U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy Suite 11050 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-3642 March 30, 2018 Re: Ms. Wendy Weiser Brennan Center for Justice 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 weiserw@brennan.law.edu DOJ-2017-004083 (OLP) DOJ-2017-004291 (AG) DOJ-2017-004292 (DAG) DOJ-2017-004293 (ASG) DOJ-2017-005582 (AG) DOJ-2017-005734 (DAG) DOJ-2017-005735 (ASG) DOJ-2017-005736 (OLP) DOJ-2017-005737 (OIP) 17-cv-06335 (S.D.N.Y.) VRB:CJOK:BPF Dear Ms. Weiser: This is an interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests dated and received in this Office on May 15, 2017 and July 25, 2017, in which you requested records pertaining to (1) the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission), and (2) communications and documents involving the use of specific databases and activities of the Commission. This response is made on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General (OAG), Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), Associate Attorney General (OASG), Legal Policy (OLP), and Information Policy (OIP). On January 31, 2018, we provided you with an interim response to your requests. At this time, I have determined that an additional sixty-four pages containing records responsive to your requests are appropriate for release, and copies are enclosed. The enclosed records consist of Departmental correspondence with Congress, including attachments thereto. Please note that the attachments contain FOIA redactions that were present on the records as located by this Office, and were not made as part of our FOIA review for this response. These redactions were originally made pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which pertains to information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Additionally, please note that the blank boxes (with no FOIA exemption indicated) that appear in attachments consisting of emails from outside organizations are artifacts of their original emails and, again, were not made as part of our FOIA review. Finally, correspondence in this production makes reference to an attached amicus brief filed by the Department in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. This brief is already publicly available on the Department’s website at: -2https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017/08/07/16980_husted_v_randolph_institute_ac_merits.pdf. . We are continuing to process remaining records that are potentially responsive to your requests, and pursuant to our agreement, we will respond to you again by April 27, 2018. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2015) (amended 2016). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Casey Kyung-Se Lee, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York at 212-637-2714. Sincerely, Vanessa R. Brinkmann Senior Counsel Enclosures ?itlnitrd gatatrs 0%matr WASHINGTON, DC 20510 July 11,2017 The Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General Department of Justice 950 Ave, NW Washington, DC. 20530 The Honorable Tom Wheeler Acting Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Ave, NW Washington, DC. 20530 Dear Attorney General Sessions and Acting Assistant Attorney General Wheeler: We write to request more information regarding the Department of Justice?s June 28 letter to forty-four states requesting information about state-level procedures for maintaining voter registration lists. The Department?s letter was sent on the same day that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (?the Commission?) requested sensitive voter roll data from state election of?cials. We do not believe this is a coincidence. The Commission?s June 28 request for voter data has been met with resistance from state election officials from both parties, and forty-four states have refused to provide the Commission with all of the data it requested.l Accordingly, we request more information from the Department about the underlying authority for both June 28 letters. We respectfully ask that the Department provide responses to the following questions by July 24, 2017. 1. What communications has the Department of Justice or any employee of the Department had with any member of or advisor to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity? We also ask that you include any relevant documents or records of any such communications in your response. 2. In its June 28 letter to state of?cials, the Department cites authority provided under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). When was the last time that the Department?s Civil Rights Division made an af?rmative request for information from a? states covered by the Please describe the circumstances surrounding any such previous request and speci?c provisions of the NVRA the Department believes give it legal authority to make such a request. Indeed, even Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as vice chair of the Commission, has indicated that his state will not fully comply with the Commission?s request. 3. In your June 28 letters requesting data from state election of?cials, you wrote: ?Data regarding con?rmation notices, removals from the voter registration list, and active and inactive registered voters are of particular relevance and are among the categories of data for which reporting is required by EAC regulations. However, such data for some states were not included in the 2014 [Election Administration and Voting Survey]. Thus, some states are receiving a request for any missing data as part of the information requested below.? But our review of that survey suggests that, for each of the categories you deemed to be of ?particular relevance,? a signi?cant majority of states did provide data. For each respective category of data you listed data regarding con?rmation notices, removals from the voter registration list, and active and inactive registered voters), please identify which states did not provide the required data. 4. The Commission?s June 28 letter to state of?cials cites authority provided under Executive Order 13799 issued on May 11, 2017. The Executive Order does not speci?cally grant the Commission authority to collect and aggregate voter data. Under what legal authority did the Commission make such a sweeping request for voter data from state of?cials? 5. Last May, the Department of Justice ?led a Statement of Interest of the United States setting forth the Department?s position on interpretation of the NVRA and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) regarding when a state can legally purge voters from registration lists. Following its longstanding interpretation, the Department took the position that a state may n_ot consider a registered voter?s failure to vote to be reliable evidence that the voter has become ineligible to vote due to a change of residence, thereby triggering the designated NVRA list maintenance process.2 ?Both statutes,? the Department argued, ?expressly forbid purging voters merely for not voting.? Is this still the position of the Department? 6. Last July, the Department of Justice reaffirmed that position in an amicus brief in a Sixth Circuit case, Ohio A. Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Department argued that states may not use a registered voter?s failure to vote alone to trigger the NVRA Section 8(d) con?rmation process for removing the voter from the registration rolls based on a change of residence.3 ?Declining to vote does not provide . . . evidence? that a voter has moved. ?To the contrary,? the Department argued, ?triggering the con?rmation process based solely on voter inactivity, as Ohio does through its Supplemental Process, inevitably results in the removal of voters based on nonvoting, which violates the NVRA and Is this still the position of the Department? The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in this case. 2 Statement of Interest of the United Slates in Common Cause and the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Kemp (?led May 4, 2016) (?This case asks whether, consistent with federal law, a state may consider a registered voter?s failure to vote to be reliable evidence that the voter has become ineligible to vote by virtue of a change of residence, thus triggering the designated NVRA purge process. Defendant argues that it can. In fact, it cannot?). - 3 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae supporting plaintiffs-appellants in Ohio A. Randolph Institute v. Husted (?led July 16, 2016) 821/download) Does the Department intend to participate as amicus before the Supreme Court? If so, does the Department intend to change the position it advanced before the Sixth Circuit? 