June 13, 2019
By Fax: 410-962-0122
Robert Harding
Chief, Criminal Division
United States Attorney’s Office, District of Maryland
36 S. Charles Street 4th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
By Fax: 212-637-2932
Laura Grossfield Birger
Chief, Criminal Division
United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York
1 St. Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Request for Investigation of Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
John Gore and Former Commerce Transition Official Mark Neuman for
Perjury

Dear Mr. Harding and Ms. Grossfield Birger:
Campaign for Accountability (“CfA”) respectfully requests that you investigate A. Mark
Neuman, a former transition official at the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), and John
Gore, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for affirmative misrepresentations during
depositions in lawsuits concerning a request from Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to the
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that a citizenship question to be added to the 2020
Census.
Background
On March 26, 2018, Commerce announced its intention to include a citizenship question
on the 2020 Census.1 Experts believe including the question will result in an inaccurate census
because immigrant communities will avoid participating. 2 After Commerce announced its
1

Hansi Lo Wang, How The 2020 Census Citizenship Question Ended Up In Court, NPR (Nov. 4, 2018, 10:14 AM),
available at https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/661932989/how-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-ended-up-incourt.
2
Hansi Lo Wang, 2020 Census Could Lead To Worst Undercount Of Black, Latinx People In 30 Years, NPR (June
4, 2019, 3:26 PM), available at https://www.npr.org/2019/06/04/728034176/2020-census-could-lead-to-worstundercount-of-black-latinx-people-in-30-years.

611 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. #337  Washington, D.C. 20003  (202) 780-5750
campaignforaccountability.org

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 2
intention to include the question, several states and nonprofit organizations filed lawsuits against
the agency.3 In the course of litigation, Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore were deposed regarding their
role in adding the question. Mr. Gore also provided sworn testimony to Congress on the same
subject.
The deposition testimonies provided by Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore are in contradiction
with Mr. Gore’s congressional testimony as well as with recently discovered documents.
The Citizenship Question
The Trump administration’s decision to include the citizenship question on the 2020
census appears to have been influenced by the work of Republican redistricting expert Dr.
Thomas Hofeller.4 In August 2015, Dr. Hofeller produced a study concluding that the inclusion
of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census would allow states to draw legislative districts
based on the number of voting-eligible citizens rather than the total population, which includes
non-citizens.5 Dr. Hofeller concluded that federal courts would not allow redistricting based on
the more restrictive criteria unless a citizenship question was added to the census. 6
The Trump administration appears to have adopted Dr. Hofeller’s strategy. In August
2017, Commerce determined that the agency needed a defensible rationale for including the
citizenship question on the 2020 Census.7 On August 31, 2017, Dr. Hofeller drafted a letter for
DOJ to send to Commerce explaining the rationale for including the citizenship question. 8 Dr.
Hofeller’s letter suggested that DOJ could ask Commerce to add the question, under the pretext
that it would further DOJ’s efforts to enforce the Voting Rights Act. 9
After Dr. Hofeller drafted the letter, Commerce General Counsel Peter Davidson
arranged for Mr. Gore to meet with A. Mark Neuman, a close friend of Dr. Hofeller and an
adviser to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.10 In October 2017, Mr. Gore met with Mr.
Neuman, at which time Mr. Neuman provided Mr. Gore with a ghostwritten draft letter for DOJ

3

See Litigation About the 2020 Census, THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (June 4, 2019), available at
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/2020-census-litigation.
4
Michael Wines, Deceased G.O.P Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship Question,
THE NEW YORK TIMES (May 30, 2019), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenshipquestion-hofeller.html.
5
See Thomas Hofeller, The Use of Citizen Voting Age Population in Redistricting, in Document 595-1, Exhibit D,
New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
6
See id.
7
See Letter from John Freedman, et. al., to the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, D. S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2019, in
Document 595, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
8
See id.
9
See Letter from Department of Justice to Director John H. Thompson, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep’t of
Commerce, in Document 595-1, Exhibit G, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.
2018).
10
See supra note 7. Wines, supra note 4.

