Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 126 EXHIBIT A Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 126 Exhibit A: Chart Comparing Prior Testimony or Representations With New Evidence Prior Testimony or Representations Neuman denied at deposition that Ex. B at 273:10-21. He testified that . Id. New Evidence Gore recently told congressional investigators that Neuman gave him the Neuman DOJ Letter, which was framed as a request from DOJ to Commerce requesting the addition of the citizenship question, at their October 2017 meeting which was arranged by Commerce’s General Counsel. Ex. F at 2-4. Id. at 123:20-124:7. Gore testified that he “drafted the initial draft of the letter to request the citizenship question sometime around the end of October or early November of 2017.” Ex. E at 150:9-13; see also id. at 127:12-17, 343:19-21. Neuman testified that Ex. B at 114:15-21. When asked about the “substance” of his conversations with Dr. Hofeller “about the citizenship question” after January 2017, Neuman testified that Dr. Hofeller said, “Mark, you need to make sure that we take a good census, that the administration doesn’t skimp on the budget.” Ex. B at 138:3-15. Neuman denied at deposition that “Mr. Hofeller was one of the people [Neuman] relied on for expertise on the Voting Rights Act.” Ex. B at 143:25-144:6. Neuman testified that Dr. Hofeller “did not appear to me to be an adviser to the ... administration at all.” Ex. B at 136:9-10. Neuman testified that Dr. Hofeller told him that adding the citizenship question would “maximize[]” representation for the “Latino community.” Ex. B at 142:3-18. Neuman gave Gore the Neuman DOJ Letter in October 2017. Ex. F at 2-4. Dr. Hofeller helped ghostwrite the Neuman DOJ Letter for Neuman in August 2017. Exs. G, H. The paragraph of the Neuman DOJ Letter that Dr. Hofeller ghostwrote specifically concerns VRA enforcement. Exs. G, H. Dr. Hofeller helped ghostwrite the Neuman DOJ Letter for Neuman in August 2017, which Neuman gave to Gore at a meeting arranged by the Commerce General Counsel. Exs. G, H, F. Dr. Hofeller concluded in his 2015 study that adding a citizenship question to facilitate the use of CVAP in redistricting would benefit “Non-Hispanic Whites” while significantly harming Latino voters. Ex. D at 6-9. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 3 of 126 Defendants represented to this Court that “[t]he record does not indicate that Mr. Neuman provided any particularly significant consultations on the citizenship question … during his conversations with Commerce officials in 2017.” ECF 346 at 2. Neuman was the key conduit between Commerce and DOJ in the fall of 2017, including transmitting the Neuman DOJ Letter to Gore at the request of Commerce’s General Counsel. Ex. F at 2-4. Neuman testified that he did not know who Dr. Hofeller helped ghostwrite the Neuman authored the Neuman DOJ letter or who wrote DOJ Letter, which Neuman gave to Gore in the “first template.” Ex. B at 280:8-15. October 2017. Exs. F, G, H. Defendants represented to this Court that there was a “low likelihood of AAG Gore’s testimony resulting in any relevant evidence concerning Secretary Ross’s decision or intent.” ECF 90 at 1. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Gore met with Neuman in October 2017 at the request of Commerce’s General Counsel, during which Neuman gave Gore the Neuman DOJ Letter. Ex. F at 2-4. 2 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 4 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 5 of 126 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROBYN KRAVITZ, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) U.S DEPARTMENT OF ) COMMERCE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________) ) LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ) ENTERO; et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) WILBUR L. ROSS, sued in ) his official capacity as) U.S. Secretary of ) Commerce, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Hon. George J. Hazel Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-01570-GJH Hon. George J. Hazel VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF A. MARK NEUMAN Taken on behalf of Plaintiffs October 28, 2018 (Starting time of the deposition: 12:22 p.m.) Veritext Legal Solutions Mid-Atlantic Region 1250 Eye Street NW - Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20005 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 6 of 126 Page 36 1 2 you know. A. I don't have -- I -- I never really sort of 3 knew the total number of people who were on the 4 Commerce transition. 5 people who showed up at meetings, and I didn't see 6 very much, and there were other people that -- the 7 core group of people, when we were writing a Commerce 8 agency action plan, sitting around the table, David 9 Bohigian, Willie Gaynor, David Rokeach. 10 11 12 Q. Because, again, there were (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Anyone else that you remember on the Commerce team, other than those three? A. Loretta Green was sort of the -- you know, 13 like coordinating -- coordinating appointments for 14 Ray, you know, arranging when Ray would show up. 15 Again, that -- that was really the core group of 16 people on the agency action plan. 17 there. 18 time that I wasn't even in town. And I wasn't always So like, you know, there -- there was a lot of 19 Q. Who is Tom Hoffler? 20 A. Tom Hoffler was a person who was known in 21 the redistricting community. He passed away in -- in 22 August. 23 Q. Was he a member of the transition? 24 A. No, he was not. 25 Q. What was the context in which you talked to Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 7 of 126 Page 37 1 him about the citizenship question during the 2 transition? 3 A. 4 5 6 7 8 He would have told me what views of members of Congress would have been on this issue. Q. Did he reach out to you to have that conversation, or did you reach out to him? A. I can't remember which it was, but, you know, I've known him for 25 years. 9 Q. How do you know him? 10 A. I knew him when he was working at the NRCC, 11 and I knew him when he was working at the Department 12 of Agriculture. 13 Q. Could you spell his last name for me? 14 A. It's H-O-F-F-L-E-R, I think. 15 16 17 Thomas Hoffler. Q. How many times did you talk to him about the citizenship question during the transition? 18 A. I don't know how many times. 19 Q. More than five? 20 A. It certainly would be less than ten. Less than five? 21 would -- probably less than five during the 22 transition. 23 Q. It Why were you talking to him about the views 24 of members of Congress regarding the citizenship 25 question? Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 8 of 126 Page 38 1 A. The goal of the transition is not to sort of 2 say, "This is what you should do. This is what you 3 shouldn't do." 4 important things that Willie Gaynor and others wanted 5 us to do is reach out to people who would be pushing 6 different things related to Commerce and make sure 7 that we had an understanding if someone was going to 8 introduce legislation on NOAA, that we would have a 9 forecast of likely proposals, likely interests, likely The goal of the -- one of the most 10 budgetary issues, likely priorities. So the incoming 11 team would have a good sense of what Congress is 12 likely to do. 13 Q. So if I understand you correctly, one of the 14 things you were trying to accomplish on a transition 15 is understand the views of members of Congress with 16 regard to certain policy issues that were relevant to 17 the Commerce Department and what the -- 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. -- incoming team would have to deal with at 20 21 the Commerce Department, correct? A. So on NOAA, we would be interested. Well, 22 people from Alaska are very interested in fisheries. 23 The Magnuson Act. 24 installations are interested in the NOAA satellites, 25 that this delegation is interested in the technology People from other states with Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 9 of 126 Page 39 1 issues or the intellectual property issues related to 2 PTO, that there are budgetary issues that the 3 Oversight Committee or the Appropriations Committee 4 thinks that the Census Bureau is costing too much, or 5 spending too much money. 6 that, that forecast in there, and not prejudge what -- 7 whether Congress was right or wrong about the issue. You'd want to have all of 8 But Congress is likely to introduce 9 legislation affecting international -- affecting NAFTA 10 and dispute resolutions. 11 forecast so you could give them a sense of what -- 12 what issues they're going to face coming into the 13 door. 14 Q. So you would want to have a So you were speaking with Mr. Hoffler to 15 understand the views of Congress with respect to a 16 potential citizenship question on the decennial, 17 because that was an issue that you anticipated the 18 incoming Commerce team was going to be dealing with? 19 20 21 A. They needed to understand that this was one of the issues that people would raise with him. Q. Who is the "they"? When you say, "they 22 needed to understand that this was one of the 23 issues" -- 24 25 A. The incoming Commerce team needed to understand all the potential issues that would be Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 10 of 126 Page 40 1 raised by members of Congress, especially those in 2 oversight roles or committee chairmen. 3 was one of many, many issues that were identified. 4 Q. And so this So you were speaking with Mr. Hoffler to -- 5 to understand and identify issues related to the 6 Commerce Department that members of Congress would 7 likely be interested in; is that correct? 8 9 A. I was trying to make sure that if the new Commerce team were going on the Hill and meeting with 10 people on the census, that they would understand 11 issues that would be raised to them. 12 Q. And specifically the conversations with 13 Mr. Hoffler were to understand what members of 14 Congress might say or think about possibly adding a 15 citizenship question to the 2020 decennial? 16 A. 17 No, that would have been one -MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, form. 18 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) I'm sorry, go ahead. 19 A. That would have been one of the issues. 20 Remember, Tom Hoffler is also pretty important, 21 because in the past Tom Hoffler was able to get 22 members of Congress to support funding for the Bureau. 23 Because he would say, we need to take a good census. 24 Because, remember, people generally don't want to 25 spend money on the census until we get on top of 2020. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 11 of 126 Page 41 1 2 3 4 Q. And you said Mr. Hoffler was a redistricting expert; is that right? A. He was a point person on redistricting, yeah. 5 Q. A point person in what context? 6 A. He would talk to members of Congress about 7 redistricting. 8 Q. From his perch at the NRCC? 9 A. He wasn't -- I'm not sure he was at the NRCC 10 at the time. 11 certainly a person that was connected to that issue. I'm not sure he was a -- he was 12 Q. Do you know when he was at the NRCC? 13 A. I would imagine that he was a consultant or 14 something. 15 that he was connected to that. 16 Q. Again, I don't know his status, but I know What other issues did you talk to 17 Mr. Hoffler about during the transition, other than 18 the citizenship question, redistricting issues and 19 funding issues? 20 A. About the -- about the challenges that the 21 census would face in 2020. Because again, we were 22 going to the Internet to the online response. 23 going to -- we're adopting new technology. 24 know, when I talk to people, stakeholders, I'm talking 25 always about the challenges that we'll face in the We were And, you Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 12 of 126 Page 42 1 next census that we didn't face in the last one. 2 And those really have to do with the work 3 force. 4 sometimes is successful, sometimes is unsuccessful. 5 And what -- it's really important for the census to 6 have a broad -- a broad range of stakeholders that all 7 have skin in the game, that all feel like they're 8 united around the idea of, you know, we may have 9 political differences, but we all want to take a good 10 census. 11 Q. They have to do with the technology that What do you recall learning from Mr. Hoffler 12 about the views of members of Congress regarding a 13 potential citizenship question on the 2020 decennial? 14 A. Pretty much what I just explained to you. 15 Q. Maybe I didn't understand. I'm trying to 16 understand what were the views that members of 17 Congress held that he conveyed to you? 18 19 20 MR. ROSENBERG: Objection. It calls for speculation. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) You -- you can answer. 21 They will object from time to time. 22 you not to answer, you can answer. 23 It call -- form. MR. FELDMAN: Unless they tell The only comment I would have, 24 if you know in the conversations that he specifically 25 represented something from his knowledge of Congress' Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 13 of 126 Page 43 1 2 view. A. I -- I -- I don't recall specifics, but I 3 know, in general, Tom always believed, and I share his 4 view on this, block level data, accurate block level 5 data is very important. 6 7 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) For redistricting purposes? 8 A. For everything. For everything. 9 Q. Including redistricting purposes? 10 A. Including redistricting purposes. 11 Q. Block level data for what? 12 A. For everything. For all census data, and 13 that basically if you -- the hardest thing about the 14 census is not counting everyone living in America. 15 It's counting everyone living in America at the right 16 address one time. 17 18 Q. And he conveyed that view to you in your conversations with him during the transition? 19 MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, vague, form. 20 A. Yeah, again -- 21 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Let me try to -- 22 A. I gave you a broad thing of -- of something 23 that Tom was always concerned with in every 24 conversation that I would have with him. 25 Q. I'm just trying to understand. You said you Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 14 of 126 Page 44 1 talked to him about the views of members of Congress 2 related to the citizenship question. 3 A. I -- so I would start -- 4 Q. That's my understanding. 5 A. I would start out the conversation by saying 6 what are members of Congress likely to raise on the 7 census issue that we can incorporate into the 8 transition planning so the new Commerce team is not 9 blindsided. 10 Q. 11 12 13 And then he raised the issue of a citizenship question or an immigration -A. That was one of -- that was one of the questions. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. And I'm sure that we talked about census 16 17 Did he -- residency rules as well. Q. Can you -- just for people who may not 18 understand what census residency rules means, can you 19 explain what that means? 20 A. It basically means where were you on 21 April 1st. So people move around, they're snowbirds, 22 they're living at colleges, they're incarcerated or 23 otherwise detained. 24 overseas military. 25 designed to ensure that people are -- are counted at They're in group houses. There's Census residency rules say -- are Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 15 of 126 Page 45 1 2 3 the right address. Q. I assume you talked about census residency rules for undocumented immigrants? 4 A. No, not that I recall. 5 Q. It's possible, but you just don't recall one 6 7 way or the other? A. I don't recall that. It's generally not 8 something associated -- residency rules generally 9 don't get associated with that issue, unless you're 10 dealing with migrant farm workers who tend to be 11 documented. 12 Q. 13 14 Well, you know there's litigation going on about that right now, right? A. 15 Not -- I don't. MR. ROSENBERG: Objection. 16 A. I don't. 17 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Okay. 18 (The court reporter motioned to the attorney.) 21 MR. DURAISWAMY: I will do my best, but I 22 will caution you that may not be the last time you 23 have to remind me. 24 25 I'm sorry. 19 20 That's fair. COURT REPORTER: Q. Thanks. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) And the census residency Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 16 of 126 Page 51 1 Then there was October. Not a lot happened. 2 November, a lot of activity. 3 activity. Then Then December, a lot of Now a lot of activity. 4 So it's -- and, again, this is a part-time 5 volunteer job, so it's very difficult for me to kind 6 of try to recall exactly who said what when. 7 Q. Well -- well, do you recall discussing with 8 other individuals on the Commerce team whether there 9 were particular people or constituencies who are 10 interested in adding a citizenship question to the 11 census? 12 MR. ROSENBERG: 13 MR. FELDMAN: 14 15 16 Objection, vague. If you -- if you can answer it, answer it. A. Tom Hoffler was, I think, the first person that said something to me about that issue. 17 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Meaning he -- he -- 18 A. He flagged it, you know. 19 Q. He flagged it as something that might be of 20 He said -- interest to some people -- 21 A. Right. 22 Q. -- in constituencies? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. And you said he was a point person for 25 redistricting in certain circles. He's -- he's a Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 17 of 126 Page 52 1 Republican -- he was a Republican? 2 A. Yeah, he is. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. And so his work on redistricting over the 6 years has been in connection with the Republican party 7 or different state Republican parties, if you know? 8 A. 9 10 MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, vague, lack of foundation. 11 12 Well, he was -- MR. FELDMAN: A. Go ahead. He was the person I recall in the 2000 13 census who was advising Bill Thomas, who was the 14 Chairman of the House Administration Committee, and 15 Bill Thomas was an expert, you know, as -- he was an 16 expert on a lot of things, but he was an expert on 17 redistricting. 18 of committee chairmen who would interact with a 19 Secretary of Commerce. 20 Q. So I knew that Tom Hoffler had the ear (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Did he -- do you recall 21 him referring to specific members of Congress who 22 might be interested in that issue? 23 A. 24 25 I don't recall -MR. ROSENBERG: A. Objection, vague -- -- the specific ones. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 18 of 126 Page 53 1 MR. ROSENBERG: 2 MR. DURAISWAMY: 3 MR. FELDMAN: 4 MR. DURAISWAMY: 5 Okay. He answered it. That's fine. I'd ask, though, that you just object to the form. 6 7 -- as to who the him was. MR. ROSENBERG: Q. (Nodding head.) (By Mr. Duraiswamy) What was the substance 8 of the conversations that you had with the other 9 members of the Commerce team regarding a citizenship 10 question during the transition? 11 A. Again, one of many issues. 12 Q. I understand it's one of many issues. 13 just trying to understand what was discussed about it. 14 MR. FELDMAN: 15 MR. DURAISWAMY: 16 MR. FELDMAN: 17 I'm to when? When? During the transition. That's from a period of when Why don't we put -- 18 A. From September through -- through January. 19 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) When did you join the 20 transition? 21 A. 22 23 Probably September was the first time I went there. Q. Okay. And I assume we can agree that the 24 transition ended at the time that President Trump, now 25 President Trump, took office as -- Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 19 of 126 Page 54 1 A. Right. 2 Q. -- the president, correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. So, again, the November, December, January 6 is a whirlwind of activity. 7 is my spare time that I'm doing it, and it's not like 8 I'm there 8:00 to 5:00 five days a week. 9 when I can be there. 10 11 I'm volunteering. This I'm there And so, again, very difficult for me to try to recall who said what to whom. Q. Okay. Let me try to be more specific. Did 12 you all talk about the potential uses of a citizenship 13 question on the census? 14 A. Uses? 15 Q. Of how the citizenship -- of how -- strike 16 that. 17 18 19 By uses, I mean how the data gathered from asking the citizenship question could be used? A. Well, my understanding would be that the use 20 would be having block level citizen voting age 21 population data. 22 Q. 23 at the time? 24 A. 25 And that was the understanding that you had That was what I was told was the principal objective. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 20 of 126 Page 55 1 Q. By who? 2 A. By Tom Hoffler. 3 Q. For what purpose? 4 A. Taxes. 5 Q. What would be the value of having block 6 7 8 9 level -A. Citizen age voting -- to ensure one person, one vote. Q. Can you explain, how -- how does having 10 block level citizenship voting age population data 11 ensure one person, one vote? 12 A. This is going to be a long explanation. 13 Q. That's fine. 14 A. Have you -- have you read through my 15 presentation on this? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. You know which one it is? 18 Q. I think so. 19 A. You said to a federal judge that I -- that 20 there was no record of what I talked about with the 21 Secretary. 22 presentation to the Secretary, but you told a federal 23 judge that I didn't -- 24 MR. FELDMAN: 25 Q. And yet you're saying that you read my Just answer the question. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) I think he produced it Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 21 of 126 Page 56 1 in response to the subpoena we served after the 2 federal judge ordered the deposition. 3 4 A. documents before. 5 6 7 8 9 No, actually it was in -- it was in the MR. FELDMAN: Mark, answer -- answer his question. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) In any event, can you explain what Mr. Hoffler said to you about why -A. No. Wait. No. You wanted me to explain 10 why I think that block level data is important to 11 citizen voting age population, or do you want it 12 explained why Tom Hoffler does? 13 14 15 Q. I'm trying to understand the conversations you had during the transition. A. So you said -- He said that after the long-form data went 16 away in 2000, that the quality of block level citizen 17 voting age population had now diminished. 18 so the ability to draw a district which would elect a 19 Latino in a population where there were non-citizens 20 was very, very difficult. So the -- 21 Q. He said that to you during the transition? 22 A. He -- we would have talked about it. I'm 23 not sure whether it was in the transition or after the 24 transition, but we would have talked about that issue. 25 Q. I'm trying to focus on in the transition Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 22 of 126 Page 57 1 right now. So you're not sure if you had that 2 conversation with him about that potential use of 3 citizenship data during the transition; is that right? 4 A. I'm not sure that I did. 5 Q. Okay. So I'm trying to understand, you 6 discussed potential uses of citizenship data gathered 7 from the decennial with others on the Commerce team or 8 Mr. Hoffler during the transition? 9 A. I would think so. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. I -- I don't recall, but I would think so. 12 Q. Do you recall discussing the possibility And -- 13 that it could be used for immigration enforcement 14 purposes? 15 A. Oh, I -- I would never -- first of all, I 16 would -- that would be illegal, number one. 17 two, anyone that would suggest that or broach that to 18 me, I would immediately be totally opposed to that. 19 Q. I understand your view about that. Number Did 20 someone, in fact, suggest or broach that to you during 21 the transition? 22 A. No, no. 23 Q. Okay. I'm just -- I'm not asking for your 24 views, and I'm not even asking if you advocated for 25 it. I'm just trying to understand, did you have any Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 23 of 126 Page 58 1 conversations with anyone where the possibility, good 2 or bad, of using -- 3 A. Definitely -- definitely not. 4 Q. Let me just finish the question -- 5 6 MR. FELDMAN: Q. Let him finish the question. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) -- so the record's 7 clear -- of using citizenship data from the decennial 8 for immigration enforcement purposes came up? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. Did you discuss, during the 11 transition, potential use of citizenship data from the 12 decennial for reapportionment purposes? 13 A. Citizenship, no. 14 Q. Did you discuss, during the transition, with 15 anyone, whether undocumented immigrants or 16 non-citizens should be included in the state 17 population counts for reapportionment purposes? 18 issue, generally. 19 you took, but did that issue come up in your 20 conversations? 