7. The Administration has said its motivation for establishing the Commission is to address extensive voter fraud. Scientific evidence conducted by nonpartisan academic institutions consistently shows that widespread voter fraud does not exist. Does the Department have evidence that contradicts these studies? In addition to the questions regarding the Department?s apparent coordination with the Commission and its position on NVRA enforcement, we are deeply concerned by how the Commission is going to protect the voter data it does receive from states. The Commission has requested personal information of American voters that is generally unavailable to the public, including names, addresses, dates of birth, political parties, voter histories, and the last four digits of Americans? social security numbers.4 This is highly sensitive data that must be protected in accordance with federal laws that govern the collection of electronic data. Given that the Department is charged with ensuring that federal entities comply with privacy laws, we request the following information about how the Department is working to ensure that the Commission adheres to the law. 8. On July 3, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed an emergency injunction prohibiting the Commission from collecting data on Americans until it completes a privacy impact assessment (PIA) as required by the E-Government Act of 2002.5 The Commission responded to the request by arguing that the Commission was exempt from completing a PIA because it is ?not an ?agency? within the meaning of these statutes because its sole purpose is to provide advice to the President.?6 In 2012, the Department of Justice issued guidance on compliance with the E?Government Act of 2002 and how and when to compile PIAs. The 2012 guidance notes the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL) is charged with assessing whether a PIA is necessary. Has the OPCL conducted an initial privacy assessment regarding the Commission?s bulk collection of identifiable data? If not, we ask that such an assessment be conducted and reported to the relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction. 9. The Commission has only recently provided some information about security protocols put in place to protect voter registration information because of the previously mentioned litigation. The Privacy Act imposes both substantive and procedural requirements on federal government entities that collect and store personal records. These requirements ensure that the federal entity has thoroughly considered how it will use the data and has established safeguards that will prevent abuse. We ask that the Department detail what Fessler, Pam. "White House Panel Asks States For Their Voter Rolls." NPR. NPR, 29 June 2017. 5 Watkins, Eli. "Group ?les complaint over Trump's commission." CNN. Cable News Network, 06 July 2017. 6 Defendant?s Memorandum in Opposition at 9, Common Cause and ?re Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Kemp, (N.D.GA. 2017) oppositionpdf). steps it has already taken to ensure that the data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law?. We also ask that you provide information on any communications that Department of?cials may have had with members or advisors to the Commission regarding the Privacy Act. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Sincerely, Klobuchar States Senator %w Patrick Leahy United States Senatorl giant. JackReed UU edS Al A 1.. AlFranken United States Senator an?/ Richard Blumenthal ited Stat enator Angus King United States Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senator mm Sheldon Whitehouse United States Senator Richard J. Durbi ted States a Christopher A. Coons United States Senator gain: K. Hirono United States Senat01 U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate DEC 0 1 20.17 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar reSponses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 C.F.R. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (N VRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute 12. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in Violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the OIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the OIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 2611} letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerel . en E. Assistant Attorney General Enclosures From: electionline [mmoretti@electionlineorg] Sent: 5/11/2017 3:58:15 PM To: Barman, Robert (CRT) [Robert.Berman@crt.usdoj.gov] Subject: electionlineWeekly May 11, 2017 a .. E?resittent expected to Emmett commission on ?eiectien integritvl Commission to be chaired by vice president Also in this edi?wi: Election News; This Week Hitarhancl?wort In a closed? door meeting with Congressional leaders and subsequently in numerous tweets shortly following his inauguration, . President Donald J. Trump alleged that three to ?ve million illegal 355-59-315?3-?3333-55- votes were cast in the 2016 general election. Although he had no evidence to back up his claims including a. Ili?t?llu:Eilii?ilifsht claim that former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) wonlcl Gpif?idrtaThuWedk had there not been voter fraud Trump said available tar-P5 he would sign an executive order to create a presidential commission lists:mtnatvents to 100k the alleged fraud Markergiace The president?s claims were met with denial from state and local Eiectioriline Underwriting elections of?cials and great skepticism from others in the elections ?eld, Even Eilgilgt??gli} weighed in on. the claim. ?The process had integrity. It was extremely well administered. And in the end, the people's voice was heard and lhe process served voters well," US. Election Assistance Commission Chair Matthew Masterson (R) told the Center for Public Integrity. Now, according to multiple media outlets, the president is expected to sign an executive order today (May 11) authorizing the are": were 'l'n unsoliscribe from this please Click here From: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law [info@lawyerscommittee.org] Sent: - 7/19/2017 10:15:35 PM To: Berman, Robert (CRT) [RobertBerman@crt.usdoj.gov] Subject: Mr. Kobach, we, too, can be very persistent Robert, Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the so?called Presidential Commission on Election Integrity Kris Kobach ought to be clear on one thing: the Lawyers? Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is very persistent in its pursuit of justice and equality. We?ve seen Mr. Kobach in court enough times for him to know this about us. We?ve already been successful in communicating with every secretary of state in the country about the severity of the Commission?s demand for sensitive voter information. In addition, we ?led a complaint against Kobach on the grounds that he appeared to be leveraging his leadership of the Commission to further a partisan agenda. We also recently asked the DC. District Court to force the Commission to immediately open its records for the public in advance of yesterday?s meeting. As you might know. the court denied our request, but that has not slowed us down. We will continue to #fightlikehell in the courts against this absurd attempt at voter suppression and keep our 866-OUR-VOTE hotline open to all of you who have expen'enced vote discrimination or have concerns about the Commission. We need you to spread the word about our voter protection hotline and donate my to help keep our battles in the courts alive. Kristen Clarke President and Executive Director if you'd like to unsubscribe and stop receiving these emaiis click here.= From: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law [info@lawyerscommitteeorg] Sent: 7/10/2017 9:46:27 PM To: Berman, Robert (CRT) [Robert.Berman@crt.usdoj.gov] Subject: We Sued Kobach Dear Robert, We just filed suit against the sham Presidential Advisory Commission on ?Election Integrity? for its shady and illegitimate behavior. Kobach? 