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 3
to send to Commerce requesting the citizenship question be added to the 2020 Census. 11 DOJ
has refused to provide any information about the draft letter beyond its content. 12 Notably, the
letter includes a paragraph lifted verbatim from a Word document contained in Dr. Hofeller’s
files, drafted two months earlier in August 2017. 13 The paragraph reads:
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. 14
Following his meeting with Mr. Neuman, Mr. Gore drafted an official letter for DOJ to
send to Commerce requesting the citizenship question be added to the 2020 Census. 15 The letter,
sent on December 12, 2017, was signed by the General Counsel of the Justice Management
Division, Arthur E. Gray.16 The December letter employs the same reasoning for including the
citizenship question on the census that Dr. Hofeller outlined in his 2015 study and that he
detailed in his August 2017 letter, which was incorporated into the letter Mr. Neuman delivered
to Mr. Gore in October 2017.17
Mr. Neuman’s Deposition
Despite these facts, Mr. Neuman appears to have given an inaccurate account of the
events during a deposition. On October 28, 2018, Mr. Neuman was deposed in the case of
Robyn Kravitz, et. al., vs. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, et. al, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland.18

11

See Letter from Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, et. al. to the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, D.
S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019, in Document 601, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.
2018). See supra note 7.
12
See Memorandum from Majority Staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to Committee Members
Regarding Interview with John Gore, Mar. 14, 2019, in Document 595-1, Exhibit F, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of
Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
13
See supra note 7.
14
See Document 595-1, Exhibit H, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
15
See id.
16
See Letter from Arthur E. Gray, General Counsel, Justice Management Division, to Ron Jarmin, U.S. Census
Bureau, Dec. 12, 2017, in Document 601-6, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.
2018).
17
See supra note 7.
18
See Videotaped Deposition of A. Mark Neuman, Oct. 28, 2018, in Document 595-1, Exhibit B, Kravitz v. U.S.
Dep’t of Commerce, 355 F. Supp. 3d 256 (D. Md. 2018).

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 4
First, Mr. Neuman appears to have made several false statements about the October 2017
meeting with Mr. Gore. When Mr. Neuman was asked about the meeting, he denied that it was
about the DOJ letter to Commerce requesting the citizenship question:
Q.

Right. Because the meeting with John Gore was about the letter from DOJ
regarding the citizenship question, correct?

A.

No, the letter -- the meeting with John Gore was about the -- how Census
interacts with the Justice Department.19

Mr. Neuman was also asked specifically what information he provided to Mr. Gore. 20
Mr. Neuman said that he provided an Obama administration-era letter about the census, but he
did not admit that he had delivered a letter to Mr. Gore containing the paragraph written by Dr.
Hofeller.21
Next, Mr. Neuman mislead the court about his relationship with Dr. Hofeller. Mr.
Neuman was asked extensively about his communications with Dr. Hofeller including
specifically, “what was the substance of your conversation about this issue, about the citizenship
question?”22 Mr. Neuman provided inaccurate answers claiming that Dr. Hofeller only
mentioned “block level data” and the budget of the census. 23
Mr. Neuman was also asked if he relied on Dr. Hofeller for his expertise of the Voting
Rights Act. Specifically, he was asked, “Was Mr. Hoffler one of the people you relied on for
expertise about the Voting Rights Act”?24 Mr. Neuman said no despite delivering a letter to DOJ
that included language drafted by Dr. Hofeller about the Voting Rights Act. 25
Finally, Mr. Neuman also tried to claim that he wasn’t involved in drafting the December
2017 letter DOJ sent to Commerce. Specifically, he was asked:

19

Q.

Did you have any involvement in the drafting of that letter?

A.

Well, it -- again, I wasn't part of the drafting process of the letter, but I'm
sure that in our -- I -- when I met with John Gore, I wanted to show him
what the Census Bureau said about why they ask the ACS question. 26

Id. at 273.
Id. at 123-125.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 138..
23
Id.
24
Id. at 143-144.
25
Id.
26
See supra note 18, at 114.
20

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 5
Mr. Gore’s Deposition
Mr. Gore also appears to have given an inaccurate account of the events during a
deposition. On October 16, 2018, Mr. Gore was deposed in the matter of New York Immigration
Coalition, et. al., v. United States Department of Commerce, et. al, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. 27 First, when asked whether it was “fair to
say that [he] wrote the first draft of the letter from the Department of Justice to the Census
Bureau requesting a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire,” he replied, “yes”. 28
Mr. Gore also stated that he “drafted the initial draft of the letter to request the citizenship
question . . . ”29 When asked for the names of those who had provided input regarding the
drafting of the letter, Mr. Gore failed to name either Mr. Neumann or Dr. Hofeller. 30
Mr. Gore’s Congressional Interview
On March 7, 2019, Mr. Gore was interviewed by staff for the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. According to a memo summarizing the meeting, Mr. Gore’s
interview “produced troubling new information about the Trump Administration’s (sic) decision
to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.”31
During the interview, Mr. Gore conceded that he had worked with Mr. Neuman on
drafting the letter to Commerce seeking to add the citizenship question to the census:
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.” 32
The interview transcript provides:
Q: Was that all [Neuman] provided you?
A: No, he also provided me a draft letter.

