U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Washington, D. C. 20530
March 30, 2018

Wendy R. Weiser
Director, Democracy Program
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
weiserw@brennan.law.nyu.edu

Re:

FOIA Tracking No. FYl 7-218, FYl 7-270;
Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, S.D.N.Y. No. 17-cv-6335

Dear Ms. Weiser:
This letter constitutes a second response to your May 15, 2017 and July 25, 2017
Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") requests on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice and
The Protect Democracy Project to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), seeking a variety of
records "relating to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity or any other
effort since November 8, 2016 to establish a commission, task force, or committee to study voter
fraud or any aspect of the voting system." As you know, the requests have been assigned
tracking numbers FYl 7-218 and FYl 7-270, and are also the subjects of the above-captioned
litigation. You were provided a first response on December 29, 2017, which enclosed one
responsive record.
Since the last partial response, we have processed 2,133 pages ofresponsive records. We
are enclosing 226 pages of responsive records, with material redacted as exempt from disclosure
pursuant to FOIA Exemptions Five, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), and Six, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The
material redacted pursuant to Exemption Five is protected by the attorney-client, deliberative
process, and/or presidential communications privileges, or by the attorney work product doctrine.
Disclosure of the material redacted pursuant to Exemption Six would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We have withheld the remaining 1,907 pages in full
pursuant to Exemption Five based on the privileges identified above, and in part pursuant to
Exemption Six. We have determined that none of the withheld material is appropriate for
discretionary release. We are continuing to consult with other entities on a small number of
remaining records, totaling 62 pages, and will provide a final response soon.
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). 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.

 You may contact the Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS") at the
National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services
they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll
free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.
Although your request is the subject of ongoing litigation, and administrative appeals are
not ordinarily acted upon in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform
you of your right to file an administrative appeal. You may administratively appeal by writing to
the Director, Office of Information Policy ("OIP"), United States Department of Justice, Suite
11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site:
https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you
submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom
of Information Act Appeal."
Your counsel may contact Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Kyung-Se Lee, at
Casey.Lee@usdoj.gov or at 212-637-2714, to discuss any aspect of your request.

Paul P. Colborn
Special Counsel
Enclosures

cc:

Casey Kyung-Se Lee
Southern District of New York
Carl Wedoff
Jenner & Block

2

 Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:45 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC); Hart, Rosemary (O LC)

Subject:

FW:U I -

Attachments:

170126 - Election

Here' s the draft PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5025

(b ) (5)

CIRC.docx

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:25 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election fraud EO

I can look at it now, and also give it to someone else.
- -Original Message----From: Ste-wart, Scott {OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:23 PM
(b) (6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
Subject: FW: Election fraud EO
(b) (5)
Rosemary -. Would an A-A be able to look at it? We haven't received
word about timing; Curtis is going to call Greg back now.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5065

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 201 7 6:59 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC); Stewart, Scott {O LC)

Subject:

170126 - Election

(b) (5 )

CIRC (002) - WHCO comments (JAZ ... + + rh

Attachments:

170126 - Election
rh.docx

(b) (5 )

CIRC (002) - WHCO comments (JAZ ...+ +-

This redline reflects my preliminary thoughts on this PM.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5023

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 7:40 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC); Stewart, Scott {O LC)

Subject:

redline and talking points.

Attachments:

170126 - Election
OLC (1 25 2017).docx;

Here they are.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5028

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

CIRC (002) - WHCO comments (JAZ ...+
: notes.docx

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:04 PM

To:

Rosemary Hart

Subject:

Fwd: 170126 - Election

Attachments:

170126 - Election

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

PM (25 Jan 927pm)
PM (25 Jan 927pm).docx; ATT00001.htm

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stewart, Scott (OLC}" •

(b) (6)
Date: January 25, 2017 at 9:40:03 PM EST
To: "Hart, Rosemary (OLC}" ~
Cc: "Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)" •
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
Subject: Fw d: 170126 - Election

Begin forwarded message:

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5861

PM (25 Jan 927pm)

 Document ID: 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:16 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Cc:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