21 A. 22 That I'm not asking you about a position Not -- not to my -MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, form. 23 A. Not to my recollection, no. 24 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Did the issue of how 25 states might use citizenship data from the decennial Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 24 of 126 Page 59 1 census in deciding how to draw legislative districts 2 come up in your conversations with Mr. Hoffler? 3 A. I don't believe so. Again, you know, when 4 you -- these are conversations long ago, but it -- 5 it -- I don't think so. 6 the kind of thing that he would talk about. 7 8 Q. Because it -- again, it's not Did it come up in your discussions with anyone else during -- 9 A. No. 10 Q. -- the transition? Are you aware of anyone 11 else involved with the transition or the Trump 12 campaign or the incoming Trump administration 13 discussing that issue during the transition? 14 15 16 17 18 A. I -- not personally, but I've heard that from reporters and other people. Q. Okay. What have you heard from reporters and other people? A. That those people -- that there were people 19 discussing it. 20 weren't discussing it with me." 21 22 Q. 25 Who have you heard was discussing that issue during the transition? 23 24 And I said, "Well, if they were, they MR. ROSENBERG: A. Objection, vague. Again, I don't have personal knowledge of -- because I didn't -- no one discussed it with me. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 25 of 126 Page 114 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. I'm just looking for an approximation. 3 than an hour? 4 A. I doubt it was more than an hour. 5 Q. More than 30 minutes? 6 A. Probably. 7 Q. Okay. 8 60 minutes? 9 A. I think so. 10 Q. You're aware that there was a letter sent by More So roughly somewhere between 30 and 11 the Department of Justice to the Commerce Department 12 in December 2017 regarding the addition of a 13 citizenship question to the census? 14 15 A. Yes. Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 26 of 126 Page 123 Page 124 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 27 of 126 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 28 of 126 Page 125 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 29 of 126 Page 126 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 30 of 126 Page 136 1 A. No. 2 Q. James Sherk? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Have you spoken with Mr. Hoffler about this 5 6 issue since the transition? A. Tom was very sick, very sick. And, in fact, 7 I didn't know that he passed away. So Tom was really 8 kind of out of the picture. 9 Tom was not an -- did not appear to me to be an 10 adviser to the -- to the administration at all. And I also want to say, 11 Q. A separate question. 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. And I'm not -- I didn't necessarily mean to 14 connect it. 15 A. 16 17 So I don't kind of see him as an intermediary for the administration. Q. No, I'm asking about Mr. Hoffler separately. 18 Did you -- I'm not sure that I got a clear answer to 19 the question. 20 him about a potential citizenship question since the 21 transition? 22 A. Tom Hoffler? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Oh, yes. 25 Q. How many times, roughly? Did you have any communications with Yes. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 31 of 126 Page 137 1 A. It would be more than a couple, but it 2 wouldn't be more than a dozen. 3 talking about from January through -- through whenever 4 I last talked to him, which would have been maybe -- 5 I'm not even sure I talked to him in 2017. 6 7 8 9 10 11 MR. FELDMAN: A. And remember, we're 2017 or 2000 -- Or 2000 -- I'm not sure I talked to him since even May of this year. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) And he -- what were the -- what was the substance of those conversations? A. Well, Tom and I are good friends, so I don't 12 know -- you know, I've known him for 30 years. 13 talked a lot about his cancer treatment. 14 lot about what he was going through. 15 about prayer. 16 conversations about what was going on in politics that 17 would bleed into our personal conversations. 18 19 20 Q. We We talked a We talked a lot So, you know, there would be And some of that was about the potential citizenship question on the 2020 census? A. It seemed like -- like it wasn't a topic in 21 the last -- in the last -- certainly the last six 22 months. 23 again, with someone like Tom that I'm a -- a good 24 friend of a long time, and with someone that I check 25 in with about their health, and there are not a lot of Again, hard for me to remember about -- Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 32 of 126 Page 138 1 people like that, so I don't -- I don't recall how 2 many times. 3 Q. Well, my question is -- well, I think you 4 mentioned before that you did have those conversations 5 since January 2017, but my question is just what was 6 the substance of your conversation about this issue, 7 about the citizenship question? 8 9 A. Well, he talked about how block level data was -- and, again, block level data is an obsession 10 with him, because block level data means that you can 11 draw the most accurate districts. 12 focus was always on block level data, and always on, 13 "Mark, you need to make sure that we take a good 14 census, that the administration doesn't skimp on the 15 budget," because a good census is good for what he 16 does. 17 Q. And so, again, his And he was the person that you principally 18 relied on for your understanding regarding the need 19 for block level citizenship data; is that right? 20 A. He was the one of the people that I -- 21 actually, Tom -- in talking to Tom, I knew that it was 22 going to be an issue that the department would 23 confront, because I knew Tom had the ability to get 24 members of Congress, who were important to the 25 administration, to pay attention to the issue. You Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 33 of 126 Page 139 1 know, that's what -- again, in the transition, your 2 job is to forecast what's going to come across the 3 transom for the new administration. 4 Q. Did you speak with anyone else in Congress 5 or affiliated with a member of Congress about the 6 citizenship question since January of 2017? 7 A. I talked to -- you know, I talk to my own 8 member of Congress, Rodney Davis, all the time. 9 know, I see him at things. You I talk to people in the 10 Illinois delegation that I see at the University of 11 Illinois. 12 Congress, I talk to people in Congress who I've known 13 for a long time. 14 I -- I talk about lots of things with them. I -- again, to say did I talk to someone in I went to school with Peter Roskam. 15 Q. Sure. 16 A. Did I go and do a presentation in anyone's 17 18 19 20 office about this, no. Q. I was wondering if you talked to any of them about this issue? A. I'm sure that I talked to members of 21 Congress, including Democratic members of Congress 22 about this issue. 23 Q. And what do you recall them communicating to 24 you about it? 25 A. I recall Congressman Lacy Clay being upset Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 34 of 126 Page 142 1 suggested to you that block level citizenship data -- 2 strike that. 3 Has anyone ever suggested to you that having 4 access to block level citizenship data would be 5 helpful to Republican efforts in redistricting? 6 A. I'm sure someone has said that. 7 Q. Tom, presumably? 8 A. What he said is that it will help draw maps, 9 which will be acceptable as the maps that best provide 10 minority representation, and so therefore are not 11 challenged. 12 district, and because you don't have block level data, 13 someone says, well, you didn't draw a map that 14 maximized -- I use the word "maximized," Latino 15 representation based on their numbers. 16 don't have that block level citizenship data, what 17 you're doing is you're cheating the Latino community 18 out of representation at all levels of government. 19 20 Q. So the frustration is you keep drawing a And when you That was the -- that was something that he suggested to you? 21 A. No, it was -- it was a conversation that we 22 had. My point about maximization is my word. 23 Latino representation to be maximized. 24 Q. 25 Rights Act? I want Have you done any research on the Voting Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 35 of 126 Page 143 1 A. I'm not an expert on the Voting Rights Act. 2 Q. Have you done any research on the Voting 3 Rights Act? 4 A. 5 6 7 I'm not an expert on it. I -- I read about the Voting Rights Act, yeah. Q. Do you have any expertise on the legal standard for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 8 A. I'm not an expert on it. 9 Q. Have you relied on others for expertise on 10 11 12 13 14 15 the Voting Rights Act in Section 2 in particular? A. Yes. So I -- you know, when I -- when I study things, I look to people who are experts. Q. Okay. And who -- who have you looked to for expertise on those issues? A. Off the top of my head, I'd have to go back. 16 I'd have to go back and look at it. 17 one of the things that I was most interested in is 18 there was an amicus brief that was filed by five 19 census directors. 20 those census directors said is block level data is the 21 most important thing in end product in terms of 22 ensure -- ensuring accurate representation, and you 23 can only get block level data from the census. 24 didn't look at that until -- you know, until 2018. 25 Q. But I did -- I -- And those -- in a nutshell, what I Was Mr. Hoffler one of the people you relied Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 36 of 126 Page 144 1 on for expertise about the Voting Rights Act -- 2 A. I -- you -- 3 Q. I'm asking you. 4 A. Oh, okay. 5 Q. Was he one of the people? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Who -- who were the people? 8 Sorry. You said off the -- you'd have to go back and check, but -- 9 A. 10 recall. 11 Q. 12 relied on -- 13 A. I can recall looking at the cases -- 14 Q. -- for expertise on that issue? 15 A. -- and looking at what Justices of the 16 17 I'd have to -- I'd have to -- I don't You -- you can't remember anyone that you've Supreme Court said about it and looking at that. Q. Okay. Let's go back to if you recall 18 communicating with anyone else direct -- in the Trump 19 administration directly or indirectly about the 20 citizenship question, other than the people we've 21 already identified. 22 MR. FELDMAN: I'm not sure I understand. 23 Are you talking about was there anybody else other 24 than the people that have been discussed? 25 MR. DURAISWAMY: Yes. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 37 of 126 Page 272 1 A. I don't remember the person's name. I seem 2 to remember he had a Bush connection, like law school 3 or something like that. 4 Q. Any other candidates that you can recall? 5 A. Brunell was the main one that I recall. 6 Q. Anyone else from the redistricting world 7 8 that you recall being considered? A. 9 10 Not that I recall, no. [Marked Exhibit No. 17.] Q. Handing you what we've marked as Exhibit 17. 11 Did we mark it as Exhibit 17? Yes. Sorry. Do you 12 see this is an e-mail exchange between Secretary Ross 13 and Peter Davidson from October 8th, 2017? 14 A. Uh-huh. 15 Q. Was the -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. For the record, can you identify the subject 18 of the e-mail exchange? 19 A. Subject is, "Letter from DOJ." 20 Q. Okay. 21 And the first e-mail is from Secretary Ross to Mr. Davidson -- 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. -- asking what is its status. 24 25 that? A. Yes. Do you see Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 38 of 126 Page 273 1 Q. And Mr. Davidson responds that he is on the 2 phone with you, and you're giving him a readout of a 3 meeting last week, correct? 4 A. I see that. 5 Q. Was that your meeting with John Gore? 6 MR. ROSENBERG: 7 in evidence. 8 A. 9 10 11 12 Objection, assumes facts not It calls for speculation. I don't know whether it's -- it would make sense, but I don't know. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Did you have a meeting with anyone else about a letter from DOJ? A. That -- that's why I said the -- the timing 13 seems like it's -- dovetails with what you and I were 14 discussing earlier. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 39 of 126 Page 274 6 7 Q. phone call with Mr. Neuman -- strike that. 8 9 (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Well -- well, you had a You had a phone call with Mr. Davidson around -- on or around October 8th, correct? 10 A. It -- it says that. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I don't recall that I did. 14 Q. No reason to believe it didn't happen, 11 15 I don't know that I did. correct? 16 A. I don't recall that it happened. 17 Q. Okay. No reason to believe that when 18 Mr. Davidson wrote on October 8th in an e-mail, "I'm 19 on the phone with Mark Neuman right now" that he was 20 lying? 21 A. I don't know the answer to that question. 22 Q. Okay. 23 24 25 You don't know whether he was lying or not when he wrote Secretary Ross on October 8th? A. I don't know what he did -MR. ROSENBERG: Objection. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 40 of 126 Page 275 1 2 3 A. -- and what he didn't do. I only know when you ask me things about me. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Well, I am asking you 4 things about you. I'm asking you -- I understand you 5 may not specifically remember. 6 do you -- I'm just asking you, 7 A. I said I do not recall. 8 Q. -- have any reason to believe it didn't 9 happen? 10 MR. ROSENBERG: 11 MR. FELDMAN: Objection, form. If you know what -- if -- if 12 you don't have a reason that it didn't happen, say -- 13 tell him. 14 15 16 A. I don't have a reason to know whether it happened or it didn't happen. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Just -- just so we're 17 clear on what the e-mail says, Secretary Ross asks 18 Mr. Davidson what is the status of the letter from 19 DOJ, right? 20 A. That's what this says. 21 Q. Okay. And Mr. Davidson responds and says 22 that he's on the phone with you and you're giving him 23 a readout of a meeting that you had the previous week, 24 correct? 25 A. That's what this says. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 41 of 126 Page 276 1 Q. Okay. And separate from the e-mail, your 2 meeting with John Gore was around this time frame, 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. But you have no recollection of 6 this -- of a phone call with Mr. Davidson around this 7 date? 8 A. I don't recall that. 9 Q. Do you recall ever having a phone call with 10 Mr. Davidson where he told you that Secretary Ross 11 wanted an update on the status of a letter from DOJ? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. The e-mail seems to indicate that 14 Mr. Davidson wrapped up the call at 10:54 p.m. after 15 emailing Secretary Ross that he was on the phone with 16 you at 6:47 p.m. 17 I'm referring to in the e-mail? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 First of all, do -- do you see what Have you ever been on the phone with Mr. Davidson for four hours? 21 MR. ROSENBERG: 22 MR. DURAISWAMY: 23 24 25 Objection, misleading. What is misleading about the -A. I -MR. DURAISWAMY: Wait, wait. What's -- Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 42 of 126 Page 277 1 MR. ROSENBERG: 2 MR. DURAISWAMY: 3 No, no. That -- that's an improper objection. 4 MR. ROSENBERG: 5 MR. DURAISWAMY: 6 It may not -- No. What's misleading about the question? 7 MR. ROSENBERG: It's -- so we don't know 8 necessarily from these date -- time stamps whether 9 there might be different time zones involved in this 10 e-mail. 11 12 MR. DURAISWAMY: question? 13 14 15 Do you -- what was my MR. ROSENBERG: Q. I made my objection. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Have you ever been on the phone with Mr. Davidson for four hours? 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. How long were -- were your typical phone 18 calls with him about census issues? 19 A. I don't recall how long they would go. 20 Q. You don't recall anything about how long 21 your phone calls were with him? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you recall if they were -- it's possible 24 25 that they were 14 hours in length? A. I'm sure that I never talked him for 14 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 43 of 126 Page 278 1 2 hours. Q. Okay. Do you remember that when we started 3 this deposition, we talked about the fact that if you 4 say that you don't recall something, when, in fact, 5 you do recall it, that that's false testimony? 6 remember that we talked about that -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- at the outset? Okay. Do you What do you recall 9 about the length of the phone calls or conversations 10 that you had with Mr. Davidson about the census over 11 the last couple of years? 12 A. I recall that I had some. 13 Q. And you have no recollection about how long 14 15 those calls were or those interactions were? A. Well, you said -- you asked me if I was -- 16 talked to him for four hours. 17 to anyone for hour hours in one phone call. 18 Q. No. I don't recall talking I'm asking you now approximately how 19 long were the interactions that you had with him 20 regarding the census. 21 22 A. 25 I -- I don't know. I don't recall how long they were. 23 24 Can you give me a range? [Marked Exhibit No. 18.] Q. Handing you what we've marked as Exhibit 18. We've got one copy for you guys. Take a minute to Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 44 of 126 Page 279 1 review this document and let me know if you've seen it 2 before. 3 A. I have seen it before. 4 Q. When did you see it? 5 A. I've seen versions of this before. 6 Q. When you say versions of this, what do you 7 8 9 mean? A. Well, something that starts out with John Thompson and then says reinstatement of the 10 questionnaire. I -- I've -- this is -- I recall 11 seeing something like this in different versions -- 12 Q. This is -- 13 A. -- at different times. 14 Q. Okay. And just so the record is clear, this 15 is a -- a draft of a letter from the Department of 16 Justice to the Commerce Department requesting the 17 reinstatement of a question on the 2020 census 18 questionnaire related to citizenship, correct? 19 20 A. Do we know that it's from DOJ? Oh, because it says -- 21 Q. Do you see the last line? 22 A. -- for doj.gov. 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. So what was the question again? 25 Q. So this is a draft of a letter from DOJ to Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 45 of 126 Page 280 1 the Commerce Department requesting a reinstatement of 2 a citizenship question on the 2020 -- 3 A. Right. 4 Q. -- census, right? 5 6 MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, form, assumes facts not in evidence. 7 A. I -- I -- I -- it seems to be that. 8 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Okay. 9 10 11 And when did you -- or who -- who provided you with versions of this draft letter? A. I'm not sure which version this is. Again, 12 I'm familiar with the letter. 13 original author is. 14 might have commented on it, but I'm not sure who 15 writes a first -- a first template, as it were. 16 What's interesting is when I look at this, it seems 17 like -- 18 I'm sure that I looked at it. MR. FELDMAN: 19 A. 20 at right now. 21 I'm not sure who the And this being? This being the version that you're looking MR. FELDMAN: Exhibit 18. 22 A. 23 ProPublica. 24 letter that ultimately went from DOJ. 25 Q. I And I look at the letter that I first saw in This letter is very different than the (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Okay. In order to help Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 46 of 126 Page 281 1 us all get out of here on time, I'm going to ask you 2 try to -- 3 A. Oh, we're all going to get here on -- out of 4 here on time. 5 Q. Well, I want you -- in order to avoid the 6 risk of our having to come back and do more 7 questioning, I want to you to try to focus on just 8 answering the question -- 9 A. Right. 10 Q. -- that I've asked. So my question, you 11 stated that you had previously seen a version of this 12 draft, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. And, again, there are people within the And I believe you said -- 16 Secretary's office who could have had a version, could 17 have had -- marked up their own version, could have -- 18 again, trying to figure out who an original author is 19 when this looks a little -- 20 21 MR. FELDMAN: Q. 22 23 (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Yeah. MR. FELDMAN: Q. The question -- Just -- (By Mr. Duraiswamy) I don't -- I don't 24 want -- I don't -- I'm not asking you to tell me about 25 who the original author was or anything. I want to Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 47 of 126 Page 282 1 try to ask about your experience with this -- 2 A. Right. 3 Q. -- with versions of this draft letter. 4 Okay? Do you recall who provided you with a -- a 5 version of this draft letter? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Presumably, you -- well, strike that. 8 9 You said you might have commented on it. Do you recall what comments you may have made on the 10 draft letter? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Do you recall why you were reviewing it? 13 A. I was comparing this to that ACS letter. 14 again, how does DOJ interact with Census on data 15 needs. So 16 Q. Why were you comparing it to the ACS letter? 17 A. Process. 18 Q. But I'm -- I'm -- 19 A. If you want -- 20 Q. -- trying to understand why specifically you I'm a process person. 21 were asked to or took the initiative to compare a 22 draft version of this letter to the ACS letter that we 23 talked about before. 24 25 A. Again, I want to make sure that if the department has an interest in evaluating a change in Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 48 of 126 Page 283 1 the questionnaire, that they're following procedures. 2 This clearly doesn't look like the -- the letter that 3 actually went out, but it looks like almost a 4 placeholder, a template. 5 Q. When you say you want to make sure that if 6 the department has an interest in evaluating a change 7 in the questionnaire, you're referring to the -- the 8 Department of Commerce -- 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. -- correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. And you recall that others at the 13 Department of Commerce were reviewing and offering 14 thoughts on draft versions of this letter? 15 A. I seem to recall that, yes. 16 Q. Who do you recall was involved in that 17 effort? 18 A. It might have been the general counsel's 19 office, and it might have been the policy office. 20 again, blurring a lot of those people, interactions 21 together, new people coming on board, Peter Davidson 22 coming on board, Earl being involved in policy 23 matters, people that work for Earl. 24 of cooks in the kitchen. 25 Q. And There are a lot Other than Mr. Davidson and Mr. Comstock, Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 49 of 126 Page 284 1 who you just mentioned, are there other specific 2 people that you recall being involved in that process? 3 A. 4 5 MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, mischaracterizes testimony. 6 7 Maybe -- MR. FELDMAN: A. Go ahead. Maybe Izzy Hernandez, maybe Sahra Park-Su. 8 You know, when I think of the policy people, they're 9 all sort of blended together, the general counsel's 10 11 people and so forth. Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Do you recall any 12 specific comments or edits that you suggested to the 13 draft version of this letter? 14 15 16 17 A. I don't recall, but I'm sure that I made comments. Q. You just don't remember specifically what the comments were? 18 A. Right, right. 19 Q. Do you remember who you made the comments to 20 21 or who you provided the comments to? A. They would have been within that group of 22 people, and I would -- I would -- you know, when I say 23 general counsel, I -- I include James in that too. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. And in this -- Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 50 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 51 of 126 From: Sent: To: Subject: Stephanie Edelman Tuesday, September 1, 2015 5:01 PM 'Tom Hofeller' RE: Address & Entity for Invoice Of course, totally understand! I've sent your invoice for processing to our accountant. Let me know if there's anything else. Best, Stephanie From: Tom Hofeller [mailto:celticheal@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:58 PM To: Stephanie Edelman Subject: RE: Address & Entity for Invoice Thank you so much. It's just that I have to keep my public statements simple outside of the expert court witness work I do. From: Stephanie Edelman [mailto:Stephanie@stephanieedelman.