5 Commission has been acting in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by Withholding infonnation about its meetings and operating behind closed doors. Among the violations is the telephone conference held by the Commission on June 28th? a secret meeting that amounted to l?obach?s bizarre request for the personal information of our nation? 5 200+ million registered voters. Federal law requires that all President?s Commissions operate transparently. With voting rights and voter privacy at risk, it has never been more important to take a bold stance and hold this Commission accountable. Donate $100 today to support our fight and see Kobach?s fraudulent Commission put to rest. In Struggle, Kristen Clarke President and Executive Director If you?d like to unsubscribe and stop receiving these emails click here. Front Ehmdoigov] Sent: 6/29/2017 12:23:57 PM To: Deliheim, Richard (CRT) Subject: Fwd: Heard through grapevine one) United States Attorney? 5 Office Eastern District of New York cadman Piaza East I II I 11215 That the Pence Commission has asked NYS and other states for its voter r0115. Sent From my iPhone From: Berman, Robert (CRT) [RobertBerman@crt.usdoj.goy] Sent: 7/18/2017 1:48:54 PM To: Bell-Platts, Meredith (CRT) De?heim, Richard (CRT) Herren, Chris (CRT) Mellett, Timothy (CRT) Russ, John (CRT) Wertz, RebeccaJ (CRT) [Rebecca.Wertz@crt.usdoj.gov] Subject: FW: ELB News and Commentary 7/18/17 Attachments: f.y.i. From: On Behalf Of Rick Hasen Sent: Tuesday, Juiy 18, 2017 1:14 AM To: Election Law Listserv Subject: ELB News and Commentary 7/18/17 Texas: {Bistrict Court Shouid ?iya U3 jurisdiction in Voter ED Ease, impose No More Remedies Posted on ?uiy 201'}? 18:03} pm by Rick Hagen Posted in The Voting: Wars, voter id ?We disruated the 1.3.5, Supreme Court to states? money in noti?es, and are being senteaaed todayu? Posted on juiy 17, 251? 16:83 am by Rick Masai? Matt Ktesiing statement. Posted in campaigzr?; finance, Supreme Court ?Trump?s voter commission says it doesn?t need to make privacy impact assessment? Posted on job; .17, 2623.? 9:45 pm by Rick. Hosea before collecting voter data, which was a key argument in one of the first lawsuits brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center earlier this month. After Kris W. Kobach, the panel vice chairman, asked states to turn over names, partial Social Security numbers, birthdays, political party affiliations, military status and other public information last month, filed suit, hoping to force the commission to complete a Privacy lmpactAssessment before gathering the personal data. quickly scored a win when the suspended its collection of state voter information earlier this month until a Jiudge rules on the matter. On Monday the commission asked the judge to deny request for a restraining order on the gathering of data, arguing that the pro?privacy group doesn?t have the legal right, or ?standing,? to file the lawsuit. Posted in ir'auduieat: fraud Farmed, The V?iit?g Wars t?ew betaiis on December tied: at ?35, Eiec?doa Assistance Comm?n, as House Repubiimns ?try to see: it: been: Posted on quy 231? 9:23" pm by Rick biases": W335. The hack appeared to include a breach of the EA ?s administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines, according to Andrei Barysevich, an analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future. Access to the reports could have allowed someone to exploit flaws in voting machines, Mr. Barysevich said. The stolen credentials could have been used to install malicious code on the EAC site, thus potentially infecting any user of it. The users could include state election officials, who might then use a thumb memory stick to interact with other machines, such as ballot machines not connected to the in ternet. The security firm, which assessed the hack as having likely occurred in November, turned the information over to law enforcement in December, and Mr. Barysevich has been cooperating with the FBI on its probe. As far as the House Republicans trying to shut the EAC, it is hard to imagine a worse idea. As I Meanwhile, House Republicans are {rigging to abolish the United States Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal agency that serves as a clearinghouse for information about best voting practices and certi?es the security of voting machines. Does that sound like a good idea right now? Posted in Election Assistance Commission, The Voting Wars john Fortier intewiews Micheei Chertoif Abaat Water Registration Data and Eiection Security Posted on 291? 12:51 pm by Rick Hagen Posted in election administration Mississippi Law iaaraai Symposium on the Voting Rights Act. Posted on July 281'? 12:6?3 am by Rick Hasen mum-Wm. am?. .4 ?w m- 35MISSI55IPPI LAW JOURNAL N05 PP103914782017 Voting Rights Act Symposium. 85 Miss. L.J. 1039-1393 (2017). [it] [333:] George C. Cochran. Foreword. 85 Miss. L.J. 1039-1046 (2017). [f?Hg] [1135] George C. Cochran. In memoriam: Frank Ruff Parker. 85 Miss. L.J. 1047-1052 (2017). Delbert Hosemann. Not our grandfather?s Mississippi anymore: implementing Mississippi?s voter identification requirement. 85 Miss. L.J. [ii] I Benjamin E. Griffith, Lauren E. Ward. The forbidden fruit of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. State of Alabama: racial nir- - - predominance in redistricting. 85 Miss. L.J. 1093-1161 (2017). Joaquin Avila, Barbara Phillips, Molly Matter. How a targeted triggering approach can repair the Voting Rights Act: Congress can eliminate the blight of voting discrimination once and for all! 85 Miss. L.J. 1163-1177 (2017). [ij] Armand Derfner. How the courts keep ex-felons disenfranchised. 85 Miss. L.J. [ii] Tommie Cardin. Mississippi legislative redistricting in the new millennium. 85 Miss. L.J. 11934225 (2017). [it-i] [Vyj] Carroll Rhodes. Federal appellate courts push back against states? voter suppression laws. 85 Miss. L.J. 1227?1269 (2017)- [til [185] Steven J. Mulroy. Coloring outside the lines: erasing ?one-person, one-vote? Voting Rights Act line~drawing dilemmas by erasing district lines. 85 Miss. L.J. 1271-1304 (2017). [it] [ix] [313g] C. Robert Heath. Applying the Voting Rights Act in an ethnically diverse nation. 85 Miss. L.J. 1305-1331 (2017). [ti] [Lil [kit] Terry Ao Minnis. No longer invisible: engaging the growing Asian American electorate in the South. 85 Miss. L.J. 1333- 1356 (2017)- [ii] I Roger Clegg, Hans A. von Spakovsky. ?Disparate impact? and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 85 Miss. L.J. 1357-1372 (2017) Hans A. von Spakovsky, Roger Clegg. Felon voting and unconstitutional congressional overreach. 85 Miss. L.J. 1373-1393 (2017): [til I - - - Posted in satis?es. ?Can Federaiism (tape with Russian Eiection Meddiiag?? Posted on Juiv 203,? 12:00 pm by Riel?; Maser: {Ziara Torres-Speiliscy bi?fi??i. Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars Rick Hasen Chancellor?s Professor of Law and Political Science UC Irvine School of Law 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92697-8000 949.824.3072 office 949.824.0495 fax rhasen@law.uci.edu Law?election mailing list From: Gyamfi, Stephanie M. (CRT) Sent: 5/11/2017 1:59:17 PM To: Murray, Joseph (CRT) (Joseph.Murray@crt.usd0j.gov] see list of names under consideration! {Eyamf?s 552m Lead {:ivii Rig? is A?aiyg?: me?g S?ci?m??v?i Righir?g E?ivig?m U3. Dapm?tman?: {if Jua?i?ce} From: Sent: To: Subject: Southern Poverty Law Center 5/18/2017 11:19:35 PM Murray, Joseph (CRT) [Joseph.Murray@crt.usdoj.gov] Trump appoints extremists to voter fraud commission MAY 18, 2017 SPLC News This Week Extremist to lead new voter fraud commission challenging money bail new SPLC lawsuit in Mississippi Trump's commission to study mythical voter fraud includes figures tied to hate groups President Trump has appointed Kris Kobach to help lead a new commission to study the nonexistent threat of voter fraud, which he claims cost him the popular vote. Kobach is a lawyer who champions laws to suppress voting and has long rep resented the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been named a hate group by the SPLC. Also on the commission is Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, an anti?LGBT hate group. READ MORE SPLC challenges wealth-based bail system in Alabama county We?ve ?led suit today in federal court to challenge a wealth?based bail system that, as in many other jurisdictions across America, discriminates against the poor. People charged with misdemeanors or felonies in