Re: 170126 - Election

PM (25 Jan 927pm)

(b) ( 5)

(b ) (5 )

I'm reviewing too.
On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. {Ole)

~

(b) (6)

Okay. FYI: still no word back from Jim.
From: Hart, Rosemary ( OLC}
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:56 PM
(b ) (6 )
To: Stewart, Scott ( Ole) •
(b ) (6 )
Cc: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) •
(b ) (5 )
Subject: Re: 170126 - El ection

I can re,~ew in 15 minutes.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5044

PM (25 Jan 927pm}

· wrote:

  

duplicate

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 201 7 1 0:48 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Subject:

Re: 170126 - Election

(b)(5 )

I like that part!
And would solve

PM (25 Jan 927pm)

(b ) (5)

I.

(b ) (5)

On Jan 25, 2017, at 1 0:46 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) •

Yep. (Note that

(b) (5)

(b) (6)

wrote:

.)

From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 201710:43 PM
(b)(6 )
To : Gannon, Curtis E. {Ole) •
subject: Re: 17D126- Election
(b)(5 )

PM {25 Jan 927pm)

Jnn's b ack-up plan seems fine ifhe can live with it.
On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole)
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 lD:29 PM
(b)(6 )
To: Hart, Rosemary {Ole} •
•
(b) (6)
>
(b)(5 )
Subject: RE: 170126 - Election

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesda , Janua 25, 2017 9:56 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5063

•

(b) (6 )

Stewart, Scott {Ol C)

PM {25 Jan 927pm)

· wrote:

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:51 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}; Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Subject:

RE: Redline on voter fraud PM

I'm marking a few light suggestions and will circulate shortly.
--Original Message---From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:45 PM
(b) (6)
To: Gannon, Curtis E. {O LC) <
'"
(b) (6 )
Subject: Fwd: Redline on voter fraud PM

>
>

-

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

(b) (5)

>
> Anyway, here's my redline. Feel free to take edit or leave 'em.
>

> Rosemary
>
>

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5093

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:13 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Cc:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject :

Re: Redline on voter fraud PM

WH capitalizes

'Mmi&JJI"

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Stewart, Scott {Ole)
>
> Rosemary -- any view on what should be capitalized in '
a consistent practice in prior documents.
>
> --Original Message> From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
> Sent: Wednesda , Janua 25, 2017 10:45 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5078

· wrote:
(b) (5)

"? I don't see

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:14 PM
(b) (6)

To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Fwd: Redline on voter fraud PM
(b) (5)
170126 - Election
2017}.docx; ATT000Ol.htm

PM (25 Jan 927pm} + (OLC 1-25-

Begin forwarded message:
(b) (6)
From: "Stewart, Scott (OLC}" •
Date: January 25, 2017 at 11:02:16 PM EST
To: "Hart, Rosemary (OLC}" ~ "Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)"

•

(b )(6 )

Cc: "Stewart, Scott (OLC)" •
(b) (6)
Subject: RE: Redline on voter fraud PM

Attached are my addit ional suggestions.
---Original MessageFrom: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}
Sent: Wednesda , Janua 25, 2017 10:45 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5869

'>

  

duplicate

Dncurnent ID: 

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

From:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:22 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}; Stewart, Scott (Ole}

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (Ol e}

Subject:

RE: Red line on voter fraud PM

Got it . I'll send as soon I' m off the phone with Katsas.
- Original Message--From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21 PM
(b) (6 )
To: Stewart, Scott (OLC} <
•
(b) (6)
Cc: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
•

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

(b) (6)

Subject: Re: Redline on voter fraud PM
Those edits look good to me.
Scott had asked, and I didn't see until a couple of minutes ago, whether •ee,1$111
"should be
capitalized. Yes, it shou ld. WH style.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5107

  

duplicate

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 201 7 11:24 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Subject:

Re: 170126 - Electi on

(b)(5)

PM (25 Jan 927pm)

Thnx for sending.
On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:52 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC) •

(b) (6)

· wrote :

