D, from the University ofNew Hampshire School of Law. Adrian has been licensed to practiee law in Now Hampshire we out and federal court since May of20/ 1. Eric A. Foreler Edo Fortier is an attorney who has mirked for the New Hampshire Department ofState for the post seven years. Eric holds a Bachelor's Degree 11.001 th0 Ullivmhy of Now Hampshire with. a dual major in Busine.ss Administration and Economics and a ID.from New Engiand Law, Eric has been a member of the New Hampshire Bar Sin= 2010 and his work for the State of New Hampshire includes securities investigations and enibrcarnent with the Now HaMpshirets Bureau ofSecurities li.egulation and assisting the Department:ofState with state and &dead elections. 17-2361-A-000741 Patila Penne Rom: SorW Tc4 Sobjectz Peois Penney Tuesday, Ally 18., 2(17 2:48 PM lUttarO ECTIOVP' RE: Emng.8104,S884017071416,020,pdf HI.Riduird Jost want to confirm i arn only ttoiog this for rc Frde dinot for .'.-1"<'ecretery Gardner. is that correct? Thanks Paula From: SePA, Rthard 13, FOP/OW DzAoilicharcup40,0,0 Sent Tvead4y„ 3t4y 18? 2017 2:28 PM To Paola Penney Subject rtEz Emaging - SKivt C654e17071416020.prif Ala to follow tips if you can provide she etteodeo.$:511s, then i can put tiin request(with the if4orrostion availa Me the previous attachment), nettd to net the regnest in by COB torsiay or background checks to dear with Suet SeMai befora ttlfi/Orrow inorning? meeting, Richard From Sant, Richard S. E.OP/OVP Sem Tuesday,July 18, V117 12:19 PM • 'Peulti,Penfley@SOS.fli-i,GOV ‹Paula,PtitineyieSOS.M-1.GOW Subject WI; Emag SKM C8S4e1M71416810,pdf Hi Padla, couid you fill out Msform one for each attendee? Once Secret Service has dared the attendees, conikmation email with initrucdo.os on how to get lnto the comptax, forwertl Thanks! Richard Richard Sant Director of Rese;reh Office ofthe Vice President p; 201881.8718 • ilichards8..Saitt@ovp,,es=,91 Prom.KOOS*.Andrewl E.OF/MiP Sedb•Ttleisrlay,'Lily 18,2017 12z/S PM To Sant Richard 8,EOP/OVP wrote: Hi RiChard just want to confirm m onty doing this for Sric Forder and aotfor Sectatarv Gardner. is that correct? Thanks Pia Prom Sent, Richard B. EOP/OVPI:maiiteltichard,8,5Antagramsloyi Sent Tuesday,;idly 18,2017 2:25 PM To: Paula Penney Subjed: RE: edging - SKM,S8S4e1707141602(,pdf Just to follow up, if you tan provide the attendees'%Ns,then can put in the request(with the inforrnation avbie in the previous attachment), i need to put the request in lay COB today for background checks to dear with Se Attached is the information Secretary Gardner spoke with you about. Please fet me know 0 you have any question& 17-2361-A-000745 Promi Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: PKI1S Penney Tuescia MF le 2017 5:18 PM FW;Emai/Ing $K.M,SM5407071416020,0? EOP-Camptie-Map:pf From Sant, lkicherd EOP/OVP(moillto;RemulaSpat@pmeob.9ovl Sent:Tuesday,"uty 1P, 2017 425 Plvl To: Paula Penney Subject :&rang - SKVI CBS4e1707141.6020,pdt Paula —Mr, rder has been Cleared to enter the CI:laity with en appointment *joieor Ilarn.,He wig be able to anWt the beikting as eady es 10am and es late aa12 ham and thould enter at the security theanoint at the intersect!onof an4 Steteret Wmpemep is a ttuthed). Please iet me know if there am any questions or concerns! Best, Bithard Richard Sant Director ofit,, 5...sezrcr: Office ofthe 'Vice President p; 2022812718 e: Richarci,S.SantiPos,,.eo From:Paola Penney trfaita:Paulaszagyia95,1akt?„.yj Sent:Tuesday,July IL 2017 3:42.PM Toi Sant,. nicherti 6, 0P/tAIP Khk:hard,S,Shritpoyo,aop„gov> • Subjeat RE Etnalift SKMC654e17071.416V204df Yes Adrian is unetNe to come tomorrow hut may come to a utor matting so will complete the request or ErIc Forcier, From Sant Richard 8, EONOW [mailtryRichard.B.SantQovp,enpaggi Sent Tucaday,.3ely 18, 2017 250 Foll To: l>aula Penney Subject: Rez Emang SiKM,S654e1707141602,0,pdf can de that, was under the impteasion Acirian lerucbulle was an additierial request, per the POF praviee$1y attached, Richard Sentfirm my Whore On JulIL 2017,.at 288 PM,Paula Penney -:Paule,Perinev@SOS,WH.GOV> wrote; Hi Richard 17-2361-A-000746 just want to confirm am oniv doing this for Eric Forcier and natfor Secretary Gerdner, 1.s.. that correct? Thanks Pauia fltonni Sant, Richard By EOP/OVP irnoiltzhr4QSent0cmAlop.120y) Sent: Tuesday,3uly 18, 24317 2;25 PM To: Paula Penney Subject P.E' &nailing - SKI,4CeS4e1707141602§1p1f Stat to follow up, if you on provide the attendees' SSils, then can put in the reeNest(with the infornotion avaii;thie tho previous attBL'ilmerlt). t need to put the request in b>f COB today for hoz:1%round check to atUif• with Sec.ret Setvice before tOrlittrONci rflOmMe Richant From:Sault, Rich gniL EOPIOVP Sent Tuesday,Juiv la, M17 I2:19 PM To:'Peule.Penney@M,S.141-1.60Y $tstsject.t FW;Ernaing -.SAM_C654e1707141602.0.pdf ............ ............................. Hi Richard -Secreteri Gardner wantsto ptthee two follo, into the meeting a well, Would you mind wordiriatiug with Pa ala oglOW to , t them cl 4roci? thinking it'd F.nobe Oh' be easiest to add them to one of the appointments you already created, but feei free to figure nut something elte if ffiere's an aaEoier woy, Thonits for all your Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice Presi&mt Etrat And Koaaack,,„ovp,oOp.gov 17-2361-A-000747 Rom:Paula Penney tmehttfaula,Pennewa?SOS.11H.GOVI Sent Friday, hily14,20174:01 PM Tuz Kosseck, Andrew I. EOP/OVP TOrijyyIjloprk(aoksp.eqp Subject Ernaiiing SKM,S6S4a1707141602Q.pdf Attached is the inforrnetion Seccetafy Gordnv spoke with you: abot..a. Neese let tne know If vou have eny questions. 17-2361-A-000748 White House Lomplex Map 3', Szlral1.0%*4ki'Ayl s :1<•<.. , 14 xxxfpf, t??,in.1 Maw Cectn $tstomi Oictms Avex:e • 0014e.lt. $Sr•I ftslailICW4:010 s%'esl'iHpfs PA* .. • .. • : %4iS'Ost'f:4En0 : ifeix Orol.* Han) ..trA VE,4 Am4sfult 414.ort tvittrorail Stntions Acce.tsibi Route LISSSCate Ar.'esNbie Ciat Elewtor Pkn.u?‹ontilct*Nto Home Operariorn tr:s sdwitgr:ApOntment P7...tki$1:4 or pAitsg for oft a. From: Sent: To:, Subject: Attachments: Path Penney Monday, August 07,2017 9;23 AM Andrew,./..,KommWtovP•e0P.V1 Ernaiting - km19,29694(2),p4f image2S594(2).pdf From Secretary Gardner 17-2361-A-000750 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT HILLSBOROUGH,SS SOUTHERN DISTRICT Betty R.Lasky Neal Kurk,& American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire Foundation V. The State ofNew Ilmumbire Docket # 226-2017-CV-340 BQTT PE' 4MENDED .r.r.rr.,_ITrON _E,,,,.._.r ..r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r ,.„„„„PETITION.r.r.r.r.rFOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTI01,1t 0ICLARATORY JUDGMENT,AND FINAL INJINA7,TfVE RELIEF NOW COMES the respondent, Secreimy of State William Gardner,by and 'through his siloroeys, the Office ofthe Attorney General, and objects to the Petitioners' Amended Petition for Prelirnbary Injunction,Declaratory Judgment, and :Final Injunctive Relief, In support thereof,the respondent states the following; I. The petitioners seek a temporary and pamartent injunction haning the Secretary ofSUM;from providing certain voter information to the recently cteated Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"),ofwhich the Secretary is a member,Wen he complies with RSA 65431,11 and III, They also seek a declaratory judgment that the Secretary is obligated to foftow those provons before he disseminates the voter information. 2. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum ofLaw in Support of the Respondent's Ohjection,, which is incorporated by reference herein,the requested relief should be denied. WHEREFORE,the respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court to; A. Deny the Amended Petition for Preiminary injunction, Declaratory Judgment, and Final injunctive Relief; and 17-2361-A-000751 B. Grant such further relief as auty b deemed just, Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM GARDNER, SECRETARY OF STATE By his aitotneys, GORDON1 MACDONALD ATTORNEY GENERAL ye Anne M.Edwzddfi,-,No,6826 fx7ex',w` Associate Attorney General Francis C.. Fredericks, No.21161 Assistant Attorney General Civil Buren) 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 (603)271-300 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was transmitted by electronic mail to Paul Twomey,Esq>, Gilles Bissonneue, Esq, and William E. Christie, Esq.. counsel ofTeontd, August 7,2017 Anne M.EdWaid.$ 17-2361-A-000752 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH:,SS SOUTHERN DISTRICT SUPERIOR.COURT Betty R. Lasky • Neal Kurk, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire Foundation The State ofNew Hampshire Docket No,226,1017-CV-340 MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITIONERS'AMENDED PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DECLARATORY JUDGMENT., AND FINAL INIUNCTIVE RELIEF NOW COMES the respondent,Secretary of State William Gardner, by and through his attorneys, the Office ofthe Attorney General,and moves This Court to dismiss the Amended Petition for Preliminary Injunction,Declaratory Judgment„ and Final Relief. In support thereof, the respondent states the following; 1. The petitioners sock a temporary and permanent injunction barring the Secretary ofState from providing certain publicly available voter information to the recently created Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Corruriission"), of which the Secretor/ is a member,unless he complies with RSA 65431,112nd ID. They also seek a declaratory judgment That the Secretary is obligated to fottow those statutory provisions prior to providing the voter information to the Commission. 2. As set,forth in detail in the accompanying MtillOrandurn of Law in Opposition to the Petitioners Amended Petition for Preliminary Injunction, Declaratory Judgment,and Final Relief, the petitioners lack standing to seek the requested relief and do not state a viable claim on the merits. 17-2361-A-000753 3„ As to standing. the American Civil Liberties Union ofNew Hampshire Foundation(ACLU')does not have standing,either as an organization an association, to challenge the Secretary's actions here, The ACLU lacks organizational standing because it does not allege that any injury will result to the ACLU itself as a result of the Secretary's provision of public infOlnlatiOn to the Commission, See O'Brkn Nil Democratic Party, 6614.14, 138, 142 (2014)("in evaluating whether a party has standing to we,we focus on whether the party suffered Llgrkinjoi,„iy, against which the law was designed to protect.")(emphasis added). Further, the ACLU's statement that it participated in the 2006 legislative process pertaining to RSA 654;31,fl and flI does not cure this defect because such legislative activity was simply in firtherarice of the ACLU's general purpose as an advocacy organization and thus does not form a legal interest and cannot constitute a concrete injury,. .Saa Eke< Privacy Info, Or, v, United States DepT, ofErtuc., 48K Supp. 3d t, *23-24(D.D.C,'Feb. 5,2014)(finding pro-prae,y entity lacked organiutional standing to challenge amendments to federal regulations where it simply advocated against the changes in the ordinary course of pursuing "its purpose as an organizationlj"), 4, The ACLU also lacks standing as an association because it has not identified an actual ine.zniher that it claims will suffer an injury-in-fact as a result ofthe transfer of -public information to the Commission. Instead,the ACLU Itakes the bare assertion that some of its members have indicated that they wish to protect their personal information consistent with current New Hampshire law and do not want their persona/ information disseminated to the Commission," Am,Petition, 1! 3, This is insufficient, The ACLU must do more than claim that its members maintain a getteral interest in a certain topic in order to demonstrate standing to challenge governmental conduct, See Draper v. Ifealey, 827 F.34 1,3(1st Cir.2016)(Sooter, (declining to find associational standing based CM an affidavit asserting that many of an 2 17-2361-A-000754 association's] =tact's asked it to take legal actiontr explaining that "the association must,at the very least, identify a member who has suffered the requisite harm)(internal quotations and brackets omitted);see also Appeal ofiH Righl to Life, 166N,H, 308,314(2014)(explaining an association has no standing to challenge an administrative agency's action based upon a mere interest in a problern[J" and finding association lacked standing as it "did not allege a specific injury in fact,".' but rather..'assailed]a generallud interest in regulate clinics ensuring that the Board properly „"). Thus,the. court should dismiss the.ACLU from this action for lack of standing, 5_ The individual petitioners similarly lack standing because they fail to show a personal legal or equitable right that is being or will be burned, Rather, they raise a genaaiized grievance that is common to the public at large, that is incapable ofsatisfying the standing requirement of a paniculariled and concrete injury_ Set State v, Actovis Phan= km,20160199,slip op.(June 30,2017)("Neither an abstract interest in.ensuring that the State Constitution is observed, nor an injury indistinguishable from a generalized wrong allegedly suffered by the public at large is sufficient to constitute a.personal„ concrete interest")(quotations omitted);see aiso lAtion v. Defenders ofWildtile,504 U.555,573-74(1992)("EA] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the constitution and laws,, . does not state an Article M.case or controversy."). 6, Moreover,. the statutes that petitioners. allege a violation of-45431,11, ill, and MA 654:45-4o not contain a private cause ofaction or right ofenforcement Consequently, the petitioners lack standing to utilize these statutes as a jurisdictional basis for maintaining this action See ifcinvis Phorrtut. Inc., swpra: slip op, at.7("There is nothing in the Ethics Code to 17-2361-A-000755 support 4t(4'Orn*WW1 that the legislature intended to create a private right of action for its violation_ Accordingly, we hold that the defendexits do not have standing to bring claims under the Ethics Codel< Thus,dis.missal of this action in its entirety is warranted because all petitioners lack standing, 'I. Further, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the petitioners, they have failed to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted.. See. Xonefizi v. HollidBrooklint Coop. &It Dfst., 143 NJ-I, 256,258(1998). 8. As explained in detail in the Respondent's Memorandum ofLaw in Opposition to the Amended Petition for Injunctive Relief, it is well established that the voter checklist information at issue is publicly available to anyone who wishes to view it and is expressly subject to disclosure under RSA chapter 91-A< See,el.,RSA ,fiS4k314("The infonnation contained on the checklist of a town or city.,specifically, the name.,domicile address,Ina/line: address,town or city, and party affiliation, if any, ofregistered voters, except as otherwise provided by statute, is bljAk,t.,,3<.*')(emphases added); RSA 09102("One marked copy aublic ofevery checklist used in any election shall be -turned over to the town or city clerk by the suptrvi!tom The clerk shall preserve such checklists in his or her custody LalattaigARA for a period set forth in RSA 33.A3-a.")(emphasis added); RSA 65431,111 (allowing any person to view a compilation ofthe htfonnation from all voter checklists statewide on the centralized voter registration database maintained by the Secrete.ry ofState 9, Thus,the Secnetary's provision ofthe voter data to the Commission is not only permissible, but required under MA chapter 91.A as the Secretary has received a request for specifically described, publicly available information from the Commission and, by law, must respond. RSA 91.k4,IV C4Nach public body or agency shall, upon request for any 4 17-2361-A-000756 governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying wy such governmental record within its film —"), As a result, the Secretary's aodon in providing the public voting information is proper as a matter()flaw,. 10, Additionally,the petitioners" only count in this action is for a claimed 'violation of RSA 654:31(II)-(111) and RSA 65445," Am,Petition at 22. Although they strive to tie these statutes to a claim ofa "violation ofprivacy," NO ids at 1135, it is plain that the petitionrrs cannot hold a privacy interest in voter checklist information that is already broadly available to the Consequentiy, the alleged noncomplianoe with RSA 654131, II, Ill and RSA 654:45 cannot constitute an acfionable violation of privacy an.therefore,the petition fails on its face m gate a claim for such and should be dismisse& 11. Lally, bethe petitioners do not state It claim,their request for injuncOe relief must also faiL The issuance ofan injunction, whether temporary or pennarlElli, is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain such a remedy,the party seeking relief must demonstrate that there is an immediate danger of in-eparable harm* no adequate remedy at law,and a likelihood of 4q.K 57,63(2007), MAX= on the metits, New ifampAire Dep4 ofErma, Serv+sv, illoitoio, 155) 12. For the same reamsthat the petitioners lack standing and fail to state a claim on the merits, they also do not satisfy the threshold requirements for injunctive relief; namely a risk ofirreparable. harm,the lack ofan adequate remedy at law., and success on the merits.. For these reasons,and those stated more fully in the accompanying Memorandum ofLaw in Opposition to the Petitioners Amended Petition tor Preliminary Injunctions Declaratory Judgment,and Final incorporated by reference herein, the Court should dismiss this action in its entirety, 17-2361-A-000757 WHEREFORE,the respondent respectfully requests that, this Honorable Court A, Dimiss the Amended Petition for Preliminary Injunetion, Declaratory Judgment, and Final Relief; arid 13, Orem such further relief as may be deemed just, Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM M,GARDNER, SECRETARY OF STATE By his attorneys, GORDON J. MACDONALD ATTORNEY GENET ca 6826 August 7,2017 6321459 4,v1v Anne M.Edwards,No, , Associate Attorney Gamed Ramis C. Frederias,No.21161 Assistant Attorney Gtneral Civil Bureau 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 (03)2714658 CERTIFICA.TE OFSERVICE I hereby certify that a eopy of the foregoing was Iransmitted by electronic mail to Paul Twomey,Esq., Gilles Bissonriette, Esq. and William E. Christie, Esq.,eounsel ofmcord. August 7,2017 Anne M.EdwaA• 6 17-2361-A-000758 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR.COURT HILLSBOROUGH,SS SOUTHERN DISTRICT Betty R. Lasky, Neal Kurk, American Civil Liberties Union ofNew Hampshire Foundation V. The State of New Hampshire Docket No.226-2017-CV-340 OB CTIaN TJE 0 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF'ME INJUNCTION, PRELIKINA.RY THE PETITIONERS'AMENDED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,AND FINAL INJUNCTIVF,RELIEF L NTRODIJcflON in 1679, four towns Portsmouth,Dover, Hampton and Exeter — achieved MI autonomy as a 'British province, the legel authority of Massachusetts ceased, and the province.ofNew Hampshire was created. The next year, the new province began the process of organizing a representative assembly. According to one account: "As soon as the certified lists ofeligible voters in the four towns could be prepared,these names were. made public. Portsmouth was found to have 71 men qualified for suffrage, Dover had 61, Hampton had 57,and Exeter had 20. Those 209 voters early in March elected eleven representatives who became the first Cieneral Assembly OFNOW Hampshire.. So began three hundred years ofwhat In would now call democratic institutions," Leon W.Anderson, To This Days 300 Years ofthe New Hampshire Legislature,(19£(1), p.4. Thus,for more than diree centuries, the voter checklist has been a publicly available, organic element ofour democracy.. It has been — and remains an essential tool tbr ensuring the . integrity ofour electoral process. It is posted and subject to scrutiny before an election. And, 17-2361-A-000759 the 40141 thmktim that are used on. Election Day capture important snapshots in history, reflecting those who voted and those who were eligible to vote and did not Checklists dating back more than two centuries, up to and including the checklists during the 2016 general. election, are stored at the Division ofArchives and Records Management in various media,. They have always been publiely available, The public's right to know is also organic to our democracy. As set forth in New Hampshire's sill of Rights,see N.H. COT1St, part I, article 8,and as specified at RSA chapter 91A,public officials must produce public records to those who request access, The respondent, Secretary of State William M. Gardner, is a public official and the checklists at the Division of Archives and Records Management axe public records. Secretary Gardner construes the recent request from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integrity("Commission")as falling under the Right-to-Know Act, RSA chapter 91-A., lie must follow the law and produce the checklists in his possession. He intends to do so. The petitioners' arguments do not come close to overcoming the force ofthese principles. A.sa preliminary matter, recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions make clear that the petitioners lack standing to seek the relief requested. However,even if they could demonstrate the personal injury necessary to establish standing, they cannot detuortstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The requested material is expressly deemed subject to the RSA chapter 9I-A, Because the Secretary's course ofaction is not only lawful, but required under chapter 9:1-A., no possible harm — much less irreparable hem — would result from his intended course ofconduct Therefore, the Court must deny the requested relief 17-2361-A-000760 11. 13,LLSYLL____‘NT BAC V.1„ 10_1_19„) 1 41-1. The New Hampshire Constitution guarantees that,"[all elections are to be free," , Corms pan I, art. 1 and,indeed,the integrity ofelections is vital to our democracy. To ensure their integrity, e/ections must he open: The meetings for the choice of governor, council and senators shall be warned by warrant from the selectmen, and governed by a moderator, who shall,in the presence of the selectmen(whose duty it shall be to attend)in open meeting,receive the votes of all the inhabitants ofsuch towns and wards. Nit Const., pan 11, art. 32 (emphasis added). For more than three centuries, an essential tool in ensuring transparency of elections has been the public availability of infomtation contained on voter checklists. A. :FrauaciAttiltya letir_itrag New Fle.mpshire's election laws are carefully constructed to ensure transparency in the condut.:1 ofour elections. For example, because they are an open rilecting,see4elettions must be subject to prior notice,see, e.g.,RSA 658:1; the layout ofthe polling place must ensure that both the voting booths and the ballot box 'shall be in plain view ofthose outside the guardrail," RSA 658:9, 11; at the opening ofthe polls, the ballot box shall be publicly opened and shown to be empty," RSA 65836;and, at the end ofthe election,"Whet counting of votes shall be public and conducted within the guardrail and shall not be adjourned nor postponed until it shall have been completed," RSA 659:63. Further, the identity and address of a voter must be publicly stated— twice — as a prerequisite to obtaining a ballot: "A person desiring to vote shall, before being admitted to the enclosed space within the guardrail, announce his or her name and address to one of the ballot clerks who shell, if the name is found on the checklist by the ballot clerk, repeat the name and address," RSA 659:13, 1(a). And,after voting in jurisdictions using paper ballots, a voter 3 17-2361-A-000761 procee:ds to the checkout table and "shall announce his =veto the town clerk who shall repeat the name and place a. mark beside it on his checklist," RSA 659;23,I. 8. Voter Che.cklists and the Information They.Confab are Public. For centuries,the voter checklist has been an essential component in ensuring the transparency and integrity ofour elections. The legislatuxe has specified the content ofthe chtzklig,made it expressly subject to RSA chapter 91.A„ and has.set forth numerous procedures to ensure that only qualified voters appear on The legislature has specified the content of the checkiist to be comprised of: the full rtaille4 domicile addressor/ailing address, and party affiliation, if any,of cad) voter ort the checklist.„," RSA 65425,' Moreover,in a statute overlooked by the petitioners,the legislature has expressly provided than 'Ike information containedmukesaesklbt of pity,specifically, the name,domicile address, mailing address, town or city,and party affiliation, ifany,ofregistered voters,except as otherwise provided by statute. is public iphrtnation subject to RSA 91-A." RSA 65431-a(=phases added), At least three public procedures exist to ensure that the infonnation on the checklist is accurate. First, prior to an election,the checklist roust be pooted.and the supervisors must subsequently hold a oiblic session to receive any corrections. Soe RSA 65426 rThe supervisors [of the checklist]shall make and post ecoi000rlhesurrent checklist at the office of the town or city clerk not later an the fburth Tuesday before the day ofany state election')and RSA 65427(providing, infer din,that iv "<:itif,DA and towns, the supervisors of the checklist Abgli be inAtmiosilosibt.correctiorkof the chec •ikt at some suitAle One in the city or town on a day One exception exists. When a valid domestic violence protective order is presented to the supervisors of the checklist, the name and address ofa voter shall not appear on the checklist, RSA 65425. 4 17-2361-A-000762 designated by the supervisors which shall be 6 to 13 days prior to the election" and that correction session niust be subject to public notice)and RSA 65428 (providing. freer alia, that the'supervisors of the checklist shall hear all applications for a cm-mg/maithe checklist and the evidence submitted theneon and shall correct it according to their best knowledge so that ji ogstaximasfiligmgramilmadtkitist.wigurltdjlesion")(e bases added), A similar procedure exists to provide tbr changing of party registration prior to a state or presidential primary, See RSA 65402, /n that instance,the "supervisors;hall post cooks oftt chealist,showing the persons in the town or ward entitled to vote, with their party registradon, so far as such registration has been made, at the office ofthe town or city clerk or at the town hall at least 0 days prior to any session provided for in RSA 654:32[j RSA 654:33, Second,a special cause ofaction exists establishing jurisdiction in this court for a complaint by any cititen "that his narlit is illegally kept from,or his name or that ofsome other citizen is illegally placed upon, the checklist ofa town or ward„ RSA 654:42.2 Third„ RSA 65438 sets forth a procedure whereby, upon findings after an investigation, the Ballot Law Corrarnission may order that a ver'ification ofthe r.lbeeklist take place according to specified procedures. See, e.g., Petition tztDavid Scott, Ballot Law commission Order,dated March 15,2015, See Exhibit A,attached hereto, These devices have utility in servine the vital functions ofallowing the public access to the checklist as they will have information about whether a voter has died or moved away, providing a means ofoversight ofthe supervisors to ensure they are performing their fonotions,and ensuring that checklists are as accurate as possible. The actual availability of this cause of action is plainly founded upon a presumption of broad public access to the checklists, 5 17-2361-A-000763 C at the State Archives. rimervattion amd Reflecting its importance, the checklist is the albject °fa specific legi,slative directive regarding its storage and preservation at,-, t 1" r191-4. RSA 659;102 provides that "(within 90 days of the closing ofthe polls for each regular gate general election, and for each presidential primary general election, the supervisors ofthe checklist in the towns,and the corresponding officers in the cities, shall send one ofthe marktd checklists which ware Mod in the election, certified by the officers„to the tae.try"(emphasis added), See ativ ids ("One marked copy ofevery checklist used in any election shall be turned over to the tosf.,\mt or city clerk by the supervisors. The clerk shail preserve such checkiists hi his or her custody for a public Dteord for a period set forth hi RSA According to the Guide to the Archives produced by the Division ofArchives and Records Management,copies of checklists dating back to 1816 exist and are subject to public inspection some in various media at the State Alchives in Concord. See Exhibit.B attwbed hereto. . .Lwiktime ti. c V ter Database, In 2002,Congress enaeted the Help America Vote Act(1HAVA"),Pub. L,No.. 107-252 (2002). Among HA VA's requirements, Section 303 mandated that states establiSti computerized statewide voter registration hats. HAVA authorized federal fiands to assist with the implememdio.ofits various requirements. See la% at § 251. To implement the provisions ofHAVA,the legislature directed the Seeretaxy ofState to plan and implement a "statewide voter registration database and communications system, hereinafter ttferred to as the voter database, =meeting users throughout the state." RSA 654:45,1("voter database"), The voter database contains information that is bioader than that 6 17-2361-A-000764 contained on voter checklists. compare 65445, ("The voter database snail include the currint. information on the voter registration forms, the accepted absentee applications,.the voter checklists, artd voter actions as -recorded on the marked checklist maintained by each 'city, ward, and town in the state.") with RSA 65425 (checklists'shall include the full name,domicile address, mailing address and party affiliation, ifany,ofeach voter on the chat:Wig, Unlike paper oliecklistas see RSA 65431-a("Etihe information contained on. the checklist eta town or city.. . .i sabjeot to RSA 9/-A")„ the voter database is "private and confidential atld shell not be subject to RSA 91,-&"RSA 654:45, VI,. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided that,lajny person may view the data that would be available on the publie checklist, as corrected by the supervisors ofthe checklist, on the statewide centralized voter registration database maintained by the seer.etinx,grAtt at the state records and archives center during nOTTIVII business hours, but the person viewing the data.at the ,rint do Hoak transmit or a e state records and archives center ma not' d ," RSA 654:31,Ill(emphases added). This straightforward provision provides voters with a means to cheek the AC:curacy of the information on the vole,r database without supplanting other statutory pmvisions regarding obtaining copies of eheoklisis as they exist in "town arid cities RSA 654-.3 I,ll or challenging or alteririg the voter information contained. on checklists,see,e,g, RSA 65428, 38,42. 1. laissjtatutory.trovisions„Relafirm torniALINsseralkation.pf jurarmation. The Secretary, upon request by a political pony,a political committee or candidate for county,state or federal office, shall provide a "list of the name,domicile address* mailing address,towti or city, voter history, and party affiliation, ifany, ofevery registered voter in the gate," RSA 65431,IV. Voter history is defined as "whether the person voted and,for primary 17-2361-A-000765 elections; in which party*s primary the person voted, in esch state election for the preceding 2 yars. Fd The &oratory must recover cortain fees for the provision of this information, id. New Hampshire prohibits any person from using or permitting "the use of checklist or voter informstion provided by any supervisors ofthe checklist or by the secretary ofstate for commercial ptuToses." RSA 654'.11,. VL A violation is subject to criminal penalties,. Id. Commercial purposes is defined as,"knowingly usit g,. selling, givirtL. or receiving the checklist information for the purpose ofselling or offering for sale any property or service unrelated to an election or political campaign." RSA 554',31,1(b)„ This prohibition applies to information,"in any forms"that is drawn from an original or any copy ofa checklist that is impeded or copied al a town or city clerk's office, the state archives,or obtained in electronic file from the voter database. See RSA 04;31,ga). F. Tb.e Commission's ReoltIOL. The mission ofthe Commission .is to study the registration and voting processes used in federal elections, and it is charged with identifying, in relevant.part,"those vulnerabilities voting systerras and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting,including fraudulent voter registre.tions and 111*dt:tient voting.," President Tromp's Executive Order, May 11,2017., Recently,.the Commission's Vice. Chair sent a later to the Secretaries of all States and the District of Colittlibitt with the following request In order for the Commission to gully analyze vulnerabilities aild issues ratted to voter registration and votIng I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly available voter roil data for rNew Hampshire], including if publicly available under the laws of your state, the MI first and last names ofall registrations, middle names or initials if available,addresses, dates of binh, political party (ifrecorded in your state), last four digits ofsocial security number ifavailable, voter history (elections voted in)from 2006 onward, activeinactive status, information regarding any felony convictions, 8 17-2361-A-000766 infOnnatiOn regarding voter registration in another state, infomtation regarding military status. and overseas citizen infonnation, Petitioner? Exhibit 1, June a,2017 kobach Latter. On July 10,2017, the Commission requested that the Secretaries ofState temporarily delay their data production pending the resolution ofa motion filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, On My 24, 2017,the federal court resolved that :notion in the Commission's favor, Petitioners' Exhibit 8,Silly 26,2017 Kobach Letter, On July 26,2017,the Commission's Vice-Chair, via letter,renewed the prior request for publicly available voter data. Id In doing so,the Vice-Chair explained that the Commission will keep individuals voter registration records confidential and secure throughout the duration ofthe Commission's existence, and that once its analysis is complete the CommiSaiOrt will dispose ofthe records ih accordance with federal law, Id, c. Sjgatt,Iti j_ter's iortse.. Secretary Gardner is construing the Commission's letters as Right-to-Know requests under RSA chapter 91-A,and will respond accordingly. Specifically, the Secretary will provide in electronic format existing copies of the marked voter checklists used in the 2016 state general election, as: deposited at the State Archives, These are public records preserved in the state archives pursuant to RSA 659102. The information contained on these checklists Is public iformation subject to RSA 91-AY RSA 6.54:31-,a, In providing the information,the Secretary will make clear that "No person shall use or permit the use of checklist or voter information provided . by the secretary agate for commercial purposes," See RSA 654:31,VI, By providing the Commission with copies ofthese marked checklists, the voter database is in no way implicated, 9 17-2361-A-000767 111, A, AR9VMEN7 The Petititnera Lack Stasidinsg. The petitioners lack standing to challenge the anticipated actions ofthe Secretary of State. IS]tanding under the New Hampshire Constitution requires parties to have petsonal legal or equitable rights that are adverse to one another. ." Dimearlv, State, 166 N.H.630,642 (2014). In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue,"[the court must)focus tat whether the party suffered a legal injury against which the law was designed to protect! 0'&ien v. NH Democratic Party, 166 N.H. 138, 142(2014). `The requirement that a party demonstrate harm to maint.ain a legal challenge rests upon the constitutional principle that the judicial power ordinarily does not include the power to issue advisory opinions," id (quemtion omitted). The American Civil Liberties Union ofNew Hampshire Foundation("ACLU")cannot meet that threshold requirmenl bftatiF4 it faces no threat ofinjury. As an organization,it would suffer no impact from the provision of publicly available checklists to the Commission? Even if its individual members may have personal concerns about the impact ofthe Secretary's actions, that does not imbue the ACLU with standing to bring an action. See Benson v, New Hampshire Guar, etVS r4 151 N.H.590,593(2004)(the Medical Society's status as the "representative organization for medical practitioners statewide" did not give it standing to seek a declaratory judgmentthat the respondent was obligated to provide tail coverage insurance; the Medical / Indeed, the ACLU does not allege that it stands to suffer organizational harm. Rather, it Mates that as an organization the ACLU s'mstified on the restrintiots in RSA 645:31 (II) , (III)during the 2006 legislative session," and that it "engag[cs]in litigation to encourage the protection of individual rights ," Am.Petition,1 3. Undertaking these general acts in fitrtherance of the ACLU% overall purpose does not confer organizational standing. See Elea Privacy Wt. Cm v, United Stoles- Dep. ofEdw.,48 F. Stipp, 3d I,"23-24 (D.D,C. Feb. 5,2014)(finding pm privacy entity lacked organizational standing to challenge amendments to federal regulations where it simply advocated against the administrative changes in the ordinary course of pursuing purpose as an organizationl.n. 10 17-2361-A-000768 Society was not hued by NHIOA and had no ri ts to enihree against it), The ACLU does not plead facts capable ofsupporting associationai standing. Its ptWon 1710rely alleges that some of its members have iridiced that they wish to protect their personal information consistent with current New Hampshire iaw and do not want their personal information disseminated to the COMANSitli," Am,Petition,I13.. The ACLU,however,does not identify a single member who "indicated" such concent,nor does it explain how any member stands to stiffer a particularized injury-in.fact, Su Draper v,.„.-....-M431 5,0043 • • • - M#320400-#325400„,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,MV 1980(General)Microfilm Nov., 1982(Pentral)MitrO1im.-....4.......,103264004329,00,...,„,„4„.....,MV ,,,,, Notc: Biettnitsi(Genera!Mutton in November ofettotpresklentiof election ram) checklists 14§ac colleaed &Timing in 1982, There are none prior to that. Feb, 1984(Pres. Primary) .................. Nov, 1984 (Cialtml) ....M1330.00-#314.00.--...... MV 1,0336.0144336,05-.•----•..• MV ... .. Nolc All microfilm up to this point is on 35matfilm. Microfilm &fe? is an 1tionmjThin Nov. 1986 Kientral) 17-2361-A-000780 M#341004343e ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Crollfra • .5.4.944•V{ krierefiehe..,t S4 5{5 .... . 1.44 •{ • Feb, 9RA (Pres.Primal)) Mieroram •JAV.0 MV RA • M9344,004344,09 tiAV RA Papa. Bifi 697 Nov, 1 988(Oetwal) tylicrofilm Microfiche RA Nov. 1990(Cionerzd) 4 19-0344,27----MiCiViithe›<,,!“55.5.45,P....Pi5515.5.......14F94004 , MkrOfdril ,,,, ,,,• MV RA •,, ,, ,, , , Feb. 1992(Pm,Primly) MkrOnirn 4544.5.0004 V0X4004O..40104,4,4.,44N344.294344 ,,,,„„.„..>„ IA V Ntiarofiche....•,,,,, • 2v/F940042 ._...sews -Roo0.4osoosM#344461 letorithe Poper ev•s •,,,,,Oof,LOA 0O0ootot•ooVoi.o1 94 . 0 4 041 7 MWOlittsChlitthaill,•.••.4.. B edford owt sot.,,,o,,,,,oo ,,,,,,4 mot A,A{AA yA.A,A.,/,••rovor.voroOloCoOtOt >s 5 o COnwey ,,,, 4•400,000 4,0/4,44, 40 NOM to•,04,4,0I P4041.> 4 > 44%h., ,, ,,,}<0•001,05 4 04,4 4444% 40 5000,EX6.506(724414) , , ,,, ,, ,,,, )1Mkson-Merrimack Ki ngston t•s•S•,,,,,5 LVIdOnderrY4 M Middleton- Anchester 2(724'05) k bO9444.!490.9001ot BX6S . . 40 4 •4.4••O , ,,,,,, ,o9.001. BX43 (724-0$) ,„..,—„v„Sx6506(724 B3(6505(723405) anning/OM . H1414a011 4osIt(1441.1..,•,,,,, 0,04.0.0.44 Goffstown Hompsond BR65 3(724-06) Bx6506(7,14-04) -04) „Eix6506(724-04) •to,,,,,01P.00 0. 5•0 F M eA4 1 4 J 4 04 J.44048:x6510(724-)5) 40, •40 00.0,440,,44440,04,44444 310 .•i•it, o <>too o•,,,,, 44 , 4 54 4 ttoto DX6505023'05) Bx6„505(723-05) s4 >0,,6 44 +to > 5 4 bo, 1004,0,>4 0 04,4,4><.•4>s >4 0,00,40•004o0.4 1.40 4 Ps4,4 X0,4 4+44.BX6505(723 . 05) ,,,,, Bv$S09(724-04) fax604('r23) Plyrneutil-Sun.on >4)4 Portsmouth ,,,,,,„,,_,,,,,,,,,,,A,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, •Bx004(723) Rye ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, ,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 8)6504(723) -A.01.B:6507(724-04) >/.4•14,414> 41.01.404>.40,4 AO.4.0 40/I0/ 4150> 40 4041,06x4550$(724,-05) November S, 1996(General) Microfilm W344,734344,85 A-,,,,,,, Paper tbc724 01A(724.01) Aikrisiown A Isiettd 1004 si),)%0•44.4.44.4()41.4 +.+.1..1 . 1x.724 • {l• I01 A(724-07) Bx.724101A(724-07 Bedford ,,,,,,,,,,,),,,, Bx.72.4101A(724-07) Bx724I011 A(724-07) Belmont ax12410A(73401) B ...13x724101A(724401) B Bx724101 A(724-01) Bow A(n4.o) B .s, )3024101A(124-07) Onldlitt •+> Sx724101A(724-07) ry ,,,,,,,, C Bx.72410IA(72447) Chester„ Conway .< Bx7241012(124-07) 4*8*4+844 44419114.441 3x7241 B(724-01) Danv ,,,,,,,,,,,,>4,,,, „,,,,,,,,„.,,, ,,, Bx72410 4724-07) VO4)40 it4,4 ...05 4,s 4 ov 40 SA erlin(wards. osegwen • , ,,,,,,,,, ,,,4,, o•5 444 .J.K.,144.1. -4 ) 1,1,,A , 141000tAi/8 ,,,,, 044..0*. . ,,,,,,,, 0•0 oso•0.,,,4+4,45 , . ridgMatOr0,540 0 54.000,04,0,0•••,, 000,,, ,00.4 .00 4000 10, 4 raerblog 094%),,,,,,,,, 8024101 *4.4444)444*081. ,,,A,, 0oSkyto00.0,,,soseAvA01,0,4 > 40 sOKO sO 4,,, „ot,oso,r0„.vt.v• 1.,{>{,9{1 , 64, 1,. ,,,, 04 4.40, 0,00 ,o••4 s4 00.•00 50 0., 0 00 17-2361-A-000782 Derry Weld 4,4.....•4>404.14). Bx72410IB(724-07) Bx724101 B(724-07) Bx72410I8(724417) .... ... ..,„.„.„.•,.... Bx72410IB(72447) fix.724 02A(724.-07) Gofrstown (words I-2).,..• • .. Bx.724 I02A(724-07) Bx724102A(72.4-07) Hasupstced.„..... ..„. 81024 02A(724-07) 8x.724102A($.4-07) Hortover.........„ Tlx,7241028(724-01) .1-1.111.4,ore x7241 (724-07) Holderness„.• .x724 I02B(724-07) Hollis., .Eix724I 0• 28(72447) Kincocri 028(724-07) Laconia(wards 1-6), ....,, -........ ,.•„, „,—• 13x7241028(724-07) Lincoln Bx724102B(724.-07) Bx724I032A(72447) LOndenderry,,..4......... 8x724 FIx724103A(724-07) 8x724I03A(724-07) Lyruteboroogh Ma24103A(724-07) Meredith „•,...—..... .4J•4.4 ,,,, EFI$Orn etw Frank% pre., INVinifin ••t• •/....• ......P6•14,4o.r.,A•P•s4vw.t.,(9•0............ r<>i>" , 4 4,4A•44..1.444, 4•44 ..4... ,v4t 4.54 , 4144 , 04,4,[1,1•>4,..4,, P ..... •P . . •46 t••4,4•00 ....••••, , S,w B ...PAO. • •• • etAA,Ait,•.4•4.••••• , ,...44.4f. , • , ' Cf., HOOkeoSet 41, w•••••••.•4, a ••••,r 41•••,.."4.3•C•ce•.••!•••4 , 4,<,•••••1, A4 ....... 1•3024 ••••••4••:4•,..44 , .4•4,4•,!•, !•••!•14••••!•,..A.4.4 , 4•40.“•••••4••••••0•4,... , 44 a.< f.X• .v.r..14) te. 1.• ••• •••••••• •••••••,•.• , 0X.41.00%.•••• X4 .4...40 t•AC•Avof......>4.44•440•46. ,>4 >4 >,1,4 8)4.724I03A(724-07) ..... Milan........ , Bx724103A(724-07) Milford ....„ —,• ..., ...„...,„.„.,„,. Bx724103A(724-07) New urripton •... ...........—... 1.1x724 I03A(724407) Newington ........... f3x1241014(724-07) 'Nawriarkot ...,... 8x124 C3A(724-01) ,„„,{.W.ONN.s.fh. Bx72$103A(724-07) Pembiroke Patertmrcush ....... Bx72411 0• 3A(724407) BK7241038(724-I I) Manchester(wards tBx..724 04• 1%.(124.-t i) Pittsburg .Es. 724104A(724-II) Plainfield I) Portsmouth 84A(724 I x,724 S.1.S4>144S4S1S.„ Rye 04A(724-1 I) Sanbernton Bx72.2tI04•A(724.-I t) Bx724. 04A(724-I I) Saadwinh•, Bx12.41 104•A(72A-I 1) Snmorsworth )‘.. , •9••.4A4 A.44.0 44,,e0•44•4•4•4 ..0A AS, > 4• ..... .... . .4.4.144A,•I.04•J •Y at. r #.4.J.•>4 4 4 4 )4 4.4.P.4444CO4AA.(>4)•.f•I4••4••A44VA••J., W4A0.,..A.4A41 .....onwi • •+••44.•••,•,..... ta 1,4 ••••..• Ay! , •••• ...A. lt,.< •Cti,.40 .•••••................•••••t••• .....4 a 4••• 4. ....•••••••4+3,104).{91/. FIX72 4...•A• A eA,A• 4 • A 4.4• $umerawarth ............... Springfield„, fa ..... •4.0,4AvA• J9I4 J4 >.> •44••+A•AvA........ A ..............6.8.1.av Atia cq} 4 4. +1...••• fIx724I048(724.1 I) BX724 0• •4B(724- I) I • 17-2361-A-000783 Strafford Bx7241049(724-1 I) 13024104B(724-1 ) B247241049(724-I I) Ba1241043(24-1 I) ,,, „ Bx724104B(724-II) 1049(724...1 I) 3724I04(7241 1) EN,724104B(724.1 I) ,,,, ,,,.,,,, Wake&ld WCWitgr ' 0140{V)“A*A4 , • , / A...A./0/4%A AO x.s.0,40 Woodiatoek November 3,1990(Clenara/) Mierefilre 12 roN„. - „.. Paper Acworth-firooklield erookiirle-Durerner Dunbartort.Haverhill lithrort-Lomion • , %MI + 942.065 ,, Ba6.523(723) 6522(723) 555th21(723-05) Bx6520(723) • 04+,,,, ,,,5,,,,s0s1 , •. , •• , •0••••• Y• sf .0 40.."41.0 +t, t orne . MOURMberat/gb.4.... Kingstori••• /AV il•X4XI,. ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,0w0r.,•••.<,, ,,, t 5t „ 44,0*,m..1 A4 Naehoe,Newport ,„ NewtorAye Salerrs-Windaor 40 ..44,041,,,t. ..0s.Bx6515(723 05) ,, k••••, Bx85 4(723-04) , 14..BK6514(723-04) 9k6520(723-06) 805i 4(7'23-04) Bx6514(723.04) B(723.05) „.„— „ „Bx6517C,724-06) ,,,,,, ,,,,, Bx.6516(723.04) 0 Hebron-Leu4 Hillsborough 4 st•<• riX72 ft...VOW s4.,• ,,,,,OA.. , A,,, >4 0,1)“10 ,,,,,,,, • . 0, 00••• • •0s4.,,,,,,, ,,,s,, February 1,2000(Presidential Primary) Paper Novernber 7,2000(General) Imaged Paper November 5,2002 (General) Papa,in proem of being luicrofiltneAVireaged Pam Ba47984(724-02) C=0E-Dover(Ward 4) , Dover(Ward 5)-Hales Lotadon 1)1„4,„,4„„5I,Bx47987(724-02) Kiroton-Lyndeborough 40444723-02) Manehmer(Wards 1-6) ,,,,,,,,,.....„.• .....8x48538(72342) Manchester(Wards 1-12) 17-2361-A-000784 Madbury-14ashue(Ward 9) Nelson-Plymeath Portsmouth (Ward I)-Salarri(Ward 4) < —5x48549 Salem(Ward 6)-Woodatock „Ex4855(1 Ex48548(724.93) EIN723.03 E1N723-03 iatiattry 27.2004(Presidential Primary) Acwurtindia Canuabury-Derry,ward 1 B01930(08242) Nay,ward 2431Imanatm.„. Bx51931(08244) Gorestown-Hooksett . . Bx51932(082-02) . . .. Haphiatert-Llitleton ,,,,,...„...—„Bx51933(082-02) Londonderry-Manchester„ ward ...„.-..,„„--)3x.51934(082-03) Manchester., ward 5-Manchester, ward 11 $I 936(092.93) Manchester, ward I244oultorthorough Salon-Raymond ,,, —„, W1938(082-03) . • , • ex51539(082..04) Richmond-Somersworth, ward I Somersworth. ward 2.Woodstnek.....—.—...,<„.„—Bx.91,9.49(0g2-04) November 2,2004(General). Paper received from every lawn except Hooksett imaged by April 25,2005,by Douglas Gourley ,,,,, Atworth.130h3ch ern 8x.51400(723.07) Bascawen-Coricord, word 10—.. Epsom-Hampton .... .... Hampton Palols-Keene . . Xcusington-tondonderry.--„,..„<,<, Loodori.Nastma, ward Nianchoter, ward I-Manchester, ward 4 Manchester, ward 5-Marteheamr. ward 8 Manchester, ward 9-Manchester, v,rand 12 Nashua,ward 2-New Bo.sion < . New Cast PLtcw. K4%4 I ao,...a• 4> 4 > Ex50689(72108) MO599(72,349) .4?• • )4,4 405456,4% SX$0995(723-08) ..Ex50996(723-99) x50997(72349) RoxburpSorrtersworth—.---„......... ........ --a-40999(723-09) South Harapton-Woodstock... Ex5'13724723-03) )4 040{4,4)4 '.4.>4 >4,4 V•4 November 7,2006(General) Psper received from every tuwn Atwordt.Barnstead Benninstoo.Beth Mem ,,,,,,,,,, Sescawart-Chiebester Claremont-Denville. Ex57798(C18-12) Bx56i66(C18-12) BaStS/V(CI8-12) Bx.56168(C I 8-11) - 101 - 17-2361-A-000785 Dearield-Ellswurth Bx.i.6169(C18-11) Bx57781(C18-11) Goffswwn-liampstead Bx57782(CI8-11) Bi.57783(C18-10) Hampton-Hinadaie Bx57/8-4(C18-10) Ktent-Letigdon Bx57785(C18-10) , 113107786(C18-10) . Madbury-Manchaater, ward 6...„.„„.„ „.„ 8x517,87(C19-12) Manchester, ward 7-Manchater, ward 12 „8417118(C19-12) Martow-Moulionborough ea 8x57789(C19-12) Nashtta-Nesvb Bx57790(C19-11) NCW Cs Oii Bx57791(CI9.11) Bx57702(C 19-11) Pelham-Portsmouth . Randolph-Rye . Eix51793(C19-11) Bx57794(e 9.-1 1) Ens57705(C19-10) ....„h,O.„ Saliaboty-South Hampton ngfiald-Troy Bx57792(C19-10) Turionboro.,Woorlsweit , 0 44 , ...... ..... Saitilt,b4,40•.154640,04,0,"4,t0.4)4.41000+414•40..,0,05+, .......... • OAII.V..„.. k ..... ...... o[40..040A0•40I4,45,044Ba.57796(C19 - 10) 2008 MilLtUl 2008 November 2tiU November in boxes in Room 101% West WING' 2012 January 2012 Novanbtr 2014 Novwnber 17-2361-A-000786 17-2361-A-000788 'KUDRILLI:YettUSlid opus rxepu.ajap Viwfl Pus 111 'Jo 'auvt 101 ISirmicattlbtO '.114 pw jpq lutof JuAtbyti aanstpuelAtJoVoTAROssv pimoissajom uolalpppAt otrelayl swepv lusepuojap Ioj %awl,lufor qi uo Imxto welas) pluouop jo 'OMB uo 'Ituaua Aauaop,r, Itrels!s`e 's vreislesv ..toluas 't.t11, 4 Trnrarilta paki ;g0j '(14£9,I0 Plea loPq •t ptre 111.14t.ta .4tuorre mileibri) reum•a Sammie ',10s6a tiossop LICI6ov uni :pon.ssi uoluldo LIM;t garezioi :pwalv •rj4 t 1iYHd SIA.V,L3V SHIMScinTH MN XOaLVIS 66/0-910t 'oht m•outu!..u4w ANSN 40 JAMOD 3MilactriS S1-1,1 -atuaadnsis sp: 'avekpail •;s! 4vd .f.uotl Sp/103 otp.Jo ssalppzi 'atsBvial JO Sup.r.tow atn U ule 00:6 xwIw4-1 TAO aRetreAv opia suoIuldo -urrqu'vlels''sprko*xauodaa :ssaippe 2upAonoi atn. re ireat-aq papodari 4q Lwsaoala 'esaid alopq katu suoilow.lo;) waoV uolytdo ,..mpJo UT sant.* repoilpo AM Jo tTosco ...Emsdtx.rEpli mom ,p,..moue.K) ':;mpfa aoa auo ‘a,m,/scfarefi o..Itins tA4t4 Jo TWJ atp, Ajgouo polsonbw f;,..mp•*a vuodzql sApvdttieH moN, uoirmongrtti aJojaq uoIspau lyttu.'oj tipo, ve 6.6n1,.mputn !upteotpl wonow oloofqnsi uoluido iqua :201,Low PaulitL& Airictia„,WIL, of Londonderry( mund J. Boutin on the joint brie), for defendant Janssen Pharmaceudeals„ Inc, Nixon Pea.body UP,of Manchester(David A. Vnanzo,Pordon_j. MacDonald, Holly,J„ Barcroft, and Anth.ony J. Galdieri on the joint brief), for defendant Purdue Pharma Itinciciev Allen, of Concord Michael Jv Connoljy. and Christopher Carter on the joint brie), for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,Inc, DALIANIS, C,J. The State appeals, and the defendants, Actavis Pharraa, inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc,, Purdue Pharma L.P., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,Inc,, cross-appeal, an order of the Superior Court Wicogati,,L) denying the States motion to enforce admstrative subpoenas issued to the defendants under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA chapter 358,A(2009 & Supp, 2016), and granting the defendants' motion for a protective order. We reverse arid remand. The relevant facts follow. In June 2015, the Office of the Attorney General(0AG)retained the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers &Toll PLLC esent the 0A0)in an [Cohen Milstein) on a contingency fee basis 'to fraudulent marketing claims regarding investigation and litigation of potential of opioid drugs.' (Emphasis added.) in September, the GAG and Cohen Milstein entered into a second retainer agreement that'supersedes the initial retainer agreement, executed June IS, 20I5, and is effective as of that date." The September retainer agreement states that Cohen Milstein is retained. at° assist fthe 0A01 in an investigation and litigation of potential claims regarding fraudulent marketing of opioid drugs." (Emphasis added.) In August 2015, pursuant to RSA 358-A:8 (208.9), the OAG subpoenaed the defendants, with return dates of September 15, to produce for examination by the Attorney General° specified "information and doeumentaq material because the Attorney General has reason to believe that the defendants) have engaged in or have information about unfair trade practices and methods of competition,* The subpoenas seek documents and information related to each defendant's opioid sales volume in New Hampshire„ the nature and scope of each defendant's plans and efforts to market opioids for chronic pain, the nature of and basis for representations made to prescribers and consumers about the use of opioids for chronic pain, and each defendant's role in causing 2 17-2361-A-000789 health care providers to prescribe opioids to treat thronic pah Although the defendants initially stated that they intended to comply with the subpoenas, they subsequently refused to do so, citing their objection to the OAG's retention of Cohen Milstein to assist in the investigation on a contingency fee basis. in October, the State moved to enforce the administrative subpoenas. The defendants answered the Statess.complaint and counterclaimed that the OAG's enga.gernent of outside counsel is unlawful,. In addition., the defendants moved for a protective orders seeking to'bar the Attorney General from engaging contingent fee counsel to;(a) participate in or assume responsibility for any aspect of the States investigation of alleged violations of the CPA or (b) participate in or assume responsibility fer any subsequent enforcement action pertaining to alleged CPA violations.' The defendants argued that the GAO'S fee agreements with Cohen Milstein:(1) violate RSA 21.-G:22 and !23 (2012)(mended 2016);(2) violate New Hampshire common law;(3) are ultra vires because the OAG did not comply with RSA 7:12(2013)(amended 2016) or :64(Stipp, 2016);(4) violate the doctrine of separation of powers;(5) violate the New Hampshire :Rules of Professional Conduct; and (6) violate due process under the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions. The State replied, asserting that"an objection to the Attorney General's use of outside counsel is not an appropriate ju.stification for refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas* and that the defendants lack standing to raise that complaint at all in this proceeding? Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Slate's motion to enforce the subpoenas and granted the defendants motion for a protective order to the extent that the OAG and Cohen Milstein% contingency fee agreement is invalid,* The trial court determined that the defendants had demonstrated standing to bring their claims, Construing RSA 7:12 and 64,the court concluded that'In execwing the contingency fee agreement without the approval ofjoint legislative fiscal committee and the governor and council, , the OAG acted outside the scope of its statutory authority to hire and compensate outside counsel," and, therefore, the contingency fee agreement between the OAG and Cohen Milstein is ultra vires and void.' The trial court rejected the defendants' ethica violations arguments, finding that because Cohen Milstein is not a'public employee" under the Executive Branch Code of Ethics (Ethics Code),Ite, RSA 2140:21-27(2012) (amended 2016), or a "public attorney under the common law or the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct,the contingency foe arrangement 'does not create a conflict of interest.' The court also 'rejected the defendants' claim that the contingency fee arrangement violates their due process rights, agreeing with the greater weight ofjudicial precedent finding no violation of due process by contingency fee arrangements in certain civil litigation where the OAG supervises outside counsel and retains control over all critical 3 17-2361-A-000790 deeieions well that the outside counsel's personal interest is neutralized,' This appeal followed. 11 The State appeals the trial court's finding that the defendants have standing to make an ultra vires challenge to a government contract that they are not a party to and that is predicated upon the 10AG's) alleged failure to follow claimed state contract formalities," The State asserts that the defendants "failed to make the requisite showing of'actual harm." Further, the State argues that,"even if speculative risk did amount to a togniextble ham the [defendants] have failed to show the alleged risk of future harm is in any way linked to the challenged conduct--enamely the 0AG'a decision to enter into a contingency fee agreement without seeking approval from the fiscal committee or the [Governor and Council).' The defendants counter that the trial court "did not find standing based on any 'hypothetical* or 'future' harm," but correctly found that"the contingency-fee agreement presently taints the investigation in a manner adverse to them,"because the State's investigation of(them) is inherently biased by Cohen Milstein's conflict of interest,' (Quotations omitted.) in addition, the defendants argue that the trial court"properly found that this injury is personal to [them.) because they are the direct targets of subpoenas issued in an investigation that w . exceeds an executive agency's authority" (Quotations omitted.) When the relevant facts are not in dispute, we review de novo the trial court's determination on standing. Lynch v. Town of P am,.167 N.H. 14, 20 (2014), "IStanding under the New Hampshire Constitution requires parties to have personal legal or equitable rights that are adverse to one another, with regard to an actual, not hypothetical, dispute, which is capable ofjudicial redress!' Duncan v, State, 166 N.H.630,642-43(2014)(citations omitted). "In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue, we focus on whether the party suffered a. legal injury against which the law was designed to protect." O'Brien. v.. NIllfeeinocratic Party, 156 N1-1.w 138, 142(2014)(quotation omitted). Neither an °abstract interest in ensuring that the State Constitution is observed' nor an injury indistinguishable from a "generalized wrong allegedly suffered by the public at large' is sufficient to constitute a personal, concrete interest. Dungen, 166 N.H. at 643,646(quotation omitted). Rather, the party must show that its 'own. rights have been or will be directly affected,' Ebv v, ,Stat, 166 N.H. 321., 334(2014)(quotation omitted). "The requirement that a party demonstrate harm to maintain a legal challenge rests upon the constitutional principle that the judicial power ordinarily does not. include the power to issue advisory opinions.' Birch Broad. v> Capitol BroadeCorp, 161 N.H. 192, 199 (2010.) "The doctrine of standing 4 17-2361-A-000791 serves to prevent thejudicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.' O'Brien, 166 1‘1.1-1, at 144 (quotation. omitted), In light of this overriding-and time-honored concern about keeping the Judiciary's power within its proper constitutional sphere, we must put aside the natural urge to proceed. directly to the merits of an important dispute and to 'settle it for the sake of convenience. and efficiency,' Id,(quotation omitted), As a threshold matter, the defendants argue that standing principles do riot apply to them because 'standing applies only to a plaintiffs ability to initiate a lawsuit, not a defendants right to resist the claims against it,' According to the defendants, by bringing its action to enforce administrative subpoenas, the State affirmatively put at issue the propriety of its contingency-fee agreement with Cohen Milstein," and the defendants seek only to defend themselves in a proceeding initiated by the State as part of an ongoing State investigation.," We disagree. Contrary to their representations otherwise, the defendants are themselves seeking affirmative judicial relief unrelated to the adequacy of the subpoenas that were issued pursuant to the attorney general's statutory authority, The defendants counterclaimed against the State, seeking a protective order that'the Attorney General's engagement of outside counsel to conduct the Bureau's investigation on a contingency fee basis is void arid unlawful and that such outside counsel is prohibited from any participation in this investig.ation or any subsequent lawsuit arising from that investigation,' In doing so, the defendants raised several claims, including that the contingency fee agreement is pito. vires, Under these circumstances, the defendants must establish standing to Hurcirrian, 655 raise their claims. See, e.R., Federal Deposit his. Coro. v. F, Supp, 259, 265-69(ED. Cal, 1987)(reasoning that, in a ease in which the defendant raised, as an affirmative defense, a claim that the Federal Deposit Insurance Company's actions were ultra vires,Itlhere appears to be no reason in logic not to require a defendant who seeks to litigate the lawfulness of the government's conduct in such a context to demonstrate its right to obtain judicial determination of its contention" and concluding that because "defendant raises a true affirmative defense seeking to litigate questions not encompassed by plaintiffs case-in-chief,' defendant needed to show standing to raise its claim); United States v, lies% 10 F. Supp, 2d 1113, 1116(D,N.D. 1998){explaining that lijn raising an affirmative defense, a. defendant is seeking the jurisdiction of the court to hear its claims as much as a plaintiff and, therefore, standing becomes an issue for the defendant as well% other grounds, 235 F.3d 415 f8th Cir, 2000). We conclude that the defendants have failed to demonstrate standing with respect to their claims that the contingency fee agreement between the OAG end Cohen Milstein is ultra vires under RSA 7:12, 1, and :6-f. Thus, we hold that the trial court's contrary determination is erroneous. 17-2361-A-000792 RSA 7:12, I, provides that"Hith the approval of the joint 14slative fiscal committee and the governor and council, the attorney general may employ counsel, • .and may pay them reasonable compensation < out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, The defendants contend that the trial court correctly determined that they are injured "because the Statess investigation of(them]is inherently biased by Cohen Milstein's conflict of interest.' (Quotation omitted.) However, the bias claimed has nothing to do with the alleged violation of the statute, The defendants concede that, even if the contingency fee agreement had been ratified by the joint legislative fiscai committee and the Governor and Council, their injury would not be alleviated. Because the alleged injury — an investigation allegedly inherently biased by Cohen Milstein's participation — cannot fairly be traced to the challenged violation — the States failure to obtain legislative and executive approval. before retaining outside counsel on a contingency fee basis — the defendants have not established an actual, not hypothetical, dispute which is capable ofjudicial redress." Duncan, 166 N.H. at 64243(citation omitted); Leg. °Brim, 166 N.H. at 14445(concluding that when plaintiff conceded that he had not sustained an injury attributable to the purported statutory violation, plaintiff failed to establish standing). We, likewise, conclude that the defendants lack standing, at this time, to challenge the contingency fee agreement based upon RSA 7:64. RSA 764 provides in part that "fairly funds received by the attorney general on behalf of the state or its citizens as a result of any. < < action under [the CPA) . shall be deposited in a consumer protection escrow account? The defendants assert that this provision prohibits the OAO from retaining Cohen Milstein on a contingency fee basis 'regardless of any approvals the(OAO)seeks." However, as the State argues, RSA 7:6-f"only comes into play—if at all—after a CPA settlement or judgment? Further, as the State ntends, there may never be one in this case, We agree. Any alleged violation of the statute is neither actual nor imminent, See Duncan, 166 N.H. at 642; see alsoJ4v<, Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 111 The defendants cross-appeal the trial court's finding that the fee agreement between the OAG and Cohen Milstein does not violate the Ethics Code. Following oral argument, we requested the parties to address whether the Ethics Code provides a private right of action. After considering the parties* memoranda, we conclude, that it does not. The determination of whether the defendants have standing to sue under the Ethics Code "is a matter of statutory construction,' O'Brien, 166 N.1-1, at 142(quotation omitted). The interpretation and application of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo. Id, In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiters of the legislature's intent. as 6 17-2361-A-000793 expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole, lel, When interpreting statutes, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id, Our goal in to apply statutes in light of the legislature's intent in enacting them and in light of the policy sought to be advanced by the entire statutoly scheme, The Ethics Code provides that leixecutive branch officials shall avoid conflicts of interest' and 'thall not participate in any matter in which they. . have a private interest which may directly or indirectly affect or influence the performance of their duties,' RSA 21-CV22, In addition, no executive branch (disclose or use confidential or privileged information acquired official shall in the performance of his or her duties for the state for personal benefit or for financial gain," RSA 21-Ci23, I. An "executive branch official* includes a. "[Auk& employee defined as'any person, including but not limited to a classified or non-classified employee or volunteer, who conducts state business on behalf of the governors any executive branch official, agency, or the general court RSA 15-3:2,IX (2012)(amended 2016). The Ethics Code establishes an executive branch ethics committee to resolve < issues, questions, or complaints involving executive branch officials who are not classified employees.' RSA 21-G:29, I 2c112)(amended 2016). The committee is authorized to 'issue interpretive rulings exPlainir4 and within the jurisdiction of the committee.' RSA 21-C1:30, clarifying any law I(b){2012)(amended 2016), The jurisdiction, of the committee 'shall consist of matters arising under the executive branch code of ethics, RSA 21-Ci21-27 RSA 21-G:2%11 (Supp, 2015)(amended 2016). The committee is also authorized to "(receive sworn complaints,investigate allegations of violations of this subdivision .by executive branch officials and make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect to such conduct,' RSA 21-030, WI)(2012)(amended 201). There is nothing in the ethics Code to support a conclusion that the legislature intended to create a private right of action for its violalion. Accordingly, we hold that the defendants do not have standing to bring claims under the Ethics Code. See Berry v. Watchtower Biblc a,Tract Soc., 152 11,1-1. 407, 411 (2005)(explaining that child abuse reporting statute does not give rise to a civil remedy for its violation); is v.. mil, 148 H. 485,487(2002) (concluding that the Right to Privacy Act does not create a private right of action to seek a declaration that the statute has been violated),, The defendants also argue that the contingency-fee agreement violates longstanding New Hampshire common law and ethics. (Capitalization and bolding omitted.) They assert that [w)hen a private lawyer represents the State in a matter in which the lawyer has a personal interest, that interest compromises the Impartiality'required of all government lawyers arid creates at least the appearance ofimpropriety." The trial court found that 7 17-2361-A-000794 'Cohen Milstein is not a public attorney under common law or the Ruies of Professional. Conduct and rejected the defendants'claims to the contrary because they are "based on the premise that Cohen Milstein is vested with a governmental function said in a position of pub& trust where its financial stake will create a conflict of interest that will negatively impact the public trust and the fair administration of the law.° Under the plain terrns of the agreement between the OAG and Cohen Milstein., the OAO retains direct authority over all aspects of the investigation, The September agreement provides that the OAG "will maintain control of the investigation and „ make all key decisions, inclu.ding whether and how to proceed with litigation, which claims to advance and what relief to seek' The agreement further provides that Cohen Milstein must'provide regular reports to [the] OAO on the investigation, including summaries of documents and interviews," that the OAG "will review and approve all key documents,' and "will designate a point of contact who will supervise the investigation? When the investigation has been completed, the °AO "will determin.e, in its sole discretion, whether to move forward to litigation." Given these plain terms, we has hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that"Cohen Milstein the lacks therefore and decisions tion key administra no authority to make any ability to represent the State. as a substitute for the OAG,' IV Finally, the defendants cross-appeal the trial court's finding that because the contingency fee agreement provides for the OAG to retain ultimate control over the investigation, the agreement does not violate due process. They argue that the United States Supreme Court"has categorically barred any arrangement that could undermine a government lawyer's duty to pursue justice over personal interest.' in support, the defendants rely upon Ifecrt,a,rmy,, United States.x ris Vuitton et Pils S. A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987), and Marsh411 v, Jerrie°, Inc>, 446 U.S. 238 11980). These cases, however, are not pertinent to the issues before us, go Y., tsaLgsi 481 'U.S. at 804 (explaining that in a criminal case,'a private attorney appointed to prosecute a criminal contempt should be as disinterested as a public prosecutor who undertakes such a prosecution"); Musing 446 U.S. at 239, 248-49 (in rejecting the contention that the penalties provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act violated due process "by creating an. impermissible risk of bias in the Act's enforcement and administration,' the Court held that the "rigid requirements of[neutrality], designed for officials performing judicial or quasi.judicial functions, are not. applicable to those acting in a prosecutorial or plaintiff-like capacity. As the appealing parties with respect to this issue, the defendants have the burden of demonstrating reversible error, giallo v. Trains., 166 N.H. 737, 740(2014). Eased upon our review of the trial court's order, the defendants' challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we 17-2361-A-000795 conclude that the defendants have not demonstrated reversible ertnr as to this issue. Reversed and remanded, HICKS, CONBOY,and LYNN,JJ„ concurred. 9 17-2361-A-000796 wttatL! s c. . mjmr ...... •49956666,././ Prom Sant To: Attachments: Pak:la Penney Wednesday, August OS, 2017418 PM 'Andraw.J.Kosseuk@evp,avp,gta, Higttes1 Oftoe over VAP 1946 -2010 ,• GnWar than US(2,0),pdt lets make a deattnif From Secretsry Gardner 17-2361-A-000797 New Hampshire Turnout Greater than US.Turnout Votes for President as % of Voting Age Population (VAP) 1948 2016 """"""1- U.S, N.H. PreTurnout: Turnout Turnout dental Highest Highest greater Election Office/ Office/ than U.S. Year VA? VAP Turnout (%) (%) 50.6% 63-fr>nk.-,z,,m.,tdexriton-if.34eismn-mhittit,214144 17-2361-A-000805 8R417 tIoxe to Roots so Ekotoo !A 7U.wtoo pot..moo mowto Louisiana,New Jersey,Virginia and Pf°Tutsylvaiaia), No sooner did a team of bewildered delivmmert roll the 250-pound device into a conference room near Appel's cramped, third-floor office than the professm set to work. He summoned a graduate student named Alex Haldeman,who could pick the machine's lock in seven secondL Clutching a screwdriver, he deftly wedged outthe four ROM chip they weren't soldered into the circuit board,as sense might dictate—nuking it simple to replace them with one of his own: Aversion of modified firmware that could throw offthe machine's results,subtly altering the tally ofvotes, never to betray a hint to the voter. The attack was concluded in minutes. To mark the achievement,his student snapped a photo ofAppal-- bong features, messy black locks and a salt-and-pepper befaxl—grinning for the camera.,fita still on the circuit board,asifto look directly into the eyes ofthe American taxpayer: Don'tlook at me— you're the one who poidfor this thing, Appel's mischief might be called an occupational asset: He is part ofa diligent corps of sou:Lied cyber-acadernics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it, Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct ik,ecording Electronic,or DRE's-•took off in 2002,in the wake ofBush v. Gore,Per the ensuing is years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively tmsecure and vulnerable. Beginning in the late '9os,Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten,a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, marshaled their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy(where Felten is still director).There,they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another,transforming the center into a kind of Hall ofFame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man;infecting popular models with selfduplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on asy,Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph,D„ students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter oftime,they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack. The revelation this month that a cyberattack on the DNCis the handiwork of Russian state security personnel has set offalarm bells across the country: Some officials have suggested that 2o16 could see more serious efforts to interfere directly with the American election, The DNC hack,in a way,has compelled the public to ask the precise question the Princeton group hoped they'd have asked earlier, hack when they were turning voting machines into arcade games:Ifmotivatedprogrammers could pub a stunt like this,couldn't they tinker with the results irt November through the machines we use to vote? hhohomwsiftwaramaloweittowygoluoti.1014-emitoti,fuvo-hsteotivi444tvacimtwom4ft•wen.mwd**214144 17-2361-A-000806 4120/7 1-feedg. Veawl In I MIttafts Kuno° This week,the notion has been ttansfomied from an implausible plotiine in a Philip K Dick novel into a deadly serious threat,outlined in detail by a raft ofgovernment security officials. This isn't a crazy hypothetical any ore says Dan Wallach,one ofthe FeltenAppel alums and now a computer sciente professor at Rice.'Once you bring nation states' cyber activity into the game?'Re snorts with pity."These machines they barely work in a filemity environment," ADVERTISING irtRead invwted by Teads The powers that be seem duly convinced. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson term investments we need to make in. the cybersccurity of recently conceded the Ion our election process." A.statement by 32 security luminaries at the Aspen Institute issued a public statement:"Our electoral process could be a target for reckless ibreigri governments and terrorist groups," Declared Wired:'America's Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets?' For the Princeton group,its precisely the alarm it has been trying to sound for most ofthe new millennium.'Look,we could see ts years ago that this would be perfectly possible," Appel tells me,speaking in subdued,clipped tones."les well within the capabilities of a country as sophisticated as Russia,'He pauses for a moment,as ifto consider this. 'Actually,it's well within the capabilities of much less well-funded and sophisticated attackers." In the uproar over the ONC,observers have been quick to point out the obviousz There is no singular national body that regulates the security or even execution of what happens on Election Day,and there never has been.Ifs a process regulated state by state.Technical standards for voting are devised by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Election Assistance Commission—which was limed after the disputed 2000 presidential eledion that hinged on faulty ballots—but the guidelines are voluntary.(For three years the EAClimped on without confirmed commissioners—an EA.0 commissioner stepped down in 2oos,calling its work a'charade).Policy on voting is decided by each state and,in some cases,each county—a system illustrated vividly by the trench warfare of voter IDIsm that pockmark the country. In total, more than 8,onojurisdictions ofvarying size and authority administer the country's elections, almost entirely at the hands of art army of middle-age volunteers. Some would say such a system cries out for security standards. Ifsuch standards come to fruition, it will be the Princeton group—the young Ph.D.'s who have since moved,on to appointments and professorships around the country—and their igp:Ii.vAsoapedtikz.owangigeximhttoniiMISVIMISseibm.tris4t..1sAikm.10ww-its4mk,ork-isIrsalim*smorl•rdwin.21.4144 17-2361-A-000807 V 4e Iktrtztes POUTICO Mignine contemporaries in the computer science world who suddenly matter. The Princ.eton group has: a simple message:: Thatthe machines that Americans use at the polls are less secure than the iPhones they use to navigate their way there. They've seen the skeletons of code inside electronic wting's digital closet, and they've mastered the equipment's vultaerabilities perhaps better than anyone(a contention the voting machine companies contest,of course),They insist the elections could be vulnerable at myriad strike points,among them the software that aggregates the precinct:vote totals, and the voter registration mils that are increasingly digitized. But the threat, the eyber experts say,starts With the. machines that tally the votes and crucially keep a record ofthem—or,in some cases,doet. Since their peak around nooy, voting districts have begun to rely less on the digital voting machines—a step in the right direction, as states bolt for the door on whatthe programmers describe as a bungled,$4 billion experiment, Instead,rushing to install paper backups,sell offthe machines and replace them with optical scanners—in some cases, ban them permanently for posterity, But the big picture,like everything in this insular world,is complicated. As the number of machines dwindle—occasioned by aging equipment„ vintage-era software that now lacks tech support, years without new study by the computer scientists, and a public sense that the risk has passed—the opportunities for interference may temporarily spike. Hundreds of digital-only precincts still remain,a significant portion ofthem in swing states that will decided the presidency in November. And,as the Princeton group warns,they become less secure with each passing year. 44* In American politics,an onlooker might observe that hacking an election has been less ofa threat than a tradition. Ballot stuffing famously plagued statewide and some federal elections well into the aoth century. Huey Long was famously caught rigging the vote in 1932. Sixteen years later,1948 saw the infamous'Lyndon Landslide,'in which Johnson mysteriously overcame a 20,000 vote deficit in his flrst Senate race,a miracle that Robert Cam reports was the almost certain result ofvote rigging. But even an marl ed election can go haywire, as the nation learned in horror during the Florida recount in 2000,when a mind-numbingly manual process ofcounting the ballots left a mystery as to which boxes voters had punched—giving the nation the'hanging clad," and weeks ofuncertainty about who won the presidency. In some ways,the country's response was suggestive ofthe real crime committed in Florida: Notinaccuracy, but anxiety. Congress's solution was to pass the Help America Vote httmgoompaigaca4,7n0407.*414gy120100V201*-010:7:itcroMnliZotsk-im44-Nitit.01-3k4Vaal-irl,ftven.rrftlft^2t 144 17-2361-A-000808 .40 4114$20.17 11t&aial8-eittgftwrtmtit4t(4tow-tzt-Ittoa.attreleottoiri-vootwnits:br441A4144 17-2361-A-000811 7a1 OW207 f-kpac to Hock an Modkm inI MintOss POLSTO)klageairm Thelatter hack was the result of a curious and enigmatic email, when Felten received a message from an anonymous source, presumably with ties to the voting machine industry. Dieboles response to the Rubin and Wallach study was brittle and evasive; the source wanted to give Felten a Diebold TS machine—the same one whose code had leaked irx the study.Studying the machine itselfwould offer an unmissahle opportunity—Felten put his grad students,Feldman and Halderman,then aa years old, in charge ofthe effort. One night in April 2o06,Halderman drove to New York City,and double-parked his car,lights blinking,in front ofa hoteljust a few blocks from Times Square. Haldemanjogged into an alleyway, where his sourcestood patiently, dressed in a charcoal colored trench coat and wielding a black canvas bag. After a few terse formalities, he handed ialderman the bag with the machine inside. Halderman never saw the man again.