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:22 PM To: celticheal@aol.com Subject: Re: Address & Entity for Invoice Absolutely, that is fine, and just to reiterate at this point the only intention with the Beacon is to use it as the vehicle to fund the report-- there are no immediate plans to publish anything on this report in the Beacon. If there were down the road, we would certainly discuss with you before proceeding. Sorry for any inconvenience or undue stress this has caused! Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone ------ Original message-----From: Tom Hofeller Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 3:15 PM To: Stephanie Edelman; Subject:RE: Address & Entity for Invoice How about the commitment on attribution? 1 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 52 of 126 From: Stephanie Edelman [mailto:Stephanie@stephanieedelman.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:17 PM To: celticheal@aol.com Subject: Re: Address & Entity for Invoice Yes, you are correct --that is the purpose of the report and I'll relay all this info to my boss. He had just mentioned in passing yesterday the possibility of a media write up as an afterthought , but that was not the purpose of the report and I highly doubt that will even be pursued--but regardless the Beacon is the entity we will pay from. Hope this helps, and or course we are happy to discuss further! Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone ------ Original message-----From: Tom Hofeller Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 12:12 PM To: Stephanie Edelman; Subject:RE: Address & Entity for Invoice Stephanie: When I undertook this project I understood that the purpose of the report was to inform a decision on the part of your client regarding a funding decision for the Evenwel Plaintiffs. Understanding this, I did the report for that purpose. If I had known that a media source was involved, which I didn't, I would have required an understanding as to the use of the information. I am OK with your use of this report as long as there is a prior agreement on attribution. My position is that the report would not be attributed either directly or indirectly. Perhaps we need to discuss this. I do not feel that any of the information, in general, will be any surprise to interested parties, except for the original stated reason for which it was commissioned. I trust we can easily agree on this issue. My invoice is attached. Tom From: Stephanie Edelman [mailto:Stephanie@stephanieedelman.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:38 PM To: 'Tom Hofeller' Subject: RE: Address & Entity for Invoice Hi, that was not the initial purpose of the report, which is to inform our principal's decision whether or not to fund a group handling the Evenwel lawsuit, although my boss mentioned it as a possibility that the Beacon could write something up on it, but would that problematic? Please let me know if so! 2 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 53 of 126 From: Tom Hofeller [mailto:celticheal@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 3:58 PM To: Stephanie Edelman > Subject: RE: Address & Entity for Invoice Is this report going to be used as a basis for an article in the Free Beacon? From: Stephanie Edelman [mailto:Stephanie@stephanieedelman.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 2:40 PM To: 'Tom Hofeller' Subject: Address & Entity for Invoice Hi, Tom, You can invoice us the Washington Free Beacon, at 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2600, Arlington, VA 22209. If electronic invoice is easiest, you're welcome to send it directly to me. If you want to mail a hard copy, you can address it to my attention. Let me know if you have any questions. Many thanks again for such a detailed report! Best, Stephanie ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged, proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, disclosure or distribution of all or any portion of this e-mail and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender, permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments, and destroy all hard copies immediately. No warranty is made as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this communication. Any views or opinions presented are those of only the author and do not necessarily represent those of any entity with which the sender may be affiliated in any capacity. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer, solicitation, coordination or endorsement of any kind. Thank you. 3 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 54 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 55 of 126 THE USE OF CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION IN REDISTRICTING1 This study comments on the practicality of the use of citizen voting age population (CVAP) as a basis for achieving population equality for legislative redistricting. What this means in practice is that the total CVAP for a state would be divided by the number of legislative districts to be redistricted in order to compute an idea district population for each singlemember district. Each district’s variance from this ideal district population would be used to calculate both the least and most populous district and also to compute the total percentage deviation (or “high to low”) for a redistricting plan as a whole. Compliance with the federal “one person, one vote” standard would thus be determined on the basis of CVAP as opposed to total population (TPOP), as is presently the case. The use of CVAP is not a new concept, but as of this date, federal courts have not held that it is permissible to use CVAP as a standard for legislative redistricting. In Hawaii, courts have ruled that registered voters may be used as a population base for legislative redistricting. This practice was adopted to remove non-resident military personnel from the redistricting population base, and to avoid the creation of legislative districts with extremely high percentages of non-registered adults. The courts, however, have also mandated that the TPOPs in the districts must be closely related to the district deviations based on registered voters. Appendix 1 discusses these court rulings in more detail. This practice is still tied to total population. In addition, the removal of prison inmates housed from other states has been allowed in 3 states in the 2010 redistricting cycle (Delaware, Maryland and New York). This practice, often referred to as “prisoner adjustment” also moves the counts for domestic inmates in state prisons to the location where they lived before being incarcerated (prisoners not from out-of state). Democrat allies are now lobbying the Census Bureau to include this practice in the 2010 Decennial. Prisoner adjustment is generally believed to be favorable to the Democrats, 1 This study does not constitute professional legal advice and is not intended to be substituted in place of advice from qualified legal counsel. Page 1 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 56 of 126 but may, in some states, be less favorable to minorities. This, of course depends on the locations of the prisons. This practice, however, is still tied to total population. As of today, the use of CVAP is limited to an evaluation of minority voting strength in districts protected by the mandates of the Federal Voting Rights Act (sometimes, also, to evaluate compliance with state and local civil rights provisions), and is most commonly used to determine the ability of Latino voters to have equal opportunities to elect their preferred candidates of choice in newly enacted districts. The use of CVAP in redistricting has always been difficult. In decennial censuses prior to 2010, a citizenship question was included in the long form questionnaire which was distributed to approximately one in seven households. This information, however, was not available until after most states had already completed their line-drawing process. For several reasons, the Bureau of the Census decided to discontinue the use of the long form questionnaire for the 2010 Decennial Census and to depend exclusively on the short form Questionnaire, which did not include a question on citizenship. The two primary reasons given for this change were cost savings and an increase in the initial percentage of questionnaires returned by mail. As a replacement to the long form questionnaire, the Census Bureau instituted the American Community Survey. To quote the Census Bureau: “The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.” Each year, about 3.5+ million households receive very detailed questionnaires of which about 2.2 million are successfully returned. This represents a 62% return rate. In the version of the ACS data used for redistricting in this cycle, the questionnaires from 5 years were compiled together into a report released in late 2010. This included the samples collected in 2005 through 2009. The number of questionnaires included in the 2005 through Page 2 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 57 of 126 2009 sample was about 9.5 million. By comparison, about 16.2 million households would have received a Long-Form Questionnaire had its use been continued in the 2010 Decennial Census. This means that the accuracy of the ACS sample is significantly lower than the long form sample would have been. In addition, the use of a 5-year rolling sample was much less reflective of the actual characteristics of the population at the time of the actual 2010 Decennial Enumeration. which would have been a one-time snapshot taken in mid-2010 (April to August). Even if a majority of the justices on the U. S. Supreme Court are sympathetic to the use of CVAP, it is not probable, in my judgment, that they will accept a rolling 5-year survey in lieu of an actual full enumeration for use in redistricting or reapportionment. Another issue with use of the ACS in redistricting is that the accuracy for small units of geography is extremely poor. This is particularly true for Census Tracts and Census Block Groups. In some cases the confidence interval for a Block Group exceeds the actual range of the data, creating negative numbers for the low point of the confidence interval. Another problem with the ACS data is that the units of geography by which the ACS is compiled is different from the geographic units used in redistricting. Almost all states are using Census Voting Districts (VTDs) are preferred as the basic geographic building blocks for creating new districts. VTD boundaries generally follow precinct boundaries. ACS data are simply not available for VTDs, and any estimates of CVAP populations for VTDs would be even more inaccurate than the ACS estimates for Census Tracts and Block Groups. For those states in which CVAP estimates for legislative districts have been compiled, determinations have been required to compute the percentage of each Census Block Group’s population which is in each legislative or congressional district. The CVAP statistics have been summed for all the block groups which have either 50% or 75% of their population in an individual district and these estimates have been imputed to the total adult populations of the districts. The Texas Legislative Counsel’s report (Appendix 3), contains the confidence intervals for the estimated of Texas House district are generally from 2 to 3 percent. Page 3 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 58 of 126 In many states, such as Texas, experienced redistricting experts have relied much more on the use of ethnic surname matches against the registered voter file to determine Latino voting strength, rather than estimates of the percentage of adult citizens who are Latino. Of course, since the population base for compliance with the one person, one vote rule has been TPOP, ethnic surname and CVAP estimates have only been used as indices of probable district election performance for Latino candidates. Another issue to consider is whether or not CVAP, or just total citizen population (CPOP), would be the proper base, should the U. S. Supreme Court determine that citizenship should replace TPOP, which is presently in use. So far, courts have not even accepted the use of total voting age population (TVAP or VAP) as a redistricting standard, so it would be a high leap from TPOP to CVAP as the new standard. All this leads to a possible conclusion that without a congressional mandate for the United States Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census form, or such a mandate from the Supreme Court, the relief sought in the Evenwel case is functionally unworkable. The other important topic to address are the political ramifications of using CVAP as the redistricting population standard for one person, one vote compliance. Would the gain of GOP voting strength be worth the alienation of Latino voters who will perceive a switch to CVAP as an attempt to diminish their voting strength? That, however, is not the subject of this study. By mutual agreement, a study of the effect of using CVAP instead of TPOP as the redistricting population basis for drafting a plan for the Texas State House of Representatives has been commissioned. Demographic information on the current 150 State House districts has been obtained from the website of the Texas Legislative Council. Since State House districts are roughly equal in population they are appropriate for such an examination. Page 4 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 59 of 126 A spreadsheet containing information on each of the 150 State House districts in Texas has been compiled. There is one row for each district and each row contains 15 columns of geographic, demographic and political information for each individual district. This spreadsheet has been sorted in 6 different orders which make up Tables 2 through 7. The column header by which the table is sorted is shaded purple. An explanation of each of the 15 columns can be found in Appendix 2. Table 2 is sorted by district number (Column A). Table 7 is sorted by the population deviation measured in terms of TPOP (Column M). Table 3 is sorted by the population deviation measured in terms of CVAP (Column O). The population deviations for the current districts, as measured in terms of TPOP, ranges from 4.83% above to -5.02% below the idea district population (Table 7. Column M). The ideal population is the sum of the base population (either TPOP or CVAP) divided by the total number of districts. The range of deviation from the most to least populated district is 9.85% (total deviation), which is below the 9.99% range acceptable under the provisions of the United States Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” rule. The deviations of the 2003 House district could have been lower. They are as high as they are because Texas’ Constitution has special provisions for the redistricting of it State House of Representatives which mandate keeping districts within whole counties or groups of whole counties. These provisions, however, may, to some extent, fall by the wayside as a result of the current federal court lawsuit challenging Texas’ adherence to the Voting Rights Act in its latest redistricting (2003). When CVAP is used as the population base, the population deviations for the current State House districts increase in range from a high of 20.47% to a low of -40.38% with a total deviation of 60.85% (Table 3, Column O),. This deviation is clearly unacceptable under the “one person, one vote” rule. If the Supreme Court were to impose CVAP as the proper Page 5 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 60 of 126 population base, and mandate its application to the districts for 2016, a radical redrawing of the State House districts would be required. POLITICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC EFFECTS OF USING CVAP There are several general rules related to redistricting in general which should be discussed at this point: 1. First, the party which controls the actual line-drawing process, in most instances, possesses a huge advantage which outweighs almost all other factors influencing the redistricting process. This would be equally true if the population base were to be shifted from TPOP to CVAP. 2. Second, redistricting has often been described as a “game of margins”. Many times a shift of two or three precincts into or out of a district can significantly alter the political characteristic of that district. As an example, if a district is solidly Democratic and the Republicans are drawing the plan, the Republican will almost always add additional heavily Democratic precincts to that district to improve their advantage in surrounding districts. On the other hand, if Democrats are doing the line drawing, they will often submerge heavily Republican precincts into a strong Democratic district to improve their chances of electing Democrats in the surrounding districts. These factors would also apply for Texas if CVAP were to become the new population base. In the case of Texas redistricting, the ability of the party in power to overcome a switch to CVAP would be somewhat limited in State House redistricting because of the mandate to keep counties intact – particularly if the Democrats regained control. Table 4, which sorts the existing House districts by percent Hispanic CVAP, demonstrates that considerable population would have to be added to a majority of the Latino districts to bring their populations up to acceptable levels of deviation (Table 4, Column H). There are Page 6 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 61 of 126 presently 35 districts with HCVAP percentages over 40. As a whole, those 35 districts only contain sufficient HCVAP populations to comprise 30.1 districts (See the green shading on Table 4). As would be expected, the remaining 115 districts have sufficient combined HCVAP populations to comprise 119.6 districts. Table 6 sorts the districts by the political party of the incumbent State House members (See Table 6, Column C). The 97 GOP districts have sufficient CVAP populations to actually form 103.2 districts, while the 53 Democrat districts only have sufficient CVAP population to comprise 46.8 districts. Use of CVAP would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats. Since all of the Republican and Democrat districts are not located in two distinct areas, it is helpful to examine the effects of switching from TPOP to CVAP as the population base by regions. Texas has been divided into 13 regions comprised of whole State House Districts. Those regions are show on Maps 1 and 2. The regions are: 1. Dallas-Ft Worth and suburbs (3 regions) 2. Houston and its suburbs (2 regions) 3. Austin and its suburbs (1 region) 4. San Antonio and its suburbs (1 region) 5. El Paso County (1 region) 6. The Rio Grande Valley and South Texas (1 region) 7. The area southeast of Houston (1 region) 8. The northeast area of Texas (1 region) 9. The central area of the State, roughly between DFW, Austin and Houston (1 region) 10. The areas of West-Central and Western Texas (1 region). These regions certainly are not in any way official, but are sufficient for this redistricting analysis. The data for these 13 regions may be found on Table 5 (which is sorted first by Column B and then by Column A) and demonstrates some interesting characteristics. This table compares Page 7 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 62 of 126 the number of projected CVAP-based districts which would be contained in these 13 regions to the number of actual Texas State House districts presently located within them (the 2003 House Plan). The combined CVAP district deviations within each region have been summed to determine the number of districts each region would be entitle to using CVAP as the population base. These data are summarized on Table 8, and correspond to the green-shaded areas on Table 5 (found in Column O at the bottom of the section for each region). The use of CVAP as the population based would cause a loss of relative population (and, thus districts) in the Greater Dallas/Ft. Worth Area (-.7 districts overall), with the greatest loss in Dallas County (1.7 districts). Harris County and its suburbs would lose relative population (1.7 districts overall), with a loss of 1.9 districts being slightly offset by the gain in the surrounding suburban counties. The greatest loss would be in South Texas, El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley which would lose 2.6 districts overall. All other regions of the State would enjoy relative gains in population, with the greatest gains being in Central as well as West Texas’ rural and semi-rural counties. Even within the individual regions (Using Table 5), an inspection of the CVAP deviation percentages of Republican versus Democratic districts shows that the Democratic CVAP deviations are generally negative and the GOP deviations are generally positive. The means that Democratic districts could geographically expand to absorb additional high Democrat precincts from adjacent Republican districts, strengthening the adjoining GOP districts. CONCLUSIONS • A shift from a redistricting population based determined using total population to adult population is radical departure from the federal “one person, one vote” rule presently used in the United States. • Without a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire, the use of citizen voting age population is functionally unworkable. Page 8 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 63 of 126 • The Obama Administration and congressional Democrats would probably be extremely hostile to the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire. • The chances of a U. S. Supreme Court’s mandate to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census are not high. • A switch to the use of citizen voting age population as the redistricting population base for redistricting would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites. • A proposal to use CVAP can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation. Page 9 of 9 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 64 of 126 TABLE 1 American Community Survey (ACS) Sample Sizes by Year and Type Year 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Housing Units Initial Final Addresses Interviews Selected 3,551,227 2,208,513 3,539,552 2,375,715 3,272,520 2,128,104 2,899,676 1,917,799 2,897,256 1,917,748 2,894,711 1,931,955 Group Quarters People Initial Sample Selected 207,410 208,551 204,553 197,045 198,808 186,862 Actual Interviews Synthetic Interviews 163,663 154,182 148,486 144,948 146,716 145,974 135,758 137,086 150,052 N/A N/A N/A Table 1 - Page 1 of 1 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 65 of 126 TABLE 2 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) A B C D E Dist Area of State Party Total VAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Northeast TX Northeast TX Houston Suburbs DFW Suburbs Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Central Texas Northeast TX DFW Suburbs Northeast TX Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Central Texas Southeast TX Southeast TX Central Texas Southeast TX Southeast TX Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Central Texas S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley DFW Suburbs S Tex RG Valley R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R D R R R R D R R R D R R D 165,823 173,869 164,955 168,429 160,253 160,008 161,039 161,098 166,719 163,063 168,699 160,573 170,617 163,187 167,349 166,647 163,480 169,888 171,969 159,816 172,180 161,930 163,720 162,685 174,168 160,091 160,084 160,373 175,700 166,022 171,858 167,074 172,135 173,149 125,927 130,806 119,595 123,603 120,169 119,154 120,296 123,550 125,947 116,978 128,086 119,556 131,129 131,479 120,450 122,271 121,295 132,877 131,682 121,754 130,308 122,897 123,736 118,491 129,041 117,247 113,596 107,968 124,171 124,729 121,699 126,072 119,518 125,896 Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted by District Number F M O P G H I J K L N PCT PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev CVAP Anglo HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 122,470 75.1 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 124,825 85.1 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 109,760 75.4 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 117,715 81.5 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 112,555 78.8 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 109,970 70.1 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 112,255 74.7 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 114,450 72.1 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 12.44 13,438 12.99 121,420 75.8 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 111,680 75.6 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 118,640 72.2 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 111,590 64.4 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 123,515 75.2 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 114,485 68.6 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 116,690 81.8 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 108,180 80.7 27.0 33.4 -6.4 