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/trump-calls-for-major-investigation-into-voter-fraud/
From: '1art, Rosemary ( Ole}
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 201710:52 PM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. {OLC) •
(b) (6)
Subject: Re: 170126 - El ection
(b) (5)

I wonder ,

>
PM (25 Jan 927pm}
(b) (5)

On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5087

•

(b) (6)

· wrote:

 'duplicate

 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:45 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject:

Re: 170126 - Election

(b) (5)

PM (25 Jan 927pm)

Thanks for carrying this through. Am heading to bed now. See you in the morning.
On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC) •

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5096

(b) (6)

wrote:

  

Document ID: 01146155096

___--------------------------------,

From:

MUW•

Sent:

Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:41 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

RE: Update on today and some observations

1

Thank youl
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 20171:39 PM

•

To: IU-1
>
Subject: FW: Update on today and some observations
This is what I got from Scott about an hour ago.
Fro m: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 201712:14 PM
(b) (6)
To: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole) •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
Subject: Update on today and some observations

Hart, Rosemary {Ole) ,

(b) (5 )

John just called to say

(b ) (5 )

As for the documents for tomorrow:

I have three observations, some of which may call for action today.

(b) (5)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.8586

(b ) (6 )

(b) (5)

  

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:31 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC); Stewart, Scott {OLC)

Subject:

voter fraud

From Politico:

And as Trump's team started settling in for the evening, the White House pulled back - for now one final highty anticipated and controversial act of the day: an executrve order calling for an
investigation into widespread voter fraud.
'The president got back a little late and he got jammed up on some meetings that needed to
occur, and so we're going to roll all that into Friday and Saturday," Spicer said.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5099

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, April 21, 201 7 11:19 AM

To:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

I like it. Thanks!
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Se nt: Friday, April 21, 201711:14 AM
(b)(6 )
To: Hart, Rosemary {Ole} •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO
How's this?
(b) (5 )

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7241

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, April 21, 201 7 3:06 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O l e)

Subject:

FW: EO Revie w Priorities

Attachments:

(b) (5 )

- OPC 4.18 CLEAN.DOCX

Note updated list. Now there are 3 slated for next Sat ur day.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7133

  (5)

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Sunday, April 23, 2017 11:26 AM

To:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Subject:

voting integrity EO

Attachments:

Voting Integrity EO + OLC preliminary edits.docx

Scott: I have done a preliminary review of the EO and, in the interest of time, would like to

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

I am a little concerned that this EO might still go forward at some point this week, and I wanted to get ahead
of the curve just in case. Do you see any problem with sending a preliminary redline today?
Rosemary

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7139

 Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Sunday, April 23, 2017 2:30 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

Re: Election Integrity EO

Sounds good - thanks!
On Apr 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC} •

(b) (6 )

> wrote:

Scott: I spoke with Curtis about this preliminary redline and he thought it made sense to send it
now, to keep things moving.
Hope your weekend is going well! I look forward to hearing about it.
Rosemary

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7505

  

Document ID: 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Monday, April 24, 2017 1 2:1 7 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Cc:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

FW: Revised EO Priorities

Curtis - FYI.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7126

(b)(5)

  

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201711:40 AM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Subject:

RE: EO Priorities

I was j ust typing a similar message ! thanks

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7370

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201711:49 AM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

I'll assign it.
Frustrating on timing.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 201711:47 AM
(b ) (6 )
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •
(b ) (6 )
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO
Here' s the last passback of Election Integrity. I generated a redline too. Should we get someone on this?
(b) (5)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7129

•

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201712:13 PM

To:

(b) (6)

(OLC}

Subject:

FW: Request for revie w of proposed Execut ive Order on Election Integrity

Attachments:

Voting Integrity EO - Redline.docx

CRT comme nts.
From: Wheeler, Tom (CRT)
Sent: Monda , A ril 24, 2017 5:20 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7502

 Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201712:14 PM

To:

(b) (6 )

(OLC}

Subject:

FW: Request for review of proposed Executive Order on Election Integrity

Attachments:

Voting Integrity EO - Redline.docx

I think this is redundant to what I already sent, but am sending anyway.