("There's a lot of cloak and dagger in election security,' Haldeman would tell me later.) Throughout the summer of 2oo6,Feldman and Halderman set themselves to work in the basement of an academic building. Fearing retribution or a lawsuit,they didn't tell their colleagues in the department oftheir project. From noon until midnight,the two students met on the humid Princeton quad,and decamped to a claustrophobic,eggshell anteroom enough space for a small table and two uncomfortable foldout chairs—and pored through reams ofcode and programming under the fluorescent lighting ofthe windowless room,At the center ofthe table was the subject of years of mystery:The squat, beige monitor ofthe Diebold IS.The authors would later describe the project as the first rigorous analysis of a physical touch-screen DRE—supposedly the kind of testing it would have received in one of the accredited labs. When they were finished,they had another paper's worth offindings,and the most comprehensive understanding ofhow Diebolcl'a machines worked."We found the machine did not have any security mechanisms beyond what you'd find on a typical home PC,' Haldeman told me."R was vety easy to hack? Studying with Felten, Halderman had learned a key phrase--"Defense in Depth," meant to describe a system with various rings of security,. Halderman joked that the model should more aptly be called "Vulnerability in Depth,"so numerous were the entry points they discovered. Later,they found the key that opened the Diebold ActuVote TS was a standard corporate model,reproduced for minibars and other locks,available online,'When their report revealed this detail,a commonplace reader found a picture ofthe key,filed down a blank from ACE Hardware and sent a copy to Feldman and Haldeman as a souvenir(who then tested the key—it worked).That year, to percent ofregistered voters alone used the AccuVote TS to vote, ateraweeeprAtittaxWmanageottayarataalala‘eadions.nnuri4-iutiehoweeeadeto.oleatieralMmegIanawieeellat44 17-2361-A-000812 Bi1At2017 tim to Ektuitto irt Mratttao poinco Mogatkso None of these breakthroughs were lost on states that had bought the -machines,officials who were keeping an eye on academic reports. Felten would later write that the vulnerabilities in the Diebold machine they tested likely could not be rectified without folly redesigning the machine; but the solution for state officials was simple. If they could include a paper trail—a voter-verified paper receipt that printed alongside the digital vote the electronic tally could,in theory, be cross-tested for accuracy.In December 2001 Nevada became the first state to mandate that voter verified printouts be -used with digital touch screens. A wave ofstates followed. But the tipping point came in 2tx)6,wberi a major congressional race between Vem Buchanan and Christine Jennings in Florida's 13th District imploded over the vote counts in Sarasota County—where 11.8,00o votes from paperless machines essentially went missing (technically deemed an"wide-vote')in a race decided by less than 400 votes. Felten drew an immediate connection to the primary suspect The ES&S iVotronic machine,one ofthe many ordered in Pennsylvania after they deployed their I-IAVA funds.Shortly after the debacle,Governor Charlie Crist announced a deadline for paper backups in every county in Florida that year; Maryland Governor Bob Erlich urged his state's voters to cast an absentee ballot rather than put their bands on a digital touch screen—practically an unprecedented measure. By 2°07,the tonal screens were so unpopular that two senators, Bill Nelson ofFlorida and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, had introduced legislation banning digital touch screensin time for the 2012 election. Precincts today that vote with an optical scan machine another form ofDRE that reads a bubble tally on a large card—tend not to have this problem;simply by filling it out,you've generated the receipt yourself. But that dot..4aft mean the results can't stilt be tampered with,and Felten's students began writing papers that advised election officials on defending their auditing procedures from attempted manipulation. Each state bears the scars ofits own story with digital touch screens—a parabola of havoc and mismanagement that has been the 15-year nightmare ofstate and local officials. The touch screens peaked in 2ooti,touching nearly 40 percent of registered voters; in 2016, most voters will use some combination of paper,optical scan or paper backup.In 20i3, Maryland sped up its wind-down process,. pushing through a transition to optical scans for use in the 2016 election.So did Virginia, which has rushed to phase out as many as possible in time for 2ot6—and later passed legislation to ban them permanently by 2020,just for good measure. The Virginia ban was the quixotic crusade of one computer science expert in the private sector, Jeremy Epstein.In 2002,Epstein walked into the elections office in Fahfax, httplArmoOldosttetWiEgpOriettttityttaigtWattift-ofoottom-mgritt4mtk•too-Itt4seit-tsooletikot•lo-votonfoOguittto414I 17-2361-A-000813 tin412017 Einaonin 7 htlisafts A MUTICC:* Magnims Virginia,to complain about the poor design ofthe touch screens—a WINVote model—and walked out with a mission to get them barred from the state.The machines were connected to Wi-Fi—vulnerable to "anyone who wanted to could hack them from the comfort oftheir car out in the parking lot,' Epstein told me,. An investigation later revealed that the WINVote's encryption key was"abcde."The machines were certified in 2003,running on a version ofWindows from 2002,and hadn't received an update since fenos, Thirteen years later, Virginia announced its ban. Ifthese machines and elections weren't hacked,'Epstein later told me,.a credo he's said for years,'it was only because no one tried. f10.44- In 2001,the notion of foreign vote hacking felt like a far-fetched warning from a far-off time—it would be years,for instance, before North Korean agents would hack a company like Sony,or the Chinese would break into the federal government's personnel files. Citizen activists who had exposed the Diebold code leak andjoined the counterrefortnation for paper ballots were concerned,but primarily about dome.stie hacking. Liberals tended to see the corporate voting machine companies as a threat to fair elections. Conservatives tended to see the incompetence of poorly designed machines as a threat to normalcy. Today, Halderman reminds me, the notion that a foreign state might try to interfere in American politics via some kind of cyber-attack is not far-fetched anymore.' The Princeton group has no shortage of things that keep them up at night. Among possible targets,foreign hackers could attack the state and county computers that aggregate the precinct totals on election night—machines that are technically supposed to remain nonnetworked, but that Appel thinks are likely connected to the Internet,even aceidentally, from time to time,They could attack digitized voter registration databases—an increasingly utilized tool, especially in Ohio,, where their problems are mounting—erasing voters'names from the polls(a measure that would either cause voters to walk away,or overload the provisional ballot system).They could infect software at the point of development, writing malicious ballot definition files that companies distribute,or do the same on a software patch.They could FedEx false software to a county clerk's offite and, with the right letterhead and convincing cover letter, get it Installed. Ifa county clerk has the wrong laptop connected to the Internet at the wrong time,that could be a wide enough entry window for an attack. "No county clerk anywhere in the United States has the ability to defend themselves against advanced persistent threats,"'Wallach tas me,using the parlance ofindustry for highly ett.ize~:peatt>n,teniNesgetneatiriratMefile,otottexo-metIti-ttatIehow-Wer-k.stelaegdotelseuw1Armsowtt-at4144 17-2361-A-000814 af1412017 *Aim litok DectIon 41 I Mom& parr= hivrarso motivated backers who lay low and stick around for A while.'Wallach painted an unseemly picture,in which a seasoned cyber warrior overseas squared offagainsta septuagenarian volunteer.In th.e same way,'continues Wallach,'you would not expect your local police department to be able to repel a foreign military power?' It it No county clerk anywhere in the United States has the ability IP IP to defend themselves against advanced persistent threats.s' In the academic research,backs of the machines are far more pervasive; digitized voting registrations or tabulation software are not to years old and running on Windows 2ocio, unlike the machines. Still, they present risks of their own.'There are still plenty of computers involved wen without digital touch screens,says.Appel."Eves with optical scan voting,it's notjust the voting machines themselves—it's the desktop and laptop computers that election officials use to prepare the ballots,prepare the electronic files from the OpScan machines, panel voter registration,electronic poll books, And the computers that aggregate the results together from all ofthe optical scans." Ifany of those get hacked,it could could significantly disrupt the election? The digital touch screens,even with voter vetilied paper trail, will still be pervasive this eketion; 28 states keep them in use to some degree,including Ohio and Florida,though inere.asingly in limited settings. Pam Smith, the director of Verified Voting—a group that tracks the use of voting equipment. by precinct in granular detail—isn't sure how many digital touch screens are left; no one I spoke with seemed to know. Nor is it clear where they'll be deployed,a decision left up to county administrators. Smith confirms that after 2007,the number of states that adopted the machines plateaued,and has finally begun to shrink The number ofstates using paperless touch screens—and nothing else—isfive: South Carolina,Georgia,Louisiana,New Jersey and Delaware. But the number ofstates with a significant number of counties with the easily hacked machines is much larger, at 13, including Indiana,'Virginia,and Pennsylvania.For hacking purposes,there's little difference: In a close election,only a few predacts with papetiess touch screens would be required to deflate vote totals,says Appel.,even if the majority of counties are still in the Stone Age. Many ofFelten's mad-scientist experiments were designed to metastasize the nefarious code once it gained entry into a machine system. The move away from electronic voting is a positive one,the professors say; the best option for election security arethe optical scans.'Although the optical scan ballots are counted by tgtpww,peahz.mranwpsemittor$42016iDeMeig-elitaktm-malo-h00-1m4cAs4k-swthwAcm-111.4304mn-ratows,ZAtiM 17-2361-A-000815 W14j2017 Hew t Hatk 94ctites trt 7 M1rtuzess FsCcMCO M.;80,080 the computer in the OpScan machine—which you can't trust you can trust the pile of ballots that accumulate in the ballot box, marked by users with their own hands,'Appel tells me. With the right auditing policies,'you can recount or do a statistical sample ofthe ballot boxes to make sure there aren't cheating computers out.there," State policymakers listened.In 2000,less than 30 percent of voters used the optical scanning system. In 2012,56 percent did. But in the interim,the touch-screen machines are still in place; their dwindling percentage of votes has not necessarily diminished the risk of an attack,the professors say. In some ways,it's heightened it—turning the issue of easpto-tarnper touch screens from a bell.carve problem to a hockey-stick graph,in which a small number of machines generate a high amount ofrisk, The machines that are left are often rtirtning on vintage Windows software from the late'905 or early 2000$,some of which haslong surpassed its support date.'They're probably about exactly as vulnerable as they were to years ago," Appel tells me.°And they still gettheir program out ofthe same ROM.' A study released by the Brennan Center last September,titled "Voting Machines at Risk* reached 3similar condusion.In 20* 43 states will use machines that are at least to years old;at states,suggested a serious need for new voting machines. Larry Norden,the report's author,said everything from software support, replacement parts and screen calibration were at risk; he pointed me to a YouTube video ofa precinct in West Virginia, where voters* finger pressure on the screen selected an entirely different candidate,or caused the machine to go haywire(a symptom of the glue behind the screen loosening, Norden says). The HAW< money,says Wallach, was spent very quickly after 2002;'And it is not coming back,"he adds. Aslate as mit,a team at the Argonne National Laboratory ofthe Department of Energy revisited the Diebold TSX,five years after the Princeton group's report. Its conclusion; With $26 worth of parts and an eighth-grade understanding ofcomputers,virtually anyone variant of the mode/ that Feldman and lialderrnan procured in the could tamper with Times Square alleyway. Five years later, cyber experts tell me that little has changed in voter cybersecurity.The Diebold TSX model is slated to be used in 20 statesin 2016, includiug Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and Colorado. State officials recognize that digital touch screens are headed out the do.rand the professors are quick to remind me of how government contracts work: When profit projections fall, upkeep suffers."The level of security confidence when it comes to these voting machines is much lower than the sort ofindustry standard--the level ofsecurity you'd expectfrom top companies like Gongle,Facebook, Apple. I mean,your iPhone is tsilportftpolowocrronagettliatistwO1M241/6-eftft416-414.404$-iumk-htsv-to-r40(4"14641011Art-werwrdovles-214144 17-2361-A-000816 't-vz 8414/2.017 Htm .i.ot* Onerion Waft%-POUTICO Mapene probably much more secure than most ofthese voting machines,'says An Feldman,one of Felten's acolytes and now a professor at the University of Chicago.,"I think the level of technological competence ofthe people who work on these very popular commercial services and devices isjust higher than those who these small voting machine manufacturers can attract." No one doubts that the companies take security seriously, But the approach to security shared hythe manufacturers and election officials seem to hinge on the idea that hacking a school board vote would hejust too boring for anyone talented enough to pull off, You would be hard pressed to find an example ofour voting systems ever being hacked in a real election environment,as opposed to that ofa hack attempt inside of a laboratory environment in which zero real world physical election processes are utilized," writes Kathy Rogers,a spokesperson with MS,in an email,and correctly so--it's never been proven that an election was deliberately hacked."We feel very confident in the security ofour voting systetrui—especially when you combine that security with the physical security,chain ofcustody,legal requirements and masses of pre-election testing," She added,"We are not suffering from sleepless nights worrying about whether our voting systems might be hacked." A Virginia election official with decades of experience concurred,speaking to me on background, *I know that when some of the academics have hacked a machine,they've bad unfettered access for an indefinite period oftime the election official said,describing this as an unrealistic precondition. But one ofthe security thresholds isn't that it will be sitting In a public location here so anyone can have unfettered access for any in-depth period of time He demurred when I brought up Felten's tradition ofstalking the unguarded machines;he added, Only people who have been authorized,sworn to uphold the process —they can have administrator access to these, 'It's old school,f realize that,'he continued."But it is the system in place.' In the event ofa state-sponsored attack—however unlikely—can old school match wits? The adversary, more than one member ofthe Princeton group pointed out, may be more practiced than we know A June zot4 report linked Russian bankers to an attempt to alter the election outcomes in Ukraine, by targeting the computerized aggregation software—one ofthe attacks Appel fears, How different is Kiev from Gary,Indiana? As is the case in cyberattacks—at least in the examples ofStuxnet and Sony—it's never quite plausible, until it is. Hackers this year have hV:W.woonfoo,unronvsoggioW3kw4,42011gOalankRionart-tutzio,kmiOm-044,444KInseuska-ill-weiwerkam2I4144 17-2361-A-000817 aliA12017 -Insl$ H4oK fiTitottcn In 7Wm** MUM,hi3asplairso targeted voter registration rolls in Illinois and possibly Arixona,another attack highlighted by the Prineeton alums. But most identified Pennsylvania as the greatest concern.There,according to Verified Voting 47 counties of67 vote on digital voting machines without a written backup record if something were to go awry---a reality that is very much on the minds of state officials (legislation is working its way through the House to examine the issue of voting modernization.)In Pittsburgh and Philadelphia—two Democratic strongholds whose turnout typically decide the fate of the stabes outcome—around 900,000 voters will cast ballots entirely on paperless tottehscreens DREs,if previous elections are any guide.Then, at least from the voters* perspective, they will disappear into a sea ofones and zeroes. Montgomery County,a crucial Democratic redoubt in the suburbs of Philadelphia—an area sometimes seen as having the potential to swing the entire state—is one such loc.aiity that uses a paperless electronic machine,and only one machine,for all 425 precincts:. Appel's Sequoia AVC Advantage. "We are very,very confident in our machines,"Val Arkoosh, the vice chair of the MontgomeryCounty Board ofCommissioners,tells me,She spoke with the staccato fervency and granular detail ofsomeone who is thinking about this issue,and has been asked before. Yet when I asked her about Appel's hack and the Princeton group,next door across the Delaware River,she appeared not to have heard of it. She assured me their system is secure:"We program each of our machines individually—they're never connected to are Internet,'and an internal hard drive'mates a permanent record each time that a vote is cast." Atthe end ofthe day,kkoosh said, the vote is transcribed on a thermal tape, the machines are closed to lock,the information is transferred to a standalone server that tallies the results.'She describes the officials guarding the polling place,and adds for emphasis:It would be extraordinarily difficult for someone to do something like that during the course ofElection Day." I asked lialderman to red-tearn Arkoosh's answer."It's positive that they have procedures in place to cross-check that the counts produced by each machine match the tabulated results, Haldeman wrote to me in an email."However,none of that provides any defense against the kinds of attacks Andrew Appel wrote about,or the return-oriented programming attacks." He added, An attacker with access to the administration system that's used to program the memory cartridges before the election could use ROP to distribute malicious code to all the machines? roplAvwxpote.mzftweigkovizobryrniggeoltkiktom-runw.momxtirpitsget.swooaggwo-saven.mirkuteat.414144 17-2361-A-000818 0114120/ Km to Nooc.an&sac:min Minulea-POUT= m4w3.-4ine "I can say that this is definitely a concern," says Kelly Green,the director of Voting Services in Montgomery County, who cow-dinned to describe effolts and conversations across Pennsylvania to improve the voting system, As a state issue, Green continued,'What I can tell you is, we've put it on the agenda.* *** What would he the political motivation for a state-sponsored attack? In the case of Russia hacking the Democrats,the conventional wisdom would appear that IN/Lwow would like to see President Donald Trump strolling the Kremlin on a state visit. But the programmers also point out that other states may be leery.'China has a huge amountto lose. They would never dare do something like that,"says Wallach, who recently finished up a term with the Air Forces science advisory hoard.Still, statistical threat assessment isn't about likelihoods,they insist; it's about anticipating unlikelihood. The good news is that Wallach thinks we'd smell something fishy,and fairly fast:If tampering happens, we will find it But you need to have a'then-what"If you detect electronic tampering,then what?* No one has a straight answer,except for a uniform agreement on one thing:chaos that would make 2000 look like child's play.("frump aping about"rigged elections' before the vote is even underway has certainly not helped,)The programmers suggest we ought to allow, for the purposes ofimagination, the prospect ofa nationwide recount. Both sides would accuse the other ofcorruption and sponsoring the attack And the political response to the country oforigin would prove equally difficult—the White House is reported to be gauging how hest to respond to the MCattack,a question that. poses no obvious answers, What does an Election Day cyherstrike warrant? Cruise missile,s? The easiest and ostensibly cheapest defense—attaching a voter-verified paper receipt to every digital touch screen—presents its own problem. It assumes states audit procedures are robust. According to Pam Smith at Verified Voting,over 20 states have auditing systems that are inadequate—not using sufficient sample sizes, or auditing under only certain parameters that could be outfoxed by a sophisticated attack—states that include Virginia, Indiana and Iowa. But relying on paper trails also assumes voters understand their importance.. Many may simply discard the paper on the way out without giving it glance,or leave it hanging in the machine printer. Optical scanning machiries are far and away the first choice ofthe programmers—as the Princeton group analogizes,they don't require receipts, they we the receipts—and states M#.01464000111.immetattingtXkleigtdra4MagOle-entim3Ams4',Atiga..iitnx•UOmex-m-efindoz**-in-wsven-mipain-MixA 17-2361-A-000819 an4arr7 How to Klink Eigodim Pliro.4o payrno matmout are increasingly ditching touch screens in favor ofthem,But the optical scans are still DIM models—we simply push paper,rather than push buttons.Jeremy Epstein,the Virginia computer scientist who ted the charge against the WINVote system,points out that digital touch screens and optical seaming machines have something in common.:'Whether We an optical scanner or a DRE,the votes still get totaled on a memory card.And at the end ofthe election, you put that memory card into a central card system,"Epstein tells me.'You could use it to infect the tabulator system,and once you infect the tabulator system,it could transmit on," Then there are tech advancements that make the computer scientists shudder:To a person, they each warned me about the public's new delusion, one strikingly reminiscent of the aftermath of Bush us Gore—Internet voting, As Halderman's work began to garner more attention, he sensed a new trend around the idea ofvoting online. With its lack of technical probity, an argument hanging entirely on convenience,and a stampede of purveyorsfrom for-profit cyber companies,Haldeman and others saw a facsimile ofthe voting machine companies they had sought to nutreinalisejust years earlier. Yet elected officials found appeal In many ofthe saute arguments."In this world,we do so many things now online," Appel says,explaining the popularity of the idea,'You're banking online. You order coffee online.Somebody who's used to living so much oftheir life online will wonder why we're not voting online." But Appel,and the others,share a categorical warning:It would be a disaster," be tells me. "Anyone could hack in. The Russians,the North Koreans,anyone who wishes.' Like the voting machine companies,Internet voting services—mostly purveying their software in private or corporate elections--largely resist subjecting their work to public trig That changed when,in 2010,the District ofColumbia announced itsintention to launch a citywide Internet voting platform,intended for overseas voters and a milestone for the concept. Just a month before the midterm elections in November,the District conducted a test drive. It's not every day,ofcourse,that you're invited to hack into government computers without going to jail,'Halderman says, muffling a giggle. We didn't want to let this opportunity, to have this be a realistic simulation ofan attack,go to waste." On October 1,2010,two employees in the Washington, D.C.-based Office ofthe Chief Technology Officer,stormed down a hallway and charged through the double-doors that opened into the basement-floor server room. Earlier that day,they had learned strange news:Someone had called into the hotline to report a bog on the board's paperless ballot system.The program seemed to play obnoxious brass-band musk each time subjects .Ittozaviksxmlitice,mtrointguinelotolf120,410$12016-40aniinns-figrsiikunktorop=4:410-iia-gtottinn-in-wons•roiniihrt-214144 17-2361-A-000820 WPM?' Moro to Kink iglrs il.'",}e4lion En 7 tAtuett°i PsMille0 Wgziginvs submitted their ballot. The names on the ballots had all been changed to villainous robots: Bender for State Board of r?.,ducation (from Futuranza); Hal 9000 for Council Chairman (from 2001:A Space Odyssey).Then they learned that the hackers were likely watching them on the closed-circuit circuit feed, through the camera that was gazing down at them, right now. Some 520 miles away,the scene played on a screen in the hacker's cramped headquarters. A whiteboard behind the computer declared a series of instructions in brown and purple marker,each skewered with a squiggly strike-through,followed by a perfunctory checkmariu'Replace old ballots." Check.'Steal temp ballots, Check,"Rig to replace new ballots.' Check.The hackers exchanged high-fives in adulation. And when the D.C.tech officers' faces appeared on the screen, Ales Haldeman peered back, Halderman,now a professor at the University of Michigan, had not lost his mentors'taste for the dramatic. He hadjust pulled the most flamboyant hack in the short history ofthe Princeton group. lialderman was called before the D.C. Council, where he got to make the speech he wanted before a captive audience,who were forced to endure this barely 3o-yearold's transported lecture seminar on the dangers ofInternet voting, Haldeman shared a private, unreleased video with me that he took from the night ofthe attack, a project he launched with the help of two graduate students,each barely out of college.. In the video,the team huddles around Halderman's small, beechwood office table, assuming a crouch in a strange amen offurious typing. Hours pass as afternoon tips into evening.Finally, a brown-haired student, Eric,slouched and raccoon-eyed, bolts upright; 'Oh my God,"he murmurs,"I have a shell."'We'reinr shouts his hionde-haired compatriot,rubbing bis hands.The furious typing resumes. fialderman explained that the student had used a technique called Shell Injection Vulnerability. He found a single, wayward quotation mark in the code,a crack in the floorboard through which they drove a tractor-trailer ofattack commands. Huldermares attack is now well-known in the world ofelections administration;the Virginia election official Ispoke with seemed doubtful that Internet voting could ever take off,eking the conventional view that the risks are too great.'Whether or not Internet voting happens,and whether we will introduce these new risks—I don't know," he says. "I'm not holding my breath." Internet voting companies have the same incentives as voting tech conglomerates to convince the public they're worth their mettle; as in the ease of HAVA,there would likely be tinxibiNto.soi*mooti*ArnInolarrial WOOfkgaoSotivAleall2ittiewovaintion•In.uvw-oihmos414 17-2361-A-000824 MI. 80 , 420i7 fic.* Hulk Elea0Afn1,132"Im -• POLITICA!) Megazint, office chair, sunlight pouring through his westward window,"We sit around all day and write research papers. But the people are full.titne exploiters. They're the professionals. We're the anlateurs,,' moiwympoatimmifoomonooyinism=le4ottioA$•mals.twk-ilow404404ft.OokliovAroo.mitlut43414144 17-2361-A-000825 Mai Ronald L Krvest Page of3 thographical Intormation Ronald L Rivest: Biographical Information of Professor Rivest an MIT lnstitnie,Professor, His home department is the Department Electrical En...ineering and Computer Science. He is a member of Ars Cm-gamer Scierice and Artificial Intelli -.,erret Laboratory(C-SAILI,a Member of the lab's The rv ofComputation Orono and is a leader of its Cryptography _andlitfortnatioti SecWitY Group, Professor Rivest has current =search intmests in etyptography,computer and network security, voting systems, and algorithms. Ihi the past.he has also worked extensivety in the area of machine lear.aing, Profe.ssor Rivest is a co-author(with Professors Cormen, Leiserson,and Stein)ofthe we known text Introduction to Algorithms,published by MIT Press Over 500,000 copies ofthis text have been sold, It has been translatell into 12 languages. Professor Wryest is an inventor ofthe RSA public-key. tryptosystern, He has extensive experience in cryptographic. design and cryptanaiysis, and ha.s published numerous papers in these areas, He has semed as a Director of the Interrational Association for Cryprologic Research,the organizing body for the Eumcrypt and Crypt° conferences,and as a Director ofthe Financial Cryptography A4sociation, He is a founder of RSA Data Security,((SA was bought by Security Dynamics;the combined company was renamed to RA Security, and later purchased by Etvic), and is also a coibunder ofyje and ofPeppereoln, Professor Rivest is a member ofthe tIglyggi___Liltsa '„If.,.,oingitelpology„Projecr. He has served on the Tehrica Guidelines Development Committee(TODC),advisory to the Election Assistance Commission,developing recommendations for voting system certification standards; he was chair of the TOM'S Computer Secuity and Transparence Subcommittee. He also serves on the Advisory Board ofthe Verified Voting Foundation, He is a member of a Scantegrity tem developing and testing voting systems that are verifiable "end-to-cod." Professor Rivest is a member ofthe Center for F,`...ierice ofintbrniation. Education Professor Rivest grew up in Niskayuna,New York, where he attend public schools. He graduated from Niskayuna High School in 1965. Professor Rivest received a A.in Mathematics from Yak University in 1969. He received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stanford University in 1974; his research supervisor was Professor Robert Floyd. He also worked closely with Professor Donald Knuth,David Klarner, and Vasa ChvMal, He was a post-doe at INRIA in Roequeneourt, France for the academic year 197344, Professional Societies Pmfessor Rivest is a member of the following professional societies http://peopievcsail.miteduirivestibio.html 17-2361-A-000826 8/14/2017 Konen:* L.KEME thograptneal intormanon Page 2 of3 • A.AAS(Arnericart Academy of Arts and Sciences) Became a member of the AAAS in 1993, t ACM(Assoeiation for Computing Machinery) Named a Fellow ofthe ACM in 1993, .1ACR (International As ciation for Cryptologic Research) Natml a Fellow ofthe IACR in 2004. .IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) • NAE(National Academy of Engineering) Became a member in 1990.. NAS(National Academy ofScience) Became a member in 2004. Awards Professor Rivest has received the following awards 2017 EVN Award for Election Integrity Research Excellence - EPIC Champions of Freedom Award 2016 EFFPer Award(as co-author of"Keys Under Doormats'paper) 201S - 2015 JD Fatk Award from the Messaging Malware Mobile An Abuse Working Group (MMAWG) as co-author of"Keys Under Doormats" report) ETH Zurich ABZ Platinum Gold Medal for Computer Science and Computer Science Education 24 ISSA (Information Systems Security Association) Halt of Fame Award Doctorate of Mathematics(hottoris causa), University of Waterloo - 2013-14 FIKN (Beta Theta Chapter of Eta Kappa Nu)Teaching Award 2013 - Listed in 35 Ilest,Comonm,gvuttv erofemmpf2013 2)12 - National Cyber Security Hall of Fame Award 2011 - RSA 2031 COrtference Lifetime Achievement Award (with A. Shamir arid L. Adleman) 2010 - Killian Faculty Achievement Award from MIT 2009 NEC C&C Prize(with A,Shamir and L. Adleman) 2008 - An honorary doctorate (the doctorw how,* masa)from the Louvain School ofEngineering at the Universite Cathoitque de Louvain(UM). Burgess and Elizabeth Jamieson Award from MIT EECS Dept, 2007 - Computers, Freedom and Privacy (...sotiference "Distinguished Innovator" award 2005 MITX Lifetime Achievement Award - Marconi Prize hrtp://people.csail,rnitseduirivestMolttni 17-2361-A-000827 8/1412017 Ronald L Rivet Biographical Information Page 3 of 3 2002 the 2002 ACM Turing Award (with A. Shamir and L. AdkM5119 - Laura How:Iris Canso, University of we La Sapienza 200 - TEM Koji Kobayashi Computers and Communications Award (with A,Shamir and L, Adlernan) - Secure Computing Lifetime Achievement Award (with A.Shamir and L, Adlernan) 1997 - ACM Paris Kanellakis Theory aild Practice Award 1996 - National Computer Systems Security Award 1991 AAAS Fellow(American Association for the Advancement ofScieince) Advisory Boards Professor Riven serves on the following advisoty bawds. EPIC Advisory Board (Electronic Privacy Information Center) Verifteti. Voting Foundation Board Return to Ron alyttatamoja, httylipeople,esail,mit.eduirivestihioshired 17-2361-A-000828 8114/2017 [NO nordic ..10 ,1`13.4.3S.343 tr.43,K grW. % Ofterte5*.*X41.1Y 4:14 3430 litesf 34 335.0.3033.33.333033.3 u3anste :'.1*.x.W 31,1 trle. 31.1 0.14.0 Wens!**11301ionsems*.:1.3:334...41.33334341d 4**334 fintans.03.4443a3Siceatewse.. Vor:, , ,ss?.174 ?31r4..Xs 'Wag ?ismssommi sanzenx se* WO ”*4 .**3e*Ri. Srst 4SWSX ta~mg/ Mung 5.40.$.013.4 W*VrIsMitr,r.IVKA*0* swigtom protrims Ho:4 OP,C•kiii £t5C3 w0:0 ,t, 4Niva*Ific VreffM *Xlegy Harri Hursti 143.04.43 Ve4.3033 4* 1 no*30 asnar3nese.1333*.3*13.3 3634.330 Wen.* ono**et *en 403.33* sem%*men a*N3413 333*.*;2 abr.? *AN;Mannar at... 3:4*it T3..43.33314 <43.t***OW. .3340.33,33.0 34.K134§.* 0:3*.4333433*23334, f... toe w;•••1. SA33334434 $0313:33 3*** s*:443 'Awn t51/.& Nf 3 MeSii4 deZdk Ad1 40.-1.18 oaluwe mai NO,We* terMeit8:**44.4t44:r ow> Aeon 4.034 M.;stis4v s tswe.AtUuos ammi by F.. **Net r.4 £1, 43.4 ge.ennotesne sr3*?i Um.*33. in nes itany 4414.3 *ster 00 , 33.4;s alive.4044.3, MI *LOU <0*Nt.st4. 4aaninss Vogni,* nem.* 5:oryis.:e Awoztv riSPS4F, 3..W.0 aix; f...14egatea* se 33.Oa**33:1 Meal a 344.43.3.04* FmM-sd a.r4 ;%4EN41.0s 21CWIZdt.'¢ Oca•cs3 Caa'artsmelon. 3.33-43 Itk>d It'd'AMA The AFAMAkesMEMM CAMVPAMM. IYA'4,*6 A.AMAMNI, AU **kV ted. iANAS 4.:•^Atid1Z:11,M 310.::trattatit Wat...*413. Wa:30V.Nt'acklt; g is2,14, 0433**IM 3.4.1MWM1Alfdt.VMICMAff AMU:MO te***we.* .33 30*330143e0.4**4 434 0 1.3 fs:griV 4Pfft<00/0. 0:oygfto aro-ao:wy v4$ sou140: afiiirskoal 0.4s14itkoal IsalkAaa ft.ealk oenea‘o vat:3044.01.3133.0.33134* aGti :1334 1.:W3 Monday, September 11, 2017 7:34 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan; David Dunn Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP; Passantino, Stefan C. EOP/WHO; Gast, Scott F. EOP/WHO Tomorrow's Meeting RESERVED COMM PARKINGPERMIT.PDF Dear Members, Welcome to New Hampshire! Here are a few details for tomorrow's meeting. Please try to arrive at St. Anselm's by 8:00 a.m. The address is 8 St. AnseIm Drive, Manchester, NH 03102. The Institute's auditorium is near the corner of St. AnseIm Drive and Rockland Avenue. Parking is limited, so please make every effort to use cabs, other public transportation, or carpool. I have attached a parking pass for those who will be driving. If you do not have the ability to print this parking pass, please call me or Ron Williams (Ron's cell is 202.881.7807) when you arrive and we can bring one out to you. As a reminder, the Commission continues to voluntarily comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which states the commission must hold a public meeting if members are going to "deliberat[e] on ... substantive matters," such as what final recommendations the Commission might provide in its report. However, FACA allows discussion of the following without requiring an open meeting: Preparatory work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for a meeting of the advisory committee, or to draft position papers for deliberation by the advisory committee; and Administrative work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to discuss administrative matters of the advisory committee or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency. Please be cognizant of this framework when interacting with other commissioners before, after, or between open sessions of the Commission. We want to ensure any substantive deliberations occur in the open meeting itself. Again,for your reference, meeting materials are posted here: httos://www.whitehouse.gov/Dresidentialadvisorv-commission-election-integritv-resources. If you have any questions or concerns, please call. Thanks, Andrew 17-2361-A-000841 Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000842 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, September 8, 2017 6:21 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan; David Dunn Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP; Passantino, Stefan C. EOP/WHO; Gast, Scott F. EOP/WHO RE: Meeting Materials for September 12th If anyone did not receive my email below due to the large file sizes, the meeting materials are now posted here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity-resources. Please check to confirm that any materials you plan to present or distribute at the meeting are posted here. If you have any questions,just let me know. Thanks again, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:15 PM To:'Kris Kobach' < >; 'cwlawson@sos.in.gov' ; C risty McCormick' ; Mark Rhodes' ;'von Spakovsky, Hans' ;'Christian Adams' ;' atthew.dunla maine. ov' ;'King, Alan' ;' Cc: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP ; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP ; Passantino, Stefan C. EOP/WHO ; Gast, Scott F. EOP/WHO Subject: Meeting Materials for September 12th Members, Attached are materials for next week's meeting. My apologies for the large file sizes. We are in the process of posting these materials on our webpage for public viewing. I will let you know once they are available there. 17-2361-A-000843 Many thanks to all of you for your hard work and flexibility on the timeline for submitting these materials. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000844 From: chipkate Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 4:47 PM To: Subject: Agenda for Sept. 12th Meeting.pdf Attachments: Untitled attachment 07602.txt; Agenda for Sept. 12th Meeting.pdf Sem from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy an artphone 17-2361-A-000845 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday,September 6, 2017 2:54 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; ;Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matt ew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan; David Dunn Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Updated Agenda Agenda for Sept. 12th Meeting.pdf Please see the attached updated agenda. The only change is the addition of former Gov. John H. Sununu, who will welcome the Commission at the start of the meeting. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000846 From: chipkate Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1:00 PM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: time later today? Attachments: Untitled attachment 07306.txt; Untitled attachment 07309.txt; Untitled attachment 07312.htm; Untitled attachment 07315.txt Hi Andrew, I will call you tonight as soon as I can after my court hearing,. Bill Sent fmn my Verizon„ Samsung Galaxy smartplione 17-2361-A-000847 From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday,September 6, 2017 12:14 PM time later today? Hi Bill, Do you have time later today to connect with Mark and me? We wanted to touch base on a couple things. We should be free after 4:30. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000848 From: Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 8:33 AM To: dayidmscanlan111.111. Subject: Fwd: RE: ethics reminder regarding teaching, speaking, and writing Attachments: Untitled attachment 07293.txt; Untitled attachment 07296.txt; Untitled attachment 07299.htm; Untitled attachment 07302.txt; Agenda for Sept. 12th Meeting.pdf Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000849 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, September 5, 2017 7:38 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy ar o es; von Spakovsky, ans; ris ianearns; an ing; ma ew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan; David Dunn Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP RE: ethics reminder regarding teaching, speaking, and writing Agenda for Sept. 12th Meeting.pdf Dear Members, The agenda for next week's meeting is attached. We plan to post this publicly tomorrow. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000850 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:42 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP; Baykan, Deniz M. EOP/OVP ethics reminder regarding teaching, speaking, and writing Members, I want to remind you of the ethics rules that govern teaching, speaking, and writing while serving on the Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity. During your appointment, you may continue to receive fees, Honoria, and other compensation for teaching, speaking, and writing undertaken in your personal capacity on topics that are not directly related to your position as a Special Government Employee. However, you may not receive fees, Honoria, and other compensation for teaching, speaking, and writing that specifically focuses on the Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity itself. If you use your government position as one of several biographical details given to introduce yourself in connection with your personal teaching, speaking, or writing, and the subject deals in significant part with the Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity (i.e., voting processes and voting integrity), you MUST use a disclaimer (at the beginning of your speech or prominently placed for written material), stating, "The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or positions of the White House,the Trump Administration, or the U.S. Government." If you are asked to speak on behalf of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity, please contact me first and our office will coordinate directly with WH Communications. I am also sharing a link to the presentation from GSA's ethics attorneys, which we would encourage you to review from time to time as a refresher: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/PACEI-GSAEthics-Summary.pdf. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000851 From: Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 11:20 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: draft agenda Attachments: Untitled attachment 07280.txt; Untitled attachment 07283.txt; Untitled attachment 07286.htm; Untitled attachment 07289.txt (10 minutes) Demonstration of New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 - Thaire Bryant, polling place moderator for the Town of Eaton, N.H. - T. Patrick Hines, polling place moderator for the Town of Windsor, N.H. Sent from my Verizon, Smsung Galaxy an artphone 17-2361-A-000852 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, September 1, 2017 6:29 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; hristy McCormic ar R o es; von Spakovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan; David Dunn Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Updates Dear Members, A couple quick updates. First, we anticipate sending you a proposed agenda this Tuesday. As I've discussed with each of you, we have a fairly full agenda with a number of distinguished panelists. There will be time for Q&A after each panel, as well as a discussion period towards the end of the meeting, but we do not anticipate allocating time for opening statements from each of the members so there's no need for you to prepare opening remarks. By way of follow up to Vice Chair Kobach's letter, we would like to request that you please make every effort to submit any written materials that you plan to share at the meeting by Thursday, September 7th by 6:00 p.m. This will ensure that we can provide all of the materials, including the presenters materials, to you by Friday so that you can adequate time to review the material before our meeting. It will also help ensure that we are able to post everything on our webpage prior to our meeting so that the public is also able to review all material before the meeting This would include any presentations, reports, or similar written materials for the meeting. If you have any concerns with this timing, please call me any time to discuss further. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Hope you all have a great Labor Day weekend! Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000853 From: Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 8:03 AM To: acamann@anselnn.edu Subject: Fwd: draft agenda Attachments: Untitled attachment 07267.txt; Untitled attachment 07270.txt; Untitled attachment 07273.htm; Untitled attachment 07276.txt; raft Agenda 2nd Meeting_8.31.17.docx Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000854 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:42 PM chipkate@aol.com Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP draft agenda raft Agenda 2nd Meeting_8.31.17.docx Secretary Gardner, Attached is a draft agenda for the 12th. We consider this a work in progress, so please feel free to suggest edits. Look forward to discussing once you've had a chance to review. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000855 From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:56 PM FW: Secretary William Gardner Secretary Gardner — FYI from Judge King, below. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.KossackPomemgov From: King, Alan [mailto:kinga@jccal.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:43 PM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: Secretary William Gardner Andrew, I cannot find Secretary Gardner's email on the distribution list, sent on August 25, 2017, for the September 12,2017 meeting. I know you and all the personnel in the Vice President's office are tremendously busy, but I wonder if this email can be forwarded to Secretary Gardner. Mr. Secretary, I regret that I will be unable to attend the September 12 meeting in your beautiful state. I informed Mr. Kossack in late July/early August that I had a conflict with September 11-12. We are obviously dealing here with 13-15 very busy people who are pulled in many different directions each week, so I full well understand that it is likely not possible to accommodate everyone's schedule. I will miss the experience of travelling to New Hampshire which will definitely be my loss. Sincerely, Alan Alan L. King,Judge ofProbate Chief Election Official Jefferson County Courthouse,Room 120 716 Itichard Anton Jr. Blvd. North Birmingham,AL 35203 .jefkoprobatecourt.com (205)325.5203 fart(205)2141056 17-2361-A-000856 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:13 AM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Cc: hristy ark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov; King, Alan Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials Vice Chair Kobach letter re meeting material deadline.pdf; Litigation Hold (13.5 MB) Subject: Attachments: Dear Members, Please see the attached letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding the submission of meeting materials for the September 12th meeting. Also, attached as a reminder is the litigation hold letter from August 7th. Please review this letter and ensure you are preserving materials accordingly. As always, if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000857 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:40 PM Kris Kobach; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP RE:[Embargoed until 9:00 a.m. ET Friday 8/25] - Meeting Announcement Press Release - Kobach-Gardner - Sept. PACEI Meeting.pdf Attached is an updated release reflecting today's date. Feel free to push this out today any time after 3:30 p.m. Eastern (without an embargo). Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:25 AM To:'Kris Kobach' Cc: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Subject:[Embargoed until 9:00 a.m. ET Friday 8/25] - Meeting Announcement Secretaries Kobach and Gardner, Please see the attached press release. This is embargoed until 9:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow (8/25). Feel free to release it to anyone you'd like after that time. If you share it in advance, please note that it is embargoed until then. I am going to send a brief email to the other members soon informing them that the meeting with be in New Hampshire and providing instructions for booking travel arrangements. If you have any questions or concerns,just let me know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000858 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:03 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; hristy McCorrnic Mar R o es; von SpakovskY, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP September Meeting - 9/12 in Manchester, New Hampshire Cc: Subject: Dear Members, Thank you for holding September 12th for our next meeting, and for your patience as we worked through some logistical details. I am excited to share that Secretary Gardner has kindly offered to host the Commission in New Hampshire at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday, September 12th, and we expect to finish no later than 4:00 p.m. Please feel free to proceed with making your travel arrangements. As a reminder, here are the instructions for booking travel through GSA's travel services: Booking Travel to New Hampshire Instructions Members or their support staff who have established traveler accounts with GSA can call the travel agent directly to book their travel. ADTRAV (GSA travel agent): 877-472-6716, available 24/7 Key Information when calling the travel agent: • ADTRAV will recognize members by first and last name and agency--which is the General Services Administration (GSA)for the purposes of this travel. . Have a personal credit card available--hotel will be booked using a personal card. Members can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed up to the maximum per diem rate for Manchester, NH ($108/night)(keep hotel receipts) . The committee has budgeted for travel for up to 3 days per member between 9/11 and 9/13. Arrangements should be made within those parameters. • Members (or their staff) should tell the agent the traveler's date of birth if making airline reservations. This is a requirement in order for tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow federal regulations governing travel. Key points: . Hotel: Max lodging per diem rate reimbursed for Manchester, NH in September: $108(keep hotel receipts--reimbursed up to $108. Lodging taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) The travel agent can help members find rooms at or below per diem. . Airfare: Must use coach class and the contract carrier fare (booked by travel agent) o Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified--e.g., Timing of contract fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive . Meals & Incidental Expenses (MI&E): reimbursed $64 per day for Manchester; $48 on first & last day of travel (no receipts needed, reimbursed $64 for full day and $48 for first and last day of travel) . Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses • Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee--e.g., to/from airport, to/from committee meetings (keep receipts) • Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. All other approved travel expenses (hotel; MI&E; taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subsequently be reimbursed. Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completion of the travel. If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't 17-2361-A-000859 hesitate to have the members'staff reach out to Valerie VVhittington or Kris Palmer. valerie.whittinoton@gsa.gov - 202-501-3395 kris.palmerOgsa.gov - 202-501-0525 We will share more information about the meeting and agenda soon. If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000860 From: Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:32 AM To: Subject: Fwd:[Embargoed until 9:00 a.m. ET Friday 8/25] - Meeting Announcement Attachments: Untitled attachment 07585.txt; Untitled attachment 07588.txt; Untitled attachment 07591.htm; Untitled attachment 07594.txt; Press Release - Kobach-Gardner - Sept. PACEI Meeting.pdf Sent front my Verizon. Samsung Galaxy sm artpitone 17-2361-A-000861 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:25 AM Kris Kobach; chipkate@aol.com Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP [Embargoed until 9:00 a.m. ET Friday 8/25] - Meeting Announcement Press Release - Kobach-Gardner - Sept. PACEI Meeting.pdf Secretaries Kobach and Gardner, Please see the attached press release. This is embargoed until 9:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow (8/25). Feel free to release it to anyone you'd like after that time. If you share it in advance, please note that it is embargoed until then. I am going to send a brief email to the other members soon informing them that the meeting with be in New Hampshire and providing instructions for booking travel arrangements. If you have any questions or concerns,just let me know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000862 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:17 AM Adrian S. LaRochelle chipkate@aol.com; Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP FW: Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity Upload Link Good morning Adrian, We just wanted to remind you that the secure link we provided on August 18 will expire tomorrow. The link is only active for 7 days. Please let us know if you anticipate submitting your state's data by tomorrow before the link expires. If not, our IT Team can re-issue you the link. Thanks, Ron From: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity [mailto:electionintegritystaff@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 7:17 AM To: adrian.larochelle@sos.nh.gov Cc: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Subject: Presidential Advisory Committee on Election Integrity Upload Link Thank you for your response. Below you will find the link to safely and securely upload your state's data to meet the request. Once your files have been uploaded, the link will no longer be accessible. Individual files may not exceed 2 GB. If you have questions, please email ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov. https://electionintegrity.whitehouse.govi?id=RYFVWYC738FWDQR6 17-2361-A-000863 From: Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:03 AM To: ericforcier Subject: Fwd: draft release for september meeting Attachments: Untitled attachment 07254.txt; Untitled attachment 07257.txt; Untitled attachment 07260.htm; Untitled attachment 07263.txt; draft kobach-gardner release for september meeting.docx Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000864 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:33 PM Adrian S. LaRochelle contact information Hi Secretary Gardner, Can you please provide us with the contact information for Ron Rivest, Andrew Appel, and Harry Hursti? We would like to reach out to them this week. Thank you, Ron Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: MEM Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000865 From: Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 10:17 AM To: dayidmscanlan Subject: Fwd: draft release for september meeting Attachments: Untitled attachment 07241.txt; Untitled attachment 07244.txt; Untitled attachment 07247.htm; Untitled attachment 07250.txt; draft kobach-gardner release for september meeting.docx Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone: 17-2361-A-000866 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Monday, August 21, 2017 9:01 AM Adrian S. LaRochelle RE: voter registration data - secure link Perfect! Thanks, Ron Original Message From: Adrian S. LaRochelle [mailto:Adrian.LaRochelle@SOS.NH.GOV] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 9:00 AM To: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Cc: Subject: RE: voter registration data - secure link Ron, I did receive the link. Thank you very much. I will let you know if we have any questions. Regards, Adrian LaRochelle Staff Attorney N.H. Department of State From: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP [Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:54 AM To: Adrian S. LaRochelle Cc: Subject: voter registration data - secure link Good morning Adrian - hope you had a great weekend! I just wanted to follow-up with you and confirm that on Friday you received the secure link to upload your state's voter registration data. Keep in mind that the link is only active for 7 days. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you, Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000867 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Adrian S. LaRochelle Monday, August 21, 2017 9:00 AM P/OVP iiiiiiiiie RE: voter registration data - secure link Ron, I did receive the link. Thank you very much. I will let you know if we have any questions. Regards, Adrian LaRochelle Staff Attorney N.H. Department of State From: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP [Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:54 AM To: Adrian S. LaRochelle Cc: Subject: voter registration data - secure link Good morning Adrian - hope you had a great weekend! I just wanted to follow-up with you and confirm that on Friday you received the secure link to upload your state's voter registration data. Keep in mind that the link is only active for 7 days. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you, Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000868 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Monday, August 21, 2017 8:54 AM Adrian S. LaRochelle voter registration data - secure link Good morning Adrian - hope you had a great weekend! I just wanted to follow-up with you and confirm that on Friday you received the secure link to upload your state's voter registration data. Keep in mind that the link is only active for 7 days. If you have any questions,feel free to contact me. Thank you, Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000869 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, August 18, 2017 5:49 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; hristy c ormic ar o es; von pakovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King; matthew.dunlap@maine.gov Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP please HOLD for next meeting Dear Members, Please mark your calendars for Tuesday, September 12th for our next meeting. You'll likely want to plan to travel the afternoon/evening of the 11th. We'll be back in touch early next week with additional details. Thanks for your patience as we lock down all the logistics. If you have any questions or concerns at this point, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell Email: n rew. . ossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000870 From: Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 10:42 AM To: acamann@anselnn.edu Subject: Fwd: draft release for september meeting Attachments: Untitled attachment 07228.txt; Untitled attachment 07231.txt; Untitled attachment 07234.htm; Untitled attachment 07237.txt; draft kobach-gardner release for september meeting.docx Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000871 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday,August 17 2017 6:19 PM Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP draft release for september meeting draft kobach-gardner release for september meeting.docx Secretary Gardner, Attached is a draft release announcing the September meeting. We thought it might make sense for this to come from both you and Secretary Kobach. I shared this with Kris and asked for his feedback as well, so I'll let you know when I hear back. Feel free to change this as you see fit; I intend it only as a starting point. If you'd like to discuss, feel free to call anytime. I'll try to catch you at some point tomorrow. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000872 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Adrian S. LaRochelle Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:16 PM 'FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff' RE: Instructions for Secure Submission Ron, I have received your emails but not the link or instructions for uploading the data. Let me know if there is anything I need to do on my end. Thanks, Adrian LaRochelle Staff Attorney N.H. Department of State Original Message From: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff [mailto:ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:14 AM To: Adrian S. LaRochelle Cc: Subject: RE: Instructions for Secure Submission Good morning Adrian, I am following up with on whether you received from our IT Team the secure link for uploading your state's voter registration data. And second, Secretary Gardner provided us names of possible witnesses for the upcoming meeting. If you could provide us with the contact information (including e-mail and cell phone)for Andy Smith and Rhodes Cook that would be great. We would like to reach out to them today. Many thanks in advance and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Warm regards, Ron Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Adrian S. LaRochelle [mailto:Adrian.LaRochelle@SOS.NH.GOV] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:22 PM To: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff 17-2361-A-000873 Subject: Instructions for Secure Submission Ron, My name is Adrian LaRochelle and I work in the New Hampshire Secretary of State's Office. I wanted to reach out to discuss the tool for secure transmission of New Hampshire's response to the Commission's request for information under New Hampshire's right to know law. I am about to head out of the office but if you could give me a call tomorrow morning to discuss this I would appreciate it. The best way to reach me would be to call my colleague Eric Forcier at(603) 271-1466 and he can conference me in. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Adrian LaRochelle Staff Attorney N.H. Department of State 17-2361-A-000874 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:14 AM Adrian S. LaRochelle RE: Instructions for Secure Submission Good morning Adrian, I am following up with on whether you received from our IT Team the secure link for uploading your state's voter registration data. And second, Secretary Gardner provided us names of possible witnesses for the upcoming meeting. If you could provide us with the contact information (including e-mail and cell phone)for Andy Smith and Rhodes Cook that would be great. We would like to reach out to them today. Many thanks in advance and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Warm regards, Ron Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov Original Message From: Adrian S. LaRochelle [mailto:Adrian.LaRochelle@SOS.NH.GOV] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:22 PM To: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Subject: Instructions for Secure Submission Ron, My name is Adrian LaRochelle and I work in the New Hampshire Secretary of State's Office. I wanted to reach out to discuss the tool for secure transmission of New Hampshire's response to the Commission's request for information under New Hampshire's right to know law. I am about to head out of the office but if you could give me a call tomorrow morning to discuss this I would appreciate it. The best way to reach me would be to call my colleague Eric Forcier at(603) 271-1466 and he can conference me in. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Adrian LaRochelle Staff Attorney N.H. Department of State 17-2361-A-000875 From: Sent: To: Subject: Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP Monday, August 14, 2017 3:58 PM New Hampshire voter registration data - proposed experts - recent Gallup poll on voter fraud Good afternoon Secretary Gardner, Thank you again for taking the time to speak with me this morning - and for providing us the names of the experts to be considered as speakers for the upcoming Commission meeting. Per our conversation this morning, if you could provide the 2 polls you referenced regarding voter confidence levels during the 2016 presidential election that would be great. I found 2 Washington Post articles that made mention of polls but wanted to make sure they were the ones that we discussed this morning. Also, can you provide us with the name of the POC for New Hampshire. We would like to provide you as soon as possible with the secure link to upload your state's voter registration data. I recall you mentioning this morning that you were working on getting the data to the Commission. Once we have the contact name for the POC we will provide him/her with the secure link to upload the data. As always it was great speaking with you. Your stories and knowledge and overall history of elections is fascinating! If you have any other questions or need to talk about anything, please feel free to contact me via email or on my cell. Best regards, Ronald E. Williams II Policy Advisor Office of the Vice President Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integirty Cell: Email: Rona .E.Wi iams@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000876 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:28 AM hristy Cc: Subject: McCormick; ark Rhodes; von Spakovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP; Baykan, Deniz M. EOP/OVP FW: Commission SGEs and the Hatch Act — Point of Clarification Dear Members, Please see the follow-up communication below from GSA legal regarding the Hatch Act. If you have any questions, please let me know. We are happy to provide you with any additional information or clarification you need. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director & Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Hi Andrew, This is a follow-up to our ethics briefing on July 19, 2017. I wanted to provide the members of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity (the "Commission") with additional information on the Hatch Act and clarify what "duty hours" for the Commission means since they are in a non-pay status. Under the Hatch Act, 5 C.F.R. § 734.601, Subpart F—Employees Who Work on An Irregular or Occasional Basis Employees,"[a] employee who works on an irregular or occasional basis or is a special Government employee..,is subject to the [Hatch Act] when he or she is on duty." The Hatch Act governs the political activities of federal employees, including special government employees. Political activity is defined as an activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group. For purposes of the Hatch Act, because the Commission members are special government employees and are not in a pay status,"on duty" means the hours each member performs government business (i.e., Commission business). A Commission members duty hours include, but are not limited to: 1) attendance at official meetings; 2) attendance at sub-committee meetings; 3) research performed on behalf of the Commission; and 4)the review of research/preparation to attend meetings. For example, "[a]n employee appointed to a special commission or task force who does not have a regular tour of duty may run as a partisan political candidate, but may actively campaign only when he or she is not on duty." 5 C.F.R. § 734.601. An example of "on duty" for Commission members is: a Commission member attends a committee meeting from 8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m., during this time the Commission member is prohibited from engaging in political activity, including but 17-2361-A-000877 not limited to sending a tweet about a candidate for partisan political office or send out emails asking for donations to his or her campaign for partisan political office. On the very same day, from 3:00 p.m. to 7 p.m., the Commission member is not prohibited from attending a political fundraiser and even soliciting political contributions from the attendees, because the event is not during the Commission member's duty hours. Please note that based on the heightened level of interest this Commission has received, to alleviate potential appearance concerns, when possible, Commission members may not want to engage in political activities on days where the Commission member has or will perform work on behalf of the Commission. Best Regards, Shana Shana T. Vinson Assistant General Counsel Ethics Law Staff- General Law Division U.S. General Services Administration CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments to this email message may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Please do not forward this message without permission. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return email and delete and destroy the original email message, any attachments thereto and all copies thereof. 17-2361-A-000878 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, July 21, 2017 4:18 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP letters from two states Public Official Responses Received July 14, 2017.pdf Please see the two attached letters we recently received from the Colorado and Wyoming secretaries of state. These will be added to our webpage soon as well. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Thanks, Andrew 17-2361-A-000879 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, July 20, 2017 5:24 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; ark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP travel reimbursements For those of you submitting travel expenses for reimbursement, please send them to Kris Palmer at GSA (kris.palmer@gsa.gov). Kris will process your receipts and the approved funds will be reimbursed into the account you provided in your EFT form. Please scan all of your receipts into a single document file and send them via email to kris.palmer@gsa.gov. According to GSA, when in doubt, you should err on the side of providing the receipt. Receipts are required for the following: • Hotel bill • Airport parking • Taxis/metro for travel to/from airport and committee meetings • Airline baggage fees If you have any questions,just let me know. Many thanks to each of you for your time and contributions to yesterday's meeting. It was a pleasure being with you and an inspiring kickoff. If you haven't seen it already, the full video is now posted here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/featured-videos/video/2017/07/19/presidential-advisory-commission-electionintegrity-part-2. Thanks, Andrew 17-2361-A-000880 From: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:03 PM To: ericforcier@=. Subject: Fwd: updated agenda; draft by-laws Attachments: Untitled attachment 07215.txt; Untitled attachment 07218.txt; Untitled attachment 07221.htm; Untitled attachment 07224.txt; draft PACEI By-Laws FINAL.PDF; Revised Agenda - Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ....pdf Sent front my Verizon. Samsung Galaxy sm artpitone 17-2361-A-000881 From: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:03 PM To: ericforcier@=. Subject: Fwd: updated agenda; draft by-laws Attachments: Untitled attachment 07202.txt; Untitled attachment 07205.txt; Untitled attachment 07208.htm; Untitled attachment 07211.txt; draft PACEI By-Laws FINAL.PDF; Revised Agenda - Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ....pdf Sent front my Verizon. Samsung Galaxy sm artpitone 17-2361-A-000882 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:19 PM 'Kris Kobach'• cwlawson sos.in. ov• hristy viark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Cc: Subject: Attachments: McCormick; Hans; Christian Adams; Alan L. King Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP updated agenda; draft by-laws draft PACEI By-Laws FINAL.PDF; Revised Agenda - Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ....pdf Dear Members, As you can see from the attached revised agenda,the schedule has been adjusted slightly to ensure we have sufficient time for the public meeting. The ceremonial swearing in will no longer happen at the public meeting. Instead, you will be sworn in following the required briefings in the morning and just prior to proceeding to the public meeting room. Vice Chair Kobach has asked me to send the attached draft set of by-laws for your review. During tomorrow's meeting, the Commission will adopt by-laws to govern the Commission's operations, and the Vice Chair thought it would be helpful to share with you his proposed draft by-laws. These by-laws were modeled after sample bylaws published by the General Services Administration on its website. If you plan to bring any documents with you tomorrow to distribute to the other members, please send me an electronic copy so that we can make copies for you here. Having the documents in advance will help us ensure we can make them available in a timely manner to the public on the webpage. Last thing: A scheduling note. The Vice President needs to depart the meeting at noon. Therefore, we ask that you limit your opening remarks to no more than five minutes each. We'll have more flexibility with timing during the discussion session after the break. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-000883 From: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:47 PM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: updates and requests Attachments: Untitled attachment 07189.txt; Untitled attachment 07192.txt; Untitled attachment 07195.htm; Untitled attachment 07198.txt No Sem from my .Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000884 Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:46 PM From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: FW: updates and requests EOP-Campus-Map.pdf Importance: High Secretary Gardner, Sorry to bug you, but have you had a chance to fill out the online form so we can get you through security? I just want to make sure we get you cleared. Here it is again: https://events.whitehouse.gov/form?rid=7GVJRFQ466. Thank you, sir! Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: n rew. . ossac @ovp.eop.gov From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Monday,July 17 2017 8:01 PM To:'Kris Kobach' 'cwlawson@sos.in.gov' ; 'Christy McCormick' ; 'Mark Rhodes' ;'von Spakovsky, Hans' ;'Christian Adams' ; Cc: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Subject: updates and requests Importance: High Dear Members, Thank you for your responsiveness over the last few days. We know travel and financial disclosure processes can be tedious, so we really appreciate your time and efforts to get them completed. I have a few updates and requests for you. 1. Please plan to arrive at the EEOB by 8:00 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday morning. This will give you time to get through security so we can begin the required pre-briefings at 8:30 a.m. Attached is a map of the EEOB campus. You'll want to enter at 17th and State Streets (at the Southwest Screening Facility). 2. So that we can clear you through security, please fill out the online form at the following link: https://events.whitehouse.gov/form?rid=7GVJRFQ466. Please be sure to enter your information exactly as it appears on your government-issued identification. If your information does not match, the Secret Service will 17-2361-A-000885 not grant you access. If you have any questions or trouble submitting your information through the hyperlink, just let me know. 3. If you are bringing any staff members or anyone else with you, please let me know as soon as possible. We'll want to ensure we get your guests cleared through security as well. I would plan on guests attending only the public session at 11:00 a.m. due to limited space in our morning briefing room. 4. I also want to draw your attention to the Commission's webpage, on which we've posted a number of documents and public comments. Again, the webpage is available here: https://www.whitehouse.goviblog/2017/07/13/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity. Public comments and other documents submitted to the Commission are available for your review here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity-resources. This page will be updated periodically, so please check back from time to time. 5. Ethics questions: Our ethics team needs your responses to the following questions. These will expedite review of your OGE 450 forms and help ensure you're cleared of conflicts by Wednesday's meeting. Please respond to this email to me only with a simple "no," if the answer to both question one and two is, in fact, no. Otherwise, please explain any affirmative answers. a. Do you own any stock or financial interest in public or private companies that manufacture voting machines, advise on voting procedures, or do any business that relates to the election process? b. Are you a member of or have a fiduciary relationship to a non-profit or profit-making organization whose focus is election integrity or voting processes? This question does not include state and federal governments. c. If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," please explain in detail your financial interest and/or association. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please call me anytime. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-000886 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Monday, July 17, 2017 8:01 PM 'Kris Kobach'• cwlawson@sos.in. ow hristy Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Cc: Subject: Attachments: McCormick; Hans; ChristianAdams; Alan L. King Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP updates and requests EOP-Campus-Map.pdf Importance: High Dear Members, Thank you for your responsiveness over the last few days. We know travel and financial disclosure processes can be tedious, so we really appreciate your time and efforts to get them completed. I have a few updates and requests for you. 1. Please plan to arrive at the EEOB by 8:00 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday morning. This will give you time to get through security so we can begin the required pre-briefings at 8:30 a.m. Attached is a map of the EEOB campus. You'll want to enter at 17th and State Streets (at the Southwest Screening Facility). 2. So that we can clear you through security, please fill out the online form at the following link: httbs://events.whitehouse.gov/form?rid=7GVJRFQ466. Please be sure to enter your information exactly as it appears on your government-issued identification. If your information does not match, the Secret Service will not grant you access. If you have any questions or trouble submitting your information through the hyperlink, just let me know. 3. If you are bringing any staff members or anyone else with you, please let me know as soon as possible. We'll want to ensure we get your guests cleared through security as well. I would plan on guests attending only the public session at 11:00 a.m. due to limited space in our morning briefing room. 4. I also want to draw your attention to the Commission's webpage, on which we've posted a number of documents and public comments. Again, the webpage is available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/07/13/presidentia I-advisory-commission-election-integrity. Public comments and other documents submitted to the Commission are available for your review here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integritv-resources. This page will be updated periodically, so please check back from time to time. 5. Ethics questions: Our ethics team needs your responses to the following questions. These will expedite review of your OGE 450 forms and help ensure you're cleared of conflicts by Wednesday's meeting. Please respond to this email to me only with a simple "no," if the answer to both question one and two is, in fact, no. Otherwise, please explain any affirmative answers. a. Do you own any stock or financial interest in public or private companies that manufacture voting machines, advise on voting procedures, or do any business that relates to the election process? b. Are you a member of or have a fiduciary relationship to a non-profit or profit-making organization whose focus is election integrity or voting processes? This question does not include state and federal governments. c. If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," please explain in detail your financial interest 17-2361-A-000887 and/or association. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please call me anytime. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-000888 From: Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 5:03 PM To: paula.penney@sos.nh.gov Subject: Fwd: RE: updates on July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements Attachments: Untitled attachment 07176.txt; Untitled attachment 07179.txt; Untitled attachment 07182.htm; Untitled attachment 07185.txt; Agenda for July 19, 2017 Initial Meeting.pdf Sent from my Verizon, Sanistmg Galaxy smaripinnie 17-2361-A-000889 From: Sent: To: Subject: Clift, McKenzie C. EOP/OVP Monday, July 17, 2017 12:12 PM Election Commission Interview Availability Secretary Gardner, There is great media interest in Wednesday's meeting of the Commission on Election Integrity. We'd like to have Commission members available to do TV and radio interviews both before and after the meeting. What is your availability on Wednesday to do TV or radio? Also, if you have time on Thursday, that would be good to know. We'll have someone from the White House TV and radio booking team reach out to coordinate if you are available. Thanks, McKenzie Clift Office of the Vice President 17-2361-A-000890 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, July 14, 2017 5:20 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; hristy R o es; von Spakovsky, Cc: Subject: Attachments: McCorrnic Hans; Christian Adams; King, Alan Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP RE: updates on July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements Agenda for July 19, 2017 Initial Meeting.pdf Please see the attached agenda for next week's public meeting. As you can see, we hope each of you will take about five minutes to introduce yourself and talk about your vision for your role on the commission. During the discussion portion of the meeting, there will be time to explore and decide what topics the commission will address. If you have any questions, please let me know. Andrew J. Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-000891 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Friday, July 14, 2017 10:43 AM 'Kris Kobach'• cwlawson@sos.in. ov• hristy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spakovsky, Hans; Christian Adams; King, Alan Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP FW: Travel Instructions - Members Can Begin Booking High Please see the below note from GSA with instructions for booking travel. I've highlighted the telephone number for the travel agent, which is available 24/7 to help you book. As a reminder on our schedule, please plan on being at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (just west of the White House) by about 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. Feel free to travel to D.C. on Tuesday and depart either later on Wednesday or anytime Thursday. We expect the meeting to adjourn by mid-afternoon. I will share a full agenda with you soon. If you have any questions or concerns, just let me know. Thanks, Andrew From: Jonathan Clinton - M [mailto:jonathan.clinton@gsa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Cc: Kris Palmer - M ; Valerie Whittington (M); elizabeth.cain@gsa.gov; Christine Courter - H1CT ; katherine_purucker@ovp.eop.gov Subject: Travel Instructions - Members Can Begin Booking Andrew -All traveling members' accounts have been established (with the exceptions of Ms. McCormick and Mr. Adams, who we understand are DC based). The members or their support staff can now call our travel agent directly to book their travel. ADTRAV (GSA travel agent): , available 24/7 Key Information when calling the travel agent: • ADTRAV will recognize members by first and last name and agency--which is the General Services Administration (GSA)for the purposes of this travel. • Have a personal credit card available--hotel will be booked using a personal card. Members can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed at the maximum per diem rate for DC ($172/night)(keep hotel receipts) • The committee has budgeted for travel for up to 3 days per member between 7/18 and 17-2361-A-000892 7/20. Arrangements should be made within those parameters. • Members (or their staff) should tell the agent the traveler's date of birth if making airline reservations. This is a requirement in order for tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow federal regulations governing travel. Key points: • Hotel: Max lodging per diem rate reimbursed for Washington, DC in July: $172 (keep hotel receipts--reimbursed for max of $172. Lodging taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) • Airfare: Must use coach class and the contract carrier fare (booked by travel agent) 0 Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified--e.g., Timing of contract fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive • Meals & Incidental Expenses (MI&E): reimbursed $69 per day for DC; $51.75 on first & last day of travel (no receipts needed, reimbursed full amount regardless of expenses-above or below) • Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses • Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee--e.g., to/from airport, to/from committee meetings (keep receipts) • Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. All other approved travel expenses (hotel; MI&E; taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subsequently be reimbursed. Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completion of the travel. If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't hesitate to have the members' staff reach out to Valerie Whittington or Kris Palmer. valerie.whittin ton s ulny kris.palmer@gsa.gov Best, Jon Jon Clinton Chief of Staff Office of Government-wide Policy U.S. General Services Administration 17-2361-A-000893 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Thursday, July 13, 2017 6:51 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; hristy Mar R o es; von Spakovsky, Cc: Subject: McCorrnic Hans; Christian A ams; King, A an Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP RE: updates on July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements Thanks again for your patience on travel arrangements. The interagency funding agreement was signed this evening, which was the last roadblock to allowing GSA to start booking your travel. I'll be back in touch either sometime this evening or tomorrow morning with detailed instructions on next steps. The process will be fairly simple: GSA will connect you directly with their White Glove travel service, which is a 24/7 service that you can call and book airfare, hotels, rental cars, and whatever else you'll need. I also wanted to let you know that the Commission's webpage is now live on WhiteHouse.gov. You can view it here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/07/13/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity. Last, if you haven't yet sent in your 450 Financial Disclosure form, please get that to me as soon as you can so we can clear you before the meeting. I'll be in touch again soon, but please reach out anytime if you have any questions. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: An rew.J. ossack@ovp.eop.gov From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Tuesday, J To:'Kris Kobach' 'cwlawson@sos.in.gov' ; C risty McCormick' ; Mark Rhodes' ; von pa ovs y, ans < ans. onSpakovsky@heritage.org>;'Christian Adams' ; King, Alan Subject: updates on July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements Dear Members, First, I'd like welcome our two newest members,Judge Alan King and J. Christian Adams, whom the President appointed yesterday. We are grateful for their willingness to serve and excited to have them. Congratulations, and welcome! Thanks for your patience as we've coordinated with the General Services Administration on your travel arrangements. We've been waiting for our commission's budget to be allocated so that we can start approving 17-2361-A-000894 expenditures. We expect final approval and dedication of funds soon,so we wanted to go ahead and initiate some of the travel processes so you can begin planning accordingly. The most urgent step is to please fill out the attached form titled "EFT Enrollment Form," and then scan and email it back to me as soon as possible. Related to travel, I also wanted to make you aware of a scheduling note. The meeting on the 19th will begin at 11:00 a.m., but we will need all members present at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building by about 8:15 a.m. to orient you and conduct required ethics training and Federal Advisory Committee Act training. For those of you traveling from outside Washington, D.C., you are welcome to fly in the day before and stay in town overnight. We expect the meeting to adjourn by mid-afternoon at the latest, so you may plan to fly out in the evening on Wednesday or anytime on Thursday if you care to remain in D.C. Wednesday night. So that we can begin the process of getting your travel arrangements booked, please reply to me only and let me know if you'll be flying in for the meeting. If so, I'll also need your full name as it appears on your governmentissued ID, your date of birth, and your TSA Pre-Check number (if you have one). Also, if you have not yet submitted your financial disclosure form, please send that back to me as soon as possible. It's critical we get these reviewed as soon as possible, so please try to send them within the next day or so if you can. I'll be back in touch soon with more information, but please don't hesitate to email or call me anytime if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000895 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday,July 12, 2017 2:35 PM EFT form EFT_Enrollment_Form.pdf Hi, Secretary Gardner, I hate to bug you with this, but is there any chance you could fill this out and return it this afternoon? I'm trying to light a fire under the GSA folks to get all of our members booked on travel, and apparently this form is the current roadblock. Once they have this on file, you'll be connected with a travel agent who can book your airfare, hotel, and whatever else you need. If you have any questions, please give me a call anytime. Looking forward to seeing you next week! Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000896 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:57 PM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans; ChristianAdams; King, Alan updates on July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements EFT_Enrollment_Form.pdf; 0GE450(Jan2017)(fillable).pdf Dear Members, First, I'd like welcome our two newest members,Judge Alan King and J. Christian Adams, whom the President appointed yesterday. We are grateful for their willingness to serve and excited to have them. Congratulations, and welcome! Thanks for your patience as we've coordinated with the General Services Administration on your travel arrangements. We've been waiting for our commission's budget to be allocated so that we can start approving expenditures. We expect final approval and dedication of funds soon,so we wanted to go ahead and initiate some of the travel processes so you can begin planning accordingly. The most urgent step is to please fill out the attached form titled "EFT Enrollment Form," and then scan and email it back to me as soon as possible. Related to travel, I also wanted to make you aware of a scheduling note. The meeting on the 19th will begin at 11:00 a.m., but we will need all members present at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building by about 8:15 a.m. to orient you and conduct required ethics training and Federal Advisory Committee Act training. For those of you traveling from outside Washington, D.C., you are welcome to fly in the day before and stay in town overnight. We expect the meeting to adjourn by mid-afternoon at the latest, so you may plan to fly out in the evening on Wednesday or anytime on Thursday if you care to remain in D.C. Wednesday night. So that we can begin the process of getting your travel arrangements booked, please reply to me only and let me know if you'll be flying in for the meeting. If so, I'll also need your full name as it appears on your governmentissued ID, your date of birth, and your TSA Pre-Check number (if you have one). Also, if you have not yet submitted your financial disclosure form, please send that back to me as soon as possible. It's critical we get these reviewed as soon as possible, so please try to send them within the next day or so if you can. I'll be back in touch soon with more information, but please don't hesitate to email or call me anytime if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Cell:: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000897 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Monday, July 10, 2017 10:04 AM 'Kris Kobach'; cwlawson@sos.in.gov; Christy McCormick; Mark Rhodes; von Spa kovsky, Hans Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP recent email re: data request Dear Members, Please see the email below, which just went out to state election officials a few minutes ago. As you can see, in light of the recent litigation, we have asked states to hold off on submitting data at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell Emai : /narew.J tcossack@ovp.eop.gov From: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Sent: Monday,July 10, 2017 9:40 AM Subject: Request to Hold on Submitting Any Data Until Judge Rules on TRO Dear Election Official, As you may know,the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint seeking a Temporary Restraining Order("TRO") in connection with the June 28, 2017 letter sent by Vice Chair Kris Kobach requesting publiclyavailable voter data. See Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Until the Judge rules on the TRO, we request that you hold on submitting any data. We will follow up with you with further instructions once the Judge issues her ruling. Andrew Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000898 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Wednesday,June 28, 2017 3:43 PM luis.borunda@maryland.gov; mrhodes@woodcountywv.com; Christy McCormick Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP letters to chief election officials SOS Letters.pdf Dear Members, Please see the attached letters to secretaries of state and chief state election officials. These will be transmitted soon. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000899 From: Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:40 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Subject: RE: tomorrow's call Attachments: Untitled attachment 07163.txt; Untitled attachment 07166.txt; Untitled attachment 07169.htm; Untitled attachment 07172.txt The 603- 271- 2403 is the preferable phone number for me today.. thanks. Sent from my Verizon,, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 17-2361-A-000900 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, June 27, 2017 7:46 PM Cc: Subject: Attachments: ws. orun a • mary an .gov; mr o es • woos coun ywv.com; Christy McCormick Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP tomorrow's call Organizational Conference Call 6.28.2017.pdf; oge450(June 2015) (fillable).pdf; bkServeHonor.pdf Dear Members, I just updated the calendar invitation for tomorrow, but wanted to send the call-in information via email as well to ensure you receive it: Call Procedure: Beginning as early as 11:00am, Signal via the White House Communications Agency will call you directly on the either of the numbers you provided below. This process is done to ensure that all conferees are in the conference on time, and line quality is validated before adding the Vice President into the conference last at 11:30 am. If you have any difficulties connecting, please call: 202-757-6000. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Commission Member Michael R. Pence Kris Kobach Connie Lawson Bill Gardner ................................................................. Matt Dunlap Ken Blackwell Christy McCormick David Dunn Luis Borunda Mark Rhodes Primary Phone Secondary Phone I've attached a copy of the agenda to this email for your convenience as well. Also attached are two documents related to ethics standards for special government employees. We will discuss these in more detail during the call, but feel free to review them in advance of the call if you are able. We look forward to speaking with you tomorrow. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Emai : An rew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000901 Subject: Location: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI conference call details added Start: End: Show Time As: Wed 6/28/2017 11:30 AM Wed 6/28/2017 12:30 PM Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Importance: High Instructions for call attendees: Beginning as early as 11:00am, Signal via the White House Communications Agency will call you directly on the either of the numbers you provided below. This process is done to ensure that all conferees are in the conference on time, and line quality is validated before adding the Vice President into the conference last at 11:30 am. If you have any difficulties connecting, please call: 202-757-6000. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Commission Member Michael R. Pence Kris Kobach Connie Lawson Bill Gardner Matt Dunlap Ken Blackwell Christy McCormick David Dunn Luis Borundajjkijajja Mark Rhodes Primary Phone Secondary Phone 111 17-2361-A-000902 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, June 77. 7017 17S4 PM Christy McCormick; luis.borunda@maryland.gov; mrhodes@woodcountywv.com Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP RE: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI Organizational Conference Call 6.28.2017.docx Attached is the agenda for tomorrow's call. Once we have the call-in information, I'll send an updated calendar invitation and attach this to that message as well, but we wanted you to have this in advance. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov From: Ken Blackwell [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:24 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP luis.borunda@maryland.gov; mrhodes@woodcountywv.com; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Subject: Re: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI E Great. Pm a day early anyway! Call in details for On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM,Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP wrote: 17-2361-A-000903 From: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:24 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Cc: Subject: om; hristy McCormick; ; luis.borunda@maryland.goy; mr o es woo countywy.com; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Re: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI El Great. I'm a day early anyway! Call in details for On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM,Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP wrote: 17-2361-A-000904 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:21 AM Ken Blackwell hristy McCormick; luis.borunda@maryland.gov; mrhodes@woodcountywv.com; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP RE: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI Thanks for following up. We're booking a secure line and it's still in process. I'll send the information as soon as I have it. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: n rew. . ossack@ovp.eop.gov From: Ken Blackwell [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:17 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Cc: cmccormick@eac.gov; uls..orun a • mary an .gov; mrhodes@woodcountywv.com; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Subject: Re: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI Call in details? On Mon,Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM,Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP wrote: 17-2361-A-000905 From: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:17 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Cc: cmccormick@eac.gov; luis.borunda@marylan .gov; mr o es woo countywv.com; Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Subject: Re: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI Call in details? On Mon,Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM,Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP wrote: 17-2361-A-000906 Subject: Location: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI will update with call-in information Start: End: Show Time As: Wed 6/28/2017 11:30 AM Wed 6/28/2017 12:30 PM Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP 17-2361-A-000907 From: Sent: To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Monday, June 26, 2017 9:50 AM Cc: Subject: cmccormic @eac.gov; luis.borunda@marylan .gov; mr o es woo coun ywv.com Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Welcome; Initial Organizational Call Dear Members, Congratulations for your appointment to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"). We appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you. The General Services Administration filed the Commission's charter this past Friday, which officially establishes the Commission as a Presidential advisory committee and permits the Commission to commence its official duties under Executive Order 13799. As the Commission's Designated Federal Officer ("DFO"), I will support the Commission's work and its members with administrative needs and ensure the Commission complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act("FACA"). To update you, begin preparing for the Commission's first meeting, and answer any questions you have at this time, we would like to hold a conference call this Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. Eastern. Please let me know if you cannot participate in this call. I will send a calendar invitation with call-in information soon. Please also hold July 19th on your calendars. This is the date we are tracking for the Commission's first meeting. Please note that FACA requires public meetings and 15-day advance notices for "[aJny gathering of advisory committee members(whether in person or through electronic means) held with the approval of an agency for the purpose of deliberating on the substantive matters upon which the advisory committee provides advice or recommendations." Thus, on this call the Commission may not "deliberat[e] on ... substantive matters" such as what final recommendations the Commission might provide in its report. However, FACA allows discussion of the following without requiring an open meeting: Preparatory work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for a meeting of the advisory committee, or to draft position papers for deliberation by the advisory committee; and Administrative work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to discuss administrative matters of the advisory committee or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency. In other words, we may freely discuss administrative matters and issues related to meeting preparation on this call, but we must be careful not to engage in deliberation on substantive matters. With that said, please let me know if you have any questions or items you want to discuss during this call. And if you have any other questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to let me know. Again, thank you for your service. We look forward to speaking with you this week. 17-2361-A-000908 Best regards, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000909 From: Sent: To: Subject: Paula Penney :19 PM commission Disagreement at State House over payment for Gardner's participation on Trump election commission Top House Democrat asks secretary of state not to use state money,time "IcbgN__MttR Updated: 4:54 PM EDT May 22,2017 Advertisement Share • • • • John DiStaso Political Reporter House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff says Secretary of State William Gardner should participate on President Donald Trump's election commission "on his own time and at his own expense.' CONCORD, N.H. — Top Democrats and Republicans in the New Hampshire Legislature disagreed Monday on whether Secretary of State William Gardner should use taxpayer funds and state time for his activities as a member of President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity. Advertisement Related Content 17-2361-A-000910 • Gardner says concern about lack of voter confidence prompted him to say yes to Trump commission • Updated: Trump taps Secretary of State Gardner for new 'election integrity commission House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff asked Gardner to participate on his own time and not use state money. But Republican House Speaker Shawn Jasper and Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley disagreed and said the state should pay for Gardner's travel to and from -and participation in -- commission meetings. Gardner's plans for meeting expenses associated with the commission are unclear. He could not be reached for comment Monday, and a staffer in the secretaiy of state's office said he would be out of the office for a few days. The staffer said Gardner's absence was not related to the commission. Gardner accepted a White House offer to serve on the commission earlier this month. In an interview with WMUR on May 12, he said that while he does not agree with Trump's assertion that there was widespread voter fraud in New Hampshire, he believes that critics should "give(the commission)a chance." In a letter to Gardner released Monday, Shurtleff wrote: "I am hoping that you will provide the citizens of New Hampshire assurance that no state money is used for your travel or accommodations while you are working in Washington,D.C. on this commission. In addition, I would hope that your state time is not used in the pursuit of your work for the commission. "As you are well aware, many Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire believe that there is no validity to President Trump's claims that there was voter fraud in New Hampshire. Election officials and town clerks throughout the state dispute the claims made by the president. In addition, the integiity of New Hampshire's first-in-the nation primary is at risk. It is my hope that you will bear this in mind when presenting information or otherwise engaging your time on this commission." Shurtleff told WMUR he was"somewhat surprised" that Gardner accepted a position on the commission. He also questioned the validity of the commission,saying,"There is no historical data to confirm what the president was talking about." Shurtleff said Gardner's acceptance of a seat on the commission "was his decision to make,but I wanted to be sure that his involvement will not be at taxpayers' expense. It's his choice as long as he is doing it on his own time and at his own expense." Jasper strongly disagreed, calling Shurtleffs request"partisan politics at its worst." "He is talking about using state time and state resources when we know that people in all branches of government are on commissions that are working toward the common good, and this is not something that we generally take issue with," Jasper said. Jasper said there should be no complaints about"the idea that we might buy him a couple of plane tickets and that he may spend a little bit of time to lend his expertise, with all the money the Legislature spends going to conferences, and I'm not begrudging that." "He is the senior secretary of state in the whole county by far and the guardian of our presidential primary," Jasper said. "To have a guy like Bill Gardner be able to participate and talk about what is a problem and what isn't a problem,there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be answered. To suggest that taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to solve a problem that addresses concerns oftaxpayers is an assertion I don't agree with." "When someone is asked to serve on a presidential commission,it's an honor for the state, especially when it is an official with the stature that Bill Gardner enjoys, not only in New Hampshire as a protector of the New Hampshire primary, but also nationally," Bradley said."I don't think Bill should be expected to pay for it out of his own pocket." WMUR is seeking commentfrom Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn. Critics have charged that the formation of the commission is a political move to give cover to Trump's unsubstantiated assertions that he lost the popular vote in the November election because "millions" of people vote illegally and he lost New Hampshire in the general election because thousands of Massachusetts residents were "brought in on buses," also to vote illegally. Gardner has said that Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud in the state was untrue, although he has also said there has been at least one voter fraud conviction in New Hampshire in eveiy election since 1992. Gardner told WMUR that he decided to accept the invitation to serve on the commission because he worries that nationally, voter confidence in elections is low. He pointed to a Gallup poll conducted prior to the November election that found 55 percent of Americans believe voter fraud exists. To those who say Trump created the panel to find a way to justify his unsubstantiated claims that "millions of people voted illegally" in November,Gardner said,"Give it a chance. Maybe we'll be able to solve that question of why so many people believe there is voter fraud." The 16-member commission,chaired by Vice President Mike Pence,has been told to issue a report that identifies laws, policies and 17-2361-A-000911 practices that enhance public confidence in federal elections, as well as laws, policies and strategies that undermine public confidence. It will also report on "vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting,including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting." Trump created the commission by executive order. Jasper said the commission has a legitimate purpose. "Any time you have many people who believe that something like this is true, I think it is worth looking at," Jasper said."And Secretary Gardner certainly believes that we need to be tightening up our election laws." He noted that legislation that would tighten New Hampshire's voting registration identification requirements, Senate Bill 3, has already passed the state Senate and will be voted on by the full House on June 1. Bradley said,"Secretary Gardner has testified that about 7,000 letters were sent out to people who didn't have identification when they voted and 450 of those letters were returned as undeliverable. "He has made it clear that there are voting issues in New Hampshire, and so I think it is appropriate that he has been asked to serve on the commission." 17-2361-A-000912 From: House Matt(Schumer)Schumer To: Subject: RE: Election Integrity Commission Invitation Date: Mon, Aug 28, 2017 3:38 pm Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Will pass along and be in touch. From: Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 3:36 To: House, Matt(Schumer) Subject: Election Integrity Commission Invitation Matt, Would you please pass this along to Senator Schumer? If Senator Schumer has an interest in attending please let me know so we can plan accordingly. Thanks, Bill Gardner (603)714-8097 17-2361-A-000913 Message From: Sent: To: Christian Adams [adams@electionlawcenter.com] 9/1/2017 3:36:49 PM Hans von Spakovsky (Hans.VonSpakovsky@heritage.org)[Hans.VonSpakovsky@heritage.org];'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: Commission Meeting Attachments: Voter Integrity Project NC_ Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of E.DOCX; Bellitto v. Snipes_ 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107355.docx; Bellitto v. Snipes_ 221 F. Supp. 3d 1354.docx; Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera_ 166 F. Supp. 3d 779.docx Andrew — I am going to ask questions of witnesses about some issues in these cases. I don't know if that means the materials should be available prior to the hearing or not. I will leave that to you. But the important thing is that courts have found that having more people on the voter rolls than people alive creates a strong inference that federal law is being violated. These cases all touch on this point. 17-2361-A-000914 [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn :contentltem:5MXP-H101-F04D-ROHK-00000-00&context="][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn :contentltem:5MXP-H101-F04D-ROHK-00000-00&context="] United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division February 21,2017, Decided; February 21, 2017, Filed NO: 5:16-CV-683-BR Reporter 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23565 * VOTER INTEGRITY PROJECT NC,INC., Plaintiff, v. WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS,Defendant, and JENNIFER MORRIS,EDWARD JONES,and SIOBHAN MILLEN,Defendant-Intervenors. Counsel: r1]For Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc., Plaintiff: Benton G. Sawrey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Narron, O'Hale and Whittington,PA,Smithfield, NC; John C. Adams, Kaylan L. Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEYS,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Alexandria, VA. For Wake County Board ofElections, Defendant: Allison Pope Cooper, Claire Hunter Duff, Roger A. Askew,LEAD ATTORNEYS,Wake County Attorney's Office, Raleigh, NC; Scott Wood Warren, LEAD ATTORNEY,Raleigh, NC. For Jennifer Morris, Edward Jones, Siobhan Millen, Intervenor Defendants: Allison Jean Riggs, LEAD ATTORNEY,Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham,NC. Judges: W.Earl Britt, Senior United States District Judge Opinion by: W. Earl Britt Opinion ORDER This matter is before the court on the motions to dismiss of defendant Wake County Board of Elections ("WCBOE") and defendant-intervenors Jennifer Morris, Edward Jones, and Siobhan Millen. (DE ## 14, 27.) Plaintiff Voter Integrity Project NC, Inc.("VIP-NC") has filed responses in opposition to the motions. (DE ## 19, 30.) Defendant-intervenors filed a reply. (DE # 33.) This matter is therefore ripe for disposition. I. BACKGROUND VIP-NC is an organization which "has dedicated significant time and resources to ensure that voter [*2] rolls in the state of North Carolina, and in Wake County, are free from ineligible registrants, non-citizens, individuals who are no longer residents and individuals who are registered in more than one location." (Compl., DE # 1, ¶ 3.) On 18 July 2016, it filed this action alleging that WCBOE has violated [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000915 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ], and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On 10 August 2016, WCBOE filed its answer,(DE # 13), and motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to [ HYPERLINK "hftps://advancelexis.comJapi/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" 1. On 3 October 2016, defendant-intervenors, three individuals who are actively engaged in voter registration and related work, filed a motion to intervene. (DE # 22.) On 1 December 2016, the court allowed that motion. (DE # 26.) The following day, defendant-intervenors filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" 1. In HYPERLINK a "haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colIec tion=statuteslegislation&id=urn: contentItem:5GYC-1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ] context, the reviewing court must determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." This directive ordinarily limits a [*3] court's review to the "well-pled facts in the complaint[, which it must view] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." While no absolute bar exists, a motion to dismiss under[ HYPERLINK "https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP16N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ] does not typically resolve the applicability of defenses to a well-pled claim. II. DISCUSSION HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection Both motions to dismiss are filed pursuant to [ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GBJ-2HM1-F04KHYPERLINK MO5S-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GBJ-2HM1-F04K1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" I. ' MO5S-00000-00&context=" ] (citations omitted) (alteration in original). With this standard in mind, the court will consider VIP-NC's NVRA claims. Because WCBOE filed its answer with its motion to dismiss, its The NVRA reflects the view of Congress that motion technically is one for judgment on the pleadings under[ the right to vote "is a fundamental right," that HYPERLINK government has a duty to "promote the exercise "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection of that right," and that discriminatory and =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYCunfair registration laws can have a "damaging 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" ]. See r effect on voter participation" and HYPERLINK "disproportionately halm voter participation by https://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocumen ecollection=cases8cid=urn:co ntentItem:450S-W420-0038-X24S-00000-00&context=] [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:450S-W420-0038X24S-00000-00&context=" ]. "However, the distinction is 1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=" 1 motions.[ HYPERLINK https:Hadvance.lexis.com/api/documentricollection=cases&id=urn:co ntentItem:450S-W420-0038-X24S-00000-00&context=][ one without a difference," as the court applies the same standard as[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:450S-W420-0038X24S-00000-00&context=" ]. HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC- 17-2361-A-000916 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections various groups, including racial minorities." Congress enacted the NVRA in order to "increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote" in federal elections, "enhance[ ] the participation of eligible citizens as voters," "protect the integrity of the electoral process," and "ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KM322-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:55WM-M161-F04KM322-00000-00&context=" ] (citing [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4'YF7GM91-NRF4-42X1-00000-00&context=" ] (now codified at HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=" 1)) (alteration in original). [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] of the Act, which is at issue here, imposes [*4] various duties and obligations regarding voter registration. The NVRA provides a private right of action to "[a] person who is aggrieved by a violation of [the NVRA]." HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. The aggrieved party must first provide "written notice of the violation to the chief election official of the State involved," id. unless "the violation occurred within 30 days before the date of an election for Federal office," id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. "If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a notice . . ., or within 20 days after receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal office," the aggrieved person may file a suit. Id.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" 1. VIP-NC alleges WCBOE violated [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. In Count I, VIP-NC asserts that WCBOE has failed to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list under HYPERLINK maintenance "https lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" 1.2 In Count II, it asserts that WCBOE has failed to respond to VIP-NC's written requests for data and failed to provide records in accordance with [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. WCBOE initially argues that because the mandates of the NVRA are directed to states, it, as a local government unit, is not a proper party. WCBOE is correct that the particular subsections at issue are phrased in terms of state [*5] obligations. "[E]ach State" is required, "[in the administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office, . . . [to] conduct a general program that makes a reasonable 2 VIP-NC also claims WCBOE violated a provision of the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA"), [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context=" ], which requires the appropriate state or local election official to perform regular voter list maintenance.(Compl., DE # 1,1 30.)It recognizes that the HAVA does not provide a private right of action but contends that the provision is relevant to determining "whether the Defendant has a 'reasonable' program for voter list maintenance." (Resp. Oppin WCBOE Mot. Dismiss,DE # 19, at 6 n.3.) 17-2361-A-000917 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections effort to remove the names ofineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of—(A) the death of the registrant; or (B) a change in the residence of the registrant . . . .").[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. "Each State" must also "maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters . . . ." Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5D3N]. F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" However, the NVRA also contemplates local government involvement in carrying out the State's obligations. $ee HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=" ] (finding "it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right" to vote),(b)(2)(recognizing one of the purposes of the NVRA is "to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this chapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office"). In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections ("SBOE")[*61 is charged with adopting a program to comply with the NVRA's list maintenance HYPERLINK requirement. See "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]. However, North Carolina law also designates local county boards of elections as the entities directly responsible for performing list maintenance in accordance with that program. See id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]("Each county board of elections shall conduct systematic efforts to remove names from its list of registered voters in accordance with this section and with the program adopted by the State Board."). Pertinent here, each county board of elections is required to remove from its voter registration records any person who is listed as deceased on a monthly report from SBOE, id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]; to "conduct a systematic program to remove from its list of registered voters those who have moved out of the county, and to update the registration records of persons who have moved within the county, id.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&d=uni:contentItem:5N29NRHO-004F-PONG-00000-00&context=" ]; and to remove a person from its list who has moved after following statutorily mandated procedures, id. Based on WCBOE's explicit list maintenance obligations, the court concludes that WCBOE is a proper party. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04DHYPERLINK 10NR-00000-00&context=] [ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=" ](denying motion to HYPERLINK dismiss "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=una:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] claims against the defendant local election official [*7] where the plaintiffs had not sued the Secretary of State or the State of Florida and recognizing that because the local election official has obligations under the NVRA based on state law, the plaintiffs may bring an action against her for her alleged failure to meet those obligations); Am. Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 779, 791-93 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (rejecting the defendant county tax assessor-collector's argument for dismissal of HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000918 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] claim responsible, those local officials, not the Secretary, because the plaintiff had not sued the Texas are the proper parties to this lawsuit." [ HYPERLINK Secretary of State). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection The decision of [ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 81R4-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advancelexis.comJapi/document?collection 81R4-00000-00&context=" 1. The court[*8] =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXconcluded that the state could not abdicate its 81R4-00000-00&context=" ], on which WCBOE responsibility under the NVRA through delegation relies, does not support a different result. There, the to local officials and that the Secretary specifically plaintiffs sued Ohio's Secretary of State and the was responsible for implementation and Director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family enforcement HYPERLINK of Services ("DJFS") for failure to comply with "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection Section 7 ofthe NVRA.3 =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" ]. [ The Eighth Circuit considered "whether states HYPERLINK should be held responsible for implementing the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK requirements of =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N"https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection F731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" 1." [ =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. Accordingly, the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection court held the Secretary, as the designated chief =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXelection official, was a proper party. [ HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" 1. The Secretary of HYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context=][ State argued she should not be held responsible for "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection any NVRA violations. Specifically, she claimed her =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXonly duty was to coordinate the state's 81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. responsibilities under the Act, "[a]nd, because Ohio chose to implement its requirements through the The Harkless court went on to consider whether the county departments and to make local officials Director of DJFS, a state agency, could also be liable under the NVRA. A portion of its analysis bears repeating: 3In the context of Harkless, [ HYPERLINK Because Ohio law authorizes the statewide "https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection DJFS (and thus the Director) to ensure =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK compliance with F731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context="]requires that "any time a person enters a DJFS office to receive food stamps, "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collec Medicaid assistance, welfare, or disability benefits assistance, that tion=statutesperson should receive a voter registration form for federal elections legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731and assistance in filling out the form." [ HYPERLINK NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=" ], the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentltem:4TX8-M880-TXFX-81R4-00000-00&context=]. 17-2361-A-000919 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections Director relies on the following curious proposition: because local authorities have the independent responsibility to comply with the NVRA, the Director should not be held accountable. True, the Ohio General Assembly has tasked the county offices with implementing the NVRA; but, as previously explained, the General Assembly also tasked the Director with the power to enforce any county transgressions of federal law. This is not an either-or proposition. The fact that some states, like Ohio, delegate the administration of public assistance programs to counties or municipalities should not mean that those states are free of I*9] all statutory obligations. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context1[ "https://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" ] (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The court held that the Director was also a proper party based on her responsibilities for meeting the requirements of the NVRA distinct from the Secretary of State's HYPERLINK responsibilities. See hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/docum ent?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFXHYPERLINK 81R4-00000-00&context1[ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4TX8-M880-TXFX81R4-00000-00&context=" ]. Contrary to WCBOE's suggestion, the court did not hold that the state (or a state official) is the (only) proper party in a NVRA action. HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context="]by failing to conduct a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters from its rolls and identified the basis for this belief: the "county has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible living citizen voters." (Compl., Ex. A.) VIP-NC also requested that WCBOE make available for public inspection records under [ HYPERLINK "hftps://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. The letter states, among other things, that it serves as the statutory notice required by [ HYPERLINK "htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] and that if the county did not fully comply with [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?coltection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ], VIP-NC may file suit under the NVRA within 20 days after receipt. (Id.) The Executive Director of SBOE was [*10] copied on the letter.4 4 When notice of the violation is required, the NVRA obligates the aggrieved party to provide the notice to the state chief election official. See HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ], [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.comJapi/document?collection WCBOE next appears to argue that VIP-NC's letter =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nto WCBOE dated 2 June 2016 did not comply with F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. In North the notice provision of [ HYPERLINK Carolina, the Executive Director of SBOE is designated as the chief "https://advance.lexis.com/api/docum ent?collection election official for purposes of the NVRA.[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N=statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5N29F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] before N8D0-004F-P4Y4-00000-00&context=" ]. Therefore, filing suit. By that letter, VIP-NC notified WCBOE having provided the Executive Director with a copy of the 2 June that WCBOE was apparently in violation of [ 2016 letter, VIP-NC satisfied its obligation to provide written notice ofthe violation to the chief election official. 17-2361-A-000920 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections In HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=ll HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?colIection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=" ], the court summarized the notice requirements of [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ] as follows. systematic violation is occurring at the time the notice is sent or, if no notice is sent, when the complaint is filed within 30 days of a federal election. Neither the notice nor the complaint needs to specify that the violation has been actually observed, and that there is thus a "discrete rill violation," during the 120—day or 30—day period. It is enough that the notice letter and the complaint plausibly allege the existence of an ongoing violation within the appropriate time period, whether or not it was "discrete" during the period. Whether the aggrieved person is required to give notice and how long the person must wait to file suit after giving notice depends on the timing of the next federal election. When the violation upon which a suit is based occurs a substantial time before the next federal election, the aggrieved person must notify the state ofthe alleged violation and must then wait 90 days before filing suit. [[ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. However, "if the violation occurred within 120 days" of a federal election, the aggrieved person must wait only 20 days after notifying the state before bringing suit. Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. "If the violation occurred within 30 days" of a federal election, the aggrieved person does not need to give any notice before bringing suit. Id. [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N-F741NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. Furthermore, HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context="](citations omitted). Here, WCBOE emphasizes that "plaintiffs lawsuit was initiated forty-six (46)days after the date ofthe letter" and "the letter was dated five(5)days before the June 7, 2016 North Carolina Congressional Primary."(Mem.,DE # 15, at 9(footnote omitted).) WCBOE then argues that "the 'violation' plaintiff alleges, even if. . . taken as true, occurred in 2014." (Id. at 10.) While not explicitly saying so, WCBOE's contention appears to be that because the alleged violation occurred more than 120 days before a federal election, VIP-NC was required to wait 90 days after WCBOE's receipt of the notice letter to file suit. VIP-NC has, however, alleged an of [ HYPERLINK violation ongoing "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] in that WCBOE is continuing to violate the NVRA's list maintenance requirements.(See Compl.,DE # 1, in 14, 15.) Because VIP-NC alleges an ongoing violation at the time of the notice letter, its filing of suit 46 days after the 2 June 2016 letter complied with the [*12] notice requirement of [ A plaintiff can satisfy the NVRA's notice HYPERLINK provision by plausibly alleging that a ongoing, "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 17-2361-A-000921 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=" ]. See r HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:SGV5-Y071-F04KHYPERLINK V001-00000-00&context=1[ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5GV5-Y071-F04KV001-00000-00&context=" ]. Finally, both WCBOE and defendant-intervenors contend that VIP-NC's allegations are insufficient to show a violation of the obligation to conduct a program that makes a reasonable effort at voter list maintenance.' In support of this claim, VIP-NC alleges that "voter rolls maintained by [WCBOE] contain or have contained more registrants than eligible voting-age citizens." (Id. If 9.) Further, it cites to 2014 data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau. (Id. 10, 11.) Using that data, it alleges "the registration rate in Wake County has been 104.75 percent during the conduct of a federal election." (Id. 1112.) It also cites to more recent data, as of 2 July 2016, from SBOE,(id. If 13), and based on that data along with the 2014 census bureau data, alleges "the registration rate in Wake County remains in excess of 104 percent of eligible citizens residing in Wake County," (id. lj 14). Also, as an example of WCBOE's "failure to reasonably maintain the voter rolls," VIP-NC alleges WCBOE "undertakes absolutely no effort whatsoever to use data available from the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court obtained from jury excusal communication" [*131 to identify "residents who 5Defendant-intervenors move only to dismiss Count I. Although WCBOE generally contends that VIP-NC's factual allegations fail to support a cause of action under the NVRA,(Mem., DE # 15, at 3), WCBOE make no specific arguments to support dismissal of Count II other than continuing its argument that VIP-NC has sued the wrong party, (id. at 8-9). For the reasons set forth above, the court disagrees and concludes WCBOE,to the extent it maintains records concerning implementation of its list maintenance activities (which incidentally it does not deny that it does), is required to make such records available for public inspection. self-identify as non-citizens or non-residents" or to identify "potentially obsolete mailing addresses of registrants." (Id. 1119.) WCBOE characterizes VIP-NC's reliance on 2014 census bureau data of eligible voters (which is based on an average from 2010 to 2014) as a "threadbare basis" to support its allegation that the number of registered voters in Wake County remains in excess of 104 percent of eligible voters. (Mem., DE # 15, at 10.) Somewhat relatedly, defendant-intervenors argue VIP-NC's conclusion based on the cited data is "oversimplified" because it disregards the NVRA's requirement that, absent his/her written request, a registered voter cannot be removed from the official list of eligible voters on the ground of a changed residence without written notice and only after two federal general elections after the notice.(Mem., DE # 28, at 8.) See also[ HYPERLINK "https:lladvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. "Thus, [according to defendant-intervenors,] it is entirely plausible that the number of registrants would exceed the eligible voting age population in a jurisdiction with high voter participation and a relatively transient population."(Mem.,DE # 28, at 9(emphasis in original).) The court notes that 1*14] there is nothing inherently wrong with VIP-NC's reliance on census data to support its claim. See Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 791 (recognizing "that United States census data is reliable"); id. at 805 (report and recommendation) (taking into consideration registration rate based on census data to determine whether the plaintiff stated a claim for failure to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list under HYPERLINK maintenance "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]). While reliance on older data might arguably weaken an inference of wrongdoing, VIP-NC used the most recent census data available at the time of the filing 17-2361-A-000922 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections of its complaint. $ee [ HYPERLINK "https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/voting_age_popu lation_by_citizenship_and_race_cvap.html" ] (last visited 2/16/17)(2011-2015 data published 2/1/17). And, while defendant-intervenors have advanced a potentially reasonable explanation for the high registration rate, that being the two-election cycle waiting period to remove a registrant from the official voter list, the validity of that explanation is not appropriate for determination at this early stage of the litigation, where the court views the factual allegations and inferences drawn therefrom in favor of VIP-NC. A State may meet the requirement of [ HYPERLINK "https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collec tion=statutesIegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" by I establishing a program under which— (A)change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and (B)if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that— Both WCBOE and defendant-intervenors take issue with VIP-NC's supporting its claim with the allegation that WCBOE has failed to use data from jury excusal I*151 communication. The parties all appear to wee that the NVRA does not mandate that election officials use a particular tool to conduct a voter list maintenance program, rather the Act provides election officials with discretion in how to conduct that program. Thus, the fact that WCBOE does not use a "readily available tool," (Compl., DE # 1, 11 19), to remove ineligible voters does not mean in and of itself that WCBOE has failed to make a reasonable effort at voter list maintenance. However, it, along with other evidence, may be relevant to determine the reasonableness of WCBOE's efforts at voter list maintenance. As such, the court will consider the allegation along with VIP-NC's other allegations to determine whether it has stated a claim under the NVRA. (i) a registrant [*16] has moved to a e [ HYPERLINK different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?c ollection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] to confirm the change of address. "https.11advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" Vs 'saft "https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection —statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N'frAZ at o F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" J. HYPERLINK voter Defendant-intervenors a direct the court to "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection registration guideline SBOE has adopted which =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ]. Under implements a program whereby the SBOE compares quarterly the statewide voter registration the "safe harbor" provision, database against the Postal Service's National Change of Address Program and makes available to 17-2361-A-000923 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Voter Integrity Project NC,Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections the county boards of election a report showing voters with changes of address.(Mem., DE # 28, at 7 (citing 23:20 N.C. Reg. 2019-20 (Apr. 15, 2009)).) In accordance with the guideline, the county boards of election are required to check the report and follow certain procedures for any registered voter who is likely to have moved. 23:20 I*171 N.C. Reg. 2019-20(Apr. 15, 2009). registration rate—gave a strong 11 ,:,•:ere ,,,, plausiEle a violatio.a of the N VRr and stated claim forhef Accordingly, the .„: court ,,,,, . : it s, yip; .,,,,,,, • stated.::NC,,, has. claim for viola HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5133NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" Given the stage of this proceeding, the court has no information about WCBOE's compliance with those procedures. Whether WCBOE's compliance is sufficient to satisfy the "safe harbor" provision is best resolved after further development of the HYPERLINK record. See https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5M I N-0M41-F04DHYPERLINK 10NR-00000-00&context=1[ "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5M1N-0M41-F04D10NR-00000-00&context=" ] (concluding that whether a letter attached to the amended complaint from the defendant local election official "establishes Defendant's full compliance with [ HYPERLINK "https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=" ] and defeats Plaintiffs claims is a fact-based argument more properly addressed at a later stage of the proceedings"). Them WWJmgritb find that t ,ar III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss are DENIED. This 21 February 2017. Is/ W.Earl Britt W.Earl Britt Senior U.S. District Judge Enti Doeugno/ 17rP , S a egatio ere voterOn ake CountV7 ,teeded, tinues to exceed, t e numbrfeligible ers, wch a.i1egation 1$111in turn sutpp led reliable data and WB Rufailure to use vaila excuse;informatien, aHreasonable infence eat' beTdrawn:thatWCBOE'is not mak:In a reasonable effort to conduct a voter lisrmaintenance rogram in accordance with the NVRA See artinezRivera 166 E Stipp. 3d at 793-94 mg that stered allegations of voter rolls containing voters than citizens 1481 eligily 17-2361-A-000924 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5POS-5CX1-F04D-1215-00000-00&context=p ilYPERLINK sitps:i2idvaiwe. comhzpihioculaienrcoilection=cases&id=urn:contentitem:SPOSSCX1-F049-I215-00000-00ttcontext—I United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida July 11, 2017, Decided; July 12, 2017, Entered on Docket Case No. 16-cv-61474-BLOOMNa11e Reporter 2017 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 107355 *;2017 WL 2972837 ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiffs, v. BRENDA SNIPES, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant, v. 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,Intervenor, Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KS6-6541-F04D10JX-00000-00&context1 .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com.wi;document?collertion vsc'id=a. w:cautentitem:5KS6-654I 10.1X-00000-00&context YPE htips:Pae. Ponce.lexis%conevi/documentkollection anes&id=urn:contenthern:MOW-6541-1'194.1)laiX"--00000-00&context FL. For Brenda Snipes, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant: Burnadette Norris-Weeks, LEAD ATTORNEY,Fort Lauderdale, FL; Michelle Austin Pamies,LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Burnadette Norris-Weeks PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Kathleen Marie Phillips, Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami,FL. For 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, Intervenor Defendant: Cameron Bell, Stuart C. Naifeh, LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE, Demos, New York, NY; Carrie F. Apfel, Jessica Ring Amunson,Kali N. Bracey, Marina K. Jenkins, LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE, Tassity S. Johnson, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington,DC; Catherine M.Flanagan, Michelle Kanter Cohen, Counsel: [*11 For Andrea Bellifto, American Civil LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,[*2] Project Vote, Washington,DC; David Slutsky, Rights Union,Plaintiffs: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Levy LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Ratner PC, New York, NY; Katherine RobersonFoundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams, Young, LEAD ATTORNEY,SEIU, Miami,FL; LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Joseph A. Kathleen Marie Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEY, Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami,FL; Trisha Pande, Vanderhulst, Kaylan L. Phillips, LEAD LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Indianapolis, INT; Mathew Daniel Employees International Union, Washington, DC; Lucia Piva, Phillips, Richard, Rind,P.A., Miami, Gutierrez, Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, FL. 17-2361-A-000925 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes Judges: BETH BLOOM,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: BETH BLOOM Opinion ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union's ("Plaintiff' or "ACRU") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II of the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. [117] ("ACRU's Motion"), Defendant Brenda Snipes' ("Defendant" or "Snipes") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, ECF No.[145]("Snipes' Motion"), and Snipes and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East's ("Intervenor Defendant" or "United") Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. [142] (the "Snipes/United Motion"). United has also filed a Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony [*3] of Proposed Experts, ECF No. [144] (the "Daubert Motion"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record, all supporting and opposing filings, the exhibits attached thereto, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, ACRU's Motion, Snipes' Motion, and the Snipes/United Motion are denied. United's Daubert Motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND ACRU is a non-profit corporation "which promotes election integrity, compliance with federal election laws, government transparency, and constitutional government." ECF No. [12] at ¶ 4. Snipes is the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida and has been since November 2003. United is a labor union that focuses on representing healthcare workers and those who work in healthcare facilities.' Defendant Snipes' and Defendant-Intervenor United's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.[143]("Snipes/United Count I Supporting SOF")at ¶112-3.2 A. ACRU's Initial Requests and the Commencement of this Lawsuit On January 26, 2016, the President of ACRU, Susan A. Carleson ("Carleson"), sent a letter to Snipes notifying [*4] her that, based on ACRU's research, Broward County was "in apparent violation" of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=].3 ECF No.[12-11 The letter explained that based on ACRU's "comparison of publicly available information published by the U.S. Census Bureau [("Census Bureau")] and the federal Election Assistance Commission [("EAC")]," Broward County at the time "ha[d] an implausible number of registered voters compared to the number of eligible living citizens." Id. at 2. The letter expressed ACRU's hope that the Broward County Supervisor of Elections' Office ("BCSE0") would work toward compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- 1 On September 19, 2016, United filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted on September 20, 2016. See ECF Nos. [23],[29]; see also ECF No.[53]. 2Where a fact, as it is specifically incorporated herein, is uncontroverted by the opposing party, the Court cites only to the originating statement offacts. 3M do the parties, the Court refers to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=] interchangeably as "[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentitem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]," reflecting the statute's original location at Section 8 ofPub. L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107Stat. 77. 17-2361-A-000926 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 as well as ACRU's intention to file a lawsuit under the statute if such compliance was not achieved. Id. at 3. The letter also stated that if the information referenced therein was no longer accurate, "it would be helpful if[Snipes] could provide" documents related to the following: updated registration data since the publication of information reported by the EAC for 2014 from the November 2014 election (the "2014 EAC Report"); records obtained or received from federal and state courts, including jury recusal forms, regarding lack of citizenship, death, or relocation; the number of[1.5] ineligible voters removed by category and by date; the source agency that provided the identifying information of the removed deceased and when the data was provided; the number of notices sent to inactive voters since the publication of the 2014 EAC Report, including the date, scope, and contents of any mailing sent to all registered voters; the names of the staff responsible for conducting list maintenance obligations; the number of ineligible voters removed for criminal conviction, together with the underlying data and communications with law enforcement agencies; the total number of voters registered in Broward County as of the date of any response; any records indicating the use of citizenship or immigration status for list maintenance activities; and all list maintenance records including federal voter registration forms containing citizenship eligibility questionnaires for the previous 22 months. Id. at 3-4. Citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], the letter informed Snipes of the requirement that her office "make available for public inspection all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters." Id. at 4. The [*61 letter invited Snipes to call Carleson in order to arrange a time to discuss the matter and to arrange an inspection. Id. letter with a letter of her own. See ECF No. [12-2] at 1-2. Snipes' letter refuted as "implausible" the assertion that Broward County's voter rolls were filled with more voters than living persons residing in the county, advising ACRU that the State of Florida "has a statewide database" and that Broward County "adheres strictly to the State of Florida guidelines regarding management of the voter rolls." Id. The letter included two forms of certifications spanning the previous several years— "Address List Maintenance Activities" certifications and "Eligibility Records certifications—which it Maintenance" characterized as "documenting actions taken by [Snipes'] office to manage removal of voters no longer eligible to vote in Broward County."Id at 2; see also id. at 3-23. The letter also stated that Broward County "follows up on information received from credible sources that a person may no longer be eligible to vote." Id. at 2. The letter closed by directing ACRU to BCSEO's General Counsel "[s]hould [ACRU] require further information" and BCSEO's website [*7I as "an additional source ofinformation." Id. at 3. About two months after the exchange of letters, legal representatives of ACRU contacted Snipes via telephone on April 5, 2016, "offer[ing] to set up a meeting to discuss [ACRU's] letter and inspect the requested records." Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Supporting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II, ECF No. [118]("ACRU Count II Supporting SOF") at If 6. According to Snipes, during that phone call she "provided the contact information for [her] General Counsel in order to coordinate inspection and follow-up" and mentioned that there would be a cost for "technology time." Defendant Snipes' Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. [128]("Snipes Count II Response SOF") at ¶ 6. ACRU asserts, however, that Snipes "refused to meet to discuss remedies and permit inspection of records[,] . . . stat[ing] that she would meet with ACRU's representatives only if election officials from six other Florida counties were also present at On February 8, 2016, Snipes responded to ACRU's the meeting." ACRU Count II Supporting SOF at ¶ 17-2361-A-000927 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes 7 (emphasis omitted). Snipes denies that she ever refused to provide documents or allow for an inspection of records, asserting that she "explained I*8] that an inspection meeting needed to be coordinated with [General Counsel] given the threat of litigation and the fact that the caller was an attorney." Snipes Count II Response SOF at ¶ 7. Nearly three months later, on June 27, 20164 —and apparently without any further communications having taking place between ACRU and Snipes—ACRU and Andrea Bellitto ("Bellitto"),5 one of ACRU's members, initiated these proceedings, bringing two claims against Snipes under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See ECF No. [1]. Under Count I of its Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that Snipes "has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF'4-4003-00000-00&context=] [[ HYPERLINK 4As a matter of timing, the NVRA requires a potential plaintiff to "provide written notice of[a] violation [of this chapter] to the chief election official of the State involved." [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentftem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=]. "If the violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of[the] notice[,]" the aggrieved person may file a civil suit.[ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=stattiteslegislation&id=um:contentftem:5D3N-F741-NRF4-400B-0000000&context=] 50n October 26, 2016, the Court dismissed all claims brought by Bellitto after fmding that Bellitto lacked standing to bring suit See ECF No.[64]. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GT11-NRF4-431V-00000-00&context=1]." ECF No. [12] at ¶ 28. Under Count II of the Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that Snipes "has failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data, [and] failed to produce or otherwise failed to make records available to Plaintiffs concerning Defendant's implementation of programs and activities for ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Broward County, in violation of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]." Id. at lj 33. For relief, ACRU seeks an order from this Court (1) declaring that Snipes is [*9] in violation HYPERLINK of https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N(2) F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; ordering Snipes to implement reasonable and effective registration list maintenance programs to cure failures to comply with the NVRA and ensure that non-citizens and ineligible registrants are not on Broward County's voter rolls; (3) ordering Snipes to substantively respond to ACRU's written request for records concerning her implementation of programs and activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of Broward County's voter registration list and providing access to election records; and (4)additional relief. See id. at 9-10. B.BCSEO Records Produced throughout Discovery Following this case's inception, the discovery conducted by the parties revolved primarily around ACRU's records requests. First, on October 31, 2016, ACRU served discovery requests on Snipes requesting admissions and responses to interrogatories regarding list maintenance activities as well as any new documents. ACRU Count II Supporting SOF at ¶ 9. In response to ACRU's discovery requests, Snipes did not produce any new documents other than the certifications she had 17-2361-A-000928 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes provided with her February 8, 2016 letter, though C.BCSEO's Voter Registration and List Snipes did offer to allow an inspection of BCSEO's Maintenance Procedures voter registration database. [*10]See id. at 1N 12Along with Snipes, BCSEO's responsibilities 13. relating to voter registration and list maintenance On January 13, 2017, ACRU conducted an in- are primarily carried out by Jorge Nunez person inspection of BCSEO's voter registration ("Nunez"), BCSEO's Information Technology database. Id at if 14. Certain categories of Director who maintains BCSEO's voter registration documents were not available during the inspection database; Mary Hall ("Hall"), BCSEO's Voter because they were either not contained in the Services Director who helps maintain the voter registration database or required "additional rolls; and Sonia Cahuesqui ("Cahuesqui"), a voter assembly" before they could be made available. Id registration clerk. Snipes/United Count I Shortly thereafter, on January 26, 2017, Snipes Supporting SOF at In 4-7. provided ACRU with a CD containing a PDF file of a current active voter roll for Broward County In accordance with requirements of the Florida and a PDF file of a table list of mailings sent out by Department of State's ("DOS") Division of Elections ("DOE"), Nunez prepares twice-yearly BCSEO.Id. at lj 15. certifications summarizing Snipes' list maintenance On February 1, 2017, Snipes supplemented its activities, which are in turn signed and certified by initial response to ACRU's October 31, 2016 Snipes and then provided to DOE. Id. at ¶ 6; discovery requests. See ECF No. [111-2]. In the Plaintiff ACRU's Opposition to Defendant Snipes' supplemental response, "which did not include any and Defendant-Intervenor United's [*12] Statement additional documents, [Snipes] objected to 'the of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of their production of documents dating back beyond a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. period of two years from the date of the filing of [160]("ACRU's Count I Response SOF") at ¶ 6. subject Complaint' and asserted that responsive The two types of certifications include: (1) documents'within the last two years [] have already "Certification of Address List Maintenance been made available for public inspection and Activities" that reports the actions taken by Snipes copying on January 13, 2017." ECF No.[126] at 2- to identify registrants who have changed residence, 3 (quoting ECF No.[111-2] at 3).6 cancel the registrations of individuals who no longer reside in Broward County, and update the On February 9, 2017, Snipes provided ACRU with registrations of individuals who have moved within two CDs [*11.] containing a number of different Broward County; and (2) "Certification of responsive documents. See ACRU Count II Eligibility Records Maintenance" that reports the Supporting SOF at ¶ 17. Additionally, on March 8, actions taken by Snipes to remove registrants who 2017, Snipes provided ACRU with amended are or have become ineligible because of death, versions of the certifications she had initially felony conviction, mental incapacity, or a lack of provided with her February 8, 2016 letter. See id. at United States citizenship. Snipes/United Count I ¶ 18 (citing ECF No.[111-4]). Discovery closed on Supporting SOF at 14. Nunez is also responsible ¶ March 10, 2017. for placing orders with, and sending data files to, Commercial Printers, Inc.("Commercial Printers"), the third-party vendor that performs printing and mailing services related to Snipes' list maintenance. 6Snipes and ACRU disagree as to the scope of an agreement that Id. atif 6. took place between them at the January 13, 2017 inspection. See generally id. at 4-6. According to Snipes, ACRU agreed to limit all documents contemplated in its discovery request to records spanning the previous two years. See id. at 5. With respect to voter registration generally, BCSEO asserts that, like most other Florida 17-2361-A-000929 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes counties, Broward County uses a voter registration database system [*13] commonly referred to as the "VR System" that was developed by VR Systems, Inc.("VR Systems"), an outside vendor with which BCSEO contracts. Id. at IN 9-10. According to Snipes, the VR System "interfaces directly with" the Florida Voter Registration System ("FVRS"), a statewide voter registration database that Florida maintains pursuant to HAVA. Id. at 1]¶ 8-9. With respect to new voter registration applications, BCSEO sends applications it receives to DOE, which runs certain clearance checks—including screening for duplicate registrations by checking the new applicant's information against the FVRS—before advising BCSEO that the applicant has been cleared for registration. Id. at ¶ 11. In addition, DOE regularly provides Florida's election supervisors, including Snipes, with lists of current registrants who are deceased or have been convicted of a felony. Id. at 11 15. In turn, BCSEO uses that information, which is transmitted electronically by way of direct interaction between FVRS and VR Systems, to update Broward County's voter registration database and to remove voters who have become ineligible. Id. In total, between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed approximately[11.4] 240,028 registrants from Broward County's voter rolls. Id at If 39. Between January 7, 2015 and January 10, 2017, Snipes removed approximately 192,157 registrants from Broward County's voter rolls. Id. at ¶ 40. With respect to other updates unrelated to registrant removal, approximately 148,645 registered voters living within Broward County who were registered as of January 7, 2015 and who were still registered in Broward County as of January 10, 2017 updated their address on record to a new address within Broward County. Id. at If 41. I. Procedures Relating to Residence Changes According to Snipes, BCSEO uses the following three mailings—all of which are conducted by Commercial Printers—to identify and update or remove voters from the Broward County voter rolls when voters have changed residence: (1) notifications to voters who have filed a forwarding address with the United States Postal Service ("USPS");(2) mailings related to voting matters to all registrants in the county; and (3) targeted mailings to registrants who have not voted for a certain period oftime.7 Id. at IN 16-17. BCSEO certifications produced by Snipes reflect that Snipes utilized information received from USPS's National [*15] Change of Address ("NCOA") program as part of her list-maintenance activities in 2009,2011, 2013, and 2015.8 Id. at ¶ 19. "To identify voters with changes of address, Defendant sends voter data from VR Systems to Commercial Printers, which is licensed and certified by [USPS] to use a program called NCOALink. Using NCOALink, Commercial Printers receives updated, computerized change-ofaddress information on a regular basis." Id. at 11 20 (internal citation omitted). Snipes then receives an "updated file" from Commercial Printers, which it "imports into a software program called Voter Focus." Id at ¶ 21. From there, BCSEO's Voter Services team processes records identified based on the "data comparison" as having changes in accordance with VR System's instructions, and "a forwardable notice is automatically scheduled to be sent to the appropriate voters[.]" Id. If a voter does not respond to a "Final Notice" within 30 days, the voter's status is changed from "active" to "inactive" in the VR System database. Id at '1] 22. If the voter does not vote or contact BCSEO in two general election cycles, the voter's status is changed to 7ACRU disputes "whether Defendant updates the addresses of registrants before sending out address change notices[,]" asserting that "[a]t the very least, no records have been produced showing [USPS National Change of Address] database information received so that the registrations could be updated first." ACRU's Count I Response SOF at if 16(citing EU'No.[160-2] at 12). 8ACRU asserts that "[t]he source of the supposed NCOA database information are 'yellow stickers' on returned mail and not from the NCOA database." ACRU's Count I Response SOF at ¶ 16 (citing ECF No.[160-3] at 6). 17-2361-A-000930 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes "ineligible" and the voter is no longer registered to contained in the notice.9 vote. [*16] Id at ¶ 23. The most recent "NCOA comparison" was conducted in May 2015. Id. at lj Id If no reply is received within 30 days, BCSEO publishes a notice in the newspaper. Id If no reply 24. is received within 30 days from the newspaper publication, the registrant is automatically removed 2. Procedures Relating to Deceased Voters from the voter rolls. Id Between January 1, 2014 On a daily basis, DOE provides Snipes through and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed 5,102 FVRS with a verified electronic list of voters who registrants from Broward County's voter rolls that have recently died. Id. at1126. Upon receipt of such were determined to have a felony conviction. Id. lists, Snipes then cancels the relevant voter registration records. Id On an occasional basis, 4. Procedures Related to Non-Citizens Snipes receives information indicating that a registrant is deceased from sources other than DOE. Like the National Voter Registration Form, Id. at If 27. In those cases, BCSEO will make Florida's voter registration form requires applicants efforts to obtain a copy of the death certificate to affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury. [* before removing the registrant from the voter rolls. Id at If 35. Occasionally, 18] the U.S. Id If BCSEO is unable to obtain a copy of the Department of Homeland Security sends death certificate, BCSEO will send additional individuals applying for United States citizenship to notices to the registrant's last known address and BCSEO in order to obtain documentation indicating will request DOE to investigate the voter's status. whether or not they have registered to vote as nonId Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, citizens. Id The individuals found to have 2016, Snipes removed 37,095 registrants from registered to vote as non-citizens are removed from Broward County's voter rolls that were determined the voter rolls. Id Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016, Snipes removed four to be deceased.Id at If 28. registrants from Broward County's voter rolls as non-citizens. Id at ¶ 37. 3. Procedures Related to Duplicate Registrations and Felony Convictions IL LEGAL STANDARDS On a daily basis, BCSEO receives notifications of potential duplicate registrations from DOE via A. Expert Testimony FVRS, and then consolidates the registration HYPERLINK so [*1.7] that only one registration is active. Id. at 11 https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 29. BCSEO determines the correct county of =statutes-legislation&id=unrcontentItem:5GYCresidence by the most recent update to the voter's 2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=1 governs the record. Id Between January 1, 2014 and December admissibility of expert testimony. When a party 31, 2016, Snipes removed more than 9,000 proffers the testimony of an expert under [ duplicate registrants. Id. at ¶ 30. HYPERUNK Similarly, on a daily basis, BCSEO also receives an https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection electronic list of individuals with a felony =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYCconviction from DOE. Id at 11 32. BCSEO then 2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=], the party generates a letter to mail to each registrant on those offering the expert testimony bears the burden of lists, which a registrant has 30 days to reply to by laying the proper foundation, and that party must either confirming or contesting the information 9 The mailings to individuals convicted of a felony are handled by BCSEO directly, rather than by Commercial Printers. Id. 17-2361-A-000931 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes demonstrate admissibility by a preponderance of HYPERLINK evidence. See [ the htgis://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4F.JR-03C0-0038X0VR-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https:h'advance.lexis.com/api/document?colfeetion ....cases&id um:contentitem:41;:fR-03C0-0038X01/7?-00000-00&contert-1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3X9B-F5J0-0038Xl5G-00000-00&context=][ RYP.ERUiYK ht4s://advance.leA-is%conv4nVocument?collection eases&id-- urn coi tenthern:3X9B-17,5„10-0038X150000-00&contert . To determine whether expert testimony or any report prepared by an expert may be admitted, the Court engages in a three-part inquiry, which includes whether: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application I*191 of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. See[HYPERLINK https://ctdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3V14-G310-0038X1D8-00000-00&context=][ HYPERIINK https://oe. Ponce. r:sonhk4lidocument7col1ection eases&id....urn conkwhen? 3V14-G310-0038X1D8-00000-00&context I(citing [HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BY 3-I V R3R6-00000-00&context=][ https:/ ' , • vance.kxisxormivi/document?colledion zzcases&id um:contentitem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&eontex(-1). The Eleventh Circuit refers to each of these requirements as the "qualifications," "reliability," and "helpfulness" prongs. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.coms'api/document?collection :contentitem:4D,IR-0730-0038N'3P8-00000-00&contert-I. While some overlap exists among these requirements, the Court must individually analyze each concept. See id. An expert in this Circuit may be qualified "by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or HYPERLINK education." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:57VJ-5W41-F04D. 11S5-00000-00&context=][ httln::41dvance.,eris.com/qpi/document2coliection cases&id....arn:coiitenthem:57V1-51f41-1-7041).11S5-00000-00&context j (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4PW6-BSCO-TXFPY.PE ,INKK2RS-00000-00&context=][ https:// wrice. exisxonilapil'ocument?collection zzcases&id um:contentitem:4PW6-BS(7O-7ATPK2RS-00000-00&contexi [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentitem:5GYC2991-FG36-120S-00000-00&context=]). "An expert is not necessarily unqualified simply because [his] experience does not precisely match the matter at hand." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:437H-H490-0038X1MT-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLLVK https:/'Jvance. exisxontjapil'ocument?collection urn:contentitem:437H-11490-0038X1441-00000-00&context J. "[S]o long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise go to credibility and weight, not admissibility." See[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:54VH-XF91-F04D113C-00000-00&context=] [ YPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apalocument?collection ca,se,sc id mn:contentItem:54' P9. 4704D113.7-00000-00&context-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4X3G-2R70-TXFP.HYPERUNK K3CG-00000-00&contextlf https://advance.lexis,comiapidoeument?collection se:5c' -,w11:cautenthem: 3 , .7-,n‘,/ K3 ;40000-00&context=1. "After the district court undertakes a review of all of the relevant 17-2361-A-000932 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes issues and of an expert's qualifications, the determination regarding qualification to testify rests within the district court's discretion." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:57VJ-5W41-F04D11 S5-00000-00&context=]r HYPERLINK https://advance.lexi.s.(.-vms'api/docttment?collection ses :content/km:57. -5 W4 4:10 D./ S'5-00000-00&context-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-2510-0039HYPERLINK MOR3-00000-00&context=][ httpc://advance.lexis,comthpi/document?collection 77:cautentliem:3S4X-25]0-0039A4OR3-00000-00&canter When determining whether an expert's testimony is reliable, "the trial judge must assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology [*20] properly can be applied to the in HYPERLINK issue." facts https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4DJR-0730-0038HYPEI LIN X3P8-00000-00&context=][ hill..)s:,:tvonce.lexis.cotniqpiicocument?co,lection sesScid—ii II:content. ienv.0,11Z-073"-0" 38X3P8-00000-00&context (internal formatting, quotation, and citation omitted). To make this determination, the district court examines: "(1) whether the expert's theory can be and has been tested;(2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community."[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=]. (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=][ IlYP .i1)1; Mips_ , vance.lexiscotn.lipi/document?collection 1:contemitem:48BM-W8110-0038ses XOKS-00000-00&conteri. "The same criteria that are used to assess the reliability of a scientific opinion may be used to evaluate the reliability of non-scientific, experience-based testimony." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ ...HYPER/INK https://ickivance.lexis,com/ividocument?collection caws i contentitem:4... .1A7)- 7 0-0038) 8-00000-0 &context-1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPERLINK 000J-00000-00&context=][ /14j)S;1dVQflCC.1escoIcqpLcJouffient?cO1icct1on -n:content. ien 314130-.2X60-00.1C000J-00000-00&contex j the Thus, aforementioned factors are non-exhaustive, and the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized that alternative questions may be more probative in the context of determining reliability. See id Consequently, trial judges are afforded "considerable leeway" in ascertaining whether a particular expert's testimony is reliable. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ IIYPERLINK h#,c:/'dvance.Icxis.cong4i/'ocument?collection ,s'es u contentitem:413JR- 7.30-0038X3P8-00000-00&context-1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance. exis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPERLIN 000J-00000-00&context=][ htict..)s:::'advance.1ev,s.con1.a)cJocumenf?coiieci2on d=11 -n:contenthem:314130-2,V60-004C0001-00000-00(k2ntext j)). The final element, helpfulness, turns on whether the proffered testimony "concern[s] matters that are beyond the understanding of the average lay person." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5D72-FDJ1-F04KX0VT-00000-00&context=11. 111. kips:// vance. exisxoneipi,4. ocument?co ection 4 ,s'es unt.:contenthem:5..)7• 17-2361-A-000933 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes (quoting X0VT-00000-00&con ex. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ Y htips://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?rolfection zzeases&id um:romentitem:4D,./R-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context-1) (formatting omitted). "[A] trial court may exclude [*21] expert testimony that is 'imprecise and unspecific,' or whose factual basis is not adequately explained." Id. (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4FNP-JF30-0038X1HW-00000-00&context=][ MP EP 1) Mips_ , wnee.kxisxom4pi/document?collection ses urn:4-xmtentitem: r W1730-0038X1,11W-00000-00&context....1. To be appropriate, a "fit" must exist between the offered opinion and the facts of the case. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:4F03-7JF0-0038X1B1-00000-00&context=][ hilps://advance.lexis.coin/q)kiorziment?rollection cases&id-unrcontenittern:4F03-7,1F0-0038X1B1-00000-0Mconteriq (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3S4W-XDRO-003BHY R3R6-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.conilapi/document2colfection ....cases&id um:content:Item:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&(.7ontext-1). "For example,there is no fit where a large analytical leap must be made between the facts and the opinion." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:3RR5-5.120-004CHYPEREINK 300R-00000-00&context=][ https:/'a vance.lexis,comiciiii/document?collection ses&V-zu -n:contentliem:3R1 5-V20-004C30OR-00000 00&ronte, Under Daubert, a district court must take on the role of gatekeeper, but this role "is not intended to supplant the adversary system or the role of the HYPERLINK jury." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=]/. i1YPhRLLM https:t'i.Jvance.lexis.com/qpi/docwnenr?coliection ,s'es rcontenthem:48BM-W8.110-0038XOKS-00000-00&context I (internal quotations and citations omitted). Through this function, the district court must "ensure that speculative, unreliable expert testimony does not reach the HYPERLINK jury." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46DW-9CGO-0038.HYPERLINK XOBT-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis,com/apidocument?collection ..... wsesc' --urn:contentliem..46DP 1:9070-0038X0. 3T-00000-00&contexi J. "[I]t is not the role of the district court to make ultimate conclusions as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=]HYPERLINK https:t'dvance. exisxamiapi/. ocument7colledion rases&id um:content:item:4813M-W8110-0038XOKS-00000-00&contexi (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, the district court cannot exclude an expert based on a belief that the expert lacks personal credibility. [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:4FJR-03C0-0038XOVR-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/docurnent?collection se=cas(ccontentitem:4.VR-03C0-0038.,17011R-00000-00 . To the contrary, "vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contenthem:48BM-W8H0-0038.HYPERLINK XOKS-00000-00&context=][ ht4s:.,:/advance.lexis.conp4kkezimenecollection ---cases&id=urn:contentliem..48BM-W8H0-0038(quoting X0KS-00000-00&context-1 HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000934 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&context=][ HYP EP. https:t'dvance.kriscomAlpi/documerecollection =cases' ---u rcontentitem:3: 1;7 )120-003BR3R6-00000-00&context=1); see[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:7XF9-G020-YBONIHYPEI N W029-00000-00&context=][ vonee.lexis.com/qpi, ocument?collection se.), &low:content rem: 94;020--. BOAIW029-00000-00&romext (quoting I*221 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4W-XFY0-001BK1WJ-00000-00&context=][ h httfts:Padvance.lexis.coneviidomment?co,leclion cases&id-urnsontenihem:354W-XF.YO-OOLBK!W.1:-00000-00&romext ("On crossexamination, the opposing counsel is given the opportunity to ferret out the opinion's weaknesses to ensure the jury properly evaluates the testimony's weight and credibility.")). B. Summary Judgment A court may grant a motion for summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]. The parties may support their positions by citation to the record, including, inter aha, depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]. An issue is genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4RV9-CF90-TXFX- HYPERLINK G2KN-00000-00&context=][ https://advatice.lexis.rom.vidocument?eolleetion ties( 71:comendiem:41?119- .;90-1 G'-'. r-00000-00&contextq (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-6H80-0039N37M-00000-00&context=][ .HYPERLINK https://ar vance.lexis.eam/ivi/doctiment?co .ertion cases' ,Enrconteniftem:3:4X-6H80-00393.41-00000-00&context4 A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-6H80-0039N37M-00000-00&context=][ https:Padvance.,exis.4-xmilevii? ocument?colection cases&id=urn:con'enthem 334X-61180-0039N37M-00000-00&context-1). The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the HYPERLINK favor. See party's ht4is://advcrnce.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentltem:4K4H-9MA/10-0038X2V7-00000-00&context=1[ .HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,eamthpidocument?collection ---c ties( w:cautentliem:4K411-9MA10-00382 7-00000-00&contex "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-6H80-0039HY N37M-00000-00&context=][ ht4s://advance.lexis.com4kdocument?co1lection cases&id--urn:conienthern 334X-6H80-0039N37M-00000-00(frontext-1. The Court does not weigh conflicting evidence. See[HYPERLINK htgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NMW-P8N0-0038.HYPERLINK XOGD-00000-00&context=][ htv://advance.lexis.com/qpktocument?collection ---cases&id=ww:contentliem:4Nkilf-P8N0-0038XOGD-00000-00&context=1 (quoting HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000935 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4W-YP40-0039P40E-00000-00&context=]i BYP EP. https:t'x1vance.kxiscom/qpi/document?collection 40-0039rcontenthem:3„'4W-Y1) cases&/d P40E-00000-00&context=/. The moving party shoulders [*23] the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of HYPERLINK fact. See material https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:4V13-14110-TXFXG2NC-00000-00&context=ll HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com/api/i.ocument?co lection --4-gzses urn:contentitem: 1/71.3-14H0-727;XG2, :-00000-00&contextq. If a movant satisfies this burden, "the nonmoving party 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W2P-BORSO-TXFXY NK G3B2-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance,lexis.com/api/document?collection cases& d um:content:Item:4W2P-.11160-12CPXG,02-00000-00&context-] (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-7P90-0039N51W-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLDIK htips://advance,lexis.conilqpi/document2colfection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3S4X-71"90-0039N51 W-00000-00&context Instead, "the nonmoving party 'must make a sufficient showing on each essential element of the case for which he has the burden of proof." Id. (quoting [HYPERLINK https://advance.I s com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-6HCO-0039HYPEI NK N37R-00000-00&context=1/. h1g.).9:,/ 1 40vancw.lexis,contivi/docurnent?co lectiem eases&id—urn:contenthern: S4X- ..00-0039N371?-00000-00&rontext....J. The non-moving party must produce evidence, going beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designating specific facts to suggest that a reasonable jury could find in the non- moving favor. [ HYPERLINK party's https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4V13-14HO-TXFXG2NC-00000-00&context=][ HYPER.IILVk htips:Padvance.,e -'f,',4-;otn/apirdocument?collection cases&id....urn:contendtern:41/13-14110G2M7-00000-00&context Z. A district court's disposition of cross-motions for summary judgment, like the cross-motions filed with respect to Count II in this case, employs the same legal standards applied when only one party files a motion. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-VIC0-003BG2N0-00000-00&contexttlI HYPERLIN. htv://advance.lexis.comfapktorzimenecollection cases&id urn colienthern 35,54 W-V4C0-003.BGINO-00000-00&context=1 ("Cross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not genuinely disputed.") (quoting HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4X-3BD0-0039M1JS-00000-00&contextlf HYPERLINK https:t'iJvance. exisxom/apil'ocument?collection rases& d um:content:Item:3.5(4X-3100-0039MUS-00000-00&contexi /.10 A court must consider each motion on its own merits, "resolving [*24] all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under HYPERLINK consideration." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:5D9H-4MB1-F04D22HC-00000-00&context=][ HYPERL.INK 1°In HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:co ntentltem:3S4W-Y7N0-0039-W22N-00000-008ccontext=p" .. HUT 'LINK bnys:,;advance.lexis.contral.n4loczenzent?caiketion...eases&ial....urn:e omentitem; W-Y7N0-003.90000-00&eante,xt.-1 (en bane), the court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981. 17-2361-A-000936 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document2collection ---cases&id=urn:contentitem:5D911-4A4B1-1•04D2211C-00000-00&contex (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4G4P-SNTO-0038HYPERLINK X08R-00000-00&context=]/ htv:/i/ativance.lexis.com*kimument?rollection cases&id=urn:contendtem..4G4P-SIV TO-0038X08.1?-00000-00&conterfq. "Cross-motions may, however, be probative of the absence of a factual dispute where they reflect general agreement by the parties as to the controlling legal theories and material facts." Id (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&context=][ HYP.ER.UNK htips:tiadvance.lexis.4-;onegplidocument?cc ,lection cases&id urn contenthem:3,94W-V4C0-003BG2N0-00000-00&context::::1); see also [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3S4X-3BDO-0039M1JS-00000-00&context=]I hign://advance.lexis.com/aiii/document?rollection ceYses&id--arn:contenthern:3,94X-3BDO-003.9LIS-00000-00&:context--1 III. DISCUSSION With this backdrop in mind, United moves for summary judgment on Count I(ACRU's claim for failure to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs), and ACRU and Snipes, respectively, move for summary judgment on Count II (ACRU's claim for failure to disclose). In addition, United moves to strike ACRU's two proposed expert witnesses who it appears will, if allowed, offer testimony that supports ACRUts claim under Count I. The Court will therefore address ACRU's Daubert Motion first, and will then turn to the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. A. United's Daubert Motionl 1 "The Court notes that United failed to meet and confer with ACRU United seeks to exclude ACRU's proposed experts, Dr. Steven Camarota ("Dr. Camarota") and Scott Gessler ("Gessler"), on the bases that both are unqualified to offer any opinion in this case and that the entirety of their respective opinions is unreliable,[*25] speculative, and/or unhelpful. For the most part, the Court disagrees.12 I. Dr. Camarota United challenges the testimony of Dr. Camarota prior to filing its Daubert Motion as required by [ HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=um:contentltem:5P4T-FXKO-004D-61TY-0000000&context=] and this Court's initial Scheduling Order, ECF No. [127] at 2—an independent basis for denial. The Court will nevertheless consider the Daubert Motion on the merits. 12 The merits aside, ACRU argues that because this case is set for a bench trial, United's Daubert Motion is inappropriate, and that "the prudent course is to permit ACRU's experts to offer testimony during trial, where its relevance and reliability can be judged in the context of ACRU's legal arguments in support of its claims." ECF No.[156] at 2-4. However, none of the cases ACRU cites to in support of this proposition involved evidentiary determinations made in contemplation ofsununary judgment. Here,by contrast, resolution of the Snipes/United Motion tarns in part on the admissibility of ACRU's proposed experts. It is axiomatic, as explained by the Eleventh Circuit, that "[e]vidence inadmissible at trial cannot be used to avoid summary judgment" [ HYPERLINK https:lladvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntenatem:4MWB-N660-0038-X3G4-00000-00&context=][ HITERLINK hitpv//calyx:nee. comkpirdommereco °went:Item:. 11TPB-N660-0038-X. G4-00000-00(twntext... 7 (quoting HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentltem:3S4X-2240-0039-M550-00000-00&context=]i HYPERLINK hitpsilhuitmee..le.sit..comksiteiocumen.?co ?MIX ontentitern: ' S4X-2240-0039-11/1550-00000-0Mconext-7 (alteration in original); see also HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contendtem:5GYC-2421-6N19-F165-0000000&context=] ("A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . showing that . . . an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentltem:5GYC-2421-6N19-F165-0000000&context=]("A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence."). Thus, the Court fmds it both appropriate and necessary to consider United's Daubert Motion. 17-2361-A-000937 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes under the first two elements of Daubert—that is, qualifications and reliability. In United's view, because Dr. Camarota "is not versed in voter registration policy and is not a statistician, he is [] wholly unqualified to offer an opinion—let alone an expert opinion—on the issues in dispute in this case." ECF No. [144] at 2. United's assessment, however, misconstrues the primary purpose for which ACRU seeks to introduce Dr. Camarota's testimony and, in turn, understates Dr. Camarota's credentials to that effect. As ACRU correctly points out, the essence of Dr. Camarota's expert opinion is an assessment, based in part on data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, of the ratio in Broward County of the total number of registered voters to the voting-eligible citizen population as a whole, compared to the same ratios elsewhere in Florida and throughout the country. See id. at 34("Taken at face value, these numbers indicate that nearly every eligible person in Broward County is registered to vote. . . . In sum, the registration rates for Broward [*26] County. . . are much higher than the rates in Florida, the nation, and any other state."). It is with this specific purpose in mind that the Court will measure the qualifications of Dr. Camarota and the reliability of his testimony. Regarding qualifications, Dr. Camarota received a master's degree in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in public policy analysis from the University of Virginia. While completing his doctorate, Dr. Camarota "was focused on analysis of primarily Census Bureau data . . looking at . . . issues associated with U.S. immigration." Id. at 70. Dr. Camarota is currently the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)—a research institute that focuses on examining the consequences of immigration on the United States—where he has worked since completing his doctorate. Notably, Dr. Camarota has previously served as an expert witness in a number oflawsuits, at least one of which required him to analyze "population estimates and Census Bureau data[.]" See id. at 80-81. Dr. Camarota has also "served as the lead researcher on a contract with the Census Bureau examining the quality of immigration data in the [Census Bureau's] American [*27] Community Survey [("ACS")]." Id. at 27. As is evident, Dr. Camarota has extensive experience and familiarity with analyzing data provided by the Census Bureau, including the Census Bureau's ACS. In light of that experience, the Court is satisfied that Dr. Camarota is at least minimally HYPERLINK qualified. See https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4PW6-BSCO-TXFPK2RS-00000-00&context=i HYPERUNK htips:,:radvance.lexis.coralapildocument?colfectioll ---cayes&id=urn:contentitem:4171f6-BSCO-7XFPI S-00000-00&contexi- 1 ("An expert is not necessarily unqualified simply because [his] experience does not precisely match the matter at hand."). Specifically, it is a Census Bureau ACS estimate—namely, the total number of votingeligible citizens in Broward County—that serves as the denominator of the voter registration rates from which Dr. Camarota intends to testify. Although United is not wrong to point out that Dr. Camarota is not a statistician and "has no formal statistical training outside of a three-month [course] he attended. . . during graduate school[,]" id. at 6, the voter registration rates he seeks to offer constitute a straightforward division calculation. Above the denominator mentioned above, the numerator purports to be the total number of actual registered voters—an EAC Election Administration Voting Survey ("EAVS") estimate that is based on data compiled and submitted by state and local election officials[1'28] themselves. See ECF No.[144] at 23. In this sense, the Court finds Dr. Camarota's statistical background, or lack thereof, to be largely irrelevant. Dr. Camarota is therefore qualified to offer testimony as to the purported voter registration rates he has compiled. That said, Dr. Camarota's lack of statistical expertise is relevant insofar as Dr. Camarota intends to take his voter registration rates a step further by testifying as to their overall accuracy. In defending Dr. Camarota's qualifications, ACRU initially contends that his testimony "is simply what 17-2361-A-000938 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes the publically available data, including statements by the Defendant herself, show the ratio of registrants over eligible voters to be." Id. at 16 (emphasis added). But even ACRU recognizes that Dr. Camarota intends to testify to more than that. See id. (characterizing the "subject matter" of Dr. Camarota's testimony as "repeating publically available registration and demographic data and why they are reliable") (emphasis added). This concern with the reliability of the voter registration rates speaks to opinions offered by United's expert, Dr. Daniel A. Smith ("Dr. Smith"). Dr. Smith asserts that population counts from the ACS should [*29] not be used to calculate registration rates because the ACS, being a survey, contains sampling error. See ECF No. [150] at 9-10. In an effort to rebut that position, Dr. Camarota opines that the margins of error for the ACS estimates are easily quantifiable and small, thereby rendering the ACS estimates accurate overall. See ECF No.[144] at 34-35. Dr. Camarota may be right about this, but the statistical nature of this opinion, which is obvious, renders it beyond the scope of his expertise. See id. at 9 ("[A] survey's natural imprecision can be quantified using basic statistics to produce a confidence interval around any particular estimate. . . Table 2 and Table 3 report confidence intervals using margins of error at different significance levels. The margins of error are small, and subsequently the variation in likely registrations rates in the county is also small.") (emphasis added). Thus, although Dr. Camarota is qualified to offer testimony as to the purported voter registration rates he has compiled (e.g., presenting the figures themselves and comparing them to similar figures related to other localities), he is not qualified to offer testimony as to the degree of accuracy of those [*30] rates—a statistical inquiry. See, e.g., [ HYPERLINK htgis://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-71D0-003B52B0-00000-00&context71. 1111-1:1?LiNK htv:/:/advance.lexis.con,v'api,document?rollection (.7ases&id-arn:conientlian..3.S4X-71D0-003B52B0-00000-004-conter (finding no error in excluding testimony from a political scientist regarding statistical disparities in employment decisions where the witness did not have training or significant experience as a statistician); Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 558, 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)("While [the excluded expert] may have used statistics in his work (as most people do to one extent or another) this does not mean that he is sufficiently qualified to testify to the statistical significance of[his proposed expert findings].").13 Turning to reliability, United challenges the reliability of Dr. Camarota's testimony by attacking the methods he employed to calculate the voter registration rates and, to an extent, some of the underlying data upon which he relied for those calculations. See ECF No. [144] at 16-19. United asserts: "Simply put, the analysis used by [] Dr. Camarota . . . compares different sets of numbers reflecting different periods of time, which therefore are not at all comparable." Id. at 19. The Court does not share United's reliability concerns. First, United calls into question the reliability of Dr. Camarota's testimony on the basis that there is no evidence that Dr. Camarota's methodology has been subject to peer I*31.1 review, used by other statisticians, or involves reliable, recognized statistical techniques. Id at 16. With respect to peer review and use by other statisticians, the Court does not find the absence of such to be dispositive under the circumstances. See [ HYPERLINK httpsiktdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4I/J9-BRIO-TXFXG2TV-00000-00&contextql. HYPERL.JNK htv://advance.lexis.comfapfdocumenecollection cases&id....arn:coiitenthern:41719-13W0-.11XfiX02171-00000-00&context-1 of ("Standards scientific reliability, such as testability and peer review, do not apply to all forms of expert testimony. For nonscientific expert testimony, 'the 13ACRU also argues that "if a degree in statistics was necessary to opine on the voter registration and population data relevant to this case,[Dr. Smith] would need to be disqualified[] [because he] is not a statistician and his credentials are similar to Dr. Camarota. . . ." ECF No. [156] at 16. However, for purposes of this Order, it is Dr. Camarota's testimony, not Dr. Smith's,that is under scrutiny. 17-2361-A-000939 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes PERLINK D4N6-00000-00&context=lf https://advance.lexis.com/apidocument?collection ties( w:cautentliem:3,. ,G4D0-0013.1D4N6-00000-00&context-1 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5MXP-H101-F04DROHK-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK https://advance.le:vis.com/api/document?collection so'fid m.n:contentitenn5MXP-11101-1•041)ROHK-00000-00&context ("The court notes that there is nothing inherently wrong with VIP-NC's reliance on census data to support its claim.") (citing Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 779, 791 (W.D. Tex. 2015)). United argues that Dr. Camarota's comparison of the EAVS registration number to the ACS population estimate is flawed because it compares "an actual registration number to an estimated population number[.]" ECF No. [144] at 18 (emphasis in original). As such, United appears to take issue with the use of estimates in Dr. Camarota's figures. Contrary to what United suggests, however, there is nothing inherently problematic with the use of a population estimate in measuring data, especially As for the purported lack of recognized statistical where, as here, there is no indication that the techniques in Dr. Camarota's methodology, there is estimate was tainted in any way. The Eleventh a presumption that the data sets used by Dr. Circuit has explained in another voting rights case: Camarota—particularly the Census Bureau's ACS voting-eligible population estimates—are accurate [W]e would [] uphold the district court's and involve reliable [*321 statistical techniques. consideration [*33] of the citizenship statistics, e.g., HYPERLINK See, even though those statistics are based on https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection sample data. The use of sample data is a long=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3YTP-2T.10-0038standing statistical technique, whose limits are XOCB-00000-00&context=liknown and measurable. We will not reject the htips:Podvance.t: 1,s',com/qpi/docurrien ?collectkm citizenship statistics solely because they are cases&ki....urn:contenthern 3177P-21A-0038based on sample data without some indication .X003-00000-00&context...1 ("The presumption is that the sample was tainted in some way. There that census figures are continually accurate. . . . were no arguments before the district court that And, this court has previously said, in a voting the sample was skewed in a statistically rights case, that statistical evidence derived from a significant way due to improper sampling sampling method, using reliable statistical method, small sample size, or sheer random techniques, is admissible on the question of error. determining the relevant population.") (citing [ HYPERLINK HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-G4D0-00B1=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-G4D0-00B1trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.") (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004C000J-00000-00&context=]/ HYPERLDIK https://advance.lexis.coms'api/document?collection --cases :content/km:3 413 60-004Coo(Am00004 f &context 1) . citation (internal omitted); see also HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4RM-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context77I HYPERLINK https:/.a .vance.lexis.comicipi/document?collection cases&k -n:contenthem 41AR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&4-xmtext . What Dr. Camarota has essentially done is take publically available data that was compiled by governmental agencies and perform straightforward division calculations with that data. Dr. Camarota then seeks to offer figures reflecting those calculations. In the Court's view, this does not necessarily require peer review. 17-2361-A-000940 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes .HYPERLINK D4N6-00000-00&context=][ https://acivance.lexis.com.7piidocument?collection sesc' rcontendiem -G4D0-0013I.D4N6-00000-00&context j (recognizing that because the challenged Miami Beach citizenship information from the Census Bureau was "based upon a sample population, it [could not] be as precise as [] census data[] . . based upon the entire population[,]" but nevertheless rejecting the plaintiffs attempt to call into question the accuracy of that information). Thus, to the extent that the ACS population estimates used by Dr. Camarota do not lend to the kind of precision an exact value might, such a concern speaks to the weight of Dr. Camarota's figures, not their admissibility. See[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:3rIP-21:10-0038XOCB-00000-00&contextt][ HY.PERLLAIK https://advance.lexis.c..omicipi/document7collection --cases :content/km:SY7P-27:10-0038.,170 3-00000-00&context-1 ("If the evidence is admissible, that voter registration data might not be as reliable as some other measures [*34] of population goes to the weight of the evidence, but does not preclude use of the figures by the district court."). Second, United argues that Dr. Camarota's comparison of the EAVS registration number to the ACS population estimate is flawed because it compares "a registration number at a single point in time when registration rates are highest to an average population number over a five-year period." ECF No. [144] at 18 (emphasis in original). Regarding that five-year period, Dr. Camarota's "five-year" ACS data—which include five-year estimates reported in 2010, 2012, and 2014—reflects information collected during the five-year period of time that ends in the respective reporting year that is then "totaled back and weighted to a midyear control point." See id at 29 n.8; id. at 48; id at 49-50 ("[T]hink of it this way: [the five-year ACS data] has basically the same effect as if you were to take all the years and average them together. . . . So you can think of it as the midyear of that year."). United contends that it is problematic that Dr. Camarota, in calculating the voter registration rates, "divide[d] the EAVS registered voter figure by ACS eligible population estimatesfor the same year." Id. at 18 (emphasis in original). "In other 1*35I words, the 2006-2010 5year ACS estimate, the median year of which is 2008, should not be used as a denominator for a 2010 EAVS numerator." Id. According to United, "the 2010 EAVS numerator should be compared against a denominator that more closely estimates the 2010 population, which would come from the 2008-2012 5-year ACS data." Id. Importantly, however, Dr. Camarota used "single-year ACS data" as well, which appears to do just that—that is, offer a denominator that more closely estimates the EAVS numerator. See id. at 33 (calculating voter registration rates based on both one-year and fiveyear ACS eligible population estimates for the years 2010, 2012, and 2014). The Court notes that United makes no mention of Dr. Camarota's use of single-year ACS data. To the extent that Dr. Camarota will testify as to voter registration rates he calculated using both single-year ACS data and five-year ACS data, the Court believes that "vigorous[] cross-examin[ation]" and the testimony of United's own witnesses, such as that of Dr. Smith, are the proper vehicles to address United's HYPERLINK concerns. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:48BM-W8H0-0038XOKS-00000-00&context=1/ 11.I'PER:LINK https://azivanee.lexis.com,opidocitinent?co lertion =case: un conte igiem:48&11-1478 0-0038XOKS-00000-00&contexi j. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the testimony Dr. Camarota seeks to offer is admissible, but with one qualification. [*36] Dr. Camarota may testify as to the voter registration rates that he has calculated (as reflected in his expert report), but he may not testify as to the degree of accuracy ofthose rates. 2. Gessler 17-2361-A-000941 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes After reviewing Florida's law on voter list maintenance and the evidence in this case related to the voter list maintenance practices utilized by BCSEO,see ECF No.[144] at 4-12, Gessler opines that Snipes "has not . . . taken reasonable steps to address well-known or easily identified problems with its list maintenance programs[,]" including "[b]loated voter rolls"—which "serve as a warning sign that problems exist"—and the presence of deceased voters on the voter rolls, id. at 49,142, 45; id. at 55, 11 75. Gessler concludes his proposed expert report with recommendations of "reasonable steps Broward County should take in order to develop a general program and maintain the accuracy of the county voter rolls." Id. at 57, lj 87. United challenges the testimony of Gessler on all HYPERLINK of three prongs https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4W-XDRO-003BR3R6-00000-00&context=]. Turning first to qualifications, Gessler's general credentials include a law degree from the University of Michigan and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University. Id at 38, If 4. More pertinent to the issues involved in this case, Gessler [*37] served as Colorado's Secretary of State from January 2011 to January 2015. Id. at 39, 11 5. In that capacity, Gessler was Colorado's chief election officer, a position that required him to oversee election officials in Colorado counties, review the election practices and procedures of Colorado counties, maintain the voter database and voter registration systems for Colorado, and maintain Colorado's voter rolls. Id. Additionally, Gessler handled "statewide coordination and compliance with all federal election laws, including the [NVRA][and] the [HAVA]. . . ." Id. Gessler details in his expert report his experience in identifying, creating, and implementing list maintenance policies and practices as well as his experience identifying and responding to perceived deficient policies and practices related to the voter registration lists he oversaw—including responding to the threat of a lawsuit alleging noncompliance with HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See generally id. at 39,79-10. Despite the particular experiences of Gessler as the chief elections officer of Colorado, United argues that Gessler "is unsuited to provide an expert opinion in this case." Id. at 3. The primary rationale for that argument is that Gessler "lacks any knowledge [*38] of Broward County's voting registration policy or voter roll maintenance, the voting policy of any state other than Colorado, or the implementation of such policy at the county level[.]" Id at 2-3. United elaborates that, "[e]xcluding his preparation for this case, Mr. Gessler has little—if any—knowledge of Florida's or Broward County's voter registration and voter roll maintenance systems[,]" and emphasizes that in Colorado, "the duty of implementing election policy belongs to the state's counties." Id at 9. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Gessler is at least minimally qualified to offer an expert opinion in this case (with one caveat, as explained below) given the apparent overlap between his unique experiences as Colorado's Secretary of State and the issues in this case. Most notably, Gessler's knowledge and expertise in the field of voter roll list maintenance are tied directly to the same federal standard under the NVRA with which Snipes is required to comply. In the Court's view, the particular concerns raised by United speak to the level of Gessler's expertise, and therefore the weight to be afforded his opinions. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC(basing 2991-FG36-1205-00000-00&context=] qualifications on a proposed expert's "knowledge, skill, experience, training,[*391 or education"); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038X3P8-00000-00&context=][ HYMN, V Mips:// vance.lexis.com/qpiidocwnenr?coliection ,s lc unt:contentitem:413,1R-0730400.3817-2361-A-000942 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes X3P8-00000-00&context...1 (explaining that, in addition to scientific training or education, "experience in a field may offer another path to expert status"); HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KGB-NC -F04D13R0-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK' https://advance.lexis.comicipildocumerecollection --cases :contentitenn5KGB-N -FWD1.31W-00000-00&4-;ontext..1 ("[S]o long as the expert is minimally qualified, objections to the level of the expert's expertise go to credibility and admissibility.") (quoting [ weight, not HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:54VH-XF91-F04D113C-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLJNK htip,.s•:,:cidvance.lexis.conilapi/document?rolfection zzeases&id um:rontentitem:541111-XE91-F04D113C-00000-00&contexi (alteration in original). That said, the Court notes that like Dr. Camarota's expert report, Gessler's expert report compares Census Bureau ACS data with EAVS data to support some of the opinions stated therein, such as the following: "An unusually high percentage of registered voters serves as one of the main indicators that a jurisdiction does not take reasonable steps to maintain voter registration lists. Broward County is a classic example of a jurisdiction that has alarmingly high voter registration rates . . . ." ECF No.[144] at 49, ¶ 43. The Court is not convinced that Gessler has the requisite expertise in analyzing this kind of data to offer opinions that make assessments as to Broward County's voter registration rates. By comparison, ACRU has shown that Dr. Camarota has extensive experience in analyzing Census Bureau data, like the ACS, and other population related data. [*40] No comparable showing has been made with respect to Gessler, a lawyer by trade. Thus, although Gessler is certainly qualified to offer opinions concerning the specific list maintenance policies and procedures utilized (and not utilized) by Snipes, the Court does not find that he is qualified to offer data-driven opinions relating to Broward County's voter registration rates. With respect to reliability, United contends: "No clear methodology is discernible from Mr. Gessler's opinion. He appears to have arrived at his conclusions by simply applying his personal knowledge of Colorado's voter registration system at the state level and his review of Florida law to the information about Broward County found in documents produced and the data sources generated for this case." Id. at 10. Importantly, United's reliability attacks focus almost entirely on Gessler's opinions concerning Broward County's voter registration rates—a subject that in any event Gessler is unqualified to testify about. See, e.g., id. at 10 (describing Gessler's methodology as "rel[ying] on two data sets drawn from calculations and analysis of population statistics"); id. at 11 (emphasizing that "Mr. Gessler is not a statistician[,]" "has little familiarity[*41] with EAVS data[,]" and "has no basis for determining at what level a registration rate becomes potentially problematic"); id. at 16 (collectively addressing "Dr. Camarota's and Mr. Gessler's methodology" by noting, among other things, that "the methodology used in both reports" lacks evidence of an "error rate" and "reliable, recognized statistical techniques"); id. at 17 (stating that "Dr. Camarota's and Mr. Gessler's methodology consists of a flawed comparison between dissimilar data points"). The only discernible challenge by United as to the reliability of Gessler's opinions concerning the list maintenance policies and procedures employed by Snipes—a subject that Gessler is qualified to testify about—is that Gessler "[cites] no comparative studies of state voter registration systems, no national guidelines, and no widely accepted best practices . . . [and offers] no explanation of how his limited Colorado experience suffices as support for his opinions on Broward County's practices." Id. at 14. However, the Court finds that Gessler's testimony is sufficiently reliable based "upon [his] personal knowledge [and] experience." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3W30-2X60-004C17-2361-A-000943 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES BeHitt° . Snipes HYPERLINK 000J-00000-00&context=]/ https://advance.lexis.comiapi/document?collection sesc" =u 71:cautentliem:31;1130-2X60-004 000,1-00000-00&context He has formed his opinions based on his personal experiences in attempting to maintain [*42] compliance with the NVRA as Colorado's chief elections officer and his review of the evidence in this case. The Court does not find that Gessler's testimony is rendered unreliable simply because he has not served as an election official in Florida or Broward County or cited comparative studies or national guidelines. HYPERLINK See https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:437H-H490-0038X1MT-00000-00&context=11. ht4:s:tiadvance.lexis.4-;onile,ptidocument?co eaws&id urn contenthem:4371141490-0038XIMI-00000-00&context....1 ("[Defendants] assert that Schwartz's testimony is not reliable because it is based largely on his personal experience rather than verifiable testing or studies. Although Daubert applies to all expert testimony, . . . there is no question that an expert may still properly base his testimony on 'professional study or personal experience.' Defendants' objection is unfounded on this record. . . . Defendants' objections plainly go to the weight and sufficiency of Schwartz's opinions rather than to their admissibility.") (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3W30-2X60-004CHYPEI At. 000J-00000-00&context=][ is.cotniqpiic ocument?coliection -n:contentliem:30'3 -2 q)--0(i,1C00a1-00000-00&context ) (internal citations omitted). Finally, United argues that Gessler's testimony will not assist the factfinder, but will instead "improperly usurp[] the role of the fact-finder." ECF No.[144] at 19. Specifically, United suggests that Gessler has merely weighed the evidence in this case by "review[ing] only the documents and sources of data prepared for or [*431 generated by this litigation, and evaluat[ing] the veracity of statements made by Dr. Snipes and other witnesses regarding Broward County's voter registration and voter roll maintenance practices." Id. But Gessler's expert report purports to do more than just simply weigh the evidence in this case. For example, Gessler intends to identify list maintenance practices that in his opinion Snipes should employ, but does not. See, e.g., id. at 50, ¶IJ 48-52 (use of driver license data); id. at 51, ¶¶ 53-55 (use ofjury notices). In doing so, Gessler will opine on industry practices he is familiar with, what he perceives as deficiencies in BCSEO's list maintenance program, and how he believes such deficiencies can be remedied. See id. at 51-57. In the Court's view, this kind of testimony, though not scientific, is "beyond the understanding of the average lay person" and will lend assistance to the factfinding in this case.[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4DJR-0730-0038HYPERLIN X3P8-00000-00&context=]/ hvs.7:101-Ivance.,exis,4-xmilapi/doeument?colle4-;tion 7i:content lem:41111. -07_ 0-0038X3P8-00000-00&rontext . However, as United correctly points out, Gessler also provides an opinion on the ultimate legal question raised by ACRU's claim under Count I. See ECF No.[144] at 41, If 12 (opining that Snipes "has failed to conduct a general program and has failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the accuracy of the county [*44] voter rolls"). Gessler is precluded from giving testimony that ultimately states legal conclusions. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:5G09-H5B1-F04D12H6-00000-00&contextt][ ilYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,com/ividocument?collection . P.1 E011)-cas'es&d....unicontc,:iItem:.G09H I2H6-00000-0 &contex ("[A]n expert may offer his opinion as to facts that, if found, would support a conclusion that the legal standard at issue was satisfied, but he may not testify as to whether the legal standard has been satisfied.") (citation omitted)(alteration in original). 17-2361-A-000944 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto . Snipes Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the testimony Gessler seeks to offer is admissible, so long as that testimony does not relate to Broward County's voter registration rates or to any legal conclusions. cases&id....ttmcontenthem:51H0-251).1-652118007-00000-00&eontext=7. "Those sometimes conflicting mandates are reflected in the language of HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NB.Summary Judgment Motions F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] . . . ." [ HYPERLINK I. Claimfor Failure to Make Reasonable Efforts to https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection Conduct Voter List Maintenance Programs(Count =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KI) P1C2-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLLVK htv://advance.lexis.comfapi/document?collection a. The Snipes/United Motion14 cases&id....urn:rontenthern:51M-DG8.1404KPIC2-00000-00&:context--1. "Congress' stated purposes in enacting the NVRA were, inter alia, 'to establish procedures that will HYPERLINK increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office; ... https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection [and] to ensure that accurate and current voter =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nregistration rolls are maintained." [ HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] states that "[i]n the administration of voter registration for https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection elections for Federal office, each State shall . . =cases&id=um:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04Kprovide that the name of a registrant may not be P1C2-00000-00&context=][ IIT removed from the official list of eligible voters https:/'xlvance.lexisxom,ipi, ocument?eollection except" under certain circumstances. [ -"cases uns:contentitem: -PY P1C2-00000-00&contexi I, cert. granted, 198 L. HYPERLINK collection Ed 2d254, 2017 WI 515274 (U.S. 2017)(quoting https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? slation&id=um: contentItem :5D3N=statutes-legi HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; see also S. https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection Rep. No. 103-6, at 19(1993)("[O]ne of the guiding =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=]). "These principles of [the NVRA is] to ensure that once purposes counterpose two general, sometimes registered, a voter remains on the rolls so long as he conflicting, mandates: To expand and simplify or she is eligible to vote in that jurisdiction."); H.R. voter registration processes so that more Rep. No. 103-9, at 18 (1993). [ HYPERLINK collection individuals I*45] register and participate in federal https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? slation&id=um: contentItem :5D3N=statutes-legi elections, while simultaneously ensuring that voter then lists include only eligible . . . voters." [ F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] provides an exhaustive list of the circumstances HYPERLINK justifying removal: "criminal conviction or mental https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection incapacity as provided by state law, the death ofthe =cases&id=um:contentitem 51H0-25P1-652Hregistrant, or . . . a change of the registrant's HYPEI At. 8007-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK ocument?co Iection residence." https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:4V70-WR20-TXFX14Although Snipes and United have requested a hearing, see ECF 82RC-00000-00&context=][ HYPER No. [142] at 19, the Court finds the matters presented in the vance. exisxarteipi/'ocument?collection Snipes/United Motion suitable for a dettamination on the papers and ses .ic urn.contentitem:4V70JVR20TXFXwithout oral argument. 17-2361-A-000945 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes 82RC-00000-00&conteri 1 (citing[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]). Under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]—which ACRU's claim under Count I is brought pursuant to—states are required to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of(A)the [*461 death of the registrant; or(B)a change in the residence of the registrant[]" HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=] (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]) (alteration and emphasis in original). This procedure, which the Snipes/United Motion relies upon first and foremost, has been come to known as the "safeharbor' procedure." Id.; see ECF No. [142] at 3 ("Because the undisputed facts of this case demonstrate that Defendant is implementing the NCOA program in accordance with the safe harbor provision, the county's program meets the HYPERLINK of requirements https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFinally, as noted by the Sixth Circuit in Husted,"in F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. For this HYPERLINK reason alone, summary judgment is warranted on https:lladvance.1exis com/api/document?collection Count I."). =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], Congress As a preliminary matter, both Snipes and United provided states with an example of a procedure for initially raised the safe-harbor provision when they identifying and removing voters who had changed previously moved to dismiss Count I. See[ residence that would comply with the NVRA's HYPERLINK mandates and accompanying constraints. That htq,s://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection subsection provides that la] State may meet the HYPERLINK the registrant has changed residence" without first subjecting the requirement of https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection registrant to the confirmation notice procedure outlined in that subsection. HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutesF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] by legislation8cid=um:contendtem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-00000establishing a program under which' voters who 00&context=]. That mandatory confitmation notice procedure is as appear to have moved based on information follows: "a forwardable postage prepaid and pre-addressed form is contained in the NCOA database are sent [ sent to a voter, and the voter is removed from the rolls if(1)he or she does not respond to the confirmation notice or update his or her HYPERLINK registration, and (2) he or she does not subsequently vote during a https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection period offour consecutive years that includes two federal elections." =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection=cases&id=untco F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] ntentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04K-P1C2-00000-00&context=][ . confirmation notices."15 15[ HYPERLINK https://adrance.lexis.cornlapi/doctmerecollectiontatutes• Iegislation&i&urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-N RF4.4007-00000-00&context=] establishes that states "shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that HYPERLINK hItavAriltyrnce.lexacomkpi'docrmiein?coilection-cas.e.st IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. ACRU's Motion, ECF No. [117], is DENIED. 2. Snipes' Motion, ECF No. [145], is DENIED. a. ACRU's Motion to Strike Defendant Brenda Snipes's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II, ECF No. [149], is DENIED as moot.21 3. The Snipes/United Motion, ECF No. [1421, is DENIED. a. Snipes[1.72] and United's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Summary Judgment 22 21 ACRU's Motion to Strike Defendant Brenda Snipes's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II seeks the same relief as did the motion ACRU filed at ECF No. [153], which the Court denied on June 5,2017.See ECF No.[154]. Snipes and United's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Evidence requested that the Court strike evidence ACRU submitted in support of its opposition to the Snipes/United Motion that, ultimately, this Court did not consider in denying the Snipes/United Motion. 17-2361-A-000958 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5M1 N-0M41 -F04D-1 ON R-00000-00&context=L iiYPERLINK https://advancelexis.cornAripihlocument?collection=rasesttid=urrixonten Item:5:111 N011141-1704D-10NR-00000-00&context ' , United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida October 25,2016, Decided; October 26, 2016, Entered on Docket Case No. 16-cv-61474-BLOOMNalle Reporter 221 F. Supp. 3d 1354 *; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148234 **; 2016 WL 6248602 FL. ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiffs, v. BRENDA SNIPES, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant, v. 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST,Intervenor Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases8cid=urn:contentitem:5KS6-6541-F04D10.TX-00000-00&context=] [HYPER]INK vance.lexis.coniAlpi/document?colledion ."'CC ses u rcontentitem:5K.S6-654..-.170,010,1X-00000-00&context HYPERLINK htv:Padvance.lexis.com/qpkiocument?rollection ---cases&id=urn:comentliem:5K56-6541-1704D16UX.,00000-00&context-1 Counsel: [**1] For Andrea Bellitto, Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Joseph A. Vanderhulst, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Publix Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Mathew Daniel Gutierrez, LEAD ATTORNEY,Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, For American Civil Rights Union,Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates, LEAD ATTORNEY,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Public Interest Legal Foundation, Plainfield, IN; Mathew Daniel Gutierrez, LEAD ATTORNEY,Foley, Lardner LLP,Miami,FL; William Earl Davis, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Miami, FL. For Brenda Snipes, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, Defendant: Burnadette Norris-Weeks, LEAD ATTORNEY,Fort Lauderdale, FL; Michelle Austin Pamies,LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE,Burnadette Norris-Weeks PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL. For 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, Intervenor Defendant: Cameron Bell, Scott Novakowski, Stuart C. Naifeh, LEAD ATTORNEYS,[**2] PRO HAC VICE,Demos, New York, NY; Catherine M.Flanagan, Michelle Kanter Cohen,LEAD ATTORNEYS,PRO HAC VICE,Project Vote, Washington, DC;Kathleen Marie Phillips, LEAD ATTORNEY,Phillips Richard & Rind, Miami, FL; Nicole G. Berner, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service 17-2361-A-000959 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes Employees International Union, Deputy General Counsel, Washington,DC;Trisha Pande, LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE, Service Employees International Union, Washington,DC. Judges: BETH BLOOM,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Opinion by: BETH BLOOM Opinion [*1357] ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Brenda Snipes's Second Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [16] ("Defendant's Motion"), and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [36], ("1199SEIU's Motion") (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court has reviewed the Motions, all supporting and opposing filings, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and 1199SEIU's Motion is denied. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union, Inc. ("ACRU") is a non-profit corporation "which promotes election integrity, compliance [**3] with federal election laws, government transparency, and constitutional government." ECF No. [12] ¶ 4 ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff Andrea Bellitto ("Bellitto") is a registered voter in Broward County and member of the ACRU. See id. 4g 5. Defendant Brenda Snipes ("Snipes" or "Defendant") is the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, and Intervenor Defendant 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East("1199SEIU")is a labor union that represents approximately 25,000 healthcare workers and an additional 7,400 retired members in the State of Florida. See id. 4g 6; ECF No.[23] at 6-7. Plaintiffs ACRU and Bellitto (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated these proceedings on June 27, 2016 and filed an Amended Complaint thereafter, bringing two claims against Defendant under the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=].1 In Count I, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant "has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context1 [[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GN01-NRF4-44WF-00000-00&context=]]." Amended Complaint ¶ 28. In Count II, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant "has failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data, failed to produce or otherwise [**4] failed to make records available to Plaintiffs concerning Defendant's implementation of programs and activities for ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Broward County, As do the parties, the Court refers to [ HYPERLINK https://adyance.le)ds.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-00000008ccontext-=] interchangeably as "Section 8," reflecting the statute's original location at Section 8 ofPub. L. 103-31, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 77. 17-2361-A-000960 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA, [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF'4-4007-00000-00&context1 " Id. eg 33. Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court (1) declaring that Defendant is in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA;(2)ordering Defendant to implement reasonable and effective registration list maintenance programs to cure failures to comply with the NVRA and ensure that non-citizens and ineligible registrants are not on Defendant's rolls; (3) ordering Defendant to substantively respond to Plaintiffs' written request for records concerning her implementation of programs and [*13581 activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of Broward County's voter registration list and provide access to election records; and (4) additional relief. See id. at 9-10. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on August 18, 2016, moving to dismiss these proceedings in their entirety under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 of the Federal Rules. Thereafter, 1199SEIU filed a motion to [**5] intervene, which the Court granted. See ECF Nos. [23], [29], [53]. 1199SEIU filed its own Motion to Dismiss on September 21, 2016, moving to dismiss Count I only ofthe Amended Complaint. Both Motions are now ripe for adjudication. See ECF Nos.[21],[22],[54],[63]. 11. LEGAL STANDARD A.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collectio n=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP10119-TOYW-00000-00&context=] "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." [ HYPERL1NK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S65-JWF0-003BR1BW-00000-00&context=]r YPERLINK https://advanee.lexis.cotteapildocumerecollection ses :contentitenn3S65-1WF -003B.R.IBW-000004 &..cc.mtext-.1 (internal citations omitted). "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-KXF0-003BRYPERLINK H19B-00000-00&context=]/ htips://advance.lexis.coreapi/documentnolfection zzrases&id um:romentitem:3S4X-KX470-0038111.9B4)0000-00&cautext-] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-9P90-003B737M-00000-00&context=][ HYJERL.LWc hilps://advance.lexis.comfq)i,documenecollection cases&id arn:contenthern:334X-9P90-003B737M-00000-00&contertq. A [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motion challenges the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and takes one of two forms: a "facial attack" or a "factual attack." "A 'facial attack' on the complaint 'require[s] the court merely to look and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of HYPERLINK the motion." https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:4PT3-CDNO-TXFX)INK G38P-00000-00&context=][ htips:Padvance.,exis.4-;onevklocurnenecol1ection cases&id arn:contenthern:4P113-CDNO-IXEXG38P-00000-00&romext I (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-OJKO-003B17-2361-A-000961 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes .HYPE1?1,INK. 51N0-00000-00&context=][ https://advatice.lexis.comiapi/docionent?collection sesc" •••••-ll -11:cautentliem:3,:-/ 1 V-00000-00&contexi-d.. "A 'factual attack,' on the other hand, challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on matters outside the pleadings." r*61 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:83M5-HR71-652HHYPERLJNK F3HP-00000-00&contextlf Mips_ , vance.kxis.,comitwi/document?colledion cases&id ttrivrontentitem:83M5-.11R7.1-652HF3H13-00000-00&eontext-1 (citing [HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentitem:3S4X-OJKO-003B51N0-00000-00&context=][ PE h htips:Padvance.lexis.4-Awn/qpiidocument?cc ,lection eases&id arn:contenthem:35'4X-0,110-003B5.1N0-00000-00&context-j); see[ HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4S9R-GBTO-TXFXG3CY-00000-00&context=]HYPE] TK https:// • vance.kxiscotnlivi/documerecollection cases& d um:rontentitem:4S9R-GB G3CY-00000-00&eontext....1("By contrast, a factual attack on a complaint challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction using material extrinsic from the pleadings, such as affidavits or testimony."). "In assessing the propriety of a motion for dismissal under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentitem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], a district court is not limited to an inquiry into undisputed facts; it may hear conflicting evidence and decide for itself the factual issues that determine [ HYPERLINK jurisdiction." https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-GWV0-008HNTK VOFB-00000-00&context=][ htips:,,;.Wvance.le -'s.4-;oin/qpi/documentkollection eases&id....arn:contenthern:3S4X-GWV0-008HVOIT-00000-00&rontext Z. As such, "[w]hen a defendant properly challenges subject matter under HYPERLINK jurisdiction https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], the district court is free to independently weigh facts and 'may proceed as it never could under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] or [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC2421-6N19-F165-00000-00&context=]" HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?co.,1, 1e ,ctioAni: =cases&id=u:contentitem:4SFW-P1NO-TX4Nm GOM5-00000-00&context=][ https:Pativance.,exis.4-;onee,pi/doeument?collection eases(041....arn:contenthern:4,STW-P/NO-72(4N:GOA15-00000-00&context Z(citing[HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:482X-6XN0-0038HYPERLJNK X43T-00000-00&contextlf hit s:t'idvance. exisxamiapi/. ocument2colEaton zzrases&id um:rontentitem:48241`.2V0-0038X431:-00000-00&contexi 1. B.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collectio n=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC-1WP161‘119-FOYVV-00000-00&context=1 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context1 of the Federal Rules requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context=] Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."[ 17-2361-A-000962 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&context=][ htifts:/advance.levis.com/qpi/ /docurnen :. Go lectie.m cases&id....urn conIvnthern:4NSW-8840-004C00214-00000-00&rontext 1; see[ HYPERLINK ht43s://advance.lexis.com/crpi/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W9Y-4KSO-TATX1325-00000-00&context=] Mips_ , vance.kxis.,comitwi/document?collection zzcases&id Zirrrrontentitent:4W9Y-4KSO-TUX1325-00000-00&comext HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.com/iypi./dootnnent?collection VS =14'-n:contentigem..41/911-.-i 325-00000-00&coniext---- I HYPERLINK htips://advanmlexis.conilapi/doetiment?eolleetion=eas es&id=urn:contentittem:4W9 TXPX:4325.... 00000-004.tco/Ilex/9' (explaining that HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYK-00000-00&context=rs pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"). In the same vein, a complaint may not rest on "naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement." [**71 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4W9Y-4KSO-TXFX1325-00000-00&context=]f HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.coneapi/doctiment7collection --cases :content:Item:4 W9Y...-/KS 7;11.: .13.2, -9000)4 7coniew (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C11YPERLINK 002M-00000-00&context=11 https:/ vance.lexis.coneapi/document2co:leetion sesti'czd-zu -ii:c.4.•)ntent lenr. r-8840-00,1Cin 002.4440000-00&context J (alteration original)). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004C- HYPERLINK 002M-00000-00&context=][ https://acivance.lexis.com/apidoctnnent?collection cases -n:cautentliem: -«WO-004C02. -00000-00&contex These elements are required to survive a motion brought under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], which requests dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." When reviewing a motion under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], a court, as a general rule, must accept the plaintiffs allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FS0-0038X3KC-00000-00&context=][ .17.PERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/documerecollection =cases&idrn:contentJtem:46R6-5F'SO.-003R..3K(.'00{)t.)O'00&co;:?tvl,...1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4WBB-4KMO-TXFP.HYPERLINK K2NS-00000-00&contextlf https://achance.lexis.comthpidoctnnent?collection c ties( .1 --14-11:contentliem:414/813-4KVO-T IONS-00000-00&conter However, this tenet does not apply to legal conclusions, and courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4NSN-8840-004CJ1YPERL.INK 002M-00000-00&context=][ htt,s:/'jjyance.lexis.com/api/docwnenr?coi/ec.?tion ....cases&id taivrontentitem:4.NSN-8840-004C002M-00000-00&context...1; see[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4W9Y-4KSO-DTX?T 1325-00000-00&contextt]1. https://ae Pance.lexis.conevi/documenecol ection 17-2361-A-000963 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes cases&id um:conienthern:4W9Y-4KSO-IXEK1325-00000-00&rontext=1; [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4K2S-JP40-0038HYPERLINK X26S-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.convOildocument?collection ....cases&id um:rontentitem:4K2S,INO-0038X26S-00000-00&context...1. A court considering a[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motion is generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and attached exhibits, including documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the claim. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentltem:4VF6-H4DO-TXFXG3F5-00000-00&contexttlI HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.comicipi/document7collection --eases :content/km:41r;6,114,00-r G3.;3-00000-00&context [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4HX0-1YNO-0038HYPE1?1INK. XOSJ-00000-00&context=]f https://advance.lexis.com/apiedocument?collection sesc' mcontentitan:411Xi9-Mr -0038XOSI-00000-00&conwxt j("[A] document outside the four corners of the complaint may still be considered if it is central to the plaintiffs claims and is undisputed in terms of authenticity.")(citing HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FRO-0038HY )7. IK X3K5-00000-00&context=][ htv:/i/advance.lexis.com/q)kiocument?rollection cases&id....urn:cchatenthem:46R6-5FRO-0038x3K5-00000-00&context-l. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5D4C-V601-F04D1229-00000-00&context=][ BYPERL N haps:// ocument?collection ases&id-um:content/km:5 4C4/601-17 ( 1229-00000-00&comext (quoting HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5114-D7M1-652HY .„-.INK FOOH-00000-00&context=][ htc/'&1yance. exisxaretwi/'ocument?colledion ....rases&id unvrontentitem: .14-D7M1-652.11FOOH-00000-00&context...1. "The movant must support its arguments[1-'81 for dismissal with citations to legal authority." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5P4TFXKO-004D-61TY-00000-00&context=]). "Where a defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] does not provide legal authority in support of its arguments, it has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing its entitlement to dismissal." Id. (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:7Y4C-D100-YBOMJO8K-00000-00&context=]f HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/documerecollection ccises&:contentftem:7 C4)IOCLYBOM.108K-00000-0Mcoiltext and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4N-C6N0-0039.HYPERLINK R3P7-00000-00&context=][ https://achance.lexis.comthpidocument?collection nes( irn:cautentliem.,'41 1-76N0-00.39"On a HYPERL1NK R3P7-00000-00&contex It is through these https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection lenses that the Court considers the Motions. =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context1 motion III. DISCUSSION to dismiss, 'Wile moving party bears the burden to show that the complaint should be dismissed." [ Defendant Snipes argues that the Court must dismiss the Amended Complaint because Plaintiffs HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000964 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Benin° v. Snipes (1)have not alleged a cognizable claim over which the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3)lack standing to bring their claims. Defendant's Motion at 9. 1199SEIU also moves the Court to dismiss Count I for Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, arguing that Plaintiffs lack a cause of action because Defendant has fully complied with the NVRA's "explicit safe harbor procedure." 1199SEIU's Motion at 1. As the issues relate to this Court's jurisdiction, the Court first reviews Defendant's arguments that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' [*1360] claims, and that Plaintiffs lack standing to file suit. A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1. j**9.1 Failure to include necessary party Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to sue Florida's Secretary of State or the State of Florida. Defendant claims that these are the only entities that a private party can sue under the NVRA. See Defendant's Motion at 9. Relatedly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff ACRU lacks standing because it did not provide pre-suit notice to Florida's Secretary of State, and that Plaintiff Bellitto lacks standing because she did not provide pre-suit notice at all. See id Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they only filed suit against Defendant Snipes, the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, Florida, but argue that the NVRA requires nothing more. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees. At Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring a claim against Defendant under Section 8([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]) of the NVRA,a statute that provides requirements for the "administration of voter registration for elections for Federal office." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 mandates that each state "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason [**10] of -- [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] the death registrant; or [ HYPERLINK of the https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-1\IRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. At Count II of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring a claim under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3Nwhich F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], provides that: (1)Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of 17-2361-A-000965 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered. (2) The records maintained pursuant to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?colIect ion=statuteslegisl ation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collect ion=statuteslegisl ation&id=unt:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made. haps://advance.lexis.cotn/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], or within 20 days after receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court for declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to the violation. 1*1361] 3. If the violation occurred within 30 days before the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved person need not provide notice to the chief election official of the State under[ HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.cotn/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] before bringing a civil action under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?co llection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contenthem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. HYPERLINK haps://advance]exis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NHYPERLINK F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] of the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection NVRA governs the civil enforcement of Section 8, =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nproviding for enforcement by: F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. This Court's jurisdiction, therefore, stems directly from[ (a) Attorney General -- The Attorney General HYPERLINK may bring a civil action in an appropriate https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection district court for such [**11] declaratory or =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Ninjunctive relief as is necessary to carry out this F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], and chapter. Plaintiffs' standing to bring suit depends upon (b)Private right of action -compliance with the statute. 1. A person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may provide written notice "The NVRA centralizes responsibility in the state ofthe violation to the chief election official and in the chief elections officer, who is the state's ofthe State involved. stand-in." HYPERUNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection 2. Ifthe violation is not corrected within 90 =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04Kdays after receipt of a notice under [ N20M-00000-00&context=li HYPI.:1117,87K HYPERLINK 17-2361-A-000966 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes htips:,:radvance.lexis.contlapildocument?collectioll ---easeRtict-urn:conlentitem:SDILX-51/414704KN20M-00000-00&context-1. Under the NVRA, "[t]he chief elections officer is 'responsible for coordination of[**12] State responsibilities." Am. Civil Rights Union v. Martinez—Rivera, 166 E Supp. 3d 779, 792 (WD. Tex. 2015) (quoting [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-4009-00000-00&context=]). And, in order to bring a private action under [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], a party must notice "the chief election official of the State involved," which in Florida, is the Secretary of See State. HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8V6XN41-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=] ("The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of the state"). Defendant argues that based on [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] and the NVRA's overall structure, Plaintiffs can only file suit against the State of Florida or Florida's Secretary of State. See ECF No. [22] at 2. Defendant, however, has not cited to a single case that expressly supports this position. Unaware of any contrary authority, the Court finds persuasive the Honorable Alia Moses's recent analysis in a similar case filed in the Western District of Texas. In Martinez-Rivera, infra, Judge Moses analyzed the same statutory provisions and relevant case law relied upon by the parties in this case, and found that "the NVRA itself is . . . silent on the subject of necessary parties," and that Scott v. Schedler, infra, "did not say that the Secretary of State is a necessary party to an NVRA suit." Id at 793(citing HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04K, „INK N20M-00000-00&context=][ htips://advance.lexis.coreapi/documentnollection ....rasescf:id um:rontentitem:5D11X-51/4.1-.1704KN20M-00000-00&context.--1. Reviewing Texas law, the court went on to find that the local defendant in that case — the Zavala County,[**13] Texas Tax Assessor-Collector — "has certain obligations under the NVRA as the designated voter registrar and state official." Id. Accordingly, and "[in the absence of a holding to the contrary," Judge Moses declined "to dismiss the. . Complaint on standing grounds for failure to join the Secretary of State." Id.; see HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =casesctid=um:contentltem:4V5R-N4MO-TXFR51PV-00000-00&contextqf BYPERLINK https://advance.lexis,comiapjocument?collection =cases -IC unrcontentitem:41/5 A. 7- .71?51PV-00000-00&contex ("The Secretary's absence from this litigation does not affect this court's ability to accord complete relief among existing parties. Plaintiffs have sued local election authorities . . for their own violations of the NVRA and Missouri's implementing statutes." (analyzing HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4006-00000-00&context=]) (emphasis in the original)). The Court similarly finds that Defendant Snipes has certain obligations under the NVRA. Defendant is the Supervisor of Elections for Broward County, Florida. In that position, Defendant is designated by Florida law to maintain the voter rolls in Broward County. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8D4051-DXC8-050E-00000-00&context1 ("the supervisor shall update voter registration information"). As Plaintiffs allege and Defendant does not challenge, list maintenance obligations in 17-2361-A-000967 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] BeHitt° v. Snipes Florida are placed predominantly, and in many instances exclusively, on the Supervisors of Elections. See, e.g., [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation8rid=urn:contentItem:5JDR("voter 2J41-DXC8-005D-00000-0084context1 registration official" is defined as [**14] the supervisors of elections); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D405-00000-00&context=] (supervisors are responsible for following up on registration inadequate voter forms); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5G1GKMY1-DXC8-004T-00000-00&context=} (online applications, regardless of where received, are forwarded and processed by supervisors); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=uni:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40K-00000-00&context=} (voter information cards are provided by the supervisors); HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D4ON-00000-00&context=}(changes of address are received and processed by the HYPERLINK supervisors); https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8D4051-DXC8-050E-00000-00&context=} (describing [*1362] the office and duties of the supervisors, including custody of registrationrelated documents); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislatioathd=uni:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40T-00000-00&context=} (the statewide system enables the supervisors to "provide, access, and update voter registration HYPERLINK information"); https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context1 (supervisors responsible for determining eligibility HYPERLINK of applicants); https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context=} (supervisors responsible for removal of registrants); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context1 (supervisors responsible for maintaining and providing public access to "records concerning implementation of registration list maintenance programs and activities"); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D40V-00000-00&context=} (street address information is provided by the supervisors department); [ HYPERLINK to the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D410-00000-00&context1 (supervisors remove deceased, criminal, and other ineligible registrants upon receiving information from the secretary of state); [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=uni:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D410-00000-00&context=} (describing procedures r*15] that must be followed by supervisors for removal of registrants upon receiving notice or information of ineligibility); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=uni:contentItem:5C24M691-6SKW-D413-00000-00&context=} (original registration applications are in the custody of the supervisors); HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislatioathd=uni:contentItem:5D6SHV81-DXC8-04T2-00000-00&context=] (supervisors have a duty to perform list maintenance regarding ineligible voters). In fact, a Florida Supervisor is required to "conduct a general registration list maintenance program to protect the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance of accurate and current voter registration records in the statewide voter 17-2361-A-000968 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes system." HYPERLINK and so, "[i]f the Defendant has failed to meet her registration https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection obligations, ACRU can bring a civil suit against =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5J8Vher." Martinez—Rivera, 166E ,Supp. 3d at 793. 6YB1-DXC8-044V-00000-00&context=]. And, while the Florida Secretary of State is tasked with 2. Standing "coordinat[ing] the state's responsibilities under the [NVRA] . . The secretary may delegate voter Defendant also challenges Plaintiffs' standing to registration duties and records maintenance bring suit, on account of Plaintiffs' alleged failure activities to voter registration officials. Any to send pre-suit notice as required by [ HYPERLINK responsibilities delegated by the secretary shall be performed in accordance with state and federal https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection law." HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. "Whether https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5J8Vjusticiable controversy to obtain judicial resolution 6XMl-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=], of that controversy is what has traditionally been HYPERLINK referred to as the question of standing to sue." [ https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5J8Vcollection 6XM1-DXC8-044R-00000-00&context=]; see [ https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document? contentItem:354X-D8W0-003B=cases&id=urn: HYPERLINK HY S3HH-00000-00&context=][ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ht4s://advance.lexis.com4..V,document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4T3J-V2HO-TX4Ncases&id....unrcontenthern:334X-D8WO-0038G1M7-00000-00&context=][ S3HH-00000-00&contextq. "The plaintiff has the hign::::ladvance.lexis.conv4)bdocument?rollection burden to clearly and specifically set forth facts cases&id urn conknthem 413,14)2110-1X4NGIA17-00000-00&context=1 ("By its plain sufficient to satisfy Art. III standing requirements." Id. (internal quotations and alternations omitted). In language, [Section 8] . . envisions the states will standing to bring a private action actively oversee a general program wherein many the context of pursuant I**171 to HYPERLINK of the duties not specifically assigned to the states https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection may be delegated."). =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=], "failure to Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Snipes, like the Tax Assessor-Collector of Zavala I**161 provide notice is fatal." [ HYPERLINK County, Texas, has certain responsibilities under https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection Florida law. As the Florida official directly =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KHYPERLINK responsible for voter list maintenance in Broward N20M-00000-00&context=][ County, Defendant enables the Florida Secretary of https:/a .vance. exis.com/api/documerecollection casest' ,..c -zurnxontentlienv.:51)11X-5174 -1704KState to maintain accurate and current voter registration rolls as mandated by the NVRA. See[ N20A1-00000-00&context71. HYPERLINK Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs have standing https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection assuming they provided proper notice within the =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn contentItem:5D3Nof HYPERLINK F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]; see also meaning Martinez—Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 792. In this https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection case, the alleged violation occurred as a direct =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nresult of Defendant's actions in Broward County, F741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=]. As to 17-2361-A-000969 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes Plaintiff ACRU,the Court need not decide whether notice to Defendant suffices because ACRU sent a copy of the Notice to the I*1363] Florida's Secretary of State, the "chief election official" of Florida. See Amended Complaint ¶ 18; ECF Nos. [12-1](the "Notice")2 =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context1 . . . [21] at 19; see also Martinez—Rivera, 166E Supp. 3d at 807 (adopting Magistrate's Report and Recommendation stating notification properly "sent to the Zavala County Clerk and copied to Defendant and the Texas Secretary of State"). at 2 ("This letter serves as the statutory notice to Regarding Plaintiff Bellitto, Plaintiffs concede that your county, required by [ HYPERLINK Bellitto did not send notice herself, arguing instead https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection that as a member of the ACRU, Bellitto derives standing through ACRU's notice. See ECF No.[21] at 20. Bellitto has the burden to clearly and 2u ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider specifically establish standing to bring suit, see[ an extrinsic document if it is(1) central to the plaintiffs claim; and HYPERLINK (2) its authenticity is not challenged." [ HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocument?collection=cases&id=urn:co ht43s://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ntentltem:7Y3F-DX20-YBOV-804B-00000-00&context=]T =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-D8W0-003BHY 'LiNA." S3HH-00000-00&context=][ RYPERLINK htips:4'advance.k s.K.rmil/apileloeent?collection urn.•e htipscidvance.lexis.coreapi/document?colfection (inkteltem;7).$' -20-17136148048-00000-00&amtext-1 (citing [ HYPERLINK ....rases&id um:romentitem:3S4X-D814'0-003Bhttps://advance.lexis.com/apldocwnent?collection=cases&id=um:co S31111-00000-00&comext=1, but has cited only to ntentltem:4F.19-1FW0-0038-XONW-00000-00&context=][ Scott, infra, in support of her position. Scott, HITERI,INK however, found that an individual plaintiff lacked h :,;•athrince.!ay.s.corivlapiklooiment?collection...ease urive °wear:am:4E1 ,114170-0038,176WW-00000-00&contari,... . Here, standing to sue for failure to send [**18] notice, Plaintiffs specifically refer to the Notice, and the document is central and that said plaintiff could not "piggyback on the to Plaintiffs' claims. See Amended Complaint ¶ 18. In any event, HYPERLINK NAACP's notice." "[Alien a defendant properly challenges subject matter jurisdiction collection https://advance. I exi s. com/api/document? under HYPERLINK hftps://advance.lexis.com/apiJdocument?collection=statutes=cases&id=um:contentitem:5DHX-5V41-F04Klegislation&id=urn:contentitem:5GYC-I WPI-6N19-FOYW-00000N20M-00000-00&context=]. Bellitto appears to 00&context=] the district court is free to independently weigh facts, cite Scott in an effort to distinguish it, stating that and 'may proceed as it never could under [ HYPERLINK there is "no indication that the individual plaintiff https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?eollection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contendtem:5GYC-1WPI-6N19-FOYW-00000in the Scott case was a member of the 00&context=} or HYPERLINK organizational plaintiff." ECF No. [21] at 20. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutesHowever, while it may be true that an "association legislation&id=urn:contendtem:5GYC-242I-6NI 9-F165-0000000&context=]." HYPERLINK has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members" [ https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co under certain circumstances, [ HYPERLINK ntentitem:4SFW-PINO-TX4N-00M5-00000-00&context=][. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection H.Y.P.E.R1.11VK =cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-9CY0-003Bhitps://aehrince..le.sis.comiqpifikimment.?aille.clion,...crises uni IIYPERLINK Owen:Item:4 1.-7"- ".1N. 0115-00000-00&co.taext...1 (citing[ S1K0-00000-00&contextlf HYPERLINK https:/ a .varice..exis.com/apildocurnerecollection https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co )-003B--case& urn:contenthem:3:4,ntentltem:482X-6XN0-0038-X43T-00000-00&context=p: S1K0-00000-00&contex.-1, it does not necessarily .11.Y.PERLIN1c follow that a member confers standing through her hitps:Auhr.rigee..le.sis.comiqpifitomment.N.rille.thoig,...crises el-U.1We ontentliem •• 2_ IWO40 T-00n00-00&contex see membership in that organization. Martinez—Rivera,166 E Supp. .3(1at 794("To determine whether a party has provided adequate notice, a Court is not limited to the complaint["19] alone, but may look to documents incorporated into the complaint by reference."). Under the facts of this case, the Court finds the analysis in Scott persuasive and analogous to the 17-2361-A-000970 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes issue of Bellitto's standing to bring a Section 8based claim. As in Scott, Bellitto did not herself comply with HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF741-NRF4-400B-00000-00&context=rs notice prerequisite. Like the notice in Scott, the ACRU's letter did not mention Bellitto "by name" or even refer to ACRU members, and thus, the Court finds the "notice letter . . . too vague to provide . . . an opportunity to attempt compliance as to [Bellitto] before facing litigation." [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KN20M-00000-00&context=]/. 111. htipsw wnee.lexisxonthpi/document?collection --rases uns:contenthem:5 '-5174.1,11 ). A2ONI-00000-00&context I (internal quotations omitted); see ECF No. [12-1] at 1 ("Dear Ms. Snipes: I am writing on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union . . . ."). Accordingly Bellitto "has no basis for relief because [s]he did not file notice." HYPERLINK https:lladvance.lexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5DHX-5V41-F04KHYPERLINK N20M-00000-00&context=][ https://a vance.lexis,comicipi/document?collection cases&id=u :content iem:5 -512'4 -1;194K.1.V.4( .1-00000-00&context=1; see Martinez— Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 794 n.10 ("Although the Plaintiff attempts to take credit for communication sent by third parties to the Defendant as early as 2012, it appears from the Complaint that the September 12, 2013 letter represents the first contact between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. . . Therefore, the Court disregards the earlier communication." (citing [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentitem:5DHX-5V41-F04K' N20M-00000-00&context=][ htips:Pae. Pance.le -'s.4-;oneqpiidocument?collection cases&id....arn:contenthern:51)11X-51/41,1;04K.N120A1-00000-00&context-1)). Bellitto has failed [**20] to meet her burden to establish standing to bring suit. Thus, Defendant's Motion is granted as to Plaintiff Bellitto's claims. [*13641 B. Failure To State A Claim Defendant also moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=], arguing that the Amended Complaint "fail[s] to state how,if at all, Defendant failed to comply with any records requests," and fails to "account for the discretionary methods used by states for removal of registrants." Defendant's Motion lj 18; ECF No. [22] at 6. 1199SEIU similarly argues that the Court must dismiss Count I for Plaintiffs3 failure to state a claim, as the record shows that Defendant has exercised her discretion in a manner entirely consistent with the NVRA's "safe harbor" provision at HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]. See 1199SEIU Motion at 1-2. The Court addresses the movants' arguments jointly, as appropriate. In the Amended Complaint, ACRU claims that "Defendant has failed to make reasonable efforts to conduct voter list maintenance programs, in violation of Section 8 of NVRA,[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NFR61-NRF4-4003-00000-00&context=]." Amended Complaint If 28 (Count I). Plaintiff also claims that "Defendant has failed to respond adequately [**21.1 to Plaintiffs' written request for data, . . . in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA,[ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- 3 As Defendants Motion is granted as to Plaintiff Bellitto, the Court refers only to Plaintiff ACRU in the remainder ofthis Order. 17-2361-A-000971 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 " Id. ¶ 33 (Count II). Section 8 "provides an exhaustive list of circumstances justifying removal" of registered voters, and places restraints on a states' authority to remove individuals from voter lists.[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=]/ llYPERLINK https://advanee.lexis.rom:afti;doctintent?collertion 4-xlms&k um:content Xi8 7.4 P1C2-00000-00&coMexl (hereinafter, "APR!"). While Count I does not list the specific subsection of Section 8 Defendant allegedly violated, Count I is entitled "Failure to Conduct List Maintenance," and Plaintiffs claims are premised on Defendant's alleged failure to use a "reasonable effort" to comply with the N'VRA. ACRU's claims, therefore, under HYPERLINK fall https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 of the NVRA, requiring that election officials "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of -- [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 the death registrant; or [ HYPERLINK of the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] (emphasis HYPERLINK Under added). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]: A State may meet the requirement of [ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collect ion=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N-F731NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 by establishing a program under which -(A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and (B) if it appears from information provided 1**221 by the Postal Service that - (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or correct the address information; or (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure in [ HYPERLINK described https://advance.lexis.com/api/documen t?collection=statuteslegislation&id=--urn:contentItem:5D3N17-2361-A-000972 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Bellitto v. Snipes F731-NRF4-4007-00000=statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3N00&context=} to confirm the change of F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK address. https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection I*13651 HYPERLINK =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nhttps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection In F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 =statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nparticular, Plaintiff alleges that [ F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=1 (" HYPERLINK On information and belief, Defendant has been given reliable information regarding registered https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nvoters who have either died or no longer reside at the j**231 address listed in their registration F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]I'). In addition to these explicit NVRA provisions, the and has taken no action to remove them as HYPERLINK parties dedicate extensive argument to the required by of [ HYPERLINK expanse https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collect unwritten https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection ion=statutes=statutes-Iegislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3Nlegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5C24-M6916SKW-D410-00000-00&context=} F731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and On HAVA's alleged effect on Section 8. However, for information and belief, in the Wynmoor the purposes of the instant Motions, the Court finds community of Coconut Creek, for example, dismissal improper because Plaintiff has alleged Defendant has received information regarding over 200 registered voters who have either died that Defendant failed to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible voters by reason of death or or who no longer reside in the community. . . . change of address.4 By failing to implement a program which takes reasonable steps to cure these circumstances, See HYPERLINK Defendant has violated NVRA and other https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection federal list maintenance statutes. Amended Complaint IN 13-14 (emphasis added). The Court finds this factual allegation and other 4 The Court notes that the Sixth Circuit recently held that "[b]y the claims made in the Amended Complaint are HAVA's own terms, however, [its] language is not to be construed sufficient to state a claim under Section 8. to authorize or require conduct prohibited under . . . or to supersede, restrict, or limit the application of. . . [the NVRA]."[1-IYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentltem:5KSG-DG81-F04K-PIC2-00000-00&context=]1 .11.Y.PERLINK hitps://cuity.r.nee..le.sitc.Fomiqpildoninum -cases ontentitent:50 "-1704K,P1C'-00000-00&con ext.-7r .11.Y.PERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..le.sis.comiqpiklomment.?colle.ction...cases ?MIX onientitent:5KS "-1704K-1) -00000-00&con• t...7 .11.Y.PERLINK hitp.v •l/cuity.r.nee. le. comiqpildocument..2c.xille.thon...cavec onientitent:50 J-DG8 "-1704K-1)1C7' -00000-00&con• t... r .11.YPERLINK hitps://cuity.r.nee..le.sitc.Fontiqpikloommt.?colle.thon...cases ?MIX ontentitem •50 7-TY38 .-17n4K-P C• -nn000-00&con err- I .11.Y.PERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..le.sis.c.Fontiqpikloommt.?colle.thotg,...c.Fases °wen:Item:50 .7-TY:18 "-1704KP1C'-00000-00&con• t...7 (alternations added and in the original)(citations omitted). Both Defendant and 1199SEUI argue that ACRU's pleadings notwithstanding, Defendant complied HYPERLINK with https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], a "safe harbor provision" that bars the claims at Count I. The parties' Motions cite to little authority in support ofthis position,[**24] and no authority has been presented to support dismissal at the pleading stage based on a defendant's stated compliance with HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. See 17-2361-A-000973 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto v. Snipes 1199SEUIS Motion at 6-7 (citing only to guidance from the Department of Justice at[ HYPERLINK https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voterregistration-act-1993-nvra] , and [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:40G4-5TNO-0038Y40D-00000-00&context=]f IIYPERJINK https://advance.lexis,cormipi/document?colledion cases&id=umeontenthern:40G4-5170-0038Y40D-00000-00&contert-j (providing a general overview of the NVRA)). However, last month, the Sixth Circuit explicitly referred to [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 as the "socalled 'safe-harbor' procedure," noting that it "provide[s] states with an example of a procedure for identifying and removing voters who had changed residence that would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." HYPERLINK https://advance. exis com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5KSG-DG81-F04KP1C2-00000-00&context=][ BYP EP. ' htips://advance.lex-is.corthipiVociiment?rollection cases&ic 71:content iem: I-F04 P C2-00000-0Meontexi ht .HYPERLINK hivs://advance.lexis.4-;onilevi/docurrient7col1ection cases&id=tirm contentltem:5KSG-DG8 -FO4KP C2-00000-00&contexi HYPI: , aiNK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection cases&id urn:romentitem:5KSG-DG81---fiNKP 72 0000-00&context-jf HYPEI htips.7:•advance./exis.com/api/document2collection -caws unrcomentitem:5 )68 1-17 ( P1(.72-00000-00&coniext-, HYP RUNK vance.lexisxomlapi,4 ocument7collection unrcontentlient:5KSG-D081-.F04K.P :2-00000-00&context-1 (emphasis added). Lacking guidance from the Eleventh Circuit, the Court finds persuasive the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in APR!, and finds that full compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] "would comply with the NVRA's mandates and accompanying constraints." Id. 1199SEUI claims that a letter from Defendant, attached to the Amended Complaint at Exhibit B, establishes that Defendant fully complied with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], and that Exhibit B is sufficient "to defeat Plaintiffs] claim that a legal violation has occurred." ECF No. [63] at 5 (citing APR!). APR!, however, addressed material distinct claims under Section 8 in the context of a motion for a permanent injunction. In this case,["25] Plaintiff does not concede that Defendant fully complied with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=], but rather, specifically pleads that "[b]y failing to implement a program which takes reasonable steps to cure these circumstances, Defendant has violated NVRA and other federal list maintenance statutes." Amended Complaint 11 14. ACRU I*13661 has plead sufficient facts to support its claim that Defendant inadequately removed the names of registrants who have died or changed their address; whether Exhibit B establishes Defendant's full compliance with [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 and defeats Plaintiff's claims is a fact-based argument more properly addressed at a later stage of the proceedings. See HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4CMB-D420-0038X2SX-00000-00&context=li. HYPERLINK ,exis.4-;on4,ukdocument?collection rases&id UM:rontentitem:404B-D420-0038-00000-00&contex zd. (court properly considers defense only where "the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense to bar the action" (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)). Relatedly, the Court finds the factual explanation proffered by 1199SEUI in its Motion, while plausible, is insufficient to warrant dismissal of Count I, particularly as the Court must evaluate all plausible inferences in favor of Plaintiff. See 1199SEUI's Motion at 9-10; Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337; HYPERLINK https:lladvancelexis.com/api/document?collection 17-2361-A-000974 Page[PAGE of[NUMPAGES Bellitto . Snipes =cases&id=urn:contentItem:46R6-5FSO-0038X3KC-00000-00&context=][ HYPERLINK htqn://advance.lexis.4-;onee,ptidocurnentkallection ,,,,rases&id—urmcontentItem:46R6-3TSO-0038X3.KC-00000-00&coniext...1; see also Martinez— Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d at 794. Accordingly, ACRU's claims in Count I survive. r*261 The Court also finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim in Count II. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant "failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' written request for data. . . in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA, [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=]." While Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to state "how" Defendant did not comply with Plaintiffs requests, HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1 requires, with exception, that Defendant "make available for public inspection . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters. . ." HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] (emphasis added). Although the Amended Complaint does not specifically state that Defendant failed to provide all relevant records, the Court finds that Plaintiffs allegations, in conjunction with the attached Notice documenting in detail the information requested, is sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under[ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context1. 1. Defendant Snipes's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [16], is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Bellitto's claims only; 2. 1199SEUrs Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [36], is DENIED; 3. Defendant Snipes has until November [**27] 4, 2016 to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of October, 2016. /s/ Beth Bloom BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Eat).*4 Docunlea* IV. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 17-2361-A-000975 [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn: contentltem:5JRH-ORD1 -F04F-0000-00000-00&context=li HYPERLINK htipsillatIvance.lexis.coneapi/documenecollection=eases&id=urircontentItenv5fRHORDI-F04.F-0000-00000-00&contert=1 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division March 30, 2015, Decided; March 30, 2015, Filed Civil Action No. DR-14-CV-0026-AM/CW Reporter. 166 F. Supp. 3d 779 *;2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177883 ** AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION,Plaintiff, v. TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR CINDY MARTINEZ-RIVERA,Defendant. Prior History:[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:5JRN-8VN1-F04FC002-00000-00&context=]/HYPERUNK htips://advance.lexis.com/qpi/document?colfection --cases&id=urn:contentitem:5JRN-817N1-F04FC002-00000-00&conte j[HYPEIRLINK https:t'di'ance.lexis.comAlpi/documerecollection ses u contentitem:5 704.17C002-00000-00&context Case Summary Overview HOLDINGS: [11-Tax assessor was not entitled to dismissal of complaint alleging a violation of the[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3N- F721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context=1, by failing to make a reasonable effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs because an injury in fact and causation was sufficiently alleged, at the current stage of the litigation, plaintiff was not required to prove a redressable injury, and plaintiff alleged a plausible claim for relief. Outcome Motion to dismiss and motion for leave denied. Counsel: For American Civil Rights Union, Plaintiff: H. Christopher Coates,LEAD ATTORNEY,PRO HAC VICE,Law Office of H. Christopher Coates, Charleston, SC; J. Christian Adams,LEAD ATTORNEY,Election Law Center, PLLC, Alexandria, VA; Craig Stephen Wolcott, Craig Wolcott,PLLC, Kerrville, TX; Eric Matthew Bayne, Attorney at Law,Del Rio, TX. For Cindy Martinez-Rivera, Defendant: Chad W Dunn,LEAD ATTORNEY,Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX;Donato D. Ramos,LEAD ATTORNEY,Donato D. Ramos, Jr., Law Offices of Donato D. Ramos,PLLC,Laredo, TX. Judges: I**1] ALIA MOSES,United States District Judge. 17-2361-A-000976 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Opinion by: ALIA MOSES by failing to make a reasonable [*7851 effort to conduct voter list maintenance programs.2 Opinion [*784] ORDER Pending before the Court are the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13) and the Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Not. to Amend, ECF No. 32). On March 6, 2015, the Honorable Collis White, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (Report, ECF No. 34) in which he recommends that both motions be denied. The Defendant timely filed Objections (Objections, ECF No. 36) and the Plaintiff responded (Response,ECF No. 38). For the reasons stated below, this Report and Recommendation will be ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint are DENIED. L BACKGROUND On March 27, 2014, Plaintiff American Civil Rights Union ("Plaintiff or "ACRU") filed suit against Defendant Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera ("Defendant") in her official capacity. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-Iegislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF721-NRF4-4001-00000-00&context1,1 The Complaint also briefly [**2] references the[ HYPERLINK https://advancelexis.com/api/document?c,ollection=statuteslegislationezid=urn:contendtem:4YF7-GN01-NRF444WF-0000000&context=], codified at HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contendtem:5D3N-FR61-NRF4-4003-0000000&context=]. However, as Judge White notes in his Report, the ACRU is a nonprofit corporation, "which promotes election integrity, compliance with federal election laws, government transparency and constitutional government"(Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2, para. 4.) Pursuant to this goal, ACRU filed the instant [**3] Complaint in its individual and corporate capacities, and on behalf of its members who are registered to vote in the State of Texas. (Id.) The Fifth Circuit has held that [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislationezid=urn:contentftem:4YF7-GNOI-NRF4-44WF'-0000000&context=} does not provide declaratory relief. See[HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontentItem:4SPX-DFNO-TXFX-72DH-00000-00&context=k HYPERIINK hitps:Auity.rnee..1e.sit..comiasi,/doczimen.?co leciion—cases UM X °went:Item: )77-00000-00&context ("I HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentftem:4YF7-GNOI-NRF4-44WF'-0000000&context=} does not itself create a private right of action." (citation omitted)). The Plaintiff has not objected to this recommendation and this Court fmds that it is not in clear error. See HYPERLINK haps://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:c ontentItem:3S4X-2V50-006F-M2KX-00000-00&context=[ HYPERLINK hitps://cuity.rnee..1e.sit..comksi,/doczimen onievtitent:'S4X-2V50-006F-M2K_T-00000-00&mitext:::7; HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=um:co ntentItem:3S4X-D670-003B-508Y-00000-00&context=][. HYPERLINK hitps:Auity.race..7exis.comkpirdocumen.?co ?fln:c ontentliem. ,T(.1)670-n0 -508V-00000-nn&e:v.riaext:::,/. Therefore, this Order will only consider the Plaintiffs claims under the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentItem:419F7-GHR1-NR.F4-43YP-0000000&context=]. 2The Complaint also alleges that the Defendant failed to provide information in response to the Plaintiffs written requests and failed to produce records concerning the implementation of programs and activities to ensure the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters for Zavala County, in violation of[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statuteslegislation&id=urn:contentftem:5D3N-F731-NRF4-4007-0000000&context=]. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 9, paras. 29-33.) On January 28,2015,the parties stipulated to the dismissal ofthis count. (Stipulation,ECF No. 31.) 17-2361-A-000977 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Complaint names the Tax Assessor-Collector as defendant because, under ACRU's interpretation of the HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7and GIIR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] Texas Election law, she is the official responsible for ensuring that Zavala County complies with the list-maintenance provisions of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. ([ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&context=][ PE h htips://advance.lexis.4-;oneqpiidocurnent?cc ,lection CaSeS(041=1071:contenthern:3S4X-D670-003B508Y-00000-00&context J.) According to the Complaint, the voter rolls for Zavala County have more registered voters than there are citizens in the County who are eligible to vote. HYPERLINK ([ https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentItem:3S4X-D670-003BJIYPERL.JIVK 508Y-00000-00&context=][ https:t'Jvance.kxiscomjapi/document?collection zzcases&id um:contentitem:3S4X-D670-0038508Y-00000-00&context /.) The Complaint supports this claim by comparing two figures: the number of Zavala County citizens eligible to vote in 2010-8,205 people—and the number of people actually registered to vote in Zavala County in March of 2014-8,623 people.3 (Id) The Plaintiff argues that these figures demonstrate an "implausible" registration rate of 105%. (Id) According to the Plaintiffs calculations, Zavala County has failed to maintain accurate voter rolls since at least 2008, when the County's registration rate was 102%. ([ 3 This figure includes 508 people who had been placed on the State's suspense list, as they are still [**4] eligible to vote. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at4 n.1.) HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S4X-D670-003B) ?7. 508Y-00000-00&context=][ htips:/' vance.kxis.comivi/documerecolledion um:romentitem:5DILYL5V4.1-1,:'04KN20M-00000-00&context I(citing[HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=um:contentitem:3S2J-8P10-00B1D17C-00000-00&context=] favorably). To determine whether a party has provided adequate notice, a Court is not limited to the complaint alone, but may look to documents incorporated into the complaint by reference. See [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/apildocument?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:4P18-B380-004C002V-00000-00&contextt]f i1YPERLIM wnce.lexis.com./qpi/..ocument?collection ses ....um:content/km: >18 . 380-004C002V40000-00&rontext I ("[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling HYPERLINK on https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5GYC1WP1-6N19-FOYW-00000-00&context=] motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." (citation 1**291 omitted)). The document in question, a letter from ACRU to the Defendant, is attached to the Defendant's Answer (Answer, ECF No. 12 Exhibit 1) and was filed simultaneously with the Motion to Dismiss. See[HYPERLINK https://cdvance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =cases&id=urn:contentItem:, I13C-XS20-0038X50H-00000-00&context=][ HYPERL.INA. hilps://advance.lexi:s%comfapkiocumenecollection cases&id....arn:contenthern:413(!-.XS20-0038X5011-00000-00&conteriq (noting a court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss). ACRU sent the letter to the Zavala County Clere stating that the County was [*795] "in apparent HYPERLINK violation of °Although [**30] the Plaintiff attempts to take credit for communication sent by third parties to the Defendant as early as 2012, it appears from the Complaint that the September 12, 2013 letter represents the first contact between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5.) Therefore, the Court disregards the earlier communication. See [ HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=unt:c ontent:Item:5DHX-5V41-F04K-N20M-00000-00&context=R: I:THEMiNK bur.//a vance lexis conilavildocument9collection—casevontenthent:51)1.1X-51741411MK-MOM-00000-00&.context...1 (holding that one plaintiff who failed to give the defendant notice could not "piggyback" on the notice given by a second plaintiff in the same case). 17-2361-A-000993 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=unt:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]." (Letter, ECF No. 12-1.) The letter went on to paraphrase and cite the provision of [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:5D3NF731-NRF4-4007-00000-00&context=] that the Defendant was allegedly violating: "election officials [must] conduct a reasonable effort to maintain voter registration lists free of dead voters, ineligible voters and voters who have moved away." (Id) The letter set out the evidence concerning the violation: Zavala County "has significantly more voters on the registration rolls than it has eligible live voters." The letter urged the recipient to work toward full compliance HYPERLINK with the https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR.1-NRF4-43'YP-00000-00&context=], warning that the failure to do so could result in a lawsuit and citing the provision of the [ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF'7GHR1-NRF4-43'YP-00000-00&context=] that allows a private party to bring suit. (Id) Furthermore, it stated "[t]his letter serves as the statutory notice to your county." (Id.) (7d) The Defendant maintains that ACRU's letter was too vague to provide notice of an[ HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] violation because the "circumstance"—voter rolls containing more names than there are citizens eligible to vote—is not an HYPERLINK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=] violation. (Objections, ECF No. 36 at 11.) This argument is misplaced. The letter does not claim that a high registration rate is, in itself, a violation. Instead, it indicates that having too many registered voters on county registration rolls is evidence that the County has violated [ HYPERLINK https://advance.Iexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=um:contentItem:4YF7GBR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=]. The letter gives the Defendant enough information to diagnose the problem. At that point it was the Defendant's responsibility to attempt to cure the violation. Accordingly, the Defendant's objection that notice was [**31.] inadequate is overruled. C. Motion to Amend Complaint The Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint, seeking to add an additional plaintiff and to remove Count 2.(Mot. to Amend,ECF No. 32.)The Report recommended that the motion be denied for several reasons. (Report, ECF No. 34 at 22-23.) First, it is not necessary to amend a complaint after the parties stipulate to the dismissal of one of the HYPERLINK counts. ht4Is://advance.lexis.conilapi/document?collection =cases&id=unrcontentltem:413C-XS20-0038X50H-00000-00&contexit HYPERLINK htips://advance.lexis.contlapildocument?collection --cases&id=urn:contentitem:413C-X520-0038X5011-00000-0Mcontex Second, the additional plaintiff did not provide the requisite notice to bring suit under the [ HYPERL1NK https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection =statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:4YF7GHR1-NRF4-43YP-00000-00&context=], and would be subject to immediate dismissal if she were joined as a plaintiff. (Id.) Third, the additional plaintiff does not have Article III standing to bring a claim because she did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact. (Id.) Neither party objected to the Report's recommendation and this Court does not find that it is erroneous. The Plaintiffs Motion to Amend is denied. III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge White. (ECF No. 34.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED and the 17-2361-A-000994 Page[PAGE]of[NUMPAGES] Am. Civ. Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is DENIED [**321 . SIGNED and ENTERED on this 30th day of March 2015. /s/ Alia Moses ALIA MOSES United States District Judge End of M•cumeill 17-2361-A-000995 Paula Penney From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:08 AM William Gardner Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Bio Form for Election Integrity Commission Appointee Information Sheet.pdf Secretary Gardner, Please fill out the attached form and send back to me by COB today, if possible. sending you additional forms later in the week. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks. Mark I will be MARK R. PAOLETTA Counsel to the Vice President 202 456 2734 (work) (cell) Mark.R.PaolettaPovb.eop.gov 17-2361-A-000996 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Presidential Personnel Office APPOINTEE INFORMATION SHEET NOTICE: Review the instructions on the reverse of this form. Return to the Office of Presidential Appointments as soon as complete. This information is necessary to begin the clearance process. Return via email to inccmin.PPOdocsOwho.eolloov or contact the office for alternate submission methods. .PART L,TO BE- cowing:TEE)BY POTENTIAL APPOINTEE . 1. FULL NAME (Last, First, Middle): 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: 3. CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS (Number, Street, City, State, ZIP Code) 4. VOTING ADDRESS IN 2016(Number, Street, City, State, ZIP Code) 5. PLACE OF BIRTH (City, State: if not U.S., state country) 6. GENDER i 7. DATE OF BIRTH 8. ETHNIC HERITAGE 9. RACE 110. POLITICAL PARTY 11. HOME PHONE 12. CELL PHONE 13. WORK PHONE 14. PERSONAL EMAIL 15. WORK EMAIL 16. CURRENT POSITION (Title, Company) 17. WORK ADDRESS (Number, Street, City, State, Zip) 18. SPOUSE 19 CHILDREN 20. NAME AND HOME STATE (For official announcement and nomination) 21. EDUCATION (Degree, Institution, Year) 23. MILITARY SERVICE (Rank, Branch. Years) . 22. AWARDS 24. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS PART II: TO BE COMPLETED BY PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL 1. POSITION 2, TYPE 5. POTUS APPROVAL I 3. VICE 6. SECURITY PACKAGE SENT ,i 4. TERM i I 1 7. COUNSEL START 17-2361-A-000997 , Paula Penney From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff jElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.govj Wednesday, June 28, 2017 5:20 PM William Gardner Letter from Vice Chair of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity PEIC Letter to New Hampshire.pdf Please see the attached letter from the Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Thank you. Commission Staff 17-2361-A-000998 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity June 28,2017 The Honorable Bill Gardner Secretary of State State House, Rrn 204 Concord, NH 03301 Dear Secretary Gardner, I serve as the Vice Chair for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"), which was formed pursuant to Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017. The Commission is charged with studying the registration and voting processes used in federal elections and submitting a report to the President of the United States that identifies laws,rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance or undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of federal elections processes. As the Commission begins it work,I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular: 1. What changes, if any,to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections? 2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities? 3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer? 4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state? 5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the November 2000 federal election? 6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? 7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider? In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requestin.g that you provide to the Commission the publiclyavailable voter roll data for New Hampshire, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social 17-2361-A-000999 . , . security number if available, voter history (elections voted in)from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information. You may submit your responses electronically to !ectionIntegitySttifovp.eop.zov or by utilizing the Safe Access File Exchange("SAFE"), which is a secure FTP site the federal government uses for transferring large data files. You can access the SAFE site at La:psi/safe amrdec arm v.m i Usale/Welcorne aspx.. We would appreciate a response by July 14, 2017. Please be aware that any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public. If you have any questions, please contact Commission staff at the same email address. On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I also want to acknowledge your important leadership role in administering the elections within your state and the importance of state-level authority in our federalist system. It is crucial for the Commission to consider your input as it collects data and identifies areas of opportunity to increase the integrity of our election systems. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you in the months ahead. Sincerely, Kris W. Kobach Vice Chair Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-0001000 Paula Penney From: Sent: Subject: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff[ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov] Monday, July 10, 2017 9:40 AM Request to Hold on Submitting Any Data Until Judge Rules on TRO Dear Election Official, As you may know,the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint seeking a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") in connection with the June 28, 2017 letter sent by Vice Chair Kris Kobach requesting publicly-available voter data. See Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Until the Judge rules on the TRO, we request that you hold on submitting any data. We will follow up with you with further instructions once the Judge issues her ruling. Andrew Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Electionintetaff@ovp.eop.gov 1 17-2361-A-001001 Paula Penney From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff jElectionIntegrityStaffigovp.eop.gov] Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:11 AM William Gardner FW: Letter from Vice Chair of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity July 26, 2017 Letter from Vice Chair Kris Kobach to New Hampshire.pdf Original Message From: FN-OVP-Election Integrity Staff Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 5:41 PM To: 'elections@sos.state.nh.us' Subject: Letter from Vice Chair of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Please see the attached letter from Vice Chair Kris Kobach of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. 17-2361-A-001002 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity July 26, 2017 Office ofthe Secretary of State of New Hampshire The Honorable William Gardner, Secretary of State State House, Room 204 107 North Main Street Concord, NH 03301 Dear Secretary Gardner, In my capacity as Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I wrote to you on June 28, 2017, to request publicly available voter registration records. On July 10,2017, the Commission staff requested that you delay submitting any records until the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on a motion from the Electronic Privacy Information Center that sought to prevent the Commission from receiving the records. On July 24,2017,the court denied that motion. In light of that decision in the Commission's favor, I write to renew the June 28 request, as well as to answer questions some States raised about the request's scope and the Commission's intent regarding its use of the registration records. I appreciate the cooperation of chief election officials from more than 30 States who have already responded to the June 28 request and either agreed to provide these publicly available records, or are currently evaluating what specific records they may provide in accordance with their State laws. Like you,I serve as the chief election official of my State. And like you, ensuring the privacy and security of any non-public voter information is a high priority. My June 28 letter only requested information that is already available to the public under the laws of your State, which is information that States regularly provide to political candidates,journalists, and other interested members ofthe public. As you know,federal law requires the States to maintain. certain voter registration information and make it available to the public pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)and the Help America Vote Act(HAVA). The Commission recognizes that State laws differ regarding what specific voter registration information is publicly available. I want to assure you that the Commission will not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters from the voter registration records you submit. Individuals' voter registration records will be kept confidential and secure 17-2361-A-001003 throughout the duration of the Commission's existence. Once the Commission's analysis is complete, the Commission will dispose ofthe data as permitted by federal law. The only information that will be made public are statistical conclusions drawn from the data, other general observations that may be drawn from the data, and. any correspondence that you may send to the Commission in response to the narrative questions enumerated in the June 28 letter. Let me be clear, the Commission will not release any personally identifiable information from voter registration records to the public. In addition, to address issues raised in recent litigation regarding the data transfer portal, the Commission is offering a new tool for you to transmit data directly to the White House computer system. To securely submit your State's data, please have a member of your staff contact Ron ,§tePi.boyi?,$.9p.py and provide his or Williams on the Commission's staff at Heetiorirritparit, her contact information. Commission staff will then reach out to your point of contact to provide detailed instructions for submitting the data securely. The Commission will approach all of its work without preconceived conclusions or prejudgments. The Members of this bipartisan Commission are interested in gathering facts and going where those facts lead. We take seriously the Commissions' mission pursuant to Executive Order 13799 to identify those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that either enhance or undermine the integrity of elections processes. I look forward to working with you in the months ahead to advance those objectives. Sincerely, Kris W. Kobach Vice Chair Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-001004 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 8/22/2017 1:29:47 AM Gene Hamilton [gene.hamilton@hq.dhs.gov]; Kris Kobach[ [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Conf call tomorrow ossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Gene, Can we do 9 am eastern tomorrow morning with Kris Kobach on call? He is CC'd here. Thanks Mark Mark Paol etta Counsel to the Vice President 02 45_6 2734 (work) ;cell) Sent from my i Phone 17-2361-A-001005 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 8/16/2017 3:06:49 PM Conf call Kri s, Have ken block in meeting, we just tried you. Mark Mark Paol etta Counsel to the Vice President 202 456 2734 (work) cell) Sent from my i Phone 17-2361-A-001006 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 8/23/2017 12:15:57 PM connection from Sec. Bill Gardner Dr. Appel, My name is Andrew Kossack, and I am contacting you regarding the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Secretary Gardner mentioned that he has spoken with you about appearing at an upcoming commission meeting and shared your contact information. I am hoping to connect with you soon to introduce myself and discuss the meeting with you. Are you available sometime in the next day or so for a brief call? Looking forward to connecting with you soon. Thanks for your interest in participating. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email!nligniesack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001007 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 8/23/2017 12:17:51 PM rivest@mitedu connection from Sec. Bill Gardner Prof. Rivest, My name is Andrew Kossack, and I am contacting you regarding the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Secretary Gardner mentioned that he has spoken with you about appearing at an upcoming commission meeting. I am hoping to connect with you soon to introduce myself and discuss the meeting with you. Are you available sometime in the next day or so for a brief call? Looking forward to connecting with you soon. Thanks for your interest in participating. Thanks, Andrew Andrew 3. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001008 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 9/1/2017 1:05:13 PM andrew.smith@unh.edu contact Andrew 3. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.).Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001009 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 8/22/2017 8:23:02 PM johnrlott@crimeresearch.org Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP [Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov] contact Hi John, It was nice speaking with you. my contact information is below. I'll circle back soon with additional information about the next meeting, but please feel free to reach out to me anytime. My colleague, Ron Williams, is cc'd here as well. Thanks again, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: And rew. J .Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001010 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 9/7/2017 9:12:28 PM contact Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate counsel, Office of the Vice President cell: Email: Andrew.).Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001011 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Kobach 6/30/2017 3:49:26 PM 'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov];'Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP' [Marc.E.Lotter@ovp.eop.gov];'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP'[Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Correction.., it was 18 deceased individuals in VA, not 14 From: Kris Kobach [mailto: Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:46 AM To:'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP' ;'Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP' ;'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP' Subject: FW: Another criminal conviction for your database From: Kris Kobach [mailto Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:41 AM To: von Spakovsky, Hans Subject: Another criminal conviction for your database In Virginia... http://wtvr.com/2017/06/26/andrew-spieles-guilty-plea/ 17-2361-A-001012 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Kobach [ ] 6/30/2017 3:49:26 PM Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=8aba9b554216420a92cc812de2026bb8-Pa]; Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=e7fa870fe8ef4085aabd678ee2bbc97d-Lo]; Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=39ff6c312e514f0fac9dd16139907782-Ko] Correction... it was 18 deceased individuals in VA, not 14 From: Kris Kobach [mailto ] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:46 AM To:'Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP' ;'Lotter, Marc E. EOP/OVP' ;'Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP' Subject: FW: Another criminal conviction for your database From: Kris Kobach [mailto ] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:41 AM To: von Spakovsky, Hans Subject: Another criminal conviction for your database In Virginia... http://wtyr.com/2017/06/26/andrew-spieles-guilty-plea/ 17-2361-A-001013 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Palmer [It_palmer@hotmail.com] 8/17/2017 6:40:25 PM Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Data Guy Recommendation Andrew, I wanted to give you the contact info on Clark Bensen, our equivalent of Kim Brace. He collects the data that the Commission has been seeking from states for a living. He does primarily data work for redistricting litigation and he may be able to assist your team in interpreting the data provided for findings and conclusions. Occasionally, he has served as an expert witness, but is more willing to work behind the scenes with someone else discussing the data, i.e. he doesn't like being the lead or head guy on these type of issues because of some bad experiences as an expert witness. He works primary with Attorney Mark Braden on redistricting litigation, but has been willing to work with me on certain projects. He seems amenable to assisting the commission in any way that would be helpful. Moving forward, he is definitely someone you or your technical experts should speak with to determine the assistance he may give you in filling gaps in data or analyzing available data. Regards, Don Palmer His contact information is below: POLIDATA "' Demographic and Political Guides 1 >www.polidata.us< POLIDATA "' Political Data Analysis 1 >www.polidata.org< POLIDATA 8 Home Page >www.polidata.org< Home Page with links for Polidata Demographic and Political Guides and Atlases; Polidata Political Data Analysis, and Clark Bensen, Republican consultant. Polidata is ... Distillers of Official Data 8 since 1974 Clark Bensen 1 POLIDATA LLC I Tel: 703-690-40661 efax: 202-318-0793 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road 1 P.O. Box 530 1 Corinth, VT 05039 I Tel: 802-778-0274 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court 1 Lake Ridge, VA 22192 email: clark@polidata.org 17-2361-A-001014 From: To: Subject: Date: Quin Hillyer Hans A. von Spakovsky; Christian Adams; john fund; Kris Kobach; Kobach, Kris W. Defending the commission Thursday, September 14, 2017 3:12:40 PM http://www.libertyheadlines.com/vote-fraud-evidence-grows-exposing-lefts-lies/ Quin 17-2361-A-001015 Message From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [/0=EXCHANGE ORGANIZATION/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF235PDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=39FF6C312E514F0FAC9DD16139907782-KO] Sent: 7/27/2017 5:40:44 PM To: Kris Kobach [ ] CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [/o=Exchange Organization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF235PDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=8aba9b5542f6420a92cc812de2026bb8-Pa] Subject: discussion document Attachments: Discussion Document - Possible Path Forward for PACEI.DOCX Kri s, Attached is the discussion document I mentioned regarding possible themes/topics for future meetings. If you have any availability tomorrow for a call, please let us know. Thanks, Andrew 17-2361-A-001016 Debrief and Next Steps: Initial Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Meeting Takeaways: Group Dynamic: Commissioners expressed gratitude for their roles on the Commission, as well as a sincere determination to fulfill their duties under Executive Order 13799. Both in the public meeting and in the pre-meeting orientation, the commissioners seemed to work well together. The members expressed differing viewpoints and perspectives, but no member raised unnecessary controversies. Scope of Work: The Commission members expressed interest in studying a number of issues, including strategies for increasing voter confidence and participation, registration list integrity, improper and fraudulent registration and voting, criminal processes and penalties related to election crimes, cybersecurity, and federal and state partnerships. Below, we have summarized suggested topics and grouped them into themes that could serve as the focus of future meetings. By-Laws Approved. The Commission took one action requiring a vote (other than to adjourn), which was to adopt by-laws and operating procedures. The by-laws were approved unanimously as proposed and without significant discussion. Information and Data Requests. Commission members expressed a clear desire to continue gathering relevant data and information from federal and state agencies and other sources. Commissioner Connie Lawson noted that the National Association of Secretaries of State adopted a resolution this July calling on federal agencies to share more data with state election officials. The Commission members expressed an interest in exploring more opportunities for sharing and utilizing federal databases for voter roll maintenance. Next Steps: Next Meeting. We are tracking the second week of September for the Commission's next meeting. Information and Data Gathering. Commission staff will work to gather relevant information from the following sources, as suggested by Commission members: o Federal Sources • Department of Homeland Security (illegal registration, non-citizen voting) • Department of Justice/U.S. Attorney Offices (illegal registration, fraudulent or improper voting, conviction information) • U.S. Census Bureau (voter turnout; registration data) • Election Assistance Commission (voting equipment,technology, and security) o State and State-Related Sources • National Association of Secretaries of State (voting equipment, security, funding) • State Department of Motor Vehicles databases (registration) • State jury duty lists (registration; non-citizen voting) • Interstate Cross-check program (registration) • Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)(registration) Staff Support. We are exploring whether to detail a statistician to the Commission full-time to provide expert analysis of voter roll data, census data, and other data sets the Commission will utilize in its analyses. We have identified two potential candidates with significant experience in the Voting Section of the DOI Draft as of July 27, 2017 17-2361-A-001017 Litigation Management. We continue to work closely with the DOJ to respond to the seven lawsuits currently pending against the Commission. Defining the Scope of Work; Planning for Future Meetings. In response to the members' discussion at the July 19 meeting, we have grouped possible topics into four proposed meetings: Meeting Two:Strategies to Increase Voter Participation and Confidence Voter Turnout - Blackwell, Dunn, Gardner, Lawson, McCormick, von Spakovsky . Identify reasons for voters' lack of confidence in the process • Quantify federal, state and local elections decided by close margins • Compare voter turnout in states with voter photo ID vs. states without voter photo ID . Compare greater access with turnout Education - Blackwell, Dunn, Gardner, Lawson, McCormick, von Spakovsky • Reiterating importance of civics; encouraging people to vote . Importance and benefit to total society having free, fair, legitimate elections and election systems • Outreach to diverse electorate (i.e., minorities, elderly, military voters) Best practices - Blackwell, Dunn, Gardner, King, McCormick • Comparative study of state systems and processes • Election administration in non-registration states (i.e., North Dakota) . Election administration in states with online and/or automatic registration Registration Analysis Update • Update on voter registration information received from states • Initial results of analysis Meeting Three: Cybersecurity, Voting Technology, and Election Crimes Security and safeguarding voter registration data - Blackwell, Dunlap, Dunn, Kobach, Lawson, McCormick, von Spakovsky • Cyber threats and vulnerabilities to state voter registration databases • Physical, information, and cyber security of voting machines and other election-related equipment • Foreign interference Voting Technology - Dunn, King, McCormick • Outdated voting machines • Funding strategies for voting equipment upgrades and other election-related resources Election crimes - Blackwell, McCormick, von Spakovsky • Voter intimidation; voter suppression; vote buying • Methods by which to identify and prosecute election crimes • Coordination efforts between Dal/USA0 and state election administration officials Draft as of July 27, 2017 17-2361-A-001018 Meeting Four: Voter Registration List Maintenance, Improper and Fraudulent Registrations and Voting Inaccurate voter registration lists - Blackwell, Kobach, McCormick, Rhodes, von Spakovsky • Registration fraud (i.e., non-citizen registration; double registration; felon registration; false registration; third-party organizations registration) • Online registration • Proof-of-citizenship for first-time registrants • Databases used to verify voter registration lists Fraudulent or improper voting - Adams, Blackwell, Dunlap, Gardner, McCormick, Rhodes, von Spakovsky • Non-citizen voting • Double voting • In-person voter impersonation • Illegal ballot casting • Illegal voting assistance at polling places Fraudulent use of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots - Dunlap, Kobach, von Spakovsky Meeting Five: Possible Federal and State Partnerships Federal and State partnership - Adams, Dunn, King, Kobach, Lawson, von Spakovsky • Sharing information on citizenship status, voter registration, vote history (e.g., frequency, location), and election crimes • Use of public databases and other federal resources (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, DHS citizenship forms, DOJ/USAO,federal conviction information) • Federal funding for state election administration State-to-State partnership - Adams, Dunn, King, Kobach, Lawson, von Spakovsky • Sharing information on voter registration, vote history (e.g., frequency, location), and election crimes • Use of public databases and other state resources (e.g., county tax records,jury duty lists, Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), Interstate Crosscheck Program) Draft as of July 27, 2017 17-2361-A-001019 OPENING STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER DAVID K.DUNN BEFORE THE ELECTION INTEGRITY COMMISSION July 19,2017 My name is David Dunn,and I am a former state representative, now government relations consultant from Forrest City, Arkansas. I would first like to say how humbled and honored I am to have this opportunity to serve our country. Having grown up in the Delta into a political family and spent most of my life as an economic developer in one ofthe most depressed areas of the country,I know how important the democratic process is. Anything that calls into question the integrity ofthis process undermines the entire democratic system. We were asked to present our thoughts on what we expect from this commission. I am eager to learn the priorities of my fellow commissioners, all of whom I am meeting for the first time today, and I look forward to working with everyone as we tackle this complex issue. My vision for this commission is three fold: First, it is my desire for us to look at a myriad of issues to determine whether there are significant problems involving election and voter integrity. We should 17-2361-A-001020 look at the way the states' election systems are currently working and what resources or support they have, and what might be needed to improve their accuracy and efficiency. Whether it is increasing training ofelection and poll workers,improving communications between states and localities, and across states, updating voting machines, or providing funds to assist localities in carrying out their voting and elections work,I hope this commission will look at all possibilities to help states in their efforts to run competent and true elections. Second,I hope that this commission will ensure the privacy of America's voting public. I understand while the letter Vice Chair Kobach sent to the states asked for publicly-available voter information, it raised concerns. And I believe that any data, statistics, or information collected by us or by the states should be held in our trust and safeguarded from any political misuse. And fmally,I hope that the activities of this bi-partisan commission are completely transparent and public. It is important that our work be conducted with the highest level ofintegrity and that a variety of views can be expressed and considered I applaud Vice President Pence for putting together this Commission, and I look forward to working with each of you to ensure that the voters in Arkansas and 2 17-2361-A-001021 the country know they will not be unlawfully disenfranchised, and they can have confidence in the integrity of our elections. Formatted: Font: 4 pt Formatted: Line spacing: Double 3 17-2361-A-001022 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Agenda Second Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity' Tuesday, September 12,2017, 10:00 a.m. EST New Hampshire Institute ofPolitics, Saint Anselm College 1. Welcome Remarks — Vice Chairman Kris Kobach and Secretary Bill Gardner 2. Panel One: Historical Election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence • • • Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor ofPolitical Science, University of New Hampshire Kimball Brace,President, Election Data Services, Inc. Dr. John Lott,President, Crime Prevention Research Center and Author,Evidence ofVoter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates(2006) • Q&A and Discussion — All Members 3. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence • • • • • 4. Donald Palmer, Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center Robert Popper, Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch Ken Block,President, Simpatico Software Systems Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member,PACEI Q&A and Discussion — All Members Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 • Thaire Elyant, Polling Place Moderator for Town of Eaton, New Hampshire • T. Patrick Hines,Polling Place Moderator for Town of Windsor, New Hampshire 5. Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer • • • • Dr. Andrew Appel,Professor of Computer Science,Princeton University Dr. Ronald Rivest, Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ham Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs Q&A and Discussion — All Members 6. Discussion and Other Business - All Members 7. Closing Remarks — Vice Chairman Kobach and Secretary Gardner 8. Adjourn 17-2361-A-001023 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP "Kris Kobach" Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP draft agenda Thursday, August 31, 2017 3:44:16 PM raft Agenda 2nd Meeting 8.31.17.docx Attached is a draft agenda for your review. This is very much a work in progress as things continue to take shape, but we wanted to share this with you and invite your feedback. Happy to discuss at your convenience. Are you available at all tomorrow for a call? Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisor),Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001024 1 Second Meeting ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:00 a.m. ET New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College Draft/Working Agenda as of 8.31.2017 1. Welcome Remarks — Vice Chairman Kris Kobach and Secretary Gardner( 0:00am10:15am) 2. Panel One: The Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence • Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor all al Science, University ofNew Hampshire (10:15am-10:30am) • Kimball Brace, President, Election Data Services. (10:30am-I0:45am) .:11 1 • Dr. John Lott, Crime Prevent 11:00am) &arch Center(10: • Q&A — All Members(11:00 .20am) 11' 3. Break (11:20am-11:30am) 4. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence 1 • Peter Schweizer,P sit:lent, Government Accountability Institute (11:30amI 1:45pm) 4liiiiii: lomphil • Robert Popper, Director, Election Intei 1"1, 113Judicial Watch (11.45Pm' 12:00pm) • Donald Palmer, Fellow. Bipartisan Policy Center(12:00pm-12:15pm) • Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and Member, 1111110 Dh PA CEI (12:15pm-12:30pm) •Q&A — All Members (12:30-12:50pm) "111110,. Break (l2:5Opni-l:3Opni Ii 6. Panel Three: Electronic V012 Systems and Election Inteerity — A Primer • Dr. Andrew Appel,Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University (1:30pm-1:45pm) • Dr. Ronald Rivest, Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology(1:45pm-2:00pm) • Dr. Harry Hursti, Co-Founder ofNordic Innovation Labs(2:00pm-2:15pm) • Q&A — All Members(2:15pm-2:45pm) 7. Other Business — All Members(2:45pm-3:45pm) 8. Closing Remarks — Vice Chairman Kobach and Secretary Gardner(3:45pm4:00pm) 9. Adjourn (4:00) DRAFT AS OF 8.31.2017 17-2361-A-001025 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 7/5/2017 11:29:28 PM Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP [Matthew.E.Morgan@ovp.eop.gov]; Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: draft Kobach follow up letter (redline)(005) Attachments: draft Kobach follow up letter (redline)(005).docx Latest version, we want to send out tomorrow morning. 17-2361-A-001026 [ EMBED Acrobat.Document.11 ] July 5, 2017 Dear [CHIEF ELECTION OFFICIAL] I have spoken with many of my fellow chief election officials who have raised questions or expressed concerns regarding my letter of June 28, 2017, which requests publicly available information on behalf of the bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. First, I want to thank you for your dedication to our elections. There will be numerous opportunities for you to participate in the Commission's work, and I appreciate that many states plan to provide their public registration data in response to our request. I write today to allay any concerns regarding this request. Like you, I serve as the chief election official for my state. And like you, ensuring the privacy and security of any non-public voter information is a top priority. My letter only requested information to the extent it is available to any member of the public under the laws of your state. As you know,federal law requires states to maintain certain voter registration information and make it available to the public pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. We recognize that state laws differ regarding what specific voter roll information is publicly available. My State of Kansas, for example, imposes a prohibition on the release of the last four digits of a voter's Social Security number and we will not be providing that information. My letter only requested information that states already provide to any other third-party who requests it through a public records request. The Commission will approach its work without preconceived notions or prejudgments. We are interested in gathering facts, and going where those facts lead. As part of that fact-gathering, the Commission seeks states' public voter registration data in order to analyze its accuracy and identify any irregularities, such as whether voters are registered in multiple states, ineligible voters are registered, or any other issues are affecting the integrity of the elections process. This type of analysis is not new.. States routinely share voter roll information with each other in order to improve the accuracy of their voter rolls. In fact, 32 states currently share their voter registration data through the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which the Office of Secretary of State in Kansas has administered since 2005.[KOBACH TO CONFIRM]The Commission has an opportunity to enhance the data quality of such an analysis by utilizing publicly available information on voter rolls from all 50 states. I want to assure you that the Commission will not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters. The Commission will make certain documents and reports public, but it will not identify any individual voter, or include any personally identifiable information regarding any voter, in any of the materials it makes public. Individuals' voter registration data will be kept confidential and secure throughout the duration of the Commission. Once the Commission's analysis is complete, the Commission will either return the data to the states, dispose of it as allowed by federal law, or maintain it as confidential. Once again, I look forward to working with you in the months ahead. Sincerely, 17-2361-A-001027 Kris W. Kobach Vice Chair Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-001028 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 7/6/2017 10:07:29 PM Kris Kobach [ ] Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP [Matthew.E.Morgan@ovp.eop.gov]; Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: Draft Kobach follow up letter 7.6.2017 PM Attachments: Draft Kobach follow up letter 7.6.2017 PM.DOCX Please review asap. 17-2361-A-001029 [ EMBED Acrobat.Document.11 ] July 6, 2017 Dear [CHIEF ELECTION OFFICIAL] This letter is intended to follow up on my letter of June 28, 2017, which requested publicly available voter registration records on behalf of the bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. I appreciate the chief election officials from 36 states who have already responded to this request and either agreed to provide this publicly available data, or are still evaluating what specific data they may provide. A few states have raised questions, which I will answer in this letter. Like you, I serve as the chief election official of my State. And like you, ensuring the privacy and security of any non-public voter information is a top priority. My June 28 letter only requested information that is already available to the public under the laws of your State, which is information that states regularly provide to any other third-party who requests it through a public records request, including political candidates, journalists, and other interested members of the public. As you know,federal law requires the States to maintain certain voter registration information and make it available to the public pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)and the Help America Vote Act(HAVA). The Commission recognizes that state laws differ regarding what specific voter registration information is publicly available. I want to assure you that the Commission will not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters. Individuals' voter registration data will be kept confidential and secure throughout the duration of the Commission's existence. Once the Commission's analysis is complete, the Commission will dispose of the data as permitted by federal law. The only information that will be made public are statistical conclusions drawn from the data, other general observations that may be drawn from the data, and any correspondence that you may send to the Commission in response regarding the questions enumerated in the June 28 letter. Let me be clear, the Commission will not release any personal voter data to the public. The Commission will approach its work without preconceived notions or prejudgments. The Members of this bipartisan Commission are interested in gathering facts, and going where those facts lead. As part of that fact-gathering process, the Commission seeks to identify any inaccuracies in the voter rolls. For example, voter rolls may be compared to governmental databases to identify such irregularities. Doing so requires the cooperation of those state officials who are interested in measuring and solving this problem. Like every state election official, I take seriously the NVRA's purposes "to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." 52 U.S.C. 20501(b)(3)-(4). I look forward to working with you in the months ahead to advance those objectives. Sincerely, ,Qa7 17-2361-A-001030 Kris W. Kobach Vice Chair Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-001031 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 7/6/2017 2:53:03 PM Kris Kobach [ ] Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.govb Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP [Matthew.E.Morgan@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: Draft Kobach follow up letter with KWK changes(003) Attachments: Draft Kobach follow up letter with KWK changes (003).docx Kri s, We think the main purpose of letter is to make sure sos understand that the info will not be released. We think that the language we have struck is not helpful in this letter at this time. Agree? We want to get this letter out. Mark 17-2361-A-001032 [ EMBED Acrobat.Document.11 ] July 6, 2017 Dear [CHIEF ELECTION OFFICIAL] This letter is intended to follow up on my letter of June 28, 2017, which requested publicly available voter registration records on behalf of the bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Many of the States' chief elections officials have already responded to this request by indicating that their State will provide this publicly available data, which is of course already widely circulated among candidates,journalists, and other interested members of the public. A few others have raised questions, which I will answer in this letter. Like you, I serve as the chief election official of my State. And like you, ensuring the privacy and security of any non-public voter information is a top priority. My June 28 letter only requested information that is already available to the public under the laws of your State. As you know,federal law requires the States to maintain certain voter registration information and make it available to the public pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)and the Help America Vote Act(HAVA). The Commission also recognizes that state laws differ regarding what specific voter registration information is publicly available. I want to assure you that the Commission will not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters. Individuals' voter registration data will be kept confidential and secure throughout the duration of the Commission's existence. Once the Commission's analysis is complete, the Commission will either return the data to the states or dispose of it as allowed by federal law. The only information that will be made public are statistical conclusions drawn from the data, other general observations that may be drawn from the data, and any correspondence that you may send to the Commission regarding the issues enumerated in the June 28 letter. The Commission will approach its work without preconceived notions or prejudgments. The Members of this bipartisan Commission are interested in gathering facts, and going where those facts lead. As part of that fact-gathering process, the Commission seeks to identify any irregularities or inaccuracies in the voter rolls„ such as whether ineligible voters are registered. For example, the Commission may compare voter rolls to federal databases of known noncitizens residing in the United States to identify ineligible noncitizens who have become registered. Doing so requires the cooperation of those state officials who are interested in measuring and solving this problem. Like every state election official, I take seriously the NVRA's purposes to "to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained." 52 U.S.C. 20501(b)(3)-(4). I look forward to working with you in the months ahead to advance those objectives. Sincerely, Kris W. Kobach 17-2361-A-001033 Vice Chair Presidentiai Advisory Commission on Eiection integrity Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity For Immediate Release August 24, 2017 New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to Host Next Meeting of Bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity The bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity will hold its next meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. AnseIm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. "I am grateful to Secretary Bill Gardner for hosting the Commission in his home state of New Hampshire," said the Commission's Vice Chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. "Secretary Gardner's experience as the nation's longest-serving chief state elections official and New Hampshire's pivotal role in the presidential selection process make New Hampshire a perfect location for the Commission to continue its work." "I am excited to host my fellow commissioners here in New Hampshire," said Secretary Gardner."New Hampshire is proud of its key elections role as the First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, and I am likewise proud to host the Commission in its first meeting outside of Washington, D.C. I look forward to a productive meeting here in the Granite State." Vice Chair Kobach will chair the meeting as the Vice President will not be in attendance. More information regarding the meeting will be released soon on the Commission's webpage, which is available at https://www.whitehouse.qov/blog/201 7/07/1 3/presidential-advisory-commission-electionintegrity. 17-2361-A-001035 Draft list of panelists for September Meeting (as of 8/18/17) • First Panel: Public Opinion Regarding Election Integrity and Effects on Turnout Kimball Brace — President, Election Data Services, Inc. Kimball Brace is the president of Election Data Services Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in redistricting, election administration, and the analysis and presentation of census and political data, and is a recognized expert in these areas. He has testified as an expert witness in redistricting court cases around the country. Areas of expertise include demographic databases, district compactness and contiguity, racial bloc voting, and communities of interest. Mr. Brace has also conducted research on voting equipment, voter registration systems, and other issues in election administration. Mr. Brace graduated from the American University in Washington, D.C.,(B.A., Political Science)in 1974 and founded Election Data Services in 1977. Andrew Smith — Associate Professor ofPractice in Political Science Dr. Smith's areas of expertise include public opinion, survey methods, elections, presidential nomination, and political parties. Dr. Smith is also the Director ofthe University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Rhodes Cook — Senior Columnist, Center ofPolitics, University of Virginia For much ofthe last quarter century, Mr. Cook worked as a political writer for the Congressional Weekly Report, serving as senior writer for more than 10 years. He covered by presidential and congressional elections, with a particular emphasis on the presidential nominating process and voting trends. Rhodes grew up in State College, Pa., and graduated from Penn State University with a bachelor's degree in 1969 and a master's degree in history in 1973. 0 Second Panel: Current Issues in Election tegritv Peter Schweizer President, Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer is the President of Government Accountability Institute and a bestselling author. Recently, GM examined voter roll information from 21 states and tested for duplicate voting during the 2016 presidential general election, which found more than 8,400 high-confidence duplicate votes. This study emphasizes the importance of accurate voter roll data as a means to enhance voter confidence in the election process. 17-2361-A-001036 Robert Popper — Senior Attorney and Director of the Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch Mr. Popper is conducting an ongoing studying to examine over-registration in all 50 states. Preliminary findings from this project confirmed approximately 3.5 million more people on voter rolls than are eligible to vote. Prior tojoining Judicial Watch, Mr.Popper worked for eight years, five as deputy chief of the Voting Section, in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Before that, Mr.Popper worked as a private attorney in New York City for 17 years, where his practice extended to a wide range of legal matters, including voting rights. Mr. Popper is a graduate ofthe University ofPennsylvania and Northwestern University Law School. He is admitted to practice in the Southern and Eastern Distiicts of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Donald Palmer — Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center Donald Palmer is a BPC fellow focusing on the recommendations ofthe Presidential Commission on Election Administration. He was appointed secretary ofthe Virginia Board of Elections by former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2011 and served as the commonwealth's chief election official until July 2014. He formerly served as the Florida Department of State's director of elections during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. Prior to his work in election administration, he served as a trial attorney with the Voting Section in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, where he enforced federal voting laws and provided guidance to states on compliance. 17-2361-A-001037 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity By-Laws and Operating Procedures The following By-Laws and Operating Procedures("By-Laws") will govern the operations ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity("Commission"). Section I: Purpose,Organization,and Operation Pursuant to Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017,the Commission shall, consistent with applicable law,study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections. The Commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity ofthe voting processes used in Federal elections; those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of voting processes used in Federal elections; and those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting. The Commission shall provide its advice and recommendations, analysis, and information directly to the President. Section II: Authority The Commission was established by Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017,and by the authority vested in the President ofthe United States by the Constitution and the laws ofthe United States of America. The Commission has voluntarily agreed to operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended(5 U.S.C. App.)("FACA"). The Commission filed a charter on June 23,2017, with the General Service Administration's Committee Management Secretariat. Section III: Membership (A)In General. The Commission shall be composed ofthe Vice President and not more than fifteen (15)additional members("Members"). The Members shall be appointed by the President and shall represent a bipartisan set of perspectives and experience in elections, election management, election fraud detection, and voter integrity efforts, and may include any other individuals with knowledge or experience determined by the President to be of value to the Commission. The Members ofthe Commission may include both regular Government Employees and Special Government Employees. (B)Chair and Vice Chair.The Vice President shall chair the Commission. The Vice President may select a Vice Chair from among those Members appointed by the President, who may perform the duties ofthe Chair ifso directed by the Vice President. (C)Commission Staff. The Vice President may select an Executive Director ofthe Commission and any additional staff he determines necessary to support the Commission. (D)Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer("DFO")will be a full-time officer or employee ofthe Federal Government appointed by the GSA Administrator, pursuant to 41 CFR § 102-3.105 and in consultation with the Chair ofthe Commission. The DFO will approve or call all Commission meetings, prepare all meeting agendas, attend all meetings, and adjourn any meeting when the DFO determines adjournment to be in the public interest. Should the Chair designate any subcommittees, the DFO will similarly approve or call all subcommittee meetings, 1 Draft of July 18, 2017 17-2361-A-001038 prepare all subcommittee meeting agendas, attend all subcommittee meetings, and adjourn any subcommittee meeting when the DFO determines adjournment to be in the public interest. In the DFO's discretion,the DFO may utilize other Federal employees as support staffto assist the DFO in fulfilling these responsibilities. Section IV: Meetings (A)In General. The Commission shall meet as frequently as needed and called and approved by the DFO.The Chair will preside at all Commission meetings, unless the Chair directs the Vice Chair to perform the duties ofthe Chair. Members who cannot attend meetings in person may participate by means ofconference telephone or similar communications equipment if all Members can hear one another at the same time and members ofthe public entitled to hear them can do so. A Member who participates by such means will be counted as present for purposes ofa quorum,and the Member may participate in any votes and other business as ifthe Member were physically present at the meeting. (B) Notice. A notice ofeach Commission meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days before the meeting, except in exceptional circumstances. The notice will include (1)the name ofthe Commission;(2)the time, date, place, and purpose ofthe meeting;(3)a summary ofthe agenda, and/or topics to be discussed;(4)a statement as to whether all or part of the meeting is open to the public and,if any part is closed, a statement as to why,citing the specific exemption(s)ofthe Government in the Sunshine Act(5 U.S.C. § 552b(c))("GISA")as the basis for closure; and(5)the name and telephone number ofthe DFO or other official who may be contacted for additional information concerning the meeting. (C)Agenda.The Chair or, at the Chair's direction, the Vice Chair, shall establish the agenda for all Commission meetings. The DFO will prepare and distribute the agenda to the Members before each meeting and will make available copies ofthe agenda to members ofthe public. Items for the agenda may be submitted to the Chair by any Member. Items may also be suggested by any member ofthe public. (D)Quorum. Commission meetings will be held only when a quorum is present. For this purpose, a quorum is defined as a simple majority ofthe Members (including the Chair)then serving on the Commission. (E) Open Meetings. Unless otherwise determined in advance, all Commission meetings will be open to the public either in person as space permits or through electronic means as permitted by FACA and its implementing regulations. Once an open meeting has begun, it will not be closed for any reason. However,if, during the course of an open meeting, matters inappropriate for public disclosure arise during discussion,the Chair shall order such discussion to cease and will schedule the matter for closed session in accordance with FACA. All materials brought before, or presented to, the Commission during the conduct of an open meeting will be made available to the public. All such materials will be made available on the Commission's webpage as soon as practicable. (F) Activities Not Subject to Notice and Open Meeting Requirements. Consistent with 41 CFR *102-3.160,the following activities ofthe Commission are excluded from the procedural requirements contained in Sections IV(B)and (E): i. Preparatory work. Meetings oftwo or more Commission Members or subcommittee Members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant 2 Draft of July 18, 2017 17-2361-A-001039 issues and facts in preparation for a Commission meeting. or to draft position papers for deliberation by the Commission; and Administrative work. Meetings oftwo or more Commission Members or subcommittee Members convened solely to discuss administrative matters ofthe Commission or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency. (G)Closed Meetings. Meetings ofthe Commission will be closed only in limited circumstances and in accordance with applicable law. Where the DFO has determined in advance that a Commission meeting will disclose matters inappropriate for public disclosure, an advance notice ofa closed meeting will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with GISA. (H)Hearings.The Commission may hold hearings to receive testimony or oral comments, recommendations,and expressions ofconcern from the public. The Commission may hold hearings at open meetings or in closed session in accordance with the standards in these By-Laws for closing meetings to the public. The Chair may specify reasonable guidelines and procedures for conducting orderly hearings,such as requirements for submitting requests to testify and written testimony in advance and placing limitations on the number of persons who may testify and the duration oftheir testimony. (I) Minutes. The DFO will prepare minutes ofeach meeting, distribute copies to each Member,and ensure that the Chair certifies the accuracy of all minutes within 90 calendar days ofthe meeting to which they relate. Minutes of open or closed meetings will be available to the public, subject to the withholding of matters which are exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The minutes will include:(1)the time, date, and place ofthe Commission meeting;(2)a list ofthe persons who were present at the place ofthe meeting;(3)an accurate description ofeach matter discussed and the resolution, ifany, made by the Commission regarding such matter; and(4)a copy ofeach report or other document received, issued, or approved by the Commission at the meeting. (J) Public Comment. Subject to Section N(E),members ofthe public may,at the determination of the Chair, offer oral comment at any meeting open to the public. The Chair may decide in advance to exclude oral public comment during a meeting,in which case the meeting announcement published in the Federal Register will note that oral comment from the public is excluded and will invite written comment as an alternative. Members ofthe public may submit written statements to the Commission at any time. Section V: Voting (A)In General. When a decision or recommendation ofthe Commission is required,the Chair shall request or accept a motion for a vote. Any Member,including the Chair, may make a motion for a vote. No second after a proper motion will be required to bring any issue or recommendation to a vote. A quorum must be present when a vote is taken. (B) Voting Eligibility. Only the Members,including the Chair, may vote on a motion. (C)Voting Procedures. Votes will ordinarily be taken and tabulated by a show of hands or by voice vote. 3 Draft of July 18, 2017 17-2361-A-001040 Section VI: Subcommittees The Chair ofthe Commission,in consultation with the DFO,is authorized to create subcommittees as necessary to support the Commission's work. Subcommittees may not incur costs or expenses without prior written approval ofthe Chair or the Chair's designee and the DFO. Subcommittees must report directly to the Commission,and must not provide advice or work products directly to the President or any other official or agency. Section VII: Administrative Support and Funding Pursuant to Executive Order 13799,to the extent permitted by law,and subject to the availability of appropriations,the General Services Administration shall provide the Commission with such administrative services,funds,facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission,to the extent permitted by law and on a reimbursable basis. However,the President's designee will be responsible for fulfilling the requirements ofsubsection 6(b) ofthe FACA. Section VIII: Records The records ofthe Commission and its subcommittees shall be handled in accordance with the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and FACA. Section IX: Termination The Commission shall terminate no more than two(2)years from the date ofthe Executive Order establishing the Commission, unless extended by the President, or thirty(30)days after it presents its final report to the President, whichever occurs first. Section X: Amendment of By-Laws Amendments to the By-Laws must conform to the requirements ofthe Executive Order,charter establishing the Commission,and FACA,and be agreed to by two-thirds ofthe Members. The DFO must ensure that all Members receive a copy ofthe proposed amendment before any vote is taken on it. 4 Draft of July 18, 2017 17-2361-A-001041 Message From: Sent: To: CC: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP [Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov] 8/17/2017 7:14:27 PM 'Kris Kobach [ ] Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov]; Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP [Ronald.E.Williams@ovp.eop.gov] Subject: draft release announcing next meeting Attachments: draft kobach-gardner release for september meeting.docx Hi Kris, Attached is a draft announcement of the next commission meeting. Bill Gardner was hoping to announce the meeting to New Hampshire media at the same time any others are notified, so we thought a joint release from you and him might make the most sense. I drafted a basic one as a starting point, which is attached. No pride of ownership here, so feel free to plug in your own quote and make any other changes. I haven't sent this to Bill yet, but we can loop him in whenever you're comfortable. If you'd like to discuss, just let us know. Thanks, Andrew Andrew 3. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: And rew.3.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001042 For Immediate Release August 17, 2017 New Hampshire Secretary of State BLI Gardner to Host Next Meeting of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election nteari The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity will hold its next meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. "I am grateful to Secretary Bill Gardner for hosting the Commission in his home state of New Hampshire, which has a long tradition of leadership in election administration," said Vice Chair of the Commission and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. "Secretary Gardner's experience as the nation's longest-serving chief state elections official and New Hampshire's tradition as the First-In-TheNation Presidential Primary make New Hampshire a perfect location for the Commission to continue its work." "I am excited to host my fellow commissioners here in New Hampshire," said Secretary Gardner."New Hampshire is proud of its key elections role as the First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, and I am likewise proud to host the Commission in its first meeting outside of Washington, D.C. I look forward to a productive meeting here in the Granite State." More information regarding the meeting will be available soon on the Commission's webpage, which is available at[ HYPERLINK "https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/07/13/presidential-advisorycommission-election-integrity" ]. 17-2361-A-001043 Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP [Mark.R.Paoletta@ovp.eop.gov] 8/30/2017 10:59:05 PM Kris Kobach [ ] draft Press coverage of today's hearing reveals the media's bias regarding this commission. This bipartisan commission has acted transparently and in good faith, and will continue to do so. The commission continues to face an unprecedented deluge of politically-driven lawsuits. In today's hearing, the plaintiffs sought an unreasonable amount of discovery from the commission, including depositions, interrogatories, and the production of documents. The judge recognized these requests were unreasonable and rejected them out of hand. It is unfortunate that certain organizations seek to prevent the commission from doing its work through litigation rather than engaging on the issues. one has to wonder, as the President has asked, what the opponents of this bipartisan advisory commission are so worried about. We are committed to doing this important work of helping to ensure the integrity of our elections, and will remain undeterred from this task despite the unprecedented assault by special interest groups. 1 look forward to having our next commission meeting in Manchester New Hampshire, and am grateful that Secretary Bill Gardner, a Democratic member of the commission and our nation's longest serving secretary of state, will host our meeting. 17-2361-A-001044 Wolfe, Kristina (CIV) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Saturday, November 18, 2017 5:05 PM Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP drafts for staff report Draft Staff Report.docx; draft staff report outline.docx Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov 1 17-2361-A-001045 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR STAFF REPORT I. II. III. IV. The President Forms the Bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity a. Executive Order b. Comments from the President c. The Commission's Mission d. The Commission's Charter e. Commission Members The Commission's Efforts to Collect and Analyze Data a. Information Requests from Vice Chair Kris Kobach b. [INSERT STATE RESPONSES] The Commission's Initial Meeting: July 19, 2017, in Washington, D.C. a. The President Delivers Remarks Prior to the Meeting b. Vice President Pence Convenes the Meeting and Delivers Opening Remarks c. Introductory Remarks by Vice Chair Kris Kobach d. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Connie Lawson e. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Ken Blackwell f. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Matt Dunlap g. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Bill Gardner h. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Alan King i. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Christy McCormick j. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner J. Christian Adams k. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Mark Rhodes I. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner David Dunn m. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky n. Additional Comments by the Vice President o. Discussion of the Commission's Mission p. Discussion of the By-Laws and Operating Procedures q. Discussion of Possible Topics for the Commission to Address r. Discussion of Future Meetings s. Adjournment The Commission's September 12, 2017, Meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire a. Welcome Remarks by Vice Chair Kobach and Commissioner Bill Gardner b. Remarks by Former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu c. Panel One: Historical election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence i. Presentation by Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire ii. Presentation by Kimball Brace, President, Election Data Services, Inc. iii. Presentation by Dr. John Lott, President, Crime Prevention Research Center and Author, Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates (2006) iv. Q&A and Discussion for Panel One d. Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 e. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence 17-2361-A-001046 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR STAFF REPORT V. VI. VII. i. Presentation by Donald Palmer, Former Secretary, Virginia State Board of Elections ii. Presentation by Robert Popper, Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch iii. Presentation by Ken Block, President, Simpatico Software Systems iv. Presentation by Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and member of the Commission v. Q&A and Discussion for Panel Two f. Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer i. Presentation by Dr. Andrew Appel, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University ii. Presentation by Dr. Ronald Rivest, Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology iii. Presentation by Harri Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs iv. Q&A and Discussion for Panel Three g. Discussion and Other Business h. Closing Remarks by Vice Chair Kobach and Secretary Gardner Litigation and Opposition to the Commission's Activities a. Immediate lawsuits prior to the Commission's first meeting b. States' opposition to requests for information and data c. Double standards compared to prior presidential commissions d. Interest groups' obstruction through unprecedented litigation Evidence of Election Integrity and Voter Fraud Issues a. Improper voter registration practices i. Registrations in multiple states ii. Convicted felons iii. Non-citizen registration iv. False registrations (deceased individuals, fictitious identities, etc.) b. Instances of fraudulent or improper voting i. Duplicate voting ii. Absentee and mail ballot fraud iii. Non-citizen voting iv. In-person voter impersonation c. Instances of other election crimes d. Voter suppression Best Practices for Enhancing Election Integrity a. Voter roll maintenance i. Importance of maintaining accurate and updated voter registration lists ii. Case studies of states with effective list maintenance processes and policies iii. Intra-State voter registration data sharing (i.e., use of DMV,jury data, tax information) iv. Inter-State voter registration data sharing (i.e., Crosscheck, ERIC) v. State-Federal partnerships to verify voter eligibility 17-2361-A-001047 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR STAFF REPORT vi. Public-private partnerships (i.e., use of commercial databases to verify voter registration eligibility) b. Proof of eligibility and identity i. Voter ID ii. Provisional ballots and other mechanisms to ensure voters can exercise the right to vote c. Auditability of election results 17-2361-A-001048 DRAFT STAFF REPORT The President Forms the Bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity President Donald J. Trump formed the bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity pursuant to Executive Order 13799 on May 11, 2017. In remarks to the Commission prior to its first meeting, the President explained his reasons for forming the Commission, and stressed the importance of studying election integrity in a bipartisan manner. This issue is very important to me because, throughout the campaign and even after it, people would come up to me and express their concerns about voter inconsistencies and irregularities, which they saw. In some cases, having to do with very large numbers of people in certain states. All public officials have a profound responsibility to protect the integrity of the vote. We have no choice. If we want to make America great again, we have to protect the integrity of the vote and our voters. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue, it's an American issue. It's about the concern of so many Americans that improper voting has taken place and canceling out the votes of lawful American citizens. That is why President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "It is the affair of every honest voter, wherever born, to see that no fraudulent voting is allowed anywhere."' In order to promote fair and honest Federal elections, the President's Executive Order charged the Commission with studying the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections. The President further ordered the Commission to be solely advisory, and to submit a report to the President that identifies the following: (a) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; (b) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and (c) those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting. Vice President Mike Pence stated in response to the Commission's formation,"We can't take for granted the integrity of the vote. This bipartisan commission will review ways to strengthen the integrity of elections in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote because the integrity of the vote is the foundation of our democracy."2 The Commission's Charter The Commission filed its charter on June 23, 2017.3 Commission Members When the President formed the Commission, he named Vice President Mike Pence as Chairman and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach Vice Chair.' The President appointed additional bipartisan members with election administration and related expertise, including the following: 17-2361-A-001049 DRAFT STAFF REPORT • Connie Lawson, Secretary of State of Indiana • Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire • Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State of Maine • Ken Blackwell, Former Secretary of State of Ohio • Christy McCormick, Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission • David Dunn, Former Arkansas State Representative' • Mark Rhodes, Clerk of Wood County, West Virginia • Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager of Election Law Reform Initiative, Edwin Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation • J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation • Alan King, Probate Judge, Jefferson County, Alabama • Luis Borunda, Deputy Secretary of State, Maryland6 The Commission's Efforts to Collect and Analyze Data From its inception, the Commission intended to conduct a robust analysis of available data in order to accurately identify registration and voting issues and to determine the scope of such issues. The May 11, 2017, press release announcing the Commission's formation specified that the Commission would "study vulnerabilities in voting systems used for federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations, improper voting, fraudulent voter registrations, and fraudulent voting. The Commission will also study concerns about voter suppression, as well as other voting irregularities. The Commission will utilize all available data, including state and federal databases."7 In order to gather relevant data to complete such an analysis, on June 28, 2017, Vice Chair Kobach sent letters to all fifty states and the District of Columbia requesting publicly available data from state voter rolls.8 Prior to sending that letter, Vice Chair Kobach discussed the information request with other members during an organizational conference cal1.9 Specifically, Vice Chair Kobach's letter requested "the publicly-available voter roll data for [the State], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in)from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information."' Vice Chair Kobach's letter also invited election officials to provide their input to the Commission and asked them several questions, including the following: 1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections? 17-2361-A-001050 DRAFT STAFF REPORT 2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities? 3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer? 4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state? 5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the November 2000 federal election? 6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? 7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider? In response to Vice Chair Kobach's letter, the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. EPIC's lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to prevent the Commission from collecting voter roll data. On July 10, 2017, the Commission sent state election officials a follow-up communication requesting that they hold off on submitting voter roll data until the court ruled on EPIC's motion. On July 24, 2017, the D.C. district court denied EPIC's motion for injunctive relief, permitting the Commission to move forward with collecting its requested information.11 Following the Court's decision, on July 26, 2017, Vice Chair Kobach sent a second letter to election officials renewing his request for voter roll data.12 Vice Chair Kobach clarified that the request sought only information that is already publicly available under state law, adding that voter roll data "is information that States regularly provide to political candidates,journalists, and other interested members of the public." Vice Chair Kobach noted that federal law requires states to maintain certain voter registration information and make it available to the public pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)and the Help America Vote Act(NAVA). Vice Chair Kobach's letter assured state election officials that the Commission would not publicly release any personally identifiable information regarding any individual voter or any group of voters from the voter registration records. Rather, the only information the Commission would release would be "statistical conclusions drawn from the data, other general observations that may be drawn from the data, and any correspondence that [state officials] may send to the Commission in response to the narrative questions enumerated in [the] June 28 letter." Vice Chair Kobach further stated that "individuals' voter registration records will be kept confidential and secure throughout the duration of the Commission's existence," and that the Commission would "dispose of the data as permitted by federal law" once its analysis is complete. [INSERT STATE RESPONSES] The Commission also received a number of written statements and comments from members of the public. Those public comments are posted on the Commission's webpage at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity-resources. 17-2361-A-001051 DRAFT STAFF REPORT The Commission's Initial Meeting: July 19, 2017,in Washington, D.C. On July 19, 2017, the Commission convened for its initial meeting.'The meeting occurred at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC 20502. The meeting consisted of introductions and opening statements from members,the adoption of the Commission's by-laws, a discussion of the Commission's mission and goals, and a discussion of next steps and related matters.' The President Delivers Remarks Prior to the Meeting Prior to the start of the meeting, the Vice President introduced the President, who delivered remarks to the members and thanked them for serving on the Commission.'The President reminded members of the importance of their roles and work on the Commission: Each of you has been entrusted with a great responsibility of helping to advance the cause of fair, honest, and lawful elections. Your work will help protect our democracy. This will be a very transparent process. It's going to be very open for everybody to see. You will approach this important task with a very open mind and with no conclusions already drawn. You will fairly and objectively follow the facts wherever they may lead. I look forward to the findings and recommendations your report will produce, and I share your report as soon as I can and as soon as possible with the American people so the full truth will be known and exposed, if necessary, in the light of day.' Vice President Pence Convenes the Meeting and Delivers Opening Remarks Following the President's remarks, the Vice President opened the meeting and delivered introductory remarks.'The Vice President began by thanking each of the members for serving on the Commission. He reiterated the importance of the members approaching their work in a bipartisan manner, stating, "This is a bipartisan group that will perform a nonpartisan service to the American people. Our goal, as the Executive Order asserts, is to help promote free and honest Federal elections. Our charge is to study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections [and]to explore vulnerabilities in the system that could lead to improper voting registration and improper voting." The Vice President also encouraged the members to engage in their work with open minds. He said, Let me reiterate the point I made earlier, now that we're on the record: We have no preconceived notions or preordained results. Our duty is to go where the facts lead and to provide the President and the American people with a report on our findings that can be used to strengthen the American people's confidence in our electoral system. And as you heard, the President looks forward to what we accomplish, and so do I. And I look very much forward to hearing from each and every one of you. The Vice President then recognized Commission Members to deliver their introductory remarks, beginning with Vice Chair Kobach. Introductory Remarks by Vice Chair Kris Kobach 17-2361-A-001052 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Vice-Chair Kobach stated that he is honored to serve as the Vice-Chair of the Commission. Vice-Chair Kobach said that the Commission's charge is to study threats to integrity of elections and quantify them; to offer recommendations to ensure future integrity; and to share information with the American public. Vice-Chair Kobach said this is a mission of the highest order. He also said that the Republic cannot stand for long without the foundation of the Constitution and faith that elections conducted fairly. Vice-Chair Kobach reported statistics about public opinion regarding election integrity. According to a 2014 survey, only 40 percent of voters thought elections were fair. He also shared historical examples of voter fraud, including specific examples from his state of Kansas. Kansas is in litigation defending its proof-of-citizenship requirement and discovered during the fact-finding process that there have been 128 specific cases of noncitizens registering or attempting to register to vote. He said that the total number of estimated noncitizen registrants in Kansas is estimated to be more than 18,000. Vice-Chair Kobach discussed the nature of the Commission's work, noting that there has been no nationwide effort on this front. He said the Commission will find answers to questions that have never been answered and share factual findings publicly. Vice-Chair Kobach explained that,just as the Presidential Commission on Election Administration under President Obama analyzed the problem of long lines during the 2012 election and determined such lines may have deterred voters from participating, someone who lives in a place where voter fraud has been known to occur in the past may decide their vote is not likely to count and then decide not to vote. Vice-Chair Kobach explained that the interstate crosscheck system hosted by Kansas, which has found millions of probable double registrations, is a starting point for states to contact voters and remove them from the rolls with their consent. This can also provide leads where it appears someone voted twice in different jurisdictions. Vice-Chair Kobach said that this program demonstrates successful multistate effort in enhancing integrity of voter rolls, and he is confident a national level effort can also be successful. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Connie Lawson Commissioner Lawson said she is honored to join the Commission and thanked the President. Commissioner Lawson is the Indiana Secretary of State and President of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). She described her background in voting processes and administration, which included sixteen years as a state senator serving on the elections committee. Commissioner Lawson said that with elections this year and more next year, there is no better time to analyze how to improve confidence and participation. She believes it is important to discuss what lies ahead and outline constructive priorities. Commissioner Lawson said one of the most important goals of the Commission is to improve the partnership between federal and state authorities, particularly regarding the designation of election systems as critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Commissioner Lawson noted that there have been significant updates to state and federal law with the Help America Vote Act(HAVA). She hopes that this Commission will operate similar to the group that developed the HAVA standards, which were developed in a bipartisan, cooperative manner. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Ken Blackwell 17-2361-A-001053 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Blackwell said he is honored to be a member of this Commission and thanked the Vice President for his leadership. Commissioner Blackwell said that the Commission's task is to identify every threat to integrity of the electoral process, both foreign and domestic, and recommend countermeasures to protect voting rights. Commissioner Blackwell submitted to the record an article published in the Yale Law & Policy Review that he co-authored with Kenneth A. Klukowski, Fellow and Senior Legal Analyst, American Civil Rights Union.'Commissioner Blackwell summarized key points from the article, explaining that the right to vote can be articulated as every properly registered adult having the right to an undiluted vote. Commissioner Blackwell explained that the Constitution secures two voting rights, the first being the right to the franchise and the second that a citizen's legal ballot not being diluted or cancelled by someone else's illegal activity. Commissioner Blackwell also emphasized that the right to vote is the only right secured by the Constitution that is also a citizen's duty, which presumes that publicly spirited citizens will be willing to satisfy reasonable regulations and shoulder incidental burdens. Commissioner Blackwell said that citizens exercise the machinery of democracy on Election Day — it is how we govern ourselves. The Commission's duty is to counter threats and safeguard integrity of ballot box. Commissioner Blackwell submitted his opening statement into the record, which was accepted without objection.' Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Matt Dunlap Commissioner Dunlap shared Maine's experience, where he said they have been blessed to have the commitment of dedicated people across the state. Elections are run by local town officials who make extraordinary efforts to ensure neighbors can freely exercise democratic self-governance. He explained that something like possible double voting typically happens when someone requests and loses and absentee ballot and shows up at the polls. He said that accountability is important here, and that the purpose of this Commission is to bolster confidence. Commissioner Dunlap suggested that the Commission should focus on what works well and what do we do right. He said that no one has questioned the legitimacy of 2016 election, which is a great place to start. He explained that the Commission will have to consider the balance points between security and access and keep in mind that this is a process that belongs to the voters. The Commission should do all things with devotion to ensure voters have their voice heard, that ballots cast are done without question, and that the government is acting with the confidence of the public. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Bill Gardner Commissioner Gardner began his remarks by sharing a story about George Washington. After our Federal Constitution was ratified, a person asked George Washington this question: What is the most important thing that a person can do for his country? George Washington answered that in five words: "Express your view beyond yourself." Commissioner Gardner took this to mean that everyone's voice mattered, and you should let others share their view with you. He also thinks George Washington's advice can be applied to voting because it is a collective expression beyond ourselves via ballot box; it fulfills the will of the first President of the United States. Commissioner Gardner would like more Americans to vote, not fewer. He shared some background on efforts to increase the ease of voting and said that he believes that we will see an increase in voter turnout only when ease of voting balanced with security and integrity. Making voting easier itself does not result in higher turnout. 17-2361-A-001054 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Gardner shared that polls before the last Presidential election found that half of Americans think there is voter fraud. He said that while three previous election commissions have focused on making voting easier, we need to first understand why turnout has not increased as a result. He also shared that the highest turnout states were those that required photo identification and stated that confidence is important because contrary to common belief, one vote does matter. Commissioner Gardner has conducted nearly 500 recounts in all types of races. Of those, 11 ended in a tie, 32 were decided by one vote, and 202 were decided by less than 10 votes. He said that every vote matters, and there doesn't need to be massive voter fraud to sway the outcome. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Alan King Commissioner King expressed his pleasure to serve on the Commission and explained his background as a probate judge in Jefferson City, Alabama, which is the state's largest county. Probate judges are the chief election officials of counties in Alabama, and he has overseen over three dozen major elections. He has been involved in elections for over 16 years, and during that time, he has seen no evidence of voter fraud in his county. Commissioner King expressed that one of the most massive problems we will face in years to come is technology, specifically with voting machines. Technology is moving so fast that society is not able to keep up. He explained that in 2002, Congress passed HAVA which included funding for states. The machines purchased with that funding are now outdated, so Commissioner King believes states and counties need money to replace them. He said he hopes the Commission will get into this issue, discuss it freely, and make a recommendation on it. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Christy McCormick Commissioner McCormick spent eight years at the Department of Justice(DOA enforcing federal voting statutes. She was also detailed to Baghdad to work on the national elections in Iraq and has served as a commissioner on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)since 2015, working directly with state and local election officials. She will also consider the interest of voting system vendors and nonprofits. Commissioner McCormick explained that according to the Constitution, states have the responsibility to run elections, but the federal government also has an interest in keeping elections free, fair, and secure from outside, improper influences. She explained that over the past year, we have heard that the election system is in danger, so this is an appropriate time to examine threats to the integrity and fairness of our system. It is important to ensure votes are not diluted, there is no disenfranchisement, and the public has confidence in accurate, secure, and expeditious results. Commissioner McCormick would like the Commission to look at how we keep ineligible people from voting, the problem of inaccurate voter lists, the lack of voter participation and confidence, methods to identify and investigate improper registration and voting, and voter intimidation and suppression. She said that the world looks to the United States as representative of democracy and free and fair elections, so we must stay vigilant. Commissioner McCormick looks forward to working with the Vice President and the Commission, which will operate with transparency and respect. She reiterated that there are no preconceived results, and any conclusions will be made based on the facts that lead to the truth. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner J. Christian Adams 17-2361-A-001055 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Adams thanked the President, Vice President, and Vice-Chair Kobach for this long overdue effort. He said that most Americans value truth and election systems deserving of our faith. Clean elections protect our freedom. All Commission members are dedicated to inquisitive search for the truth. He brought up an area of serious concern, which is indications that people are registering to vote but marking the box "no" that they are a U.S. citizen. He said many interests would rather not have the Commission ask how or why this happen, but that is the wrong approach. Commissioner Adams believes we have the tools, the will, and the support to improve the election system. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Mark Rhodes Commissioner Rhodes is a county clerk in charge of elections. He shared a story of how he tested his state's data upload system during the 2000 election, in which he marked himself as deceased to test the system and did not add himself back to the roll. That year, he walked into the precinct and voted a provisional ballot because he was not in the book. Commissioner Rhodes said there are things that do happen, and we want to make sure every legally cast ballot counts. Having won by five votes in 2014, he believes this is important, and we need to have fair, clean, honest elections with no speculation or doubt. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner David Dunn Commissioner Dunn thanked the President and Vice President, stating that he is humbled and honored to serve. Coming from an area lacking economic development, he knows how important the democratic process is. His vision for the Commission is threefold. First, it should look at a myriad of issues to determine if there are problems with voter integrity. Second, it should ensure the privacy of American voting public, noting that the Commission's letter to states asked for only public information but still raised concerns. The data received should be safeguarded. Finally, he hopes the activities will be bipartisan, transparent, and conducted with the highest level of integrity. Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky Commissioner von Spakovsky thanked the President for his appointment. He shared some of his personal history, explaining that parents met in a World War II displaced person camp,so his childhood was full of stories of what it is like to live in dictatorship. He therefore believes the right to vote is precious, and we have a duty to participate in the democratic process. He wants to ensure all eligible persons are able to vote and that their votes are not diluted. Commissioner von Spakovsky has three decades of experience in the field of voting and elections, including work for the Dal enforcing laws and service as a local election official in Georgia and Virginia. He provided a resource from the Heritage Foundation, which details voter fraud cases around the country. The resource is available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity-resources. The Heritage Foundation has collected 1,100 cases of voter fraud, which include impersonation, false registration, and ineligible voting. Commissioner von Spakovsky also addressed the issue of voter list accuracy, noting that there are hundreds of thousands of multiple registrations and deceased voters on the rolls. No systematic study on this has been done. He has full confidence in this bipartisan 17-2361-A-001056 DRAFT STAFF REPORT commission. He expects a spirited but civil debate. He said those who want to ensure the integrity of the election process are concerned with preserving democracy. Additional Comments by the Vice President Vice President Pence said that after listening to all the Commissioners, he is more confident than ever that this bipartisan group will perform a valuable nonpartisan service to the American people. He is grateful for their words of admonition and challenge. He repeated that the Commission has no preconceived notions or preordained results. The President has charged the Commission with pursuing the facts. The Commission will operate in a transparent and open process, which will include a spirited and civil debate given the background of the Commissioners. The Vice President then reiterated the charge given in the Executive Order. The Commission will live up to that charge and challenge each other to achieve it. The Vice President recessed the meeting for a short break and directed Vice-Chair Kobach to chair the meeting once the Commission reconvened. Discussion of the Commission's Mission Vice Chair Kobach reconvened the meeting at 1:02 p.m. and commenced a discussion of the Commission's mission. Vice Chair Kobach reiterated the Commission's mission as described in Section 3 of Executive Order 13799.20 No Member offered comments in response. Discussion of the By-Laws and Operating Procedures Vice Chair Kobach presented the proposed by-laws and operating procedures to the Commission.21 Commissioner Blackwell moved to adopt the proposed by-laws, and Commissioner Adams seconded the motion. Vice Chair Kobach called the question, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Discussion of Possible Topics for the Commission to Address Vice Chair Kobach then began a discussion of possible topics the Commission might address at future meetings. He shared some ideas as a starting point for discussion, which included (1)strategies and obstacles to increasing the accuracy of voter rolls,(2)the scope of and strategies to address fraudulent or improper voting,(3) voting by mail,(4)cybersecurity regarding state voter databases, and (5) voter intimidation and consequences of state efforts to increase election integrity.22 Vice Chair Kobach opened the floor for discussion of those suggestions and any other topics the Commission should address. Commissioner Blackwell said he believed one of the more profound points to come out of the collective sharing of opening statements was the importance of one single vote. He stated it would be interesting to catalogue how many initiatives are determined by one ballot, and that driving home the importance of every single vote cast can show the consequence of one illegal, diluting ballot. He suggested taking a period of time to get a snapshot of close elections to show the importance of every vote. 17-2361-A-001057 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Vice Chair Kobach responded that he tried to do something similar in Kansas, and the data was fascinating but not easily available. Commissioner Blackwell said that he thinks the Commission can get data of a representative group. Commissioner King stated that he was surprised to learn that people are registered in more than one state and potentially vote absentee in one state while voting in-person in another. He would like to discuss a recommendation to the President that someone can only be registered in one state at a time. Vice Chair Kobach noted that the interstate crosscheck system exists to address that issue, and that although it is often quite simple to register to vote, it is surprisingly hard to deregister. Vice Chair Kobach further stated he thinks this issue is worthy of further discussion. Commissioner von Spakovsky followed up on Commissioner Blackwell's suggestion about data on elections decided by few votes. He stated that Secretary of State Jon Husted of Ohio recently published such information on numerous close elections in his state, so such information is available. Commissioner von Spakovsky added that he believed Commissioner King raised a very important issue regarding registrations in multiple states. He said that the first step is quantifying the number of registrations in multiple states, but the second step is determining how many of those registrations are erroneous and how many actually result in illegal votes. The second step requires studying the voting history of registrants, which prior studies of the issue have not done. He noted that the Heritage Foundation's database of voter fraud convictions includes examples of individuals who were prosecuted for voting in more than one state, so it is a problem but the Commission should study how big of a problem it is and what can be done about it. Vice Chair Kobach then noted that Kansas' Crosscheck database reports possible cases of double voting to states, which then conduct additional investigation in order to eliminate false positives from those possible cases. He stated that Kansas has reached convictions in eight cases of double voting during the last two years, but noted that it is important for states to conduct additional investigation to eliminate false positives. Commissioner McCormick stated that the United States has a very low voter participation rate among democracies in the world. She suggested the Commission should study the causes for lack of voter participation and confidence in elections. Commissioner McCormick also recommended studying the issue of automatic voter registration, because a number of states are either considering implementing automatic voter registration or have already implemented it. Finally, she suggested the Commission assess the processes for identifying and prosecuting voter crimes throughout the country. She said that resources for such investigations and prosecutions are scarce and that it is difficult to identify voter fraud, but that based on her experience voter fraud is not a myth and the investigation of it should be studied further. Commissioner Lawson suggested that it would be helpful for the Commission to look at the overall cybersecurity issue, including communications from the Department of Homeland Security(DHS)to chief election officers and the cooperation between states and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)and DHS. She said it could be helpful to gather all the information on this topic and suggest best practices for information sharing between the federal government and states. Vice Chair Kobach said his hesitation regarding discussing cybersecurity is that it may require sensitive or classified briefings, which would mean a closed session for part of a Commission meeting. Such sensitive discussions could also provide a roadmap for those who might want to improperly influence elections. Commissioner Blackwell suggested there may be times when it could be helpful for the Commission to be brought into certain conversations being had by other government entities addressing the cyber issue, and that the Commission should explore administrative procedures for receiving sensitive information. Commissioner 17-2361-A-001058 DRAFT STAFF REPORT McCormick said that the EAC is looking into these issues and working with DHS, and that she believes the Commission has a role to play, such as looking at the realities of how feasible it is for a bad actor to access voter registration systems and manipulate voter information. Commissioner Blackwell cited to the 2015 breach of the Office of Personnel Management and expressed that there are real threats and vulnerabilities, so the Commission should not be limited in its ability to explore what is being done to protect the American people and the integrity of elections. He said there are real threats to the integrity of the ballot box and again suggested working with other government entities to assess those threats. Commissioner Lawson added that she believes the Commission could study and make positive statements regarding this issue that would help ensure the public that systems are not vulnerable, such as the facts that the election system is decentralized, voting equipment is not online, and voting tabulations are not connected to the Internet. Commissioner King raised the topic of additional funding for voting equipment upgrades. He said it is a massive problem if people cannot vote because machines are not working, and many counties do not have the resources to have backup machines. He would like a recommendation for Congressional funding for voting machines such as what states received through the Help America Vote Act(NAVA). He further stressed how important it is for election administrators to have state of the art voting machines that work properly. Commissioner Dunlap explained that Maine does not have voting machines because it uses optical scan tabulators rather than voting machines, but tabulators have broken down occasionally. Because Maine is a paper ballot state, election clerks can always use paper ballots and wooden ballot box if necessary. He also noted that an important related issue is that of chain of custody of ballots. To illustrate the line between fraud and illegality on this matter, he shared a story of a state senate election with 25,000 total votes and a seven-vote margin of victory that resulted in a recount. The recount initially appeared to show that one town made a mistake and missed counting 21 ballots, which flipped the margin by 14 votes. The challenger wanted to check those votes against the incoming voter list, which matches the number of voters against the number of ballots cast. The 21 ballots were not accounted for on the list. A special senate committee eventually discovered that in the recount, ballot counters had inadvertently left the ballots on the table and counted them twice. This was not a case of fraud, but it shows how knowing how chains of custody work is important in allaying fears that something may have gone wrong in the election process. Commissioner von Spakovsky suggested that in addition to the voter registration and history that the Commission requested from states, the Commission could benefit from additional data, such as what databases states consult when verifying accuracy of voter registration information. For example, he proposed asking several questions of election officials, such as whether county governments are accessing county tax records. That information is relevant because it is illegal to register to vote at a commercial address. Additionally, are election officials accessing other databases such as vital records, corrections departments, and departments of motor vehicles? Are states consulting federal databases, such as the Social Security Administration's Master Death Index? If states are accessing such databases, how often? Commissioner von Spakovsky said the Commission needs to know if databases are easily accessible by election administrators, or whether the federal government has made accessing such information difficult. For example, DHS has information regarding non-citizens who are legally in the United States, as well as those that are illegally in the United States. It is important to know whether states are able to access such databases, and how easily they can do so. 17-2361-A-001059 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner von Spakovsky also suggested other sources of information that may help states, including a Government Accountability Office report from more than a decade ago that listed the types of information that could help election officials with voter information lists. That report suggested checking information from courts regarding ineligible jurors on registration lists, such as those who are excused from jury duty because they are non-citizens. Commissioner von Spakovsky also stressed that it is important to know if the court clerks with this data are sharing it with other government entities that can investigate or act on information about potential improper or illegal registrations. He further stressed that the Commission should assess whether U.S. Attorney offices across the country are complying with a provision in the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA)that requires U.S. Attorneys to send information about felony convictions in federal courts to state election officials so those officials are aware of such information for voter eligibility purposes. He added that DHS files include information about individuals who have applied for citizenship that indicates whether such applicants have ever registered to vote in elections. Commissioner von Spakovsky stated that the Commission should have access to that DHS data and study whether DHS is sharing the information with other government agencies for appropriate action, such as investigation and possible prosecution by the Department of Justice (D01). Vice Chair Kobach mentioned that the DOJ, coincidentally, recently sent a letter to states asking about state efforts to maintain the accuracy of voter rolls. Vice Chair Kobach also said he is almost certain federal courts are not sending information regarding non-citizens on jury forms to election officials. This is also a state-level issue he has observed in Kansas, where state courts were not providing state-level forms reflecting citizenship status to election officials until the state passed a statute requiring the courts to periodically share the information. Kansas election officials eventually discovered 128 noncitizens registered to vote in the state as a result of that information sharing. He further suggested, if there were no objection from the Commission, delegating to staff in the interim to start collecting whatever data already exists in possession of the federal government that may be helpful to the Commission. No Member objected. Commissioner Lawson pointed out that since 2012,the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) has had a resolution asking the federal government for assistance in providing data maintained by federal agencies that would assist states in keeping their voting lists up to date. NASS readopted that resolution on July 10, 2017. Vice Chair Kobach said this Commission is a valuable opportunity to make a reality what NASS has been asking for, because based on his experience in Kansas, the federal government has been silent or not helpful in sharing information that would assist him, as Secretary of State, in maintaining accurate voter rolls in Kansas. He is hopeful the Commission can look at federal information and also recommend protocols about how the federal government could be a helpful partner in keeping elections secure going forward even after the Commission has disbanded. Commissioner McCormick noted that at least one state, North Dakota, has no voter registration process, and that it would be interesting for the Commission to hear from that state regarding how it administers and runs its elections. She also expressed a desire to study the impact of the growing number of states moving towards online voter registration in order to understand how online registration has changed the elections environment across the country. Commissioner Rhodes said that his county of Wood County, West Virginia has seen an increase of almost 4,000 voter registrations over the past year since allowing online and Department of Motor 17-2361-A-001060 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Vehicles(DMV)registrations. He explained that currently there is an opt-in for individuals obtaining drivers licenses to register to vote, but in 2019 individuals obtaining drivers licenses will have to opt-out of being registered to vote. Commissioner McCormick asked whether that increase in registrations has resulted in an increased turnout. Commissioner Rhodes responded that the state has not seen an increased turnout, but he does think the change has been beneficial. He shared that three years ago he registered 100 students at local high schools, but when he recently went to register students, he only registered two because the others had already registered at the DMV when obtaining drivers licenses. Commissioner Rhodes stated he was unsure whether the new registration processes would result in increased voter turnout, but that it has added to the administrative workload of his office because his staff works to verify addresses and other information on registrations. After performing cross-checks, Commissioner Rhodes' staff has identified some duplicate registrations, such as from voters who get married and register under a new name. Commissioner Rhodes stated that these are the types of issues that his staff works through in order to ensure registrations are valid. Commissioner Gardner stated that he believed the Commission would accomplish a lot if it were to come to terms with why,for 40 years, states and the federal government have been making it easier for people to vote, yet turnout has not increased over that period. He said that despite claims from proponents of the NVRA and automatic registration, those reforms have not increased turnout, and such changes are not likely to increase turnout in the future because it is the will of the voter to participate that is key. He also said that at the time of HAVA's passing, many states decided to spend HAVA funding on state of the art voting equipment without thinking about it becoming obsolete in the future. He noted that at a polling location in New Hampshire, a voting machine patented in 1890 is still in use. He questioned whether states are expecting additional federal funding for new voting equipment every 10-12 years, and noted that some states that used HAVA funds to buy new voting machines have since reverted to the use of paper ballots, such as Maryland. Commissioner Gardner reiterated that he believes the biggest contribution the Commission can make is to answer the question of what creates the will to vote. He noted that professors across the country are increasingly discussing how important confidence in the elections process is to potential voters. If something is of value, people will go out of their way to take advantage of it, and the same principle applies to voting. Although many people see their vote as insignificant due to the large number of votes cast in elections, if voting totals are broken down to the local level, many elections are close. Commissioner Gardner mentioned 11 recounts in his state that ended in ties. He cited a Gallup poll one week prior to the 2016 election that showed 55 percent of voters believe there is voter fraud, and stated the Commission should study why that is the case. Another poll asked voters after the election whether they believed their votes were counted accurately. The 2016 election was the first Presidential election where the number of positive responses to that question dropped below 50 percent. He noted that he did not expect additional rounds of significant funding for replacement voting machines every 10-12 years going forward, and stated the Commission should study how and why states spent their HAVA funding in 2004 and 2005 in order to plan for the future. Vice Chair Kobach asked if there were any objections to staff making efforts to obtain information regarding close elections, whether through public sources or by requesting such information from states. No Member objected. Commissioner Blackwell stated that Commissioner Gardner underscored a point that Commissioner Blackwell wanted to stress in his opening remarks: Commissioner Blackwell believes we do not talk enough about the duty to vote, and school systems across the country are giving less attention to civics. 17-2361-A-001061 DRAFT STAFF REPORT As a consequence, people are less likely to exercise the duty to vote or to deal with any reasonable requirement to make sure legally cast votes are not diluted. Commissioner Blackwell chairs an organization that conducts elections across the globe in elections such as Kenya and Liberia that strongly advocates voter identification requirements. He said our culture is accustomed to having to show proof that we are who we purport to be for reasons such as getting on airplanes, buying cigarettes, and so forth, but that part of the resistance to such requirements associated with voting is we have lost the balance between reasonable access to voting and the duty to assume a reasonable burden of proof in order to protect integrity of ballot box. Commissioner Blackwell believes one of the things the Commission could do is to underscore the importance of that balance. Commissioner King said that elections are complex and that the general population does not understand the work that goes into elections prior to, during, and after elections. He said that technology will continue to rule our elections. Unless the Election Assistance Commission passes rules that voting machines have to have standards on longevity, election administrators are going to continue to need funding for new voting machines and to maintain their current voting machines. Commissioner von Spakovsky provided two other suggestions regarding the collection of data. First, the Commission should ask states to provide data on what kind of voting equipment states use, its predicted lifespan, and how far along they are into that lifespan. This information would allow the Commission to assess resource requirements going forward. Second, the staff should collect and send information to Commissioners from the U.S. Census Bureau surveys regarding voter registration and voters' reasons for not registering or voting. Commissioner Dunlap said that in his state of Maine, the Secretary of State has jurisdiction over the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. He explained the process involved in issuing a credential, which is often not a simple process, depending on the characteristics of the individual. He noted that his office spends a significant amount of time helping individuals with unique circumstances who do not have appropriate documentation to work through the process. However, once that credential process is completed, it makes the completion of voter registration easy. This underscores the need for a better understanding of election administrators' cybersecurity and financial needs. He said the Commission should focus on what its goals will be, answer the questions raised at this meeting, fully discuss those systems we do have that work well, address gaps if they exist, and ensure windows of opportunity for wrongdoing are not exploited. If such windows are not being exploited, the Commission should say that as well. He noted one example in Maine where out-of-state college students were registered in their home state and in Maine. An investigation discovered those students were not voting in both states even though they were registered in multiple jurisdictions. Commissioner Dunlap explained the registration process in Maine, which asks registrants whether they previously registered to vote elsewhere. It is then incumbent upon the registrar of voters to contact that other jurisdiction and share that the voter has relocated, but whether or not that happens is a separate question. Commissioner Dunlap noted that he did not update his own address for 15 years after relocating until he was called for jury duty and had to update it. He thinks it is important to assess whether apparent risks to election integrity are, in fact, actual risks. He expressed agreement with Commissioner Gardner's desire to study voter turnout, but questioned whether the Commission will be able to affect it because voters are driven to the polls for a number of different reasons. Commissioner McCormick addressed Commissioner King's point about voting machine standards, noting that the EAC does set voluntary voting system guidelines, which 48 of the 50 states use in one way or another. With regard to Commissioner von Spakovsky's point about collecting information regarding 17-2361-A-001062 DRAFT STAFF REPORT voting equipment, Commissioner McCormick noted that the EAC already collects a significant amount of such data. She also noted that she hears concerns about voter disenfranchisement, and expressed a desire that the Commission study who is being disenfranchised from voting. She noted that she distributed copies of an EAC survey on election administration and voting, which is available on the EAC website and also on the Commission's webpage.23 The EAC's survey found that a disappointingly low number of overseas military personnel are voting. Commissioner McCormick reiterated that she believes it is worthwhile for the Commission to study who is being prevented from voting and who is not voting, for whatever reason. Vice Chair Kobach said he heard no objection to the initial five topics he raised. In addition, topics raised by the Commission included cataloging elections decided by close margins, double voting, causes of lack of participation and confidence in elections, automatic voter registration, prosecution and identification of election crimes, resources and funding for voting equipment, databases states are using to verify the accuracy of their rolls, jury duty list questions concerning eligibility, and any information the federal government has(such as conviction information from United States Attorneys, DHS forms indicating citizenship), and online and non-registration states. He said if there is no objection, there are at least a dozen topics the Commission can ask staff to group together in coherent ways so that each meeting can address related topics and the Commission can dig deeper on those related topics. Discussion of Future Meetings Vice Chair Kobach raised the topic of future meetings. He said the goal is to have approximately four more public meetings in the next nine months or so, with staff collecting information in the meantime. There may be additional meetings and topics, which could come from states' responses to the letter inviting states' input. He asked the Commission for thoughts on when and where to hold future meetings, suggesting that the Commission hold its next meeting before October 1st and that it should strive to hold at least half its meetings somewhere other than Washington, D.C. Commissioner Blackwell noted that he co-chaired the 2000 U.S. Census Monitoring Board, and he was impressed with the data the Census Bureau collects on a variety of subjects. Given that the Commission will have some time between meetings, Commissioner Blackwell thinks it would be useful to review that data prior to a future meeting. He also noted that he served with the HAVA committee that distributed funding for voting machines, and suggested the Commission review that committee's study because a lot of the study is likely still relevant. He suggested holding the Commission's next meeting towards the end of August or during the second week in September, and did not have a preference on meeting locations. Commissioner Dunlap noted that Bar Harbor, Maine is always nice in September, and stated said the meeting timeline as the Vice Chair described is reasonable. He also suggested that in light of concerns about Russian involvement in the 2016 election, the Commission should include Congress in its communications and vice-versa going forward. Vice Chair Kobach asked if the end of August or the first half of September would work for the timing of the next meeting. Commissioner McCormick expressed a preference for meeting in September, and the Vice Chair agreed. No Member objected to that timing. Vice Chair Kobach then asked about locations for future meetings. He said the Commission should anticipate additional meetings in Washington, D.C., and that one such meeting could occur in February 17-2361-A-001063 DRAFT STAFF REPORT of 2018 when NASS is holding its meeting in the area. Commissioner McCormick agreed that the Commission should spread its meeting across the country geographically. Commissioner von Spakovsky noted that cities with regional headquarters for the federal government could be good locations because the Commission could meet at federal buildings located there. Vice Chair Kobach agreed with those suggestions and noted that it is important the Commission try to meet in geographically diverse locations in order to hear from the public. He noted the Commission does not need to decide all locations immediately, but recognized that the Commission appeared to agree with a meeting in the first half of September and to strive for geographic diversity in its meeting locations. Adjournment Vice Chair Kobach asked the Commission whether there were any additional topics for discussion. After hearing none, he invited a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Dunlap moved to adjourn. Commissioners approved the motion by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. The Commission's September 12, 2017, Meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire The Commission convened for its second meeting at approximately 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time on September 12, 2017. The meeting occurred at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College, Manchester New Hampshire. The meeting consisted three panels consisting of a total of ten panelists discussing voter turnout statistics, election integrity issues, and vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems. A copy of the meeting agenda is available at https://www.whitehouse.govisites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-updated-meeting-agenda09122017.pdf. Panelists' presentations are available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidentialadvisory-commission-election-integrity-resources. Welcome Remarks by Vice Chair Kobach and Commissioner Bill Gardner Vice Chairman Kris Kobach welcomed and thanked the Commission for being in New Hampshire, and he thanked the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Vice Chairman Kobach introduced Commission member and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner and thanked him for welcoming the Commission to his home state of New Hampshire. Commissioner Gardner welcomed everyone to New Hampshire. He encouraged the Commission to examine the historical voter turnout record, while creating an honest system of voting. He continued by introducing John H. Sununu,the former New Hampshire governor and chief of staff to former President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Sununu was on a presidential advisory board similar to the Commission during President Ronald Reagan's administration. Remarks by Former New Hampshire Governor John H.Sununu 17-2361-A-001064 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Governor Sununu said that the work of the Commission is very important. The contribution is based on a balance of power between states, the Federal government, and the people; nothing should every change that balance. Governor Sununu encouraged the Commission to examine the integrity of the balance of power, and that the people must have confidence in the Commission's examination. He ended by stating that the decrease in voting participation is a result of the people's lack of confidence in the integrity of the election process. Governor Sununu stated he believed it was fitting that the Commission was meeting in New Hampshire given the state's important role in presidential elections. Panel One: Historical election Turnout Statistics and the Effects of Election Integrity Issues on Voter Confidence Vice Chairman Kobach introduced the panelists for the first panel. He recognized each panelist to make up to 15 minutes of remarks, which would be followed by time for the Commission members to ask questions of the entire panel. Presentation by Dr. Andrew Smith, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire Dr. Smith began his presentation by reframing the discussion, not to why people don't vote, but why people do vote. He said voting is an irrational act; there is a psychological benefit to believing that voting is doing the right thing. Dr. Smith went through his presentation in detail and with narrative. He explained the many factors that may affect voter turnout, concluding that there is no single cause that increases or decreases turnout. Dr. Smith also pointed out that each state has different voter turnout. Some states like Minnesota and New Hampshire have consistently high voter turnout and states like Hawaii are consistently low; but again there are different reasons for each state. During the presentation, Dr. Smith highlighted a quote by Justice Stevens in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board which stated that public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. Lastly, Dr. Smith reported that there is less confidence in electronic voting than in paper ballots, which continues to increase each year. Dr. Smith's full presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/paceidr-andrew-smith-presentation.pdf. Presentation by Kimball Brace, President, Election Data Services, Inc. Mr. Brace has been researching elections and data related to elections since the 1970s; and has been actively involved in voting machine upgrades and redistricting. He said that it is a misconception that presidential elections increases voter participation, but that was wrong in both 2012 and 2016. The vote for president was less than the overall vote participation; meaning that people casted their vote for other election contests but not solely for the presidential race. Mr. Brace suggested that age, race, and income were not determinable variables whether an individual participated in the electoral process or not; noted that homeownership is a determinable variable. Mr. Brace's full presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/Kimball-Brace-PresentationUpdated.pdf. 17-2361-A-001065 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Presentation by Dr. John Lott, President, Crime Prevention Research Center and Author, Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter Participation Rates (2006) Dr. Lott began his presentation by giving acknowledgments to Mr. Brace for his research in the field of elections data. Dr. Lott suggested that one alternative to verifying voter registration information is for election administration officials to consider using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)- the background check system for gun purchases. Dr. Lott noted that the same determinants that deny gun purchasing (i.e., citizenship status, felony convictions) are the same to determine voter eligibility. There has been bi-partisan support for the NICS. Dr. Lott concluded that there will be the similar support for the NICS system to be used for voter registration verification purposes. Dr. Lott pointed out that NICS checks for multiple limitations that are applied to voter registration; and although there would be an extra cost, states could pick up the cost. Dr. Lott observed that voter photo ID increases voter participation because voter feel more confident in the election system; it does not depress voter turnout. Dr. Lott added that certain election rules and procedures increases the opportunity for voter fraud: same-day registration; misuse of absentee voting without reasonable excuse; registration by mail; vote by mail; and early voting. Dr. Lott's full presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.govisites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/Dr-John-Lott-PresentationUpdated.pdf. Q&A and Discussion for Panel One Vice Chair Kobach began by stating that, we see lots of polling data as to why people vote, have you seen data as to why they do not vote; what are the reasons that they give for one or the other, is there a significant percentage from one to the other? Dr. Smith responded that census polls show that people just didn't have an interest. Mr. Brace said that the 2016 numbers are coming up next month, and it would be interesting for the Commission to look at these numbers. Commissioner Blackwell stated that it is a misconception that state officials make decisions regarding the location of or/and the number of voting machines and that local authorities have extra voting machines that can be set up at the last minute. For example, at Ohio State University this past election there was a flood of students, in the college precincts, which caused long lines to vote; thus this looked like voter suppression not failed machine placement. How do we ensure the right message is coming across? Mr. Brace responded that the decision of voter machines placement is usually made at the local level, and are guided by some state law requiring a voting machine per X number of registered voters in the precinct. Mr. Brace continued by giving an example from Prince Williams County, VA, where they added 14 precincts to reduce the long lines and encouraged absentee voting. Commissioner Blackwell responded by clarifying whether the precinct fix was for the next election or in the moment. Mr. Brace said it was for the next election. Commissioner Blackwell followed up with, it is important to control the narrative, it needs to be based on facts. If it is the purpose of this Commission to deal with actions that suppress votes, then we need to 17-2361-A-001066 DRAFT STAFF REPORT start with constraints and the financial limitations that impact elections and the campaign strategies that affect voter suppression. Mr. Brace responded that there is not enough money to administer elections, this is a problem nationwide. Commissioner Dunlap asked, how is homeownership the largest identifier for voter turnout? Isn't that the easiest identifier? Mr. Brace yes, it is the easiest identifier. Commissioner Dunlap asked a question to Dr. Smith, to clarify the different requirements for domicile and resident requirements in New Hampshire. Dr. Smith explained that in New Hampshire domicile means to spend most of your nights in New Hampshire. It is legal for students to vote, if they are living in New Hampshire for school; whether they have an out of state driver's license and pay out of state tuition. Commissioner Dunlap mentioned that a few years ago the state of Maine did a study looking at establishing a 'residency requirement'for a driver's license and that there are so many different definitions; thus, these questions have great variety. Now, homeownership is different, and is something that can be tracked. Mr. Brace responded that prior to 2008, 17% of Americans moved every year; now it is at 11%. Dr. Smith mentioned that in New Hampshire between 2002-2008, 1/3 of potential voters were different people, and again from 2008-2016. Commissioner Dunlap stated that regardless of movement, we as a Commission need to be aware of this kind of movement. Commissioner Gardner asked the panel whether they know of any state that does not provide public voter information, if it is requested. And, mention that the Commission made this request to all the states. Mr. Brace responded that it depends on state law. Generally voter information is available to political campaigns or state parties, but not necessarily to the general public or academics, it depends on the state. Commissioner Gardner asked a follow up question, whether some states do not make it public? In New Hampshire, there is the Right to Know Law; anything that is a government document any person can request. Being that voting is a public act, the voter roll is a public document. Are there states that do not allow this information to be requested? Mr. Brace responded that yes, he believes so. Commissioner McCormick asked the panelists what their thoughts are on the common data format. Mr. Brace responded that he has been intricately involved in the common data format conversation. The problem is that some terms need to be defined and agreed too, but it is clear that there is a need for a central locality for data information and for it to get into a common format Commissioner McCormick asked a follow up question, whether the census has looked into a common data format. Mr. Brace responded that he has tried to work with census and bring them into this conversation Commissioner McCormick asks Dr. Lott to explain the NICS database, she is unfamiliar with it. Who maintains it? Where to they get the information? And, where is it stored? 17-2361-A-001067 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Dr. Lott responds that it is maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) within the Department of Justice. It requires that law enforcements keep and maintain a database of individuals who own and register a gun. ATF uses a lot of the same requirements that would help address voter fraud. Commissioner McCormick asks Dr. Smith, what is the reason for lack of trust in the electronic voting machines? It is due to the lack of understanding in the technology? Dr. Smith was not aware of any studies that have been done, but pointed to the confidence of paper ballots and the fact that they are tangible. Commissioner McCormick commented that the accessibility community has issues with paper ballots, and that this is something to keep in mind. She also asks, if we know if there are any studies linking the lack of civics education and voter turnout? Mr. Smith responded by stating that as a professor of political science, there has been a decline in civics education and the number of hours being taught in secondary school. He mentions that although civics education did not cause the decline, it may be one such factor. Commissioner Lawson asked the panel, what influences an infrequent voter? Some studies show that the ability to vote on Election Day, like the vote center concept, encourages an infrequent voter to vote on Election Day; verses being the early absentee voter. She asks the panel whether they have seen any studies to show what influences the infrequent voter? Mr. Brace responses that the vote center concept is something that has arisen over the last twenty years. Adding that it provides multiple options for voters and provides a convenience to voters; which encourages turnout. Commissioner Lawson asks the panel whether they have seen any specific studies identifying whether the infrequent voter takes advantage of absentee voting or the ability to vote any place on Election Day. Dr. Lott responded by saying that there are many factors to consider, but once all factors are considered, there is a breakeven point. Commissioner von Spakovsky mentions a study about voter turnout during the 1960 election, and that many people say the study is inaccurate due to it being based on the voting age population. The study does not and did into account for the fact that there are people within the voting age population who are ineligible to vote. He asks the panel what they think about these studies and the comments surrounding these studies. Mr. Brace responses by saying that voting age population does have a series of weaknesses; the eligible voting population is a better measure to use. Commissioner von Spakovsky mentions that voting equipment in Virginia (VA) was just decertified and that the Help America Vote Act(HAVA) requires that each precinct have one voting machine that individuals who are disabled can use and vote independently; and the only machines that allow individuals to do so are direct-recording electronic(DRE) machines. Therefore,two months before VA's elections, they will not be in compliance with Help America Vote Act. Mr. Brace responds that there are 22 counties that are scrambling to become compliant. There are other electronic machines that can be used in conjunction with a paper ballots that would make them to be compliant. Dr. Lott responds to the previous comment on eligible voting population by stating that an increase prison population can explain some changes, in addition to the voting requirements. 17-2361-A-001068 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Dunlap expressed his concern with the instant check system, and asked the panel whether Dr. Lott is suggesting using the NCIS system for voter registration and elections? Wouldn't ATF have some concerns about that? Dr. Lott responded yes, but NICS has the checks necessary to prevent illegal voter registration. Many people are on the record supporting this system. He does not believe that ATF would have a problem with it, they are already providing services to states, like Kentucky. Commissioner Dunlap spoke about the unintended consequence of the use of driver's licenses, and that they were never supposed to be used the way that they are today. He further pointed out that NCIS was never intended to be used for voter registration and elections. Commission McCormick asked Dr. Lott if he suggests replacing other data sources with the NCIS system or as a check to other data sets. Dr. Lott stresses that NCIS is one possible system to verify voter registration system. Vice Chairman Kobach asked about tracking and photo ID laws, and mentioned that there was a study on subsequent voter participation rates conducted by GAO (in 2014). The study compared states election results of who adopted and did not adopt the Real Photo ID Law. He mentioned that the study was quiet rudimentary and not conclusive, and that it did not control for the fact that 2016 was a presidential election year. He asked Mr. Lott whether he found similar flaws in the study and what kind of factors need to be controlled for? Dr. Lott complimented Vice Chairman Kobach on his characterization of the GAO study, and mentions that when he looks at all data there are many factors that affect voter turnout, there is no way to know or control for these changes/factors. Vice Chairman Kobach responded to Dr. Lott by asking whether he is suggesting that making the switch to voter photo ID requirements will have a significant effect on voter turnout. Dr. Lott responded with yes, except in the places with higher voter fraud. The data can be broken down to age, race, and gender of the different voters and voter fraud is completely random. Commissioner Blackwell asked the panel whether provisional ballots have an effect on turnout. He gave an example that in OH the voter must vote in their registered precinct, since their ballot will be tailored to the races in their specific precinct. He asks if this is a type of system that is an acceptable system for voter turnout. Additionally, he points out that provisional voting is steadily increasing, and therefore there is an increase in the financial burden on the states. Lastly, he asks the panel whether an increase in the time allowed for provisional voting increasing voter fraud. Mr. Brace responds with an example that Prince William County(VA)compacts and increases voting availability the two weeks prior to the election, it is a better use of management,time, and cost to facilitate interested voters. Dr. Lott responds that once it is more than a week out before the election, there is only a small increase in voter turnout Commissioner Adams asked Mr. Brace about Prince Williams County and the 10% of inactive voters who voted in the 2014 election, and what separates an inactive voter from and active voter? Is it just filling out a form at the polling place and then voting? He asked whether these two categories should be reported together, some states do not report inactive voters. Mr. Brace responded by explaining that yes, 10% of inactive voters voted in the 2014 elections in VA. He believes that states should report both sets of numbers, and should be reported separately. The impact could be different, by adding in the inactive voters to the count. 17-2361-A-001069 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Adams followed up his previous question to Mr. Brace with, has Election Data Services received this type of information? Regarding inactive and active voters. Mr. Brace responded with yes, when he is under contract and has requested the voter file information. Commissioner Adams asked Mr. Brace about the margin of error in the Census and the American Community Survey(ACS)and what is the quantitative error value? Mr. Brace responds by stating that the 2010 Census had an under and over count and had a small percentage of error. But, the ACS had a significant margin of error which was a significant problem. Demonstration of Historic New Hampshire Voting Machines Still in Use Since 1892 Commissioner Gardner welcomed Thaire Bryant, a Polling Place Moderator from the Town of Eaton in New Hampshire, and T. Patrick Hines, a Polling Place Moderator from the Town of Windsor in New Hampshire. Mr. Bryant and Mr. Hines both brought voting machines/ballot boxes from the 1892. They both spoke about the history of the ballot boxes, their historical impact, and their longevity. They also demonstrated how to use the ballot boxes. Following the demonstration, Vice Chairman Kobach recessed the meeting for a brief lunch break. Vice Chairman Kobach reconvened the meeting after the lunch recess. Vice Chair Kobach discussed his Breitbart article regarding approximately 6,000 non-New Hampshire residents voting in the 2016 presidential general election. Stated that Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives issued a letter that said roughly 5,000 of 6,500 people who voted in the 2016 general election, under the same day registration rule on the day of the election, roughly 5,300 of them still have not obtain a New Hampshire driver's license nor registered a vehicle, which is required within 60 days of voter registration. Under New Hampshire law it is likely that those voters are nonresidents, and possibly nondomiciled in New Hampshire. Under New Hampshire law there are two terms "resident" and "domiciliary," the two terms are similar but are not defined exactly the same."Domiciliary" is a small subset of the term "resident," if there is evidence that these 5,300 individuals who voted are not residents, is there evidence that they are not domiciled in New Hampshire? Then the question is, how did they vote? Which can never be answered unless they are put before a judge. If they are all college students then the question is answered, but New Hampshire law does not free college students of the requirements put forward by New Hampshire law. This is a problem the New Hampshire legislature has been dealing with for several years. In 2012 the New Hampshire legislature added language to the voter registration form. In 2015 the New Hampshire Supreme Court (in Guare v. New Hampshire)struck down that language, but did acknowledge that 'domicile is required.' In 2017, the New Hampshire legislature passed 5B3 requiring a proof of residency for voter registration. The morning of the Commission meeting, a New Hampshire judge issued a partial preliminary injunction. Vice Chairman Kobach thinks 5B3 is a great start to addressing this problem that New Hampshire faces. Commissioner Gardner expressed his opinions regarding the Guare decision stating that a person can be domiciled and not a resident in New Hampshire and the link to a person's driver's license is not an issue if you are domiciled. The question to this Commission is whether the election was real and valid — 17-2361-A-001070 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner Gardner stated it was real and valid — understanding that there is confusion between domicile and resident. He continued to stress that the Chairman — Vice President Pence — encouraged the Commission to work towards a consensus and search for the truth, and the Commission must stay focused on that. Commissioner Adams brought up a video from a poll worker in New Hampshire that shows that a poll worker was telling voters that they can register to vote, go vote, and then leave the state of New Hampshire the next day. Commission Gardner responded to Commissioner Adams and explained that an individual can be domicile and not a resident in New Hampshire; the legislature is working on this issue. New Hampshire is still struggling with this issue. Commissioner Dunlap expressed his interest in the issue New Hampshire is facing, since he is from Maine. He did not know that was a difference between domicile and resident. In Maine, they address this issue differently; but, they continue to struggle with the issue. He mentions an incident that occurred at Bates College, where flyers were put up that said students can only vote if they fulfilled the requirements and if not their financial aid could be pulled. If an individual moves to Maine, the individual has 30 days to update their license and if they move within the state they have 15 days. Commissioner Dunlap explained a story where he was called to jury duty while he was in college, and not in his home county. He continued to state that the issue is not whether an individual updates their driver's license, there is no connection between election law and motor vehicle law. An individual has the right to vote, they do not necessarily have the right to drive a car. In regards to the concerns and problems that occur on Election Day, Commission Dunlap suggested that the Commission starts with an individual's right to vote, and work backwards from there. Lastly, he said New Hampshire has certified the elections, and we should trust the certification. Vice Chair Kobach asks Commission Dunlap whether he is happy with the proof of residency requirements in Maine. Essentially SB 3 in New Hampshire would be similar to the law in Maine. Commissioner Dunlap responds yes, we look for some proof of residency; when people lack the requirements we allow a utility bill or an affidavit to provide proof. Vice Chair Kobach introduces the next panel. Panel Two: Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence Presentation by Donald Palmer, Former Secretary, Virginia State Board of Elections Mr. Palmer began his presentation to the commission by stressing that the mission of this commission should be to strengthen and protect the election process and ensure public confidence in the results. Three main principles of this presentation: better communication between election officials and voters; elements of voter fraud regularly impacts voter confidence; and states have failed to address flaws in the NVRA. Failure to maintain accurate voter lists is a national problem not a state problem. Not all 17-2361-A-001071 DRAFT STAFF REPORT states are participating in a uniform data sharing program. Mr. Palmer supports online voter registration; it will provide the most current voter egistration information. Other suggestions include, the voter providing both a former and current address, so that local officials can check the addresses. Stressed the use of commercial vendors/databases to verify voter registration information. Discussed states participating in Crosscheck or ERIC; not all states participate resulting in less-than-accurate reporting. Mr. Palmer's presentation notes can be found here: httos://.,Ar,Afw.vvhitehouse.g,ovlsites/whitehoL,se.Fov/file.s/docs/pacei-don-oalmer-testimony.Pn. . Presentation by Robert Popper, Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch Mr. Popper presentation to the Commission stressed the need to start enforcing the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA) of 1993, noting that there are 3.5 million individuals on the voter rolls that are ineligible to vote. In a recent Comparative Gallup Poll, 69% of Americans said they do not have confidence in the elections; meaning that Americans rank 90th in the world for voter confidence. NVRA is not being equally enforced by DOJ; "pervasive failure by state and county officials" to comply; Section 8 of NVRA is under-enforced by Department of Justice. 24 million voter registrations are not valid or inaccurate; 1.8 million decreased individuals are listed as active voters; 2.7 million people are registered in more than one state; 462 counties where the number of voter registrations exceed voting age population, greater than 100%. Many states and counties do not track instances of voter fraud; many state and county penalties are lighter than other crimes. Mr. Popper's presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehcI.gov/sr/whfiov/files/docs/pacei-written-staterr—t-robert-opv Presentation by Ken Block, President, Simpatico Software Systems Mr. Block reported findings of duplicate voting during the 2016 presidential general election, which he conducted for the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Study consisted of 21, of which Mr. Block found 8,500 cases of duplicate voting in the November 2016 general election, including 200 couples who voted together. Of the 8,500 votes, 2,200 were cast in Florida. Several elections can be determined by dozens of votes. 15,000 voters registered at prohibited addresses (i.e., post offices, UPS stores, post offices, public and commercial buildings, vacant lots, parks). Discussed methodology; acknowledged that basic identifiers (full first name, full last name, and date of birth) can produce false-positives. Mr. Block stated that the use of commercial vendors and access to their databases resulted in high-confidence matches of duplicate voting. Results from study are verifiable and can be recreated using the same methodology. Suggested using federal databases (e.g., SSA, DHS) to determine voter eligibility. Suggested that the greatest threat to the integrity of elections is hacking/cybercrime. Election integrity should not be a partisan issue. Mr. Block's presentation can be found here: https://www.v.:' -ehouse.gov/s''-- - I -se.gov/fileIpacei-ken-block-pre ation.' . Presentation by Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation and member of the Commission Commissioner von Spakovsky presented The Heritage Foundation's Voter Fraud Database. Commissioner von Spakovsky noted that it is not comprehensive, but is a sampling of known and proven 17-2361-A-001072 DRAFT STAFF REPORT cases. The database has approximately 1,100 known instances, and will soon add 19 more. Identified the various types of voter fraud, the most common being duplicate voting, misuse of absentee ballots, noncitizen/ineligible voting; felon voting; vote buying; illegal registration. Commissioner von Spakovsky's presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/paceihans-von-spakovsky-election-presentation.pdf. Q&A and Discussion for Panel Two Vice Chair Kobach began the question and answer period by stating that his office has had eight convictions of double voting; since it is a small staff they are only processing 5 cases a year. One of the cases involved a married couple who were serial double voters. He asks the panel whether there are any patterns with double voting; his thought is that it is opportunistic crime. Mr. Block responded by saying that through the data "intent" cannot be determined. If five individuals voted in three different states, intent could be assumed. When looking at out of state mailing address, when addresses are linked that can provide "intent." Commissioner Adams talked about "Garden State Gotcha," where 616 individuals took themselves off the voter rolls; he asked the panel what the commission should look at, regarding data. What sort of information is sitting out there, and can it be useful? Mr. Palmer responded by saying that states have a responsibility to work with the Federal government. It is his recommendation that the commission create a federal database for states to use and check voter registrations. The DMV is usually a good database to use to determine whether there are noncitizens voting. Commissioner Adams asked about how jury recusal data, could be used to determine voter rolls. Mr. Palmer responded by saying that there should be transmittal of information between county officials, which then can provide for an accurate database for the voter roll. Commissioner Dunlap mentioned the blurry line between the Help American Vote Act and this issue. Although HAVA has helped some states and counties create accurate voter rolls, there still continues to be a problem because there are pre HAVA processes and post HAVA processes. His question was, does HAVA make a difference? HAVA started the conversation that there should be a federal database for all state's to use to check their voter rolls against. How to bridge the gap between data and intent? Mr. Block answered that law enforcement could bridge the gap. Vice Chair Kobach responded by commenting that as far as intent goes, usually in the cases he has prosecuted, timing matters to determine intent. If an individual votes by mail in state A and then votes in person in state B, all within the same week,then intent is known. He continues by stating that in regards to married couples and a serial duplicate voter's determination of intent, it is clearer. He mentions that the median age of a duplicate voter is mid 50's low 60's. He concludes by stating that for most of his cases, intent is known and clear; there is no question or he would not have prosecuted the case. Commissioner McCormick asks Mr. Palmer how effective is it to remove voters from a voter roll through the mail? Mr. Palmer responded that mail voter removal is not effective. There are better ways to ensure that voters are taken off the rolls, especially through technology. Mr. Popper added that mail in voter removal often causes an impediment. 17-2361-A-001073 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Commissioner von Spakovsky added that no state official will drop people from voter rolls. If state officials see a problem, officials will start an investigation to determine whether an individual should be taken off the voter roll. The rules to take people off the voter roll applies to individuals who have moved to a different state; they do not apply to noncitizens or individuals who have died. If state official finds that a noncitizen or a dead individual is on the voter roll, they can be automatically taken off the voter roll. Commissioner Adams responded by stating that he would like to amend this rule. He mentions that the previous Dal administration was in support for this change and that an 11th Circuit case supports it. There is a ninety day freeze period, which no individual can be taken off of the voter rolls ninety days before an election. There were two district court cases, which were not successful, which argued that the ninety day rule should apply to noncitizens. One of the district court cases appealed to the 11th Circuit and won,then Governor Rick Scott (Florida) chose not to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although, it is true that the noncitizens should never had been put on the voter roll, but they should not then be taken off. Commissioner McCormick asked the panel their opinion on the PEW study; and whether ERIC has solved the problem? Mr. Palmer responded that the purpose of the PEW study was to determine how states can work together. ERIC has been around for about a decade, but not all states are participating; therefore, it has not solved the problem. All states need to participate if there is going to be progress. Commissioner McCormick asked Mr. Block about the duplicate voters in FL? She was interested in where these voters are from. Mr. Block responded that he has the information for the duplicate voters, and it goes all the way down to the township elections. Duplicate voters are often coming from second home ownership. Mr. Palmer added that most duplicates are found in cities that are on state lines and have a large cross regional living community. Commissioner Dunlap stated that it is a crime to vote twice, but to be registered in two states is not. Regarding voter data requests to states, he asked whether it is a possibility that there could be multiple false positives. Is information available to determine which individual is the correct person? Mr. Popper responded that there must be several searches and identifiers: first name, last name, date of birthday, and number. That information should be able to confirm who the person is. Mr. Block commented that names are very common,through matching of full names and birthdates, he has had a 12% match rate. Vice Chair Kobach followed up with the question, when a social security number is attached what was the match rate? Mr. Block responded that there should be a 100% match rate. Commissioner Adams asked the whole panel to quickly answer whether they think that by improving list maintenance practices it will cut down on voter fraud without taking legitimate voters off the voter roll. Mr. Palmer responded with yes. Mr. Popper responded with yes. Mr. Block responded with yes. Commissioner von Spakovsky responded with yes. 17-2361-A-001074 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Panel Three: Electronic Voting Systems and Election Integrity — A Primer Commissioner Gardner introduced the third panel, which was comprised of three recognized experts who have done extensive research on electronic voting systems. Presentation by Dr. Andrew Appel, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University Dr. Appel presented on ensuring the integrity of the election box. Dr. Appel began his presentation by giving a historical recount of election reform and previous changes in the United States. He stressed that voting protocol needs to revolve around, one vote, one person, one record. Ballot design and the setup of a vote center on Election Day is important to ensuring that there is integrity in the election. Electronic voting machines can be easily hacked. Voter registration system can be hacked. Suggested that a possible check to hacking is random statistical post-election audits, which will be done before the certification of results. Dr. Appel noted that bad programming can alter election results and undermine voter confidence. Noted that internet voting will be a disaster citing security concerns; advocated for the use of paper ballots. Voting machines are computers and can be changed/hacked prior, during, or after the election. The machine can be set to make changes to the ballots or counts during the election, but evidence of the computer programming changes can be deleted; thus, you can never know when the hacking occurred. Computers that are not connected to the internet can be hacked. Dr. Appel concluded by saying that computers can be hacked, we can rely on a computer but there must an audit prior to certifying the count. Dr. Appel's presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-dr-andrew-appel-report.pdf. Presentation by Dr. Ronald Rivest, Professor of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Rivest presented his presentation in five parts: goals, challenges, principles, myths, and tools. Dr. Rivest stressed four goals to create election integrity: improve security, outcomes that are correct; outcomes perceived correct; and outcomes verifiably correct. For elections to be honest, people must believe/perceive that the outcomes are correct. All outcomes should be verified. Election integrity should be nonpartisan. There should be no manipulation by anyone or any party. Risk limiting audit could help verify elections. Electronic voting machines should produce election results and evidence that the results are correct. Dr. Rivest's presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-dr-ron-rivest.pdf. Presentation by Harri Hursti, Co-Founder of Nordic Innovation Labs Mr. Hursti is national data expert who is recognized by industry. He mentioned that most hackers won't have anything more than a high school diploma, so he is the perfect person to find hackers. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Mr. Hursti described in depth his experience at the Defcon Hacker Convention (July 2017), during which he led the "Voting Machine Hacking Village." Noted that hackers were successful in hacking into voter registration databases and electronic voting machines. Identified several ways that systems and machines can be hacked, through USB, barcodes, and wirelessly. Although WIFI may not be 17-2361-A-001075 DRAFT STAFF REPORT available, hackers can go through cell phones to create a WIFI connection through an individual's cell phone; since the cell phone is constantly looking and searching for a network. Mr. Hursti's presentation can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-harri-hurstipresentation.pdf. Q&A and Discussion for Panel Three Vice Chair Kobach asked the panel how a hack would work if a jurisdiction secured the programming with a machine that does an optical scan, and the jurisdiction has good security; meaning no insider touches the machine and vendor is trusted and there is no way for anyone in the voter center can touch it. Can an optical scan still be hacked, even without being connected to the internet? Mr. Hursti responded to the question with an explanation that there is a built in Wi-Fi in some of the machines,just like a cell phone, and could be hacked through discovery. That is all the hacker would need. Vice Chair Kobach followed up with the question of if the optical scan did not have a built in Wi-Fi, would a hacker still need the physical hack of using a USB? Dr. Appel responded that the hacker is not necessarily a person walking near the polling place, but it is the person who knows the machine and has had contact with the machine either during manufacturing or updating/downloading software for the next election. Commissioner Adams asked the question, what is the difference between hacked and hackable? A reason someone would want to do this is to reduce confidence in the election. Are any of you aware of any instance, that an American election, in the last fifteen years, has been hacked? If the goal is to reduce confidence, wouldn't the hacker want to leave fingerprints? Mr. Hursti responded that if these machines continue to be used, there is no way to prove or have evidence that the machine has been hacked. There is no way to preserve that evidence. The only way to find evidence, is if someone wants to leave evidence Dr. Appel added that the voting counting program in the machine is changeable memory,the memory of the computer can rewrite itself. It is easy to write a program that can be set to cheat during the election, and then change after the election. No forensic examination has ever been done, but it would be almost impossible to find and would be unreliable, since they could be erased after the hack. Commissioner Adams responded by saying that it sounds like Dr. Appel is describing a solution that is unfixable to discover after the hack. Dr. Appel responded that he is proposing to trust in the election and be able to recount vote through statistical analysis, though performing an audit by recounting a small sample of ballots. Commissioner Dunlap commented that the speculation that the election last fall was hacked is concerning; so from that point, what is the intent in looking like the election was hacked? Is it to diminish voter confidence? Having the speculation out there is concerning. Dr. Appel responded that there is a severe risk in the technology, it is excellent that more states are using paper ballots; but it cannot be ignored that computers and the voting machines can be hacked. This type of issue is discussed every four years, but hopefully during this odd number year there can be a more responsible discussion about this this issue. 17-2361-A-001076 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Mr. Hursti added that he fully agrees with Dr. Appel, and that voter apathy is dangerous to democracy, and voter participation must increase. There are some options to allow the public to check the election through open sourcing. Commissioner Gardner asked the panel, whether they believe in open sourcing? Dr. Appel responded that he has no problems with it, but it is not the fantasy that some may think. We need to produce evidence that the election is correct, open sourcing is not evidence. Mr. Hursti added that when he started hacking in 2005, several jurisdictions in California used source code review was a way to ensure that the machine was honest. Open source is great, it brings cost down and allows for there to be confidence in the outcome, but it is not the whole solution. Dr. Appel added further that open sourcing is useful, but there is also published sourcing. Which the vendor ensures that the program is on the machine, but it cannot be known which program is installed in the computer/machine on Election Day. Open source is not the whole solution to the problem Commissioner von Spakovsky asked about online voter registration, and whether it is a dangerous thing that gives hackers a route to hack the election? Dr. Rivest responded that putting voter systems online is concerning, they could lead to many more routes of hacking. Although, online voter registration could create a more reliable and secure list of who is on the voter roll. Dr. Appel responded that he does not have anything against online voter registration, the benefits could outweigh the risks. Commissioner von Spakovsky speaks about a DC internet Hacking Voting project, and a professor from the University of Michigan challenged his students to participate remotely; several of the students were able to successfully hack into the mock election. The only way the election officials knew these students hacked in was because the University of Michigan's fight song started playing when someone completed their vote. He then asked, whether election officials have a good enough cyber security system in place to detect a hack? Dr. Rivest responded that the level of cyber security expertise in many jurisdictions needs to increase, if something like online voter registration is going to be implemented. Dr. Appel added that as per the previous panel it sounds like online voter registration may be a way to go, but there must be an increase cyber security. A voter will notice if they are not on the voter registration roll, but a voter will not notice if their vote has been changed. Difference in detectability and correctability. Vice Chair Kobach stated that now more than ever, he is a fan of post-election audits. In every state there is a form of audit through a recount. Therefore knowing that a recount may be possible, a hacker would want to ensure that the hack is a large enough margin that there would be no recount. He mentioned a flaw in the audit legislation that has been proposed, is that if there is a hack in a smaller election there may be a problem with the audit and ability to detect it due to the small sample. Dr. Rivest responded that Vice Chair Kobach is doing exactly what he needs to do, and that is think like hacker. He also said that the problem with smaller elections is the sample audit size; but it is still likely to detect and find the hack. Dr. Appel responded that through random audit the election could still be certified. Federal money could help and it would be beneficial to look at what other states are doing, like New York, Colorado, and New Mexico who are pioneers in election audits. 17-2361-A-001077 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Mr. Hursti added to the comment of 'thinking like a criminal,' follow the money;the solution there would be to scan the ballots and match it with the physical form then use open sourcing to recount it. Vice Chair Kobach asked Dr. Appel about whether putting a number on the ballot and ensuring that the machine counts the ballot would jeopardize the secrecy of the ballot. Dr. Appel responded that numbers do not need to be in numerical order. Dr. Rivest added that the number could be added after the ballot goes into the machine. Vice Chair Kobach thanked the third panel's presenters. Discussion and Other Business Vice Chair Kobach asked the Commission whether there were any other comments or questions. Commissioner Adams thanked Commissioner Gardner for hosting the meeting and for the fantastic facility, panels, witnesses, and voting machines. He expressed hopes that the Commission's future meetings could match the quality of the New Hampshire meeting. There were no additional comments or questions from the members. Closing Remarks by Vice Chair Kobach and Secretary Gardner Vice Chair Kobach stated he was hopeful the Commission would have the same level of content and quality in future meetings. He stated that this meeting was a great start in the Commission's quest to put together as much data and information as they can to look at the issue of voter integrity. He noted that it was interesting how the Commission saw how voter integrity can be affected in a number of ways, and that security of the devices, voter fraud, and voter participation are all directly related to voter integrity. There was a unifying thread through all the panels. Lastly, he gave thanks to Commissioner Gardner for hosting the meeting. Commissioner Gardner again thanked the panels and said the Commission may call on the third panel's participants again in the future. Vice Chair Kobach asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Litigation and Opposition to the Commission's Activities Immediate lawsuits prior to the Commission's first meeting States' opposition to requests for information and data Double standards compared to prior presidential commissions Interest groups' obstruction through unprecedented litigation 17-2361-A-001078 DRAFT STAFF REPORT Evidence of Election Integrity and Voter Fraud Issues Improper voter registration practices Registrations in multiple states Convicted felons Non-citizen registration False registrations (deceased individuals, fictitious identities, etc.) Instances of fraudulent or improper voting Duplicate voting Absentee and mail ballot fraud Non-citizen voting In-person voter impersonation Instances of other election crimes Voter suppression Best Practices for Enhancing Election Integrity Voter roll maintenance Importance of maintaining accurate and updated voter registration lists Case studies of states with effective list maintenance processes and policies Intra-State voter registration data sharing (i.e., use of DMV,jury data, tax information) Inter-State voter registration data sharing (i.e., Crosscheck, ERIC) State-Federal partnerships to verify voter eligibility Public-private partnerships (i.e., use of commercial databases to verify voter registration eligibility) Proof of eligibility and identity Voter ID Provisional ballots and other mechanisms to ensure voters can exercise the right to vote Auditability of election results 1 https://www.wh itehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/19/remarks-president-trump-and-vice-president-pencepresidential-advisory 2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/11/president-announces-formation-bipartisanpresidential-commission 17-2361-A-001079 DRAFT STAFF REPORT 3 httPS://WWW.WhitehOUSe.g0V/SiteS/WhitehOUSe.g0V/fileSidOCS/COMMiSSiOn-Charter.Pdf 4 httPS:11WWW.WhitehOUSe.g0Vithe- press-office/2017/05/11/president-announces-formation-bipartisan- presidential-commission David Dunn passed away on October 19, 2017. 6 Luis Borunda resigned from the Commission on July 3, 2017. 5 Commissioner 7 httPS://WWW.Whitehouse.govithe-press-office/2017/05/11/president-announces-formation-bipartisan- presidential-commission 8 httPS://WWW.WhitehOUSe.g0V/SiteS/WhitehOUSe.g0V/fileSidOCS/InfOrrnatiOn-reaUeStS-t0-StateS-06282017.Pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/Agenda%20for%20June%2028%20 Organizational%20Call.pdf 10 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/information-requests-to-states-06282017.pdf 11 EPIC appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where it remains pending. See EPIC v. PACE!, No. 17-5171 (D.C. Cir. filed July 25, 2017). 12 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/letter-vice-chair-kris-kobach-07262017.pdf 13 A video recording of the meeting is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ127wB8po&feature=youtu.be. 14 A copy of the meeting agenda is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/agenda-initial-meeting-07192017.pdf. is A transcript of the President's remarks is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/07/19/remarks-presidenttrump-and-vice-president-pence-presidential-advisory. 9 16 httPS://WWW.WhitehOUSe.g0Vithe-PreSS-OffiCe/2017/07/19fternarkS-PreSidenttrUMP-and-ViCe-PreSident-PenCe- presidential-advisory. 17 A transcript of the Vice President's remarks and Members' introductions is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/19/remarksvice-president-pence-and-elected-officialsfirst-meeting. 18 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/PACEI-Blackwell-Klukowski-OtherVoting-Rights-Yale.pdf. 19 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/PACEI-Ken-Blackwell-openingremarks.PDF. 20 httPS://WWW.WhitehOUSe.g0Vithe-press-OffiCe/2017/05/11/PreSidential-exeClitive-Order-eStablishment- presidential-advisory. 21 The by-lawe are available on the Commission's webpage at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-bylaws final.PDF. 22 A copy of such possible topics, as distributed by Vice Chair Kobach at the meeting, is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/PACEI-Vice-Chair-Kobach-Possible-TopicsCommission-Address.pdf. 23 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/PACEI-EAC-2016-Election-Administration-VotingSurvey.pdf. 17-2361-A-001080 &nail Fwd: Welcome; nti& Organizational Ca 9/14/2017 # • -$ eee eeee . David Dunn. Fwd: Welcome; Initial Organizational Cali David Dunn < To: David Dun Thu,Sep 14, 2017 at 2:34 PM David K DunnCa itol Partners LLC Little Rock, AR 72217 Begin forwarded message: From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" Date: June 4,2017 at 8:50:28 AM CDT To;leicocachgt), ineii.eern" < 5. Cc:"Paoletta, Mark R. EOPIOVP" Subject: Welcome; Initial Organizational Call Dear Members, Congratulations for your appointment to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"), We appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you. The General Services Administration filed the Commission's charter this past Friday, which officially establishes the Commission as a Presidential advisory committee and permits the Commission to commence its official duties under Executive Order 13799. As the Commission's Designated Federal Officer (IWO"), I will support the Commission's work and its members with administrative needs and ensure the Commission complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act("FACA7). To update you, begin preparing for the Commission's first meeting, and answer any questions you have at this time, we would like to hold a conference call this Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. Eastern. Please let me know if you cannot participate in this call. I will send a ealendar invitation with call-in information soen. Please also hold July 19th on your calendars. This:is the date we ere tracking for the Commission's first meeting. Please note that FACA requires public meetings and 15-day advance notices for "iajny gathering of advisory committee members(whether in person or through electronic means)held with the approval of an agency for the purpose of deliberating on the substantive matters upon which the advisory committee 17-2361-A-001081 htips://mail.google.corn/rnail/o/Ont&tnik=78ae2a93098dsverAgl-uL2q06c.en.&viewvt&msg:415e8le2ix159818998qvAndrew.J.Kossack%40ovp.eo... 1/2 Grnail - Fwd: Wok:orris; initial Organizational Call W14/2017 1 berate on. provides advice or recommendations." Thus, on this call the Commission may not'de substantive matters" such as what final recommendations the Commission might provide in its report. However, FAA allows discussion of the following without requiring an open meeting: Preparatory work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for a meeting of the advisory committee, or to draft position papers for deliberation by the advisory committee; and Administrative work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to discuss administrative matters of the advisory committee or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency. in other words, we may freely discuss administrative matters and issues related to meeting preparation on this call, but we must be careful not to engage in deliberation on substantive matters. With that said, please let me know if you have any questions or items you want to discuss during this call. And if you have any other questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to let me know. Again, thank you for your service. We look forward to speaking with you this week. Best regards, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrekm,I,Kr.ssack(i)tyvp.00p,i.,:lov 17-2361-A-001082 https://mail.google.comIrnali/u/Onui=28,1k=18a9.2a9369&javor=Xg1-u1.2q060.anAview-zpt&rnagr--1508192bd5981899841=Andrew...l.Kossack%40ovp.ao... 2/2 9/14/2017 Gri18ii Fwd: HOLD:Organizon0 Call - PCE1 , r; David Dunri Fwd: HOLD: Organizational Call - PCEI 2 messages . . ' Thu.Sep 14, 2017 at 234 PM David Dunn ‹c To: David Dior David K Dunn Ca 'tot Partners, /..LC Begin forwarded message: From:"Kouack, Andrew J. EOPIOVP". Cc:'Pactietta, Mark Rs EOPI.OVP" ,."Morgen, Matthew.E EOP/OVP" Subject: RE: HOLD: Oraizationa C& ECM inforrnatbn, Yi end an .ip.dated Attec.had. if.,...the agenda for tomotTow's call,.Once we have the: F.,ttach this to that: message s well but we wanted:you to. have this in.advance, c...aeildar invitation and , Thanks„ Andrew Andrew .L Kossack: Associate Couns.ei Office of the 't5ce Pr.s2s.Cerit. Ancirew,.1.Kossx.-:k@.):evp„e:r413.gov. From: Ken Blackwell DrieVo.KeririethbiaoKwuil&)3@gmaii,00mi Sent:Tuesday,June 27, 2017 11:24 AM To: Kossack Andrew J. EOP/OVP Ce: boruridfaarnerOarici_.1,:..pv; mrx ese,gW0fgACOtritYVVV.COM; 00 e -a, ,,,ter 17-2361-A-001083 Mips://magoogie.mniniall/q/0/?ui=28,ik=76ae2a93e9&jsvere--Xg1-i.0-2q06c.en.010pt&cp--Andrew.J.Kos6ack%40ovp.opp.gov&49=1/004seOrchr-'qu... 1/3 Gmail Rvd: HOLD: Organizational Ca 9/14/2017 - PCEr ; Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP Dat ,,s; < .aviGiajcap 6.1 iaanRersar.eorquLu.*‘ ,q,i3rhodetilksi.x.x:wi,mtr,pdv,con›, "mirlocisngtim.xy,te.g.mitywv.,wm" "Moree, t • tthew E..EOP/OVP" 0670iiiinYAWZA:?M° " rffiNAKiii31:31%. EOP1OVP 4CVorpri,Mattegiv E, SubOrt tommw's Dear Membora. at t tOMOrtVw, btit wanted to mkt the calle-iriir&rmation via juM Updd th1i,•;=;kteiltjar wait wali eneure you-receive it: 17-2361-A-001086 mip3;,,ii330,gt..1-46,,toilvoamoUritioviik.7satiaiteaaak.a.voii.xvi-u1.2gOac.eo4-)**ipuIazi:0041e0J-K6:4=irMgkafa,sceouvUenrasAsmaiAzti,... Oman -Fv,rd: tomorrow's call 9/14/2017 Cell Procedure: Beginning as early as 11:00am, Signal via the White House Communications Agency will call yaullitgly ot_LtiLe either of the numbers ygla rovictefaviow. This process is done to ensure that all conferees are in the conference on time, and line quality is validated before adding the Vice President into the conference last at 11:30 am. If you have any difficulties connecting, please call:. 202757-6000. anivilosion Member Ph Secondary Phone Michael It Pence t t 2 1 Kris Kobach 3 I Connie Lawson 3 .. ..... Bill Gardner 4 ..4 5 6 i 7 1 8 s . i I: 1 I Matt Dunlap Ken Blackwell 1 Christy McCormick ii 1 David Dunn 1 i Luis Bonmda i i 10 1 Mark Rhodes :i . 9 I've attached a copy of the agenda to this email for your convenience as well Also attached are two documents related to ethics standards for special government employees. We will discuss these in more detail during the call, but feel free to review them in advance of the call if you are able. We look forward to speaking with you torndrrow. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President 17-2361-A-001087 . -Xg1-ut.2q060.on.&view=pt&q=-Anttrew.J.Kcwack%40ovp.eop.gov&gs=true&search=qu.. ttlips://maii.google.comimaii/o/Ontliz2&iicz.-781as2a93e9&isvor- 213 Gmail - Fwd: tomorrow's call 914/2017 Ce11; Email: Afidrew..J.Kossask vp.eor,:gov- 17-2361-A-001088 isgtrue&seoirchvita... https://mail.googie.00rrilmail/u/Ontii=2Stik=78ae2a93e9&jsver=X91-ii2q06o.en.&view=ptisq=Artdtew.J.Kossack%40ovp.eop.gov& 3/3 Grnail:- Fwd: recent email re: data request 9114/2017 David ounr§ Fwd: recent email re: data request 1 message •••• • ,,, , " d . • Thu, Sep K.2017412:36 PM David Dunn To: David Dun David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LLC Begin foiwarded message: From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EOPIOVP' Subject: Re: recent email re: data request Are we still planning on meeting the 19th? David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LLC On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM,Kossack, Andrew J. EDP/OVP wrote: Dear Members, Please see the email below, which just went.out to state election officials a fe3N minutes ago. As you can see, in light of the recent litigation, we have asked states to hold off on submitting data at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Associate Counsel Office of the Vice President •;Cell;=M Email:5;krh.rEirmk@ovp.sop.gov From Fikl-OVP-Election.integrity Staff Sent: Monday, July 10,2017 9:40 AM Subject: Request to Hold on Submitting Any Data Until Judge Rules on TRO Dear Election Official, As you may know,the Electronic Privacy information Center filed a complaint seeking a Temporary Restraining Order("TRO")in connection with the June 28, 2017 letter sent by Vice Chair Kris Kobach requesting publicly-available voter data, See Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integrity filed in. the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia. Until the judge rules on the TRO,we request that you hold on submitting any data. We will follow up with you with further instructions once the Judge issues her ruling:. Andrew Kossack Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity EAc..tiar-Int.ecirity530ifeS.ovp.e.op.T.::v 17-2361-A-001090 .gov8tqszlrue&ssarch=qu... https:limail.google.com/maglu/0r7Ui;:42&lk;--78ae2a93e9&jsver=Xgl-uL2q0t3c,en.:&.Wew:;-'pt&q=rAr3drsw.J.Kosseck%40ovcLepp 2/2 Gmaii Fwd: Travel instmictions Members Can Begin Booking 9/14017 David Dunn Fwd: Travel Instructions - Members Can Begin Booking 1 message David Dunn To; David Dur Thu,Sep 14, 2017 at 2:36 PM David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LL.0 Begin forwarded message: From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" Date: July 14, 2017 at 9:4314 AM CDT C °ram Mark Rhodes „;.lerilage..org>, Christien Adams ,'King, Alan" Cc:"Paoletta, Mark P EOP'OVP" , "kilOrgarl, Matthew E. EOP/OVP" Subject; FW:Travel instructions - Members Can Begin Booking Please see the below note from GSA with instructions for booking travel. rye highlighted the telephone number for the travel agent, which is available 24/7 to help you book. (just As a reminder on our schedule, please plan on being at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on D.C. west of the White House) by about 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. Feel free to travel to Tuesday and depart either later on Wednesday or anytime Thursday. We expect the meeting to adjourn by mid-afternoon. I will share a full agenda with you soon. if you have any questions or concerns,just let me know. Thanks, Andrew From:Jonathan Clinton - M frnailtolonathan,clinton(ggsa,gov} Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP 17-2361-A-001091 true&seercirzqu... hilps://rtrall.google.corrimailluiOns.Ji=28,ik=lane2a93e984sverr-XglruL21:1060.en.fikviewrvi&ctzAncirew...i.Kessaele/040ovp.eop.gov&qs= 1/3 QMail -Flavd; Travel Instructions - Members Can Begin Booking 9/14/417 CC: Kris Palmer - M a.90v>1. Valerie tiVhittington(M) ; elizarmth.calh@gsa.gov;:Christine Courter •cchrietine,courtso@gsa.gove; kaiheririettpumokerigt)vp.epp.ttev Subject: Travel Instructions - Members Can Begin Booking Andrew — k and Mr. All traveling members accounts have been established (with the exceptions of Ms. McCormic based). are DC nd Adams, who we understa The members or their support staff can now call our travel agent directly to book their travel. ADTRAV(GSA travel agent): 877-472,6716, available 24/7 Key Information when cailing the travel agent: • ADTRAV will recognize members by firstand last name and agency—which is the General Services Administration(GSA)for the purposes of this travei. * Have a personal credit card available—hotel will be booked using a personal card. Members ht) can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed at the maximum per diem rate for DC($172/nig (keep hotel receipts) aa. • The committeeleeludgeted for frame)for uo to 3 deee per member between PILleadj Arrangements should be made within those parameters. • Members(or their staff)should tell the agent the travelers date of birth if making airline reservations. This is a requirement in order for tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow federal regulations governing travel. Key points: * Hotel: Max lodging per diem rate reimbursed for Washington, DC in July: $172(keep hotel receipts--reimbursed for max of $172. Looting taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) * Airfare: Must use coach class and the contract carrier fare(booked by travel agent) Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified—e.g., Timing of contract Fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive & last * Meals & Incidental Expenses(MI&E): reimbursed $69 per day for DC;$51.75 on first or —above expenses of s day of travel(no receipts needed, reimbursed full amount regardles below) • Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses to/from airport, * Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee—e.g., receipts) (keep to/from committee meetings * Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) travel expenses Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. All other approved reimbursed. be ntly (hotel; MI&E; taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subseque travel. the of n 17-2361-A-001092 Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completio =pt&q=ArKirew-Lkossack%40ovp.sop.govaqs--tgrae&search=qu... httos://mallgoogle.comfmail/o/Bnui=12&ik;--78ae2a9399&jsver7--Xg1-ut_206e.ertAview 2/3 Gmaii Fwd: Travel instructions - Members Cart Begin Booking 9/14/2017 If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't hesitate to have the members'staff reach out to Valerie Whittington or Kris Palmer. wOerie,...whittingtonQ.ye) -els• kii$,pabnert:dpgsa...gov. Best, Jon Jon Clinton Chief of Staff Office of Governrnent-veide Policy U.S. General Services Administration 17-2361-A-001093 sack%40ovp.00p.gov&os:-true&search=qu... https://mail.google.comImaillu/Orrnkg28zikz--78ae2a93e98:jeverz:Xgl-uL2q06n.enAview=ptUFAndrew.J.kos 3/3 Olnalf F-#(1: W•63%.#3 on My "Mirl W14E4011 r-41-s • 1 nnd trnvel wrnngsments Devid Dunn Fwd: updates on july itith meeting: schedule and travel arrangements ri-;moge - ••• • • David Dunn 1 IV David Du lb% $ep 14, 2017 et 2:37 PM David 1( Okaltt Capit4 Pertms.,1.1„C Begin foni,midedigO fon.i.z Melissa Moody -11.1111 AU. t"•.rrr Dew;joy 15,20 1,tiL Dunn To: David updates on July 19th meettng: sOnlotlate• and travei etTehgemoots &tie* Looks officiatl On Sat, Jul 15,2017 4 AM Davkl Dunn wrote: FY David K rtesinitni ir LLC forwarded measage: 1, "Chriety awaw.2:..com mar▪ k RA.06-.0,5...1-mti,......141;w2p,v:io.d3s.x.wiri:iywv...,:::>:::krro,,"von Ada= ,g,...f.:paki::r„.*yaiteOtracr4)...t.g9P% i;?(4.1:Affftgl".;::;:n11?:>, "King; Awe Ctr 'Paulette, Mark. R.EOPIOVP" vt.WinctR..Paeletin(ifildvo,aup..gov•>•, l'sflor9an, Morthaw Eoplovp" Subject RE:: tgotlatets; on July 19th meting:egtioade grid tripe& arrarmetnoirOA Please see the atiautled agenda for ne:d week's public meeting. As• ynu an see, we twe vision tor each of yowU t.ike aboutfive minutes. to introduoe rumen`arid talk about be vegi Ow•-re mel.ritsig4 the your role on the commission. Duting the niscaseion poroh of time to upidro And dedde whattrAM.the demtron WI address. 17-2361-A-001094 .K1n,RidS4:1400i;!:?,<0:41.'01:;..<11*.:11:4306ct0.W53i'WtP; MtM.MM4. 9/14/2017 Gmali Rvd: updates an July 19th meeting: schedule and travel arrangements If you have any questions, please let me know. Andrew J. Mesa& Designated Federal Officer Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-001095 https://mall.google.comimalt/u/Onglt;2441kr4-78ae2a9.3e9azjever:Agl-u1.2q00e.an.&view=pt&q7-Anclrew.J.Kossack%40ovp.eop.govks=tme&search=qu... 2/2 Grnail Fved: updates and requests 911412017 NI • k David Dunn gRord• Fwd: updates and requests 1 message Thu, Sep 14,2017 at 2:37 PM David Diann To: David Du David K Dunn Capitol Partners LLC Begin forwarded message: From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" 4 Date: July 17, 20 < Dunn David To: Subject: RE1 updates an rogues s Thanks, Daki From: David Dunn [nzailto: Sent; Monday, July,17, 2017 17 FM To: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP wrote: Dear Members, Thank you for your responsiveness over the lastfew days. We know travel and financial disclosure processes can be tedious, so we really appreciate your time and efforts to get them completed. 17-2361-A-001096 sace/040ovp.eop.govaqs=true&searctr--qu.., https://rnailgoogle.cornimaRiu/Onui=2&*=78ae2a93e9Bcisverz:Xg1-uL2q96.en.estiiewrapt&q=Andtew.J.Kos 113 Email Fwd: updates and requests 9/14/2017 / have a few updates and requests for you. morning, Eastern on 've e 1. Please plan to est efings pre-bri required the begin can we so security through get to time you give This will at 8:30 a.m. Attached is a map of the EEOB campus. Youll want to enter at 17th and State Streets(at the Southwest Screening Facility). 2. So that we can clear you through security, please fill out the online form at the to following link: i'ittps:;llevent&whitthou3e.pvifogn?rid:::7(3WRFQ466, Please be sure If identification. -issued government your on appears it as enter your information exacth( have you If access. you not grant will Service Secret the match, not does your information any questions or trouble submitting your information through the hyperlink,just let me knew. 3. if you are bringing any staff members or anyone else with you, please let me know as as soon as possible. Well want to ensure we get your guests cleared through security limited to due a.m. 11:00 at well. I would plan on guests attending only the public session space in our morning briefing room. 4. 1 also want to draw your attention to the Commission's webpage, on which we've posted a number of documents and public comments. Again, the webpage is available here: https://Vssevevisitehouse.gov/biogi2017/07113/presi&entia.ladvieory-comMiSSiors electionAntewity.. Public comments and other documents submitted to the Commission are:available for your review hero:.https:lismew.whitk,hokise.gOvipresidwItifA-a0visofy. fxsTi.niss8lon-eintion-intvity-rewirms. This page will be updated periodically, so please check backfrom time to time. 5. Ethics questions: Our ethics team needs your responses to the following questions. These will expedite review of your OGE 450 forrris and help ensure you're cleared of simple conflicts by Wednesday's meeting. Please respond to this email to me only with a explain please Otherwise, no. fact, in is, two "no," if the answer to both question one and any affirmative answers. a. Do you own any stock or financial interest in public or private companies that manufacture voting machines, advise on voting procedures, or do any business that relates to the election process? b. Are you a member of or have a fiduciary relationship to a non-profit or profitThis making organization whose focus is election integrity or voting processes? question does not Include state and federal governments. c. If the answer to either of these questions is'yes, please explain in detail your financial interest and/or association. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please call me anytime. Thanks, Andrew 17-2361-A-001097 h=qu... htlms://rnall,pooqie.cornimail/01017uiz;28tik::78ae2a93e9&jsverr-Xgl-uL2q06tLen.&view=pt&qr-Andrew.J.Kossock%40wp.eap.gov&qs=trueasearc 213 Gmail Fwd: updates and requests 9/14/2017 Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director and Designated Federal Oftimr Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 14J21117 David Dunn Fwd: updated agenda; draft by-laws I MOM:4,g Thu,Sapid,. 2017 at 237 FN1 David Dunn To;: David Du Dav414‹, Dtma ‘."..;:oohol Partner%LLC B?iloji-, fomented message From: Matisa Moody 111111111111111111111 Datex joiy I& 2C')17 at 7:17:38 PM CDT To: DavKI Dunn Sublieut: Re:tipttee— vel a On Toe. joi 1$. 2017 at 710 PM,Devitt Donn , "Christy cC,ormic —sar.i.:orn:.., Mark Rhodes .. Hans , Christian ., on King" L. Aian enter....com>,." ei$.3e.lioniavic ; e Adams Date: July 25,2017 at 11:28:33 AM CDT "c4awsorl@aoo‘r , To:'Kris Kobach C OrMTC Mark Rhodes oeriieap.r.n>, Christian ,:'Alan L. King" Cc:"Paoletta, Mark R. EDPIONIP" ,"Morgan, Matthew E ..0P/OVP" Subject: RE: letters from two.states FY Fnease: see the attached letter from Ohio ScIS From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 4:18 PM To:'Kris Kobach; Hustekl, cy'viavsfson@so.in.gov' ; T e ; von pa OvS y, Adams'; Alani.„ King' Cc:Peoletta,. Mark R. EOP/OVP Subject: letters from two states ormle ;'Mark Rhodes' (.i:aco„org>.;'Christian vorgan, iieiew E. EOPIOVP: Please See the hNo attached letters we reoently received.from the Qolorede end Wyoming saoratedea of state Thee wtl be added to our w>oqe soon as Hopp erne.has a weal weekend. 17-2361-A-001103 https://Mall.gaogle.coreimallitalONIF.?4itvr:78ae2a93e9&javer=Xg1.a.2(Peceen.4wiewVt&q=Andrew,..1.kesseck%40ovp,eop.gov&pr,,tree&searchNe...1/2 Grna 9/14/20.17 Fwd:lettere from two states Thanks, Andrew Reply Letter to PACELPDF 350K 17-2361-A-001104 hiVs://mail.943oglo,cornImaiiiitiOnui=nk=78ae2a3e984sver=Xgl-t3L2q0.60,eravievozptag=Andom.,1.Kossacr/040ovp.eop.apv&qs=truil&searchn:qu..... 2/2 Fwd: Leiter from Vito.clitAir Kobocil 911412017 ,t$:111 David Dunn Fwd: Letter from Vice Chair Kobach 1 message David Dunn To: David Du Thu, Sep 14,2017 at 2:38 PM David K Dunn Capitol Partners,ILO Begin forwarded message: From:"KOssack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP"..4A.e:kiniiw.;J:,:Kossackfaevp.eop.g:ov> Date: July 26, 2017 at 4:19:30 PM CDT ,"Alan L. King" Adams. °' nsty c ,ormic , Mark Rhodes. ,"von Spakovsky, Hans' .,"Alan L., Kinif _ , hew E. EOP/OVP". ;.1,,, v , Cc:"Paoleft% Mark R.. EOP/OvPf° , Taykan, Dania K.EOP/OVP" Subject: FW: Commission $Ges and the Hatch Act — Point of Clarification lit,paoUv.cyt:,0 Dear Members, please see the follow-up communication betow from GSA.legal regarding the 1-Tatch Act. If you ha're.any questions, Pease.let me know.We are happy to. rode:you with any edditiohal lrforrilglon or clarification you need. Thanks/ Andrew Andrew J. Kosseck Executh;t:: EMrector & Designated.Federal Oftimr Presitiontial AdVisofy.Cornmission on Election integrity 17-2361-A-001106 httigs://Me.ii.googis.cOmirnaii/u/Orlui=lail078ae2a93eRSverztXcil-ut_2(Mc.en.bWiewupt8e47.4Anlrow.J.KgssacitN4Oosip.eop.gov&qtrueasearchz-qu.„ Gmaii. Fwd:• Commission SGEs.an0 the Hatch Act— Point of Clarification 9/1412017 Hi Andrew, This is a follow-up to our ethics briefing on July 19, 2017, I wanted to provide the members of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity(the "Commission") with additional information on the Hatch Act and darify what "duty hairs" for the Commission means since they are In a non-pay status, Under the Hatch Act, 5 C.F.R. § 734.601, Subpart F--Eistployees Who Work on An Irregular or Occasional Basis Empioyees,"(a]employee who works on an irregular or occasional basis or is a special Government employee...is subject to the [Hatch Act] when he or she is on duty," The Hatch Act governs the political activities of federal employees, Including special government employees. Political activity is defined as an activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group.: For purposes of the Hatch Act, because the Commission members are special government employees and are not in a pay Status,"on duty" means the hours each member performs government business (i.e., Commission business). A (Commission members duty hours include, but are not limited to: 1)attendance at official meetings; 2)attendance at sub-committee meetings; 3)research performed on behalf of the Commission; and 4)the review of research/preparation to attend meetings. For example, laln employee appointed to a special commission or task force who does not have a regular tour of duty may run as a partisan political candidate, Out may actively campaign only when he or she is not on duty." 5 C.F.R. § 734.601. An example of "on duty" for Commission members is; a Commission member attends a committee meeting from 8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m., during this time the commission member is prohibited from engaging in political activity, including but not limited to sending a tweet about a candidate for partisan political office or send out emails asking for donations to his or her campaign for partisan political office, On the very same day, from 3:00 p.m. to 7 p.m., the Commission member is not prohibited from attending a political fundraiser and even soliciting political contributions from the attendees, because the event is not during the Commission member's duty hours. Please note that based on the heightened level of interest this Commission has received, to alleviate potential appearance concerns, when possible, Commission members may not want to engage in political activities on days where the Commission member has or will perform work on behalf of the Commission, Best Regards, Shane 17-2361-A-001107 Andrew.J.Kossack3'.40avp.eop.govaiwArueUearchrzqp.... , htips:Iiroaii.google.cornfropillti/0/71.siz-28aic;-778aaa93enjaver=X01-ut.2q0$0.es,&view9at&T f.2/3 Small - Fwd: Commission SGEs and the Hatch Act — Point of Clarification 9/14/2017 Shane Ts. Vinson Assistant General Counsel Ethics Law Staff - General Law Division U.S. General Services Administration CONFIDENTLALITY NOTICE: This email message and any attachments to this email message may contain confidential infomation belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Please do not forward this message without permission.. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited, If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return email and delete and destroy the original email message, any attachments thereto and all copies thereof. 17-2361-A-001108 tittps://Mall.google.comintaillui0/70=2&ik=78862a93e984aver:Xg1-u2c106c.en.&view=pt&o=Andrawj.Kossack%40ovp.aop.govags=irue&sear.ch=q4..,. 313. email Fwd: Election Integrity 9/14/2017 David Dunn . . .. • " ' ' Fwd: Election Integrity message .. '. . . . .". Thu,Sep 14, 2017 at 238 PM David Dunn To: David Dur David K Dunn CaDitoi Partners, LLC Begin forwarded message: From;“Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" Date: August 11, 2017 at 3:15:33 PM CDT To: David Dunn lnterity Subject: Re: Elf= Hi David - Yes, we're dose to finalizing a September meeting, but have a couple of issues still pending. We are still looking at the week of Sept. 11th, and likely wiii shoot for the 12th, flI provide more details ASAP. Hope you're doing well! Thanks, Andrew On Aug 11.,2017, at 12:28 pm, David Dunn wrote: Hope your doing well. Are we scheduling another meeting for September? David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LLC 17-2361-A-001109 https://ma.google.comfmaillu/0/7u1=Mika:78ae2893e94jsverz:Xgl-ui2q080,ork.kiview=p*F-Andrew.J.Kossack%40ovp.eop.gavliqs=true&search=qu...ill Grnalf Fwd; please HOLD for next meeting 9/14/2017 -mail David Dunn Fwd: please HOLD for next meeting 1 message Thus Sep 14,2017 at.2:38 PM David Dunn To: David Du David K Dunn Capitol Partners LLC Begin forwarded message: From;"Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" , To:'Kris KObach' Christy McCormick Mark Rhodes ETZPZIMININEMENWIlieg Christian , von ,..pa ov$ y, ens Adams <;sdarn.s@ee:<::tlonlaW0eritv..(om>,"Nen L. King" "rnatthew„duniaparnaine.guy" Cc."PaolOtta, Mark R. EOP/OVP" ‹Matihew.E.:Monzien@ovp.et:v.,>.:.4ov>-, Subject: please HOLD for next meeting Dear Members, Please mark your calendars for Tuesday,September 12th.for our next meeting. You'll likely want to plan to travel the afternoonievening of the 11th. Well be back in touch early next week vfith additional detalis. Thanks for your patience as we lock down all the logistics. If you have any questions or concerns at this point, please let me know, Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director; Presidential Advisory Commission on Election.Integrity Associate Counsel, Office ofthe Vice President: Cell: Email: .1coe.,sackgoviux::;:c3,c:Kn; 17-2361-A-001110 httpsj/rnaii.google.cornIrnaiht/OnsizznikF78se2a93e9$4syerzXgl-uL2q06c.sn.&view:;pt&qz:Andrew.J.Kossack%400v..epp.govke---trup8isearcfmfa... 1/1 Gala 9/14/2017 Fwd:September Meeting -.9112 in Manchester, New Hampshire . /e0. David Dunn e• 1 :1- .1, Fwd: September Meeting - 9/12 in Manchester, New Hampshire 1 message Thu. Sep 14, 2017 at 2:39 PM David Dunn < To: David Dun David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LLC Begin forwarded message: From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EDP/0\1P" Date: August 24, 2017 at 12:02:51 PM CDT , Christian , ,,...?,..!,.;eriti-10,0Pij , , ‹rnrnollear...i;;:woo cournywyz.cmAdams ,'Alan L. King""maithew.d uniaplknaine..ciDv" ,"Morgan,. Matthew E. EDP/0\M". , Whams,Ronald E EOP;OVP kontki L Mlt nsem$p.eop..g.t.w> Subject: September Meeting - 9112 In Manchester, New Hampshire Dear Members, Thank you for holding September 12th for our next meeting, and for your patience as we worked through some logistical details. I am excited to share that Secretary Gardner has kindly offered to host the Commission in New Hampshire at the NOW Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College. The meeting will begin at 10:00 am.Eastern on Tuesday,September 12th, and we expect to finish no later than 4:00 p.m. Please feel free to proceed with making your travel arrangements. As a reminder, here are the instructions for booking travel through GSA's travel services: Booking Travel to New Hampshire!min/Oohs Members or their support staff who have established traveler accounts with GSA can van the travel agent directly to hook their travel. ADTRAV(GSA travel agent):.677-4724716,available 24/7 Key Information when ceiling the travel agent: 17-2361-A-001111 titips://maii.geogle.corn/rnail/u/ORtlir-28,1k="70ee2a93e98,isverr-X91-a2q060.emaview=ot&q=Ancisew.S.kossack%4Dovp.eop.gov4s=truec&search=qu... 1/3 Gmail - Fad:September Meeting - 9112 in Menthester, New Hampshire 9/14/2017 recognize members by first and last name and agency—which is the, ADTRAV (GSA)for the purposes of this travel. Administration Services General Have a personal credit card available—hotel will be booked using a personal card. 0 Members can choose their hotel and will be reimbursed up to the maximum per diem rate. for Manchester, NH ($108Might)(keep hotel receipts) The committeelegetwateteglefelegaveljeeep.le_lelgefs per member between 9/11 O and 9113. Arrangements should be made within those parameters. Members(or their staff) should tell the agent the traveler's date of birth if making O airline reservations. This is a requirement in orderfor tickets to be issued. Travelers will need to follow fedei!W re:v1f.gicri&i. governing travel Key points: Hotel: Max lodging per (ilf.:;r1irate reimbursed for Manchester, NH in September:$108 O (keep hotel receipts—reimbursed up to $108. Lodging taxes will be reimbursed separately as well.) The travel agent can help members find rooms at or below per diem. • Airfare: Must use coach class and the coritract.t:arril!.w. fare (booked by travel agent) o Exceptions to contract fare must be documented/justified--e.g., Timing of contract fare flights do not allow traveler to meet mission or non-contract fare is less expensive Meals & Incidental Expenses(MI&E): reimbursed $64 per day for Manchester; $48 on e first & last day of travel(no receipts needed, reimbursed $84 for full day and $48 for first and last day of travel) ▪ Rental cars: Receipt required for all expenses Taxis/metro: reimbursed for official business related to the committee—e.g., toffrom airport, to/from committee meetings(keep receipts) e O Other (i.e. airline baggage fees): Reimbursed (keep receipts) Airfare will be booked through the travel agent and paid directly by GSA. Ali other approved travel expenses (hotel; MI&E;.taxis) will be paid for using the member's personal card and will subsequently be reimbursed. Details on reimbursement process will be provided upon completion of the travel. If members or their staff have questions regarding the above that the travel agent can't answer, please don't hesitate to have the memhers staff reach out to Valerie Whittinton or Kris Palmer. vaierieo,:vNtqgorkrIgera.r,yov We will share more information about the meeting and agenda soon. if you have any questions in the Meantime; please let me know. Thank you, Andrew 17-2361-A-001112 hilps://mailgoogie.ebralmaille10/?tii=2.8,ik7-78es2a93eKeverr-X91-mt.2q0,8c.en.&view=pt&grzAndrew.J.Kceseeie/040ovp.eop.gov&cisr:-Irue&searsh=qu... 2/3 Gmail - Fwd:September Meeting - 9/12 in Manchester, New Hampshire 9/14/2017 Andrew J. Kosseck Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Androw...j.Kossaol:44.ovp.eop.gov 17-2361-A-001113 https://maii.google..com/mailiti/Ontii--7231k=78ae2a93e9&jsver=Xgi-u12q0fic.enAview=pt&q=Andrew.J.Kos,seck%40evp.eop.gov&qt,--true&seerchtzitE... 313 9/14/2017 ()mail- Dunn David Dunn Dunn 8 messages DavId Dunn To:"Kossack, Andrew J. EON Ovp" Wed,Aug 30,2017 at 3:50 PM David K Dunn Capitol Partners, LLC Kossack, Andrew J, EOP/OVP Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM To: David Dunn Cc: Thanks, David. Attached is the email from this mcirntng. Ng::asol.et me know it you et this one. 'Thanks,: Andrew A nd rew.:1,. Kosck ExJacutive Director,; t>resid.eritkal. Advisory Commissiort on Election integrity Associate Cotinsei, Office of the Vice President (.:el Email: Andrew.J.Kossactil@vp,eop.sgOv From: David Dunn imalito:david@capitolpattrierSaMOrri] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:49 PM To: Kossack, Andrew 3. EOP/OVP Subject: Dunn 021c.466:text i•lickin) Forwarded message From:"Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP" "cvvlawson sos.in.gov" ,"chioltate@aol.core To: "'Kris Kohacir Mark Rhodes ,"von Spakovsky, Hans" Christian Adams ‹adams@electionlawcenter.corn>,"Alan L. King' nerkage.org>, Yon -4 ans. pa ova y 17-2361-A-001114 nitps://mail.google.coralmailiu/Oriultznik=78ae2a93eAsverr-Xg1AIL2q06c.en,&viewythicrAndrew.J.Kmack%40ovrxeop.gov&qs=true&seardszzqu... 1/5 Gmail - Dunn -iatthew.dunlap@maine,gov" ,"King, Alan" ,"Morgan, Matthew E EOP/OVP" EOPIOVP" Cc:"Paotette, Mark R. ,"Williams, Ronald E. LOP/OW" `=1 vilawson©sos.irt.gme , To:"Kris Kobach'" < ans. onopa ova Mark Rhodes ,"von Spakovsky, Hans e.r, age.org>, Christian Mama ,"Alan L. King" P/OVP" ,"Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP" c: ao e , "Williams, Ronald E. EOPIOVF r@ovp.eop.gov>, :;i00 cn Eieklion integrity 10 attachments Vice Chair Kobach letter rt meeting material deadline,pdf 202K • Commission Lit Hold Ltr FINAL (8-4-17).pdf 35K =ffl 1. Compl.pdf 134K • Complaintpdf " 1 ' 614K ..f)A 33 - Second Amended Complaint.pdf - 243K 0,31 1 - Compiaint.pdf - 8164K 11 LDF-Complaint.471817.pdf 0' 3366K 41,1 t Cornpl(002},pdf 945K ;***1 noname.erni 18480K 171.1 noriame.emi Li 18758K David Dunn To: "Kossaok, An raw Wed,Aug 30,2017 at 4:15 PM Got it but cant open it. Sentfrom my Pad tOuoteri text hidden] Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP To: David Dunn Weds Aug 30, 2017 at 4:18 PM Mani Sorry about tbet. Let me b'y to send t o ifs.npt in an attiChrrielit. Andrew Koss;.ick. fi.xewtive Directm; Presidentiai Advisory Commission on Election integ.rity AS.V.W.iat(1.Counsel,.Office of the Vice President 17-2361-A-001116 https://malf.vogle.cornkrtag/u/Onui742&ikzloae2a.93e934sverr--Xg1.-uticpec,po.etview-vt&q=AncEmw...1.Kassack%40avp.sop.gov&qs=true&saant:zqu.„. 3/5 email - Dunn 9/14/2017 Andrew,J.KosF„aclic@oy.p.eop,....;oy From: David Dunn [mailto:I Sent: Wednesday,August 30, 2017 5:15 PM To: Kossack, Andrew i. EOP/OVP Subject: Re: Dunn 1;Quoteffliz.xt hidden] • David Dunn < To:"Kossack, nc Wed, Aug 30,2017 at4:23 PM e.J.Kossack ovp.eop.gov Got iti Sentfrom my Pad [Quoted texthi4den) .,: Koseack$ Andrew -I_ To: David Dunn nsimki ,I Knasaok@ovri.eop.gov> MP/MP Wed, Aug 30,2017 at 4:28 PM guess send to both. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong Sent from my iPad nuoteci te):t hidden • • • • Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP ‹Andrew.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov> To: David Dunn No problem. WM rloi . . • . • Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:28 PM 17-2361-A-001117 littps://maii.google.r.om/maillulW?ui=28tik=78ae2a93a9&jsverz--Xgl-ut2q06c.en.8ivievevt&q=Andrew.J.Kassack%40(wp.eop.gov8ins=true&searthz•-qu... 415 Gmail - Dunn 9/14/2017 Andrew.). Kos5ack Exealtve Director, Pre=.ridentialAr y kn or EiecOon iMegri.ty Astiodate Coun5;(:.A, Offlce of the Vice President Cell: Erna-, Arldiew.i..Kossa:ckfPolep...eop,goiv From: David Dunn (mailto Sent: Wednesday,August 30,2017 5:28 PM i.Cluote&i text hickieni iQueted text hidderi 17-2361-A-001118 hitpelimeilgoogio.cornttnaillutOnui=28zikw78tie2a93eReverzXg1-u12q06c.etavievring=Andrew.J.KossacM10ovp.eop.gov&qsztrue&searchr-qu.. 515 Grnail 9/14/2017 . leiter from Vice Chair kobach regarding submission of meeting materials .7 David Dunn - A. P '.%er . N.s.,A;$ FW: ietter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials 1, message Kossacky Andrew J. EOPIOVP To: David Dunn Cc: David Dunn Wed, Aug 30,2017 at 4:19 PM Hopefully this comes through... Message--From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent Wednesday, August 30,2017 9:13 AM To:'Kris Kobach n v‹cwWwsonesos.in,gov>; .couo yuns.corn y von spsovsiy, ans 'Mark Rhodes';'Christian Adams'; `Alan L. King': 'nu.,lithevi.duniup@rnalne.gov` ;'King, Alan C. Paoletta, Mark R,EOP/OVP ; Morgan, Matthew E,EOP/OVP ; Williams, Ronald E. EOPIOVP Subject letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials Dear Members, Please we the attached letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding the submission of meeting materials for the September 12th meeting. Also, attached as a reminder is the litigation hold letter from August 7th. Please review this letter and ensure you are preserving materials accordingly. As always, if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. kosseck Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integily Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.j.kossackgovp,eo5.)..gov ---- Forwarded message ; From:"kossack, A To:"'Kris Kobach"' drew.j.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov> "cwlawson sos;in. oy" , C CiMIC ris C >, Mark Rhodes , Christian Adams ‹adamstDelectionlawcenter.com>,"Alan L. King" ,"Williams, Ronald E. EOP/OVP". Bcc: Date: Mon,7 Aug 2017 15:02:45 +0000 Subject: Litigation Hold }',.48enbers: 17-2361-A-001119 ilitps://mail.gdegle.mrri/Mailip/Orhilz42ailv,-.78a92a93e94sverzXgl-uL2q060.en.&view9)t&trAndrew.J.kossacic'Xi.40ovp.00p.gov&cpi=tri.3e&search.qu... 1/2 (mail FW:letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materiels 9/14r2017 the atached litigation hold letti..N. Film our )eamen of Justice.attorney, Thiz..1 letter'details record retention review it pE.refulty, The comp/a/Ms requirenlents associate:1 with the iit;c.;41ition pending.,1-7.4ainc:the (:x.gnmi!.eisk.m., so. from eac.:h of -tile, penthng lawsuits are also attached for your r:3farences If you /lave.any duestkms, please let ree know. Also, we ate CAOSS lo finalizing details for the September moeting, w be hack in touch soon with more information. As aiwam please call anytime if. you have any questions or cont,sems. Thanks,. fitndrew Andrew J Kol,isack Egecutive. Direcrter 8,Designated Federal:Officer Presidential Advisory Cornmissim o.Election Integrity. 9 attachments 'NI Vice Chair Kobach letter re meeting Material deadilne.pdf &'4 202K 4,4) Con-omission Lit 1-/oId Ltr FINAL (8-4-17).pdf 3 35K " l'34cK" Pdf • Compiaint.pdt 614K • 33 - Second Amended Complaint.pdf '3.-3 243K cilya 1 Cornplaint.pcif 8164K LDF-Compleint4371817.pdf 3 3366K " :at 1. Cowl(802).pdf • 945K • -2 noname.erni 18480K 17-2361-A-001120 httpsilmaLgoog!e.comirnaillui0M4=-28tikz.:78as2s93891.1isverr-Xgl-u1.2q060.0n.aviewr-tpl&q=Andrew.J.Koss,eok%40ovileop.gov&qs=true&searchzda... 212 Gr.iIUpdatos 9/142011 David Dunn Xrrail Updates I message , Kossack, Andrew J. EOPIOVP "cwlawsonfosos.iri.dov" , von.. org>, Christian Adams ,"Alan L. King" `matthew.duniap@meine.gov" ,"King, Alan"•kirtga@jcoal.org>, uavicl uunn Cc:"Paulette, Mark R. EOP/OVP" ,"Morgan, Matthew E. EOR/OVP" ,'Williams. Ronald E. EOPIOVP" , Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:37 PM Christy McCormick oo cou TtT. ura>, von pa •ov y, Rhodes , a ovs a en age.org,, Christian Adams ©maine.gov" ,"King, Alan* , • < ans. on David Dunn < Cc: *Paoletta, Mark R, EOP/OVP" ,'Morgan, Matthew E. EDPIOVP" ,"Williams, Ronald E. EOPIOVP* Dear Members, The agenda for next week's meeting is attached. We panto post this publicly tomorrow. If you have any please let me know. questions, Thanks, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President Cell: Email: ArKirew.ssack(•tovp,ew.gov 01 Agenda for Sept 12th Meeting.pdf 482K 17-2361-A-001122 h+4,4ts:Iirnaligcogie.caminiailluiMui=28cik=78802a93e98sjsverzXg1-tiL2q436c.en.Sotiew•-tpt8e:FAndrespi.J.Kosseck%40ovp.eop.govSigs=trueasearch=gu... Gmail - Updated Agenda 9/1412011 David Dunn . . . Updated Agenda I message • Kossack, Andrew J EOP/OVP cwlawson asos.in, ov" , . µ Wed $e 6.2017 at 1:53PM ,T• rk Rhodes , unla @maine.gov" ,"King, Alan" , Cc:"Paoletta, Mark R. EOP/OVP" ,"Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP" ,"Wiliiams, Ronald E. EOPION/Pm Plee see the ettat7;hed updated eqerde.Theo*thane is. the addttion offonner Gov: &inn H. Sununu, who wilt wete.xiroe the COMMiniOri at the si:ar of the meeting. Thanks. Andrew Andrew J. Kowa& Executive Director< Pf4Aidential AtivisorY Commisiorc Qn election Irstagrity AssOnfate Comrisel„ Cade of the Vine.Presidenl Cell:. Androw.J,Kcesackigr.avP,e01)-gtov Agenda for Sept 12th kleeting,pdf 483K ' 17-2361-A-001123 httpe://mail_poogle.cominieitiumi?ui=2&ik=isafaeg3eajever:zxgi.uligoec.en.8,viewraptaar-Andrew.J.KaaseckWovp.ede,gav&qa=true&searchzett... Ill Gmell RE: Meeting Materials for September 12th 9/14/417 „:„ "0/4 • 4 •• .• David Dunn • RE: Meeting Materials for September 12th 1 message . . . . . • •• Kossack, Andrewl EOP/OVP Fri Set 8,2017 at 5:20 PM Mark Rhodes , von pa ova .y, an.. rg>, Christian Adams ,"Alan L King" o Dain on, ans. < matthew.dunlap@maine,gov" -:.*mettthew.dt.iniapraimairie.gov>,"King, Alan" , David Dunn ,"Passantino, EOP/OVP" E. Ronald 'Williams, v>, gantbovp,eop.go ,"Gast, Scott F. EOP/WHQ" If anyone did not receive my email below due to the large file sizes, the meeting materiais are now posted here: b!.4>vjhrmw.•wiiitehme.gravipmsnt.joi-etiviWy-axprijilsion-09CtiOn-intewity-M3c.iv.rcati, Please check to confirm that any materials you plan to present or distribute at the meeting are posted here. If you have any questions,:just let me. know. Thanks again, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Associate Counsel (Ace of the Vice President Cell: Email: Andrew.J.Kow.ack@ovp,eop,ciov --Original Message-From: Kossack, Andrew J. EOP/OVP Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:15 PM To:'Kris Kobach' 'Christy McCormick! 'Mark Rhodes' ;'von pa ova y, mans: ;'Alan L. King' ;:'King, Alan' <;=..gii:s4gijc,c;i1,Corg>;. < unn avt v.ark.i.,.?-olettad:P.ovp.ec.0,cimr.>: Morgan; Matthew:E. EOP/OVP Cc: Paoletta, iv a WIlliarn$, Ronald E. EOP/OVP ; Passantitto, Stefan C, EOP/WHO Subject: Meeting Materials forSebtember 1291 Members, Attached are materials for next week's meeting. My apologies for the large file sizes. We are in the process of posting these materials on our webpage for public viewing. / will let you know once they are available there. Many thanks to all of you for your hard work and flexibility on the .timeline for submitting these materials. Thank you, Andrew Andrew J. Kossack Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 17-2361-A-001124 ossack%40ovp.eop.gov&qszftegtsaarch911.,. , httbs:Ifrnait.google.corn/maitful(1/74K0-.78ea;03e98dsvap=Xg1:-ui.2q(Ific:eraviewzot&q:::Ancirem4,1e 112 9/14/2017 Grnail - RE Meeting Materials for September 12th Associate Counsel, Office of the Vice President .K014vf..›,eop,gov Email: Andreskr 17-2361-A-001125 https://maii.goegle.corn/maillulOniktaik=78as2s93e9&jsverz--Xg1-ulaq060.en.&viewrpt&crAncirsw.J.KossacitY040ovp.eop.gov&is=true&search..qu... 2/2 leii ^ TOMOrrOW'S Meeting 9/14/2017 • .1. David Dunn ....... . . ' Tomorrow's Meeting ; message Kossack, Ande To: Kris Kobach w.J.Kossack@ovp.eop.gov> "cwlawson©sos.in.goe , Mon Sep 11 2017 at 8:34 PM ar0 es , Christian Adams , "Alan L. King" ©maine.gov" ,"King, Alan" ,'Morgan, Matthew E. EOP/OVP" ,"Passantino, Stefan C, EOP/WHO" ,"Gast, Scott F. EOP/WHO" Subject: Election Integrity Commission Date: Mon. Jun 26, 2017 1:12 pm Dear Andrew, Thank for your email this morning on the chartering of the Election Integrity Commission and the upcoming meeting dates. As a DFO for a Federal advisory committee,I very much appreciated your review of the FACA rules. I received your email on my official Election Assistance Commission(EAC)email address. Because the Election Integrity Commission(EIC) work is separate from my work as an EAC commissioner,in the future I think it would be best to use my personal email address so as not to confuse the two. My personal email address is: I've been thinking about possible databases we may want to consult for our work on the EIC.The obvious databases are of course anything that the Department of Homeland Security maintains,including SAVE. We should also look at whether E-Verify may help. Also, we need to ask if ICE,USCIS,or CBP maintain any databases or records on contacts with noncitizens or new citizens. I am thinking we should go back probably a decade or so. USCIS has a genealogy program that keeps a Master index of names - I've never used it, but USCIS website says it consists of individuals who came into contact with the INS and may be found under a subject heading describing their relationship to the agency. We might also consider looking at Immigration case files if we have time/resources to do so. The Department of Education may also have some databases, since they seem to track noncitizen attendance/languages at public schools. Also obvious,State Departments of Motor Vehicles databases are important. When I was working with DOJ, we used 42 USC 1974(which may since have been transferred to a different code number)to get access to Georgia's database in connection with the Georgia ID cases. That statute allows the Attorney General to have access to any election records for the past 22 months, which would include DMV records due to motor voter. A question would be if the Attorney General would be able to help us with that. Unless we add him or someone from DOJ with litigation authority, we might not be able to use that statutory authority. We should also see if state vital statistics indexes,especially birth and death records,could be relevant. You mentioned getting jury records from Federal district courts. Hopefully there is a way we can get records from state courts regarding their jury lists as well. The state court juries are often the way state and local election officials discover that someone claiming to be a noncitizen for purposes ofjury duty has registered to vote and/or has been voting. Private databases would also be if immense help, especially Experian and ancestry.com. We'd have to pay for those resources, but it would be money well spent. The credit bureaus have the best, most recent,and accurate data available. Otherwise,I think we should brainstorm every instance where and how noncitizens might interact with the government - public assistance services,IRS,etc. and see if we can find any records there. 17-2361-A-001152 As to what we should look at in addition to the voter registration databases, we might want to look at provisional ballots and by who,when and why they are used. Turn away data will also be important. The EAC collects that data in the EAVS as a starting point. That report for the November 2016 election will be sent to Congress by the end of this month. We need to look at amending the NVRA.It is so dated! We might look at the efficacy of each state's voter registration processes and what they ask on their forms, whether it be online, paper in person,3rd party registration drives, DMV process, as well as those states that have implemented or will implement soon Automatic Voter Registration. Another question that has recently arisen is children of overseas citizens who have never resided in the United States. Right now,that is governed by state law,and those laws vary widely. We should also look at the federal role in the election process - besides the EAC,we should look at the other federal entities involved with elections,including FVAP in the DOD,GAO,NIST in the Department of Commerce,and of course the role of DOJ's Civil Rights Voting Section and the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section (responsible for prosecuting election crimes). I hope this is helpful. I'm looking forward to participating and to meeting you in person! Best regards, Christy McCormick 17-2361-A-001153 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections voter rcoreds Saturday, July 08, 2017 9:46:27 PM There is every reason not to send along NH's voter registration records. Given President Trump's apparent admiration for Pres. Putin, I think there is every reason not to allow the Republican party access to our rolls. Once they have it, there's no telling what they COULD use it for. Some may think it's innocent enough, but I do not. Besides, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. If there were I would feel differently. This is just another of Pres. Trump's money wasting ruses. Munsonville NH. 03457 17-2361-A-001154 From: To: Subject: Date: Mario Rossi Elections Voter Integrity in Elections Friday, September 08, 2017 9:32:39 AM Hello, My name is Mario Rossi and I work as Assignment Editor for WOI-TV in Des Moines, IA. We are following up on states where voter "fraud" has been alleged by various outlets, and I wanted to gain clarification on a couple of things. In regards to college students who vote in New Hampshire, are they required to obtain a state-issued driver's license within a certain amount of time? Or is the "established residency" clause for separate cases (https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/new-resident/index.htm)? What examples of New Hampshire voters with non-New Hampshire ID's/driver's licenses would exist (school, military, etc.)? Thank you in advance for your response. Mario Rossi Local 5 Assignment Editor 17-2361-A-001155 From: To: Subject: Date: John Raby Elections Voter Suppression Sunday, July 02, 2017 3:02:58 PM To Whom It May Concern: I am deeply concerned about Gov. Sununu's compliance with the Trump/Kobach election inquiry. For me, the most unsettling parts are that it treats all voters as suspects until they can prove otherwise and has no convincing force of evidence behind it. As I see it, this disposition flies directly in the face of our country's legal and moral traditions and is especially ill-timed to coincide with the Fourth of July. Combined with rampant gerrymandering and the power of big money, this inquiry is a perfect way to rig coming elections and to deprive our citizens of anything worthwhile for which to vote. This is a clear and present danger to what's left of our democracy, and it needs to end. John Raby 17-2361-A-001156 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections Trumps Election Fraud Commission (joke) Friday, June 30, 2017 7:46:28 PM As a resident of New Hampshire, I am very concerned about the request made by the Federal Government for all information pertaining to registered voters. I do NOT want my information shared with the fraudulent commission. I do not trust that they will keep my personal information save, nor do I know what they plan to do with it. I certainly do not believe what they are telling the public. I will pursue legal avenues if need be. Again, do not put my name in a national voter registry. What is this Nazi Germany? Alton Bay, NH 03810 17-2361-A-001157 From: To: Subject: Date: Jennie Marshall Elections Trumps Voter Fraud Commission Saturday, July 01, 2017 11:46:45 AM Dear Secretary Gardner, There were no buses from Mass. bringing illegal voters to NH. We know and you know that is yet another of Trump's boldface lies. NH must refuse to provide election information to this commission. This commission, based on propaganda and brazen lies, should not drive any action on the part of our state, and should not be allowed to infringe on the privacy and dignity of NH voters. I urge you to refuse this request, and I urge you to stand behind the NH people's resistance to this fascist behavior. Jennie [viarshall Dover, NH 17-2361-A-001158 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections Trumps Voting Commission Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:37:08 AM Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Secretary Gardner, Well....so much for the Live Free Or Die State. Voter registration information is public, why do you feel the need to answer the call of Kris Kobach? Surely Mr. Gardner you know of Mr. Kobach's affiliation with white supremacist groups, failed Muslim registry, the incredible Mexico border wall? I urge you to search your soul to find where your allegiances lie Mr. Gardner — a free democratic society or, an authoritarian state? You appear to be kowtowing Mr. Gardner. Shame on you — please learn to say "no". Sincerely, Madbury, NH 03820 17-2361-A-001159 From: To: Subject: Date: Rae Becker Elections Resign from this illegitimate voter suppression effort Friday, July 07, 2017 8:06:34 AM Dear Secretary of State Bill Gardner, I just signed a petition saying:

President Trump and Vice-President Pence’s &Idquo;election integrity” commission is laying the groundwork for nationalized voter suppression. The presence of two prominent Democrats on the commission makes it look bipartisan and legitimate.

Sign LegitAction’s petition to Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D): resign from Trump's illegitimate voter suppression commission now.

" Rae Becker New York, NY 17-2361-A-001160 From: To: Subject: Date: Joan Brooks Elections Resign from this illegitimate voter suppression effort Friday, July 07, 2017 8:06:12 AM Dear Secretary of State Bill Gardner, I just signed a petition saying:

President Trump and Vice-President Pence’s &Idquo;election integrity” commission is laying the groundwork for nationalized voter suppression. The presence of two prominent Democrats on the commission makes it look bipartisan and legitimate.

Sign LegitAction’s petition to Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D): resign from Trump's illegitimate voter suppression commission now.

" Joan Brooks Ephrata, PA 17-2361-A-001161 From: To: Subject: Date: Lily Luo Elections SOLAR INVERTER safety business in china Friday, June 30, 2017 11:00:18 PM Dear sir, how are you? this is Lily from tanfon ,have contact with you before ! we are professional solar /inverter/controller project install and technology support. We have our own professiona engineer training team. And we have been to Egypt, Chad,Nigeria,Ghana,Doha,Pakistan,Bangladesh for installation. As an experieced company in this field, we adhere to "Quality first, user first", to provide you the best products and best service. are you want to see more project picture? Are you want to know the solar inverter working feedback? whatsApp/wechat:008613078123208 waitting for your email for further discussion thank you Lily Foshan Tanfon Energy Technology Co.,LTD Address:One of the third floor,N0.3 Building, Lianfeng industrial zone,zhang cha , changcheng District, Foshan city, Guang dong,china Cantant:Lily luo whatsApp/wechat:008613078123208 TEL:86-757-82702658 http: tanfon. en. al ibaba. corn 17-2361-A-001162 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections Sec. Kris Kobach Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:05:39 AM We're working on an independent documentary about election fraud and had seen that the Secretary was planning on visiting NH this week and if there were any public events planned in relation to the recent NH voter report and the Secretary's reactions. If you could let me know it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 17-2361-A-001163 From: Subject: Date: Cohen, Caroline X. -ND Request for Comment: Election Commission Friday, June 30, 2017 12:36:49 PM To Whom it May Concern, I am a reporter for the ABC News Political Unit and seeking comment regarding your state's intentions in response to the recent letter from Kris Kobach, Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Please let me know or give me a call at the number below. Sincerely, Caroline Caroline Cohen ABC News- Washington Political Fellow 17-2361-A-001164 From: To: Subject: Date: WANG Elections Quality Laser Safety Glasses Supply Elections Friday, June 30, 2017 12:39:39 PM 2017-7-10:36 Good visibility High protection level CE certified by EN207 Dear Sir/Madam, It's glad to know you from your awesome website. We focus on laser safety products for more than 10 years. Our main products including laser protective glasses, IPL safety goggles, laser protection windows etc., We provide OEM and customized service according to customer's different application. Below is some our models for you choose -ITEM01. 200-532nm 0.D6+ 315-532nm DIRM LB5 Transmittance: 50% Special for: UV and 532nm green laser ITEM02. 200-532nm 0.D6+ & 900-1100nm 0 D5+ 315-532nm DIRM LB5 900-1070nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 30% Special for: 532nm &1064nm combination ITEM03. 600-700nm 0.D4+ 620-700nm DIR LB4 Transmittance: 50% Special for: 635nm, 694nm ITEM04. 630-660nm 0.D3+ & 800-830nm 0.D5+ 630-660nm DIR LB3 800-830nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 30% Special for: 635nm, 808nm ITEM05. 630-660nm 0.D3+ & 900-1100nm 0.D5+ 630-660nm DIR LB3 900-1100nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 30% Special for: 635nm, 980nm ITEM06. 740-850nm 0.D 5+ 740-850nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 45% Special for: 755nm, 808nm 17-2361-A-001165 ITEM07. 740-1100nm 0.D 5+ 740-1100nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 40% Special for: 755nm-1064nm ITEM08. 800-1100nm 0.D 5+ 800-1100nm DIR LB5 Transmittance: 60% Special for: 810nm-980nm ITEM09. 800-1700nm 0.D 4+ 800-1400nm DIR LB4 Transmittance: 40% Special for: 1064nm, 1320nm, 1470nm ITEM10. 10600nm 0.D 6+ 10600nm DI LB3 Transmittance: 90% Special for: CO2 laser The above is a corner of us, for more information please feel free to let us know with your lasers applications, our specialist will give you the most suitable recommendation. Thank you, WANG Elections@sos.state.nh.us2017-7-10:364WAR7.fiOPEInaRiJ 17-2361-A-001166 From: To: Subject: Date: Mayer A Elections Quit for good and give up smoking habit once and for all. Monday, July 03, 2017 12:16:48 PM Modern Health Central 17-2361-A-001167 June Weekly Bulletin El: 17-2361 -A-001 168 end bulletins at this site Brain Broken addiction cycle Quitting smoking can re-wire your brain and help break the cycle of addiction. The large number of nicotine receptors in your brain will return to normal levels after about a month of being quit. Head and Face Sharp hearing Quitting smoking will keep your hearing sharp. Remember, even mild hearing loss can cause problems (like not hearing directions correctly and doing a task wrong). Better vision Quitting smoking will improve your night vision and help preserve your overall vision by stopping the damage that smoking does to your eyes. Clean mouth Nobody likes a dirty mouth. After a few days without cigarettes, your smile will be brighter. Quitting smoking now will keep your mouth healthy for years to come. Clear skin Quitting smoking is better than antiaging lotion. Quitting can help clear up blemishes and protect your skin from premature aging and wrinkling. Heart Decreased heart risks Smoking is the leading cause of heart attacks and heart disease. But many of these heart risks can be reversed simply by quitting smoking. Quitting can lower your blood pressure and heart rate almost immediately. Your risk of a heart attack declines within 24 hours. Thin blood When you quit smoking, your blood will become thinner and less likely to form dangerous blood clots. Your heart will also have less work to do, because it will be able to move the blood around your body more easily. Lower cholesterol Quitting smoking will not get rid of the fatty deposits that are already there. But it will lower the levels of cholesterol and fats circulating in your blood, which will help to slow the buildup of new fatty deposits in your arteries. Lungs Stop lung damage Scarring of the lungs is not reversible. That is why it is important to quit smoking before you do permanent damage to your lungs. Within two weeks of quitting, you might notice it's easier to walk up the stairs because you may be less short of breath. Don't wait until later; quit today! Prevent emphysema There is no cure for emphysema. But quitting when you are young, before you have done years of damage to the delicate air sacs in your lungs, will help protect you from developing emphysema later. Return of cilia Cilia start to regrow and re-gain normal function very quickly after you quit smoking. They are one of the first things in your body to heal. People sometimes notice that they cough more than usual when they first quit smoking. This is a sign that the cilia are coming back to life. But you're more likely to fight off colds and infections when you're cilia are working properly. DNA Lower cancer risk Quitting smoking will prevent new DNA damage from happening and can even help repair the damage that has already been done. Quitting smoking immediately is the best way to lower your risk of getting cancer. Stomach and Hormones Smaller belly Quitting smoking will reduce your belly fat and lower your risk of diabetes. If you already have diabetes, quitting can help you keep your blood sugar levels in check. Normal estrogen levels If you're a woman, your estrogen levels will gradually return to normal after you quit smoking. And if you hope to have children someday, quitting smoking right now will increase your chances of a healthy pregnancy in the future. 17-2361-A-001169 From: To: Subject: Date: Selina Elections RE: RE: new design pet product released. Friday, June 30, 2017 2:03:28 AM Dear Sirs, It is glad to write to you with strong hope to open a business relationship with you. We are a manufacture which can produce the pet products including dog training collar, bark off collar, pet fencing collar, automatic pet feeder and other products related to electronic pet products. If you have interest, we can provide new catalogue and other information you need. Appreciated to get your reply later! Thanks and best regards! Selina Tang SmileWorld (Shenzhen) Holding Co., Ltd Tel: 0086-755-2161 6558 ext 601 Fax: 0086-755-2161 6558 ext 604 Mobile: 0086-189 3865 9871 17-2361-A-001170 From: To: Subject: Date: Selina Elections RE: RE: new design pet product released. Saturday, July 01, 2017 6:23:27 AM Dear Sirs, It is glad to write to you with strong hope to open a business relationship with you. We are a manufacture which can produce the pet products including dog training collar, bark off collar, pet fencing collar, automatic pet feeder and other products related to electronic pet products. If you have interest, we can provide new catalogue and other information you need. Appreciated to get your reply later! Thanks and best regards! Selina Tang SmileWorld (Shenzhen) Holding Co., Ltd Tel: 0086-755-2161 6558 ext 601 Fax: 0086-755-2161 6558 ext 604 Mobile: 0086-189 3865 9871 17-2361-A-001171 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections Re: Election Integrity? Friday, June 30, 2017 1:53:22 PM Good grief! I am so ANGRY over this I even mistyped my own name!!!! Again - DO NOT SEND THOSE RECORDS!! Concord NH One voice makes a whisper, but the voices of a family turn to thunder." Julia Wilson Rodes On June 30 2017 at 1:40 PM wrote: To William Gardner, Secretary of State, New Hampshire: Election "Integrity" Commission, my foot!!! Do NOT send my voting records, or anyone else's from the State of New Hampshire to Kris Kobach, Mike Pence, or anyone else who is asking for them. Besides the obvious identity theft danger, it is just plain outrageous that a record of our private vote is being demanded by a commission that is investigating a ghost! Whether I vote or not is MY choice. The ballot I choose to take for a primary is MY choice. We have a secret ballot system in this country for a reason! "Demanding" it be sent to this sham of a commission is deplorable. How this information can be used is a danger to every American citizen. I have already contacted my state Senator over this and have sent notices to the governor and my federal representatives, as well. DO NOT SEND THOSE RECORDS. Concord, NH 17-2361-A-001172 "One voice makes a whisper, but the voices of a family turn to thunder." Julia Wilson Rodes 17-2361-A-001173 From: To: Subject: Date: .1W 1 Re: Voter Turnout Monday, September 11, 2017 4:41:42 PM Hi Karen, I was hoping to secure a meeting with Bill Gardner on Wednesday. Would you be able to schedule that? I will be going to the election commission meeting tomorrow as well, and could also meet him after the day's events. I spoke to him on the phone briefly last week. I am working on a book about why so many adults in the US don't vote, and the NH primary seems important, with 48% of the electorate not voting. Many thanks, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Elections wrote: Amy: This office does not have that information. You should call St. Anselm's College at 603-641-7000 From: Sent: Monday, August 28, To: Elections Subject: Re: Voter Turnout : Karen, Can you please send me a link to the application for the meeting on 9/12? Thank you very much! On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM, corn> wrote: TO: William Gardner, Sec. of State 17-2361-A-001174 Thank you for agreeing to meet with me for my book about voter turnout. My phone number is On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 11:41 AM, =wrote: Fantastic. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Elections wrote: Secretary Gardner will be happy to meet with you. Would you please provide me with a phone number. He will call you on Friday, August 25th, to let you know the best day and time for him. Thanks, Karen From: Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:23 AM To: Elections Subject: Voter Turnout TO: William Gardner, Secretary of State, I am working on a book about voter turnout and I am starting my research in NH on September 11th. In particular, I would like to figure out the main reasons 48 percent of eligible voters in NH did not vote in the presidential primary in 2016. 17-2361-A-001175 Would you be willing to meet with me on the 11th or 12th? If you are not the right person for me to interview, I appreciate your suggestions of others who may be insightful. Many thanks, 17-2361-A-001176 From: To: Subject: Date: Robyn Craxton Elections Please do not share voter rolls Friday, June 30, 2017 5:18:36 PM Dear Secretary of State Gardner, Please join 22 other states in not turning over NH voter rolls to Mr Kobach. He has stated that he will make this information public. I cannot think of anything worse for identity theft and misuse of personal information, when millions of people have their name, date of birth, address, last 4 digits of their social security for all to access. Please keep us safe here in NH and join half the country in not complying with this inappropriate request. Thank you Robyn Lindquist Dalton, NH 03598 17-2361-A-001177 From: To: Subject: Date: Lisa Grashow William Gardner Please don"t Tuesday, July 04, 2017 10:57:32 AM I will never vote republican again if you send my info. Lisa Hampton, NH 17-2361-A-001178 From: To: Subject: Date: TMT Elections Happy Independence Day - don't share our private data Tuesday, July 04, 2017 7:26:13 AM As a New Hampshire native, independent voter and one who came home here to build my business and my home after going away to graduate school to start my career, it is stunning to find the independent, libertarian spirit undermined by such things as giving our private data to a federal commission. 41 states have said no. There is no way that security of this information can be guaranteed and it will be a prime target. We also really have no idea how this can be used in the future. It is inappropriate to turn this over. Don't let the DC power trip seduce you into making a bad decision. And by the way, your phone has been busy all week. Tried to call. TM Trudel, PhD Sent from my iPhone 17-2361-A-001179 From: To: Subject: Date: Deb Jalc Elections I object to giving 45 voter info Monday, July 03, 2017 7:13:58 PM I object. Do not comply with the demand for our voter info. Live free or die? Looks like NH should abandon that motto and substitute Roll over. I object. Thanks, dennis jakubowski, loudon nh. Den and Deb j 17-2361-A-001180 From: To: Subject: Date: Ethan Oberman Elections Interview Request from The Takeaway with WNYC Radio Sunday, July 02, 2017 12:22:14 PM Hello, My name's Ethan Oberman and I'm a producer for "The Takeaway," a national morning radio show broadcast with Public Radio International and WNYC. Our program reaches more than 2 million listeners across 280 stations nationwide. We're doing a segment tomorrow morning on the White House's voter fraud commission and why many states are unwilling to comply with the commission's voter information requests. Is Secretary of State Gardner available to come on our show to discuss his participation on the commission and these recent developments related to it? This would be a 10-15 minute pre-recorded interview with our guest host Todd Zwillich and could tape anytime between 7am and 8:15am ET. Please tell me if Secretary Gardner is interested and available. Best, Ethan 17-2361-A-001181 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: NH Labor News Elections Kobach Request for Information Friday, June 30, 2017 2:07:07 PM PastedGraphic-1.tiff PastedGraphic-2.W Dear Secretary of State Gardener, I would just like to know if the State of New Hampshire will be providing the personal information requested by Kris Kobach as part of the Election Integrity Commission? Also, how many confirmed cases of voter fraud has the State of NH had in the last 10 years? Matt Murray New Hampshire Labor News NHLabor@gmail.com @NHLabor_News 17-2361-A-001182 17-2361 -A-001 183 From: To: Subject: Date: Mary Walsdorf Elections Kobach"s voter suppression panel Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:44:15 PM You are actually part of Kobach's plan, Mr. Gardner?How can you be a party to this horrific attempt at voter suppression. You should resign. The best affirmation of your state's voter integrity is to have nothing to do with this truly un-American attempt at suppression. If you can't recognize a pathological liar why are you in office? 17-2361-A-001184 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ariel Vasser Elections Lawyers" Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Letter Friday, June 30, 2017 4:57:53 PM NH SOS Bill Gardner.pdf Hello, Attached please find a letter from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law urging you not to cooperate with the request by Kris Kobach, Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, to provide to the Commission an extensive amount of personal information regarding every voter in your state. Thank you, Ariel Vasser Voting Rights Project Intern Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone:(202)662-8376 www,lawyerscommittee.org 17-2361-A-001185 t.Aw.vens., COMMITT $.0n. CIVIL R.IGI...rrs :MO §3 W june 30, 2017 Secretary orStilte Bill Cardner. State House,Fan 20.4 COneord,..N0.03301 bearSecretary.dardner 04 Pir(.001. am Writing on behalfofthe LaWYerS'.Committee ibr Civil Rights:Under Law to urge you not LO cooperate:with the. request by Kris Kobach, Vice Chair ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to provide to the:Cominission an extensive amount of persoolinformation regarding 0ety voter in .our State, The:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is anon,partisan, non-profit organization created in 1963 at the request of PitSide k Kennedy to enlist the.private Nes resources: in cornbating racialdiscrimination And :to ensure equal opportunities for all. We work cooperatively with local and.state election officials acroas:the country in connection with our leadership c.ifthe Election Protection program, the nation's largest:non-partisanvoter.protection efthrt.' Mr. Kobach would have each State provide the*CommisSion with the full name,addressi„dates: ofbirth, politica l.party, last four digits ofsocial security number,"S.''Qier history,.information concerning &lolly convictions, and military status ofeach and. every registercdvoterin the I.Inited.States. Now heiv does Mr, Kobach explain why this treasure troveof personal infOrmation is needekand what the Commission intends to:do Nvithit. No doubt, this intrusive and inexplicable request will havea chilling effect on the tights ofvoters.and may open the door for disruptive and discriminatory:action at the federal level.. While we: urge you not to comply with Secretary .kobaclfs requestforpersonal voter information, to:the extent you decide to provide.Any such information, we ittnind yOU thatyour wipe; has specific policies and laws protecting the disclosure of personal ihtbtination.: V. expect that you will take.every possible step to ensurelhatthese policies.and laws are stri6tlY complied with. also underScore serioUS coneernS regarding the various burdensome queries set forth in the. letter, several of which are slanted and results-oriented, predicated on the illegitimate premise: Of Voter fra.ud.: Every court that has Analyzed the issue has concluded thatthere is absolutely no eVideoc4::or:o.eide-vreod vot:(..• fraud. The goal ofour societyshould be to increase and :facilitate voter participation, not to create barriers and intimidate voters., We urge you to reject Mr, Kobach's lear.racingering arid erteottrageyeu t:tot to participate in the.illegitimate aet&ifies of this ComthisSion. Sincerely • A 111M :04 , Ufa .,• y.• i ; it, Kristen Clarke. President and Executive:Director letter is..not:inwnded.as,and shoiiIdnet.be cormidered :to. be, the:ter4tringeflegal advice., akt ik?{":33 953 17-2361-A-001186 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Makeda Yohannes Myrna Perez; Wendy Weiser Legal Implications of Kobach Request Tuesday, July 04, 2017 1:22:52 AM pastedImage.png Legal Implications of Kobach Reauest.pdf 17-2361-A-001187 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS Hssnn.us C:r--Ler Ii. justiuat Nen. 1.114 Ihnissuip Sokta;s011.z.. 120 Hrosears, Suits 1710 Nnv You's. Nt.s. Ircelt :0271 0.10.292.011C. Fax 112.-161.7iN wsew.StrunstKertirs.ure, July 4,2017 Dear Chief Election Administrator, We write in reference to the recent correspondence from Kansas Secretary Kris Kobach, Vice Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integrity, directed to your state requesting that you provide individualized voter registration infonnation, in addition to other information. The attached memorandum details certain legal risks associated with disclosure ofthe requested information. We urge you to carefully consider your legal rights and obligations before responding to Secretary Kobach's request. Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at myrna.perez@nyu.edu or(646)292-8329. Sincerely, Myrna Perez, Deputy Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice at NYLI School ofLaw 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 646 292-8329 myma.perezgnyu.edu Wendy Weiser Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice at NYLl School ofLaw 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 646292.8318 wendy.weiser(itnyu.edu 17-2361-A-001188 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS nvonmsa:tlwPogia at.Plow 1.1x4..rikiarreiv Se.Azutolidso 12D BK.AaiPPS(3 , 1, 11€1 Nrm Ya3A., Nt.ve.Y.M.L Nun 646.292.toloEk.z.a12.4.63.7N4 VtT July 4,2017 Dear Chief Election Administrator, We write in reference to the recent.correspondence from Kansas Secretary Kris Kcibach, Vice Chairman.ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, directed. to your state requesting that you provide individualized voter registration information, in addition to other information. The attached memorandum details certain legal risks associated with.disclosure ofthe requested information. We urge you to carefully -consider your legal rights- and obligations before responding to Secretary kohach's request. Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at myrna.perez@nmedu or(646)2924329. Sincerely., Myrna Perez, Deputy Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice at NW School ofLaw 120 13=dway,Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 646 2924329 myrna.perez6nyu.edu Wendy Weiser Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice at NW School ofLaw :120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 6462924318 wendv.weiser@nyu.edu 17-2361-A-001189 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS at New York University School ofLaw Examples of Legal Risks to Providing Voter Information to Fraud Commission I. Introduction On May 11, 2016,President Trump signed executive order 13799 to establish the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the "Commission"). Chaired by the Vice President and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach,the Commission's stated objective is to "study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections." On or about June 28,2017, the Commission "requested"(as it lacks the legal authority to compel)from each state's Secretary of State (in some states election administration is entrusted to a Chief Elections Official or official with another title, but for ease ofreference in this memorandum we refer to the ultimate state voting authority as the "Secretary of State" or "Secretary")that such official: provide to the Commission the publicly- available voter roll data for [such state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in)from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information. The Commission further explained that"any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public." In most states, the Secretary of State has a legal duty to oversee the election process, to protect the citizens of the state from efforts to interfere with voting rights, and to maintain public confidence in the state's elections. Of course, the public disclosure of a registrant's personal information or voting history may compromise the integrity ofthe electoral process and may itself undermine voters' confidence in the state's electoral process and voter registration system. Such disclosure in the absence of a clear legal obligation may also create a series of specific 1 Charter dated June 23, 2017,at II 3. 17-2361-A-001190 adverse legal consequences for a Secretary who furnishes the requested information to the Commission. Here, as detailed below, the Commission's request is not legally binding on any state and the Commission lacks any authority under law to enforce its request. Without purporting to provide a comprehensive analysis, this memorandum identifies certain of the most significant legal risks created by the public disclosure ofthe requested voting information to a third party. The biggest concern is voter privacy and laws designed to protect those privacy interests. Giving the information to the Commission may be problematic both because the Commission will make the information public, and because the Commission itself may be otherwise using the information in a manner not provided for under state law. It is imperative that each Secretary be mindful ofthe irreversible character of a decision to comply with a request for voter information. Once released, the adverse consequences identified here may follow notwithstanding any subsequent determination that such disclosure was imprudent or unlawful or any effort to remedy its impact. As ofthis writing, it has been reported that a significant number ofthe states have indicated at least provisionally that they will not provide the requested information, while some have indicated that they intend to provide it. Ofcourse, the Brennan Center generally supports voluntary state efforts to share public information in connection with research efforts, and with federal bodies. We do not, in any way want to suggest state governments should not be transparent in their dealings. The Commission request, however, is unusual in the risk it imposes on sensitive private voter information. Accordingly, ChiefElection Officers, and their legal counsel, should carefully consider state and federal law, and the implications ofthe Commission's request before responding. Will the Secretary Face Legal Risks if the Requested Voter Information is Disclosed? Yes. Intentional disclosure ofthe requested voter information by Secretaries of State likely violates one or more provisions of state or federal law, depending upon the state in question. We have identified below certain ofthe most significant and common requirements of state law that such disclosure may violate. But each Secretary of State should review the specific provisions of his or her state's laws to determine whether and which requirements prohibit such disclosure to the Commission.2 A. Notice Requirements The Commission's plan to collect and publicly disclose detailed voter roll information may run afoul of voters' rights to be notified before their personal information is disclosed. Certain states are required to obtain written authorization from a registered voter before disclosing confidential personal information. For instance: 2 The Commission's information request may also violate the Paperwork Reduction Act,44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521. We have explained this in greater detail in correspondence sent to you under separate cover. 17-2361-A-001191 • North Carolina requires its Board ofElection to keep voters' dates of birth confidential unless the disclosure ofthat information has been expressly authorized in writing by the relevant individual.3 • Alaska similarly prohibits the release of confidential information—including social security number, driver's license number, voter ID number, place of birth, signature, and date of birth—absent written authorization from a voter consenting to the release.' More generally, compliance with the Commission's requests and plan for public disclosure of voter roll data would violate voters' legitimate expectation in many states that the privacy rights that have been created by state statute will be respected and that their personal, confidential information will be protected by government officials. For example: • Arizona expressly limits the use oftheir voter information to political purposes.5 • Georgia expressly notifies its voters in its voter registration form that social security numbers are kept confidential•6 • New Mexico voter registration website notifies voters that birth date and social security numbers will not be released to the public.' B. Limitations on the Use of Voter Registration Information Many states prohibit the use of voter registration information for specific purposes, such as commercial or advertising purposes, or restrict the use of voter registration information to specific purposes, such as political campaigning. For example: • New Hampshire requires that a person not use or permit the use of voter checklist information for commercial purposes. A person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, and of a felony otherwise.8 • Washington forbids its voter registration lists from being used for advertising purposes, unless such advertising is political in nature. A person who uses voter registration information for advertising purposes is guilty of a Class C felony. A person who does not 3 N.C. Code § 163.82.10B. Alaska Stat. § 15.07.195. This statute provides for release of confidential information to government agencies for governmental purposes authorized under law,and to other states or groups ofstates for the purpose ofensuring the accuracy of voter registration lists, only ifthese entities maintain the confidentiality ofthe information. These exceptions would not appear to apply to the Commission's requests as the Commission is neither a government agency nor a State, and the Commission intends to make the records public. 5 Ariz. Stat. § 16-168. 'Georgia Secretary of State, State of Georgia Application for Voter Registration, available at https://registertovote.sos.ga.gov/GAOLVR/images/reg_form.pdf. 7 New Mexico Secretary of State, Voter Registration Information, available at www.sos.state.nm.usNoter_Information/Voter_Registration_Information.aspx. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:31(VI). 4 17-2361-A-001192 take "reasonable precautions" after receiving such information to prevent its use for advertising purposes, where the information is then used by another for such purposes, is civilly liable for damages.9 • Arizona requires that precinct registers and other lists and information derived from registration forms may be used only for political and campaign purposes, or other purposes specifically authorized by law, and may not be used for a commercial purpose.10 The Commission has already stated in its request to states that it intends to make public the voter registration information it receives. By disclosing the requested information to the Commission, therefore, Secretaries of State may run afoul oftheir states' usage limitations. C. Confidentiality Restrictions States will not reveal confidential voter registration information such as social security numbers and dates of birth, and provide even greater confidentiality provisions for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and for public servants such as judges. For instance: • In addition to information such as social security numbers, Utah considers dates of birth to be confidential information. To access such information, a requester must be a "qualified person," must describe the reasons and purposes for obtaining the information, may not use the information for any other purposes not listed, and must ensure,"using industry standard security measures," that no one but the qualified person may access the information. Obtaining the date of birth of a voter under false pretenses or using it in a manner not permitted by law is a Class A misdemeanor, and may also involve civil fines.' • Oklahoma keeps confidential the residences and mailing addresses ofindividuals such as judges and law enforcement personnel, and their spouses and dependents, and participants in the state's Address Confidentiality Program, such as victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.12 • Ohio allows the Secretary of State to share confidential voter registration information with only three types of organizations:(1)other state of Ohio agencies,(2)the interstate voter registration cross-check program, and (3)ERIC, or the electronic registration information center." Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.720 & 740. 1° Ariz. Stat. § I6-168(E). n U.C.A. § 20A-2-104(4). A "qualified person" may be a government official, health care provider. insurance company,financial institution, political party, or their employees or agents. Id. 12 26 Okla. St. Ann.§ 4-115.2. 13 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3503.15(A)(3)(b); Ohio Admin. Code 111:3-4-06. 9 17-2361-A-001193 The foregoing confidentiality restrictions notwithstanding, the Commission has sought confidential information such as social security numbers(or portions ofsuch numbers), dates of birth, and in many cases, addresses. D. Threshold Requirements for Voter Information Requests. The Commission's request likely fails to satisfy many states' threshold requirements for the form or substance ofsuch requests, or for the satisfaction of certain conditions to obtain such information. For example, many states require requests be directed to a particular government official or agency other than the state's chief election official: • New Hampshire only permits public release of voter registration information at a municipal level from town and city officials.14 States also prescribe the form and content of voter registration requests. For example: • Indiana requires the requesting party execute an agreement with the election division in a form prescribed under state law.15 • Texas requires the requesting person sign a statement swearing "that the information obtained from the copy ofthe State Master Voter File will not be used to advertise or promote commercial products or services."' • Washington requires a requesting party complete an online form." Certain states limit release of voter registration data to particular individuals or entities: • Indiana limits access to state political organizations, state legislative leaders, candidates for elected office, certain members ofthe judiciary, and the media.18 • Rhode Island limits access to voter registration lists to political parties' state chairpersons, those claiming to be duly qualified candidates for state/congressional office, and canvassing authorities from its cities and towns.' The Commission made no apparent effort to review or comply with any ofthese requirements. Instead, it sent a substantively identical form letter nationwide. Most states also impose a charge for disclosure of voter information, from a few dollars to several thousand dollars. For example: • Alaska imposes a fee of$20.20 14 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:31. 15 Ind. Code § 3-7-26.4-9. 16 Tex. Elec. Code § 18.066(d); Texas Voter Registration Form, available at https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pi.pd.f. 17 Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.08.720(2); Wash. Sec'y of State, Washington Voter Registration Database Extract, available at ht-tps://www.sos.wa.goy/elections/vrdb/extract-requests.aspx. Is Ind. Code § 3-7-26.4-6. 19 Gen. Laws of RI. Ann.,§ 17-6-5(a), 8. 17-2361-A-001194 • Arizona and Texas have a substantially identical sliding fee schedule varying on the size ofthe request, from $93.75 plus $0.0005 per record for requests up to 124,999 records to $328.13 plus $0.0000625 per record for requests over 1 million records.2I • Utah charges requesting parties $1,050 for the voter database.n • Indiana charges requesting parties $5,000.23 State officials generally have little if any discretion to waive fees for disclosure of voter information. Some states set fee amounts by statute without any provision allowing a waiver of such fee.24 States that authorize election officials to set fees do not generally provide for case-bycase discretion to waive such fees altogether.' States that permit fee waivers often do so based on the identity ofthe requesting party—not subject to the discretion ofelection officials.26 Official discretion, where allowed, nevertheless may be conditional—for example, to waive fees in Utah, an official may determine that "releasing the record primarily benefits the public rather than a person."' The Commission failed to include the requisite fees with its request or to justify its failure to do so. To the extent election officials have any discretion to waive fees, the Commission did not request(or claim eligibility for)such waiver. III. Could the Commission Maintain the Confidentiality of the Requested Information Even IfIt Chose To Do So? Not likely. As noted already, Kobach has stated explicitly that"any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public." But even if there were some desired backtracking on this point, it may be difficult to do so under federal law, primarily under the Federal Advisory Committee Act("FACA"). ' See State of Alaska Division ofElection, Index ofResources, available at http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/H23.pdf. 21 Ariz. Revised Stat. § 16-168(E); Tex. Elec. Code § 18.066(e); The State of Texas Secretary of State, Voter Registration Public Information Request Form,available at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pi.pdf#search=voter%2Orecords. n Utah Code § 20A-2-104(3)(d); Utah Voter Database, available at https://elections.utah.gov/voterdatabase. 23 Ind. Code § 3-7-26.4-12. See Ariz. Revised Stat. § 16-168(E); Tex. Elec. Code § 18.066(e). 25 Alaska Stat. Ann. § 15.07.127("any person may obtain a copy ofthe [statewide voter registration] list by applying to the director and paying to the state treasury a fee as determined by the director [of elections]"); Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-225(c)('the Secretary of State shall establish the cost to be charged for [voter registration] data."). 26 See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 15.07.140 (political parties receive voter registration information free of charge); Ind. Code § 3-7-26.4-12(waiving Indiana's fee for qualified judicial personnel); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 293.440(1)("any person" may obtain a voter registration list by applying at the office ofthe county clerk and paying a sum equal to 1 cent per name on the list, but such a list shall be provided free of charge to political party committees). 27 Utah Code. § 63G-2-203(4)(a). 17-2361-A-001195 The Commission was established by the President's executive order under FACA,which was enacted in 1972 to ensure that Congress and the public would be kept informed ofthe activities of advisory committees.' As a "commission ... established or utilized by the President ... in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President," the Commission is an "advisory committee" as defined in the FACA and is therefore subject to the statute's requirements." FACA requires the Commission to comply with a number ofrequirements designed to ensure due process, transparency, and balanced public input, including filing a detailed charter, and holding public meetings.'In addition, FACA requires the Commission to make available for public inspection "the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to" it.31 As "records, reports ... or other documents ... made available" to the Commission, voter registration and voting history information provided to the Commission must be made available for public inspection under FACA unless it falls within one of certain exceptions borrowed from the federal Freedom of Information Act(the "FOIA"). It would be difficult for the Commission to avail itself of a FOIA exemption at a later date given its claims that the Commission only sought publicly available information from the states. This is particularly true given the additional mandate ofFACA to promote the transparency and availability ofrecords obtained by the Commission. IV. Can the Commission Require States to Comply? No. Even if state law does not prohibit a state from providing the requested information to the Commission, a state has no obligation under federal law to provide that information. Executive Order 13799, which created the Commission, provides the Commission with no subpoena authority, or any other similar legal authority to require any state, person, agency, or entity to comply with its requests. To the contrary, the Executive Order merely provides that the Commission should "engage with Federal, State, and local officials,"32 and instructs `Thelevant executive departments and agencies"—but not states—to "endeavor to cooperate with the Commission."33 Similarly, the Commission's Charter nowhere indicates that it has any formal power to compel compliance with its requests.' Although certain Federal Advisory Committees created by Congress have been granted subpoena power,' such committees—like any executive agency—lack that power if it was not explicitly 5 U.S.C.A. § App. 2§ 2(b). U.S.C.A. § App. 2§ 3(2). FACA's definition of"advisory committee" excludes "(i) any committee that is composed wholly offull-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees ofthe Federal Government,and (ii) any committee that is created by the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy ofPublic Administration."Id. Neither ofthese exclusions applies. 30 5 U.S.C.A. § App. 2 §§ 9(c), 10(a). 31 5 U.S.C.A. § App. 2 § 10(b). 32 Exec. Order § 5. 33 1d. § 7(b). 34 See generally Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Charter, available at http://wwvv.facadatabase.govicommittee/charters.aspx?cid=2612&aid=74. See, e.g., Wendy R. Ginsberg, Congressional Research Service, Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview (Apr. 16, 2009), at 19(noting that "[v]esting a committee with subpoena power ... is done on a 28 17-2361-A-001196 granted by Congress.' We are aware of no reported case in which any person or entity was charged with improperly failing to comply with a request from a Federal Advisory Committee, much less a case when a failure to comply with such a request was found actionable. Accordingly, even ifthe Commission could have been vested by the Executive Order with the power to issue compulsory requests—a doubtful proposition—the lack ofany provision in the Executive Order or in the Charter regarding the Commission's powers to compel compliance with its requests makes clear that states are entirely free to disregard the Commission's request for voter-related information. Conclusion ChiefElection Officers, and their legal counsel, should safeguard individual privacy and consider state and federal law, and the implications ofthe Commission's requests before proceeding. very selective basis," and that, as ofthe time ofthe article,"no current advisory committee charters [] provide subpoena powers"). 36 Indeed,federal agencies generally have no inherent administrative subpoena power, and may only exercise such power when granted by congressional authorization. See,e.g.,5 U.S.C. § 555(c)("Process, requirement ofa report, inspection, or other investigative act or demand may not be issued, made, or enforced [by an administrative agency] except as authorized by law."). 17-2361-A-001197 From: To: Subject: Date: Elections Letter from Trump Administration requesting voter data Friday, June 30, 2017 1:55:08 PM Please refuse to give voter information to President Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission in Voter Integrity. The need for this is nefarious and could cause widespread voter poll purging and voter suppression. Respectfully, Newington, NH 03801 Sent from Gmail Mobile 17-2361-A-001198 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Vanita Gupta Karen Ladd Elections Letter regarding Pence Kobach Commission Thursday, July 06, 2017 5:39:20 PM SoS Letter re PenceKobach Data Reauest 7 6 17 NH Gardnerodf Dear Secretary of State Gardner: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights ("The Leadership Conference"), a diverse coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the undersigned allied groups, we write to condemn and oppose the data request by President Trump's advisory commission (the "commission"). We applaud the principled actions that many Secretaries of State and election administrators have taken to reject the commission's request for sensitive information about voters, and we urge those that have not yet responded to carefully consider any future responses to the commission. We strongly believe that the commission's request is an unprecedented overreach and a brazen assault on the founding principles of our democracy. We have three overarching concerns. First, we are concerned that this commission is laying the groundwork for potential voter suppression by the wrongful removal of eligible voters, including Black, Hispanic, Native American, older, and student voters, from the rolls through the problematic process known as Crosscheck. Second, the creation of a national database of voters' detailed information raises serious privacy concerns. And finally, at a time when the focus should be addressing the possibility of past and continued Russian interference, including cyberattacics in the 2016 elections, the creation of a national database raises significant national security concerns. Vanita Gupta President & CEO The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 1620 L Street NW,Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-466-3311 Twitter: @vanitaguptaCR civilrights.org PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. 17-2361-A-001199 The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Officers Chair Judith L. Lichtman National Partnership for Women & Families Vice Chairs Jacqueine Pala National Congress of American Indians Thomas A. Saenz Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund lilary Shelton NAACP Secretary Jo Mn Jeiirins AARP Treasurer Lee A. Saunders American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Board of Directors Helena Berger American Association of People with Disabilities Kimberly Churches AAUW Kristen Clarke Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Lily Eskelsen Garcia National Education Association Fatima Goss Graves National Women's Law Center Chad Griffin Human Rights Campaign Wylecia Wiggs Harris League of Women Voters ofthe United States Mary Kay Henry Service Employees International Union Shernlyn IfI NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. David H. Inoue Japanese American Citizens League Michael B. Keegan People for the American Way Saner E. Khalaf American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Marc lvlorial National Urban League Janet Murgula National Council of La Raza Debra L Ness National Partnership for Women & Families Terry O'Neill National Organization fix Women Rabbi Jonah Pesner Religious Action Center Of Reform Judaism Anthony Romero American Civil Liberties Union Wary Shelton NAACP Shdinna Srrith National Fair Housing Alliance Richard L. Tnimka AFL-CIO Randi Weingarten American Federation of Teachers Dennis Wiliam tidernational Union, UAW John C.Yang Asian Americans Advancing Justice I AAJC Policy and Enforcement Committee Chair Michael Lieberman Anti-Defamation League President & CEO Vanda Gupta July 6,2017 1620 L Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 tin 202.466.3311 voice 202.466.3435 fax www.civilrights.org The Leadership Conference Bill Gardner Secretary of State State House, Rm 204 Concord,NH 03301 Dear Secretary of State Gardner: On behalf ofThe Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights("The Leadership Conference"), a diverse coalition of more than 200 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the undersigned allied groups, we write to condemn and oppose the data request by President Trump's advisory commission (the "commission"). We applaud the principled actions that many Secretaries of State and election administrators have taken to reject the commission's request for sensitive information about voters, and we urge those that have not yet responded to carefully consider any future responses to the commission. We strongly believe that the commission's request is an unprecedented overreach and a brazen assault on the founding principles of our democracy. We have three overarching concerns. First, we are concerned that this commission is laying the groundwork for potential voter suppression by the wrongful removal of eligible voters, including Black, Hispanic, Native American, older, and student voters, from the rolls through the problematic process known as Crosscheck. Second,the creation ofa national database of voters' detailed information raises serious privacy concerns. And finally, at a time when the focus should be addressing the possibility of past and continued Russian interference, including cyberattacks in the 2016 elections,the creation ofa national database raises significant national security concerns. The right to vote is a sacred right. It is the right that protects all other rights and ensures that our elected leaders are accountable to the citizens they represent. Our country has made great strides to increase access to the ballot throughout its history, and you play a fundamental role in the free and fair administration of our electoral process. As reported, Kansas Secretary of State Kobach sent you a letter last week requesting that you provide sensitive voter roll data,including the names, addresses, dates of birth, political party affiliation, past voter history, and even partial Social Security numbers ofregistered voters in your state. That letter is merely a request and given the fact there are no guarantees about how this data would be used or even secured, no one should feel compelled to cooperate. We were heartened that this request rightly drew swift and bipartisan condemnation across the country in large part because ofserious questions about the legality of releasing this personal information. Member organizations of The Leadership Conference, and others, have filed multiple legal challenges to this request, alleging possible violations of numerous federal laws, and constitutional violations. Depending on how states respond to the commission's request, additional legal challenges could be pursued under state laws as well. 17-2361-A-001200 July 6,2017 Page 2 of4 The Leadership Conference Although disgraceful, the commission's actions are unfortunately not surprising, given the individuals leading the effort and their longstanding pursuits of voter suppression in the name of phantom voter fraud. As Governor ofIndiana, Vice President Pence supported voter suppression tactics, including undermining voter registration drives and pushing extreme voter ID laws. Secretary Kobach also has a long record of discriminatory and regressive actions on voting rights. His unrepentant attempts to suppress voting have led to thousands of voters being wrongly removed from the rolls and barred from exercising their democratic right. And just last week,President Trump appointed Hans von Spakovsky to the commission. Mr. von Spakovsky's troubling support for voter suppression led not only to a public rebuke from career Justice Department attorneys but also to the U.S. Senate refusing to confirm his nomination to the Federal Election Commission. Many Secretaries of State and election administrators have rightly characterized the commission's data request as "disingenuous,""repugnant"a "waste oftaxpayer money,"and "a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression." As you prepare to join your fellow Secretaries of State later this week at the National Association of Secretaries of State summer conference, we respectfully request that you join your colleagues in expressing collective opposition to the commission and its data request. At a time when barely halfof eligible voters exercise the franchise, we should instead be taking every possible step to remove barriers to voting in America. Our democracy is stronger when more, not fewer, citizens are involved in the electoral process. Ifthe right to vote is denied, we will fail our democracy and it will not survive. Secretaries of State and election administrators have the mission and responsibility to ensure access to the ballot by upholding the guarantees of our laws and Constitution. All Secretaries of State and election administrators should stand united in protecting the voting rights of our nation's citizens and rejecting the commission's outrageous request. Sincerely, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Access Democracy Advancement Project AFSCME Alliance for Justice American Association for Justice American Association of University Women(AAUW) American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of Labor-Congress ofindustrial Organizations(AFL-CIO) American Federation of Teachers American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee(ADC) Andrew Goodman Foundation Anti-Defamation League Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund(AALDEF) Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote Bend the Arc Jewish Action Brennan Center for Justice Center for American Progress 17-2361-A-001201 July 6,2017 Page 3 of4 The Leadership Conference Center for Community Change Center for Media and Democracy Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Coalition on Human Needs Color of Change Common Cause Common Cause Illinois Communications Workers of America Contra Costa MoveOn Crescent City Media Group Daily Kos Democracy 21 Democracy Initiative Democratic Women in Action Demos Equal Justice Society Equal Rights Advocates Equality California Every Voice Fair Elections Legal Network Friends ofthe Earth U.S. Global Justice Institute, Metropolitan Community Churcches Hindu American Foundation Hip Hop Caucus Human Rights Campaign Institute for Science and Human Values Japanese American Citizens League Jewish Council for Public Affairs Lambda Legal LatinoJustice PRLDEF Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law League of United Latin American Citizens League of Women Voters ofthe United States Main Street Alliance MALDEF Money Out People In Coalition MOVI(Money Out Voters In) Muslim Advocates Muslim Public Affairs Council NAACP NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund,Inc. National Action Network National Association ofHuman Rights Workers National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials(NALEO)Educational Fund National Bar Association National Center for Lesbian Rights National Center for Transgender Equality National Congress of American Indians 17-2361-A-001202 July 6,2017 Page 4 of4 The Leadership Conference National Council of Asian Pacific Americans(NCAPA) National Council of Jewish Women National Council of La Raza(NCLR) National Education Association National Employment Law Project National Hispanic Media Coalition National Low Income Housing Coalition National Partnership for Women & Families National Women's Law Center Native American Rights Fund Nebraskans for Civic Reform New Jersey Institute for Social Justice OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates Occupy Bergen County(New Jersey) Ohio Voter Rights Coalition One Wisconsin Now PC(USA)Washington Office of Public Witness Peace Action People For the American Way Planned Parenthood Federation of America PolicyLink Presbyterian Feminist Agenda Network Public Citizen Rock the Vote San Francisco Democratic Women in Action Service Employees International Union(SEIU) Southern Poverty Law Center State Voices The Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda The Voter Participation Center Transformative Justice Coalition U.S. National Committee for UN Women United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries Universal Health Care Action Network(UHCAN) Voices for Progress Voting Rights Institute Women's Intercultural Network(WIN) YWCA USA 17-2361-A-001203 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Caroline McKav Karen Ladd Letter to OMB Director Mulvaney - United to Protect Democracy and Brennan Center for Justice Wednesday, July 05, 2017 12:05:01 PM SoS NH.pdf UPD BC Letter to OMB.odf To Whom It May Concern: Please see the attached letter from United to Protect Democracy and the Brennan Center for Justice to Office of Management & Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. The letter regards the request from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to collect information from state election officials. Sincerely, Caroline 17-2361-A-001204 United toProtec Democracy BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS July 5, 2017 Bill Gardner Secretary of State of New Hampshire State House,Rm 204 Concord, NH 03301 Dear Secretary Gardner, We write regarding the letter sent by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Advisory Commission")on July 3, 2017 to election officials around the country. That letter sought sweeping information about state voting systems and extensive, sensitive information regarding individual voters. As you and other election officials in your state determine whether, and to what extent, to disclose the information sought in that request, you may consider the state and federal legal implications ofthe Advisory Commission's request. To that end, we wish to share the enclosed letter, which we sent Monday to Mick Mulvaney, Director ofthe Office of Management and Budget in the White House. As our letter explains, the information request you received from the Advisory Commission failed to comply with federal legal requirements governing requests for information from federal agencies. The legal issues set out in the attached letter are especially urgent given the sweeping nature ofthe requests, which implicate the state's ability to maintain sensitive information that is foundational to the democratic process. We would be happy to answer any questions about the enclosed correspondence or the issues it discusses. Sincerely, Larry Schwartztol Counsel, United to Protect Democracy Larry.Schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org (202)599-0466 Wendy Weiser Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice weiserwAbrennan.law.nyu.edu (646)292-8310 17-2361-A-001205 United BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE TWENTY YEARS toProtec Democracy July 3, 2017 The Honorable Mick Mulvaney Director The Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Sent via E-MAIL and FACSIMILE Dear Director Mulvaney, We write pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3517(b)to request that you take appropriate action to remedy sweeping requests by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Advisory Commission")to collect information from state election officials in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act("PRA"). The Advisory Commission asked election officials around the country to provide information and opinions on complex issues of election administration and to produce voluminous and sensitive information about individual voters. Yet the Advisory Commission failed to adhere to the PRA's clear requirements. The PRA exists to protect the public — including state governments — from burdensome requests, especially requests that do not provide adequate safeguards for sensitive information. We therefore ask that, as directed by the statute, you take the "appropriate remedial action" necessary to ensure compliance with the PRA. 1. Relevant PRA Requirements The PRA sets out the legal framework that governs federal agencies when they collect information from individuals, companies, or other non-federal actors, including state governments. Specifically, it applies to agencies when they initiate a "collection of information." 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3).1 Under the statute, an agency "shall not" conduct or sponsor 1 A "collection of information" includes, among other things,"obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public offacts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless ofform or format, calling for ... [] answers to identical questions posed to . . . ten or more persons." 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3). As OMB has recognized, that term is meant to be understood quite broadly. See 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(c)(1). Significantly,"[t]he requirements of 17-2361-A-001206 the collection of information unless it complies with detailed procedural requirements. Id. § 3507(a) Those requirements include analyzing the need for the collection, the burdens it will impose, and the systems in place for conducting the collection consistently with the overall mandate of the statute; providing a 60-day notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the contemplated collection ofinformation; certifying to the Director ofthe Office of Management and Budget("OMB")that the proposed collection comports with the requirements ofthe statute; and publishing a second notice in the Federal Register describing the proposed collection and notifying commenters that their response may be submitted to the Director. Id. (cross-referencing 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)-(3)). After satisfying those requirements, an agency may only proceed if the Director of OMB has approved the proposed collection and issued a control number to be displayed on the collection ofinformation. /d2 Congress imposed these requirements to advance important values. Among other things, the purposes ofthe PRA are to avoid undue burdens on the public, including state governments, and to "ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of information by or for the Federal Government is consistent with applicable laws," including the protections guaranteed by the Privacy Act. Id. at § 3501(1)&(8). 2. The Advisory Commission's Unlawful Collections of Information About State Voting Systems The Advisory Commission was established by President Trump on May 11, 2017. See Executive Order 13799.3 On or about June 28, 2017, it sent what we believe to be identical letters to Secretaries of State or other election officials in all 50 states.4 The letter was signed by Advisory Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach and appeared on the Advisory Commission's letterhead. It"invited" recipients to provide information and opinions on several complex policy the PRA apply to voluntary collections as well as mandatory collections." Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies re Information Collection Under the Paperwork Reduction Act(Apr. 7, 2010)(citing 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3); 5 C.F.R. 1320.3(c), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/PRAPrimer_040720 10.pdf. 2 Under some circumstances, the Director's approval may be inferred rather than express. 44 U.S.C. § 3507(c)(3). 3 The Advisory Commission is an "agency" for purposes of the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. § 3502(a) (defining "agency" to mean, among other things, an "establishment in the executive branch of the Government(including the Office ofthe President)"). We note that, in addition to being established by Executive Order,the Advisory Commission is chaired by the Vice President. 4 Because the Advisory Commission has not published anything concerning the letters, we are not aware of any public compendium of all letters that were sent. However, letters sent to individual states that have been publicized, as well as responses from several other state governments, suggest that substantially identical letters were sent to election officials in every state. See generally Brennan Center for Justice,"State Responses to Commission Requests," available at https://www.brennancenter.org/latest-updates-fraud-commission. 9 17-2361-A-001207 questions relating to election administration. It sought, for example, opinions on potential changes to federal election law related to election integrity,"evidence or information" relating to voter fraud, and recommendations for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement. It went on to "request[}" that recipients "provide to the Commission the publicly-available voter roll data for [a recipient's state], including, if publicly available under the laws of[the recipient's] state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in [the recipient's] state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in)from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information." The request directed recipients to submit responses via email or a secure FTP site administered by the Federal government. It advised recipients that"any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public." It stated that the Commission "would appreciate a response by July 14, 2017." 3. The PRA Requires 0111B to Remedy These Statutory Violations The Advisory Commission's attempt to collect sweeping information about state voting systems violates the PRA. The statute imposes detailed requirements, which the Advisory Commission plainly failed to meet. It was an effort by an agency to collect information from state governments. It did not contain an OMB-issued control number, and it was not subject to advance notice with an opportunity for public comment, much less the two rounds of Federal Register publication and particularized solicitations of public comments mandated by the statute. These violations ofthe statute's black-letter requirements suffice to justify intervention by OMB. Compliance with the PRA's requirements is especially critical in this context. The request seeks to enlist State officials to compile complex facts and opinions on a tight timeline. It asks them to assemble extensive information about all voters in their states, including categories ofinformation that may be housed in multiple state agencies. It asks them to opine on thorny policy questions and to preform potentially complicated legal analysis to determine at what point disclosing the requested information would transgress state law. The PRA protects state governments from precisely this kind of onerous request. The reason for the statute's painstaking procedural requirements is to ensure that agencies carefully balance their desire to collect information against the harms that might flow from doing so without proper safeguards. This is why the statute provides for two rounds of public notice and comment — when an agency enlists non-federal actors into this kind offact-finding, it should be informed by the views ofimpacted stakeholders. This is especially true in the context of election administration, where state-level officials have uniquely valuable insight into the potential impact of the requests on voters in their states. Consider the Advisory Commission's sweeping request for individual voter information. That request — seeking information about how individual Americans exercise fundamental constitutional rights and asking that highly sensitive information be transmitted via email — highlights the importance ofthe statutory requirement that agencies(among other things)"evaluat[e] the need for the collection of information," propose a "plan for the collection ofthe information" and for "the efficient and 17-2361-A-001208 effective management and use of the information to be collected,"44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(A), and "ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition ofthe information" is consistent with legal requirements relating to privacy, confidentiality, and security ofinformation, id. § 3501(8).5 The fact that the Advisory Commission sought such sensitive information without engaging in the careful planning prescribed by the PRA likely explains why a diverse array of state officials have already declined to comply with the requests. See Michael Wines,"Asked for Voters' Data, States Give Trump Panel a Bipartisan 'No," New York Times(June 30, 2017). State officials should have a chance to weigh in before the Federal government requests information whose management implicates the foundation of our democracy; so should the voters whose information will be transmitted. The PRA mandates that an agency like the Advisory Commission provide that opportunity. The PRA also charges you with the responsibility to ensure that federal agencies comply with the statute's requirements. It also directs you to take action when agencies fail do to so. It provides that "[a]ny person may request the Director [of OMB]to review any collection of information conducted by or for an agency to determine if. . . a person shall maintain, provide, or disclose the information to or for the agency." Id. at § 3517(b). The statute further directs you to respond to the request within 60 days and to "take appropriate remedial action, if necessary." Id. We therefore request that you review the collections ofinformation described in this letter and take necessary remedial action as soon as possible. We further ask that you undertake a review in time to prevent the unlawful collection ofinformation. Because the Advisory Commission seeks responses by July 14, 2017, we ask that you review this matter and take action sufficiently in advance ofthat deadline to ensure that unlawful collections of sensitive voter information do not go forward. The PRA reflects a longstanding recognition that when agencies collect information from the public, they must do it in a way that balances legitimate governmental need with the burdens such collections may impose. To ensure that balance, the statute requires agencies to engage with the public before embarking on such collections. The Advisory Commission has plainly violated those requirements. The PRA charges you with overall responsibility to ensure compliance with the statute. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3517(b), we therefore ask that you take immediate action to ensure that collections ofinformation in violation ofthe statute stop immediately. 5 It is particularly significant that the Advisory Commission flouted the PRA's procedures, which expressly require that agencies ensure consistency with the Privacy Act. The Advisory Commission's requests for sensitive personal information — including information relating to First Amendment-protected party affiliation — likely violate that statute as well. See, e.g., 5 USC 552a(e)(7)(requiring that agency record systems "maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity"). 4 17-2361-A-001209 Sincerely, Larry Schwartztol Counsel, United to Protect Democracy Larrv.Schwartztol@protectdemocracy.org (202)599-0466 Wendy Weiser Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice weiserw@brennan.law.nyu.edu (646)292-8310 CC: All Attorneys General for States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories CC: All Secretaries of State for States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories CC: General Counsel The Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 CC: Administrator Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 17-2361-A-001210 From: To: Subject: Date: ricia mcmahon William Gardner Fw: Local Politics Alert: Maryland will not forward voter data to Trump's voter integrity commission Tuesday, July 04, 2017 12:39:34 PM Happy Fourth of July! Thought you would be interested, Bill Best, Ricia Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:03 PM, The Washington Post wrote: Democracy Dies in Darkness Local Politics Alert Mon., Jul 03, 2017 1:00 p.m. Maryland will not forward voter data to Trump's voter integrity commission The administrator for the state Board of Elections said in a letter Monday to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity that the request violates state election law. "Disclosure of some of the information encompassed by your request may be prohibited under State and/or federal law," the letter reads. "Accordingly, I am denying your request." Maryland joins more than two dozen other states that have partially or entirely rejected the request by the commission. Read more » ADVERTISEMENT 17-2361-A-001211 Ell El El El You are signed up for the following local (DC/MD/VA) news alerts: Local Politics. You received this email because you signed up for breaking news alerts. For additional free email alerts and newsletters, or to unsubscribe, click here. We respect your privacy. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, or you no longer wish to receive email from The Washington Post, click here. Contact us for help. ©2017 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071 RI NIaa It 11 si II 1111 al Sia 1111 Nang OD El 17-2361-A-001212 From: To: Subject: Date: Hauck. Grace Elections CNN Inquiry Tuesday, July 04, 2017 10:19:13 AM Hello Sec. Gardner, I am reaching out from CNN about your position on Sec. Kobach's request for voter information. You were quoted in the Concord Monitor Friday: "There's no information (here) someone can't publicly get anyway. People have the right to purchase it, only what's public by law." Is there anything the Secretary requests that is NOT public by law? Best, Grace Hauck 17-2361-A-001213 From: To: Subject: Date: Mattox, Kuae Elections CNN/NEW DAY Interview Request for Wednesday, July 5 Monday, July 03, 2017 6:36:41 PM Greetings, This is Kuae Mattox at CNN's morning show New Day. Reaching out to see if Secretary Gardner can join us on our show Wednesday morning, July 5 to talk about President Trump's Advisory Commission on Voter Integrity on which he serves. Please let me know at your very earliest convenience if he can join us. We air live from 6am-9am and can interview him at a studio where he is located. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. Kuae Mattox 17-2361-A-001214