80.9 -4157 -2.48 3.84 4,143 6.32 112,125 61.1 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 126,560 71.3 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 128,705 82.5 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 115,395 82.8 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 121,365 82.0 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 6.99 7,543 10.39 115,525 37.0 16.6 22.7 -6.1 73.2 -3917 -2.34 3.68 3,978 6.02 111,960 59.8 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 118,260 74.8 20.8 27.4 -6.6 75.9 6531 3.90 12.29 13,268 8.39 121,250 62.4 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 97,320 52.2 14.8 19.7 -4.8 75.4 -7553 -4.51 -3.41 -3,687 1.09 104,295 26.2 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 100,995 53.3 17.4 23.2 -5.8 74.9 8063 4.81 7.58 8,183 2.77 116,165 57.5 31.8 35.2 -3.4 90.4 -1615 -0.96 12.26 13,238 13.22 121,220 59.0 73.9 77.7 -3.8 95.1 4221 2.52 -3.42 -3,697 -5.94 104,285 23.1 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 124,080 46.8 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 115,655 77.9 64.6 67.7 -3.1 95.4 5512 3.29 8.78 9,483 5.49 117,465 28.0 Table 2 - Page 1 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 66 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley Central Texas Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area West Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Southeast TX Central Texas Central Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs Northeast TX DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs West Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs West Texas West Texas Bexar S Tex RG Valley D D D D D D D D R R R D R D D D D R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R D 168,627 168,963 169,088 168,214 168,659 168,662 168,776 167,668 169,564 174,451 167,604 166,410 175,314 173,008 167,309 166,516 175,709 165,994 162,897 167,736 162,176 163,869 164,418 169,146 163,609 171,429 176,054 160,023 167,337 167,588 165,742 172,129 172,141 160,508 160,087 172,135 166,924 170,479 166,719 162,357 109,154 110,963 113,454 110,865 110,751 108,086 115,033 111,699 124,492 126,713 126,549 118,539 127,689 135,585 144,371 124,252 128,793 114,146 127,381 117,164 119,755 123,411 124,630 123,826 122,193 131,870 130,782 122,203 115,634 129,175 124,977 130,796 126,368 121,547 123,063 117,432 127,097 130,771 127,882 115,236 77,585 76,060 78,885 92,195 85,015 79,875 88,365 84,125 120,575 125,720 124,330 94,335 125,095 127,810 130,085 110,735 98,320 111,445 123,515 112,385 116,635 117,985 118,140 118,105 118,030 127,825 128,065 117,530 113,605 116,875 109,350 113,390 111,250 112,760 117,450 110,995 123,650 123,075 126,130 91,345 G PCT Anglo 18.6 11.9 15.5 13.5 14.6 8.2 17.9 5.4 35.8 60.9 66.7 41.6 80.3 74.4 73.1 57.5 41.5 62.8 72.2 51.6 64.4 72.6 72.8 84.2 75.9 86.9 88.5 85.0 80.8 75.0 62.3 69.7 70.1 80.9 77.2 75.3 71.2 64.6 79.7 24.6 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 78.9 85.1 -6.2 92.7 990 0.59 -28.15 -30,397 -28.74 86.0 90.8 -4.8 94.7 1326 0.79 -29.56 -31,922 -30.35 81.5 87.1 -5.6 93.6 1451 0.87 -26.95 -29,097 -27.81 80.2 86.7 -6.4 92.6 577 0.34 -14.62 -15,787 -14.96 78.9 88.0 -9.1 89.7 1022 0.61 -21.27 -22,967 -21.88 88.4 92.1 -3.8 95.9 1025 0.61 -26.03 -28,107 -26.64 75.7 80.4 -4.6 94.2 1139 0.68 -18.17 -19,617 -18.85 91.2 95.0 -3.9 95.9 31 0.02 -22.09 -23,857 -22.11 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 29.7 32.7 -3.0 90.9 6814 4.06 16.43 17,738 12.36 25.5 30.0 -4.6 84.8 -33 -0.02 15.14 16,348 15.16 24.6 41.6 -16.9 59.3 -1227 -0.73 -12.64 -13,647 -11.91 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 16.7 20.4 -3.7 81.9 5371 3.20 18.36 19,828 15.16 14.3 21.6 -7.3 66.2 -328 -0.20 20.47 22,103 20.66 17.7 25.3 -7.6 69.9 -1121 -0.67 2.55 2,753 3.22 44.0 56.2 -12.2 78.3 8072 4.82 -8.95 -9,662 -13.76 19.6 26.7 -7.1 73.5 -1643 -0.98 3.21 3,463 4.19 23.1 26.8 -3.7 86.3 -4740 -2.83 14.38 15,533 17.21 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 9.41 10,158 11.33 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 9.31 10,048 11.71 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 8.84 9,548 13.38 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 17.9 20.1 -2.1 89.4 -713 -0.43 14.51 15,668 14.94 27.6 32.3 -4.8 85.3 2842 1.70 13.98 15,093 12.28 16.6 19.8 -3.3 83.6 -918 -0.55 16.81 18,148 17.35 69.4 76.6 -7.3 90.5 -5280 -3.15 -15.41 -16,637 -12.26 Table 2 - Page 2 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 67 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 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 El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso S Tex RG Valley West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas Houston Suburbs West Texas West Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty DFW Suburbs Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty D D D D D D R R R R R R R R R D R R R R D R R R R D D R D D R R R R D D D R R R 159,691 159,752 160,385 160,161 160,658 161,949 169,684 163,234 173,918 167,970 160,182 165,183 174,343 160,896 172,138 159,684 162,838 162,326 162,161 167,374 161,634 164,930 168,869 164,081 170,473 161,143 164,664 161,136 170,948 172,784 175,728 161,947 171,872 163,233 174,223 167,508 166,963 167,051 171,418 172,330 103,209 116,389 115,924 111,913 112,399 106,402 120,535 118,623 127,906 128,898 113,433 121,555 125,360 115,622 118,380 105,664 119,048 126,290 113,584 125,516 115,752 113,924 131,311 114,953 125,722 117,479 110,209 122,520 121,837 115,035 127,590 110,568 123,986 133,667 122,347 111,827 118,393 120,192 120,834 130,817 77,455 94,705 90,830 98,925 98,435 86,650 108,980 113,415 123,330 124,075 102,620 115,915 109,320 103,670 116,895 71,770 108,845 116,980 103,455 114,195 96,150 109,035 122,870 114,875 116,830 97,410 92,990 96,850 71,970 78,780 95,900 107,290 108,045 122,505 112,780 83,885 103,410 97,965 106,040 105,540 G PCT Anglo 8.9 11.2 22.9 31.6 17.0 15.5 51.8 59.3 67.1 58.7 48.3 76.4 65.0 60.9 72.4 27.9 75.9 70.3 64.1 69.8 32.9 65.5 70.5 83.7 74.7 29.8 35.5 65.0 39.0 25.3 51.1 76.1 57.9 74.3 23.4 14.6 24.2 54.9 53.5 68.2 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -8.84 -9,547 -4.68 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -19.76 -21,332 -16.36 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 0.92 998 -0.30 28.6 35.2 -6.6 81.2 -4403 -2.63 5.03 5,433 7.66 24.9 28.1 -3.2 88.8 6281 3.75 14.21 15,348 10.47 28.0 30.2 -2.2 92.8 333 0.20 14.90 16,093 14.70 27.5 35.1 -7.6 78.5 -7455 -4.45 -4.97 -5,362 -0.52 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 21.8 29.7 -7.9 73.3 6706 4.00 1.24 1,338 -2.76 29.4 38.9 -9.5 75.7 -6741 -4.02 -3.99 -4,312 0.03 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 18.3 33.1 -14.8 55.2 -6494 -3.87 -9.79 -10,572 -5.92 19.7 32.5 -12.8 60.6 -2973 -1.77 -13.88 -14,992 -12.11 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -33.35 -36,012 -35.33 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 24.1 39.2 -15.1 61.4 8091 4.83 -11.19 -12,082 -16.02 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -0.64 -692 2.75 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 24.9 45.5 -20.6 54.7 -129 -0.08 -22.32 -24,097 -22.24 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 Table 2 - Page 3 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 68 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Dallas Cnty Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Austin Area Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston R D R D D D R R D D D R R R R R D R R R R R D R D D D D D D D D D D D R 171,802 171,463 168,692 164,436 159,981 175,132 174,867 175,184 175,674 174,795 174,549 169,256 163,983 172,221 174,127 175,532 175,227 172,973 171,401 174,421 172,422 164,376 171,079 173,059 175,733 170,732 166,498 159,541 167,215 161,859 164,574 174,485 175,873 170,811 170,702 168,735 127,352 132,823 117,126 116,859 114,477 124,829 133,224 128,725 135,763 120,503 125,158 123,014 115,865 124,645 130,457 122,108 121,368 117,666 135,423 143,575 121,136 116,361 127,834 124,435 123,875 112,332 113,951 113,288 113,877 108,509 116,918 130,444 136,034 125,873 121,535 120,462 100,760 115,470 111,045 106,575 106,465 114,810 128,905 124,270 119,930 115,090 115,800 99,335 114,290 116,020 121,280 119,770 93,535 109,150 114,530 130,040 99,750 113,740 64,375 98,420 100,540 69,415 92,390 91,845 84,625 75,785 83,645 97,195 114,905 91,615 89,230 109,725 G PCT Anglo 58.5 32.3 32.3 28.1 28.5 30.6 61.0 64.8 30.6 24.8 26.3 51.8 67.1 66.4 62.9 71.6 13.2 52.4 70.2 74.7 50.0 72.8 32.5 50.3 21.6 17.2 13.5 20.3 23.7 34.9 28.4 24.7 28.9 40.1 27.0 66.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 16.7 24.4 -7.8 68.2 4165 2.48 -6.69 -7,222 -9.17 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 34.1 42.2 -8.1 80.9 7495 4.47 6.32 6,828 1.85 26.7 31.4 -4.6 85.2 7230 4.31 19.38 20,923 15.06 23.4 27.8 -4.3 84.4 7547 4.50 15.08 16,288 10.58 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7.24 7,818 3.12 17.0 26.8 -9.9 63.2 1619 0.97 -8.01 -8,647 -8.97 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 17.1 25.0 -7.9 68.5 4584 2.73 7.44 8,038 4.71 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 24.0 41.2 -17.2 58.3 7590 4.53 -13.38 -14,447 -17.91 20.6 33.0 -12.4 62.5 5336 3.18 1.08 1,168 -2.10 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 18.2 28.5 -10.3 64.0 4785 2.85 -7.62 -8,232 -10.48 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5.33 5,758 7.28 22.0 51.5 -29.6 42.6 3442 2.05 -40.38 -43,607 -42.44 22.3 41.3 -19.0 54.0 5422 3.23 -8.86 -9,562 -12.09 19.0 35.8 -16.7 53.2 8096 4.83 -6.89 -7,442 -11.72 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 18.2 37.6 -19.4 48.4 -1139 -0.68 -14.44 -15,592 -13.76 21.3 35.0 -13.7 60.8 -8096 -4.83 -14.94 -16,137 -10.11 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 18.4 31.2 -12.8 59.0 8236 4.91 6.41 6,923 1.50 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 19.1 33.8 -14.7 56.6 3065 1.83 -17.37 -18,752 -19.19 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1,743 0.96 1.61 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 167,637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 2 - Page 4 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 69 of 126 TABLE 3 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted by Percent CVAP Deviation A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 49 134 121 19 61 60 48 18 73 44 47 2 45 122 32 84 71 13 53 83 72 97 108 1 9 21 129 25 30 43 123 130 11 24 57 Austin Area Houston Bexar Southeast TX DFW Suburbs West Texas Austin Area Southeast TX Bexar Central Texas Austin Area Northeast TX Austin Area Bexar S Tex RG Valley West Texas West Texas Central Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Northeast TX Northeast TX Southeast TX Houston Houston Suburbs Central Texas S Tex RG Valley Bexar Houston Northeast TX Houston Suburbs Southeast TX D R R R R R D R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R D R R R R 167,309 174,421 174,867 171,969 176,054 171,429 173,008 169,888 166,719 174,451 175,314 173,869 167,604 175,184 167,074 167,970 166,924 170,617 162,897 173,918 170,479 168,869 163,233 165,823 166,719 172,180 174,127 174,168 166,022 169,564 175,674 175,532 168,699 162,685 164,418 144,371 143,575 133,224 131,682 130,782 131,870 135,585 132,877 127,882 126,713 127,689 130,806 126,549 128,725 126,072 128,898 127,097 131,129 127,381 127,906 130,771 131,311 133,667 125,927 125,947 130,308 130,457 129,041 124,729 124,492 135,763 122,108 128,086 118,491 124,630 130,085 130,040 128,905 128,705 128,065 127,825 127,810 126,560 126,130 125,720 125,095 124,825 124,330 124,270 124,080 124,075 123,650 123,515 123,515 123,330 123,075 122,870 122,505 122,470 121,420 121,365 121,280 121,250 121,220 120,575 119,930 119,770 118,640 118,260 118,140 G PCT Anglo 73.1 74.7 61.0 82.5 88.5 86.9 74.4 71.3 79.7 60.9 80.3 85.1 66.7 64.8 46.8 58.7 71.2 75.2 72.2 67.1 64.6 70.5 74.3 75.1 75.8 82.0 62.9 62.4 59.0 35.8 30.6 71.6 72.2 74.8 72.8 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 14.3 21.6 -7.3 66.2 -328 -0.20 20.47 22,103 20.66 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 26.7 31.4 -4.6 85.2 7230 4.31 19.38 20,923 15.06 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 16.7 20.4 -3.7 81.9 5371 3.20 18.36 19,828 15.16 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 16.6 19.8 -3.3 83.6 -918 -0.55 16.81 18,148 17.35 29.7 32.7 -3.0 90.9 6814 4.06 16.43 17,738 12.36 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 25.5 30.0 -4.6 84.8 -33 -0.02 15.14 16,348 15.16 23.4 27.8 -4.3 84.4 7547 4.50 15.08 16,288 10.58 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 28.0 30.2 -2.2 92.8 333 0.20 14.90 16,093 14.70 17.9 20.1 -2.1 89.4 -713 -0.43 14.51 15,668 14.94 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 23.1 26.8 -3.7 86.3 -4740 -2.83 14.38 15,533 17.21 24.9 28.1 -3.2 88.8 6281 3.75 14.21 15,348 10.47 27.6 32.3 -4.8 85.3 2842 1.70 13.98 15,093 12.28 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 12.44 13,438 12.99 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 20.8 27.4 -6.6 75.9 6531 3.90 12.29 13,268 8.39 31.8 35.2 -3.4 90.4 -1615 -0.96 12.26 13,238 13.22 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 9.41 10,158 11.33 Table 3 - Page 1 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 70 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 58 59 56 4 62 34 69 92 89 64 99 15 55 29 128 86 125 33 22 116 20 124 147 98 120 133 14 8 127 94 136 63 82 66 109 68 5 54 7 17 23 10 Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas DFW Suburbs Northeast TX S Tex RG Valley West Texas Tarrent Cnty DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty Houston Suburbs Central Texas Houston Suburbs Houston West Texas Bexar DFW Suburbs Southeast TX Bexar Central Texas Bexar Houston Tarrent Cnty Bexar Houston Central Texas Central Texas Houston Tarrent Cnty Austin Area DFW Suburbs West Texas DFW Suburbs Dallas Cnty West Texas Northeast TX Central Texas Northeast TX Central Texas Houston Suburbs DFW Suburbs R R R R R D R R R R R R R R R R D R D D R D D R D R R R R R R R R R D R R R R R R R 169,146 163,609 163,869 168,429 160,023 173,149 160,087 162,326 172,138 167,588 170,473 167,349 162,176 175,700 172,221 165,183 174,549 172,135 161,930 171,463 159,816 174,795 175,873 164,081 175,132 171,401 163,187 161,098 163,983 167,374 164,376 167,337 163,234 172,129 174,223 160,508 160,253 167,736 161,039 163,480 163,720 163,063 123,826 122,193 123,411 123,603 122,203 125,896 123,063 126,290 118,380 129,175 125,722 120,450 119,755 124,171 124,645 121,555 125,158 119,518 122,897 132,823 121,754 120,503 136,034 114,953 124,829 135,423 131,479 123,550 115,865 125,516 116,361 115,634 118,623 130,796 122,347 121,547 120,169 117,164 120,296 121,295 123,736 116,978 118,105 118,030 117,985 117,715 117,530 117,465 117,450 116,980 116,895 116,875 116,830 116,690 116,635 116,165 116,020 115,915 115,800 115,655 115,525 115,470 115,395 115,090 114,905 114,875 114,810 114,530 114,485 114,450 114,290 114,195 113,740 113,605 113,415 113,390 112,780 112,760 112,555 112,385 112,255 112,125 111,960 111,680 G PCT Anglo 84.2 75.9 72.6 81.5 85.0 28.0 77.2 70.3 72.4 75.0 74.7 81.8 64.4 57.5 66.4 76.4 26.3 77.9 37.0 32.3 82.8 24.8 28.9 83.7 30.6 70.2 68.6 72.1 67.1 69.8 72.8 80.8 59.3 69.7 23.4 80.9 78.8 51.6 74.7 61.1 59.8 75.6 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 9.31 10,048 11.71 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 8.84 9,548 13.38 64.6 67.7 -3.1 95.4 5512 3.29 8.78 9,483 5.49 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 17.4 23.2 -5.8 74.9 8063 4.81 7.58 8,183 2.77 17.1 25.0 -7.9 68.5 4584 2.73 7.44 8,038 4.71 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7.24 7,818 3.12 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 6.99 7,543 10.39 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 18.4 31.2 -12.8 59.0 8236 4.91 6.41 6,923 1.50 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 34.1 42.2 -8.1 80.9 7495 4.47 6.32 6,828 1.85 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5.33 5,758 7.28 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 28.6 35.2 -6.6 81.2 -4403 -2.63 5.03 5,433 7.66 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 27.0 33.4 -6.4 80.9 -4157 -2.48 3.84 4,143 6.32 16.6 22.7 -6.1 73.2 -3917 -2.34 3.68 3,978 6.02 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 Table 3 - Page 2 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 71 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 12 52 67 117 70 50 6 3 150 65 87 132 96 81 91 16 107 106 118 119 113 114 27 31 88 93 111 85 28 115 139 135 126 78 79 138 51 112 100 26 146 102 Central Texas Austin Area DFW Suburbs Bexar DFW Suburbs Austin Area Northeast TX Houston Suburbs Houston DFW Suburbs West Texas Houston Tarrent Cnty West Texas Tarrent Cnty Houston Suburbs Dallas Cnty DFW Suburbs Bexar Bexar Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Houston Suburbs S Tex RG Valley West Texas Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Dallas Cnty Houston Houston Houston El Paso El Paso Houston Austin Area Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Houston Suburbs Houston Dallas Cnty R R R R R D R R R R R R R R R R R R D D R R D D R R D R R R D R R D D R D R D R D R 160,573 165,994 172,141 168,692 172,135 166,516 160,008 164,955 168,735 165,742 174,343 172,973 164,930 169,684 162,838 166,647 171,872 161,947 164,436 159,981 171,418 172,330 160,084 171,858 160,896 162,161 166,963 160,182 160,373 171,802 175,733 172,422 169,256 160,161 160,658 173,059 175,709 167,051 161,143 160,091 174,485 161,136 119,556 114,146 126,368 117,126 117,432 124,252 119,154 119,595 120,462 124,977 125,360 117,666 113,924 120,535 119,048 122,271 123,986 110,568 116,859 114,477 120,834 130,817 113,596 121,699 115,622 113,584 118,393 113,433 107,968 127,352 123,875 121,136 123,014 111,913 112,399 124,435 128,793 120,192 117,479 117,247 130,444 122,520 111,590 111,445 111,250 111,045 110,995 110,735 109,970 109,760 109,725 109,350 109,320 109,150 109,035 108,980 108,845 108,180 108,045 107,290 106,575 106,465 106,040 105,540 104,295 104,285 103,670 103,455 103,410 102,620 100,995 100,760 100,540 99,750 99,335 98,925 98,435 98,420 98,320 97,965 97,410 97,320 97,195 96,850 G PCT Anglo 64.4 62.8 70.1 32.3 75.3 57.5 70.1 75.4 66.0 62.3 65.0 52.4 65.5 51.8 75.9 80.7 57.9 76.1 28.1 28.5 53.5 68.2 26.2 23.1 60.9 64.1 24.2 48.3 53.3 58.5 21.6 50.0 51.8 31.6 17.0 50.3 41.5 54.9 29.8 52.2 24.7 65.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 19.6 26.7 -7.1 73.5 -1643 -0.98 3.21 3,463 4.19 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 17.7 25.3 -7.6 69.9 -1121 -0.67 2.55 2,753 3.22 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1.61 1,743 0.96 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 21.8 29.7 -7.9 73.3 6706 4.00 1.24 1,338 -2.76 20.6 33.0 -12.4 62.5 5336 3.18 1.08 1,168 -2.10 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 0.92 998 -0.30 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -0.64 -692 2.75 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 14.8 19.7 -4.8 75.4 -7553 -4.51 -3.41 -3,687 1.09 73.9 77.7 -3.8 95.1 4221 2.52 -3.42 -3,697 -5.94 29.4 38.9 -9.5 75.7 -6741 -4.02 -3.99 -4,312 0.03 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 27.5 35.1 -7.6 78.5 -7455 -4.45 -4.97 -5,362 -0.52 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 16.7 24.4 -7.8 68.2 4165 2.48 -6.69 -7,222 -9.17 19.0 35.8 -16.7 53.2 8096 4.83 -6.89 -7,442 -11.72 18.2 28.5 -10.3 64.0 4785 2.85 -7.62 -8,232 -10.48 17.0 26.8 -9.9 63.2 1619 0.97 -8.01 -8,647 -8.97 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -8.84 -9,547 -4.68 22.3 41.3 -19.0 54.0 5422 3.23 -8.86 -9,562 -12.09 44.0 56.2 -12.2 78.3 8072 4.82 -8.95 -9,662 -13.76 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 18.3 33.1 -14.8 55.2 -6494 -3.87 -9.79 -10,572 -5.92 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 Table 3 - Page 3 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 72 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 95 105 76 46 131 101 141 38 142 148 74 77 149 41 80 39 143 42 110 145 40 37 104 35 75 36 144 103 90 140 137 Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty El Paso Austin Area Houston Tarrent Cnty Houston S Tex RG Valley Houston Houston S Tex RG Valley El Paso Houston S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley Houston S Tex RG Valley Dallas Cnty Houston S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley Dallas Cnty S Tex RG Valley El Paso S Tex RG Valley Houston Dallas Cnty Tarrent Cnty Houston Houston D R D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 161,634 175,728 159,752 166,410 175,227 164,664 166,498 168,214 159,541 170,811 162,357 160,385 170,702 168,776 161,949 168,659 167,215 167,668 167,508 164,574 168,662 169,088 172,784 168,627 159,691 168,963 161,859 170,948 159,684 170,732 171,079 115,752 127,590 116,389 118,539 121,368 110,209 113,951 110,865 113,288 125,873 115,236 115,924 121,535 115,033 106,402 110,751 113,877 111,699 111,827 116,918 108,086 113,454 115,035 109,154 103,209 110,963 108,509 121,837 105,664 112,332 127,834 96,150 95,900 94,705 94,335 93,535 92,990 92,390 92,195 91,845 91,615 91,345 90,830 89,230 88,365 86,650 85,015 84,625 84,125 83,885 83,645 79,875 78,885 78,780 77,585 77,455 76,060 75,785 71,970 71,770 69,415 64,375 G PCT Anglo 32.9 51.1 11.2 41.6 13.2 35.5 13.5 13.5 20.3 40.1 24.6 22.9 27.0 17.9 15.5 14.6 23.7 5.4 14.6 28.4 8.2 15.5 25.3 18.6 8.9 11.9 34.9 39.0 27.9 17.2 32.5 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 24.1 39.2 -15.1 61.4 8091 4.83 -11.19 -12,082 -16.02 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 24.6 41.6 -16.9 59.3 -1227 -0.73 -12.64 -13,647 -11.91 24.0 41.2 -17.2 58.3 7590 4.53 -13.38 -14,447 -17.91 19.7 32.5 -12.8 60.6 -2973 -1.77 -13.88 -14,992 -12.11 18.2 37.6 -19.4 48.4 -1139 -0.68 -14.44 -15,592 -13.76 80.2 86.7 -6.4 92.6 577 0.34 -14.62 -15,787 -14.96 21.3 35.0 -13.7 60.8 -8096 -4.83 -14.94 -16,137 -10.11 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 69.4 76.6 -7.3 90.5 -5280 -3.15 -15.41 -16,637 -12.26 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 19.1 33.8 -14.7 56.6 3065 1.83 -17.37 -18,752 -19.19 75.7 80.4 -4.6 94.2 1139 0.68 -18.17 -19,617 -18.85 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -19.76 -21,332 -16.36 78.9 88.0 -9.1 89.7 1022 0.61 -21.27 -22,967 -21.88 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 91.2 95.0 -3.9 95.9 31 0.02 -22.09 -23,857 -22.11 24.9 45.5 -20.6 54.7 -129 -0.08 -22.32 -24,097 -22.24 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 88.4 92.1 -3.8 95.9 1025 0.61 -26.03 -28,107 -26.64 81.5 87.1 -5.6 93.6 1451 0.87 -26.95 -29,097 -27.81 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 78.9 85.1 -6.2 92.7 990 0.59 -28.15 -30,397 -28.74 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 86.0 90.8 -4.8 94.7 1326 0.79 -29.56 -31,922 -30.35 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -33.35 -36,012 -35.33 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 22.0 51.5 -29.6 42.6 3442 2.05 -43,607 -42.44 -40.38 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 167,637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 3 - Page 4 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 73 of 126 TABLE 4 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted by Percentage Citizen Adult Latino A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 42 75 40 36 76 37 38 39 35 80 79 41 31 77 74 118 34 125 124 123 117 140 78 119 43 116 145 143 104 144 90 32 51 148 103 S Tex RG Valley El Paso S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley El Paso S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley El Paso S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley El Paso S Tex RG Valley Bexar S Tex RG Valley Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Houston El Paso Bexar S Tex RG Valley Bexar Houston Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Tarrent Cnty S Tex RG Valley Austin Area Houston Dallas Cnty D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D R D D D R D D D D D D R D D D 167,668 159,691 168,662 168,963 159,752 169,088 168,214 168,659 168,627 161,949 160,658 168,776 171,858 160,385 162,357 164,436 173,149 174,549 174,795 175,674 168,692 170,732 160,161 159,981 169,564 171,463 164,574 167,215 172,784 161,859 159,684 167,074 175,709 170,811 170,948 111,699 103,209 108,086 110,963 116,389 113,454 110,865 110,751 109,154 106,402 112,399 115,033 121,699 115,924 115,236 116,859 125,896 125,158 120,503 135,763 117,126 112,332 111,913 114,477 124,492 132,823 116,918 113,877 115,035 108,509 105,664 126,072 128,793 125,873 121,837 84,125 77,455 79,875 76,060 94,705 78,885 92,195 85,015 77,585 86,650 98,435 88,365 104,285 90,830 91,345 106,575 117,465 115,800 115,090 119,930 111,045 69,415 98,925 106,465 120,575 115,470 83,645 84,625 78,780 75,785 71,770 124,080 98,320 91,615 71,970 G PCT Anglo 5.4 8.9 8.2 11.9 11.2 15.5 13.5 14.6 18.6 15.5 17.0 17.9 23.1 22.9 24.6 28.1 28.0 26.3 24.8 30.6 32.3 17.2 31.6 28.5 35.8 32.3 28.4 23.7 25.3 34.9 27.9 46.8 41.5 40.1 39.