From: Gore, John (CRT)
Sent: Tuesda , A ril 25, 2017 2:06 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.8575

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201712:15 PM
(b) (6)

To:

Subject:

(O LC}

FW: Election Integrity EO

One more item from WH:

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7715

I

 'cluplicate

 

Document ID: 0.11461 5

 

duplicate

__
, (_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

11111

(b) (6 )

From:

I

(OLC)

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 201712:17 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Perfect.
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 201712:16 PM
(b ) (6 )
{Ole} •
To:
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
1

>

That should work. This is a short EO, and we have already sent a red line with preliminary comments (see
attached}.
(b ) (6 )
From:
{Ole)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 201712:15 PM
(b)(6 )
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
Subject: RE: Electi on Integrity EO
I am currently working on a bill comment that's on a somewhat tight deadline, but I hope to send thatto the
bill comment team for review by 2 or 3 this afternoon . I can turn my full attention to this immediately after
that. Would that be OK?
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 201712:12 PM
(b )(6 )
To:
1 {Ole} •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO

>

(b) (6) :

This is an EO that has been around for a few days, but it has not been part of the First 100 Days push.
Now, we are told this should be our focus for next week (we have asked for more specifics}. We have been
(b) (5 )
awaiting DOJ component comment, and I' ll send those along, too,

We want to get another r edline back to the WH tomorrow morning if feasible.
Do you have time to work on this?
Thanks,
Rosemary

duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.14615.7513

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Thursday, April 27, 20171 1:39 PM
(b) (6 )

To:

Subject:

I

(OLC}

Re: Election Integrity EO

Thank you! Will read in the morning.
On Apr 27, 2017, at 6:37 PM,

(b ) (6)

(OLC) •

(b ) (6)

> wrote:

Here you go, and sorry for the delay. I made comments on top of the CRT comments (and added
to one of the CRT comments that OLC agrees). Note that I made two internal comments to you,
highlighted yellow.

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7354

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

__
, (_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

11111

(b) (6)

From:

(OLC)

Sent:

Fri day, April 28, 2017 10:03 AM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Looking at this now.
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 201710:01 AM
(b)(6)
To:11111111:>Da1111( 0 LC} •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO
: Thanks for the redline you sent yesterday. Due to work on more urgent EOs (including 2 to be signed
today), I am only turning to it now. I should have pointed out that CRT commented on an older version, and
so it is a little confusing to use their redline as the base document. Could you please take another look at
what I sent you (below and attached) and use this one as the base for comments? I think some of CRT's
comments might be moot.
Sorry for any confusion!
Rosemary

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7152

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

'cluplicate

  

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, April 28, 201 7 10:46 AM

To:

lllllllmDmlll (OLC)

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Thanks!

From:

(b) (6)

(Ole)

Sent: Friday, April 28, 201710:45 AM
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •
(b)(6)
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Sorry about thatl Here you go.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7668

>

 duplicate

 

duplicate

 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

From:

(b) (6)

(OLC)

Sent:

Friday, April 28, 201 7 12:29 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Attachments:

170424 - Election Integrity CLEAN (1730) (003) - Ill. + rh +li!i,docx

Looks good. I got rid of the highlighting and internal comments, with the exception of the comment
(b) (5)
about'
,'' b/c you said you are looking int o that.
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 201712:22 PM
(b) (6)
To:
1 (Ole) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
Looks great! I have added some edits, and responded to your questions.
(b) (6)
From:
(OLC)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 201710:45 AM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7264

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, April 28, 201 7 2:56 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott (OLC};

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6)

I

{OLC}

Thanks. It will be good to keep this one moving.
From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:53 PM
(b) (6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

>·,

(b) (6)

(OLC) •

(b) (6)

>

Great- I' ve made comments outward facing in the attached, which I'll pass back shortly.
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:49 PM
To:
1 (Ole) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(b)(6)

Stewart, Scott {OLC) •

(b) (6)

Scott: This all looks good to me, too.
Thanks!
Rosemary
(b) (6)
From:
{OLC)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC) <~
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •

(b) (6)

Scott,
Your edits all look good to me.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:32 PM
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
(b)(6)
(b) (6)
1{OLC) ,
>
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Stewart, Scott (OLC} ,

(b) (6)

lt:>WI

Thanks you, both. I marked a few additional edits and comments for your consideration.
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) (mailto
Sent: Friday, April 28, 20171:36 PM
To: Stew art, Scott {OLC) •
(b)(6)
Subject: Election Int egrity EO

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7552

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

(Ole) ,

(b) (6)

>

  

Scott: This redline reflects comments fromi 33 
Rosemary

Document ID: 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Monday, May 01, 2017 9:23 AM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

FW: Revised EO Priorities

It looks like every one of the bulleted items has been signed, as has-

Wlli], andiE>$l1are up next.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7132

I suppose that Electron Integrity,

  

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Monday, May 01, 2017 2:14 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Thanks. Just wanted to confirm that WHCO isn't waiting on us.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Monday, May 1, 20171:51 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •
Subject: Re: Election Integrity EO

Right - nothing yet.
On ~ay 1, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) ~
Scott: Just checking on this-we didn't get a response yet, did we?
RH

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7543

- \vrote:

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

From:

lllllllim:mlll1(0 LC)

Sent:

Tuesday, May 02, 20171:40 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}; Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

Subject:

FW: Election Integrity EO

Attachments:

Election Integrity EO - 0502 - Policy Turn.docx

I am looking at this now and will circulate a Compare Doc and further edits shortly.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7405

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

'duplicate

 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

From:

IIIIIIIIDJemll (0 LC)

Sent:

Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5 :27 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole); Stewart, Scott (Ole); Stewart, Scott (O LC)

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Coming now.
From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5:16 PM
(b) (6)
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
(b) (6)
Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6)

I{OlC)

•

(b)(6 )

•=

Let us know when you are free .

RH
From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 5:00 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
(b) (6 )
Stewart, Scott (Ole) •

(b) (6 )

(OLC) ,

(b) (6 )

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Sure. I'm free.
From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:57 PM
(b) (6)
To: Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
(b)(6)
Stewart, Scott (Ol e) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6)

I(Ole)

•

(b)(6 )

>

Should we have a brief meeting about this?
From: Stewart~ Scott (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:41 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
•
(b)
(6 )
Stewart, Scott (OlC)

(b) (6 )

(OLC) ,

(b) (6 )

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6 )
From: Hart, Rosemary (OlC) (mailto
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 2:30 PM
(b) (6)
To:
(Ole) •
1

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7121

Stewart, Scott (Ole) .

(b) (6)

>

 Thanks for cleaning this up and creating a red line.
I am fine with one of the edits, but had questions about

(b) (5)

RH
(b ) (6 )
From:
{Ole)
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 20171:56 PM
(b) (6 )
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO

Hart, Rosemary (OLC} •

(b)(6 )

I've attached a compare doc and a doc that accepts all changes, removes all extraneous comments, and
includes a couple more proposed edits.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7121

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5:53 PM
(b) (6)

To:

Subject:

I

(OLC}

RE: Election Integrity EO

Thanks! It does save t ime!
(b) (6)
From:
(Ole)
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 5:52 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
Rosemary,
I had already made t he proposed change we agreed to on my document. Here it is in case that saves you
time.
From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 5:16 PM

Document ID: 0.7.14615.8593

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 9:03 AM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC};

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6)

I

{OLC}

Good idea.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 9:01 AM
(b) (6)
To:
{Ole} •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) •
1

Subject: FW: El ection Integrity EO

Might be worth getting F&Ltogether on this one, in case it suddenly drops.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7268

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 12:16 PM
(b) (6)

To:

1

(OLC}; Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

I'll review now.
(b) (6)
From:
{OLC)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 12:15 PM
(b) (6)
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC} ,
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) ,
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Hart, Rosemary (OLC} ,

(b) (6)

Looks good. I accepted all of your changes except for the most critical: putting two spaces after the colon
( