U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Freedom of informati on/Privacy Acts Branch - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W Washing/on, DC 20530 TC:RNB 19-00009-F Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N .W., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 foia@americanove rsight .org April 24, 2018 Dear Mr. Evers : This is an interim response to your October 4, 2018 Freedom oflnformation Act request, which was received by the Civil Rights Division on the same day, seeking access to all email communications between 1) John Gore (currently Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and formerly Acting Assistant Attorney General , and 2) any email addresses ending in .com/ .net/.org/.edu/.mail from January 20, 2017 , to the date of the search. The request was limited to emails sent by Mr. Gore. The requester indicated these records would shed light on the communications of a high-ranking official in the Division with external individuals and external entities. After review of the responsive Civil Rights Division (CRT) documents , I have determined the enclosed 121 pages may be released in full or in part. I have determined that access to portions of these documents should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S .C. § 552 (b)(6) since disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Although this matter is in litigation, I am obligated to advise you that you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: http ://foiaonlin e.gov/fo iaonJine/action/p ublic/home . Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal. " I hope the Civil Rights Division has been of some assistance to you in this matter . Sincerely, "~ v~ Tink Cooper , Acting Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch Civil Rights Division From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JGORE205] 2 15 2017 1:45 :19 PM b I ,____ _, ~ usdoj. gov wayne .williams@sos.state .co.us; john.r .ashcroft@sos.mo .gov ; tom.schedler@ sos.la.gov; john.wobensmith@maryland .gov;r 1(' 1 ~gmail.com; sos@sos.ga.gov; l'i;.' l@gmail.com; jsilrum@nd.gov ; john .merr ill @sos.alabama .gov; rraile@bakerlaw.com ; wthor ley@sos.nv.gov ; senykom@mi chigan .govJ'm ~ hotm ail.com ; dpalmer@bipartisanpolicy .org John Gore Contact Inform at ion All: It was a pleasure meeting you today . My contact information is below. Please don't hesitate to be in touch if I can be of any assistance to you. Best, John Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S Department of Justice 1•~-• @usdoj. gov 202-p,lc6) I DOJ-18-0618-A-000001 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JGORE205] 2/ 15/2 017 4:42:45 PM From : Sent: To: Subject : r~· ILft' geor getown .edu] RE: Tru mp Administration Entry-Level Legal Position Great to hear from you! Apologies for the delay in responding. You have probably heard that the federal government is under a hiring freeze for 120 days or so. I will of course keep your resume on file in case anything opens up. I also encourage you to apply for the Honors Program at DOJand any other agency where you'd be interested in working. Please loop back with me after the hiring freeze is lifted, too . Best, John r·, I ~ From:~----~[mailto~georgetown.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:21 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'~' K§)crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Trump Administration Entry-Level Legal Position Hi John, ' I ~ ----- ---- - - - ----- ---------- ----------- you were named to the new administration's Department of Justice team . Congratulations! -~ I saw that Many thanks, DOJ-18-0618-A-000002 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JGORE205] Sent: 3/21/2017 To: ~gtlaw.com Contact Information Subject : 4 :29:22 PM D It was great meeting you today. My contact information is below. Best, John John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice t, usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000003 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=USOOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent : To : 4/7/2017 10 :58 :01 AM Berry, Bradford [bberry@naacpnet.org] Subject : RE: Letter from NAACP President and CEO to Attorney General Sessions (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN=RECI PIENTS/CN=JGORE205] Bradford : Thank you for reaching out. I hope you are doing well, too. I will get this letter to the appropriate people. Best, John From: Berry, Bradford [mailto:bberry@naacpnet.org] r Sent: Thursday, April ~ 1 2017 7:42 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) ~ crt.usdoj .gov> Subject: Letter from NAACPPresident and CEOto Attorney General Sessions Importance: High Dear John, I met you in the meeting between NAACPPresident and CEO,Cornell William Brooks, and Attorney General Sessions several weeks ago. I hope you're well . Attached please find a letter from President Brooks to Attorney General Sessions regarding the Department's announced intention to review the consent decrees entered between the Department and various municipalities and police departments across the country regarding policing reforms. As I do not have an email address for the Attorney General, I am asking that you forward the letter to him. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Best regards, Bradford M . Berry General Counsel NAACP 410 580 5797 DOJ-18-0618-A-000004 From: Sent: To: Subject: Gore, John (CRT)[/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=REClPlENTS/CN=JGOREZOS) 4/14/2017 2:22:16 PM kmcknight@bakerlaw.com Contact Info Kate: Per your voice mail, my contact info is below . Best, John John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice bX6) bX6) ~--~ usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000005 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: 4/14/2017 ~X6J (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECI Pl ENTS/CN=JGOREZOS] To: CC: Subject: f fbK61 4:54:31 PM @abmc.gov j@gmail.com Contact Info Great seeing you yesterday. My DOJ contact info is below, and my personal email address is copied . Best, John John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice b)(6) b)(6) usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000006 From : Sent: l(b)(6) l@crt.usdoj.gov ko)(6) 4/25/2017 3:27:11 PM To: l@crt .usdoj.gov] Braden, E. Mark [MBraden@bakerlaw.com] Re: meeting Bethune-Hill Subject : Thanks for following up. As I mentioned, I am on the road this week on another matter. Unfortunately DOJwon't be in a position to do anything on Monday, including make an amicus request . Sent from my iPhone On Apr 25, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Braden, E. Mark wrote: Checking back. responsive briefing on status issues due Monday. Certainly nothing is possible from DOJ in that timeframe -- except a request to the parties from DOJto file an Amici brief later when the Court seeks merits briefs. Such a request would be a useful to include in our Monday response. From: Braden, E. Mark Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:01 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Re: meeting Bethune-Hill Monday in the afternoon or any time Tue. Sent from my iPad On Apr 21, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote: Mark: Thanks for reaching out. I am traveling most of next week, but am available for a call or meeting starting the following week. What dates did you have in mind? John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 6> 10>)( l(b)(6) I @usdoj.gov From: Braden, E. Mark [mailto :MBraden@bakerlaw .com] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 12:55 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)1(l>)(6) @crt.usdoj .gov> Subject: meeting Bethune-Hill Would like to meet with you to discuss the Va. Case . I think a meeting or at least a telephone discussion make more sense that any long emails. As I indicated I think DOJ can support our positions in the District Court in total accord with the Solicitor brief at the SCt. Some career lawyers at the Section certainly understand that the Plaintiffs position leads to where Justice Thomas is sitting so I believe a brief supporting the Defendants would not create much push Mark Braden back. Of Counsel DOJ-18-0618-A-000007 WashingtonSquare 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202.861.1504 mbraden@bakerlaw .com bakerlaw.com This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination. copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly ptohibrted. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only . The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities Internet communications are not assured to be secL1reor clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore, we de>not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission . This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential. or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited . If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information coL1ldbe intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission . DOJ-18-0618-A-000008 6_l -~l @crt .usdoj .gov ~ :bl_l @crt.usdoj.gov] 5/15/2017 9:36:41 AM Raile, Richard [rraile@bakerlaw.com] Braden, E. Mark [MBraden@bakerlaw.com]; Riordan, Maureen (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=CRT/cn=Recipients/cn=Mailboxes/cn=mriordan] Re: Bethune Hill v. Va State Board of Elections From: Sent: To: ~bJ[6J CC: Subject: 6 Can you call us at 1:30? ~f_l(_l ---~ l Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2017, at 12:55 PM, Raile, Richard wrote: Hi John, Thank you for the message. Between noon and 3:00pm Monday would be best for us. Let us know what works for you . Regards, Richard From: Gore, John (CRD [ mailto :fbX61 @usdoi .gov] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 07:31 AM To: Raile, Richard Cc: Braden, E. Mark Subject: RE: Bethune Hill v. Va State Board of Elections Richard: Thanks for passing this along. I am available to discuss this case by phone next week. Either Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon before 3:30 pm would be convenient for me. Is there a time in those windows that works on your end? Thanks. John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I ~b)(6) f)(J 6 l@usdoj.gov From: Raile, Richard [mailto:rrai le@bakerlaw.com! Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 10:27 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)4bX6 l l@crt.usdoj.gov > Cc: Braden, E. Mark Subject: Bethune Hill v. Va State Board of Elections Dear John, DOJ-18-0618-A-000009 Per request of Mark Braden, I am sending you the most recent order in the Bethune-Hill litigation regarding Virginia's state house plan. As Mark has indicated, we would be interested in discussing the case with you at your convenience. Kind regards, Richard Raile Associate Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T+1.202.861 .1711 rraile@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediate Iv by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities Internet communications are not assured to be secLffe or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses . Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohib~ed. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your compL1ter. Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses . Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission DOJ-18-0618-A-000010 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDL T)/CN=RE Cl Pl ENTS/ CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 Sent: BFAB82- JGOR E] 8 3 201 7 6 :39 :0 7 PM To: Subject: '- alu mni.nd.edu] -.-- -'---~ Thanks! John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice b){61 usdoj.gov From: r" l(6l [[mailtofbl(6l @lalumni.nd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:36 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'lC 6l ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: lntroduction ~h)(6> I John, I saw that Mr. Wheeler is leaving and you're taking over the division. Congrats! Hope all is well and please let me know if I can be of service . Best, On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, ~r bl-(6)--~ 1·t 16 wrote : John, Thank you again for meeting me yesterday . I really appreciate your time and hope to stay in touch. I have attached my resume in the event there is movement in CRT or if you hear of other opportunities. Thnnks again, EJ 61__ On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:25 AM ,~fi_c ~J wrote : 4 pm sounds great, I'll see you then. Bet ~ On Jul 20, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Gore, John (CRT) fX 6 > ~usdo j.gov> wrote: I should be free at 4 pm. Otherwise I am free at various times tomorrow. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone 6 l__ On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:01 PM, ~f1_c ~I wrote : DOJ-18-0618-A-000011 I John, No problem at all. Thursday afternoon works best for me. What time should we meet? On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:51 PM, Gore, John (CRT) f~x_ 61 __ ~~ usdoj .gov> wrote : Unfortunately I have had another meeting scheduled tomorrow afternoon. Any chance you're available Thursday or Friday afternoon? Thanks. John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r)(6) ~)(G\ l@usdoj.gov From:fX 6l 1[.!!@[!!Qj 1>)(GJ ~alumni .nd.eduj Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:56 AM 11l To: Gore, John (CRT) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: lntroductionf>~l_(6_l --~ 4hX John, Wednesday at 2:30 works great for me. I'm looking forward to it. Best, ~ On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10: 14 AM, Gore, John (CRT) 1h1( 6 l l@usdoj .gov> wrote : ~ Thanks for reaching out. Wednesday afternoon is looking best for me. Are you available at 2:30 or 3 at Paul, 801 Pennsylvania Ave NW? John Sent from my iPhone DOJ-18-0618-A-000012 61 On Jul 17, 2017, at 8:04 AMf.... b_x ___ 6l @alumni.nd .edu> wrote : _.] wrote: EJ: Thanks for reaching out. I would be happy to sit down with you. Are you possibly available to grab coffee on Monday or Wednesday of next week? ' John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b)(6) ~b)(6l ---~ ~usdo j.gov From:rl( 6) I[~ bJ(6l t§>alumni.nd .eduj Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:38 AM 6) To: Gore, John (CRT) l@crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: lntroduction fbX6l f>l( I Mr. Gore, ~)(6) If you have some time in the next couple of weeks, I would like to sit down with you at your convenience and introduce myself. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, r)(6) DOJ-18-0618-A-000013 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A39789C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To : 7/27/2017 6:45:15 PM Kathleen C. Santora [kcs@nacua.org] Subject: RE: Congratulations Kathleen : Thanks for your kind note. I look forward to continuing to work with NACUA as well. Please don't hesitate to be in touch "if there is anything the Division or I can do for you. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I ~b)(6) ~~b _J(6_l _ __.l@usdoj.gov From: Kathleen C. Santora [mailto:kcs@nacua.org] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:52 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'l(6l Subject: Congratulations l@crt.usdoj.gov> John -Congratulations on your appointment today as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. I look forward to continuing our good work with your office. I would welcome a chance to talk with you about the issues we have discussed recently in listening sessions with OCR and DOJ. Thank you. Kathleen Kathleen Curry Santora President & CEO NACUA DOJ-18-0618-A-000014 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SP DLT) /CN=RE Cl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 Sent: 8/4/2017 To: ~hl(6) Subject: RE: DOJ - Civil Rights Division BFAB82- JGO RE] 1:12:34 PM fbl(6) ~ vt.edu] Great to hear from you. Will you call me at 2:30 at the number below? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Depart ment of Justice I fbl(6) ._Fhl_(6_J _ ___,@usdoj.gov I From: ~hJ(6J [mailto:fK 6l t@vt.edu] Sent: Friday, August 4 2017 1:09 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) {hl((,) @crt .usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: DOJ - Civil Rights Division John: Thanks for your e-mail. I would be pleased to speak with you. I could talk this afternoon anytime until about 4:00 or early tomorrow. I am leaving on a family vacation tomorrow around noon, and will be out all next week. I could try to schedule a call during the trip if that is more convenient for you. Best Regards, r1(61 1 On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 61__ wrote: ~: M , y e is John Gore, and I am the acting head of the Civil Rights Division. Our mutual friend ~ sent me a copy of your resume a few months ago. Are you available for a phone call in ~ get to know each other and talk about the Division? xt few Thanks . JohnM. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General 1 Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r)(6) @ usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000015 From: Sent : To: Subject : Gore, John (CRT)[/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP RE) (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=REClPlENTS/CN =25lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGO 8/14/2017 11:02:59 AM Treene, Eric (CRT)[/o=Exchangelabs/ou=ExchangeAdministrative Group 6l (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=67544e8b949340758739bee0ff654f75-etreene];r,l< ~aol.com RE:Thank You Brian : Thank you for your kind note and words of encouragement. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6) fXl 6 I J§'usdoj .gov From:Treene, Eric (CRT) Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:53 AM To: P,K6J @aol.com' 6,_l----,r@crt.usdoj.gov> Cc:Gore, John (CRT) f'r.,-'"'"'l( Subject: RE:Thank You Thanks for the note, Brian. Tom has left the Department to return to private practice in Indiana. John Gore is now the acting MG . I am sure he will appreciate your encouragement, ._r,_ l(6 _l ___ pi'K6l ______ ___, ~ Copying him here . Eric From:rX6l ~aol.com [m ailto :~blC6) '@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:43 AM To: Treene, Eric (CRT) f> X6l Subject: Thank You @crt.usd oj.gov>; Wheeler, Tom (CRT) -«~b _6_l l( -- ~@ _ crt _ .u_s_ do~j~.g~o_v> Dear Mssrs, Wheeler and Treene : Please convey my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for the D.O .J.'s swift response to the hate filled attack on protestors in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday to department members and the Attorney General. As our research shows the words of leaders correlate to hate crime and the Attorney General did the exact right thing this morning on national television for which I am grateful. Our Center is committed to assisting your office in any way possible, so feel free to contact us anytime . Warmest regards, Brian Levin Director, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism California State University, San Bernardino DOJ-18-0618-A-000016 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SP DLT)/CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82-JG ORE] Sent: To: 8/23/2017 10:34:22 AM patricia@thenationlawfirm.com Subject : Contact Information Patricia: It was great talking with you today. My contact information is below . Congrats again! John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice fb')(6) I ~bl( Subject: RE: Meeting Request Thanks again John for taking time to meet with Seth and the folks from Harvard. From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto f 1(6l l@usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:53 AM To: Brown, Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request Someone is on the way. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~x61 hl(G> 1 @usdoj.gov From: Brown, Reginald [mailto:Reginald.Brown@wilmerha Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:47 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)4bX6l @crt.usdoj.gov > Subject: Re: Meeting Request le.com ] We are here. They gave us escorted badges so I believe someone will need to come down to get us. Thx. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Gore, John (CRT) ke>usdoj.gov> wrote: We'll be in the Civil Rights Division conference room, 5643. We look forward to seeing you at 11. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General DOJ-18-0618-A-000018 Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~ 1(6) ~bl(6l 1 @usdoj.gov From: Waxman, Seth [mai lto:Seth .Waxman,@wilmerhale.com ] Sent: Monday, Septem ber 11, 2017 9:34 AM To: Gore, John (CRT){blC6J @crt .usdoj.gov> Cc: Brown, Reginald Subject: RE:Meeting Request Hi John, Where would like us at 11:00? Thanks, Seth From: Gore, John (CRT)[mailto: !bl(6l tJiiusdoi.govl Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 4:33 AM To: Waxman, Seth Cc: Brown, Reginald Subject: Re: Meeting Request Thanks, Seth. In addition to me, the DOJ attendees will be Sean Keveney, Beth Kelley, Jessica Vu, Matt Donnelly, and Hilary Pinion. See you Monday. John Sent from my iPhone On Sep 7, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Waxman, Seth wrote: Hi John, It looks like our attendees will be, in addition to me: Reg Brown, William Lee, Robert Iuliano, and Ara Gershengorn. We look forward to Monday's meeting and thank you again for your courtesy. Regards, Seth Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Tuesday,September5, 2017 6:21 PM To: Waxman,Seth; Brown, Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request DOJ-18-0618-A-000019 I look forward to meeting with you then. At your convenience, will you let me know who will be attending with you so I can provide their names to security? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice b)(6) b){6) From: Waxman, Seth [mai lto:Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com ) Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 3:29 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) ; Brown, Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request That's terrific. We'll be there. Thanks 6> From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto :~bX @usdoj .gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 2:52 PM To: Waxman, Seth ; Brown, Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request Seth: I am available starting around 11 am next Monday if that works for you. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Depart ment of Justice ,)(6) From: Waxman, Seth [mailto :Seth.W axma n@wilmerhale.com ] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10 :41 AM To: Gore, John (CRT){bl(; Brown, Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request Hi John, Would the morning of the 11th (next Monday) work? Thanks, Seth From: Gore, John (CRT) .,_m ""a::..: i.:..: ltc:::c o.:i:.: b....::)(~6l __ ..J"--=-=-==::...:. , Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 7:31 PM To: Waxman, Seth ; Brown , Reginald Subject: RE: Meeting Request DOJ-18-0618-A-000020 Reg: Thanks for the introduction . Seth: I look forward to meeting with you. As of now, I have some blocks of time on September 11, 12, and 14. Will you suggest some times on those dates that work on your end, as well as any other dates if those don't work for you? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r,1c6) 1 @usdoj .gov From: Waxman, Seth [mailto:Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:28 PM To: Brown, Reginald ; Gore, John (CRT)tbl( 61 Subject: RE: Meeting Request . ..____ ~crt .usdoj.gov> _, Hi John, Thanks for agreeing to meet with us. Would you like me to circle up here and suggests some dates and times or would you prefer to do so? Regards, Seth From: Brown, Reginald Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:23 PM To: John Gore fbX 6l @usdoj.gov) ; Waxman, Seth Subject: Meeting Request John, Thank you for taking my call. As I mentioned, my partner Seth is the lead lawyer on the matter we discussed and would very much appreciate an opportunity to come in to meet with you and any others you think may be interested in the matter. I understand next week is pretty booked up but that you may have availability the following week. Including Seth on the email so that the two of you can figure out what time works best. Thanks again, Reg Reginald J. Brown I WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 USA +1202663 6430 (t) DOJ-18-0618-A-000021 +l 202 663 6363 (f) reginald.brown@wi lmerhale.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately-by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster@wilmer hale.com-and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http: // www.wi lmer hale.com . DOJ-18-0618-A-000022 From: Gore, John (CRT) 1/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: 9/20/2017 11:00:50 AM Maciver, John [John.Maclver@eog.myflorida.com] RE: U.S. v. Florida meeting To: Subject: Yes, that's out address. Look forward to seeing you next week. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fb)(61 6l jCbl( ~usdoj.gov From: Maciver, John [mailto:John.Maclver@eog.myflorida.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:45 AM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: RE:U.S. v. Florida meeting Dan Nordby, Governor's General Counsel Justin Senor, Secretary of Health Care Administration George Meras, Counsel Andy Bardos, Counsel John Maciver, Governor's Deputy GC Also is your office 950 Pennsylvania Av? Thanks again, John From: Gore, John (CRT)(mailto f>XGJ l@usdoj .gov) Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 5:09 PM To: Maciver, John Subject: RE: U.S. v. Florida meeting Sounds good. When you get a chance, will you let me know who will be attending so I can provide their names to DOJ security? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fX6) Kbl{6) I @usdoj.gov From: Maciver, John [maitto:John.Maclver @eog.myflorida. com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 3:48 PM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Re: U.S. v. Florida meeting DOJ-18-0618-A-000023 Thanks John. Tuesday the 26th at 2 pm. I look forward to meeting you . From: Gore, John (CRT)<~bl(6) l@usd0j.gov> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:11:25 PM To: Maciver, John Subject: Re: U.S. v. Florida meeting John: Glad to hear you've weathered the storm so well. How about 2pm on September 26? Happy to adjust the time if it helps with your flight arrangements . John Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Maciver, John wrote: Thank you John. Thankfully, we weathered very well here in Tallahassee. For those in the rest of the state we will continue to need those thoughts and prayers. The afternoons of the 26th and 27 th work marginally better, but if you name a time on any of those days we will be there. Thanks again, John From: Gore, John (CRT)[rnailto~"1{6l l@usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:06 PM To: Maciver, John Subject: RE: U.S. v. Florida meeting John: I hope you are doing well in Tallahassee. We continue to send all of our best thoughts and prayers to Florida. As of now, I am available in the afternoon on the 25th , 26th , and 27th . Let me know which of those dates you prefer. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb l(6) !(b X61 I !@usdoj.gov From: Maciver, John [mailt o:John.Maclver@eog.myflorida.com) Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:32 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)4bX6J @crt.usdoi.~ov > Subject: RE: U.S. v. Florida meeting DOJ-18-0618-A-000024 Mr. Gore: Thank you for your kindness. For the next couple of days we will be worrying about everyone in South Florida and watching with the hope that the storm tracks east. I think we should be outside the worst of it here in Tallahassee. Again, your thoughts and prayers are truly appreciated. If you are comfortable with the idea, I had anticipated bringing our Secretary of Healthcare Administration and outside counsel. I have made sure that they can be available anytime next week or the week of the 25th • Within those dates we are at your disposal. Thank you again. John From: Gore, John (CRT)[mailtofb)(6) @usdoj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:56 PM To: Maciver, John Subject: RE: U.S.v. Florida meeting Mr. Maciver: First things first: our thoughts and prayers are with Florida as Hurricane Irma approaches. We wish you and everyone else all the best. I am happy to arrange a meeting at our mutual convenience. Do you have a sense of dates that may work on your end? I have some flexibility this month. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~h)(6) I ~b)( Subject: U.S. v. Florida meeting Mr. Gore, Good afternoon. I am following up on the earlier conversations that you have had with Dan Nordby about the U.S. v. Florida appeal. I am the Deputy GC that works with our healthcare agencies. Because Hurricane Irma is overshadowing just about everything else in State of Florida governance right now, Dan asked if I could reach out and see if you would be willing to follow up with me about some potential dates for us to meet and discuss the case. I can be reached at this lat any time that is best for you. I look forward to meeting you soon. email or my direct-linefbl( 61 Best regards, John Maciver DOJ-18-0618-A-000025 From : Sent : To: Subject : Gore , John (CRT) (/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BFS2449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 9/9/2017 4:39:55 AM Braden, E. Mark [MBraden@bakerlaw.com] Re: Bethune-Hill v. Va. Bd. of Elections Mark: I have been waiting to hear back from your team on this since your last communication in June. You're welcome to call me next week. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Braden, E. Mark wrote: Still interested in discussing the Voting Rights Section continuing in this case . I think we first talked in April. Additionally we have renewed a FOIA request of the Section (17-00417-F)in regard to the preclearance of the Va. House plan. The Section redacted the name of the black House Delegates members it interviewed. All supported the plan and have indicated in their depos that they did not believe they gave any confidential interviews . The trial is set Oct.11-13 so time is of the essence. Mark Braden Of Counsel Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W . \ Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202 .861 .1504 mbraden@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential, or protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities . Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted , lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a resL1lt of e-mail transmission DOJ-18-0618-A-000026 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To : 9/11/2017 6:48 :17 PM Waxman, Seth [Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com] Subject: RE: Dates Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fbl(6) f'l( 6l @usdoj.gov From: Waxman, Seth [mailto :Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale .com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:05 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)4 bX6) @crt .usdoj.gov> Subject: Dates Dear John, Thanks again for meeting with us today. Here are the dates you requested: Expert Discovery Summary Judgment 5FFA's Reports Oct. 3, 2017 Harvard's Reports Dec. 2, 2017 SFFA'sRebuttals Jan. 16, 2018 Harvard's Rebuttals Feb.26, 2018 Close of Expert Discovery May 1, 2018 5J Motions June 15, 2018 SJOppositions July 30, 2018 SJReplies Aug. 30, 2018 Regards, Seth DOJ-18-0618-A-000027 From: Gore , John (CRT) 1/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23S PDLT)/CN=RE Cl Pl ENTS/CN=251F 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To: Subject : 9/14/2017 10:05 :36 AM Raile, Richard [rraile@bakerlaw.com] RE: Bethune-HIii v. Va . State Board of Elections I'm stuck in a meeting but will call you shortly. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice @X6\ j ~fb_J(6_J _~ l@usdoj.gov From: Raile, Richard [mailto:rraile@bakerlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 3:59 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f bX61 kg> crt.usdoj .gov> Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; McKnight, Katherine L. ; 6 f Xl l@aol.com' f" l(6l J@aol.com> Subject: RE: Bethune-HIii v. Va. State Board of Elections Yes, 10 works, as does the number below. Thank you Regards, Richard Raile Associate BakerHostetler Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W . I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202 .861 .1711 rra i le@ba kerlaw .com bakerlaw .com 8ft) From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto fb 6l @usdo j.gov j Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 3:55 PM To: Raile, Richard Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; McKnight , Katherine L. ; •~aol.com' <@60 @ao1.com> S1,1bject: RE: Bethune-HIii v. Va. State Board of Elections Richard: I can talk tomorrow around 10 am. Should I call you at the number below? DOJ-18-0618-A-000028 John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6) I ~b)(6J @usdoj.gov From: Raile, Richard [mailto :rraile@baker law.com ) Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 6:27 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)flCGl @crt.usdoj .gov> Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; McKnight, Katherine L. ; •~aol.com' ~ aol.com> Subject: RE:Bethune-HIii v. Va. State Board of Elections Dear John, please let me know if you have any availability for the call described below this week. Both Mark Braden and Dale Oldham are curious to know. Regards, Richard Raile Associate BakerHostetler Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W . I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T+1.202.861.1711 rraile@bakerlaw .com bakerlaw.com e~ From: Raile, Richard Sent: Saturda~, September 09, 2017 10:55 AM @usdoj.gov' ~ X61 @usdoj.gov> Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; McKnight, Katherine L. ; ~aol.com' Subject: Bethune-HIii v. Va. State Board of Elections To: fbJ(Gl Dear John, Per request of Mark Braden, I am writing to see ifwe can talk with you via phone early next week on two items concerning the above-referenced case. First, we have an outstanding FOIA request with the Voting Rights Section for preclearance materials related to Virginia's 2011 legislative plan. In particular, we want a set of documents that were originally produced in redacted form. We believe the redactions are unwarranted. We initially made the request in 2015, but the documents the Voting Rights Section produced were heavily redacted; among other things, the identities of legislators interviewed were withheld. DOJ-18-0618-A-000029 We renewed our FOIA request on August 24, 2017 (see attached), noting specifically that we seek unredacted notes of interviews with individuals who did not request confidentiality. The Voting Rights Section responded by explaining that the request could be processed more quickly ifwe narrowed it (see attached). Accordingly, Greer Smith of our office called the Section and (eventually) conferred with April Freeman, explaining that we would like to focus on 29 redacted documents that do not indicate the interviewee requested confidentiality. She sent the originally produced, redacted documents, which are attached here. Ms. Freeman represented that she would confer with her superior. To our knowledge, that is where the issue stands now. Our understanding of the Voting Rights Section's FOIA implementing regulations is that redaction of Section 5 interview notes is not mandated unless the interviewee requests confidentiality. There is no indication in the 29 documents we focus on that confidentiality was requested, and legislators we have deposed have indicated that they do not recall requesting confidentiality. Second, we would like to confer again regarding a potential statement of interest in the Virginia legislature's favor. As we discussed previously, the plaintiffs' position threatens to impair both the VRA and state control of redistricting. We think our position on remand is consistent both with the government's position in the Supreme Court and with the policy interests of the Voting Rights Section. We would be happy to re-send briefing on the case to date and provide an update of where things stand. Speaking with you is a priority, so let us know when is most convenient for you, and we will accommodate. Monday or Tuesday would be preferable from our end. Kind regards, Richard Raile Associate BakerHostetler Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202 .861.1711 rraile@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw.com 8<0 This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities . Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission DOJ-18-0618-A-000030 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl PlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 9/20/2017 4:22:05 PM To: Waxman, Seth [Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com]; RE: Call Subject: Brown, Reginald [Reginald.Brown@wilmerhale.com] I know the feeling. I'll be around for quite a while. I'm happy to talk to Reg if that's easier, or to catch up a different day. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I p,x11i fbl(6l @usdoj.gov From: Waxman, Seth [mailto:Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:19 PM 6l To: Gore, John {CRT)l( l@crt.usdoj.gov>; Brown, Reginald Cc: Brown, Reginald Subject: RE:Call Hi John, I'm in a DefCon 3 alert, with a merits brief due today and a need to be home well before sundown for the start of the Jewish New Year. I'll reach out if I possibly can. How long will you be there? Thanks, Seth From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailtof bl(Gl ~usdoj.govj Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:35 PM To: Waxman, Seth <5eth.Waxm an@wilmerhale.com >; Brown, Reginald Subject: Call Seth and Reg: Are you available for a brief call this afternoon? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice f'.1(6) f lC 6 ) 1 ~ usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000031 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECIPl ENTS/ CN=25 lF 144BFS2449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGO RE] Sent: To: Subject: 9/20/2017 3:35:14 PM Waxman, Seth [Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com]; Brown, Reginald [Reginald.Brown@wilmerhale.com] Call Seth and Reg: Are you available for a brief call this afternoon? Thanks . John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice f l[6)' ~bK6J I lg>usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000032 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: 9/21/2017 1:01 :19 PM Roger Clegg [rclegg@ceousa.org] RE: llinois DFI program : race-exclusive hiring To: Subject : Thanks, Roger. We'll take a look at this. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice b)(6) From: Roger Clegg [mailto:rclegg@ceousa.org] Sent: Wednesday, Septemb er 20, 2017 9:44 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) 0X6) @crt.usdoj .gov> Subject: Fwd: llinois DFI program : race-exclusive hiring f Dear Mr. Gore, I I'm forwarding a recent email exchange with fKGJ a professor at Southern Illinois University. He points out that there is apparently a state program that provides racially exclusive employment opportunities, which is illegal and inconsistent with a consent decree that the division entered with SIU under Bush43. I'll forward another email in a moment with more background on that decree . I agree with Professor~that the DFI program etc. is disturbing . Thanks, Roger Clegg Center for Equal Opportunity Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message : From: ~bX6l 11hX6l @gma il.com> Date: September 17, 2017 at 10:16:21 PM EDT To: Roger Clegg Subject: Re: Ilinois DFI program: race-exclusive hiring https ://www.ju tice.gov /arch i ve/opa/pr/2006/F ebruary/ 06 crt 068 .html I'm attaching the DOJ complaint and SIU's initial response . I have the actual PDF of the consent decree (you sent it to me) but not at home . Thanks! DOJ-18-0618-A-000033 PS: As for the Faculty Hiring Fund and practices, there are ample fact witnesses who will cooperate . Powered h) Gmelius On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Roger Clegg wrote: ThxE} Sounds very similar, all right! Do you have the date of the doj decree readily at hand? If not I'm sure I can find it. Then okay ifl forward this to doj? Sent from my iPhone On Sep 17, 2017, at 8:22 PM, ~ tb161___ _r htt ://www .ibhe.or ~l wrote : FI/ uideline.hnn #eli ib Funds black and Hispanic (but not Asian, white, Middle Eastern) graduate students who repay by signing a contract to agree to be hired (on the basis of their "diversity"). Isn't this precisely the employment discrimination that DOJ forced SIU to stop with the consent decree of 2006-2009?? ~b)(6)I! DOJ-18-0618-A-000034 From : Sent: To: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 11/8/2017 11:45:47 AM Driscoll, Robert [rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] RE: Harvard Greg Friel. I'll let him know that you may be reaching out. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I 1:bl(6l f>X6) ~ usdoj.gov From: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 8 1 2017 11:34 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)fb l(Gl ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Harvard John: Who's the DAAG who oversees housing? A bank client of mine under a decree may want to look into early termination based on having their act together, so I may ask for a meeting with the section and a front office. Bob Robert Neil Driscoll direct: fax: (202) 802-9950 (202)403-3870 email: rdrlscol!Crumcgllrichey .com office: 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 420 j.Washington, DC 20004 § MGu . ® HEY STAFFORD bio I vcard I www.rncqlinche y .com I www.cafalawblog.com From: Gore, John (CRT) [majltoe' 61 !@usd~j.~ov J Sent: Monday,October 30, 2017 10:04 AM To: Driscoll, Robert Subject: Re: Harvard Sure. How about Paul across from DOJ? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Driscoll, Robert wrote: DOJ-18-0618-A-000035 Sorry, if 4 works today, that would be preferable . Sent from my iPhone 6 l On Oct 30, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Gore, John (CRT)~b )( @usdoj.gov> wrote: Bob: Apologies for the shifting schedule. One of our team members is unfortunately unavailable at 3 pm today. Can you possibly meet tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 10 am? If not, we may be able to do 4 pm today. Just let me know what you prefer. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Driscoll, Robert wrote: Sure. No problem. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Gore, John (CRT)fblC6> l@usdoj.gov> wrote: Bob: My Monday afternoon has unexpectedly opened up. Are you still free then, and could you meet around 3? John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Driscoll, Robert wrote: Sure. Sent from my iPhone fX61 On Oct 25, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Gore, John (CRT) l@usdoj.gov> wrote : Wednesday afternoon works best for me. Are you free around 3:30? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~bl(6) I ~X6l i@usdoj.gov From: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:rdrisco ll @mcglinchey.com ] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:11 PM DOJ-18-0618-A-000036 To: Gore, John (CRT)~..... b_X _l___ Subject: Re: Harvard 6 ~,-....;:;c'""rt""' .u=s=d=o=j.g=o ~v> I can make almost anything work, so I'll take what works for you, but Monday afternoon Tuesday am and all day Wednesday preferable. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Gore, John (CRT)f hX6) Wusdoj.gov > wrote: Bob: Good to hear from you. I am traveling the rest of the week. How does your schedule look next week? John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Driscoll, Robert wrote: John: I was recently retained by Harvard to help them (and Wilmer) deal with the DOJ admissions/ affirmative action investigation. Before I dive in, I was hoping to get a cup of coffee or have a short visit with you and whoever is running point on it for you so I can get your perspective and manage this client appropriately. Reachable by cell or text/email this afternoon as I'm not in the office . Thanks, Bob direct: mobile: email: office: (202) 802-9950 (703) 850-5058 rdriscolt@mcglf nchey.corn 1275 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW, Suite 420 I Washington,DC 20004 ® bio I vcard I www.mcgllnchey.com I www.cafalawbloq.com www.rncgllnchey .com I www.CafaLawBlog.com McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington DC and McGlinchey Slafford, LLP in California . Confidentiality Statement: This email may contain attorney-client privileged or confidential information. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us by telephone at 504-586-1200 and return the original message to us at McGlinchey Stafford, 12th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130 via the United States Postal Service . We take steps to remove metadata in attachments sent by email, and any remaining metadata should be presumed inadvertent and should not be viewed or used without our express permission . If you receive an attachment containing metadata, please notify the sender immediately and a replacement will be provided DOJ-18-0618-A-000037 Sc" l·JlcGlinc11cySt;,fforrl Discl~i111-ar/Pri'1~cy~'olicy http://www.mcgllr,chey .com/disclaimer / DOJ-18-0618-A-000038 From: Sent : To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF235P DLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 10/25/2017 6:42:52 PM Purdie, Jennifer uennifer.purdie@wolterskluwer.com] Burniston, Timothy [Timothy.Burniston@wolterskluwer.com]; Garner, Rakia (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Reci pients/cn=552860feae lc4d98bf4be 7306621040b-rgarner]; Aguinaga, Ben (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn=44 f16b16d0464d5ba lcd933b0f68dc38-bagu inag] RE: CRA and Fair Lending Colloquium -- Planning Meeting with AAG John Gore Jennifer: Thanks for your kind note. I just left you a voice mail. Regrettably, due to scheduling difficulties and other complications on my end, I will not be able to attend the Colloquim or deliver remarks. Apologies for not letting you know sooner, but I've just found out about this complication today. I will be traveli ng for the next few days, but please feel free to contact my chief of staff, Ben Aguinaga, copied here and if you have any follow-up questions . available at 202f' X61 I Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice j{bJC6) 6_l --~P ~~h_J( I usdoj.gov From: Purdie, Jennifer [mailto:jennifer.purdie@wolterskluwer.com] Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 5:04 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fbl(6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Burniston, Timothy ; Garner, Rakia (CRT)___ Subject: RE:CRA and Fair Lending Colloquium -- Planning Meeting with AAG John Gore ~~ crt.usdoj.gov> Mr. Gore: Thank you for meeting with us to review the plans for your upcoming Honorary Keynote Address at the CRAand Fair Lending Colloquium. We are thrilled to once again be joined by someone in your position and we are confident that your remarks and guidance will be well-received by conference attendees. As promised, I am providing links to last year's keynote presentations, a link to t he agenda and a list of attendee titles, institutions and asset sizes. Head of the Civil Rights Division Vanita Gupta Delivers Remarks at the 2016 Community Reinvestment Act & Fair Lending Colloquium https:ljwww.justice.gov/opa/speech/head-civil-rights-division-vanita-gupta-delivers-remarks-2016-communityreinvestment-act Remarks by Grovetta Gardineer, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Compliance and Community Affairs, Before the 2016 CRAand Fair Lending Colloquium http s:ljwww .occ.treas .gov/ n ews-i ssua n ces/ speeches/ 2016/pu b-speech-2016-144.pdf DOJ-18-0618-A-000039 On Tuesday, November 7, please meet our Master of Ceremonies, Tim Burniston, at the front of the General Session room at 8:30 AM. We invite you to sit in the front row so that you have easy accessto the stage. We understand that you plan to use the podium microphone -- without a box to stand on for height questions. Please do not hesitate call me on my cell phone at ~kbl~<6~l ---~lif conference or onsite. We will see you in Nashville!! Jennifer Purdie Wolters Kluwer 781-663-5378 © and you don't plan to take audience I can provide additional information in advance of the -----Original Appointment----From: Purdie, Jennifer Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:36 PM To: Purdie, Jennifer; Burniston, Timothy; Garner, Rakia (CRT) Cc: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: CRA and Fair Lending Colloquium -- Planning Meeting with AAG John Gore When: Friday, October 6, 2017 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Toll number: +1 (316) 425-9831, access code: 7093073 o_n_~ Toll number: +1 (316) 425-9831, access code: f!~ Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore will be joining us to deliver an Honorary Keynote Address at the CRA and Fair Lending Colloquium. Let's meet on Friday, October 6 at 1 PM Eastern with our Master of Ceremonies, Tim Burniston, to discuss the conference, attendee make up and scope of AAG Gore's remarks. www.cracolloguium.com DOJ-18-0618-A-000040 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN=RE ClPIENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To: 11/28/2017 10:57:47 AM Shirley_Engelhardt@ca5.uscourts.gov CC: Chad Dunn [chad@brazilanddunn.com]; Subject : [jnelson@naacpl _df.org] Re: Veasey v. Abbott, No. 17-40884 Ezra Rosenberg [erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org]; Janai Nelson Ms . Engelhardt: No need to apologize . Yes, that order of argument is correct. Thank you, John Gore Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:51 AM , "Shi rley Engelhardt @caS.uscourts.gov " wrote : Dear Counsel, I am about to issue this order Granting the additional argument time. I am sorry for this confusion on my part. Just so that I am clear, Mr. Gore will argue for 10 minutes before the other three appellees argue, correct? Shirley Engelhardt From: "Gore, John (CRT)" 4bX6) ~ usdoj.gov> To: Chad Dunn "Shirley Engelhardt@ca5.uscourts.gov" , Ezra Rosenberg , Janai Nelson Cc: Date: 11/28/2017 09:45 AM Subject: Re: Veasey v. Abbott, No. 17-40884 Ms. Engelhardt: Thank you for your email. The pending motion seeks 20 minutes of argument time for Texas, 10 minutes for the United States, and 30 minutes for the private appellees . Accordingly, if the motion is granted, the allocations in the forms are correct. In other words, granting the motion would resolve the issue you raise . Thanks, John Gore Sent from my iPhone On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:29 AM , Chad Dunn wrote : DOJ-18-0618-A-000041 Shirley, Thank you for your e-mail. It is our understanding that Mr. Gore's time is being deducted from Texas' time and that Texas and the U.S. have agreed to that division. Mr. Gore's client has taken positions in briefing directly in support of Texas and in opposition to our side of the case. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Appellees to lose time. The result would be that 3/4 of the argument time would be in support of the same positions and only 1/4 would be allotted to the opposing position. How is it that we resolve this issue? Regards, Chad W. Dunn Brazil & Dunn LLP 420 I Cypress Creek Pkwy, #530 Houston, TX 77068 Phone: (281) 580-6310 Fax: (281) 580-6362 www.brazilanddunn.com Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL. This message is intended for the recipient only and it contains information that may be privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. If you receive this message by mistake please contact Chad W. Dunn at 281-580-6310 and destroy the original message. Thank you. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, wrote : Dear Counsel, I hope to have a ruling on this pending motion soon. But, Counsel for the United States, John M. Gore, also plans to argue and will be sharing the time with the three lawyers that you show as arguing and sharing the time. So you will have to share either the 20 or 30 minutes with four people, not three as shown on your form. As soon as the motion is ruled on, please resubmit the form. If you have any questions, please let me know. I am also copying Mr. Gore on this response. Respectfully, Shirley Engelhardt Courtroom Deputy (504 )310-763 1 From: Ezra Rosenberg "Shirley Engelha rdl@ca5 .uscou rts .gov" Cc: Chad Dunn , Janai Nelson Date: 11/22/2017 11 :46 AM Veasey v , Abbott, No. 17-40884 Subject: To: Dear Ms. Engelhardt: Attached is the oral argument form on behalf of appellees Texas State Conference of DOJ-18-0618-A-000042 NAACP and Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the above matter, set to be argued on December 5. We have allocated the time for argument among appellees based on the 30 minutes per side requested in the pending joint motion filed on behalf of all parties to this appeal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you and have a wonderful Thanksgiving. - Ezra Rosenberg DOJ-18-0618-A-000043 From : Sent: To: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BFS2449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 12/21/2017 1:41:03 PM Robert Popper [rpopper@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG]; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=d245ce66367b42a89fdf2834129036f8-skeveney] RE: NVRAlawsuits. Sounds good. Let us know if you are bringing anyone so we can submit the names to security . John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~X61 _! 61 ~ Wusdoj.gov From: RobertPopper[mailto:rpopper@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 1:40 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'lC 61 Subject: RE: NVRA lawsuits. pcrt.usdoj.gov>; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Great, thanks. I'll see you then at Main Justice. 6l From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailtoP >X ~usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 12:10 PM To: Robert Popper ; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Subject: RE: NVRA lawsuits. How about 11 am on January 3? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice rx 6 i ~b)(6J I ~ usdoj.gov From: RobertPopper[ mailto:rpopper@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:54 AM 6> To: Gore, John (CRT) 1t>K Subject: RE: NVRA lawsuits. ~crt.usdoj.gov >; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) John, That sounds great. I am available any time January 2 or 3, January 8 after 2 p.m., and any time January 11 and 12. Bob From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailtof b1f61 t@usdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 9:28 AM DOJ-18-0618-A-000044 To: Robert Popper ; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Subject: RE: NVRA lawsuits. Bob: Thanks for reaching out. I would be happy to meet with you after the holidays. Will you propose some dates that work on your end? Thanks. John M . Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fl< 6 > ~b){6l pusdoi.gov From: Robert Popper [mai lto:rpopper@J UDICIALWATCH.ORG) Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:03 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)<~bl{6l Subject: NVRA lawsuits. ~crt.usdoi.gov> ; Keveney, Sean R (CRT) Please see the attached . Sincerely, Robert D. Popper Judicial Watch, Inc. 425 Third Street, SW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024 (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 6~6-5172 Direct: (202rXGl ~-- ~ DOJ-18-0618-A-000045 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 1 8 2018 3:50:13 PM 6 Xl ~b)(6l ~georgetown .edu"'"l,..,..,.,.---__, RE: Educational Opportunities Section - ~b)(6) From : Sent: To: Subject: ---~ Great to hear from you. I would be thrilled to talk to you about the Division and the Section. How does your schedule look for a call on Thursday or Friday this week? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I p,xG) fb')(6l ~ usdoj.gov From:tJ,)(6) l[ mailtorl( 6) l@georgetown.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 5:34 PM To: Gore, John {CRT)fl< 6l ~crt.usdoj.g ~o_v_>_~ 6_l-~ Subject: Educational Opportunities Section - f~bl_< Dear Mr. Gore: r,)(6) b)(Gl bl{6l I am sure you have a busy schedule, but I am wondering if you would be Willin g to talk with me about what it is like to work for the EOS, and the Civil Rights Division in general. Thank you and Happy New Year. Best regards, fb)(6) DOJ-18-0618-A-000046 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23 SPDLT) /CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 Sent: 1/29/2018 To: Marshall, Alison B. [abmarshall@JonesDay.com] Subject: RE: Possible Attendee for HT Summit BFAB82- JGORE] 10:12:40 AM Another great idea. I've passed Hanni's information along to the summit organizer. Thanks again. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice From: Marshall, Alison B. [mailto:abmarshall@JonesDay.com] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 ·8:59 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)<~ 1(61 pcrt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Possible Attendee for HT Summit John One other suggestion if there is space - Hanni Stoklosa is director of HEALTrafficking, an organization of public health professionals working together to address trafficking domestically. She is also affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Her biography is here: https://connects .catalyst.harvard.edu/ Profiles/di splay/Person/66391 Her email is hstoklosa@mai I.ha rva rd.edu . Thx, Alison From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto:Eh 61 Pusdoj.govj Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:19 PM To: Marshall, Alison B. Subject: RE: Possible Attendee for HT Summit Great idea! I've passed your email on to the summit organizer and asked her to invite Mindy. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fX6) p,)(6) I ~ usdoj.gov From: Marshall, Alison B. [rnailto:abmarshall@JonesDay.c0m ] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:50 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f b)(61 ~c rt.usdoj.gov > Subject: Possible Attendee for HT Summit John - DOJ-18-0618-A-000047 Are you still looking for attendees for the summit? As I think you know, we work with the American Hospital Association and have been working with them on several projects around trafficking. Their GC Mindy Hatton would likely be interested in attending herself or having one of her team attend. Would that be possible? If so, her email is: mhatton@aha .org Thanks, Alison Alison B. Marshall Partner JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'M 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879.7611 abmarshalf@jonesday .com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** DOJ-18-0618-A-000048 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP From : (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: Subject : 1/30/2018 7:09:46 PM Driscoll, Robert [rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] RE: USA MA (Lelling) Talked to Lelling today. Great guy- and he even speaks highly of you . John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I r,1<61 fbX6l ~ usdoj.gov From: Driscoll, Robert [mailto:rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:42 AM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT){h1< ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: USA MA (Leiling) Had dinner with him last night (we're buds going way back) - he'll be good on CRTissues. I guess he's in town for training stuff, but you may see him. Robert Neil Driscoll direct: fax: email: office: ,§ (202) 802-9950 (202) 403-3870 rdrlscoll@mcgllnchey.com 1275 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW, Suite 420 I Washington, DC 20004 ® M:c-LINCHLY STAFF RO bio I vcard I www.mcgllnchey.com I www.cafa.lawblog.com Alabama California York Ohio Texas Florida Louisiana Washington, DC Mississippi New WWW .mcqlinchey.com I www.CafaLawBlog .com McGlil1(:hey Stafford, PLLC in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington DC and McGlinchey Stafford, LLP in California Confidentiality Statement: This email may contain attorney-client privileged or confidential information. It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us by telephone at 504·586-1200 and return the original message to us at McGlinchey Stafford, 12th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130 via the United States Postal Service We take steps to remove metadata in attachments semi by email, and any remaining metadata should be presumed inadvertent and should not be viewed or used without our express permission If you receive an attachment containing metadata, please notify the sender immediately and a replacement will be provided See McGlinchey Stafford Disclaimer/Privacy Policy http:/Aw.w.rncglinchey .comldiscla lrner/ DOJ-18-0618-A-000049 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: To : Subject: 2/2/2018 (FYDIBO HF23SP DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- JGORE] 4:07:54 PM dlivingston@akingump.com FW: Health insurance question Don : Per below, 6 >( l ~-------------- -------------~ We have set the wheels in motion and are excited to see you on February 26. Have a great trip! Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice rb 'J(6) ~bX£>l i Wusdoj.gov From: Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:26 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) 4J,K61 @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: FW: Health insurance question Please see below . From: Walser, Rhonda (CRT) Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 3:18 PM 6J To: Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) ~========;~@crt.u ~ --~~ 6 Cc: Blaskey, Rebecca (CRT) <.._ ~b)( _ _> -------"l @""'--"c"""'rt""".u=s=d"""o..__i. g"'o "-'-v > Subject: RE: Health insurance question Please remember that when Mr. Livingston enrolls the effective date for him and q_ualifying dependents will be the beginning of the next pay period after the signed form is received. Thanks From: Blaskey, Rebecca (CRT) Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:58 PM To: Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) ; Taylor, Delicia (CRT) l<6) Walser, Rhonda (CRT) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: Health insurance question j@crt.usdoj.gov >; DOJ-18-0618-A-000050 Kathy, this is more in Rhonda's area. I am copying her here. From: Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:49 PM To: Taylor, Delicia (CRT)4b l(6) @crt._usdoj.gov>; Blaskey, Rebecca (CRT)<_,_~ b_1<6 _l ____ Subject: Health insurance question _,_,,l®~c"--r=t.=us""'d'""'o ..... i....._go-'--v> Hi, Rebecca and Delicia, I told John that I would check with you and let him know. Thanks, Kathy DOJ-18-0618-A-000051 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JG Sent: To: 2/13/2018 9:59:12 AM Marshall, Alison B. [abmarshall@JonesDay.com] Subject: RE: American Hospital Association event -- March 6 ORE) Alison: A call the week of February 19 sounds great. I am all cleared and confirmed, subject to an unexpected conflict. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division ___,.,_,....__..,_,__........_L...ld..1-'-'-'--'-1of Justice From: Marshall, Alison B. [mailto:abmarshall@JonesDay.com] Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:20 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: RE:American Hospital Association event -- March 6 JohnThat is wonderful! Thank you. We have our partners' meeting next week but how about a call the week of February 19? I would suggest we add Curt Kirschner from the San Fran office, who is a co-chair of our anti-trafficking task force, for the call. Curt had had some conversations with Chad about possible speakers and Chad may have made some inquiries, but Eric and I thought of you and Curt asked me to reach out. Do you need to do anything by way of clearance or approvals or can we assume, subject to an unexpected conflict, that you are confirmed? Best, Alison 6l From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto p1< ~usdoj.gov ) Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:48 PM To: Marshall, Alison B.< abmarsha ll @JonesDay.com> Subject: RE:American Hospital Association event -- March 6 Alison: This sounds terrific! Count me in. Maybe we can talk as the event approaches so I have a better sense of what to say. Best, John DOJ-18-0618-A-000052 John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~)(6) I ~b)(Gl @usdoi.gov From: Marshall, Alison B. [mailto:abmarshall@JonesDay.com ] Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:24 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)fb l(6l @crt.usdoj .gov> Subject: American Hospital Association event -- March 6 John- I am reaching out to see if you might be available to speak at a program that we are conducting with the AHA in our office on March 6 on human trafficking. The audience will consist largely of medical professionals and key healthcare systems. The event will be in a roundtable format to facilitate discussion during the course of the day. Your sessions would be over the noon hour. The participants would benefit greatly from hearing about the work the DOJ is doing in this space. Happy to hop on a call to discuss if you would like . Best, Alison Alison B. Marshall Partner TONE DAY® - One F irm Worldwide'M 51 Louisiana Ave ., N.W . Washington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879.7611 abmarshall@jonesday .com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege . If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected .*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected .*** DOJ-18-0618-A-000053 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BFS2449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 2/23/2018 3:29:25 PM White, Robert C. [rcwhite@jonesday.com] RE: American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEAL Trafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Sent: To : Subject: Works for me. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6l I 6 ~ usdoj.gov rKl From: White, Robert C. [mailto:rcwhite@jonesday.com] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 3:21 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'lC6J ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE:American Hospital Associatio n/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. John, I can get Katherine and Curt for this call on Monday, 2/26 from 10-11 PST - 1-2 ET. I just want to confirm with you to make certain that will work. If so I'll send out a calendar invite with dial in number to all. Thanks for your help. Bob White Assistant to James C. Olson, F. Curt Kirschner and Tim Kelly JONES DAY®- One Firm \Voddwide"" 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1-415-875-5866 rcwhite@ionesday.com From: Gore, John (CRT) [mail toJbi(6 l @usdoj .gov] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 10:53 AM To: White, Robert C. Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Yes. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b){6) fbX6l I ~ usdoj.gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000054 From: White, Robert C. [mailto:rcwhite@jonesday.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 1:51 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)4'bX6l pcrt.usdoj .gov> ] Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Thanks. I'm still checking with Ms. Chon. Curt can do this call at 3pm (ET) on Monday. Would that work on your end? Bob White Assistant to James C. Olson, F. Curt Kirschner and Tim Kelly JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'"' 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1-415-875-5866 rcwhi te@Jonesday.com From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto/:§l16l @usd.oj.gov ] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 10:44 AM To: White, Robert C. Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Per your prior email, I am available at 2pm on 2/26. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice From: White, Robert C. [mailto:rcwh ite @jonesda y.com] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 1:37 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) bl(G) . crt.usdo·. ov> Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Thanks John. I'll reach out to Katherine and see what works for her. I'll get back to you . Bob Bob White Assistant to James C. Olson, F. Curt Kirschner and Tim Kelly JONES DAY® - OneFirm Worldwide'., 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1-415-875-5866 rc"Whfte @jonesday .com DOJ-18-0618-A-000055 From: Gore, John (CRT)[mailtojb ){6l @usdoj .gov) Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 10:31 AM To: White, Robert C. Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Bib: Thanks for reaching out. As of now, I am free on Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon (Eastern) for a call. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice From: White, RobertC.[ mailto:rcwhite@jonesday.e0m ] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 1:08 PM To: Gore, John (CRT){blC6) @crt. usdoj .gov> Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. Mr. Gore, I'm Curt Kirschner's assistant. I just wanted to connect with you to see if there might be a time next week for a call with you, Katherine Chon and Curt re the March 6th roundtable. Please let me know if you have availability for this and I'll check with Katherine and Curt regarding their calendars. Thank you. Bob White Assistant to James C. Olson, F. Curt K_irschner and Tim Kelly JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'"' 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1-415-675-5866 rcwhlte@lonesdav .com From: Kirschner, Jr., F. Curt Sent: Thursd ay, February 22, 2018 10:17 AM Torl( 6l ~usdoj.gov Cc:White, Robert C. Subject: RE:American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, .D.C. John - Here is the second message which was misdirected to a DOL email address. Apologies for the delay in getting these to you. Thanks. Curt F. Curt Kirschner, Jr. Partner DOJ-18-0618-A-000056 TONE..5DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'" 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1.415.875.5769 Cell +1.415.310.6354 ckirschner@fo nesday.com From: Kirschner, Jr., F. Curt Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:23 AM ~ usdol.gov' 1bl(6l @usdol.gov>; 'Katherine.Chon@acf.hhs.gov' Cc: Marshall, Alison B.< abmarshall@jonesday.com >; Goodspeed, Taylor A.< tgoodspeed@jonesday.com >; White, Robert C. Subject: American Hospital Association/ Jones Day/ HEALTrafficking - Human Trafficking Convening for Health Care Providers - March 6th - Jones Day, Washington, D.C. To: rl(6l John and Katherine Looking forward to seeing you both at our human trafficking roundtable on March 6th that we are co-sponsoring with the AHA and HEALTrafficking. The overarching purpose of the roundtable is to discuss how hospitals and other health care providers can best identify, treat, and refer victims of human trafficking. The convening is bringing together a small group (25-30) of experts in the field who can identify gaps in current hospital protocols and the development of best practices. I will be moderating a panel of the two of you focusing on how the DOJ and HHScan support hospital efforts to combat human trafficking. Our panel is scheduled from 12:15 pm. to 1:15 p.m. We have significant flexibility in determining the structure of our discussion, but my suggestion is that, after introductions, each of you provide an oral overview (10-15 minutes) of what the DOJ and HHSare currently doing related to human trafficking, followed some Q&A among the panel and with the attendees. I would like to schedule a time later this week or early next to discuss the panel presentations and discussion. My secretary, Bob White, will be reaching out to get a time scheduled. Rather than using PPTsduring the roundtable, we are offering the opportunity to our speakers to provide pre-read materials, which will be circulated to the attendees the week before the roundtable. If you have any already prepared materials about the work your agencies are doing on human trafficking that you feel would be appropriate to circulate to our attendees, please provide them to me this week, if possible. Thanks very much, and I look forward to connecting with you live soon and seeing you on March 6th in D.C. Curt F. Curt Kirschner, Jr. Partner JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'"' 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Office +1.415.875.5769 Cell +1.415.310 .6354 ckirschner@jonesday .com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** DOJ-18-0618-A-000057 ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential , or protected by attorney-client or other privilege . If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail , so that our records can be corrected .*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege . If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail , so that our records can be corrected .*** DOJ-18-0618-A-000058 From : Sent: To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A39789C23BFAB82-JGORE] 2/26/2018 5:06:53 PM Andre Segura [asegura@aclutx.org] Cecillia Wang [Cwang@aclu.org] RE: Melendres v. Maricopa County (16-16661) Works for me. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~) (6) ) 6> I ~usdoj. gov From: Andre Segura [mailto:asegura@aclutx.org] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 2:14 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Cecillia Wang Subject: RE: Melendres v. Maricopa County (16-16661) Great. How about 4 eastern tomorrow? 6> From: Gore, John (CRT)[mailtofi' lC ~usdo j,govl Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 12:56 PM To: Andre Segura Cc: Cecillia Wang Subject: RE: Melendres v. Maricopa County (16-16661) Andre: Thanks for reaching out. I am tied up today but free tomorrow afternoon. end. Thanks. Let me know a time that works on your John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b)(6) j ~usdoj.gov . From: Andre Segura [mailto:asegu ra@aclutx.org l Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:11 AM To: Gore, John (CRT).f>X:6) @crt.usdo j.gov> Cc: Cecillia Wang Subject: Melendres v. Maricopa County (16-16661) Hi John, DOJ-18-0618-A-000059 Do you have a few minutes in the next few days to discuss the upcoming argument? I'm fairly flexible today and tomorrow. And adding Cecillia Wang for her availability as well. Thanks, Andre Andre Segura I Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of Texas P.O. Box 8306, Houston, TX 77288-8306 with offices in Austin, Brownsville, El Paso, and Dallas 713.325.7012 www.aclutx.org ACLU Texas This message may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply email that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this email from your system. DOJ-18-0618-A-000060 From : Sent: To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23 SPDLT)/CN=RE ClPl ENTS/CN=251F 144BF52449629A39789C23 8 FAB82-JGORE] 2/26/2018 5:04 :38 PM Chon, Katherine (ACF) [Katherine.Chon@acf.hhs.gov]; Marshall, Alison B. [abmarshall@JonesDay.com]; Goodspeed, White, Robert C. [rcwhite@jonesday.com]; Kirschner, Jr., F. Curt Taylor A. [tgoodspeed@jonesday.com]; [ckirschner@JonesDay .com] Pfenning, Elizabeth (ACF) [Elizabeth.Pfenning@acf.hhs.gov] DOJ Pre-Read Materials All: Here is the link to the AG's recent speech on human trafficking: https://www .justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney -generalsessions-delivers-remarks-departm ent-justice-s-human-trafficking-summit This page discusses a number of DOJ'srecent initiatives in the human trafficking area: https:llwww.justice.gov/humantrafficking/special-initia tives The Attorney General publishes an annual report to Congress on human trafficking . The next report is forthcoming: https ://www .justice .gov/humantrafficking/attorne y-generals-trafficking -persons-report Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I ~X6} ,)(6) i@usdoj.gov From: Chon, Katherine (ACF) [mailto:Katherine.Chon@acf.hhs.gov] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 2:02 PM To: Marshall, Alison B.; Goodspeed, Taylor A.; White, Robert C. ; Kirschner, Jr., F. Curt Cc: Gore, John (CRT); Pfenning, Elizabeth (ACF) Subject: HHSPre-Read Materials Good afternoon, Please see the pre-read materials from HHS (below). I've bolded the ones that I think will be particularly helpful to health care providers, but please share any of the materials that you think would be of interest. • Toolkit for Building Survivor-Informed Organizations: https://www.acf.hhs .gov/otip/resource/nhttacorgtoolkit • Adult Human Trafficking Screening Toolkit and Guide: https ://www.acf.hhs .gov/otip/resource/nhhtacadultscreening . • SOAR Training Enhancements: https ://www.acf.hhs.gov/otip/resource/soarenhancements • Health Care Brochure: https ://www.acf .hhs.gov/otip/resource/health-care-brochure • Assistance for Child Victims of Human trafficking: https :ljwww.acf.hhs .gov/otip/resource/eligib ilityfs • Certification for Adult Victims of Human Trafficking : https ://www.acf.hhs .gov/otip/resource/certificationfs • Human Trafficking Leadership Academy: https ://www.acf .hhs.gov/otip/training/nhttac/human -trafficking leadership-academy DOJ-18-0618-A-000061 • Out of the Shadows lnfographic: https://www .acf.hhs.gov/otip/resource/out -of -the-shadows-exposing-the myths-of-human-trafficking • Fact Sheet: Human Trafficking: https ://www.acf.hhs.gov/otip/resource/fshumantrafficking Also, I will be bringing Beth Pfenning from the HHSOffice on Trafficking in Persons as an observer . Looking forward to the roundtable, Katherine DOJ-18-0618-A-000062 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: 3/6/2018 To: Subject: Marshall, Alison B. [abmarshall@JonesDay.com] (FYDIBO HF23 SPDLT) /CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGO RE] 5:16:55 PM RE: Thank you!! Alison: Thank you for the invitation! I enjoyed the event. I not only got to speak in 740, but I also learned a lot about the great work you and others are doing. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fl(6) P,)(51 I Wusdoj.gov From: Marshall, Alison B. [mailto:abmarshall@JonesDay.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 4:44 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Thank you!! rx 61 ~crt.usdoj.gov> John Thank you -your presentation was perfect and was well received. Thank you again for taking the time to come over. You can come back and speak in 740 anytime. Alison Alison B. Marshall Partner JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide'"' 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879.7611 abmarshall@jonesday.com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** DOJ-18-0618-A-000063 From: Sent: To: Subject : 6_>_ __, @crt.usdoj.gov] John.Gore@crt.usdoj.gov 11'._ _X 4/5/2018 8:59:25 AM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Re: Catching up Jim: Great to hear from you. I'm free around 3:30 today and am happy to talk on the phone or to meet for coffee at Paul across from DOJ. Let me know what you prefer. Best, John Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Schultz, James D. wrote : John - I hope you are well and I understand you were expecting an email from me today. If at all possible, I would like to impose upon you for a few minutes today for a telephone discussion on a matter that I was recently engaged on. It is somewhat time sensitive only because I will be traveling out of the country early Saturday morning to Asia and will not return until next Sunday. I am in my Washington office today so I could also meet for coffee if you would be so inclined. Thank you for your time and I look forward to catching up. Jim. James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 M: 215.206:0471 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Twitter I Map I cozen .com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges . It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent(sJ. If the reader or reclp1"entof this communieation is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for dellverlng it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reclplent(s} is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. DOJ-18-0618-A-000064 From: Sent: To: Subject: X6J crt.usdoj.gov [~~ bX _6l_ ~ a)crt.usdoj.gov] 4 12 2018 9:58:25 PM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Re: Letter Jim: Yes. I have been traveling, but I received your letter. John Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:17 PM, Schultz, James D. wrote: John- just confirming you have received our letter. If you email me, I will call you back as I am traveling in China. 7 James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Iarket Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215.665.5558 M: 215.206.0471 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Twitter I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, dlstn'"butlon,or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, ls prohibited and may be unlawful Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclpient{s} Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. DOJ-18-0618-A-000065 ~· '1! , • M"r'lf.!'"·r>~l.lh'?.f~i.-,:-,..:~"':"n ..... ,t t,,~W.1"9&~~~:~(~"f':r:- "-•'1, \ ~-.-~ -~;.: ..{.~,>~.-·:.~ ,~..,.. ~·~•-i::,/ ·,:,·:..'...:-~('."-.·~-·--:' ' ..,.;_ ...::i} . 'f'•.--'·~;~,-;'f ADVISORY COUNCIL March 26, 2018 John Gore United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20530 Dear Mr. Gore, Thank you for speaking at the meeting of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council Congressional Reception on March 20 th . Your speech highlighted the profound need to continue combatting hate crimes wherever we find them, and we are inspired to hear your strong commitment to standing with us in this fight. We are particularly grateful to you for highlighting the work the Justice Department is doing to combat religiously motivated hate crimes like the cases you mentioned. We also want to thank you for attending the Council meeting on March 2l51 to further discuss the Department's work. It was a wonderful opportunity for the members to learn about the new initiatives at the Department of Justice stemming the Hate Crimes Summit from June of last year. We look forward to your continued involvement with the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council. Sincerely, ) ~ t-l VI-\~ ~-) Stanley Bergman Co-Chair f • r ' ... ._ " \• • ...... ~- • .. • .. •,tr Farooq Kathwari Co-Chair a • _.. ., ?::·:~·; • -."; ,. ' - -. • _. '• • •. ;, - •• ~,•• • , • • ,, • • • •• . • 'J- - ·---WWW,mull~lihadv.ocacy.org . . • • • ••, • . .· ,.,.,. .. , ..,.. - • . ."-r • ..._ - ~ l ·::~·: • • .- • , • ., .Ii} • • • • • ,, .. • - • • DOJ-18-0618-A-000066 • • From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent : 4/13/2018 4:14:51 PM Tessa Keefe [keefet.temp@ajc.org] (FYDIBO HF23 SPDLT)/CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] To: CC: Subject : Robert Silverman [silvermanr@ajc.org]; RE: Thank You from the Muslim-Jewish Natalia Mahmud [mahmudn@ajc.org] Advisory Council Tessa: Thank you for this kind note. Please convey to Mr. Bergman and Mr. Kathwari that the Justice Department is proud to have an outstanding and principled partner like MJAC on this important issue. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice bl(6) ,...._ __ _. usdoj.gov From: Tessa Keefe [mailto:keefet.temp@ajc.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:57 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)4hl( 6l krt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Robert Silverman ; Natalia Mahmud Subject: Thank You from the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council DOJ-18-0618-A-000067 t\.'litrc:h6, '}013 John Gore Ouite(1510 ·1hnnk you for spcakt:~ nt 1nmeeting of.he Mus.i.m.JC\\i ~lir'uh·i.1<1ry( ·,11 10cil C'1111gn ?N.ii)11nlRe1:eptinn on March 20th, Your SJ cx:I::1igltlighl-:dthe l rofo·,1:1d new 1,1,11.:,111Linue cmnlmlling hate crime~ w:1.,reHir wr: Jim! lll-l!m,1111d we:t1e""Q in,1pire\lll) hi:,,.uy111Jr :~truniconuriilmenl to i;1a11dlng, wathus in thh tiQhc.We are p!ll'(icnhl.rlygrateful to you for hi,ghlishtillgthe M)rk the Justice UepMmcnt is doing to combat religiou.~ly mmh·nLed ha1.c: ctime11like the i;a.~esyou )ner.rioned. We crlso\\'t\Ilt to thank }"Oll for 11ttmdillgthe Council m<.:cfint:i.•n March 21' 1 to liw:her ,hu::us~ tl1e Department'swork,It was a wi.mdc1:t'ul (1pportunit}' foe lltc m-.,nb,:,'T'i In lciD'l1uhouLthe new rnitialhe~ tL :he D.::parmiintof Justice 3((.-inmingthe Hate.Critne.~Summil fnm,Jun=:ot' last ~ear, We loq!{ forwardLoy<1urc1m1.irmt:d i11vc-lve.1t1en1. with the MusHm-,lewishAdvisory(;ounciL Sincerely, )~ su-.ttt~rf:!.,r(;mw1 C~Ch.:lir ""~ t-·amoq Kothwari C'Cl·C' hnu www .mu~llmjP.wisiMdvocacy.orQ DOJ-18-0618-A-000068 From : @crt.usdoj.gov ~r,_ X_6l __ P,l(6l ~k§lcrt.usdoj.gov] Sent: 4/16/2018 12:12:53 PM To: Connell, Erin M. [econnell@orrick.com) Re: Gov't liaison meeting Subject : I am. Apologies for the delay. I had understood that I wasn't needed until 12:30 . Thanks. sent from my iPhone > on Apr 16, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Connell, Erin M. wrote: > > > > > Hi John, we are preparing Thanks, Erin to start the meeting - I just wanted to check to see if you are en route. > > Sent from my iPhone > > NOTICETO RECIPIENT I This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > For more information about onick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. > DOJ-18-0618-A-000069 From: Sent : To : CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT)1/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECIPIENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82-JGORE) 4/23/2018 9:58:46 AM ~ )(6) FRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=c27le8832aed4916 b900fd446c6afc2d-dw i 11iam) jX6l ~gma il.com RE: Thank you ... I had no idea that you had been suffering sinus problems - which only makes your performance that much more remarkable. Thanks again for sharing it with us. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice )(6) From: Williams, Dorothy F (CRT) Sent: Monday, April 23 2018 9:03 AM To : Gore, John (CRT) bJ(61 crt .usdoj .gov> Cc:bJC6> gmail.com Subject: Thank you ... Words cannot express how much I greatly appreciate your beautiful note ...© I read it this morning when I arrived. I was so worried that I_would not be able to perform because, I was suffering that week and, the week before, with sinus problems. However, my vocal chords were not affected and, was able to perform well, with the gift that God has given me. Again, thank you so very, very much ; have a wonderful day! DOJ-18-0618-A-000070 From : Sent: To: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl PlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- JGORE] 4/24/2018 8:32:10 AM Braden, E. Mark [MBraden@bakerlaw.com] RE: Wright V Sumter county Board of Elections That should work. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r)( 6) I ~fbl_(6_l -~~usdoj.gov From: Braden, E. Mark [mailto:MBraden@bakerlaw.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:29 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'l( 6l ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: Wright V Sumter county Board of Elections Would around 2 work? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2018, at 5:51 PM, Gore, John (CRT)f XG> ~usdoj .gov> wrote : ~--~ Mark: Can you call me separately about this? I have some time early tomorrow afternoon or on Wednesday afternoon . Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 19, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Braden, E. Mark wrote: We would like to speak and/or meet with you in regards to a Section 2 case on appeal from the middle district of Georgia. In our view the legal issue presented by our appeal does warrant the attention of the Voting Right Section." What standard applies to a claim that a racial group with County wide numerical superiority by all metrics TPOP ,VAP and registration over all others lacks an equal opportunity to elect its preferred candidates in a county wide election ?" is the VRA equal opportunity to elect or equal results ? Mark Braden Of Counsel Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1 .202 .861.1504 mbraden@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw .com DOJ-18-0618-A-000071 This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby not[fied that any dissemination, copying or distribL1tionof this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only . The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost. destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission DOJ-18-0618-A-000072 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A39789C23BFAB82-JGORE] 5/8/2018 11:05:21 AM Dean Reuter [dean.reuter@fed-soc.org] Laura Flint [laura .flint@fed-soc.org] RE: Federalist Society invitation Sent: To: CC: Subject: Dean: Thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately I am unavailable on May 25. Please keep me in mind for your next event. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ! ~bl(6) fX 61 l@usdoj.gov From: Dean Reuter [mailto:dean.reuter@fed-soc.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:00 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) 6) l@crt.usdoj.gov> r)( Cc: Laura Flint Subject: Federalist Society invitation Dear John, Would you be interested in participating in our next Regulatory Transparency Project Race and Sex meeting at Fed Soc on May 25 , 2018, from 12:30 - 2 :00? This is a closed meeting of RTP project participants who were convened 18 months ago to study recent events and the road forward in 12 different substantive areas of law, including matters of race and sex. The group would love to get a short update from you, discuss your work, and opportunities for collaboration going forward. I'm happy to discuss details if you are interested. Best , Dean Dean Reuter General Counsel I Vice President & Director, Practice Groups. 111cFederalist Society (202) 822--8138 fedsoc.org □□□□□□ DOJ-18-0618-A-000073 From : Sent : Gore, John (CRT)[/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BFS2449629A397B9C23BFAB82 -JGOREJ 5/14/2018 11:21:37 AM To : Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject : RE:Call Sure. Call me at .__P,X _6_l __ __,J . Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fX6) fX6l ~ usdoj.gov I From: Schultz, James D. [mailto:JDSchultz@cozen.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 11:20 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) f' lC6l ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: Call Want to talk at 11 :45? James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Coz~n O'Connor One Liberty P lace, 1650 Market Street Suite2800 I Phil adelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 M: 215 .206 .0471 Email IBio ILinkedln I Twitter I Map I cozen .com On May 14, 2018, at 10:47 AM , Gore, John (CRT) wrote : Sure. I am tied up from now until 11:45 and then again from 2 to 3. Other~ise let me know a time that works for you . Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6) ¥bX6l I l9)usdoj .gov From: Schultz, James D. [mai lt o :JDSchultz@cozen.com ] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:08 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Call You have a moment for a quick call today? DOJ-18-0618-A-000074 lI James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Libertv Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 IPhiladelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 M: 215.206.0471 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Twitter I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent(s}. IF the reader or recipient oF this communication is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent oF the Intended recipient who Is responsible For delivering It to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notffy the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reciplent(s} Is not a waiver oF any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reciplent(s}. IF the reader or recipient oF this communication is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s} Is not a waiver oF any attorney/client or other prlvl/ege. DOJ-18-0618-A-000075 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To : 5/29/2018 10:54:00 AM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject: RE: Call Yes. I am available this morning and again between 3 and 5. Call at your convenience. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~ 1c6i ~b)(6) 1 ~e@usdoj.gov From: Schultz, James D. [mailto:JDSchultz@cozen.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:54 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)/4 bl(6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Call John - do you have 5 minutes today? James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215 ..665.5558 M: 215.206.0471 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Twitter I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient{s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other pilvllege. DOJ-18-0618-A-000076 From : Sent: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDI BO HF23 SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144B F52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] 6/13/2018 9:57:59 AM To: Lieberman, Michael [MLieberman@adl.org] Subject: RE: Jewish community letter opposing the Justice Department family separation policy Michael: Thanks for the heads-up. I hope you're doing well. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice r,x li} 1...P>_K6_J __ I .,_ @usdoj.gov From: Lieberman, Michael [mailto:MLieberman@adl.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:50 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) 6l 4b)( @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Jewish community letter opposing the Justice Department family separation policy John, I hope you are well. Attached is a letter from 26 Jewish community organizations we have conveyed to the Attorney General and DHS Secretary Nielsen urging them to rescind the "zero tolerance" policy that includes family separation. We are doing some press on the letter tomorrow. I wanted to make sure you saw it. Michael Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center Anti-Defamation League Phone (202) 261-4607 I Fax: (202) 296-2371 ml ieberman@adl.org @ADLWashCounsel @ADL National Subscribe to our office newsletter, Advocacy Matters DOJ-18-0618-A-000077 We.bste Blog Podcast • I '''""' Watch the 80-second video that could change the world. Join us to Tmngine 11World Withot1t Ha te . This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/°' proprietary infoffilation intended only foe the person(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited . If you have received this communication in error, please contact ADL immediately by telephone at 212-885- 7700. DOJ-18-0618-A-000078 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent : To : (FYDIBOHF23 SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 7/13/2018 11:37:14 AM Lieberman, Michael [MLieberman@adl.org] CC: Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Subject: (FYDIBOHF23SP DLT) / cn=Rec ipie nts/ en =55a ba202 588a468c8 ld 55a3e66e8 b6 7b-rmoossy] RE: indictment today Administrative BFAB82- JGO RE] Group Michael : Robert just shared AOL's statement with me. Thank you for your support on this critically important case. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r,)(6) I f l<6J ~usdoj.gov From: Lieberman, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2:19 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)~b)C61 ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Cc:Moossy, Robert (CRT)c:j{b1(6J @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: indictment today John, We did. Thanks for making sure. We are writing our social media hailing the decision as we speak. Michael Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center Anti-Defamation League Phone (202) 261-4607 I Fax: (202) 296-2371 mlieberman@adl.org @ADLWashCouns el @ADL National Subscribe to our office newsletter, Advocacy Matters DOJ-18-0618-A-000079 We bsite Blog Pod cost 1 Watch the 80-second video that could change the world. Join us to Imagine a \.' odd \XiithourHare . This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/ or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly pmhihited. If you have received this communication in ermr, please contact ADL immediately by telephone at 212-885-7700. 61 From: Gore,John (CRT)[~ W ~usdoj .gov] Sent: Wednesday,June 27, 201 1:09 PM To: Lieberman,Michael Cc: Moossy,Robert(CRT) Subject: Re: Post-Charlottesvillehate crime coalition letter to the JusticeDepartment Michael: I wanted to make sure that you saw the press release that just issued: https :lj www. iusti ce.gov/ opa/pr / o hio-m an-charged -federal-hate-crimes-re lated -august- 2017 -ral ly-charl ottesvi Ile Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone On Jun 19, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Lieberman, Michael wrote: John and Robert Thanks very much for this response, which I will share with members of the hate crime coalition today. We have a meeting next week and we will discuss it there, too. Does the Department have plans for the anniversary of the Charlottesville rally/march on August 11-12? Thanks Michael Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center Anti-Defamation League Phone (202) 261-4607 I Fax: (202) 296-2371 mlieberm an@adl.org @ADLWashCounsel @AOL a.tionaJ Subscribe to our office newsletter, Advocacv Malter · DOJ-18-0618-A-000080 ·§i'lipE<- 1=J Watch the 80-second video that could change the world. Join us to Imagine a World Without Hate®. This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact ADL immediately by telephone at 212885-7700. On Jun 18, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote: Michael: I hope you are well. Please see the attached correspondence. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice f>X6) I rx6) l@usdoj.gov From: Lieberman, Michael [mailto:MLieberman@adl.org ] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 12:08 PM To: Gore, John (CRT){bX6l @crt.usdoj .gov> Cc: Treene, Eric (CRT)4") {6J l@crt.usdoi.gov> Subject: Post-Charlottesville hate crime coalition letter to the Justice Department John, I hope you are well. Attached is a letter from our coalition of more than 85 national organizations promoting a number of specific policy, program, and funding recommendations to counter hate and bigotry following a documented increase in hate crimes, the Department's June hate crime summit, and the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville. We really hope these suggestions are helpful and look forward to working with you and Justice colleagues to implement as many as possible. Thanks. DOJ-18-0618-A-000081 Michael Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center Anti-Defamation League Phone (202) 261-4607 I Fax: (202) 296-2371 mlieberman@adl.org @ADLWashCounsel @AOL National Subscribeto our officenewsletter,Advocacy Matters Watch the SO-second video that could change the world. Join us to lm;tgine a \X/o rld Without T1ate . This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient, please destmy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by ,et:um e-mail. If you a,e not the intended ,ecipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended ,ecipient(s), you arc hc,cby notified that any dissemination, disclosu,e o, copying of this communication is st,ictly prohibited. If you have ceceived this communication in enor, please contact ADL immediately by telephone at 212-885- 7700. <20180618 Hate Crimes Summit response.pdf> DOJ-18-0618-A-000082 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Assis/all/ Auomey General 950 Pennsy/l'ania Ave, NW - RFK Washington, DC 20530 JUN1 8 2018 Dear Members of the Hate Crime Coalition : This responds to your September 15, 2017, letter following up on the Department of Justice's June 2017 Hate Crimes Summit and recommending next steps .that the Department could take in the wake of recent tragic hate crimes. We apologize for our delay in responding. Thank you for your commitment to continuing the constructive dialogue that took place at the Hate Crimes Summit. We appreciate the thoughtful, specific suggestions that your coalition offered, both at the Summit and in your letter. Combatting hate crimes is among the highest priorities for the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division. As Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated at the AntiDefamation League National Leadership Summit on May 5, "Enforcing those laws is important to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, and we enforce them aggressively." Attorney General Sessions himself made this clear in his statement following a Florida man's guilty plea for attempting to attack a synagogue: Acts of bigotry and hatred are evil and have no place in our society. One of the top priorities of this Department of Justice is reducing violent crime, and you can be sure that this includes hate crime. We will not tolerate this repugnant lawlessness, and we will be vigilant in prosecuting hate crime offenders to the fullest extent of the law. As your letter points out, the Department established a Hate Crimes Subcommittee as part of the Task Force on Violent Crime Reduction and Public Safety. We are pleased to inform you that, in recent months, the Department has transformed the Subcommittee into a freestanding, Department-wide Hate Crimes Enforcement and Prevention Initiative led by the Civil Rights Division. This new Initiative is charged with coordinating the Department's efforts to eradicate hate crime; facilitating training, outreach, and education to law enforcement agencies and the public at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels; and following up on the productive discussions between the Department and stakeholders that took place at the Hate Crimes Summit. We have outlined below just some of the important actions that the Department has taken through the Hate Crimes Enforcement and Prevention Initiative since your September letter. These actions cut across all five of the areas where your letter made recommendations: taking an integrated approach to combatting hate crimes; providing leadership in confronting criminal activity motivated by prejudice; improving federal hate crimes data collection; supporting legislative and administrative actions to address hate violence; and improving training, outreach, investigations and prosecutions. DOJ-18-0618-A-000083 Moreover, we continue to consider all of the recommendations in your letter and those made by the participants at the Hate Crimes Summit. We are also continuing to explore ways to create even stronger and more effective partnerships with local law enforcement and affected communities. We know that many of the organizations that signed the September letter are represented in the Hate Crime Coalition that has met with my colleague, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Moossy. We look forward to continuing those exchanges and our dialogue with all communities and stakeholders affected by the scourge of hate crime. The Department's goal is, and will remain, the complete eradication of hate crime and bias-motivated crime from our communities and our country. Integrated Approach to Combatting Hate · rimes Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and I are committed to denouncing any act of bias-motivated violence as unacceptable, and using all of the Department's investigative and prosecutorial authority to bring perpetrators to justice. Between January 2017 and May 31, 2018, our Department has pursued hate crimes charges against 27 defendants and obtained convictions of 25 defendants. For example: • The Division, together with the Richmond FBI Field Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia, has opened an investigation into the tragic events in Charlottesville on August 12, 20 l 7, incl tiding a car attack that resulted in the death of protestor Heather Heyer and the injury of many more. We are investigating potential violations of federal law, including civil rights laws. • In September 2017, the ADAMS Center Mosque in Sterling, Virginia presented the Division with an award for its work in combatting hate crimes, which I had the honor of accepting on behalf of the Division. The Center has been a strong partner since shortly after the 9/11 attacks, working with us on educating communities about hate crimes and building relationships with federal law enforcement. In my remarks, I echoed the Attorney General in emphasizing that "[ w]e will not tolerate threats or acts of violence targeting any person or community in this country on the basis of their religious beliefs or background." • Also in September 2017, a federal grand jury in Tennessee returned an indictment charging two Murfreesboro men with conspiring to commit a civil rights violation and committing a civil rights violation by vandalizing the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. • In November 2017, the Department cross-designated a Civil Rights Division prosecutor to assist in the state trial of an Iowa man accused of murdering Kedarie Johnson, a gender-fluid t~enager. The defendant was found guilty and is facing a term oflife imprisonment. 2 DOJ-18-0618-A-000084 • In January 2018, a federal judge in Florida sentenced a Miami-area man to 12 months and one day in prison and three years' supervised release for threatening to shoot members of a mosque in Miami Gardens, Flotida; a jury convicted a Virginia man of an anti-gay hate crime; and a Texas man was sentenced to 15 years in prison for assaulting a man because of the victim's sexual orientation. • In February 2018, a Virginia man was indicted for a hate crime and for threatening employees of the Arab American Institute. Also in February, the Department announced the indictment of a dual United States and Israeli citizen in three jurisdictions for hate crimes and other offenses arising from threatening calls to Jewish Community Centers in Florida, threats to the Israeli Embassy and the Anti-Defamation League in Washington, D.C., and cyberstalking and conveying false infom1ation to police dispatch in Georgia. • In.Aptil 2018, the Department secured convictions of three men who attempted to bomb a Kansas apartment building with a mosque used by Somali Muslims. The defendants held meetings to plan the attack and took significant steps toward implementing their plan, including making and testing explosives. Thanks to a confidential source, the FBI prevented the attack, and we are holding the suspects accountable. Providing Leadership in Confronting Crimina l Activity Motivated by Prejudice As mentioned above, the Department has created the new freestanding Hate Crimes Enforcement and Prevention Initiative to lead the Department's efforts to eliminate hate crime nationwide. The Initiative is charged with, and actively engaged in, following up on discussions at the Hate Crimes Summit and facilitating training, outreach, and education to law enforcement agencies and the public at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels. The Department is providing unwavering leadership in confronting bias-motivated crime in other ways as well. For example, in April 2018, the Department's Office for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) solicited applications for the 2018 Community Policing Development Program (CPD). CPD is a competitive grant program that develops law enforcement's capacity to implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on promising practices through the development and testing of innovative strategies. The 2018 CPD requested applications for field-directed law enforcement micro-grants in six areas, including hate crimes. Moreover, the September 2017 issue of the Community Policing Dispatch, COPS' enewsletter, consolidated some of COPS' most popular resources for combatting bias-related crimes. The materials are organized by audience, including law enforcement, general community stakeholders, youth, and college communities. The law enforcement tools include films produced with the Not In Our Town project and a problem-oriented policing guide. 3 DOJ-18-0618-A-000085 Impro ving Fed eral H ate Crim es D ata Collection As Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit on May 5, 20 L8, ''It is important to collect accurate data so that we understand the scope of hate crimes." According to the. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the FBI made l 02 affests related to bias-motivated incidents in 31 different field offices from 2014 to 2016. In November 2017, the FBI also released its Uniform Crime Reports Hate Crimes Statistics for 2016, the most recent year available. Those Statistics compile reports from federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies across the country. For 2016, law enforcement agencies reported 6,121 bias-motivated criminal incidents, a 4 % increase from 2015. Of6,063 single-bias incidents, 58% wen~ motivated by a race, ethnicity or ancestry bias; 21 % were motivated by a religious bias; 18% percent were motivated by a sexual orientation bias, and the remaining incidents were motivated by a gender identity, disability, or gender bias. Religious bias crimes increased 4% from 1,224 in 2015 to 1,273 in 2016, and anti-Muslim crimes increased 19.4%, from 257 in 2015 to 307 in 2016. As many pai1icipants at the 2017 Hate Crimes Summit pointed out, our experience and the data from Department of Justice surveys on victimization suggest that most crimes, including hate crimes, still are underreported. As with other violent crimes, it is impossible to properly focus personnel and funds on solving and preventing hate crimes without adequate reporting and data. Accordingly, the Department has established an internal working group to explore ways to improve the compilation and aggregation of hate crimes statistics. A critical tool in achieving this improvement is the FBI VCR Program. That Program is in the process of transitioning all state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies nationwide to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) by January 1, 2021. NIBRS includes a designated field for law enforcement agencies to repo1i hate crimes, so reporting via NIBRS will improve the quality, reliability, and accuracy of hate crime data. The Department is also working to improve hate crime data collection even before NIBRS is adopted nationwide. For example, last year the FBI trained nearly 900 law enforcement agencies about hate crime data collection. And on February 27 of this year, the National Institute of Justice at the Office of Justice Programs solicited proposals for research and evaluation to fill gaps in hate crimes research. That solicitation noted that the Hate Crimes Summit attendees identified filling these gaps as a priority. Applications were accepted through May 2018, and NIJ expects to make up to two awards with an estimated total amount awarded of up to $1.5 million. Supporting Executive Action and Legislation to Address Hate Violence Your letter noted that a significant number of hate crimes occur in or around residences, and urged the Department to aggressively enforce the civil and criminal provisions of the Fair Housing Act. Since January 2017, the Department has filed more than 20 cases under the Fair Housing Act, and we have settled or secured a favorable judgment in 49 civil actions, upholding fair housing rights from Washington State, to Kansas, to Mississippi. 4 DOJ-18-0618-A-000086 In October 2017, the Justice Department announced the Civil Rights Division's first initiative to combat sexual harassment, the Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative. In 2017, the Justice Department recovered rnon~ than $1 million in damages for victims of harassment in housing. Many instances of sexual harassment in housing continue to go unreported. In fact, the Justice Department's investigations frequently uncover sexual harassment or assault that has been ongoing for years or decades and identify numerous victims who never reported the conduct to law enforcement authorities. The Department has also been zealously enforcing the criminal provisions of the Fair Housing Act, as Attorney General Sessions noted at the Department's commemoration of the 50 th Anniversary of the Fair Housing Act on April 12 of this year. Attorney General Sessions specifically commended the Division's successful prosecution of two criminal cases, a cross burning in Port Richey, Florida, outside the home of a mixed-race couple and the guilty plea of a Florida man for threatening to burn down a home near Tampa that a Muslim family was buying. At that commemoration, I joined the Attorney General in highlighting the importance of the Fair Housing Act's criminal provisions to combattirtg hate c1imes: In addition to providing civil relief, the Fair Housing Act also outlaws hate crimes that deny people their basic right to equal housing. Hate crimes are a fonn of violent crime that intimidate victims, their families, and entire communities. Combatting hate crimes is, and will remain, among the Civil Rights Division's top priorities. Just last month, we secured the conviction of a man for a housing-related hate crime. The man screamed at a seven-year-old African-American boy to leave the common area of his apartment complex, repeatedly using a racial slur. When the boy's father came out of his apartment to see what was happening, the defendant drew a stun cane and tased him in the neck. As the father°fell to the ground in pain, his son screamed and called out for him. The father recovered enough strength to pull his son back into their apartment while the man continued yelling racial slurs and shouting that the family should leave the apartment complex because of their race. The United States will not stand by while criminals use violence and intimidation to deny fair housing rights. We will continue to prosecute egregious crimes like this one that deprive American families of a safe place to live. Improving Training, Outreach, Lnvestigations and Prosecutions Since January 2018, the Community Relations Service (CRS) has facilitated five Hate Crimes Forums in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Texas, Oregon and New York, bringing together federal and local law enforcement, community speakers, federal agencies, and advocacy organizations for a series of three panel discussions. 5 DOJ-18-0618-A-000087 Each forum draws from 50-400 participants and culminates with a brainstorming session about next steps. CRS is considering locations for additional forums this summer. CRS also has recently updated two trainings, "Engaging and Building Partnerships with Muslim Americans" and "Engaging and Building Partnerships with Sikh Americans." Each of these three-hour trainings for local law enforcement and other audiences includes interactive activities and templates for customized community outreach plans. The trainings are designed to increase awareness of civil rights-related issues Muslim Americans and Sikh Americans encounter, as well as participants' understanding of Muslim Americans' and Sikh Americans' beliefs and religious practices. The Civil Rights Division and the FBI launched the Emmett Till Act outreach and education initiatives, including through a nationwide teleconference call with advocates in fall 2017, and presentations to community groups around the country. In May 2018, the Division participated in a hate crime workshop at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit focused on federal, state, and local initiatives to address hate violence and extremism. The Division and the FBI will also conduct a two-day hate crimes training for federal prosecutors at the Department's National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina, in August 2018. The FBI has participated in numerous hate crime trainings and outreach events. Those events have included a Hate Crime Symposium in Oak]an wrote : Look forward On Sep 4, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Gore, John (CRT) f'X 6l ~usdoj .gov > wrote: Let's split the difference and aim for 8:45. See you then. John M . Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division US Department of Justice ~j .gov From: Howard Friedman Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 3:17 PM To: Gore , John (CRT)~bX6l Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: @crt.usdoj .gov > Either 8:30 or 9:00 works great . From: Gore, John (CRT) [~b )(6l tpusdo j.gov] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 3:07 PM To: Howard Friedman Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Let' s try The Smith at 9th and F NW. it opens at 8. What time is convenient for you? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Howard Friedman wrote : Anywhere between capitol hill and the justice dept. is good for me. From: Gore, John (CRT) [ ~ b)(G> fusdoi .gov j Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 1:22 PM To: Howard Friedman Subject: Re: RE: RE: DOJ-18-0618-A-000089 As of now, I'm wide open on the morning of the 5th. If you give me a sense of where in town you're staying and a good time for breakfast, I'll pick a spot. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 3, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Howard Friedman wrote: Let's do breakfast on the 5th . You pick place and time. The later the better for me. From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto:Eb)(6J ~usdoj.govj Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 10:24 AM To: Howard Friedman Subject: RE: RE: As of now, I can do breakfast on the 5th or 5th or lunch on the 5th • Any preference? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice fb)(6) I @usdoj.gov From: Howard Friedman Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 4:09 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fbl<6> Subject: RE: RE: ~crt.usdoj.gov> I am sorry it turns out I have to leave town on Monday night. I am out for August. Can we make a time for September. I am good: Sep. 4, 5, 6 for lunch (sep. 4 being best) Sep. 5,6 for breakfast Howard 6 From: Gore, John (CRT)."-:[m-:-a'::"i-::lto-'-:r:!cc ~)( =)~-J" l@~ u _s_d_o..._j.g..._o_v] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:50 PM To: Howard Friedman Subject: RE: RE: I could do either as well. Any preference? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice f'>XG) ~)(6) I ~usdoj.gov From: Howard Friedman Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:23 PM DOJ-18-0618-A-000090 To: Gore, John (CRT) <._ P,_K_6l__ Subject: Re: RE: ____._fc _r_t ._ u_sd_o~j~.g~o_v > I could do breakfast or lunch on Tuesday as well. Then I leave town. On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Gore, John (CRT) <@1(6l !jlusdoj.gov> wrote: Howard: Unfortunately I am unavailable that day. Any chance you're available later that week? John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fbJ(6) I ~bl(6) [!!?usdoj.gov From: Howard Friedman Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 1:07 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)