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 91.2 95.0 -3.9 95.9 31 0.02 -22.09 -23,857 -22.11 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 88.4 92.1 -3.8 95.9 1025 0.61 -26.03 -28,107 -26.64 86.0 90.8 -4.8 94.7 1326 0.79 -29.56 -31,922 -30.35 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 81.5 87.1 -5.6 93.6 1451 0.87 -26.95 -29,097 -27.81 80.2 86.7 -6.4 92.6 577 0.34 -14.62 -15,787 -14.96 78.9 88.0 -9.1 89.7 1022 0.61 -21.27 -22,967 -21.88 78.9 85.1 -6.2 92.7 990 0.59 -28.15 -30,397 -28.74 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -19.76 -21,332 -16.36 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -8.84 -9,547 -4.68 75.7 80.4 -4.6 94.2 1139 0.68 -18.17 -19,617 -18.85 73.9 77.7 -3.8 95.1 4221 2.52 -3.42 -3,697 -5.94 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 69.4 76.6 -7.3 90.5 -5280 -3.15 -15.41 -16,637 -12.26 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 64.6 67.7 -3.1 95.4 5512 3.29 8.78 9,483 5.49 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7.24 7,818 3.12 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 44.0 56.2 -12.2 78.3 8072 4.82 -8.95 -9,662 -13.76 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -36,012 -35.33 -33.35 Average Deviation (35 Districts) Table 4 - Page 1 of 4 -459.53 -13.13 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 74 of 126 A B C Party D Total E VAP F Dist Area of State CVAP 81 West Texas R 169,684 120,535 108,980 120 30 44 88 82 84 72 85 17 121 45 83 110 46 105 131 122 53 138 137 87 142 25 132 101 52 149 139 147 100 135 141 71 50 29 128 126 48 115 23 73 Bexar Central Texas Central Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas Houston Suburbs Central Texas Bexar Austin Area West Texas Dallas Cnty Austin Area Dallas Cnty Houston Bexar West Texas Houston Houston West Texas Houston Houston Suburbs Houston Tarrent Cnty Austin Area Houston Houston Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Houston West Texas Austin Area Houston Suburbs Houston Houston Austin Area Dallas Cnty Houston Suburbs Bexar D R R R R R R R R R R R D D R D R R R D R D R R D R D D D D R D R D R R R D R R R 175,132 166,022 174,451 160,896 163,234 167,970 170,479 160,182 163,480 174,867 167,604 173,918 167,508 166,410 175,728 175,227 175,184 162,897 173,059 171,079 174,343 159,541 174,168 172,973 164,664 165,994 170,702 175,733 175,873 161,143 172,422 166,498 166,924 166,516 175,700 172,221 169,256 173,008 171,802 163,720 166,719 124,829 124,729 126,713 115,622 118,623 128,898 130,771 113,433 121,295 133,224 126,549 127,906 111,827 118,539 127,590 121,368 128,725 127,381 124,435 127,834 125,360 113,288 129,041 117,666 110,209 114,146 121,535 123,875 136,034 117,479 121,136 113,951 127,097 124,252 124,171 124,645 123,014 135,585 127,352 123,736 127,882 114,810 121,220 125,720 103,670 113,415 124,075 123,075 102,620 112,125 128,905 124,330 123,330 83,885 94,335 95,900 93,535 124,270 123,515 98,420 64,375 109,320 91,845 121,250 109,150 92,990 111,445 89,230 100,540 114,905 97,410 99,750 92,390 123,650 110,735 116,165 116,020 99,335 127,810 100,760 111,960 126,130 G PCT Anglo 51.8 30.6 59.0 60.9 60.9 59.3 58.7 64.6 48.3 61.1 61.0 66.7 67.1 14.6 41.6 51.1 13.2 64.8 72.2 50.3 32.5 65.0 20.3 62.4 52.4 35.5 62.8 27.0 21.6 28.9 29.8 50.0 13.5 71.2 57.5 57.5 66.4 51.8 74.4 58.5 59.8 79.7 H PCT HCVAP I PCT HVAP J %HVAP %HCVAP K %HCVAP/ %HVAP L TPOP Deviation M %TPOP Deviation 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 34.1 31.8 29.7 29.4 28.6 28.0 27.6 27.5 27.0 26.7 25.5 24.9 24.9 24.6 24.1 24.0 23.4 23.1 22.3 22.0 21.8 21.3 20.8 20.6 19.7 19.6 19.1 19.0 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.2 17.9 17.7 17.4 17.1 17.0 16.7 16.7 16.6 16.6 42.2 35.2 32.7 38.9 35.2 30.2 32.3 35.1 33.4 31.4 30.0 28.1 45.5 41.6 39.2 41.2 27.8 26.8 41.3 51.5 29.7 35.0 27.4 33.0 32.5 26.7 33.8 35.8 31.2 33.1 28.5 37.6 20.1 25.3 23.2 25.0 26.8 20.4 24.4 22.7 19.8 -8.1 -3.4 -3.0 -9.5 -6.6 -2.2 -4.8 -7.6 -6.4 -4.6 -4.6 -3.2 -20.6 -16.9 -15.1 -17.2 -4.3 -3.7 -19.0 -29.6 -7.9 -13.7 -6.6 -12.4 -12.8 -7.1 -14.7 -16.7 -12.8 -14.8 -10.3 -19.4 -2.1 -7.6 -5.8 -7.9 -9.9 -3.7 -7.8 -6.1 -3.3 80.9 90.4 90.9 75.7 81.2 92.8 85.3 78.5 80.9 85.2 84.8 88.8 54.7 59.3 61.4 58.3 84.4 86.3 54.0 42.6 73.3 60.8 75.9 62.5 60.6 73.5 56.6 53.2 59.0 55.2 64.0 48.4 89.4 69.9 74.9 68.5 63.2 81.9 68.2 73.2 83.6 7495 -1615 6814 -6741 -4403 333 2842 -7455 -4157 7230 -33 6281 -129 -1227 8091 7590 7547 -4740 5422 3442 6706 -8096 6531 5336 -2973 -1643 3065 8096 8236 -6494 4785 -1139 -713 -1121 8063 4584 1619 5371 4165 -3917 -918 4.47 -0.96 4.06 -4.02 -2.63 0.20 1.70 -4.45 -2.48 4.31 -0.02 3.75 -0.08 -0.73 4.83 4.53 4.50 -2.83 3.23 2.05 4.00 -4.83 3.90 3.18 -1.77 -0.98 1.83 4.83 4.91 -3.87 2.85 -0.68 -0.43 -0.67 4.81 2.73 0.97 3.20 2.48 -2.34 -0.55 Table 4 - Page 2 of 4 N CVAP Deviation 998 6,828 13,238 17,738 -4,312 5,433 16,093 15,093 -5,362 4,143 20,923 16,348 15,348 -24,097 -13,647 -12,082 -14,447 16,288 15,533 -9,562 -43,607 1,338 -16,137 13,268 1,168 -14,992 3,463 -18,752 -7,442 6,923 -10,572 -8,232 -15,592 15,668 2,753 8,183 8,038 -8,647 19,828 -7,222 3,978 18,148 O P % CVAP Deviation % CVAP Dev % TPOP Dev 0.92 6.32 12.26 16.43 -3.99 5.03 14.90 13.98 -4.97 3.84 19.38 15.14 14.21 -22.32 -12.64 -11.19 -13.38 15.08 14.38 -8.86 -40.38 1.24 -14.94 12.29 1.08 -13.88 3.21 -17.37 -6.89 6.41 -9.79 -7.62 -14.44 14.51 2.55 7.58 7.44 -8.01 18.36 -6.69 3.68 16.81 -0.30 1.85 13.22 12.36 0.03 7.66 14.70 12.28 -0.52 6.32 15.06 15.16 10.47 -22.24 -11.91 -16.02 -17.91 10.58 17.21 -12.09 -42.44 -2.76 -10.11 8.39 -2.10 -12.11 4.19 -19.19 -11.72 1.50 -5.92 -10.48 -13.76 14.94 3.22 2.77 4.71 -8.97 15.16 -9.17 6.02 17.35 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 75 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 86 54 28 107 113 111 55 27 112 93 99 49 14 108 129 10 95 136 68 127 56 150 47 12 26 130 109 59 24 102 146 114 134 91 20 94 64 96 70 97 65 69 3 West Texas Central Texas Houston Suburbs Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Central Texas Houston Suburbs Dallas Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Austin Area Central Texas Dallas Cnty Houston DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty Austin Area West Texas Houston Central Texas Houston Austin Area Central Texas Houston Suburbs Houston Dallas Cnty Central Texas Houston Suburbs Dallas Cnty Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Tarrent Cnty Central Texas Tarrent Cnty DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty DFW Suburbs West Texas Houston Suburbs R R R R R D R D R R R D R R R R D R R R R R R R R R D R R R D R R R R R R R R R R R R 165,183 167,736 160,373 171,872 171,418 166,963 162,176 160,084 167,051 162,161 170,473 167,309 163,187 163,233 174,127 163,063 161,634 164,376 160,508 163,983 163,869 168,735 175,314 160,573 160,091 175,532 174,223 163,609 162,685 161,136 174,485 172,330 174,421 162,838 159,816 167,374 167,588 164,930 172,135 168,869 165,742 160,087 164,955 121,555 117,164 107,968 123,986 120,834 118,393 119,755 113,596 120,192 113,584 125,722 144,371 131,479 133,667 130,457 116,978 115,752 116,361 121,547 115,865 123,411 120,462 127,689 119,556 117,247 122,108 122,347 122,193 118,491 122,520 130,444 130,817 143,575 119,048 121,754 125,516 129,175 113,924 117,432 131,311 124,977 123,063 119,595 115,915 112,385 100,995 108,045 106,040 103,410 116,635 104,295 97,965 103,455 116,830 130,085 114,485 122,505 121,280 111,680 96,150 113,740 112,760 114,290 117,985 109,725 125,095 111,590 97,320 119,770 112,780 118,030 118,260 96,850 97,195 105,540 130,040 108,845 115,395 114,195 116,875 109,035 110,995 122,870 109,350 117,450 109,760 G PCT Anglo 76.4 51.6 53.3 57.9 53.5 24.2 64.4 26.2 54.9 64.1 74.7 73.1 68.6 74.3 62.9 75.6 32.9 72.8 80.9 67.1 72.6 66.0 80.3 64.4 52.2 71.6 23.4 75.9 74.8 65.0 24.7 68.2 74.7 75.9 82.8 69.8 75.0 65.5 75.3 70.5 62.3 77.2 75.4 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 14.8 19.7 -4.8 75.4 -7553 -4.51 -3.41 -3,687 1.09 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 14.3 21.6 -7.3 66.2 -328 -0.20 20.47 22,103 20.66 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5.33 5,758 7.28 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1.61 1,743 0.96 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 9.31 10,048 11.71 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 Table 4 - Page 3 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 76 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 92 133 13 16 60 89 106 8 58 33 18 63 22 67 15 57 98 6 4 61 66 11 2 5 21 62 7 19 1 9 Tarrent Cnty Houston Central Texas Houston Suburbs West Texas DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs Central Texas Central Texas DFW Suburbs Southeast TX DFW Suburbs Southeast TX DFW Suburbs Houston Suburbs Southeast TX Tarrent Cnty Northeast TX DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Southeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Southeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX R R R R R R R R R R R R D R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 162,326 171,401 170,617 166,647 171,429 172,138 161,947 161,098 169,146 172,135 169,888 167,337 161,930 172,141 167,349 164,418 164,081 160,008 168,429 176,054 172,129 168,699 173,869 160,253 172,180 160,023 161,039 171,969 165,823 166,719 126,290 135,423 131,129 122,271 131,870 118,380 110,568 123,550 123,826 119,518 132,877 115,634 122,897 126,368 120,450 124,630 114,953 119,154 123,603 130,782 130,796 128,086 130,806 120,169 130,308 122,203 120,296 131,682 125,927 125,947 116,980 114,530 123,515 108,180 127,825 116,895 107,290 114,450 118,105 115,655 126,560 113,605 115,525 111,250 116,690 118,140 114,875 109,970 117,715 128,065 113,390 118,640 124,825 112,555 121,365 117,530 112,255 128,705 122,470 121,420 G PCT Anglo 70.3 70.2 75.2 80.7 86.9 72.4 76.1 72.1 84.2 77.9 71.3 80.8 37.0 70.1 81.8 72.8 83.7 70.1 81.5 88.5 69.7 72.2 85.1 78.8 82.0 85.0 74.7 82.5 75.1 75.8 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -0.64 -692 2.75 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 6.99 7,543 10.39 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 9.41 10,158 11.33 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 8.84 9,548 13.38 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 13,438 12.99 12.44 459.56 Average Deviation (115 Districts) 4.00 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 167,637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 4 - Page 4 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 77 of 126 TABLE 5 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted and Summed by Region A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 136 Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area R D R D D D D R R 167,604 166,410 175,314 173,008 167,309 166,516 175,709 165,994 164,376 126,549 118,539 127,689 135,585 144,371 124,252 128,793 114,146 116,361 124,330 94,335 125,095 127,810 130,085 110,735 98,320 111,445 113,740 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 73 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar R D R D D D R R D D D 166,719 171,463 168,692 164,436 159,981 175,132 174,867 175,184 175,674 174,795 174,549 127,882 132,823 117,126 116,859 114,477 124,829 133,224 128,725 135,763 120,503 125,158 126,130 115,470 111,045 106,575 106,465 114,810 128,905 124,270 119,930 115,090 115,800 G PCT Anglo 66.7 41.6 80.3 74.4 73.1 57.5 41.5 62.8 72.8 G PCT Anglo 79.7 32.3 32.3 28.1 28.5 30.6 61.0 64.8 30.6 24.8 26.3 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 25.5 30.0 -4.6 84.8 -33 -0.02 15.14 16,348 15.16 24.6 41.6 -16.9 59.3 -1227 -0.73 -12.64 -13,647 -11.91 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 16.7 20.4 -3.7 81.9 5371 3.20 18.36 19,828 15.16 14.3 21.6 -7.3 66.2 -328 -0.20 20.47 22,103 20.66 17.7 25.3 -7.6 69.9 -1121 -0.67 2.55 2,753 3.22 44.0 56.2 -12.2 78.3 8072 4.82 -8.95 -9,662 -13.76 19.6 26.7 -7.1 73.5 -1643 -0.98 3.21 3,463 4.19 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5,758 7.28 5.33 59.32 Average Deviation (9 Districts) 6.59 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 16.6 19.8 -3.3 83.6 -918 -0.55 16.81 18,148 17.35 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 34.1 42.2 -8.1 80.9 7495 4.47 6.32 6,828 1.85 26.7 31.4 -4.6 85.2 7230 4.31 19.38 20,923 15.06 23.4 27.8 -4.3 84.4 7547 4.50 15.08 16,288 10.58 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7,818 3.12 7.24 89.54 Average Deviation (11 Districts) 8.14 Table 5 - Page 1 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 78 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 8 12 13 14 17 20 30 44 54 55 56 58 59 Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas R R R R R R R R R R R R R 161,098 160,573 170,617 163,187 163,480 159,816 166,022 174,451 167,736 162,176 163,869 169,146 163,609 123,550 119,556 131,129 131,479 121,295 121,754 124,729 126,713 117,164 119,755 123,411 123,826 122,193 114,450 111,590 123,515 114,485 112,125 115,395 121,220 125,720 112,385 116,635 117,985 118,105 118,030 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 100 102 103 104 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty D R D D R R R D D D R R R R 161,143 161,136 170,948 172,784 175,728 171,872 163,233 174,223 167,508 166,963 167,051 171,418 172,330 171,802 117,479 122,520 121,837 115,035 127,590 123,986 133,667 122,347 111,827 118,393 120,192 120,834 130,817 127,352 97,410 96,850 71,970 78,780 95,900 108,045 122,505 112,780 83,885 103,410 97,965 106,040 105,540 100,760 G PCT Anglo 72.1 64.4 75.2 68.6 61.1 82.8 59.0 60.9 51.6 64.4 72.6 84.2 75.9 G PCT Anglo 29.8 65.0 39.0 25.3 51.1 57.9 74.3 23.4 14.6 24.2 54.9 53.5 68.2 58.5 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 27.0 33.4 -6.4 80.9 -4157 -2.48 3.84 4,143 6.32 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 31.8 35.2 -3.4 90.4 -1615 -0.96 12.26 13,238 13.22 29.7 32.7 -3.0 90.9 6814 4.06 16.43 17,738 12.36 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 10,048 11.71 9.31 109.16 Average Deviation (13 Districts) 8.40 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 18.3 33.1 -14.8 55.2 -6494 -3.87 -9.79 -10,572 -5.92 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -33.35 -36,012 -35.33 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 24.1 39.2 -15.1 61.4 8091 4.83 -11.19 -12,082 -16.02 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 24.9 45.5 -20.6 54.7 -129 -0.08 -22.32 -24,097 -22.24 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 16.7 24.4 -7.8 68.2 4165 2.48 -7,222 -9.17 -6.69 -120.31 Average Deviation (14 Districts) -8.59 Table 5 - Page 2 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 79 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 4 10 33 61 63 64 65 66 67 70 89 106 DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs R R R R R R R R R R R R 168,429 163,063 172,135 176,054 167,337 167,588 165,742 172,129 172,141 172,135 172,138 161,947 123,603 116,978 119,518 130,782 115,634 129,175 124,977 130,796 126,368 117,432 118,380 110,568 117,715 111,680 115,655 128,065 113,605 116,875 109,350 113,390 111,250 110,995 116,895 107,290 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 75 76 77 78 79 El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso D D D D D 159,691 159,752 160,385 160,161 160,658 103,209 116,389 115,924 111,913 112,399 77,455 94,705 90,830 98,925 98,435 G PCT Anglo 81.5 75.6 77.9 88.5 80.8 75.0 62.3 69.7 70.1 75.3 72.4 76.1 G PCT Anglo 8.9 11.2 22.9 31.6 17.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -692 2.75 -0.64 71.29 Average Deviation (12 Districts) 5.94 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -9,547 -4.68 -8.84 -73.68 Average Deviation (5 Districts) -14.74 Table 5 - Page 3 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 80 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty Harris Cnty R R R R R D R R R R D R D D D D D D D D D D D R 169,256 163,983 172,221 174,127 175,532 175,227 172,973 171,401 174,421 172,422 171,079 173,059 175,733 170,732 166,498 159,541 167,215 161,859 164,574 174,485 175,873 170,811 170,702 168,735 123,014 115,865 124,645 130,457 122,108 121,368 117,666 135,423 143,575 121,136 127,834 124,435 123,875 112,332 113,951 113,288 113,877 108,509 116,918 130,444 136,034 125,873 121,535 120,462 99,335 114,290 116,020 121,280 119,770 93,535 109,150 114,530 130,040 99,750 64,375 98,420 100,540 69,415 92,390 91,845 84,625 75,785 83,645 97,195 114,905 91,615 89,230 109,725 G PCT Anglo 51.8 67.1 66.4 62.9 71.6 13.2 52.4 70.2 74.7 50.0 32.5 50.3 21.6 17.2 13.5 20.3 23.7 34.9 28.4 24.7 28.9 40.1 27.0 66.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 17.0 26.8 -9.9 63.2 1619 0.97 -8.01 -8,647 -8.97 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 17.1 25.0 -7.9 68.5 4584 2.73 7.44 8,038 4.71 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 24.0 41.2 -17.2 58.3 7590 4.53 -13.38 -14,447 -17.91 20.6 33.0 -12.4 62.5 5336 3.18 1.08 1,168 -2.10 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 18.2 28.5 -10.3 64.0 4785 2.85 -7.62 -8,232 -10.48 22.0 51.5 -29.6 42.6 3442 2.05 -40.38 -43,607 -42.44 22.3 41.3 -19.0 54.0 5422 3.23 -8.86 -9,562 -12.09 19.0 35.8 -16.7 53.2 8096 4.83 -6.89 -7,442 -11.72 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 18.2 37.6 -19.4 48.4 -1139 -0.68 -14.44 -15,592 -13.76 21.3 35.0 -13.7 60.8 -8096 -4.83 -14.94 -16,137 -10.11 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 18.4 31.2 -12.8 59.0 8236 4.91 6.41 6,923 1.50 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 19.1 33.8 -14.7 56.6 3065 1.83 -17.37 -18,752 -19.19 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1,743 0.96 1.61 -194.62 Average Deviation (24 Districts) -8.11 Table 5 - Page 4 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 81 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 3 15 16 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 85 Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs R R R R R R R D R R R 164,955 167,349 166,647 163,720 162,685 174,168 160,091 160,084 160,373 175,700 160,182 119,595 120,450 122,271 123,736 118,491 129,041 117,247 113,596 107,968 124,171 113,433 109,760 116,690 108,180 111,960 118,260 121,250 97,320 104,295 100,995 116,165 102,620 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 1 2 5 6 7 9 11 62 Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX R R R R R R R R 165,823 173,869 160,253 160,008 161,039 166,719 168,699 160,023 125,927 130,806 120,169 119,154 120,296 125,947 128,086 122,203 122,470 124,825 112,555 109,970 112,255 121,420 118,640 117,530 G PCT Anglo 75.4 81.8 80.7 59.8 74.8 62.4 52.2 26.2 53.3 57.5 48.3 G PCT Anglo 75.1 85.1 78.8 70.1 74.7 75.8 72.2 85.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 16.6 22.7 -6.1 73.2 -3917 -2.34 3.68 3,978 6.02 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 20.8 27.4 -6.6 75.9 6531 3.90 12.29 13,268 8.39 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 14.8 19.7 -4.8 75.4 -7553 -4.51 -3.41 -3,687 1.09 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 17.4 23.2 -5.8 74.9 8063 4.81 7.58 8,183 2.77 27.5 35.1 -7.6 78.5 -7455 -4.45 -5,362 -0.52 -4.97 18.24 Average Deviation (11 Districts) 1.66 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 12.44 13,438 12.99 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 9,548 13.38 8.84 70.21 Average Deviation (8 Districts) 8.78 Table 5 - Page 5 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 82 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 74 80 S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley D R D D D D D D D D D R D D 171,858 167,074 173,149 168,627 168,963 169,088 168,214 168,659 168,662 168,776 167,668 169,564 162,357 161,949 121,699 126,072 125,896 109,154 110,963 113,454 110,865 110,751 108,086 115,033 111,699 124,492 115,236 106,402 104,285 124,080 117,465 77,585 76,060 78,885 92,195 85,015 79,875 88,365 84,125 120,575 91,345 86,650 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 18 19 21 22 57 Southeast TX Southeast TX Southeast TX Southeast TX Southeast TX R R R D R 169,888 171,969 172,180 161,930 164,418 132,877 131,682 130,308 122,897 124,630 126,560 128,705 121,365 115,525 118,140 G PCT Anglo 23.1 46.8 28.0 18.6 11.9 15.5 13.5 14.6 8.2 17.9 5.4 35.8 24.6 15.5 G PCT Anglo 71.3 82.5 82.0 37.0 72.8 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 73.9 77.7 -3.8 95.1 4221 2.52 -3.42 -3,697 -5.94 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 64.6 67.7 -3.1 95.4 5512 3.29 8.78 9,483 5.49 78.9 85.1 -6.2 92.7 990 0.59 -28.15 -30,397 -28.74 86.0 90.8 -4.8 94.7 1326 0.79 -29.56 -31,922 -30.35 81.5 87.1 -5.6 93.6 1451 0.87 -26.95 -29,097 -27.81 80.2 86.7 -6.4 92.6 577 0.34 -14.62 -15,787 -14.96 78.9 88.0 -9.1 89.7 1022 0.61 -21.27 -22,967 -21.88 88.4 92.1 -3.8 95.9 1025 0.61 -26.03 -28,107 -26.64 75.7 80.4 -4.6 94.2 1139 0.68 -18.17 -19,617 -18.85 91.2 95.0 -3.9 95.9 31 0.02 -22.09 -23,857 -22.11 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 69.4 76.6 -7.3 90.5 -5280 -3.15 -15.41 -16,637 -12.26 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -21,332 -16.36 -19.76 -190.07 Average Deviation (14 Districts) -13.58 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 6.99 7,543 10.39 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 10,158 11.33 9.41 65.18 Average Deviation (5 Districts) 13.04 Table 5 - Page 6 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 83 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 101 Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty D R R R R D R R R R D 159,684 162,838 162,326 162,161 167,374 161,634 164,930 168,869 164,081 170,473 164,664 105,664 119,048 126,290 113,584 125,516 115,752 113,924 131,311 114,953 125,722 110,209 71,770 108,845 116,980 103,455 114,195 96,150 109,035 122,870 114,875 116,830 92,990 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 53 60 68 69 71 72 81 82 83 84 86 87 88 West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas R R R R R R R R R R R R R 162,897 171,429 160,508 160,087 166,924 170,479 169,684 163,234 173,918 167,970 165,183 174,343 160,896 127,381 131,870 121,547 123,063 127,097 130,771 120,535 118,623 127,906 128,898 121,555 125,360 115,622 123,515 127,825 112,760 117,450 123,650 123,075 108,980 113,415 123,330 124,075 115,915 109,320 103,670 G PCT Anglo 27.9 75.9 70.3 64.1 69.8 32.9 65.5 70.5 83.7 74.7 35.5 G PCT Anglo 72.2 86.9 80.9 77.2 71.2 64.6 51.8 59.3 67.1 58.7 76.4 65.0 60.9 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 19.7 32.5 -12.8 60.6 -2973 -1.77 -14,992 -12.11 -13.88 -18.34 Average Deviation (11 Districts) -1.67 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 23.1 26.8 -3.7 86.3 -4740 -2.83 14.38 15,533 17.21 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 17.9 20.1 -2.1 89.4 -713 -0.43 14.51 15,668 14.94 27.6 32.3 -4.8 85.3 2842 1.70 13.98 15,093 12.28 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 0.92 998 -0.30 28.6 35.2 -6.6 81.2 -4403 -2.63 5.03 5,433 7.66 24.9 28.1 -3.2 88.8 6281 3.75 14.21 15,348 10.47 28.0 30.2 -2.2 92.8 333 0.20 14.90 16,093 14.70 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 21.8 29.7 -7.9 73.3 6706 4.00 1.24 1,338 -2.76 29.4 38.9 -9.5 75.7 -6741 -4.02 -4,312 0.03 -3.99 114.11 Average Deviation (13 Districts) 8.78 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 167,637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 5 - Page 7 of 7 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 84 of 126 TABLE 6 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted and Summed by Party A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 43 44 45 47 52 Northeast TX Northeast TX Houston Suburbs DFW Suburbs Northeast TX Northeast TX Northeast TX Central Texas Northeast TX DFW Suburbs Northeast TX Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Central Texas Southeast TX Southeast TX Central Texas Southeast TX Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Houston Suburbs Central Texas S Tex RG Valley DFW Suburbs S Tex RG Valley Central Texas Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 165,823 173,869 164,955 168,429 160,253 160,008 161,039 161,098 166,719 163,063 168,699 160,573 170,617 163,187 167,349 166,647 163,480 169,888 171,969 159,816 172,180 163,720 162,685 174,168 160,091 160,373 175,700 166,022 167,074 172,135 169,564 174,451 167,604 175,314 165,994 125,927 130,806 119,595 123,603 120,169 119,154 120,296 123,550 125,947 116,978 128,086 119,556 131,129 131,479 120,450 122,271 121,295 132,877 131,682 121,754 130,308 123,736 118,491 129,041 117,247 107,968 124,171 124,729 126,072 119,518 124,492 126,713 126,549 127,689 114,146 122,470 124,825 109,760 117,715 112,555 109,970 112,255 114,450 121,420 111,680 118,640 111,590 123,515 114,485 116,690 108,180 112,125 126,560 128,705 115,395 121,365 111,960 118,260 121,250 97,320 100,995 116,165 121,220 124,080 115,655 120,575 125,720 124,330 125,095 111,445 G PCT Anglo 75.1 85.1 75.4 81.5 78.8 70.1 74.7 72.1 75.8 75.6 72.2 64.4 75.2 68.6 81.8 80.7 61.1 71.3 82.5 82.8 82.0 59.8 74.8 62.4 52.2 53.3 57.5 59.0 46.8 77.9 35.8 60.9 66.7 80.3 62.8 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 12.44 13,438 12.99 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 27.0 33.4 -6.4 80.9 -4157 -2.48 3.84 4,143 6.32 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 16.6 22.7 -6.1 73.2 -3917 -2.34 