Alabama's Randolph County are automatically jailed if they can't afford bail regardless of whether they?re a threat to the nr "1le tn flop hefnrp trial it's {me- nf the ?rst unit: ?m challenge the constitutionality of felony bail practices. READ MORE SPLC suit: Mississippi education funding cuts Violate state constitution We went to court this week to restore nearly $20 million in funding for Mississippi's schools after the money was cut by the governor. Our suit says that under the state's constitution, only the legislature can cut the state budget. We're seeking a court order to restore money needed by public schools that are already deeply underfunded. READ MORE News You Should Know Alabama advocates bail women out of iail so they can spend Mother's Day with their kids (AL.com) Unity was emerging on sentencing. then came Jeff Sessions (The New York Times) The presidential advisory commission on voter suppression (Slate) North Carolina's new governor vows to protect LGBTO rights after the bathroom bill debacle (Bustle) How prosecutors are. fighting Trump?s deportation plans (The Marshall Project) One more to go: New Orleans takes down Civil War general's statue (NPR) Despite denial. GoDaddV works with nee?Nazi site through subsidiary (Reveal) Not Guilty: Betty Shelby acquitted; multiple iurors in tears; Crutche r's sister says police tried to cover up her brother's murder (Tulsa World) This email was sent to Joseph. E. Murray@Usdoj. Gov. To update your email address or other account information, please reply to this email and let us know. today. Update Pram-emery i Unsubmribe Privacy Palic-y Contact Us Copyright 201? FGHOWSPL Law-?; (lame? r! i 4-. 1. . mm): ?14 M. 32311?: - .. .. .csrg From: FUSANJ) I@usdoj.gov] Sent: 6/30/2017 2:15:17 AM To: Richardson, Jasmyn (CRT) Subject: Fwd: Googie Group} Trump's voter?fraud commission wants to know voting history, party ID and address of every voter in the U.S. Begin forwarded message; From: rjosephesq via Garden State Bar Association Date: June 29,2017 at 9:11:28 PM EDT To: riosephesd@rwiosephlaw.com Subject: Googie Group} Trump's voter-fraud commission wants to know voting history, party ID and address of every voter in the U.S. Reply-To: riosepheso@aol.com america/?utm term =.cc46572af85c Wonkblog BY CleistoniierInert-111mm 5 45:16:? 1?53: Play Video 1 :24 President Trump is signed an executive order on May it initiating an investigatinn inte veter superessien and eiectien trend, Here-"s what we knew so far, {Patrick Mast?n?he Pest} The chair of President Trump's Election Integrity Commission has penned a letter to all 50 states requesting their full voter?role data, including the name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, last four Social Security number digits and voting history back to 2006 of potentially every voter in the state. In the letter, a copy of which was made public by the (?I?Lonnecticut secretary of state, the commission head Kris Kobach said that ?any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public.? On Wednesday, the office of Vice President Pence released a. statement saying ?a letter will be sent today to the 50 states and District of Columbia on behalf of the Commission requesting publicly available data from state voter rolls and feedback on how to improve election integrity.? Wonkbook newsletter Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog. Top of Form Bottom of Form Sig [3 States began reacting to the letter on Thursday afternoon. have no intention of honoring this request," said Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia in a statement. "Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia." Connecticut's Secretary of State, Denise Merrill, said she would ?share publiclyuavailable information with the Kobach Commission while ensuring that the privacy of voters is honored by withholding protected data." She added, however, that Kobach ?has a record of illegally disenfranchising eligible voters in Kansas" and that "given Secretary Kobach's history we find it very difficult to have confidence in the work of this Commission." Political campaigns and parties typically use these files to compile their massive veter lists. In May, Trump created. a commission to investigate alleged acts of voter fraud after he Claimed. without evidence, that 3 million to 5 million undocumented immigrants voted illegally in the 2016 election. The commission is chaired. by Kobach, who is the Kansas secretary of state and a voterwfraud hardmliner. Earlier this month, a federal judge fined Kobach $1,000 for ?presenting misleading arguments in a voting?related lawsuit,? accortfiing to Politico. Advocates for voting rights and civil liberties are also sounding alarms over the letter. ?The concern is that this is going to be used to justify regressive and disenfranchising federal law,? Myrna Perez, deputy director of the democracy program at New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice, said in an interview. Vanita Gupta, chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and former head of the Justice Department?s civil rights division, said on iliitxritterthat the letter is ?laying the groundwork for voter suppression, plain 8: simple.? The White House press office did not return a request for comment on this article. A spokesman for Kobach in the Kansas secretary of state's office referred an inquiry to an email address listed in the commission's letter. The commission did not return a request sent to that email address. Trump and his allies have said the commission's work is necessary to prevent what they call widespread instances of voter fraud. But evidence for such. fraud is exceedingly thin. Kobach has made it a central issue of his tenure in Kansas and has secured Wm fraud convictions. Most. were older Republican voters, and at least one claims he was targeted for an ?honest mistake.? Academics who have studied the issue for decades say that voter fraud particularly of the type that strict voter?identification laws championed by Kobach and others are intended to combat is vanishingly rare and that voter?ID requirements are a burdensome solution to a practically nonexistent problem. A. federal iudge ruled that some of Kobach?s proposed ID requirements constituted a ?mass denial of a fundamental constitutional right.? While civil?liberties advocates are concerned with what Kobach might do with what would amount to a nationwide voter file, privacy advocates worry about the implications of making such data available to the public, as the commission says it intends to do. It hasn't specified how it would make the data available. ?Why does a random member of the public . . . need to know when you last voted and what your political party is?? asked the Brennan Center's Perez. ?1 think that access to this data in the wrong hands could always leave the opportunity for mischief. In this particular instance, I'm worried about harassment as well.? States are ?stewards of [this] public information,? Perez said. ?Once it leaves their hands in this way, there's no telling whose going to get it, and how, and what they're using it for.? .. . Christopher tngraham writes about politics, drug peliey and all things date. He previousiy worked at the Brookings institution and the Pew Research Center. Fo Rfegina \XI?Taynes Joscp Attorney At law Member; New York and Newjersoy Bars (973) 676?4233 Phone (973) 676?4299 Fax rj osephesq @aol.co1n r}osephesg@rwjosephlattaeom You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Garden State Bar Association" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gs_bi To post to this group, send email to gsba?nj@googlegroupscom. Visit this group at For more options, visit From: Dave Cooper Pgmail?om] Sent: 6/30/2017 3:18:27 AM To: Cooper, David (CRT) [David.Cooper@crt.usdoj.gov] Attachments: ProPublica - Presidential Commission 2017-06-29.pdf 6.09.9017 Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data - ProPubliea Pee seamen Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data A commission created by President Donald Trump to enhance con?dence in America?s elections has asked all 50 states for copies of their voter records which often include names, addresses and ages. The commission has said it intends to make the inform ation widely available. by Jessica usemrm ProPublica, June 29, 2017, 6 pm. firmer-53:5 it; Raf-29.: a: a; On Wednesday, all 50 states were sent letters from Kris Kobach vice chair for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity requesting information on voter fraud, election security and copies of every state?s voter roll data. The letter asked state officials to deliver the data within two The Trump weeks, and says that all information turned over to the commission will be made public. The letter does not explain Administration what the commission plans to do with voter roll data, which Frr?