X6l @crt .usdoj .gov> Subject: RE: John, I will be back in DC---any chance you are free for lunch on Monday, July 30? Howard From: Gore, John (CRT) ['"'"m-'-a"'"' ll~to "-:._r,)_C6_l __ _.__Pu~s~d~o~ i-~go~v l Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:07 PM To: Howard Friedman Subject: RE: Howard: It was great to meet you as well. Perhaps we can put our schedules together and find a time to have lunch. Hope our paths cross again soon. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r r,xi,1 1<6 ) I l@usdoj .gov DOJ-18-0618-A-000091 From: Howard Friedman [mailto:Howard@lanxpartners.com) Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 11:56 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: John, It was good to meet you yesterday at the Orthodox Union event for AG Sessions. Thanks for all your work. Hope our paths cross again soon. Howard Friedman This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts. The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information. Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender . This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates. This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts. The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information. Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender. This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates . This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts. The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information . Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender . This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law . The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information . Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates. This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts . The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information. Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender. This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates. This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts . The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information. Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender . This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates. This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts . The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information . Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender. This is not an offer, recommendation or DOJ-18-0618-A-000092 solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates. This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts . The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information . Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender . This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates . This message is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete the message and destroy any hard copies or printouts . The information contained in this message and any attachment is confidential and any mistransmission does not alter or waive the protections afforded such information. Unauthorized review, use, dissemination, printing, copying, disclosure or publication of all or any part of the contained information is prohibited without the express written consent of the sender. This is not an offer, recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities or any investment product. An offer or solicitation can only be made pursuant to a final offering memorandum, only to investors who meet certain eligibility requirements, and only in those jurisdictions where permitted by law. The sender has assumed no obligation to correct or supplement the contained information . Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lanx Management, LLC or its affiliates . DOJ-18-0618-A-000093 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGEIABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 7/17/2018 6:00:55 PM Robert Silverman [silvermanr@ajc.org] Treene, Eric (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=67544e8b949340758739bee0ff654f75-etreene] RE: Indictment in Victoria TX case From: Sent : To: CC: Subject: Thanks, Bob. We are thrilled with this outcome and appreciate the support. I hope you are doing well. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fl(6) ~b_J(6 _> __ ~~ usdoj.gov From: Robert Silverman Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:58 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fb)(6l ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Cc:Treene, Eric (CRT) l@crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Indictment in Victoria TX case https:ljwww.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-tex as-man-hate-crime-burning-victoria Congrats on this - I sent this aroiund and posted on social media . -texas-mosque (Note : spelling error in text of release "sacred" vs "scared" ) From: Gore, John (CRT) X6l W usdo j.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 20181:10 PM To: Robert Silverman Subject: Re: Hate Crime Indictment Press Release Sounds good. I wanted to make sure that you saw today's press release as well : htt ps:/ /www .justi ce.gov/opa/pr / o hio-man -charge d-federa l-hat e-crimes- rela ted-a ugust-2017 -rally -charl ottesvil le Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Robert Silverman wrote: Great work, thanks John! Looking forward to catching up with you and team next time I am in DC, Bob Robert J. Silverman U S. Director Muslim-Jewish Relations 212.891.1309 LIKE US: Facebook.com/AJCGlobal DOJ-18-0618-A-000094 FOLLOW ME : Twitter.com/Silverrj99 From: Gore, John {CRT) Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:41 PM To: Robert Silverman Subject: Hate Crime Indictment Press Release Bob: I hope you're doing well. I wanted to make sure that you saw today's press release announcing a hate-crimes indictment against defendants who allegedly bombed the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Minnesota: https :ljwww. justice .gov/ o pa/p r /three -i 11i no is-m en-i ndi cte d-f ede ral-civi I-rights -and-hate-crimes-cha rges-bom bing blooming to n Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6) fhl Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 10:59 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)tb)(6) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Today You good for a call at 130? My flight was a disaster yesterday . James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place. 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 IPhilade lphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 M: 215.206.0471 Email I Bio ILinkedln I Twitter IMap I cozen.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated rec/p/ent(sJ. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reclplent(s} is not a waiver of any attorney /client or other privilege. DOJ-18-0618-A-000096 From : Sent : To: CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPl ENTS/CN=251F 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 7/20/2018 5:10:58 PM McKnight, Katherine L. [kmcknight@bakerlaw.com] Braden, E. Mark [MBraden@bakerlaw.com]; Raile, Richard [rraile@bakerlaw.com] Re: Notice of Transmission to Supreme Court - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections Kate: I left you a voice mail today. Unfortunately I am unavailable to meet on July 27. I think it makes the most sense to meet after your team files the jurisdictional statement. That way I can read it and understand your position before we meet. I would be happy to nail down a date for a meeting now. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:32 PM, McKnight, Katherine L. wrote: Thank you, John. I left you a voicemail about this yesterday and in case it is easier to respond by e-mail: are you available to meet next Friday, July 27? Kind regards, Kate Katherine L. McKnight Partner Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W . j Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202.861.1618 kmcknight@bakerlaw .com bakerlaw .com From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:19 PM To: McKnight, Katherine L. Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; Raile, Richard Subject: RE: Notice of Transmission to Supreme Court - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections DOJ-18-0618-A-000097 Kate: I'm happy to meet. We should discuss timing and process. Will you give me a call at your convenience at~ ~ Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice rx 61 ~X6l I @usdoj.gov From: McKnight, Katherine L. Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:47 AM 6 To: Gore, John (CRT) tpcrt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; Raile, Richard Subject: RE: Notice ofTransmission to Supreme Court - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections f>X l Thank you for your e-mail, John. We would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible. Do you have time in your schedule for a meeting in the next week or so? Thank you very much and kind regards, Kate Katherine L. McKnight Partner Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202.861.1618 kmcknight@bakerlaw .com bakerlaw.com From: Gore, John (CRT)4'>l<6l @usdoi .gov> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 3:10 PM To: McKnight, Katherine L. Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; Raile, Richard Subject: RE: Notice of Transmission to Supreme Court - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections Kate: Thanks for letting me know . Best, John DOJ-18-0618-A-000098 John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I ~b)(6) ~hJ{6) glusdoj.gov From: McKnight, Katherine L. Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:32 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Cc: Braden, E. Mark ; Raile, Richard Subject: Notice of Transmission to Supreme Court - Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections Dear John, We filed a Notice of Appeal in the Bethune-Hill case last Friday. The E.D. Va. issued the following notice of transmission of the appeal today. Kind regards, Kate Katherine L. McKnight Partner Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-5304 T +1.202.861.1618 kmcknight@bakerlaw.com bakerlaw .com From: cmecf@vaed .uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:08 PM To: Courtmail@vaed .uscourts .gov Subject: Activity in Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMKVAED Bethune-Hill et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections et al NOTICE This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia DOJ-18-0618-A-000099 Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/9/2018 at 2:07 PM EDT and filed on 7/9/2018 Bethune-Hill et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections et al 3: 14-cv-00852-REP-AW A-BMK Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Document Number: Docket Text: NOTICE OF TRANSMISSION TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES of: Notice of Appeal [236], Memorandum Opinion [234], Order [235] and docket report sent (via UPS) to Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Court, United States Supreme Court. (lbre) 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMK Notice has been electronically mailed to: Abha Khanna akhanna @perkinscoie .com Aria Christine Branch abranch@perkinscoie .com, DocketWDC @perkin coie.com, docketwd c@pe rkinscoie .com, kguity@pe rkin coie.corn, MDePass@perkin coie.com, RLouijeune @perkin coie .com Bruce Van Spiva bspiva @perkinscoie .com Dalton Lamar Oldham, Jr Effrem Mark Braden dloesg@aol.com mbraden@bakerlaw .com Elisabeth Carmel Frost efrost@perkinscoie .com John Kuropatkin Roche jroche@perkinscoie .com, DocketWDC @perkinscoie .com, docketWDC@perkin coie .com, syarborough@perkinscoie .com, w tafford @perkinsc0ie .com Katherine Lea Mcknight Kevin John Hamilton Marc Erik Elias kmcknight@bakerlaw .com, atolbert@bakerlaw .com, gdsmith@bakerlaw .com khamilton@perkinscoie .com melias@perkinscoie .com Matthew Robert McGuire Richard Bryan Raile Ryan Spear mmcguire @oag.s tate .va.us, ktavlor @oag .state .va.us rraile@bakerlaw .com rspear@perkinscoie.com Trevor Stephen Cox tcox@oag.state.va.us, ktaylor@oag.state .va.us William Benjamin Stafford Wyatt B. Durrette , Jr wstafford@perkinscoie .com wdurrette@dagglaw .com, rwright@dagglaw .com DOJ-18-0618-A-000100 3:14-cv-00852-REP-AWA-BMKNotice has been delivered by other means to: The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1091796605 [Date=7/9/2018] [FileNurnber=8027481-0] [4745860a664cfe382cd44240cla53f58386f12dlfb58403a2981a57d669007172e85 2805f3b2ec94ce59a7789d09b6963d379d5b3ddaa8278d288e3369b75920]] This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited . If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities . Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccu1acies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. DOJ-18-0618-A-000101 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE) 7/19/2018 5 :33:30 PM Harper Jean Tobin [hjtobin@transequality.org] Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn =SSaba202588a468c81d55a3e66e8b6 7b-rmoossy ); Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn =335 715 laa2264132a 14b 7c42 71fce3 bb -_MB_ OAAG); Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) 1/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Rec ipie nts/ en =Sf4eb 7 ccf845466099f9844ba4bc13a d-ktoomey) RE: Letter from national civil rights organizat ions re : Jacksonville murders Sent : To : CC: Subject: Dear Ms. Tobin, Thank you for your letter. Prosecuting hate crimes, including those targeting transgender persons, is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division. We are aware of these matters in Jacksonville and have reached out to federal and state law enforcement to determine what, if any, federal action may be appropriate given the facts of the matters. · As you may know, CRSis on site in Jacksonville, monitoring tension levels and ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of CRS'savailable services. These services include the Law Enforcement and the Transgender Community training , which CRSfacilitates in collaboration with local subject matter experts, as well as facilitated dialogue and consultation services. We appreciate your continuing referral of such matters to the Criminal Section and FBI. Kind regards, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(I;) I ft,JC6J ~ usdoj.gov From: Harper Jean Tobin Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 2:51 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) l(6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Moossy, Robert (CRT) bJ(6J crt.usdoj .gov>; Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT) @crt.usdoj .gov> ; Toomey, Kathleen (CRT).Jbl<61 Subject: Re: Letter from national civil rights organizations re : Jacksonville murders The National Coalition of Anti -Violence Programs asked us to add them as a signatory to our letter. Please find an updated letter. Thank you again for your consideration . Sincerely, Harper Jean Tobin, Esq. Director of Policy DOJ-18-0618-A-000102 National Center for Transgender Equality 1133 19th Street NW, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 804-6047 h jtobi n@tra nsequalit y.org From: Harper Jean Tobin Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 7:48:56 PM . usdo·. av usdo ·. av· crt.oaag@usdo i.gov; ~b)(Gl 1@usdoj.gov Subject: Re: Letter from national civil rights organizations re: Jacksonville murders Cc: ~(6) Please find attached a corrected version of our letter. The previous version inadvertently omitted a signatory organization. Thank you again for your consideration . Sincerely, Harper Jean Tobin, Esq. Director of Policy National Center for Transgender Equality 1133 19th Street NW, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 804-6047 hjt ob in@t ranseguality.org From: Harper Jean Tobin Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 7:29 PM To: bl(61 usdo' . av Cc: bl(6 > usdo·. ov· crt.oaag@usdoj.gov; fbXGl 1@usdoj.gov Subject: Letter from national civil rights organizations re: Jacksonville murders Dear Acting Assistant Attorney General Gore, Please find attached a letter from several national civil rights organizations the series of unsolved murders of transgender women of color in Jacksonville since February. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this letter, which we developed in consultation with state and local advocates. We appreciate your attention to this grave and serious issue, and we urge you to act swiftly. Sincerely, Harper Jean Tobin, Esq. Director of Policy National Center for Transgender Equality 1133 19th Street NW, Suite 302 DOJ-18-0618-A-000103 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 804-6047 hitobin@transequality.org Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82~JGORE] From : 7/24/201 8 6:27:49 PM Sent: To: ~nd.edu] fb)(6) Re: Jones Day Interview Schedule/ Subject : July 25, 2018 / 09:30 AM ET 1b)(6JI: If you get this email, give me a call on my cell : .... r h_)Cfi _ ,J ____ _, Thanks. Sent from my iPhone 6 _l__________ On Jul 24, 2018, at6:16PM, ._~b-l( ____,p, wrote : IIi John, I just wanted to pass on to you the list of people I'll be talking with at Jones Day tomorrow -- I realize I got it too late to get any feedback on their practice areas, but I figured I'd pass it on in any event. Thanks again for lunch last week, and I'll be sure to let you know how the interviewing goes. Besl, ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Shono Nagai Date: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:49 PM Subf ct: Jones Da y Interview Schedul e/ July 25, 2018 / 09:30 AM ET pd .edu> To: xc.i Cc: Shono Nagai , "Emma T. Chaplin" D ear i(b)(6)1 , We are looking forward to seeing you on July 25, 2018. The office is located at 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W . Upon arrival, please ask for Emma Chaplin. Your interview schedule is below. Bios for the attorneys with whom you'll be meeting can be found on our website. Interview Schedule: ime p9:30 AMET 9:45 AMET 1 p9:45 AM ET !11:30 AM ET l2:00 PM ET I ~nforvie ver p auch, James E. ' hu1naker,Michael R. urdak, Michael P . ---- ·- ·-- ·-- ·soc1ale - Business & Tort Litigation artn.:r - Issues & Appeals nrtncr - Business & Tort Litigation · artner - Government Regulation ·---- - ------- Best, Shono DOJ-18-0618-A-000105 -! Shono Nagai Recruiting Coordinator Washington JONESDAY®- OneFinnWorldwid e" + 1.20:2.879.3985 DOJ-18-0618-A-000106 Gore, John (CRT)[/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP. (FYDI BOHF23SPDL T)/CN=REClPlENTS/CN =25lF 144BF52449629A39789C23BFAB~2-JGORE) 7/27/20 18 3:09:37 PM @sendwordnow.com RE:Test Message from Send Word Now (SWN) From : e t . -- To: Subject: 75 4 I received on all devices except personal email. My personal Now database. I corrected it, but perhaps not in time. email was wrong in the original send word John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division u.s. Department of Justice .I ~bJ(6) jm-s-croT . gov F§X6l 01\ -----origil'ra ~- Messag From: CRT Security Office< !~---_,. sent: Friday, July 27 ,,.._..., "'-"'--' "-----" ........ ..,_,,_ --'--'; To: Gore, John (CRT) bl(6\ subject: Test Message --~-~~ Importance: High This is a test of CRT's Emergency Notification system. In the event of a real emergency, this alert would provide event details and emergency instructions. THIS IS ONLYA TEST. Please follow the instructions below to acknowledge receipt of this notice. You only need to respond to one of the notifications you receive. If you did not receive a notification at your preferred email or phone number, please contact shared.SECURITYOFFICE@crt.usdoj.gov or 202-S14-3934. At the top of the body of your reply message, send the number (or number/letter choice from the menu below. 1: 2: 3: 4: I I I I combo if present) of your received this message on all of my devices (work and personal email and cell phones) received this message only on my work devices (ie., phone, email and iPhone) received this message only on my personal devices (email, home phone) did not receive the message on all of the devices I provided information The sender provided the following contact information. sender's Name: CRT Securi t office usdoj .gov Sender's Email : nnResponsiveRecord SWNGWB(4839S36501) DOJ-18-0618-A-000107 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- Sent : To: 7/30/2018 1:10:51 PM Mlieberman@adl.org CC: Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn=SSa ba202588a468c81d55a3e66e8b6 [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group Subject : JGORE] 7b-rmoossy ]; Treene, Eric (CRT) (FYDIBO HF235P DLT)/ cn=Reci pie nts/ en =6 7544e8b9493407 58 7 3 9 bee0ff654f75-etree Remarks Today ne] Michael: Thanks again for meeting with us last week. I wanted to make sure you saw my remarks from today : https ://www .justice .gov/crt/speech/acting-assistant-attomey-general- john-gore-civil -rights-divisi on-deliversremarks Best, John Sent from my iPhone DOJ-18-0618-A-000108 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGO RE] Sent : To: CC: 7/30/2018 1:12:18 PM silvermanr@ajc.org Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=55aba202588a468c8ld55a3e66e8b67b-rmoossy]; [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Subject : Administrative Treene, Eric (CRT) Group (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/ cn=Rec ip ients/ en =6 7544e8 b949340758 7 39 bee0ff654f75-etree Religious Liberty Remarks n e] Bob: It was great seeing you today. I wanted to make sure you saw my remarks : https://www. iustice .gov/crt/s peech/acting -assistant-attorney-genera l-john-gore-civil-ri ghts-d ivision -deliversremarks · Best, John Sent from my iPhone DOJ-18-0618-A-000109 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BFS2449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE) Sent : To: 8/1/2018 12:10:02 PM Disler, Mark [Mark .Disler@prime-policy.com) Subject : RE: Thanks so much Mark: Thank you for your kind email and warm wishes. It is an honor to serve at DOJand try to do some good for as long as I have here . I enjoyed meeting with your team . Please let us know if we can be of assistance on any other issues. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departme nt of Justice I fK> 6 -P'_>C6_> __ ~~ usdoj.gov From: Disler, Mark Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 11:31 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)'4"X6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Thanks so much John: It was so nice to meet you, and to be back on the 5 th Floor at DOJ. We all really appreciated your giving us time on this website issue. We hope to stay in touch on it, and I understand Angelo Amador will follow up on a couple of items. I want to extend my personal best wishes to you in your role in the Division. I know it is an exciting place to be, lots of big issues, lots of scrutiny, lots of important work each day. And I am sure that to do this in an acting capacity presents its own challenges, and you seem to be wearing it well. Please thank your colleagues as well. All the best, Mark Mark Disler Managing Director 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW I Suite 1000 I Washington, DC 20005 202 530 4806 I www .prime-policy .com A WPP Group Company: www.wpp .com DOJ-18-0618-A-000110 The information, and any attachments contained in this email may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended solely for tl1e use of the intended named recipient(s) Any disclosure or dissemination in whatever form, by another other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited . If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message and any attachments. Thank you . DOJ-18-0618-A-000111 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) /CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : 8/2/2018 10:22:44 AM Abba Cohen [acohen@agudathisrael-dc.org] RE: Thanks and congratulations To: Subject : Abba: Thanks for your email and for your great contributions to our listening session and our broader religious liberty efforts. We could not advance those efforts without people of good faith like you. I look forward to continuing to work together on this important cause. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice piK6) I ~b_)<6 _l -~l@usdoj.gov From: Abba Cohen Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 5:46 PM To : Gore, John (CRT)fbJ(6J @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Thanks and congratulations Hi John: Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for the "listening session" and the "summit." Both were great - interesting, educational, inspiring and thoroughly enjoyable. I hope we will have much such opportunities. Looking forward to continuing our work together. Abba ti -. . 't Rabbi Abb a Co hen , Agudath f ra I or Amer,ca IWashington Office Vice Pr ,oc,, i lor ~ 11rolAlrOl ~ I Wa ~nlr19lon Olr c;tor ond CouMul 1'·(202 ) 8JS ·0•111 F:(202) 8 5·M2◄ ltmoll , ocoll"'1 •11udathl~n,~•di;c.0<9 DOJ-18-0618-A-000112 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SP DLT)/CN=RECI Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent: 8/15/2018 2:59:48 PM Ahron Singer lfbl<6l l@gmail.com] RE: Civil Rights Working Group Follow Up To: Subject: Great. You can reach me at ~ -l(6_l -- -~ 1-Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice )(6) From: Ahron Singer Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 7:37 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Re: Civil Rights Working Group Follow Up Tomorrow at 3 works great. Looking forward. On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 6:25 PM Gore, John (CRT) ibX61 ~ usdoj.gov> wrote : How about Wednesday around 3 or Thursday morning? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r,)(6) rf)(6) wusdo j.gov From: Ahron Singer ¢,)(6 J '@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 3:04 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fb l(6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: Civil Rights Working Group Follow Up Hi Mr. Gore, Is there a specific time that works for you? Best, Ahron DOJ-18-0618-A-000113 1ail.com> wrote : On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3: 12 PM, Ahron Singer < Hi Mr. Gore, Unfortunately, I can't talk this afternoon as I have some deadlines I have to meet today. Monday afternoon works best for me, I hope we can talk then. Thanks, Abron On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Gore, John (CRT) f1C > 6 ~usdo j.gov> wrote: Any chance you're available this afternoon? If not, how about Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney ~eneral Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice b)(6} b){6J From: Ahron Singer 6l 4hlC @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 6 1 2018 11:58 AM 6 To: Gore, John (CRT)fblCl l@crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: Civil Rights Working Group Follow Up Dear Mr. Gore, Thank you for your response, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this further. As you're certainly the busier fellow, perhaps you can suggest two or three times you can get on the phone, and I will be sure to be available for one of them? All the best, Ahron b_cl6___ On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Gore, John (CRT) f~ i I t@usdoj.gov> wrote: Mr. Singer: I enjoyed meeting you as well. Do y.ou have time later this week to discuss this issue over the phone? Thanks, John DOJ-18-0618-A-000114 John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice rb)(6) I rl(o) @usdoj.gov '41 From: Ahron Singer 1X6J @gm ail.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:06 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) ~b l{61 '@crt.usdo j.gov> Subject: Civil Rights Working Group Follow Up John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of the Assistant Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington DC. 20530 Dear Mr. Gore, It was a pleasure meeting you at the Civil Rights Working Group at The Heritage Foundation last Thursday. As I mentioned during the discussion, I co-lead a group called Families Advocat ing fo r Campus E qualitv , which represents students who believe they were wrongfully accused in campus sexual misconduct hearings. Many of our students have filed civil rights complaints with ED, and over 200 students have filed lawsuits against their schools, man of which have resulted in rulings against their schools and/or led to settlements. Unfortunately, most students don't have the resources to sue their schools or don't have a fact pattern that can prove discrimination, and if they do, it is often years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later before they see any justice, often in the form of phyrric victories. , I am writing to follow up as to whether there are ways we can work together with your office to right the wrongs that have devastated so many students' lives; to help young people who are now hopeless after having suffered through agenda driven, deeply flawed processes that have labeled them sex offenders and deprived them of their education, often with no recourse. Please let me know your thoughts. DOJ-18-0618-A-000115 Sincerely, Ahron Singer Advisory Board, Families Advocating for Campus Equality Intern, New American Civil Rights Project and the Center for Equal Opportunity Yale College 2015 DOJ-18-0618-A-000116 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: Subject: 8/6/2018 12:16:12 PM Alert-1035514-166664996@athocalerts.com Re: Test Test Test CRT PAAS 1 Sent from rny iPhone On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:00 AM, DOJ P AAS wrote : Test Test Test CRT PAAS This is a This test is of the alerting only of capability a DOJ PAAS . test. Please acknowledge receipt of this message by replying to this email and entering your response by typing the number 1. 1. Acknowledge Published on: 08/06/2018 11 :00:00 ( UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) By: iSAAC M COLUER Sent By: 0OJ F3 ersonnet Alert and Accountability Syste!Tl DOJ-18-0618-A-000117 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F1448F52449629A39789C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: 8/17/2018 5:47:06 PM Robert Popper [rpopper@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG] Subject : RE: California voting issue As of now, I am free on Tuesday morning. How about 10 am? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ](6) From: Robert Popper Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 5:43 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE:Californi a votin g issue John, I just cancelled a trip to Sacramento planned for next week, so most of the week is now available. Monday and Tuesday I'm free all day. Bob From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:59 PM To: Robert Popper Subject: RE:California voting issue Bob: Thanks for reaching out. I'm generally around this afternoon if you'd like to talk today. Otherwise, please let me know a couple of times that work for you next week. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ric6) ~h)(6J' I pusdoj.gov From: Robert Popper Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:06 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) hl(6l Subject: California vo.... ,-n-g -,s-s-ue~ DOJ-18-0618-A-000118 John, An issue has come up in our California/LA County NVRA litigation (Central District of California) that I think you should know about. In 1998, the Justice Department entered into a Stipulated Order with California that prevented their cancelling the registrations of any voters pursuant to Cal. Elec Code Sec. 2226(b). That statute is basically California's NVRA enabling statute, authorizing removal after a returned notice plus two general federal elections. (2226(b): "The voter registration of any voter whose name has been placed on the inactive file of registered voters for failure to respond to an address verification mailing required by Section 2225, and who does not offer to vote or vote at any election between the date of the mailing and two federal general elections. after the date of that mailing, may be canceled.") In its brief in that case, the DOJargued that Cal. Elec. Code Sec. 2224, which authorized the sending of a confirmation notice if there was no voter activity for four years, violated the NVRA. But the DOJwent even further, suggesting that any removal following a failure to return an 8(d)(2) notice was contrary to law, because the NVRA barred removals for failing to vote. The DOJ argued that "Voters who do not respond to the postcard -- in the state's terms, those who throw the card away -- are placed on the inactive voters list and sent a notice informing them that they must vote within two general federal elections or be removed from the list of voters, even if the state receives no information that they have moved .. . . The NVRA is explicit regarding the reasons for which a voter may be purged from the lists .... This list does not include a failure to respond to notices from local registrars." The Stipulated Order ultimately embodied this more restrictive view of the NVRA. It is signed by Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California, who has since retired. This past June, the Supreme Court in Husted v. A Philip Randolph Inst. rejected the DOJ's 1998 argument root and branch. It held that a failure to vote for a period of years could be a "trigger" for sending a confirmation notice. It also held that, as the 2002 amendments to the NVRAclarified, the NVRA's restriction on removals for failing to vote does not apply - and never applied - to the procedure in Section 8(d), which authorizes removal after a returned confirmation notice and the statutory waiting period of two general federal elections. We think that the 1998 stipulated order is contrary to federal law, and we hope that the Justice Department agrees and says so. I have attached the Stipulated Order, the DOJ's brief, and the Husted decision. I would like the opportunity to discuss this with you. Please let me know if there is a convenient time to do so. Thank you. Bob Popper Judicial Watch, Inc. 425 Third Street, SW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20024 I Direct: (202)@l(6l DOJ-18-0618-A-000119 From: Sent : To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 8/22/2018 5:47 :04 PM Ma'ayan Anafi [manafi@transequality.org]; Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group , (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=3357151aa2264132a14b7c4271fce3bb-_MB_OAAG]; fbX6) @lusdoj.gov Harper Jean Tobin [hjtob in@transequality.org]; Jennifer Pike Bailey Uenn ifer .bailey@hrc.org]; Sarah Warbelow [sarah .warbelow@hrc.org] ; Brenda Barron [brenda .barron@glsen.org]; Sasha Buchert [sbuchert@lambdalegal.org]; Garner, Rakia (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou =Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Reci p ients/ en=552860feae lc4d98 bf4be 7 306621040b-rga rner] RE: Meeting with LGBT civil rights groups Ma'ayan : Thank you for reaching out and for sending the memo. I have copied my assistant, Rakia Garner. Please contact her directly to find a date and time for a meeting. I look forward to hearing more from you on this important issue. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice bX6J usdoj.gov From: Ma 'ayan Anafi Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:12 PM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT)fhl< ~crt.usdoj.gov>; Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT) 6 :P,>; Jennifer Pike Bailey ; Sarah Warbelow ; Brenda Barron ; S.asha Buchert Subject: Meeting with LGBTcivil rights groups Hi all, On behalf of the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and GLSEN,we'd like to request a meeting with CRTstaff to discuss the interpretation of civil rights laws with respect to LGBTstudents. Please let us know the earliest times available for a meeting. Additionally, we have attached a memo for your review detailing the current legal landscape regarding the rights of transgender students under federal sex nondiscrimination laws such as Title IX. We hope this memo will be a valuable resource. We look forward to hearing from you soon. You can feel free to reach out by email or to give me a call at 202804-6050 . Ma'ayan Anafi DOJ-18-0618-A-000120 Policy Counsel National Center for Transgender Equality Ma'ayan Anafi Policy Counsel National Center for Transgender Equality DOJ-18-0618-A-000121 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division TC 19-00009-F Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 foia@americanoversight.org Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 May 23, 2019 Dear Mr. Evers: This is a final response to your October 4, 2018 Freedom oflnformation Act request, which was received by the Civil Rights Division on the same day, seeking access to all email communications between 1) John Gore (currently Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and formerly Acting Assistant Attorney General, and 2) any ~mail addresses ending in .com/.net/.org/.edu/.mail from January 20, 2017, to the date of the search. The request was limited to emails sent by Mr. Gore. The requester indicated these records would shed light on the communications of a high-ranking official in the Division with external individuals and external entities. After review of the responsive Civil Rights Division (CRT) documents, I have determined the enclosed 116 pages may be released in full or in part. I have determined that access to portions of these documents should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ? 552 (b)(6) since disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Additionally, some of the records you have requested pertain to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding. I have determined that access to 8 pages should be denied in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ?552(b)(7)(A), since disclosure thereof could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings. I have further determined that certain information within these records that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C.?552(b)(7)(A) should also be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ?552(b)(5), since the records consist of attorney work product, and include intra-agency memoranda containing pre-decisional, deliberative material; and 5 U.S.C. ?552(b)(6) since disclosure of information contained in these records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Although this matter is in litigation, I am obligated to advise you that you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office oflnformation Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foia online.gov/foiaonline /action/public/home. Your A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT -2- appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." I hope the Civil Rights Division has been of some assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, y~~~ Tink Cooper, Acting Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch Civil Rights Division . A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT From: To: CC: f'"' I""" @crt.usdoj.gov ~ crt .usdoj.gov] 3/29/2017 9:10:58 AM Wheeler, Tom (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDL T)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Twheelere0b] Sent: rr.... :~__ __ I 11 :? EOP/WHO ===:J @w ho.eop .gov];I " _,~ who.eop.gov]; ___ ._ _,l@gmail.com Re: Chicago voting problems -- need refe rral Subject: IEOP/WHO I'm available to meet any time as well. As I understand it, you may need to loop in counsel's office. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2017, at 4 :50 PM, Wheeler , Tom (CRT) 1~ ""-'- -- ~~ crt.u sdoj.gov> wrote: Sure, let me know when you want to get together . Tom Wheeler Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice 1:o j a ]usdoi.gov - Fromr lmP/WHO [mailto l""?' Sent: Tuesday, March 28 2017 4:12 PM ~ who .eop.gov] To: Gore, John (CRT) crt. usdo?. ov>; Wheeler, Tom (CRT)~..__ * _' ___ Cc: Bash, Zina G. EOP/WHO ~ ' who .eo . ov>t 1/4 @gmall.com Subject: RE:Chicago voting problems -- need referral ___.@~ crt ~ .u=s= do"""j'"" .g"""o __ v> Thanks,LJ Hi, John (and Tom). Happy to talk with Mr. Cleveland or anyone else about election concerns. We have had a few private individuals approach us with reports of state and local voting concerns, and possible legislative ideas. On a related note: this is not urgent, but is there any chance we could get CRT'sperspective at some point in April on applications of the Voting Rights Act going forward? I can refine this request, if necessary. We're happy to come to DOJ to make it more convenient. F From:!"'" @gmail.com l..m..fil!!g ..,., Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:13 PM f"' 1" 1?o To: Gore, John (CRT) Cc: Wheeler, Tom (CRT) EOP/WHO ,.... , I ~gmail .com] @ usdoj.gov> 01 l@usdoi .gov>l"' @who .eop.gov>~--- J ~ EOP/WHO { "'' ~-- -- ~ who.eop .gov>f"' ~.____ I, __, Subject: Re: Chicago voting problems -- need referral AMf f{l<"~AN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000001 I I'm adding my colleague ~n the DPC who has worked on similar issues. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:09 PM, Gore, John (CRT) { ~usdoj .gov> wrote: I spoke with Mr. Cleveland this afternoon. He said he would be reaching back out t O me know if anyone is interested in discussing this. Thanks. about this issue as well. Let From: Wheeler, Tom (CRT) Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 5:35 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) J@crt.usdoj.gov> ccr "' wgm ail.com Subject: Re: Chicago voting problems -- need referral f'" Thx Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Gore, John (CRT) <_,~_?o--~~ crt.usdoj.gov> wrote : This may actually be an issue for Public Integrity (Criminal Division), but we'll chase it down and figure it out. Sent from my iPhone ..,_' ___ On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:11 PM, Wheeler, Tom (CRT) 4._ _,~crt.usdoj .gov> wrote : This fall within our voting section. I am CC'ing John Gore, my DAAAG who oversees voting to follow up. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2017, at 7:39 PM, f '" @gmail.com " 4_: ~~ ___ l@gmail.com> wrote: Let me know if this is something you're interested in. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Chris Cleveland Date: March 24, 2017 at 2:43: 12 PM EDT To: I...' @gmai l.com Subj ect: Chicago voting problems -- need referral D We've discovered a potentially serious problem with the 2016 election returns in Chicago. There's a 16,000 vote discrepancy in the data, which is possibly tied to the new same-day registration system. You're one of the few people I know at the USDOJ. Can you refer me to the person there who have the power to look into the problem, and, if warranted, start an investigation? A\IH '{ICAN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000002 I'll be happy to share all the details if you're interested . Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 43rd Ward Republican Committeeman 312-339-2677 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000003 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: ( FYDIBO HF235P DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- JGORE) 9/18/2017 7:35:40 AM To: Parker, Rachel (OASG) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=a09823bf2d994251a2908de40dceffe4-Parker, CC: Subject : Rae] ,......,,'----"'-'-..--------'@gm a ii. com) interview - reschedule As of now, any time. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:30 AM, Parker, Rachel (OASG) wrote: Hi thereWhat time on September 29 works for you? Rachel Parker Chief of Staff and Counsel Office of the Associate Attorney General 202-514-0109 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000004 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: 9/21/2017 11:02:02 AM Waxman, Seth [Seth.Waxman@wilmerhale.com]; Brown, Reginald [Reginald.Brown@wilmerhale.com] To: Subject: Letter Attachments : Notice Letter.pdf Seth and Reg: Per my conversation with Reg, please find attached a courtesy copy of the notice letter . Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice fbl(OJ P,J(6l I ~usdoj.gov A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000005 I From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To: 10/30/2017 5:57:27 PM JDM Uohn@jdmpublicstrategy.com] CC: Smith, Andrew H. (DAG) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Subject : ( FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/ cn=Reci pie nts/ en =8 bd07 leb0f 4c4 f528de ld 3 710ad26a 6a-S m ith, Andr] RE: Follow up Administrative Group Sounds good. My number is below. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice ~----' usdoj.gov From: JDM [mailto:john@jdmpublicstrategy.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:55 PM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT) dJ>)( @crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Subject: Re: Follow up Perhaps 10 am? If so, should I call you? Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 30, 2017, at 5: 19 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 6 jy usdoj .gov> wrote: Andrew: Thanks for the introduction. John: Great to meet you. I would be more than happy to hear more about this issue. Let me know if there is a convenient time for you to talk or meet. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r,1(6) ~lC61 I ~ usdoj.gov From: Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 3:24 PM To: John D. D. McMickle ; Gore, John (CRT)41>._ _ X6_) ___ Subject: Follow up A\IH '{ICAN pVERSIGHT @--.=.acr""'t.'""u=sd=-o=j"" .g""'o""'-v > DOJ-18-0618-B-000006 T Hi John Gore, I would like to introduce you to John McMickle. John and I are friends from the President's campaign and transition, where he was the policy authority on all things Judiciary. He mentioned the below issue to me and I am hopeful that you can best direct. John McMickle, Thanks for your note - It was great to see you and catch up last week. I have including John Gore on this email. John is the PDAAG and Acting MG in the Civil Rights Division and I believe will be able to assist. I hope that you both are well. Kindest Regards, Andrew Andrew Smith U.S. Department of Justice White House Liaison andrew.h.smith@usdoj.gov (c) ~bJ(6l I (o) 202-353-4435 From: "John D. D. McMickle" Subject: Follow up Date: October 25, 2017 at 6:21:04 AM EDT To: Andrew Smith Andrew, thanks again for your time yesterday. Very much enjoyed catching up. As per our talk, attached is the Goodlatte letter to DOJ on the issue of websites and the ADA. I understand that DOJ has responded, but have not seen the response letter. The issue of concern to many in the business community is whether websites are considered "public accommodations" for purposes to Title ill of the ADA. If so, this opens businesses that operate websites to frivolous shakedown lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Many restaurants and banks have already been targeted. The policy question is where.DOI would come down on the issue. The ADA was enacted in 1990, before there were websites so Congress could not have intended that websites be covered. However, the prior Administration - with little or no legal reasoning - sued grocery stares for running websites that did not comply with the ADA. Is this an issue where I could have a dialogue with the Civil Rights Division to present the business side of the policy debate? Thanks again and feel free to contact me ifl can help. Best, John McMickle A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000007 I From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF235P DLT) /CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 Sent: 10/30/2017 To: JDMUohn@jdmpublicstrategy.com] Subject: RE: Follow up BFAB82- JGO RE] 5:52:05 PM Sure. I am available before 11:15 and again after 3. Is either window promising on your end? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General . Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I 5 f>C l 4l fl>l< tvusdoj.gov From: JDM [mailto:john@jdmpublicstrategy.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:49 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Cc:Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Subject: Re: Follow up Thanks, Andrew. John, very nice to meet you. Would you have some time for a call on this topic tomorrow? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2017, at 5: 19 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 411X6l tyusdoj .gov> wrote: Andrew: Thanks for the introduction. John: Great to meet you. I would be more than happy to hear more about this issue. Let me know if there is a convenient time for you to talk or meet. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fJ!K6) ~){GJ @usdoj.gov From: Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 3:24 PM To: John D. D. McMickle ; Subject: Follow up 6_>__ Gore, John (CRT) l Hi John Gore, A\IH ~ICAN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000008 I would like to introduce you to John McMickle. John and I are friends from the President's campaign and transition, where he was the policy authority on all things Judiciary. He mentioned the below issue to me and I am hopeful that you can best direct. John McMickle, Thanks for your note - It was great to see you and catch up last week. I have including John Gore on this email. John is the PDAAGand Acting AAG in the Civil Rights Division and I believe will be able to assist. I hope that you both are well. Kindest Regards, Andrew Andrew Smith U.S. Department of Justice White House Liaison andrew.h .smith@usdo j.gov (c)kbJ(6J I (o) 202-353-4435 From: "John D. D. McMick:le" Subject: Follow up Date: October 25, 2017 at 6:21:04 AM EDT To: Andrew Smith -Andrew, thanks again for your time yesterday. Very much enjoyed catching up. As per our talk, attached is the Goodlatte letter to DOJ on the issue of websites and the ADA I understand that DOJ has responded, but have not seen the response letter. The issue of concern to many in the business community is whether websites are considered "public accommodations" for purposes to Title III of the ADA If so, this opens businesses that operate websites to frivolous shakedown lawsuits and threats of lawsuits. Many restaurants and banks have already been targeted. The policy question is where DOJ would come down on the issue. The ADA was enacted in 1990, before there were websites so Congress could not have intended that websites be covered. However, the prior Administration - with little or no legal reasoning - sued grocery stares for running websites that did not comply with the ADA Is this an issue where I could have a dialogue with the Civil Rights Division to present the business side of the policy debate? Thanks again and feel free to contact me if I can help. Best, John McMick:le A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000009 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: 10/31/2017 10:42:23 AM John D. D. McMickle Uohn@jdmpublicstrategy.com] Subject : RE: Court doc to SG re ADA John: Thanks for sending this. I do not know the status. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Qe artment of Justice b)(G) ,____----J usdoj.gov From: John D. D. McMickle [mailto:john@jdmpublicstrategy.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:31 AM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT)X ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Court doc to SG re ADA John, thanks for the time today. I also wanted to call your attention to the attached document asking for DOJ to weigh in on the constitutionality of the ADA as applied to websites. Do you know if this is something DOJ intends to do? Kind regards, John McMickle A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000010 From : Sent: To: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 11/15/2017 3:39:55 PM Smith, Andrew H. (DAG) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn =8bd07 leb0f4c4f528deld3710ad26a6a-S m ith, And r ]; esdreiband@jonesday.com; Aguinaga, Ben (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn =44f16b16d0464d5ba lcd933b0f68dc38-bagu i nag] RE: Needed Information Group I just spoke with Don and extended the conditional offer. He accepted, subject to the condition. He mentioned that he is being fingerprinted tomorrow and then will be complete with his paperwork. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice usdoj.gov From: Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:51 AM To: Gore, John (CRT)'ft,lllil ~crt.usdoj.gov>; esdreiband@jonesday.com; Aguinaga, Ben (CRT) Subject: FW: Needed Information For your awareness, should someone from your team wish to extend Don a conditional offer . From: Smith, Andrew H. (OAG) Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:42 AM To: fbK6l ~ aol.com' ~@aol.com > Subject: Needed Information Hi Don, It was nice to speak with you last week regarding your potential appointment at DOJ. In order to move forward in the process, the White House has requested: 1. Completion of the attached personnel form. 2. Copy of your current resume. 3. 5-year salary history. Please return the requested information at your earliest convenience. I will then submit the request to the White House and our HR department. Please be advised that the President's approval is required to confirm your position. Do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or I can be of assistance. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Kindest Regards, Andrew A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000011 Andrew Smith U.S. Department of Justice White House Liaison andrew.h.smith@usdoj .gov (c)kbJC6l (o) 202-353-4435 I AMf HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000012 I From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: To: Subject: 2/8/2018 (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) /CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23B FAB82- JGORE] 4:29:59 PM McBride, Andrew G. (Perkins Coie) [AMcBride@perkinscoie.com] RE: DFEH v. LSAC Sure. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice usdoj.gov From: McBride, Andrew G. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:AMcBride@perkinscoie.com] Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:00 PM f To: Gore, John (CRT) l(Gl Subject: RE: DFEHv. LSAC ~crt .usdoj.gov> John, I am crashing to get a pleading out the door. Can I call you in about 30 minutes? I Perkins Andrew McBride PARTNER Coie LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N,W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960 D +1 202.654 6268 F +1.202 624 .9525 E. AMcBride@perkinscoie.com From: Gore, John (CRT) [mailto:lbXOJ tpusdoj.gov] Sent: Thursday, February08, 2018 3:57 PM To: McBride,Andrew G. (WDC) Subject: RE: DFEHv. LSAC Andrew: I just tried calling you, but your cell's voicemail box is full. Let's try to connect later . Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b)(6) r><~l I ~ usdoi.gov From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 8:51 PM To: 'McBride, Andrew G. (Perkins Coie)' Subject: RE: DFEHv. LSAC A\IH '{ICAN pVERSIG ? T DOJ-18-0618-B-000013 Andrew: Apologies for the delay in responding. Are you free late Thursday afternoon? Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b)(6) !(bJC6J I @usdoj.gov From: McBride, Andrew G. (Perkins Coie) [mailto :AMcBride@perkinscoie.com ] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 4:08 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)~bl( 6J @crt.usdoj;gov> Subject: DFEHv. LSAC John, ----~ When you have a moment, could you please give me a call on this matter. Mobile is always besf~X6> Thanks, Andrew Andrew McBride I Perkins Coie LLP PARTNER 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington DC 20005-3960 D. + 1.202.654.6268 F. +1.202 624.9525 E. AMcBride@perkinscoie ,com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents . Thank you. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000014 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SP DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent : 3/22/2018 10:52:36 AM P,l(6l @gmail.com To: RE: EVENT INVITATION: Religious Intolerance Subject : and America's Image and Policies Abroad (Panel Discussion and Dinner) - Thursday, March 22 - 4:30 PM Arsalan : The pleasure was all mine. I enjoyed meeting you and the rest of the great people at MJAC, and I thank you for your support. Unfortunately, I have another event this evening and won't be able to attend the Georgetown event. Thank you for the invitation. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice f11)(6) KbX<>l I f usdoj.gov 6\ l@gmail.com [mailto ~bl< @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:31 PM To: Gore, John (CRT).f'XG) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Fwd: EVENTINVITATION: Religious Intolerance and America's Image and Policies Abroad (Panel Discussion and Dinner) - Thursday, March 22 - 4:30 PM From: 1Ch)(6J John, It was a pleasure to meet you yesterday at the MJAC event and to see you again this morning. Thank you again for all the work you and your team are doing to combat hate crimes. Below please find an invitation to the event at Georgetown that I spoke about today. It would be a pleasure to have you join us for the panel event and the private dinner to follow. Best, Arsalan ---------- Forwarded message --------From: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:28 PM Subject: EVENT INVITATION: Religious Intolerance and America's Image and Policies Abroad (Panel Discussion and Dinner) - Thursday, March 22 - 4:30 PM To: fl< 6l l< Kb)(6) l@gmail.com> A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000015 NB: You are receiving this email as a VIP guest. We would like to reserve a front row seat for you for the panel discussion, and would be delighted to have you as our dinner guest. Please RSVP using the red or blue button below before March 16. Please contact Wei Zhang (W2jj_Q@.ru19.r etown,~du), ISO events manager, if you have any question about this event. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000016 DOJ-1 8-061 8-B-000017 Copyright (C) 2018 Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you were invited to the Working Group event "Religious Intolerance and America's Image and Policies Abroad" Panel Discussion & Dinner. Our mailing address is: Georgetown University Institute fo.rthe Study of Diplomacy 1316 36th Street, NW Washington DC, DC 20007 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000018 Arsalan Jv[ /\rsalan Sulemm1 Coun.'lelat Folev lfoag LLP N<1nrtlsiclcntl?ellow. Ge n.1.~twn lJnivcr il, . [n~LitutcI, r the. 'tudy orDipl macy Fonner U.S . Special Envoy to the OIC (Acting) AM HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000019 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent : 4/9/2018 10:44:06 AM Connell, Erin M. [econnell@orrick.com] RE: ABA EEO Government Liaison Meeting - planning session To: Subject : Erin: I am available on Wednesday at 11-12 ETand 5-6 ET. I also am available any time on Friday except 1-2:15 ET. I am traveling on Tuesday. If necessary, I may be able to be available from the road at 10:30 to 11:30 ET or 2:30 to 5 ET. I am unavailable on Thursday. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice J(G) usdoj.gov From: Connell, Erin M. [mailto:econnell@orrick.com] Sent: Monda A rll 9, 2018 8:43 AM To: b)(aJ dol.gov; Gore, John (CRT)fb XGJ do I.gov b)(6 l 6 ~ crt.usdoj.gov>f~bJ_C _l----~K?)EEOC.GOV; ~--~ Cc: M Subit ; Connell, Erin M. Subject:-ABA EEOGovernment Liaison Meeting - planning session Hi All, Thank you for agreeing to participate in the upcoming ABA EEOGovernment Liaison Meeting on April 16-17 at the St. Regis in Washington. Mike and I are looking forward to facilitating the panel below, which will be the first substantive panel on Monday, April 16. In order to prepare, we would like to schedule a call this week. I've pasted below times during which Mike and I are both available - can each of you please let me know if any of these times do not work? I will then send everyone a calendar invite and call-in number. Thanks, again - we're looking forward to a great program. Best Regards, Erin Tuesday- anytime except 11:30-12 PT/ 2:30-3 ET Wednesday - 8-10 PT/ 11-1 ET or 2-3 PT/ 5-6 ET Thursday - 8-12 PT/ 11-3 ET Friday - anytime 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. (90 minutes) 2018 Priorities from the Agency Leaders and Updates on lnteragency Coordination o o o Hon. John Gore, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice Hon. Victoria Lipnic, Acting Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ondre Harris, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs A\IH '{IC/ N PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000020 o Hon. Kate O'Scannlain, Solicitor of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor o This session will discuss the agencies' top priorities looking ahead, and how they are and anticipate coordinating and working together. For DOL, the focus will be on enforcement broadly, including wag 'hour, ERISA, etc. Facilitators: o o Erin Connell, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, San Francisco, CA Michael C. Subit, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, Seattle, WA Erin M. Connell Partner Onick San Francisco @ T +1-415-773-5969 M +1-415-305-8008 econnell@orrick.com C ornck Employment Blog NOTICE TO RECIPIENT I This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system . Thank you in advance for your cooperation . For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000021 From : Sent: To: CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT)[/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 5/4/2018 10:50:33 AM Francisco, Noel (DSG) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recipie nts/ en=c91c2da7a 7974c808 7df62 79ed 98 b910-Fra nci sco,] Carvin, Michael A. [macarvin@JonesDay.com] RE:Lunch ["'"' Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice From: Francisco, Noel (DSG) Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 10:34 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) 6 > @crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Carvin, Michael A. Subject: Lunch FX John, b)C6l ~~bX_6J _____ ___________ A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT ~ I Best, Noel DOJ-18-0618-B-000022 From : Sent : To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23 SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 5/4/20181:17:39 PM griffinm@arts.gov; smcday@bbg.gov; agrill@cns.gov; Cameron.quinn@hq.dhs.gov; Regis.Phelan@fema.dhs.gov; tagramonte@doc.gov; cheryl.adams@hq.dodea.edu; patricia.zarate@hq.doe.gov; ann.augustyn@hq.doe.gov; John_Burden@ios.doi.gov; Sloan_Farrell@ios.doi.gov; michael.alston@usdoj.gov; dankowitz.beverly@dol.gov; barry-perez.naomi@dol.gov; charles.james@dot.gov; deeana.jang@dot.gov; candice.jackson@ed.gov; Dorka.Lilian@epa.gov; lawrence.tanya@epa.gov; madeline.caliendo@gsa.gov; mary.gibert@gsa.gov; roger.severino@hhs.gov; robinsue.frohboese@hhs.gov; Anna.Farias@hud.gov; bryan.greene@hud.gov; nweiss@imls.gov; i smael. martinez@nara.gov; richard.n. reback@nasa.gov; stephen. t.sh i h@nasa.gov; mdavy@ncua.gov; mmcdonald@neh.gov; Tuwanda.Smith@nrc.gov; rjdavis@nsf.gov; Larry.Stubblefield@sba.gov; claudia.postell@ssa.gov; smithgb@state.gov; mariam.harvey@treasury.gov; winona.scott@usda.gov; roberto.contreras@fns.usda.gov; theodorehgutman@fs.fed.us; Sharese.Paylor@wdc.usda.gov; Harvey.Johnson08@va.gov Ruisanchez, Alberto {CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group {FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=d7af4f898fb6493abb0c0a14ff878b13-aruisanc]; Aguinaga, Ben {CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn =44 f16b16d0464d5ba lcd933b0f68dc38-bagui nag] EO 12250 Clearance For Nondiscrimination Regulations And Guidance Documents 2018_04_24_E0_12250_CRT_Clearance_Memo_to_Agencies.pdf; 2018_04_24_E0_12250_Clearance_Summary_Chart.pdf; Memorandum - Implementation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504.pdf Dear Colleagues: I am writing to provide you with important information on longstanding EO 12250 clearance requirements for Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and related nondiscrimination regulations and policy guidance documents. Please ensure distribution of the attached memoranda to agency staff engaged in civil rights matters involving both federally-funded and federally-conducted programs and activities. The Civil Rights Division appreciates our ongoing collaborative partnerships with your agencies, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure the effective and consistent implementation and enforcement of these civil rights statutes. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fbl(6) I fbX6l ~ usdoj.gov A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000023 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Assis/an/ ,fllomer General 950 PennsJ?!vania ,.J,,e, NW - RFK Washing/on. DC 2()530 APR2 4 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Federal Agency Civil Rights Directors _and General Counsels I ,,,.??r ('f; ?-? t..ofo o o ,o l,,{_,_ FROM: John M. Gore --- -,-'~ ? ~ ? Acting Assistant Attorney General SUB.JECT: Clearance Requirements for Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and Related Nondiscrimin ation Reg ulat ions and Pol.icy Guidance Documents ,-;;,..,iro_,,. ' o, I am writing to provide you with information and a helpful tool to support your agency's efforts to comply with longstanding clearance requirements for certain nondiscrimination regulations and policy guidance documents. The Civil Rights Division periodically issues memoranda to federal agencies on coordinated, government-wide civil rights enforcement, particularly during times of staff and leadership transition. This memorandum provides background _information to assist your staff in identifying the types of documents that may require review by the Civil Rights Division. Under Executive Order 12250 (EO 12250), the Depatiment of Justice (DOJ) is charged with ensuring the consistent and effective implementation of civil rights laws "prohibiting discriminatory practices in Federal programs and programs receiving federal financial assistance." Exec. Order No. 12250, leadership and Coordination ofNondiscrimination laws, reprinted at 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (Nov. 4, 1980). 1 Document clearance is a critical and longstanding component of this DOJ mandate. Clearance Authority. Clearance requirements under EO 12250 should be routinely considered during your agency's regulatory review process. and during lhe development orany new document addressing the laws covered by the Order. Importantly. these requirements apply 1 Under Executive Order 12250, DOJ is charged with coordinating the implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies of various provisions of the following laws: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race, color, and national origin discrimination, which includes language access for limited English proficient individuals, in federally funded programs and activities), 42 U.S.C. *2000d f'I seq.; (b) Title IX of the Educution Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimi1rntio11in education programs and activities of recipients of federal funds), 20 lJ.S.C. * 1681 et sL'q. ; (c) Section 504 of the Rd1abilitation Act of I973 (prohibiting disability discrimination in both federally conducted arid federally funded programs and activities). 29 U.S.C. *794; and (d) "any other provision of Federal statutory law which provides, in whole or in pnrt that no person in the United Stales shnll on the ground of race, color, nntiomd origin, h,rndicap, religion, or sex, be excluded from participation in. be denied the benefits oL or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Exec. Order 12250 at l-20 I. * A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000024 not only to new and amended regulations and guidance documents, but also to the repeal of such documents. There are two basic levels or clearance: 1. The Department of Justice must review and approve regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504. The Attorney General must approve Federal regulations that effectuate Title VI and Title IX. 42 U.S.C. ?2000d-l; 20 lJ .S.C. ? 1682; Exec. Order 12250 at ? 1-1. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve regulations that effectuate Section 504. 28 C.F.R. ?41.4(b). These requirements also apply to the portions of regulations that affect Title VT,Title TX,or Section 504 enforcement, but that primarily implement other statutes. For example, if a federal agency drafts a general rule governing administrative complaints, the EO 12250 requirements apply to that rule to the extent it covers Title VI, Title IX, or Section 504 enforcement by that agency. 2. The Department of Justice may require that some or all regulations implementing the nondiscrimination provisions of laws otlter titan Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 or policy guidance issued under any of the laws covered by EO 12250 be "submitted for approval before taking effect." Exec. Order 12250 at ? 1-402. Documents subject to this requirement include regulations issued to effectuate statutes that "provide, in whole or in part, that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, handicap, religion, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of~ or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Exec. Order 12250 at ?l-20l(d), 1-402. This requirement also applies to policy guidance documents addressing any of the laws covered by EO 12250, whether or not they will be issued for public notice and comment. Exec. Order 12250 at ? 1-402. To better inform agencies, I am attaching a chart that summarizes the EO 12250 clearance process. It is intended to be a plain language "how-to" guide, with relevant citations, that should support agencies' accurate and early identification of documents covered by EO 12250 and timely notice of such documents to DOJ. With respect to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, DO.I is in the unique position of having to ensure not only the consistent implementation of Section 504 across the federal government but also parity between Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 2 While not addressed by EO 12250, the authority to issue regulations and technical assistance implementing or interpreting subtitle A ol"l'itle II or LheADA is within the exclusive domain of DOJ unless provided otherwise under statute 3 or by express delegation by DOJ. 1 am 1 s See 42 U.S.C. ? 12 I34(b); 42 U.S.C. l 220 I (a); I l.R. Rep. l 02-822 at 83 (Aug. I 0, 1992); S. Rep. I 02-357 at 12 (Aug. 3, 1992). 'Section 202 of the Rehabilitation Act provides the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research with the responsibility for '"coordinating activities with the Allorney General regarding the pmvision of information, training, or technical assistance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of l 990 (42 U.S.C. 1210 I et seq.) to ensure consistency with the plan for technical assistance requiri;;d'under si;;ction 506 or such Act (42 U.S.C. 12206) ." 29 U.S.C. ~762. 2 A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000025 attaching a memorandum thal describes the legal authority or DO.I and other agencies under Title fl of the ADA and Section 504, the relationship between these two laws. and DOJ's responsibility for coordination of these statutes among federal agencies. Please ensure the distribution of these two reference documents to your staff. The Division's Federal Coordination and Compliance Section (FCS) runs a comprehensive program of assistance and oversight to agency civil rights offices on Title VI, Title IX, and related program matters. ln addition, the Disability Rights Section (DRS) coordinates the implementation and enforcement of Section 504 and other disability-related matters, and the Educational Opportunities Section (EOS) coordinates assistance on educationrelated matters. Recognizing that many of your documents may cover multiple statutes, these Sections work closely together to ensure that the EO 12250 clearance process runs as smoothly and effectively as possible. Next steps. ICyour agency identifies civil rights regulations or policy guidance documents for possible development, repeal, replacement, or modification, DOJ review and ? clearance may be required under EO 12250. This is particularly important in the case of modification or repeal ofregulations or policy guidance that the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General approved previously. Please ensure early coordination with FCS, EOS, or DRS for assistance in identifying applicable clearance requirements. My staff will contact your office in the coming months Loarrange a brief staff training on the EO 12250 clearance process requirements. Thank you for your continuing efforts to ensure consistent and effective enforcement of Title VI, Title IX. Section 504, and related laws through our close coordination on documents covered by EO 12250. Please do not hesitate to contact Tamara Kessler, Chief of FCS, at 202307-2222, Shaheena Simons, Chief of EOS, at 202-305-3364, or Rebecca Bond, Chief of DRS, at 202-307-0663 with questions about the clearance process. Attachments Executive Order 12250 Clearance Summary Chart Memorandum: Coordination of Federal Agencies' Implementation with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of title II of the Americans 3 A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000026 Department of Justice Regulatory Clearance Role Under Executive Order 12250 o Regulations Implementing Title VI, Title IX, Section 504: DOJ review and approval~ required* Regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 that are new or are amending or repealing previously issued regulations in whole or in part. What documents? NPRMs and Final Rules. Agencies must submit such documents to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (AAG) for review and must obtain approval. Approval of the final text is required before publication. In addition: Section 504 Final Rules. The AAG must approve final regulations before they may take effect. Title VI and Title IX Final Rules. The Attorney General must approve final regulations before they may take effect. Coordinate early, ideally during the drafting stage. Regulations Implementing Nondiscrimination Provisions of Laws Other than Title VI, Title IX, Section 504: DOJ submission~ required and approval somet imes required** Regulations implementing laws other than Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or religion in programs receiving federal financial assistance that are new or are amending or repealing previously issued regulations in whole or in part. What documents? NPRMs and Final Rules. Agencies must submit such documents to the AAG and must obtain approval if the AAG so requires. Coordinate early, ideally during the drafting stage. Other Types of Documents*** What documents? To fulfill its mandate to ensure the consistent and effective government-wide implementation of the laws covered by EO 12250, DOJ often reviews other types of agency documents issued under the laws described above. For example, EO 12250 authorizes DOJ to require that covered policy guidance documents be submitted for approval before taking effect. Case-by-case determination. The AAG determines, in coordination which documents require review and approval. with federal agency partners, Factors considered. Early coordination is essential for documents that ( 1) may implicate other agencies' compliance programs; (2) adopt new or changed legal interpretations; (3) could result in a conflict among agencies' legal interpretations of Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, or nondiscrimination provisions of other federal laws; and/or (4) are intended for publication in the Federal Register. Coordinate early to determine whether EO 12250 review will be required. Please con tact the Civil Rights Division's Federa l Coordination and Compliance Section. 202-307-2222. Disab ility Rights Section, 202-307-0663. or Edwcational Opportunitie s Section , ~ 202-514-4029. ea rly in the dev elopment of docume nts that may be covered by EO 12250. Staff are available to discuss the applicability of these requirements, and to provide legal counsel to ensure consistency with case law and other agencies' documents. ~ A\IH o pv DOJ-18-0618-B-000027 * 42 U.S.C. ?2000d-l (Title VI); 20 U.S.C. ? 1682 (Title IX); 28 C.F.R. ?0.51 (delegation of EO 12250 responsibilities to the AAG for Civil Rights), 28 C.F.R. ?41.4(b) (each agency shall submit its proposed Section 504 final regulation to the AAG for Civil Rights for review at least 45 days before it is to be issued); 28 C.F.R. ?42.403(c) (Title VI proposed rules require approval of the AAG for Civil Rights before publication in the Federal Register for comment, and Title VI regulations require final approval of the AG); EO 12250 at 1-1 (delegations to the AG); 1-201 (laws covered by EO 12250), 1-202 (review of existing and proposed rules "in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent"), 1-205 (authority to implement a schedule for the review of implementing regulations). ** See EO 12250 at 1-201 (laws covered by EO 12250), 1-202 (review of existing and proposed rules "in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent"), and 1-402 (regulations implementing a law covered by EO 12250 "subject to the approval of the Attorney General, who may require that some or all of them be submitted for approval before taking effect"). *** See EO 12250 at 1-401 (authority to require "reports and information"), 1-402 (policy guidance on a law covered by EO 12250 "subject to the approval of the Attorney General, who may require that some or all of them be submitted for approval before taking effect"). A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000028 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Assistant Allorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW - RFK ' Washing/on, DC 20530 APR2 4 2018 MEMORANDUM TO: Federal Agency Civil Rights Directors and General Counsels FROM: John M. Gore Acting Assistan~mey AL ;{Jt.~ SUBJECT: I. General Coordination of Federal Agencies' Implementation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Introduction During the course of its work with other Federal agencies on disability nondiscrimination laws, the Department of Justice (the Department) has become aware of the need to provide further clarity on the scope of the Department's and other agencies' authority under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504)_ This memorandum sets forth the authorizations provided to the Department and other agencies under Title II and Section 504 and discusses the implications for the Department's coordination of these statutes among Federal agencies_ The Department hopes to eliminate inconsistencies in the implementation and enforcement of Title II and Section 504 among Federal agencies, which often results in confusion to the public. The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights is responsible for ensuring consistency in the implementation of Section 504 and Title II across the Federal government. In addition, given Congress' intent for parity between Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must also ensure that any interpretations of Section 504 are consistent with Title II (and vice versa). Accordingly, it is critical that the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations and guidance from other Federal agencies implementing Section 504. In addition, unless provided otherwise under statute or by express delegation by the Department, the issuance of regulations and technical assistance implementing or interpreting Subtitle A of Title II of the ADA are within the exclusive domain of the Department; therefore, agencies may not issue such documents independently. II. Authority under the ADA The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by state and local entities as well as public accommodations. Congress provided various Federal agencies with the authority to issue regulations to implement Titles I - IV of the ADA For purposes of the discussion of the ADA in this memorandum, the Department is addressing only Title II. The ADA authorizes the AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000029 Attorney General to promulgate regulations implementing Subtitle A of Title II, covering all services, programs, or activities of a public entity, except those related to public transportation that arc covered by Subtitle B. 1 The ADA authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations implementing Subtitle B of Title II of the ADA, covering public transportation provided by public entities. 2 Additionally, Congress recognized the necessity of educating the public about the rights and responsibilities under the Act. Specifically, section 506 of the ADA, entitled "Technical Assistance," delineates which agencies may render technical assistance and specifically provides the Attorney General with the responsibility for issuing technical assistance for Subtitle A of Title II, and the Secretary of Transportation with the authority for issuing technical assistance for Subtitle B of Title 11.3 Section 202 of the Rehabilitation Act also provides the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research with the responsibility for "coordinating activities with the Attorney General regarding the provision of information, training, or technical assistance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) to ensure consistency with the plan for technical assistance required under section 506 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12206)." 4 As to enforcement of Title II, the Department's Title II regulation requires the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to coordinate the compliance activities of Federal agencies with respect to State and local government entities, and to provide policy guidance and interpretations to designated Federal agencies to ensure the consistent and effective implementation of the requirements of the Title II regulation. 5 The Title II regulation assigns responsibility for administrative enforcement, such as conducting investigations of complaints, to eight Federal agencies based upon certain functional areas. 6 For instance, the Department of Labor is responsible for Title II administrative enforcement of all programs, services, and regulatory activities relating to labor and the work force. 7 The Department maintains the authority to assign enforcement responsibilities to one agency when two or more agencies have apparent responsibility over a complaint 8 and to itself when it receives a complaint directed to the Attorney General alleging a violation of Title II that may fall within the jurisdiction of a designated agency or another Federal agency that may have jurisdiction under Section 504. 9 III. Aut hority unde r Sectio n 504 Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally assisted and federally conducted programs. 10 Agencies are responsible for issuing their own Section 504 regulations for their federally assisted and federally conducted programs. 11 However, Executive 1 See 42 U.S.C. ? 12134. See 42 U.S.C. ?? 12149 and 12164. 3 See 42 U.S.C. ? 12206(c). 4 29 U.S.C. ? 762. 5 See 28 C.F.R. ? 35.190(a). 6 See 28 C.F.R. ? 35.190(b). 7 See 28 C.F.R. ? 35.190(b)(7). 8 See 28 C.F.R. ? 35.190(d). 9 See28 C.F.R. ? 35.190(e). 10 See 29 U.S.C. ? 794(a). 11 See id.; 28 C.F.R. ? 41.4. 2 2 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000030 Order 12250 provides the Attorney General with the authority to coordinate Executive agencies' implementation and enforcement of Section 504 and other provisions of Federal law prohibiting disability discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. The Attorney General delegated the Section 504 coordination authority under Executive Order 12250 to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. 12 Among the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights' responsibilities under Executive Order 12250 are reviewing Executive agencies' existing and proposed mies, regulations, and orders of general applicability in order to identify those which are inadequate, unclear or unnecessarily inconsistent; 13 and developing standards and procedures for taking enforcement actions and for conducting investigations and compliance reviews. 14 Executive Order 12250 also ? requires each Executive agency responsible for implementing Section 504's nondiscrimination provisions to issue "appropriate implementing directives (whether in the nature ofregulations or policy guidance)" that are "consistent with the requirements prescribed by the Attorney General ... and ... subject to the approval of the Attorney General, who may require that some or all of them be submitted for approval before taking effect." 15 The Department's Section 504 coordination regulation at 28 CFR part 41 specifies the procedures for the promulgation and enforcement of Section 504 regulations by all agencies providing financial assistance, the standards for determining protected individuals under Section 504, and the guidelines for determining what practices are discriminatory under Section 504. 16 IV. Relationship between the ADA and Section 504 Section 504 laid the foundation for the development of Title II of the ADA, as Congress stated that the purpose of Title II was to "make applicable the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of disability, currently set out in regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to all programs, activities, and services provided or made available by state and local governments or instnunentalities or agencies thereto, regardless of whether or not such entities receive Federal financial assistance." 17 Subsequently, the ADA has played an important role in the interpretation of Section 504, with Congress amending the Rehabilitation Act in 1992 to make clear that the principles underlying the ADA also apply to all sections .of the Rehabilitation Act, including Section 504. 18 The legislative history of the 1992 amendments explains that one of the purposes of the legislation is "to ensure that the precepts and values embedded in the Americans with Disabilities Act are reflected in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973." 19 The legislative history further provides the following: 12 See 28 C.F.R. ? 0.51. See Executive Order 12250, ? 1-202. 14 See Executive Order 12250, ? 1-203. 15 See Executive Order 12250, ? 1-402. 16 For a detailed explanation of Executive Order I 2250's clearance requirement for regulations and policy guidance documents that implement Section 504 regulations and other provisions of Federal law prohibiting disability discrimination, please refer to the April 24, 20 I 8 memorandum entitled, Clearance Reguirements for Title VI, Title lX, Section 504, and Related Nondiscrimination Regulations and Policy Guidance Documents . 17 H.R. Rept. 101-485(1l)at84(May 15, 1990). 18 See Public Law 102-569 (1992). 19 S. Rep. I 02-3 57 at 2 (Aug. 3, 1992). 13 3 AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000031 The statement of purpose and policy is a reaffirmation of the precepts of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has been referred to as the 20th century emancipation proclamation for individuals with disabilities. It is the Committee's intent that these principles guide the policies, practices, and procedures developed under all titles of the [Rehabilitation] Act. 20 Section 501 of the ADA also provides that"[ e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Acfof 1973 (29 U.S.C. 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to such title." 21 Therefore, Section 504 provides the floor for the ADA, as the ADA potentially could provide broader protections. Courts also have generally treated claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act identically. 22 V. Implications for Coordination Among Federal Agencies The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must ensure consistency in the implementation of Section 504 and Title II across the Federal government, as well as in the interpretation of Section 504 with Title II (and vice versa). Therefore, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations and guidance from other Federal agencies implementing Section 504. In addition, unless otherwise provided, the Department maintains the exclusive authority to issue regulations and technical assistance implementing or interpreting Subtitle A of Title II, and therefore, agencies may not issue such documents independently. We hope that this memorandum helps to clarify the scope of authority of both the Department and other Federal agencies for implementing and enforcing Title II of the ADA and Section 504. Please feel free to contact the Regulations, Interpretations, and Coordination Unit of the Disability Rights Section at 202-307-0663, if you have any questions about the substantive requirements of the ADA or Section 504 or the coordination process under either statute. We look forward to working with your respective agencies in ensuring the consistent application of these disability rights laws. 20 S. Rep. 102-357 at 12 (Aug. 3, 1992). See also H.R. Rep. 102-822 at 81 (Aug. 10, 1992). 42 U.S.C. ? 12201(a). 22 See, e.g., Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46, 48 n.3 (1st Cir. 1998); Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 33 l F.3d 26 I, 272 (2d Cir. 2003); Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 330 n.7 (3rd Cir. 1995); Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 468 (4th Cir. 1999); Delano-Pyle v. Victoria Cty., Tex., 302 F.3d 567,574 (5th Cir. 2002); McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, inc., 119 F.3d 453, 459-460 (6th Cir. 1997); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907,912 (8th Cir. 1998); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. I 999); Cohan ex rel Bass v. N.M Dept. of Health, 646 F.3d 717, 725-26 (10th Cir. 2011); Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 (11th Cir. 2007). 21 4 AM HICA'\J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000032 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 6/18/2018 4:36:08 PM r')(6J JP,)C6J ~gmail.com] RE: OSCFile No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 From: Sent: To: Subject: Same here. Please remove me as well. Thank you. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice K!>)(6) 1 flC6l ~usdoj.gov 6l r,ic 6l l[mailtof')C ~-----Sent: Mond ay, June 18, 2018 4:10 PM From: @gmail.com] To:P,X61 ~h)( 61 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000033 bJ(6) Subject: Re: OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 Mr. Mullen: I would be happy to remove your name and email address from this chain of emails. However, my aim is to generate exposure of the manner by which the courts and government have refused to abide by the laws to promote their own propaganda inspired agendas, that are will ultimately end to incur the benefits of the few, rather than the many. Sincerely, P,J(6) Public Administration Major Northern Arizona University On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:02 PM, rl wrote: Please stop replying all -F----O~'bTcira l Messa.a.e--rom : r--------------------------------' Sent: Monday , June 18, 2018 3:57 PM I To JbJ(6J o )(6) Cc:flf 6l I l@gmail.com>; r,-)(6) A\11t ~, ?J\N PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000034 r,)(6) Subject: RE: OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 *External Email - Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information* Same. -----Ori ginal MessageFrom :f~bX _61 _______ ~ Sent: Monda y, June 18, 2018 3:56 PM To }bX6l Cc : ~b,c61 I ~,)(6) k@QmaiI.com>; bJ(6J AV ?J\N PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000035 b)(6) Subject: RE: OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 Here too -----Original Mess age----..... x_~_______ _ ____ From: ~ Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:55 PM To : ~bX6> C cf bJ(6) _____. l ~b)(6) ~n,nnatl .com>; r,)(6) A ,AN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000036 I Subject: RE: OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 Same here. -----Original Message----From: bl(6l '----------------------Sent: Monda y, June 18, 2018 12:50 PM To : :=r1=c6= l ==============!...... Cc: . )(6) --------' ~---~ rb)( 6) ~,....,b)(,.,...G}-------,l@gm ail.com>; )(6) Subject: Re : OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 Same here. Please remove me as well. Kimberly A. Sanchez Chief, Narcotics and Violent Crime Unit Assistant U.S. Attorney A \11t ~I 11 I PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000037 U.S. Attorney's Office, EDCA 2500 Tulare Street Suite 4401 Fresno, CA 93721 (559)497-4038 , CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents and attachments, if any, may contain confidential, law enforcement sensitive, and privileged attorney-client communications, or attorney work product, and is not subject to disclosure. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) . Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete the email, any attachments, and all copies from your computer. On Jun 18 2018 at3 :48PM 6l HX bl(61 '--- --- -------- --- > wrote: ------' Same here. Please remove me from this list. From :._X_G_> ------------''--Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 11:51 AM To: flC6> 6l Cc: r,J< I -- ----' I b)(6) o I Arv A\J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000038 bl(6) Subject: Re: OSC File No. HA-18-1071; C.D. Cal. Case No. 13-02359 Good Morning: A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000039 I do not understand why I receiving this email. I am not your attorney and will not be involved in this litigation. I wish you the best. Sincerely, David E. Kenner, Esq. Kenner & Greenfield 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1212 Encino, CA. 91436 Tel. 818.995.1 l 95 I 6) ce i.fb)( Fax. 818.475.5369 Email.David @KennerGreenfield.com Web. KennerGreenfield.com< htt s ://na01.safelinks . roteetion .outlook .com/?url =htt % 3A%2F%2Fkenner eenfield .com%2F&data=0 1% 7C0 1% 7CCMullen%40wusa9 .com% 7C878211 a0d6eb44bf8ac508d5d5564597% 7Cccd8 a79b7268413b87897 lf8b6f4c0df% 7C0&sdata=w? 57db nU2hm0%2BVzdlA9P BoOxbw0f6 uXxX3Co7ufc %3D&reserved=0> On Jun 18, 201 8, at 11:21 AM,fX6) I ~b){G) "-J. rx I 61 6 --@gmail.co~m<_m_a_i_lt_o .,..r~- -- ~@gmail.com>> wrote: Attached is my response to your letter dated June 11, 2018, RE: the Hatch Act complaint I filed. This email serves as my formal request that your office intervene as a Plaintiff in the subject lawsuit pursuant to 5 U.S.C ? 1216(a)(2), and Rule 24(a)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, Please refer this matter to the Office of Acting Assistant Attorney General, John M. Gore, and Jim Felte, Acting Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section, for a sound exercise of each of their respective jurisdictions as they apply to this matter as well. Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. Public Administration Major Northern Arizona University A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000040 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=251F 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent: To: 7/29/2018 2:53:52 PM Lichter, Jennifer (OLP) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) / cn=Rec ipi ents/ en =6d 970a 3d9ff24ff484c9 365 leb 7 de07 d-Li chter, Je] Asma Uddin [asmauddin@gmail.com] CC: Subject: Re: Qs for panel - from Asma Great questions. I'll add them to the list. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Lichter, Jennifer (OLP) wrote: John, please see below for questions that Asma would like you to ask her tomorrow. need to touch base with her directly.) (I've copied her here in case you Jennie From: Asma Uddin Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 2:18 PM To: Lichter, Jennifer (OLP) Subject: Re: Logistics for Monday event Jennie, The moderator for the panel (is it John?) had asked that we share any questions we'd like him to ask us during the panel. I was hoping you can share these with him 1. Regarding the argument that Islam is not a religion and that Muslim don't deserve religious liberty, what are the implications for all American's religious freedom? 2. Can you tell us more about the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment and anti-Muslim hate crimes? 3. How does this prejudice manifest in land use cases? Thank you! Asma On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5: 17 PM, Lichter, Jennifer (OLP) wrote : Dear Panelists, Thanks again for agreeing to join us on Monday. As promised, this email contains some logistical information. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000042 First, you should enter our building through the Visitors Center, located at 950 Constitution Avenue, NW. You will need photo ID for admittance. Your name will be on the visitor list, and at that hour of the morning the process should be pretty efficient. Please give Eric's name when you're asked for a DOJ contact. Eric or I or someone else on our team will come down to meet you when you arrive and bring you up to breakfast. Second, I received your breakfast RSVPs via Eric - thank you. ' Third, as I said on the phone, the current plan for this panel is to meet in the back of the Great Hall (the registration table will be our landmark) at 11am. We will walk together to the holding area behind the stage. I will line you all back there and you'll enter the stage together at the appointed time. Please remember to exit the stage down the ramp - not back through the curtain - when your panel wraps. If our timeline gets thrown off-kilter we may need to shift our meeting time by a few minutes give or take; fortunately your panel is going to fall right after a I 0-minute break, so the bottom line is that when that break begins you should make your way back to the meeting spot. Fourth, could each of you please give me your cell phone number? Mine is below my signature; please feel free to call or text me on Monday morning if you have any trouble getting into the building, if your schedule changes, or if you have any questions. I'm looking forward to seeing all of you on Monday . Best, Jenni e Jennie Bradley Lichter Office of Legal Policy U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington , DC 20530 Office : (202) 514-4606 Cell : e6) I Jennifer .Lichter@usdoj.gov Asma T. Uddin A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000043 Founder and Editor-in-Chief From : Sent : To: CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) /CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB828/14/2018 9:41:29 AM Lance Walker [lwalker@ldschurch.org] JGORE] Marcus G. Faust [MarcusFaust@msn.com] RE: Contact Info Looking forward to it. See you then. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I P,l<&J Ri,JC6J jPusdoj.gov From: Lance Walker Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 9:27 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) 'fX6l J@crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Marcus G. Faust Subject: RE:Contact Info John - Confirming lunch today, noon, Hill Country BBQ. Lance From: Gore, John (CRT)f'X6l J?)usdoj.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 3:41 PM To: Lance Walker Subject: Re: Contact Info Looking forward to it. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Lance Walker wrote: Hill Country BBQ, Tuesday, Aug 14, 12:00. Confirmed. I just made a reservation in my name . See you there . From: Gore, John (CRT){bX6J ~usdoj.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 2:59 PM To: Lance Walker Subject: RE:Contact Info Sounds like a plan. I was suggesting somewhere close to A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT OOJsince the DOJeatery leaves something to be desired . DOJ-18-0618-B-000045 A good spot nearby is Hill Country BBQ: httbs:ljhillcountry.com/ If you're not BBQ fans, we can hit b DC Penn Quarter for a burger. Any preference? Either way, I suggest we meet at the restaurant so you don't have to hassle with DOJ security . John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artm ent of Justice From: Lance Walker Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:43 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)4'blC<,l l@crt.usdoi.gov > Subject: RE:Contact Info 8/14 it is. We'll plan on 12:00 unless you prefer otherwise . Are suggesting a DOJeatery, or something outside but close to DOJ (either is fine for us)? From: Gore, John (CRT)"4bX6l @usdoi.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 10:21 AM To: Lance Walker Subject: RE:Contact Info 8/14 sounds great. If you are willing to travel down here to DOJ,that would work best on my end. Do you have a preference on time? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fl{61 61 _l( ! ~usdoj .gov From: Lance Walker Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 5:03 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f' lC6l 1@crt.usdoi.gov> Subject: RE:Contact Info John, If 8/14 is still open, let's plan on that. Happy to accommodate a time that works for you and meet at the place of your choosing. Lance A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000046 From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 9:29 AM To: Lance Walker Subject: RE:Contact Info That would be great. As of now, I am available for lunch on 8/14 or 8/16. Either of those possibilities on your end? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice I ~)(6) ~ usdoj.gov From: Lance Walker Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 6:29 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)c John, Likewise. Great to meet you . We very much appreciate the DOJhaving a listening ear and for its attention on religious freedom. I welcome the chance to get better acquainted. Might you be able to join fl<6l !(one of the Church volunteers I mentioned) and I for lunch? Are you available anytime the week after next? Regards, Lance From: Gore, John (CRT)4b K6l t??usdoi.1wv> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:28 AM To: Lance Walker Subject: Contact Info lance : It was great to meet you today. Please feel free to reach out to me if I can be of assistance. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~o1(6) fbX61 1 m>usdo j.gov AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000047 From : Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl PlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397 89C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 8/2/2018 6:10:51 PM Jones, JohnM [JohnM.Jones@shelbycountytn.gov]; Rosenbaum, Steven (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Reci pients/cn=0719665796a54e739aa 7babcf29a3 3a3-srosen ba] Gayle, Winsome (CRT) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=Sef24 7c2187c435fae41a080c le8056f-wgayle]; Goema nn, Richard (CRT) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDL T)/cn=Recipients/cn=bf6702384ddb40d6b870cl 7c4cfba793-rgoemann]; Keller, Emily (CRT) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=26cd8e5344a04fb8b 78365f8975750b5-ekeller ]; Dunavant, Mike [Mike.Dunavant@shelbycountytn.gov]; Judge Paul Summers (paulsummers@jasonfoundation.com) [paulsummers@jasonfoundation.com]; Luttrell, Mark [Mark.Luttrell@shelbycountytn.gov]; Kennedy, Harvey [Harvey.Kennedy@shelbycountytn.gov]; Michael, Dan [Dan.Michael@shelbycountytn.gov]; Erguden, Garland [Garland.Erguden@shelbycountytn.gov]; Skelton, Pamela [Pamela.Skelton@shelbycountytn.gov]; Oldham, Bill [Bill.Oldham@shelby-sheriff.org]; Fessenden, Debra [Debra.Fessenden@shelby-sheriff.org]; Pascover, Kathryn [Kathryn.Pascover@shelbycountytn.gov] RE: Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County Shelby County Letter From AAG.pdf; DOJ Response Letter to Shelby County 08-02-18.docx.pdf Counsel: Please see the attached correspondence from the Department of Justice. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fb)(6) J~b _ l(6 _l - ~ Wusdoj.gov From: Jones, JohnM Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:55 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fbl(6l l@crt.usdoj.gov>; Rosenbaum, Steven (CRT)~bl( Cc: Gayle, Winsome (CRT) : Goem~n, Richard (CRT) 6 -cf1,X6l l@crt.usdoj.gov>; Keller, Emily (CRT) crt.usdoj .gov>; Dunavant, Mike l ; Judge Paul Summers (paulsummers@jasonfoundation.com) ; Luttrell, Mark ; Kennedy, Harvey ; Michael, Dan ; Erguden, Garland ; Skelton, Pamela ; Oldham, Bill ; Fessenden, Debra ; Pascover, Kathryn Subject: Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County =X Generals Gore and Rosenbaum: Please? S(Jeattached correspondence from Shelby County (TN) Attorney Kathryn Pascovcr and me. The enclosure will follow by separate email. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A \11[ II / I PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000048 John Marshall Jones Assistant County Attorney/ Litigation Team Supervisor Shelby County Government 160 North Main Street, Suite 950 Memphis, TN 38103 (901) 222-2126 (direct) johnm. jone~@.helbycounLytn.gov Confidentiality Notice: Both this email and any additional emails in this thread, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or an employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message(s) to the/ an intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email (thread) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the email from your computer. Thank you. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000049 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division IV?1shii1g1m1, D.C. 205.W AUGO2 2018 Kathryn W. Pascover Shelby County Attorney 160 North Main Street, Suite 950 Memphis, TN 38103 Dear Ms. Pascover: This letter responds to Shelby County's June 29, 2018 letter regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County ("Agreement"). In your letter, you requested that the Department of.Tustice tc1minate some specified provisions the Agreement, consider whether the parties could conclude that the entire Agreement should be terminated , and offered to meet to discuss the County's progress in achieving compliance with the Agreement as a ,vhole. or The Department and the Civil Rights Division thank Shelby County for all of the diligent and effective work it already has done to comply with the terms of the Agreement. We acknovvlcdgc that Shelby County has made signi Iicant and commendable progress in implementing the Agreement. Accordingly, by the separate attached letter, the Department is notifying you that it has terminated twenty provisions where the County, Juvenile Court, and She1iff's Office have obtained and maintained substantial compliance with the i\greement. These twenty provisions include fourteen provisions identified in your June 29 \etter and six additional provisions we identified through our ovvn compliance review and monitming. In total, we have terminaled 81 of the 131 provisions in the Agreement in recognition of Shelby Cmmty' s work in achieving and sustaining substantial compliance. The County's requests to terminate other provisions of the Agreement or to terminate all remaining provisions the Agreement remain under consideration. We agree that it would be mutually beneficial to meet with you and your clients to discuss Shelby County's progress under the remaining provisions o I' the Agreement and your requests to terminate some or all of those provisions. We are available to meet at our Washington, D.C. office during the third week of August. We recognize that you are ente1ing a period transition for some of the County's leadership, but believe that the meeting will be most productive if it includes at least some members or representatives of the incoming County administration. Once you decide who from the County will be attending , please coordinate arranging this meeting with Steve Rosenbaum, the Chief of the Special Litigation Section . or or AM HICA'\J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000050 -2- We appreciate the productive partnership that has been establish ed as the Department of Justice and the County have worked together to ensure the County's compliance with the Agreement. We remain committed to this joint effmt to bring the Agreement to a successful termination and look forward to discussing this with you further. Sincerely, -1~ ~!etri~ 7- i\cting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division AM HICA'\J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000051 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Liligalion Section -PHB SHR:WG:RG DJ 207-72-3 950 Penn.ry{vaniaAve, NW WashingtonDC 20530 August 2, 2018 Kathryn W. Pascover, Shelby County Attorney John Marshall Jones, Assistant County Attorney 160 North Main Street Suite 950 Memphis, TN 38103 Dear Ms. Pascover and Mr. Jones: This letter is in response to the request for partial termination of specific provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County ("Agreement"), in your letter, dated June 29, 2018. The request for full termination of the Agreement remains under consideration. By separate letter sent today, Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore has invited you and your clients to meet in Washington, D.C., at a mutually agreeable time to discuss a path to bringing the remainder of the Agreement to a fair, appropriate, and timely resolution. The Agreement provides that subsections of the Agreement may be terminated, separately and independently, when the County, Juvenile Court, and Sheriffs Office maintain substantial compliance with those subsections for a period of one year. Agreement 1 Vll.B.3. We recognize and appreciate Shelby County's continuing work toward sustained substantial compliance with the Agreement. Accordingly, we are pleased to agree with your requests to terminate the following 14 provisions: (1) Public Defender Office will have reasonable workloads and sufficient resources: . III.A.I(e)(i)(c) (2) Detention Facility shall analyze methods used by staff to control children who pose danger to self or others III.C.1(b) (3) Detention Facility shall promptly an.clthoroughly document incidents: III.C. I (c)(iv) l (4) Before resorting to physical force, detention center staff shall use and exhaust . iI hierarchy of pro-active, non-physical alternatives: III.C.1 (c)(v) (5) Detention Center staff shall document in Child's file? all attempts at non-physical alternatives to physical use of force; 111.C.1(c)(vi) (6) Sheriff's Office leadership will hold staff accountable for excessive and unpermitted uses of force: III.C.1 (c)(vii) AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000052 (7) Detention Center staff will ensure that children subject to physical force or . restraint are immediately evaluated by medical staff: III.C.l (c)(viii) (8) Require mandatory reporting of child abuse pursuant to Tennessee statute: III.C.1(c)(ix) (9) Prohibit routine use of isolation for children on suicide precautions and document any use of isolation authorized by QMHP: III .C.2.(e) ( 10) Juvenile Court will identify staffing needs to collect, evaluate and report DMC data: III.B.l.(c) ( 11) Juvenile Court staff will receive training on a variety of DMC-related topics: m.B.4;(a) (12) Juvenile Court's community outreach program shall require at least one open meeting every six months for the first three years of the agreement, and at least one meeting annually thereafter : IV.B (13) At community outreach meetings, Juvenile Court will include summaries of reports completed pursuant to this Agreement: IV.C will create a data dashboard communicating its compliance with (14) Juvenile Court the provisions of this Agreement that is available on a publicly accessible website: N.E In addition, our review identified other provisions, not included in your request for partial termination, where compliance has been successfully achieved and sustained for 12 months. We are therefore proceeding to terminate the following six subparagraphs: ( 1) The Juvenile Court will appoint juvenile defenders to represent youth at detention and probable cause hearings as soon as possible: III.AJ(e)(ii)(a) (2) Detention center policies and procedures shall require communication between direct care and mental health staff regarding children on suicide precautions: IILC.2.(a)(iii) (3) Detention center policies and procedures shall require suicid e risk assessments by ? a qualified mental ?health professional: III.C.2.(a)(iv) (4) Detention center policies and procedures shall require housing and supervision requirements for youth on suicide precautions, including minimal intervals of supervision and documentation: III.C.2(a)(v) (5) Detention center policies and procedures shull require annuaJ in-service training including mock suicide attempt drills and instruction in the use of emergency equipment: III.C.2.(a)(viii) (6) Detention center policies and procedures shall require regular assessments of the physical plant to address potential suicide risks: IIJ.C.2.(a)(x) - AMf HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000053 -3We commend Shelby County for its steady progress in achieving sustained substantial compliance, leading to termination of numerous Agreement provisions. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Winsome G. Gayle, Special Counsel, at 202-305-4164. Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief Special Litigation Section AM HICA'\J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000054 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: 8/24/2018 (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] 4:10:53 PM To: Kathleen C. Santora [kcs@nacua.org] Subject: RE: Question This is great. I'll see if I can get them added to the list. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fbX6) I ~1(6) k?)usdoj.gov From: Kathleen C.Santora Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:03 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)'fbl(6J Subject: Re: Question ~crt.usdoj.gov> John, a few suggestions for your consideration as possible additional invitees, all have some expertise/experience with free speech issues: 1) Lee Tyner (former GC at University of Mississippi, now GC at Texas Christian University) : lee.tyner@tcu.edu 2) Traevena Byrd (former GC at Towson University, now GC at American University): tbyrd@american.e.du 3) Tim Lynch (GC at University of Michigan): timlynch@um ich.edu 4) Jerry Blakemore (former GC at Northern Illinois University and Southern Illinois University, now GC at University of North Carolina-Greensboro): j blakem@uncg.edu 5) David Robinson (GC at University of California Berkeley): dmrobinson@berkeley.edu 6) Sandhya Iyer (former GC at Oberlin, now GC at Dartmouth) 7) Craig Alexander, Director of Legal Resources, NACUA: calexander@nacua.org Thanks so much for considering additional invitees. Let me know how I can be of assistance on this issue and any others . Kathleen Kathleen Curry Santora President & CEO NACUA fX On Aug 24, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 6 > l@usdoj.gov> wrote: Kathleen: Great to hear from you. I'm thrilled to hear that you can make it to the forum. We would definitely like to invite more interested people from the university community to attend. Will you send me a list of names and email addresses? I'll see if I can get them added to the list. Best, John A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000055 John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~)(6) fbJ

    Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:46 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)'fbX6l W!Jcrt.usd0j.gov> Subject: Question John -I hope you are doing well, you may recall we were together at some OCR/DOJ listening sessions on topics of interest to higher education lawyers last year. I was pleased to be invited to the attached forum and have responded that I will attend. I was wondering if any General Counsel at colleges and universities have been invited to attend and/or whether you may want to consider inviting a few. Our Director of Legal Resources who works on free speech issues would also welcome the change to attend. Just thought I would check and ask. Thanks and let me know if I (or NACUA members) can be of assistance. Kathleen Kathleen Curry Santora President & CEO NACUA Begin forwarded message: From: "Parker-Bissex, Rachel (OASG)" Date: August 24, 2018 at 1:08:43 PM EDT To: "Heitman, Tara (CRT)" { hX~l l@usdoj.gov> Subject: Invitation to the U.S. Department of Justice's Forum on Free Speech in Higher Education (Monday, Sept.17, 2018) Good afternoon, On behalf of the Acting Associate Attorney General, I write to invite you to the Department of Justice's Forum on Free Speech in Higher Education, which will be held on Monday, September 17, 2018. The Forum will bring together leading advocates of free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity to discuss the current state of free speech at America's colleges and universities. Questions to be examined include why free speech is essential to the mission of higher education, how institutions of higher education should handle protestors who seek to silence protected speech, and what role lawmakers and administrators can play in fostering free expression on campus. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000056 The event will feature remarks by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio. It will also feature a keynote address by Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School and Former President of the American Civil Liberties Union. The current draft of the agenda is attached. If you are interested in attending, please register at: https: // w\, "-?.c,?cnt.com/c /ex pr -ss/ lfda56 c-974f-4817-aac.13 -d369eac lbc5 by Wednesday, September 12, 2018. We will send out an email with additional logistics information closer to the event. If you have any questions, please let me or Tara Helfman know (fbK6> l@usdoj.g ,o). Thank you and we hope to see you on September 17. Rachel Rachel P. Bissex Chief of Staff and Counselor Office of the Associate Attorney General 202-514-0109 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000057 From: Sent: To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT)[/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVEGROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 8/26/2018 3:51:20 PM Burnham, James M. (CIV) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/ en=a0d4cd5cd0a a49ac854a 34cb 13c80ca8-Burn ham, Ja] Elwood, John Uelwood@velaw.com] Re: ADA? John: Nice to meet you. Yes, ADA is in the Civil Rights Division's domain. I am out of the office this week but am happy to connect soon at a mutually convenient time. John Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Burnham, James M. (CIV) )6(l @CIV.USDOJ.GOV>wrote: I think that would be civil rights, which is John Gore's domain. Adding him here . From: Elwood, John [mailto:je lwood@velaw.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 5:33 PM 6 To: Burnham, James M. (CIV) J l@CIV.USDOJ.GOV> Subject: ADA? fX James: Do you know who is the most sensible person who has some pull on ADA issues at DOJ? Wondering about the possibility of an amicus brief on the question whether the ADA applies to websites. Hope you're enjoying the waning days of summer. Many thanks! John P. Elwood Partner E lalwood@velaw.com W +1.202 .639.6518 F +1.202.879.8917 Vinson & Elkins LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suije 500 West Washington, DC 20037 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000058 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The infonnation in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e1nail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this e1nail from your system. Thank You. A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000059 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To: 9/6/2018 1:21:45 PM Kathleen C. Santora [kcs@nacua.org] Subject: Re: September 17 gathering Kathleen: Thanks for reaching out. I don't have control of the invitations for this event, so I don't update on Tim Lynch. I'll see what I can find out and let you know if I learn anything. have an Thanks. sent from my iPhone > on Sep 6, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Kathleen C. Santora wrote : > > John, sorry for nagging but I am assuming Tim Lynch, the GC at u of Michigan, is not receiving invitation? Thanks and looking forward to seeing you there. an > > Kathleen AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000060 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: 9/7/2018 7 :14:17 PM To: Angelo Amador [AAmador@restaurant.org] Subject: RE: Follow-up to July 31, 2018, meeting on ADA Website Accessibility Attachments : National Restaurant Association Letter.pdf From : Mr. Amador: Please see the attached correspondence . Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I rx6> 6 fbX > l@usdoj.gov From: Angelo Amador Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 1:55 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f'X6) pcrt .usdoj.gov> Subject: Follow-up to July 31, 2018, meeting on ADA Website Accessibility John, I put the package with the attachments in the mail today, but wanted you to have pdf copies of the briefs you guys filed in the 2014 and 2015 cases that your staff requested. Regards , Angelo Angelo I. Amador Executive Director - Restaurant Law Center Senior Vice IJresidcnt & Regulatory Counsel - National Restaurant Association 2055 L Street, NW I \ rashington, DC 20036 P: 202 -331-5913 I i\11:202 -492-5037 I email: aamador@ resta.urant. o rg R estaurant. o rg I o RAEF .erg STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended for the confidential use of the addressee('s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, or you have received this e-mail in error you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at mail@restaurant.org and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Arv n1 , \J VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000061 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Righls Division ~-. - .... ,: ... a ~ ill l o Wuslii11gtoJ1, D.C. 20530 SEPO7 2018 Angelo I. Amador Senior Vice President Legal Advocacy & Regulatory Counsel Restaurant LawCenter National Restaurant Association 2055 L Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 or Shannon L. Meade Vice President of Policy & Legal Advocacy ? Restaurant LawCenter National Restamant Association 2055 L Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Amador and Ms. Meade, This responds to your letter dated August 27, 2018, following up on the National Restaurant Association's July 31, 2018 listening session with Department of Justice (Department) staff regarding website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Thank you for sharing your views on this issue. We respectfully disagree with several of your characterizations of what Department stalT said during the listening session, including your characterizations of purported statements regarding the 2010 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the decision in Robles v. Domino's Pizza LLC, No. l 6-cv-06599-SJO-SPX, 2017 WL 1330216 (C.D. Cal. Mar, 20, 2017), or any other plan or position of the Depai1mcnt. We caution that your interpretation of comments made by Department staff should not be taken as a statement of the Department's policy or position with respect to website accessibility under the ADA or any other issue. As the Attorney General has made clear/ the Department will issue any significant interpretations or statements of policy only through the appropriate legal channels and processes. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000062 We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely , ~ fo(.;11-z_ Jolrn M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000063 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDI BO HF 23SP DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/ CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23B Sent : 9/13/2018 To: Eric Gregory [Eric@heftywiley.com] Subject : RE: King George Co., VA FAB82- JGORE] 3:53:54 PM ---~1- 6 Feel free to give me a call around 10 am atJ<1'~l_c _l Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice r6) bX6l --~ I ~usdoj. gov From: Eric Gregory Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 1:41 PM To: Gore, John (CRT){ b1(6> @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE: King George Co., VA Thank you, Mr. Gore. I can be available anytime tomorrow. Please let me know what is convenient for you. Thanks. Eric Eric A. Gregory Hefty Wiley & Gore, P.C. 100 West Franklin Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23220 Office: (804) 780-3143 Mobile: fb ...._>6(_l ____ __. E-mail: eric@heftywifey .com Web: www .heftywil ey.com 11l:FT'{ \!VI LLY & C.1C)RL P.C~. Arn )RNrY?-: A.T [A\V THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTSHERETOARE CONFIDENTIAL,NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION,AND MAY NOT BE RELEASEDUNDERTHE VIRGINIA FREEDOMOF INFORMATION ACT WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or protected legal information, communications protected by the attorney/client privilege, items or information protected by the attorney work product doctrine, information related to pending litigation or prepared in anticipation of litigation, and/or confidential settlement negotiations. The receipt of such information or items by any unauthorized person does not constitute a waiver of those privileges. From: Gore, John (CRT) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 1:07 PM To: Eric Gregory Subject: RE: King George Co., VA Mr. Gregory: Thanks for reaching out. Is there a convenient time tomorrow for you to talk? A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000064 Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice From: Eric Gregory Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 5:36. PM To: Gore, John (CRT)~b )(6J @crt.usdo j.gov> Subject: King George Co., VA Mr. Gore, I received your contact information via Peter Redpath and Dean Reuter. I serve as county attorney for King George County, Virginia, and I would like to speak with you concerning an ADA compliance matter and the case of U.S. v. Northern Illinois Special Recreation Association. I was contacted by Steven Gordon in your office but I would like to speak with you if you can give me a few minutes. If so, please let me know when and what number would be convenient or feel free to call me on either of my numbers below. I very much appreciate your time. Eric Eric A. Gregory Hefty Wiley & Gore, P.C. 100 West Franklin Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23220 Office: (804) 780-3143 I Mobile: 1(61 E-mail: eric@heftywiley.com Web: www. heftvw iley.com f } IL FTY V\/1LFY &_~C_;()Rr. P.(~. AT ["()RN I ??i 5 A I U\,,V THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTSHERETOARE CONFIDENTIAL,NOT FORREDISTRIBUTION,AND MAY NOT BE RELEASEDUNDERTHE VIRGINIA FREEDOMOF INFORMATION ACT WITHOUT PRIORWRITTENAUTHORIZATION. This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or protected legal information, communications protected by the attorney/client privilege, items or information protected by the attorney work product doctrine, information related to pending litigation or prepared in anticipation of litigation, and/or confidential settlement negotiations. The receipt of such information or items by any unauthorized person does not constitute a waiver of those privileges. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000065 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBOHF235P DLT) /CN =RECl PlENTS/CN =25 lF 1448 F52449629A39789C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent : To: 9/17/2018 9:07:16 PM Timothy Lynch [timlynch@umich.edu] CC: Heitman, Tara (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Subject: (FYDIBO HF235PDL T)/ cn=Rec ipie nts/ en= 7 4 ffe90e 30e 7 4a8 7 ad a4c0497912a4ac-thelf Re: Diversity ofThought Panel Administrative Group man] Tim: It was great meeting you today. The Office of Public Affairs has issued a corrected version of the statement: bttps://www .justice.gov/opa/speecb/attorney-genera l-sessions-delivers-remarks-administrations-continuedcommitment Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone On Sep 17, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Timothy Lynch wrote : Dear John and Tara, Thanks again for inviting me to attend today's forum. I would like to invite you both to come to Michigan to experience the diversity of thought that flourishes on our campus. To that end, I'd love to host you at a panel discussion I've organized in October. The information about the program is below . On a different note, it was disappointing to see the statement DOJ released today: "Within days of our statement of interest, I am pleased to say, the University [of Michigan] changed several of its speech policies." Michigan did not change its policies days after the Statement of Interest. This isn't a matter of interpretation; it's fact. In honor of Constitution Day, and out of respect for the search for truth, it sure would be nice if you would correct the record. Respectfully, and very best wishes, Tim Sent from my iPhone. A \tit m.,f I\J PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000066 Timothy G. Lynch Vice President and General Counsel University of Michigan 5010 Fleming Administration Building 503 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340 (734) 764-0305 timl ynch@umi ch.edu http://www.ogc.umich.edu/ ** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE** The contents of this message and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. Please do not share their contents without the permission of the author. If you believe this message has been received in error, please inform the sender and then delete the message. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable legal privilege. Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Lynch Date: September 11, 2018 at 1:27:55 PM EDT Subject: Diversity of Thought Panel I would like to invite you to attend a panel discussion on October 11, 2018, entitled "Diversity of Thought and Respecting the Other Side of the Argument: Insights from the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General.''? The panelists will include : Paul D. Clement Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, and Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law Center Solicitor General, 2005-08 Acting Solicitor General, 2004-05 Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 2001-04 Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Solicitor General, 1985-89 A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000067 Gregory G. Garre Partner and Chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group, Latham & Watkins Solicitor General, 2008-09 Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 2005-08 Assistant to the Solicitor General, 2000-04 Ian H. Gershengom Partner and Chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group, Jenner & Block Acting Solicitor General, 2016-17 Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 2013-16 Nicole A. Saharsky Partner and Co-Chair of the Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, Gibson Dunn Assistant to the Solicitor General, 2007-17 Professor Julian Davis Mortenson, University of Michigan Law School (Moderator) The program will take place from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Room 100 of the Law School. There will be a reception following the event at the Lawyers Club Lounge. Tim Timothy G. Lynch Vice President and General Counsel University of Michigan 5010 Fleming Administration Building 503 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340 (734) 764-0305 ti m,lynch@llmich.edu http://www.ogc.umich.edu/ ** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE** The contents of this message and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. Please do not share their contents without the permission of the author. If you believe this message has been received in error, please inform the sender and then delete the message. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable legal privilege. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000068 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A39789C23BFAB82-JGORE] 9/20/2018 4:15:13 PM Kathleen C. Santora [kcs@nacua.org] Timothy Lynch [timlynch@umich.edu]; tbyrd@american.edu; David Robinson [dmrobinson@berkeley.edu]; Lee [LEE.TYNER@tcu.edu]; Craig Alexander [caa@nacua.org] RE: Thank you From : Sent : To : CC: Subject: Tyner, Kathleen : Thanks to you and everyone else for joining us for the forum. Your participation contributed to a constructive and outstanding event. We would be thrilled to engage in further discussions about issues of common interest and concern. Please let me know how the Civil Rights Division can be of assistance to you. Best, John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artm ent of Justice ____ _, usdoj.gov From: Kathleen C. Santora Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:23 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Timothy Lynch ; tbyrd@american.edu; David Robinson ; Tyner, Lee ;Craig Alexander Subject:Thank you JohnThank you so much for including my colleagues (Tim Lynch, University of Michigan; Lee Tyner, TCU; Traevena Byrd, American University; and David Robinson, UC Berkeley; Craig Alexander, NACUA's Director of Legal Resources) and me in the DOJ free speech forum on Monday; thanks also for including Lee Tyner on the panel you moderated. I was pleased to hear that you may be interested in attending the October 11 University of Michigan panel discussion Tim Lynch invited you to attend if you are able. I also want to reiterate our desire to have constructive conversation with you about issues of common interest and concern. Please let me know how members of the higher education community might be of assistance as a resource and/or source of additional information. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000069 Kathleen Kathleen Curry Santora President & CEO NACUA A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000070 Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 9/25/2018 4:53:47 PM Ma'ayan Anafi [manafi@transequality.org]; Simons, Shaheena (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recipi ents/cn=edc88af4ce3842acac0c9d36322a43d9-ssi mons]; Livingston, Donald (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=2a46f169ab954de9a4d04a0a700d72b8-dlivings]; Pellegrino, Whitney (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Reci pie nts/ en=416 7 lcee8e8a4de48caa09 360f 444a33-wpe Ilegr] Harper Jean Tobin [hjtobin@transequality.org]; Brenda Barron [brenda.barron@glsen.org]; Sasha Buchert [sbuchert@lambdalegal.org]; Jennifer Pike Bailey uennifer.bailey@hrc.org]; sarah.warbelow@hrc.org RE: Follow-up on meeting with LGBT Civil Rights Groups From : Sent: To : CC: Subject : All : Thank you for sharing these additional resources and for following up on some of the questions that came up during our meeting. We likewise appreciated the opportunity to hear from your organizations about the challenges facing transgender students. Regarding your requests for information, as I'm sure you can understand, the Division does not publicly release information about pending investigations. Court-filed complaints and resolution agreements involving sex-based discrimination are publicly available on our website, which is continually updated. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me in person, for sharing your views, and for preparing the helpful memo in advance of our meeting. John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I fb){6) ft'l( 6> ~ usdoj.gov From: Ma'ayan Anafi Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:32 PM 61 To: Gore, John (CRT) )(6) crt.usdoj.gov>; Simons, Shaheena (CRT); Livingston, Donald {CRT bJ(61 crt.usdoj.gov>; Pellegrino, Whitney (CRf) 6 ~@crt.usdoj.gov> ) .fl'1C Cc: Harper Jean Tobin ; Brenda Barron ; Sasha Buchert ; Jennifer Pike Bailey ; sarah.warbelow@hrc.org Subject: Follow-up on meeting with LGBTCivil Rights Groups Hello all, On behalf of the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and GLSEN,I'd like to thank you for taking the time to meet with us on September 4. We'd like to follow up with a few follow-up questions, as well as some resources you may find helpful. During our discussion, you stated that the Department's complaint procedures have not changed and that you continue to process and investigate complaints of discrimination from LGBTstudents, as well as from LGBTpeople facing other forms of discrimination. Can you confirm: AVlt m.,f I\J PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000071 o whether the Department has opened investigations, and how many, involving discrimination against LGBTQ students since the beginning of 2017? o whether the Department has made finding or resolutions, or taken other actions favorable to LGBTQstudents in such cases, and how many, during that time? o whether the Department has opened investigations, and how many, involving discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, or any other area.since the beginning of 20177 o whether the Department has made finding or resolutions, or taken other actions favorable to LGBTQindividuals in such cases, and how many, during that time? We would appreciate a prompt response on these questions so that we can accurately convey the Department's position to our constituents. We've also included a few resources related to topics we discussed: o We encourage you to read the executive summary of the Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, a national study of nearly 28,000 transgender people, available here. The full report, as well as reports broken out by state and for specific groups of respondents, is available at http:ljwww .ustranssurvey.org/reports . More than three-quarters (77%) of those who were out or perceived as transgender K-12 experienced some form of mistreatment, such as being verbally harassed, prohibited from dressing according to their gender identity, disciplined more harshly, or physically or sexually assaulted because people thought they were transgender. o You had some questions about data comparing experiences of bullying among transgender and ci_sgenderyouth. While federal data specifically on transgender youth hasn't been collected on that topic, federal surveys indicate that youth who do not conform to gender stereotypes-including, but not limited to, transgender youth-are more likely to face bullying than those who report being perceived as gender conforming. For example, the Youth Risk Behavior S.urveillanceSystem (YRBSS)found that young people who did not conform to gender stereotypes were more likely to face bullying and harassment at school than other youth: boys who reported that they were perceived as feminine or androgynous were twice as likely as boys who reported being perceived as masculine to have been bullied on school property, and girls who reported being perceived as androgynous were nearly one-and-a-half times more likely than feminine girls to have been bullied at school. o You also asked about data regarding disparate discipline of transgender students compared to non-transgender students. While we don't have specific data comparing the two populations, we know from the U.S.Transgender Survey that transgender students are frequently singled out for discipline simply based on their transgender status: out of those who were out or perceived as transgender in K-12, one in five reported being disciplined specifically for reasons related to their transgender status, with higher rates among respondents of color and respondents with disabilities-including, for example, 40% among Native American respondents. Additionally, GLSEN'sFrom Teasing to Torment: School Climate Revisited provides data comparing LGBTQstudents generally to non-LGBTQ students and found that almost two thirds (62.8%) of LGBTQstudents experienced some form of school discipline (e.g. detention, suspension) compared to 45.8% of non-LGBTQ students. Additional research on disparate discipline of LGBTQstudents can be found here and here. Thank you again for meeting with us, and we look forward to hearing from you soon. Ma'ayan Anafi Policy Counsel National Center for Transgender Equality A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000072 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) /CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449 629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] 1:29:25 PM Sent: 10/6/2018 To: Andy Bardos [Andy.Bardos@gray-robinson.com] Subject: Re: U.S. v. Florida Andy: Great meeting you as well! Congratulations on two strong arguments. Let me know if you ever make it to DC. Best, John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2018, at 10: 12 AM, Andy Bardos wrote: John, It was great to finally meet you this week! I hope you will say hello if you are ever in Tallahassee. Andy Sent from my iPhone I Shareholder I ROBINSON Andy Bardos GRAY 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 I Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T: 850-577-9090 I F: 850-577-3311 I D: 850-577-6959 E-mail I Website I Bio I vCard Facebook I Linkedln ITwitter This e-mail is intended only for the inclividual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally privilege? and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message without reading same. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000073 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent: 10/11/2018 To: Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject: RE: Thursday 3:28:57 PM I should free up around 6 and could do b DC Penn Quarter then if that works for you. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I r,)(6) k._b l_(6_J _ ___. lg)usdoj. gov From: Schultz, James D. Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:16 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) 6) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE:Thursday f>X I have a 2:30 a 3 and a 4 in my office -which is at 19th and M. Can you do after your 530? James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen .com O'Connor I Philadelphia, PA 19103 From: Gore, John (CRT)41,1(61 l;llusdoi.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 12:48 PM To: Schultz, J~mes D. Subject: Re: Thursday Unfortunately I just had something else scheduled at 5:30. Are you still free at 3:30 or some other time? Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 11, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote : Let's plan on 5 at b DC Penn Quarter, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~b)(6) I ~X6l t@usdoj.gov A\IH '{ICJ\N PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000074 From: Schultz, James D. Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 12:12 AM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Re: Thursday 330 or 5? fimageOO 1.j pg>I James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 IPhi lade!phia, PA 19 103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com On Oct 10, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote: Yes. What time(s) work for you? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Schultz, James D.< JDSc hultz@cozen.com > wrote : Do you have time for coffee during the day or a beer after work? James D. Schultz fb)(6) fbl(6J @gmai l.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s ). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclp/ent(s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000075 of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient{s} is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain Information that ls confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reclpient{s} is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000076 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: (FYDIBO HF235P DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- JGORE] 10/18/2018 11:12:51 AM To: Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn =55aba202588a468c81d55a3e66e8 b6 7b-rmoossy ]; Lieberman, Mi cha el [MLieberman@adl.org] CC: Moritsugu, Erika [emoritsugu@adl.org] Subject: RE: ADL statement on success in Victoria Islamic Center hate crime prosecution Yes, many thanks for this statement. Look forward to seeing you soon. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ll[~) _)(6_i __ l .....~usdoJ_. gov From: Moossy, Robert (CRT) Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:46 AM To: Lieberman, Michael ; Gore, John (CRT)fbl(6l ~crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Moritsugu, Erika Subject: RE:AOL statement on success in Victoria Islamic Center hate crime prosecution Michael, thanks to you and AOL for your partnership. Robert From: Lieberman, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:40 AM 6 To: Gore, John (CRT) f X l @crt.usdoj.gov>; Moossy, Robert (CRT) ______ ~crt.usdo j.gov> __, Subject: AOL statement on success in Victoria Islamic Center hate crime prosecution John and Robert, I hope you are both well. Congratulations of the successful conclusion of the Victoria Islamic Center hate crime prosecution. I wanted to make sure you saw that our Houston office hailed the good work and successful outcome: https:f/houston.adl.org/news/adl-applauds-sentence-in-victoria-texas-mosgue-burning-case/ And the Houston Chronicle picked up part of our statement, too: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/articleNictoria-man-qets-24-years-in-federal-prison-for13316020.php?ipid=hpctp Michael Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000077 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW - 1020 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 261-4607 mlieberman@adl.org @ADLWashCounsel www.adl.org A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000078 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 10/23/2018 12:17:15 PM Harper Jean Tobin [hjtobin@transequality.org]; Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=3357151aa2264132a14b7c4271fce3bb-_MB_OAAG]; Dreiband, Eric (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group Sent: To: ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Reci p ients/ en =05a6d7 a86eb b4d 689e 752f7 4e lc5ba6a-edrei ban] Brenda Barron [brenda.barron@glsen.org]; Sasha Buchert [sbuchert@lambdalegal.org]; Jennifer Pike Bailey uennifer.bailey@hrc.org]; sarah.warbelow@hrc.org; Ma'ayan Anafi [manafi@transequality.org]; Pellegrino, Whitney (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group CC: (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn =41671cee8e8a4de48caa09360f444a33-wpel legr ]; Livingston, Dona Id ( CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=2a46f169ab954de9a4d04a0a700d72b8-dlivings]; Simons, Shaheena (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group ( FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Rec ip ie nts/ en =edc88af4ce3842a cac0c9d 36322 a43d9-ssi mons] ?b lC6l l@usd oj. gov RE: Meeting with LGBT civil rights groups Subject: Harper Jean: Thanks for reaching out. Eric Dreiband has not yet started at the Department. request once he does. I will make sure that he receives this John John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice h)(6 ) .... .h_l<" _ol_ _ _.,.. usdoj.gov From: Harper Jean Tobin -Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 7:26 PM To: Office of the Assistant Attorney General (CRT); Dreiband, Eric (CRT) 6 ) Cc: Brenda Barron ; Sasha Buchert ; Jennifer Pike Bailey ; sarah.warbelow@hrc.org; Ma'ayan Anafi ; Pellegrino, Whitney crt.usdoj.gov>; Livingston, Donald (CRT)f> X6l @crt.usdoj.gov>; Simons, (CRT) bX6l Shaheena (CRT) b 6) crt.usdoj.gov>; ~bJ(6l fg>usdoj.gov;Gore, John (CRT) f"l(6J e>crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Meeting with LGBTcivil rights groups Dear Assistant Attorney General Dreiband, In light of your recent confirmation, and in light of yesterday's article from the New York Times entitled, "'T ransgender' Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration." we'd like to request a meeting with CRTstaff to discuss the interpretation of civil rights laws with respect to LGBTstudents. As I am sure you are aware by now, the developments reported by the Times have inspired fear and anger among transgender people and their loved ones across the country and ignited a firestorm of controversy. It has also spurred quick responses from the entire civil right s commun ity and many leading health, education, and antiviolen ce organizations. AV, PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000079 As the newly-confirmed leader of the "crown jewel" of the Justice Department and the agency charged with coordinating civil rights efforts across the government, we wish to discuss with you both the legal implications and the real-world dangers of an approach like that discussed in the article. Please let us know the earliest dates and times you are available for a meeting, and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Harper Jean Tobin, JD, MSSA{MSW) Director of Policy National Center for Transgender Equality 1133 19th Street NW, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 804-6047 hjtobin@transeguality.org A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000080 From: Gore, John {CRT) 1/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent : To : 10/26/2018 7 :22 :26 PM Disler, Mark [Mark .Disler@prime-policy.com] Subject : Re: Websites Mark: I don't know when Eric will be sworn in. John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Disler, Mark wrote : Hi John: I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to touch base; our client, the National Restaurant Association {NRA), and I understand other trade associations representing Main Street-type businesses, remain deeply concerned about the ADA issue we spoke to you about during the summer. Respectfully, we feel a strong need to continue to seek a much more definitive expression of the Administration's view of what constitutes a website's compliance with the ADA, where the ADA is found to apply, than we have received to date . I wanted to let you know that we are continuing to approach the Administration and engage with Members of Congress who share our concern . Can you tell me when Eric is expected to be sworn in? My client would like to come back in and meet with him, and I wanted to give you a head's up on that. I have only met him once, at a Princeton Football Association event in DC. He played the game, I was a spectator. All the best, Mark P.S. I met Don McGahn last evening at a Heritage event for my former boss, Orrin Hatch. He cracked a tiny smile at my mention of Carvin's name. Mark Disler Managing Director I Suite 1000 I Washington, DC 20005 1110 Vermont Avenue, tfo/11 202 530 4806 I WWW.prime -policy .com A WPP Group Company: www.wpp .com The information, and any attachments contained in this email may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the intended named recipient(sj Any disclosure or dissemination in whatever form. by another other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message and any attachments . Thank you. AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000081 From: Sent : To: CC: Subject: bl(6) crt.usdoj.gov ~fx_<,_J -~ ~ crt.usdoj.gov] 10 29 2018 10:21:37 AM Diament, Nathan [ndiament@ou.org] Sarah E. Makin fb)(Gl l@ovp.eop.gov]; Treene, Eric (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=67544e8b949340758739bee0ff654f75-etreene]; Amanda Robbins fbX&> ~ wh o.eop.gov] Re: Can you assist us w/ FBI contact I've elevated this within the FBI. They should be in touch. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote : Still waiting ..... . On Oct 29, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Gore, John (CRT) l (R) usdoj.gov> wrote: Nathan: Our FBI contact just sent a follow-up to the FBI Office of Partner Engagement. Please keep me informed if you continue not to hear from them. John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote : I'm sorry to bother you - but I haven't heard anything from the FBI. We'd like to hold this briefing ASAP. Can you please assist? On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Gore, John (CRT) fiXlil 0us doj .gov> wrote : Nathan: First things first: all of our hearts, thoughts, and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the entire Jewish community affected by yesterday's tragic and senseless hate crime attack. I sent your email to our contact in the FBI, who in turn sent it to the FBI Office of Partner Engagement. I understand that you may hear directly from that office, which is engaging in outreach and informational efforts among the Jewish community. I'll let you know if I learn more. John Sent from my iPhone A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000082 On Oct 28, 2018, at 11 :07 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote: Friends Our organization would like to put together a conference call briefing - tomorrow or Tuesday - for all our member synagogues to brief them on what steps they should be taking in the wake of Pittsburgh to review their security procedures etc. Can you please help me contact an appropriate person at the FBI who could provide such a briefing for us? Thank you, Nathan Nathan J. Diament .: Exec. Dir. for Public Policy - Orthodox Union A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000083 From: Sent : To: CC: Subject : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251Fl44BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] 10/28/2018 12:35:34 PM Dreiband, Eric [esdreiband@JonesDay.com] Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn =Sf4eb 7ccf845466099f9844ba4bc13ad-ktoomey ]; Wong, Gary (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recip ients/cn =42517a6736194389a2c90c 11857a435b-gwong]; Roper, Linda (JMD) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=7a62567f97b5442492a03af4a7blef15-lroper]; Assefi, Omeed (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Rec ipie nts/ en =bd df6ad b600149c 786842c0986fea8c 1-oassefi] Re: update Thanks, Eric. You're in great hands with this team. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Dreiband, Eric wrote: Thanks Kathy. I spoke with Omeed and he said that he will schedule a call for 10:00 a.m. on Monday. John, I understand that you are unavailable tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Good luck with the conference. I look forward to joining everyone copied here at the Justice Department. Regards, Eric From: Toomey, Kathleen (CRT) Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 5:00 PM To: Dreiband, Eric 6 6l Cc: Wong, Gary (CRT) [@usdoj.gov>; Gore, John (CRT)fL.,__x _> __ 6l @usdoj.gov > Subject: Fwd: update 4hX 4bX _J~~u'""'s""'"d"""o .... j.g.._o "-v>; Roper, Linda (JMD) Hi, Eric, Gary passed your message on to me. We're really looking forward to your arrival. I had understood from John that you were starting work on Monday, November 5. If that's correct, we can move forward with making all of the arrangements. Is there a convenient time on Monday morning for us to talk by phone? If so, I think that we can iron out all of the details then. I think that John will probably join our call. Since he's been out today for his deposition, I haven't had a chance to speak with him. John, Linda Roper and Gary Wong are all CC'd here for awareness. Best, Kathy A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000084 From: "Dreiband, Eric" Date: October 26, 2018 at 3:15:12 PM EDT To: "Roper, Linda (JMD) @,XoJ k@usdoj.gov)" 4 b)(6l ,{bl(6l @usdoi.gov> c__ ___ ke)usdoj.gov>, "Wong, Gary (CRT)" _,___ __ _ Subject: update Linda and Gary, Do you have any update about my start date and swearing in? My last day at my firm is on Monday, and I believe that Linda was tracking down my commission. I would like to be sworn in by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William Bauer on Tuesday in Chicago if possible and I will be in my current office for part of Monday. I can al so start later in the week if necessary. Thanks, Eric Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONESDAY(R)- One Ffrm Worldwide'M 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Office +1.202.879.3720 esdreiband@jonesday .com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000085 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: Subject: 10/30/2018 5:07:22 PM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Re: Call 11? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Schultz, James D.< J0Schultz@cozen.com > wrote : Yes. Tell me when. James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Libertv Place. 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia . PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com f~ -- On Oct 30, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 0 4 ~__i ~~usdoi .gov> wrote: Thanks. Are you available for a call on Thursday morning? John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice frx~) ;;Joj.gov From: Schultz, James D. Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:15 PM 61 To: Gore, John (CRT) l@crt.usdoj.gov> ! I Cozen One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com O'Connor I Philadelphia, PA 19103 f Xl 6 From: Gore, John (CRT) ~usdoj.gov > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:11 PM To: Schultz, James D. Subject: Re: Call A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000086 Unfortunately I'm jammed up with the Pittsburgh case and an event and traveling tomorrow and Wednesday. I can talk later in the week. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Schultz, James D. wrote : John - can we do a quick call after 6. James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory kimageOOl.jpg>I I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street ?suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confident/al and protected by the attorney /client or other ptlv/leges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reclplent{s} Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain information that is conlldential and protected by the attorney /cllent or other priv11eges. It constitutes non-public Information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s} Is not a waiver of any attorney /client or other prlvllege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is conlldentlal and protected by the attorney /cllent or other pr/vlleges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended rec/plent{s} Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege, A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000087 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBO HF235 PDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 Sent: To: 10/29/2018 6:39:43 PM Diament, Nathan [ndiament@ou.org] CC: Treene, Eric (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative BFAB82- JGORE] Group (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT) / cn=Reci pie nts/ en =67544e8 b949 340758 7 39bee0ff654f75-etree Subject: n e] RE: Nathan: Happy to help and thanks for the heads-up. Coincidentally, today was the first day of a two-day roundtable on improving the identification and reporting of hate ? crimes that the Department is hosting for state and local law enforcement and other stakeholders from around the country. The Department made several announcements about new hate crimes resources that you might want to read more about: https:ljwww.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases new-hate -update-hate-crimes-prosecutions-and-announces-launch- https:ljwww.justice.gov/opa/pr/deputy-attorney-general-rosenstein-announces-funds-and-technical-assistanceresources-help _ Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I also spoke: https:llwww.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-remarks-law-enforcementroundtable https:ljwww.justice.gov/crt/speech/remarks-acting-assistant-attorney-general-john-gore-department-justice-s-lawenforcement John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice b)(6J usdoj.gov From: Diament, Nathan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:34 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)f> X6l ~crt .usdoj.gov> Cc: Treene, Eric (CRT)4b1(6) @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Re: John, Thanks for your help. We've connected and will have an FBI official on our call tomorrow . FYI - see email below I've sent to White House - if they agree we will definitely want to have a DOJ component... A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000088 From: Diament, Nathan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:l0 ~AM __ _ __ ~ To: Robbins , Amanda H. EOP/WHO ; Makin, Sarah E. EOP/OVP X Cc: Harmer, Miriam Subject: [EXTERNAL] Possible community meeting w/ White House? Amanda and Sarah: Greetings from the holy land. As we continue to work through critical steps to take in the aftermath of the synagogue attack, we have been thinking about whether it makes sense to bring a delegation of Jewish leaders to DC for meetings with senior administration officials to discuss practical next steps .... We would invite leaders of the other denominational and national organizations and key synagogue and school leaders. I imagine we might meet with White House Homeland security staff as well as key people from DOJ FBI and DHS We'd aim to do this at the end of this week or early next week. What do you think ? Nathan On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Gore, John (CRT) { bX6l @usdoi .gov> wrote: I've elevated this within the FBI. They should be in touch. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote: Still waiting ..... . On Oct 29, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 1bX6J @ usdoj.gov> wrote: Nathan: Our FBI contact just sent a follow-up to the FBI Office of Partner Engagement. Please keep me informed if you continue not to hear from them. John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote : I'm sorry to bother you - but I haven't heard anything from the FBI. We'd like to hold this briefing ASAP. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000089 Can you please assist? On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:27 PM, Gore, John (CRT) 6J__ f'~K_ ~@ usdoj.gov> wrote: Nathan: First things first: all of our hearts, thoughts, and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the entire Jewish community affected by yesterday's tragic and senseless hate crime attack. I sent your email to our contact in the FBI, who in turn sent it to the FBI Office of Partner Engagement. I understand that you may hear directly from that office, which is engaging in outreach and informational efforts among the Jewish community. I'll let you know if I learn more. John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Diament, Nathan wrote : Friends Our organization would like to put together a conference call briefing - tomorrow or Tuesday - for all our member synagogues to brief them on what steps they should be taking in the wake of Pittsburgh to review their security procedures etc. Can you please help me contact an appropriate person at the FBI who could provide such a briefing for us? Thank you, Nathan Nathan J. Diament Exec. Dir. for Public Policy - Orthodox Union A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000090 From : Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF235P DLT)/CN =REClPl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 10/31/2018 9:49:13 PM Driscoll, Robert [rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] RE:USCCR Recent CRT Achievements.docx I threw this together from a few sources. Let me know if you need more. Thanks. John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Departm ent of Justice I fb)(6) f..... ~X_6_> __ _.fusdoj.gov From: Driscoll, Robert Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:16 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)flC 6l pcrt.usdoj.gov> Subject: USCCR I'm testifying Friday-you academics? guys got a greatest hits/ stats doc so I can push back against the "turn out the lights" Robert Neil Driscoll direct: fax: email: office: ? (202) 802-9950 (202) 403-3870 rdrlscolt@mcg llnchey.rom 1275 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW, Suite 420 I Washington,DC 20004 McuNCHEY bio I vcard STAFFORD(R) I www.mcglinchey.com I www.cafalawbtog.com Alabama California Florida Louisiana Mississippi ~Jew York Ohio Tennessee Texas Washington. DC www.mcglinchey .oom I www.cafaLawBlog.com McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington DC and McGlinchey Stafford, LLP in California . Confidentiality Statement: This email may contain attorney-client privileged or confidential information. It is for the sole use of the intended recipienl(s) . If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us by telephone at 504-586-1200 and return the original message to us at McGlinchey Stafford, 12th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, ~,ew Orleans. LA, 70130 via the United States Postal Service . We take steps to remove metadata in attachments sent by email, and any remaining metadata should be presumed inadvertent and should not be viewed or used without our express permission . If you receive an attachment containing metadata, please notify the sender immediately and a replacement will be provided . See McGlinchey Stafford Disclaimer/Privacy Policy https://www.mcgllnchey.com/dlsclalmer/ A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000091 RECENT CRT ACHIEVEMENTS I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN HOUSING INITIATIVE AND RECORD-SETTING ENFORCEMENT ?(https ://www. justice. gov/crt/sexual-harassment-housi .ng-initiative) The Fair Housing Act prohibits sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, and others in positions of authority over tenants and residents. The overwhelming majority of the victims of this illegal harassment are vulnerable women who live near the poverty line, many of whom have been victims of sexual crimes in the past. Starting in 2017, CRT established the Sexual Harassment In Housing Initiative to combat this illegal harassment across the country. In 2018, CRT took the Initiative nationwide through the launch of a new website and a national public service announcement featuring three brave victims who volunteered to share their stories and to encourage other victims to come forward. The Initiative is an enormous success: in Fiscal Year 2018, CRT set a record by filing the largest number of sexual harassment cases ever in a single year in the Division's history, and shattered the previous record by increasing the number of open sexual harassment investigations by nearly 500% in one year. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reports-majorincreases-victim-reporting-and-number-lawsuits-filed-one) II. PROTECTING U.S. WORKERS FROM UNLAWFUL FOREIGN WORKERS (https://www .iustice.gov/opa/pr/j ustice-department-announces-fourth-settlementprotecting-us-workers-discrimination) The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits employers engaged in hiring from discriminating against available, qualified U.S. workers in favor of foreign visa workers. In 2017, CRT launched the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative to enforce this important provision. That Initiative has resulted in dozens of investigations of companies that may be illegally favoring foreign workers over U.S. workers, four settlements with such companies, and recovery of more than $300,000 in back pay for affected U.S. workers. III. PLACE TO WORSHIP INITIATIVE AND UPHOLDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (www.justice .gov/place-worsh:ip -initiative) CRT has engaged in critical efforts to uphold the first freedom that the Founding Fathers enshrined in the First Amendment: the freedom of religion. In 2018, CRT launched the Place to Worship Initiative to reinvigorate the Division's enforcement of the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIP A), which protects religious groups from discriminatory or unduly burdensome application of state or local land use laws. On June 30, 2018, CRT filed the first RLUIPA lawsuit under the Initiative on behalf of an Orthodox Jewish community. CRT has also: 1. Drafted and signed 5 amicus briefs in RLUIP A cases involving religious groups of all faiths, including a Catholic church and a Hindu temple; [ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT] A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000092 2. Drafted and signed an amicus brief on behalf of Montana parents who wanted to choose a religious school for their kids and a separate amicus brief on behalf of a street preacher who had been unconstitutionally excluded from a college campus; 3. Contributed to and signed the Department's amicus brief supporting the Archdiocese of Washington's right to advertise on public subway trains . IV. COMBATING UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPUS Throughout 2017 and 2018, CRT fought for students' First Amendment rights by drafting and signing four statements of interest in cases challenging unconstitutional speech restrictions on campus. In all four cases, either the court adopted the position taken in the statements of interest or the college changed its policy. The Acting AAG also gave a speech at the Department's widely praised Forum On Free Speech In Higher Education in September 2018: https://www.justice.gov/ opa/speech/acting-assistant-attorney-general-jolrn-gore-delivers- remar s-?ustice-de artment-s-forum. V. FIGHTING FOR SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS Since January 2017, the Division brought and won several cases to protect the rights of servicemembers and veterans in four main areas: employment under the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; housing and credit under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act; voting under the Uniformed and Overseas Voter Absentee Voter Act; and disability access under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department also has returned to the Civil Rights Division the Department's Servicemember and Veterans Initiative, which informs servicemembers and veterans of their legal rights and identifies cases for investigation and enforcement (https://www .justice .gov/serv icemembers ). VI. ENDING THE VESTIGES OF SEGREGATION The United States remains a party to scores of judicial decrees requiring school districts around the country to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. Many of these decrees are more than 50 years old. Since 2017, the Division successfully closed out 11 such decrees, returning those school districts to local control and ending more than 600 years of litigation. VII. COMBATING HATE CRIMES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING In 2017, the Attorney General created a Hate Crimes Subcommittee on his Task Force On Crime Reduction And Public Safety. In 2018, the Department transformed the Subcommittee into a freestanding Hate Crimes Prevention And Enforcement Initiative led by the Civil Rights Division. That Initiative is coordinating the Department's hate crimes enforcement efforts, working to improve hate crime data collection, and partnering with state and local law enforcement to achieve the common goal of eradicating hate crimes from our communities and out country. On October 29-30, 2018, the Department hosted a Law Enforcement Roundtable On Improving The Identification And Reporting Of Hate Crimes, which brought together federal, [ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT] A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000093 I state, and local law enforcement leaders and other stakeholders to generate ideas for actionable steps to improve law enforcement prevention of and response to hate crimes. During the Roundtable, the Department announced a new comprehensive hate crimes website, new grant funding, and technical assistance to help law enforcement at all levels investigate and prosecute hate crimes: https ://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/ deputy-attorney-general-rosenstein-announces-funds-andtechni cal-assistance-resources-he! p https: //www. justice. gov/ opa/pr/j u sti ce-departm ent -releases-update-hate-crimes-prosecutionsand-announces-launch-new-hate Since January 2017, the Department has filed hate crimes charges against 50 defendants and secured hate crimes convictions against 51 defendants. Those cases have included: o o o In 2017, the Department of Justice brought the first prosecution under the Shepard-Byrd Act for the murder of Mercedes Williamson, who was targeted because of gender identity. The defendant pleaded guilty in federal court in Mississippi and received a sentence of 49 years. In another matter, Attorney General Sessions sent a federal hate crimes attorney to help Iowa state prosecutors try two men for the murder of Kedarie Johnson, a high school student attacked because of gender. That case resulted in convictions of both defendants in two separate trials. In August 2018, a defendant was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to federal hate crimes and firearm charges for shooting three men at a bar in Olathe, Kansas. The defendant shot and killed an Indian engineer named Srinivas Kuchibhotla and attempted to kill an Indian coworker and a third man who came to their aid. The crime was motivated by bias. https ://www .justice.gov I opal speech/ deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-deli law-enforcement-roundtable vers-remarks- Jn June 2017, CRT certified for prosecution a 30-count indictment against James Alex Fields, Jr., who allegedly drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 28 other people. CRT also certified for prosecution a major hate crimes indictment stemming from the mass murder at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on October 27, 2018. The Acting AAG delivered remarks on hate crimes and the Pittsburgh matter at the Department's Roundtable: https://www .jus.ti ce. gov/crt/speech/remarks-acting-assi stant-attorney-generaJ-j ohn-goredepartment -justice-s-1aw-enforcement. 2017 was a record-setting year for the Department's human trafficking enforcement efforts by the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division. That year, the Department secured convictions of a record 499 traffickers--a 14% increase over the prior year--and secured a record 282 indictments involving 553 defendants. The Acting AAG testified to Congress regarding the Department's human trafficking enforcement efforts in September 2018: https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/hidden-in-plain-sigbt-understanding-federaJ-efforts-to-stophuman-trafficking/. [ PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT] A\IH '{ICAN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000094 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: 11/1/2018 2:01:40 PM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject : Re: Tried you Apologies - got jammed up on something else. How about 3:30? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 1, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Schultz, James D. wrote: I am available between now and noon then after 130. James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty P lace, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain Information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It const/Lutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notffy the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000095 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 11/1/2018 6:28:16 PM Bill Johnson [BJohnson@napo.org] RE: Call Sent : To: Subject: Great. I'll call you tomorrow . John M. Gore Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I ~){6) :x<1> ~ usdoj.gov From: Bill Johnson Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 4:01 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fblC6l @crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: RE:Call Yes, I am free from now until 5 and in the office all day tomorrow, Hope you are well, Bill William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE Executive Director National Association of Police Organizations 317 S. Patrick Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 549-0775 office (202) 316-3778 cell biohnson@napo .org Fol/ow NAPO on the Web fXl From: Gore, John (CRT) 6 ~usdoi .gov> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 3:34 PM To: Bill Johnson Subject: Call Bill: I hope you're doing well. Do you have a few minutes for a call either later today or tomorrow morning? Thanks. John M. Gore AVI[ ~ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000096 Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice ~1c61 flC> 6 I musdoj.gov AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000097 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ( FYDIBOH F23SP DLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 Sent: 11/6/2018 To: Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject : Re: Can we catch up at some point. Bf AB82- JGO RE] 6:27:46 PM Jammed up today. May have time tomorrow afternoon. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:15 PM, Schultz, James D. wrote: James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com O'Connor I Philadelphia, PA 19103 Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclp/ent(s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended reclpient(s} Is not i! waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege . A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000098 From : Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF 23SPDL T)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF i44B F52449629A397B9C23 Sent: 11/8/2018 To: Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Subject: RE: Yesterday BFAB82- JGORE] 9:49:37 AM Sure. Call me around 4. Thanks. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fb)(6) I rb)( 6 ) ~ usdoj.gov From: Schultz, James D. Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 8:17 AM 61 To: Gore, John (CRT)f"X Subject: Yesterday krt.usdoj.gov> Figured yesterday was a bad day. I'm in the air this morning. Can we talk this afternoon. James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I PbiJadelphia,PA L9103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email IBio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confldential and protected by the attorney /cllent or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient{s} is not a waiver of any attorney /ciient or other privilege. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000099 From: Sent: To: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO Hf 23S PDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/ CN=25 lf 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] 11/9/2018 7:27:13 AM Executive Director [ed@sheriffs.org] Re: Well Done Thanks! Sent from my iPhone On Nov 9, 2018, at 7:26 AM, Executive Director wrote : https ://www .justi:ce.gov/ opal press-rel ease/file/I I 09621/ down Ioad?smi d=nytcore-ios-share Jonat han Thom pson fl(6l. I Please forgive any typos, errors or tonal shortcomings as this message is being done on my phone. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000100 From : Sent: To: CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A39789C23 BFAB82- JGO RE] 12/10/2018 11:42:56 AM Schultz, James D. [JDSchultz@cozen.com] Lake, Jaime Li1ake@cozen.com] Re: December 6. How about Paul - 801 Pennsylvania Ave NW? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 10, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Schultz, JamesD. wrote : Let me know where to meet you at 230 James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Pl ace, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email IBio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:43 PM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote : Let's go offsite. Any preference on location? John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice From: Schultz, James D. Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 2:51 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)fblC6l @crt .usdoj .g0v> Cc: Lake, Jaime Subject: Re: December 6. Let's do 230. In office or off site? lI James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 IPhiladelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com On Dec 7, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Gore, John (CRT) wrote : DOJ-18-0618-B-000101 I'm generally free after about 2. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Schultz, James D.< JDSchu ltz@cozen .com> wrote : John - how is the afternoon looking Monday? lI James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place. 1650 fvlarket Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia. PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:00 PM, Gore, John (CRT) t.... ~_ 61__ ___,~usdoj.gov > wrote: I'm available at various times. What works for you? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 6, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Schultz, James D. wrote : John. How does Monday look? lI James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Ma rket Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, P P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com On Nov 30, 2018, at 9:28 PM, Gore, John (CRT) fX 6l 19103 @usdo j.gov> wrote: Would love to get together, but I'm booked up on December 6. Any chance you're in town another day? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Schultz, James D.< JDSchultz@cozen .com> wrote: John - I am planning to be in DC on the 6th. Any chance I can get on your calendar? lI A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT James D. Schultz Chair, Government & Regulatory I Cozen O'Connor One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street Suite 2800 I Philadelphia, PA 19103 P: 215-665-5558 F: 215-372-2358 Email I Bio I Linkedln I Map I cozen.com DOJ-18-0618-B-000102 Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s}. If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s) Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s). If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reelpieht{s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s). If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s) Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney /client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclplent{s). If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended recipient who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s) Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. Notice: This communication, Including attachments, may contain Information that Is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public Information Intended to be conveyed only to the designated reclp/ent{s). If the reader or recipient of this communication Is not the Intended recipient, an employee or agent of the Intended r~/plent who Is responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication In error, please notify the sender Immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, Including attachments without reading or saving them In any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, Including attachments, Is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the Intended reclplent{s) Is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000103 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: 12/3/2018 4:34:54 PM Driscoll, Robert [rdriscoll@mcglinchey.com] Subject: RE: SCUSA I'm afraid I don't know enough about this to be helpful. You're welcome to give me a call. Thanks. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 1(6) @usdoj.gov From: Driscoll, Robert Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 5:23 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) 6l(6l ~crt.usdoj.gov> Subject: Fwd: SCUSA 'f FYI. I'm not into wasting time. Any shot? Ifup against a policy I won't bother but if good record might (no guarantees) yield some benefits, I'll take the meeting. Thoughts? From: Driscoll, Robert Date: November 29, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM EST To: Singer, Elizabeth (CRT) flC 6l @usdoj.gov>, Yap, Audrey (CRT) Subject: RE: SCUSA /'-l@=u=s-=d"""oj .... .g""'o '--'v> Liz: Thanks for the candid assessment. I'll circle back with SCUSA and get back to you. Thanks, Bob From: Singer, Elizabeth (CRT) f>X61 @usdoj.gov> Date: November 29, 2018 at 4:34:27 PM EST To: Driscoll, Robert , Yap, Audrey (CRT) Cc: Savoie, Robert Subject: RE: SCUSA Hi, Bob. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000104 I don't want to raise any expectations here, because I don't believe that we have ever shortened any SCRA consent decree after it has been entered by the court. I would hate to put you all to the time and expense of a trip for such an uphill battle. However, if you still think that a meeting would be helpful, we can send you some dates in early January. Best, Liz From: Driscoll, Robert Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 10:30 AM To: Yap, Audrey (CRT); Singer, Elizabeth (CRT) Cc:Savoie, Robert Subject: SCUSA Hello Audrey and Elizabeth: A year ago, we were going to have a meeting with you two and Santander about possible modification or elimination of consent decree provisions based on compliance record. If I recall, the shutdown precluded that and we never rescheduled. Could you check your schedules for a new date? In December or early January? Thanks, Bob Robert Neil Driscoll direct: faJC: email: office: ? (202) 802-9950 (202) 403-3870 rdnsco11@mcglinchey .oom 1275 PennsylvaniaAvenu.eNW, Suite 420 I Washington,DC 20004 M CGLINCHEY STAFFORD(R) bio I vcard I www.rncgllnchey.com I www.cafalawblo .corn Alabama California Florida Louisiana Mississippi New York Ohio Tennessee Texas Washington, DC www.mcglinchey.com I www.CafaLawBlog.com McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington DC and McGlinchey Stafford, LLP in California . Confidentiality Statement: This email may contain attorney-client privileged or confidential information It is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify us by telephone at 504-586-1200 and return the original message to us at McGlinchey Stafford, 12th Floor, 601 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130 via the United States Postal Service We take steps to remove metadata in attachments sent by email, and any remaining metadata should be presumed inadvertent and should not be viewed or used without our express permission. If you receive an attachment containing metadata, please notify the sender immediately and a replacement will be provided. See McGlinchey Stafford Disclaimer/Privacy Policy hllps'.ltw.vw.mcglinchey .com/dlsclalmer/ A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000105 Fromi Sent : To : CC: Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =RECIPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BFS2449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 12/11/2018 9:33:38 AM Lieberman, Michael [Mlieberman@adl.org] Moossy, Robert (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=55aba202588a468c81d55a3e66e8b67b-rmoossy]; Veltri, Jeffrey B. (CID) (FBI) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=e54fa2c5ec954ada9ee5 7fefce8e659d-Jeffrey .Vel]; Felte, James (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=3c49e63dbbf146bb921a7405061calbe-jfelte]; Dreiband, Eric (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/ cn=Recip ients/cn =0Sa6d7a86ebb4d689e 752f74e lc5ba6a-edrei ban] Re: ADL Praises Law Enforcement for Thwarting Terror Attack on Jewish Community Near Toledo I Anti-Defamation League Michael: Thank you for sending this along. We appreciate ADL's crucial support in this vital area. I am adding our new Assistant Attorney General, Eric Dreiband. Best, John Sent from my iPhone On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Lieberman, Michael wrote: Robert, Jeff, John and Jim I wanted to make sure you saw this ADL applause for great work in the Toledo case. My wife is from Toledo. We've spent a lot of time in and aroundjewish community institutions there . Deep thanks . Michael https ://www.adl.or news/ ress-re leases/ad l- raises-law-enforcement-for-thwartino-terror-attack-on-? ewishcommunity Michael Lieberman Washington Counsel Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center Anti-Defamation League Phone (202) 261-4607 I Fax: (202) 296-2371 mlieberman@adl.org @ADLWashCounsel @ADL _National A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000106 Subscribe to our office newsletter, Advocac y Matters 1 ?~-1~?1 ?9&&? 1~?1 ?~-1 ?~-1 ?~-1 I~ 1=-=-~ ,~ I I~ I Watch the 80-second video that could change the world. Join us to Imagine a World Without Hate(R). This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. If yqu are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact ADL immediately by telephone at 212-885-7700. A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000107 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN =RECl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82- JGORE] Sent : 12/19/2018 11:29:37 AM Vu, Minh N. [MVu@seyfarth.com] To: CC: Subject : Egan, John [JEgan@seyfarth.com] RE: Request for DOJ Amicus Brief in Johnson v. Starbucks Minh: I received these materials and your voice mail from yesterday. I tried calling you back, but there was an issue with the phone system and the call would not connect. In any event, feel free to be in touch if you have any more information you'd like to provide on this issue. Thanks. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice I 'b)((,) f1c1 5 t @usdoj.gov From: Vu, Minh N. Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 5:09 PM 'fb)(~l To: Gore, John (CRT) ~ crt.usdoj.gov> Cc: Egan, John Subject: Request for DOJAmicus Brief in Johnson v. Starbucks Good afternoon, John. It was nice speaking with you. Attached are the documents relating the request for the DOJ's interpretation of the sales counter rule of the 2010 ADA Standards 904.4.1 and Exception. I will be back in touch once you've had a chance to review. Minh Minh N. Vu I Partner I Seyfarth Shaw LLP ADA Title Ill Team Leader 975 F Street, N.W. I Washington, DC 20004 Direct: +1-202-828-5337 I Mobile :~ 1C6l mvu , se arth.com www.se farth .~ . _c_o_m____ ~ The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohib~ed , A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000108 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=251F144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82-JGORE] Sent: To: CC: Subject: Let's 12/20/2018 5:59:01 PM Josh Belinfante [Josh.Belinfante@robbinsfirm.com] jaime.theriot@troutman.com RE: U.S. v. Ga. aim for 2:30 tomorrow. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant civil Rights Division U.S. De artment of Justice Thanks. Attorney General b)(6l ~~I us oj. gov -----original Message----From: Josh Belinfante sent: Thursday, December 20 , 2018 10:37 AM b)(6) jcrt. usdoj.gov> To: Gore, John (CRT) on Dec 20, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Gore, John (CRT) ~~~ l~~>__ __,~usdoj.gov> wrote : > > Josh: > > I've had an unexpected conflict develop this morning. me at 4 pm? Can you call > > Thanks . > > sent from my iPhone > >> on Dec 19, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Gore, John (CRT) >> >> Josh: ~~~-l~_1 __ ~l@crt.usdoj.gov> wrote: >> >> Great to hear from you, and thanks for reaching out. >> >> I am available at 10:30 tomorrow if you'd like to call me then. My number is below . >> >> Thanks. >> >> John M. Gore >> Principal Deputy Assistant >> U.S. De artment of Justice >> Attorney General Civil Rights Division b)(G), >> >> '------' @usdoj. gov >> >> -----original Message---->> From: Josh Belinfante >> Sent: Wednesday, Decem!er 19, 2018 4:21 PM >> To: Gore, John (CRT) ~ ~)(6) ~c rt.usdoj.gov> >> Cc: jaime.theri ot@tr0uman . com >> subject: u.s. v. Ga. >> >> Mr. Gore: >> A Vi II / !\N PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000109 >> Good afternoon. I received your contact information from Stephen Cox. Jaime Theriot and I represent the State of Georgia in the case stemming from the 2010 Settlement Agreement regarding our behavioral health system. >> >> Is there a good time to talk I could talk tomorrow afternoon >> >> Just >> JB >> >> Sent let this afternoon before 6 or tomorrow between 10 and llam? Alternatively, at 4-5. I'm currently out west and the time change is a challenge. us know and thanks. from my iPhone A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000110 From: Sent: To : Subject: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN =REClPlENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGORE] 12/23/201810:35:11 PM Gurman, Sadie [sadie.gurman@wsj.com] Re: Lunch! Sadie: Thanks for reaching out. This week got away from me, and I am traveling this coming week. Can we touch base after the New Year and find a time to get together? Happy Holidays, John Sent from my iPhone On Dec 14, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Gurman, Sadie wrote: Hi, John, I hope you are well I XGJ This week seems to have gotten away from me, but hoping you might be available in the next coup'le of weeks (even after Christmas if that's easier) for lunch or a drink, as discussed! Happ f to work around your busy schedule, just let me know what's best. I look forward to it. Reachable anytime at l(Gl I Sadie Gunnan WASHINGTON BUREAU O: 202..862.92'73I M: J wrote: sorry. the day was crazy. tomorrow at 7:30, 9:30-10:10 (hard stop); 11-12 (hard stop); 2-2:45 (hard stop); 4:30-5:30 William E. Moschella Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,LLP 1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 202.652.2346 tel WMoschella BHFS.corn 6J From: Gore, John (CRT) [ mailtofblC @usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 4:10 PM To: Moschella,William E. Subject: RE: ADA Do you have a couple of minutes this afternoon or tomorrow? Thanks. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice fbl(6) fbl(6l I pusdoj.gov From: Moschella, William E. Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:12 PM 6l To: Gore, John (CRT)<:p>X Subject: RE:ADA Got time this afternoon. after 3 on Friday. ~crt.usd oi.gov> I'm available now from 2:30- 3:45 (hard stop); all day Wednesday; after 3 on Thursday; and William E. Moschella Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,LLP 1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 202.652.2346 tel WMoschella(ti'IBHF S,com AV PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000112 I From: Moschella,William E. Sent: Wednesday,February20, 2019 2:37 PM To: 'Gore,John (CRT)' Subject: RE:ADA John, for some reason I was under the impression that you had moved from CRT. If you have a moment, I wanted to chat about the issue we saw you about approximately a year ago. CUNA would like to come back in, but if you have a moment, I'm on fbl(6l I William E. Moschella Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 202.652.2346 tel WMoschella@BHFS.com 6> From: Gore,John (CRT)[ mailtojX @usdoj.gov] Sent: Wednesday,February20, 2019 1:10 PM To: Parker-Bissex,Rachel(OASG) Cc: Moschella,William E. Subject: Re: ADA Rachel: Thanks for the introduction. Will: Great to hear from you again. Let me know how we can be of ass.istance. John Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Parker-Bissex, Rachel (OASG) wrote : Hi Will and John Hope you are both staying warm. Will - John is the PDAAG in CRTand has been working on the ADA website accessibility issues. Rachel Rachel Parker Bissex Chief of Staff and Counselor Office of the Associate Attorney General 202-514-0109 A\IH '{ICAN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000113 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. A\IH ~{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000114 From: Gore, John (CRT) [/O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Sent: To: (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT}/CN =RECIPl ENTS/CN=25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23BFAB82- JGORE] 2/22/2019 1:58:25 PM Moschella, William E. [WMoschella@BHFS.com] Subject: RE: ADA ---~I 6 2:30 works for me. Give me a call at~fh_lc _l Thanks. John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Depart ment of Justice )(6) 61 ~>< _ -~@ usdoj.gov From: Moschella, William E. Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:12 PM To: Gore, John (CRT)JbX<>l @crt .usdoj.gov> Subject: RE:ADA Got time this afternoon. after 3 on Friday. I'm available now from 2:30 - 3:45 (hard stop); all day Wednesday; after 3 on Thursday; and William E. Moschella Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,LLP 1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 202.652.2346 tel WMo sche lla@BHFS.com From: Moschella,William E. Sent: Wednesday,February20, 2019 2:37 PM To: 'Gore, John (CRT)' Subject: RE:ADA John, for some reason I was under the impression that you had moved from CRT. If you have a moment, I wanted to chat about the issue we saw you about approximately a year ago. CUNA would like to come back in, but if you have a moment, I'm on P,J(Gl I William E. Moschella Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,LLP 1155 F Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 202.652.2346 tel WMo sche lla@B HFS.com A\IH '{ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000115 From: Gore, John (CRT) 1/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBO HF23SPDLT)/CN=RE Cl Pl ENTS/CN =25 lF 144BF52449629A397B9C23 BFAB82-JGO RE] Sent : To: 2/26/2019 12 :17 :54 PM Moschella, William E.[WMoschella@BHFS.com] CC: Assefi, Omeed (CRT) [/o=Exchangelabs/ou=Exchange Subject : ( FYDIBO HF235P DLT)/ cn=Rec ipie nts/ en =bd df6ad b600149c 78 6842c0986fea8c 1-oassefi] CRT Meeting Administrative Group Will : It was great catching up today . By this email, I introduce you to the CRTchief of staff , Omeed Assefi, who is running point on meeting requests for Eric Dreiband. Omeed can work with you to set something up. Best, John John M. Gore Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice AMf HICAN VERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-B-000116 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Freedom of Information /Pri vacy Acts Branch - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 TC 19-00009-F Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N.W ., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 foia@ame ricanovers ight.o rg October 9, 2019 Dear Mr. Evers: This is a supplemental response to your October 4, 2018 Freedom oflnformation Act request , which was received by the Civil Rights Division on the same day , seeking access to all email communications between 1) John Gore (curr ently Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and formerly Acting Assistant Attorney General , and 2) any email addresses ending in .com/ .net/.org/,edu/.mail from January 20, 2017, to the date of the search. The request was limited to emails sent by Mr. Gore. The requester indicated these records would shed light on the communications of a high-ranking official in the Division with external individuals and external entities. After further review of the enclosed 3 pages ofresponsive Civil Rights Division (CRT) documents, which were previously provided to you in an earlier response, I have determined that additional portions of these pages may be released in part. I have determined that access to portions of these do?cuments should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ? 552 (b)(6) since disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Although this matter is in litigation, I am obligated to advise you that you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Sixth Floor, 441 G Street, NW, Washington , DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://fo iao nline.gov/fo iaonl ine/act ion/ public/home . Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." I hope the Civil Rights Division has been of some assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, :oT Jin? c/? {-J ~t:1-- Tink Cooper , Acting Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch Civil Rights Division From : ~~ ore }!>crt.usdoj.gov fx6f Gore.J?>crt.usdoj.gov] 3/29/2017 9:10:58 AM Wheeler, Tom (CRT) [/O=USDOJ/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECI Pl ENTS/CN=Twheelere0b] Sent: To: :"'.,..X6_J _--,-_ __ __ _ j;[ l@gmail.com Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO CC: ~~){6) _____, J; Bash, Zina G. EOP/WHO Re: Chicago ovoti ng problems -- need referra I Subject : I'm available to meet any time as well. As I understand it, you may need to loop in counsel's office. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Wheeler, Tom (CRT) f'..... _'___ _____, ~c 1t .u sdoj. gov > wrote: Sure, let me know when you want to get together. Tom Wheeler Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice !"'; (_)(6) 5 usdoj .gov - 6l From: Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO [m ailto: ~bX 11 Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:12 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) ~ crt.u sdoj.g ov>; Wheeler, Tom (CRT) ~''"'____ Cc: Bash, Zina G. EOP/WHO 4bX6l ~j""' @gma il. com Subject: RE: Chicago voting problems -- need referral f""' __,,.@c=-'-rt--'-'.=u-=--sd=o =-..j ;;,;;.g--=o..c. v> Thanks, Zina. Hi, John (and Tom). Happy to talk with Mr. Cleveland or anyone else about election concerns. We have had a few private individuals approach us with reports of state and local voting concerns, and possible legislative ideas. On a related note: this is not urgent, but is there any chance we could get CRT's perspective at some point in April on applications of the Voting Rights Act going forward? I can refine this request, if necessary. We're happy to come to DOJ to make it more convenient. From:j""'' ' l@gmail.com fmail tcr' ' @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3: 13 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) l@usdoj.gov> 6 Cc: Wheeler, Tom (CRT) l@usdoj.gov>; Bash, Zina G. EOP/WHO ~~(b_lc _l _______ f"'?' 4""" ~f>; Zadrozny, John A. EOP/WHO

    X6J ~ Subject: Re: Chicago voting problems -- need referral DOJ-18-0618-C-000001 I'm adding my colleague John on the DPC who has worked on similar issues. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 28, 2017, at 3 :09 PM, Gore, John (CRT) roo ~ usdoj .gov> wrote : I spoke with Mr. Cleveland this afternoon. He said he would be reaching back out to Zina about this issue as well. Let me know if anyone is interested in discussing this. Thanks. From: Wheeler, Tom (CRT) Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 5:35 PM l@crt. usdoj.gov> To: Gore, John (CRT)1""'' Cc:L ~gmail.com Subject: Re: Chicago voting problems -- need referral Thx Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Gore, John (CRT) <~j oM _,--~ ~crt .usdoj.gov > wrote : This may actually be an issue for Public Integrity (Criminal Division), but we'll chase it down and figure it out. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2017, at 12: 11 PM, Wheeler, Tom (CRT) 4~~-o ---~~crt.usdoj .gov> wrote : This fall within our voting section. I am CC'ing John Gore, my DAAAG who oversees voting to follow up. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 24, 2017, at 7:39 PM, or"' @gmai l.com'' 1..... '"_' __ _.(@gmail.com> wrote : Let me know if this is something you're interested in. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Chris Cleveland Date: March 24, 2017 at 2:43: 12 PM EDT To=! '''" @gmail.com Subject: Chicago voting problems -- need referral Zina, We've discovered a potentially serious problem with the 2016 election returns in Chicago. There's a 16,000 vote discrepancy in the data, which is possibly tied to the new same-day registration system. You're one of the few people I know at the USDOJ. Can you refer me to the person there who have the power to look into the problem, and, if warranted, start an investigation? DOJ-18-0618-C-000002 I'll be happy to share all the details if you're interested . Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 43rd Ward Republican Committeeman 312-339-2677 I DOJ-18-0618-C-000003 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division TC:KK 19-00009-F Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 foia@americanoversight.org Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 March 31, 2020 Dear Mr. Evers: This is a second supplemental response to your October 4, 2018 Freedom of Information Act request, which was received by the Civil Rights Division on the same day, seeking access to all email communications between 1) John Gore (former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and former Acting Assistant Attorney General, and 2) any email addresses ending in .com/.net/.org/.edu/.mail from January 20, 2017, to the date of the search. The request was limited to emails sent by Mr. Gore. Subsequently, the requester and the Civil Right Division agreed to parameters and search terms for a supplemental search of Mr. Gore's personal email for only work-related email and email with friends who are lawyers for variations of the terms of "vote, civil rights, Title VI, Title VII and Title IX." This search excluded email for individuals and persons in several categories with whom Mr. Gore had a personal connection: family members; personal accountant; personal friends who do not currently work for the government or who did not work for the government in the past; youth sports parents and coaches; personal attorneys; and Jones Day emails which related to post DOJ employment or otherwise personal in nature. After review of the enclosed 470 pages of responsive Civil Rights Division (CRT) documents, I have determined that portions of these pages may be released in part, while a majority of these pages are released in full. I have determined that access to portions of these documents should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ? 552 (b)(6) since disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties, and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ? 552 (b)(5) since the intra-agency memoranda consist of predecisional deliberative materials. Although this matter is in litigation, I am obligated to advise you that you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Sixth Floor, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." VERSIGHT I hope the Civil Rights Division has been of some assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, Kilian Kagle Kilian Kagle, Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch Civil Rights Division AMERICAN PVERSIGHT From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Jessie Liu fl~Cbl~(6l~~@gmail.com] Subject: Re: Congrats! ~gmail.com] 1/26/2017 9:29:22 AM Jessie: The pleasure was all mine! Thanks for helping us hit the ground running in CRT. I imagine I will be in touch with questions once I know what I've gotten myself into. John On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jessie Liu John, 6l 4Cbl( ?;gmail.com> wrote: Great to meet you today! Congrats on your new role at DOJ. So glad you're over there. If there's anything I can do to be helpful, just let me know! Jessie Sent from my iPhone AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000001 From: Sent: John Gore l@gmail.com] To: Schlozman, Brad [bschlozman@hinklaw.com] Re: Great article on proposed Chicago PD consent decree l(b)(6) 2/7/2017 1:38:44 PM Subject: Great stuff Thanks. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Schlozman, Brad wrote: JohnIf you haven't already read this Heather MacDonald piece on the Chicago Police Department proposed consent decree, you should. It's fabulous. It really underscores the mischief of the Special Litigation Section. Link is below: https://www.city-journal.org/html/statistical -evidence -notrequired-14968.hbnl All the best. Brad - - - - !,_ll[j-if-_ 11'-JPY-:i!li !lli!c ---- - - -_ Bradley J. Schlozman I Member Hinkle Law Firm LLC 30 1 North Main Street, Suite 2000 p 316.660.6296 If 316.660.6596 I Wichita , KS 67202- 4820 I bschlozman@hinklaw. com hinklaw. com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify me by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to bschlozman@hinklaw.com or by telephone at (316) 660-6296 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments. Thank you. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000002 From: Sent: John Gore Wbl(6l @)gmail.com] To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Subject: Re: EEOC agenda 4/1/2017 12:04:11 PM Incredible. She mentioned none of this when I spoke to her yesterday. (b)(5) (bJ(sJ ~-------------~ On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Eric S Dreiband ~dreiband@jonesdav.com> wrote: Bloomberg Law Tools BNA Daily Labor Report(R) March 31, 2017 EEOC EEOC Acting Chair Lipnic Skeptical About Pay Data Plan BNA Snapshot o Planned data collection might not advance equal pay, EEOC's acting chair says o Agency will keep seeking anti-bias protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity o Enforcement priorities intact for now, but changes in 'approach' are possible later By Kevin McGowan EEOC Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic (R) supports the agency's systemic case approach and won't change its advocacy for federal protections for LGBT workers. But she remains skeptical about the agency's plan to require employers to submit their summary pay data. Lipnic voted against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's now-completed plan to revise the annual employer information report, or EEO-I form, to require companies with I 00 or more employers to report summary pay data categorized by employees' gender, race and ethnicity. Speaking in New Orleans March 30, Lipnic reiterated her doubts that the new EEO-I form's purported benefits outweigh the potential costs on employers. The new form is set to take effect on March 31, 2018. The Chamber of Commerce and 27 trade associations in February asked the Office of Management and Budget to reconsider its 2016 approval of the revised EEO-I form under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Awaiting the OMB's Call Afv The EEOC hasn't heard from the 0MB since the Chamber filed its PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000003 reconsideration request, Lipnic said at the American Bar Association's National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law. But she "fully expects" the 0MB will contact the commission soon about the EEOC's cost estimates regarding the EEO-I pay reporting requirements. "Where that leads, I don't know," she said. The Chamber's petition under the Paperwork Reduction Act appears to be unique and no one's really sure how the 0MB will respond. It's unclear if the 0MB would reverse its prior approval or return the matter to the EEOC for reconsideration, Lipnic said. In its letter to the 0MB, the Chamber contended the EEOC vastly understated the time and money employers would have to spend to complete the new EEO-I form. "To say I'm dubious of the time estimates would be an understatement," Lipnic said. 0MB did not immediately respond to a request for comment March 31. Equal Pay Push Continues Despite her doubts about the revised EEO-I form, Lipnic said she's "absolutely committed" to the EEOC push for equal pay. The "occupational segregation" issue, in which women and racial minorities predominate in lower-paying job categories, is a particular concern, Lipnic said. She also said it's questionable that if the government doesn't force employers to analyze their compensation systems to identify and address pay disparities, employers would do it on their own. "I'm not sure this is the right device, but I do have that concern that employers won't do it unless forced to," Lipnic said. Support for LGBT Rights The EEOC will keep advocating for federal anti-discrimination protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, Lipnic said. The EEOC's view is that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as forms of unlawful sex discrimination. No federal appeals court yet has ruled that Title VII bars bias based on sexual orientation. Three federal appeals courts, including the full US. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, currently are considering cases raising that issue. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sent mixed signals on LGBT anti-discrimination protections. A1\1L I 11\...../1\1 PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000004 The Justice Department and Education Department withdrew Obama administration guidance that said public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. President Donald Trump, however, said he wouldn't rescind an Obama administration executive order that said federal contractors can't discriminate ag AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000005 From: Sent: To: Subject: 6l JohnGore1Cbl( l@gmail.com] 4/11/2017 3:37:50 PM EricS Dreiband[esdreiband@jonesday.com] 6l Re:Fwd:l(bl( I (b)(5) (b)(5) On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: John, what do you think of~post-DOJ experience? Eric ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** 6l -----Message from"JohnGore"4(bl( @gmail.com> onTue,11Apr201716:17:05 GMT----From: "JohnGore"4(b)(6) @gmail.com> "EricS Dreiband" To: Fwd:~l(b_)(6_l --~ Subject: Eric: Apologies for interrupting your spring break. (bJ(6l ~--------------------~ A couple of people have approached me today with staffing suggestions that I thought were worth passing along. 1. b)(S) Eric Treene passed along the attached resume of r(S) 1-~s a former line attorney in the Employment Litigation Section in Civil Rights who has been active on civil rights matters for years (although most recently not in a litigation capacity). utold Eric that he would be interested in a frontoffice position and in getting back into litigation. Withrb)(S) !management experience, Eric thinks he would be a solid DAAG. 61 2.[b)(S) llb)(S) lalso endorsr'-e~d~rb)-(S)-------.--'I who is currently atrb)(S) ~ Eric was~rb)(_ -~ 6 co-clerk and was the other finalist for the Civil l(bl( l f spot that went to~~ describes him as "extremely conservative" and "extremely smart." 6l lcom~CbJ(6l http://wwwJCblC John fa ---------- Forwarded message---------6l ~comcast.net> From: Eric Treene jCblC Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM 61 -~ Subject: ~b1(_ --- PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000006 To: (W6) .3 ,_mail.com DOJ-18-0618-D-000007 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l t@gmail.com] 4/19/2017 10:14:57 AM To: (b)(6) Subject: Re: DOJ Thursday 4/20 Absolutely. Call my personal cell, 161 ~tb (_ ____ On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM, ~ 6 (bl( l wrote: ~-------------~ (b)(6) Can I reach you in the even ing? ~-------------------~ Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wire less 4G LTE network . From: John Gore Sent: Wednesday,April 19, 2017 6:27 AM To: ~1Cb_JC6_l --~J Subject: Re: DOJThursday 4/20 Outstanding. These people may finally be coming to their senses. Are you around the office this morning? I'll give you a call if that works. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 11:58 PM, 6 (bl( l wrote: ~-------------~ See below. I believe this is Eric's doing. Any tips or advice? What are the big issues in civil rights these days? What is a civil right anyway? And when can we meet up? Top of Form (b)(6) Bottom of Form ----- Forwarded by ~l(b_)(6_) ____ ~~ o n 04/ 18/20 17 11 :55 PM ----- "Pickell Lindsa OAG "

  1. Subject: Re: DOJ Thursday 4/20 Hi Lindsay, Than ks fo r t he not e. I've been out of the offi ce for l(bl(6l !w hich is w hy I didn 't get your vo ice mail. Anyway, next Thursday at 1 sounds fine for me. I can send a CV when I'm next in front of a real computer . Thanks, l(b)(6) Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Ver izon Wi reless 4G LTE networ k. From: Pickell, Lindsay (OAG) Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:53 AM To:ICbJC6l ~ Su61ect: DOJ Thursday 4/ 0 Good mornin g, I am followin g up on a voicemail I left Tuesday. W ould you like to come in for an interview next Thursday, April 20 at 1 pm? The interview would be for a position in the Civil Rights Division. Rachel Brand, Jesse Panuccio, and Rachel Parker from the Associate Attorney General's office will be in the interview. Also, will you please provide me with a copy of your resume? Thank you, Lindsay Pickell U.S. Department of Justice Deputy W hite House Liaison Office: 202-5 14-2011 Mo bile: =20=2=--i .... b1(_61 __ ___, ---------- This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorneyclient or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected. ---------- AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000009 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Re: CRT Org Chart l@gmail.com] 5/2/2017 6:40:37 PM Subject: 6_l____ I don't know anyone who can help with the SF-278, which I remember is~ICb_lC ~l Have you asked Mary Blanche Hankey? On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks again John. This sounds like something we'll have to deal with if I survive the confirmation process. Separately, do you know anyone who can help with the SF-278 form. It is the financial disclosure form and I am a bit confused about 6l !plans. how I am supposed to fill out the section about my variou~Cbl( Eric Top of Form Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwideoM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Office +1.202.879.3720 esdreiband@jonesday .com From: John Gore 4(b)(6) l@gmail.com> To: Eric S Dreiband Bottom of Form Date: Subject: 05/02/2017 06:03 PM Re: CRT Org Chart All correct - and I agree. . . h One issue 1s w at to do wit. h t h (b)( 6) (b)(5) (b)(5) a may e a emporary so u 10n, u to be addressed at some point. p On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: John, so this appears to mean that we will have one vacant political DAAG spot only when Tom Wheeler leaves, assuming you and E:::]are in the other political DAAG spots. DOJ offered Ben Aquinaga and Tara Heitman counsel jobs and both accepted pending background checks, which means that we have three more of those positions. This seems like plenty of people. (bJ(sJ PVERSIGHT ~-------------------------------~ DOJ-18-0618-D-000010 Eric Top of Form Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwideoM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Bottom of Form Office +1.202.879.3720 esdre iband@j onesday .com John Gore 4(b)(6) p:igmail.com> From: To : Eric S Dreiband Date: 05/02/2017 10:50 AM Subject: Re: CRT Org Chart At Tom Wheeler's request, I just confirmed some information related to the org chart with Lee Lofthus, the AAG for Administration (the arm ofDOJ that runs HR and the admin side of the Department). I confirmed the info we discussed last night, but here it is so you have it for your Thursday call. 1. Number Of Political Spots In addition to the AAG, the front office has the following political spots: lPDAAG 2DAAGs 5 Senior Counsels 2. Vacant SES Position Is Career The information from Lee designates the vacant SES position as a career spot, not a political spot. 3. Kathy Toomey And Chief Of Staff Kathy confirmed that her permanent job is the Director of Operations Management, which is a career SES job. She further confirmed that she has been only acting as the chief of staff There is no designated chief of staff spot on the org chart. For example, during the Bush Administration, Bob Driscoll served in the combined roles ofDAAG and chief of staff: https://www.mcglinchey.com/Robert -Driscoll/ On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks John. Eric f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000011 ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ----- Message from "John Gore" 4(b)(6) la)gmail.com> on Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:30:26 GMT----- From: "John Gore" 11:..:(b:::_::)(6..:_l _y~=gm=a=il.=co=m> To: "Eric S Dreiband" Subject: CRT Org Chart ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Gore, John (CRT) Date: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:28 PM Subject: FW: Scanned image from BN3401-C 6l 6l To: jCblC @gmail.com" 7CblC @gmail.com> John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice (202)353~ john.gore@usdoj.gov -----Original Message----From: MJ5643-C@crt.doj.gov [mailto:MJ5643-C@crt.doj .gov] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:26 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Scanned image from BN3401-C Reply to: MJ5643-C@crt.doj.gov Device Name: MJ5643-C Device Model: MX5001N Location: Main Justice, Room 5643 File Format: PDF (Medium) Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. http://www.adobe.com/ f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000012 ---------- This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorneyclient or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected. ------------------- This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorneyclient or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected. ---------- AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000013 6l ~(bl( From: Sent: John Gore l@gmail.com] To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Subject: Re: CRT Org Chart 5/2/2017 6:03:06 PM All correct - and I agree. 5 l One issue is what to do with theCblC (b)(5) (bJ(sJ ea emporary sou 10n, to be ad resse at some point. On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: John, so this appears to mean that we will have one vacant political DAAG spot only when Tom Wheeler leaves, assuming you and E::::::Jare in the other political DAAG spots. DOJ offered Ben Aquinaga and Tara Heitman counsel jobs and both accepted pending background checks, which means that we have three more of those positions. This 5l (bl( seems like lenty of people. ~------------------------------~ (b)(5) Eric Top of Form Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwideoM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Bottom of Form Office +1.202.879.3720 esdreiband@jonesday .com t@gmail.com> John Gore 4(b)(6) From: Eric S Dreiband To: Date: 05/02/2017 10:50 AM Subj ect: Re: CRT Org Chart At Tom Wheeler's request, I just confirmed some information related to the org chart with Lee Lofthus, the AAG for Administration (the arm ofDOJ that runs HR and the admin side of the Department). I confirmed the info we discussed last night, but here it is so you have it for your Thursday call. 1. Number Of Political Spots In addition to the AAG, the front office has the following political spots: A [ PDAAG PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000014 2DAAGs 5 Senior Counsels 2. Vacant SES Position Is Career The information from Lee designates the vacant SES position as a career spot, not a political spot. 3. Kathy Toomey And Chief Of Staff Kathy confirmed that her permanent job is the Director of Operations Management, which is a career SES job. She further confirmed that she has been only acting as the chief of staff There is no designated chief of staff spot on the org chart. For example, during the Bush Administration, Bob Driscoll served in the combined roles ofDAAG and chief of staff: https://www.mcglinchey.com/Robert-Driscoll/ On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks John. Eric ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ----- Message from "John Gore" 4(b)(6) lmgmail.com> on Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:30:26 GMT----- From: "John Gore" 4(b)(6) To: "Eric S Dreiband" Subject: CRT Org Chart lmgmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Gore, John (CRT) Date: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:28 PM Subject: FW: Scanned image from BN3401-C 6l 6l @gmail.com" To: "ICblC John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice (202) 353-L7 john.gore@usdoj.gov p -----Original Message----From: MJ5643 -C@crt.doj.gov [mailto:MJ5643 -C@crt.doj .gov] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:26 PM To: Go,re, John (CRT) PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000015 Subject: Scanned image from BN3401-C Reply to: MJ5643-C@crt.doj.gov Device Name: MJ5643-C Device Model: MX5001N Location: Main Justice, Room 5643 File Format: PDF (Medium) Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. http://www.adobe.com/ ---------- This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorneyclient or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected. ---------- AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000016 From: Sent: John Gore To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Subject: Re: CRT Org Chart ~(b)(6l t@gmail.com] 5/2/2017 10:49:17 AM At Tom Wheeler's request, I just confirmed some information related to the org chart with Lee Lofthus, the AAG for Administration (the arm ofDOJ that runs HR and the admin side of the Department). I confirmed the info we discussed last night, but here it is so you have it for your Thursday call. 1. Number Of Political Spots In addition to the AAG, the front office has the following political spots: lPDAAG 2DAAGs 5 Senior Counsels 2. Vacant SES Position Is Career The information from Lee designates the vacant SES position as a career spot, not a political spot. 3. Kathy Toomey And Chief Of Staff Kathy confirmed that her permanent job is the Director of Operations Management, which is a career SES job. She further confirmed that she has been only acting as the chief of staff There is no designated chief of staff spot on the org chart. For example, during the Bush Administration, Bob Driscoll served in the combined roles ofDAAG and chief of staff: https://www.mcglinchey.com/Robert -Driscoll/ On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks John. Eric ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ----- Message from "John Gore" 1!b)(6) From: "John Gore" 14)gmail.com> on Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:30:26 GMT----@gmail.com> 4(b)(6) To: "Eric S Dreiband" Subject: CRT Org Chart ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Gore, John (CRT) Date: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:28 PM Subject: FW: Scanned image from BN3401-C 6l 6l fa. To: 'ICblC @gmail.com" 4CblC @gmail.com> PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000017 John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice (202) 353-~ iohn.gore@usdoi.gov -----Original Message----From: MJ5643 -C@crt.doi.gov [mailto:MJ5643 -C@crt.doi .gov] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:26 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Scanned image from BN3401-C Reply to: MJ5643-C@crt.doi.gov Device Name: MJ5643-C Device Model: MX5001N Location: Main Justice, Room 5643 File Format: PDF (Medium) Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. http://www.adobe.com/ AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000018 From: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( Sent: To: 4/21/2017 6:30:26 PM Subject: Attachments: l@gmail.com] Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] CRT Org Chart BN3401-C_20170421_182629.pdf ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Gore, John (CRT) Date: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:28 PM Subject: FW: Scanned image from BN3401-C @gmail.com" 1CblC6l @gmail.com> To: "j(bl(6l John M. Gore Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice (202)353~ john.gore@usdoj.gov -----Original Message----From: MJ5643-C@crt.doj.gov [mailto:MJ5643-C@crt.doj .gov] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:26 PM To: Gore, John (CRT) Subject: Scanned image from BN3401-C Reply to: MJ5643-C@crt.doj.gov Device Name: MJ5643-C Device Model: MX5001N Location: Main Justice, Room 5643 File Format: PDF (Medium) Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. http://www.adobe.com/ AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000019 COUNSEUSENIOR Alberto Ruisanchezo Eric Treene o Sean Keveney o Beth Kelleyo Maureen Riordano Dan Yi KEY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERA L Vacant PAS Non-Caree , SES Career Career De ailee* Acting** DOJ-18-0618-D-000020 Civil Rights Division- Key Personnel COUNSEL SPECIAL ASSISTANTS Vacant Vacant PRINCIPAL DEPU TY ASSISTANT ATT O RNEY GENERAL Torn Wheeler (Aeling AAG) Dir . of Op. Mgmt/ Chief of Staff" Kathleen Toomey l Office of Employment Counsel Administrative Management Section Susan E. Howe Diana Flynn Sharon McGowan I I Deputy As sistant Attorney Ge neral -Rebecca Bond~ - ,,;n, - , Hou sing & :ivil Enfo cement Se clion Sameena Majeed Jon Seward Bet h Kelley Alberto Ruisanchez Deputy Assistant Att orney General -,lohn Gore I 7 Appe llate Section Jessica Ginsburg Diana Embrey ... Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera Gregory Friel ~ Professi o nal Development Office Disability Righ ts Section Anne Raish* * Educational Opportunities Section Shaheena Simons Vacant Alberto Ruisanchez Maureen Riordan Depu ty Assistant Attorney General Robert Mooss y n eney I Federal Coordinati on & Complian ce Section Christine Stonemano o Emplo yment Litigation Sec tion Delora Kennebrew Karen Woodard Immigrant & Emplo yee Rights Section v acant Jod i Daniso o Policy & Strategy Section Sheila Foranoo Voting Section Thomas Herren Rebecca Wer tz Criminal Sect ion Tamara Kessler Paige Fitzgerald Special Litigation Section Steven Rosenbaum Judith Preston 1J: (!) - February7, 2017 ~ From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( To: Christy McCormick ~aol.com] Re: Chicago vote problems eJgmail.com] 9/6/2017 6:36:54 PM Subject: Christy: Thanks. I'll put Chris Cleveland in touch with you directly. I hadn't heard about the ACLU suit, but that is unbelievable. I am thrilled for Maureen that the opportunity opened up for her. I am sure she is knocking it out of the park! Would love to catch up at some point, particularly once we have our confirmed head, which after today is looking much better. We are doing what we can to fight the good fight - glad to be in the trenches with you! Best, John On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11 :44 PM, Christy McCormick Hi John, 6l 1Cbl( @aol.com> wrote: Hope you are well. I sent the info on the Chicago issue (deleting your email address and messages from it) to the staff of the presidential commission a couple of months ago so we can co super it and hopefully investigate it. Please feel free to give Chris Cleveland my contact info. I'd be happy to talk to him. Did you see the ACLU lawsuit against California for throwing out 40,000 or so ballots? I read that California's defense was that the ballots were tossed because signatures on them didn't match. If that's not admitting that there is voter fraud, then is it otherwise admitting to voter suppression? I have 'tread the actual filings, but given the Secretary of State out there says there's no voter fraud, I find it quite fascinating. I know you must be crazy busy, but would love to catch up soon - maybe we can find some time in October. I spoke to Maureen this week and she told me about her detail to the Western District of Virginia. I honestly don't know how you're doing it! God bless you!!! Best, On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:43 PM, John Gore 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Christy: I hope you are well. Per below, Chris Cleveland sends the link and asks to be put in touch with you directly. Would you like me to do that? Thanks. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000021 ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Chris Cleveland Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Chicago vote problems 6 l l@gmail.com> To: John Gore 1CblC John, We finally got some national attention on the problem: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017 /09/05/ chicago -reported -thousands -more -votes -than -voters -in-2016 gop-official -says.html Can you get this story in front of your friend at the Commission? Can you put me in touch with them? On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:49 PM, John Gore Chris: 4cblC6l ~gmail.com> wrote: I did pass this along to someone close to the Commission. I just sent a reminder so it would be back on their radar screen. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3 :36 PM, Chris Cleveland John, wrote: It appears that the Election Integrity Commission is finally gearing up. They're in the press today. Did you succeed in passing this matter on to anyone on the Commission? This might be a good time to ping them again. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Chris Cleveland Thanks, John. Will do. wrote: 6 On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, John Gore <1CblC l @gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Chris. I have sent this along to someone I know who may be closer to the task force than I am. If you come across any more info, please feel free to send it along. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Cleveland Here it is: wrote: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000022 There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. 6 l On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore 4Cbl( Chris: @gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland John, wrote: Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/l commission.html l/trump -to-sign-order -launching -voter -fraud - Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman. Chicago Republican Patiy 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000023 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000024 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( l@gmail.com] To: Christy ~aol.com] Fwd: Chicago vote problems 9/5/2017 6:43:52 PM Subject: Christy: I hope you are well. Per below, Chris Cleveland sends the link and asks to be put in touch with you directly. Would you like me to do that? Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Chris Cleveland Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Chicago vote problems To: John Gore 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> John, We finally got some national attention on the problem: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017 /09/05/ chicago -reported -thousands -more -votes -than -voters -in-2016 -gopofficial -says.html Can you get this story in front of your friend at the Commission? Can you put me in touch with them? On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:49 PM, John Gore Chris: 6 4Cbl( l @gmail.com> wrote: I did pass this along to someone close to the Commission. I just sent a reminder so it would be back on their radar screen. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3 :36 PM, Chris Cleveland John, wrote: It appears that the Election Integrity Commission is finally gearing up. They're in the press today. Did you succeed in passing this matter on to anyone on the Commission? This might be a good time to ping them again. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Chris Cleveland RSIGHT wrote: DOJ-18-0618-D-000025 Thanks, John. Will do. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, John Gore 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Chris. I have sent this along to someone I know who may be closer to the task force than I am. If you come across any more info, please feel free to send it along. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Cleveland wrote: Here it is: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore Chris: 6l wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: 'A '"""' PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000026 http://www.fo xnews.com/politics/2017/05/l l/trump-to-sign-order-launching-voter-fraudcommission.html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-'2.677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000027 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( t@gmail.com] To: Christy ~aol.com] Fwd: Chicago vote problems 7/5/2017 7:50:13 PM Subject: FYI - consider this me pinging you again. Hope you're doing well. ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Chris Cleveland Date: Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3 :36 PM Subject: Re: Chicago vote problems @gmail.com> To: John Gore 4Cbl(6l John, It appears that the Election Integrity Commission is finally gearing up. They're in the press today. Did you succeed in passing this matter on to anyone on the Commission? This might be a good time to ping them again. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Chris Cleveland Thanks, John. Will do. wrote: 6 l @gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, John Gore 4CblC Thanks, Chris. I have sent this along to someone I know who may be closer to the task force than I am. If you come across any more info, please feel free to send it along. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Cleveland Here it is: wrote: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000028 The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. 6 l On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore 4Cbl( Chris: @gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/l l/trump -to-sign-order -launching-voter -fraud -commission.html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman. Chicago Republican Patiy 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000029 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000030 From: Sent: 6l John Gore jCbl( To: Chris Cleveland [chris.cleveland@chicagogop.com] Re: Chicago vote problems @gmail.com] 7/5/2017 7:49:27 PM Subject: Chris: I did pass this along to someone close to the Commission. I just sent a reminder so it would be back on their radar screen. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3 :36 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, It appears that the Election Integrity Commission is finally gearing up. They're in the press today. Did you succeed in passing this matter on to anyone on the Commission? This might be a good time to ping them again. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: Thanks, John. Will do. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, John Gore 1Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Chris. I have sent this along to someone I know who may be closer to the task force than I am. If you come across any more info, please feel free to send it along. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Cleveland wrote: Here it is: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000031 and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore Chris: 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/l commission.html l/trump -to-sign-order -launching -voter -fraud - Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman . Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Alv1fHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000032 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000033 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Christy ~aol.com] Re: Chicago vote problems Subject: l@gmail.com] 5/15/2017 3:42:54 PM Christy: I will definitely let you know if I hear of any further developments. Thanks for your support and your great work for the country! John On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Christy fbl(6l ~aol.com> wrote: Thanks John. Very interesting and disturbing. I'll make sure to bring it to the group. I suspect we won't be meeting for a bit, so if you hear of any updates in the meantime (such as a report from the Bard of Elections!), please let me know. Hope all is well! I appreciate all you are doing!!! -----Original Message----il.com> From: John Gore <1~Cb-J(6-l--~@gma To: ICbJ(6l @aol.com> Sent: Mon, May 15, 2017 3:09 pm Subject: Fwd: Chicago vote problems Christy: Chris Cleveland of the Chicago GOP reached out to me a couple months back regarding discrepancies in Chicago's vote totals in the 2016 election. We briefly discussed the issue and he promised to keep me apprised. Per below, he asked if I knew anyone on the task force to whom this information could be sent, so I am sending it along to you. Feel free to call me if you'd like to discuss it. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Chris Cleveland Date: Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Chicago vote problems 6l To: John Gore <9CblC @gmail.com> Here it is: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. fa PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000034 There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:17 AM, John Gore Chris: wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017 /05/11 /trump-to-sign-order-launching-voter-fraud-commission. html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 3 12-339 -26 77 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000035 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Chris Cleveland [chris.cleveland@chicagogop.com] Re: Chicago vote problems Subject: l@gmail.com] 5/15/2017 3:44:04 PM Thanks, Chris. I have sent this along to someone I know who may be closer to the task force than I am. If you come across any more info, please feel free to send it along. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Cleveland wrote: Here it is: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore Chris: 6l 4CblC @gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a writeup, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, AM Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000036 I saw this today: http://www.fo xnews.com/politics/2017/05/l l/trump -to-sign-order -launching -voter-fraud -commission.html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chainmm, Chicago Republican Patiy 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000037 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: John Gore ICbJ(6l ~gmail.com] 5/15/2017 3:09:14 PM ~aol.com Fwd: Chicago vote problems 2016_general_precinct_results.xlsx Christy: Chris Cleveland of the Chicago GOP reached out to me a couple months back regarding discrepancies in Chicago's vote totals in the 2016 election. We briefly discussed the issue and he promised to keep me apprised. Per below, he asked if I knew anyone on the task force to whom this information could be sent, so I am sending it along to you. Feel free to call me if you'd like to discuss it. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------From: Chris Cleveland Date: Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Chicago vote problems @gmail.com> To: John Gore 1Cbl(6l Here it is: In January the Chicago Republican Party filed a FOIA request with the Chicago Board of Elections for the list of voters who had voted in the November 2016 general elections. The board responded with a list of 1,101,178 individuals. A quick check of the elections returns published on the Chicago Board of Elections website showed that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. The difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of votes cast was 14,000, or about 1.3%. There should be never be more votes than voters; every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter. A breakdown of the votes by precinct shows that the discrepancies are not evenly distributed. Fifteen precincts show 100 more ballots cast than voters. One precinct shows more ballots cast than registered voters. Some precincts show a negative discrepancy, that is, more voters than votes cast. Subtracting out those precincts, the total discrepancy is about 16,000 votes or 1.4%. The Chicago Republican Party made an inquiry, pursuant to FOIA, as to the source of the discrepancies. Despite repeated followups, the board has failed to respond except to say that they have been "reviewing all discrepancies" and that there will be a "final report". It's been more than three months since the first inquiry and more than six weeks since the report was due. At this point it seems to be more than a simple clerical error. Given the history of voter fraud in Chicago, the magnitude of the problem, and the Chicago Board of Election's history of favoring the Democrats, the problem warrants external scrutiny. A spreadsheet is attached. Tab one shows the discrepancies by precinct. Tab two shows the same data sorted with the largest discrepancies first. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000038 6 On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9: 17 AM, John Gore 4Cbl( l Chris: ~gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a writeup, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/l l/trump -to-sign-order -launching -voter -fraud -commission.html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chainmm, Chicago Republican Patiy 312-339-2677 Chris Cleveland Chairman, Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000039 Column5A"E are from the prer.iri,;;tresults on the Chiugo Bw/U oftlection5 website ColurnnsG.larea mllupofdatafrornthefileofvotecswhovotedinthe2016eler.tion prOYided by the CBOI:.Column Kis the difference between the number of voters in the file and the number of ballots cast http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/election-results.asp?election~4 Precinct Regi5terVoters 894 difference -1 Bijllot.>Ca.>t Turnout% 637 6{]1 71.25% 71.80% 600 74.83% 7'0 78.28% 76.14% 76.69% 81.83% 720 78.24% 83.74% 77.91% 71.79% 69.59% '99 729 591 6-06 558 624 795 507 77.19% 73.97% 83.13% 72.G1% 79.66% 72.74% 79.22% 69.90% 75.88% 63.42% 69.91% 441 62.46% 73.23% 68.58% 79.35% 73.43% 71.lCf/4 76.43% 73.97% 78.35% 80.28% 77.83% 77.51% 78.48% 69.76% 74.29% 1 1 1 40 '1 41 443 1 "" 1 1 "' 40 41 78.33% 76.49% 74.82% 251 568 345 189 78.73% 73.14% 81.62% 85.45% 979 72.97% 79.62% 72.20% 67.81.% 73.82"/4 673 618 762 620 576 488 80.28% 83.50 '% 84.44% 78.33% 87.50% 75.85% 74.83% 71.66% 74.43% 87.35% 84.72% 74.29% 74.60"/4 86.46% 81.63% 83.81% 83.83% 745 581 545 909 2 1 38 1 1 1 40 '1 41 1 2 45 37 460 649 7630% SB.56% 84.43% 84.09% 80.69% 83.52% 84.17% 87.42% 86.37"/4 541 906 82.94% 86.59% 87.67"/4 SB.97% 75.69% 83.86% 244 289 951 447 "" 660 40 72.09% 85.48% 86.61% 89.66% 75.86% 41 78.84% 68.73% 46 44 45 783 735 435 6'5 411 14 .5 84.65% 73.39% 72.73% 65.21% 82.06% 72.88% 70.93% 841 645 3 17 900 997 3 18 1306 3 3 21 22 843 1()97 3 24 832 3 15 1255 71.58% 56.28% 73.22% 75.00"/4 609 7'2 690 86.08% 78.77% 74.15% 66,89"/4 7'2 674 602 784 646 3 27 3 28 710 8'38 976 637 966 775 781 800 1010 3 3 3 AMLRICAN PVERSIGHT 35 36 37 610 545 594 779 78.64% 69.83% 85.99% 6'5 69.99"/4 84.22% 80.95% 68.17% 70.07% 695 586 994 736 27 28 60.28% 67.07% 72.38% 800 31 32 316 581 31 80.23% 84.25% 83.77% 81.39% Sl.8CJ% 3 3 38 39 558 502 76.29% 1056 874 3 40 909 82.77% 78.55% 783 376 29 757 764 34 35 61J.75% 68.13% 841 .7 365 82.87"/4 85.10% 82.17% 1()81 3 3 5 602 363 561 38 39 4'9 40 DOJ-18-0618-D-000040 315 37 866 15 3 4 41 535 1 4 4 3 4 797 800 607 4 4 7 8 4 4 11 11 4 4 14 15 4 18 19 815 970 4 955 71.41% 744 641 573 633 4 4 13 4 25 4 16 4 29 884 4 30 1211 581 639 33 34 4 36 4 37 9Ul% 69.29% 67.85% 82.91% 85.56% 75.06% 79.53% 81.37"/4 72.58% 86.00% 700 4 4 82.85% 77.04% 75.85% 90.69% 76.39% 81.88% 69.18% 87.94% 846 834 714 84.39% 73.49% 74.22% 75.95% 78.59% 76.96% 77.22% 79.39% 74.67% 75.11% 942 891 898 66.88% 83.98% 672 683 72.18% 77.70% 75.46% 73.99% 75.80% 1041 629 658 731 85.89% 79.32% 67.46% 63.87"/4 565 85.23% 79.14% 594 72.47"/4 67.23% 5{)5 82.88% 87.29% 8(].91% 69.71% 80.64% 59.30% 66.71% 570 776 726 74.52% 80.11% 68.71% 68.59% 569 83.68% 83.00% 83.61.