3.68 3,978 6.02 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 20.8 27.4 -6.6 75.9 6531 3.90 12.29 13,268 8.39 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 17.4 23.2 -5.8 74.9 8063 4.81 7.58 8,183 2.77 31.8 35.2 -3.4 90.4 -1615 -0.96 12.26 13,238 13.22 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 29.7 32.7 -3.0 90.9 6814 4.06 16.43 17,738 12.36 25.5 30.0 -4.6 84.8 -33 -0.02 15.14 16,348 15.16 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 19.6 26.7 -7.1 73.5 -1643 -0.98 3.21 3,463 4.19 Table 6 - Page 1 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 85 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 102 105 106 107 West Texas Central Texas Central Texas Central Texas Southeast TX Central Texas Central Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs Northeast TX DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs West Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs West Texas West Texas Bexar West Texas West Texas West Texas West Texas Houston Suburbs West Texas West Texas West Texas DFW Suburbs Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty DFW Suburbs Dallas Cnty R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 162,897 167,736 162,176 163,869 164,418 169,146 163,609 171,429 176,054 160,023 167,337 167,588 165,742 172,129 172,141 160,508 160,087 172,135 166,924 170,479 166,719 169,684 163,234 173,918 167,970 160,182 165,183 174,343 160,896 172,138 162,838 162,326 162,161 167,374 164,930 168,869 164,081 170,473 161,136 175,728 161,947 171,872 127,381 117,164 119,755 123,411 124,630 123,826 122,193 131,870 130,782 122,203 115,634 129,175 124,977 130,796 126,368 121,547 123,063 117,432 127,097 130,771 127,882 120,535 118,623 127,906 128,898 113,433 121,555 125,360 115,622 118,380 119,048 126,290 113,584 125,516 113,924 131,311 114,953 125,722 122,520 127,590 110,568 123,986 123,515 112,385 116,635 117,985 118,140 118,105 118,030 127,825 128,065 117,530 113,605 116,875 109,350 113,390 111,250 112,760 117,450 110,995 123,650 123,075 126,130 108,980 113,415 123,330 124,075 102,620 115,915 109,320 103,670 116,895 108,845 116,980 103,455 114,195 109,035 122,870 114,875 116,830 96,850 95,900 107,290 108,045 G PCT Anglo 72.2 51.6 64.4 72.6 72.8 84.2 75.9 86.9 88.5 85.0 80.8 75.0 62.3 69.7 70.1 80.9 77.2 75.3 71.2 64.6 79.7 51.8 59.3 67.1 58.7 48.3 76.4 65.0 60.9 72.4 75.9 70.3 64.1 69.8 65.5 70.5 83.7 74.7 65.0 51.1 76.1 57.9 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 23.1 26.8 -3.7 86.3 -4740 -2.83 14.38 15,533 17.21 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 9.41 10,158 11.33 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 9.31 10,048 11.71 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 8.84 9,548 13.38 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 17.9 20.1 -2.1 89.4 -713 -0.43 14.51 15,668 14.94 27.6 32.3 -4.8 85.3 2842 1.70 13.98 15,093 12.28 16.6 19.8 -3.3 83.6 -918 -0.55 16.81 18,148 17.35 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 0.92 998 -0.30 28.6 35.2 -6.6 81.2 -4403 -2.63 5.03 5,433 7.66 24.9 28.1 -3.2 88.8 6281 3.75 14.21 15,348 10.47 28.0 30.2 -2.2 92.8 333 0.20 14.90 16,093 14.70 27.5 35.1 -7.6 78.5 -7455 -4.45 -4.97 -5,362 -0.52 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 21.8 29.7 -7.9 73.3 6706 4.00 1.24 1,338 -2.76 29.4 38.9 -9.5 75.7 -6741 -4.02 -3.99 -4,312 0.03 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 24.1 39.2 -15.1 61.4 8091 4.83 -11.19 -12,082 -16.02 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -0.64 -692 2.75 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 Table 6 - Page 2 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 86 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 108 112 113 114 115 117 121 122 126 127 128 129 130 132 133 134 135 136 138 150 Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Bexar Bexar Bexar Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Austin Area Houston Houston R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 163,233 167,051 171,418 172,330 171,802 168,692 174,867 175,184 169,256 163,983 172,221 174,127 175,532 172,973 171,401 174,421 172,422 164,376 173,059 168,735 133,667 120,192 120,834 130,817 127,352 117,126 133,224 128,725 123,014 115,865 124,645 130,457 122,108 117,666 135,423 143,575 121,136 116,361 124,435 120,462 122,505 97,965 106,040 105,540 100,760 111,045 128,905 124,270 99,335 114,290 116,020 121,280 119,770 109,150 114,530 130,040 99,750 113,740 98,420 109,725 G PCT Anglo 74.3 54.9 53.5 68.2 58.5 32.3 61.0 64.8 51.8 67.1 66.4 62.9 71.6 52.4 70.2 74.7 50.0 72.8 50.3 66.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 16.7 24.4 -7.8 68.2 4165 2.48 -6.69 -7,222 -9.17 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 26.7 31.4 -4.6 85.2 7230 4.31 19.38 20,923 15.06 23.4 27.8 -4.3 84.4 7547 4.50 15.08 16,288 10.58 17.0 26.8 -9.9 63.2 1619 0.97 -8.01 -8,647 -8.97 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 17.1 25.0 -7.9 68.5 4584 2.73 7.44 8,038 4.71 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 20.6 33.0 -12.4 62.5 5336 3.18 1.08 1,168 -2.10 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 18.2 28.5 -10.3 64.0 4785 2.85 -7.62 -8,232 -10.48 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5.33 5,758 7.28 22.3 41.3 -19.0 54.0 5422 3.23 -8.86 -9,562 -12.09 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1,743 0.96 1.61 618.05 6.37 Average Deviation (97 Districts) 22 Southeast TX D 161,930 122,897 115,525 27 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 46 48 49 50 51 74 Houston Suburbs S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area Austin Area S Tex RG Valley D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 160,084 171,858 173,149 168,627 168,963 169,088 168,214 168,659 168,662 168,776 167,668 166,410 173,008 167,309 166,516 175,709 162,357 113,596 121,699 125,896 109,154 110,963 113,454 110,865 110,751 108,086 115,033 111,699 118,539 135,585 144,371 124,252 128,793 115,236 104,295 104,285 117,465 77,585 76,060 78,885 92,195 85,015 79,875 88,365 84,125 94,335 127,810 130,085 110,735 98,320 91,345 37.0 26.2 23.1 28.0 18.6 11.9 15.5 13.5 14.6 8.2 17.9 5.4 41.6 74.4 73.1 57.5 41.5 24.6 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 14.8 73.9 64.6 78.9 86.0 81.5 80.2 78.9 88.4 75.7 91.2 24.6 16.7 14.3 17.7 44.0 69.4 19.7 77.7 67.7 85.1 90.8 87.1 86.7 88.0 92.1 80.4 95.0 41.6 20.4 21.6 25.3 56.2 76.6 -4.8 -3.8 -3.1 -6.2 -4.8 -5.6 -6.4 -9.1 -3.8 -4.6 -3.9 -16.9 -3.7 -7.3 -7.6 -12.2 -7.3 75.4 95.1 95.4 92.7 94.7 93.6 92.6 89.7 95.9 94.2 95.9 59.3 81.9 66.2 69.9 78.3 90.5 -7553 4221 5512 990 1326 1451 577 1022 1025 1139 31 -1227 5371 -328 -1121 8072 -5280 -4.51 2.52 3.29 0.59 0.79 0.87 0.34 0.61 0.61 0.68 0.02 -0.73 3.20 -0.20 -0.67 4.82 -3.15 Table 6 - Page 3 of 4 7,543 -3,687 -3,697 9,483 -30,397 -31,922 -29,097 -15,787 -22,967 -28,107 -19,617 -23,857 -13,647 19,828 22,103 2,753 -9,662 -16,637 6.99 -3.41 -3.42 8.78 -28.15 -29.56 -26.95 -14.62 -21.27 -26.03 -18.17 -22.09 -12.64 18.36 20.47 2.55 -8.95 -15.41 10.39 1.09 -5.94 5.49 -28.74 -30.35 -27.81 -14.96 -21.88 -26.64 -18.85 -22.11 -11.91 15.16 20.66 3.22 -13.76 -12.26 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 87 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 75 76 77 78 79 80 90 95 100 101 103 104 109 110 111 116 118 119 120 123 124 125 131 137 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso El Paso S Tex RG Valley Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston Houston D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 159,691 159,752 160,385 160,161 160,658 161,949 159,684 161,634 161,143 164,664 170,948 172,784 174,223 167,508 166,963 171,463 164,436 159,981 175,132 175,674 174,795 174,549 175,227 171,079 175,733 170,732 166,498 159,541 167,215 161,859 164,574 174,485 175,873 170,811 170,702 103,209 116,389 115,924 111,913 112,399 106,402 105,664 115,752 117,479 110,209 121,837 115,035 122,347 111,827 118,393 132,823 116,859 114,477 124,829 135,763 120,503 125,158 121,368 127,834 123,875 112,332 113,951 113,288 113,877 108,509 116,918 130,444 136,034 125,873 121,535 77,455 94,705 90,830 98,925 98,435 86,650 71,770 96,150 97,410 92,990 71,970 78,780 112,780 83,885 103,410 115,470 106,575 106,465 114,810 119,930 115,090 115,800 93,535 64,375 100,540 69,415 92,390 91,845 84,625 75,785 83,645 97,195 114,905 91,615 89,230 G PCT Anglo 8.9 11.2 22.9 31.6 17.0 15.5 27.9 32.9 29.8 35.5 39.0 25.3 23.4 14.6 24.2 32.3 28.1 28.5 30.6 30.6 24.8 26.3 13.2 32.5 21.6 17.2 13.5 20.3 23.7 34.9 28.4 24.7 28.9 40.1 27.0 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -8.84 -9,547 -4.68 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -19.76 -21,332 -16.36 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 18.3 33.1 -14.8 55.2 -6494 -3.87 -9.79 -10,572 -5.92 19.7 32.5 -12.8 60.6 -2973 -1.77 -13.88 -14,992 -12.11 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -33.35 -36,012 -35.33 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 24.9 45.5 -20.6 54.7 -129 -0.08 -22.32 -24,097 -22.24 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 34.1 42.2 -8.1 80.9 7495 4.47 6.32 6,828 1.85 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7.24 7,818 3.12 24.0 41.2 -17.2 58.3 7590 4.53 -13.38 -14,447 -17.91 22.0 51.5 -29.6 42.6 3442 2.05 -40.38 -43,607 -42.44 19.0 35.8 -16.7 53.2 8096 4.83 -6.89 -7,442 -11.72 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 18.2 37.6 -19.4 48.4 -1139 -0.68 -14.44 -15,592 -13.76 21.3 35.0 -13.7 60.8 -8096 -4.83 -14.94 -16,137 -10.11 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 18.4 31.2 -12.8 59.0 8236 4.91 6.41 6,923 1.50 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 19.1 33.8 -14.7 56.6 3065 1.83 -18,752 -19.19 -17.37 -618.03 Average Deviation (53 Districts) -11.66 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 167,637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 6 - Page 4 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 88 of 126 TABLE 7 STATE OF TEXAS STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES 83rd Legislature - 1st Called Session - S.B. 3 (June 2013) Citizen Voting Age Population Analysis Using American Community Survey Sorted by Percent TPOP Deviation A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 61 147 139 105 51 29 123 130 47 131 122 120 121 124 125 146 44 134 87 109 25 129 83 2 34 138 48 132 104 135 114 128 21 67 89 DFW Suburbs Houston Houston Dallas Cnty Austin Area Houston Suburbs Bexar Houston Austin Area Houston Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Bexar Houston Central Texas Houston West Texas Dallas Cnty Houston Suburbs Houston West Texas Northeast TX S Tex RG Valley Houston Austin Area Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Southeast TX DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs R D D R D R D R R D R D R D D D R R R D R R R R D R D R D R R R R R R 176,054 175,873 175,733 175,728 175,709 175,700 175,674 175,532 175,314 175,227 175,184 175,132 174,867 174,795 174,549 174,485 174,451 174,421 174,343 174,223 174,168 174,127 173,918 173,869 173,149 173,059 173,008 172,973 172,784 172,422 172,330 172,221 172,180 172,141 172,138 130,782 136,034 123,875 127,590 128,793 124,171 135,763 122,108 127,689 121,368 128,725 124,829 133,224 120,503 125,158 130,444 126,713 143,575 125,360 122,347 129,041 130,457 127,906 130,806 125,896 124,435 135,585 117,666 115,035 121,136 130,817 124,645 130,308 126,368 118,380 128,065 114,905 100,540 95,900 98,320 116,165 119,930 119,770 125,095 93,535 124,270 114,810 128,905 115,090 115,800 97,195 125,720 130,040 109,320 112,780 121,250 121,280 123,330 124,825 117,465 98,420 127,810 109,150 78,780 99,750 105,540 116,020 121,365 111,250 116,895 G PCT Anglo 88.5 28.9 21.6 51.1 41.5 57.5 30.6 71.6 80.3 13.2 64.8 30.6 61.0 24.8 26.3 24.7 60.9 74.7 65.0 23.4 62.4 62.9 67.1 85.1 28.0 50.3 74.4 52.4 25.3 50.0 68.2 66.4 82.0 70.1 72.4 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 6.0 10.6 -4.6 56.9 8417 5.02 18.60 20,083 13.58 18.4 31.2 -12.8 59.0 8236 4.91 6.41 6,923 1.50 19.0 35.8 -16.7 53.2 8096 4.83 -6.89 -7,442 -11.72 24.1 39.2 -15.1 61.4 8091 4.83 -11.19 -12,082 -16.02 44.0 56.2 -12.2 78.3 8072 4.82 -8.95 -9,662 -13.76 17.4 23.2 -5.8 74.9 8063 4.81 7.58 8,183 2.77 62.3 66.5 -4.2 93.7 8037 4.79 11.06 11,948 6.27 11.6 17.7 -6.2 65.3 7895 4.71 10.92 11,788 6.21 12.3 12.6 -0.3 97.7 7677 4.58 15.85 17,113 11.27 24.0 41.2 -17.2 58.3 7590 4.53 -13.38 -14,447 -17.91 23.4 27.8 -4.3 84.4 7547 4.50 15.08 16,288 10.58 34.1 42.2 -8.1 80.9 7495 4.47 6.32 6,828 1.85 26.7 31.4 -4.6 85.2 7230 4.31 19.38 20,923 15.06 62.4 66.0 -3.6 94.6 7158 4.27 6.58 7,108 2.31 64.3 69.1 -4.8 93.1 6912 4.12 7.24 7,818 3.12 11.2 27.3 -16.1 41.0 6848 4.09 -9.99 -10,787 -14.07 29.7 32.7 -3.0 90.9 6814 4.06 16.43 17,738 12.36 11.0 13.3 -2.3 82.6 6784 4.05 20.43 22,058 16.38 21.8 29.7 -7.9 73.3 6706 4.00 1.24 1,338 -2.76 11.4 20.0 -8.6 57.0 6586 3.93 4.44 4,798 0.51 20.8 27.4 -6.6 75.9 6531 3.90 12.29 13,268 8.39 13.6 20.4 -6.8 66.5 6490 3.87 12.32 13,298 8.44 24.9 28.1 -3.2 88.8 6281 3.75 14.21 15,348 10.47 5.5 10.0 -4.5 55.2 6232 3.72 15.60 16,843 11.88 64.6 67.7 -3.1 95.4 5512 3.29 8.78 9,483 5.49 22.3 41.3 -19.0 54.0 5422 3.23 -8.86 -9,562 -12.09 16.7 20.4 -3.7 81.9 5371 3.20 18.36 19,828 15.16 20.6 33.0 -12.4 62.5 5336 3.18 1.08 1,168 -2.10 51.7 69.2 -17.5 74.7 5147 3.07 -27.04 -29,202 -30.11 18.2 28.5 -10.3 64.0 4785 2.85 -7.62 -8,232 -10.48 11.0 24.2 -13.2 45.6 4693 2.80 -2.26 -2,442 -5.06 17.1 25.0 -7.9 68.5 4584 2.73 7.44 8,038 4.71 5.2 9.3 -4.1 55.7 4543 2.71 12.39 13,383 9.68 7.5 13.9 -6.4 54.0 4504 2.69 3.03 3,268 0.34 8.9 13.0 -4.2 68.0 4501 2.68 8.25 8,913 5.57 Table 7 - Page 1 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 89 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 33 70 66 19 107 31 115 116 60 113 133 137 103 148 140 149 13 72 99 18 81 43 126 58 37 36 97 41 150 11 117 40 39 35 4 38 84 54 42 45 64 110 DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs DFW Suburbs Southeast TX Dallas Cnty S Tex RG Valley Dallas Cnty Bexar West Texas Dallas Cnty Houston Houston Dallas Cnty Houston Houston Houston Central Texas West Texas Tarrent Cnty Southeast TX West Texas S Tex RG Valley Houston Central Texas S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley Tarrent Cnty S Tex RG Valley Houston Northeast TX Bexar S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley S Tex RG Valley DFW Suburbs S Tex RG Valley West Texas Central Texas S Tex RG Valley Austin Area DFW Suburbs Dallas Cnty R R R R R D R D R R R D D D D D R R R R R R R R D D R D R R R D D D R D R R D R R D 172,135 172,135 172,129 171,969 171,872 171,858 171,802 171,463 171,429 171,418 171,401 171,079 170,948 170,811 170,732 170,702 170,617 170,479 170,473 169,888 169,684 169,564 169,256 169,146 169,088 168,963 168,869 168,776 168,735 168,699 168,692 168,662 168,659 168,627 168,429 168,214 167,970 167,736 167,668 167,604 167,588 167,508 119,518 117,432 130,796 131,682 123,986 121,699 127,352 132,823 131,870 120,834 135,423 127,834 121,837 125,873 112,332 121,535 131,129 130,771 125,722 132,877 120,535 124,492 123,014 123,826 113,454 110,963 131,311 115,033 120,462 128,086 117,126 108,086 110,751 109,154 123,603 110,865 128,898 117,164 111,699 126,549 129,175 111,827 115,655 110,995 113,390 128,705 108,045 104,285 100,760 115,470 127,825 106,040 114,530 64,375 71,970 91,615 69,415 89,230 123,515 123,075 116,830 126,560 108,980 120,575 99,335 118,105 78,885 76,060 122,870 88,365 109,725 118,640 111,045 79,875 85,015 77,585 117,715 92,195 124,075 112,385 84,125 124,330 116,875 83,885 G PCT Anglo 77.9 75.3 69.7 82.5 57.9 23.1 58.5 32.3 86.9 53.5 70.2 32.5 39.0 40.1 17.2 27.0 75.2 64.6 74.7 71.3 51.8 35.8 51.8 84.2 15.5 11.9 70.5 17.9 66.0 72.2 32.3 8.2 14.6 18.6 81.5 13.5 58.7 51.6 5.4 66.7 75.0 14.6 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 8.5 13.5 -4.9 63.5 4498 2.68 7.11 7,673 4.42 10.0 15.9 -5.9 62.9 4498 2.68 2.79 3,013 0.11 6.0 9.1 -3.1 65.8 4492 2.68 5.01 5,408 2.33 3.7 6.3 -2.6 58.3 4332 2.58 19.19 20,723 16.61 15.6 28.9 -13.4 53.8 4235 2.53 0.06 63 -2.47 73.9 77.7 -3.8 95.1 4221 2.52 -3.42 -3,697 -5.94 16.7 24.4 -7.8 68.2 4165 2.48 -6.69 -7,222 -9.17 57.1 59.9 -2.8 95.3 3826 2.28 6.93 7,488 4.65 9.2 11.8 -2.6 78.0 3792 2.26 18.38 19,843 16.11 15.3 26.0 -10.8 58.6 3781 2.26 -1.80 -1,942 -4.05 9.5 14.7 -5.2 64.6 3764 2.25 6.06 6,548 3.82 22.0 51.5 -29.6 42.6 3442 2.05 -40.38 -43,607 -42.44 42.7 64.3 -21.7 66.3 3311 1.98 -33.35 -36,012 -35.33 43.5 61.1 -17.6 71.2 3174 1.89 -15.16 -16,367 -17.05 58.5 75.8 -17.2 77.3 3095 1.85 -35.72 -38,567 -37.56 19.1 33.8 -14.7 56.6 3065 1.83 -17.37 -18,752 -19.19 9.5 15.9 -6.4 59.7 2980 1.78 14.38 15,533 12.61 27.6 32.3 -4.8 85.3 2842 1.70 13.98 15,093 12.28 14.7 20.1 -5.4 73.1 2836 1.69 8.19 8,848 6.50 8.1 14.2 -6.1 57.0 2251 1.34 17.20 18,578 15.86 39.0 46.9 -7.9 83.2 2047 1.22 0.92 998 -0.30 57.7 59.8 -2.1 96.5 1927 1.15 11.66 12,593 10.51 17.0 26.8 -9.9 63.2 1619 0.97 -8.01 -8,647 -8.97 8.7 14.9 -6.1 58.8 1509 0.90 9.37 10,123 8.47 81.5 87.1 -5.6 93.6 1451 0.87 -26.95 -29,097 -27.81 86.0 90.8 -4.8 94.7 1326 0.79 -29.56 -31,922 -30.35 9.8 15.7 -5.9 62.3 1232 0.73 13.79 14,888 13.05 75.7 80.4 -4.6 94.2 1139 0.68 -18.17 -19,617 -18.85 12.3 21.0 -8.7 58.7 1098 0.65 1.61 1,743 0.96 5.7 13.9 -8.3 40.6 1062 0.63 9.87 10,658 9.24 60.9 58.8 2.1 103.6 1055 0.63 2.84 3,063 2.21 88.4 92.1 -3.8 95.9 1025 0.61 -26.03 -28,107 -26.64 78.9 88.0 -9.1 89.7 1022 0.61 -21.27 -22,967 -21.88 78.9 85.1 -6.2 92.7 990 0.59 -28.15 -30,397 -28.74 6.3 11.7 -5.4 53.6 792 0.47 9.01 9,733 8.54 80.2 86.7 -6.4 92.6 577 0.34 -14.62 -15,787 -14.96 28.0 30.2 -2.2 92.8 333 0.20 14.90 16,093 14.70 15.8 17.6 -1.9 89.5 99 0.06 4.08 4,403 4.02 91.2 95.0 -3.9 95.9 31 0.02 -22.09 -23,857 -22.11 25.5 30.0 -4.6 84.8 -33 -0.02 15.14 16,348 15.16 10.1 16.6 -6.5 60.8 -49 -0.03 8.24 8,893 8.26 24.9 45.5 -20.6 54.7 -129 -0.08 -22.32 -24,097 -22.24 Table 7 - Page 2 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 90 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 94 15 63 49 143 32 112 111 71 73 9 16 50 141 46 30 52 1 65 86 3 96 101 145 118 57 136 98 127 56 23 59 17 82 108 14 10 53 91 24 74 92 Tarrent Cnty Houston Suburbs DFW Suburbs Austin Area Houston S Tex RG Valley Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty West Texas Bexar Northeast TX Houston Suburbs Austin Area Houston Austin Area Central Texas Austin Area Northeast TX DFW Suburbs West Texas Houston Suburbs Tarrent Cnty Tarrent Cnty Houston Bexar Southeast TX Austin Area Tarrent Cnty Houston Central Texas Houston Suburbs Central Texas Central Texas West Texas Dallas Cnty Central Texas DFW Suburbs West Texas Tarrent Cnty Houston Suburbs S Tex RG Valley Tarrent Cnty R R R D D R R D R R R R D D D R R R R R R R D D D R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R D R 167,374 167,349 167,337 167,309 167,215 167,074 167,051 166,963 166,924 166,719 166,719 166,647 166,516 166,498 166,410 166,022 165,994 165,823 165,742 165,183 164,955 164,930 164,664 164,574 164,436 164,418 164,376 164,081 163,983 163,869 163,720 163,609 163,480 163,234 163,233 163,187 163,063 162,897 162,838 162,685 162,357 162,326 125,516 120,450 115,634 144,371 113,877 126,072 120,192 118,393 127,097 127,882 125,947 122,271 124,252 113,951 118,539 124,729 114,146 125,927 124,977 121,555 119,595 113,924 110,209 116,918 116,859 124,630 116,361 114,953 115,865 123,411 123,736 122,193 121,295 118,623 133,667 131,479 116,978 127,381 119,048 118,491 115,236 126,290 114,195 116,690 113,605 130,085 84,625 124,080 97,965 103,410 123,650 126,130 121,420 108,180 110,735 92,390 94,335 121,220 111,445 122,470 109,350 115,915 109,760 109,035 92,990 83,645 106,575 118,140 113,740 114,875 114,290 117,985 111,960 118,030 112,125 113,415 122,505 114,485 111,680 123,515 108,845 118,260 91,345 116,980 G PCT Anglo 69.8 81.8 80.8 73.1 23.7 46.8 54.9 24.2 71.2 79.7 75.8 80.7 57.5 13.5 41.6 59.0 62.8 75.1 62.3 76.4 75.4 65.5 35.5 28.4 28.1 72.8 72.8 83.7 67.1 72.6 59.8 75.9 61.1 59.3 74.3 68.6 75.6 72.2 75.9 74.8 24.6 70.3 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 10.2 15.3 -5.2 66.3 -263 -0.16 5.75 6,213 5.91 7.4 13.5 -6.1 55.0 -288 -0.17 8.06 8,708 8.24 8.0 13.1 -5.1 61.2 -300 -0.18 5.21 5,623 5.39 14.3 21.6 -7.3 66.2 -328 -0.20 20.47 22,103 20.66 53.0 69.4 -16.4 76.4 -422 -0.25 -21.63 -23,357 -21.38 44.2 45.9 -1.6 96.5 -563 -0.34 14.91 16,098 15.24 14.8 26.3 -11.5 56.4 -586 -0.35 -9.28 -10,017 -8.93 15.1 25.5 -10.3 59.4 -674 -0.40 -4.23 -4,572 -3.83 17.9 20.1 -2.1 89.4 -713 -0.43 14.51 15,668 14.94 16.6 19.8 -3.3 83.6 -918 -0.55 16.81 18,148 17.35 2.5 6.9 -4.4 35.8 -918 -0.55 12.44 13,438 12.99 9.3 21.1 -11.8 44.2 -990 -0.59 0.18 198 0.77 17.7 25.3 -7.6 69.9 -1121 -0.67 2.55 2,753 3.22 18.2 37.6 -19.4 48.4 -1139 -0.68 -14.44 -15,592 -13.76 24.6 41.6 -16.9 59.3 -1227 -0.73 -12.64 -13,647 -11.91 31.8 35.2 -3.4 90.4 -1615 -0.96 12.26 13,238 13.22 19.6 26.7 -7.1 73.5 -1643 -0.98 3.21 3,463 4.19 3.1 5.8 -2.7 53.5 -1814 -1.08 13.42 14,488 14.50 9.8 18.6 -8.8 52.5 -1895 -1.13 1.27 1,368 2.40 16.5 22.3 -5.8 73.9 -2454 -1.46 7.35 7,933 8.81 9.7 20.0 -10.3 48.5 -2682 -1.60 1.65 1,778 3.25 10.1 15.2 -5.1 66.5 -2707 -1.61 0.98 1,053 2.59 19.7 32.5 -12.8 60.6 -2973 -1.77 -13.88 -14,992 -12.11 55.6 69.8 -14.2 79.7 -3063 -1.83 -22.54 -24,337 -20.71 67.1 68.7 -1.6 97.6 -3201 -1.91 -1.30 -1,407 0.61 7.2 13.0 -5.8 55.5 -3219 -1.92 9.41 10,158 11.33 12.9 16.3 -3.4 79.1 -3261 -1.95 5.33 5,758 7.28 6.7 9.8 -3.1 68.8 -3556 -2.12 6.38 6,893 8.50 12.4 18.1 -5.7 68.6 -3654 -2.18 5.84 6,308 8.02 12.4 17.8 -5.4 69.7 -3768 -2.25 9.26 10,003 11.51 16.6 22.7 -6.1 73.2 -3917 -2.34 3.68 3,978 6.02 11.4 15.6 -4.2 73.1 -4028 -2.40 9.31 10,048 11.71 27.0 33.4 -6.4 80.9 -4157 -2.48 3.84 4,143 6.32 28.6 35.2 -6.6 81.2 -4403 -2.63 5.03 5,433 7.66 13.6 19.5 -6.0 69.4 -4404 -2.63 13.45 14,523 16.08 14.1 21.0 -6.9 67.2 -4450 -2.65 6.02 6,503 8.68 13.1 18.7 -5.5 70.4 -4574 -2.73 3.42 3,698 6.15 23.1 26.8 -3.7 86.3 -4740 -2.83 14.38 15,533 17.21 10.9 18.2 -7.2 60.2 -4799 -2.86 0.80 863 3.66 11.3 15.6 -4.3 72.3 -4952 -2.95 9.52 10,278 12.47 69.4 76.6 -7.3 90.5 -5280 -3.15 -15.41 -16,637 -12.26 9.6 14.5 -4.9 66.1 -5311 -3.17 8.33 8,998 11.50 Table 7 - Page 3 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 91 of 126 A B C D E F Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP 55 93 80 106 22 144 95 100 102 8 7 88 79 12 68 77 28 5 85 78 26 69 27 62 6 119 20 76 75 90 142 Central Texas Tarrent Cnty S Tex RG Valley DFW Suburbs Southeast TX Houston Tarrent Cnty Dallas Cnty Dallas Cnty Central Texas Northeast TX West Texas El Paso Central Texas West Texas El Paso Houston Suburbs Northeast TX Houston Suburbs El Paso Houston Suburbs West Texas Houston Suburbs Northeast TX Northeast TX Bexar Central Texas El Paso El Paso Tarrent Cnty Houston R R D R D D D D R R R R D R R D R R R D R R D R R D R D D D D 162,176 162,161 161,949 161,947 161,930 161,859 161,634 161,143 161,136 161,098 161,039 160,896 160,658 160,573 160,508 160,385 160,373 160,253 160,182 160,161 160,091 160,087 160,084 160,023 160,008 159,981 159,816 159,752 159,691 159,684 159,541 119,755 113,584 106,402 110,568 122,897 108,509 115,752 117,479 122,520 123,550 120,296 115,622 112,399 119,556 121,547 115,924 107,968 120,169 113,433 111,913 117,247 123,063 113,596 122,203 119,154 114,477 121,754 116,389 103,209 105,664 113,288 116,635 103,455 86,650 107,290 115,525 75,785 96,150 97,410 96,850 114,450 112,255 103,670 98,435 111,590 112,760 90,830 100,995 112,555 102,620 98,925 97,320 117,450 104,295 117,530 109,970 106,465 115,395 94,705 77,455 71,770 91,845 G PCT Anglo 64.4 64.1 15.5 76.1 37.0 34.9 32.9 29.8 65.0 72.1 74.7 60.9 17.0 64.4 80.9 22.9 53.3 78.8 48.3 31.6 52.2 77.2 26.2 85.0 70.1 28.5 82.8 11.2 8.9 27.9 20.3 M O P H I J K L N PCT PCT %HVAP - %HCVAP/ TPOP %TPOP CVAP % CVAP % CVAP Dev HCVAP HVAP %HCVAP %HVAP Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation % TPOP Dev 14.9 19.4 -4.5 76.8 -5461 -3.26 8.01 8,653 11.27 14.8 22.8 -8.0 65.0 -5476 -3.27 -4.19 -4,527 -0.93 78.7 86.1 -7.4 91.4 -5688 -3.39 -19.76 -21,332 -16.36 8.8 14.7 -5.9 60.1 -5690 -3.39 -0.64 -692 2.75 7.7 15.7 -8.0 49.0 -5707 -3.40 6.99 7,543 10.39 50.3 69.8 -19.5 72.1 -5778 -3.45 -29.82 -32,197 -26.37 12.9 24.3 -11.4 53.0 -6003 -3.58 -10.96 -11,832 -7.38 18.3 33.1 -14.8 55.2 -6494 -3.87 -9.79 -10,572 -5.92 11.3 24.1 -12.8 46.8 -6501 -3.88 -10.31 -11,132 -6.43 8.8 15.4 -6.6 57.0 -6539 -3.90 5.99 6,468 9.89 3.9 11.2 -7.3 34.9 -6598 -3.94 3.96 4,273 7.89 29.4 38.9 -9.5 75.7 -6741 -4.02 -3.99 -4,312 0.03 76.7 79.9 -3.2 96.0 -6979 -4.16 -8.84 -9,547 -4.68 11.8 19.5 -7.7 60.6 -7064 -4.21 3.34 3,608 7.56 12.8 18.5 -5.7 69.1 -7129 -4.25 4.42 4,778 8.68 69.6 76.0 -6.4 91.6 -7252 -4.33 -15.88 -17,152 -11.56 15.6 20.6 -5.0 75.8 -7264 -4.33 -6.47 -6,987 -2.14 5.2 13.2 -7.9 39.8 -7384 -4.40 4.23 4,573 8.64 27.5 35.1 -7.6 78.5 -7455 -4.45 -4.97 -5,362 -0.52 58.3 64.7 -6.4 90.0 -7476 -4.46 -8.39 -9,057 -3.93 11.6 14.9 -3.3 77.8 -7546 -4.50 -9.87 -10,662 -5.37 9.7 12.9 -3.2 75.3 -7550 -4.50 8.77 9,468 13.27 14.8 19.7 -4.8 75.4 -7553 -4.51 -3.41 -3,687 1.09 4.2 8.6 -4.4 49.0 -7614 -4.54 8.84 9,548 13.38 6.5 14.9 -8.3 44.0 -7629 -4.55 1.84 1,988 6.39 58.3 62.7 -4.4 93.0 -7656 -4.57 -1.40 -1,517 3.16 10.3 16.6 -6.2 62.4 -7821 -4.67 6.87 7,413 11.53 83.5 87.3 -3.7 95.7 -7885 -4.70 -12.30 -13,277 -7.59 89.0 91.8 -2.8 97.0 -7946 -4.74 -28.27 -30,527 -23.53 49.0 70.7 -21.7 69.3 -7953 -4.74 -33.54 -36,212 -28.79 21.3 35.0 -13.7 60.8 -8096 -4.83 -16,137 -10.11 -14.94 Note: The Indeal CVAP Population is 107,982. The ideal TPOP Deviation is 16,7637. Source is Texas Legislative Council at ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanH358/Reports/Excel/ Note: CVAP data is from 2010 ACS (2005 through 2009 Table 7 - Page 4 of 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 92 of 126 TABLE 8 Texas Regions Using Whole State House Districts Showing Gain or Loss of Districts Using CVAP as Population Base Region of State Austin and Suburbs San Antonio and Suburbs Central Texas Dallas County Dallas Suburbs Tarrant County Harris County Houston Suburbs Northeast Texas El Paso County Rio Grande Valley and South Texas Southeast Texas West Texas State Total Present Districts Districts Under CVAP Gain or Loss Under CVAP 9 11 13 14 12 11 24 11 8 5 14 5 13 150 9.6 11.9 14.1 12.8 12.7 10.8 22.1 11.2 8.7 4.3 12.1 5.7 14.1 150.1 0.6 0.9 1.1 -1.2 0.7 -0.2 -1.9 0.2 0.7 -0.7 -1.9 0.7 1.1 0.1 Note: There are small rounding errors. Table 8 - Page 1 of 1 Average Pct. Deviation per District 6.59 8.14 8.4 -8.59 5.94 -1.67 -8.11 1.66 8.78 -14.74 -13.58 13.04 8.78 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 93 of 126 MAP 1 - TEXAS CVAP ANALYSIS GIONS Using Whole State House Districts Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 94 of 126 MAP 2 - TEXAS REGIONS Showing Percentage of a District over or Under Using CVAP Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 95 of 126 APPENDIX 1 LEGAL PAPER - POPULATION DATABASES When examining population databases for intrastate redistricting purposes it is important to remember that one may be potentially talking about two sets of data; one used by the state to draw up the plan and possibly another used by the courts to assess "one person one vote." The courts have been clear that population databases in addition to the population database used to judge one person one vote are allowed. The most obvious and prominent example of this is in Hawaii. Hawaii has an interesting factual situation. Because of the large number of military personnel stationed on a variety of Naval, Marine, Army and Air Force installations it is possible with little effort to draw districts which meet the one person one vote standard but only contain a handful of voters. Virtually none of the military personnel in Hawaii are Hawaii voters. Therefore, by grabbing a section of military population that would almost completely constitute a legislative district and including it with a few registered voters, literally a single family could elect a legislator. This is what was referred to in the 19th century as a "rotten borough." As the court stated in Burns v. Gill, "if total population were to be the only acceptable criterion upon which legislative representation could be based, in Hawaii grossly absurd and disastrous results would flow... the factors of tourists and the military concentration in particular regions of Oahu... are and apparently will be ever present in Hawaii."55 (Emphasis added) Hawaii has attempted to solve this problem by requiring that the numbers of permanent residents and registered voters are equalized in the state’s districts. The courts examined this issue in a series of cases beginning with Burns v. Richardson.56 In Richardson the Supreme Court stated that "we hold the that the present [Hawaii] apportionment satisfies the Equal Protection Clause only because on this record it was found to have produced a distribution of legislators not substantially different from that which would have resulted from the use of a permissible population basis." The Court also observed in a footnote from the same paragraph that the Fourth Circuit in Ellis v. Mayor & City of Baltimore had "disapproved a registered voter’s basis for apportioning the governing council of Baltimore Maryland. The Court of Appeals held that this basis was permissible only if it yielded results substantially approximating those obtained by use of a total population base."57 In the 1980’s, a subsequent district court in Hawaii noted the Ellis footnote and while conceding that there might be another permissible population base (such as citizen population), registered voters was not such a population base and total population as reported by the census was. As a result, “the plan’s [Hawaii’s congressional and legislative] failure to replicate the results of a total population-based apportionment creates at least a prima facie showing of invalidity.” The court found that once the prima facie case had been made the burden was on the state to justify the deviations.58 The Travis Court did not forbid the policy of equalizing the voters between the districts but still required that it equalize total population as well. There can be substantial deviations from an equal distribution of persons across districts depending upon the population base used for apportionment. See Chen v. City of Houston, (Thomas, J., dissenting) (stating that whether "population" for purposes of apportionment means "total population" or "citizen voting age population" may "be dispositive of whether" the Equal Protection Clause has been violated)59; Garza v. County of Los Angeles, (Kozinski, J., concurring Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 96 of 126 and dissenting in part) (recognizing the potential substantive difference between striving for "equality of population" and "equality of voting strength" in the apportionment process, and stating that "[a]pportionment by population can result in unequally weighted votes, while assuring equality in voting power might well call for districts of unequal population.").60 The issue raised in these opinions is whether the mandates of equal protection are related to equality of representation or equality of electoral power. The rhetoric of the apportionment revolution of the 1960s was one person one vote. The Supreme Court talked virtually exclusively about equality of votes. This becomes significant only when there is a disconnect between equality of total population and numbers of voters or potential voters (for example, area with large non-citizen populations or other large non-voting groups). A similar set of issues is implicated by the recent consideration by many states of legislation which would redistribute the census results so as to reallocate prisoners from the prisons where they were held on the census day to the address which they listed as their residence on the day of their incarceration. At first blush such reallocation would appear to be constitutional, particularly since states like Kansas have reallocated college students from their campuses back to their homes in Kansas.61 However, unlike Kansas, many of the states considering prisoner reallocation have decided not to count out-of-state prisoners at all. This would appear to conflict with the principles set down in the Hawaii cases. As the court noted in the Travis case, having received a second congressional seat the state cannot proceed to ignore the population which allowed this to occur.62 A similar issue would appear to be at work if a state simply removed all of the out-of-state prison population from its redistricting population database. Prison population can have significant effects on state legislative districts particularly in light of the intentional deviation manipulation issues highlighted by Larios case. Therefore, we can almost certainly expect litigation of these issues in this redistricting cycle. The ultimate constitutionality of the statutes will most likely depend on the method of the reallocation and whether it creates a discriminatory manipulation of the deviations between the districts. 55 Burns v. Gill 316 F.Supp. 1285, 1293 (D. Haw. 1970). v. Richardson 384 U.S. 73 (1966). 57 Ellis v. Mayor & City of Baltimore 352 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 1965). 58 Travis v. King, 552 F.Supp. 554, 572 (D. Haw. 1982). 59 Chen v. City of Houston,532 U.S. 1046, 2021 (2001) (Thomas, J., dissenting) 60 Garza v. County of Los Angeles,918 F.2d 763, 781 (9th Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, J., concurring and dissenting in part). 56 Burns Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 97 of 126 APPENDIX 2 Column Descriptions for Table 8 Column Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E Column F Column G Column H Column I Column J Column K Column L Column M Column N Column O Column P Column Header Dist Area of State Party Total VAP CVAP PCT Anglo PCT HCVAP PCT HVAP %HVAP - %HCVAP %HCVAP/%HVAP TPOP Deviation % TPOP Deviatin CVAP Deviation % CVAP Deviation % CVAP Dev - % TPOP Dev Explanation Texas State House District # Region of the State Political Party of the Incument Total 2010 Population (TPOP) Total 2010 Adult Population (VAP) Total Citizen Voting Age Population Percent CVAP Anglo Percent Hispanic CVAP Percent Adult Hispanic VAP Column I minus Column H Column H divided by Column I Deviation using TPOP Percent Deviation using TPOP Deviation using CVAP Percent Deviation using CVAP Column O - Column M Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed APPENDIX 3 05/30/19 Page 98 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total VAP 165,823 173,869 164,955 168,429 160,253 160,008 161,039 161,098 166,719 163,063 168,699 160,573 170,617 163,187 167,349 166,647 163,480 169,888 171,969 159,816 172,180 161,930 163,720 162,685 174,168 125,927 130,806 119,595 123,603 120,169 119,154 120,296 123,550 125,947 116,978 128,086 119,556 131,129 131,479 120,450 122,271 121,295 132,877 131,682 121,754 130,308 122,897 123,736 118,491 129,041 CVAP 122,470 (±2,705) 124,825 (±2,634) 109,760 (±3,444) 117,715 (±2,818) 112,555 (±2,513) 109,970 (±2,538) 112,255 (±2,507) 114,450 (±2,495) 121,420 (±2,713) 111,680 (±2,473) 118,640 (±2,557) 111,590 (±2,665) 123,515 (±2,668) 114,485 (±3,221) 116,690 (±3,258) 108,180 (±3,231) 112,125 (±2,794) 126,560 (±3,430) 128,705 (±2,845) 115,395 (±2,504) 121,365 (±2,639) 115,525 (±2,666) 111,960 (±2,649) 118,260 (±2,930) 121,250 (±2,832) % Hispanic 4.0 (±0.5) 6.3 (±0.6) 12.1 (±1.2) 7.3 (±0.7) 7.0 (±0.7) 8.7 (±0.9) 5.5 (±0.6) 9.5 (±0.7) 3.5 (±0.5) 14.0 (±1.1) 7.5 (±0.6) 13.8 (±1.1) 11.3 (±0.9) 16.5 (±1.0) 9.9 (±0.9) 11.0 (±1.1) 28.2 (±1.3) 10.3 (±0.7) 4.4 (±0.5) 12.1 (±1.0) 7.6 (±0.7) 9.5 (±0.8) 17.4 (±1.1) 13.9 (±1.2) 23.4 (±1.3) % Black Alone 18.1 (±1.1) 6.5 (±0.6) 9.8 (±1.1) 8.9 (±0.8) 12.5 (±0.9) 19.3 (±1.1) 17.7 (±1.0) 16.9 (±0.9) 19.6 (±1.1) 8.6 (±0.8) 18.5 (±0.9) 20.1 (±1.1) 12.4 (±1.0) 10.9 (±1.0) 3.6 (±0.6) 6.7 (±0.9) 9.1 (±0.8) 17.0 (±1.1) 11.5 (±0.8) 3.6 (±0.5) 7.8 (±0.7) 49.8 (±1.3) 19.7 (±1.0) 7.2 (±0.8) 12.1 (±0.9) % Black + White 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) % Black + American Indian 0.3(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 75.1 (±0.9) 85.1 (±0.8) 75.4 (±1.2) 81.5 (±1.1) 78.8 (±0.9) 70.1 (±1.0) 74.7 (±1.1) 72.1 (±1.0) 75.8 (±0.9) 75.6 (±0.9) 72.2 (±1.0) 64.4 (±0.9) 75.2 (±0.7) 68.6 (±1.4) 81.8 (±1.4) 80.7 (±1.3) 61.1 (±1.2) 71.3 (±1.0) 82.5 (±0.9) 82.8 (±0.8) 82.0 (±0.8) 37.0 (±1.1) 59.8 (±1.3) 74.8 (±1.1) 62.4 (±1.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 2.4 (±0.4) 3.0 (±0.5) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.4) 2.5 (±0.4) 1.7 (±0.4) 2.9 (±0.5) 1.0 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) % American Indian + White 0.8 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 99 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Total VAP 160,091 160,084 160,373 175,700 166,022 171,858 167,074 172,135 173,149 168,627 168,963 169,088 168,214 168,659 168,662 168,776 167,668 169,564 174,451 167,604 166,410 175,314 173,008 167,309 166,516 175,709 117,247 113,596 107,968 124,171 124,729 121,699 126,072 119,518 125,896 109,154 110,963 113,454 110,865 110,751 108,086 115,033 111,699 124,492 126,713 126,549 118,539 127,689 135,585 144,371 124,252 128,793 CVAP 97,320 (±2,690) 104,295 (±2,865) 100,995 (±3,011) 116,165 (±2,991) 121,220 (±2,579) 104,285 (±2,886) 124,080 (±2,920) 115,655 (±2,731) 117,465 (±3,003) 77,585 (±2,538) 76,060 (±2,839) 78,885 (±2,323) 92,195 (±2,979) 85,015 (±2,934) 79,875 (±3,099) 88,365 (±2,968) 84,125 (±2,400) 120,575 (±2,893) 125,720 (±2,673) 124,330 (±3,187) 94,335 (±2,518) 125,095 (±2,576) 127,810 (±2,462) 130,085 (±3,439) 110,735 (±2,788) 98,320 (±2,727) % Hispanic 14.5 (±1.3) 15.5 (±1.2) 15.3 (±1.3) 20.0 (±1.5) 33.7 (±1.3) 75.1 (±1.5) 46.1 (±1.5) 9.9 (±0.9) 67.4 (±1.6) 80.1 (±1.7) 87.1 (±1.5) 83.7 (±1.3) 84.7 (±1.5) 84.7 (±1.5) 89.3 (±1.6) 79.0 (±1.7) 93.6 (±0.9) 59.2 (±1.5) 30.9 (±1.4) 27.5 (±1.4) 27.2 (±1.5) 12.3 (±0.9) 17.5 (±1.0) 15.5 (±0.9) 19.8 (±1.3) 42.6 (±1.7) % Black Alone 10.4 (±1.1) 46.2 (±1.8) 16.1 (±1.6) 13.7 (±1.3) 5.1 (±0.6) 1.2 (±0.2) 4.3 (±0.5) 6.1 (±0.7) 3.4 (±0.5) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 3.7 (±0.4) 5.3 (±0.6) 3.5 (±0.6) 25.3 (±1.4) 1.7 (±0.4) 3.2 (±0.5) 4.6 (±0.6) 11.9 (±1.2) 11.9 (±1.1) % Black + White 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) % Black + American Indian 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.2) 0.0(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 52.2 (±1.5) 26.2 (±1.1) 53.3 (±1.6) 57.5 (±1.3) 59.0 (±1.0) 23.1 (±1.1) 46.8 (±1.2) 77.9 (±1.1) 28.0 (±1.0) 18.6 (±1.3) 11.9 (±1.1) 15.5 (±1.1) 13.5 (±1.0) 14.6 (±1.2) 8.2 (±0.9) 17.9 (±1.1) 5.4 (±0.6) 35.8 (±1.0) 60.9 (±1.0) 66.7 (±1.1) 41.6 (±1.3) 80.3 (±0.8) 74.4 (±0.7) 73.1 (±0.6) 57.5 (±1.2) 41.5 (±1.3) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 21.7 (±1.4) 10.9 (±1.1) 13.9 (±1.3) 7.3 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 1.7 (±0.3) 3.9 (±0.6) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.3) 2.2 (±0.5) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.6 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.2) 4.2 (±0.8) 4.1 (±0.5) 3.3 (±0.5) 4.7 (±0.5) 8.5 (±0.8) 1.9 (±0.4) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) % American Indian + White 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.6 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 100 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Total VAP 165,994 162,897 167,736 162,176 163,869 164,418 169,146 163,609 171,429 176,054 160,023 167,337 167,588 165,742 172,129 172,141 160,508 160,087 172,135 166,924 170,479 166,719 162,357 159,691 159,752 160,385 114,146 127,381 117,164 119,755 123,411 124,630 123,826 122,193 131,870 130,782 122,203 115,634 129,175 124,977 130,796 126,368 121,547 123,063 117,432 127,097 130,771 127,882 115,236 103,209 116,389 115,924 CVAP 111,445 (±2,924) 123,515 (±2,792) 112,385 (±3,320) 116,635 (±2,783) 117,985 (±2,622) 118,140 (±2,852) 118,105 (±2,666) 118,030 (±2,640) 127,825 (±2,616) 128,065 (±2,722) 117,530 (±2,410) 113,605 (±2,348) 116,875 (±2,745) 109,350 (±2,600) 113,390 (±2,427) 111,250 (±2,433) 112,760 (±2,116) 117,450 (±2,316) 110,995 (±2,630) 123,650 (±3,017) 123,075 (±2,618) 126,130 (±2,865) 91,345 (±2,485) 77,455 (±2,689) 94,705 (±2,507) 90,830 (±2,529) % Hispanic 23.2 (±1.4) 24.8 (±1.2) 17.8 (±1.5) 16.0 (±1.0) 14.2 (±1.0) 9.2 (±0.9) 11.3 (±0.9) 13.1 (±0.9) 9.5 (±0.7) 7.7 (±0.7) 5.7 (±0.6) 9.8 (±0.8) 11.5 (±0.9) 12.6 (±1.0) 7.2 (±0.7) 8.9 (±0.9) 13.6 (±0.7) 11.1 (±0.7) 11.0 (±1.0) 19.0 (±0.9) 29.0 (±1.3) 17.2 (±1.1) 71.7 (±1.5) 88.4 (±1.4) 84.6 (±1.1) 70.2 (±1.6) % Black Alone 8.9 (±0.9) 1.6 (±0.4) 23.5 (±1.5) 15.5 (±1.0) 10.6 (±0.9) 16.8 (±1.0) 2.6 (±0.5) 7.8 (±0.7) 1.8 (±0.3) 1.7 (±0.3) 6.0 (±0.6) 4.1 (±0.6) 9.2 (±0.8) 13.8 (±1.2) 8.9 (±0.9) 7.3 (±0.9) 3.8 (±0.4) 8.5 (±0.7) 9.8 (±1.1) 7.6 (±0.8) 4.3 (±0.5) 1.4 (±0.3) 2.2 (±0.4) 1.3 (±0.5) 3.3 (±0.6) 3.8 (±0.5) % Black + White 0.5 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) % Black + American Indian 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.2) 0.0(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.2) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 62.8 (±1.5) 72.2 (±0.9) 51.6 (±1.5) 64.4 (±1.1) 72.6 (±1.0) 72.8 (±1.0) 84.2 (±0.9) 75.9 (±0.9) 86.9 (±0.7) 88.5 (±0.7) 85.0 (±0.7) 80.8 (±0.9) 75.0 (±1.0) 62.3 (±1.4) 69.7 (±1.0) 70.1 (±1.0) 80.9 (±0.8) 77.2 (±0.9) 75.3 (±1.0) 71.2 (±0.7) 64.6 (±0.8) 79.7 (±0.9) 24.6 (±1.0) 8.9 (±1.2) 11.2 (±0.9) 22.9 (±1.0) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.9 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 3.0 (±0.6) 0.3 (±0.2) 3.0 (±0.5) 1.4 (±0.3) 1.3 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 3.5 (±0.5) 1.9 (±0.4) 8.5 (±0.8) 12.1 (±0.9) 11.5 (±0.9) 0.4 (±0.2) 1.3 (±0.3) 2.7 (±0.5) 0.9 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.4) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) % American Indian + White 0.4 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.9 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.3) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.9 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 101 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Total VAP 160,161 160,658 161,949 169,684 163,234 173,918 167,970 160,182 165,183 174,343 160,896 172,138 159,684 162,838 162,326 162,161 167,374 161,634 164,930 168,869 164,081 170,473 161,143 164,664 161,136 170,948 111,913 112,399 106,402 120,535 118,623 127,906 128,898 113,433 121,555 125,360 115,622 118,380 105,664 119,048 126,290 113,584 125,516 115,752 113,924 131,311 114,953 125,722 117,479 110,209 122,520 121,837 CVAP 98,925 (±2,476) 98,435 (±2,776) 86,650 (±2,847) 108,980 (±2,590) 113,415 (±2,760) 123,330 (±2,602) 124,075 (±3,073) 102,620 (±2,716) 115,915 (±2,397) 109,320 (±2,225) 103,670 (±2,034) 116,895 (±2,992) 71,770 (±2,274) 108,845 (±2,647) 116,980 (±2,548) 103,455 (±3,090) 114,195 (±2,455) 96,150 (±2,408) 109,035 (±2,811) 122,870 (±2,732) 114,875 (±2,600) 116,830 (±2,877) 97,410 (±2,567) 92,990 (±2,870) 96,850 (±2,335) 71,970 (±2,118) % Hispanic 59.4 (±1.5) 77.8 (±1.5) 83.3 (±1.4) 42.3 (±1.4) 32.3 (±1.5) 26.5 (±1.2) 29.7 (±1.4) 28.7 (±1.6) 19.7 (±1.1) 23.7 (±1.2) 33.3 (±1.2) 9.3 (±0.8) 52.1 (±1.8) 13.0 (±1.1) 11.5 (±1.0) 16.6 (±1.3) 11.4 (±0.9) 14.7 (±1.0) 11.1 (±1.0) 12.4 (±1.0) 7.5 (±0.9) 16.2 (±1.1) 20.4 (±1.3) 22.2 (±1.7) 11.7 (±1.1) 40.8 (±1.8) % Black Alone 5.7 (±0.7) 3.4 (±0.5) 1.0 (±0.3) 4.1 (±0.6) 6.4 (±0.7) 4.1 (±0.4) 8.7 (±0.7) 14.6 (±1.1) 2.1 (±0.3) 7.8 (±0.7) 3.8 (±0.4) 9.5 (±1.2) 18.6 (±1.4) 5.0 (±0.8) 11.3 (±1.0) 13.0 (±1.2) 12.6 (±1.0) 49.4 (±1.6) 18.7 (±1.4) 13.4 (±1.1) 2.7 (±0.5) 4.6 (±0.7) 47.0 (±1.5) 29.7 (±1.9) 14.4 (±1.1) 13.8 (±1.3) % Black + White 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) % Black + American Indian 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.3(±0.3) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.2(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.3(±0.3) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.7(±0.4) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 31.6 (±1.3) 17.0 (±1.0) 15.5 (±1.1) 51.8 (±1.2) 59.3 (±1.1) 67.1 (±1.0) 58.7 (±1.3) 48.3 (±1.3) 76.4 (±0.8) 65.0 (±0.9) 60.9 (±0.7) 72.4 (±1.2) 27.9 (±1.2) 75.9 (±1.0) 70.3 (±1.0) 64.1 (±1.5) 69.8 (±1.0) 32.9 (±1.1) 65.5 (±1.2) 70.5 (±0.8) 83.7 (±0.7) 74.7 (±0.9) 29.8 (±1.1) 35.5 (±1.4) 65.0 (±1.0) 39.0 (±1.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 1.8 (±0.4) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.9 (±0.3) 1.3 (±0.3) 7.6 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2) 1.6 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 7.5 (±0.9) 0.5 (±0.3) 4.2 (±0.6) 4.6 (±0.6) 4.1 (±0.6) 4.4 (±0.6) 1.3 (±0.4) 3.1 (±0.5) 2.5 (±0.5) 4.2 (±0.6) 2.1 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.3) 10.9 (±1.2) 6.8 (±0.7) 3.7 (±0.6) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.3) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) % American Indian + White 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.3) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 1.0 (±0.4) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.3) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 102 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Total VAP 172,784 175,728 161,947 171,872 163,233 174,223 167,508 166,963 167,051 171,418 172,330 171,802 171,463 168,692 164,436 159,981 175,132 174,867 175,184 175,674 174,795 174,549 169,256 163,983 172,221 174,127 115,035 127,590 110,568 123,986 133,667 122,347 111,827 118,393 120,192 120,834 130,817 127,352 132,823 117,126 116,859 114,477 124,829 133,224 128,725 135,763 120,503 125,158 123,014 115,865 124,645 130,457 CVAP 78,780 (±2,416) 95,900 (±2,538) 107,290 (±2,749) 108,045 (±2,691) 122,505 (±2,453) 112,780 (±2,842) 83,885 (±2,610) 103,410 (±2,784) 97,965 (±2,668) 106,040 (±2,701) 105,540 (±2,278) 100,760 (±2,378) 115,470 (±2,903) 111,045 (±3,035) 106,575 (±2,997) 106,465 (±2,745) 114,810 (±2,965) 128,905 (±2,866) 124,270 (±2,576) 119,930 (±2,981) 115,090 (±3,161) 115,800 (±2,763) 99,335 (±2,751) 114,290 (±2,879) 116,020 (±2,888) 121,280 (±2,930) % Hispanic 54.4 (±1.9) 27.3 (±1.6) 9.9 (±1.0) 19.5 (±1.3) 12.6 (±0.9) 12.9 (±1.0) 28.6 (±1.7) 17.0 (±1.3) 17.3 (±1.4) 18.0 (±1.3) 11.4 (±0.9) 16.9 (±1.2) 58.7 (±1.6) 58.0 (±1.7) 67.4 (±1.7) 59.5 (±1.6) 37.9 (±1.6) 30.0 (±1.3) 26.7 (±1.3) 63.9 (±1.4) 63.8 (±1.7) 65.9 (±1.5) 19.8 (±1.5) 15.7 (±1.2) 19.9 (±1.3) 18.2 (±1.3) % Black Alone 17.9 (±1.3) 14.8 (±1.1) 8.1 (±1.0) 17.4 (±1.4) 7.1 (±0.7) 61.8 (±1.6) 56.0 (±1.7) 56.6 (±1.6) 14.0 (±1.2) 20.0 (±1.3) 17.1 (±1.2) 11.8 (±1.1) 5.3 (±0.7) 6.0 (±0.7) 3.1 (±0.5) 9.6 (±0.9) 26.5 (±1.2) 5.7 (±0.7) 3.4 (±0.5) 4.0 (±0.6) 8.1 (±1.0) 4.9 (±0.7) 17.4 (±1.3) 13.5 (±1.3) 10.4 (±1.1) 8.9 (±1.0) % Black + White 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) % Black + American Indian 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.4(±0.2) 0.2(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 1.3(±0.4) 0.5(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.4(±0.3) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 25.3 (±1.3) 51.1 (±1.2) 76.1 (±1.2) 57.9 (±1.1) 74.3 (±0.7) 23.4 (±1.0) 14.6 (±1.0) 24.2 (±1.1) 54.9 (±1.2) 53.5 (±1.3) 68.2 (±0.7) 58.5 (±1.0) 32.3 (±1.2) 32.3 (±1.2) 28.1 (±1.0) 28.5 (±1.1) 30.6 (±1.1) 61.0 (±1.1) 64.8 (±1.2) 30.6 (±1.1) 24.8 (±1.1) 26.3 (±1.0) 51.8 (±1.3) 67.1 (±1.2) 66.4 (±1.1) 62.9 (±1.0) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 1.3 (±0.4) 5.5 (±0.7) 4.3 (±0.7) 3.6 (±0.5) 3.4 (±0.5) 0.8 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.3) 1.4 (±0.3) 10.0 (±1.1) 6.4 (±0.8) 2.0 (±0.4) 11.0 (±0.9) 2.0 (±0.4) 1.9 (±0.4) 0.7 (±0.2) 0.9 (±0.3) 1.9 (±0.4) 1.7 (±0.4) 3.9 (±0.6) 0.8 (±0.2) 2.0 (±0.4) 1.8 (±0.4) 9.6 (±0.9) 2.1 (±0.4) 1.7 (±0.4) 8.3 (±1.0) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) % American Indian + White 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 1.5 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.3) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.2) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 103 of 126 Red-116 Data: 2009-2013 ACS; 2010 Census PLANH358 06/21/2013 1:29:25 PM Texas Legislative Council 02/16/15 11:27 AM Page 1 of 1 American Community Survey Special Tabulation Using Census and American Community Survey Data HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey with Margins of Error Hispanic CVAP 2010 Census District 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Total VAP 175,532 175,227 172,973 171,401 174,421 172,422 164,376 171,079 173,059 175,733 170,732 166,498 159,541 167,215 161,859 164,574 174,485 175,873 170,811 170,702 168,735 122,108 121,368 117,666 135,423 143,575 121,136 116,361 127,834 124,435 123,875 112,332 113,951 113,288 113,877 108,509 116,918 130,444 136,034 125,873 121,535 120,462 CVAP 119,770 (±2,847) 93,535 (±2,983) 109,150 (±3,154) 114,530 (±2,796) 130,040 (±2,586) 99,750 (±2,933) 113,740 (±2,738) 64,375 (±2,377) 98,420 (±2,701) 100,540 (±2,776) 69,415 (±2,552) 92,390 (±2,829) 91,845 (±2,711) 84,625 (±2,678) 75,785 (±2,295) 83,645 (±2,505) 97,195 (±2,715) 114,905 (±2,933) 91,615 (±2,800) 89,230 (±2,957) 109,725 (±2,754) % Hispanic 14.9 (±1.3) 24.8 (±1.7) 26.3 (±1.8) 12.2 (±1.1) 11.4 (±0.9) 21.3 (±1.6) 15.4 (±1.1) 25.8 (±1.9) 28.0 (±1.6) 23.8 (±1.6) 62.4 (±2.2) 21.0 (±1.4) 26.2 (±1.7) 56.5 (±1.9) 59.1 (±1.8) 59.3 (±1.8) 13.1 (±1.1) 22.7 (±1.3) 46.8 (±2.0) 23.4 (±1.5) 15.4 (±1.2) % Black Alone 7.7 (±0.9) 54.5 (±2.0) 14.7 (±1.4) 9.6 (±1.2) 4.8 (±0.6) 17.5 (±1.5) 5.1 (±0.8) 30.1 (±2.1) 10.9 (±1.3) 49.7 (±1.6) 17.0 (±1.5) 62.5 (±1.6) 50.6 (±1.6) 18.0 (±1.3) 4.4 (±0.7) 8.4 (±0.9) 55.6 (±1.7) 43.4 (±1.3) 9.7 (±1.2) 27.7 (±1.9) 12.7 (±1.1) % Black + White 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) % Black + American Indian 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.1) 0.1(±0.1) 0.1(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.1(±0.2) 0.0(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) 0.2(±0.2) Not Hispanic or Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) % American % Native % White Indian %Asian Hawaiian Alone Alone Alone Alone 71.6 (±1.2) 13.2 (±1.0) 52.4 (±1.2) 70.2 (±0.7) 74.7 (±0.8) 50.0 (±1.4) 72.8 (±1.2) 32.5 (±1.5) 50.3 (±1.3) 21.6 (±1.0) 17.2 (±1.2) 13.5 (±1.2) 20.3 (±1.1) 23.7 (±1.6) 34.9 (±1.4) 28.4 (±1.3) 24.7 (±1.1) 28.9 (±1.0) 40.1 (±1.1) 27.0 (±1.4) 66.0 (±1.