-?ebiica?s often includes the names, ages and addresses of registered ?ttings 0? 45?3? liresic eat. voters. The commission also asked for infonnation beyond what is typically contained in voter registration records, including Social Security numbers and military status, if the state election databases contain it. President Donald Trump established the commission through an executive order on March 11. Its stated goal is to ?promote fair and honest Federal elections? and it is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. The commission plans to present a report to Trump that identi?es vulnerabilities in the voting system that could lead to fraud and ww. propu blic a. or article:r pre sidenlia l? commission-demands? -state?voter-clata# 1! 5 6t29t2017 Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data ProP ublica makes recommendations for enhancing voters? con?dence in election integrity. deadline has been set for completion of the work. A number of experts, as well as at least one state of?cial, reacted with a mix of alarm and baf?ement. Some saw political motivations behind the requests, while others said making such information public would create a national voter registration list, a move that could create new election problems. ?You?d think there would want to be a lot of thought behind security and access protocols for a national voter ?le, before you up and created one," said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola University School of Law and former Department of Justice civil rights of?cial. ?This is asking to create a national voter ?le in two weeks.? David Beeke r, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation 81 Research, also expressed serious concerns about the request. ?It?s probably a good idea not to make publicly available the name, address and military status of the people who are serving our armed forces to anyone who requests it,? he said. Kobach, the secretary of state in Kansas, has been concerned about voter fraud for years. His signature piece of legislation was a law requiring Kansans to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote, which is currently ensnarled in a fraught court battle with the American Civil Liberties Union. He has written that he believes people vote twice with ?alarming regularity,? and also that non-citizens frequently vote. Multiple tudies have shown neither happens with any consistency. Kobaeh also runs the interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, a proprietary piece of software started by Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh in 2005. Under the program, 30 states pool their voter information and attempt to identify people who are registered in more than one state. Some expect the information Kobach has requested will be used to create a national system that would include data from all 50 states. It is not uncommon for voters to be registered in more than one state. Many members of Trtunp?s inner circle includin his son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Tiffany Trump were registered to vote in two states. Given the frequency with which voters move across state lines and re-register, the act of holding two registrations is not in itself fraud. There is no evidence to suggest that vo ling twice is a widespread problem, though experts say removing duplicate registrations are a good pine tice if done carefully. ?In theory, I don?t think we have a problem with that as an idea, but the devil is always in the details,? said Dale He, the director of the Voting Rights Project. While he believes voter registration list maintenance is important, he says Kobach?s Crosscheck program has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective and to produce false matches. A study by a group of political scientists at Stanford published earlier this year found that Crosscheck highlighted 200 false matches f01 every one true double V0 to. have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to in?ate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is,? 110 said. Some experts already see sloppy work in this request. 011 at least one occasion, the commission directed the letter to the incorrect entity. In North Carolina, it addressed and sent the letter to Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, who has no authority over elections or the voter rolls. In that state, the North Carolina Board of Elections manages both. Charles Ster-vart, a professor at MIT and expert in election administration, said it was proof of ?sloppy staff work,? and questioned the speed at which the letter was sen t. ?It seems to me that the data aren?t going anywhere. Doing database matching is hard Work, 2?5 6.09.20 17 Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data - ProPnbliea and you need to plan it out carefully,? he said. ?It?s a naive ?rst undertaking by the commission, and re?ects that the commission maybe getting ahead of itself.? Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, who oversees voting in the state, said she was dismayed about the commission?s failure to be clearer about what its intentions are. In a statement, Merrill said her office would share publicly available information with the commission. But she said that ?in the same spirit of transparency? her of?ce would request the commission ?share any memos, meeting minutes or additional information as state of?cials have not been told precisely what the is looking for.? ?This lack of openness is all the more concerning, considering that the Vice Chair of the Commission, Kris Kobach, has a record of illegally disenfranchisin eligible voters in Kansas,? she wrote. Alabama?s Republican Secretary of State John Merrill (no relation) also indicated he had questions for Kobaeh regarding how much of the data would be made public and how Alabama ns? privacy would be protected, even while he expressed support for the commission. ?Kobach is a close friend, and I have full con?dence in him and his ability, but before we turn over data of this magnitude to anybody we?re going to make sure our questions are answered,? he said. Colorado Secretary of State Republican Wayne Williams, for his part, said he was not concerned with what the commission planned to do with the data. ?Just like when we get a [public-records] request, we don?t demand to know what they are going to do wi I11 the data,? he said. ?There are important reasons why the voter roll is publicly available information.? The extent to which voter roll data is . . . public varies across the country. While some states, like North Carolina, make There?s NO Evidence 0111? their voter rolls available for free Election Was Rigged download, other states charge high fees. Alabama, for example, charges one cent per voter in the roll for a total cost of more than $30,000. The state law provides a waiver for government entities, so Merrill said the commission would receive the data [or free. Other states, like Virginia, do not make this information public beyond sharing it with formal campaigns and. We had more than 1,000 people watching political candidates. When ProPublica the vote on Eieotion Day. if millions of trial to purchase Illinois? voter 1?011: people voted illegally. we would have seen om? request was denied because they some sign of it. Read the story. only release it to government entities for privacy reasons. Illinois did not respond to a request regarding whether they would release this information to the PCEI, which while a government entity intends to make the information public. The letter from the also asks quite broad questions of state elections of?cials. ?What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections?? asks the first question. The letter also asked for all information and convictions related to any instance of voter fraud or registration fraud, and it solicited recommendations ?for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement.? ?The equivalent is, ?Hey, doctors, What changes would. you suggest regarding healthcare? Let us know in two weeks,? said Levitt, the Loyola professor. ?If I were a state election of?cial, I wouldn?t know what to do with this.? i prop -state-votcr?dataii' 3i 5 (372952017 Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data ProPublica While the commission is being chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, Kobach signed the letter alone. Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the lawyers? Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said this is an indication that Kobaeh not Pence ?will be running the show,? which he said should be a point of concern. ?As we know Will] Kobaeh, he?s obsessed with trying to identify voter fraud and ?nds it in a lot of places where it doesn?t exist,? he said. Vanita Gup ta, the former acting head of the Department of Justice?s civil rights division under President Barack Obama, said the commission?s letter was an indication the commission was ?laying the groundwork? to carry out changes to the National Voter Registration Act that might seek to restrict access to the polls. The National Voter Registration Act sometimes called the MotorVotcr Act was enacted in 1993. It allows the DOJ the authority to ensure states to keep voter registration lists, or voter rolls, accurate and up-to-date. It also requires states to offer opportunities for voter registration at all of?ces that provide public assistance [like the DMV). In November, Kobach was photographed holding a paper adch'cssing national security issues and proposing changes to the voter registration law. It is not clear what these changes were. The ACLU is involved in a lawsuit against Kansas? state law requiring people to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. As part of the suit, ACLU lawyers requested access to the document reflecting the changes Kobach proposed. Originally Kobaeh told the court the document was beyond the scope of the lawsuit, but last week the court found the documents were relevant and that Kobach had intentionally misled the court. He was ?ned $1,000 for the offense and required him to turn the document over. It has not yet been made public. Gupta said her concern about the future of the voter registration act was deepened by the fact that, on Thursday, the DOJ sent a letter to the 44 states covered by the act requesting information 011 the maintenance of their voter rolls. States were given 30 days to answer a set of detailed questions about their policies for list maintenance. ?The timing of the letters being issued on the same day is curious at the very least,? she said. The White House and the DOJ all did not respond to requests for comment about the letters. The letter did not ask about compliance with the portions of the act that require states to attempt to expand the voter base, such as by offering voter registration forms and information in public of?ces. Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights for The Campaign Legal Center, said the focus on list maintenance troubled her. While she said this might point to a new direction in enforcement for the voting rights sec tion, it was too early to tell how this information 'might be used. Levitt said he did not recall a time when the DOJ has previously requested such broad information. While the information is public and no t, on its face, troubling, Levitt said the only time he recalled requesting similar information was during targeted investigations when federal officials suspected a state was not complying with the law. Like this story? Sign up for our daily newsletter to get more of our best work. tee? prop ublicaorgt voter-datatt 61'29f2017 Presidential Commission Demands Massive Amounts of State Voter Data PIOPubliCii 5?5 Sent: 6/29/2017 10:39:05 PM To: Deilheim, Richard (CRT) CC: Bell-Platts, Meredith (CRT) OIiker-Friedland, Samuel (CRT) [SamueLOliker- Friedland@crt.usdoj.gov] Subject: News Item Re Section 8 Letters Fyi, the below news report appears to include a very brief allusion to our information requests. See highlighted passage. I have not seen any other news coverage of our requestsSc. 'Lu' ?(at 1:43: Kris Kobach wants every U.S. voter?s personal information for Trump?s commission BY BRYAN LOWRY eveevcwewee Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has asked every state in the nation to provide President Donald Trump?s new voter commission with the names, birthdates and Social Security information for registered voters going back to 2006. Kobach, a former chairman of the Kansas Republican Party and a can :iiriate for ?1st 2018, serves as Viki. of ?E?rnsnois Presidential Advismy Commission on Election Integrity. in a {Eerie e8 Eerie-2r, Kobach asked the Connecticut secretary of state?s office to provide it with all publicly available voter roll data, including the full names of all registered voters along with their addresses, dates of birth, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, voting history and other personal information. Kobach said in a phone call that he sent similar letters to election officials in every state and that as Kansas? top election of?cial he will be providing the commission with all of the information for Kansas voters. Kobach clarified that the personal data would be hosted on a secure server run by the federal government and not disclosed to the public. He said that the request for the Social Security digits was meant ?to prevent false positives.? He said that his critics have attacked the Interstate Crosscheck System, a data sharing system between states which Kansas oversees, for producing false positives and that this would undertake the most comprehensive study of voter fraud to date. ?The idea is to have the best data possible,? Kobach said. ?The purpose of the commission is to quantify different forms of voter fraud and registration fraud and offer solutions. And so you have to have this data in order to do any meaningful researc Kobach said the commission would cross?reference the data provided by states against federal databases to determine the number of non?citizens registered in each state, dead people still on the voter rolls and people registered in more than one jurisdiction. Kobach?s request faced backlash from Democratic election of?cials, including at least one who planned to buck the request. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement that he will ?not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.? ?California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach. The President's Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference in our elections,? Padilla said. Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, called the commission?s requests fair and said that his of?ce looks ?forward to working with See. Kobach and the Commission on its ?ndings and offer our support in the collective effort to enhance the American people?s con?dence in the integrity of the elections process.? Ashcroft?s father, former US. Attorney General John Ashcroft, was a mentor for Kobach during his tenure at the US. Department of Justice. Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, a Democrat, said in a statement that her of?ce plans to share ?publicly?available information with the Kobach Commission while ensuring that the privacy of voters is honored by withholding protected data.? ?In the same spirit of transparency, we will request that the Commission share any memos, meeting minutes or additional information as state of?cials have not been told precisely what the Commission is looking for,? she said. ?This lack of openness is all the more concerning, considering that the Vice Chair of the Commission, Kris Kobach, has a record of illegally disenfranchising eligible voters in Kansas.? Kobach has championed some of the strictest voting laws in the country during his tenure as secrntarv {if stain. Those laws have faced multiple lawsuits. Last week, a federal judge tineri irirn for making ?patently misleading representations? about documents he took to a November meeting with Trump that relate to federal voting law as part of an ongoing voting rights case. ??The courts have repudiated his methods on multiple occasions but often after the damage has been done to voters,? Merrill said. ?Given Secretary Kobach?s history we ?nd it very dif?cult to have con?dence in the work of this Commission.? The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. Pence?s spokesman, Marc Lotter, said that in the commission?s ?rst phone meeting Wednesday every member on the call supported the request for documents. I . Gupta Who now leads the Leadership Conference on and Human Rights, said the letters? seem to con?rm that the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to suppress the right to vote.? Kobach said called this criticism ?complete nonsense.? ?There?s no way you can suppress somebody? vote simply by knowing they?re registered,? he said, noting that states? voter registration files are public records. ?How does having the last four Social allow the federal government to suppress your vote?? Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, said that Kobach?s request raises questions about what safeguards will be put in place to protect voters? data. He said the letter does not make that clear. ?If Barack Obama tried to get all of this information from state election of?cials it would be front page news on Fox News for months and would prompt a congressional investigation of federal takeover of state election processes,? Hasen said. Kobach?s letter to Merrill asks her to provide her thoughts on how to enhance election integrity and to submit a response electronically by July 14. It states that documents submitted to the commission will become available to the public. Kobach said only the input from election of?cials will be made public, not voters? data. Kobach said that his quest to analyze the national data would not impact his duties in Kansas. ?The Voter integrity commission is so squarely aligned with what I?m doing as secretary of state that it enhances it,? he said. From: Dave Cooper [_gmail.com] Sent: 6/30/2017 4:23:10 AM To: Cooper, David (CRT) [David.Cooper@crt.usdoj.gov] US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 0. 1 2017 The Honorable Amy Klobuchar United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Klobuchar: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letter requests responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that. may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letter references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the sending of the Civil Rights Division?s (Division) letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (N VRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. The Honorable Amy Klobuchar Page Two Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, Assistant Attorney General Enclosure U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 0 2017 The Honorable Christopher A. Coons United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Coons: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letter requests responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letter references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the sending of the Civil Rights Division?s (Division) letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. The Honorable Christopher A. Coons Page Two Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Si ephen E. Assistant Attorney General Enclosure U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono DEC 0 1 2017 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Hirono: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all . Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 C.F.R. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (N VRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election? related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute 12. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Mazie K. Hirono Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. hen E. Assistant Attorney General Enclosures U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington. D. C. 20530 The Honorable Al Franken DEC 1] 1 2017 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Franken: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s'Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 CPR. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11?1 letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Al Franken Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UO CAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Office of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Office of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (F 01A) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its stande procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Al Franken Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s 01A request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s 01A request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. 1y, Assistant Attorney General Enclosures US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Patrick Leahy DEC 0 2017 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Leahy: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Office of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Cormnission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 C.F.R. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Patrick Leahy Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement. responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amieus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Patrick Leahy Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s OIA request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOLA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Assistant Attorney General Enclosures US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 DEC 0 1 2017 The Honorable Jack Reed United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Reed: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letter requests responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letter references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the sending of the Civil Rights Division?s (Division) letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (N VRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election? related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. The Honorable Jack Reed Page Two Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. istant Attorney General Enclosure US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Richard Blumenthal DEC l] 1 20" United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Blumenthal: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July ll, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 C.F.R. 0.5 Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Richard Blumenthal Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election- related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Office of the Solicitor General has filed its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken 1n this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Richard Blumenthal Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26?1 letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a 01A request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015 . In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Assistant Attorney General Enclosures US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 DECO i 2017 The Honorable Angus King United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator King: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letter requests responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letter references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the sending of the Civil Rights Division?s (Division) letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (N VRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election? related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. The Honorable Angus King Page Two Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, Enclosure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Richard Durbin DEC 0 1 2017 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Durbin: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 C.F.R. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Richard Durbin Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election? related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26?1 letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (F OIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Richard Durbin Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s 01A request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Assistant Attorney General Enclosures U.S. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 The Honorable Sheldon VVhitehouse DEC 0 2017 United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Whitehouse: This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated July 11, 2017, and your letter to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division dated September 26, 2017, regarding activities of the Department of Justice (Department) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the Commission). We are sending similar responses to the other Senators who joined your letter. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letters. We appreciate your concerns about voting rights issues, and we agree that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and that the importance of access to the ballot for all Americans is paramount. Your letters request responses to a list of speci?c questions, including requests for documents. It is important to note that attorneys from the Department?s Civil Division are currently representing the Commission in ongoing civil litigation. Accordingly, they communicate with the Commission?s attorneys on a regular basis, and with members of the Commission as necessary to gather information related to the litigation. Pursuant to longstanding policy it is not appropriate for the Department to provide documents or records of communications that may implicate ongoing litigation. While we cannot respond to each of your individual inquiries, we are pleased to provide the following information about the role of the Department as it relates to voting rights and the Commission. Your letters asked about the role of the Department in the of?cial activities of the Commission. The Commission is a part of the Executive Of?ce of the President, rather than the Department. The Department and the Civil Rights Division (Division) are not af?liated with the Commission?s of?cial activities. Indeed, the Division does not have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute fraudulent voter registration or fraudulent voting. See 28 CPR. Beyond representing the Commission in litigation, we are not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the Commission. Your July 11th letter also references two letters sent to states on June 28, 2017, requesting additional information about their procedures for maintaining voter registration lists one from the Department and a separate letter from the Commission. The Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter with the Commission. To the best of our knowledge, the The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse Page Two sending of the Division?s letter and the Commission?s letter on the same day was sheer coincidence. The Division routinely makes requests for data and information from states and localities as part of its enforcement responsibilities under all of the federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In fact, through the NVRA, Congress speci?cally authorized the Department to seek election? related information from states and localities. See 52 U.S.C. 20703, 20705. The Division seeks to work cooperatively with jurisdictions to obtain the necessary information to conduct its enforcement responsibilities. Prior to June 2017, the Division?s last round of requests to various states for list maintenance information under the NVRA took place several years ago. However, the Division does not maintain a centralized record of all such previous requests for information. Please note that information regarding data that either was or was not provided by the states in response to a 2014 survey administered by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey is publicly available on the website. Your July 11th letter also inquired about the Department?s position in Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husied. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the issue of when a state can legally remove voters from registration lists under the NVRA and HAVA. Consistent with the Department?s usual practice, the Of?ce of the Solicitor General reviewed the case and decided to participate as an amicus. The Of?ce of the Solicitor General has ?led its amicus brief, a copy of which is enclosed. Because this litigation is currently pending, the Department is not in a position to comment further. With respect to your questions about the Commission?s compliance with privacy laws, we note that the Department?s Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties is responsible only for assessing whether activities conducted by the Department require a privacy impact assessment; it is not responsible for assessing activities outside of those conducted by the Department, such as the Commission. Likewise, the Department is not responsible for ensuring that data collected and stored by the Commission will not be in violation of existing state or federal law, and thus cannot speak to steps the Commission may have taken in this regard. We respectfully refer you to the Commission for that information. Your September 26th letter also inquired about certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that the Department has received. As with all FOIA requests, the Department followed its standard procedures in responding to the FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. The Department appropriately used Exemption 6 of the FOIA to protect personal contact information in accordance with statute and the Department?s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act Exemption 6, which is available at In response to your request, we are enclosing a complete set of all the documents furnished to the Campaign The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse Page Three Legal Center in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on February 15, 2017, and a complete set of the documents furnished to the Brennan Center for Justice in response to that organization?s FOIA request received by the Department on July 25, 2017. Additionally, your September 26th letter asked about the use of private email addresses to conduct government business. The Department briefs incoming staff members about the prohibitions on the use of personal accounts and the timing and appropriate capture of business information. DOJ policy 0804.01, which has been in place since May 8, 2015, explicitly prohibits the use of personal accounts for Departmental business except in exigent circumstances. The policy requires that under those circumstances, the employee must assure capture of Departmental information in Departmental recordkeeping systems within 20 days. This policy ensures that all agency records are incorporated within a Department recordkeeping system that would be searched in response to a FOIA request. Please note that in the instance referenced in your letter the email in question was forwarded to the Attorney General?s of?cial email account, which captured the record in the Department?s recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department policies and Federal Records Act requirements. Your September 26th letter also raised concerns about responsiveness to Congressional correspondence. Upon my con?rmation as Assistant Attorney General in August 2017, the Of?ce of Legislative Affairs began a comprehensive review of all outstanding Congressional correspondence, and, where appropriate, is now working to respond. The Department?s backlog of overdue letters was extensive, including several hundred unanswered letters dating back to 2015. In the past 90 days, we have made signi?cant progress, though much work remains. We are working to provide responses to your inquiries, however, in doing so, the Department must continue to prioritize inquiries from the Chairmen of the various Committees that exercise oversight over the Department?s programs, policies, and activities. Our goal is to be as responsive as possible without hindering the other important work the Department is doing, consistent with the Department?s signi?cant law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities. We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. . en E. Boyd -. ssistant Attorney General Enclosures