% 644 648 1049 67() 82.99% 89.26% 86.48% 80.72% 70.89% 78.08% 110.96% 76.51% 71.06% 62.75% 70.08% 80.0(]'/4 73.85% 90.10% 83.76% 57.16% 84.53% 72.78% 81.09% 75.24% 84.46% 74.07"/4 73.58% 5{)6 461 73.59% 66.72% 55.33% 422 394 69.34% 68.58% 73.94% 68.49"/4 58.88% 62.72% 57.87% 66.11% 65.28% 56.48% 697 495 741 453 71.02% 61.05% 62.91% 67.9()"/4 55.04% 57.89% 58.89% 53.35% 55.33% 54.46% 59.67% 6 6 77 18 371 331 508 497 '" 485 6 6 6 34 35 38 449 6 6 41 42 735 508 810 563 694 6 44 6 6 45 46 6 6 47 48 7 1 7 3 7 7 ' 5 568 "' 553 557 364 430 763 502 684 455 716 "41 54.48% 49.04% 74.16% 63.47% 71.49% 500 67.93% 71.61% 489 480 460 498 73.04% 68.91% 450 76.16% 71.58% 479 518 507 71.69% 62.44% 66.13% 40 41 42 69.12% 69.51% 66.71% 69.69% 76.42% 65.82% 4' 45 46 47 48 69.47% 66.97% 65.79% PVERSIGHT lo 570 .7 555 553 347 499 481 455 72.68% 66.52% 61.59% 459 423 601 80.61% AMERICAN 470 438 491 DOJ-18-0618-D-000041 700 550 67.40% 418 59.71% 74.79"/4 1067 717 882 513 609 71.55% 69.05% 65.37% 62.38% 842 710 555 484 65.91% 68.17% 57.91% 67' 65.88% 770 733 63.38% 680 728 749 650 456 735 4'1 877 567 652 637 661 61.38% 785 76 .69% 779 790 7 786 561 70.73% 67.34% 61.19% 71.37"/4 725 503 69.38% 43 44 7 8 46 1 442 483 64.80'% 63.18% 65.41% 63.64% 65.26% '? 41 7 7 453 62.93% 54.13% 57.87% 80> 7 64.53% 58.09% 59.62% 59.68% 70.15% 6(l.00% 58.89% 67.02% 63.19% 720 732 478 66.39% 447 61.07% 64.28% 427 434 43 44 69.90% 60.57% 60.09'% 72.01% 76.98% ~3 493 72.73% 63.41% 652 619 73.27% 543 68.36% 71.43% 443 557 76.93% 455 69.79% 4'9 72.54% 65.25% 334 65.29% 69.63% 63.51% 73.03% 58.30% 66.93% 68.82% 70.14% 68.88% 448 64.14% 77.10% 67.44% 66.41.% 72.G1% 439 504 501 69.81% 66.59"/4 69.35% 65.66% 72.15% 544 394 68.62% 65.78% 478 69.96% 490 453 69.99''/4 76.27% 61.25% 390 326 68.88% 69.38% 8 8 8 41 42 43 8 45 8 46 8 8 48 49 8 so 8 51 741 73.41.% 898 75.06% 64.77% 65.97% 6fUO% 70.67% 65.98% 67.26% 66.57% 70.59% 75.28% 736 682 40 41 42 44 45 46 416 412 48 49 50 491 455 495 71.51% 610 70.03% 67.16% 72.28% 276 71.97% 493 63.95% 66.18% 60.75% 64.06% 61.68% 66.67% 498 455 482 418 464 51.79% 390 62.96% 70.46% 59.94% 62.13% 530 410 399 71.31% 68.39"/4 71.75% 58.44% 62.43% 66.47% 649 700 367 455 744 484 441 682 509 690 473 698 481 679 1015 9 9 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 36 37 479 573 615 419 414 56.55% 18 19 65.00% 65.05% 63.54% 72.29% 69.82% 68.55% 68.91% 481 507 475 25 26 66.90% 751 516 65.63% 53.42% 68.71% 665 420 63.16% 354 451 466 15 677 2 459 29 30 416 56.19% 67.77% 32 419 462 417 58.00% 33 402 454 59.5()''/4 69.74% 34 4'3 6<18 61.96% 72.12% 66.98% DOJ-18-0618-D-000042 504 35 16 441 37 585 15 758 512 773 493 '2 402 466 9 43 515 9 " 9 46 786 523 9 42 m 498 9 9 '8 9 49 724 5{]4 9 50 811 587 462 507 67.55% 63.78% 509 496 64.94% 66.76% 60.23% 67.34% 41 66.08% 66.54% 69.94% 69.83% 69.61% 45 4'3 46 492 494 502 403 42 492 72.38% 71.30% 66.9l% 65.14% 435 455 60.36% 57.74% 408 731 5{]2 1012 508 10 10 10 10 11 12 10 10 10 13 14 15 10 10 10 10 16 17 IB 19 10 20 792 10 10 22 23 859 566 241 10 10 10 24 25 26 10 10 10 10 27 28 29 30 10 10 10 10 31 32 33 34 10 10 35 36 353 549 507 505 312 275 818 60.80% 63.22% 58.37% 63.13% 63.94% 68.67"/4 60.08% 63.95% 61.34% 65.76% 67.11% 57.82% 67.33% 53.49''/4 65.90% 64.02% 508 58.79% 55.12% 62.21% 69.79% 503 60.00% 50.61% 1045 545 561 466 793 4,9 624 365 276 202 52.15% 63.39"/4 61.40% 57.42% 52.23% 60.40% 58.49''/4 54.23% 66.62% 57.92% 66.82% 8.65% 72.38% 63.65% 63.31% 77.86% 85.04% 61.22% 56.43% 56.08"/4 66.01.% 11 11 10 11 945 11 12 1M3 11 11 13 14 15 16 1018 587 735 "40 17 18 19 20 883 11 11 11 646 4n 714 73.16% 58.67% 6n 699 74.07% 65.02% 11 11 23 24 11 25 26 27 11 11 11 915 91' 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 364 397 1075 11 11 69.89% "' 436 66'?1% 62.01% 57.93% 59.86% 434 639 68.65% 63.68% 73.85% 77.08% 76.96% 70.92% 50.31% 57.17"/4 28 29 30 31 424 860 m 631 73.37"/4 51.87% 70.00% 32 33 34 35 377 2,8 825 656 73.74% 79.52.% 73.40% 71.19''/4 57.05% 36 37 38 57.14% 64.93% 69.26% 56.61% 71.14% 66.88% 57.99% 57.32.% 728 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 4'5 %4 572 11 12 462 514 494 56.37% 58.50% 61.4()"/4 60.71% 899 59.96% 59.05% 13 14 15 52.50% 906 954 16 17 IB 899 19 20 21 52.06% 61.68% 999 858 62.16% 63.99% 50.05% 64,76% 510 575 22 803 472 13 13 520 366 56.29% 6(J.27% 576 466 505 546 492 518 364 469 77.54% 78.35% 71.46% 76.76% 467 513 73.71% 505 81.01% 70.00% 8 443 13 9 631 13 10 13 13 13 13 13 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 3'7 345 11 583 445 78.33% 71.79% 76.24% 76.33% 12 602 395 65.61% 394 420 651 78.94% 73.38% 75.87% 13 14 13 13 13 13 15 16 17 IB 858 13 13 13 19 20 21 13 13 23 24 448 74.55% 555 73.33% 73.83% 754 72.68% 73.96% 77.83% 600 457 506 374 76.17% 73.91.% 4'5 15 16 647 335 364 546 13 13 21 478 22 456 13 371 40, 75.37% DOJ-18-0618-D-000043 .l 7 13 13 13 13 13 13 72.02% 71.27% 25 26 27 28 29 5'4 490 30 13 13 31 32 13 13 33 13 13 35 36 37 486 38 39 40 41 42 43 485 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 34 13 13 44 45 46 47 13 48 1' 2 3 13 14 14 14 72.98% 70.00% 80.29% 78.80% 69.97% 656 513 504 617 71.54% 77.98% 79.42% 378 735 545 685 521 385 42 73.26% 73.42% 71.54% 72.78% 74.15% 76 .06% 43 46 47 68.65% 70.69% 73.03% 7 68.64% 70.56% 65.56% 67.24% 14 14 71.37% 61.50% 14 14 11 12 13 71.70 % 70.30% 69.3S"/4 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 70.84% 72.68% 59.80% 14 14 14 14 18 19 20 21 14 14 14 14 22 23 24 25 14 14 14 26 27 28 14 14 14 29 30 31 15 1 2 772 548 551 337 66.40% 67.01% 71.88% 62.70% 67.35% 555 686 67.53% 66.78% 75.24% 569 '27 489 63.3S"/4 65.95% 714 70.03% 66 .32% 582 440 392 857 642 406 15 15 15 15 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 17 1Jl 15 15 15 19 20 21 15 15 23 24 574 478 317 449 '47 882 660 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 693 63.99"/4 54.82% 51.79'% .54.71% 60.32% 471 416 56.83% 57.58% 50.69",i; 422 57.34% 414 56 .65% 54.77% 60.31% 414 344 448 413 57.43% 59.18% 60.51% 708 1Jl "" 708 23 74 62.35% 56.65% 55.04% .54.52.% 455 52.99"/2 55.89"/4 409 7'7 473 26 677 386 57.02% 62.41% 78 743 402 29 774 54.10% 54.01% 59.04% 6(1.28% 61.58% 27 30 434 31 833 513 S82 795 6 SM '74 7 795 459 10 932 632 11 681 029 12 088 733 434 496 34 35 535 17 400 524 452 473 513 72.82% 59.17% 58.23% 57.74% 476 445 60.07% 66.27% 67.81% 63.00% 7 .2 435 10 625 414 15 648 67.21% 63.17% 13 790 479 59.18% 54.26% 63.55% 59.75% 65.03% 610 o25 9 377 56.51% 60.76% 660 SlO 862 438 373 58.85% 63.32% 75 14 15 16 17 18 19 473 449 445 62.28% 59.31% 809 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 640 56 .16% 58.15% 51.67% 806 3 603 56.20% 62.32% 57.05% 13 35 36 404 427 56.84% 53.64% 14 15 16 17 33 34 4'8 4'4 52.53% 57.85% .54.06% 55.10% 45.11% 52.92% 12 32 497 384 14 14 57.42% 54.06% 10 11 19 70 71 22 14 14 60.25% 65.85% 60.41.% 395 429 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 54.05% 53.63% .54.95% 534 10 14 14 72.24% 64.77% 71.43% 57.2S"/4 478 15 403 441 79.88% 75.43% 14 14 14 15 PVERSIGHT 392 77.ll.% 78.32% 73.9S"/4 76 .85% 558 6 14 AMERICAN 364 78.lS"/4 72.22% 456 66.05% 66.47% 63.16% 56.55% 67.12% 535 548 498 17 18 53.80 ''/4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000044 455 463 29 17 17 20 21 564 523 745 4'4 596 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 "' 45 46 47 48 49 19 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1Jl 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 737 674 19 48 904 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 49 754 598 5{J 553 4'2 788 588 549 607 484 435 10 1 20 20 3 4 10 S 570 "' 484 681 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 1 706 890 775 657 470 451 11 12 13 14 561 4'4 703 687 704 702 622 19 679 70, 670 711 648 709 698 738 744 604 60, so AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 494 436 421 367 374 469 435 56 779 840 511 511 674 448 683 488 713 702 472 469 509 720 724 777 815 762 64.42% 70.46% 70.87"/4 642 682 460 487 778 402 418 458 441 66.67"/4 66.8(]'/4 70.31% 69.87"/4 667 444 21 21 41 42 720 460 21 21 21 21 '3 44 45 46 47 54 450 448 67.22% 67.07"/4 70.19% 73.21% 6(),1 21 468 465 505 63.64% 72.39% 474 40 51 52 53 463 66.81% 61.47% 66.67% 64.58% 66J:11% 67.68% 65.45% 67.91% 66.5(]'/4 586 21 21 21 433 482 70.52% 70.11% 64.66% 66.2(]'/4 64.99'% 70.67% 58.73% 38 39 48 49 60.83% 70.41% 66.47"/4 71.45% 62.55% 65.61% 718 21 21 21 62.6Cf/4 62.61% 65.6(]'/4 62.43% 817 729 21 21 63.30% 59.26% 64.27"/4 75.21% 757 66.57"/4 63.89% 68.07"/4 62.l(f/4 43 62.88% 61.77% 69.50% 4' 726 66.89% 64.46% 47 48 724 70.86% 61.34% 63.26% 722 743 so 774 462 726 408 855 505 492 461 413 452 502 66.02% 65.53% 64.75% 63.20% 1162 495 47 1 451 46 71.41% 58.52% 56.2(]'/4 59.06% 406 503 56.32% 61.56% 447 479 22 22 13 14 22 22 17 1Jl 22 22 22 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 22 23 24 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 12 54.86% 48.35% 58.3(]'/4 419 478 430 15 421 423 681 4'0 60.74% 55.69"/4 56.45% %4 887 939 444 616 1023 45 1 472 2 3 S 501 491 6 529 8 747 544 9 611 418 10 11 546 440 415 23 12 23 23 23 14 15 23 23 23 16 17 18 56' 422 625 586 356 23 23 23 19 661 420 20 21 596 347 13 73.31% 58.51% 66.99% 53.99% 65.4(]'/4 581 652 412 644 473 279 61.67% 55.20% 58.61% 50.06% 65.60% 411 613 55.82% 56.75% 491 549 4'8 78.98% 77.38% 72.35% 76.26% 72.42% 467 431 498 484 73.07"/4 71.18% 72.82% 68.41% 71.58% 71.65% 75.73% 63.65% 74.64% 67.39% 74.82% 56.96% 70.48% 63.54% 58.22% 76.3(1% 455 537 417 547 23 439 23 406 23 434 23 414 23 DOJ-18-0618-D-000046 19 20 414 417 340 .1 3 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 25 26 27 655 588 70.08% 75.85% 64.96% 64.13% 70.31% 75.32% 750 677 543 28 29 23 31 23 23 23 23 23 23 32 33 470 759 5(17 72.73% 66.39% 69.22% 66.80% &1.23% 75.41% 34 724 35 492 36 37 38 575 23 24 24 3 4 56.01% 53.82% 56.34% 64.77"/4 24 24 8 463 62.15% 57.51% 57.94% 49.03% 9 24 24 10 11 12 13 818 443 98' 76.17% 74.37"/4 74.41% 69.21% 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 540 540 14 15 839 16 875 524 17 1Jl 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 566 308 850 309 513 388 58.97% 58.63% 550 405 63.95% 64.80% 56.28% 64.24% 645 483 1130 28 807 598 29 509 60.51% 51.02% 57.52% 57.04% 5()\7 769 46 46 46 46 17 18 19 20 899 508 848 46 23 774 748 46 46 46 46 24 25 26 27 46 46 46 46 28 29 30 31 46 46 46 46 32 33 34 35 46 46 46 36 37 38 46 39 83.SS"/4 81.07% 82.9S"/4 864 745 842 84.74% 73.45% 756 760 84.0S"/4 80.42% 91.93% 66.75% 69.92% 532 504 68.73% 67.38% 647 587 709 84.18% 78.35% 78.22% 86.24% 89.24% 584 709 78.7S"/4 84.20"/4 87.3S"/4 73.7S"/4 89.61% 78.95% 84.22% 721 632 641 509 88.90% 80.54% 76.43% 83.25% 702 574 424 81.77% 75.31% 87.48% 563 641 509 83.31% 84.73% 84.20% 83.80% 8(].47% 85.03% 86.23% 47 47 47 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 47 47 47 47 23 24 25 47 47 47 47 26 27 28 29 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 85-02% 85.82"/4 86.5(1'/4 963 82.45% 80.44% 78.66% 834 1022 750 14 47 47 82.80"/4 8G.l1% 88.78% 83.79% 87.28% 81.37% 85.33% 47 47 47 47 9()6 86.42% 80.52% 83.57% 86.33% 47 609 81.33% 88.28% 83.50% 47 86.75% 82.27% 86.08% 89.84% 47 86.39% 84.63% 89.12% 47 47 30 31 47 47 47 47 32 33 34 35 47 47 47 47 47 47 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 88.50% 86.81% 85.9(1'/4 47 47 ;,9 776 673 807 779 703 861 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 "4 79.39% 47 45 46 47 47 47 "8 82.60% 81.97% 87.82"/4 9(].36% 82.91% 82.51% 81.57% 84.2(1'/4 48 84.58% 80.06% 48 82.85% 80.59% 84.43% 48 48 48 48 48 10 11 12 48 48 48 48 14 15 16 17 48 48 48 18 19 20 48 21 48 48 23 24 48 48 48 48 25 26 27 28 75 48 48 48 29 30 31 48 48 48 48 32 33 34 35 86.14% 83.08% 83.02% 82.07% 13 441 81.18% 77.54% 79.91% 84.66% 67.89% 577 1101 599 678 439 1788 1007 367 544 943 877 712 403 355 48 48 36 37 38 39 40 48 48 48 41 42 43 861 651 48 48 48 "4 887 752 49 49 833 748 1 525 755 '78 2 536 425 1087 902 48 48 48 48 48 48 81.19% 88.34% 89.63% 53.20% 87.97% 510 48 724 19 25 48 549 349 48 1279 .5 48 48 547 949 7W 48 48 33 34 356 551 79.83% 82.09% 85.32% 87.58% 48 37 654 48 40 546 82.38% 79.77'/4 76.77% 85.26% 48 41 48 48 43 373 .30 0 48 750 41 646 756 15 82.58% 82.48% 484 433 62.48% 79.29% 74.19% 73.87'/4 71.73% 463 15 421 4 49 49 8 726 556 9 en 632 78.30% 49 10 726 48 86.48% 82.93% 81.29% 80.24% 82.45% 88.06% 79.85% 47 "8 48 48 75.59% 83.74% 76.58% 6 46 47 77.30% 81.40% 75.39% 80.44% 83.92% 620 1131 48 48 48 45 46 15 47 47 47 49 49 PVERSIGHT 47 83.45% 587 AMERICAN " 85.81% 85.69% 706 49 647 49 725 555 672 75.06% DOJ-18-0618-D-000054 49 11 49 12 49 49 13 776 77.76% 928 82.78% 82.17"/4 14 753 555 49 49 15 16 703 525 49 49 49 49 17 6'6 988 513 823 18 19 20 49 49 49 49 49 49 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1011 830 1094 1003 79.41% 83.30% 74.38% 81.38% 1149 584 49 49 49 73.71% 74.68% 74.50% 679 72.26% 74.78% 773 76.46% 598 72.05% 80.62% 882 1039 1104 78.44% 966 78.78% 77.9(f'/4 79.83% 74.52% 69.12% 69.59% 71.67"/4 69.26% 588 565 11 50 50 12 13 14 82.55% 50 50 15 77.48% 50 17 50 50 50 18 19 20 50 50 23 24 50 25 26 27 50 50 50 50 33 50 50 34 35 50 36 37 50 50 83.11% 62.9(f'/4 156 658 773 629 81.41% 63.83% 74.16% 531 70.27"/4 68.69% 384 61.05% 64.60 % 64.53% 67.55% 781 940 89.12% 674 590 28 50 50 50 50 66.18% 86.24% 16 29 30 31 50 PVERSIGHT 72.72% 67.77"/4 67.65% 50 50 AMLRICAN 66.7(f'/4 79.25% 73.26% 69.82% 64.47"/4 67.09% 72.19% 77.44% 733 77.42% 77.66% 67.67"/4 495 687 77.87"/4 524 38 81.23% 39 40 65.4(f'/4 69.96% DOJ-18-0618-D-000055 Ward Precinct Register Voters Ballots Cast Turnout%Ward PrecinctVotercount 845 671 79.41% 20 20 9 9 298 914 677 74.07% 11 11 21 21 353 661 499 75.49% 26 26 34 34 175 761 451 59.26% 20 21 158 20 21 785 871 110.96% 5 5 27 27 586 768 644 83.85% 27 11 400 27 11 771 567 73.54% 41 41 47 47 323 725 551 76.00% 19 21 323 19 21 1340 923 68.88% 28 28 34 34 752 881 578 65.61% 34 34 49 49 408 787 666 84.63% 47 47 39 39 505 763 591 77.46% 39 39 41 41 431 809 588 72.68% 35 1 431 35 1 1000 641 64.10% 29 29 3 3 488 312 229 73.40% 11 11 34 34 96 960 651 67.81% 2 7 2 7 560 729 487 66.80% 21 33 405 21 33 704 527 74.86% 18 18 25 25 446 823 619 75.21% 20 20 23 23 545 1000 825 82.50% 43 43 37 37 753 1055 852 80.76% 32 32 22 22 782 8 795 622 78.24% 1 8 557 1 559 364 65.12% 20 20 33 33 300 745 466 62.55% 21 21 17 17 402 538 367 68.22% 31 31 31 31 303 732 447 61.07% 7 44 7 44 387 731 519 71.00% 27 27 50 50 460 385 222 57.66% 20 20 38 38 170 809 486 60.07% 17 17 8 8 435 695 462 66.47% 9 17 9 17 414 998 795 79.66% 1 19 748 1 19 1255 1040 82.87% 3 25 3 25 994 673 516 76.67% 20 20 24 24 472 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT difference 373 324 324 293 285 244 244 228 171 170 161 160 157 153 133 91 82 81 74 72 70 65 64 64 64 60 59 52 51 48 47 46 44 DOJ-18-0618-D-000056 23 2 20 8 42 8 20 20 50 5 16 47 49 17 39 43 7 16 26 27 29 28 24 28 28 44 4 6 15 20 27 43 24 24 35 40 15 20 19 14 13 32 29 16 14 47 30 39 9 16 43 29 12 48 11 23 20 1 10 40 17 12 10 5 37 42 31 32 AMERICAN 492 985 986 760 1092 752 1014 889 845 914 693 928 962 712 802 1024 720 774 692 1176 517 1010 625 711 847 857 944 807 1022 920 801 816 893 419 PVERSIGHT 371 826 543 523 925 491 639 533 590 628 411 815 768 493 576 825 478 418 485 908 343 605 405 442 607 735 862 467 673 547 635 665 524 279 75.41% 83.86% 55.07% 68.82% 84.71% 65.29% 63.02% 59.96% 69.82% 68.71% 59.31% 87.82% 79.83% 69.24% 71.82% 80.57% 66.39% 54.01% 70.09% 77.21% 66.34% 59.90% 64.80% 62.17% 71.66% 85.76% 91.31% 57.87% 65.85% 59.46% 79.28% 81.50% 58.68% 66.59% 23 2 20 8 42 8 20 20 50 5 16 47 49 17 39 43 7 16 26 27 29 28 24 28 28 44 4 6 15 20 27 43 24 24 35 40 15 20 19 14 13 32 29 16 14 47 30 39 9 16 43 29 12 48 11 23 20 1 10 40 17 12 10 5 37 42 31 32 327 783 500 481 883 450 598 492 549 589 372 776 729 455 538 787 442 382 449 872 307 570 371 408 573 701 829 434 640 514 602 632 492 247 44 43 43 42 42 41 41 41 41 39 39 39 39 38 38 38 36 36 36 36 36 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 DOJ-18-0618-D-000057 44 7 14 27 45 7 7 20 37 45 1 5 17 20 28 33 34 1 31 2 6 16 16 20 20 25 28 28 30 36 42 6 9 9 30 6 15 16 1 11 45 12 22 3 35 29 18 11 14 6 30 25 22 27 4 13 33 18 31 31 25 31 30 23 14 23 38 46 AMERICAN 988 784 776 855 535 882 837 633 836 636 1009 926 733 939 753 842 604 864 579 752 673 806 722 674 868 1321 909 1024 426 812 1076 686 739 786 PVERSIGHT 844 632 564 682 464 609 538 439 466 503 810 658 492 664 451 612 422 604 360 666 449 502 408 432 620 1069 587 609 255 488 903 366 495 523 85.43% 80.61% 72.68% 79.77% 86.73% 69.05% 64.28% 69.35% 55.74% 79.09% 80.28% 71.06% 67.12% 70.71% 59.89% 72.68% 69.87% 69.91% 62.18% 88.56% 66.72% 62.28% 56.51% 64.09% 71.43% 80.92% 64.58% 59.47% 59.86% 60.10% 83.92% 53.35% 66.98% 66.54% 44 7 14 27 45 7 7 20 37 45 1 5 17 20 28 33 34 1 31 2 6 16 16 20 20 25 28 28 30 36 42 6 9 9 30 6 15 16 1 11 45 12 22 3 35 29 18 11 14 6 30 25 22 27 4 13 33 18 31 31 25 31 30 23 14 23 38 46 812 601 533 651 433 579 508 409 436 473 781 629 463 635 422 583 393 576 332 639 422 475 381 405 593 1042 560 582 228 461 876 340 469 497 32 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 DOJ-18-0618-D-000058 20 29 6 8 12 17 30 42 12 21 37 45 47 2 2 8 9 16 27 29 32 34 44 48 3 6 7 10 15 16 24 29 39 4 1 21 32 26 14 15 19 42 7 37 24 46 44 6 38 21 37 30 23 42 18 53 6 4 12 39 26 1 1 5 34 19 25 5 AMERICAN 727 1196 714 792 920 862 939 1295 919 586 807 613 883 910 725 941 843 686 599 933 774 667 1085 753 756 788 567 683 857 722 797 873 791 786 PVERSIGHT 546 749 485 526 483 573 538 1149 518 429 534 446 701 657 645 660 608 405 403 603 646 388 942 634 567 492 380 457 491 366 448 597 495 597 75.10% 62.63% 67.93% 66.41% 52.50% 66.47% 57.29% 88.73% 56.37% 73.21% 66.17% 72.76% 79.39% 72.20% 88.97% 70.14% 72.12% 59.04% 67.28% 64.63% 83.46% 58.17% 86.82% 84.20% 75.00% 62.44% 67.02% 66.91% 57.29% 50.69% 56.21% 68.38% 62.58% 75.95% 20 29 6 8 12 17 30 42 12 21 37 45 47 2 2 8 9 16 27 29 32 34 44 48 3 6 7 10 15 16 24 29 39 4 1 21 32 26 14 15 19 42 7 37 24 46 44 6 38 21 37 30 23 42 18 53 6 4 12 39 26 1 1 5 34 19 25 5 520 723 460 501 458 548 513 1124 494 405 510 422 677 634 622 637 585 382 380 580 623 365 919 611 545 470 358 435 469 344 426 575 473 576 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 DOJ-18-0618-D-000059 6 20 21 21 22 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 31 34 39 44 46 50 3 4 7 7 15 16 21 24 27 27 28 34 36 42 43 43 47 34 8 38 8 2 19 47 4 22 29 13 20 21 30 41 27 32 6 8 1 30 17 9 46 16 14 31 46 26 9 32 32 40 AMERICAN 619 888 753 741 843 857 487 509 616 619 678 748 547 781 918 1098 974 971 942 891 763 787 660 776 787 875 505 659 1198 823 812 977 892 684 PVERSIGHT 430 765 531 521 618 565 334 405 427 429 280 486 360 534 696 966 840 701 773 688 502 426 379 468 547 513 332 438 849 534 491 807 775 562 69.47% 86.15% 70.52% 70.31% 73.31% 65.93% 68.58% 79.57% 69.32% 69.31% 41.30% 64.97% 65.81% 68.37% 75.82% 87.98% 86.24% 72.19% 82.06% 77.22% 65.79% 54.13% 57.42% 60.31% 69.50% 58.63% 65.74% 66.46% 70.87% 64.88% 60.47% 82.60% 86.88% 82.16% 6 20 21 21 22 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 31 34 39 44 46 50 3 4 7 7 15 16 21 24 27 27 28 34 36 42 43 43 47 34 8 38 8 2 19 47 4 22 29 13 20 21 30 41 27 32 6 8 1 30 17 9 46 16 14 31 46 26 9 32 32 40 409 744 510 500 597 544 313 384 406 408 259 465 339 513 675 945 819 680 753 668 482 406 359 448 527 493 312 418 829 514 471 787 755 542 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 DOJ-18-0618-D-000060 44 49 3 5 5 7 8 9 9 16 18 21 24 25 25 36 37 46 48 3 6 7 8 9 21 28 28 28 29 39 3 3 4 5 35 25 27 10 22 14 7 8 51 25 31 29 9 21 30 10 9 15 24 31 48 5 56 3 39 3 33 43 22 12 32 41 19 12 AMERICAN 996 1094 976 789 726 842 767 872 648 747 679 762 818 1166 906 876 885 882 946 966 772 716 710 823 604 660 911 1006 694 1064 927 800 933 828 PVERSIGHT 860 882 802 550 648 555 562 549 462 473 494 540 495 982 562 587 565 715 769 775 517 441 511 500 422 429 561 634 448 745 781 535 633 491 86.35% 80.62% 82.17% 69.71% 89.26% 65.91% 73.27% 62.96% 71.30% 63.32% 72.75% 70.87% 60.51% 84.22% 62.03% 67.01% 63.84% 81.07% 81.29% 80.23% 66.97% 61.59% 71.97% 60.75% 69.87% 65.00% 61.58% 63.02% 64.55% 70.02% 84.25% 66.88% 67.85% 59.30% 44 49 3 5 5 7 8 9 9 16 18 21 24 25 25 36 37 46 48 3 6 7 8 9 21 28 28 28 29 39 3 3 4 5 35 25 27 10 22 14 7 8 51 25 31 29 9 21 30 10 9 15 24 31 48 5 56 3 39 3 33 43 22 12 32 41 19 12 840 862 783 531 629 536 543 530 443 454 475 521 476 963 543 568 546 696 750 757 499 423 493 482 404 411 543 616 430 727 764 518 616 474 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 DOJ-18-0618-D-000061 5 5 6 6 6 15 16 17 19 23 24 25 27 27 34 35 39 40 41 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 10 21 38 9 26 46 21 32 41 8 22 22 3 21 34 5 24 6 37 14 31 14 29 31 23 5 21 41 20 22 41 1 25 45 27 AMERICAN 776 823 860 781 553 616 833 775 755 655 1004 1002 692 724 682 761 867 878 774 995 876 884 700 1213 741 634 735 680 749 737 705 771 805 1045 PVERSIGHT 644 599 589 466 364 326 513 545 590 459 645 794 572 485 448 527 555 663 640 831 690 639 602 1049 410 367 508 395 447 469 427 520 549 545 82.99% 72.78% 68.49% 59.67% 65.82% 52.92% 61.58% 70.32% 78.15% 70.08% 64.24% 79.24% 82.66% 66.99% 65.69% 69.25% 64.01% 75.51% 82.69% 83.52% 78.77% 72.29% 86.00% 86.48% 55.33% 57.89% 69.12% 58.09% 59.68% 63.64% 60.57% 67.44% 68.20% 52.15% 5 5 6 6 6 15 16 17 19 23 24 25 27 27 34 35 39 40 41 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 10 21 38 9 26 46 21 32 41 8 22 22 3 21 34 5 24 6 37 14 31 14 29 31 23 5 21 41 20 22 41 1 25 45 27 627 582 572 449 347 309 496 528 573 442 628 777 555 468 431 510 538 646 623 815 674 623 586 1033 394 351 492 379 431 453 411 504 533 529 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 DOJ-18-0618-D-000062 12 14 17 18 21 22 22 24 27 27 28 40 42 43 45 46 49 49 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 6 6 8 8 9 9 11 12 7 12 9 20 3 21 24 1 22 35 13 39 39 4 10 4 18 30 38 18 45 21 22 30 33 40 25 43 32 54 25 33 4 AMERICAN 899 903 988 609 682 1162 964 1130 903 635 965 1005 1016 906 817 1256 1087 988 990 841 767 870 843 1097 800 845 634 639 694 578 740 698 719 817 PVERSIGHT 539 592 664 451 482 680 565 651 782 319 580 901 852 779 649 1090 803 823 727 660 670 660 710 888 502 624 477 348 463 417 497 481 417 520 59.96% 65.56% 67.21% 74.06% 70.67% 58.52% 58.61% 57.61% 86.60% 50.24% 60.10% 89.65% 83.86% 85.98% 79.44% 86.78% 73.87% 83.30% 73.43% 78.48% 87.35% 75.86% 84.22% 80.95% 62.75% 73.85% 75.24% 54.46% 66.71% 72.15% 67.16% 68.91% 58.00% 63.65% 12 14 17 18 21 22 22 24 27 27 28 40 42 43 45 46 49 49 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 6 6 8 8 9 9 11 12 7 12 9 20 3 21 24 1 22 35 13 39 39 4 10 4 18 30 38 18 45 21 22 30 33 40 25 43 32 54 25 33 4 523 576 648 435 466 664 549 635 766 303 564 885 836 763 633 1074 787 807 712 645 655 645 695 873 487 609 462 333 448 402 482 466 402 505 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 DOJ-18-0618-D-000063 15 16 16 17 21 21 21 24 24 24 25 27 29 32 37 37 41 41 42 46 48 48 49 49 49 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 12 15 17 11 6 15 26 3 33 40 4 8 13 42 4 20 25 28 10 8 42 43 1 12 32 10 23 31 1 33 34 16 21 15 AMERICAN 897 794 866 681 674 720 815 930 506 836 801 797 894 780 731 783 976 1067 1060 761 959 861 765 1121 954 985 1103 910 1081 955 1010 1042 1046 734 PVERSIGHT 574 456 524 429 448 465 542 524 290 528 580 472 605 613 440 443 604 714 918 519 765 661 478 928 688 798 837 647 743 800 822 945 895 588 63.99% 57.43% 60.51% 63.00% 66.47% 64.58% 66.50% 56.34% 57.31% 63.16% 72.41% 59.22% 67.67% 78.59% 60.19% 56.58% 61.89% 66.92% 86.60% 68.20% 79.77% 76.77% 62.48% 82.78% 72.12% 81.02% 75.88% 71.10% 68.73% 83.77% 81.39% 90.69% 85.56% 80.11% 15 16 16 17 21 21 21 24 24 24 25 27 29 32 37 37 41 41 42 46 48 48 49 49 49 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 12 15 17 11 6 15 26 3 33 40 4 8 13 42 4 20 25 28 10 8 42 43 1 12 32 10 23 31 1 33 34 16 21 15 559 441 509 414 433 450 527 509 275 513 565 457 590 598 425 428 589 699 903 504 750 646 463 913 673 784 823 633 729 786 808 931 881 574 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 DOJ-18-0618-D-000064 6 6 8 8 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 22 26 26 27 28 30 32 33 34 34 36 41 1 1 2 3 3 6 6 7 8 9 17 33 45 33 51 9 27 7 38 29 50 27 9 28 33 2 41 26 29 2 19 47 21 39 6 28 37 18 38 34 44 13 42 18 36 AMERICAN 715 742 717 704 1024 673 795 890 729 553 504 776 732 674 804 593 572 864 1155 893 823 829 776 845 331 673 1306 658 727 815 529 898 649 751 PVERSIGHT 512 567 492 530 617 420 459 540 512 442 312 454 573 441 620 373 363 711 863 631 514 500 610 648 227 590 912 502 531 568 330 674 367 497 71.61% 76.42% 68.62% 75.28% 60.25% 62.41% 57.74% 60.67% 70.23% 79.93% 61.90% 58.51% 78.28% 65.43% 77.11% 62.90% 63.46% 82.29% 74.72% 70.66% 62.45% 60.31% 78.61% 76.69% 68.58% 87.67% 69.83% 76.29% 73.04% 69.69% 62.38% 75.06% 56.55% 66.18% 6 6 8 8 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 22 26 26 27 28 30 32 33 34 34 36 41 1 1 2 3 3 6 6 7 8 9 17 33 45 33 51 9 27 7 38 29 50 27 9 28 33 2 41 26 29 2 19 47 21 39 6 28 37 18 38 34 44 13 42 18 36 498 553 478 516 603 406 445 526 498 428 298 440 559 427 606 359 349 697 849 617 500 486 596 635 214 577 899 489 518 555 317 661 354 484 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 DOJ-18-0618-D-000065 18 19 21 23 27 27 29 31 33 34 34 35 36 42 45 48 49 50 1 3 5 5 6 8 9 9 10 10 11 14 16 18 20 20 28 41 5 39 35 38 40 23 25 24 41 16 26 2 32 26 29 7 33 37 18 37 18 55 22 29 8 31 29 17 26 36 10 14 AMERICAN 632 634 757 669 746 1025 870 571 1083 760 635 751 782 1068 721 439 966 742 972 841 680 737 693 534 682 751 651 739 860 619 677 712 689 381 PVERSIGHT 471 508 533 463 596 816 612 356 807 470 365 408 484 832 471 362 761 588 719 573 569 623 436 386 493 516 411 386 631 411 386 509 440 284 74.53% 80.13% 70.41% 69.21% 79.89% 79.61% 70.34% 62.35% 74.52% 61.84% 57.48% 54.33% 61.89% 77.90% 65.33% 82.46% 78.78% 79.25% 73.97% 68.13% 83.68% 84.53% 62.91% 72.28% 72.29% 68.71% 63.13% 52.23% 73.37% 66.40% 57.02% 71.49% 63.86% 74.54% 18 19 21 23 27 27 29 31 33 34 34 35 36 42 45 48 49 50 1 3 5 5 6 8 9 9 10 10 11 14 16 18 20 20 28 41 5 39 35 38 40 23 25 24 41 16 26 2 32 26 29 7 33 37 18 37 18 55 22 29 8 31 29 17 26 36 10 14 458 495 520 450 583 803 599 343 794 457 352 395 471 819 458 349 748 575 707 561 557 611 424 374 481 504 399 374 619 399 374 497 428 272 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 DOJ-18-0618-D-000066 20 20 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 32 34 37 37 37 37 38 42 46 49 1 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 19 36 39 5 9 37 44 15 20 37 30 39 23 13 33 34 35 31 21 35 19 7 3 12 23 4 8 13 31 14 28 35 40 17 AMERICAN 837 362 874 893 945 725 444 650 701 1090 802 910 651 687 871 832 805 713 885 963 851 556 914 789 842 925 724 787 722 792 675 669 679 674 PVERSIGHT 552 199 525 592 616 500 274 390 508 649 620 745 412 402 580 511 518 532 741 811 633 455 781 618 574 732 632 525 506 517 331 461 449 444 65.95% 54.97% 60.07% 66.29% 65.19% 68.97% 61.71% 60.00% 72.47% 59.54% 77.31% 81.87% 63.29% 58.52% 66.59% 61.42% 64.35% 74.61% 83.73% 84.22% 74.38% 81.83% 85.45% 78.33% 68.17% 79.14% 87.29% 66.71% 70.08% 65.28% 49.04% 68.91% 66.13% 65.88% 20 20 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 32 34 37 37 37 37 38 42 46 49 1 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 19 36 39 5 9 37 44 15 20 37 30 39 23 13 33 34 35 31 21 35 19 7 3 12 23 4 8 13 31 14 28 35 40 17 540 187 513 580 604 488 262 378 496 637 608 733 400 390 568 499 506 520 729 799 621 444 770 607 563 721 621 514 495 506 320 450 438 433 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 DOJ-18-0618-D-000067 9 9 10 10 16 19 23 25 26 27 27 28 30 32 36 36 36 36 37 37 43 43 44 46 48 48 48 50 50 50 1 2 2 2 32 45 5 6 24 10 6 24 36 30 42 26 9 13 1 3 11 13 12 16 9 15 16 1 9 37 41 5 9 37 24 9 11 15 AMERICAN 698 687 671 677 452 737 724 961 612 438 474 913 745 922 803 645 663 632 748 848 875 886 935 781 546 833 999 592 667 687 913 776 797 870 PVERSIGHT 473 454 408 428 266 602 529 596 443 280 382 566 470 721 557 466 427 366 416 546 711 788 797 509 461 665 823 410 452 535 579 623 673 651 67.77% 66.08% 60.80% 63.22% 58.85% 81.68% 73.07% 62.02% 72.39% 63.93% 80.59% 61.99% 63.09% 78.20% 69.36% 72.25% 64.40% 57.91% 55.61% 64.39% 81.26% 88.94% 85.24% 65.17% 84.43% 79.83% 82.38% 69.26% 67.77% 77.87% 63.42% 80.28% 84.44% 74.83% 9 9 10 10 16 19 23 25 26 27 27 28 30 32 36 36 36 36 37 37 43 43 44 46 48 48 48 50 50 50 1 2 2 2 32 45 5 6 24 10 6 24 36 30 42 26 9 13 1 3 11 13 12 16 9 15 16 1 9 37 41 5 9 37 24 9 11 15 462 443 397 417 255 591 518 585 432 269 371 555 459 710 546 455 416 355 405 535 700 777 786 498 450 654 812 399 441 524 569 613 663 641 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 DOJ-18-0618-D-000068 8 8 9 11 16 16 17 22 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 37 37 39 42 12 23 13 31 2 28 32 12 31 1 26 10 20 22 24 10 13 17 44 36 45 27 33 5 23 4 12 11 17 8 27 40 33 35 AMERICAN 619 700 715 780 808 743 741 656 592 757 906 1073 826 871 648 858 970 767 742 493 645 682 528 841 810 1117 932 798 921 785 829 800 923 1229 PVERSIGHT 449 449 489 546 461 402 432 429 393 424 609 908 487 555 433 551 686 551 439 284 526 482 389 690 678 866 689 449 628 600 532 526 666 984 72.54% 64.14% 68.39% 70.00% 57.05% 54.10% 58.30% 65.40% 66.39% 56.01% 67.22% 84.62% 58.96% 63.72% 66.82% 64.22% 70.72% 71.84% 59.16% 57.61% 81.55% 70.67% 73.67% 82.05% 83.70% 77.53% 73.93% 56.27% 68.19% 76.43% 64.17% 65.75% 72.16% 80.07% 8 8 9 11 16 16 17 22 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 37 37 39 42 12 23 13 31 2 28 32 12 31 1 26 10 20 22 24 10 13 17 44 36 45 27 33 5 23 4 12 11 17 8 27 40 33 35 439 439 479 536 451 392 422 419 383 414 599 898 477 545 423 541 676 541 429 274 516 472 379 680 668 856 679 439 618 590 522 516 656 974 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 DOJ-18-0618-D-000069 43 43 44 44 45 46 49 49 49 50 1 2 2 3 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 10 11 14 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 21 4 12 12 5 9 13 24 1 3 41 46 36 7 25 1 10 31 36 8 35 43 4 18 12 8 20 21 24 27 2 4 35 AMERICAN 871 945 822 865 790 1039 871 959 830 700 1001 1032 534 665 701 766 702 681 684 688 700 804 440 814 813 724 619 694 708 783 787 753 679 670 PVERSIGHT 749 745 694 783 536 830 682 788 598 536 749 744 421 404 581 543 520 401 489 524 418 492 285 470 477 509 339 382 386 544 484 486 488 497 85.99% 78.84% 84.43% 90.52% 67.85% 79.88% 78.30% 82.17% 72.05% 76.57% 74.83% 72.09% 78.84% 60.75% 82.88% 70.89% 74.07% 58.88% 71.49% 76.16% 59.71% 61.19% 64.77% 57.74% 58.67% 70.30% 54.77% 55.04% 54.52% 69.48% 61.50% 64.54% 71.87% 74.18% 43 43 44 44 45 46 49 49 49 50 1 2 2 3 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 10 11 14 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 21 4 12 12 5 9 13 24 1 3 41 46 36 7 25 1 10 31 36 8 35 43 4 18 12 8 20 21 24 27 2 4 35 739 735 684 773 526 820 672 778 588 526 740 735 412 395 572 534 511 392 480 515 409 483 276 461 468 500 330 373 377 535 475 477 479 488 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 DOJ-18-0618-D-000070 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 34 36 37 37 37 38 39 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 46 48 40 55 4 52 19 13 28 5 19 13 19 25 24 9 18 29 22 52 20 1 14 19 32 15 9 14 7 30 19 22 6 21 32 17 AMERICAN 726 600 529 774 467 652 627 494 860 960 994 611 801 870 480 849 1008 518 789 798 881 811 801 849 728 830 985 668 999 906 863 748 950 717 PVERSIGHT 555 473 271 511 288 415 453 307 550 636 620 417 429 481 355 557 689 352 508 444 546 453 515 616 544 548 836 579 874 767 668 523 701 607 76.45% 78.83% 51.23% 66.02% 61.67% 63.65% 72.25% 62.15% 63.95% 66.25% 62.37% 68.25% 53.56% 55.29% 73.96% 65.61% 68.35% 67.95% 64.39% 55.64% 61.98% 55.86% 64.29% 72.56% 74.73% 66.02% 84.87% 86.68% 87.49% 84.66% 77.40% 69.92% 73.79% 84.66% 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 34 36 37 37 37 38 39 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 46 48 40 55 4 52 19 13 28 5 19 13 19 25 24 9 18 29 22 52 20 1 14 19 32 15 9 14 7 30 19 22 6 21 32 17 546 464 262 502 279 406 444 298 541 627 611 408 420 472 346 548 680 343 499 435 537 444 506 607 535 539 827 570 865 758 659 514 692 598 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 DOJ-18-0618-D-000071 50 50 50 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 12 13 13 13 16 16 17 19 19 20 20 21 20 26 27 20 16 28 39 37 6 34 29 30 3 10 15 27 13 22 30 46 6 15 13 5 9 42 6 22 26 31 44 7 39 18 AMERICAN 778 940 193 697 900 637 1056 1212 763 869 685 783 637 717 710 652 892 662 796 600 708 1066 923 696 631 561 736 787 883 523 740 910 100 817 PVERSIGHT 577 635 172 507 602 384 874 1041 513 783 508 497 463 513 484 412 582 456 552 424 472 623 545 513 453 411 422 417 570 465 591 560 69 536 74.16% 67.55% 89.12% 72.74% 66.89% 60.28% 82.77% 85.89% 67.23% 90.10% 74.16% 63.47% 72.68% 71.55% 68.17% 63.19% 65.25% 68.88% 69.35% 70.67% 66.67% 58.44% 59.05% 73.71% 71.79% 73.26% 57.34% 52.99% 64.55% 88.91% 79.86% 61.54% 69.00% 65.61% 50 50 50 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 12 13 13 13 16 16 17 19 19 20 20 21 20 26 27 20 16 28 39 37 6 34 29 30 3 10 15 27 13 22 30 46 6 15 13 5 9 42 6 22 26 31 44 7 39 18 568 626 163 499 594 376 866 1033 505 775 500 489 455 505 476 404 574 448 544 416 464 615 537 505 445 403 414 409 562 457 583 552 61 528 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 DOJ-18-0618-D-000072 21 21 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 29 29 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 38 38 39 39 40 41 41 43 44 44 45 43 54 16 15 23 28 8 35 32 46 21 1 2 24 32 38 6 43 19 13 28 19 8 17 26 8 13 29 1 31 11 26 33 20 AMERICAN 810 678 564 524 850 861 450 666 689 504 661 826 1180 738 830 620 914 734 1031 756 678 757 685 860 779 872 778 765 705 794 832 996 824 584 PVERSIGHT 503 439 422 309 483 580 243 414 453 406 401 636 777 521 535 396 752 581 725 523 383 382 428 618 548 621 519 573 525 613 682 834 748 435 62.10% 64.75% 74.82% 58.97% 56.82% 67.36% 54.00% 62.16% 65.75% 80.56% 60.67% 77.00% 65.85% 70.60% 64.46% 63.87% 82.28% 79.16% 70.32% 69.18% 56.49% 50.46% 62.48% 71.86% 70.35% 71.22% 66.71% 74.90% 74.47% 77.20% 81.97% 83.73% 90.78% 74.49% 21 21 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 29 29 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 38 38 39 39 40 41 41 43 44 44 45 43 54 16 15 23 28 8 35 32 46 21 1 2 24 32 38 6 43 19 13 28 19 8 17 26 8 13 29 1 31 11 26 33 20 495 431 414 301 475 572 235 406 445 398 393 628 769 513 527 388 744 573 717 515 375 374 420 610 540 613 511 565 517 605 674 826 740 427 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 DOJ-18-0618-D-000073 46 48 49 50 1 2 4 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 26 22 33 18 32 44 3 11 28 5 7 27 28 49 15 29 34 15 17 19 6 11 6 30 22 24 4 5 10 13 17 34 40 14 AMERICAN 863 599 729 156 823 493 826 786 732 689 687 710 687 724 1356 759 697 397 883 1040 909 868 360 440 753 726 745 676 932 733 817 696 730 691 PVERSIGHT 675 518 573 127 629 442 607 493 511 425 397 466 367 504 910 466 378 230 646 714 521 527 254 285 428 408 429 400 632 463 462 381 476 478 78.22% 86.48% 78.60% 81.41% 76.43% 89.66% 73.49% 62.72% 69.81% 61.68% 57.79% 65.63% 53.42% 69.61% 67.11% 61.40% 54.23% 57.93% 73.16% 68.65% 57.32% 60.71% 70.56% 64.77% 56.84% 56.20% 57.58% 59.17% 67.81% 63.17% 56.55% 54.74% 65.21% 69.18% 46 48 49 50 1 2 4 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 26 22 33 18 32 44 3 11 28 5 7 27 28 49 15 29 34 15 17 19 6 11 6 30 22 24 4 5 10 13 17 34 40 14 667 510 565 119 622 435 600 486 504 418 390 459 360 497 903 459 371 223 639 707 514 520 247 278 421 401 422 393 625 456 455 374 469 471 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 DOJ-18-0618-D-000074 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 26 27 29 29 30 30 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 37 27 35 48 11 13 17 5 8 20 24 41 29 12 26 21 24 14 19 30 7 14 16 2 9 35 2 15 27 17 8 25 12 41 AMERICAN 297 728 738 726 828 884 932 678 747 596 625 710 794 860 755 655 1042 826 820 796 1020 494 1205 697 786 849 759 930 765 812 745 787 797 672 PVERSIGHT 188 469 495 468 447 485 519 491 544 347 406 529 441 633 537 411 655 674 639 682 744 356 904 386 454 557 554 662 535 548 411 483 549 487 63.30% 64.42% 67.07% 64.46% 53.99% 54.86% 55.69% 72.42% 72.82% 58.22% 64.96% 74.51% 55.54% 73.60% 71.13% 62.75% 62.86% 81.60% 77.93% 85.68% 72.94% 72.06% 75.02% 55.38% 57.76% 65.61% 72.99% 71.18% 69.93% 67.49% 55.17% 61.37% 68.88% 72.47% 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 26 27 29 29 30 30 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 37 27 35 48 11 13 17 5 8 20 24 41 29 12 26 21 24 14 19 30 7 14 16 2 9 35 2 15 27 17 8 25 12 41 181 462 488 461 440 478 512 484 537 340 399 522 434 626 530 404 648 667 632 675 737 349 897 379 447 550 547 655 528 541 404 476 542 480 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 DOJ-18-0618-D-000075 39 40 40 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 47 47 47 47 48 50 1 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 42 1 35 1 6 41 8 44 46 18 29 16 24 26 41 19 24 34 5 28 39 42 20 3 14 19 35 13 24 9 3 16 35 38 AMERICAN 686 827 771 748 786 878 678 801 488 958 997 772 794 1070 861 555 757 716 996 912 654 923 708 772 628 706 739 599 582 1067 686 296 709 542 PVERSIGHT 582 571 495 646 665 743 559 665 412 745 833 621 693 913 762 429 489 561 793 770 495 789 587 658 468 586 619 396 322 798 494 188 496 332 84.84% 69.04% 64.20% 86.36% 84.61% 84.62% 82.45% 83.02% 84.43% 77.77% 83.55% 80.44% 87.28% 85.33% 88.50% 77.30% 64.60% 78.35% 79.62% 84.43% 75.69% 85.48% 82.91% 85.23% 74.52% 83.00% 83.76% 66.11% 55.33% 74.79% 72.01% 63.51% 69.96% 61.25% 39 40 40 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 47 47 47 47 48 50 1 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 42 1 35 1 6 41 8 44 46 18 29 16 24 26 41 19 24 34 5 28 39 42 20 3 14 19 35 13 24 9 3 16 35 38 575 564 488 639 658 736 552 658 405 738 826 614 686 906 755 422 482 555 787 764 489 783 581 652 462 580 613 390 316 792 488 182 490 326 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000076 9 10 11 12 14 14 15 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 35 26 16 2 2 22 16 5 24 15 35 38 39 8 29 7 28 40 51 3 27 32 2 12 17 35 38 41 11 16 10 22 45 6 AMERICAN 651 818 735 756 925 927 882 576 713 888 549 576 320 720 912 683 887 667 724 604 543 679 890 540 629 699 568 531 958 1104 622 517 437 734 PVERSIGHT 454 414 440 428 635 626 532 362 480 692 457 462 228 479 595 488 625 444 458 437 409 470 479 308 388 450 357 332 580 867 418 297 243 559 69.74% 50.61% 59.86% 56.61% 68.65% 67.53% 60.32% 62.85% 67.32% 77.93% 83.24% 80.21% 71.25% 66.53% 65.24% 71.45% 70.46% 66.57% 63.26% 72.35% 75.32% 69.22% 53.82% 57.04% 61.69% 64.38% 62.85% 62.52% 60.54% 78.53% 67.20% 57.45% 55.61% 76.16% 9 10 11 12 14 14 15 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 35 26 16 2 2 22 16 5 24 15 35 38 39 8 29 7 28 40 51 3 27 32 2 12 17 35 38 41 11 16 10 22 45 6 448 408 434 422 629 620 526 356 474 686 451 456 222 473 589 482 619 438 452 431 403 464 473 302 382 444 351 326 574 861 412 291 237 553 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000077 27 28 28 28 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 37 37 39 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 18 2 5 24 23 4 5 34 2 4 8 16 24 35 1 20 38 40 23 36 22 34 13 38 45 33 38 24 25 35 2 3 10 17 AMERICAN 671 652 335 788 949 653 568 600 880 793 999 806 729 821 758 776 661 807 738 820 724 787 902 767 765 926 864 730 624 943 937 501 910 1072 PVERSIGHT 413 444 241 451 607 476 377 389 758 633 805 648 575 692 512 542 302 562 495 516 536 552 695 530 559 792 696 605 548 797 714 443 741 943 61.55% 68.10% 71.94% 57.23% 63.96% 72.89% 66.37% 64.83% 86.14% 79.82% 80.58% 80.40% 78.88% 84.29% 67.55% 69.85% 45.69% 69.64% 67.07% 62.93% 74.03% 70.14% 77.05% 69.10% 73.07% 85.53% 80.56% 82.88% 87.82% 84.52% 76.20% 88.42% 81.43% 87.97% 27 28 28 28 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 37 37 39 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 18 2 5 24 23 4 5 34 2 4 8 16 24 35 1 20 38 40 23 36 22 34 13 38 45 33 38 24 25 35 2 3 10 17 407 438 235 445 601 470 371 383 752 627 799 642 569 686 506 536 296 556 489 510 530 546 689 524 553 786 690 599 542 791 708 437 735 937 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000078 44 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 23 43 18 19 23 39 3 6 14 28 14 17 29 1 13 20 32 7 8 17 1 30 1 26 3 17 36 41 12 44 48 12 19 28 AMERICAN 852 759 945 508 748 806 779 932 441 1007 855 768 794 979 704 1058 739 590 884 997 949 1211 845 812 708 742 786 741 746 597 726 552 786 885 PVERSIGHT 743 558 760 467 504 671 649 781 358 810 660 558 630 716 616 786 622 430 627 784 797 879 570 634 521 453 561 544 532 402 507 353 518 561 87.21% 73.52% 80.42% 91.93% 67.38% 83.25% 83.31% 83.80% 81.18% 80.44% 77.19% 72.66% 79.35% 73.14% 87.50% 74.29% 84.17% 72.88% 70.93% 78.64% 83.98% 72.58% 67.46% 78.08% 73.59% 61.05% 71.37% 73.41% 71.31% 67.34% 69.83% 63.95% 65.90% 63.39% 44 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 23 43 18 19 23 39 3 6 14 28 14 17 29 1 13 20 32 7 8 17 1 30 1 26 3 17 36 41 12 44 48 12 19 28 737 552 754 461 498 665 643 775 352 804 655 553 625 711 611 781 617 425 622 779 792 874 565 629 516 448 556 539 527 397 502 348 513 556 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000079 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 18 19 19 19 21 21 21 21 21 23 23 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 13 22 8 22 26 34 26 8 13 23 36 1 11 27 45 22 23 25 30 44 2 21 18 25 9 46 43 15 16 20 39 4 8 37 AMERICAN 1018 1075 906 993 630 617 561 784 872 866 610 657 674 622 619 693 659 642 682 757 610 595 943 765 653 444 682 248 565 673 627 940 906 795 PVERSIGHT 672 699 530 497 449 490 370 432 478 484 331 453 533 488 506 463 446 436 434 476 472 454 534 615 406 317 451 168 333 473 379 610 537 506 66.01% 65.02% 58.50% 50.05% 71.27% 79.42% 65.95% 55.10% 54.82% 55.89% 54.26% 68.95% 79.08% 78.46% 81.74% 66.81% 67.68% 67.91% 63.64% 62.88% 77.38% 76.30% 56.63% 80.39% 62.17% 71.40% 66.13% 67.74% 58.94% 70.28% 60.45% 64.89% 59.27% 63.65% 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 16 18 19 19 19 21 21 21 21 21 23 23 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 13 22 8 22 26 34 26 8 13 23 36 1 11 27 45 22 23 25 30 44 2 21 18 25 9 46 43 15 16 20 39 4 8 37 667 694 525 492 444 485 365 427 473 479 326 448 528 483 501 458 441 431 429 471 467 449 529 610 401 312 446 163 328 468 374 605 532 501 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000080 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 5 6 12 29 14 40 3 9 27 6 7 15 16 22 33 5 7 18 19 38 32 18 23 19 18 23 2 13 26 5 24 25 25 29 AMERICAN 747 672 820 596 556 672 861 880 792 787 751 839 777 658 738 721 785 776 938 847 783 825 914 775 1098 915 839 801 514 940 620 871 483 564 PVERSIGHT 471 424 541 376 355 407 704 682 658 547 524 491 453 449 473 521 574 503 621 536 515 577 679 631 921 781 717 685 441 802 539 735 353 379 63.05% 63.10% 65.98% 63.09% 63.85% 60.57% 81.77% 77.50% 83.08% 69.50% 69.77% 58.52% 58.30% 68.24% 64.09% 72.26% 73.12% 64.82% 66.20% 63.28% 65.77% 69.94% 74.29% 81.42% 83.88% 85.36% 85.46% 85.52% 85.80% 85.32% 86.94% 84.39% 73.08% 67.20% 30 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 5 6 12 29 14 40 3 9 27 6 7 15 16 22 33 5 7 18 19 38 32 18 23 19 18 23 2 13 26 5 24 25 25 29 466 419 536 371 350 402 699 677 653 542 519 486 448 444 468 516 569 498 616 531 510 572 674 626 916 776 712 680 436 797 534 730 348 374 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000081 46 46 47 47 48 49 50 50 50 50 50 1 1 2 2 3 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 3 4 15 31 8 14 3 6 17 25 35 37 44 14 34 19 7 19 25 48 1 11 11 11 11 11 4 19 30 47 24 30 32 5 6 7 10 27 12 10 AMERICAN 882 770 963 798 443 753 651 895 868 781 828 845 677 907 631 871 816 733 827 736 785 626 700 665 712 715 836 793 1153 1030 1130 945 487 964 PVERSIGHT 791 602 794 649 357 555 453 597 546 504 643 655 533 688 545 749 550 473 487 495 502 401 455 420 498 499 480 479 730 802 961 530 245 576 89.68% 78.18% 82.45% 81.33% 80.59% 73.71% 69.59% 66.70% 62.90% 64.53% 77.66% 77.51% 78.73% 75.85% 86.37% 85.99% 67.40% 64.53% 58.89% 67.26% 63.95% 64.06% 65.00% 63.16% 69.94% 69.79% 57.42% 60.40% 63.31% 77.86% 85.04% 56.08% 50.31% 59.75% 46 46 47 47 48 49 50 50 50 50 50 1 1 2 2 3 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 3 4 15 31 8 14 3 6 17 25 35 37 44 14 34 19 7 19 25 48 1 4 19 30 47 24 30 32 5 6 7 10 27 10 786 597 789 644 352 550 448 592 541 499 638 651 529 684 541 745 546 469 483 491 498 397 451 416 494 495 476 475 726 798 957 526 241 572 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000082 13 13 15 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 26 26 27 15 38 23 3 9 20 10 20 37 43 47 1 5 6 13 46 47 20 11 12 13 16 31 32 15 18 17 38 21 36 1 31 49 3 AMERICAN 858 485 783 795 581 819 771 586 721 587 604 578 637 666 732 665 871 722 713 702 828 724 460 711 729 845 625 547 446 955 702 384 489 615 PVERSIGHT 651 374 420 517 385 564 572 405 507 395 400 463 536 531 602 530 716 457 472 469 509 452 333 474 425 477 356 407 251 557 478 233 296 337 75.87% 77.11% 53.64% 65.03% 66.27% 68.86% 74.19% 69.11% 70.32% 67.29% 66.23% 80.10% 84.14% 79.73% 82.24% 79.70% 82.20% 63.30% 66.20% 66.81% 61.47% 62.43% 72.39% 66.67% 58.30% 56.45% 56.96% 74.41% 56.28% 58.32% 68.09% 60.68% 60.53% 54.80% 13 13 15 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 26 26 27 15 38 23 3 9 20 10 20 37 43 47 1 5 6 13 46 47 20 11 12 13 16 31 32 15 18 17 38 21 36 1 31 49 3 647 370 416 513 381 560 568 401 503 391 396 459 532 527 598 526 712 453 468 465 505 448 329 470 421 473 352 403 247 553 474 229 292 333 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000083 27 27 27 27 27 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 40 40 40 40 41 43 43 4 9 26 40 49 7 31 16 20 1 11 32 28 20 21 4 12 21 17 21 32 39 3 19 23 39 4 2 20 27 39 18 10 20 AMERICAN 482 353 636 951 666 689 870 456 831 635 496 545 845 982 936 723 778 822 764 782 755 815 832 855 798 816 648 785 927 1060 349 682 970 897 PVERSIGHT 309 293 408 739 392 507 559 277 559 364 334 339 633 773 709 422 427 522 462 469 474 502 571 602 563 570 505 580 620 805 225 532 802 764 64.11% 83.00% 64.15% 77.71% 58.86% 73.58% 64.25% 60.75% 67.27% 57.32% 67.34% 62.20% 74.91% 78.72% 75.75% 58.37% 54.88% 63.50% 60.47% 59.97% 62.78% 61.60% 68.63% 70.41% 70.55% 69.85% 77.93% 73.89% 66.88% 75.94% 64.47% 78.01% 82.68% 85.17% 27 27 27 27 27 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 40 40 40 40 41 43 43 4 9 26 40 49 7 31 16 20 1 11 32 28 20 21 4 12 21 17 21 32 39 3 19 23 39 4 2 20 27 39 18 10 20 305 289 404 735 388 503 555 273 555 360 330 335 629 769 705 418 423 518 458 465 470 498 567 598 559 566 501 576 616 801 221 528 798 760 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000084 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 36 41 1 13 22 23 34 38 13 31 34 40 7 8 11 30 37 42 12 40 2 16 17 11 15 28 9 16 42 16 26 35 12 13 AMERICAN 478 1044 1269 790 761 770 837 746 793 825 1012 702 763 795 811 958 807 758 895 628 536 847 646 562 737 920 658 729 251 868 806 1096 955 898 PVERSIGHT 414 900 1135 644 537 537 571 476 672 721 799 574 614 676 696 827 725 658 743 550 425 631 513 404 571 674 551 606 192 622 615 909 682 744 86.61% 86.21% 89.44% 81.52% 70.57% 69.74% 68.22% 63.81% 84.74% 87.39% 78.95% 81.77% 80.47% 85.03% 85.82% 86.33% 89.84% 86.81% 83.02% 87.58% 79.29% 74.50% 79.41% 71.89% 77.48% 73.26% 83.74% 83.13% 76.49% 71.66% 76.30% 82.94% 71.41% 82.85% 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 36 41 1 13 22 23 34 38 13 31 34 40 7 8 11 30 37 42 12 40 2 16 17 11 15 28 9 16 42 16 26 35 12 13 410 896 1131 640 533 533 567 472 668 717 795 570 610 672 692 823 721 654 739 546 421 627 509 400 567 670 548 603 189 619 612 906 679 741 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000085 4 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18 33 23 5 36 44 47 10 16 39 35 3 24 1 20 21 6 10 21 23 32 40 45 1 3 11 21 27 19 3 1 21 37 12 16 879 650 682 743 526 629 689 676 758 776 717 781 745 999 858 495 484 618 506 513 469 654 692 778 424 686 714 825 695 716 768 706 633 658 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 683 456 496 520 347 415 413 422 512 517 519 602 516 621 549 401 369 481 374 367 347 476 522 550 304 462 500 435 395 455 523 421 463 444 77.70% 70.15% 72.73% 69.99% 65.97% 65.98% 59.94% 62.43% 67.55% 66.62% 72.38% 77.08% 69.26% 62.16% 63.99% 81.01% 76.24% 77.83% 73.91% 71.54% 73.99% 72.78% 75.43% 70.69% 71.70% 67.35% 70.03% 52.73% 56.83% 63.55% 68.10% 59.63% 73.14% 67.48% 4 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18 33 23 5 36 44 47 10 16 39 35 3 24 1 20 21 6 10 21 23 32 40 45 1 3 11 21 27 19 3 1 21 37 12 16 680 453 493 517 344 412 410 419 509 514 516 599 513 618 546 398 366 478 371 364 344 473 519 547 301 459 497 432 392 452 520 418 460 441 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000086 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 32 34 39 45 50 12 17 26 29 56 28 1 3 42 10 22 23 1 4 14 19 11 14 29 38 43 36 38 14 43 2 3 4 7 AMERICAN 703 704 689 738 653 565 568 636 737 611 567 762 779 786 1021 887 939 571 657 552 661 622 540 442 411 484 600 469 801 807 859 558 826 835 PVERSIGHT 491 534 430 486 406 452 479 539 558 537 325 477 511 535 684 444 616 451 501 412 420 419 344 262 262 286 396 232 510 607 542 396 532 569 69.84% 75.85% 62.41% 65.85% 62.17% 80.00% 84.33% 84.75% 75.71% 87.89% 57.32% 62.60% 65.60% 68.07% 66.99% 50.06% 65.60% 78.98% 76.26% 74.64% 63.54% 67.36% 63.70% 59.28% 63.75% 59.09% 66.00% 49.47% 63.67% 75.22% 63.10% 70.97% 64.41% 68.14% 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 32 34 39 45 50 12 17 26 29 56 28 1 3 42 10 22 23 1 4 14 19 11 14 29 38 43 36 38 14 43 2 3 4 7 488 531 427 483 403 449 476 536 555 534 322 474 508 532 681 441 613 448 498 409 417 416 341 259 259 283 393 229 507 604 539 393 529 566 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000087 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 42 43 43 43 43 44 44 9 13 28 36 13 15 3 27 13 17 22 6 15 37 37 5 21 3 7 8 10 12 28 36 38 4 43 25 12 22 23 33 21 31 AMERICAN 657 659 606 863 851 985 824 727 785 876 938 796 790 950 783 738 729 923 713 895 964 600 836 685 857 700 804 997 568 595 606 824 967 836 PVERSIGHT 417 396 345 716 651 737 550 459 438 665 669 466 543 592 532 567 516 750 595 730 678 491 653 565 743 563 620 804 504 502 503 703 866 660 63.47% 60.09% 56.93% 82.97% 76.50% 74.82% 66.75% 63.14% 55.80% 75.91% 71.32% 58.54% 68.73% 62.32% 67.94% 76.83% 70.78% 81.26% 83.45% 81.56% 70.33% 81.83% 78.11% 82.48% 86.70% 80.43% 77.11% 80.64% 88.73% 84.37% 83.00% 85.32% 89.56% 78.95% 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 42 43 43 43 43 44 44 9 13 28 36 13 15 3 27 13 17 22 6 15 37 37 5 21 3 7 8 10 12 28 36 38 4 43 25 12 22 23 33 21 31 414 393 342 713 648 734 547 456 435 662 666 463 540 589 529 564 513 747 592 727 675 488 650 562 740 560 617 801 501 499 500 700 863 657 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000088 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 49 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 19 30 7 12 22 29 9 22 34 7 11 16 5 18 21 26 27 41 23 36 11 24 9 24 22 37 38 21 39 4 6 8 11 17 AMERICAN 466 712 816 847 774 745 726 829 800 764 998 225 939 936 972 706 919 443 566 649 932 834 854 830 686 672 710 728 679 656 779 651 652 545 PVERSIGHT 325 524 723 708 532 587 626 736 694 633 776 187 715 674 770 441 673 347 462 562 700 577 691 670 404 481 509 434 429 505 494 445 455 398 69.74% 73.60% 88.60% 83.59% 68.73% 78.79% 86.23% 88.78% 86.75% 82.85% 77.76% 83.11% 76.14% 72.01% 79.22% 62.46% 73.23% 78.33% 81.63% 86.59% 75.11% 69.18% 80.91% 80.72% 58.89% 71.58% 71.69% 59.62% 63.18% 76.98% 63.41% 68.36% 69.79% 73.03% 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 49 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 19 30 7 12 22 29 9 22 34 7 11 16 5 18 21 26 27 41 23 36 11 24 9 24 22 37 38 21 39 4 6 8 11 17 322 521 720 705 529 584 623 733 691 630 773 184 713 672 768 439 671 345 460 560 698 575 689 668 402 479 507 432 427 503 492 443 453 396 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000089 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 24 29 53 20 23 26 36 21 23 23 25 33 38 3 4 9 18 19 23 1 4 8 17 19 30 44 48 13 19 28 29 31 7 15 AMERICAN 393 868 397 744 729 1015 715 859 741 436 816 825 422 880 770 728 899 822 803 472 611 443 555 754 434 657 482 575 672 582 598 392 751 817 PVERSIGHT 303 578 278 484 509 679 443 505 461 322 628 656 274 626 515 447 468 507 520 366 469 347 407 548 342 470 385 399 483 386 432 280 406 447 77.10% 66.59% 70.03% 65.05% 69.82% 66.90% 61.96% 58.79% 62.21% 73.85% 76.96% 79.52% 64.93% 71.14% 66.88% 61.40% 52.06% 61.68% 64.76% 77.54% 76.76% 78.33% 73.33% 72.68% 78.80% 71.54% 79.88% 69.39% 71.88% 66.32% 72.24% 71.43% 54.06% 54.71% 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 24 29 53 20 23 26 36 21 23 23 25 33 38 3 4 9 18 19 23 1 4 8 17 19 30 44 48 13 19 28 29 31 7 15 301 576 276 482 507 677 441 503 459 320 626 654 272 624 513 445 466 505 518 364 467 345 405 546 340 468 383 397 481 384 430 278 404 445 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000090 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 10 18 2 30 35 6 11 46 49 4 51 54 16 26 14 4 5 7 23 25 37 6 7 3 4 5 23 27 42 12 7 19 42 44 AMERICAN 739 733 795 698 712 582 628 744 581 730 696 549 743 705 828 726 855 642 588 750 558 786 905 711 633 604 500 743 517 499 875 613 865 606 PVERSIGHT 415 457 475 438 421 433 407 526 339 590 564 435 552 535 552 408 505 457 446 481 415 452 560 520 369 407 299 474 352 410 536 419 551 357 56.16% 62.35% 59.75% 62.75% 59.13% 74.40% 64.81% 70.70% 58.35% 80.82% 81.03% 79.23% 74.29% 75.89% 66.67% 56.20% 59.06% 71.18% 75.85% 64.13% 74.37% 57.51% 61.88% 73.14% 58.29% 67.38% 59.80% 63.80% 68.09% 82.16% 61.26% 68.35% 63.70% 58.91% 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 10 18 2 30 35 6 11 46 49 4 51 54 16 26 14 4 5 7 23 25 37 6 7 3 4 5 23 27 42 12 7 19 42 44 413 455 473 436 419 431 405 524 337 588 562 433 550 533 550 406 503 455 444 479 413 450 558 518 367 405 297 472 350 408 534 417 549 355 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000091 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 37 37 38 5 6 9 10 15 20 35 1 28 31 15 26 30 35 36 37 11 17 34 38 8 17 22 26 32 36 46 4 23 30 24 15 26 5 AMERICAN 810 858 747 785 869 1133 694 850 778 506 558 584 507 637 549 541 733 833 869 809 970 1001 832 681 779 668 481 767 798 864 856 865 853 799 PVERSIGHT 522 486 579 622 611 742 413 597 561 351 337 393 304 389 368 341 604 646 720 665 805 748 623 537 484 443 316 551 577 588 550 534 586 560 64.44% 56.64% 77.51% 79.24% 70.31% 65.49% 59.51% 70.24% 72.11% 69.37% 60.39% 67.29% 59.96% 61.07% 67.03% 63.03% 82.40% 77.55% 82.85% 82.20% 82.99% 74.73% 74.88% 78.85% 62.13% 66.32% 65.70% 71.84% 72.31% 68.06% 64.25% 61.73% 68.70% 70.09% 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 37 37 38 5 6 9 10 15 20 35 1 28 31 15 26 30 35 36 37 11 17 34 38 8 17 22 26 32 36 46 4 23 30 24 15 26 5 520 484 577 620 609 740 411 595 559 349 335 391 302 387 366 339 602 644 718 663 803 746 621 535 482 441 314 549 575 586 548 532 584 558 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000092 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 7 11 13 15 21 22 27 29 30 33 35 38 20 24 29 24 25 2 5 32 37 4 9 27 31 34 5 11 14 21 44 2 9 24 AMERICAN 788 686 862 731 772 715 824 793 847 805 782 766 874 852 489 833 838 752 874 638 839 1576 1110 588 1065 788 738 961 1031 704 722 739 835 866 PVERSIGHT 522 479 571 501 466 498 575 509 536 546 533 482 653 679 317 591 714 595 660 473 634 1292 796 509 906 645 617 798 711 495 531 593 708 729 66.24% 69.83% 66.24% 68.54% 60.36% 69.65% 69.78% 64.19% 63.28% 67.83% 68.16% 62.92% 74.71% 79.69% 64.83% 70.95% 85.20% 79.12% 75.51% 74.14% 75.57% 81.98% 71.71% 86.56% 85.07% 81.85% 83.60% 83.04% 68.96% 70.31% 73.55% 80.24% 84.79% 84.18% 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 44 45 45 45 46 46 46 7 11 13 15 21 22 27 29 30 33 35 38 20 24 29 24 25 2 5 32 37 4 9 27 31 34 5 11 14 21 44 2 9 24 520 477 569 499 464 496 573 507 534 544 531 480 651 677 315 589 712 593 658 471 632 1290 794 507 904 643 615 796 709 493 529 591 706 727 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000093 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 6 7 2 10 20 27 28 38 40 32 34 39 10 28 10 12 23 30 31 2 4 11 43 8 43 4 20 26 35 40 2 7 2 15 27 18 AMERICAN 767 988 750 707 775 779 708 877 617 613 834 1104 912 298 629 636 1027 837 921 919 568 1085 1098 880 923 866 610 909 948 942 704 965 681 770 PVERSIGHT 671 840 621 611 624 673 631 712 553 523 626 860 617 246 384 410 689 601 721 716 425 801 951 640 646 737 316 714 800 725 518 545 371 488 87.48% 85.02% 82.80% 86.42% 80.52% 86.39% 89.12% 81.19% 89.63% 85.32% 75.06% 77.90% 67.65% 82.55% 61.05% 64.47% 67.09% 71.80% 78.28% 77.91% 74.82% 73.82% 86.61% 72.73% 69.99% 85.10% 51.80% 78.55% 84.39% 76.96% 73.58% 56.48% 54.48% 63.38% 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 6 7 2 10 20 27 28 38 40 32 34 39 10 28 10 12 23 30 31 2 4 11 43 8 43 4 20 26 35 40 2 7 2 15 27 18 669 838 619 609 622 671 629 710 551 521 624 858 615 244 382 408 687 600 720 715 424 800 950 639 645 736 315 713 799 724 517 544 370 487 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000094 7 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 37 9 27 21 2 18 2 11 12 14 35 36 12 22 24 25 33 36 39 43 5 8 24 2 16 34 16 7 8 22 23 38 7 18 AMERICAN 725 469 718 694 700 645 1040 915 1043 587 243 468 602 600 544 629 504 378 558 602 1030 867 727 642 708 660 790 745 656 703 687 648 597 558 PVERSIGHT 503 335 517 441 456 345 90 604 729 364 173 267 395 457 410 453 393 273 437 442 707 583 547 347 419 401 499 517 470 509 458 426 488 460 69.38% 71.43% 72.01% 63.54% 65.14% 53.49% 8.65% 66.01% 69.89% 62.01% 71.19% 57.05% 65.61% 76.17% 75.37% 72.02% 77.98% 72.22% 78.32% 73.42% 68.64% 67.24% 75.24% 54.05% 59.18% 60.76% 63.16% 69.40% 71.65% 72.40% 66.67% 65.74% 81.74% 82.44% 7 8 8 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 37 9 27 21 2 18 2 11 12 14 35 36 12 22 24 25 33 36 39 43 5 8 24 2 16 34 16 7 8 22 23 38 7 18 502 334 516 440 455 344 89 603 728 363 172 266 394 456 409 452 392 272 436 441 706 582 546 346 418 400 498 516 469 508 457 425 487 459 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000095 19 19 19 19 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 33 34 23 34 40 43 2 1 16 25 9 12 26 34 11 27 37 14 32 16 21 39 25 8 28 30 40 25 8 25 27 6 27 33 9 37 AMERICAN 639 568 668 917 658 462 698 867 611 581 677 724 984 807 514 833 813 506 892 671 728 658 723 98 1007 871 876 1083 544 495 673 853 951 716 PVERSIGHT 517 481 545 706 412 292 424 492 418 440 476 465 566 486 301 436 506 283 569 475 496 505 544 72 612 612 582 713 355 321 404 697 740 364 80.91% 84.68% 81.59% 76.99% 62.61% 63.20% 60.74% 56.75% 68.41% 75.73% 70.31% 64.23% 57.52% 60.22% 58.56% 52.34% 62.24% 55.93% 63.79% 70.79% 68.13% 76.75% 75.24% 73.47% 60.77% 70.26% 66.44% 65.84% 65.26% 64.85% 60.03% 81.71% 77.81% 50.84% 19 19 19 19 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 33 34 23 34 40 43 2 1 16 25 9 12 26 34 11 27 37 14 32 16 21 39 25 8 28 30 40 25 8 25 27 6 27 33 9 37 516 480 544 705 411 291 423 491 417 439 475 464 565 485 300 435 505 282 568 474 495 504 543 71 611 611 581 712 354 320 403 696 739 363 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000096 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 42 48 9 26 4 25 28 29 30 31 4 6 10 16 40 19 28 39 43 11 15 9 15 24 34 42 8 17 26 28 40 6 17 27 AMERICAN 681 742 801 751 886 861 786 866 789 840 760 867 715 775 754 743 842 449 738 753 878 777 918 792 684 750 800 1153 1025 896 1193 646 676 778 PVERSIGHT 461 494 583 491 533 517 492 566 516 547 513 559 501 553 524 539 631 337 576 604 550 581 702 532 502 604 640 1017 861 810 982 528 582 675 67.69% 66.58% 72.78% 65.38% 60.16% 60.05% 62.60% 65.36% 65.40% 65.12% 67.50% 64.48% 70.07% 71.35% 69.50% 72.54% 74.94% 75.06% 78.05% 80.21% 62.64% 74.77% 76.47% 67.17% 73.39% 80.53% 80.00% 88.20% 84.00% 90.40% 82.31% 81.73% 86.09% 86.76% 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 42 48 9 26 4 25 28 29 30 31 4 6 10 16 40 19 28 39 43 11 15 9 15 24 34 42 8 17 26 28 40 6 17 27 460 493 582 490 532 516 491 565 515 546 512 558 500 552 523 538 630 336 575 603 549 580 701 531 501 603 639 1016 860 809 981 527 581 674 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000097 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 29 34 27 34 37 7 13 15 31 36 39 11 14 21 32 48 11 27 7 8 31 8 13 19 36 40 19 29 33 5 13 23 39 41 AMERICAN 817 561 938 915 896 1018 631 867 645 769 810 865 706 759 879 83 597 1788 867 726 722 777 1038 658 733 875 576 886 1121 710 862 999 624 354 PVERSIGHT 701 502 822 760 798 768 470 653 442 549 543 685 605 608 776 75 496 1280 726 556 538 565 687 420 496 650 488 745 980 463 742 818 506 299 85.80% 89.48% 87.63% 83.06% 89.06% 75.44% 74.48% 75.32% 68.53% 71.39% 67.04% 79.19% 85.69% 80.11% 88.28% 90.36% 83.08% 71.59% 83.74% 76.58% 74.52% 72.72% 66.18% 63.83% 67.67% 74.29% 84.72% 84.09% 87.42% 65.21% 86.08% 81.88% 81.09% 84.46% 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 29 34 27 34 37 7 13 15 31 36 39 11 14 21 32 48 11 27 7 8 31 8 13 19 36 40 19 29 33 5 13 23 39 41 700 501 821 759 797 767 469 652 441 548 542 684 604 607 775 74 495 1279 725 555 537 564 686 419 495 650 488 745 980 463 742 818 506 299 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 16672 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOJ-18-0618-D-000098 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 8 16 38 10 52 9 7 13 17 36 20 28 2 7 11 18 35 46 4 18 20 25 14 31 14 22 28 3 13 18 21 41 42 9 AMERICAN 687 697 696 724 853 765 639 895 909 202 614 474 462 520 583 493 486 735 634 291 555 489 867 720 810 745 681 618 718 622 746 709 698 471 PVERSIGHT 508 495 451 557 610 539 373 549 612 117 391 271 362 364 445 364 380 545 463 195 348 310 449 434 535 444 408 424 506 385 560 530 456 405 73.94% 71.02% 64.80% 76.93% 71.51% 70.46% 58.37% 61.34% 67.33% 57.92% 63.68% 57.17% 78.35% 70.00% 76.33% 73.83% 78.19% 74.15% 73.03% 67.01% 62.70% 63.39% 51.79% 60.28% 66.05% 59.60% 59.91% 68.61% 70.47% 61.90% 75.07% 74.75% 65.33% 85.99% 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 8 16 38 10 52 9 7 13 17 36 20 28 2 7 11 18 35 46 4 18 20 25 14 31 14 22 28 3 13 18 21 41 42 9 508 495 451 557 610 539 373 549 612 117 391 271 362 364 445 364 380 545 463 195 348 310 449 434 535 444 408 424 506 385 560 530 456 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOJ-18-0618-D-000099 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 14 19 20 22 24 30 32 42 48 53 17 10 19 47 49 2 24 15 4 8 17 29 13 48 6 32 17 23 36 38 44 16 24 29 AMERICAN 746 767 626 637 474 622 576 484 904 588 673 716 777 743 755 787 1023 644 596 463 902 784 480 582 278 799 763 798 681 825 1051 661 598 625 PVERSIGHT 580 638 437 536 388 485 458 396 661 484 343 463 505 497 535 562 571 434 386 227 616 553 296 426 235 492 521 570 452 541 680 448 375 378 77.75% 83.18% 69.81% 84.14% 81.86% 77.97% 79.51% 81.82% 73.12% 82.31% 50.97% 64.66% 64.99% 66.89% 70.86% 71.41% 55.82% 67.39% 64.77% 49.03% 68.29% 70.54% 61.67% 73.20% 84.53% 61.58% 68.28% 71.43% 66.37% 65.58% 64.70% 67.78% 62.71% 60.48% 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 14 19 20 22 24 30 32 42 48 53 17 10 19 47 49 2 24 15 4 8 17 29 13 48 6 32 17 23 36 38 44 16 24 29 580 638 437 536 388 485 458 396 661 484 343 463 505 497 535 562 571 434 386 227 616 553 296 426 235 492 521 570 452 541 680 448 375 378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOJ-18-0618-D-000100 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 39 32 41 11 24 28 14 44 7 22 10 11 29 30 8 9 18 10 14 18 23 26 27 31 36 40 44 17 26 6 7 17 22 27 AMERICAN 645 793 824 983 964 823 741 722 794 772 882 778 810 841 777 839 803 356 729 776 722 730 116 792 350 690 550 702 737 784 788 752 793 850 PVERSIGHT 408 662 688 732 800 625 431 478 577 479 582 436 520 489 511 581 548 264 530 530 542 543 97 509 193 486 434 525 595 637 642 584 598 559 63.26% 83.48% 83.50% 74.47% 82.99% 75.94% 58.16% 66.20% 72.67% 62.05% 65.99% 56.04% 64.20% 58.15% 65.77% 69.25% 68.24% 74.16% 72.70% 68.30% 75.07% 74.38% 83.62% 64.27% 55.14% 70.43% 78.91% 74.79% 80.73% 81.25% 81.47% 77.66% 75.41% 65.76% 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 39 32 41 11 24 28 14 44 7 22 10 11 29 30 8 9 18 10 14 18 23 26 27 31 36 40 44 17 26 6 7 17 22 27 408 662 688 732 800 625 431 478 577 479 582 436 520 489 511 581 548 264 530 530 542 543 97 509 193 486 434 525 595 637 642 584 598 559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOJ-18-0618-D-000101 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 40 11 12 15 16 20 22 1 3 4 31 38 7 14 39 9 10 11 17 18 27 28 40 45 47 25 30 36 37 12 35 36 45 23 AMERICAN 770 604 705 819 872 1008 501 453 844 1111 870 745 605 797 893 828 840 648 864 890 738 650 742 534 579 813 842 721 632 822 829 891 770 873 PVERSIGHT 619 492 579 652 740 819 408 370 694 942 708 599 529 695 735 581 599 438 626 577 522 472 534 377 414 637 709 641 509 711 682 767 636 724 80.39% 81.46% 82.13% 79.61% 84.86% 81.25% 81.44% 81.68% 82.23% 84.79% 81.38% 80.40% 87.44% 87.20% 82.31% 70.17% 71.31% 67.59% 72.45% 64.83% 70.73% 72.62% 71.97% 70.60% 71.50% 78.35% 84.20% 88.90% 80.54% 86.50% 82.27% 86.08% 82.60% 82.93% 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 40 11 12 15 16 20 22 1 3 4 31 38 7 14 39 9 10 11 17 18 27 28 40 45 47 25 30 36 37 12 35 36 45 23 619 492 579 652 740 819 408 370 694 942 708 599 529 695 735 581 599 438 626 577 522 472 534 377 414 637 709 641 509 711 682 767 636 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOJ-18-0618-D-000102 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 29 33 36 46 3 5 6 2 21 33 1 12 22 39 2 17 30 32 38 24 33 40 46 37 39 49 41 42 50 3 14 16 20 22 AMERICAN 367 403 424 525 953 902 811 502 676 585 894 1042 588 807 653 1001 720 931 793 735 779 662 289 510 739 682 619 698 811 772 955 678 792 566 PVERSIGHT 308 356 373 433 707 647 613 347 475 453 637 748 411 563 533 745 581 672 629 441 551 433 202 389 509 454 402 466 587 466 628 392 507 312 83.92% 88.34% 87.97% 82.48% 74.19% 71.73% 75.59% 69.12% 70.27% 77.44% 71.25% 71.79% 69.90% 69.76% 81.62% 74.43% 80.69% 72.18% 79.32% 60.00% 70.73% 65.41% 69.90% 76.27% 68.88% 66.57% 64.94% 66.76% 72.38% 60.36% 65.76% 57.82% 64.02% 55.12% 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 29 33 36 46 3 5 6 2 21 33 1 12 22 39 2 17 30 32 38 24 33 40 46 37 39 49 41 42 50 3 14 16 20 22 308 356 373 433 707 647 613 347 475 453 638 749 412 564 534 746 582 673 630 442 552 434 203 390 510 455 403 467 588 467 629 393 508 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000103 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 23 1 8 32 5 17 3 14 16 20 27 28 29 37 47 9 6 1 7 11 29 33 17 3 16 25 36 49 57 6 24 36 53 7 10 AMERICAN 874 882 377 795 954 501 601 448 384 544 490 477 645 685 772 923 889 729 767 731 690 695 522 676 588 919 754 530 508 715 718 586 588 774 PVERSIGHT 584 540 278 461 575 358 441 334 284 397 343 383 484 521 551 534 554 413 446 493 366 488 409 542 491 724 598 424 285 468 504 384 362 554 66.82% 61.22% 73.74% 57.99% 60.27% 71.46% 73.38% 74.55% 73.96% 72.98% 70.00% 80.29% 75.04% 76.06% 71.37% 57.85% 62.32% 56.65% 58.15% 67.44% 53.04% 70.22% 78.35% 80.18% 83.50% 78.78% 79.31% 80.00% 56.10% 65.45% 70.19% 65.53% 61.56% 71.58% 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 23 1 8 32 5 17 3 14 16 20 27 28 29 37 47 9 6 1 7 11 29 33 17 3 16 25 36 49 57 6 24 36 53 7 10 585 541 279 462 576 359 442 335 285 398 344 384 485 522 552 535 555 414 447 494 367 489 410 543 492 725 599 425 286 469 505 385 363 555 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000104 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 11 18 29 36 7 10 28 29 15 18 30 40 19 28 12 13 16 15 32 7 10 17 33 12 15 21 25 31 34 39 3 6 11 18 AMERICAN 762 586 536 575 485 443 598 509 517 562 496 482 684 342 845 683 909 586 556 725 610 603 562 663 792 798 811 806 744 754 805 805 865 742 PVERSIGHT 546 413 375 438 281 226 347 309 292 362 340 304 356 275 511 470 596 435 413 556 361 354 368 490 645 682 651 457 521 388 544 539 609 469 71.65% 70.48% 69.96% 76.17% 57.94% 51.02% 58.03% 60.71% 56.48% 64.41% 68.55% 63.07% 52.05% 80.41% 60.47% 68.81% 65.57% 74.23% 74.28% 76.69% 59.18% 58.71% 65.48% 73.91% 81.44% 85.46% 80.27% 56.70% 70.03% 51.46% 67.58% 66.96% 70.40% 63.21% 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 11 18 29 36 7 10 28 29 15 18 30 40 19 28 12 13 16 15 32 7 10 17 33 12 15 21 25 31 34 39 3 6 11 18 547 414 376 439 282 227 348 310 293 363 341 305 357 276 512 471 597 436 414 557 362 355 369 491 646 683 652 458 522 389 545 540 610 470 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000105 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 45 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 25 31 2 5 3 7 28 41 14 3 38 45 5 10 11 16 21 23 29 30 33 3 24 37 45 36 26 35 37 41 48 17 5 43 AMERICAN 877 809 803 825 737 708 694 740 822 779 360 649 836 738 852 762 754 870 826 780 742 926 839 680 480 920 437 782 748 735 634 899 848 773 PVERSIGHT 706 625 532 526 423 372 455 488 566 583 296 505 619 597 642 558 541 627 535 569 554 766 718 546 415 775 310 556 522 521 445 756 714 664 80.50% 77.26% 66.25% 63.76% 57.39% 52.54% 65.56% 65.95% 68.86% 74.84% 82.22% 77.81% 74.04% 80.89% 75.35% 73.23% 71.75% 72.07% 64.77% 72.95% 74.66% 82.72% 85.58% 80.29% 86.46% 84.24% 70.94% 71.10% 69.79% 70.88% 70.19% 84.09% 84.20% 85.90% 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 45 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 25 31 2 5 3 7 28 41 14 3 38 45 5 10 11 16 21 23 29 30 33 3 24 37 45 36 26 35 37 41 48 17 5 43 707 626 533 527 424 373 456 489 567 584 297 506 620 598 643 559 542 628 536 570 555 767 719 547 416 776 311 557 523 522 446 757 715 665 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000106 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 20 20 46 6 30 21 26 14 39 40 24 25 3 10 11 30 17 28 7 32 31 11 24 10 33 30 37 41 10 23 3 35 6 33 22 35 AMERICAN 732 1003 620 584 1003 218 659 829 772 909 838 645 855 800 831 796 751 785 597 639 690 731 624 642 364 661 548 569 662 882 814 589 778 895 PVERSIGHT 600 803 546 422 776 188 431 580 647 762 615 363 626 579 570 609 515 602 392 397 473 502 365 333 208 508 337 380 355 522 474 380 500 542 81.97% 80.06% 88.06% 72.26% 77.37% 86.24% 65.40% 69.96% 83.81% 83.83% 73.39% 56.28% 73.22% 72.38% 68.59% 76.51% 68.58% 76.69% 65.66% 62.13% 68.55% 68.67% 58.49% 51.87% 57.14% 76.85% 61.50% 66.78% 53.63% 59.18% 58.23% 64.52% 64.27% 60.56% 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 20 20 46 6 30 21 26 14 39 40 24 25 3 10 11 30 17 28 7 32 31 11 24 10 33 30 37 41 10 23 3 35 6 33 22 35 601 804 547 423 777 189 432 581 649 764 617 365 628 581 572 611 517 604 394 399 475 504 367 335 210 510 339 382 357 524 476 382 502 544 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000107 21 21 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 31 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 36 36 38 38 38 38 9 50 6 30 13 18 23 27 2 17 20 47 18 28 39 41 8 12 21 41 37 8 10 12 43 45 51 14 12 16 2 24 25 36 AMERICAN 726 670 854 737 540 748 880 1062 667 501 638 557 877 1070 846 703 522 539 554 630 875 704 726 794 605 752 707 782 727 774 757 818 681 721 PVERSIGHT 509 411 481 536 306 462 629 810 424 373 406 325 552 680 507 474 288 338 371 359 660 432 467 523 427 503 505 475 355 520 559 596 462 479 70.11% 61.34% 56.32% 72.73% 56.67% 61.76% 71.48% 76.27% 63.57% 74.45% 63.64% 58.35% 62.94% 63.55% 59.93% 67.43% 55.17% 62.71% 66.97% 56.98% 75.43% 61.36% 64.33% 65.87% 70.58% 66.89% 71.43% 60.74% 48.83% 67.18% 73.84% 72.86% 67.84% 66.44% 21 21 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 26 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 31 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 36 36 38 38 38 38 9 50 6 30 13 18 23 27 2 17 20 47 18 28 39 41 8 12 21 41 37 8 10 12 43 45 51 14 12 16 2 24 25 36 511 413 483 538 308 464 631 812 426 375 408 327 554 682 509 476 290 340 373 361 662 434 469 525 429 505 507 477 357 522 561 598 464 481 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000108 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 3 4 4 4 7 19 21 32 33 3 8 20 26 35 13 7 28 28 32 6 8 42 14 33 13 25 2 3 13 20 45 22 34 38 24 6 27 28 AMERICAN 648 1032 839 828 692 728 726 693 703 855 680 563 1115 875 1020 856 782 707 1047 857 712 966 366 966 965 844 583 773 899 277 832 934 928 714 PVERSIGHT 468 762 682 657 596 515 569 461 543 656 578 464 890 760 856 664 571 530 769 768 611 786 302 788 792 687 482 531 696 225 583 734 738 581 72.22% 73.84% 81.29% 79.35% 86.13% 70.74% 78.37% 66.52% 77.24% 76.73% 85.00% 82.42% 79.82% 86.86% 83.92% 77.57% 73.02% 74.96% 73.45% 89.61% 85.81% 81.37% 82.51% 81.57% 82.07% 81.40% 82.68% 68.69% 77.42% 81.23% 70.07% 78.59% 79.53% 81.37% 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 3 4 4 4 7 19 21 32 33 3 8 20 26 35 13 7 28 28 32 6 8 42 14 33 13 25 2 3 13 20 45 22 34 38 24 6 27 28 470 764 684 659 598 517 571 463 545 658 580 466 892 762 858 666 573 532 771 770 613 788 304 790 794 689 484 533 698 227 586 737 741 584 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000109 5 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 25 25 25 27 27 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 35 36 32 28 50 2 34 40 11 25 9 26 15 16 31 14 18 12 25 26 30 25 6 12 15 33 45 34 14 18 19 25 20 31 20 27 AMERICAN 780 637 697 683 763 773 1012 275 879 894 887 906 656 679 727 747 716 702 786 728 711 825 814 778 1244 497 648 929 504 589 830 875 782 731 PVERSIGHT 624 391 492 452 454 493 608 165 496 634 493 510 459 481 393 386 397 531 559 426 229 526 512 556 1059 340 384 613 313 355 642 721 547 498 80.00% 61.38% 70.59% 66.18% 59.50% 63.78% 60.08% 60.00% 56.43% 70.92% 55.58% 56.29% 69.97% 70.84% 54.06% 51.67% 55.45% 75.64% 71.12% 58.52% 32.21% 63.76% 62.90% 71.47% 85.13% 68.41% 59.26% 65.98% 62.10% 60.27% 77.35% 82.40% 69.95% 68.13% 5 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 25 25 25 27 27 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 35 36 32 28 50 2 34 40 11 25 9 26 15 16 31 14 18 12 25 26 30 25 6 12 15 33 45 34 14 18 19 25 20 31 20 27 627 394 495 455 457 496 611 168 499 637 496 513 462 484 396 389 400 534 562 429 232 529 515 559 1062 343 387 616 316 358 645 724 550 501 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000110 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 42 43 43 43 44 45 46 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 50 2 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 9 10 13 2 18 20 34 2 11 16 29 14 18 30 8 33 16 17 18 19 23 33 15 38 4 22 9 15 11 20 19 4 34 42 14 9 13 AMERICAN 686 819 826 762 708 719 797 916 789 899 1042 1072 545 864 806 834 1022 845 806 577 748 812 827 815 1002 780 787 729 684 790 685 793 721 527 PVERSIGHT 404 483 574 527 558 510 541 773 661 775 892 942 371 717 634 696 829 708 673 448 614 582 715 647 760 629 658 495 455 532 447 569 461 416 58.89% 58.97% 69.49% 69.16% 78.81% 70.93% 67.88% 84.39% 83.78% 86.21% 85.60% 87.87% 68.07% 82.99% 78.66% 83.45% 81.12% 83.79% 83.50% 77.64% 82.09% 71.67% 86.46% 79.39% 75.85% 80.64% 83.61% 67.90% 66.52% 67.34% 65.26% 71.75% 63.94% 78.94% 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 42 43 43 43 44 45 46 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 50 2 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 9 10 13 2 18 20 34 2 11 16 29 14 18 30 8 33 16 17 18 19 23 33 15 38 4 22 9 15 11 20 19 4 34 42 14 9 13 407 486 577 530 561 513 544 776 664 778 895 945 374 720 637 699 832 711 676 451 617 585 719 651 764 633 662 499 459 536 451 573 465 420 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000111 14 17 17 19 21 21 22 24 26 27 27 30 30 31 31 33 33 33 33 35 36 38 39 39 40 40 40 41 44 44 44 46 46 48 16 4 23 37 34 41 20 14 6 7 27 10 17 3 18 1 10 23 27 28 14 28 1 37 6 22 31 41 9 15 38 20 28 5 AMERICAN 602 872 596 593 778 720 837 839 655 942 971 973 815 556 559 948 816 881 991 808 784 877 645 643 869 747 806 788 852 813 958 848 725 402 PVERSIGHT 360 635 330 482 523 460 462 481 383 750 676 625 527 364 336 685 612 702 737 543 543 636 527 524 717 592 668 587 690 672 754 566 647 340 59.80% 72.82% 55.37% 81.28% 67.22% 63.89% 55.20% 57.33% 58.47% 79.62% 69.62% 64.23% 64.66% 65.47% 60.11% 72.26% 75.00% 79.68% 74.37% 67.20% 69.26% 72.52% 81.71% 81.49% 82.51% 79.25% 82.88% 74.49% 80.99% 82.66% 78.71% 66.75% 89.24% 84.58% 14 17 17 19 21 21 22 24 26 27 27 30 30 31 31 33 33 33 33 35 36 38 39 39 40 40 40 41 44 44 44 46 46 48 16 4 23 37 34 41 20 14 6 7 27 10 17 3 18 1 10 23 27 28 14 28 1 37 6 22 31 41 9 15 38 20 28 5 364 639 334 486 527 464 466 485 387 754 680 629 531 368 340 689 616 706 741 547 547 640 531 528 721 596 672 591 694 676 758 570 651 344 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000112 48 48 49 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 8 15 17 18 18 19 21 22 25 25 26 28 30 32 33 35 35 41 43 44 45 47 10 44 22 13 15 10 21 2 25 2 12 15 40 4 19 19 44 28 45 14 1 26 32 27 11 1 18 10 29 12 43 20 5 29 AMERICAN 981 882 908 411 799 715 878 808 846 811 797 731 565 879 632 672 652 746 722 879 732 868 708 664 812 1061 1204 930 879 866 863 912 730 834 PVERSIGHT 845 752 679 286 591 597 655 684 744 518 521 509 392 483 340 462 432 579 446 425 485 532 541 493 509 765 863 728 568 606 733 769 543 697 86.14% 85.26% 74.78% 69.59% 73.97% 83.50% 74.60% 84.65% 87.94% 63.87% 65.37% 69.63% 69.38% 54.95% 53.80% 68.75% 66.26% 77.61% 61.77% 48.35% 66.26% 61.29% 76.41% 74.25% 62.68% 72.10% 71.68% 78.28% 64.62% 69.98% 84.94% 84.32% 74.38% 83.57% 48 48 49 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 8 15 17 18 18 19 21 22 25 25 26 28 30 32 33 35 35 41 43 44 45 47 10 44 22 13 15 10 21 2 25 2 12 15 40 4 19 19 44 28 45 14 1 26 32 27 11 1 18 10 29 12 43 20 5 29 849 756 683 291 596 602 660 689 749 523 526 514 397 488 345 467 437 584 451 430 490 537 546 498 514 770 868 733 573 611 738 774 548 702 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000113 48 48 4 7 9 15 18 19 20 21 27 32 32 37 38 42 46 48 48 48 49 2 3 3 5 6 6 8 9 17 25 27 31 34 16 25 14 29 31 5 15 52 30 4 39 10 26 5 1 5 38 1 18 31 15 4 9 29 5 20 42 2 43 31 8 41 2 29 AMERICAN 851 678 832 661 735 910 808 788 445 840 543 938 844 815 732 738 959 708 682 1181 703 825 841 1081 810 705 810 857 855 663 916 734 525 684 PVERSIGHT 680 544 641 416 413 478 561 607 265 511 353 722 674 516 475 587 733 587 463 943 525 602 602 725 587 388 563 515 515 352 625 492 304 405 79.91% 80.24% 77.04% 62.93% 56.19% 52.53% 69.43% 77.03% 59.55% 60.83% 65.01% 76.97% 79.86% 63.31% 64.89% 79.54% 76.43% 82.91% 67.89% 79.85% 74.68% 72.97% 71.58% 67.07% 72.47% 55.04% 69.51% 60.09% 60.23% 53.09% 68.23% 67.03% 57.90% 59.21% 48 48 4 7 9 15 18 19 20 21 27 32 32 37 38 42 46 48 48 48 49 2 3 3 5 6 6 8 9 17 25 27 31 34 16 25 14 29 31 5 15 52 30 4 39 10 26 5 1 5 38 1 18 31 15 4 9 29 5 20 42 2 43 31 8 41 2 29 685 549 647 422 419 484 567 613 271 517 359 728 680 522 481 593 739 593 469 949 531 609 609 732 594 395 570 522 522 359 632 499 311 412 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 DOJ-18-0618-D-000114 34 40 40 41 42 48 49 4 7 7 18 23 27 28 33 33 37 41 47 4 6 8 15 20 3 26 1 8 21 24 4 4 20 32 50 4 30 46 36 21 20 4 16 31 27 33 5 17 3 5 6 36 4 36 6 34 11 2 15 7 36 19 21 30 22 10 3 7 AMERICAN 725 553 671 746 1470 1101 1149 1129 796 572 622 759 817 720 1009 859 784 723 812 901 685 675 970 455 878 544 884 753 693 392 826 920 697 924 PVERSIGHT 453 347 520 577 1190 830 935 838 461 331 395 507 400 437 780 603 510 559 688 683 475 444 586 237 651 423 688 504 407 264 631 687 425 724 62.48% 62.75% 77.50% 77.35% 80.95% 75.39% 81.38% 74.22% 57.91% 57.87% 63.50% 66.80% 48.96% 60.69% 77.30% 70.20% 65.05% 77.32% 84.73% 75.80% 69.34% 65.78% 60.41% 52.09% 74.15% 77.76% 77.83% 66.93% 58.73% 67.35% 76.39% 74.67% 60.98% 78.35% 34 40 40 41 42 48 49 4 7 7 18 23 27 28 33 33 37 41 47 4 6 8 15 20 3 26 1 8 21 24 4 4 20 32 50 4 30 46 36 21 20 4 16 31 27 33 5 17 3 5 6 36 4 36 6 34 11 2 15 7 36 19 21 30 22 10 3 7 460 354 527 584 1197 837 942 846 469 339 403 515 408 445 788 611 518 567 696 692 484 453 595 246 661 433 699 515 418 275 643 700 438 737 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -12 -13 -13 -13 DOJ-18-0618-D-000115 39 4 7 19 28 32 4 8 26 41 45 40 49 4 4 19 49 45 39 45 47 18 16 15 48 39 5 34 24 34 35 26 2 2 11 40 35 18 26 44 24 16 27 18 34 33 23 16 34 2 1 48 19 20 35 17 36 18 25 25 AMERICAN 756 834 898 791 1352 829 988 976 561 772 680 900 1039 827 758 677 1011 663 893 659 563 604 729 736 859 761 705 765 777 778 PVERSIGHT 547 626 546 645 923 724 731 569 335 603 437 749 815 573 572 536 773 456 627 472 424 396 413 332 457 553 403 401 360 524 72.35% 75.06% 60.80% 81.54% 68.27% 87.33% 73.99% 58.30% 59.71% 78.11% 64.26% 83.22% 78.44% 69.29% 75.46% 79.17% 76.46% 68.78% 70.21% 71.62% 75.31% 65.56% 56.65% 45.11% 53.20% 72.67% 57.16% 52.42% 46.33% 67.35% 39 4 7 19 28 32 4 8 26 41 45 40 49 4 4 19 49 45 39 45 47 18 16 15 48 39 5 34 24 34 35 26 2 2 11 40 35 18 26 44 24 16 27 18 34 33 23 16 34 2 1 48 19 20 35 17 36 18 25 25 560 640 560 659 937 738 746 584 350 618 452 765 832 591 590 554 791 475 647 492 444 418 438 361 487 584 435 434 471 690 -13 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -16 -17 -18 -18 -18 -18 -19 -20 -20 -20 -22 -25 -29 -30 -31 -32 -33 -111 -166 DOJ-18-0618-D-000116 From: Sent: John Gore To: Chris Cleveland [chris.cleveland@chicagogop.com] Re: Chicago vote problems Subject: 5/12/2017 ~(b)(6l @)gmail.com] 10:17:17 AM Chris: Good to hear from you. I don't have any relationship with the task force, but if you'd like to send me a write-up, I'll see if I can get it to someone who does. Thanks. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Chris Cleveland wrote: John, Thanks for speaking with me a few weeks back about the discrepancies in Chicago's vote. I saw this today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/l l/trump-to-sign-order-launching-voter-fraud-commission.html Do you have any relationship with this group? Do you know anyone in charge there? I'd like to get a brief writeup on the problem into someone's hands. Chris Chris Cleveland Chairman , Chicago Republican Party 312-339-2677 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000117 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( To: Tara Helfman ~l(b_J(6_l --~~gmail.com] Re: Civil Rights Division Introduction t@gmail.com] 5/18/2017 2:01:40 PM Subject: How about lunch at the Partisan (http:/ /thepartisandc.com/) at 12: 15? On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Tara Helfman Hi John, 1CbJ(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Lunch or coffee tomorrow would be great! Just let me know where and when I should meet you. All the best, Tara On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM, John Gore Tara: 4Cbl(6l l@gmail.com> wrote: Good to hear from you. Are you possibly available for lunch or coffee tomorrow (Friday)? If not, I have some time next week. On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4: 10 PM, Tara Helfman John, 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Thanks so much for reaching out! I'm sorry to have missed your call -- I've been in the library all day with my phone silenced. It was very kind of Eric to speak well of me, and I'd be delighted to meet at your convenience. My schedule is flexible now that the semester at Georgetown has ended, so do let me know what day and time works best for you. I'd be happy to meet you near the DOJ if that's most convenient. I imagine you're extremely busy right now. With best wishes, Tara On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:34 PM, John Gore Tara: 6l 1CblC @gmail.com> wrote: I just left you a voice mail. I am the political Deputy Assistant AG in the Civil Rights Division and a former law partner of Eric Dreiband. Eric says great things about you, and I look forward to working with you. Eric also mentioned that you are in DC and suggested that I reach out and invite you to lunch or coffee in the next couple of weeks. Is there any day on your calendar when you would be available? Feel free to give me a call if that's easier. My work number is 202-353-E::], RSIGHT and my cell is _._b1(_61___ DOJ-18-0618-D-000118 ____,_ To: John Gore ~(bl(6l ?)gmail.com] 5/25/2017 9:07:49 PM Tara Helfman ~!(bJ~(6~l --~@gmail.com] Subject: Re: HR at DOJ From: Sent: Outstanding! Looking forward to working with you! Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Tara Helfman 1Cbl(6l l@gmail.com> wrote: JohnThanks so much for asking around on my behalf I formally accepted HR's offer yesterday, so hopefully it won't be too much longer. I'll keep you posted! All the best, Tara On May 25, 201711:41 AM, "John Gore" Tara: 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Great to hear that things are moving along. I don't know for sure whether that's a firm policy, but my understanding from asking around the office is that it IS. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Tara Helfman John, 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: I hope this message finds you well. I've been communicating with Denise Howell-Parker in the DOJ's HR Department today. She was initially confused about the pay scale for the Senior Counsel position and offered me a GS-14 salary at Step 1 (approx. $112K.) Once we ironed that issue out, she offered me a GS-15 salary at Step 1, which seems about right (approx. $13 lK.) However, she also told me that the DOJ won't provide any assistance with relocation expenses. chance know whether that's a firm policy? Do you by With thanks, Tara AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000119 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( To: 6l Tara HelfmanlCbl( Re: Getting to work! Subject: ?)gmail.com] 6/26/2017 10:34:42 AM @gmail.com] Tara: That certainly works for the Civil Rights Division. You should coordinate with Mary Blanche to make sure everything is covered on her end. The onboarding for new appointees is handled by the Department, not our Division. John 6l r4gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tara Helfman wrote: 6l 4Cbl( Fantastic news! I look forward to working together. Have a great weekend, John On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Tara Helfman John, 6l 4CblC fygmail.com> wrote: Mary Blanche Hankey just let me know that the White House has approved my appointment as Senior Counsel. The next step is for me to choose a start date, which I'll sort out this weekend as I iron out the logistics of my relocation to DC. I'll keep you posted, but in the meantime want to convey my thanks for your guidance and support throughout this process. I'm looking forward to getting to work! Have a great weekend, Tara AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000120 6l 1Cbl( From: Sent: John Gore To: 6l Donald Palmer ~(bl( e)gmail.com] Re: NASSAugust Conference Subject: ~gmail.com] 7/31/2017 2:05:42 PM Sounds good. Just let me know when NASED is putting together its Winter Conference program. Thanks for thinking of me. On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Donald Palmer 4cbJ(6l r@gmail.com> wrote: John, NASED has already planned its agenda, but would like you to speak at the Winter Conference in DC. Is that good with you? Don Palmer 6l On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Donald Palmer4Cbl( https://www.nased.org/conferences.htm @gmail.com> wrote: John, It is actually the NASED conference at the link above. If open, I can see ifl can get you on the agenda to discuss priorities. Don 6l On Jul 30, 2017 6:46 PM, "John Gore" 1CblC Don: @gmail.com> wrote: It was great catching up on Friday. I have been trying to find some more info on the NASS event in August that I can run up the chain at DOJ. The NASS website does not list it: http ://www.nass.org/index. php/meetings/nass -events -page/ Is there a link or online description you can pass along? Thanks. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000121 From: Sent: To: Subject: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( ?)gmail.com] 8/7/2017 4:46:11 PM Schlozman, Brad [bschlozman@hinklaw.com] Re: FW: Amicus Brief - Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 Thanks, Brad. Not sure whether you've seen this yet: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017 /08/07 /16980 husted v randolph institute ac merits.pdf On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Schlozman, Brad wrote: John - I thought you might be interested in seeing the draft of the amicus brief we are filing in the Supreme Court in the Husted (i.e., NVRA) case. I look forward to seeing the DOJ's brief. Keep up the good work! Brad AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000122 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Chris Cleveland [chris.cleveland@chicagogop.com] Christy ~aol.com] Introduction CC: Subject: @gmail.com] 9/6/2017 6:39:58 PM Chris: By this email, I introduce you to Christy McCormick. Christy is a member of the President's Commission on Election Integrity and, in her day job, Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission. I have sent Christy your information on the Chicago issue, and she has passed it on to the staff of the Commission on Election Integrity. Feel free to reach out to Christy directly if you would like to provide her any more information or discuss the issue further. Best, John AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000123 From: Sent: To: Subject: John Gore ICbJ(6l ~gmail.com] 10/6/2017 11:13:58 AM Livingston, Donald [dlivingston@akingump.com] Re: Livingston Bio Thanks. I've pushed your resume up the chain. I imagine you'll hear back from DOJ next week. Have a great weekend. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Livingston, Donald wrote: John, FYI.... 6_l_____ I'm taking off in about an hour to v isit mv ~ICb_lC ~II' ll be back in the office on Monday . Don 6l From: John Go re [mailto~CblC @qmail.com] Sent: Friday, Octobe r 06, 2017 10:21 AM To: Livingston, Donald Subject: Re: Livingston Bio This is great. Thanks. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Livingston, Donald wrote: Hello, John, Eric told me that you didn't receive my bio, and suggested that I try your gmail address. I hope this is alright with you. Best regards, Don Donald R. Livingston AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New HampshireAvenue,N.W. Washington,DC 20036-1564 USA Direct: +1 202.887.~ Fax: +1 202.887.4288 dlivinqston@akinqump .com akinqump.com Bio p Internal:~ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately byemail, and delete the original message. PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000124 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately byemail, and delete the original message. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000125 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Livingston, Donald [dlivingston@akingump.com] Re: Livingston Bio Subject: ~gmail.com] 10/6/2017 10:20:43 AM This is great. Thanks. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Livingston, Donald wrote: Hello, John, Eric told me that you didn't receive my bio, and suggested that I try your gmail address. I hope this is alright with you. Best regards, Don Donald R. Livingston AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New HampshireAvenue, N.W. Washington,DC20036-1564 USA Direct: +1 202.887.f5i16CJInternal:~ Fax: +1 202.887.4288 dlivingston@akingump .com akingump.com Bio The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately byemail, and delete the original message. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000126 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( To: 6l Tara Helfman [Cbl( Subject: Fwd: To CRWG: The Bias Response Team Is Watching l@gmail.com] 5/10/2018 12:05:01 PM @gmail.com] I WSJ Editorial on Speech First Lawsuit I hope everything is going well today! Will you add this to your list of things to look at once you're back in the office? Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message---------From: DeFonce, Daniel Date: Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:14 AM Subject: To CRWG: The Bias Response Team Is Watching I WSJ Editorial on Speech First Lawsuit To: "Defonce, Daniel" Dear Civil Rights Working Group, For your reading pleasure please find below a WSJ article about the University of Michigan's "Bias Response Team" and Speech First' s lawsuit against the University's policing of free speech. Also, don't forget to RSVP for the CRWG lunch meeting set for Thursday, May 24. https ://www. wsj .com/ articles/the-bias-response-team -is-watchingl525806702?mod=searchresul ts&page= l &pos= l The Bias Response Team Is Watching lawsuit challengmg the University nationwide model. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT Iv1ich1gan ' s speech police may serve as a DOJ-18-0618-D-000127 By Jillian Kay 1\1elchior May 8 , 20 18 3:11 p.m. ET 'The most impmtant indication of bias is your own feelings," the University of:Michigan advises students. It then urges them to repm1 on their peers, anonymously if they prefer, "and to encourage others to repm1 if they have been the target or witness of a bias incident." The Bias Response Team is there , ready to investigate and mete out justice . :More than 200 American campuses have established similar administrative offices to handle alleged acts of "bias" that violate no law. A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday against the University of :Michigan is the first in the nation to challenge the constitutionality of these Bias Response Teams. The case is brought by Speech First , a membership group primarily made up of college students , alumni and their families. It alleges that :Michigan's student code and Bias Response Team violate the First Amendment by threatening to penalize protected expression. "Even apart from any punishments that may result at the end of the process ," the lawsuit argues , the team's existence has a chilling effect on speech . Speech First seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the Bias Response Team from investigating students. University spokeswoman Kim Broekhuizen said the Bias Response Team has operated "for a number of years, and we have ce1tainly not seen it chill speech here ." Team members include top administrators and campus law enforcement. Despite repeated inquiries , no one from the team was available to answer questions. Students found responsible for a "bias incident" face discipline, which ranges from training sessions to suspension or expulsion. As for what constitutes bias , that's vague - unconstitutionally so, argues Speech First. The existence of an offended paity can be sufficient to prove "bias." The team warns potential offenders that bias "may be intentional or unintentional." Similarly, the student code prohibits "harassment, " which it defines as "unwanted negative attention perceived as intimidating, demeaning or bothersome to an individual." Here , subjective perception serves as evidence. \Vb.at if the expression of a controversial or unpopular opinion bothers someone? Under the University of :Michigan's rnles , "the most sensitive student on campus effectively dictates the terms under which others may speak," Speech First says. Since April 20 17, students have rep01ted more than 150 bias incidents. These include complaints about social -media posts, drawings , comments , phone calls and even "intentional item placement" - whatever that means. The Bias Response Team has also investigated speech or other expression even when it occurred off-campus. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000128 These details come from the bare-bones bias-incident log the university publishes online. I wanted a deeper look, so two years ago I requested a year's wmih of bias repmis and the notes from any investigation or response. The university thwarted this inqui1y by imposing a fee of more than $2,400 for the public records. But the log shows that in one reported incident of verbal bias in the classroom , the Bias Response Team said it referred a university employee to administrators who "shared concerns with the academic department involved. " In several other cases, the Bias Response Team dete1mined that some repmied acts of verbal bias could constitute sex discrimination under Title IX, referring them to the Office of Institutional Equity. Even if the Bias Response Team doesn't officially discipline an alleged bias offender, its handling of the incident can chill speech , as a recent case at the University ofNmihern Colorado illustrates. Adjunct professor :Mike Jensen had asked his students to read Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American :Mind" and debate controversial subjects , including gay marriage and transgender issues. According to the team's repmi , a student who "identifies as a transwomen [sic]" told the Bias Response Team she was "ve1y offended and hmi by this ," according to the bias incident repmi. A university official, :Marshall Parks , warned :Mr. Jensen that if he discussed such subjects again, he could face scrutiny by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as Title IX and Title VII investigations. "So if the topic's wmih that, it's your call," :Mr. Parks said. :Mr. Jensen secretly recorded the conversation. "I felt that I had no academic freedom ," he later said. In 2016 the University ofNmihern Colorado announced it would shut down its Bias Response Team because of free-speech concerns. But :Mr. Jensen says he hasn 't been invited back to teach since the semester when he was repmied. Records from numerous universities show that even obviously silly or trivial incidents are taken seriously by Bias Response Teams. Back at :Michigan, a residence hall director repmied a phallic snow sculpture as a bias incident in February 2016. The Bias Response Team was unable to identify the a1iist behind this unknown work , but "anyone who was concerned or offended by it would have been offered suppmi" from the office of the dean of students ," :Ms. Broekhuizen said. One explanation for such absurdity is that Bias Response Teams are often composed of administrators whose jobs depend on the assumption that bias is widespread. \Vhen the University of :Michigan was hiring a "bias incident and prevention and response coordinator," it sought someone who could "enact cultural appropriation initiatives" and "paiiner with other campus and divisional social justice AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000129 initiatives." This makes Bias Response Team members bad cops with everything to lose, creating a bias toward finding bias. Students have few defenses against this new bureaucracy. It's tough to hire a lawyer when you can barely afford your textbooks. The fear of retaliation is justified in an environment where dissent from political c01Tectness is often interpreted as fmiher evidence of bias or bigotry. Even if a student did sue, a comi might not issue a final decision for years. Comis have rnled that there's no possible future harm to someone who's already graduated. But Speech First is suing on behalf of three unnamed members, arguing they have suffered "concrete injuries as a direct result of the University's unconstitutional policies and actions." As long as even one University of :Michigan student belongs to Speech First, it should have standing to sue. If it prevails in this case, it will offer a new model for how to take on campus censors. Until then, the University of :Michigan's Bias Response Team is watching. Afs. Afelchior is an editorial writer for the Journal. Daniel DcFoncc Research and Administrative Assistant The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-60 8-6 181 heritage.org AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000130 6l 1Cbl( From: Sent: John Gore To: 6l Omeed Assefi 1Cbl( Re: Introduction Subject: @gmail.com] 5/23/2018 6:13:52 PM @gmail.com] Omeed: I caught up with Andrew Smith this afternoon, and he will help move things along. Feel free to reach out to him as well at your convenience. John 6l On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Omeed Assefi 4Cbl( Hi John, rYgmail.com> wrote: It was a real pleasure to meet with you today-I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. Thank you for sending Ben's information, I am really looking forward to speaking with him on May 30. Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone 6l On May 23, 2018, at 3:15 PM, John Gore 1CblC @gmail.com> wrote: Omeed: Thanks again for meeting for lunch today. I enjoyed getting to know you. Ben Aguinaga is my current chief of staff He is on vacation until May 30. I have emailed him your resume and told him to expect to hear from you. As of May 30, you can reach him at: Work: 202-616-1566 Work cell: 202-353-~ 6 Email:iCblC l ~gmail.com I have also left a message with Andrew Smith this afternoon. I look forward to connecting again soon. John 6l @gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Omeed Assefi 1CblC Yes that's rerfect. I will jlan on meeting you today at Hen Quarter at 12:45. If anything should come up, just 6 ping me at (bl( l Looking forward to it. Sent from my iPhone AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000131 On May 23, 2018, at 7:55 AM, John Gore 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Can you do around 12:45 today at Hen Quarter, 750 E Street NW? On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6l 4CblC @gmail.com> wrote: A late lunch tomorrow works great. Around what time are you thinking? I have a flexible schedule tomorrow so we can play by ear on specific time/location tomorrow if easier. I'd be able to meet next week as well. Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 10:06 PM, John Gore 6l 4Cbl( l@gmail.com> wrote: Omeed: Thanks for getting back to me. I can probably still do lunch tomorrow, although my schedule is a bit up in the air and I'd have to do it on the late side. Would that work for you? I'm out Thursday and Friday but have some availability next week. How do you look then? John Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Omeed Assefi 4cbJ(6l tygmail.com> wrote: Hi John, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay, it was sitting in my iCloud for some reason. Would lunch tomorrow still work for you? I can meet anytime this week that works best for you. Looking forward to it! Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Omeed Assefi 6l 1cbJC @me.com>wrote: Sent from my iPhone AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000132 Begin forwarded message: 6 From: John Gore 1CblC l @gmail.com> Date: May 21, 2018 at 12: 10:42 PM EDT 6l @me.com> To: Omeed Assefi wrote: that I send you my resume. As he may have mentioned, I am very interested in the prospect of working at Justice. While I am not familiar with potential openings, I would be available to meet whenever is convenient for you. Thank you and please let me know what would work best, Omeed AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000133 From: Sent: John Gore l(bJ(6l To: Omeed Assefi ~l(bl_(6_l --~@gmail.com] Re: Introduction Subject: ?)gmail.com] 5/23/2018 3:15:35 PM Omeed: Thanks again for meeting for lunch today. I enjoyed getting to know you. Ben Aguinaga is my current chief of staff He is on vacation until May 30. I have emailed him your resume and told him to expect to hear from you. As of May 30, you can reach him at: Work: 202-616-1566 Work cell: 202-353-E::::::] J(6l 0 gmail. com Email: ICb I have also left a message with Andrew Smith this afternoon. I look forward to connecting again soon. John On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Omeed Assefi 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Yes that's ~erfect. I will ]lan on meeting you today at Hen Quarter at 12:45. If anything should come up, just ping me at (bl(6l Looking forward to it. Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2018, at 7:55 AM, John Gore 6l 1CblC l@gmail.com> wrote: Can you do around 12:45 today at Hen Quarter, 750 E Street NW? On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6l wrote: A late lunch tomorrow works great. Around what time are you thinking? I have a flexible schedule tomorrow so we can play by ear on specific time/location tomorrow if easier. I'd be able to meet next week as well. Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 10:06 PM, John Gore 6l 1CblC @gmail.com> wrote: Omeed: AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000134 Thanks for getting back to me. I can probably still do lunch tomorrow, although my schedule is a bit up in the air and I'd have to do it on the late side. Would that work for you? I'm out Thursday and Friday but have some availability next week. How do you look then? John Sent from my iPhone 6l On May 22, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Omeed Assefi 4Cbl( @gmail.com> wrote: Hi John, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay, it was sitting in my iCloud for some reason. Would lunch tomorrow still work for you? I can meet anytime this week that works best for you. Looking forward to it! Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Omeed Assefi 4cbJ(6l @me.com>wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: 6l From: John Gore 4Cbl( @gmail.com> Date: May 21, 2018 at 12: 10:42 PM EDT [yme.com> To: Omeed Assefi wrote: ~lrecommended that I send you my resume. As he may have mentioned, I am very interested in the prospect of working at Justice. While I am not familiar with potential openings, I would be available to meet whenever is convenient for you. DOJ-18-0618-D-000135 Thank you and please let me know what would work best, Omeed AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000136 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Omeed Assefi ~1Cbl_(6_l --~~gmail.com] Re: Introduction Subject: t@gmail.com] 5/23/2018 7:55:47 AM Can you do around 12:45 today at Hen Quarter, 750 E Street NW? On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6 1Cbl(l ~gmail.com> wrote: A late lunch tomorrow works great. Around what time are you thinking? I have a flexible schedule tomorrow so we can play by ear on specific time/location tomorrow if easier. I'd be able to meet next week as well. Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 10:06 PM, John Gore 6l 4Cbl( @gmail.com> wrote: Omeed: Thanks for getting back to me. I can probably still do lunch tomorrow, although my schedule is a bit up in the air and I'd have to do it on the late side. Would that work for you? I'm out Thursday and Friday but have some availability next week. How do you look then? John Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Omeed Assefi 1CbJ(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Hi John, Thank you for your email. I apologize for the delay, it was sitting in my iCloud for some reason. Would lunch tomorrow still work for you? I can meet anytime this week that works best for you. Looking forward to it! Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On May 22, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Omeed Assefi AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT 6 4Cbl( l @me.com>wrote: DOJ-18-0618-D-000137 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: John Gore 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> Date: May 21, 2018 at 12: 10:42 PM EDT 6 To: Omeed Assefi 1Cbl( l ryme.com> Subject: Re: Introduction Omeer: Thanks for reaching out. Are you available tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday to meet over lunch or coffee? I'd be happy to discuss some DOJ opportunities. Best, John On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6 I hope this email finds you well. My 1Cbl( l @me.com>wrote: 4Cbl(6l I recommended that I send you my resume. As he may have mentioned, I am very interested in the prospect of working at Justice. While I am not familiar with potential openings, I would be available to meet whenever is convenient for you. Thank you and please let me know what would work best, Omeed AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000138 6l j(bl( From: Sent: John Gore To: Omeed Assefi j(b)(6l Re: Introduction Subject: ~gmail.com] 5/21/2018 12:10:42 PM ~me.com] Omeer: Thanks for reaching out. Are you available tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday to meet over lunch or coffee? I'd be happy to discuss some DOJ opportunities. Best, John 6l On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Omeed Assefi wrote: recommended that I send you my resume. As he may have mentioned, I am very interested in the prospect of working at Justice. While I am not familiar with potential openings, I would be available to meet whenever is convenient for you. Thank you and please let me know what would work best, Omeed AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000139 From: Sent: John Gore l(bl(6l To: Omeed Assefil(bl(6l Re: FYI ONLY ~gmail.com] 6/10/2018 4:36:31 PM Subject: ~gmail.com] Sure. I'm kicking around today and am available between 11 and 2:30 tomorrow. You can call my cell, I. fb)(6) On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6l 1Cbl( E:J @gmail.com> wrote: Hope you're having a great weekend. I know we weren't able to connect on Friday; would you have some free time today or tomorrow morning? Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone On Jun 8, 2018, at 11: 19 AM, John Gore @gmail.com> wrote: 6 ,Cbl( l Great news! I am free between 1 and 2: 15 and again after 3. My office is 202-353-E::::J, and my cell is L} I. Thanks. rb)(S) On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Omeed Assefi Hi John, 6 1Cbl( l @gmail.com> wrote: I hope all is well. Just received the below email from Claudia and am in touch with Linda is well. Would you have any free time today to catch up by phone? Let me know what would be most convenient for you. Best, Omeed Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Tweed, Claudia J (JMD)" Date: June 8, 2018 at 10:41 :38 AM EDT To: 6) Egmail.com II 1(b)( 6) 0gmail.com> SubJect: F'YI ON Y r)( Good morning, Omeed, FYI only. Good news! A PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000140 As promised, I'm letting you know that you are "unofficially" cleared from a security standpoint. I've notified Linda Roper and Katrina Reyter. Once you are fully cleared (PPO/White House signatures, etc.) are in place, then they will schedule your start date. It is hard to determine a timeframe/timeline for when you will be fully cleared! Nothing is final until you receive the final offer from either Linda Roper, Katrina Reyter, or Denise Howell-Parker. Have a nice weekend! Claudia AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000141 From: Sent: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( To: Eric S Dreiband t"esdreiband@jonesday.com] Orthodox Union - AG Speech At Jones Day Today Subject: t@gmail.com] 6/13/2018 1:20:53 PM Eric: I don't know whether you've heard, but the Attorney General is giving a speech to the Orthodox Union on the 7th floor at Jones Day today. His speech will discuss religious liberty generally and announce a new initiative from the Civil Rights Division. The Orthodox Union event is scheduled to start at 3:30; the AG's speech is scheduled to run from 3:55 to 4:20; and I understand that there is a cocktail reception after the AG's speech. I'll be there with several people from the Civil Rights Division, including Ben Aguinaga, Trisha Nation, and Eric Treene. It would be great to see you if you're available. Apologies for the late notice - I just received the final details myself Best, John AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000142 From: Sent: John Gore jCbJ(6l t@gmail.com] To: 6l Tara Helfman 1Cbl( ~gmail.com] Fwd: Supreme Court Alert - Cert. Stage Amicus Request: Keister v. Bell (First Amendment on College Campus Sidewalk) image00l.png; image00l.png 7/11/2018 10:11:15 AM Subject: Attachments: As I mentioned, OSG will not get involved at the cert stage, but please add this case to your list and keep an eye on it. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------From: Swearer, Amy Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM Subject: Supreme Court Alert - Cert. Stage Amicus Request: Keister v. Bell (First Amendment on College Campus Sidewalk) To: Swearer, Amy LEGAL STRATEGY NETWORK'S SUPREME COURT ALERT TO: Legal Strategy Network FROM: The Heritage Foundation DATE: July 9, 2018 RE: Cert. Stage Amicus Request: Keister v. Bell (First Amendment on College Campus Sidewalk) In this feature, your editors highlight promising petitions for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court. We encourage network members to consider filing petition-stage amicus briefs in support of certiorari, which greatly increase the likelihood that the Court will agree to hear these cases. This case involves a question of First Amendment protections on college campuses, namely, whether the presence of adjacent college campus buildings negates the First Amendment public forum status of a sidewalk running along a public street. It also questions whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by holding that a virtual ban on leafletting and street preaching on a public sidewalk is not likely to violate the First Amendment right to free speech. , Rodney Keister is a traveling street evangelist who typically uses public sidewalks to communicate his messages to passersby verbally, through the distribution of literature, and the displaying of banners. On March 10, 2016, Keister and a companio ~ began evangelizing on a sidewalk within the University of Alabama (UA) campus, which is a state-funded PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000143 public university. UA police officers and a UA grounds official soon approached Keister and told him he "could not continue his expressive activity" at that location without a UA permit, which is available only to those affiliated with the university or sponsored by a university-affiliated entity. One of the officers indicated that they could relocate to University Boulevard, so Keister and his companion resumed their preaching on a sidewalk at the intersection of University Boulevard and Hackberry Lane. Both of these streets are cityowned, public streets that begin outside of the UA campus, and the buildings adjacent to the sidewalk at that intersection are a mix of university facilities and private businesses. Despite this, UA police again approached the evangelists, informed them that the sidewalks along University Boulevard were university property, and that the pair could not engage in any expression there without a permit. Fearing arrest, Keister and his companion left the area. Keister filed suit in U.S. District Court, asserting a right to speak on sidewalks at the intersection of University Boulevard and Hackberry Lane. In response, counsel for UA asserted that the sidewalks at the intersection in question were not traditional public fora for free speech purposes. The district court denied Keister's request for a preliminary injunction. It acknowledged that these sidewalks "border otherwise public streets which are a part of the city and Tuscaloosa's greater urban grid," that the university's campus "is not fenced off, gated, or otherwise self-contained," and that "some of the city's transportation grid runs through the campus." Nevertheless, the district court declared that the sidewalks were a limited public forum because they "lie in the heart of [the university's] campus" and because "aspects of the intersection [are] embellished by [University of Alabama] markings" while "the intersection itself is surrounded by [the University of Alabama's] campus and buildings." The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on its precedent in Bloedorn v. Grube (2011) to hold that "the district court properly found the intersection is a limited public forum." Although Bloedorn addressed walkways "inside of [the university's] campus," the "entrances" to which "were identified with large blue signs and brick pillars," the Eleventh Circuit found that case dispositive because the intersection in question here "is surrounded by [university] buildings, and there are numerous permanent, visual indications that the sidewalks are on [university] property including landscaping fences and [university] signage." Such physical characteristics, according to the Eleventh Circuit, "suggest to the intended speaker that he has entered a special enclave." The court concluded that Keister was not entitled to a preliminary injunction. Keister has petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Eleventh Circuit's decision calls into question the traditional public forum status of every sidewalk that runs through or alongside a college campus. This is not an issue of merely theoretical significance-cases already abound addressing the rights of speakers in open areas on internal campus grounds, and the decision in this case expands that class of litigation to speakers on public streets and their accompanying sidewalks. It also conflicts with the approach taken by the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly affirmed that "one who is rightfully on a street which the state has left open to the public carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion." The Court has consistently adhered to the well-established rule that streets and sidewalks are presumptively, and almost invariably, traditional public fora. Further, the Eleventh Circuit's test is incoherent and unworkable because it replaces the traditional doctrinal certainty with subjective, unprincipled uncertainty. In particular, the Eleventh Circuit's "decisive" factors, such as the intersection's "surroundings" and its location in "the heart of the campus," raise questions whose answers will depend entirely upon the subjective or aesthetic-and hence disparate and unpredictable-perceptions of judges. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000144 Parties interested in filing as amici are encouraged to email Walter Weber of the American Center for Law & Justice as the primary point of contact. Attorney: Walter Weber, wmwebentl{aclj-dc.org; Jay Alan Sekulow, sekulow@aclj.org Amici Due: August 2, 2018 Petition Lower Court Opinion Amy Swearer Legal Policy Analyst The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608j(b)(6) I heritage.org AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000145 EDWIN MEESE CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES i DOJ-18-0618-D-000146 EDWIN MEESE CENTER FOR LEGAL AND JUDICIAL STUDIES i DOJ-18-0618-D-000147 ~(bl(6 l From: John Gore Sent: To: 7/19/2018 5:14:48 PM Subject: Attachments: ~gmail.com] DeFonce, Daniel [Daniel.DeFonce@heritage.org] Re: Reminder: Civil Rights Working Group, Thursday, July 26 - LOCATION: Heritage Foundation - Davis Policy Center image00l.jpg; image002.png; image00l.jpg; image002.png Great. Mary Thomas and Patricia Nation from the Civil Rights Division will join us as well. Thanks. On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM Defonce, Daniel wrote: Wonde rfu l to have you join us, John . Yes! DOJ Civil Rights Division upda t e would be most welco me. I wi ll add tha t to ou r agenda. Cordial ly, Daniel From: John Gore 6 j{bl( l @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:33 AM To: Defon ce, Daniel Subject: Re: Reminder: Civil Rights Working Gro up, Thursday, July 26 - LOCATION: Heritage Foundation - Davis Policy Center Daniel: I plan to attend next week's lunch. If the CRWG would be interested, I'd be happy to give an update on our recent accomplishments in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. Just let me know. Thanks, John On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM Defonce, Daniel wrote: Good morning, This is a reminder that we will be hosting our Civil Rights Working Group lunch next Thursday, July 26th . Please send agenda items and suggestions to my attention at daniel.defonce@heritage.org. RSVP by replying to this email or clicking below. RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000148 Sincerely, Daniel You are cordially invited to attend the Civil Rights Working Group Thursday, July 26 12:00pm (lunch served) Send agenda suggestions to daniel.defon ce@heritage.org ***** The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE Washington, DC 20002 f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000149 Thursday, July 26 Thursday, September 27 Thursday, Octa ber 18 Thursday, November 29 Daniel DeFonce Research and Administrative Assistant The Heritage Found ation 214 Mas sachusett s Avenue. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6181 heritage.org Daniel DeFonce Research and Administrative Assistant The Heritage Foundation 214 Mas sachusetts Avenue. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6181 heritage.org AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000150 Heritage Founda?a? DOJ-18-0618-D-000151 DOJ-18-0618-D-000152 From: 6l John Gore jCbl( l@gmail.com] Sent: 7/30/2018 9:11:25 PM To: Shay Dvoretzky ~l(b_)(6_l_~e)gmail.com] Re: Thanks Subject: shay: I should be thanking you. Your contribution to the panel was invaluable, and it was great catching up. See you around, John Sent from my iPhone 6_l_~l@gmail.com> wrote: > on Jul 30, 2018, at 8:48 PM, shay Dvoretzky 1~~-l( > > John, > > Thanks for including me today, and for the tour. great work that you and others are doing .. It was a lot of fun to participate and to see the > 6l 1> See you at the 1Cbl( > > shay AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000153 6l jCbl( From: Sent: John Gore To: Tara Helfman ~l(bl~(6~l --~e)gmail.com] Re: Criticism of First Amendment Subject: ?)gmail.com] 8/9/2018 12:03:02 PM Ok. 6l On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:23 AM TaraHelfman 1Cbl( John, @gmail.com> wrote: 6l I'm1Cbl( land don't have access to my work email. Could you please share this with Kelly Laco? I discussed opportunities for OPA to refute this line of argument with her. Thanks, Tara https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.cnn.com/20l8/08/07/opinions/campus-free-speechgeorgetown -j eff-sessi ons-nossel opini on/index .html&ct=ga&cd=CAEY ASo UMTUwMj g3MT A3ND A3MzA5OD IwNj cyGm Q4 MTZmN ml 4 Y mEwODFkYzE6Y29tOmVuO1VT&usg=AFQjCNFS70aPRnrzUy-CrnMsKEBpMQBwIQ AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000154 From: John Gore ICbJ(6l Sent: To: 10/1/2018 10:26:18 AM Subject: Attachments: l@gmail.com] Schlozman, Brad [bschlozman@hinklaw.com] Re: Congratulations image00l.jpg; image002.jpg; image00l.jpg; image002.jpg Brad: Thanks for reaching out with this fantastic email and for your ongoing support. It means a lot to me to have great people in our corner. As you know, the job is often a thankless one, but I hope we are moving the needle in a positive direction. Best, John On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:28 AM Schlozman, Brad wrote: John - I just read that the federal judge in Boston denied summary judgment in the Harvard admissions race discrimination suit. The article also noted that DOJ is now investigating Yale for engaging in the same conduct. This is wonderful news. I could not be happier with the fantastic work you are doing. No doubt yours can be a difficult job at times and the grief you must endure never relents. But you have a ton of supporters and I am thrilled with what you are accomplishing. Keep up the great work, John. All the best. Brad Schlozman Bradley J. Schlozman I Membe r Hinkle Law Firm LLC 1617 North Waterfro nt Parkway, Suite 400 p 316.660.6296 If 316.660.6596 I I Wichita, KS 67206-6639 bschlozman@hinklaw.com hink law.