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 4.7 (±0.6) 6.2 (±0.8) 5.2 (±0.8) 6.3 (±0.7) 8.0 (±0.7) 10.1 (±1.1) 4.9 (±0.6) 9.8 (±1.1) 9.7 (±1.0) 4.1 (±0.6) 2.8 (±0.8) 1.6 (±0.4) 2.1 (±0.5) 1.0 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.3) 3.1 (±0.6) 5.0 (±0.6) 4.3 (±0.6) 2.4 (±0.4) 20.4 (±1.3) 4.7 (±0.6) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.4) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) % American Indian + White 0.4 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.4 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) The American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CVAP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the population in a district are included in the % Asian + White 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.1) % Remainder 2 or More Other 0.1 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.3) 0.4 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.2) 0.5 (±0.3) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.3 (±0.2) 0.2 (±0.2) 0.1 (±0.1) Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 104 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 105 of 126 Page 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 3 NEW YORK IMMIGRATION : COALITION, et al., : 4 : Plaintiffs, : 5 : v. : 6 7 Case No. : UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT : OF COMMERCE, et al., : 1:18-CF-05025-JMF : 8 Defendants. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9 Friday, October 16, 2018 Washington, D.C. 10 11 12 13 Videotaped Deposition of: JOHN GORE, 14 called for oral examination by counsel for the 15 Plaintiffs, pursuant to notice, at the law offices of 16 Covington & Burling, LLP, One City Center, 850 Tenth 17 Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20001-4956, 18 before Christina S. Hotsko, RPR, CRR, of Veritext 19 Legal Solutions, a Notary Public in and for the 20 District of Columbia, beginning at 9:05 a.m., when 21 were present on behalf of the respective parties: 22 Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 106 of 126 Page 127 1 the 2020 census questionnaire, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Is it fair to say that you wrote the 4 first draft of the letter from the Department of 5 Justice to the Census Bureau requesting a 6 citizenship question on the 2020 census 7 questionnaire? 8 9 A. Is that a question? I'm sorry. That sounded like a statement. 10 Q. No. It was a question. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. Is it fair to say that you wrote the 13 first draft of the letter from the Department of 14 Justice to the Census Bureau requesting a 15 citizenship question on the 2020 census 16 questionnaire? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You write in this e-mail that you 19 discussed the draft letter with Mr. Herren 20 yesterday. 21 22 Would that have been your first conversation with Mr. Herren about the citizenship Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 107 of 126 Page 150 1 was conveying there is that Mr. Gary didn't need 2 to work late on a Friday night during the holiday 3 season to send the letter out. 4 Q. So just so I understand the process here, 5 you had -- you first had communications about the 6 issue of a citizenship question sometime around 7 Labor Day of 2017, correct? 8 A. Give or take, yes, that's correct. 9 Q. You drafted the initial draft of the 10 letter to request the citizenship question 11 sometime around the end of October or early 12 November of 2017, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. The conversations to add the citizenship 15 question with the Department of Commerce were not 16 initiated by the civil rights division, correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And they were not initiated by the 19 Department of Justice, correct? 20 A. That's my working understanding. 21 Q. Around the time that you wrote the first 22 draft of this letter, you received input from Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 108 of 126 Page 151 1 three individuals: 2 Mr. Gary, correct? 3 4 5 A. Yes. Mr. Herren, Ms. Pickett, and And I may have received input from others as well. Q. Around the time of the first draft of the 6 letter in early November of 2017, who else did you 7 receive input from other than Mr. Herren, 8 Ms. Pickett, and Mr. Gary? 9 A. Mr. Aguinaga would have provided -- may 10 have provided some input. 11 discussions on -- regarding the letter generally 12 with Patrick Hovakimian, who at the time was 13 detailed to the Office of Associate Attorney 14 General, and with Jesse Panuccio in the Office of 15 the Associate Attorney General. 16 I would have had And I had various conversations with 17 others at various times throughout this process. 18 But I don't recall who else I would have spoken to 19 at that particular moment in time, around 20 November 1st of 2017. 21 22 Q. Okay. Around November 1st of 2017, the only career staff in the civil rights division Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 109 of 126 Page 343 1 well. But I'm familiar that its current practice 2 is to use the ACS data. 3 And the decennial census data obviously 4 is only available every ten years, not every five 5 years. 6 Q. I'd like to draw your attention back to 7 this Exhibit 17, which is the December 12th, 8 2017 -- I think we've been referring to it as the 9 Gary letter. 10 A. 11 Yes. Bear with me one moment. exhibits are not in order. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. Let me see if I can find it. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 My Got it. Thank you. Q. When you were -- do you see that you've cited several cases in this letter? A. I see that the department has cited several cases in the letter. Q. Yes. You drafted -- did the initial draft of this letter, correct? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. And when you were drafting the letter, Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 110 of 126 Page 344 1 did you, personally, do the research that resulted 2 in the citation to these particular cases or did 3 someone else do it for you and send them to you? 4 MR. GARDNER: Objection. Calls for 5 information subject to deliberative process 6 privilege. 7 I instruct the witness not to answer. THE WITNESS: Consistent with that 8 instruction, I can't answer. 9 BY MS. HULETT: 10 Q. So you can't tell me whether you chose 11 these cases or whether someone else chose these 12 cases for inclusion in the letter because that's 13 deliberative process? 14 understand what you're refusing to answer. 15 16 17 18 A. Yes. I just want to make sure I That's on the instruction of counsel. Q. Okay. Did you read the opinions that are cited in the letter? 19 A. Yes, I did. 20 Q. How recently have you read the opinions? 21 A. Well, let me look at which opinions we're 22 talking about. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 111 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 112 of 126 MEMORANDUM March 14, 2019 To: Committee Members Fr: Majority Staff Re: Supplemental Memo on Transcribed Interview with John Gore Regarding Addition of Citizenship Question to Census On March 7, 2019, staff of the Committee on Oversight and Reform conducted a transcribed interview with John Gore, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). This memorandum provides a brief summary of that interview. I. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHHOLDING INFORMATION During the transcribed interview, DOJ counsel instructed Mr. Gore more than 150 times not to answer specific questions from the Democratic and Republican Committee staff that are central to the Committee’s investigation. Neither Mr. Gore nor DOJ counsel asserted any privilege to explain his refusal to answer the Committee’s questions. Instead, they stated Mr. Gore would answer questions “that can be answered without compromising the ongoing litigation or other executive branch confidentiality interests.” As the Committee has explained repeatedly, ongoing civil litigation is not a valid basis to withhold information from Congress. The Committee may take additional steps to secure the information and documents needed to complete its investigation. II. NEW INFORMATION FROM INTERVIEW Despite Mr. Gore’s refusal to answer many questions, his interview produced troubling new information about the Trump Administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 113 of 126 A. Department of Commerce Hand-Delivered Secret Memo to Gore Mr. Gore stated that in the fall of 2017, he spoke to James Uthmeier in the Office of General Counsel at the Department of Commerce about the citizenship question. Following that conversation, Mr. Uthmeier had a memorandum on the citizenship question hand-delivered to Mr. Gore’s office, along with a hand-written note that also discussed the citizenship question. During his interview, DOJ counsel directed Mr. Gore not to reveal to the Committee the subject matter of his conversation with Mr. Uthmeier or the content of the memo and handwritten note that were hand-delivered to his office. Mr. Gore told the Committee that Mr. Uthmeier explained to him why he planned to hand-deliver the memo and note, but DOJ counsel instructed Mr. Gore not to reveal the reason to the Committee. Both DOJ and the Department of Commerce have also refused to provide copies of this memo and note to the Committee. B. Trump Transition Official Sent DOJ Draft Request for Citizenship Question Mr. Gore stated during his interview that in October 2017, he spoke to Peter Davidson, the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce, about the citizenship question. Mr. Davidson mentioned a former member of the Trump Transition Team, Mark Neuman, who then contacted Mr. Gore. According to Mr. Gore, Mr. Neuman provided him with “a draft letter that would request reinstatement of the citizenship question on the census questionnaire.” Mr. Gore was the principal drafter of DOJ’s December 12, 2017, request to the Department of Commerce to add the citizenship question, and he received the draft from Mr. Neuman around the same time he was preparing DOJ’s December 12 letter. During the interview, DOJ counsel instructed Mr. Gore not to discuss the substance of his discussions with Mr. Neuman or Mr. Davidson. DOJ counsel also instructed Mr. Gore not to reveal the contents of the draft letter from Mr. Neuman or the extent to which he relied on that letter when drafting the request to the Department of Commerce to add the citizenship question. C. Gore Discussed Citizenship Question with Department of Homeland Security During his interview with Committee staff, Mr. Gore stated that in October 2017, Attorney General Sessions’ staffers set up a call with employees of the Department of Homeland Security related to the citizenship question. Mr. Gore was directed not to disclose what they discussed, including whether they discussed immigration or apportionment. D. Gore Discussed Apportionment with Sessions and Commerce Lawyers Mr. Gore informed Committee staff that in the fall of 2017, he had discussions about apportionment with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and separately, with two lawyers from the Department of Commerce, Peter Davidson and James Uthmeier. These conversations occurred 2 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 114 of 126 during the same period that Mr. Gore was discussing the citizenship question with the Attorney General and the lawyers. DOJ counsel refused to allow Mr. Gore to discuss the substance of any of these conversations, including whether the issue of apportionment came up in discussions about the citizenship question. III. EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW WITH GORE Excerpts on Mark Neuman Providing Draft Letter Page 24-27 Q: Did you do anything in response to your conversation with Mark Neuman? A: I reviewed—yes, I did. Q: What did you do? DOJ Counsel: You can answer that question to the extent you can do so without divulging confidential or litigation-based interests the Department has. A: I reviewed some documents and information regarding the census. Q: I’m sorry, I just missed the first part. A: I reviewed some documents and information regarding the census. Q: Were those documents and information provided to you or pointed to? A: Yes. Q: Which one? Sorry. DOJ Counsel: I instruct the witness not to answer. I’m sorry, I misunderstood your question. Can you rephrase your question? I apologize. Committee Staff: Sure. Did he provide the documentation to you or did he point you to the documentation? A: He provided it. Q: Was that information public information or internal private information? Public information. A: 3 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 115 of 126 Q: What was it? A: He provided some information regarding the census, historical documents about the census. He handed me a pamphlet that was—had a chart in it that documented which questions had been on the census in various years. Q: Was that all he provided you? A: No, he also provided me a draft letter. Q: A draft letter of what? A: It was a draft letter that would request reinstatement of the citizenship question on the census questionnaire. Q: Did he tell you where he got that draft letter? DOJ Counsel: I instruct you— A: No. Q: Did any language in that letter appear in the letter that the Department of Justice sent to the Department of Commerce on December 12th, 2017? DOJ Counsel: I instruct the witness not to answer. Committee Staff: On what basis? DOJ Counsel: The same basis. Committee Staff: Can I ask you a question. Was the draft letter that he handed you, was it addressed from the Department of Justice to the Department of Commerce? DOJ Counsel: Same instruction. Committee Staff: So just to be clear, you’ve told us that he gave you a draft letter, but you’re being instructed not to tell us to whom the draft letter was addressed. Is that the instruction? DOJ Counsel: You’re asking about the contents of the letter. I’m instructing him not to answer those questions, correct. 4 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 116 of 126 Excerpts on Discussions with James Uthmeier on Hand Delivery of Memo Pages 105-109 Q: Okay. But just to be really clear, he did not just tell you I’m going to send you a memo. You discussed other—did you discuss other things about the memo? DOJ Counsel: Once again, you can answer that with a yes or no. A: Yes. Q: When did you receive the memo? A: I don’t recall exactly when I received the memo. It was hand delivered to my office with a handwritten cover note, and I don’t recall how long it took—how much time elapsed between that phone call and when I received the memo. Q: In that phone call when you were talking—when he informs you he’s going to send you a memo, what did you specifically discuss? DOJ Counsel: I’ll instruct the witness not to answer. Q: You said that he—it came—it was delivered to you. How was it delivered, that you’re aware of? A: All I know is that my assistant brought it to me and said it had been hand delivered. I don’t know who delivered it or whether Mr. Uthmeier did it himself or whether somebody else did it. Is that your question? Q: Can I ask a follow-up on that? A: Sure. Q: I don’t mean to sound facetious, but you obviously have access to email, correct? A: I do. Q: And Mr. Uthmeier, obviously, has access to email. A: I imagine he does, yes. Q: So, is it fair to say that he could have emailed the memorandum to you if he had wanted to? 5 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 117 of 126 A: I don’t know. You would have to ask him that. I don’t know what format he had the memorandum in and whether that would have been possible. Q: Do you know why it was hand delivered to you? A: I don’t. Q: Do you know whether he was instructed to hand deliver it to you, Mr. Uthmeier? A: I don’t. Q: How often do you receive memorandum—paper memos from other agencies rather than receiving memorandums in electronic form? A: I don’t know. Q: Would you say this was unusual? A: No, not necessarily. I sometimes receive memos in paper rather than through email certainly within the Department, too. Q: My question is from other agencies. Is a memorandum coming from the Department of Commerce—let’s say have you received other hand—other hand-delivered memoranda from the Department of Commerce? A: Not that I recall. Q: Have you received other hand-delivered memoranda from other agencies, outside? A: I don’t believe I received memoranda from any other agencies. This would be the only memorandum I received from another department or agency, and it was delivered by hand. So I guess, to follow your line of questioning, that makes it usual. Q: I guess that’s a definitional question we could quibble with a little bit. A: You were trying to compare it to some other practice, and this is the only other practice I’ve ever experienced— Q: It sounds like you’re saying it’s the only time you’ve ever received a memo from another agency and the only time you’ve ever received one—a handwritten memo hand delivered to you, so I would describe 6 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 118 of 126 it as unusual. A: No, that was not my testimony. What I said was, it’s the only time I’ve received a memorandum from another department, and I have on several occasions received hand-delivered memoranda within the Department of Justice. Q: When you were on the phone and he informed you that he was going to send you a memo, did you discuss the form of delivery? A: Yes. Q: Did you discuss why he wanted to send it to you? DOJ Counsel: I’ll instruct the witness—you can answer that with a yes or no. A: Why he wanted to send it to me at all? Q: Sorry. When you discussed the form of delivery, did he tell you at that point in time that it was going to be hand delivered? A: Yes, he did. Q: Did he tell you why it was going to be hand delivered? DOJ Counsel: You can answer that yes or no. A: Yes, he did. Committee Staff: I thought you just said you didn't know why he hand delivered it to you. Do you know why he hand delivered it to you? A: I know—I know why he told me he wanted to hand deliver it to me. I don’t know why he did it. Q: What did he tell you? DOJ Counsel: I instruct the witness not to answer. 7 Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 119 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 120 of 126 John H. Thompson Director, Bureau of the Census US Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20233 Dear Mr Thompson: We are writing to formally request the reinstatement of a question on the 2020 Census questionnaire relating to citizenship. The Department seeks to reinstate the question because of recent Court decisions where courts required enumerated (block level) data related to voting age population. This data can only be provided based on enumerated (Census), rather than sample (ACS) data. first decennial census since the 1880 Census without a question about citizenship. We also note that the American Community Survey, which replaced the "long form" version of the questionnaire in the decennial 2000 Census, asks a question about citizenship. We are not aware that of any serious concerns relating to the presence of a citizenship question on We are aware that the 2010 Census was the the ACS. We understand that the Bureau personnel may believe that ACS data on citizenship was sufficient for redistricting purposes. We wanted the Bureau to be aware that two recent Court cases have underscored that ACS data is.not viable and /or sufficient for purposes of redistricting. Two important citations from these cases are as follows: We note that in these two cases, one in 2006 and one in 2009, courts reviewing compliance with requirements of the Voting Rights Act and its application in legislative redistricting, have required Latino voting districts to contain 50% + 1 of "Citizen Voting Age Population (or CVAP). It is clear that full compliance with these Federal Court decisions will require block level data than can only be secured by a mandatory question in the 2020 enumeration. Our understanding is that data on citizenship is specifically required to ensure that the Latino community achieves full representation in redistricting. We accordingly request that the Bureau prepare, without delay, the appropriate question on citizenship for the 2020 Census, and submit this addition for 2020 EXHIBIT I N , c)r-,-1) Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 121 of 126 Census for OMB Review and other appropriate notifications. Please let me know if you have any questions about his letter or wish to discuss or @doj.gov. this subject. can be reached at (202) I Sincerely yours, Attachment. Cc: Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 122 of 126 EXHIBIT Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 123 of 126 We note that in these two cases, one in 2006 and one in 2009, courts reviewing compliance with requirements of the Voting Rights Act and its application in legislative redistricting, have required Latino voting districts to contain 50% +1 of “Citizen Voting Age Population (or CVAP). It is clear that full compliance with these Federal Court decisions will require block level data that can only be secured by a mandatory question in the 2020 enumeration. Our understanding is that data on citizenship is specifically required to ensure that the Latino community achieves full representation in redistricting. Case Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 124 of 126 EXHIBIT I Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 125 of 126 Exhibit I: Chart Comparing Hofeller 2015 Study with DOJ December 2017 Letter Hofeller August 2015 Study DOJ December 2017 Letter to Commerce In decennial censuses prior to 2010, a citizenship question was included in the long form questionnaire which was distributed to approximately one in seven households… From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called “long form” questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census…. For several reasons, the Bureau of the Census decided to discontinue the use of the long form questionnaire for the 2010 Decennial Census and to depend exclusively on the short form Questionnaire, which did not include a question on citizenship… As a replacement to the long form questionnaire, the Census Bureau instituted the American Community Survey. To quote the Census Bureau: “The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.” Each year, about 3.5+ million households receive very detailed questionnaires of which about 2.2 million are successfully returned. This represents a 62% return rate. In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the “long form” questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty-eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/pro gramssurveys/acs/about/ACS Information Guide.pdf (last visited Nov. 22,2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau’s only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. In addition, the use of a 5-year rolling sample was much less reflective of the actual characteristics of the population at the time of the actual 2010 Decennial Enumeration. which would have been a one-time snapshot taken in mid-2010 (April to August). Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one-year, three-year, and fiveyear estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. Another issue with use of the ACS in redistricting is that the accuracy for small units of geography is extremely poor. This is particularly true for Census Tracts and Census Block Groups. In some cases the confidence interval for a Block Group exceeds the actual range of the data, creating negative numbers for the low point of the confidence interval. The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent confidence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size—and, thus, the geographic area—decreases. Another problem with the ACS data is that the units of geography by which the ACS is Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 126 of 126 compiled is different from the geographic units used in redistricting. Almost all states are using Census Voting Districts (VTDs) are preferred as the basic geographic building blocks for creating new districts. VTD boundaries generally follow precinct boundaries. ACS data are simply not available for VTDs, and any estimates of CVAP populations for VTDs would be even more inaccurate than the ACS estimates for Census Tracts and Block Groups. estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting-age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For those states in which CVAP estimates for legislative districts have been compiled, determinations have been required to compute the percentage of each Census Block Group’s population which is in each legislative or congressional district. The CVAP statistics have been summed for all the block groups which have either 50% or 75% of their population in an individual district and these estimates have been imputed to the total adult populations of the districts. 2