27

See Videotaped Deposition of John Gore, Oct. 16, 2018, in Document 595-1, Exhibit E, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of
Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
See Memorandum from Majority Staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to Committee Members
Regarding Interview with John Gore, Mar. 14, 2019, in Document 595-1, Exhibit F, New York v. U.S. Dep’t of
Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
32
Id.

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 6
Q: A draft letter of what?
A: It was a draft letter that would request reinstatement of the citizenship question on the
census questionnaire.33
When the Committee asked Mr. Gore if any language from the draft letter appeared in his final
December 2017 letter, DOJ counsel refused to allow Mr. Gore to answer the question. 34
Legal Violations
As you know, a person who has taken an oath “that he will testify, declare, depose, or
certify truly” in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be
administered, and “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter
which he does not believe to be true” is guilty of perjury and is subject to fines and imprisonment
of up to five years.35 Similarly, “[w]hoever under oath . . . in any proceeding before or ancillary
to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration”
is subject to fines and a term of imprisonment of up to five years. 36 While 18 U.S.C. § 1621
explicitly refers to deposition testimony, courts have found that § 1623 also applies to deposition
testimony.37
As the Second Circuit has explained, the federal perjury statutes are significant because
“[n]o legal system can long remain viable if lying under oath is treated as no more than a social
solecism. Swearing to tell the truth is a solemn oath, the breach of which should have serious
consequences.”38 To convict someone of perjury under § 1623, the government must prove that
a defendant knowingly made a false, material declaration under oath, in a proceeding before or
ancillary to any court of the United States. Applying the materiality element to prosecution for
perjury during a civil deposition, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a false
statement is material if a “truthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery
of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit.” 39
Here, it is clear that both Mr. Gore and Mr. Neuman gave false testimony during their
sworn depositions.
Mr. Neuman appears to have made several false statements about the October 2017
meeting with Mr. Gore, mischaracterizing the reason for and subject matter of the meeting, as
well as the information he provided to Mr. Gore during the meeting. Mr. Neuman also was
33

Id.
Id.
35
18 U.S.C. § 1621.
36
18 U.S.C. § 1623.
37
See e.g. U.S. v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1014 (5th Cir. 1993), citing Dunn v. U.S., 442 U.S. 100, 88 S. Ct. 2190
(1979).
38
U.S. v. Cornielle, 171 F.4d 748, 753 (2nd Cir. 1999); SEC v. Payton, 176. F. Supp. 3d 346, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
39
U.S. v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d. Cir. 1994).
34

 Mr. Robert Harding
Ms. Laura Grossfield Birger
June 13, 2019
Page 7
untruthful in his responses to questions concerning his conversations and relationship with Dr.
Hofeller, denying they discussed the citizenship question and any reliance on Dr. Hofeller for
expertise about the Voting Rights Act.
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Neuman denied a role in drafting DOJ’s letter to
Commerce, a statement belied by Mr. Gore’s congressional testimony that Mr. Neuman had
provided him with “a draft letter that would request reinstatement of the citizenship question on
the census questionnaire.”40
Mr. Gore’s deposition testimony, in which he claims to have written the first draft of the
letter from DOJ to Commerce requesting the citizenship question, clearly conflicts with his
congressional testimony, in which he revealed that Mr. Neuman provided the initial draft of the
letter requesting the citizenship question. Further, the extent of Mr. Gore’s duplicity is
illuminated by the discovery of Dr. Hofeller’s files, which include a document that has a
paragraph that matches verbatim a paragraph in the letter that Mr. Gore received from Mr.
Neuman and DOJ’s letter is strikingly similar to Dr. Hofeller’s 2015 study.
Therefore, had Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore testified truthfully, it is quite likely that
plaintiffs would have discovered the important evidence contained in Dr. Hofeller’s files – and
which came to light only in the wake of his death as a result of his daughter’s actions – as the
case wended its way through the courts. In fact, a Supreme Court decision on whether the
citizenship question was properly introduced into the census is expected any day.
Conclusion
Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore were asked directly about their roles in drafting the letter DOJ
sent to Commerce requesting the citizenship question be added to the 2020 Census. In lawsuits
now under consideration by the Supreme Court, Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore appear to have lied
about their efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Mr. Gore himself later
admitted to Congress that he did receive information from Mr. Neuman to inform the DOJ letter
to Commerce. The actions of Mr. Neuman and Mr. Gore to mislead the courts about the origins
of the citizenship question is not only reprehensible, it likely violates federal criminal law and
both men should promptly be investigated for potential perjury.
Sincerely,

Daniel E. Stevens
Executive Director

40

Id.