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in or error, please immediately notify me by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to by telephone at (316) 660-6296 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments. Thank you. b)(S) f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000155 HINKLE DOJ-18-0618-D-000156 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l To: Tara Helfman ICbJ(6l Subject: Re: NEW Cases From Speech First & PLF t@gmail.com] 12/14/2018 4:09:29 PM r@gmail.com] Thanks. No need to spend your weekend on this. See you Monday. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:01 PM Tara Helfman 1Cbl(6l l@gmail.com> wrote: I just emailed you about the PLF case. I've got the Speech First complaint on my work computer and will send it as soon as I'm back at my desk. (It looked like a strong case.) 6l On Fri, Dec 14, 2018, 1:57 PM John Gore 7Cbl( @gmail.com wrote: Will you look into this case and let me know what you think? Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------From: DeFonce, Daniel Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM Subject: NEW Cases From Speech First & PLF To: DeFonce, Daniel Dear Civil Rights Working Group: Here are a few updates regarding new cases from Speech First and Pacific Legal Foundation we wanted to send your way before the new year. Speech First filed its second free speech case yesterday, against the University of Texas. Speech First argue that UT maintains four policies - the Institutional Rules' ban on "Verbal Harassment," an Acceptable Use Policy (governing internet & digital use), the Residence Hall Manual, and the Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT)- which profoundly chill free speech and open discourse on campus. Here's a link to the complaint and press release, in case you're interested. Nicole Neily will be discussing the case on Tucker Carlson's show tonight! ... Additionally ... PLF filed suit yesterday in federal district court against Mayor de Blasio and the NYC Chancellor of Education on behalf of a group of Asian American parents and Asian-American associations and school groups to stop a thinly-veiled racial gerrymandering plan for admission to selective NYC high schools. The complaint and an early WSJ article are attached. This is PLF's case page: https://pacificlegal.org/case/christa-mcauliffe-pto-v-de-blasio/. Gaziano if you have any questions and let PLF know if you write anything on the case. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT Please contact Todd DOJ-18-0618-D-000158 Merry Christmas to all! - Daniel P.S. You are welcome to send me an anticipatory RSVP for our next working group set for Wednesday, January 30. Daniel DeFonce Rese arch and Administrative Assistant The Heritage Foundation 214 Ma ssachusetts Aven ue. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6181 heritage.org AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000159 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( e)gmail.com] 12/14/2018 1:56:49 PM Tara Helfman l(bJ(6l @gmail.com] Fwd: NEW Cases From Speech First & PLF Parents Sue City Over Mayor's Plan to Diversify Elite High Schools - WSJ.... pdf; Complaint 2.pdf Will you look into this case and let me know what you think? Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------From: DeFonce, Daniel Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM Subject: NEW Cases From Speech First & PLF To: DeFonce, Daniel Dear Civil Rights Working Group: Here are a few updates regarding new cases from Speech First and Pacific Legal Foundation we wanted to send your way before the new year. Speech First filed its second free speech case yesterday, against the University of Texas. Speech First argue that UT maintains four policies - the Institutional Rules' ban on "Verbal Harassment," an Acceptable Use Policy (governing internet & digital use), the Residence Hall Manual, and the Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT)- which profoundly chill free speech and open discourse on campus. Here's a link to the complaint and press release, in case you're interested. Nicole Neily will be discussing the case on Tucker Carlson's show tonight! ... Additionally ... PLF filed suit yesterday in federal district court against Mayor de Blasio and the NYC Chancellor of Education on behalf of a group of Asian American parents and Asian-American associations and school groups to stop a thinly-veiled racial gerrymandering plan for admission to selective NYC high schools. The complaint and an early WSJ article are attached. This is PLF's case page: https://pacificlegal.org/case/christa-mcauliffe-pto-v-de-blasio/. Gaziano if you have any questions and let PLF know if you write anything on the case. Please contact Todd Merry Christmas to all! - Daniel AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000160 P.S. You are welcome to send me an anticipatory RSVP for our next working group set for Wednesday, January 30. Daniel DeFonce Research and Administrative Assistant The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue. NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-618 1 heritage.org AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000161 Parents Sue City Over Mayor's Plan to Diversify Elite High Schools - WSJ 12/13/2018 DOW JONES,A NEWS CORPCOMPANY DJIA 24572,18 S&P500 2648,69 -0.09% 'f Nasdaq7066.13 -0.45%'f U.S.10Yr 0/32 Yield CrudeOil 52.74 This copy is for your personal, non-commercialuse only. To order presentation-readycopies for distributionto your colleagues, clientsor customersvisit https://www.djreprints.com. https://www.wsj.com/articles/parents-sue-city-over-mayors-plan-to-diversify-elite-high-schools-11544 731339 NEWY0RK Parents Sue City OverMayor'sPlan to Diversify Elite High Schools Plaintiffs say Bill de Blasi o's education initiative disproportionately hurts Asian-American students Yi Fang Chen,37, is one of the parents who have filed a lawsuit to block Mayor Bill de Blasio'splan to diversify admissionsto the city's elite high schools. Currently, 62% of students at these schools are Asian. PHOTO: YANA PASKOVA FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL By Leslie Brody Dec. 73, 2018 3:02 p.m. ET Asian-American civil rights groups and parents filed suit Thursday seeking to block New York City from launching its plan to diversify eight top high schools by giving more seats to applicants who miss the test-score cutoff for admission. Mayor Bill de Blasio's Discovery program aims to give 20% of seats to students who almost reach the qualifying scores on an entrance exam for Stuyvesant High School and seven other specialized high schools. Filed in federal court in Manhattan, the antidiscrimination suit says the mayor's initiative disproportionately hurts Asian-American students' access to these sought-after schools and violates their equal-protection rights. Currently, 62% of students at these schools are Asian. One of the parent plaintiffs, Yi Fang Chen, came to Brooklyn from China as a teenager speaking little English. Her mother was a seamstress, her father a construction worker. Ms. Chen earned a Ph.D. in statistics from Stanford University and now is a data scientist with two young children who may want to attend these high schools. "I feel like everyone deserves equal opportunity," she said in an interview. "That is what this country is for, not equal outcomes." A spokesman for the NYCEducation Department didn't immediately provide a comment, but in a recent story about the planned lawsuit, said that the mayor's plan broadens access to talented students, and that "our schools are academically stronger when they reflect the diversity of our city." Mr. de Blasio has said that having a single test determine admission has been an unfair barrier to black aud Hispanic student s, who received only 9% of offers to these high schools for the )v~~ ol1)'.earH ~T to scrap the exam but needs Albany lawmakers to do so. https:/ /~ sy.col(~ ticles/pa rents-sue-city-over-mayo rs-plan-to-diversify-el ite-h igh-schools-11 544 731339 DOJ-18-0618-D-000162 1/3 Parents Sue City Over Mayor's Plan to Diversify Elite High Schools - WSJ 12/13/2018 Muta le Nkonde, a founder of "Parenting While Black" group in Brooklyn, says "There are stakeholders within the city that do not want our kids in those schools." PHOTO: LESLIE BRODY/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL The mayor announced in June he is expanding the Discovery program, starting with admissions for fall 2019. He says he can do so because the admissions law allows a path to offer seats and tutoring to disadvantaged students who almost reach the qualifying test score. Mr. de Blasio said he is also changing Discovery's criteria so that only students from certain high-poverty schools are eligible. Under his two-year phased expansion, Discovery students will get about 800 of the 4,000 specialized high-school seats for ninth-graders in fall 2020. Thursday's lawsuit claims the new Discovery rules deliberately exclude some schools with high Asian enrollment as a way of seeking racial balance. One plaintiff is the Parent Teacher Organization at LS. 187, known as the Christa McAuliffe School, a predominantly Asian school in Brooklyn that is a top feeder to Stuyvesant. Its parents say their children would no longer be eligible for Discovery and would lose access to 20% of the high schools' seats. Currently, 40% of students offered seats at the exam schools are low-income, compared with high-school population citywide, according to city data. 75% of the Lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based libertarian nonprofit funded by donors, said they took the case pro bono. Plaintiffs include the Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York and the Asian-American Coalition for Education. Defendants are the mayor and schools Chancellor Richard Carranza. The mayor has acknowledged that getting the admissions law changed will be a challenge. Supporters of the admissions test took heart that an ally, Democratic State Sen. John Liu, was appointed head of the senate's New York City education subcommittee on Tuesday. Many students and parents support the mayor's plans, saying talented teenagers who suffer from test anxiety don't have a chance at these schools. But some express frustration that a few high schools serving a sliver of the city's 1.1 million students have taken up so much public attention. At a Community Education Council meeting in central Brooklyn's District 16 on Monday, several mothers from the grass-roots group "Parenting While Black" said the mayor's plan was tinkering with the testing at the end stage of the K-12 education process, when he should invest more in improving schools from the earliest grades. Mutale Nkonde, a founder of Parenting While Black, also expressed concern that some black students who get into specialized high schools find a hostile environment. "There are stakeholders within the city that do not want our kids in those schools," she said. Education Department representatives at the meeting in Bedford-Stuyvesant described several pilot initiatives to address this concern, including antibias training for staff and teenagers at the High School of American Studies at Lehman College, and a family academy to help support black and Latino students as they enter Brooklyn Technical High School. "Every school community should be a welcoming and inclusive environment," said LaShawn Robinson, deputy chancellor for school climate. Lurie Daniel Favors , another founder of Parenting While Black, said that District 16, a mostly black, low-incom ! district tha t sends few students to specialized high schools, needs more https://~ sy.colG icles/parents-sue-city-over-mayo rs-plan-to-diversify-el ite-h igh-schools-11 544 731339 DOJ-18-0618-D-000163 2/3 Parents Sue City Over Mayor's Plan to Diversify Elite High Schools - WSJ 12/13/2018 resources, and teachers citywide need to better understand how to engage students of diverse backgrounds in ways that reflect their cultures. "Our concern is for the masses of black children left to dangle in the wind," she said in an interview. "The air is being sucked out of the room" by the high-school debate. Write to Leslie Brody at leslie.brody@wsj.com Copyright(C) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercialuse only. To order presentation-readycopies for distributionto your colleagues, clientsor customersvisit https://www.djreprints.com. AM( HICAN https://~ sy.colG DOJ-18-0618-D-000164 icles/parents-sue-city-over-mayo rs-plan-to-diversify-el ite-h igh-schools-11 544 731339 3/3 From: Sent: John Gore ICbJ(6l l@gmail.com] To: Roth, Yaakov M. [yroth@jonesday.com] Re: Elliott Davis 5/7/2019 4:56:24 PM Subject: Yep. They' re running a few minutes behind. Looks like Eric will take the stage around 5: 15. On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:55 PM Roth, Yaakov M. wrote: I assume you are in 740 . Yaakov Roth (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm Worldwide'M 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Was hington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879 .7658 --yroth@jonesday .com 6l From: John Gore 4Cbl( @gmail.com> Sent: Mo nday, May 6, 2019 6:3 7 PM To: Roth, Yaakov M. Subject: Re: Elliott Davis Do you have a copy of Elliott's resume you can send me? At a minimum I'd be happy to talk to him. By the way, Eric is giving a speech at the End Human Trafficking Summit at Jones Day at 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday, May 7). Speech goes until 5:30. Looks like I'll be tagging along. Feel free to swing by if you have a few minutes to catch up. On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:43 AM Roth, Yaakov M. wrote: Eric and John, One of my good friends from law school, Elliott Davis, is a trial attorney in the civil division (torts branch). He is interested in working with you at civil rights. He is an excellent lawyer, very solid ideologically, trustworthy, and funny. I think you would like him and I think he would be a good fit. Would you be willing to meet with him? His DOJ email is Elliott.m.davis@usdoj.gov. Thanks, Yaakov f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000165 Yaakov Roth (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwidesM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879.7658 --yroth@jonesday .com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000166 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 6l John Gore ICbl( ~gmail.com] 5/30/2019 11:49:42 AM 6l Omeed Assefi ~(bl( @gmail.com]; Omeed Assefi ~l(bl~(6~l --~g)me.com] Fwd: Elliott Davis Elliott M. Davis Resume-1.pdf ---------- Forwarded message--------From: Roth, Yaakov M. Date: Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:41 PM Subject: RE: Elliott Davis 6l @gmail.com> To: John Gore jCblC I wi ll defin ite ly come by then . Elli ott's CV is attached . Thanks . Yaakov Roth (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm Worldwide'M 51 Lou isiana Ave ., N.W . Washington, D.C . 20001 Office +1.202 .879 .7658 yroth @jo nesday.com 6l From: John Gore Sent: Mo nday, May 6, 2019 6:37 PM To: Roth , Yaakov M. Subject: Re: Ellio tt Davis Do you have a copy of Elliott's resume you can send me? At a minimum I'd be happy to talk to him. By the way, Eric is giving a speech at the End Human Trafficking Summit at Jones Day at 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday, May 7). Speech goes until 5:30. Looks like I'll be tagging along. Feel free to swing by if you have a few minutes to catch up. On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:43 AM Roth, Yaakov M. wrote: Eric and John, pl One of my good friends from law school, Elliott Davis, is a trial attorney in the civil division (torts branch). He is interested in working with you at civil rights. He is an excellent lawyer, very solid PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000167 ideologically, trustworthy, and funny. I think you would like him and I think he would be a good fit. Would you be willing to meet with him? His DOJ email is Elliott.m.davis@usdoj.gov. Thanks, Yaakov Yaakov Roth (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwidesM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Office +1.202.879.7658 --yroth@jonesday.com ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000168 ELLIOTT M. DAVIS b)(6) elliott.m.davis@usdoj.gov o (202) 616~ EXPERIENCE Washington, DC April 2015 -Present U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH Trial Attorney o Serve as lead counsel in defending the United States in Federal Tort Claims Act cases concerning matters such as torture at Abu Ghraib prison, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the 2012 Benghazi attack, the Office of Personnel Management data breaches, and alleged corruption at the FBI's Boston field office. o Argued cases in the Tenth Circuit and in various federal district courts. o Regularly represent the interests of the Torts Branch in connection with appellate matters handled by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Civil Appellate Staff. o Received the Civil Division Special Commendation Award (2018), and the Civil Division Rookie of the Year Award (2016). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY Detailed Counsel Washington, DC January 2017 - April 2017 o Assisted with the successful nomination of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. o Received the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award (2017). SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Mass Torts Litigation Associate New York, NY & Boston, MA October 2007 - February 2015 o Regularly selected as lead associate. Particular expertise in pharmaceutical product liability, multidistrict litigation, class actions, complex insurance defense, and the False Claims Act. o Drafted numerous winning briefs at the trial and appellate levels. o Prepared for, conducted, and defended lay and expert depositions. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, MANHATTAN TORT UNIT Special Assistant Corporation Counsel New York, NY April 2011 - October 2011 o Selected by Skadden to extern at the New York City Law Department. o Second-chaired two high-value, personal-injury trials, both of which resulted in favorable outcomes. o Prepared for six trials as first-chair and assisted in several other trials. EDUCATION HARV ARD LAW SCHOOL Juris Doctor CORNELL UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Bachelor of Science, magna cum laude, Computer Science Cambridge, MA September 2004 -June 2007 Ithaca, NY August 2001 - May 2004 PUBLICATIONS Note, The Newer Textualism: Justice Alita 's Statutory Interpretation, 30 HARV. J.L. & PUB.PoL'Y 983 (2007). Recent Case, Unjustly Usurping the Parental Right: Fields v. Palmdale School District, 29 HARV. J.L. & PUB.PoL'Y 1133 (2006). AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000169 From: Sent: John Gore ~(bl(6l To: Carvin, Michael A. [macarvin@jonesday.com] Re: Census DOJ Response ?)gmail.com] 6/6/2019 3:46:02 PM Subject: Mike: Of course, in any rational world, the Supreme Court's decision will put an end to all of this - which is why the plaintiffs are vowing to fight on regardless: https://www.npr.org/20 l 9/06/05/729 3 17952/judge -delays -review -of-serious-allegations -of-citizenshi pquesti on-cover-up John On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:24 PM Carvin, Michael A wrote: John, OK resu lts for now . Wi ll Plaint iffs have hutzpah/des ire to pu rsue th is nonsense after S. Ct. decision? Thanks, M ike 6 From: John Gore 4Cbl( l ~g mail.com> Sent: W edne sday, June 5, 2019 6:04 PM To: Carvin, M ichael A. Subject: Re: Cen sus DOJ Respon se Mike: Today's hearing apparently started with Judge Furman announcing that he wasn't going to rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' motion and did not want to do anything to disrupt the Supreme Court's deliberations. Instead, he stated that he needed formal briefing if the plaintiffs want to pursue the matter. He ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion and any request for discovery by July 12, the government to file a response by July 26, and the plaintiffs to file a reply by August 2. Scheduling order is attached. Thanks. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:32 AM John Gore 6 1Cbl( l (Ygmail.com> wrote: Mike: \J RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000170 FYI - the plaintiffs filed the attached reply last evening. The hearing is this afternoon. John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:33 PM John Gore 6 1Cbl( l @gmail.com> wrote: Mike: Exactly right. Plus, Hofeller is talking about using CV AP to comply with one-person, one-vote, not to draw Section 2 districts. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:50 PM Carvin, Michael A wrote: John, This is great stuff. Depending on what court does, I might be inclined to do a piece on th is. Although its less relevant to your "truthfulness" issue, the most amazing part of the idiotic press coverage is that they conflate Hofe ller's discussion of using CVAP to red istrict with the entire ly separate question of whether asking about cit izenship decreases respon se. This is just mind-boggling bias (and stupidity) . Let me know how the "Obama judge" (oops) rules . Thank s, M ike 6l From: John Gore 4Cbl( l@gmail.com> Sent: M onda y, June 3, 2019 6:56 PM To: Carvin, M ichael A. Subject: Census DOJ Response Mike: It was great to hear from you on Friday. I thought you might like to see DOJ's response to the motion, which is attached. Thanks, RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000171 ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000172 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 6l John Gore jCbl( t@gmail.com] 6/5/2019 6:03:38 PM Carvin, Michael A. [macarvin@jonesday.com] Re: Census DOJ Response Scheduling Order 6.5.19.pdf Mike: Today's hearing apparently started with Judge Furman announcing that he wasn't going to rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' motion and did not want to do anything to disrupt the Supreme Court's deliberations. Instead, he stated that he needed formal briefing if the plaintiffs want to pursue the matter. He ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion and any request for discovery by July 12, the government to file a response by July 26, and the plaintiffs to file a reply by August 2. Scheduling order is attached. Thanks. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:32 AM John Gore Mike: 6l 7Cbl( @gmail.com> wrote: FYI - the plaintiffs filed the attached reply last evening. The hearing is this afternoon. John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:33 PM John Gore Mike: 4Cbl(6l @gmail.com> wrote: Exactly right. Plus, Hofeller is talking about using CVAP to comply with one-person, one-vote, not to draw Section 2 districts. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:50 PM Carvin, Michael A wrote: John, This is great stuff. Depend ing on what court does, I might be inclined to do a piece on this . Although its less relevant to your "truthfulness" issue, the most amazing part of the idiot ic press coverage is that they confl ate Hofeller's discussion of using CVAP to red istr ict w ith the ent irely separate quest ion of whether asking about cit izenship decreases response . This is just m ind-bogg ling bias (and stupidity) . Let me know how the "Obama judge" (oops) rules . Thanks, \j RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000173 6l From: John Gore 4Cbl( @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 6:56 PM To: Carvin, Mi chael A. Subject: Census DOJ Response Mike: It was great to hear from you on Friday. I thought you might like to see DOJ's response to the motion, which is attached. Thanks, John ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000174 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 605 Filed 06/05/19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 1 X STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, 18-CV-2921 (JMF) -v- SCHEDULING ORDER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: As discussed on the record at the conference held this afternoon, Plaintiffs shall file any motion for sanctions or other relief (including any request for discovery) and serve it on any party against whom relief is sought by July 12, 2019. Any opposition - whether by Defendants or by any non-party against whom relief is sought - shall be filed by July 26, 2019. Any reply shall be filed by August 2, 2019. At the time any reply is served, Plaintiffs shall deliver or mail one courtesy hard copy of all motion papers to the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 595. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2019 New York, New York AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000175 From: John Gore ICbJ(6l Sent: To: 6/5/2019 11:32:35 AM Subject: Re: Census DOJ Response Ps Reply Re Sanctions.pdf Attachments: @gmail.com] Carvin, Michael A. [macarvin@jonesday.com] Mike: FYI - the plaintiffs filed the attached reply last evening. The hearing is this afternoon. John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:33 PM John Gore Mike: 6 4Cbl(l @gmail.com> wrote: Exactly right. Plus, Hofeller is talking about using CV AP to comply with one-person, one-vote, not to draw Section 2 districts. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, John On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:50 PM Carvin, Michael A wrote: John, This is great stuff. Depending on what court does, I m ight be inclined to do a piece on this . Although its less relevant to your "t ruthfulness" issue, the most amazing part of the idiot ic press coverage is that they conflate Hofe ller's discussion of using CVAP to redistrict w ith the ent irely separate question of whethe r asking about cit izenship decreases response . This is just m ind-bogg ling bias (and stupidity) . Let me know how the "Obama judge" (oops) ru les. Thanks, M ike From: John Gore +bl(6l ~ gmail.com> Sent: M onda y, June 3, 2019 6:56 PM To: Carvin, M ichael A. Subject: Census DOJ Response Mike: It was great to hear from you on Friday. I thought you might like to see DOJ's response to the motion, which is attached. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000176 Thanks, John ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000177 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 6 June 4, 2019 The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, NY 10007 RE: NYIC Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for an order to show cause in State of New York, et al. v. US. Dep 't of Commerce, et al., 18-CV-2921 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Defendants' response does not deny that damning new evidence reveals hyper-partisan and racially discriminatory motives at the root of the citizenship question. Defendants do not deny that (1) Dr. Hofeller is the person who came up with the Voting Rights Act rationale for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, that (2) Dr. Hofeller ghostwrote a letter from DOJ to Commerce setting forth the VRA rationale for adding a citizenship question, and that (3) Mark Neuman gave John Gore this draft DOJ letter at a meeting between Neuman and Gore that was arranged by the Commerce Department's General Counsel. Most astonishingly, even though it is undisputed that Dr. Hofeller was the one who suggested a citizenship question to Neuman and the Trump transition in the first place, Defendants do not say whether Commerce officials knew of Dr. Hofeller's conclusion that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would benefit "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" in redistricting. And it is the Commerce Department's decision to add the citizenship question that is at issue. Faced with the new evidence, Defendants' position seems to be that, sure, maybe the Commerce Department co-opted the idea put forth by a partisan operative who believed that a citizenship question on the 2020 Census would entrench the political power of "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites." And, sure, maybe this same partisan operative was also the one who, acting through a Commerce Department emissary, supplied DOJ's VRA enforcement rationale that purports to advance the political power of Hispanics. But, Defendants say, none of this matters because John Gore, the DOJ official who executed the plan, was not fully read into its details, and because Secretary Ross purportedly "provided an objectively rational basis" for a decision that, we now know, had its origins in open racial discrimination. Gov't Br. 5. But the Administrative Procedure Act demands that federal agencies explain the real reasons for their actions. It does not permit federal agencies to lie to the public about why they act, so long as the employee tasking with implementing policy has plausible deniability. In any event, the Justice Department's hands are not clean. DOJ failed to correct Neuman's false testimony that his October 2017 meeting with Gore was not about a draft DOJ letter and that Neuman "wasn't part of the drafting process of the [DOJ] letter." ECF 595 Ex. B at 114, 273. Defendants now seem to acknowledge that DOJ knew all along that this testimony was false. But they argue that all can be forgiven because DOJ produced Gore's copy of the Neuman letter-even though DOJ initially withheld the document and then produced it in a dump of 92,000 pages, with a new Bates number, three days before Gore's deposition, accompanied by a representation that DOJ was unable to provide any information about the document's "author, recipient, date, or time." Ex. 1, 1-C. Thus, when Defendants assert that AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 1 DOJ-18-0618-D-000178 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 6 Plaintiffs have "long known that Gore had the Neuman letter," Gov't Br. 3, they omit that they successfully concealed the fact that Gore had received this letter.from Neuman. Defendants' misconduct is apparent. The Court can and should authorize targeted discovery to determine the full extent to which a fraud on the court has occurred and if "the very temple of justice has been defiled." Universal Oil Prod Co. v. Root Ref Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing court's inherent power to investigate whether "it has been the victim of fraud"); Sussman v. Bank of Israel, 56 F.3d 450, 459 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting court's "inherent power" to "sanction counsel or a litigant for bad-faith conduct"). 1. Beyond their failure to deny the previously undisclosed facts above, Defendants' response raises far more questions than it answers. Defendants carefully deny that "DOJ or Gore had the Hofeller study and based the Gary Letter on its contents." Gov't Br. 2. But Defendants make no attempt to explain: o o o o o o o o o o Did anyone at Commerce (including Neuman) have Dr. Hofeller's 2015 study? Did anyone at Commerce (including Neuman) know that Dr. Hofeller-before suggesting a citizenship question to the transition-had concluded that adding a citizenship question would enable redistricting advantageous to "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites"? Even if they did not have a copy of Dr. Hofeller's 2015 study, did anyone at Commerce (including Neuman) appreciate that adding a citizenship question would enable redistricting advantageous to "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites"? Did anyone at DOJ appreciate that adding a citizenship question would enable redistricting advantageous to "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites"? Who asked Dr. Hofeller to ghostwrite the VRA rationale that appears in the draft DOJ letter that Neuman gave Gore? Someone must have asked Dr. Hofeller to draft it. How did Dr. Hofeller's ghostwritten VRA rationale reach Neuman? Did Commerce officials relay it? Did Hofeller give it to Neuman directly? Why didn't Gore identify Neuman at deposition when he provided a list of other people who provided input in drafting the DOJ letter? See ECF 595 Ex. Eat 150:9-151 :20. Why didn't DOJ disclose on its privilege log that the draft DOJ letter came from Neuman? Why didn't DOJ correct Neuman's materially false testimony that his October 2017 meeting with Gore was not about a draft DOJ letter requesting a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, that Neuman gave Gore only a different document at that meeting, and that Neuman was not involved in the drafting process for the DOJ letter at all? Are Defendants now asserting that Gore's motivation and guide for requesting a citizenship question was the Evenwel case about potential use of citizenship data in redistricting, as opposed to VRA enforcement? Are Defendants asserting that Gore relied on amicus briefs from Evenwel which concluded that ACS data was sufficient for VRA enforcement and that adding a citizenship question to the Census would depress turnout and reduce accuracy? 2. Defendants spend a page of their brief asserting that Gore, in describing the shortcomings of ACS data, relied on an amicus brief from former Census Directors in Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016). But there is no declaration from Gore saying that is what he did, and Defendants cite nothing supporting their assertion. Importantly, the Census Directors AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000179 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 6 reached the opposite conclusion that Gore did: they concluded that ACS citizenship data are sufficient for VRA enforcement purposes, that it is not possible to obtain accurate CVAP data through a citizenship question on the census, and that adding a citizenship question to the census is "not a solution." Gov't Ex. D at 5, 22-24. The other briefs cited by Defendants agreed. See Br. of Nathaniel Persily et al. at 27 ("ACS CVAP data" are "the best and only information on citizenship rates," and are "indispensable ... in section 2 challenges"); 1 Br. of Democratic Nat'l Comm. at 19 n.5; Br. for United States at 24. All four briefs did, however, argue that ACS citizenship data are insufficiently precise for the purpose of switching to citizen voting-age population as the redistricting population base-which was the goal of the Evenwel plaintiffs, 136 S. Ct. at 1126, and the very reason that Dr. Hofeller advocated adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, ECF 595 Ex. D at 7-9. Thus, if Gore relied on theEvenwelbriefs, it only supports an inference that the true purpose of adding a citizenship question was not VRA enforcement, but rather to facilitate a redistricting strategy that would "advantage[] ... NonHispanic Whites," at the expense of "the major minority groups in the nation." Id Moreover, we still do not know whether and to what extent James Uthmeier, Peter Davidson, or anyone else at Commerce who relayed the VRA rationale to Gore was relying on Dr. Hofeller or his 2015 study. The Court can get to the bottom of this. Since Defendants have now squarely put Gore's process of drafting the letter in issue, they have waived deliberative-process privilege over any documents related to Gore's drafting process. See e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Serio, No. 97-cv0670, 2000 WL 554221, at *I I (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2002) (deliberative process "cannot be used as both a shield and a sword"); Conte v. Cty. of Nassau, No. 06-cv-4746, 2009 WL 1362784, at *3-*4 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2009) (noting "deliberative process privilege is a sub species of the work-product privilege," separately noting "'work product privilege cannot at once be used as a shield and a sword"' (quotingKidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. JAG Int'tAcceptance Grp., NV, 1997 WL 272405 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 1997))). The Court should order production of all such documents, including all 18 drafts and the records of the 10 participants beyond Gore who participated in drafting the letter, as well as Mr. Uthmeier's memo and cover note. These materials are identified on Exhibit 3. Waiver aside, Defendants' prior claims of deliberative-process privilege should now be overcome. Deliberative-process privilege "disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred." In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Dep 't of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir. 1995) (similar). And even if this privilege did still apply, disclosure is warranted under the relevant balancing test. In re Delphi Corp., 276 F.R.D. 81, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). This evidence is directly relevant to the propriety of sanctions and other appropriate relief 3. With respect to Neuman, Defendants' "I hardly knew the guy" defense is stunning. Defendants now insist that "Neuman is not a governmental employee" and that "[h]is acts or omissions are thus not attributable to the government." Gov't Br. 4. But Defendants previously asserted in this very lawsuit-in successfully invoking deliberative-process privilege over 1 Dr. Persily wrote today that he is "outraged that my work is being misrepresented by the DOJ in its most recent filing in the census case before the SDNY." See https://twitter.com/persily/status/l 135973410117341184. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000180 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 4 of 6 communications with Neuman-that Neuman "functioned as a trusted adviser and consultant to" Commerce, "act[ed} analogously to an agency employee," and that "he and Commerce were engaged in a common enterprise of seeking to improve the 2020 Census." ECF 451 at 3 (emphases added); see also ECF 451-2 (Uthmeier declaration explaining importance of Neuman's role). Having characterized Neuman in this manner to conceal his communications, Defendants cannot cut Neuman loose now that the true extent of his role has come to light. And they cannot contend that Neuman's motivations in working with Secretary Ross to achieve the "common enterprise" of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census-or Neuman' s discussions with Dr. Hofeller-are irrelevant to whether Commerce's decision was the product of "discriminatory animus." Gov't Br. 5. As for his testimony, Neuman represented that he "wasn't part of the drafting process of the [DOJ] letter," specifically denied that his October 2017 meeting with Gore was about a "letter from DOJ regarding the citizenship question," and failed to disclose that he provided the draft letter to Gore, testifying instead that he provided another document. ECF 595 Ex.Bat 114: 15-21, 123:20-124:24, 273: 10-21. Neuman denied, moreover, that "Hofeller was one of the people [Neuman] relied on for expertise on the Voting Rights Act." Id at 143:25-144:6. All of that testimony was false, or, at a minimum, remarkably misleading. Defendants deny that Neuman testified that he "only" gave one document to Gore, Gov't Br. 4, but they do not deny that he falsely testified that the meeting was not about the citizenship question. There was no reason to ask Neuman whether he gave the ghostwritten DOJ letter to Gore after he denied that the meeting even concerned the DOJ letter. Defendants also say that Neuman failed to inform Plaintiffs of Dr. Hofeller's role in drafting the VRA rationale solely because the questioner told Neuman, "I'm not asking you to tell me about who the original author was." Gov't Br. 4. Defendants are playing games. A few questions earlier, Neuman had already testified, "I'm not sure who the original author is." ECF 595 Ex. B at 280: 12-13. Then, in response to a different question about the draft letter, Neuman repeated, non-responsively, that he couldn't "figure out who [the] original author is." Id at 281: 10-6. The questioner was simply advising Neuman that he had switched to an entirely different question. Defense counsel present at Neuman's deposition (including Uthmeier) apparently knew that Neuman had given the draft DOJ letter to Gore at the October 2017 meeting, but never corrected the record. And Defendants told 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. Discovery is warranted into communications between Defendants and defense counsel and Neuman and his counsel, as well as the extent to which Defendants knew the falsity of Neuman's testimony. 4. Gore testified he "drafted the initial draft of the 1etter to request the citizenship question sometime around the end of October or early November 2017." ECF 595 Ex.Eat 150:9-151 :20 (emphasis added). But Gore subsequently told congressional investigators that Neuman provided a draft letter to him during a meeting earlier in the month of October after Commerce General Counsel Peter Davidson asked Neuman and Gore to meet. ECF 595 Ex. G. As discussed above, Gore also conspicuously omitted Neuman from the long list of individuals internal and external to DOJ whom were consulted about the DOJ request. Even more AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000181 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 5 of 6 perplexing, on the same page of the same response letter, Defendants simultaneously state that "Gore disclosed that he talked to Neuman while drafting the Gary Letter," Gov't Br. 3 (citing testimony where Gore did not mention the Gary Letter and invoked the deliberative process privilege), and that "the reason Gore did not identify Neuman or Hofeller as people who provided input on the Gary Letter is that neither Neuman nor Hofeller provided any input on the Gary Letter." Id. Which is it? Defendants stress that DOJ produced its copy of the draft letter that Neuman gave Gore. But they fail to disclose that this document was withheld from DOJ's production on October 3 and was logged with none of the identifying information required under Rule 26(b )( 5) or Local Rule 26.2(a)(2)(A). Ex 1-A entry 15199. And after Plaintiffs promptly challenged this entry, Ex. 1-B, Defendants delayed release ofDOJ's copy of the document until three days before Gore's deposition, when it was relabeled as a different Bates number (DOJ 129991) and produced with nearly 92,000 pages of additional production, Ex. 1-C. Even then, Defendants failed to disclose that Neuman gave Gore the document, instead representing that they were unable to provide information regarding "author, recipient, date, or time." Id. Indeed, until their response yesterday, Defendants never acknowledged that the document in Gore's possession was from Neuman. The fact is that Plaintiffs did not know, and had no way of knowing until recently, that Neuman gave Gore that draft letter. The Court should permit discovery into Defendants' handling of this document. 5. In addition to the sanction-related discovery described above, the Court should authorize the following additional limited discovery relevant to sanctions: o o o Neuman should be ordered, pursuant to the subpoena Plaintiffs previously issued, promptly to produce all of his communications with Dr. Hofeller, Dale Oldham, Gore, Uthmeier, and/or other Administration personnel. A subpoena to Dale Oldham, Dr. Hofeller's former business partner, who we understand took Dr. Hofeller's work computer(s) (as opposed to external electronic storage devices). Further depositions of Neuman and Gore on these topics, as well as a deposition of Uthmeier. In the alternative, these individuals should be called to a hearing for cross-examination. * * * Defendants take Plantiffs to task for failing to discover earlier a handful of documents relevant to this case that appeared on external electronic storage devices produced to Plaintiffs' counsel in a separate litigation in North Carolina. Plaintiffs' counsel brought the newly discovered evidence at issue here to this Court's attention within one week after discovering it. It is Defendants-not Plaintiffs-who have known the truth this entire time. Had Defendants not actively concealed Dr. Hofeller's role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question through discovery misconduct in this case, Plaintiffs would have made this material a central part of their case in chief Defendants should not now be heard to say that it is too late. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000182 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 604 Filed 06/04/19 Page 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted, ARNOLD & PORTER KA YE SCHOLER LLP AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION By: /s/ John A. Freedman Dale Ho Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St. New York, NY I 0004 (212) 549-2693 dho@aclu.org Andrew Bauer Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9710 (212) 836-7669 Andrew.Bauer@arnoldporter.com Sarah Brannon+** American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2313 202-675-2337 sbrannon@aclu.org John A. Freedman Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-3743 (202) 942-5000 John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com Perry M. Grossman New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St. New York, NY I 0004 (212) 607-3300 601 pgrossman@nyclu.org + admitted pro hac vice ** Not admitted in D.C.; practice limited pursuant to D.C. App. R. 49(c)(3). Attorneys for NYIC Plaintiffs, 18-CV-5025 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000183 From: John Gore j(bl(6l Sent: To: 6/3/2019 6:56:25 PM Subject: Attachments: l@gmail.com] Michael A Carvin [macarvin@jonesday.com] Census DOJ Response Letter Opposition (Filed).pdf; Ex. A.pdf; Ex. B.pdf; Ex. C.pdf; Ex. D.pdf; Ex. E.pdf; Ex. G.pdf; Ex. l.pdf; Ex. H.pdf; Ex. J.pdf; Ex. F.pdf; Ex. L.pdf; Ex. K.pdf Mike: It was great to hear from you on Friday. I thought you might like to see DOJ's response to the motion, which is attached. Thanks, John AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000184 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 6 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 ByECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York Re: State efNew York v. United States Departmentif Commerce,No. 18-cv-2921 Dear Judge Furman: The Court should deny Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 595) to issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. The motion borders on frivolous, and appears to be an attempt to reopen the evidence in this already-closed case and to drag this Court into Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour campaign to improperly derail the Supreme Court's resolution of the government's appeal. The Court should not countenance Plaintiffs' tactics. 1. a. At the heart of Plaintiffs' motion is their claim that then-Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore relied on a private, unpublished 2015 study by Dr. Thomas Hofeller in drafting the Department of Justice's formal December 2017 request (Gary Letter) to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census. That claim is false. Plaintiffs provide no evidence that Gore ever read, received, or was even aware of the existence of that unpublished study before the filing of Plaintiffs' motion and the near-simultaneous publication of an accompanying article in the New York Times last Thursday morning, seeGov't Ex. L, much less that he had any such awareness when drafting the Gary Letter. Nor can they, because such evidence does not exist. Neither Hofeller nor his unpublished study played any role whatsoever in the drafting of the Gary Letter. There is no smoking gun here; only smoke and mirrors. In lieu of actual, admissible evidence, Plaintiffs rely on pure speculation to conjure an imagined link between the Hofeller study and the Gary Letter based on supposed "striking similarities" between the two documents. Plaintiffs' insinuation is false. The purported "striking similarities" between the study and the Gary Letter concern their respective descriptions of the widely and publicly-known problems of using citizenship data from the American Community Survey (ACS) for estimating the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). But even a cursory comparison of the two documents shows that they are not "strikingly" similar. For example, Plaintiffs contend that the Gary Letter's observation that "the [ACS's] margin of error increases as the sample size-and, thus, the geographic area-decreases" is "strikingly similar" to the study's assertion that "the [ACS's] accuracy for small units of geography is extremely poor." See Pls.' Ex. I. How those statements are "strikingly similar" is, to put it mildly, not self-evident. Plaintiffs' remaining examples (seeid.) are of a piece, and their pattern-matching exercise reads more like the product of a conspiracy theorist than a careful legal analysis. Indeed, the Gary Letter is far more similar to briefs filed in Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016), than to the Hofeller study. The Gary Letter expressly cites Evenwel in its discussion of the ACS, and Gore testified that he was familiar with the case and had read the briefs in it. See Gov't AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000185 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 6 Ex. G, Gore Dep. 339:13-340:4. Unsurprisingly, the Gary Letter contains many similarities-some even "striking"-to, for instance, the amicus brief filed by former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau. See Gov't Ex. D. That brief identifies the same problems with using ACS citizenship data that the Gary Letter identifies, often using identical language, as the attached chart (Gov't Ex. C) demonstrates. Other amicus briefs in Evenwelalso address the same problems, using similar language. See, e.g.,Br. for United States at 22-23; Br. of Democratic Nat'l Comm. at 15-19; Br. of Nathaniel Persily et al. at 11-24. (Those and other Evenwel briefs are available at www.scotusblog.com/ casefiles/ cases/ evenwel-v-abbott.) The Persily brief even describes the problems with the ACS "in the exact same order," Pls.' Mot. at 3, as the Hofeller study and the Gary Letter, exposing the speciousness of Plaintiffs' argument on that score too. See Br. of Nathaniel Persily et al. at 16-24. Moreover, it is hardly surprising that the Gary Letter, Evenwel briefs, and Hofeller study all describe similar problems with ACS citizenship data. Those issues are widely known, and have been discussed in case law and academic literature for years. See, e.g.,Mo. State Conferenceof the NAACP v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1030 (E.D. Mo. 2016); Fabelav. CiryofFarmersBranch, Tex., 2012 WL 3135545, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2012); Benavidezv. IrvingIndep.Sch. Dist., Tex., 690 F. Supp. 2d 451, 457-458 (N.D. Tex. 2010); Justin Levitt, Democraryon the High Wire, 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1041, 1109 n.116 (2013); Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census,32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755, 776777 (2011). The Census Bureau itself has long acknowledged these limitations of the ACS. See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, A Compassfor Understandingand UsingAmerican CommunityS urvryData: What General Data Users Need to Know, at 4, 8-11 (Oct. 2008), available at https://www.census.gov/ content/ dam/Census/library /publications/2008/ acs/ ACSGeneralHandb ook.pdf. The assertion that Gore relied on a private, unpublished study to compile information that is widely known and publicly available is absurd. b. Without any actual evidence that the Gary Letter relied on or was even influenced by the unpublished Hofeller study, Plaintiffs attempt to build a link by a circuitous path. According to Plaintiffs, a paragraph in a letter that Mark Neuman gave to Gore (Neuman Letter) matches a paragraph found in a document on one of Hofeller's hard drives. From this, Plaintiffs leap to the conclusion that a completely separate document on one of Hofeller's hard drives (i.e.,the unpublished study) also must have made its way to Gore-through mysterious and unidentified channels. Plaintiffs' illogical speculation is baseless. Even assuming Hofeller gave Neuman a paragraph from one document on his hard drive, it would not even arguably show that he also gave an entirely separate document (the study) to Neuman, much less that Ho feller (or anyone else) gave itto Gore. Indeed, although Plaintiffs state that Neuman produced the Neuman Letter in discovery, they do not say that Neuman produced a copy of the 2015 study, because he did not. That, in turn, strongly suggests that he did not have it in his possession, custody, or control. The Department of Justice, too, produced the Neuman Letter but not the 2015 study. That is because the study was not in the possession, custody, or control of any of the relevant custodians at DOJ. Those facts alone rebut Plaintiffs' baseless assertions that DOJ or Gore had the Hofeller study and based the Gary Letter on its contents. Nor is there any logical basis to draw a link between the Neuman Letter and the Gary Letter. Plaintiffs' assertion that the "December 2017 DOJ letter was adapted from the Neuman DOJ Letter, including, in particular, Dr. Hofeller's VRA rationale" is risible. The Gary Letter bears no resemblance to anything in the Neuman Letter, including the nonsensical paragraph allegedly written by Hofeller. ComparePls.' Exs. G & H with Gov't Ex. F. Neither the text nor the substance of the Neuman Letter appears anywhere in the Gary Letter, and Neuman himself testified that he "wasn't part of the drafting process of the [Gary] [L]etter" and that the Neuman Letter is "very different" from the Gary Letter. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000186 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 6 Gov't Ex. H, Neuman Dep. 114:19-20, 280:23-24. Tellingly, Plaintiffs have had the Neuman Letter for months, yet never previously suggested that it bore any resemblance to the Gary Letter. Plaintiffs' repeated insistence on conflating the two documents, as if the Neuman Letter were an early draft of the Gary Letter, is disingenuous, misleading, and contradicted by the evidence in the record. 2. In addition to incorrectly claiming that the Gary Letter was based on the unpublished Hofeller study, Plaintiffs allege that Gore and Neuman testified falsely about Hofeller's involvement in drafting the Gary Letter. As explained above, neither Hofeller nor his unpublished study played any role whatsoever in the drafting of the Gary Letter, so Plaintiffs' allegations fail at the outset. But they fail even on their own terms. a. Plaintiffs assert that "Gore repeatedly testified that he prepared the initial draft of the DOJ letter, failing to disclose that Neuman gave a draft of the DOJ letter in October 2017." Pls.' Mot. at 1. The first half of that sentence is unequivocally true: Gore did prepare the first draft of the Gary Letter, and Plaintiffs have not identified any evidence to the contrary. See Ex. G, Gore Dep. 152:4-155:8. (Again, Plaintiffs' insistence on calling both the Neuman Letter and the Gary Letter "the DOJ letter" is misleading because it willfully conflates two entirely different documents.) As for the second half: Gore, it is true, did not testify that Neuman gave him a draft of the Neuman Letter. But that is because Plaintiffs did not ask him about it. Gore disclosed that he talked to Neuman while drafting the Gary Letter. See Ex. G, Gore Dep. 437:20-438:13. When Plaintiffs asked for the substance of that conversation, the government appropriately asserted deliberative-process privilege-an assertion that Plaintiffs chose not to challenge. Id. at 437:14-20. And instead of following up to ask whether Neuman gave him any materials, Plaintiffs simply moved on to other topics. Id. at 437:22-438:13. The lack of testimony from Gore about the Neuman Letter is thus the result of Plaintiffs' own deposition techniques and strategic litigation choices. Gore's testimony was entirely truthful. Perhaps more important, Plaintiffs have long known that Gore had the Neuman Letter. The government produced the Neuman Letter in full in discovery. See Gov't Ex. E, at 4-5. In the cover email to Plaintiffs' counsel, the government expressly said: "These materials were collected from John Gore" "in hard copy." Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have known since at least October 23, 2018, that Gore had the Neuman Letter-which belies their repeated claims that they learned that fact only recently. It is thus unclear how Plaintiffs could have been misled by Gore's failure to tell them something they (1) did not ask him and (2) have known since last October. Plaintiffs' obliviousness is not a valid basis to sanction the government. Plaintiffs' other accusations of false or misleading testimony on the part of Gore are even more perplexing. For example, they assert that "Gore, meanwhile, testified that he 'drafted the initial draft of the [Gary Letter] sometime around the end of October or early November of 2017,' and he did not name Neuman or Dr. Hofeller as people who provided 'input' on the initial draft." Pls.' Mot. at 2. Of course the reason Gore did not identify Neuman or Hofeller as people who provided input on the Gary Letter is that neither Neuman nor Hofeller provided any input on the Gary Letter. Plaintiffs have identified no evidence to the contrary. Similarly baseless is Plaintiffs' denunciation of Gore for not "disclos[ing] that Dr. Hofeller ghostwrote a substantial part of the Neuman DOJ Letter setting forth the VRA rationale," and for "conceal[ing] Dr. Hofeller's role in crafting the October 2017 draft letter and the VRA enforcement rationale it advanced." Pls.' Mot. at 1, 3. Again, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence whatsoever that Gore was aware of Hofeller's involvement in anything, much less his alleged contribution of a cryptic paragraph in the Neuman Letter. Besides, as noted above, Plaintiffs neglected to ask Gore about any materials he might have received from Neuman, so Gore AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000187 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 6 never opined on what he thought of that letter or who he thought might have contributed to it. b. Plaintiffs attack Neuman's testimony on similar grounds. Neuman is not a governmental employee and was represented by private counsel in this litigation. His acts or omissions are thus not attributable to the government and provide no basis for sanctions against the government. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs' accusations against Neuman fail for largely the same reasons as with Gore. Plaintiffs assert that "Neuman testified that his October 2017 meeting with Gore was not about a 'letter from DOJ regarding the citizenship question,' and that he gave Gore only a different document." Pls.' Mot. at 3. That is false. Neuman never said he gave Gore "only" a different document. Plaintiffs asked him what he gave to Gore, and Neuman answered: "Mainly the-mainly a copy of the-of the letter from the Obama Administration, Justice Department, to the Census Bureau on the issue of adding a question on the ACS." Gov't Ex. H, Neuman Dep. 123:25-124:3. After asking some follow-up questions about that document, id. at 124:4-126:16, counsel moved on to another topic, see id. at 126:19-20 ("Did [Gore] provide you any information at that meeting?"). Counsel never asked what else,if anything, Neuman gave Gore beyond the Obama-era document. Neuman's failure to inform Plaintiffs that he also gave Gore a copy of the Neuman Letter is thus traceable to Plaintiffs' inadequate deposition questioning, not Neuman. (Besides, as noted above, Plaintiffs already knew that Gore had received a copy of the Neuman Letter.) Also the product of Plaintiffs' own deposition decisions is Neuman's alleged failure to inform Plaintiffs of Hofeller's purported role in drafting the Neuman Letter. Neuman was discussing the letter's authorship when the questioner cut him off: "I don't-I don't want-I'm not asking you to tell me about who the original author was or anything." Gov't Ex. H, Neuman Dep. 281 :23-25. It is quite rich for Plaintiffs to now complain about Neuman's failing to tell them something he was instructed not to tell them. And Plaintiffs did not lack for opportunity; Neuman testified at length about Ho feller and the discussions they had about redistricting and the census. See id. at 33:2-10, 36:19-45:14, 51:7-53:3, 55:9-59:6, 64:18-67:14, 89:11-90:13, 100:18-101:7, 136:17-139:3, 143:13-144:6. c. In a chart attached to their motion, Pls.' Ex. A, Plaintiffs repeat the allegations misrepresentations above and add additional allegations, including about statements in government's court filings. All of the allegations are meritless. The government has prepared expanded version of Plaintiffs' chart, Gov't Ex. A, explaining that there are no misrepresentations Gore's testimony, Neuman's testimony, or the government's filings. of the an in 3. Plaintiffs' assertions are not only false, but legally irrelevant as both a procedural and substantive matter. Procedurally, it is too late to reopen the evidence in this already-closed case (setting aside that this Court has no jurisdiction over that aspect of the case while the Supreme Court considers the government's appeal). Moreover, the supposedly "new" evidence from Hofeller's files likely would be inadmissible, in particular because none of it has been authenticated and all of it is hearsay. See Gov't Ex. B (describing some of the evidentiary problems with Plaintiffs' submissions). It would be improper to impose sanctions on the basis of inadmissible evidence. To the extent Plaintiffs claim the "new" evidence is their learning that Gore had the Neuman Letter, as discussed above, they knew that in October and decided not to pursue it further. Plaintiffs also made the strategic litigation choice not to challenge the government's assertion of deliberative-process privilege over Gore's discussions with Neuman, and similarly decided not to "close out" their questioning of Neuman on that point. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a do-over. Substantively, the "new" evidence is irrelevant because the critical issue in this AP A case is AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 4 DOJ-18-0618-D-000188 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 6 whether the Secretary provided an objectively rational basis for his decision to reinstate the citizenship question. Nothing in the private files of a deceased political operative can affect the resolution of that issue. To the extent Plaintiffs believe the "new" evidence affects their equal-protection claim, the question there is whether SecretaryRossharbored discriminatory animus. Not even Plaintiffs allege that Secretary Ross was aware of Ho feller's unpublished 2015 study or its ideas. And this Court has already determined that the private motivations of various non-governmental actors cannot be attributed to the Secretary. See New York v. U.S. Dep't if Commerce,351 F. Supp. 3d 502, 570-71 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). The secret motivations of Hofeller, allegedly memorialized in a private, unpublished study recovered from his hard drive long after his death, likewise are not attributable to the Secretary. Finally, Plaintiffs have misrepresented the nature of Hofeller's study. Contrary to their representation, the study did not conclude "that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census 'would clearly be a disadvantage to Democrats' and 'advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites' in redistricting." Pls.' Mot. at 1. Rather, the study concluded that "[a] switchto the use ef citizen voting agepopulation as the redistricting population base for redistricting would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," Pls.' Ex. D at 9, and that "[u]seefCVAPwould clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats," id. at 7. Those statements demonstrate no discriminatory animus against anyone; they are empirical observations about the likely impact of using CVAP for redistricting. They are also inapposite to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' theory is not that the citizenship question will harm them becauseit will enablethe useef CV AP in redistricting. Rather, their theory is that the citizenship of whether question harms them by causing an undercount in certain noncitizen populations regardless future redistricting is done by CVAP or total population. Hofeller's study does not address that issue at all. ***** The Department of Justice takes accusations of false testimony very seriously. For the reasons set forth above and in the attached charts, Plaintiffs' accusations are meritless. Plaintiffs had an obligation to conduct a pre-filing investigation before leveling such inflammatory accusations, especially against a high-ranking DOJ official. And they have had ample time to conduct that investigation; according to the New York Times,Plaintiffs' counsel have had the Hofeller materials since at least February. See Gov't Ex. L, at 3. Yet they appear to have spent more time coordinating with the media-the detailed Times article was posted online less than an hour after the ECF filing noticethan performing the requisite investigation. Plaintiffs apparently hope that by filing their eleventhhour motion they might (improperly) derail the Supreme Court's resolution of this case. There is no other plausible explanation for why they spilled so much ink describing "new" evidence that they have known since October and conjuring a conspiracy theory involving a deceased political operative that essentially hinges on wordplay. The Court should deny their baseless motion. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000189 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Dated: June 3, 2019 Document 601 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General JAMES M. BURNHAM Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Director, Federal Programs Branch / s/ JoshuaE. Gardner JOSHUA E. GARDNER Special Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 305-7583 Email: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov CARLOTTA P. WELLS Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch KATE BAILEY GARRETT COYLE STEPHEN EHRLICH CAROL FEDERIGHI DANIEL HALAINEN MARTIN TOMLINSON Trial Attorneys, Federal Programs Branch Counselfor Defendants CC: All Counsel of Record (by ECF) AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000190 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 8 ExhibitA AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000191 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page2 of 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit A1 Expanded to Discuss ActualEvidence Testimonyor Plaintiffs'"New" ActualEvidence2 Representations Evidence Neumandeniedat Gorerecentlytold In responseto Plaintiffs'questions,Goreagreedthatit was"fairto say"tl1athe andthat depositionthat his congressional "wrotethe firstdraftof the letter,"Gov'tEx. G, GoreDep. 127:12-17, that he "draftedthe initialdraftof the letter,"id.150:9-13.ThatwasentirelytruthfulOctober2017meeting investigators withGorewasabouta Neumangavehimtl1e Gorewrotethe firstdraftof the GaryLetter,andPlaintiffsidentifynothingto the Letter; contrary.Instead,tl1eyciteevidencetl1at:'\eumangaveGorethe Neuman "letterfromDOJ NeumanDOJLetter, regardingthe citizenship whichwasframedas a whichwasnot onlydistinctin substance,language, andform,butwhich:'\euman question."Ex.B. at testifiedwas"verydifferent"fromthe GaryLetter. Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep. requestfromDOJto 273:10-21.He testified Commercerequesting 280:23-24.AndNeumanconcededtl1athe "wasn'ta partof the draftingprocess" that tl1emeetingwas the additionof the of the GarvLetter. Id.at 114:19-20. insteadabout"how citizenship question,at Plaintiffs'suggestion that Goreconcealedhisreceiptof the NeumanLetteris Censusinteractswith theirOctober2017 incorrect.Gorespecifically testifiedthat he metwithNeuman,Gov'tEx. G, Gore theJusticeDepartment" meetingwhichwas Dep.437:20-439:6,yetPlaintiffsneveraskedGoreif he receivedanymaterials generally.Id. When arrangedby askedwhatinformation Commerce'sGeneral fromNeuman.Also,the governmentproducedthe NeumanLetterin discovery toldPlaintiffsit hadbeen"collectedfromJohn Gore." Gov'tEx.E, Counsel.Ex. F. at 2-4. and expressly he gaveGoreat the Oct.23,2018EmailfromK. Baileyat 3-5. meeting,Neuman describeda different document,but not the Plaintiffsalsopurportto havenewlydiscoveredevidencethat Neumanmetwith Goreat the requestof tl1eGeneralCounselof the CommerceDepartment.But NeumanDOJ letter.Id. Neumantestifiedat his depositionthathis meetingwitl1Gorewasat the request at 123:20-124:7. oflamesUthmeier,thenan attornevin the GeneralCounsel'sofficeat the ? 1 Asidefromcolumnheadings,the firsttwo columnsaretakenverbatimfromPlaintiffs'ExhibitA. 2 Althoughthe governmentaddressesPlaintiffs'fatuousassertionsaboutNeuman'stestimony,Neumanwasnot a governmentemployee and the governmentdid not representhim in this litigation. Indeed,Neumanretainedprivatecounseland routinelydisregardedtl1e 273:18-274:5. government'sinstructionsnot to answercertaindepositionquestions.See,e.g.,Gov't Ex. H, NeumanDep. 124:15-126:23, Thegovernmentdoesnot purportto haveanyinformation regarding:'\eumanthatis not expressedin hisdepositiontestimonyor documents in tl1erecord. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000192 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page3 of 8 Testimonyor Representations Goretestifiedthathe "draftedthe initialdraft of the letterto request the citizenship question sometimearoundthe endof Octoberor early Novemberof 2017." Ex. E at 150:9-13; see alsoid at 127:12-17. Neumantestifiedtl1at he "wasn'tpartof tl1e draftingprocessof the [DO]]letter."Ex.B. at 114:15-21. Plaintiffs'"New" Evidence ActualEvidence2 CommerceDepartment,andNeumanfurthertestifiedthathe didnot know"who originally hadthe idea"but that he thoughtit was"someoneat the Commerce 113:1-22.Plaintiffsalso Department."Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep. 112:5-25, neveraskedGorewhoarrangedthe meetingbetweenhimandNeuman. Plaintiffsselectively quoteNeuman'sresponseto one questionconcerning what the meetingwas"about." SeePis.'Ex.Bat 273:10-21.In fact,Neumantestifiedat severalpointsduringhis depositionthathe discusseda citizenshipquestion(anda JusticeDepartmentletterto the CensusBureau)withGore. See,e.g.,Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep. 110:5-8,114:15-23, 123:20-124:3. Finally,thereis nothinginconsistentaboutNeuman'stestimony.In his deposition, PlaintiffsaskedNeuman:"Soat the meetingyouprovidedsome informationto Gorefor purposesof theletterthat DOJsubsequently drafted regardingthe citizenship question?"Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep. 123:21-24. Neumanstatedthat he "mainly"provideda copyof a letterfromthe previous id.at 123:25-124:3. ButPlaintiffsneveraskedNeumanwhetherhe administration, providedthe draftto Goreor discussedit withhim,despitedesignating the NeumanLetteras an exhibitandaskingseveralotherquestionsaboutit. Id.at 278:23-280:24. NeumangaveGoretl1e Plaintiffsciteno evidencethatNeumanplayedanyrolein draftingthe GaryLetter; Letterto Goresays NeumanDOJLetterin Themerefacttl1atNeumanprovideda copyof the Neuman October2017.Ex. Fat nothingaboutwhetlm Gorereliedon the NeumanLetter-a documentdistinctin 2-4. substance,language, andform-in draftingthe GaryLetter.To the contrary,the testimonvof NeumanandGoreis fullvconsistent:Neumantestifiedtl1athe playedno rolein the draftingof the GaryLetter,Gov'tEx. H, NeumanDep. 114:10-23, and Goretestifiedthathe initiallydraftedthe GaryLetter,Pis.'Ex. D at 127:17,150:13. ' J Plaintiffs'relianceupontheirExhibitFis alsomisplacedbecausethisinadmissible documentmisrepresents Gore'stranscribedinterview,as reflectedin the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000193 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page4 of 8 Testimonyor Representations Whenaskedaboutthe "substance"of his conversations withDr. Hofeller"aboutthe citizenshipquestion" afterJanuary2017, Neumantestifiedthat Dr. Hofellersaid, "Mark,youneedto makesurethatwe takea goodcensus,thatthe administration doesn't skimpon the budget." Ex.Bat 138:3-15. Plaintiffs'"New" Evidence ActualEvidence2 government's ExhibitK,whichis a letterfromDOJto the HonorableElijahE. Cummingscorrectingthe record. Dr. Hofellerhelped Plaintiffsofferno evidenceto suggestthat~euman'stestimonyis inaccurateor ghostwritethe Neuman misleading.Farfromconcealing theirrelationship, Hofellerwasthe firstperson concerning DOJletter for l\euman Neumanidentifiedin responseto a generalquestionaboutdiscussions questionon the 2020Census.Gov'tEx. H, NeumanDep. in August2017.Exs.G, a potentialcitizenship 33:2-10.NeumanthendiscussedHofellerthroughoutthe deposition.See,e.g.,id. H. at 33:2-10, 36:19-45:14, 51:7-53:3, 55:9-59:6, 64:18-67:14, 89:11-90:13, 100:18101:7,136:17-139:3, 143:13-144:6. Plaintiffsdidnot askNeumanwhetherHofellerwasinvolvedin composingthe draftletter,despiteNeumann'srepeatedreferencesto Hofellerand eJ<.iended Indeed,Plaintiffs'counsel discussionof the draft. Seeid.at 278:23-280:24. expressly toldNeumanduringhis depositionthattheywere"not askingyouto tell meaboutwhothe originalauthorwasor anything."Id. at 281:5-21.Onceagain, Plaintiffsfailedto askthe questionthattheynowclaimis materialto theirclaims. Finally,Plaintiffshavefailedto establishthe admissibility of theirExhibitH. This documentlacksauthentication, andPlaintiffshavefailedto provideanyreliable basison whichto establishthe provinceof thisundateddocument.SeeGov't Ex.B, Evid.Objs.to Pis.'Exs. Indeed,it is justas possiblethat ExhibitH was excerptedfromthe l\eumanLetteras Plaintiffs'unsupportedcontraryspeculation. Neumandeniedat depositionthat "Dr. Hofellerwasone of the people[Neuman]relied on for expertiseon the VotingRightsAct." Ex. Bat 143:25-144:6. Neumantestifiedthat Dr. Hofeller"didnot appearto me to be an AMERICAN PVERSIGHT The paragraphof the NeumanDOJLetter that Dr. Hofeller ghostwrotespecifically concernsVIL;\ enforcement.Exs.G, H. Dr. Hofellerhelped ghostwritethe Neuman DOJletter for l\euman Thereis nothinginconsistentin Neuman'stestimony.Evenif Neuman purportedlyexcerptedfromHofeller's(unauthenticated) document-a propositionthatPlaintiffshavefailedto supportwithanyadmissible evidenceonenonsensical paragraphdoesnot makeHofelleran "expert."Plaintiffsutterly failto showthat HofellerhadanyVRli"expertise," let alonethatNeumanrelied on it. Plaintiffsciteno evidencethat Hoteliermetwithor advisedanygovernment official.AndPlaintiffsciteno evidencethatNeumanmisrepresented his impressions of Hofeller'srole. 3 DOJ-18-0618-D-000194 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page5 of 8 Testimonyor Plaintiffs'"New" Representations Evidence adviserto the ... in August2017,which administration at all." Neumangaveto Gore Ex.B. at 136:9-10. at a meetingarrangedby the CommerceGeneral Counsel.Exs.G, H, F. Neumantestifiedthat Dr. Hofellertoldhim thataddingthe citizenship question Id" .. 0" wou ma.x1m1ze representation for the "Latinocommunity." Ex.Bat 142:3-18. ActualEvidence2 Plaintiffs'relianceon theirExhibitFis misplaced becausethisinadmissible documentmisrepresents Gore'stranscribedinterview, as reflectedin the government's ExhibitK,whichis a letterfromDOJto the HonorableElijahE. Cummings correctingthe record. Finally,Plaintiffshavefailedto establishthe admissibility ofExhibitH. This documentlacksauthentication, andPlaintiffshavefailedto provideanyreliable basison whichto establishthe provinceof thisundateddocument.SeeGov't Ex.B. Indeed,it is justas possiblethatExhibitH wasexcerptedfromthe NeumanLetteras Plaintiffs'unsupportedcontrarvspeculation. Dr. Hofellerconcluded Plaintiffspresentno evidencethatNeuman'stestimonyis falseor misleading.As in his2015studvthat an initialmatter,Plaintiffshavefailedto establishthe authenticity of their addinga citizenship ExhibitD. Thisundated,unsigneddocumentlacksanyindiciato supportwhat questionto facilitatethe Plaintiffsclaimthisto be,andit alsocontainsinadmissible hearsay.SeeGov't useof CVAPin Ex.B. Butevenif Plaintiffs'ExhibitD werewhatPlaintiffsclaimit to be, the redistricting would viewsHofellerexpressedin a 2015studyarenot evidenceof whathe told benefit"!\on-Hispanic Neumanvearslater. Whites"while significantly harming Further,Neumanspecifically explained that"maximizing" representation forthe Latinovoters.Ex.D at "Latinocommunity" washisgoal,not anythinghe gleanedfromHofeller.See 6-9. Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep.142:3-23("Mypointaboutma.ximization is myword. I wantLatinorepresentation to be ma.ximized."). J J Plaintiffsalsopresentno evidencethatHotelierprovidedhis2015studyto Neuman.To the contrary,Plaintiffspurportto presentevidencethatHofeller intendedthe 2015studyto be usedsolelyfor the purposesof his client"regarding a fundingdecisionforthe EvenwelPlaintiffs"andon the understanding tl1atit "wouldnot be attributedeitherdirectlvor indirectlv."SeePis.'Ex.Cat 1-3. Plaintiffs'ExhibitC alsolacksauthentication andreflectsinadmissible hearsay.See Gov'tEx.B. J AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 4 J DOJ-18-0618-D-000195 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page6 of 8 Testimonyor Plaintiffs'"New" Representations Evidence Defendantsrepresented Neumanwasthe key to thisCourtthat "[t]he conduitbetween recorddoesnot indicate CommerceandDOJin that Neumanprovided the fallof 2017, includingtransmitting anyparticularly significant consultations the NeumanDOJLetter on the citizenship to Goreat the request question... duringhis of Commerce'sGeneral Counsel.Ex. F at 2-4. conversations with Commerceofficialsin 2017." ECF346at 2. ActualEvidence2 Plaintiffspurportto offer"new"evidenceaboutNeuman'srolebut insteadseek to relitigateissuesalreadyaddressedbythisCourt. Thegovernment's letter opposingPlaintiffs'motion-whichsoughtleaveto deposeNeumancharacterized the recordevidenceat that timein supportof the government's argument.SeeGov'tEx.J, ECFNo. 346at 1-2. Plaintiffssubsequently questionedthe government's characterizations, andthe Courtaddressedthisissue in rulingon the government's assertionsof privilegeovercommunications betweenNeumanandthe government.SeeECFNo. 531at 8. In anyevent,Plaintiffs'descriptionof "new"informationregardingNeuman'srole is startlingly disingenuous.Indeed,therewouldhavebeenno needto litigate whetherNeumanshouldbe deposed-resultingin thegovernment'sfiling referencedhere-if Plaintiffswereunawareof Neuman'sinvolvement.Andin that filing,the governmentprovideda fullaccountof ~euman'srole,includinghis March22,2018meetingwiththe Secretary, the PowerPointpresentationNeuman gaveto the Secretary, andNeuman'scommunications withCommerce DepartmentattorneyJamesUthmeier.SeeGov'tEx.J, at 2-3. If thatwerenot enough,the governmentpreviously produceddocumentation of each. SeeAR 8371(Meetingmemo);AR 10237(presentation); AR 11329(emailto Uthmeier). For Plaintiffsto nowinsinuatethatDOJattorneysmisrepresented Neuman'srole in the referencedfilingis remarkable. Worseyet,Plaintiffs'descriptionof Neumanas "the keyconduitbetween CommerceandDOJ"is preposterous.As the Courtitselfchronicled, the DepartmentsofJusticeandCommercecommunicated directlyon tl1isissue.See 351F. Supp.3d 502,550-57(S.DS.Y. general!J Ne2vYorkv. U.S.Dep'tofCommerce, directly 2019).Indeed,Goretestifiedat his depositionaboutseveraldiscussions witl1Commerceemployees concerningthe citizenship question,including CommerceGeneralCounselPeterDavidson,SeniorCounselto the General CounselJamesUthmeier,andChiefof StaffWendyTeramoto.Gov'tEx. G, GoreDep.91:2-94:3.Andneitl1erGorenor ~eumanevensuggestedtheyhad AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 5 DOJ-18-0618-D-000196 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page7 of 8 Testimonyor Representations Plaintiffs'"New" Evidence ActualEvidence2 morethana singlemeeting.SeeGov'tEx. G, GoreDep.437:20-439:6; Gov'tEx. 114:15-23, 123:20-124:3. H, NeumanDep.110:5-13, Plaintiffsalsocitea documentstatingthatNeumanmetwithGoreandprovided himwiththe NeumanLetter. SeePis.'Ex.Fat 2-3. Asan initialmatter,Plaintiffs' relianceupontheirExhibitF is misplacedbecausethisinadmissible document misrepresents Gore'stranscribedinterview,as reflectedin the government's ExhibitK,whichis a letterfromDOJ to the HonorableElijahE. Cummings correctingthe record.Butmorefundamentally, GoreandNeumanpreviously Gov't attestedto theirmeeting.See,e.g.,Gov'tEx. G, GoreDep.437:20-439:6; Thegovernmentalsoproducedthe Neuman Ex. H, NeumanDep.101:23-102:4. Letterin responseto Plaintiffs'Rule45 subpoenato the DepartmentofJustice,see Gov'tEx.E, at 4-5, andin the coveremailexplainedthatthisdocumentwas "collectedfromJohn Gore""in hardcopy."Id.at 3. Neumantestifiedthat he didnot knowwho authoredthe Neuman DOJ letteror who wrotethe "first template."E.x.Bat 280:8-15. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Moreover,Neumantestifiedthat hismeetingwithGorewasat the requestof an attorneyin the Departmentof Commerce'sOfficeof GeneralCounsel.SeeGov't 113:1-22. Ex. H, NeumanDep.112:5-25, Dr. Hofellerhelped Plaintiffsclaimthat the NeumanLettercontainsoneparagraphpurportedlyalso ghostwritethe Neuman foundamongHofeller'sfiles(offeringno competentevidenceestablishing those facts),seePis.'Exs.F, G, H, but Plaintiffsciteno evidencethatHofellerwrotethe DOJLetter,which Neumangaveto Gore "firsttemplate"of the ':\eumanLetteror thatNeumanknewwho did. in October2017.Exs. F,G,H. Again,Plaintiffs'less-than-thorough depositionquestioning is to blame.Plaintiffs neveraskedNeumanto identifythe author(orauthors)of the draftletterand,to the contrary,instructed':\eumannot to elaboratefurtheron that issuewhenhe triedto explain.In responseto a questionaboutwho "provided"':\eumanwith the letter,Neumantestified:"I'm not surewhichversionthisis. Again,I'm familiar,.viththe letter. I'm not surewhothe originalauthoris. I'm surethat I lookedat it. I mighthavecommentedon it, but I'm not surewhowritesa first-a firsttemplate,as it were." Gov'tEx.H, NeumanDep.280:11-15.Neumanbegan to explainfurther,id.at 281:15-19,but the questionerintetjectedto state:"I 6 DOJ-18-0618-D-000197 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-1 Filed06/03/19 Page8 of 8 Testimonyor Representations Defendantsrepresented to thisCourtthat there wasa "lowlikelihoodof AAGGore'stestimony resultingin anyrelevant evidenceconcerning SecretaryRoss's decisionor intent." ECF 90at 1. Plaintiffs'"New" Evidence ActualEvidence2 don't-I don'twant-I don't-I'm not askingyouto tellme aboutwho the originalauthorwasor anything."Id.at 281:23-25.Counselthen proceededto inquireaboutissuesotherthanauthorship. Defendantsknew,but The government'sletteropposingPlaintiffs'motionto compelthe depositionof failedto disclose,that Gorecorrectlyarguedtl1ata depositionwasunlikelyto produceinformation Ross'sdecisionor intent,consistentwiththe Court'searlier Goremetwitl1Neuman relevantto Secretary in October2017at the statement"thatthe limiteddiscoverymayencompass'materialsfromthe requestof Commerce's DepartmentofJustice'to the extentthat they'shedlighton tl1emotivationsfor GeneralCounsel,during SecretaryRoss'sdecision."'Gov't Ex. I, ECF No. 90at 2 (quotingJuly3, 2018 whichNeumangave Tr. 86:11-13). Gorethe NeumanDOJ Letter. Ex. Fat 2-4. GorediscussedSecretaryRossat severalpointsin his deposition.See,e.g.,Gov't Ex. G, GoreDep.35:13-22, 63:20-22, 64:1-4.But Gore'stestimonyabout SecretaryRoss's"decisionor intent"waslimitedto the Secretary's memorandum. See,e.g.,id.at 36:8-22,37:1-22,38:1-8,41:8-16,42:13-22, 43:1-3,284:17-22, 285:115,317:4-22, 318:1-8.Whenaskedifhe "everdiscussedthe issueof the citizenshipquestionwithSecretaryRoss,"Goreresponded:"No." Id. at 89:22, 90:1-2.Whenaskedif he was"consultedby SecretaryRossregardingwhetherthe DepartmentofJusticewouldsupportor requestthe inclusionof a citizenship questionon the decennialcensus,"Goreresponded:"No." Id.at 90:10-15.In fact,it is difficultto discernhowGore'stestimonyprovided"anyrelevant evidenceconcerningSecretary Ross's decisionor intent." Gov'tEx. I, at 1. Andcontraryto Plaintiffs'suggestionthat the governmentmisrepresented Gore's relationship withNeuman,Goretestifiedthat he had a conversation withNeuman aboutthe citizenshipquestionand "understoodthat he wasadvisingthe Departmentof Commerceand the CensusBureauwithrespectto thisissue." 438:1-13.Further,the governmentproduced Gov'tEx. G, GoreDep.437:20-22, the NeumanLetterin responseto Plaintiffs'Rule45 subpoenato the Department ofJustice,seeGov'tEx. E, at 4--5,and explainedin a coveremailthat this documentwas"collectedfromJohn Gore""in hardcopy." Id.at 3. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 7 DOJ-18-0618-D-000198 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-2 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000199 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-2 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2 Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibits Plaintiffs' Exhibit Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit F Exhibit H AMERICAN PVERSIGHT The Government's Evidentiary Objections FRE 901; FRE 802. This exhibit purports to be an email chain between two non-parties to this litigation. This exhibit is not self-authenticating and Plaintiffs have failed to properly authenticate it. In addition, the statements by Stephanie Edelman are hearsay and are not subject to any hearsay exception. FRE 901; FRE 802. Plaintiffs contend that this exhibit is a 2015 report from Dr. Thomas Hofeller. This exhibit is not self-authenticating and Plaintiffs have failed to properly authenticate it. Among other things, there is no date or author name on this document or any indication of where this document came from. Relatedly, because this exhibit has not properly been authenticated and there is no indication of the author, this exhibit contains hearsay and is not subject to any hearsay exception. FRE 901; FRE 802. This exhibit purports to be a summary prepared by the Majority Staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform of a transcribed interview of DOJ employee John Gore. This exhibit is not self-authenticating, and Plaintiffs have failed to properly authenticate it. More fundamentally, there is substantial reason to question the accuracy and reliability of this document, as reflected in the government Exhibit K, which identifies numerous misstatements in Plaintiffs' Exhibit F. In addition, both the statements from the Majority Staff and the statements attributed to Gore are hearsay and are not subject to any hearsay exception. FRE 901; FRE 802. Plaintiffs contend that this exhibit comes from the files of Hofeller. This exhibit is not self-authenticating, and Plaintiffs have failed to properly authenticate it. This document lacks a date, an author, or any indicia of its origins. In addition, this exhibit constitutes hearsay and is not subject to any exception. DOJ-18-0618-D-000200 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-3 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 4 ExhibitC AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000201 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-3 Filed06/03/19 Page2 of 4 Plaintiffs' ExhibitI Expanded to IncludeExcerpts fromtheAmicusBriefof FormerDirectors oftheU.S.Census Bureauin Evenwelv. Abbott,136S. Ct.1120(2016) Purported Hofeller2015Study GaryLetter For severalreasons,the Bureauof the Censusdecidedto discontinue the useof the longformquestionnaire for the 2010 DecennialCensusandto depend exclusivelv on the shortform Questionnaire, whichdidnot includea questionon citizenship ... J Asa replacement to the longform questionnaire, the CensusBureauinstituted the AmericanCommunitv Sun-ev.To quotethe CensusBureau:"TheAmerican Community Survey(ACS)is an ongoing surveythat providesvitalinformationon a yearlybasisaboutournationandits people.Informationfromthe survey generatesdatathathelpdeterminehow morethan$400billionin federaland state fundsaredistributedeachyear."Eachyear, about3.5+millionhouseholdsreceiveverv detailedquestionnaires ofwhichabout2.2 millionare successfully returned.This representsa 62%returnrate. .' .,i J AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FormerCensusBureauDirectors' EvenwelBrief In the 2010Census,however,no census questionnaire includeda questionregarding Following the 2000Census,the decennial citizenship. Rather,followingthe 2000 "longform"wasdiscontinued andwas Census,the CensusBureaudiscontinued replacedbya continualsamplingprogram the "longform"questionnaire andreplaced calledthe AmericanCommunitySurvey it withthe AmericanCommunitv Surver .' .. ("ACS").ACScollectsthe sametypeof (ACS).TheACSis a samplingsurveythat informationthatwasincludedon the long is sentto onlyaroundonein everythirtyform,but doesso on a continuousbasis eighthouseholdseachyearandasksa 8 throughoutthe decade. Eachmonth, varietyof questionsregardingdemographic about295,000addressesaremailedtheACS information, includingcitizenship. SeeU.S. questionnaire, for a totalof 3.5million CensusBureau,AmericanCommunity householdsa year,or roughlyonein thirtySurveyInformationGuideat 6, available at eighthouseholds. /content/dam/ https://w\vw.census.gov [F\!8]:SeeU.S.CensusBureau,American Census/programssurveys/acs/about/ACS Comtmmiry Survey Information Guide.... InformationGuide.pdf(lastvisitedNov. 22,2017). TheACSis currentlythe Census Theactualnumberof votingagecitizensin Bureau'sonlvsurvevthat collects eachstateis unknown.The onlv informationregardingcitizenship and informationin existenceis ACS'sstatistical estimatescitizenvoting-age population. sample-based estimates. J J J DOJ-18-0618-D-000202 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-3 Filed06/03/19 Page3 of4 Purported Hofeller2015Study In addition,the use a J-rear samplewasmuchlessreflecti,-eof the characteristics of the populationat the timeof the 2010Decennial Enumer:1t1on. whichwouldhavebeena one-timesnapshottakenin mid-2010 (Aprilto August). Anotherissuewithuse of the ACSin redistricting is that the accuracyfor small unitsof geographyis extremelypoor.This is particularly true for CensusTractsand CensusBlockGroups.In somecasesthe confidenceintervalfor a BlockGroup exceedsthe actualrangeof the data, creatingnegativenumbersfor the lowpoint of the confidenceinterval. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FormerCensusBureauDirectors' EvenwelBrief Becausethe _\CSestimatesare rollingand As an initialmatter,the _-\CSestimates not withthe timingof aggregatedmto one-year,three-year,and fi,-e-yearestimates, do not alignin apportionmentor leg1slafrre Statestraditionally timewith decennialcensus ,1pport1onment. Citizenshipdatafromthe decennialcensus, redistricttheirstatelegislative districtsat by contrast,wouldalignin timewiththe the sametimeas theircongressional totaland voting-agepopulationdatafrom districts,usingthe samedecennialCensus the censusthat jurisdictions alreadyusein count .... To begin,onlythe five-year redistricting. informationcouldbe usedbecausethe oneand three-yearreportsarenot statistically reliableat the smallgeographicunitsused to drawdistrictboundaries.. . . First,with respectto the ACSfive-yearsurvey,eighty percentof the datais alreadybetveentvo and fiveyearsoldat the timeof redistrictin. The ACSestimatesare reportedat a ninety The ACSreportsmarginsof errorat the ninetypercentconfidencelevel.... The percentconfidencelevel,and the margin of errorincreasesas the samplesize-and, marginof errorgrowsas the samplesize decreases,so the smallerthe area,the thus,the geographicarea-decreases. higherthe possibilityof error. GaryLetter 2 DOJ-18-0618-D-000203 Case1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-3 Filed06/03/19 Page4 of4 Purported Hofeller2015Study Anotherproblemwiththe ACSdatais that the unitsof geographybywhichthe ACSis compiledis differentfromthe geographic unitsusedin redistricting. AlmostallstatesareusingCensusVoting Districts(VTDs)arepreferredas the basicgeographicbuildingblocksfor creatingnewdistricts.VTDboundaries generallyfollowprecinctboundaries. ACSdataaresimplynot availablefor VTDs,andanyestimatesof CVAP populationsfor VTDswouldbe even moreinaccuratethanthe ACSestimates for CensusTractsandBlockGroups. Forthosestatesin whichCVAP estimatesfor legislative districtshm:e beencompiled,determinations haYe beenrequiredto computethe percentage of eachCensusBlockGroup's populationwhichis in eachlegislative or congressional district.The CVAP statisticshavebeensummedfor allthe blockgroupswhichhaveeither50%or 75%of theirpopulationin an individual districtandtheseestimateshavebeen imputedto the totaladultpopulationsof the districts. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FormerCensusBureauDirectors' EvenwelBrief Censusdatais reportedto the census An additionalproblemis thatACS blocklevel,whilethe smallestunit estimatesarenot availableat the smallest reportedin the ACSestimatesis the geographical b-el that is actuallyusedfor censusblockgroup. SeeAmerican purposesof redistricting-theCensus block.Thesmallestgeographic levelat Community SurveyData3, 5, 10. be Accordingly, redistricting junsdictions and whichACSestimatescanaccuratelv the Departmentarerequiredto perform utilizedis the blockgrouplevel. [citation] furtherestimatesandto inteqectfurther problemfor Thiswouldposesignificant citizen statesseekingto evenlypopulatedistricts. uncertuntyin orderto approximate ,-oting-age populationat the levelof a . . . Statesneeddataat granularlevelsin censusblock,whichis the fundamental orderto makea good-faitheffortto buildingblockof a redistricting plan. equalizepopulationto the extentpossible Havingallof the relevantpopulationand amongdistricts.[citations]\Vithoutthe in one datasetat granularCensusblockdatatypically citizenshipdataavailable used the censusblocklevelwouldgreatlyassist to balancepopulatwnbetweenandamong the redistricting process. districts,st1tesrelyingon ACSvotingage citizenestimateslikelywillbe unableto satist}'tl1estandardthisCourtrequ1res for legislative redistricting. GaryLetter J ,., J DOJ-18-0618-D-000204 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 38 Exhibit D AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000205 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 38 No. 14-940 IN THE ~uprmre C!Inurt of~ ~~hdes SUE EVENWEL, ET AL., Appellants, v. GREG ABBOTT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAP A CITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas BRIEF OF FORMER DIRECTORS OF THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES J. Gerald Hebert Trevor Potter CAMPAIGNLEGAL CENTER 1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736-2200 Anita S. Earls SOUTHERNCOALITIONFOR SOCIALJUSTICE 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 794-4198 September 25, 2015 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Paul M. Smith Jessica Ring Amunson Counsel of Record Mark P. Gaber JENNER & BLOCKLLP 1099 New York Ave. NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 jamunson@jenner.com Counsel for Amici Curiae DOJ-18-0618-D-000206 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................. .i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ .4 ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 6 I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the "Whole Number of Persons" in Each State and There Is No Count of "Citizens" by the Decennial Census .............................................7 A. Legal Framework and History of the Census .. 7 B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict ...... 11 IL Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens ........................................................................ 13 A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule ....................................................................... 13 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting ..................................14 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy ..................17 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for Line-Drawing Difficult ...................................19 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000207 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 38 11 B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears ......23 III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn ..............................................26 CONCLUSION ................................................................. 28 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000208 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 38 111 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) ...................................11 Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) ....................17 Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) ..................27 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ................................................................8, 9, 13 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015) .. 14, 15 Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) ........ 12, 17, 22 League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) .....................................15 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).......................11 Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indpendent School District, 168 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999)..........................................................................22 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) .....................11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES U.S. Const. art. II,? 1 ..................................................25 U.S. Const. art. I,? 2 ......................................................7 U.S. Const. amend. XIV,? 2 ...............................7, 8, 25 13 U.S.C. ? 9(a)(l) ......................................................... 18 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000209 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 38 IV 13 U.S.C. ? 9(a)(2) ......................................................... 18 13 U.S.C. ? 141(a)............................................................ 8 13 U.S.C. ? 141(b)............................................................ 8 12 13 U.S.C. ? 141(c).......................................................... 13 u.s.c.? 195 ................................................................ 8 Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737...................................................................... 8 Act of Mar. 1, 1790, ? 1, 1 Stat. 101 ..............................8 Act of Mar. 26, 1810, ? 1, 2 Stat. 565-66 .......................8 12 Ga. Const. art. 3, ? 2 ..................................................... Ill. Const., art. 4, ? 3(b) ................................................12 N.J. Const. art. IV,? 2, ,r 1.......................................... 11 Pa. Const. art. 2, ? 17(a) ...............................................11 Fla. Stat. ? 11.031(1)..................................................... 12 Ill. Comp. Stat., Chapter 55, ? 2-3001c ......................12 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt) .............................................................. 24, 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000210 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 38 V OTHER AUTHORITIES Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: (Mar. 2015), 2014 to 2016 https://www.census.gov/ content/ dam/Gens us/library/publications/2015/demo/p251143.pdf .................................................................... 16 Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30, 2010, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ firewall/2010/06/30/census-paranoia-fueleddistrust-in-government-privacy-morethan-nsa-wiretapping/ ............................................23 Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http:/ /founders.archives.gov/ documents/J e fferson/01-27-02-0557................................................7 Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census (Dec. 2014), http://www.census.gov/ content/dam/Censu s/library /publica tions/20 l 4/rdo/pl94171.pdf ...................................................................... 17 Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755 (2011)..............................16, 17 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000211 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 8 of 38 Vl Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an 2012), http://www. Upgrade (Feb. pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfile s/pcs_assets/2012/Pew Upgrading Voter Re 27 gistrationpdf.pdf ..................................................... Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004) ........................................................... 23 Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/repbachmann-refuses-to-fill-out-2010-census/ .........24 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https://www.census.gov/ geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .......................................................... 11 U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data (Oct. 2008), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens us/library /publica tions/2008/acs/ AC SGener alHandbook.pdf .................................................10, 11 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/programs surveys/ acs/tech_docs/ data_suppression/ ACSO_Da ta_Suppression.pdf .................................................18 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000212 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 9 of 38 Vll U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/ programssurveys/acs/methodology/design _and_methodology/acs_design_methodolo gy_chl5_2014.pdf .................................................... 19 2014)-Chapter U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_th e_survey/acs_information_guide/flipbook/ ........10 U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https://www.census.gov/history/www/thro ugh_ the_ decades/ census_instructions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015)......................................7 U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www .census.gov/ glossary/#term_ C onfidenceintervalAmerican CommunitySur vey (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ............................19 U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https://www.census.gov/history/www/thro ugh_the_decades/index_of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015)...............................................9 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000213 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 10 of 38 vm U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/rdo/ data/voting_a ge_popula tion_by _citizenship _and_race_ c vap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ...................22 U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & HousingChapter 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July 2007), https://www.census.gov/prod/ cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf ................................................... 9 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000214 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 11 of 38 1 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1 Amici curiae are former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau. As former directors responsible for administering the U.S. Census, amici have a unique and valuable perspective on the practical implications of the rule proposed by Appellants and the limitations of the data on which such a rule would necessarily rely. In amici's view, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting Appellants' proposals to require states to draw districts with equal numbers of either voting age citizens or registered voters. Amicus curiae Dr. Kenneth Prewitt was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001. In that capacity, he oversaw the execution of the 2000 decennial Census and development of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Prewitt serves as the Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs and Special Advisor to the President at Columbia University, where he teaches and writes on issues related to the intersection of the Census, politics, and statistics. Prior to serving as Director of the Census, Dr. Prewitt served as Director of the National Opinion Research Center, President of the Social Science Research Council, and Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Prewitt has considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. 1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amici affirm that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person other than amici and their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. The parties' letters of consent to the filing of amicus briefs are on file with the Clerk's office. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000215 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 12 of 38 2 Amicus curiae Dr. Robert Groves was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 2009 to 2012. During his tenure, he oversaw the 2010 decennial Census and implementation of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Groves is the Executive Vice President and Provost of Georgetown University, where he also serves as a professor in the Math and Statistics Department as well as the Sociology Department. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Groves was a professor at the University of Michigan and Director of its Survey Research Center, and before that a research professor at the University of Maryland's Joint Program in Survey Methodology. Dr. Groves has written extensively on the mode of data collection and its effect on responses, the social and political influences on survey participation, and the effect of privacy concerns on Census data collection. He has significant knowledge and experience related to the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. Amicus curiae Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1994 to 1998. In that capacity, she oversaw the design of the 2000 decennial Census, as well as the new American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Riche is affiliated with the Cornell Population Center at Cornell University, and participates in research projects with various Washington-based organizations, most recently on issues of demographic concern to the U.S. military. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Riche directed policy studies for the Population Reference Bureau, and was a founding editor of American Demographics magazine. Dr. Riche has AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000216 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 13 of 38 3 considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data across the public, private, for profit, and not-for-profit sectors. Amicus curiae Vincent P. Barabba was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1973 to 1976 and from 1979 to 1980-the only director to be appointed by presidents of both political parties. After serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Barabba was appointed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to be the U.S. Representative to the Population Commission of the United Nations. He has also served on the board of directors for the Marketing Science Institute, the American Institutes for Research, and the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. In recognition of his performance in the private and public sectors he has received: An Honorary Doctorate of Laws degree from the Trustees of the California State University, been Inducted into the Market Research Council Hall of Fame, and was awarded The Certificate of Distinguished Service for Contribution to the Federal Statistical System from the Office of Management and Budget. Currently, Dr. Barabba is a member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. He has a demonstrated interest in both accurate population statistics and redistricting. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000217 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 14 of 38 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In order to comply with the equal protection principle of one-person, one-vote, nearly all states and jurisdictions redistrict using total population data based on counts from the most recent decennial U.S. Census. Appellants urge the Court to overthrow this long-settled practice and replace it with one of the two voter-based measures of population they proposecitizen voting age population or registered voters. Beyond the legal and policy flaws with Appellants' argument, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting either of their proposed metrics as a constitutionally mandated means of complying with the one-person, one-vote principle. As an initial matter, there is no actual count of the number of voting age citizens. In keeping with the manner the Constitution provides for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states, the Census Bureau counts the number of persons in each state. The Census Bureau does not count the number of citizens. The only voting age citizen data that exists are estimates based on a continual sampling conducted as part of the American Community Survey ("ACS") by the Census Bureau. But ACS was not designed with redistricting in mind. The timing of ACS estimates does not align with the timing of redistricting and ACS estimates are not reported at the small geographic levels redistricters normally use to build districts. Moreover, the geographic areas at which such estimates are available carry large error margins because of the small sample sizes. These factors make the ACS an inappropriate AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000218 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 15 of 38 5 source of data to support a constitutional rule requiring states to create districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. Nor is it possible to accurately obtain a count of voting age citizens by inquiring about citizenship status as part of the Census count. Recent experience demonstrates lowered participation in the Census and increased susp1c10n of government collection of information in general. Particular anxiety exists among non-citizens. There would be little incentive for non-citizens to offer to the government their actual status; the result would be a reduced rate of response overall and an increase in inaccurate responses. Both would frustrate the actual express obligation the Constitution imposes on the U.S. Census Bureau to obtain a count of the whole number of persons in order to apportion House of Representatives seats among the states. Finally, Appellants' suggestion that voter registration data be used to draw districts is even more flawed. Studies show that the country's voter registration data is often inaccurate and outdated. And its inaccuracy aside, voter registration is, as this Court has already recognized, a fluctuating and political measure, making it generally a poor candidate for protecting a right to equal representation guaranteed by the Constitution. Adequate data to support Appellants' positions simply do not exist. The district court's judgment should be affirmed. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000219 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 16 of 38 6 ARGUMENT A theory of how to determine equal protection for purposes of the one-person, one-vote principle is only as good as the data upon which it is built. Appellants urge the Court to adopt a constitutional rule that would require states to draw districts that have equal numbers of eligible voters rather than equal numbers of people. But the available data to implement such a requirement simply cannot bear the weight the Constitution requires. Indeed, such a requirement would in practice lead to serious equal protection violations because of the inherent uncertainty and fluctuation currently present in the various measures proposed by Appellants to tally eligible voters. 2 Moreover, there is strong reason to doubt sufficiently precise data could be obtained to ensure Appellants' theory of equal protection would ever be equal in practice. An overview of the history and legal framework regarding population data aids in understanding the practical difficulties posed by Appellants' position. 2 Indeed, as Appellants' own brief demonstrates, there is considerable fluctuation and uncertainty even among the multiple measures Appellant proposes as potential constitutional requirements. See Br. of Appellants at 9, 11-12. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000220 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 17 of 38 7 I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the "Whole Number of Persons" in Each State and There Is No Count of "Citizens"by the Decennial Census. A. Legal Framework and History Census. of the The Constitution contains only one explicit requirement regarding the enumeration of population: to properly apportion the number of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, "the whole number of persons in each State," U.S. Const. amend XIV, ? 2, must be enumerated "every ... ten years, in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct," id. art. I,? 2.3 Since the original decennial Census in 1790, Congress has passed a number of laws regarding the Census. 4 The discretion afforded the Census Bureau to determine the content and methodology of the Census has grown over time. Originally, U.S. Marshals conducting the Census took an oath to obtain "a just 3 As historical documents show, this was from the start understood to be a "Census of Inhabitants," without regard to citizenship. See, e.g., Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/J efferson/01-27-02-0557 (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) (referring to the "Census of Inhabitants"). 4 See generally U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/census _instructions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) (providing description of congressional authorizations and instructions provided to U.S. Marshals, enumerators, and inhabitants from 1790 to 2010). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000221 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 18 of 38 8 and perfect enumeration," see Act of Mar. 1, 1790, ? 1, 1 Stat. 101. Congress amended this provision in 1810 to require "an actual inquiry at every dwelling-house." Act of Mar. 26, 1810, ? 1, 2 Stat. 565-66. The current Census Act, enacted in 1954, also required data be collected by personal visit until it was modified first to permit some non-apportionment data to be obtained through statistical sampling, see 13 U.S.C. ? 195, and then to repeal the requirement that Census data be obtained through personal visits, and thus permit the Census Bureau to obtain responses through the mail, see Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737. Currently, the only statutorily required data point the Census Bureau must obtain is a "tabulation of total population by States," 13 U.S.C. ? 141(b), which is necessary to fulfill the constitutional mandate to apportion based on the "whole numbers of persons," U.S. Const. amend. XIV, ? 2; see Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (holding that Census Act requires actual enumeration data, not sample-based counts, to be used for apportionment purposes). Beyond that, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Census Bureau and its directors, is granted wide latitude to conduct the Census "in such form and content as he [or she] may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary." 13 U.S.C. ? 141(a). Exercising the discretion afforded by Congress (and, in turn, conferred upon Congress by the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000222 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 19 of 38 9 Constitution), the Census Bureau has, in every Census since 1970, asked only a limited number of questions (known as the "short form") as part of the actual enumeration of every person. These "short form" questions are generally limited to information such as name, age, sex, and race. 5 From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau also sent a "long form" to approximately one in every six households. 6 This "long form" was used to collect answers to a wider array of questions, including demographic, economic, social, and housing questions, as well as inquiring about citizenship status.7 The data gathered through the "long form" sampling was used by local, state, and federal agencies to administer a wide range of government programs. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 341 (characterizing the Census as the "linchpin of the federal statistical system" (quotation marks omitted)). 5 See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https:/ /www .census.gov/history/www /through_the_decades/index_ of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). 6 See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July Population & Housing-Chapter 2007), https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. Although the total sample size was one in six households, it was not evenly distributed: a greater percentage of households in rural areas were sampled to increase the reliability of the data estimates in such areas. Id. 7 See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, h ttps:/ /www .census.gov/history/www /through_the_decades/index_ of_questions/ (listing long form questions for 1970 to 2000) (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000223 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 20 of 38 10 Following the 2000 Census, the decennial "long form" was discontinued and was replaced by a continual sampling program called the American Community Survey ("ACS"). ACS collects the same type of information that was included on the long form, but does so on a continuous basis throughout the decade. 8 Each month, about 295,000 addresses are mailed the ACS questionnaire, for a total of 3.5 million households a year, or roughly one in thirty-eight households. 9 The ACS data is then used to generate three sets of estimates, according to the size of the jurisdictions covered: a yearly report for cities and states with over 65,000 people, a three-year report for jurisdictions with over 20,000 people, and a five-year report for all jurisdictions. 10 This practice reflects the small size of the ACS sample compared to the prior decennial long form, and the resultant larger sampling errors. A new version of each report is published every year, with the most recent year's data replacing the oldest year's data in the three- and five-year versions.11 The smallest geographic unit for which ACS estimates are available 8 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Information Guide, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ about_the_survey/acs_information_guide/flipbook/. 9 Survey Id. at 6, 8. 10 See U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data at 9 (Oct. 2008), h ttps:/ /www .census. gov/ content/dam/Census/library /publications/2 008/acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf; see id. Appendix 1 at A-1-A-2. 11 See id. at 13. For example, if one five-year report aggregates information from 2008 to 2013; the next report will cover 2009 to 2014. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000224 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 21 of 38 11 is the Census block group level in the five-year report. Unlike short form counts, ACS estimates are never available at the individual Census block level.12 B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict. Understandably, states and municipalities do not generally fulfill their requirement to redistrict congressional, state legislative, and other local districts by conducting their own, separate population counts. Rather, they largely rely on Census data to perform their redistricting obligations. See Ed. of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Indeed, the constitutions and laws of a number of states expressly require that decennial Census data be used to redistrict. See, e.g., N.J. Const. art. IV, ? 2, ,r 1 (requiring state senate seats to be apportioned "as nearly as may be according to the number of their inhabitants as reported in the last preceding decennial census of the United States" (emphasis added)); Pa. Const. art. 2, ? 17(a) (requiring redistricting to occur "each year following the Federal 12 Id., Appendix 1 at A-2. The Census Bureau has developed different levels of "statistical geography" to report information. The largest is the Census tract; typically each county will contain several tracts, with each tract having an ideal population of 4,000 (ranging from 1,200 to 8,000). See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https:/ /www .census.gov/geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Block groups are clusters of blocks within a tract, and contain between 600 and 3,000 people. Id. The lowest level of geography is the individual Census block, which follows physical features (such as the streets bounding a city block) or non-physical features (such as property lines). Id. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000225 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 22 of 38 12 decennial census"); Ga. Const. art. 3, ? 2 (same); Ill. Const. art. 4, ? 3(b) (same); Fla. Stat. ? 11.031(1) ("All acts of the Florida Legislature based upon population and all constitutional apportionments shall be based upon the last federal decennial statewide census"); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 55, ? 2-3001c (defining "[p]opulation" for county board redistricting as "the number of inhabitants as determined by the last preceding federal decennial census"); see also Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 738 (1983) (approving the use of decennial Census counts for congressional redistricting, noting that because "the census count represents the best population data available, it is the only basis for goodfaith attempts to achieve population equality" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). States and municipalities do, however, generally use their own geographic units-called voter precincts-for purposes of conducting elections in their respective jurisdictions. Each voter precinct is comprised of a number of Census blocks. Congress has facilitated states' reliance on Census data for redistricting by providing that states may submit to the Census Bureau, three years prior to the decennial Census, the geographic boundaries for which they would like Census data to aid them in making redistricting decisions. See 13 U.S.C. ? 141(c). Thus, states generally provide the Census with voter precinct information, and the Census in turn provides the states with data files that are organized by voter precincts.13 13 If the Court holds that the Constitution requires states and local governments to use voting age citizens as the measure for the oneperson, one-vote principle, nothing in the Constitution or in the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000226 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 23 of 38 13 II. Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens. A constitutional requirement mandating that states draw legislative districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens would be impossible to accurately implement with currently available data. Moreover, for several reasons, it would be difficult to obtain an accurate actual count, even were one attempted. A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule. The actual number of voting age citizens in each state is unknown. The only information in existence is ACS's statistical sample-based estimates. In some circumstances, statistical sampling can be preferable to an actual count. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 322-23 ("Some identifiable groups-including certain minorities, children, and renters-have historically had substantially higher undercount rates than the population as a whole."); id. at 354 ("[U]nadjusted headcounts are also subject to error or bias-the very fact that creates the need for a statistical supplement") (Breyer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). But current Census Act would require the Census Bureau to provide this information to states and local governments. Rather, the Court would be requiring states and local governments to obtain this information on their own, in the process abrogating the many state constitutional and statutory provisions linking the state process to the federal Census data. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000227 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 24 of 38 14 the ACS was not designed to provide data to support a constitutional right to districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting. As an initial matter, the ACS estimates do not align with the timing of congressional apportionment or traditional legislative apportionment. States traditionally redistrict their state legislative districts at the same time as their congressional districts, using the same decennial Census count that triggered the congressional reapportionment. States thus use the Census count to create population equality among and within the states measured by a single, consistent snapshot in time that persists for the decade. As this Court explained in Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015): When the decennial census numbers are released, States must account for any changes or shifts in population. But before the new census, States operate under the legal fiction that even 10 years later, the plans are constitutionally apportioned. After the new enumeration, no districting plan is likely to be legally enforceable if challenged, given the shifts and changes in a population over 10 years. And if the State has not redistricted in response to the new census figures, a federal court will ensure that the districts comply with the one-person, one-vote mandate before the next election. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000228 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 25 of 38 15 Id. at 488 n.2. This "legal fiction" is "necessary to avoid constant redistricting, with accompanying costs and instability." League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 421 (2006) (opinion of Kennedy, J., joined by Souter, J., and Ginsburg, J.). Using the ACS voting age citizen estimates would unsettle this system. To begin, only the five-year information could be used because the one- and threeyear reports are not statistically reliable at the small geographic units used to draw district boundaries. See supra Part I. This poses several problems that seriously undermine the ACS's utility for redistricting. First, with respect to the ACS five-year survey, eighty percent of the data is already between two and five years old at the time of redistricting. In contrast, redistricting occurs as soon as the population counts currently used by states is released by the Census Bureau. To illustrate, if ACS estimates were used instead of the total population count, a state redistricting in 2021 would be using aggregated estimates spanning from 2015 to 2020. Because the map drawn in 2021 would govern elections through the decade, by 2030, forty percent of the underlying aggregated estimates will be from questionnaires answered fourteen or fifteen years prior. The ACS estimates are therefore a more stale source of information than the total population count currently relied upon by the states. Second, because years of sampling, adjusted each year many respondents AMERICAN PVERSIGHT the ACS estimates contain five and the age information is not to reflect the passage of a year, who were between the ages of DOJ-18-0618-D-000229 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 26 of 38 16 thirteen and seventeen when their responses were recorded will continue to be excluded from the voting age citizen count at the time the estimates are used to draw district lines, despite the fact that they are in fact eighteen or older at that time. See Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755, 777 (2011). This problem is exacerbated, as discussed above, by the fact that district lines remain in place for a decade, meaning that at the end of the redistricting cycle, a thirty-two-year-old person is not "counted" as a voting age person in their district if she was seventeen when first surveyed. Third, the share of minorities among people under the age of eighteen greatly exceeds their share of the total population. 14 As a result, areas with larger minority populations will be disproportionately affected by the use of ACS estimates that are not annually updated to reflect the actual age of respondents at the time the report is released, thus undercounting "eligible voters" among minority communities and therefore overpopulating minority legislative districts. Together, these issues would result in outdated information governing district lines and entrenched undercounting of young voters, disproportionately affecting minority populations. For these reasons, the 14 See Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2016 10-11 (Mar. 2015), h ttps:/ /www .census. gov/ content/dam/Census/library /publications/2 015/demo/p25-1143. pdf. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000230 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 27 of 38 17 use of five-year-old ACS estimates cannot support the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement. 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy. An additional problem is that ACS estimates are not available at the smallest geographical level that is actually used for purposes of redistricting-the Census block. The smallest geographic level at which ACS estimates can accurately be utilized is the block group level. See Persily, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. at 777. This would pose significant problem for states seeking to evenly populate districts. "In order to achieve the lowest possible levels of deviation within state legislative and congressional plans, state technicians have repeatedly advised the Census Bureau that they need decennial counts by small-area geography such as voting districts and census blocks." 15 States need data at granular levels in order to make a good-faith effort to equalize population to the extent possible among districts. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 730 (requiring that, for congressional redistricting, states "make a goodfaith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality" (quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 (1983) (noting that the Court has permitted "minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts" (quotation marks omitted)). Without the granular Census block 15 Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census 7-8 (Dec. 2014), http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/20 14/rdo/pl94-171.pdf. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000231 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 28 of 38 18 data typically used to balance population between and among districts, states relying upon ACS voting age citizen estimates likely will be unable to satisfy the standard this Court requires for legislative redistricting. Moreover, even at the block group level, there are a number of geographical areas where there are too few people to permit the Census Bureau to even release estimates without jeopardizing privacy. Congress has mandated that Census data may only be used for "the statistical purpose for which it is supplied," 13 U.S.C. ? 9(a)(l), and that the Census Bureau may not "make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular ... individual ... can be identified," id. ? 9(a)(2). As a result, the Census Bureau suppresses certain estimates that could be linked to identifiable persons in light of the small geographic size of the reporting area. 16 States depend upon population counts being reported at small geographic units to permit districts to be built that meet the constitutional requirement for equal distribution of population. In addition, having decennial Census counts available at small geographic units makes it easier to follow voter precinct lines or other political subdivision lines, such as city boundaries, particularly where those lines have recently changed by annexations or precinct splits. The ACS voting age citizen estimates are not reported-and in some cases 16 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression 2, 7 (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/ programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/data_suppression/ ACSO_Data_Suppression.pdf. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000232 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 29 of 38 19 are statutorily prohibited from being reported-at the Census block level. The ACS estimates thus cannot meet the needs of states for redistricting purposes. 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for Line-Drawing Difficult. As with any survey, the ACS estimates are subject to non-sampling errors (e.g., errors in data coding) and sampling errors (e.g., the chosen sample is nonrepresentative of the actual community). 17 The ACS reports margins of error at the ninety percent confidence level. 18 For example, if the ACS estimates reported that a county had 10,000 citizens over the age of eighteen, with a five percent relative error, nine times out of ten (ninety percent of the time) one could be confident that the actual citizen voting age population of the county was between 9,500 and 10,500. The margin of error grows as the sample size decreases, so the smaller the area, the higher the possibility of error. This could become a significant issue because redistricting decisions are often made on the margins, using very small geographic units to 17 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014)-Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error, at 1 (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/ design_and_methodology/acs_design_methodology _ ch 15_2014.pdf. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www.census.gov/glossary /#term_ConfidenceintervalAmericanCommunitySurvey (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000233 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 30 of 38 20 surgically move populations in and out of districts to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement. And, as discussed above, the smallest unit-the Census blockis not available with ACS estimates because of sample size limitations. Take for example Titus County, Texas, where Appellant Sue Evenwel resides. See Br. of Appellants at 10. Titus County has eight Census tracts, each with between two and four Census block groups, for a total of twenty-two block groups-the smallest level of geography reported by the ACS. The relative error for the AC S's estimates of voting age citizens for the Titus County block groups range from a low of 14.1 percent to a high of 36.6 percent. Figure 1 below shows the estimates by block group for Titus County. Figure 1: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates with Absolute and Relative Error by Block Group (2009-2013) Block Group Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error Block Group Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error 9501:#1 9501: #2 9502:#1 9502:#2 9503:#1 9503:#2 9503:#3 9503:#4 9504:#1 9504:#2 9504:#3 1,045 +-213 (20.4%) 485 +-148 (30.5%) 895 +-162 (18.1 %) 680 +-116 (17.1 %) 1,445 +-236 (16.3%) 905 +-204 (22.5%) 1,870 +-263 (14.1%) 540 +-177 (32.8%) 1,360 +-264 (19.4%) 2,020 +-301 (14.9%) 850 +-210 (24.7%) 9505:#1 9505:#2 9506:#1 9506:#2 9506:#3 9507:#1 9507:#2 9508:#1 9508:#2 9508:#3 9508:#4 640 +-153 (23.9%) 560 +-149 (26.6%) 750 +-197 (26.3%) 825 +-192 (23.3%) 615 +-154 (25.0%) 325 +-90 (27. 7%) 315 +-114 (36.2%) 655 +-240 (36.6%) 575 +-178 (31.0%) 815 +-193 (23.7%) 330 +-111 (33.6%) As Figure 1 shows, even if redistricters could conceivably rely upon block groups to move areas AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000234 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 31 of 38 21 among districts to properly draw boundaries, they would contend with relatively large error margins. For example, if an adjoining district needed to be increased by 330 voting age citizens, Block Group 4 of Census Tract 9508 would be considered. But the most that can be said is that nine times out of ten, one could be confident that there were between 219 and 441 voting age citizens in that area-a 33.6 percent relative error. The error margins are still relatively high at the next largest geographic unit, the Census tract, as illustrated by Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates and Error Margins by Census Tract Census Tract Est. CVAP 9501 9502 9503 9504 9505 9506 9507 9508 1,530 1,570 4,755 4,230 1,200 2,190 635 2,375 Absolute Error +- +- +- +- +- +- +- +- 210 180 297 297 182 217 123 237 90% Confidence Range 1,320 1,390 4,458 3,933 1,018 1,973 512 2,138 - 1,740 1,750 5,052 4,527 1,382 2,407 758 2,612 Relative Error 13.7% 11.5% 6.2% 7.0% 15.2% 9.9% 19.4% 10.0% The relative error ranges from 6.2 to 19.4 percent for the Titus County Census tracts. So, if redistricters needed to move 635 people to a neighboring district, tract 9507 would be an obvious candidate, but using ACS estimates, the most they could know is that nine AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000235 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 32 of 38 22 times out of ten, it would contain between 512 and 758 citizens of voting age. 19 All of these issues together-the timing issues, the unavailability of estimates at the block level typically used by redistricters, the unavailability of certain estimates because of privacy concerns, and the error margins combine to make the ACS voting age citizen estimates an inappropriate source to support the constitutional one-person, one-vote right. This is not to say the ACS estimates are inappropriate for other uses. Because it is the only citizenship information that exists, where courts require citizenship information to support legal claims, as some have for cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, see, e.g., Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 168 F .3d 848, 853 (5th Cir. 1999), it is the "best population data available," Karcher, 462 U.S. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). It is one thing to use less than perfect data when it is the only data available to meet a statutory evidentiary burden; it is quite another to create and impose a new constitutional rule that must necessarily be built upon that data. 19 Data for both Figures 1 and 2 is taken from U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/voting_age_ population_by _citizenship_and_race_cvap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000236 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 33 of 38 23 B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears. Directly inquiring about citizenship status as part of the short form Census is not a solution to the data problem posed by Appellants' legal theory. Doing so would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. During the past two decades, the Census Bureau has had to contend with significantly increased distrust, based on concerns about government intrusion and privacy. When the 2000 Census was taken, controversy erupted over the Census questions, with congressional leaders and others calling on people to disregard questions they found intrusive. 20 In one survey, 71 percent of respondents said that intrusive questions should go unanswered. 21 This problem continued with the 2010 Census-between 2009 and 2010, one survey showed the Census Bureau dropped in its "trust" One rating from 75 percent to 39 percent. 22 2 ? Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004). 21 Id. 22 Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30, 2010, http:/ /www.forbes.com/sites/firewall/2010/06/30/ census-paranoia-fueled-distrust-in-government-privacy-morethan-nsa-wiretapping/. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000237 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 34 of 38 24 Congresswoman publicly proclaimed that her family "will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because 'the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."' 23 A mandatory inquiry into citizenship status is all the more likely to engender privacy concerns, particularly among non-citizens. "The nuanced reasons for the question . . . will of course be lost to millions upon millions of Americans. The question will be viewed with suspicion." 24 "[I]t is foolish to expect that census-taking is immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented aliens, immigration enforcement, terrorism prevention, national identity cards, total information awareness, and sharp increases in surveillance generally." 25 In addition to both citizens and non-citizens simply not responding, "[n]on-citizens, mistrustful of the government's promise that their answers to a census question can never be used against them, will misrepresent themselves on the census form." 26 23 Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep- bachmann- refuses- to-fill-out20 IO-census/. 24 Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. 77 (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 25 Id. at 78. 26 Id. DOJ-18-0618-D-000238 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 35 of 38 25 The sum effect would be bad Census data. And any effort to correct for the data would be futile. The Census Bureau cannot become a quasiinvestigatory agency and still perform its basic responsibilities as a statistical agency. Responses to a citizenship question cannot be validated on a case-by-case basis. Although the bureau may devise ways to estimate the magnitude of misrepresentation in responses to a citizenship question at the national level, such an estimate would not likely be robust enough to be used in state-level counts-let alone at the smaller levels of geography relevant to congressional districting, state legislatures, and local government. 27 Finally, because a one-by-one citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general, such an inquiry would seriously frustrate the the Census Bureau's ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats among the states. See U.S. Const. art. II,? 1; id. amend XIV,? 2.28 Neither existing data estimates nor a potential actual count can reliably permit states to draw districts 21 Id. 28 Appellants offer no explanation for how it could be that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids Texas from apportioning seats within the state in the same manner the Fourteenth Amendment requires seats to be apportioned among the states. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000239 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 36 of 38 26 with equal numbers of voting age citizens. As a result, voting age citizen data cannot plausibly serve as a constitutionally-mandated metric for defining the oneperson, one-vote principle. III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn. Appellants' alternative measure-voter registration data-is also an inappropriate measure by which to require states to draw districts. The data is often inaccurate and unreliable, it is prone to dramatic changes, and it is generally available only at the voting precinct level, not at the smaller Census block level at which states generally draw districts. Although this Court has before permitted a state to draw districts based on voter registration data, it did so only for an interim districting plan with assurances that the data in the particular case did not vary from other population measures. In so doing, the Court expressed considerable doubts about the use of this data, stating: Use of a registered voter or actual voter basis .. . depends ... upon the extent of political activity of those eligible to register and vote. Each is thus susceptible to improper influences by which those in political power might be able to perpetuate underrepresentation of groups constitutionally entitled to participate in the electoral process, or perpetuate a ghost of prior malapportionment. Moreover, fluctuations in the number of registered voters in a given election may be sudden and substantial, caused by such fortuitous factors as a peculiarly AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000240 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 37 of 38 27 controversial election issue, a particularly popular candidate, or even weather conditions. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92-93 (1966) (internal quotation marks omitted) (footnotes omitted). These problems have not changed since 1966 when Burns was decided. A 2012 study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that approximately 24 million voter registration records in the United States-1 in 8-are invalid or inaccurate, including 12 million with incorrect addresses, suggesting voters had moved or the addresses were otherwise incorrect. 29 The study also found 1.8 million deceased still registered, and 2.75 million voters registered in more than one state. 30 Beyond the inaccuracy of voter registration data, state registration data simply is not available at the Census block level. Rather, the smallest geographic unit at which voter registration data is available is the voter precinct level. Thus, redistricters would not be able to move particular Census blocks from district to district and would instead be limited to moving precincts. These geographic areas are generally too large to accurately draw districts with substantially equal populations. 29 Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade 3-4 (Feb. 2012), http://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/ legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/Pew Upgrading Voter Regis tr ationpdf. pdf. 30 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Id. at 4. DOJ-18-0618-D-000241 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-4 Filed 06/03/19 Page 38 of 38 28 In light of the serious flaws in voter registration data, it would in most instances be a violation of equal protection for this metric to be used, contrary to Appellants' argument that the Constitution actually should require it. 31 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the district court. Respectfully submitted, J. Gerald Hebert Trevor Potter CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER Paul M. Smith Jessica Ring Amunson Counsel of Record Mark P. Gaber 1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 Suite 900 (202) 736-2200 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 Anita S. Earls jamunson@jenner.com SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 1415 West Highway 54 Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 794-4198 September 25, 2015 31 The "Non-Suspense Voter Registration" metric offered by Appellants is equally flawed-it adds additional potential error related to mailing of notices. See Br. of Appellants at 9. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000242 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-5 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit E AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000243 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Document 601-5 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 6 Bailey. Kate; Federighi, Carol (CIV) ;Ehrlich, Stephen (CIV) ; Coyle, Garrett (CIV) ;Wells, Carlotta (CIV) Cc:0Ho@aclu.org; Cc: Khan, Sania ; asenteno@MALDEF.org; Todd Grabarsky ; Raines, Chase ; Thomas, Tina ; Goldstein, Elena ; Colangelo, Matthew ; Gabrielle.Boutin@doj.ca.gov; Duraiswamy, Shankar ; Matthew Wise ; Rosenberg, Ezra ; 'Case, Andrew' Subject: Remaining discovery productions Counsel, In accordance with Judge Furman's ord ,..r at last week's status conference, I write to provide most of lhe ouostar1di11gwr.itten discovery productions. oToday we overnighted materials to the NrAG 's offices and sent the same materials by courier to Arnold and Porter's DC offices . Production letters for DOJ Productions 6, 7, and 8 are attached, as well as the accompanying privilege logs. Production 7 is on an encrypted flash drive because it was too large to fit on CDs. The password for the drrve rs 333774206277, and instructions for use are included in the box. Kindly return the flash drives to us after you 've copred the fries, please. The remaining productions are on CDs, and the password 1s F3dprg20M !! ! AMERICAN pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000245 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-5 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 6 Production 7 includes several "dead," or missing bates numbers, due to an inadvertent error on our end. The production was too large for us to re run once we discovered those errors, so please understand that any missing bates numbers you observe in Prod007 a re intentional. In respon se to Dale Ho's email of 10/7 , we previously produced 115 documents w ithout bates numbers . Today we have also transmitted bates numbered versions of these dornments . We did not previo uc.ly address DOJ 15200, but we have determined that that document can be released in full. It will be provided by separate email later today . In response to the DOJ doc r;sues raised in John Freedman's email of October 5th at 8:3 2 am, you requ ,,sted that we produce email chains represented at DOJ 14907, 14922, 14996, 15002, 15006, 30720 , 30723 and 30725 . We have determined that we can release thi s : ha1n 1nfull, and these documents are attached to this email. You r:>quested more information about DOJ 15197, 15198, 15199 , and 15200. These documents were in hard copy, and therefore no metadata exists for author , recipient, date, or time. These materials were collected from John Gore. As noted above, we have determined that DOJ 15200 can be released in full. In add1t1on,we have determined that DOJ 15199 can be released 1nfull, and will be coming later this afternoon. As noted in the privilege log ent1y for DOJ 15198 , 1t is a copy of the Uthmeier memo provided to Gore, and DOJ 15198 1sa note that accompanied DOJ 15197 . These documents will not be released . Also attached are the production letter and privilege log for Commerce Production 6. . On Thursday, 10/8 , Elena wrote to us requesting the basis for our reque c,t to claw back two documents. The replacement documents also are attached Information has been redacted as privileged 1n these two documents for the reasons set forth in the privilege log for the same redactions in COM_DIS00014369, Row 114. o Also attached to this email are Defendants ' responses to NYIC Plaintif f,,' RFAsto the Department of Commerce and responses to the Third lnterrogatori 0s to all O,:... fendants. Responses to NYIC Plaintiffs' RFAsto Census will be coming later today. o By separate email momentarily, I will be providing you re produced versions of the documents we produced on October 9 th in response to Judge Furman 's order-the new versions have both the original and new bates numbers. o Sahra Park Su is available for deposition this Thursday . David Langdon is available this Friday and, per my earlier email, John Gore's earliest date of availability also is Friday . Kate Bailey Trial Attornev United States Department of Justice Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch 20 Mas~achusctts A\'enue, NW Room 7214 Washington, D.C. 20530 202.514 .9239 , hillcl2.a.ile}: <(' Ll'->doj.go\' AMERICA\J pVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000246 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-5 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 6 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. We are aware that the 2010 Census was the 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 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 AMERICAN DOJ-18-0618-D-000247 pVERSIGHT DOJ000 15199 DOJ00129991 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-5 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 6 Census for 0MB Review and other appropriate notifications. Please let me know if you have any questions about his letter or wish to discuss this subject. I can be reached at (202) ------- or ____ @doj.gov. Sincerely yours, Attachment. Cc: AMERICAN DOJ-18-0618-D-000248 PVERSIGHT DOJ000 15199 DOJ00129992 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 39 Exhibit G AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000249 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 39 Page UNITED STATES DISTRICT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT 1 COURT OF NEW YORK 2 -x NEW YORK IMMIGRATION 3 COALITION, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, Case 5 No. v. 1:18-CF-05025-JMF 6 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et 7 al., Defendants. 8 - - - - -x Friday, 9 October 16, Washington, 2018 D.C. 10 11 12 Videotaped Deposition of: 13 JOHN GORE, 14 called for oral examination 15 Plaintiffs, pursuant 16 Covington & Burling, 17 Street, 18 before Christina 19 Legal Solutions, 20 District 21 were present Hotsko, a Notary Columbia, on behalf Public the the for the law offices Center, D.C. RPR, beginning of at One City Washington, S. counsel notice, LLP, Northwest, of to by at Tenth 20001-4956, CRR, in 850 of of and 9:05 respective Veritext for the a.m., when parties: 22 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000250 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 39 Page 1 the judgment 2 available 3 memo 4 the 5 decided, 6 reinstatement 7 census of decision Census of among respect Justice other of Bureau Secretary with Department to May 10 referenced 11 at 12 Census Census 15 identify had to watched hearing issued a letter in that which he order question at before and hearing on the that least the portions committee that understood from was position that the of you testimony of the Bureau. So when Bureau, you whose say are Secretary would be Ross -- the would other 18 testified at the hearing, but 19 testified at the hearing about 20 hard count 21 Ron Jarmin 22 remember. or I you 17 versus judgment judgment, individuals, A. 16 PVERSIGHT Ross the citizenship earlier, Q. 14 also 8th that 13 AMERICAN publicly submitted things, the from questionnaire. I the the information. 8 9 of 35 an somebody can't if you be was It I And who the estimate. to? one. it just the could referring remember else. of it the was who whoever accuracy of may been have a can't Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000251 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 39 Page 1 Q. May 8th -- 2 A. The May 8th 3 Q. And when 4 referring 5 Bureau? A. 6 7 to never met 9 judgment 10 collected 11 be 12 accurate? of you the I Ron Jarmin, director of the Census understand he is. I've it was the decennial what I that Bureau accurate, As testified did understand estimate has 17 and requires an 18 you're doubt aware, the 19 released block group 20 extrapolation 21 at also no than at And ACS a margin the is block an of estimate error more of count the would associated estimate and ACS with estimates level, be an because, ACS to would because extrapolation required by hard 16 accurate that mean the more PVERSIGHT it's the enumeration judgment 15 AMERICAN you're CVAP data the Census 22 Bureau, that you 14 the hearing? yeah. Census through A. 13 say acting who When more 8th him. Q. 8 May hearing, you the That's the 36 as are so it only further CVAP levels level. it was my understanding, from Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000252 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 39 Page 1 Secretary 2 believe 3 believed 4 than 5 associated Ross' memo I heard that on May a hard estimates of margin And Q. 6 just 7 understanding, 8 judgment of the 9 accurate to have 10 decennial 11 for 12 data is a hard 13 two, the 14 at 15 have to 16 way that One, count block level, an THE WITNESS: the 22 his AMERICAN PVERSIGHT I believe which memo right an behalf Census in that of is was the enumeration and, is you that available wouldn't the of me, same right? Compound. your Secretary Department is the ACS data I understand Bureau front so the more through Objection. As be procedure ACS; in estimate; and the would data estimation with that, decennial not accurate an existing enumeration 18 of the Bureau your collected the and more is it I Census on Bureau, than GARDNER: 21 clear CVAP data that with understanding MR. on be we're 17 judgment would so do 20 the error. you question, that of Census perform 19 8th, extrapolation decennial census testimony an enumeration reasons: the count your two the and 37 of part. so Ross' Commerce, I don't I can't have -- I'm Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000253 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 39 Page 1 going off of 2 that's 3 that 4 options 5 question on 6 to data, 7 complete 8 Justice's 9 BY MR. HO: in is analyzed concluded the that my recollection of of different reinstating the questionnaire, would provide of a document a number census Now, Department 12 data that 13 more accurate A. 15 I 16 present 17 different 18 than could all data for things of Justice was, in in the most the Department I think the addition accurate and of or Census Q. When 21 Census Bureau A. The to to Bureau what might, Department what was the more who's of more make accurate I guess know make But we would is CVAP view, I don't we would might. say the correct. which where as use correct? probably not, you to the Bureau's a scenario, the as want Census that's imagine equal, available, judgment judgment being would data here 20 PVERSIGHT he me. than purposes. 11 AMERICAN But picture Q. 22 of front and 10 19 rather that other 14 my memory 38 is a accurate that's correct. a different than the we? Justice. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000254 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 39 Page Who's Q. 1 2 is in 3 whether 4 Census a position or to not I don't person. 7 constantly reviewing 8 sources, 9 to the latest 11 demographic assessment is more Justice as who to accurate at this 14 And 15 judgment, the than the point course, data, the in we can this various data We send people understand area any we're literature. that to and the other areas. point I don't about Census as 17 career Census 18 assessment 19 CVAP data? as believe what Bureau think there's would is it, you're Bureau professionals to accuracy the be charged I understand Do you Q. A. can't of the data But 13 But, so about 12 any more to as accurate. make that a matter better of situated to of dispute make various law. than an forms of Me personally? 21 MR. 22 THE WITNESS: PVERSIGHT of an I academic conferences 10 AMERICAN make know. individual 20 Department CVAP data 6 16 the Bureau? A. 5 we at 39 GARDNER: Objection to form. Me personally? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000255 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 8 of 39 Page 1 BY MR. HO: 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. No, 4 Q. Let's 5 Oh, I'm 7 I don't. look sorry -- It appears A. 6 members' at page to be Q. Yeah. 9 A. I'm 10 Q. We'll come back Let's look at 11 12 So the 13 Representative 14 "Let 15 DOJ aware 16 how 17 affect happy me shift to of question, 20 Department 21 really 22 and PVERSIGHT review any to the committee page that. 37 of study, analysis, the rate response for was, Census Justice is for Bureau, from he asks which is, or the of will a great know of it the projection is the that. Department since is census?" "That's aware you, question the I don't testimony. is citizenship Congressman. of And issue, of your here another response a question the of testimony. that. question inclusion the 19 your a list Krishnamoorthi. Your AMERICAN to second-to-last 18 2 of names. 8 the 40 That's of the Commerce Secretary Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000256 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 9 of 39 Page 1 of Commerce's 2 get included 3 law." the A. are not decide which within the Representative questions bounds set Krishnamoorthi by used Can you read the rest of my answer is that, from for completeness? "My understanding Q. 8 9 to term 6 7 or When 4 5 province 41 Ross' memo, 10 and didn't 11 the question 12 rates. 13 he 14 behalf." that find issued. Did 16 A. Thank 17 Q. When "response 19 mean? adding 22 a citizenship PVERSIGHT to on read the that you. the a question at to that issue suggest that a reduction memo can't in of response decision speak on that his right? Yes. representative what I understood 21 AMERICAN I look evidence obviously rates," A. 20 a hard lead based I 15 took empirical would That's 18 he Secretary did him and, question in uses you to understand be cause term him suggesting particular, might the to that reinstating people not -- Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000257 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 10 of 39 Page 1 some 2 the incremental -- that 3 Q. 4 DOJ was 5 the 6 affect question And not of fill of any the rates Mischaracterizes to to 11 answer 12 BY MR. HO: is the is 13 Well, aware of you 15 including 16 could 17 to the no, 20 issue. 21 in 22 that AMERICAN PVERSIGHT As I'm his form. indicating that question the that will census? in what the I've record, testified and that itself. did you analysis mean as to by whether question rate at which that? on the Were or the not census people respond census? A. 18 the census on May 21st, analysis citizenship affect the was, I think here what any the answer document. is for Q. 14 19 what speaks out to Objection. THE WITNESS: 10 not citizenship MR. GARDNER: 9 people testimony aware response of or your inclusion 7 8 number 42 I said not aware And as I then, of further memo explains issue and any found and -- as any explained, that he took no empirical I sit data here on today, that Secretary a hard evidence Ross look at to Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000258 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 11 of 39 Page 1 support the 2 in 3 citizenship 4 Q. response 5 for 6 page 7 Secretary 8 what's 9 determine 10 question? 11 what 12 legitimacy 13 question that rates reinstatement One more Ross wanted the 17 litigation. 18 you of 20 May 21st 21 litigation 22 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT A. last not testimony question on a question, how what you or a court an I'm the if would was which appropriate getting judge at is, the exclusion of a form?" "I think probably department. cut your include that response: It's questionnaire. "So guess census the Gowdy: inclusion That's that better I'm being not is directed involved handled a very out" -- to in and the then off. What do that you're over I to by the the commerce 19 I standard question. got or I mean, Your 16 the a reduction of about movie, whether on good 27, be census question favorite the there the Representative your 15 on On page from 14 from question now. is conclusion 43 am not you the mean not when involved citizenship a counsel you testified in on the question? of record in that Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000259 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 12 of 39 Page 1 your letter 2 out requesting 3 you aware 4 pre-September Justice to the a citizenship of with Census Bureau question, respect 8th MR. 5 6 from to the 63 what nature went were of those conversations? GARDNER: Same objection. Same instruction. 7 8 aware 9 And of answer 11 received. 12 BY MR. 13 15 by the that conversations I don't believe light When the tell you that had I can instruction you say that conversations I was occurred. give I've an just you were occurred, aware what of do the you mean and I conversations? I mean A. 17 communication 18 was 19 each aware -- a conversation between that two two or or is more more people that you a people, had talked to other. 20 Q. 21 or 22 people PVERSIGHT of can HO: that 16 AMERICAN fact that, in Q. fact I beyond 10 14 THE WITNESS: more When you people were had you say talked aware had to were each talked aware other, to each that two which other? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000260 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 13 of 39 Page A. 1 It was 2 from Commerce 3 that someone 4 Secretary 6 about 7 the 10 spoken had that to spoken all of Mary the those somebody Blanche James to of I wasn't Hankey, McHenry, and attorney general. conversations a citizenship a party my understanding on 12 Executive 13 DOJ, that that were question on is to those that they conversations, would have issue. James Q. 11 McHenry Office for is the director Immigration of Review the within correct? A. 14 He is now, 15 wasn't. 16 Office 17 had 18 I think 19 D.C. 20 acronym that 21 But McHenry 22 employee PVERSIGHT to that census? touched AMERICAN spoken inclusion A. but had And the 8 9 had Ross Q. 5 my understanding 64 At of come the Mr. he else. -- I don't has been department is detail can't what it some the And he remember. we're things, involved for he to since government know time General. I OCAHO, which about that on somewhere talking the was Attorney was of time, at Associate from it and that although in it's stands an for. has been an time, but in Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000261 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 14 of 39 Page 1 conversation I had 2 place Halloween. 3 BY MR. HO: around with Mr. Gary about wasn't about -- about your 4 Q. My question 5 A. 2017. 6 Q. My question wasn't 7 interaction with Gary. 8 A. Oh, 9 Q. It 10 the 12 Q. After was the 13 when 14 the 15 decennial issue 18 next this next of next on e-mail interaction about decennial census. the exchange interaction a citizenship That's know -- a fair I guess communication Q. Okay. 20 A. I was 21 individuals at 22 Q. PVERSIGHT your see. 19 AMERICAN next with Mr. that you had question on the Gary, about census? A. don't just question I took sorry. citizenship A. 17 I'm was 11 16 Mr. this 89 Have I don't I had or know who communicating that you time ever Around question. it with about discussed which was the -- was the I with. various the issue. the issue of the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000262 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 15 of 39 Page 1 citizenship 2 A. No. 3 Q. Prior 4 time question period 5 A. 6 Q. 7 citizenship 8 questionnaire? to here had No. 10 Q. Were 12 support 13 question you you whether or the the changing issue decennial by the of a census Secretary Ross of Justice inclusion of a citizenship decennial THE WITNESS: census? Objection. GARDNER: would Vague. No. HO: Q. Were 18 staff regarding 19 would support 20 citizenship you consulted whether or question MR. GARDNER: 22 THE WITNESS: by the request 21 PVERSIGHT I'm Department the 15 AMERICAN the consulted MR. 17 so raised on the request on BY MR. -- Ross? bit ever 14 16 2017 a little question A. regarding May Secretary Sure. 9 11 with 90 on Secretary Department inclusion the Same Ross' of of Justice by staff? a census? objection. Who do you mean Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000263 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 16 of 39 Page 1 BY MR. 2 HO: Anyone Q. 3 the 4 consulted 5 employees 6 staff of by works Okay. 8 Q. -- Justice office that's what regarding would 12 THE WITNESS: of ever of by on what 14 Department of 15 I believe, three 16 Commerce 17 BY MR. Q. Department 20 A. 21 Q. 22 citizenship you mean by the Same I the the Commerce Secretary Ross' inclusion of objection. I'm front I of census? office can individuals this the guess Commerce. about Department request on GARDNER: 13 PVERSIGHT I mean office you Department or question MR. AMERICAN front Were whether support 11 19 the Commerce. front a citizenship 18 in -- A. 10 who Department 7 9 91 still of recall at the not clear the speaking to, Department of issue. HO: Who are of the three individuals spoke to at the Commerce Sure. that question you on the about the census? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000264 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 17 of 39 Page 1 A. I didn't 2 apologize, again, to 3 a fast recall speaking I 5 James 6 Teramoto. Uthmeier, consulted 9 about the was with the court the and I for being one of inclusion those three of Davidson, -- occasion and Wendy on which you individuals a citizenship I'm not sure I would as 13 conversation about various 14 reinstatement of a citizenship 15 census 16 conversations 17 September 18 Q. 19 individuals 20 the 21 2020 PVERSIGHT Peter first consultation AMERICAN off, reporter to 12 22 you question on census? A. 11 the cut U-T-H-M-E-I-E-R When Q. 8 10 to talker. 4 7 mean 92 much as I would questionnaire. I starting 2017 time Who was that inclusion of describe it describe issues it related sometime recall a as to question can as on a the the having around this frame. the first you had of those a conversation a citizenship question three with on about the census? A. Peter Davidson. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000265 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 18 of 39 Page And Q. 1 2 conversation 3 citizenship 4 A. 5 it was 6 somewhere 7 Q. roughly with Peter question I don't in that 9 you the the 11 A. I don't 14 December. 15 with Mr. Uthmeier, 16 just Mr. Uthmeier 17 where 18 involved. Then 19 with Teramoto 20 I think 21 recall AMERICAN PVERSIGHT place Roughly and I had of Peter when Peter it that conversations as least one, of one and were your 2017, first two, both one point issue that but time well between maybe at that I through a scheduling in was. Davidson Davidson October was in from a conversation Somewhere when 2017 conversation at me and about in or continuing including and of question? and a couple Uthmeier exactly. Q. citizenship September I had say individuals with beginning took three conversations 13 a I would Davidson next exactly had but Mr. recall 12 including frame. was about Wendy census? 2020 what Commerce Mr. the to 10 in about spoke those first Davidson you among your mid-September time had several was exactly, around After mid-September, on recall probably 8 22 when 93 I don't frame. conversation Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000266 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 19 of 39 Page Mr. Uthmeier 2 A. I think 3 September 1 with or MR. 4 5 over an 6 okay time about it would sometime HO: hour, We've MR. GARDNER: 8 MR. HO: 9 VIDEO unit number 11 10:19 a.m. 1. The And we are number 2. The 15 are the record. 16 BY MR. 17 Mr. 18 on 19 communications 20 and 21 citizenship 22 not AMERICAN PVERSIGHT a little Would now be an That's fine with me, yeah. time This on off was time on the the concludes video media is record. taken.) This the begins video is media 10:37 a.m. unit We HO: Q. something the 2017. for hour-ten. TECHNICIAN: 14 on going TECHNICIAN: VIDEO 13 of late Great. (A recess 12 either break? 7 10 question? been October been an a first citizenship have in about for the 94 Gore, I from before between Department of question, initiated by just the want the the voting follow break. about up The Department Commerce those to of Justice the communications section, were correct? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000267 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 20 of 39 Page 2020 census 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Is 1 the 4 first 5 Justice 6 citizenship 7 questionnaire? to it fair to of the letter the Is sounded that like Q. No. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. Is 13 first 14 Justice 15 citizenship 16 questionnaire? draft to Yes. 18 Q. You yesterday. 22 conversation PVERSIGHT was you from the wrote Department requesting the 2020 the of a census I'm That sorry. a question. fair to of the letter Would AMERICAN on it the 21 that Bureau Census write draft that with say that on in 2020 with been Herren the Department of a census e-mail letter Mr. the wrote requesting the this have you from Bureau question A. 20 say a question? It the 17 discussed correct? a statement. 10 19 Census question A. 8 9 draft questionnaire, 127 that Mr. your about you Herren first the citizenship Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000268 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 21 of 39 Page 1 was conveying 2 to 3 season work late to Q. 4 there on send you had the you 6 issue of 7 Labor Day of A. Give 9 Q. You or 11 sometime around 12 November of 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. The 15 question with 16 initiated by Correct. 18 Q. And end of civil were not Justice, Q. Around the PVERSIGHT around of the or early letter, add the citizenship Commerce division, were not correct? initiated by the correct? 21 AMERICAN the question of rights my working this about draft October to That's of here, correct. citizenship A. draft process sometime initial 20 22 the that's Department they of holiday correct? the A. Department yes, conversations 17 the communications the the the need correct? the 2017, during question take, request didn't out. had drafted letter Gary I understand first 201 7, 10 19 letter so Mr. night a citizenship 8 to that a Friday So just 5 is 150 time you understanding. that you received wrote input the first from Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000269 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 22 of 39 Page 1 three 2 Mr. individuals: Gary, 4 others Yes. as 6 letter 7 receive 8 Ms. A. Mr. have 11 discussions 12 with 13 detailed to 14 General, and 15 the Patrick 19 at 20 November 21 Q. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT that -- regarding various recall particular 1st of Okay. career staff of 2017, input first from draft who Mr. else of the did you Herren, have I provided would the of Jesse I had the who Office with of would have at the Associate -- may had letter Panuccio Attorney don't I and Gary? input. the And But Mr. Hovakimian, Associate 18 Pickett, received than some on at other Aguinaga provided 16 only November and 10 time from Pickett, others have the early input 17 I may Ms. well. in 9 22 And Around Q. 5 Herren, correct? A. 3 Mr. 151 generally time was Attorney in the Office of General. various times who conversations throughout else moment I in with this would time, process. have spoken to around 2017. Around in the November 1st civil rights of 2017, the division Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000270 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 23 of 39 Page 1 from whom you 2 from Mr. Herren, 3 A. That's 4 Q. After 5 of 2017 6 that 7 correct? when letter, A. That's 9 Q. After further had Mr. Herren that Q. So you 15 than 16 the 17 correct? time one of have the 19 Q. You 22 Mr. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Herren, you some after you to way rights in draft of edits, receive the or draft the 2017 first received no receiving staff November revise that other. question Mr. correct. with letter? division from to any of early that's of you recollection draft continued November But initial a citizenship first I believe people. was November the Herren no occasion A. 21 early did one civil 18 early gave recall requesting that 20 drafted Mr. career letter of time, from 12 the letter correct. I don't 14 period you A. from the correct? 11 input on correct. edits 13 input that 8 10 received 152 on other around Herren, Yeah. the input letter from round subsequent of after different edits from edits from Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000271 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 24 of 39 Page 1 people who 2 division, were career MR. 4 THE WITNESS: your 6 BY MR. the letter 9 had multiple to A. Yes. 12 Q. And 13 the 14 political 15 Department 16 the this rights Compound. extent that's period request of 11 letter I understand correct. the of civil rights respect 19 Department 20 receiving 21 rights 22 edits I to -the of edits division that other from Ms. revising legal staff you were receiving DOJ personnel in Justice the and front in division, certainly you at the that's Justice. that of front office correct offices I the included office the to the of correct? leadership from were question, with edits at you correct? appointees 18 when a citizenship Commerce, from A. PVERSIGHT To the conversations Department AMERICAN civil Objection. I believe During Q. 17 the HO: 8 10 GARDNER: question, 7 in correct? 3 5 staff 153 at can't front time with the remember office after of receiving if I was the civil the Pickett. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000272 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 25 of 39 154 Page 2 letter 3 added who to the 2020 I'm not The Q. De c e mb e r 1 2 th , Correct. 9 Q. -- 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Who gave in 13 14 decision the citizenship to send question the be questionnaire? sure I know. the final was And I decision can't to ultimately recall me. sent on 2 017 A. letter final letter 8 12 the census communicated 6 7 requesting A. 4 5 Who made Q. 1 correct? the MR. the final signoff to put that mail? GARDNER: Objection. Asked and answered. 15 THE WITNESS: 16 final 17 BY MR. who gave the HO: Q. Was it 19 A. No, I don't 20 the 21 on 22 could PVERSIGHT recall signoff. 18 AMERICAN I don't final what you? believe signoff. you're press But asking. "send" on I would maybe. Like, the I who e-mail? have guess told I given it Art depends Gary he don't Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000273 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 26 of 39 Page 1 understand your 2 Q. Yes, 3 A. I don't 4 Q. You 5 A. I don't 6 somebody 7 Q. All 8 A. It's question. that's know. don't know recall whether or not you did? whether it was me or right. possible (Gore it could Deposition 10 identification 11 transcript.) have Exhibit and been me. 17 marked attached to for the BY MR. HO: 13 I'm Q. 14 as 15 administrative 16 the 17 December 18 19 Exhibit number going 17. to This Department of Justice the Bureau, A. Yes. 21 Q. And AMERICAN PVERSIGHT in which It this the you what's a document the This 2017, about is 000663. 12th, Census show record, 20 22 my question. else. 9 12 155 from first is been in the page a letter Arthur of to which has stamped Gary addressed marked Ron at the Jarmin at correct? appears is the to be. letter Department we've of been talking Justice Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000274 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 27 of 39 Page 1 with Arthur 2 or 3 discuss 4 data not to A. the about with their the decision Census proposal Bureau to no whether personnel produce a citizenship I have over to block-level CVAP question? awareness on that one way or other. Dr. Q. 7 8 did 9 aspects 10 meet without 5 6 Gary 284 not Jarmin want to of the is meet correct to that discuss citizenship DOJ leadership the technical question request, correct? 11 A. I'm sorry, can you 12 Q. Dr. Jarmin was correct that 13 leadership to a technical 14 meeting 15 CVAP data, did to not discuss A. I believe 17 Q. The meeting 19 Department 20 question 21 get 22 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ's have that request question? DOJ for block-level correct? 16 18 want repeat is that's reason because of on accurate you it Justice the 2020 block-level MR. correct. GARDNER: didn't was to census want more get to have that important to the a citizenship questionnaire CVAP data, Objection. than to correct? Calls for Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000275 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 28 of 39 Page 1 information 2 privilege. subject To the 3 4 question 5 you 6 answer. do 8 instruction, 9 Secretary so. Otherwise, Ross that the 11 that he 12 and 13 comparing 14 information, 15 Census rejected I you instruct with give his to is memo proceed that that of decision is the data, and already way considered called records to that specifically alternative not for other available to the Bureau. going for 18 much coffee. 19 take a all that HO: on MR. Well, that I MR. 20 PVERSIGHT information, in he that privileged can way And survey 17 AMERICAN possible an MR. 22 I administrative 16 about answer approved. answer Consistent determined best process can divulging the 10 deliberative you THE WITNESS: 7 21 extent without may to 285 long, HO: know I apologize, GARDNER: the I You record. I can just drank but I think don't It's talk we haven't need been a little too I need to to talk okay. about it more on the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000276 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 29 of 39 Page 1 substantial lowering Do you 2 of see A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Gore, you were Congress that 6 that citizenship 7 response rates 8 the that 9 from -- 10 from Arthur 11 indicating 12 question the fact question you had received from Chris Herren Gary that the would 17 document 18 question. 19 the the 20 there would doesn't purport AMERICAN PVERSIGHT contain this reduce didn't and mention e-mails at least one analyses of a citizenship rates, correct? the again, is a gross document. any This analysis on conveys that the to the opinion hold a certain any analysis multiple That, simply Moreover, 21 any documents. contain be in Objection. of document you response GARDNER: It of would inclusion reduce doesn't rate." testified referenced THE WITNESS: mischaracterization you aware census, that 16 22 not the Mischaracterizes 15 when to MR. 13 14 one response that? 3 5 the 317 that authors of that result. New York analysis. Times It article contains quotes Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000277 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 30 of 39 Page 1 from 2 but people there's no 3 4 at 5 publicly 6 any 7 claim, this, a particular analysis or Ross, from I understand what or testimony 12 had 13 would Okay. in the reduce A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. didn't 17 was an is not So as of that the response But opinion but not happy AMERICAN PVERSIGHT that look the find view, of have to look the back were that issue. your aware that citizenship people question right? saying the you reason believe you that correct? Objection. witness' testimony. I believe testimony at of analysis, GARDNER: the date because THE WITNESS: 20 the you're is Mischaracterizes 22 on didn't analysis rates, that MR. I don't question. a hard based support you mention 18 21 took decision, an Congress, opinion 14 16 to he that opinion, HO: Q. 11 of on or opinion. So this BY MR. when memo evidence view data Secretary empirical 10 19 hold available 8 9 who 318 the in the front transcript. -of and me. again, I'm I believe I Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000278 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 31 of 39 Page 1 redistricting should 2 population 3 A. I 4 Q. And or 5 conversations 6 privilege? some imagine do No. 8 Q. So every 10 is regard measure? are 14 that I 15 been employed 16 all 17 It's possible 18 that topic 19 those 20 government 21 letter. 22 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT can the fall recall within that while obviously and There I would have I had I was conversations place of while Justice that's private before a case say testimony. relate that would regarding practice, my time to went I've correct. conversations in wouldn't was issue? taken category, were ever with previous Department that you've question witness' the deliberative Objection. that by by privilege THE WITNESS: 13 covered deliberative GARDNER: total those that citizenship Mischaracterizes of conversation to MR. any not by this using Yes. recall covered 11 12 other I have. that A. had conducted you 7 9 be 339 but serving this to in the particular the Supreme Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000279 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 32 of 39 Page 1 Court a couple 2 Abbott 3 have discussed 4 that case 5 BY MS. of case, 7 not 8 Supreme which ago, raised that while the this case or I was still have an Evenwel issue, read in Did Evenwel you was decided what point opinion correctly After the opinion came out. 11 A. Yeah, the opinion came out the or U.S. practice, in time? and I believe was your while I had I was an opinion that at in that. Q. And what 16 A. That it 17 Q. Have you 14 18 whether Court? Q. 15 to by 10 on in practice. as At 13 I may briefs private A. private and the 9 12 versus HULETT: Q. 6 terms 340 opinion on that time? state officials -- Have 19 20 communicated 21 the 22 population AMERICAN PVERSIGHT was there to possibility the of for correctly had any let been conversations me start any Department using redistricting decided. data with any again. state of officials Justice other than that about total purposes? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000280 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 33 of 39 Page 1 A. 2 individuals 3 tell you 4 with me about 5 has communicated 6 with 7 8 about 9 Section I don't know in that the no state Q. I'm to the Yes. 11 Q. And do the director 13 which 14 coverage under Yes, I 16 Q. And in you 18 total 19 citizens? agree A. Yes. 21 Q. And AMERICAN PVERSIGHT estimates official associated I don't a few questions familiar that know. with Act? Section 203 the census to the requirements determine for 203? do. order that population 20 those of Section A. do agree can communicated person Rights meet 15 22 you jurisdictions 17 you other I state other you Voting A. requires ask Are 10 12 has Justice, for Justice. some some of 203. of speak of Whether going Section can't official with Department I Department that. the 203 -- 341 to it's of necessary voting I believe that the are make age that's permitted the most that determination, to estimate persons who the are correct. data current source available for ACS Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000281 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 34 of 39 Page 1 data; isn't A. 2 3 have 4 years. 5 specifically 6 Congress 7 make That to be correct? is correct. made And by mentions 11 Q. Census that ACS data the statute the that issue So you short the in would Gary the last agree, 14 continue to come from the ACS or 15 continue to come from the ACS? I continue 18 determinations statute 21 is 22 data. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT contains data for some come are I 20 -- to 19 can't It to may data from to the to consider be permitted that 203 the will to will years. the use to those wording data to or will have 203 five whether that whether coverage ACS because every also citizenship related made as the Section remember precisely required Bureau second-to-last then, question, the form or 13 17 is letter not A. five that Census 12 16 every determinations. that the in determinations Bureau the directing I believe paragraph. the I believe enacted those 10 Those mentioned 8 9 that 342 of the Census or other can Bureau use data other as Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000282 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 35 of 39 Page 1 well. 2 is But to I'm use the And 3 4 is only 5 years. I'd 7 this Exhibit 8 2017 -- 9 Gary letter. A. 10 11 I are Q. Okay. 13 A. Let Thank 15 16 18 several several 19 20 When A. 17 I like to 17, which been not in me see obviously not every back December to 12th, referring me one five to it moment. as the My order. if I you were can find it. do you see see You letter, in that in -- the the this Got it. drafted department did that you've letter? letter. has cited Yes. the initial draft of correct? A. That is correct. 22 Q. And when you PVERSIGHT practice attention the with data years, your is we've Bear ten draw 21 AMERICAN current census every cases cases Q. this its you. Q. cited decennial think 12 14 the Yes. exhibits that ACS data. available Q. 6 familiar 343 were drafting the letter, Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000283 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 36 of 39 Page 1 did you, 2 in 3 someone the personally, citation else 4 do MR. do to these it for information subject 6 privilege. I 8 instruction, 9 BY MS. 10 So you Q. cases 12 cases for 13 deliberative 14 understand 15 A. Yes. cases send them to Calls deliberative the or did you? for process witness not Consistent to with answer. that answer. or Q. Okay. can't tell whether inclusion someone in the process? what I you're That's me whether else letter just the chose chose these because want refusing on you to to that's make sure I answer. instruction of counsel. 17 cited in the Did A. Yes, 20 Q. How recently 21 A. Well, talking AMERICAN PVERSIGHT you read the opinions that are letter? 19 22 and resulted HULETT: these 18 to can't that Objection. instruct I 11 16 you THE WITNESS: 7 research particular GARDNER: 5 the 344 I did. let have me look you at read which the opinions? opinions we're about. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000284 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 37 of 39 Page 1 not have authority 2 constitutional 3 has, 4 gerrymandering 5 as 6 implicate districts 7 to with 8 Voting 9 does in an the past, DOJ bring 12 because 13 them racial DOJ doesn't in the or claims or Section preserved 5 of Department particularly, 18 implicate Section 19 CVAP data is DOJ's to partisan the of Justice it in -- bring would such because, gerrymandering Section cases it again, cases 5 if can districts where necessary. Q. Prior any communication employee claims to although 2 and not help correct? for racial not gerrymandering participation participate would jurisdiction correct, 17 PVERSIGHT intervener drawn question place, That's chose AMERICAN an Justice racial those the have first 16 federal which or facilitate 22 2 or of in as were Section 15 have either So a citizenship A. 21 involved that such Department frequently Act, assert enforce. 11 20 gotten because Rights to The claims, amicus Q. 14 standing claims. comply 10 or 437 to December at 12th, with the time 2017, anybody who about having did you was not a a Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000285 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 38 of 39 Page 1 citizenship 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Who? 4 A. I had 5 named 6 employee question Mark on who the time. Mark 7 Q. Who is 8 A. I understand 9 employee 10 Commerce 11 understood 12 Commerce 13 this 14 15 of I believe Mark Census I'm not was Neuman Bureau sure he a gentleman not a federal Neuman? the that with which or to the advising the Census Bureau with the And what was the with Mr. Neuman? a former Department one. was and be And of I Department respect of to issue. Q. conversation MR. 16 GARDNER: 17 information subject 18 privilege. I instruct THE WITNESS: 19 20 census? a conversation Neuman, at the 438 instruction, I can't substance Objection. to deliberative the witness Consistent of your Calls for process not with to answer. that answer. 21 22 BY MR. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT GREENBAUM: Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000286 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-7 Filed 06/03/19 Page 39 of 39 Page Q. 1 Other 2 conversation 3 communication 4 employee 5 citizenship 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did by 9 citizenship 10 with the the 12 Q. Do you 13 A. I 14 Q. Did 16 strike know or who the not an having anybody a at way employed of census anybody putting prior or the did? other. issues citizenship a to DOJ who privacy a person's was issue so. DOJ consider a about with the one a census? believe know have related data or -- that. 18 December 19 privacy 20 citizenship 21 from 22 block PVERSIGHT I don't revealing 17 AMERICAN on don't No, the about 2 017? A. else communicate 1 2 th , -- you government on question 11 to anybody Bureau did else federal you Census Neuman, anybody question De c e mb e r 15 Mr. with of 8 than 439 Prior to 12th letter, issues -- was level the related issuance of did John to status if at the individual on the census? you, revealing citizenship the Gore, a person's data level consider or was at taken the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000287 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-9 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000288 c~a:ll..a~-\&'0-~-SM~ F Dom.amnmatrtB00-9 FiJetle((])lID'a.sne.9 P-a ~fot.5 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 ByECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 August 15, 2018 Re: State of New York, et al., v. US. Department of Commerce, et al., 18-cv-2921 (JMF) NY. Immigration Coalition v. US. Dep 't of Commerce, 18-cv-5025 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2 and Individual Practice 2.C, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opposes Plaintiffs' letter requesting a conference or an order compelling DOJ to produce for deposition Acting Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for Civil Rights John Gore. DOJ further requests that the Court issue a protective order precluding such a deposition. DOJ is not a party to this lawsuit, and Plaintiffs must therefore "take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense" in serving Rule 45 subpoenas on DOJ. In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(a)). Plaintiffs nonetheless seek to depose AAG Gore, apparently in large part to probe DOJ's intent in sending the December 12, 2017 letter to Ron Jarmin (the "Gary Letter"). Plaintiffs make this request despite the low likelihood of AAG Gore's testimony resulting in any relevant evidence concerning Secretary Ross 's decision or intent, and despite the burden such a deposition would place on DOJ. A court evaluating a Rule 45 subpoena must "balance the interests served by demanding compliance with the subpoena against the interests furthered by quashing it." Hermitage Glob. Partners LP v. Prevezon Holdings Ltd, No. 13-CV-6326, 2015 WL 728463, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015). Here, few interests would be served by compliance because AAG Gore's testimony would be irrelevant and privileged; moreover, compliance would unduly burden DOJ by requiring the preparation and deposition of a high-level official in a case in which DOJ is not even a party and did not issue the decision being challenged. I. A Deposition of AAG Gore Is Unlikely to Produce Information Relevant to Secretary Ross' s Decision. Plaintiffs' claims center on Secretary Ross's decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, which they claim was arbitrary and capricious (or motivated by discriminatory animus). As this Court has held, although discovery normally is precluded in an AP A case, limited discovery may be permitted under certain circumstances. Nat 'l Audubon Soc 'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1997). But as the Court recognized, a plaintiff in this scenario is not entitled to "all the liberal discovery available under the federal rules. Rather, the Court must permit only that discovery necessary to effectuate the Court's judicial review; i.e., review the decision of the agency AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000289 c~a:ll..a~-\&'0-~-SM~ p-~ F Dom.amnmatrtB00-9 FiJetle((])lID'a.sne.9 ~fot.5 under Section 706." Transcript at 85: 11-14, Hearing of July 3, 2018 [hereinafter, "Tr."] (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has explained that the limited discovery may encompass "materials from the Department of Justice" to the extent that they "shed light on the motivations for Secretary Ross's decision." Tr. at 86: 11-13. Consistent with that directive, DOJ has already begun producing non-privileged, non-burdensome, responsive documents in accordance with Plaintiffs' Rule 45 subpoena. But Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need to take the much more significant, indeed extraordinary, step of taking deposition discovery of DOJ, which is not the agency that issued the decision being challenged here. This Court has given no indication that Plaintiffs are permitted, under the limited scope of discovery, to take DOJ depositions at all, much less without meeting the standards of reasonableness and undue burden that govern Rule 45 subpoenas. Plaintiffs have already overreached the bounds of this Court's limited authorization by seeking extensive discovery from DOJ as ifDOJ were a party to an ordinary civil case, including requesting that DOJ prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent on numerous burdensome topics and serving extremely broad document discovery into irrelevant and privileged topics (including all documents relating to DOJ' s enforcement of the Voting Rights Act). The Court should not permit Plaintiffs to expand discovery even further by taking the extraordinary step of deposing the Acting Assistant Attorney General. Plaintiffs suggest that AAG Gore's testimony could be relevant to "pretext," ECF No. 236 at 2, but they are wrong. The relevant question here (in light of the Court's ruling at the July 3 hearing) is whether Commerce's stated reasons for reinstating the citizenship question were pretextual, not whether DOJ's reasons for sending the Gary Letter were pre-textual. Commerce was the decision-maker, not DOJ. Under the Court's July 3 Order, therefore, Commerce's intent is at issue not DOJ' s. 1 And in any event, the Gary Letter states DOJ' s request and rationale, so there is no basis to probe DOJ' s "intent" behind that letter. 2 11. In Addition to Its Irrelevance, Nearly All Testimony by AAG Gore Would Be Privileged. Plaintiffs further have not shown that they could elicit any non-privileged information in a deposition of AAG Gore. The deliberative process privilege would apply to AAG Gore's involvement in the DOJ process resulting in the Gary Letter, see Tigue v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 1 Although not necessary to demonstrate that a deposition of AAG Gore is uncalled for, Defendants reiterate the Government's position that this case should be decided based on the administrative record compiled by the Department of Commerce. Furthermore, although the Court's July 3 ruling necessarily raises the issue of Commerce's intent, under a pretext theory, the relevant question is not whether Commerce had additional motives for adopting the policy in question beyond the reasons set forth in its final decision. The sole inquiry should be whether Commerce actually believed the articulated basis for adopting the policy. 2 In any event, Plaintiffs provided no basis to believe that the reasons stated in the Gary Letter were not DOJ' s actual reasons (under the counterfactual assumption that DOJ' s intent is relevant). DOJ uses citizenship data in a variety of ways, including in its own redistricting cases and in its role as amicus in Voting Rights Act cases before the Supreme Court. Cf Benavidez v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F. Supp. 2d 451 (N.D. Tex. 2010) (rejecting a plaintiffs attempt to support his Section 2 Voting Rights Act claim with only ACS statistics for citizen voting age population). 2 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000290 c~a:ll..a~-\&'0-~-SM~ F Dom.amnmatrtB00-9 FiJetle((])lID'a.sne.9 P-13 @fot.5 312 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2002), whether or not he was "the primary point of contact for communications with senior Commerce Department political appointees," ECF No. 236 at 1. The deliberative process privilege also likely encompasses any information that AAG Gore could offer about his oral communications with Commerce (as part of Commerce's deliberative process) and DOJ's enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (an area where several other privileges may also apply), contrary to Plaintiffs' suggestion that a privilege log.from Commerce is somehow salient to the privileges applicable to AAG Gore's deposition testimony, ECF No. 236 at 2. Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants have not "cited ... authority," ECF No. 236 at 2, for a court's power to quash a deposition based on privilege, but it is well established that evaluating a Rule 45 subpoena requires balancing the interests favoring compliance with the burden, Hermitage Glob. Partners, No. 13-CV-6326, at *3 (quoting Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Proc. ? 2463.1 (3d ed. 2008)), and here the interests served by compliance are accordingly lessened because Plaintiffs are unlikely to elicit much, if any, non-privileged material. It would be a waste of time and resources for AAG Gore to prepare for a deposition in which he could not provide any nonprivileged information relevant to Plaintiffs' claims. III. A Deposition of AAG Gore Would Unduly Burden DOJ. Finally, a deposition of AAG Gore would unduly burden DOJ, a non-party to this litigation. AAG Gore leads the Civil Rights Division of DOJ, a law enforcement agency comprised of 590 employees that enforces critical civil rights guarantees. A deposition would hinder AAG Gore from performing his numerous important duties as a high-ranking DOJ official, and further sap DOJ resources in preparation. See Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd, 297 F.R.D. 223, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying a motion to compel Rule 45 testimony of SEC officials based in part on the undue burden from preparation). Indeed, "courts analyzing ... a third party subpoena ... may take into account not only the direct burdens caused by the testimony, but also 'the government's serious and legitimate concern that its employee resources not be commandeered into service by private litigants to the detriment of the smooth functioning of government operations."' Id (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. US. Dep 't of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiffs cite no precedent authorizing the deposition of a high-ranking DOJ official in a case where DOJ merely provided input to another agency, which then issued the decision being challenged. Permitting such a deposition would impose unnecessary burdens on DOJ, threaten privilegesincluding the attorney-client privilege-and chill DOJ's (and other agencies') willingness to assist other agencies in their policy deliberations by consulting and providing information. In sum, the Court should deny Plaintiffs' request to compel deposition testimony from AAG Gore because the burden imposed on DOJ by such a deposition outweighs the minimal value of AAG Gore's testimony, which would be irrelevant to the case and largely privileged. It should also clarify that discovery of DOJ is limited to non-privileged, non-burdensome document discovery. Alternatively, the Court could revisit AAG Gore's proposed deposition after Plaintiffs review DOJ' s document productions, complete their discovery on Commerce, and make a persuasive showing of need. See Solomon v. Nassau Cty., 274 F.R.D. 455, 461 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("In weighing the undue burden against the necessity of the testimony, the Court may also consider under Rule 26(b )(2)(C)(i) if the discovery can be 'obtained from some other source that is more convenient' or 'less burdensome."'). 3 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000291 c~a:ll..a~-\&'0-~-SM~ Dated: August 15, 2018 p-~ F Dom.amnmatrtB00-9 FiJetle((])lID'a.sne.9 B>fot. 5 Respectfully submitted, CHAD A READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General BRETT A SHUMATE Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Director, Federal Programs Branch CARLOTTA P. WELLS Assistant Branch Director Isl Kate Bailey KATE BAILEY GARRETT COYLE STEPHEN EHRLICH CAROL FEDERIGHI DANIEL HALAINEN MARTIN TOMLINSON Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 514-9239 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: kate.bailey@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants CC: All Counsel of Record (by ECF) 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000292 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 64 Exhibit H AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000293 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 64 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 1 2 3 ROBYN KRAVITZ, et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Plaintiffs, 4 Hon. 5 vs. 6 U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., George J. Hazel 7 Defendants. 8 9 LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO; et al.' Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-01570-GJH 10 Plaintiffs, Hon. George J. Hazel 11 vs. 12 13 14 WILBUR L. ROSS, sued his official capacity U.S. Secretary of Commerce, et al., in as) ) ) ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Defendants. ) 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 Washington, D.C. 20005 350 Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000294 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 64 Page 1 knew. 2 Q. 3 mentioned 4 question 5 transition. 6 citizenship 7 during 10 the was team, have be more sure say Q. Okay. So you 15 A. Willie Gaynor. 16 Q. You would it A. Rokeach. 19 Q. Rokeach, 20 A. I'm 22 there 23 24 there Rokeach, 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT A. I'm to "people that on the 2020 census sure and people in sure Tom I'm me. on the Commerce team," before. talked to Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Washburn about about Washburn. basis. -Washburn Willie Gaynor was basis. Who else, I'm to -- on a daily would talked I mentioned have and not on a daily Q. a potential Rokeath? 18 wasn't about the specific? 14 21 to citizenship question talked When you is up during and The people -- came have A. Mr. the I would 13 17 So you that talk immigration sure would you you fair. transition? I'm Q. can that Who did or That's ago something Commerce Hoffler Duraiswamy) a few minutes A. 11 12 (By Mr. the 8 9 33 you not other have -- than talked those -- Mr. to those Gaynor about are and that people Mr. issue? I'm Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000295 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 64 Page 1 sure I would 2 people 3 I don't recall -- 4 a desk, a desk about 5 people 6 you 7 were, 8 Commerce 9 would that are Are may have 12 transition, 13 A. 15 The 16 I would 17 time, 18 from 19 agencies 20 try to remember 21 it would be 22 23 my job. -- in and so bit at So, for different. Do you 25 Q. Well, I -- I -- So to know us, who to with that I Rokeach. think you during the people all volunteer the transition that I had that again, all known I had the to time activity. So I wasn't the -- -the for -- known for about and from me to this, it me. that. people and job. You said have things issue all I talked hard air. remember to people I understand A. PVERSIGHT people everyone 24 AMERICAN a day forth. pretty And Q. I have campaigns, at certain? is people open who you I talk this sure. sitting related this be I -- lobby, previous little can't it's Willie about for I didn't people are it we're saying that with to you into the by, other about and I definitely know, run size, So I -it Those remember people Remember, you to on things You know, in it. commenting talked 14 know, were there but talked this discussed Q. about dropping issues. have you you There know, to have coming, you 11 talked I would know. 10 have 34 in I can My question is a that mind? ask you about some Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000296 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 64 Page 1 specific people, 2 either. You -- you 3 that talked to 4 and 5 people 6 them about this, 7 sure there are 8 no, I would you Mr. but Rokeach, who fall or not have that's 10 Q. Who -- 11 A. Well, Q. Okay. 14 A. If Q. I do, 17 there's -- 18 people that 19 can't be about I'm wondering the category I'm people not -- if but to were Mr. there of who fall talked it who you the this person some I talked not into Gaynor are maybe I'm know to sure. I'm category of, about it. -- who is in I would the middle know better category? who are people I you have some people you want to ask -- are Okay. on the were -- I probably Is Commerce there you to if to have about they were talked to a list transition MR. ROSENBERG: 25 MR. FELDMAN: PVERSIGHT I want that talked 24 AMERICAN first folks may have they team, Q. are first there you If transition 22 if but know in if mind this, but as you sure? A. 20 23 the about. 16 21 that who was to. 13 15 know everybody sure people Yeah, talk for into A. didn't said and 9 12 I don't 35 of team Objection, You can on the them Commerce about individuals it. who somewhere? vague. go ahead and answer if Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000297 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 64 Page 1 you know. I don't A. 2 3 knew 4 Commerce 5 people 6 very much, and 7 core group of 8 agency 9 Bohigian, the total have 11 remember 12 A. up at there Willie 14 Ray, you 15 Again, that 16 people on the 17 there. 18 time know, -- Duraiswamy) Commerce -- that was agency I wasn't 19 Q. Who is 20 A. Tom Hoffler August. even was the -- three? you know, appointments Ray would the -- for show up. core group of And I wasn't there was always a lot of town. a person Q. Was he a member 24 A. No, was 25 Q. What was the who was He passed community. 23 PVERSIGHT those of you Tom Hoffler? redistricting he David than there in table, other plan. know, the a Commerce that really action you writing else sort when -- Anyone coordinating arranging that 22 was see Rokeach. team, Green So like, the David were that the of on the I didn't people we were sort there and around Gaynor, Loretta coordinating again, other when really who were meetings, sitting (By Mr. like I never people were people, on the I -- Because, plan, 13 21 of transition. action Q. -- number who showed 10 AMERICAN 36 of the known away in in -- in transition? not. context in which you talked to Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000298 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 64 Page 1 him 2 transition? 3 A. 4 of about conversation, A. know, have he reach or did I can't I've question have would Did Q. 7 8 citizenship He would Congress 5 6 the told out to him you reach 9 Q. How do you know him? 10 A. I knew when 11 and 12 of I knew him he to have to it that him? was, but, you he was was working working at at the the NRCC, Department Agriculture. 13 Q. Could 14 A. It's 15 when members 25 years. for him of issue. out which the views on this remember known me what been you during 37 you spell his last H-O-F-F-L-E-R, name I think. for me? Thomas Hoffler. 16 Q. How many 17 citizenship question 18 A. I don't 19 Q. More 20 A. It 21 would 22 transition. 23 Q. -- 24 of 25 question? AMERICAN PVERSIGHT of you the know how many five? certainly Why were did during than probably members times Less would less you Congress than be talk regarding him about the transition? times. than five? less than five talking to during to him the ten. It the about the views citizenship Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000299 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 8 of 64 Page A. 1 The goal of is what you 2 say, "This 3 shouldn't do." 4 important things 5 us 6 different 7 that 8 introduce 9 forecast to do is 11 team 12 likely to 13 things 15 is 16 regard 17 the 20 the a good certain what if the someone wanted pushing make sure we would going what Congress to have interests, So the of most be was of you others and likely sort a likely incoming is you to views accomplish of policy and of that what one of the on a transition members issues Department correctly, Congress were with relevant to the Correct. incoming team Department, would people 23 The Magnuson 24 installations 25 that from this Alaska Act. are delegation have to deal with at correct? So on NOAA, we would 22 PVERSIGHT is who would Commerce sense to of and priorities. trying the A. AMERICAN to I understand were Commerce 21 Gaynor proposals, have Commerce Q. likely So if to 19 one on NOAA, that likely understand A. -- people related issues, you 18 the This not do. Q. 14 to legislation would of is do. an understanding of budgetary should Willie out things transition goal that reach we had 10 The the 38 are very People interested is be interested. interested from in interested in other the states Well, fisheries. with NOAA satellites, in the technology Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000300 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 9 of 64 Page 1 issues or 2 PTO, 3 Oversight 4 thinks 5 spending 6 that, 7 whether the that intellectual there are budgetary Committee that the too that or much Congress is 10 and resolutions. 11 forecast 12 what 13 door. dispute so issues 14 Q. 15 understand 16 potential 17 because 18 incoming 20 of Commerce They issues Q. 22 needed 23 issues" to needed to people all incoming the introduce NAFTA a sense of what -- face coming with Mr. with that you going to understand would issues to to anticipated be raise team the Hoffler a the dealing that was a decennial, one was one him. say, of " the y the needed that with? this with When you this into respect on the Commerce potential issue. them Congress was the have that understand PVERSIGHT team what to to issue of affecting question an all prejudge about to speaking of have or want understand 25 not much, would " they " ? The too So you Who i s the A. AMERICAN were that 24 Committee to wrong likely going views was want to the costing and or give citizenship that the 21 they're related that international could So you A. 19 you the there, right affecting is You'd was legislation 9 issues Bureau in issues Appropriations money. forecast But the Census Congress 8 property 39 to would be Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000301 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 10 of 64 Page 1 raised by members 2 oversight 3 was roles one of Q. 4 5 to 6 Commerce 7 likely 9 Commerce issues So you were speaking interested in; I was team people on the 11 issues that Q. 13 Mr. 14 Congress 15 citizenship 16 A. trying were going would be Hoffler were might to say they raised to the or think to that the would 18 Q. (By Mr. 19 A. That 20 Remember, 21 because in the 22 members of Congress 23 Because he would 24 Because, 25 spend have Tom Hoffler past remember, money is on the Hill say, with been one of pretty was census until a go ahead. the issues. important, able funding generally adding -- sorry, one people of form. I'm to with members Objection, we need new meeting conversations decennial? support the them. 2020 also the understand possibly been to would if and would Tom Hoffler to to about Duraiswamy) would Hoffler that what have this Congress sure on the MR. ROSENBERG: PVERSIGHT correct? that that And so related is make in Mr. of understand question No, with those identified. members to census, were issues And specifically 17 AMERICAN that identify that 10 12 chairmen. many and especially committee Department be A. or Congress, many, understand 8 of 40 to for take get the a good don't we get want on top Bureau. census. to of 2020. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000302 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 11 of 64 Page Q. 1 2 And you expert; is that said Mr. He was a point 5 Q. A point person 6 A. He would talk perch 4 7 was a redistricting right? A. 3 Hoffler 41 person on redistricting, yeah. in to what context? members of Congress about redistricting. 8 Q. From 9 A. He wasn't 10 at the time. 11 certainly his I'm Q. Do you 13 A. I would 14 something. 15 that was What Q. 17 Mr. Hoffler 18 the citizenship 19 funding that he was a at the NRCC he was connected was to at the was that issue. NRCC? a consultant status, but or I know that. issues during was he know his did the question, About census 22 going to the 23 going to -- 24 know, when 25 always PVERSIGHT other sure he I don't to NRCC? you talk to transition, other redistricting issues than and issues? 21 AMERICAN was imagine about A. 20 he know when connected the not sure that Again, he I'm not a person 12 16 -- at would about the face -in Internet we're I talk the about 2020. to the people, challenges challenges Because adopting to the online again, We were And, stakeholders, we'll the we were response. new technology. that that I'm face in you talking the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000303 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 12 of 64 Page 1 next census that we didn't And those 2 3 force. They 4 sometimes 5 And what 6 is have really to face in the have to do with do with successful, the -- it's have a broad -- a broad 7 have skin the game, that 8 united idea of, you 9 political but we all 10 in around the is important range differences, the all that unsuccessful. for of work the census stakeholders feel that like know, to all they're we may have want to take a good census. What Q. 11 12 about 13 potential the do you views of recall learning members citizenship of question Pretty much 15 Q. Maybe I didn't understand. 16 understand what were views 17 Congress held 18 that the he I just MR. ROSENBERG: It calls 20 21 They 22 you for (By Mr. will object to 23 if 25 represented AMERICAN PVERSIGHT you from answer, know decennial? you. trying members to of you? It call You -- you can time. Unless Objection. Duraiswamy) you MR. FELDMAN: 24 a to I'm to Hoffler -- form. speculation. Q. not 2020 explained that conveyed Mr. regarding on the A. what from Congress 14 19 one. technology sometimes really last 42 in the something time can to answer. they tell answer. The only comment I would conversations that specifically from knowledge his he of have, Congress' Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000304 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 13 of 64 Page 1 view. I -- A. 2 3 know, 4 view on this, 5 data is in I -- general, I don't Tom always block very recall level specifics, but and I share believed, data, accurate block (By Mr. Duraiswamy) For 7 purposes? 8 A. For 9 Q. Including redistricting purposes? 10 A. Including redistricting purposes. 11 Q. Block 12 A. For that 14 census 15 It's 16 address 17 everything. if counting you -- conveyed with Yeah, 21 Q. (By Mr. 22 A. I gave conversation 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Tom was Q. the living A. 24 all everyone 20 that For everyone him that during MR. ROSENBERG: 23 what? census hardest thing living in data, about in America and the America. at the right time. conversations 19 level everything. for counting And he Q. data everything. not one For level basically is his redistricting Q. 13 I important. 6 18 43 again always that I'm just the to you in your transition? Objection, vague, form. -- Duraiswamy) you view a broad concerned I would trying have to Let thing with with me try of in to of something every him. understand. You said you Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000305 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 14 of 64 Page 1 talked 2 related to him to about the A. I -- 4 Q. That's 5 A. I would 6 what 7 census 8 transition 9 blindsided. 10 Q. 11 citizenship 12 A. 13 questions. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. And 16 residency 18 understand 19 explain That It so of Congress -- one as you -- 23 otherwise 24 overseas military. 25 designed to at detained. ensure issue on the the team of is not a immigration -- that was one of the -- just we talked for about people residency census who may not rules means, can you means? means So people living into saying well. basically they're the by raise new Commerce that census that 22 of sure to incorporate an he conversation likely raised or Did I'm the the he was April 1st. out we can what what start Congress question 21 PVERSIGHT of And then A. AMERICAN start that Can members my understanding. rules Q. of question. I would planning 17 20 so members issue views citizenship 3 are the 44 move colleges, where around, that you they're on snowbirds, they're incarcerated or in houses. There's They're Census were group residency people are -- rules say are are counted at Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000306 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 15 of 64 Page 1 the right 2 3 address. I assume Q. rules for talked about immigrants? I recall. A. No, 5 Q. It's way or you undocumented 4 6 the not that possible, but you A. 8 something associated -- 9 don't associated with that farm workers I don't get 10 dealing 11 documented. 13 with about that A. 14 recall migrant Well, Q. you right now, Not 15 that. It's residency don't recall generally rules issue, know there's one not generally unless you're who tend to litigation be going on right? MR. ROSENBERG: A. I don't. 17 Q. (By Mr. Objection. Duraiswamy) Okay. That's I'm fair. sorry. 19 20 just residency I don't. 16 18 census other? 7 12 45 (The court reporter motioned to the attorney.) 21 MR. DURAISWAMY: 22 will caution 23 have to 24 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT you remind that may not be do my best, the last time but I you me. COURT REPORTER: Q. I will (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Thanks. And the census residency Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000307 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 16 of 64 Page 1 Then there 2 November, 3 activity. was October. a lot of of So it's 5 volunteer 6 of job, try to 8 other 9 were -- interested 11 census? in adding MR. ROSENBERG: 13 MR. FELDMAN: it, answer said something 17 Q. (By Mr. 18 A. He flagged it, 19 Q. He flagged it 20 that interest to some A. Right. 22 Q. -- 23 A. Right. 24 Q. And you redistricting AMERICAN PVERSIGHT team whether there who are question -- with to the vague. if you can answer in in was, to I think, me about Duraiswamy) that first person issue. Meaning you as the know. he -- he He said something that might be of people 21 25 discussing Objection, you kind it. Tom Hoffler 16 me to constituencies If A. 15 of when. recall a citizenship 12 14 a lot a part-time for what Commerce or is difficult do you people December, this who said on the particular 10 again, very well, individuals Then activity. exactly Well Q. 7 recall it's happened. Then and, so a lot activity. Now a lot 4 Not 51 constituencies? said certain he was circles. a point He's person -- for he's a Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000308 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 17 of 64 Page 1 Republican -- he 2 A. Yeah, 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. And so 6 years 7 or has work on redistricting connection with Republican he was the over the Republican parties, if you party know? -- MR. ROSENBERG: 9 10 his in Well, a Republican? is. state A. 8 he been different was 52 Objection, vague, lack of in 2000 foundation. MR. FELDMAN: 11 A. 12 He was 13 census who was 14 Chairman 15 Bill 16 expert 17 redistricting. 18 of 19 Secretary of Thomas him 22 might 23 be A. 24 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT House was an expert, you know, of things, but he A. Administration that the who was the Committee, -- he was an expert Tom Hoffler had who would was as interact and with an on the ear a Commerce. (By Mr. referring Thomas, the chairmen of I recall Bill So I knew Q. 21 person advising on a lot committee 20 the Go ahead. to Duraiswamy) specific interested in I don't recall Did members that Objection, -- ones. specific -- do you of Congress recall who issue? MR. ROSENBERG: the he vague -- Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000309 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 18 of 64 Page 1 MR. ROSENBERG: 2 MR. DURAISWAMY: 3 MR. FELDMAN: 4 MR. DURAISWAMY: 5 though, that you just (By Mr. Q. 7 8 of the 9 members 10 question the A. Again, 12 Q. I understand trying to one of ask, form. was with regarding it's the substance the other a citizenship understand what 16 MR. FELDMAN: Why don't of many was issues. discussed I'm about it. When? During That's we put the from transition. a period of when -- 18 A. From 19 Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) 20 transition? 21 A. Probably September Q. Okay. September issues. one MR. DURAISWAMY: 22 I'd head.) had many 15 when? the What team MR. FELDMAN: to fine. to you 14 17 was. transition? 11 just him it. (Nodding that the who the That's object Commerce during to Okay. Duraiswamy) conversations of as He answered MR. ROSENBERG: 6 13 -- 53 through -- through When did was the you January. join the first time I went agree that the there. 23 24 transition ended 25 President Trump, AMERICAN PVERSIGHT And at took I assume the time office we can that as President Trump, now -- Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000310 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 19 of 64 Page 1 A. Right. 2 Q. -- 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. So, 6 is a whirlwind 7 is my spare 8 I'm 9 when 10 there for 12 you 13 question again, of to be there. to all talk 5:00 about A. Uses? 15 Q. Of how the By uses, asking the A. 19 20 would 21 population 22 Q. 23 volunteering. it, days so, again, the to it's a week. who said me try and to be more potential uses not I'm very what This like there difficult whom. specific. of Did a citizenship citizenship -- of how -- strike that. 17 18 five January census? 14 16 doing And Let December, I'm I'm recall on the November, activity. 8:00 try correct? the that Okay. Q. 11 president, time I can me to the 54 at the 24 A. 25 objective. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT citizenship Well, be I mean having how the question data could my understanding block level be would citizen gathered be voting from used? that the use age data. And that was the understanding that you had time? That was what I was told was the principal Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000311 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 20 of 64 Page 1 Q. By who? 2 A. By Tom Hoffler. 3 Q. For 4 A. Taxes. 5 Q. What 6 level A. one would be Q. 10 block 11 ensure Citizen age Can explain, level one you person, A. This 13 Q. That's 14 A. Have presentation of to is vote? going to having block ensure one person, you -- have A. You know which 18 Q. I think 19 A. You said 21 Secretary. 22 presentation 23 judge was no record to the to of a long you one data explanation. read it through my is? a federal what you're judge I talked saying Secretary, but that I -- that about with the read my that you you told a federal I didn't MR. FELDMAN: Q. be population so. And yet that 24 age having on this? 17 there how does fine. Yes. 20 how -- one Q. PVERSIGHT -- voting 16 AMERICAN value voting citizenship 12 25 the vote. 9 15 purpose? -- 7 8 what 55 (By Mr. Just Duraiswamy) answer I think the question. he produced it Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000312 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 21 of 64 Page 1 in response 2 federal to judge 3 A. 4 documents No, the actually it we served after the deposition. was in -- it was in the Mark, answer -- answer his In any event, can to you about why -- question. (By Mr. Q. explain what A. 9 Mr. No. 10 why I think 11 citizen 12 explained 13 Q. I'm had during 14 ordered MR. FELDMAN: 7 8 subpoena before. 5 6 the 56 you that 17 voting age 18 so ability 19 Latino 20 was age You wanted level in 2000, in very, to the that to had draw a population He said 22 A. He -- not sure whether 24 transition, but 25 Q. I'm to want it the conversations So you the said long-form of block data level where which there were went citizen So the now diminished. a district -- would -- elect a non-citizens difficult. Q. 23 understand quality population explain important do you you does? after the me to is or transition. that very data population, trying 21 PVERSIGHT No. block He said away AMERICAN said why Tom Hoffler 16 the Hoffler Wait. voting A. 15 Duraiswamy) that to we would it was we would trying to you have in the have focus during the transition? talked about transition talked on in it. or about the I'm after that the issue. transition Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000313 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 22 of 64 Page 1 right now. 2 conversation 3 citizenship 4 A. I'm 5 Q. Okay. 6 discussed 7 from 8 Mr. So you're with not transition? think Okay. 11 A. I -- 12 Q. Do you 14 purposes? 15 A. it could would 17 two, anyone 18 me, I would -- that someone, 21 the Q. Okay. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT right? you data gathered Commerce team or I would be would the first number suggest that be totally your view suggest enforcement -- illegal, of or -- I'm that to that. that to I Number broach about broach all, one. opposed or so. possibility immigration never think to that. Did you during for your transition? 23 it. for I would fact, No, 25 used I -- but discussing immediately A. views, that understand, on the recall, recall would 22 24 I don't that in is of so. I understand Q. use And -- be Oh, 16 citizenship the Q. that of during 10 13 to others I would that potential trying uses had I did. with A. you transition; that So I'm if that the sure decennial Hoffler sure about during potential the 20 him data 9 19 not 57 and I'm I'm just no. I'm not trying just even to asking if understand, not asking you did advocated you have for any Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000314 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 23 of 64 Page 1 conversations 2 or bad, with of using anyone A. Definitely 4 Q. Let -- me just (By Mr. Q. 6 7 clear 8 for -- of using immigration finish A. No. 10 Q. Okay. 11 transition, 12 decennial Citizenship, 14 Q. Did 16 non-citizens 17 population 18 issue, 19 you 20 conversations? whether data but be for 23 A. Not 24 Q. (By Mr. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT to use from the came decennial up? the citizenship data from the purposes? the or in state the reapportionment not asking issue to come with purposes? you up about in That a position your my -Objection, my recollection, Duraiswamy) citizenship transition, immigrants included that not Not might of record's during during MR. ROSENBERG: states discuss, discuss, I'm did the question. no. should took, 22 you undocumented counts so the purposes use generally. A. 21 you finish citizenship reapportionment A. anyone, him -- Did 13 15 Let question Duraiswamy) potential for good not. the enforcement 9 possibility, definitely MR. FELDMAN: 5 the -- 3 25 where 58 form. no. Did data the from issue the of how decennial Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000315 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 24 of 64 Page 1 census 2 come up deciding in A. 3 4 you 5 it 6 the --- conversations I don't believe these kind are anyone thing Did else A. No. 10 Q. -- involved 12 campaign 13 discussing that 14 A. I -- 17 and A. 19 discussing 20 weren't 21 the That it. issue because AMERICAN PVERSIGHT when it again, it's not about. you during personally, and other What or Trump not with aware the of anyone Trump administration the transition? but I've heard that people. have you those people -- And I said, it Who have the A. but discussions Are heard from with you that "Well, reporters there if were they people were, they me." heard was discussing that issue transition? MR. ROSENBERG: 24 your -- know, people? Q. during talk transition incoming discussing 23 25 the Okay. other ago, would in Hoffler? you long transition? with reporters 18 22 or Q. Again, it up districts Mr. Because he come the else 16 with so. so. that it 11 from legislative during 9 15 draw conversations think of Q. how to your I don't 7 8 in 59 Again, I didn't I don't -- Objection, have no one vague. personal discussed knowledge it with of -- me. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000316 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 25 of 64 Page 1 name. So that Q. 2 was I think 3 You're saying 4 connection 5 context of 6 it up in the -this, the A. Right. 8 Q. -- 9 A. Right. our you Q. (By Mr. can't remember 11 12 you 13 organizational 14 you heard heard names 16 Q. (By Mr. 17 A. That's 18 Q. Okay. In on the Commerce folks 20 did you 21 adding probably 24 have 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT other this up The same in not sure if -- and form. here today, names in the issue? vague came you rumors individual how -- I'm would not these or rumors that sure something Q. What kinds team the come of that right? correct. with during the potential to whether that objection. discussions question have been Is that's your a citizenship 23 for And sitting Duraiswamy) yeah, discuss A. 22 in You're about other that saying. name, Objection, MR. ROSENBERG: and the Duraiswamy) any you're up recently of on. recently? 15 19 what subpoena. context that focused Bannon's came MR. ROSENBERG: 10 I was Steve reviewing 7 one I understand with came the 64 the Hoffler transition, process for decennial I would yeah, Mr. that have census? -- probably that would we discussed. discussions about that did you Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000317 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 26 of 64 Page 1 65 have? How -- A. 2 3 trying to 4 question 5 something 6 citizenship. 7 Because I'm remember sexual that came I'm 9 A. -- the came up 11 groups for in 12 question about 13 that something 14 think, 15 there the you know, 20 you say how was 21 couple; 22 looked 23 whether 24 issue AMERICAN PVERSIGHT issue of in my head. issue that -- that wanted to on the -- also you advocacy add would was going to add questionnaire citizenship issue. How are this the person this a long time. looking at after that relationship the process -- stuff And have, or you opposite I haven't So I don't remember those, citizenship issue, at change in that at I that questions related, is a ACS. census I -- or was decennial change again, another transition, are to, But the was 19 Q. the of was we all issue the before ACS was remember orientation -- addition I was of after transition, that the for the there 18 at a sort that know, questions to been during 17 25 to adding I can't -- sexual The 16 issue or LGBTQ community discussed you have last was -- I'm -- 10 was here. on the up before what would Q. the remember orientation That's 8 to whether about that trying that going when sex process discussions. you're saying, would Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000318 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 27 of 64 Page 1 have been 2 question 3 is relevant and that to A. Yeah. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Because a request obviously 8 sexual orientation 9 again, it's 10 comes first, 11 context of the 12 context of how we're 13 going did you 16 was anyone 17 adding 20 Hoffler 21 on Capitol 22 people hard for I was or going to than what during the learn else who was -- which other certain. It might 24 A. I went count during the was about the know, which in the looking at that in how the transition talked transition in the is about, that there potentially census? I don't remember I remember have the issue. we've to I don't there that interested question -- Census orientation about With -- at -- Other to a -- remember looking Okay. early that So you me to sexual Q. PVERSIGHT it's was DOJ to the Hill is addition. citizenship, 23 electoral from approach for in questions; there question I don't specifically AMERICAN -- a citizenship 19 25 to whether A. 18 in -- come a citizenship Yeah. a -- Q. of -- 7 15 other you're 4 14 addition potentially what to the 66 come transition and Tom up when I was meeting January. whom do you to in see the think the -- -in the it the may have counting house come of chamber, up? the so I Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000319 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 28 of 64 Page 1 would have run 2 Q. And 3 A. And 4 they would 5 Commerce 6 of 7 where 8 of 9 working you go to and and Willie 12 have said, "Oh, 13 issues." 14 people about A. 17 people 19 20 understanding 21 of 22 question A. 23 24 of 25 on the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT the known would it's one like that oh, yeah, Tom. So on the have of been those and members things you I hear you see a lot you're that I haven't with census. I didn't so me to he would been a time that talked to it. have time? in to the there were other things. do you there followed hearings have who might are interested to with on census me about today, whether added working again, blurs who are to went people, would recall here of of Mark's talked it Gaynor a lot Because, I -- being working that during Congress I was Willie again, Sitting Q. that say, yeah, No. and have knows have it would a ceremony And do Q. there. them Again, I think that, could people transition. And So, of So there they on the 11 18 known there. people, you of transition. Congress 15 a lot some have 10 16 into 67 in census that. Secretary go to Ross his lots have of an particular members a citizenship in 2020? I didn't when he go to any testified confirmation Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000320 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 29 of 64 Page 1 question for A. 2 -- I'm 3 to 4 may request. 5 agency 6 affects 8 wait. A. 10 possibility. 11 Q. 12 transition 13 going question And you're in told you I'm 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. So unlike 17 interacting because 18 Commerce 19 "Okay. 20 what What AMERICAN PVERSIGHT people, Justice the something Q. So the the something is that a possibility know that it no one the that will. during Department interacting are we doing conversations of correct? certainly that with with of of It's a the Justice was going to affect down to of that you with Mr. do to that the and USTR, we're DOJ and and saying, affect us, and you?" possibility addition DOJ team. authorities. sitting you the Commerce we share sort are 24 25 not aren't that Department need correct? A. 23 the this future, and do that, request will may request You don't And -- 22 department letting saying the Right. to it's the department. 14 21 -- know they happen 9 they So it's your could correct? saying The team, Q. 7 2020, 89 the question learned about DOJ would for 2020, from was your Hoffler? MR. ROSENBERG: Objection, misleading. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000321 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 30 of 64 Page 1 2 A. 3 discussed, 4 people it been would but have I could (By Mr. from anyone A. 8 we're 9 coming 10 saying, 11 controls? 12 meetings 13 the you could answer. something have learned that he from other it Duraiswamy) I don't to recall. in us, "Oh, Do you remember learning else? sitting an open you back floor know, well, What Again, you about and plan, a lot of know, this forth, understand and people what about of people are I didn't this on trade?" a lot that know on export And impromptu -- lot of cooks in kitchen. 14 So you Q. 15 raising 16 would 17 Mr. this have Hoffler, don't issue, been recall but raised specifically this in is the an anyone issue that discussions else likely with correct? MR. ROSENBERG: 18 Objection. It calls for speculation. A. 20 Again, 21 that 22 conversations. talked 23 24 It Q. 7 19 If too. 5 6 MR. FELDMAN: 90 I -- about it, there but could I don't MR. DURAISWAMY: limit 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT your objections to MR. ROSENBERG: Brad, the form, I think have been recall can people those I ask you to just please? that is a form Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000322 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 31 of 64 Page MR. FELDMAN: 1 2 referencing A. 3 4 Exhibit about Exhibit And by 2, yeah. May I point No. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) like point Q. 7 would 9 A. 10 11 of the 12 determine 13 the 14 This 15 to 16 because 17 2000. to Census written is 20 ACS census 21 block Mr. level; is A. Correct. 23 Q. Did 25 citizenship PVERSIGHT the that he to status on census." who isn't talking census, eliminated You testified you no longer in earlier that after available the at the right? to you that questionnaire was director questions was to out. "The the It indicated suggest long-form data form. was it decennial about Duraiswamy) CEDCaP data point immigration the that memo? says, someone something had 22 AMERICAN something something include in by can it and no long Hoffler -- shall questionnaire (By Mr. that while Bureau citizenship there 24 7 you who knows 19 the say clearly Q. about On Page U.S. anyone there Now you U.S. is out Is MR. FELDMAN: long-form 18 out -MR. FELDMAN: you he's 2. 5 8 "this," 100 available at prior to was in the block the effect, ACS, that level? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000323 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 32 of 64 Page 1 A. 2 household 3 data 4 you. was sample, confidence period in the is that Are Q. 5 6 That you which 7 A. That's 8 Q. Okay. whole 10 in six one in forty-three confident your understanding 12 questionnaire 13 available 14 the was at census of the block Duraiswamy) that in place, census block group And is that No, 20 census as 21 of executive 22 Advisory 23 I want 25 Can AMERICAN PVERSIGHT you that up. long-form data and not was just at based -- conversations that with understanding Mr. Hoffler or it's chairman based of on my experience the staff monitoring and as with board, a chairman of the as member the 2010 Committee. Okay. Q. 24 the else? A. the give level? Q. 19 not during clean the level 16 anything to citizenship my understanding. 18 that level form. while That's on your six block does that, Just A. based you Objection, 15 17 gives in my understanding. (By Mr. It's a one -- Q. 11 of one MR. ROSENBERG: 9 point 101 to now talk identify So we've talked about the everyone at about the post-transition the Department transition. period. of Justice Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000324 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 33 of 64 Page 1 with whom you have 2 addition of 3 the 2020 census? 4 A. That would 5 Q. Have you a citizenship 6 of Justice about 7 undocumented 8 reapportionment? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have 11 of 12 undocumented 13 state spoken you spoken the people other 18 people at 19 Gore in 20 ever talked -- we're I'm than the the only at the for Department or count about at when for people his asking you the -- questions. say Justice." testimony, I encourage MR. FELDMAN: PVERSIGHT count population you're Duraiswamy) because AMERICAN or me about "talked to Because Justice John Department I've to. his -- Department non-citizens assuming person 23 ask of answer of and you anyone Just Department clarification, 25 the noncitizens talking Gore 22 24 at to Gore. population the John (By Mr. Q. of to question John anyone inclusion See, I'm 17 21 person, the in possible immigration to in the redistricting? No. A. about inclusion MR. FELDMAN: 16 one immigrants level 15 be the about A. or immigrants Justice 14 communicated 102 you had said, No, I appreciate you to let him that clarify I -That's -- well, and I think he I -- why don't recognized -- Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000325 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 34 of 64 Page 1 count 2 count. there are have about well It the A. 2017. 11 Q. (By Mr. about that conversation have issue did We -- we met 14 Q. Where did 15 A. At 17 we met 18 office. like you The summer of at We met for coffee the A. Yeah, it could 21 Q. Was anyone 22 A. No one 23 Q. How did else else was that PVERSIGHT the year? '17? conversations -- a government near -- October -- around of probably his 2017? been. present? present. meeting witness at the in have MR. ROSENBERG: AMERICAN near been 20 what him? not around have caution but time. cafe it to with the Could want Gore meet? not in John summer, How many have a -- Q. 25 the one 19 24 after you A. building. whether with been Duraiswamy) 13 16 the winter. 10 12 of from that. MR. FELDMAN: 9 anyone question? would before subtract an understanding your a citizenship A. can't strike When was 7 8 you well, 5 6 and Do you Q. 3 4 everyone, 110 come I'm going that about? to there's object. I just potential Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000326 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 35 of 64 Page 1 that that 2 protected 3 the 4 answer 5 of 6 think 7 general 8 substantive 9 was question calls by the deliberative Government any would terms, can so as information shared with Mr. 11 I believe 12 about? the Have question I said 16 basis by which 17 reveal 18 be, 19 reveal 20 possible 21 question, 22 deliberative 23 substance the that but But meeting came asking witness I would the question AMERICAN PVERSIGHT for in deliberative just information, and get to that this down. meeting come be there about might be him would the be a that would not there could also a question So, that clear, could but instruct information of question I Yes. information. the Gore. correctly? I mean, somebody substantive Mr. reveal how did was that you able not know, to to reveal would it's answer the provide the conversation. MR. DURAISWAMY: 24 25 know, not to that deliberative you does trying objection, the that to substance and I'm MR. ROSENBERG: the answer And not the was 14 for reveal that MR. DURAISWAMY: basis witness witness he 13 15 privilege. Gore. MR. FELDMAN: 10 the witness long the would between the that's process that a conversation information instruct questions that for 111 a second and Well, ask it let me withdraw a little the different. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000327 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 36 of 64 Page (By Mr. Q. 1 2 serve 3 Department as a formal of A. No. 5 Q. How did fall of 2017 Were or adviser informal the come meeting MR. ROSENBERG: 8 MR. FELDMAN: 10 meet 11 be James Undermeier with him. I think getting the 13 to Gore same objection. in the -- to answer. [sic] asked that's his me to name. I -- does James I may official. Duraiswamy) Is -- Uthmeier 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. -- 16 A. Something 17 Q. And 18 his 19 Was it 20 21 asked the John The Commerce (By Mr. Q. to with Go ahead, A. 12 ever about? 7 9 you Justice? 4 6 Duraiswamy) 112 name. or Uthmeier sound -- apologies When did shortly correct? to he before A. Within Q. Did you have it was to ask the a few James you for to meeting weeks mispronouncing have that took place? before the meeting? meeting took place. 22 23 whose 24 was 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT idea A. I wouldn't an understanding as have that whether have known meeting, who John to Gore who -- it was. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000328 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 37 of 64 Page 1 Let Q. 2 me -- 3 question before 4 question. Let counsel him great 7 way. question, so (By Mr. Q. 8 understanding 10 Department 11 meet? I think 13 Q. Okay. 15 A. Not 16 Q. Do you idea for A. again you answered finished the his it. In fairness, me try to was ask Was it someone idea it it wasn't a in a better your at the Commerce for you and Mr. Gore at the Department to so. Not someone of you someone and No. at the know who Mr. Department of Justice. who originally Gore to And originally had the meet? is the -- you know, -- 20 Q. Obviously, 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. -- 21 the -- Justice? 18 19 let it who had A. 17 finish you counsel Duraiswamy) that 12 14 -- MR. DURAISWAMY: 6 9 You -- MR. FELDMAN: 5 113 Mr. Uthmeier reached out to you 24 who originally 25 meeting AMERICAN PVERSIGHT with and that's had Mr. the what idea. I'm asking, How long if was you know your Gore? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000329 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 38 of 64 Page 1 A. I don't 2 Q. I'm 3 than know. just A. I doubt 5 Q. More 6 A. Probably. 7 Q. Okay. it an approximation. More than an hour. 30 minutes? So roughly somewhere between 30 and there a letter sent 60 minutes? A. I think 10 Q. You're 11 the 12 in 13 citizenship 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did of Department December so. aware of 2017 Justice to regarding question that that you to have the any 18 MR. FELDMAN: Well, A. 20 drafting 21 our 22 show 23 ask it process -- I -- him the to AMERICAN PVERSIGHT object addition Department of a census? involvement in of when what -- If the the drafting with and instruct I wasn't part but John Bureau Because, the form. know. letter, Census ACS question. you again, I met the Objection, MR. ROSENBERG: 24 Commerce by letter? MR. ROSENBERG: 19 was the the 17 25 for was more than 9 16 looking an hour? 4 8 114 And sure Gore, about again -- -not the that I wanted said I'm witness I'm of again, to in to why they I'm answer going the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000330 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 39 of 64 Page 1 MS. BRANNON: 2 MR. ROSENBERG: 3 Government 4 and 5 could be as conferring -- and do so Okay. as So we will agree 8 clear, the reason, 9 confer -- meet and 11 I am just 12 confer with 13 nature of 14 deposition 15 is 16 meet a motion 17 possible 18 revealing to 20 Q. has confer filed the in I imagine No, that the fall separate as meeting that within we before we would part move 22 information to 23 that 24 citizenship 25 A. meet and to to this, come issue with to not the up at the or whether certainly you forward And so want or as be it try quickly to as without publicly. (By Mr. So at just would We will that and whether that sense. NYIC case. have issue. about -- topics the to makes some and that confer anything in enough, discussions today has on related my colleagues interlude. PVERSIGHT possible been today familiar 21 AMERICAN in and There that. there was not Okay. MR. ROSENBERG: 19 course, as responding, and a new and and of tomorrow. 7 10 -- nimble MS. BRANNON: 6 123 Thank Duraiswamy) that Mr. DOJ subsequently meeting Gore for you. Okay. Sorry you provided some of letter purposes drafted regarding for the the the question? Mainly the -- mainly a copy of the -- of the Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000331 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 40 of 64 Page 1 letter from 2 Department, 3 adding Obama Administration, to the Census a question There Q. 4 the 5 you produced, there 6 one from and 7 correct 2014 to on the ACS. there were -- two such -- were one from in the of documents letters, 2016. Does that I believe, that sound you? A. Yeah. 9 Q. And you provided both 10 A. Just I think probably 11 Q. Okay. 13 A. Modalities. 14 Q. Well, -- And the of those? just purpose of the that 2016 was one. to show 15 strike MR. ROSENBERG: 16 an objection 17 on deliberative 18 19 issue Right. 8 12 Justice Bureau on the 124 that 20 and That 21 has a chart 22 are asked 23 governmental of process privilege Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Duraiswamy) a -- I'm Well different demographic of those And you not -- a different I'm an to answer well, again let recalling questions; providing me question. correctly, questions explanation were interpose grounds. if ACS and going to document, uses A. PVERSIGHT instruction ask on the 24 AMERICAN again (By Mr. Q. strike and And of is that the that that correct? to Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000332 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 41 of 64 Page 1 Mr. Gore 2 citizenship 4 objection 5 deliberative 7 A. 8 non-career 9 accepted Census 11 Q. that you on the 15 privilege A. 17 previous 19 Q. interactions 21 22 instruction 23 privilege 24 25 not to instruction process privilege I wanted the person, to of not AMERICAN PVERSIGHT census -- the answer of as a well? same on grounds. -- John Gore, who was understand the modalities the interaction between a and DOJ and issues. (By Mr. wanted use Go ahead. Duraiswamy) him to to What was it about that understand? The answer same objection on deliberative and process grounds. I wanted him interactions to understand what on additions (By Mr. did Go ahead. Duraiswamy) of What want him to MR. ROSENBERG: The same not you to answer had -- the questions. about those understand? objection on deliberative and process grounds. MR. FELDMAN: A. decennial and MR. FELDMAN: 16 potential same MR. ROSENBERG: instruction the The on census 14 20 explain MR. ROSENBERG: process 13 18 to MR. FELDMAN: 6 12 order question 3 10 in 125 How that -- Go ahead. the normal procedures. Who at Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000333 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 42 of 64 Page 1 DOJ, when 2 Census you're and who they (By Mr. Q. 3 talking questions about talk Duraiswamy) adding 5 questionnaire, 6 Commerce Department to 7 there a need some 8 correct? 9 10 objection 11 deliberative 12 objection understand 15 A. Census 17 the not instruction census fact from to privilege that to in census outside of Department agency; and from talks decennial Commerce other is grounds where that The answer the same on and also an form. Go ahead the that answer requests administration (By Mr. doesn't come Duraiswamy) typically Did and if you data to question. I communicated Q. come Objection. the -- he provide you for from You agree well, any the agencies. that strike the that. information at that meeting? 21 MR. ROSENBERG: 22 instruction 23 A. not I don't 24 25 requests the MR. ROSENBERG: to 19 20 for And the ACS or MR. FELDMAN: 14 18 the the process 13 16 to issues, to. 4 is census 126 to answer AMERICAN PVERSIGHT witness can and on deliberative process know. MR. ROSENBERG: the Same objection answer that privilege with a yes grounds, or unless no. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000334 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF 1 A. No. 2 Q. James 3 A. No. 4 Q. Have 5 issue since I didn't 8 kind of out of 9 Tom was not an adviser to 10 you know that the the 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. And 16 I'm for No, Q. Hoffler sick. picture. And 136 about this not the And, in So Tom was I also appear to want me to administration at really to be fact, say, an all. question. not -- I didn't kind the necessarily mean to I'm asking Did you 19 the question. 20 him about 21 transition? 22 A. Tom Hoffler? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Oh, 25 Q. How many -- I'm of about not sure that Did you have a potential yes. see him as an administration. 18 PVERSIGHT very away. So I don't intermediary AMERICAN Page it. A. 17 Mr. he passed to A separate connect with sick, did Q. 15 spoken very 11 14 Page 43 of 64 transition? Tom was 7 Filed 06/03/19 Sherk? the A. 6 Document 601-8 Mr. I got any citizenship Hoffler separately. a clear answer communications question to with since the Yes. times, roughly? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000335 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 44 of 64 Page A. 1 2 wouldn't 3 talking 4 I last 5 I'm It be more about to even sure not than A. since January him, which the -- what A. 11 was 12 know you 13 talked a lot 14 lot 15 about 16 conversations 17 would about know, bleed into 18 Q. And some 19 citizenship question 20 A. It 21 the 22 months. 23 again, with 24 friend of 25 in AMERICAN PVERSIGHT last with -- seemed in the Again, you about their whenever maybe -- 2017. I talked of was that him to like --- for him health, conversations? friends, for so I don't 30 years. We We talked We talked a a lot would be going on in politics that conversations. about the 2020 census? like it with and potential wasn't certainly the remember Tom that and were there me to like what treatment. was on the -- those good personal time, been through. know, what hard a long going last someone I are cancer our have we're 2000 of his about through And he known So, -- in sure I've he was prayer. or substance about it year. Tom and what not him Duraiswamy) the Well, to I'm but And remember, would 2017 this (By Mr. Q. 9 -- May of a couple, through I talked Or 2000 even than a dozen. MR. FELDMAN: 7 10 be more from talked 6 8 would 137 I'm last in six about a -- someone there a topic a good that are not I check a lot of Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000336 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 45 of 64 Page 1 people 2 many like Q. 4 mentioned 5 since 6 the 7 about Well, the -- was 10 with him, 11 draw the 12 focus 13 "Mark, 14 census, 15 budget," 16 does. and, he was to the how block data what this was issue, sure was census the person citizenship Tom -- in talking going 23 confront, 24 members of Congress, 25 administration, to issue because that I knew of the to the Tom, for attention the what the that he need right? that I knew I -that it was would ability important to on the principally department Tom had on, a good you people can his always skimp good is you again, regarding who were pay so, and that data; one obsession we take is data that doesn't understanding 22 means data, that level an And level the an you conversations just is districts. He was be is data level make your level those how block level a good And he I think about administration because for have about on block need that on talked accurate actually, PVERSIGHT recall well, conversation block always you did -- my question block 21 AMERICAN I don't question? again, most to but your because A. 20 -- is you citizenship Q. for of Well, 9 19 that 2017, substance A. relied I don't my question before January 8 18 so times. 3 17 that, 138 to the to get the issue. You Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000337 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 46 of 64 Page 1 know, that's 2 job 3 transom is what to forecast for the Did Q. 4 5 or 6 citizenship 7 A. -- what's speak with of 9 know, I see to Congress, him at delegation 11 Illinois. I -- again, 12 Congress, I talk to 13 for 14 I -- Sure. 16 A. Did 17 office 18 19 about about this 20 A. 21 Congress, 22 about 23 24 Q. you 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT about A. come the anyone else across Congress Davis, of I see all people in to of at Congress about the 2017? to the to the did time. You in the University I talk school my own people Congress things in I talk I talk say lots this, to of someone who I've with with Peter in known Roskam. them. do a presentation in anyone's no. wondering if you talked to any members of of them issue? I'm sure including this to know, to I go and I was Q. your January you I went about Q. -- that time. 15 transition, of things. Illinois I talk with Rodney 10 a long going since I talked member the a member question 8 in new administration. you affiliated again, 139 that I talked Democratic to members of Congress issue. And what do you recall them communicating to it? I recall Congressman Lacy Clay being upset Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000338 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 47 of 64 Page 1 that this question 2 the same 3 administration 4 he time, asked was he was to for going very focus my help What 6 A. I recall that 7 Q. -- conversations? 8 A. I talked 9 Carolyn Maloney Q. Uh-huh. 11 A. -- with census 13 important it 14 important the 15 funding 16 conversations 17 and 18 "Let's 19 leave 20 all they so Q. to say, to long was Secretary So, are be and -- from taking the time telling New York, and to about it." out, but I talk focus on how that to request you have these place. census involvement me how Ross again, him People guy." full see me You know, So I don't want to of members to Congress time. I understand question. So I'm 24 to to PVERSIGHT about know, forth. 23 AMERICAN get "There's into A. you would drifted 25 count, the we census 22 that recall And she that anything 21 getting a good a Congresswoman who has, is talk the do you issues. and about at -- 10 12 But that. Q. to answered. concerned 5 those be on getting in else to 140 issues that Again, that. unrelated trying to But to help I -- we sort of the citizenship you by narrowing it issue. I -- there's interaction all the time Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000339 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF 1 and I don't 2 want And Q. 3 what you 4 with members 5 members 6 since of of January anything Congress, to please conversations or people regarding Page 141 tell us out. you the Page 48 of 64 that you affiliated had with a citizenship question 2017 8 Q. -- Congressman I other Clay A. I to people than that just all time. 12 airports. 13 things. 14 hundreds, thousands 15 know what I generally 16 of 17 a good 18 undercount. 19 I've 20 again, 21 know, 22 so I run Congress you discussion have talk And the I don't 11 the into for them me to about census. the census, We need to to with it's -- is keep logs this of all into events. to to for focus not the with is we need on the in about those I members to take issues that 30 years. so I differential these last my job, I -- I have, about on all the among that which focus them recall talk -- We talk conversations want involved I don't I run at with mentioned. a log. say of We need been Filed 06/03/19 asking about Congress, Again, But I don't, who I talk to you when and forth. 23 24 leave just remember A. 10 to I'm 7 9 Document 601-8 MR. DURAISWAMY: Okay. Move to strike as non-responsive. 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Q. (By Mr. Duraiswamy) Has anyone ever Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000340 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 49 of 64 Page 1 suggested 2 strike to you that block Has 4 access 5 helpful to anyone block to ever level Republican I'm 7 Q. Tom, presumably? 8 A. What he will 10 minority 11 challenged. 12 district, 13 someone 14 maximized 15 representation 16 don't 17 you're 18 out of A. I use AMERICAN PVERSIGHT that you you the -- level to at the -- best you keep block not drawing level a data, a map that Latino numbers. And when citizenship data, the Latino levels was maps, provide are "maximized," that draw therefore draw all having be help that have cheating that would will is didn't you that. maps so on their you're was the don't word block is it frustration based That of you what community government. something that he you? No, My point it was about representation Have Q. Rights data redistricting? said that as representation 21 25 -- doing suggested 24 well, has is because says, in and So the have 20 Latino said acceptable and Q. 23 be someone representation, 19 had. sure to data efforts A. which suggested citizenship 6 22 citizenship that. 3 9 level 142 you -- it was a conversation maximization to done is my word. that we I want be maximized. any research on the Voting Act? Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000341 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 50 of 64 Page 1 A. I'm 2 Q. Have 3 Rights A. the I'm not Rights Q. Do you standard for A. I'm 9 Q. Have the Voting study 15 on the Act. Voting I'd have 17 one of 18 there 19 census 20 those census 21 most important 22 ensure 23 can 24 didn't to the was an only look Q. to Section and amicus who are who have my head, look brief thing that Was Mr. Act? expertise on particular? when I -- when I experts. you at I'd looked that said in end accurate level until Hoffler -- to But to for filed by a nutshell, block level in -one from you of the know, the data is the of and census. people is what terms until I five representation, data -in in product go back. I did interested was is have it. I was most directors at for know, And those block Rights 2 in people of that ensuring get in you top directors. -- Voting legal issues? go back things about on it. And who -- the I read on the on others So I Off the relied Act I -- expertise expert I look 16 PVERSIGHT research Rights yeah. 2 of on those A. AMERICAN Voting on it. any an Okay. expertise expert have you Yes. Q. 25 on the any Act, not things, 13 14 done an Rights A. 11 12 expert Section 8 10 you Voting 6 7 an Act? 4 5 not 143 you I 2018. you relied Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000342 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 51 of 64 Page 1 on for expertise about 2 A. I 3 Q. I'm asking 4 A. Oh, okay. 5 Q. Was he 6 A. No. 7 Q. Who 8 the 9 10 you. one have Act -- of Sorry. the who were -- Rights -- to A. I'd have Q. You -- you I can recall people? the people? go back to -- I'd relied can't You said and check, have to but -- off -- I don't A. 14 Q. for expertise 15 A. and looking Supreme 17 Court said Okay. Q. 18 communicating 19 administration 20 citizenship 21 already looking about Let's with 24 than 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT at at what it and go back anyone directly else or question, the on that that you've cases issue? Justices than of looking to if at you in about the the that. recall direct indirectly other MR. FELDMAN: Are anyone people the Trump the we've identified. 22 23 remember on 13 16 Voting recall. 11 12 you'd -- you -- the 144 you the talking people about that I'm was have MR. DURAISWAMY: not sure I understand. there anybody been discussed? else other Yes. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000343 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 52 of 64 Page A. 1 I don't 2 to remember 3 or something he had like 4 Q. Any 5 A. Brunell 6 Q. Anyone 7 that you A. 8 Q. was that you Did we mark it as 12 see this an e-mail 13 and Peter Q. Was the 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. For of the e-mail A. Subject 20 Q. Okay. Secretary Ross that can recall? I recall. redistricting No. world 17.] we've 17? exchange marked Yes. as can 8th, you Exhibit Sorry. between October record, is, A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. -- A. Yes. "Letter And the to 22 24 school 17. Do you Secretary Ross 2017? identify the subject exchange? 19 21 law no. what from the you one the Exhibit Davidson 15 I seem considered? Handing Uh-huh. main from Exhibit A. like that I recall, 11 18 the else 14 name. connection, candidates [Marked is person's that. being Not the a Bush other recall 9 10 remember 272 asking Mr. from first DOJ." e-mail is from Davidson what is its status. Do you see that? 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000344 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 53 of 64 Page And Mr. Q. 1 2 phone with 3 meeting you, last and week, 4 A. I see 5 Q. Was that in evidence. sense, giving your meeting with 13 seems 14 discussing 15 Q. like it's Right. 18 A. No, the about the -- the was 20 Department. 21 other letter not the PVERSIGHT facts not it would make have a meeting DOJ? the what -- the timing you and I were again, letter John Gore is covered with DOJ regarding -- how Census this from we're communications meeting the correct? meeting with with a communication John the Gore Justice from two me. And just going with the interacts is MR. ROSENBERG: AMERICAN you from with from Again, people, believes Did dovetails question, 19 25 -- why I said Because citizenship the Gore? assumes it's a letter that's -- 17 24 a earlier. about record, of speculation. Duraiswamy) -- was 23 on the a readout John Objection, for about 16 22 is know. else That A. with know whether (By Mr. anyone 12 calls I don't Q. him he that. I don't but 10 11 you're that correct? It A. 8 9 responds MR. ROSENBERG: 6 7 Davidson 273 Mr. by the back Gore, -- to the which deliberative just for substance the the of Government process Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000345 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 54 of 64 Page 1 privilege, 2 you 3 that and know, provide any answered the phone question, (By Mr. Q. call with Mr. around It it 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I don't 14 Q. No reason to, regarding to that, he's Well -- well, you strike call with Mr. October 8th, correct? says that. had a that. I don't Davidson know that I did. recall that to believe recall that I did. it didn't happen, correct? 16 A. I don't 17 Q. Okay. 18 Mr. 19 on the 20 lying? Davidson No reason wrote phone with 21 A. I don't 22 Q. Okay. 23 not information -- a phone A. 10 -- Neuman around 15 witness I believe. on or 11 the And subject Duraiswamy) You had 8 9 instruct additional MR. FELDMAN: 6 7 I would meeting. 4 5 so 274 or 24 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT not A. when he to on October Mark know the wrote MR. ROSENBERG: believe that in right answer Ross he did when an e-mail, now" to that that know whether Secretary know what happened. 8th Neuman You don't I don't it "I'm he was question. he was on October lying 8th? -- Objection. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000346 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 55 of 64 Page 2 -- A. 1 you ask me things 4 things about 5 may not 6 do you he didn't I only know when me. I'm specifically Well, asking you remember. I am asking -- I'm you I understand just you asking you, -- A. I said 8 Q. -- I do not have any recall. reason to believe it didn't happen? 10 MR. ROSENBERG: 11 MR. FELDMAN: If have that 12 you 13 tell don't I don't happened 16 or clear 18 Mr. 19 DOJ, it on what Davidson have the didn't what to -- if -- happen, if say know whether Just e-mail says, is status the -- it -- just Secretary of the so we're Ross letter asks from right? That's what 21 Q. Okay. And Mr. he's on the phone 22 that 23 a readout 24 correct? PVERSIGHT know what it Duraiswamy) A. AMERICAN form. happen. 20 25 you a reason didn't (By Mr. Q. 17 a reason Objection, him. A. 14 15 do. Duraiswamy) you. 7 9 what about (By Mr. Q. 3 and 275 A. of a meeting That's what this says. Davidson responds with you and you're that you had the this and giving previous says him week, says. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000347 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 56 of 64 Page Okay. Q. 1 2 meeting with 3 correct? John 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. 6 this 7 date? of And a phone A. I don't 9 Q. Do you Mr. 11 wanted Davidson an A. I don't 13 Q. The Mr. 15 emailing 16 you at 17 I'm referring Davidson 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Mr. Davidson for Mr. ever told frame, of Davidson having you around a phone that status up this of call Secretary a letter Ross First in indicate call at that he was of the to the with Ross from DOJ? all, do that 10:54 p.m. on the -- do after phone you with see what phone with e-mail? Have you four hours? 21 MR. ROSENBERG: 22 MR. DURAISWAMY: 23 time that. seems wrapped to this your recall. e-mail p.m. e-mail, no recollection with recall he the around have recall Secretary 6:47 you on the 12 from was call where update 14 Gore But 8 10 separate 276 ever been on the Objection, What misleading. is misleading about the 24 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT A. I -MR. DURAISWAMY: Wait, wait. What's -- Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000348 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 57 of 64 Page It 1 MR. ROSENBERG: 2 MR. DURAISWAMY: 3 improper MR. ROSENBERG: 5 MR. DURAISWAMY: necessarily from 9 there be might these It's date different misleading --- so time time MR. ROSENBERG: (By Mr. Q. the phone with about we don't stamps zones Do you A. I don't 17 Q. How long calls with him the know whether involved in this -- what was my were about A. I don't 20 Q. You don't phone calls No. 23 Q. Do you they were A. I'm AMERICAN PVERSIGHT census Have you ever for four hours? were your typical been on recall 14 hours sure that phone issues? how long recall were A. 25 -- recall 22 that Davidson my objection. recall. 19 your I made Duraiswamy) Mr. 16 24 an question? 14 21 What's MR. DURAISWAMY: 13 18 that's e-mail. 11 15 -- No. MR. ROSENBERG: 8 12 That no. question? 7 10 No, -- objection. 4 6 may not 277 they anything with him? if they in length? I never were talked would how long about -- go. it's him possible for 14 Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000349 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 58 of 64 Page 1 hours. Okay. Q. 2 3 this 4 say that 5 you do recall 6 remember 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- 9 that 11 the Do you deposition, about 10 you don't you that at the length of with couple of I recall 13 Q. And you calls 16 talked 17 to to 18 were the interactions the census. I -- 25 Handing Q. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT four or Do you about do you recall conversations the census over some. about interactions -- you hours. hours in asking one asked me if phone I was recall you you give -- talking call. now approximately that know. how long were? I don't you Can I don't [Marked We've fact, had with how him me a range? I don't recall how long were. 23 24 said I'm A. they you No. 21 What no recollection those Q. regarding 22 or hour 20 in you -- calls I had have for long if testimony? Okay. Davidson that when, that phone we started years? for 19 fact false about the him anyone that's that were Well, A. 15 the outset? Mr. A. those about when something, we talked had last that recall it, that the remember we talked 12 14 278 got one copy Exhibit you for No. 18.] what we've marked you guys. Take as Exhibit a minute 18. to Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000350 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 59 of 64 Page 1 review 2 before. this document 3 A. I have 4 Q. When did 5 A. I've 6 Q. When you 8 A. Well, 9 Thompson 7 seen it you seen let me know you've seen it before. see it? versions say if of this versions of before. this, what do you mean? and 10 questionnaire. 11 seeing something that says reinstatement then I -- something 12 Q. This 13 A. -- 14 Q. Okay. is at Justice 17 reinstatement of 18 questionnaire related A. it of the Commerce so John the is I recall different versions the record from the Department a question to is Department 2020 citizenship, it's clear, requesting on the Do we know that from this of the census correct? DOJ? Oh, because from DOJ to says Q. 22 A. 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. So what was 25 Q. So this is PVERSIGHT with times. a letter 21 AMERICAN out of this in And just 16 19 this different a draft to -- starts -- is a I've like 15 20 and 279 Do you for see the last line? doj.gov. the a draft question of again? a letter Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000351 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 60 of 64 Page 1 the Commerce 2 a citizenship Department question 3 A. Right. 4 Q. -- census, facts not in A. I -- 8 Q. (By Mr. 9 you 10 this -- who -- draft letter? I'm I'm 13 original 14 might 15 writes a first 16 What's interesting 17 like familiar I -- sure the is. seems -- you assumes is And when with not that but template, when sure not I look at Again, who the at sure as of is. I looked I'm did versions this I'm on it, be that. version sure a first to Okay. letter. I'm commented A. This right it it. I who were. this, it seems 22 A. 23 ProPublica. 24 letter the version MR. FELDMAN: Exhibit And I look the This that Q. being And this being? that you're looking now. 21 PVERSIGHT form, -- 19 AMERICAN it which MR. FELDMAN: 25 Objection, who provided with author 18 at 2020 Duraiswamy) not 12 have of right? I -- or A. 11 a reinstatement evidence. 7 20 on the MR. ROSENBERG: 5 6 requesting 280 letter ultimately (By Mr. at 18. letter that is very different went from DOJ. Duraiswamy) Okay. In I first saw in than order the to help Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000352 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 61 of 64 Page 1 us 2 try all out here Oh, here on time, we're Well, 6 risk 7 questioning, 8 answering 9 A. Right. 10 Q. -- of our all I want having the that that 12 draft, correct? you 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. And, 16 Secretary's 17 have 18 again, 19 when had -- this come to I've 22 had get in order Q. back to here to and try ask you on -- out to avoid the of do more to focus on just And there who could marked up their looks out a little -- (By Mr. 24 want I don't 25 who the original you are The question Duraiswamy) Yeah. I'm author had Just not was of this -within the a version, could could who an original have author -is -- Duraiswamy) -- said people have you a version own version, figure (By Mr. seen I believe again, to So my question, previously MR. FELDMAN: PVERSIGHT to asked. MR. FELDMAN: Q. you office trying 20 AMERICAN going question stated 23 going you to I want 11 21 I'm on time. Q. 5 of to A. 3 4 get 281 I don't asking or you anything. I don't to tell me about I want to Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000353 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 62 of 64 Page 1 try to ask about 2 A. Right. 3 Q. -- 4 Okay? 5 version with Do you of your versions recall this A. No. 7 Q. Presumably, 9 10 draft recall what I don't 12 Q. Do you 13 A. I was 15 needs. how does A. Process. 18 Q. But 19 A. If 20 Q. 23 talked 25 PVERSIGHT with a -- strike have you a that. commented may have you to about this Do on it. made were to on the it I'm want -- to So on data the ACS letter? person. understand to it? ACS letter. Census a process -- reviewing that with comparing I'm I'm version department AMERICAN well, why you you trying asked A. 24 might DOJ interact 17 draft -- comparing Why were 22 you recall Q. were you letter. recall. 16 21 draft letter? A. again, this this letter? comments 11 14 of you You said you with who provided draft 6 8 experience 282 why specifically or took the initiative of this letter to to make to the you compare ACS letter a that we before. Again, has I want an interest in sure evaluating that if the a change in Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000354 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 63 of 64 Page 1 the questionnaire, 2 This 3 actually 4 placeholder, clearly doesn't went 6 the 7 in out, but 8 Department has of A. Correct. 10 Q. -- 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. 14 thoughts looks -- like say you an interest in you're referring the letter almost that a want to make sure that evaluating if a change to the -- the correct? of And you Commerce on draft recall were A. I seem 16 Q. Who do you A. It to that others at and offering reviewing versions 15 17 the procedures. Commerce 9 Department like it questionnaire, 13 following a template. department the they're look When you Q. 5 that 283 of recall this that, recall the letter? yes. was involved in that effort? 18 might have 19 office, and 20 again, blurring 21 together, 22 coming 23 matters, people that 24 of in kitchen. 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT it Q. have a lot of new people on board, cooks might the Other Mr. general the those people, involved for counsel's policy on board, being work the been coming Earl than been Davidson Peter Davidson policy There and And interactions in Earl. office. Mr. are a lot Comstock, Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000355 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-8 Filed 06/03/19 Page 64 of 64 Page 1 who you 2 people just that A. 3 being MR. FELDMAN: A. 8 You know, 9 all sort people Maybe Izzy when I think of other involved specific in Objection, that process? mischaracterizes so 12 specific 13 draft version A. 15 comments. 16 Q. the of or edits this recall, You just don't 19 Q. Do you remember provided They 22 people, and 23 general counsel, I would Q. Okay. 25 A. And in PVERSIGHT the would 24 AMERICAN people, they're counsel's you recall any suggested to the I'm sure that I made specifically what were? right. A. that remember Right, 21 Park-Su. general Do you but A. who you Sahra letter? 18 or policy the Duraiswamy) I don't comments the maybe forth. comments 14 of together, (By Mr. Q. Go ahead. Hernandez, blended and 11 20 there testimony. 7 17 recall MR. ROSENBERG: 6 10 you are Maybe 4 5 mentioned, 284 who you comments have -- been I would I -- I include this -- made the comments to to? within that -- know, you James in group that when of I say too. Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 - 610-434-8588 - 302-571-0510 - 202-803-8830 DOJ-18-0618-D-000356 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-10 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 5 ExhibitJ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000357 P-~ C~~:ll..:8..~-\&'0-~-DM~F Dom.amnmatrtBoma.O FiJetle((])(R)'~9 ~fot.5 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 September 21, 2018 ByECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: State of New York, et al., v. US. Department of Commerce, et al., l 8-cv-2921 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2 and this Court's Rules of Individual Practice 2.C, Defendants write to oppose Plaintiffs' letter seeking leave to depose a third-party, Mark Neuman. Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to depose Mr. Neuman should be denied because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that it is "necessary or appropriate" to depose Mr. Neuman. At this Court's July 3, 2018 hearing in which the Court authorized discovery outside of the administrative record, the Court held that, while Plaintiffs are entitled to some extra-record discovery, the Court will limit the scope of discovery consistent with the AP A. Tr. 1 at 85. The Court explicitly stated that it is "mindful that discovery in an AP A action, when permitted, 'should not transform the litigation into one involving all the liberal discovery available under the federal rules. Rather, the Court must permit only that discovery necessary to effectuate the Court's judicial review; i.e., review the decision of the agency under Section 706."' Id. (quoting Ali v. Pompeo, 2018 WL 2058152 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2018)) (emphasis added). The Court went on to explicitly limit any extra-record discovery by Plaintiffs "absent agreement of the defendants or leave of Court" to the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce, noting that "I am not persuaded that discovery from other third parties would be necessary or appropriate; to the extent that third parties may have influenced Secretary Ross's decision, one would assume that the influence would be evidenced in Commerce Department materials and witnesses themselves." Id. at 86. Plaintiffs' basis for seeking leave to depose Mr. Neuman arises primarily from references to conversations between Commerce officials and Mr. Neuman in the record. The record, including the deposition testimony of Earl Comstock and Wendy Teramoto, indicates that Mr. Neuman, who was formerly chair of the Census Bureau's National Advisory Committee and later in late 2016 and early 2017 served as a member of the administration's transition team for the Department of Commerce, ECF No. 338-5 at 11329, had a handful of conversations with Secretary Wilbur Ross and other Commerce officials about Census matters. The record indicates that such conversations were about Census matters generally and not limited to the possibility of reinstating a citizenship question to the decennial census; indeed, budgetary, operational, and personnel issues 1 Excerpts from the July 3, 2018 hearing are attached to this response as Exhibit A. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000358 C~~:ll..:8..~-\&'0-~-DM~F Dom.amnmatrtBoma.O FiJetle((])(R)'~9 P-~ ~fot.5 predominated. See Earl Comstock depo., ECF No. 338-1, p. 124, 11.14-20 (describing the "primary discussion points" of meetings with Mr. Neuman as census-related matters other than citizenship question); id. at p. 125 11.17-21; p. 12611. 8-9 (noting that Mr. Neuman briefed Ross on a number of census matters but only once on the citizenship question); Teramoto depo., ECF No. 338-8, p. 31, 11.3-8 (noting that her suggestion that Secretary Ross meet with Mr. Neuman had "nothing to do with ... the citizenship question"); id. at p. 34, 11.3-6 ("[A] lot of the census focus was on the budget and how are you going to properly ramp up half a million employees in such a short amount of time."). This is entirely consistent with the reasons the Secretary consulted with Mr. Neuman during the first year of the Administration: Mr. Neuman's expertise on Census operations and administration. See Exhibit B (Secretary Ross, Post-Hearing Questions for the Record (Oct. 31, 2017)) at 7. Mr. Neuman has worked with multiple incoming administrations to assist leaders who are acclimating to Census Bureau management. His involvement here was no different. The record does not indicate that Mr. Neuman provided any particularly significant consultations on the citizenship question issue during his conversations with Commerce officials in 2017; indeed, the record indicates that Mr. Neuman was one of two dozen interested persons, and one of six former high-ranking Census Bureau officials, who offered to discuss census-related matters with Secretary Ross. Insofar as these 2017 conversations are the basis for Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mr. Neuman, Plaintiffs fail to meaningfully distinguish how Mr. Neuman is differently situated from Kris Kobach, who was also involved in the administration's transition and who also had a few conversations with Secretary Ross about the decennial census nearly a year before the Secretary made his decision. This Court recently denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mr. Kobach, on the basis that it was not "necessary or appropriate" to depose a third-party given the "timing and nature of the communications" and that Mr. Kobach was "one of many people" with whom Commerce had correspondence about the decennial census during the time period in question. ECF No. 303. These factors apply with equal force to Mr. Neuman's communications with Secretary Ross and other high-ranking Commerce officials in 2017. To the extent that Plaintiffs are seeking leave to depose Mr. Neuman based upon Mr. Neuman's conversations with Secretary Ross in March 2018 in the lead-up to Secretary Ross's final decision reinstating a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, that argument is also unavailing. As an initial matter, Defendants note that the exhibits Plaintiffs attach to their letter motion show that there were a large number of persons from outside Commerce with whom Secretary Ross held discussions about the census. For example, on March 15, 2018, Mr. Neuman was listed as the final of eight separate persons with whom Secretary Ross was scheduled to speak with by telephone - a list that also includes one of Plaintiffs' experts -with all calls being allocated for either five or ten minute blocks. ECF No. 338-7 at 3491. On March 22, 2018, Mr. Neuman was scheduled to be the final of three separate calls or meetings about the decennial census; his meeting was scheduled for forty-five minutes. ECF No. 338-7 at 1815. Mr. Neuman's inclusion as one of just several calls or meetings between elected officials, business leaders, and others with Secretary Ross to discuss the decennial census indicates that he was not acting as a high-level advisor to Secretary Ross, but rather was one of a large number of people who communicated information or opinions about the census to Secretary Ross before Secretary Ross' s decision to reinstate a citizenship question. 2 This was confirmed by the declaration of Michael A Cannon, who stated that the information and opinions provided by Mr. Neuman at the March 22, 2018 2 To the extent Mr. Neuman did participate in any high-level deliberations, the substance of such deliberations could be protected by the deliberative process privilege. 2 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000359 C~~:ll..:8..~-\&'0-~-DM~F Dom.amnmatrtBoma.O FiJetle((])(R)'~9 P-~ @fot.5 meeting were "not considered by the Secretary in his decision to reinstate the citizenship question." ECF No. 254 at 3 iJ16. Finally, this Court should deny Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mr. Neuman because, like Mr. Kobach, his views are adequately represented by materials provided to Plaintiffs. Although Mr. Neuman provided officials his views on a range of Census matters, his views on reinstating a citizenship question in particular are already memorialized in the record. Mr. Neuman met with Secretary Ross to discuss a citizenship question on March 22, 2018. ECF No. 338-7 at 1815. At the meeting, Mr. Neuman gave Secretary Ross a PowerPoint presentation explaining how he believed that using the decennial census to gather block-level citizen voting age population data would be helpful in ensuring that Latino voters were not underrepresented by their elected officials. This PowerPoint presentation has been provided to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs concede in their letter motion, ECF No. 338 at 3, and is attached to this response as Exhibit C. Plaintiffs also have a September 13, 2017 communication from Mr. Neuman to Commerce attorney James Uthmeier, in which Mr. Neuman broadly outlines his concerns with differential undercounts and the need to "count every person living in America." ECF No. 338-5 at 11329. These documents reflect the substance of Mr. Neuman's views and concerns about reinstating a citizenship question on the decennial census. Plaintiffs note that Mr. Neuman also spoke with officials by phone or in person but offer no explanation as to why the documentary evidence of Mr. Neuman's views in the record is inadequate to understand the views he presented. ECF No. 338 at 3. Furthermore, this Court has ruled that Plaintiffs may depose Secretary Ross as part of this litigation. ECF No. 345. While Defendants anticipate seeking mandamus review of this decision, if Secretary Ross were to be deposed, Plaintiffs would have the opportunity to ask him about conversations with Mr. Neuman, and if and to what extent those conversations impacted his decision to reinstate a citizenship question, rendering any deposition of Mr. Neuman unnecessary. Therefore, just as this Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mr. Kobach in part because of "the fact that the substance of Mr. Kobach's views is already reflected in the record," ECF No. 303, it should deny Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose Mr. Neuman because such a deposition is not "necessary or appropriate." Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that this Court deny Plaintiffs' letter motion requesting leave to depose Mark Neuman. 3 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000360 C~~:ll..:8..~-\&'0-~-DM~F Dom.amnmatrtBoma.O FiJetle((])(R)'~9 P-~ B>fot. 5 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General BRETT A SHUMATE Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. GRIFFITHS Director, Federal Programs Branch CARLOTTAP. WELLS Assistant Branch Director Isl Martin M Tomlinson KATE BAILEY GARRETT COYLE STEPHEN EHRLICH CAROL FEDERIGHI DANIEL HALAINEN MARTIN M. TOMLINSON Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel.: (202) 353-4556 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: martin.m.tomlinson@usdoj.gov Counsel/or Defendants CC: All Counsel of Record (by ECF) 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000361 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-6 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit F AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000362 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF ;DEC-14-2017 Document 601-6 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 4 17:51 P.02/04 U.S.DepartmentofJustice JusticeManagementDivision Officeo/General Counsel Wa1hlngton, D.C.20530 DEC12 2017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURNRECEIPT 70142120 0000 8064 4964 Dr. RonJmnin Performingthe Non-ExclusiveFunctions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Departmentof Commerce Washington,D.C. 20233-0001 Re: Request To ReinstateCitizenship Question On 2020 CensusQuestionnaire Dear Dr. Jarmin: The Departmentof Justiceis committed to robust and evenhandedenforcementof the Nation's civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtheranceof that commitment I writ.eon behalf of the Departmentto fonnallyrequest that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnairea question regarding citizenship,formerly included in the so-called "long form'' census. This data is critical to the Department's enforcementof Section2 of the VotingRights Act and its important protections againstracial discriminationin voting. To fully enforce those requirements,the Departmentneeds a reliablecalculationof the citizenvoting-agepopulation in localitieswherevotingrights violationsare alleged or suspected. As demonstratedbelow,the decennialcensusquestionnaireis the most appropriatevehiclefor collectingthat data, and reinstating a question on citizenshipwill best enable the Department to protect all American citizens' voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court bas held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits"vote dilution" by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-memberdistrict in which it could form a majority. See Thornburgv. Gingles,478 U.S. 30, SO(1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizen.shiprates are at issue in a vote-dilutioncase, citizen voting-age population is the propermetric for detenniningwhether a racial groupcould constitute a majority in a singlemember district. See, e.g., Reyes 'V. City of FarmersBranch.586 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cit. 2009); Barnettv. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998);Negrn v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997);Romerov. City of Pomona,883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruledinpart on othergroundsby Townsendv.HolmanConsulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 423-442 (2006) (analyzing vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-agepopulation). AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT 000663 DOJ-18-0618-D-000363 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF 'DEC-14-2017 17:52 Document 601-6 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 4 The purpose of Section 2's vote-dilutionprohibition "is to facilitate participation ... in our political process" by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Camposv. City of Houston, 113 F.3d S44, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly,"[t]he plain language of section 2 of the VotingRights Act makesclear that its protectionsapply to United States citizens." Id. Indeed, courts have reasoned that ''[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship" and that "[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote." Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-agepopulation in that districtbut "continued to be defeatedat the polls" because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at o 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2's protection against discrimination in voting, the Departmentneeds to be able to obtain citizen voting-agepopulationdata for census blocks,block groups,counties,towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called"long fonn" questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennialcensus. See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, SummaryFile 3: 2000 Censusof Population&:Housing-Appendix B at B-7 (July 2007},available at https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/s0.pdf (last visitedNov. 22, 2017}; U.S. Census Bureau, Indexof Questions, availableat https://www.census.gov/history/ www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/(last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance.with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2's protectionsagainst racial discrimination in voting. o In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaireincluded a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census,the Census Bureau discontinuedthe "long form" questionnaire and replaced it with the American CommunitySurvey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty..eighthouseholds each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographicinformation,including citizenship. See U.S. Census Bureau,American CommunitySurveyInformationGuideat 6, availableat https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/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. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the first cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau's only citizen voting-age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimatesfor this redistricting cycle. The ACS, howevert does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: o Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution's one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott) 1.36S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result, using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite significantly. 2 AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT 000664 DOJ-18-0618-D-000364 o Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF , t '1< , : DEC-14-2017 Document 601-6 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 4 17:52 P.04/04 ~~ o Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregatedinto one--year, three-year)andfiveyear estimates,they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data ftom the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time withthe total and voting-agepopulation data ftom the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. o The ACS estimates are reported at a ninetypercentconfidencelevel, and the margin of errorincreasesas the sample size-and, thus, the geographicarea-decreases. SeeU.S. Census Bureau, Glossary:Confidenceinterval(AmericanCommunitySurvey),availableat https://www.census.gov/glossmy/#term_ Confidenceinterva1AmericanCommwiity Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast;decennial census data is a full count of the population. o Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallestunit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See AmericanCommunitySuney Data 3, 5, IO. Accordingly,redistrictingjurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximatecitiz.envoting-age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamentalbuildingblock of a redistrictingplan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenshipdata available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistrictingprocess. For all of these reasons, the Departmentbelieves that decennialcensus questionnairedata regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriatefor use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. ( Accordingly,the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Censusa question regarding citizenship. We also requestthat the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citizenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Departmentrequests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia,to yield information for the periodic dctenninations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. ? 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at ArthUl'.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours, ~f-~ 0 Arthur E. Gary . ...._. General Counsel Justice Management Division 3 AMf-f~ICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000365 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit L AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000366 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 7 Deceased G.O.P. Strategist's Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census CitizenshipQuestion By Michael Wines May 30, 2019 WASHINGTON - Thomas B. Hofeller achieved near-mythic status in the Republican Party as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering, the architect of partisan political maps that cemented the party's dominance across the country. But after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father's home that revealed something else: Mr. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump's transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965Voting Rights Act - the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision. Those documents, cited in a federal court filing Thursday by opponents seeking to block the citizenship question, have emerged only weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of the citizenship question. Critics say adding the question would deter many immigrants from being counted and shift political power to Republican areas. The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests. [Inside the Trump administration's fight to add a citizenship question to the census] In Supreme Court arguments in April over the legality of the decision, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of obtaining more accurate citizenship data offset any damage stemming from the likely depressed response to the census by AMt=Hll.iAI PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000367 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 7 minority groups and noncitizens. And it dismissed charges that the Commerce Department had simply invented a justification for adding the question to the census as unsupported by the evidence. Opponents said that the Justice Department's rationale for seeking to add a citizenship question to the census was baldly contrived, a conclusion shared by federal judges in all three lawsuits opposing the administration's action. But a majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to accept the department's explanation the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and appeared ready to uphold the administration's authority to alter census questions as it sees fit. The justices are expected to issue a final ruling before the court's term ends in late June. In nearly 230 years, the census has never asked all respondents whether they are American citizens. But while adding such a question might appear uncontroversial on its face, opponents have argued that it is actually central to a Republican strategy to skew political boundaries to their advantage when redistricting begins in 2021. [How the Supreme Court's decision on the census could alter American politics.] Until now, Mr. Hofeller seemed a bystander in the citizenship-question debate, mentioned but once in thousands of pages of lawsuit depositions and evidence. Proof of his deeper involvement surfaced only recently, and only after a remarkable string of events beginning after his death in August at age 75. Mr. Hofeller was survived by a daughter, Stephanie Hofeller, from whom he had been estranged since 2014. In an interview, Ms. Hofeller said she learned of her father's death by accident after searching for his name on the internet, and returned to her parents' retirement home in Raleigh, N.C., to see her mother, Kathleen Hofeller. Sorting through Mr. Hofeller's personal effects, looking for items she had asked her father to save for her, Stephanie Hofeller came across a clear plastic bag holding four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives, backups of data on Mr. Hofeller's Toshiba laptop. Her mother gave Ms. Hofeller the backups, which turned out to hold some 75,000 files - family photographs and other personal data, but also a huge trove of documents related to Mr. Hofeller's work as a Republican consultant. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000368 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 7 Late last year, Ms. Hofeller said, she contacted the Raleigh office of the advocacy group Common Cause, seeking its help in finding a lawyer unconnected to her father to help settle his estate. Only after several conversations with a staff member there did she mention the hard drives in passing, she said, remarking almost jokingly that an expert on gerrymanders might find a lot in them that was of interest. "My understanding was that anything that would be on these hard drives was duplicative of things that had already been hashed out" in court challenges to Mr. Hofeller's maps, she said. In fact, Common Cause had recently filed a new lawsuit in state court, challenging gerrymandered maps of North Carolina's legislative districts drawn by Mr. Hofeller himself. When the staff member told her of the lawsuit, Ms. Hofeller said, she thought, "Wow - this might be of use." Lawyers for Arnold & Porter, the law firm representing Common Cause in the North Carolina suit, subpoenaed the drives in February. By happenstance, the same firm was representing private plaintiffs pro bono in the principal lawsuit opposing the citizenship question, in Federal District Court in Manhattan. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000369 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 7 Activists rallied outside the Supreme Court in April. The justices are expected to issue a final ruling on the census citizenship question before the court's term ends in late June. J. Scott Applewhite/ Associated Press The documents cited in the Thursday court filing include an unpublished August 2015 analysis by Mr. Hofeller, who was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet financially backed by Paul Singer, a billionaire New York hedge fund manager and major Republican donor. Mr. Hofeller's charge was to assess the impact of drawing political maps that were not based on a state's total population - the current practice virtually everywhere in the nation - but on a slice of that population: American citizens of voting age. At the time, the study's sponsor was considering whether to finance a lawsuit by conservative legal advocates that argued that counting voting-age citizens was not merely acceptable, but required by the Constitution. Mr. Hofeller's exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps "would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites," and would dilute the political power of the state's Hispanics. The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution's one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders. The strategy carried a fatal flaw, however: The detailed citizenship data that was needed to draw the maps did not exist. The only existing tally of voting-age citizens, Mr. Hofeller' s study stated, came from a statistical sample of the population largely used by the Justice Department to verify that the 1965Voting Rights Act was ensuring the voting rights of minority groups. "Without a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire," Mr. Hofeller wrote, "the use of citizen voting age population is functionally unworkable." Roughly 16 months later, as President-elect Trump prepared to take office, Mr. Hofeller urged Mr. Trump's transition team to consider adding a citizenship question to the census, the transition official responsible for census issues, Mark Neuman, said last year in a deposition in the Manhattan census lawsuit. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000370 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Neuman testified that Mr. Hofeller told him that using citizenship data from the census to enforce the Voting Rights Act would increase Latino political representation the opposite of what Mr. Hofeller's study had concluded months earlier. Court records show that Mr. Neuman, a decades-long friend of Mr. Hofeller's, later became an informal adviser on census issues to Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. By that summer, a top aide to Mr. Ross was pressing the Justice Department to say that it required detailed data from a census citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. The court filing on Thursday describes two instances in which Mr. Hofeller's digital fingerprints are clearly visible on Justice Department actions. The first involves a document from the Hofeller hard drives created on Aug. 30, 2017,as Mr. Ross's wooing of the Justice Department was nearing a crescendo. The document's single paragraph cited two court decisions supporting the premise that more detailed citizenship data would assist enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. That paragraph later appeared word for word in a draft letter from the Justice Department to the Census Bureau that sought a citizenship question on the 2020 census. In closed congressional testimony in March, John M. Gore, the assistant attorney general for civil rights and the Justice Department's chief overseer of voting rights issues, said Mr. Neuman gave him the draft in an October 2017meeting. The second instance involves the official version of the Justice Department's request for a citizenship question, a longer and more detailed letter sent to the Census Bureau in December 2017.That letter presents nuanced and technical arguments that current citizenship data falls short of Voting Rights Act requirements - arguments that the plaintiffs say are presented in exactly the same order, and sometimes with identical descriptions like "building blocks" - as in Mr. Hofeller's 2015 study. In their court filing on Thursday, lawyers for the plaintiffs said that "many striking similarities" between Mr. Hofeller's study and the department's request for a citizenship question indicated that the study was an important source document for the Justice Department's request. The filing also says flatly that Mr. Gore and Mr. Neuman "falsely testified" under oath about the Justice Department's actions on the citizenship question. AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000371 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-12 Filed 06/03/19 Page 7 of 7 Ms. Hofeller said her decision to open her father's files to his opponents was a bid for transparency, devoid of personal or political animus. Although she believed he was undermining American democracy, she said, their estrangement stemmed not from partisan differences, but a family dispute that ended up in court. Ms. Hofeller described herself as a political progressive who despises Republican partisanship, but also has scant respect for Democrats. Her father, she said, was a brilliant cartographer who was deeply committed to traditional conservative principles like free will and limited government. As a child, she said, she was schooled in those same principles, but every successive gerrymandered map he created only solidified her conviction that he had abandoned them in a quest to entrench his party in permanent control. "He had me with the idea that we are made to be free," she said. "And then he lost me." Alain Delaqueriere contributed research in New York. READ 23 COMMENTS AMEHICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000372 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit K AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000373 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 6 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 MAR 2 5 2019 The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Chairman Committee on Oversight and Reform U. S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice (Department) writes to correct the record regarding the transcribed interview of Department official John Gore and to provide context for the circumstances that gave rise to the interview. As set forth below, the March 14, 2019 Memorandum from the Committee's Majority Staff, entitled "Supplemental Memo on Transcribed Interview with John Gore Regarding Addition of Citizenship Question to Census" (Supplemental Memorandum), mischaracterizes Mr. Gore's testimony and the record in this matter. The Constitution establishes the executive and legislative branches as co-equal. "The constitutional role of Congress is to adopt general legislation that will be implemented' executed'-by the executive branch." 1 As part of its legislative function, Congress has "[b]road ... power" to conduct oversight, but that power is not "without limitations" and does not extend to inquiring "into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of Government." 2 Moreover, in the course of carrying out its duty to faithfully execute the law, including its duty to represent the United States in court, the executive branch may have "a legitimate, constitutionally recognized need to keep certain information confidential." 3 As co-equal branches of government, Congress and the executive branch have "the obligation ... to accommodate the legitimate needs of the other," where "Congress has a legitimate need for information that will help it legislate, and the executive branch has a legitimate, constitutionally recognized need to keep certain information confidential." 4 The executive branch 1 Congressional Requests for Confidential Executive Branch Information, 13 Op. O.L.C. 153, 153 (1989) (Congressional Requests). 2 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111-12 (1959). 3 Congressional Requests, 13 Op. O.L.C. at 157. 4 Id. at 157-58. AMERICA'\J PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000374 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 6 The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Page Two and the Department have long maintained a "general practice [of] attempt[ing] to accommodate whatever legitimate interests Congress may have in obtaining information, while, at the same time, preserving executive branch interests in maintaining essential confidentiality." 5 The executive branch and Congress have facilitated this interbranch cooperation through an "accommodation process" that calls upon each branch to "explain to the other why it believes its needs to be legitimate" and "to assess the needs of one branch and relate them to those of the other. "6 Consistent with this accommodation responsibility, the Department agreed to make Mr. Gore voluntarily available to the Committee for a transcribed interview. The Department conditioned this agreement on several mutual understandings. Chief among those was the Committee's agreement that the Department would have a full and fair opportunity to review the transcript of Mr. Gore's testimony before it was made part of the Committee record, and that the transcript would not be made public or become part of the record prior to that review. In addition, and importantly , the Department maintained throughout this phase of the accommodation process that Mr. Gore would not be able to answer questions bearing on the Department's internal deliberations. The Committee was well aware of the Department's position on the scope of the transcribed interview and elected to move forward with the interview under those limitations. This mutual understanding was vital to the Department's willingness to make Mr. Gore available for a voluntary interview. As the Department repeatedly explained to the Committee, the Department has an essential need to maintain the confidentiality of its internal deliberations. Maintaining confidentiality in executive branch deliberations facilitates robust and open discussion. Fully-informed decision-making would be chilled if executive branch officials and staff believed that those discussions could become public. Moreover, the Department continues to represent the United States in ongoing litigation, including in the United States Supreme Court, regarding the Commerce Department's decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Census. The United States' litigation position regarding privileges, which was not challenged in litigation, could be compromised if those very same confidential deliberations were made public through a concurrent oversight process. Premised upon our mutual understanding , Mr. Gore appeared voluntarily and was questioned by majority and minority Committee staff for several hours on March 7, 2019. Mr. Gore answered hundreds of questions from Committee staff. When Mr. Gore did not answer a question during the interview, he did so only on the instruction of the Department's counsel and based on the Department's legitimate confidentiality and litigation interests. Both majority and minority staff stated on the record that they had asked all of their questions of Mr. Gore and had no further questions at that time. 7 This process represents a good faith effort by the Department 5 Id. at 153. 6 Id. at 159. 7 Transcribed Interview of John Gore (March 7, 2019) at 99 (minority), 179 (majority) (Gore Transcript). AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000375 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 6 The Honorable Eliji:J,hE. Cummings Page Three to accommodate the Committee and to establish a record of which questions implicate vital executive branch confidentiality interests and remain open for further discussion in the accommodation process. The Committee also had access to a transcript of Mr . Gore' s seven-hour deposition in the civil litigation before interviewing Mr. Gore. The Department offered that transcript to the Committee, and it is our understanding that the Committee obtained that transcript from another source. In light of these good faith efforts by the Executive Branch, the Department is disappointed that the Committee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of mutual accotmnodation. On March 14, just one week after Mr . Gore's interview, the Committee publicly released the Supplemental Memorandum , which includes and mischaracterizes Mr. Gore ' s testimony and provides selective, misleading excerpts from the transcript. On the same day, the Committee issued a press release that linked to the Supplemental Memorandum on both its website and its Twitter feed. 8 The Committee provided the Supplemental Memorandum to its members and referenced the Supplemental Memorandum repeatedly in its questioning of Secretary Ross at a public hearing that same day. The Department did not have a full and fair opportunity to review the transcript prior to the Committee's public disclosure of portions of it, nor did the Department receive an advance copy of the Supplemental Memorandum for review. 9 This has limited the Department's ability to timely respond to mischaracterizations in the record . The Supplemental Memorandum mischaracterizes Mr. Gore's testimony to the Committee in at least four ways. First, the Supplemental Memorandum alleges that Mr. Gore exhibited a "refusal to answer" the Committee's requests. 10 This is an unfair characteri zation. Mr. Gore answered over five hundred questions posed by Committee staff, and when he did not answer, he did so only on the instruction of Department counsel. As the Committee knew, the Depruiment' s accommodation was to mal(e Mr. Gore available for a voluntary interview to answer only those 8 Oversight Committee (OversightDems). "News Ale1i: Chairman @RepCummings releases memo on interview with #DOJ Official on citizenship question for #2020Census https://oversight.house .gov/news/press-releases /cummings-releases-memo-on-interview-withdoj-official-on-citi zenship-question-0." Mar. 14, 2019, 10:30 a.m. Tweet. https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1 l 0621603Lr812547073. 9 Majority staff emailed the Depaiiment after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Mm.ch 12, inviting the Department to review the transcript the next day in Committee offices. The Depmiment was unable to review the transcript in Committee offices on Wednesday, March 13. The Department was offered a subsequent oppotiunity to review the transcript of Mr. Gore's interview in Committee offices on March 15, after issuance of the Supplemental Memorandum, and the appropriate attorneys did so on March 19. 10 Supplemental Memorandum at 1. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000376 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 6 The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Page Four questions that could be answered without compromising the ongoing litigation or other executive branch confidentiality interests. This was an appropriate effort to satisfy the Committee's request at this phase in the accommodation process. 11 The Supplemental Memorandum's suggestion that the Department's instructions were somehow improper or unexpected contravenes both our shared understanding that the Depaiiment would make those instructions and the Committee's :fundamental accommodation obligation. 12 Second, the Supplemental Memorandum misleadingly describes as "new information" received from Mr. Gore's interview the existence of a "secret" memorandum ai1d note authored by a Department of Commerce official. 13 But Mr. Gore previously testified regarding the memorandum and the note during his deposition in the civil litigation and the Committee had access to a transcript of that deposition prior to interviewing Mr. Gore. 14 The Department also provided a description of the memorandum and note on a privilege log produced in the New York v. Department of Commerce litigation. The parties in that case extensively litigated the government's assertion of privilege over those documents. After an in camera review, the district court upheld the government's asse1iion of privilege and held that the government could not be compelled to produce those documents to the plaintiffs. 15 Producing those documents to the Committee could be viewed in these circumstances as a waiver of the privilege that the federal court already has upheld. Third, the Supplemental Memorandum incorrectly implies that Mr. Gore identified Mark Neuman as "a former member of the Trump Transition Team." 16 Mr. Gore, however, offered no such testimony. The transcript excerpts in the Supplemental Memorandum omit the portion of Mr. Gore's testimony where he stated that he believes Mr. Neuman to be a former employee of the Department of Commerce or the Census Bureau who in the fall of 2017 was serving as an "advisor" to the Commerce Depaiiment on Census-related issues. 17 Mr. Gore had no knowledge of, and has never testified about, whether J\1r. Neuman was affiliated with the Trump Transition Team. ll See Congressional Requests, 13 Op. O.L.C. at 157-62. 12 See id. 13 Supplemental Memorandum at 1-2. 14 Gore Deposition, 118: 18-125:22 (Oct. 16, 2018) (discussing the note and the memorandum). 15 See New Yorkv. Department of Commerce, No. 18-CIV-2921, Minute Order, ECFNo. 361 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018). 16 Supplemental Memorandum at 2. 17 See Gore Transcript at 22. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000377 Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 601-11 Filed 06/03/19 Page 6 of 6 The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Page Five Finally, the Department is concerned with the Committee's mischaracterization of the draft letter that Mr. Neuman provided to Mr. Gore. The Department produced that draft letter in litigation and has since produced it to the Committee. The Chairman's opening statement described that draft as an "an initial draft of a letter from the Department of Justice asking for the citizenship question to be added." 18 To the extent that the Chairman suggested that the draft Mr. Neuman provided served as an "initial draft" of the Department's December 12, 2017 letter, that suggestion is incorrect. Any such suggestion also is unsupported by the draft itself and the transcript of Mr. Gore's testimony. The transcript confirms that at no time did Mr. Gore agree that the draft he received from Mr. Neuman served as a basis for, let alone "an initial draft of," the Department's December 12, 2017 letter. Unfortunately, this mischaracteri zation has implied, perhaps unintentionally, that Mr. Gore's statements during his deposition and his transcribed interview , in which he stated that he wrote the first draft of the December, 12, 2017 letter, were untrue. Mr. Gore ' s testimony in his deposition and his testimony to the Committee were truthful. The Department rejects any implication to the contrary as it is inconsistent with the evidence. The Department respectfully requests that, in the interests of accuracy and transparency, the Committee malce this letter part of the legislative record and disseminate it to all Committee members and staff. The Department also requests that the Committee withdraw or correct the Supplemental Memorandum based upon the information provided in this letter . ....._iMiiillOhen E. Boyd Assistant Attorney General cc: The Honorable Jim Jordan Ranking Member 18 Opening Statement Chairman Elijah E. Cummings Hearing with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross March 14, 2019, at 2. https ://oversight.h ousc.gov/legislation/hearing s/commerce- secrelar vwi lbur-l-ross-jr. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000378 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: John Gore l(bl(6l ~gmail.com] 6/24/2019 6:58:28 PM Michael A Carvin [macarvin@jonesday.com] Census Response 18-966 Govt opp to Mot for Limited Remand.pdf The latest response OSG filed last week is attached. Thanks. AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000379 No. 18-966 3Jntbt~upremeC!Court of tbtWntteb ~tates DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO NYIC RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR LIMITED REMAND J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217 NOEL AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000380 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement ......................................................................................2 Argument .......................................................................................7 Conclusion ...................................................................................20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) ............................ 15 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) ................. 9, 12, 15 Statutes and rules: Census Act, 13 U.S.C. 1 et seq.: 13 U.S.C. 141(a) .................................................................2 Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C.10301 et seq. (Supp. V 2017): 52 U.S.C. 10301 (? 2) .........................................................2 Fed. R. Civ. P: Rule 60(b)(2) .................................................................... 16 Rule 62.l(a) ...................................................................... 16 Rule 62.l(a)(3) .................................................................. 16 Fed. R. Evid.: Rule 802 ..............................................................................9 Rule 901(a) .........................................................................9 (I) AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000381 3Jntbt~upremeC!Court of tbtWntteb ~tates No. 18-966 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO NYIC RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR LIMITED REMAND Trial is long since over; briefing in this Court has concluded; oral argument has been heard; and the Court is poised to issue its decision soon. Yet now at the eleventh hour, private respondents-but not New York or the other governmental respondents-seek to reopen discovery on the basis of "[n]ew evidence, discovered after oral argument." Mot. 1. The Court should deny that request. According to private respondents, a years-old document allegedly discovered among the personal effects of a deceased private citizen, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, somehow proves that he was the true mastermind behind the Secretary of Commerce's decision to reinstate a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census-and all because Hofeller allegedly wrote an unrelated and cryptic paragraph in a separate letter that someone else gave to the Department of Justice (DOJ) official who later (1) AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000382 2 drafted the formal request to the Census Bureau requesting a citizenship question. Private respondents' conspiracy theory is implausible on its face. Moreover, the allegedly "new evidence" is not even new; respondents either already knew or, with minimal diligence, easily could have discovered its substance months ago. And in any event it is irrelevant to respondents' claims here. If anything, private respondents' motion only underscores the district court's fundamental error in allowing respondents to stray beyond the administrative record in the first place. The motion should be denied. STATEMENT 1. a. Exercising the authority delegated to him by the Census Act to conduct the decennial census "in such form and content as he may determine," 13 U.S.C. 141(a), the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., determined in a March 26, 2018 memorandum that the 2020 decennial census questionnaire should include a question requesting citizenship information. Pet. App. 548a-563a. The Secretary's memorandum responded to a December 12, 2017 letter (Gary Letter) from DOJ, which was drafted by then-Acting Assistant Attorney General John M. Gore. Id. at 564a-569a. The Gary Letter stated that citizenship data is "critical" to DOJ's enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U.S.C. 10301 (Supp. V 2017), and that "the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data." Pet. App. 565a; see id. at 567a-568a. It further explained how citizenship data from the American Community Survey (ACS) suffered from at least four flaws that census citizenship data would avoid. See id. at 567a-568a. DOJ AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000383 3 thus "formally request[ed] that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship." Id. at 569a. b. Respondents successfully sought extra-record discovery, including to compel Gore's deposition. Pet. App. 452-455a. In his October 26, 2018 deposition, Gore was asked whether, when he was drafting the Gary Letter, he had had "any communication with anybody who was not a federal employee at the time about having a citizenship question on the census." D. Ct. Doc. 601-7, at 37-38. 1 Gore answered that he had "had a conversation with a gentleman named Mark Neuman," who Gore understood had been "advising the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau with respect to this issue." Id. at 38. When asked for "the substance of [his] conversation with Mr. Neuman," Gore declined to answer on the basis of deliberative-process privilege. Ibid. Respondents did not challenge the privilege assertion, either then or later in the district court. Nor was Gore asked any follow-up questions about his meeting with Neuman. Neuman was deposed two days later. See D. Ct. Doc. 601-8. He, too, identified Gore as someone "with whom [he had] communicated about the possible addition of a citizenship or immigration question to the 2020 census." Id. at 33. When asked whether he had "provided some information to Mr. Gore for purposes of the letter that DOJ subsequently drafted regarding the citizenship question," Neuman answered: "Mainly the-mainly a copy of the-of the letter from the Obama Administration, Justice Department, to the Census Bureau on the 1 Unless otherwise specified, all references are to the docket in No. 18-cv-2921 (S.D.N.Y.). The government sent a copy of D. Ct. Docs. 601 and 601-1 through 601-12 to this Court on June 3, 2019. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000384 4 issue of adding a question on the ACS." Id. at 39-40. Neuman was not asked whether he provided anything else to Gore during their meeting. During his deposition, Neuman was presented with a draft letter that he had produced in discovery (Neuman Letter), which purported to be a letter from DOJ to the Census Bureau requesting reinstatement of a citizenship question. D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 58-60; see D. Ct. Doc. 601-5, at 5-6 (copy of Neuman Letter). Neuman observed that the Neuman Letter "is very different than the letter that ultimately went from DOJ," D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 60, and he denied having been any "part of the drafting process of the letter" that was "sent by [DOJ] to the Commerce Department in December 2017," id. at 38. Neuman was not asked whether he shared the Neuman Letter with anyone. But the government also had produced a copy of the Neuman Letter to respondents in discovery before Gore's deposition, noting that it had been "collected from John Gore" "in hard copy." D. Ct. Doc. 601-5, at 4. Respondents did not ask Gore any questions about the Neuman Letter. c. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for respondents on their statutory claims, but ruled against them on their equal-protection claim. Pet. App. la-353a. This Court granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment on February 15, 2019. Following expedited briefing, oral argument was heard on April 23. 2. a. On May 30, 2019, the private respondents-the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC), CASA de Maryland, Inc., the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, ADC Research Institute, and Make the Road New York (collectively, NYIC)-moved the dis- AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000385 5 trict court for an order to show cause why the government should not be sanctioned. D. Ct. Doc. 595. The State of New York and the other governmental respondents did not join the motion. NYIC claimed to have discovered "new evidence that contradicts sworn testimony of Secretary Ross's expert advisor A. Mark Neuman and senior DOJ official John Gore." Id. at 1. According to NYIC, that new evidence comprises (a) Gore's statement to staffers of a congressional subcommittee that Neuman gave him a copy of the Neuman Letter and (b) two files found in the personal effects of Dr. Thomas Hofeller, a private citizen and Republican redistricting expert who passed away last year. Ibid. One of those files is an unpublished 2015 study discussing "the practicality of the use of citizen voting age population (CVAP) as a basis for achieving population equality for legislative redistricting." D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 55. The other, created two years later in August 2017, comprises a single paragraph discussing two cases about the VRA from 2006 and 2009. See id. at 123. That paragraph appears verbatim in the Neuman Letterbut not the Gary Letter. Compare ibid. with id. at 120. According to NYIC, the "new evidence reveals that" Hofeller "played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census." D. Ct. Doc. 595, at 1. NYIC complained that "[b]oth Neuman and Gore concealed Dr. Hofeller's role in crafting the October 2017 draft letter [i.e., the Neuman Letter] and the VRA enforcement rationale it advanced." Ibid. NYIC also alleged that "neither Neuman nor Gore disclosed that Neuman gave [the Neuman Letter] to Gore," and that "Gore's testimony that he initially drafted the DOJ letter to Commerce requesting the citizenship question was materially misleading AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000386 6 given that the December 2017 DOJ letter was adapted from the Neuman DOJ Letter, including, in particular, Dr. Hofeller's VRA rationale." Id. at 3. b. During his deposition, Neuman discussed Hofell er at length. Neuman said "Tom Hoffler" was someone he spoke to "about a potential citizenship or immigration question on the 2020 census." D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 3. Neuman explained that Hofeller (whose name is misspelled in the deposition transcript) "was known in the redistricting community" and was "a point person for redistricting" in Republican circles. Id. at 6, 16. According to Neuman, Hof ell er was "pretty important, because in the past Tom Hof[el]ler was able to get members of Congress to support funding for the [Census] Bureau." Id. at 10. Neuman said that he probably spoke to Hof ell er about a census citizenship question around five times during the presidential transition and up to a dozen times afterward. D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 7, 44. Neuman explained that those conversations primarily concerned block-level data, which Hofeller was "obsess[ed]" with "because block level data means that you can draw the most accurate districts." Id. at 45. Hofeller told Neuman that a census citizenship question would generate "block level citizen voting age population data," which would be useful "to ensure one person, one vote." Id. at 19-20. Neuman denied, however, discussing with Hofeller the use of census citizenship data "for reapportionment purposes," including "whether undocumented immigrants or non-citizens should be included in the state population counts for reapportionment purposes." Id. at 23. All told, N euman's discussion of his conversations with Hofeller occupy more than 30 transcript pages. See id. at 3, 6-28, 30-32, 43-46, 49-51. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000387 7 c. The district court declined to grant NYIC's request for an order to show cause, and instead advised the private respondents that if they wished to move for sanctions, they should file a motion and supporting brief no later than July 12, 2019. D. Ct. Doc. 605, at 1. ARGUMENT Private respondents-but not New York or the other governmental respondents-contend (Mot. 1) that Hofeller "concocted" the VRA rationale in the Gary Letter and "wrote a portion of an early Justice Department draft letter articulating the VRA rationale for adding the [citizenship] question." On that basis, they seek (Mot. 7) a "limited time-bound remand to the district court to engage in expedited factfinding." Private respondents' contention is meritless, and their request for a remand should be denied. 1. a. NYIC's conspiracy theory is implausible on its face. Although its theory has shifted somewhat since the filing in the district court-it no longer claims that the Gary Letter "bears striking similarities to Dr. Hofeller's 2015 study," D. Ct. Doc. 595, at 3; cf. D. Ct. Doc. 601, at 1-2-NYIC identifies the following chain supposedly linking Hofeller to Secretary Ross's decision: 1. Hofeller authored a 2015 study, never published, in which he observed that "[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," D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 63, and that "[u]se of CVAP would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats," id. at 61. 2. Two years later, Hofeller created a file on his hard drive comprising a single paragraph: AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000388 8 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. D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 123. 3. The Neuman Letter, which Neuman gave to Gore, contains that same paragraph. See D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 120; D. Ct. Doc. 601-5, at 5-6. 4. Gore later drafted the Gary Letter, which formally requested reinstatement of a citizenship question because census citizenship data would be useful for VRA enforcement in light of ACS citizenship data's well-known flaws. Pet. App. 567a-568a. The Gary Letter includes neither the paragraph in the Hofeller file nor any other text from the Neuman Letter. 5. The Secretary issued his March 2018 decisional memorandum, relying in part on the Gary Letter's description of the problems with ACS citizenship data for VRA enforcement. From those alleged facts, NYIC asserts that Secretary Ross must have added the citizenship question not (as he said) because the resulting data would be responsive AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000389 9 to DOJ's formal request, but because he secretly was doing Hofeller's bidding to help "Republicans and NonHispanic Whites" and harm "Democrats" by enabling States to redistrict based on CVAP instead of total population. D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 61, 63. Even assuming the Hofeller files are admissible, but see Fed. R. Evid. 802, 901(a), NYIC's chain of logic fails at every step. First, NYIC errs in attributing a discriminatory motive to Hofeller's 2015 study. Nowhere in that study did Hofeller suggest that he intended to harm any racial minority. Instead, the study was his attempt to predict, as an objective matter, the consequences of a potential ruling in favor of the appellants in Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016), which this Court had not yet decided. Such a ruling would have required Texas to draw districts based on CVAP instead of total population. See id. at 1123. After exhaustively analyzing the demographic makeup of the existing districts and counties in Texas, the 2015 study observed: 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. D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 61. That is an empirical observation about the impact of switching from total-population to CVAP-based districts, not an expression of intent to harm Democrats, much less Hispanics. Similarly, the study observed: There are presently 35 districts with [Hispanic CVAP] percentages over 40. As a whole, those 35 districts only contain sufficient [Hispanic CVAP] populations to comprise 30.1 districts. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000390 10 D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 60-61. That, too, is an empirical observation, not an expression of intent to harm Hispanics. NYIC's claims (Mot. 2) of "an unconstitutional, racially discriminatory motive" in the 2015 study are thus baseless. Second, the 2017 paragraph that appears in the Neuman Letter, which not even NYIC claims expresses a discriminatory motive, has no relation to the 2015 study (other than their alleged author). They were written years apart and deal with different issues: one is about the population base for redistricting, the other is about block-level data for VRA compliance. The two documents are thus unrelated in time and scope, and no reasonable reader could conclude that the latter was written in stealth service of the former. That breaks the chain between any purported improper motive expressed in the 2015 study and the paragraph that appears in the Neuman Letter. Third, there is no connection between the Neuman Letter and the Gary Letter drafted by Gore. Even a cursory comparison reveals that the Gary Letter bears no resemblance to any part of the Neuman Letter, including the paragraph found in the Hofeller files. Compare Pet. App. 564a-569a with D. Ct. Doc. 601-5, at 5-6. Nor could any reasonable reader conclude that the Hofeller paragraph "sets forth the Government's publiclystated VRA enforcement rationale." Mot. 5. The government's VRA rationale in the Gary Letter centers on four flaws in ACS citizenship data that would be cured by census citizenship data. Pet. App. 567a-568a. The paragraph in the Neuman Letter says nothing of the sort. The only thing the two documents have in common is that both purport to be letters addressed from DOJ to the Census Bureau-and even on that triviality, the AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000391 11 Neuman Letter is addressed to a different person and contains no signature. Tellingly, despite having had the Neuman Letter for months-and quizzing Neuman about it in his deposition, see D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 58-64 -NYIC has until now never suggested that it bore any resemblance to the Gary Letter. Fourth, there is no basis to conclude that anything Hofeller wrote influenced Secretary Ross's decisional memorandum. The most NYIC can muster is that the Secretary "was aware" that Neuman met with Gore. Mot. 5, 9. But that fact was hardly a secret; Gore and Neuman freely testified that they had met. D. Ct. Doc. 601-7, at 38-39; D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 33-41, 53, 56. The Secretary's awareness of a meeting between Neuman and Gore does not even arguably show that he was stealthily acting to further the secret goals of Hofeller, a private citizen. Moreover, had the Secretary wanted to reinstate a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census for the sole purpose of enabling districts to be drawn on the basis of CVAP rather than total population, he did not need to rely on a secret unpublished study from Hofeller. The administrative record itself contains a request to add the question in part for that purpose. The Attorney General of Louisiana requested reinstatement of a citizenship question because, in his view, drawing districts without considering CVAP "dilutes the votes of all legally-eligible voters by improperly counting those ineligible to vote when determining the population for representative districts." Administrative Record 1079. When the Secretary and his staff later met with him in March 2018, "AG Landry noted that states have a lot of flexibility when it comes to redistricting, and having accurate data about citizen voting age population would AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000392 12 better inform the state legislatures charged with carrying out the task of redistricting." Administrative Record 1203. The State of Texas advanced a similar argument before this Court in Evenwel. See 136 S. Ct. at 1126 (noting "Texas'[s] separate assertion that the Constitution allows States to use alternative population baselines, including voter-eligible population"). Yet the Secretary did not rely on that rationale in his decisional memorandum. Instead, he relied on DOJ's explanation-which respondents, despite hundreds of pages of briefing, have never challenged-that citizenship data from the ACS has substantial limitations. It is implausible that the Secretary would affirmatively choose not to adopt the reasons provided by the Attorney General of Louisiana in a public letter and discussions memorialized in the administrative record, or the reasons urged by the State of Texas in a publicly filed brief in this Court-yet secretly adopt essentially the same reasons expressed in a years-old unpublished document found among the personal effects of a deceased private citizen. NYIC's conspiracy theory is thus nonsensical even on its own terms. b. Remand also is improper because NYIC's request comes too late. NYIC had every opportunity to learn all of the information it now claims is "new," yet failed to do so. It is not entitled to a do-over. NYIC either knew or easily could have learned that Neuman gave Gore a copy of the Neuman Letter. The government produced a copy of that letter in discovery before both Gore and Neuman's depositions, and expressly told respondents that it had been "collected from John Gore" "in hard copy." D. Ct. Doc. 601-5, at 4. So NYIC knew (1) Neuman had the letter; (2) Neuman met Gore and gave him documents; and (3) Gore AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000393 13 had the letter. If NYIC had not already deduced that Neuman gave the letter to Gore, it easily could have learned that fact with simple, obvious questions. To Gore: "Who gave you this letter?" To Neuman: "Did you give this letter to anyone?" NYIC asked neither. Neuman was asked what he gave to Gore, and he replied that he "mainly" provided an Obama-era DOJ document. D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 39-40. Unasked was the obvious followup: "What else did you give to Gore?" A party's incomplete deposition questioning provides no basis to reopen fact development long after trial is complete. NYIC incorrectly insists (Mot. 9-10) that there remain a series of "outstanding questions" that must be resolved, including: "Who at Commerce knew that the VRA rationale came from Dr. Hofeller? Who at Commerce asked Dr. Hofeller to spell out that rationale in a draft DOJ letter? Who at Commerce knew about Dr. Hofeller's conclusion that the citizenship question would enable redistricting that is 'advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites'?" As an initial matter, those questions are irrelevant because they contain built-in assumptions that are false-"the VRA rationale" in the Gary Letter and the Secretary's decisional memorandum did not "c[o]me from Dr. Hofeller"; and neither Hofeller nor Neuman "spell[ed] out" anything "in a draft DOJ letter" because nothing they created or provided served as a draft of the Gary Letter. More important, NYIC could have discovered the answers to every single one of those questions about Hofeller's (peripheral) role had it exercised some diligence. Neuman testified at length about Hofeller and their discussions about the citizenship question, CVAP, and block-level data. If NYIC had questions on those topics, it should have asked them. It did not. Indeed, AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000394 14 respondents (correctly) found Neuman's role so tangential that they did not designate or seek to admit into evidence even a single line of his deposition transcript. And it was respondents who insisted on proceeding to trial immediately after N euman's deposition. Having deliberately made that strategic litigation choice, NYIC should not be heard to complain now. Moreover, it appears that the law firm representing NYIC has had the Hofeller files since February or March, if not earlier. See Doc. 167-1, at 2, Kravitz v. United States Dep't ofCommerce, No. 18-cv-1041(D. Md. June 14, 2019) (law firm received physical drives on March 13, 2019); D. Ct. Doc. 601-12, at 4 (files were subpoenaed in February after Hofeller's estranged daughter alerted an advocacy group to the files "[l]ate last year"). If those files were as important as NYIC's lawyers now claim they are, counsel should have alerted the government and this Court to them months ago-and not mere days before a final decision in this case. c. Remand is inappropriate for the further reason that none of the supposedly new "evidence" is relevant to this case. NYIC contends (Mot. 8) that the new evidence "indicates that Commerce understood that adding a citizenship question would enable redistricting methods harmful to voters of color." But that is a completely different injury and theory of liability from what respondents have maintained throughout this litigation. Until NYIC's recent eleventh-hour filings, respondents had maintained that their injuries arose from the mere presence of the citizenship question on the ground that it would result in an undercount of certain noncitizen populations. Not once did they assert that they would be injured because the citizenship question might ena- AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000395 15 ble States to use "redistricting methods harmful to voters of color." Ibid. A remand to develop facts to support a theory of injury that respondents did not raise is unwarranted. Moreover, respondents could not have asserted that theory of injury anyway. For one thing, they would not have had standing, for the injury is entirely speculative: it will not materialize unless sovereign States independently choose in the future to redistrict based on CVAP rather than total population. That also would make any injury not fairly traceable to the federal government. Even setting aside those flaws, such a theory would fail on the merits, too. This Court has found that redistricting based on citizen voting-age population is constitutionally permissible under some circumstances. See Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 93-94 (1966). Indeed, "[t]he Constitutions of Maine and Nebraska authorize the exclusion of noncitizen immigrants" from their apportionment base (though it appears that neither State does so). Evenwel, 136 S. Ct. at 1125 n.3. And when recently asked to hold that redistricting based on CVAP is impermissible, this Court pointedly declined to do so. Id. at 1133; see id. at 1143-1144 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment); cf. id. at 1133 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment) ("The Constitution * * * leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government."). Respondents could not claim to be injured by the citizenship question merely because it might someday enable States to choose a redistricting method that, under Evenwel and Burns, remains constitutional. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000396 16 In passing, NYIC asserts (Mot. 2) that the Hofeller connection "suggests an unconstitutional, racially discriminatory motive," presumably a reference to NYIC's failed equal-protection claim. See Pet. App. 331a-334a. But NYIC has not even arguably shown any racially discriminatory motive on the part of Secretary Ross. During the decisionmaking process, the Secretary communicated with dozens of stakeholders, ranging from staunch supporters of the citizenship question to those who vehemently opposed it. Id. at 549a. It would be absurd to attribute all of their private motives to the Secretary. As the district court correctly observed, "point[ing] primarily to the motivations of 'those who influenced' Secretary Ross in the decisionmaking process"-such as Kris Kobach, Steve Bannon, and then-Attorney General Sessions-is insufficient "to impute their discriminatory purpose to" the Secretary. Id. at 333a (citation omitted); see id. at 333a-334a. It follows a fortiori that the allegedly discriminatory motives of Hofeller-whom the Secretary is not alleged to have contacted during his decisionmaking process-cannot be attributed to the Secretary either. That said, NYIC's motion suggests that it might belatedly attempt to revive the equal-protection claim in the lower courts on the basis of the Hofeller files. In fact plaintiffs in Kravitz, supra, have done just that, and the district court in Maryland recently granted their motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.l(a), stating that the Hofeller files raise "a substantial issue" potentially warranting relief on the equal-protection claim under Rule 60(b)(2). Doc. 174, at 1, Kravitz, supra, No. 18-cv-1041 (June 19, 2019). The court did not rule "that it would grant the [Rule 60(b)(2)] motion," Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.l(a)(3), indicating AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000397 17 that it anticipates yet more litigation on the equalprotection issue. Doc. 174, at 1, Kravitz, supra. The government addressed the equal-protection claim in its brief here "in the event respondents or other district courts attempt to rely on those claims." Gov't Br. 54. Accordingly-and to avoid addressing the issue in an emergency posture-the Court may wish to address the equal-protection claim in its opinion to make clear that neither respondents' original evidence nor the Hofeller files demonstrate any racial animus on the part of Secretary Ross. Indeed, a finding that the Secretary's decision cannot be set aside as pretextual, see id. at 40-45, necessarily forecloses a claim that it may be set aside as pretextual for a discriminatory reason. 2. NYIC also tries to bolster its conspiracy theory with allegations of "false or misleading testimony or representations" on the part of Gore and Neuman. Mot. 5, 10. Those allegations are baseless. NYIC's only allegation against Gore (Mot. 5-6) is that N euman's having given Gore a copy of the Neuman Letter supposedly "contradicts Gore's deposition testimony in this case that he was the one who wrote the initial draft of the DOJ letter." Mot. 6. NYIC presumably refers to the following exchange: Q. Is it fair to say that you 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? A. Yes. D. Ct. Doc. 595-1, at 106. Gore's answer was true: he did in fact write the first draft of the Gary Letter. NYIC has adduced no evidence to the contrary. NYIC's claim AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000398 18 that Gore lied conflates the Gary Letter with the Neuman Letter, an entirely different document. NYIC fares no better with its allegations against Neuman, who is not a governmental employee and was represented by private counsel throughout this litigation. NYIC asserts that Neuman told three falsehoods: (1) he said "he was not 'part of the drafting process of the DOJ letter' requesting the addition of a citizenship question"; (2) he "denied that an October 2017 meeting between him and Gore was about a 'letter from DOJ regarding the citizenship question'"; and (3) he "testified that Dr. Hofeller advised him that adding the question would 'maximize' representation for the 'Latino community.'" Mot. 5-6 (brackets and citations omitted). The first statement is unequivocally true: Neuman did not play a role in drafting the Gary Letter. As explained above, NYIC's contrary assertion rests on a willful conflation of the Neuman Letter with the Gary Letter. As for the second statement, NYIC has mischaracterized N euman's testimony. Neuman left no doubt that his meeting with Gore was "about the possible addition of a citizenship or immigration question to the 2020 census." D. Ct. Doc. 601-8, at 33. He further clarified that the meeting was not specifically about a "letter from DOJ," but more generally about "how Census interacts with the Justice Department," and he agreed that "the timing" of his meeting with Gore "dovetails with what you and I were discussing earlier" about "a meeting * * * about a letter from DOJ." Id. at 53 (emphasis added). NYIC could not possibly have been misled about the nature of the meeting between Gore and Neuman. And NYIC has not explained what is supposedly false about the third statement; it is perfectly consistent for Hofeller to have told Neuman one thing while having AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000399 19 written something else in his unpublished 2015 study. Moreover, NYIC again has misrepresented Neuman's testimony; he denied that the statement "was something that [Hofeller] suggested" and instead made clear that the "point about maximization is my word. I want Latino representation to be maximized." Id. at 49 (emphasis added). 3. a. A remand for factfinding at this late hour also would prejudice the government. NYIC's contention (Mot. 7) that "2020 Census forms can be finalized without additional congressional appropriations as late as October 31" is unsupported by the record. The witness upon whose testimony NYIC relies made clear that "[u]nder the current budget, * * * changes to the paper questionnaire after June of 2019 * * * would impair the Census Bureau's ability to timely administer the 2020 census," and that a delay until October would be feasible only with "exceptional resources." J.A. 905-906. And the same witness previously testified that "changes to the paper questionnaire after June of 2019" would be infeasible "[w]ithout appropriate funding adjustments," D. Ct. Doc. 502-2, at 214, and that October was a viable possibility only "[w]ith exceptional effort and additional resources," D. Ct. Doc. 502-4, at 98. The district court thus correctly found that for all practical purposes, "the Census Bureau needs to finalize the 2020 questionnaire by June of this year." Pet. App. 12a. b. The Court also should reject NYIC's alternative request (Mot. 11 n.3) to delay decision "pending the district court's resolution of [NYIC's] sanctions motion." NYIC has not filed a sanctions motion; the district court did not grant its previous request, see D. Ct. Doc. 605, at 1, and NYIC has until July 12 to decide whether to file a new motion, ibid. This Court should not hold its AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000400 20 decision for a possible sanctions motion in the district court that has not yet been filed and that NYIC is under no obligation to file. Moreover, any motion for sanctions based on alleged discovery misconduct not only would be meritless, see pp. 17-19, supra, but also would be a collateral issue that has no bearing on the disposition of this case on the merits. Nor should the Court grant NYIC's alternative request (Mot. 11 n.3) to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. As the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment observed (at 16), "to the government's knowledge, this is the first time the judiciary has ever dictated the contents of the decennial census questionnaire," and "[i]n light of the immense nationwide importance of the decennial census, if the district court's ruling is to stand, it should be this Court that reviews it." Those observations remain true regardless of NYIC's farfetched conspiracy theory; indeed, indulging its belated request to dismiss this case would effectively allow the district court's judgment to stand with no appellate review at all. CONCLUSION Respondents' motion should be denied. Respectfully submitted. J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General NOEL JUNE 2019 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000401 6l 1Cbl( From: Sent: John Gore @gmail.com] To: Omeed Assefi "-"l(bl~(6~l --~r>me.com]; Subject: Re: baltimore county suit 8/30/2019 8:14:39 PM Omeed Assefi 6~l______ .,.__l~b~l( @gmail.com] Just got a voice mail on my personal cell from this guy. Not sure how he got my personal contact info. @gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 8: 11 PM John Gore jCbJ(6l Not sure how this guy got my personal email address - it must have been leaked by someone in DOJ, since I did not share it with anyone outside of DOJ. Please pass along to Kelly Laco for appropriate handling. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message--------From: Shortell, David Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM Subject: baltimore county suit 6-l--~~gmail.com> 6l To:ICblC @gmail.com 4~Cb-l( John - David Shortell from CNN. Writing about the lawsuit out of Justice this week against the Baltimore County Police Department and was hoping to talk with you about its potential significance. It seems to me to be the first pattern and practice suit against a police organization out of main justice in some time, right? I-Happy to stay on background if you're not Would love to get your read on this. I'm atrb)(S) interested in talking on the record at this point. Much appreciated, David Shortell CNN Crime and Justice Reporter ---~ cell: ~rb)(-6) AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000402 From: Sent: 6l John GorelCbl( To: 6-l --~~gmail.com]~~(bl_C Hashim Mooppan ~1Cb-l( Subject: Fwd: US v Florida/Dudek 201713595. pdf Attachments: t@gmail.com] 9/18/2019 2:53:39 AM 6 _l --~~gmail.com FYI ---------- Forwarded message--------From: eric dreiband Date: Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:13 AM Subject: US v Florida/Dudek 6 To: John Gore 4CblC l @gmail.com> Victory! Opinion is attached. Congratulations John. Eric AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000403 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 1 of 66 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-13595 D.C. Docket No. 0: 12-cv-60460-WJZ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellants, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (September 17, 2019) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BOGGS,* Circuit Judges. Table of Contents ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5 I. An Overview of Title II of the ADA ...................................................................... 5 II. The Remedial Structure of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ............................... 12 A. Title VI Enforcement Regulations Contemplate Department of Justice Enforcement Suits ................................................................................................ 14 * Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000404 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 2 of 66 B. Enforcing Title VI: Any Other Means Authorized By Law ........................... 17 III. Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act.. ............................................................. .21 A. Rehabilitation Act Enforcement Regulations Tracked Title VI Regulations .22 B. Department of Justice Enforcement of the Rehabilitation Act ...................... .27 IV. Enforcement of Title II of the ADA .................................................................. 32 A. Title II Enforcement Regulations Follow Regulations Promulgated Under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI.. .......................................................................... 33 B. Title II of the ADA Permits Department of Justice Enforcement .................. 39 C. The Legislative History of Title II Supports the Attorney General's Authority to File Suit ............................................................................................................ 46 D. The Department of Justice Has Filed Suit to Enforce Title II ........................ 51 E. Federalism Principles Do Not Alter Our Conclusion ...................................... 54 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 58 BOGGS, Circuit Judge: In September 2012, after completing a six-month investigation, the Department of Justice issued a Letter of Findings notifying Florida that it was failing to meet its obligations under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and its implementing regulations, by "unnecessarily institutionalizing hundreds of children with disabilities in nursing facilities." The Department of Justice also asserted that Florida's Medicaid policies and practices placed other 2 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000405 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 3 of 66 children who have "medically complex" 1 conditions, or who are "medically fragile," 2 at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. The Department of Justice negotiated with Florida to attempt to resolve the violations identified in the Letter of Findings. After concluding that it could not obtain voluntary compliance, the Department of Justice filed suit in the Southern District of Florida in July 2013, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA and 28 C.F.R. ? 35.130(d). In December 2013, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the district court consolidated the Department of Justice's suit with a previously-filed class-action complaint from a group of children who similarly alleged that Florida's policies 1 The Letter of Findings relied on Florida's then-operative definition of "medically complex." The term describes "a person [who] has chronic debilitating diseases or conditions of one (1) or more physiological or organ systems that generally make the person dependent upon twenty-four (24) hour-per-day medical, nursing, or health supervision or intervention." Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-l.010(164) (2012). Florida has since amended its Administrative Code, and this definition no longer appears. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-l.010. 2 At the time the Letter of Findings was issued, Florida defined "medically fragile" as a person who is: medically complex and whose medical condition is of such a nature that he is technologically dependent, requiring medical apparatus or procedures to sustain life, e.g., requires total parenteral nutrition (TPN), is ventilator dependent, or is dependent on a heightened level of medical supervision to sustain life, and without such services is likely to expire without warning. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-l.010(165) (2012). This definition no longer appears in Florida's Administrative Code. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-l.010. 3 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000406 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 4 of 66 caused, or put them at risk of, unnecessary institutionalization and unlawful segregation on the basis of disability. See A.R. v. Sec '.YFla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 769 F. App'x 718 (11th Cir. 2019). Shortly before the consolidation, Florida filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asserting that Title II of the ADA did not authorize the Attorney General to file suit. The district court denied Florida's motion, concluding that the Department of Justice had reasonably interpreted Title II and had the authority to file suit to enforce Title II. See A.R. v. Dudek, 31 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2014). In 2016, the district court sua sponte revisited the issue 3 and dismissed the Department of Justice's case because it concluded that the Attorney General lacked standing to sue under Title II of the ADA. See C. V v. Dudek, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2016). After further litigation, the district court dismissed the children's case. This appeal followed. 3 There do not appear to be any significant factual or legal changes between the 2014 decision and the 2016 decision. The consolidated cases were reassigned in 2014, shortly after the district court decided Florida's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In 2016, the district court justified its departure from the 2014 decision because it concluded that the 2014 decision erroneously applied Chevron US.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and improperly deferred to the Department of Justice's interpretation of the statute. See C. V v. Dudek, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1291 n.11 (S.D. Fla. 2016). 4 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000407 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 5 of 66 ANALYSIS This case requires us to determine whether the Attorney General has a cause of action to enforce Title II of the ADA. This is a purely legal question, requiring statutory interpretation. Therefore, the proper standard of review is de nova. Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 704 F.3d 910, 914 (11th Cir. 2014). I. An Overview of Title II of the ADA The ADA was intended to "provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities," and establish strong, enforceable standards to achieve that goal. ? 12101(b)(l)-(2). 42 U.S.C. Congress envisioned that, through the ADA, the Federal Government would take "a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities," and invoked "the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment and to regulate commerce" to "address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities." Id. (b)(3)-(4). See also United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006). Part A of Title II, 42 U.S.C. ?? 12131-12134, addresses public services provided by public entities. A "public entity" means "any State or local government," or "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other 5 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000408 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 6 of 66 instrumentality of a State or States or local government .... " 42 U.S.C. ? 12131(1)(A)-(B). Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability, specifically, "[ s]ubject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. ? 12132. The term "qualified individual with a disability" means: an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity. 42 U.S.C. ? 12131(2). Title II's enforcement provision states that "[t]he remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of Title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title." 42 U.S.C. ? 12133. Congress directed the Attorney General to "promulgate regulations in an accessible format that implement [Title II]." 42 U.S.C. ? 12134(a). Such regulations, with the exception of specifically-identified terms, shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title 28, Code of 6 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000409 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 7 of 66 Federal Regulations (as promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on January 13, 1978), applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance under section 794 of Title 29. Id. (b). It is undisputed that Title II permits a private cause of action for injunctive relief or money damages. Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743, 750 (2017). We must determine whether Title II's enforcement scheme, 42 U.S.C. ? 12133, permits the Attorney General to bring an enforcement action. 4 The starting point is the language of the statute. United States Dep 't ofTransp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 604 (1986). If the words of the statute are unambiguous, then we may conclude the inquiry there. Connecticut Nat'! Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992). Through a series of cross-references, the enforcement mechanism for Title II of the ADA is ultimately Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. ? 12133; 29 U.S.C. ? 794a; 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d-1. Section 12133 of Title II states 4 Florida maintains that Supreme Court decisions examining Title II' s enforcement provisions that consistently mention private enforcement without considering public enforcement support a conclusion that Title II was never meant to permit public enforcement. But in each of those cases, the Supreme Court was confronted with questions stemming from private litigation (the United States intervened to defend abrogation of state sovereign immunity in two cases). See Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743, 751-52 (2017); United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154-55 (2006); Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 513 (2004); Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 183 (2002); Olmsteadv. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 588 (1999). The Court was not required to consider whether the Attorney General could enforce Title II in those cases. We do not consider the Supreme Court's silence on an issue that was not presented dispositive. 7 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000410 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 8 of 66 that the "remedies, procedures, and rights" available to a person alleging discrimination are those available in ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. ? 794a. Section 505 contains a provision for enforcing ? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. ?? 794(a); 794a. In relevant part, ? 505 states that The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5), applied to claims of discrimination in compensation) shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title. 29 U.S.C. ? 794a(a)(2). Like? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,? 601 of Title VI of the Civil Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination, exclusion, or denial of benefits-in that statutory scheme, on the basis of race, color, or national origin-by "any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d. Section 602 of Title VI requires the various federal departments and agencies that provide federal financial assistance to "effectuate" ? 601 by "issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability .... " 42 U.S. C. ? 2000d-1. Agencies may "effect" "[ c]ompliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section ... (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance 8 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000411 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 9 of 66 under such program or activity to any recipient ... or (2) by any other means authorized by law .... " Ibid. Before any action may be taken, the department or agency must issue appropriate notice and determine that it cannot obtain voluntary compliance. Ibid. Florida insists that we need not consider the "remedies, procedures, and rights" available in ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It reasons that, because the Attorney General is not a "person alleging discrimination," he is "not within the class to whom Title II provides enforcement authority," and therefore is not authorized to bring suit to enforce Title II. To support this argument, Florida compares Titles I and III of the ADA, which expressly mention the Attorney General, with Title II, which does not. 5 The United States contends that this interpretation (followed by the district court) "misreads the plain text of Title II." It asserts that "Title II does not authorize the Attorney General to file enforcement suits by equating the Attorney General with a 'person alleging discrimination."' Rather, it contends that the phrase "remedies, procedures, and rights" in? 12133 is the operative phrase for statutory analysis. By 5 The dissenting opinion focuses on the presumption against treating the government as a "person," citing Return Mail, Inc. v. US. Postal Serv., 587 U.S. __ (2019), No. 17-1594, 2019 WL 2412904, at *5 (June 10, 2019). The Supreme Court's holding in Return Mail should not change our analysis: in Return Mail, the underlying patent-review statute provided specific remedies for a specified offended party, thus differing significantly from the complex "remedies, procedures, and rights" structure of the ADA explained in detail in Part IV of our opinion. 9 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000412 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 10 of 66 cross-referencing to other statutes, Congress made a "package" of remedies, rights, and procedures available that may include enforcement by the Attorney General. In enacting the ADA, Congress legislated in light of existing remedial statutes. See Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 590 & n.4 (1999); Shatz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F .3d 1161, 1176- 77 (11th Cir. 2003 ). This decision carries significant weight. When Congress adopts a new law that incorporates sections of a prior law, "Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute." Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 581 (1978). Because in Title II Congress expressly incorporated ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which in tum incorporated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as the available "remedies, procedures, and rights," it is "especially justified" to conclude that Congress was aware of prior interpretations, as well as the operation of, both Acts. See Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 696-98 (1979) (applying a similar presumption while using Title VI to interpret Title IX). Focusing solely on the word "person" and the difference in the language of enforcement provisions within the ADA ignores this presumption. Title II, the Rehabilitation Act, and Title VI are structured in a similar manner. Each has a statutory provision forbidding discrimination. Compare 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d, with 29 U.S.C. ? 794(a), and 42 U.S.C. ? 12132. Indeed, ? 202 of Title II (42 U.S.C. ? 12132) and? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act overlap substantially in their AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000413 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 11 of 66 prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of disability. See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 184-85 (2002). Title II and the Rehabilitation Act share the same enforcement provision, which incorporates the entirety of Title VI. See 42 U.S.C. ? 12133; 29 U.S.C. ? 794a(a)(2). It is true that, at first glance, Title II's enforcement provision is not as specific as those in Titles I and III. But that difference should not dictate a conclusion that, absent greater specificity, we should simply assume that a single word in? 12133 ends all inquiry. Because Congress chose to cross-reference other statutory provisions to identify how Title II may be enforced, we must consider those statutory provisions. Courts construing Title II and the Rehabilitation Act have taken the same approach. See Barnes, 536 U.S. at 185 (Title II); Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 590 n.4 (Title II); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 293 n.7 (1985) (Rehabilitation Act); Community Television of S. Cal. v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498 (1983) (Rehabilitation Act); Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 348 (11th Cir. 2012) (Rehabilitation Act); Shatz, 344 F.3d at 1169-70 (Title II); United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039, 1043--45 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189 (1985) (Rehabilitation Act). We begin in Part II by discussing the remedial provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as it is the earliest-enacted statute and ultimate fount of the cascade of cross-references. We also examine the regulations promulgated with Title VI and 11 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000414 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 12 of 66 litigation that considered whether the United States could file suit to enforce Title VI. Next, in Part III, we analyze ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, its accompanying regulations, and cases in which the United States brought suit to enforce the Rehabilitation Act. In Part IV, we return to Title II of the ADA and examine the regulations the Attorney General promulgated pursuant to Congress's directive in 42 U.S.C. ? 12134, and the district court's conclusions about the scope of Title II enforcement. We analyze Title II' s legislative history, and other cases in which federal courts have concluded that the Attorney General may file suit to enforce Title II. II. The Remedial Structure of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Title VI contains two enforcement mechanisms. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280-81, 288-89 (2001); Arthur R. Block, Enforcement of Title VI Compliance Agreements by Third Party Beneficiaries, 18 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 9-10 (1983). First, ? 601 contains an implied private cause of action. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 279-80. See The second enforcement mechanism is in ? 602, which, as discussed above, directs federal agencies to "effectuate" ? 601 's prohibition on discrimination by programs that receive federal funding through regulation, fund termination, and "any other means authorized by law. " 6 See id. at 6 The regulatory powers attached to ? 602 are substantial by contrast with other grants of regulatory power elsewhere in the Civil Rights Act. In Title VII, for example, Congress specified 12 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000415 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 13 of 66 289. Regulations promulgated pursuant to ? 602 do not create a private right of action. 7 Id. at 289. Agencies enforce? 601 's prohibition on discrimination "either by terminating funding to the 'particular program, or part therof,' that has violated the regulation or 'by any other means authorized by law[.]" Ibid. (quoting 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d-1 ). This system, developed in the 1960s, was well-established at the time the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were enacted. See Block, supra, 9-10. that the EEOC could create "procedural" regulations to carry out the Title, rather than Congress's more substantive grant of authority in Title VI to implement ? 601. See Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Lawyering That Has No Name: Title VI and the Meaning of Private Enforcement, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 1293, 1298 (2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-12). 7 In Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 279 (2001), the Supreme Court considered whether a private cause of action existed to enforce Department of Justice regulations promulgated under ? 602. Sandoval had filed suit, alleging that Alabama's policy of administering driver's license examinations only in English violated a Department of Justice regulation that forbade recipients of funding from using methods of administration that had the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Id at 278-79. Florida points to Sandoval for the proposition that expressly providing one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others. The Supreme Court made this statement in Sandoval as it concluded that private individuals may not sue to enforce agency regulations promulgated under ? 602 because that statute did not contemplate a private right of action-rather, it directed authority to agencies. Id at 289. Sandoval instructs us that we must look to the statutory language of particular provisions to assess the method of enforcement Congress has provided. Further, as the Supreme Court explained in Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 711 (1979), when it concluded that Title IX implied a private right of action, the fact that other provisions of a "complex statutory scheme create express remedies" is not a sufficient reason to conclude that separate sections do not contain other remedies. The Court "has generally avoided this type of 'excursion into extrapolation oflegislative intent,' unless there is other, more convincing evidence that Congress meant to exclude the remedy." Ibid (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 83 n.14 (1975)). 13 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000416 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 14 of 66 A. Title VI Enforcement Regulations Contemplate Department of Justice Enforcement Suits It is helpful to survey the Department of Justice's regulations addressing Title VI enforcement, particularly because Congress, in ? 602, specifically directed the Department of Justice (and other agencies) to make those regulations. When the "empowering provision" of a statute directs the agency to regulate as necessary to carry out what Congress intends, "the validity of a regulation promulgated thereunder will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation."' Mourning v. Family Puhl 'ns Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369 (1973) (quoting Thorpe v. Haus. Auth. of City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 28081 (1969)); see also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984) (deferring to "contemporaneous regulations issued by the agency responsible for implementing a congressional enactment"). Individuals who believe that they have been subjected to discrimination in violation of Title VI may file a written complaint. See 28 C.F.R. ? 42.107(b ). Upon receipt of a complaint, the Department is required to "make a prompt investigation," to determine whether a recipient of federal funding has failed to comply with the antidiscrimination requirements. Id. (c). 8 If that investigation demonstrates that the 8 Agencies are also required to conduct periodic compliance reviews to ensure that federalfunding recipients are complying with their obligations. 28 C.F.R. ? 42.107(a). A compliance 14 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000417 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 15 of 66 recipient is not in compliance, then the Department must notify the recipient and attempt to resolve the matter by "informal means" if possible. Id. (d)(l ). If the Department and recipient are unable to resolve the matter, then further action may be taken to induce compliance. Ibid. Such actions may include suspending, terminating, refusing to grant or continue federal financial assistance, or "any other means authorized by law[.]" 28 C.F.R. ? 42.108(a). The Department of Justice has characterized those other means as including, but not limited to "[ a]ppropriate proceedings brought by the Department to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States (including other titles of the Act), or any assurance or other contractual undertaking," or "[ a]ny applicable proceeding under State or local law." Id. (a)(l)-(2). The Department may not take such actions until it has determined that it cannot secure voluntary compliance, the Attorney General has approved the action, and the non-complying party has been notified of its failure to comply and the action to be taken. Id. (d). Terminating or refusing to provide federal funding is the "ultimate sanction[.]" 28 C.F.R. ? 50.3. To avoid such a drastic step, the Department's guidelines urge agencies to take alternatives to achieve "prompt and full compliance review that indicates that there may be discrimination or noncompliance with agency regulations may also trigger an investigation. Id (c). 15 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000418 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 16 of 66 so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue." Ibid. Such alternatives include administrative action or court enforcement. Compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of title VI may often be obtained more promptly by appropriate court action than by hearings and termination of assistance. Possibilities of judicial enforcement include (1) a suit to obtain specific enforcement of assurances, covenants running with federally provided property, statements or compliance or desegregation plans filed pursuant to agency regulations, (2) a suit to enforce compliance with the other titles of the 1964 Act, other Civil Rights Acts, or constitutional or statutory provisions requiring nondiscrimination, and (3) initiation of, or intervention or other participation in, a suit for other relief designed to secure compliance. Ibid. Florida argues that Title VI (and ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which we discuss infra in Part III, pp. 23-33) do not authorize federal enforcement actions, and never have. It maintains that the cases the United States relies upon are limited to "specific performance of contractual assurances of compliance obtained from recipients of federal funds." It is hardly surprising that many Title VI cases are actions to ensure compliance by recipients of federal funding. Title VI was intended to ensure that "funds of the United States are not used to support racial discrimination." 110 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964) (statement of Sen. Humphrey). One of the easiest methods of achieving this goal was to require all recipients or seekers of federal financial 16 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000419 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 17 of 66 assistance to execute assurances that they would not discriminate. Such assurances stated that the United States could enforce those agreements in court. See 28 C.F .R. ? 42.105(a)(l). B. Enforcing Title VI: Any Other Means Authorized By Law Even though government Title VI enforcement actions may be brought to ensure a funding recipient's assurances of nondiscrimination, Title VI does not limit "other means authorized by law" solely to such enforcement. United States v. Marion Cty. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 (1981 ), illustrates this principle. There, the Fifth Circuit determined that the United States had authority to sue to enforce a school district's contractual assurance to comply with Title VI's prohibition against discrimination. Id. at 617. The court observed that the government's complaint described the suit as one to compel specific performance and enforce Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 609 n.3. The district court had dismissed the complaint because it concluded that, by establishing alternative means to achieve federal antidiscrimination objectives, Congress nullified the United States's existing right to sue to enforce contracts. Id. at 611-12. The court rejected this reasoning, concluding that the Civil Rights Act did not limit enforcement strategies to only those means set out explicitly in the Act. The government has a right to "sue to enforce its contracts ... as a matter of federal 17 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000420 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 18 of 66 common law without the necessity of a statute." Id. at 611. Congress may, by statute, remove that right, but only if it offers "extremely, even unmistakably clear" evidence of such intent. Ibid. (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 272 (1947)). The language in? 602 supported this conclusion. It "clearly provide[d] that other means of action, even if not mentioned in the Act, are to be preserved." Id. at 612. The phrase "any other means authorized by law" showed that Congress intended to preserve other methods of enforcement-including 612-13. filing suit. Id. at The Civil Rights Act contained a provision that explicitly preserved the existing authority of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, to bring, or intervene in, any action or proceeding. Id. at 612 (citing 42 U.S.C. ? 2000h-3). The Fifth Circuit only considered whether ? 602 permitted contract enforcement actions. The United States' response to the school district's motion to dismiss had asserted that the Title VI and Fourteenth Amendment claims were not brought as independent causes of action, but subsidiary to the contract claims. Id. at 609 n.3. 9 Because the Fifth Circuit resolved the case on the contractual question, it 9 This is not necessarily the winning point Florida thinks it is. The United States' s authority to bring contractual actions is, as the Fifth Circuit pointed out in United States v. Marion Cty. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 (1981), clearly established. The decision to emphasize the contract action may have been a strategic litigation decision, or it may have been made for any of a number of reasons. Regardless, we decline to accord substantial weight to an assertion made in a brief in a different case over thirty years ago. 18 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000421 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 19 of 66 did not consider whether the United States had an "implied right of action under Title VI," or the "inherent authority to sue to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 616-17. Akin to Marion County, in United States v. Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1547 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210 (1988), superseded by statute on other grounds by J. W. v. Birmingham Ed. of Educ., 904 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2018), we acknowledged that Title VI's status as spending-power legislation, and the presence of federal funding was sufficient to permit the United States to file suit to enforce Title VI' s antidiscrimination provisions. A review of the history of Title VI demonstrates that the United States has consistently used such litigation to enforce its provisions. 10 Other cases that have considered ? 602' s administrative-enforcement scheme have recognized the Attorney General's right to bring legal actions as an avenue of enforcing Title VI without specifying that only contract actions are permissible. In 10 See, e.g., United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 724 (1992); United States v. Harris Methodist Forth Worth, 970 F.2d 94, 96 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Lovett, 416 F.2d 386, 390 n.4, 391 n.5 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Louisiana, 692 F. Supp. 642, 649-50 (E.D. La. 1988), vacated on other grounds by 715 F. Supp. 606 (E.D. La. 1990); United States v. Yonkers Ed of Educ., 518 F. Supp. 191,201 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); United States v. El Camino Cmty. Coll. Dist., 454 F. Supp. 825, 826-27 (C.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 600 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043, 1057-58 & n.18 (E.D. Tex. 1970), supplemented by 330 F. Supp. 235 (E.D. Tex. 1971), aff'd by 447 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Tatum Indep. Sch. Dist., 306 F. Supp. 285, 288 (E.D. Tex. 1969); United States by Clark v. Frazer, 297 F. Supp. 319, 323 (M.D. Ala. 1968). 19 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000422 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 20 of 66 National Black Police Ass 'n v. Velde, 712 F.2d 569, 572 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963 (1984), the court considered whether agency officials' failure to terminate federal funding to discriminatory local law enforcement violated their statutorily-imposed duties. In concluding that terminating federal funding was discretionary, the court relied on Title VI's construction to permit other enforcement schemes, including "referral of cases to the Attorney General, who may bring an action against the recipient." Id. at 575. See also United States v. Maricopa Cty., 151 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1018-19 (D. Ariz. 2015), ajf'd 889 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Tatum Indep. Sch. Dist., 306 F. Supp. 285, 288 (E.D. Tex. 1969); United States v. Frazer, 297 F. Supp. 319,323 (M.D. Ala. 1968). The phrase "any other means authorized by law" in ? 602 appears to be routinely interpreted to permit suit by the Department of Justice. See United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039, 1050 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189 (1985) (phrase refers to federal enforcement); Brown v. Califano, 627 F.2d 1221, 1224 & n.10, 1227, 1233 & n.73 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (discussing referrals to the Department of Justice); Maricopa Cty., 151 F. Supp. 3d at 1018-19; Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636,641 (D.D.C. 1972). A similar phrase in another statute has received a comparable interpretation. In United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797, 808 (6th Cir. 2002), the Sixth Circuit considered whether the phrase "any other action authorized by law with respect to 20 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000423 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 21 of 66 the recipient" in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERP A") conferred standing upon the Department of Education to seek injunctive relief The court observed that, while FERP A contained a general authorization to permit the Secretary of Education to "take appropriate actions to enforce" FERPA, that alone was insufficient to permit enforcement litigation. Ibid. (citing 20 U.S.C. ? 1232g(f)). However, another provision in FERPA offered the Secretary a menu of options in response to noncompliance with FERPA, including "any other action authorized by law with respect to the recipient." Id. at 807-08 (citing 20 U.S.C. ? 1234c(a)(4)). The court concluded that this language "expressly" permitted the Secretary to sue to enforce FERPA "in lieu of its administrative remedies." Id. at 808. In reaching this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit relied on Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F .2d at 1050, which had interpreted the Rehabilitation Act (encompassing ? 602), and National Black Police Ass 'n, 712 F.2d at 575, which discussed? 602. A review of the statute, the regulations that Congress expressly directed the agencies to create, and precedent demonstrates that Title VI contains an administrative enforcement scheme and permits judicial enforcement of its prohibition against discrimination. We next tum to the Rehabilitation Act. III. Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act The Rehabilitation Act established a "comprehensive federal program" that Congress intended to benefit individuals with disabilities. Consolidated Rail Corp. 21 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000424 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 626 (1984). Page: 22 of 66 It was originally enacted without an enforcement provision. See Community Television of S. Cal. v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498, 509 (1983). Because ? 504 was "patterned after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was understood that responsibility for enforcing it ... would lie with those agencies administering the federal financial assistance programs." Ibid. (citing S. Rep. No. 93-1297, at 39--40 (1974)). 11 A. Rehabilitation Act Enforcement Regulations Tracked Title VI Regulations The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ("HEW") developed implementing regulations for ? 504, and its Secretary was assigned to coordinate enforcement across federal departments and agencies. See S. Rep. No. 93-1297, at 40 (1974); Exec. Order No. 11,914, 41 Fed. Reg. 17,871 (Apr. 28, 1976), revoked by Exec. Order No. 12,250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (Nov. 2, 1980). HEW's 1977 regulations incorporated by reference its procedures under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act on an interim basis. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefitting From Federal Financial 11 Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act in 1974. Legislative history from that amendment reveals that Congress intended ? 504 to lead to "implementation of a compliance program" similar to Title VI, including regulations, investigation, review, attempts to ensure voluntary compliance, and sanctions such as termination of federal funds, or "other means otherwise authorized by law." S. Rep. No. 93-1297, at 39-40 (1974). This legislative history is especially relevant in light of the 1978 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. See infra pp. 2527. 22 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000425 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 23 of 66 Assistance, 42 Fed. Reg. 22685 (May 4, 1977) (adopting 45 C.F.R. ? 80.6-80.10 and Part 81 of Title 45 of the C.F .R. which specify "[T]itle VI complaint and enforcement procedures" to implement ? 504). HEW' s Title VI procedures were identical to those adopted by the Department of Justice to implement Title VI, discussed supra at Part II.A, pp. 14-17. 12 They permit individuals to file complaints, 45 C.F.R. ? 80.7(b), which require an investigation. Id. (c). Agencies must attempt to resolve the matter by "informal means." Id. (d). Like the Department of Justice's regulations, they identify other actions that may be taken against noncompliant funding recipients: termination of funding and referral to the Department of Justice for enforcement proceedings. Compare 45 C.F.R. ? 80.8(a), with 28 C.F.R. ? 42.108(a). In January 1978, HEW issued coordination regulations for the Rehabilitation Act. See Implementation of Executive Order 11,914: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs, 43 Fed. Reg. 2132 (Jan. 13, 1978). Executive Order 11,914 had directed HEW's Secretary to coordinate implementation of? 504. Exec. Order 11,914, 41 Fed. Reg. 17,871 (Apr. 28, 1976); 12 In 1979, the Department of Education Organization Act divided HEW into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). See National Wrestling Coaches Ass 'n v. US. Dep 't of Educ., 263 F. Supp. 2d 82, 91 (D.D.C. 2003). HEW's regulations promulgating ? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act remain in HHS's regulations. See 45 C.F.R. ?? 80.7-80.8. 23 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000426 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 24 of 66 Consolidated Rail Corp., 465 U.S. at 634. The 1978 regulations directed agencies to establish a system to enforce? 504, which was to include "[t]he enforcement and hearing procedures that the agency has adopted for the enforcement of [T]itle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .... " 43 Fed. Reg. 2137, ? 85.5(a). In November 1978, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act. There are two aspects to this amendment that are significant for the purposes of this case. First, Congress amended ? 504. It directed that agencies "shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary" to carry out the 1978 amendments. See Pub. L. 95-602, Title I, ? 119, codified at 29 U.S.C. ? 794(a). The agencies were required to submit copies of any proposed regulation to "appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress .... " Ibid. Second, Congress enacted ? 505, which established the enforcement procedures for violations of the Rehabilitation Act, including? 504. See Pub. L. 95602, Title I, ? 120, codified at 29 U.S.C. ? 794a. As we have discussed, ? 505 adopted the "remedies, procedures, and rights" set out in Title VI, and specified that those remedies "shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance under section 794 of this title." 29 U.S.C. ? 794a(a)(2). In Consolidated Rail Corp., the Supreme Court observed that the effect of these amendments was to "incorporate the substance of the Department's regulations 24 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000427 Case: 17-13595 into the statute." Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 25 of 66 465 U.S. at 634 n.15. Legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended? 505(a)(2) to codify HEW's regulations for? 504 enforcement. Id. at 635. Specifically, the "regulations promulgated by the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare with respect to procedures, remedies, and rights under section 504 conform with those promulgated under Title VI. Thus, this amendment codifies existing practice as a specific statutory requirement." 13 S. Rep. No. 95-890, at 19 (1978); Consolidated Rail Corp., 465 U.S. at 635 n.16 ("[T]hese Department regulations incorporated Title VI regulations governing 'complaint and enforcement procedures .... "'); see also School Ed. of Nassau Cty., Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 279 (1987); United States v. Ed. of Trustees for Univ. of Ala., 908 F.2d 740, 746--47 (11th Cir. 1990); Miener v. Missouri, 673 F.2d 969, 978 (8th Cir. 1982). In 1980, President Carter issued an Executive Order assigning responsibility for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of Title VI, the Rehabilitation 13 Florida points to language in legislative history from the 1974 Amendments that it asserts showed that Congress only intended to create a private right of action. It is true that Congress stated that it intended to "permit a judicial remedy through a private right of action." S. Rep. 931297, at 40 (1974). But this portion of the report also discusses Congress's vision of a "compliance program" similar to Title VI enforcement. Ibid; see also supra, note 11 (discussing the 1974 Amendments' legislative history). Congress's decision in 1978 to codify existing regulations that specifically required agencies to use Title VI' s administrative enforcement procedures undercuts Florida's contentions. Congress's decision, in 1978, to mention a private remedy is not surprising, given the litigation over whether Title VI implied a private right of action. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 280; Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); Guardians Ass 'n v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of City of NY, 463 U.S. 582, 587 (1983). 25 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000428 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Act, and Title IX of the 1972 EducationAmendments Page: 26 of 66 14 to the Attorney General. See Exec. Order No. 12,250, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (Nov. 2, 1980), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d-1, app. Executive Order 12,250 directs the Attorney General to review the existing rules and regulations to determine their adequacy and consistency, as well as "develop standards and procedures for taking enforcement actions and for conducting investigations and compliance reviews." Ibid. Executive Order 12,250 revoked Executive Order No. 11,914. Id. at 72997. The Executive Order also preserved the coordinating regulations HEW had promulgated, which by then fell under the auspices of the newly-formed Department of Health and Human Services "HHS"). The present regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to the coordination of the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, shall be deemed to have been issued by the Attorney General pursuant [to] this Order and shall continue in effect until revoked or modified by the Attorney General. Ibid. The Department of Justice's regulations for enforcement of? 504 are the same as those HEW promulgated in 1978. Compare 28 C.F.R. ? 41.5, with 43 Fed. Reg. 2137, ? 85.5(a). 14 Title IX was also modeled after Title VI. See Cannon, 441 U.S. at 694. Section 902 of Title IX is substantially similar to? 602 of Title VI. Compare 20 U.S.C. ? 1682, with 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d-l. 26 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000429 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 27 of 66 As tedious as this administrative and regulatory history may be, it is essential to understand what Congress did when it enacted the enforcement provision of Title II. Sections 504 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and their implementing regulations, established a system of administrative enforcement that replicated the one in? 602 of the Civil Rights Act. This system permits both individual complaints and federal agency oversight to lead to investigations that may end with federal enforcement actions. This is illustrated in Rehabilitation Act enforcement litigation. B. Department of Justice Enforcement of the Rehabilitation Act The United States and Florida dispute whether the United States has enforced the Rehabilitation Act through litigation. Florida argues that, because there have been no such enforcement actions, this undercuts the United States's argument that Congress knew the Rehabilitation Act could trigger federal litigation, and so incorporated the same intent in Title II. The United States has filed suit to enforce the Rehabilitation Act. There appear to be fewer cases than Title VI enforcement, but this is not surprising. Federal investigations may not always culminate in litigation. The Rehabilitation Act was intended to track Title VI, which requires that agencies attempt to achieve voluntary compliance through informal means before terminating funding or taking "any other means authorized by law." 42 U.S.C. ? 2000d-1; 29 U.S.C. ? 794a(a)(2). 27 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000430 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 28 of 66 Although much of the litigation under the Rehabilitation Act was brought by private parties, that does not automatically lead to the conclusion that a private right of action is the sole method of enforcement. Reliance on a private right of action may be more attractive to individuals who want to ensure that they receive relief that best fits their circumstances and goals. For example, they can control the progress of the litigation or settle on their own terms. See Block, supra, at 9-10. Litigation over whether there was an implied private right of action in the Rehabilitation Act recognized that the Rehabilitation Act also contained an administrative-enforcement system. See Miener v. Missouri, 673 F.2d 969, 978 (8th Cir. 1982); Pushkin v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 658 F.2d 1372, 1381 (10th Cir. 1981); Camenisch v. Univ. of Tex., 616 F.2d 127, 133-34 (5th Cir. 1980), vacated on other grounds, 451 U.S. 390 (1981); Kling v. Los Angeles Cty., 633 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir. 1980); NAACP v. Med. Ctr., Inc., 559 F.2d 1247, 1254-55, 1258 (3d Cir. 1979). The United States has brought suits to ensure compliance with the Rehabilitation Act, and each of those suits took place after the relevant agency had received a complaint and investigated. See United States v. Ed. of Trustees for Univ. of Ala., 908 F.2d 740, 742 (11th Cir. 1990) (deaf student filed complaint in 1979 alleging University improperly denied sign-language interpreter services, government filed suit to enforce Rehabilitation Act); United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 F.2d 1039, 1041 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189 (1985) 28 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000431 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 29 of 66 (deaf patient filed complaint that hospital refused to permit her to bring an interpreter, hospital refused to allow HHS to investigate); United States v. Univ. Hosp. of State Univ. ofN.Y. at Stony Brook, 729 F.2d 144, 147 (2d Cir. 1984) (United States filed suit after receiving a complaint relating to medical treatment of disabled baby). Florida argues that Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. was not an enforcement action because the central question was whether the receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds made the hospital a recipient of federal financial assistance subject to ? 504. Florida is correct about the nature of the central question, but it errs in characterizing Baylor as anything other than an enforcement action. The United States and the Medical Center had both sought summary judgment on the question of federal funding, and the district court awarded it to the United States. Id. at 1041--42. It concluded that the Medical Center was in violation of? 504 and suspended all future Medicare and Medicaid payments to the Medical Center until it complied with the investigation. Id. at 1042. The question of the receipt of federal financial assistance was essential to determining whether the Medical Center was violating ? 504 and whether the United States could enforce ? 504. Ibid. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conclusion that the hospital was a federalfunding recipient but determined that the district court abused its discretion in suspending the funding immediately. Id. at 1050. It relied on the history of the 29 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000432 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 30 of 66 Rehabilitation Act and its relationship to Title VI. Administrative enforcement remedies, the court explained, were inconsistent with an immediate, automatic suspension of federal funding because ? 602 sets out very specific procedures to be implemented before terminating funding. Ibid. The court also specifically stated that agencies seeking to enforce ? 504 may "resort to 'any other means authorized by law'-including the federal courts." Ibid. (citing United States v. Marion Cty. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1980)). The Second Circuit has considered the nature of the United States's authority to enforce ? 504. In Stony Brook, 729 F .2d at 148, the United States filed suit, alleging that a hospital had violated ? 504 and accompanying regulations by refusing to provide information regarding medical care provided to a baby born with severe disabilities. The Second Circuit, applying the assumption that ? 504 covered the hospital, and determining that the baby was a "handicapped individual," id. at 155, nonetheless concluded that ? 504 did not apply to decisions about medical treatment, and that HHS could not proceed in its investigation. Id. at 157-59. 15 Importantly, 15 It is important to note that in United States v. Univ. Hosp. of State Univ. of NY at Stony Brook, 729 F.3d 144, 161 (2d Cir. 1984), the relevant Rehabilitation Act claim was whether the baby was denied certain surgical interventions on the basis of her disability. The Second Circuit pointed out that the hospital was always willing to perform the surgeries if her parents consented, thus the baby was treated in an "evenhanded manner" by the hospital. Ibid The United States's claims in this case are consistent with (although not limited to) the kind of claims raised in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 587 (1999), and, inter alia, concern whether Florida is violating Title II of the ADA by failing to provide community placements for individuals for whom a less restrictive setting than an institution is appropriate. This is a far cry from a case 30 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000433 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 31 of 66 the court did not conclude that the government lacked any authority to enforce? 504. Rather, with the issue of the United States's authority before it, the court concluded that this particular investigation and enforcement action exceeded the congressionally delegated enforcement authority under the Rehabilitation Act because Congress did not intend for agencies to insert themselves in those circumstances. Id. at 160. A review of the legislative and regulatory background of the Rehabilitation Act, its existing regulations, and legal precedent demonstrate that the Act incorporated a system of administrative procedures that included a complaint, compliance reviews, investigation, and possible enforcement action by the Attorney General. As we have discussed above, Congress was fully aware of this system, it is consistent with what Congress intended, and the 1978 Amendments to ? 504 and ? 505 demonstrate that Congress codified the existing administrative practice of using Title VI procedures. Further, by 1980, the Attorney General had been tasked with enforcing Title VI, the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX, and other similar statutes. It is with this background that we now address the specific language in the enforcement provision of Title II of the ADA. in which a federal agency sought to investigate (and possibly override) parents' reasonable, informed medical decisions for their child. See also American Acad of Pediatrics v. Heckler, 56 l F. Supp. 395 (D.D.C. 1983). 31 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000434 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 32 of 66 IV. Enforcement of Title II of the ADA The United States contends that by incorporating the "remedies, procedures, and rights" of the Rehabilitation Act (and accordingly Title VI), "Congress adopted a federal administrative enforcement scheme in which persons claiming unlawful discrimination may complain to and enlist the aid of federal agencies in compelling compliance, potentially leading to a DOJ lawsuit." Florida argues that, because the administrative process was not designed to vindicate individual rights, such actions "taken at the executive's discretion and without the complainant's involvement" deprive the terms "right" and "remedy" of all meaning. Florida relies on precedent that recognized a private right of action under the Rehabilitation Act and rejected administrative exhaustion, particularly Camenisch v. Univ. of Tex., 616 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1980), vacated on other grounds, 451 U.S. 390 (1981). In recognizing private rights of action, courts have emphasized the potentially unsatisfactory nature of administrative remedies for individuals under Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act. See id. at 135. That argument lends support to finding an implied cause of action to permit individuals to seek personal redress. Ibid. It does not, however, automatically lead to the conclusion that government enforcement is impermissible. Ensuring that public entities subject to federal statutes comply with those states ultimately vindicates individuals' personal rights. Although some plaintiffs may prefer private remedies, that fact does not persuade us that we should 32 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000435 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 33 of 66 ignore Congress's decision to enact a statutory scheme that permits the government to enforce Title II. A. Title II Enforcement Regulations Follow Regulations Promulgated Under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI Congress directed the Attorney General to "promulgate regulations ... that implement" Title II. 42 U.S.C. ? 12134(a). Congress directed that those regulations "be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (as promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on January 13, 1978), applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance under section 794 of Title 29." Id. (b). As we have discussed above in Part III.A, pp. 23-28, the 1978 regulations required agencies to establish enforcement procedures for ? 504. See Implementation of Executive Order 11,914: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs, 43 Fed. Reg. 2132, 2137, ? 85.5(a) (Jan. 13, 1978). Part 41 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the regulations that the Attorney General promulgated in response to Executive Order 12,250, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs, which, as we have already observed, are the same as HEW's January 13, 1978 regulations. Those regulations required agencies to use the "enforcement and hearing procedures that the agency has adopted for the enforcement of [T]itle VI of 33 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000436 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 34 of 66 the Civil Rights Act of 1964[.]" Compare 28 C.F.R. ? 41.5, with 43 Fed. Reg. 2137, ? 85.5(a). The Department of Justice then issued regulations that, consistent with Congress's directive in ? 12134, established an administrative scheme for Title II similar to the ones available for the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI. See 28 C.F .R. ?? 35.170-35.174, 35.190. An individual may file a complaint with the appropriate federal agency, any agency that provides funding to the public entity allegedly discriminating, or with the Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. ? 35.170. Agencies "shall" investigate complaints, may conduct compliance reviews, and, if appropriate, attempt informal resolution. 16 Id. ? 35.172(a)-( c). If an agency can obtain voluntary compliance, then such agreements must provide for enforcement by the Attorney General. Id. ? 35.173(b )(5). 16 Florida points out that the Department of Justice amended its regulations to clarify that agencies are not obligated to investigate administrative complaints alleging violations of Title 11. In 2010, the Department modified its regulations. See N ondi scriminati on on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75 Fed. Reg. 56,164, 56,228 (Sept. 15, 2010). The Department explained that, since Title II regulations went into effect, it had "received many more complaints alleging violations of [T]itle II than its resources permit it to resolve." Ibid It modified a regulation to clarify that designated agencies may exercise discretion in determining which complaints they select to resolve. Agencies may still "engage in conscientious enforcement" without fully investigating each complaint. Ibid Rather, the Department explained that the modification was to permit agencies to assess whether agencies are likely to succeed in enforcement, whether the enforcement is consistent with the agencies' policies, and whether agencies' limited resources are best spent on a particular complaint. Ibid A person who complains to an agency may still file suit regardless of the agency's resolution of the matter. 28 C.F.R. ? 35. l 72(d). As we have already said, this argument certainly supports an implied private right of action. But our concern is with government, rather than private, enforcement. 34 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000437 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 35 of 66 Agencies are required to issue a letter of findings that provides public entities their findings of fact, conclusions oflaw, description of remedies for violations, and notice of available rights and procedures. Id.? 35.172(c). Ifa public entity "declines to enter into voluntary compliance negotiations or if negotiations are unsuccessful, the designated agency shall refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation for appropriate action." Id. ? 35.174. Complainants may file private suits under 42 U.S.C. ? 12133, regardless of whether or not an agency finds a violation. Id. ? 35.172( d). The district court dismissed Congress's directive to the Attorney General in ? 12134( a)-(b) to implement regulations that must be consistent with Title II and the Rehabilitation Act enforcement regulations. C. V, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 1288. Relying on Elwell v. Oklahoma ex rel. Ed. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 693 F.3d 1303, 1313 (10th Cir. 2012), and Zimmerman v. Or. Dep 't of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 1999), the district court explained that ? 12134(a) "authorizes the Attorney General to define the substantive standards for discrimination under Title II," and "the consistency mandate merely ensures that Title II's substantive standards are analogous to those under the Rehabilitation Act." C. V, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 1288. It quotedZimmerman, 170F.3dat 1179,forthepropositionthat"42U.S.C. ? 12134(b) does not suggest that Congress intended to incorporate any provisions from the 35 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000438 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Rehabilitation Act into Title II." Page: 36 of 66 C. V, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 1288 (emphasis in original). 17 But Elwell and Zimmerman addressed a very different issue than the one presented here. Both of those cases considered whether Title II permitted individuals to bring employment discrimination claims against public entities. See Elwell, 693 F.3d at 1305-06; Zimmerman, 170 F.3d at 1171-72. In those cases, plaintiffs contended that, because Title II incorporated ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act's "remedies, procedures, and rights," Congress intended to adopt the Rehabilitation Act's prohibition on employment discrimination. Elwell, 693 F .3d at 1312; Zimmerman, 170 F.3d at 1179. Both Elwell and Zimmerman firmly rejected this argument, pointing out that Congress adopted the Rehabilitation Act's procedural rights in Title II, rather than its substantive prohibitions on employment discrimination. After all, Congress had already extensively addressed employment discrimination in Title I of the ADA. Elwell, 693 F.3d at 1312; Zimmerman, 170 F.3d at 1179. Both opinions also rejected the argument that, because the Attorney 17 The district court made a critical omission when it quoted Zimmerman v. Or. Dep 't of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 1999). The full sentence reads: "Unlike 42 USC.? 12133, 42 U.S.C. ? 12134(b) does not suggest that Congress intended to incorporate any provisions from the Rehabilitation Act into Title II." Ibid (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit emphasized that the requirement of "consistency" in areas of regulatory overlap did not demonstrate an intent to incorporate substantive provisions concerning an entirely separate subject (employment) that Congress had already addressed exhaustively in Title I. Id at 1179-80. Here, by contrast, the requirement of consistency makes far more sense when Title II addresses public services provided by public entities and the relevant regulations address the same subject. 36 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000439 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 37 of 66 General's Title II regulations were required to be consistent with certain Rehabilitation Act regulations, it adopted the Rehabilitation Act regulations that prohibited discrimination in employment. Elwell, 693 F.3d at 1312-13; Zimmerman, 179 F.3d at 1179-80. Elwell and Zimmerman do support a conclusion that the Attorney General's regulations to implement Title II were intended to be consistent with the Rehabilitation Act in the areas where they might overlap. The regulations included definitions of certain terms, identified types of prohibited discrimination, and accessibility standards. Zimmerman, 170 F.3d at 1179-80; Elwell, 693 F.3d at 1313. Title II: (1) expressly addresses public services provided by public entities; 42 U.S.C. ? 12132; (2) directly incorporates the rights, procedures, and remedies available in? 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act for violations of the prohibition on discrimination by programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance; id. at? 12133; and (3) directs that regulations to implement Title II must be "consistent" with certain Rehabilitation Act regulations that apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance. Id. ? 12134. The consistency requirement in ? 12134(b) leads to the conclusion that Congress intended the Attorney General's Title II regulations to adopt the Rehabilitation Act's Title-VI-type enforcement procedures because Title II's enforcement procedure used the Rehabilitation Act's enforcement structure. See S. 37 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000440 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 38 of 66 Rep. No. 101-116, at 57 (1989) (explaining that the Attorney General should use ? 504 enforcement procedures and its role under Executive Order 12,250 as "models for regulation); H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 II, at 98 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303,381 (same). We considered that the Attorney General's Title II regulations were "entitled to controlling weight" in Shatz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1179 (11th Cir. 2003 ). "Congress expressly authorized the Attorney General to make rules with the force of law interpreting and implementing the ADA provisions generally applicable to public services." Ibid. (citing 42 U.S.C. ? 12134(a)). See also Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 597-98 (1999) ("Because the Department [of Justice] is the agency directed by Congress to issue regulations implementing Title II ... its views warrant respect." (citation omitted)). These regulations are reasonably related to the legislative purpose of the ADA, which included federal enforcement. Id. at 1179 & n. 25. They are consistent with the remedial structure that Congress selected for Title II, in that they adopt similar enforcement procedures to the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI, as Congress directed. Thus, "[b ]ecause Congress explicitly delegated authority to construe the statute by regulation, in this case we must give the regulations legislative and hence controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly contrary to the statute." United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 834 (1984), accord Yeskey v. Com. 38 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000441 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 39 of 66 of Pa. Dep 't of Corr., 118 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1997), ajf'd sub nom. Pennsylvania Dep 't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998); Kornblau v. Dade Cty., 86 F.3d 193, 194 (11th Cir. 1996). B. Title II of the ADA Permits Department of Justice Enforcement To be sure, the Attorney General may not, by regulation, employ a cause of action where none was intended. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 291 ( concluding that regulations may not create a private right of action where Congress did not so intend); Marshall v. Gibson's Prods., Inc. of Plano, 584 F.2d 668, 677-78 & n.16 (5th Cir. 1978). But Title II incorporated the Rehabilitation Act's procedural rights. See Elwell, 693 F.3d at 1312; Zimmerman, 170 F.3d at 1179. Congress chose to use ? 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act as the enforcement mechanism for Title II of the ADA, with full knowledge that those provisions established administrative enforcement and oversight in accordance with Title VI. Congress also knew that, by adopting ? 502(a)(2), it incorporated Title VI's "any other means authorized by law" provision. The district court concluded that the "simpler explanation" was that "Congress did not incorporate all 'remedies, procedures, and rights' available under Title VI-it incorporated only those 'remedies, procedures, and rights' that may be exercised by a 'person alleging discrimination."' C. V, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 1286-87 (quoting 42 U.S.C. ? 12133) (emphasis in original). It reasoned that, as "the power 39 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000442 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 40 of 66 to terminate federal funding under Title VI has no foothold in Title II," the available enforcement remedy is simply a private lawsuit. 18 Id. at 1287. This conclusion is inconsistent with the statutory text, and Congress's directive that Title II's remedies are the same as the Rehabilitation Act. See Barnes, 536 U.S. at 185. At the time Congress enacted the ADA, there had been a number of decisions from the Supreme Court and the circuits regarding the availability of an implied private right of action under Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act. If Congress only intended to create a private right of action under Title II, then its decision to cross-reference to? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which expressly incorporates Title VI, including its administrative enforcement scheme in? 602, would be mystifying, especially because it had directed the Attorney General to develop regulations that were to be consistent with Rehabilitation Act enforcement procedures that included Title VI enforcement. See 42 U.S.C. ? 12134. It is true that Title II, unlike the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI, does not condition the right to enforce the statute on a defendant's receipt of federal funding. 18 The district court's reliance on Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), is misplaced. There, the Supreme Court, interpreting ? 602 of the Civil Rights Act, explained that ? 602 did not confer rights on individuals, rather it focused on federal agencies' responsibilities. Id at 289. The implication from Sandoval, as was observed in United States v. Maricopa Cty., 151 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1018 (D. Ariz. 2015), is that when enforcement provisions focus on a particular party, it is more likely that Congress gave that party the ability to enforce the provision. Sandoval's logic lends more support to concluding that there is a right of action for federal agency enforcement in? 602's reference to "any other means authorized by law." Ibid 40 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000443 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 41 of 66 But, as the Supreme Court observed in Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 189 n.3 (2002), that does not mean that an analysis of the available "remedies, procedures, and rights" turns on that distinction. Justice Scalia (who wrote the Court's opinion) and Justice Stevens (who concurred only in the judgment) disagreed over the relevance of contract-law principles to the Court's conclusion that punitive damages were not available in Title II suits. See id. at 189-90 (Scalia, J. ), 192-93 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment). The Court had determined that because such damages were not available in suits under Title VI or the Rehabilitation Act, which were Spending Clause legislation, they were not available in Title II suits. Id. at 189-90. Justice Scalia noted that the ADA is not Spending Clause legislation, but rejected the distinction because Congress had "unequivocally" selected remedies derived from Spending Clause legislation when it enacted the ADA. The ADA could not be clearer that the "remedies, procedures, and rights ... this subchapter provides" for violations of ? 202 are the same as the "remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in" ? 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act, which is Spending Clause legislation. Section 505(a)(2), in tum, explains that the "remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI ... shall be available" for violations of ? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 189 n.3 (Scalia, J.) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). In Barnes, while interpreting the remedial structure of Title II of the ADA, the Supreme Court did not consider the federal-funding distinction persuasive because 41 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000444 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 42 of 66 Congress expressly adopted remedies from those Spending Clause statutes. Congress intended for those to be the available remedies for Title II because it said so. 19 See Connecticut Nat 'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) ("[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."). To determine the available remedies, we must take Congress at its word. This brings us to Florida's arguments concerning who may file suit under Title II. Florida asserts that because Congress did not name the Attorney General in Title II, the Attorney General may not sue. It relies on Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, Dep 't of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 129 (1995), for the proposition that if an agency is meant to have standing, then Congress expressly says so. This is one of the key concepts from Newport News. The other is that, when making such determinations, courts examine the nature, structure, and purpose of the relevant statutory scheme. We do not conclude that Newport News dictates the result Florida proposes. Newport News examined a single, self-contained statute, rather than a complex statutory scheme with two layers of statutory cross-reference. The 19 Of course, if a public entity does not receive federal funding, then the United States may not terminate or withhold such funding. But the ADA prohibits discrimination by all public entities, regardless of the source of funding. Shatz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1174 (11th Cir. 2003). 42 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000445 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 43 of 66 Supreme Court considered whether the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs could, under the judicial review provision of the Longshore Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), seek judicial review of a decision by the Benefits Review Board. 514 U.S. at 123. The relevant statute provided that "'any person adversely affected or aggrieved by' the Board's order" could appeal the decision in a United States Court of Appeals. Id. at 126 (quoting 33 U.S.C. ? 921(c)). The Board had affirmed an administrative law judge's determination that a worker was only partially disabled. The Director sought review in the Fourth Circuit, which independently concluded that the Director could not seek judicial review because she was not a "person adversely affected or aggrieved" by the Board's decision within the meaning of the LHWCA. 20 The Supreme Court affirmed. The Director was not a party to the proceedings before the administrative law judge, and, under the LHWCA, she could not appeal the judge's determinations to the Board. Thus, allowing her to challenge the Board's determinations in a federal court of appeals would be quite odd. The key phrase in the judicial review provision, "a person adversely affected or aggrieved," is, the 20 The worker did not seek judicial review, and upon inquiry by the Fourth Circuit, "expressly declined to intervene on his own behalf," although he did not oppose the Director's appeal. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, Dep 't of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 124-25 (1995). 43 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000446 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 44 of 66 Court explained, a "term of art" that statutes use to "designate those who have standing to challenge or appeal an agency decision, within the agency or before the courts." Id. at 126. But nothing suggested that, "without benefit of specific authorization to appeal, an agency, in its regulatory or policy-making capacity, is 'adversely affected' or 'aggrieved. "' 21 Id. at 127. The Court explained that the general judicial review provision of the Administrative Procedure Act does not include an agency as a person adversely affected or aggrieved, id. at 129, and "when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing, Congress says so." Ibid. (emphasis in original). The Court rejected the Director's argument that she could seek judicial review because the Board's decision impaired her ability to achieve the LHWCA's purposes and perform administrative duties. Id. at 126. The Court observed that the Board's decision did not interfere with the Director's duties as set forth by the LHWCA, and that the purpose of the LHWCA was not to ensure adequate compensation, but rather to resolve disputes. Id. at 130-31. Even assuming that the LHWCA's sole purpose was to ensure compensation for workers, agencies "do not automatically have standing to sue for actions that frustrate the purposes of their statutes[,]" and the 21 Agencies may be "adversely affected or aggrieved" in some circumstances, such as when they are injured in their "nongovernmental capacity ... as ... member[s] of the market group that the statute was meant to protect." Newport News, 514 U.S. at 128 (citing United States v. ICC, 337 U.S. 426, 430 (1949)). 44 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000447 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 45 of 66 plain language of the statute did not show a "clear and distinctive responsibility for employee compensation as to overcome" the obvious reading of the text-that the "person adversely affected or aggrieved" by the Board's decision is one of the parties to the proceeding. Id. at 132. By contrast, here, Congress enacted a statute that drew upon two other statutes to create the remedies, rights, and procedures available for enforcement, with the full knowledge that the other statutes-the Act-were Rehabilitation Act and the Civil Rights enforceable by federal agencies through funding termination or "any other means authorized by law." See 42 U.S.C. ? 12133. Then Congress told the Attorney General to make regulations (that we defer to) to implement Title II that were to be consistent with a set of regulations that traced directly back to Title VI regulations. 42 U.S.C. ? 12134(a)-(b). Congress was quite clear that Title Vofthe Rehabilitation Act and its accompanying regulations were to be construed as the minimum standard for the ADA. 42 U.S.C. ? 12201 ("Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by Federal agencies pursuant to such title."). By the time Congress enacted the ADA, it had established administrative enforcement structures in Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act that each followed the same pattern. Various federal investigations under those statutes had culminated in 45 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000448 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 46 of 66 the Department of Justice filing suit in federal court to enforce these statutory provisions. Congress knew that both Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act had been enforced through Department of Justice litigation, and when it enacted the ADA, cross-referencing to Spending Clause remedies-without hook-such the federal-funding remedies necessarily entailed federal enforcement actions, particularly when? 12133 ultimately cascades back to "any other means authorized by law," a phrase that courts have interpreted to permit referral to the Department of Justice for further legal action. See Cannon, 441 U.S. at 710-11 (implying a private remedy in part because Congress considered it to be available at the time of enactment); Brown v. Gen. Svcs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 828 (1976) ("For the relevant inquiry is not whether Congress correctly perceived the then state of the law, but rather what its perception of the state of the law was."). The legislative, regulatory, and precedential background of the statutes that Congress incorporated demonstrate that Congress intended to create a system of federal enforcement for Title II of the ADA. Indeed, one of the purposes of the ADA was to ensure that the Federal Government "play[ ed] a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. ? 12101(b)(3). C. The Legislative History of Title II Supports the Attorney General's Authority to File Suit In considering the legislative history, we are mindful that courts need not examine legislative history if the meaning of the statute is plain, but it may do so, 46 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000449 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 47 of 66 particularly if a party's interpretation is based on a misreading or misapplication of legislative history. See Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976-77 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 (2001). Here, both parties dispute the effect of certain portions of the legislative history surrounding the enactment of the ADA. The United States cites two committee reports, one from the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. Rep. No. 101-116 (1989), and one from the House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 II (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, which, it asserts, demonstrate that Congress intended that the Department of Justice should enforce Title II. Both reports note that Title II' s enforcement provision specifies that the "remedies, procedures, and rights" are those available in? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act. S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 57; H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 II, at 98, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3 81. The Committee reports state (in virtually identical language) that administrative enforcement of? 12133 should track federal enforcement practices under ? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Attorney General "should use section 504 enforcement procedures and the Department's coordination role under Executive Order 12250 as models for regulation in this area." H.R. Rep. No. 101485 II, at 98, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 381; S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 57. The Committee envisions that the Department of Justice will identify appropriate Federal agencies to oversee compliance activities for State and local governments. As with section 504, these Federal agencies, 47 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000450 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 48 of 66 including the Department of Justice, will receive, investigate, and where possible, resolve complaints of discrimination. If a Federal agency is unable to resolve a complaint by voluntary means, the Federal government would use the enforcement sanctions of section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Because the fund termination procedures of section 505 are inapplicable to State and local government entities that do not receive Federal funds, the major enforcement sanction for the Federal government will be referral of cases by these Federal agencies to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice may then proceed to file suits in Federal district court. As with section 504, there is also a private right of action for persons with disabilities, which includes the full panoply of remedies. Again, consistent with section 504, it is not the Committee's intent that persons with disabilities need to exhaust Federal administrative remedies before exercising their private right of action. H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 II, at 98, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 381; S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 57-58. 22 Florida emphasizes that these reports refer to an earlier version of the bill, and cites another, later report, from the Committee on the Judiciary H.R. Rep. No. 101485 III, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, that does not discuss federal enforcement actions under Title II. In discussing Title II' s enforcement provision, the report from the Committee on the Judiciary stated: 22 Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not require a private party to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit. See Zimmerman v. Or. Dep 't of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999). 48 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000451 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 49 of 66 Section 205 incorporates the remedies, procedures and rights set forth in Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As in [T]itle I, the Committee adopted an amendment to delete the term "shall be available" in order to clarify that Rehabilitation Act remedies are the only remedies which [T]itle II provides for violations of [T]itle II. The Rehabilitation Act provides a private right of action, with a full panoply of remedies available, as well as attorney's fees. H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 III, at 52, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 475 (footnotes omitted). The difference between these Committee Reports is not, however, conclusive. First, the report from the Committee on the Judiciary emphasized that Title II extended the coverage of ? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and that it intended for Title II to "work in the same manner as Section 504." U.S.C.C.A.N. at 472-73. Id. at 49-50, 1990 Second, the reference to a "private right of action" included a footnote to Miener v. Missouri, 673 F.2d 969 (8th Cir. 1982), which concluded that the Rehabilitation Act contained an implied private right of action and recognized the federal enforcement structure. Id. at 978. As we have discussed above, there had been considerable litigation over whether the Rehabilitation Act permitted a private right of action. Thus, references to that private right equally permit the inference that Congress wanted to be clear that Title II did not just track the administrative enforcement structure of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI, but also authorized a private right of action. 49 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000452 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 50 of 66 This legislative history is not dispositive-indeed, we are wary of putting much, if any weight on various committee reports when the text of the bill was subsequently amended. More significantly, other courts considering this question have concluded that the Attorney General has the power to enforce Title II in federal court. 23 23 Florida, adopting the district court's arguments, contends that the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. ? 1997 et seq. ("CRIPA"), is an express mechanism to protect the rights of institutionalized persons. The district court concluded that "[r]ecognizing the authority the Department seeks in this case would, in effect, allow an end-run around CRIPA's stringent requirements." C. V v. Dudek, 209 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2016). CRIPA requires that the Attorney General have reasonable cause to believe that "any State or political subdivision of a State, official, employee, or agent thereof, or other person acting on behalf of a State or political subdivision of a State" is subjecting persons confined in an institution to "egregious or flagrant conditions" that deprive them of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the Untied States that causes them "grievous harm" and is "pursuant to a pattern or practice" before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. ? 1997a(a). But CRIPA is irrelevant in this case. Institutions that are subject to CRIPA must be "owned, operated, or managed by, or provide[] services on behalf of any State or political subdivision of a State," 42 U.S.C. ? 1997(l)(A), and include institutions that provide "skilled nursing, intermediate or longterm care, or custodial or residential care." Id (B)(v). Privately owned and operated facilities are not subject to CRIPA if either licensing or receipt of payments under Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security, are the "sole nexus" between the facility and the State. Id (2)(C). A review of the record seems to indicate that the nursing facilities at issue are private facilities that receive payments from Florida through Medicaid. Further, the United States' claims address more than just practices within Florida's institutions. There is nothing to suggest that CRIPA was intended to be the only means of enforcing the rights of institutionalized persons. Congress enacted CRIP A some ten years before the ADA Presumably Congress was aware that CRIP A existed, and yet it chose to enact the ADA, which reaches far more broadly, and provides protection against unnecessary institutionalization. See 42 U.S.C. ? 12101; Olmsteadv. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999). Obviously Congress can create different types of enforcement schemes for different types of statutory or constitutional violations. 50 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000453 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 51 of 66 D. The Department of Justice Has Filed Suit to Enforce Title II We are not the first court to pass upon this issue, and a review of other cases that have considered whether Title II permits the Attorney General to file suit demonstrates that the district court's decision is an outlier. This Circuit has generally acknowledged the scope of potential federal enforcement under Title II, in Shatz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1175 (11th Cir. 2003). In that case, we concluded that individuals could be liable under the ADA's anti-retaliation provision where the retaliation took place in response to opposition against discrimination prohibited by Title II. Id. at 1163. To do so, we explained, would not be inconsistent with the "allowed scope of government enforcement action" because the ADA is not Spending Clause legislation and funding-termination procedures are not applicable to public entities that do not receive federal funding. Id. at 1175. We concluded that the ADA and its accompanying regulations did not "indicate" that enforcement by referral to the Department of Justice or the Attorney General for appropriate action could not be taken against individuals. Ibid. In United States v. City & Cty. of Denver, 927 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (D. Colo. 1996), the district court considered whether the Attorney General had authority to file suit under Title II of the ADA. After describing the statutory cascade from 51 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000454 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 52 of 66 ? 12133, to? 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, to? 602 of Title VI, the district court observed that "[ c]ourts have interpreted the words 'by any other means authorized by law' to mean that a funding agency, after finding a violation and determining that voluntary compliance is not forthcoming, could refer a matter to the Department of Justice to enforce the statute's nondiscrimination requirements in court." Id. at 1400 (citing National Black Police Ass 'n, 712 F.2d at 575 & n.33; Marion Cty., 625 F.2d at 612 & n.12). The United States's regulations that implemented Title II were consistent with the administrative procedures under Title VI and the Rehabilitation Act. Ibid. The district court concluded that, by investigating, attempting to negotiate with Denver, and following Denver's refusal to enter into an agreement, the United States complied with the procedural requirements for Title II of the ADA (which were consistent with ? 602' s requirement that no action be taken until the department had advised the noncompliant party of its failure, and attempted to secure compliance through voluntary means). Ibid. In Smith v. City of Philadelphia, 345 F. Supp. 2d 482, 484-85 (E.D. Pa. 2004), Smith filed suit alleging that, upon learning that he had AIDS, paramedics refused to assist him, in violation of Title II of the ADA. The United States intervened. Id. at 484. The district court ruled that Smith's claims were time barred but concluded that the United States could proceed with its enforcement action because it had a separate and independent base of jurisdiction under Title II and ? 504 of the 52 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000455 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 53 of 66 Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 489. The district court's reasoning tracked the reasoning used in City & Cty. of Denver. Because the Title II's enforcement provision cascades to ? 602, which authorizes the Attorney General to enforce compliance with Title VI by filing suit in federal court, "the Attorney General may also bring suit to enforce other statutes which adhere to the enforcement scheme set forth in Title VI." Id. at 490. Other courts have considered this matter and reached the same conclusion following the same analysis. See United States v. Harris Cty., No. 4: 16-cv-2331, 2017 WL 7692396, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2017); United States v. Virginia, No. 3:12-cv-59-JAG, 2012 WL 13034148, at *2-3 (E.D. Va. June 5, 2012); United States v. Arkansas, No. 4: 10-cv-00327, 2011 WL 251107, at *3, *8 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 24, 2011) (concluding that the Department of Justice had authority to initiate a civil action to enforce Title II but dismissing the complaint without prejudice because the Department had not sufficiently alleged that it had complied with statutory prerequisites). Other cases the United States has filed to enforce Title II have not considered the question of standing but were litigated without jurisdictional challenge in the federal courts. See, e.g., United States v. Gates-Chili Cent. Sch. Dist., 198 F. Supp. 3d 228 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (alleging ADA violations from a school's rule regarding a student's service dog); United States v. City of Balt., 845 F. Supp. 2d 640, 642 n.1 53 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000456 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 54 of 66 (D. Md. 2012) (DOJ filed suit alleging that the City of Baltimore Zoning Code discriminates against individuals receiving treatment in residential substance abuse provisions in violation of Title II of the ADA); United States v. N. Ill. Special Recreation Ass'n, No. 12-c-7613, 2013 WL 1499034 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2013) (United States filed suit alleging discrimination against individuals with epilepsy in violation of Title II). When confronted with this issue, courts have routinely concluded that Congress's decision to utilize the same enforcement mechanism for Title II as the Rehabilitation Act, and therefore Title VI, demonstrates that the Attorney General has the authority to act "by any other means authorized by law" to enforce Title II, including initiating a civil action. We agree with this reasoning. E. Federalism Principles Do Not Alter Our Conclusion Florida contends that principles of federalism dictate a different result and complains that "the federal government has haled a State into court over questions that go to the heart of its sovereignty: the weighing of competing healthcare policies." Relying on Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), Florida asserts that Congress did not make a clear statement in Title II that it intended to "empower the federal executive to sue the States[.]" Florida argues that we should not presume that Congress intended to authorize such litigation without a clear statement because 54 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000457 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 55 of 66 federal enforcement actions impose "considerable federalism costs," and such litigation is "coercive." In Gregory, the Supreme Court considered whether a mandatory age-based retirement provision for judges in the Missouri Constitution violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). 501 U.S. at 455. The Court recognized that, under the Supremacy Clause, Congress may legislate in areas usually controlled by states provided that it is within its constitutional authority. Id. at 460. But, the Court pointed out, the structure of a State's government and the qualifications it establishes for exercising government authority are fundamental questions of sovereignty, particularly when it comes to identifying constitutional officers. Ibid. For Congress to interfere with those issues would seriously disrupt the "usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers." Ibid. Therefore, the Court would not read the ADEA to reach state judges unless Congress expressly indicated that it should. Because the ADEA identified an exception for "appointees on the policymaking level," the Court decided that was "sufficiently broad" to permit a conclusion that the ADEA did not reach state judges. Id. at 467. Gregory instructs us that, to alter the usual balance between state and federal interests, Congress must speak clearly. Congress has done so. Twenty years ago, in Pennsylvania Dep 't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208 (1998), the Supreme Court considered whether Title II 55 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000458 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 56 of 66 applied to state prisons. "Assuming, without deciding, that the plain-statement rule" of Gregory controlled the application of the ADA to state prisons, the Court concluded that, unlike in Gregory, the language of the ADA "plainly cover[ed] state institutions without any exception that could cast the coverage of prisons into doubt." Id. at209-10(citing42U.S.C. ? 12131(1)(B)). 24 Our analysis is similarly straightforward. Even assuming the "plain statement rule" applies, Congress expressly intended for Title II to reach states. Title II of the ADA defines "public entities" as "any State or local government," or "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government .... " 42 U.S.C. ? 1213 l(l)(A)-(B). Florida has been a state since 1845. Thus, it "fall[s] squarely within the statutory definition of 'public entity[]' .... " Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 210. Florida may have valid complaints about this lawsuit, but whether it is amenable to suit by the United States is not one of them. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that, "[i]n ratifying the Constitution, the States consented to suits brought by other states or by the Federal Government." Alden v. Maine, 527 24 The Supreme Court declined to consider whether the application of the ADA to state prisons was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under either the Commerce Clause or ? 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment because the courts below had not considered the issue. Pennsylvania Dep 't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212-13 (1998). We similarly do not need to reach the question of whether application of the ADA to a state is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power because it is not before us. 56 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000459 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 57 of 66 U.S. 706, 755 (1999). States do not retain sovereign immunity from suits brought by the federal government. See West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305, 311 n.4 (1987); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 71 n.14 (1996); Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 329 (1934); United States v. Miss. Dep 't of Pub. Safety, 321 F.3d 495, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the United States from suing a state to enforce Title I of the ADA). To be sure, there are "federalism costs inherent in referring state decisions regarding the administration of treatment programs and the allocation of resources to the reviewing authority of the federal courts." Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 610 (Kennedy, J., concurring). But the Supreme Court struck that balance in Olmstead, holding that the requirement that States provide community-based treatment must be tempered by: (1) a determination by the State's treatment professionals that such placement is appropriate; (2) the individuals to receive such treatment do not oppose it; and (3) the placement can be accommodated, considering the state's resources and the needs of other individuals who receive such treatment. Id. at 607. The same considerations in Olmstead apply to the merits of this case. Florida's federalism concerns do not dictate a different result. 57 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000460 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 58 of 66 CONCLUSION When Congress chose to designate the "remedies, procedures, and rights" in ? 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, which in tum adopted Title VI, as the enforcement provision for Title II of the ADA, Congress created a system of federal enforcement. The express statutory language in Title II adopts federal statutes that use a remedial structure based on investigation of complaints, compliance reviews, negotiation to achieve voluntary compliance, and ultimately enforcement through "any other means authorized by law" in the event of noncompliance. In the other referenced statutes, the Attorney General may sue. The same is true here. For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 58 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000461 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 59 of 66 BRANCH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because the United States is not a "person alleging discrimination" under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Title II does not provide the Attorney General of the United States with a cause of action to enforce its priorities against the State of Florida. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The relevant text of Title II states: The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of Title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title. 42 U.S.C. ? 12133 (emphasis added). The language of this provision is unambiguous. Title II provides enforcement rights "to any person alleging discrimination." Thus, the question is whether the Attorney General is a "person alleging discrimination" under Title II. To answer that question, we apply "a 'longstanding interpretive presumption that 'person' does not include the sovereign,' and thus excludes a federal agency." Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 587 U.S. ,No. 17-1594, 2019 WL 2412904, at *5 (June 10, 2019) (quoting Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. US ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 780-781 (2000)). In Return Mail, the Supreme Court considered whether the United States Postal Service ("USPS"), a federal agency, was a "person" eligible to seek patent review under the America Invents Act 59 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000462 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 60 of 66 ("AIA"). USPS had petitioned for review of Return Mail's patent under two sections of the AIA that allow for post-issuance patent review. Id. at *4-5. However, the language of the AIA limited post-issuance review proceedings to "a person who is not the owner of a patent," id. (citing 35 U.S.C. ?? 31 l(a), 321(a)), or when "the person or the person's real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement." Id. (citing AIA ? 18(a)(l)(B), 125 Stat. 330). Thus, the direct question presented to the Supreme Court in Return Mail was: "whether a federal agency is a 'person' capable of petitioning for post-issuance review under the AIA." Id. In concluding that the Government presumptively is not a "person" for purposes of federal statutes, the Supreme Court explained: This presumption reflects "common usage." United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947). It is also an express directive from Congress: The Dictionary Act has since 1947 provided the definition of "person" that courts use "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise." 1 U.S.C. ? 1; see Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men 's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 199-200 (1993). The Act provides that the word "person ... include[ s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." ? 1. Notably absent from the list of "person[ s]" is the Federal Government. See Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 275 (reasoning that Congress' express inclusion of partnerships and corporations in? 1 implies that Congress did not intend to include the Government). Thus, although the presumption is not a "hard and fast rule of exclusion," United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604-605 (1941 ), "it may be disregarded only upon some affirmative showing of statutory intent to the contrary." Stevens, 529 U.S. at 781. Id. at *6. 60 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000463 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 61 of 66 Given Return Mail's clear explanation of the presumption in favor of excluding the Federal Government from the definition of "person," I approach the analysis of Title II the same way. As such, I begin with the presumption that "person alleging discrimination," 42 U.S.C. ? 12133, does not include the United States. See Return Mail, 2019 WL 2412904, at *5. In order to overcome "the presumption that a statutory reference to a 'person' does not include the Government," there must be "some indication in the text or context of the statute that affirmatively shows Congress intended to include the Government" in its definition of "person." Id. Nothing in the text of Title II overcomes this presumption. But Return Mail states that context matters, too. And so I next examine the enforcement language contained in the other Titles of the ADA. 1 In Title I of the ADA, the enforcement language provides as follows: The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in ... this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this subchapter provides to the Commission, to the Attorney General, or to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of any provision of this chapter, or regulations promulgated under section 12116 of this title, concerning employment. 1 The ADA contains three primary subchapters, each referred to as a separate "Title." Each Title "forbids discrimination against persons with disabilities in three major areas of public life: employment, which is covered by Title I of the statute; public services, programs, and activities, which are the subject of Title II; and public accommodations, which are covered by Title III." Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 516-17 (2004). 61 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000464 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 62 of 66 42 U.S.C. ? 12117(a) (emphasis added). The text of Title I thus explicitly conveys the "powers, remedies, and procedures ... to the Attorney General." Id. Title II echoes the "any person alleging discrimination" language contained in Title I, but the reference to "the Attorney General" is conspicuously missing from Title II. Compare 42 U.S.C. ? 12133, with 42 U.S.C. ? 12117(a). Title III of the ADA also contains language bestowing enforcement authority on the Attorney General: If the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that-(i) any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination under this subchapter; or (ii) any person or group of persons has been discriminated against under this subchapter and such discrimination raises an issue of general public importance, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court. 42 U.S.C. ? 12188(b )(B) (emphasis added). The text of Title III of the ADA is even more explicit than the text of Title I and clearly provides the Attorney General with the authority to bring a civil suit in federal court. Title II, by contrast, is entirely devoid of any reference to "the Attorney General" or the power to "commence a civil action." Compare 42 U.S.C. ? 12133 with 42 U.S.C. ? 12188(b )(B). The difference in language across the ADA's three titles is noteworthy. It is well settled that, "where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that 62 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000465 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 63 of 66 Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972)). If Congress had intended to grant a civil cause of action to the Attorney General in Title II, "it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in" Titles I and III. See Russello, 464 U.S. at 23. Yet the majority essentially reads Title Ill's language (that "the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court") into Title II. Although the majority readily admits that, "at first glance, Title II's enforcement provision is not as specific as those in Titles I and III," it finds these differences inconsequential. The majority reasons that the differences between Title II and the other subchapters of the ADA "should not dictate a conclusion that, absent greater specificity, we should simply assume that a single word in? 12133 ends all inquiry." As discussed above, the inquiry does, in fact, tum on a single word. Accordingly, it is clear that the Attorney General is not a "person alleging discrimination" under Title II. Notably, however, the United States does not argue that the Attorney General is a "person alleging discrimination." The United States instead argues that 'Title II provides to 'persons' alleging discrimination the 'remedies, procedures, and rights'-including enforcement-that the prospect of Attorney General are provided to persons under the Rehabilitation Act and Title 63 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000466 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 64 of 66 VI." The majority agrees with the United States: "Focusing solely on the word 'person' and the difference in the language of enforcement provisions within the ADA ignores" the presumption that "Congress legislated in light of existing remedial structures." But "[f]ocusing solely on the word 'person"' is precisely where this case should begin and end. Because the Attorney General of the United States-on behalf of the United States itself and not on behalf of any individuals served by the State of Florida-filed suit in this case, it is the United States that must have a cause of action to enforce Title II. And that determination necessarily depends on whether the Attorney General is a "person alleging discrimination" under the text of Title II. Because he is not such a person, the Attorney General has none of the "rights, procedures, and remedies" available under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI. Accordingly, in this case, it is legally irrelevant what those "rights, procedures, and remedies" are because he simply does not possess those rights with respect to Title II. I do not agree that the multitude of cross-references to other federal regulatory schemes somehow provides a cause of action that does not otherwise exist in the text of Title II. The Attorney General also insists that "a holding that the Attorney General cannot continue to bring lawsuits to enforce Title II would seriously undermine federal enforcement of the ADA against public entities." But we cannot expand the definition of "person" just because such an interpretation would "further the 64 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000467 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 65 of 66 purpose of the" statute. Return Mail, 2019 WL 2412904, at * 10 n.11. "Statutes rarely embrace every possible measure that would further their general aims, and, absent other contextual indicators of Congress' intent to include the Government in a statutory provision referring to a 'person,' the mere furtherance of the statute's broad purpose does not overcome the presumption in this case." Id. See Cooper, 312 U.S. at 605 ("[I]t is not our function to engraft on a statute additions which we think the legislature logically might or should have made"). And Title II remains enforceable-even if the Attorney General does not have enforcement authority- because, as the Attorney General acknowledges, a "person alleging discrimination" may still enforce Title II through a private right of action. Both the United States and the majority make much of the fact that "one of the purposes of the ADA was to ensure that the Federal Government 'play[ed] a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities."' But, even if we find-as I do-that Title II does not allow the Attorney General to bring suit, the federal government will continue to "play a central role in enforcing the standards established in [the ADA] on behalf of individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. ? 12101(b)(3). Title I and Title III of the ADA clearly and explicitly confer enforcement authority on the Attorney General. See 42 U.S.C. ?? 12117(a), 12188(b)(B). Accordingly, a holding that the Attorney General cannot sue the States to enforce Title II does not affect, in any 65 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000468 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 66 of 66 way, the Attorney General's ability to enforce the other Titles of the ADA. Thus, the ADA' s broad statutory purpose rationally coexists with the holding that the Attorney General cannot file federal lawsuits to enforce Title II. Because the text of Title II is determinative, and because that text does not provide the Attorney General with a cause of action to enforce Title II against the State of Florida, I would affirm the order of the district court. I respectfully dissent. 66 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000469 From: Sent: To: Subject: 6l John Gore1Cbl( ~gmail.com] 9/18/2019 2:48:19 AM ICbJ(6l ~yahoo.com Re: US v Florida/Dudek Incredible! Thanks for sending. Greetings from Switzerland, John On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:13 AM eric dreibandl(bl(6l Victory! ~yahoo.com> wrote: Opinion is attached. Congratulations John. Eric AM[ HICAN PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-D-000470 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division TC:KK 19-00009-F Via Electronic Mail Only Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 foia@americanoversight.org Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 April 21, 2020 Dear Mr. Evers: This is in further response to your October 4, 2018 Freedom of Information Act request, which was received by the Civil Rights Division (CRT) on the same day, seeking access to all email communications between 1) John Gore (former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and former Acting Assistant Attorney General, and 2) any email addresses ending in .com/.net/.org/.edu/.mail from January 20, 2017, to the date of the search. The request was limited to emails sent by Mr. Gore. Subsequently, the requester and the Civil Right Division agreed to parameters and search terms for a supplemental search of Mr. Gore's personal email for only work-related email and email with friends who are lawyers for variations of the terms of "vote, civil rights, Title VI, Title VII and Title IX." This search excluded email for individuals and persons in several categories with whom Mr. Gore had a personal connection: family members; personal accountant; personal friends who do not currently work for the government or who did not work for the government in the past; youth sports parents and coaches; personal attorneys; and Jones Day emails which related to post DOJ employment or otherwise personal in nature. On March 31, 2020, CRT provided a supplemental response of 470 pages. After further review, CRT has revised the March 31st response and provided additional releases on four pages. I have determined that portions of these pages may be released in part while access to portions should be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ? 552 (b)(6) since disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Although this matter is in litigation, I am obligated to advise you that you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Sixth Floor, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." VERSIGHT I hope the Civil Rights Division has been of some assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, Kilian Kagle Kilian Kagle, Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Branch Civil Rights Division AMERICAN PVERSIGHT From: John Gore Wbl(6l Sent: 4/1/2017 12:04:11 PM @)gmail.com] To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Subject: Re: EEOCagenda Incredible. She mentioned none of this when I spoke to her yesterday. I think she wants DOJ to tell the other agencies what to do about these cases so she has cover. On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Bloomberg Law Tools BNA Daily Labor Report(R) March 31, 2017 EEOC EEOC Acting Chair Lipnic Skeptical About Pay Data Plan BNA Snapshot o Planned data collection might not advance equal pay, EEOC's acting chair says o Agency will keep seeking anti-bias protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity o Enforcement priorities intact for now, but changes in 'approach' are possible later By Kevin McGowan EEOC Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic (R) supports the agency's systemic case approach and won't change its advocacy for federal protections for LGBT workers. But she remains skeptical about the agency's plan to require employers to submit their summary pay data. Lipnic voted against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's now-completed plan to revise the annual employer information report, or EEO-I form, to require companies with I 00 or more employers to report summary pay data categorized by employees' gender, race and ethnicity. Speaking in New Orleans March 30, Lipnic reiterated her doubts that the new EEO-I form's purported benefits outweigh the potential costs on employers. The new form is set to take effect on March 31, 2018. The Chamber of Commerce and 27 trade associations in February asked the Office of Management and Budget to reconsider its 2016 approval of the revised EEO-I form under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Awaiting the OMB's Call Afv The EEOC hasn't heard from the 0MB since the Chamber filed its PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-E-000001 From: Sent: To: Subject: 6l John Gore 1Cbl( l@gmail.com] 4/11/2017 3:37:50 PM EricS Dreiband[esdreiband@jonesday.com] 6l Re:Fwd:l(bl( I I wasn't quite sure what to think of it. It obviously is not litigation experience. On the other hand, a lot of what DAAGs do is manage, and it is good management experience. What did you think? On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Eric S Dreiband John, what do you think of~post-DOJ wrote: experience? Eric ***This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.*** 6l -----Messagefrom"JohnGore"4(bl( @gmail.com> on Tue,11Apr201716:17:05 GMT----From: "JohnGore"4(b)(6) @gmail.com> "EricS Dreiband" To: Fwd:~l(b_)(6_l --~ Subject: Eric: Apologies for interrupting your spring break. (bJ(6l ~--------------------~ A couple of people have approached me today with staffing suggestions that I thought were worth passing along. 1. b)(S) Eric Treene passed along the attached resume of r(S) 1-~s a former line attorney in the Employment Litigation Section in Civil Rights who has been active on civil rights matters for years (although most recently not in a litigation capacity). utold Eric that he would be interested in a frontoffice position and in getting back into litigation. Withrb)(S) !management experience, Eric thinks he would be a solid DAAG. 61 -~ 2.[b)(S) llb)(S) lalso endorsr'-e~d~rb)-(S)-------.--'I who is currently atrb)(S) ~ Eric was~rb)(_ 6 co-clerk and was the other finalist for the Civil l(bl(l f spot that went to~~ describes him as "extremely conservative" and "extremely smart." 6l http://wwwJCblC lcom~CbJ(6l John fa ---------- Forwarded message---------6l ~comcast.net> From: Eric Treene jCblC Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11 :08 AM 161 Subject: ~b(_ ----~ PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-E-000002 ICbJ(6l From: John Gore Sent: 5/2/2017 6:40:37 PM To: Eric S Dreiband [esdreiband@jonesday.com] Re: CRT Org Chart Subject: l@gmail.com] 6_l____ I don't know anyone who can help with the SF-278, which I remember is~ICb_lC Mary Blanche Hankey? ~l Have you asked On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks again John. This sounds like something we'll have to deal with if I survive the confirmation process. Separately, do you know anyone who can help with the SF-278 form. It is the financial disclosure form and I am a bit confused about 6l how I am supposed to fillout the section about my variou~Cbl( !plans. Eric Top of Form Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwideoM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Office +1.202 .879.3720 esdreiband@jonesday .com From: To: John Gore 4(b)(6) l@gmail.com> Eric S Dreiband Bottom of Form Date: Subject: 05/02/2017 06:03 PM Re: CRT Org Chart All correct - and I agree. One issue is what to do with the career CRT lawyers who Wheeler has detailed to senior counsel spots on an interim basis. Wheeler feels some loyalty to these people and candidly has promised to do things for them that he can't deliver, such as help them find other positions so they don't have to return to being line attorneys in CRT. He has created some high (and unfair) expectations. Moreover, since these people are politically conservative, none of them want to go back to being line attorneys, let alone under their CRT managers. In all events, once the political slots are filled, there is no need for all of the extra bodies and, in fact, no space to house them all in our limited office space. I think Tom's plan for now is to leave them on detail to the front office. That may be a temporary solution, but I want to make sure you are aware of the situation as it will need to be addressed at some point. p On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: John, so this appears to mean that we will have one vacant political DAAGspot only when Tom Wheeler leaves, assuming you and E:::]are in the other political DAAGspots. DOJ offered Ben Aquinaga and Tara Heitman counsel jobs and both accepted pending background checks, which means that we have three more of those positions. This seems like plenty of people. I don't think we need a political chief of staff unless we decide to add the title to one of the PVERSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-E-000003 three DAAGs. Eric Top of Form Eric S. Dreiband (bio) Partner JONES DAY(R) - One Firm WorldwideoM 51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Bottom of Form Office +1.202.879.3720 esdreiband@jonesday .com John Gore 4(b)(6) p:igmail.com> From: To: Eric S Dreiband Date: Subject: 05/02/2017 10:50 AM Re: CRT Org Chart At Tom Wheeler's request, I just confirmed some information related to the org chart with Lee Lofthus, the AAG for Administration (the arm ofDOJ that runs HR and the admin side of the Department). I confirmed the info we discussed last night, but here it is so you have it for your Thursday call. 1. Number Of Political Spots In addition to the AAG, the front office has the following political spots: lPDAAG 2DAAGs 5 Senior Counsels 2. Vacant SES Position Is Career The information from Lee designates the vacant SES position as a career spot, not a political spot. 3. Kathy Toomey And Chief Of Staff Kathy confirmed that her permanent job is the Director of Operations Management, which is a career SES job. She further confirmed that she has been only acting as the chief of staff There is no designated chief of staff spot on the org chart. For example, during the Bush Administration, Bob Driscoll served in the combined roles ofDAAG and chief of staff: https://www.mcglinchey.com/Robert-Driscoll/ On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7: 18 PM, Eric S Dreiband wrote: Thanks John. Eric f HICAN RSIGHT DOJ-18-0618-E-000004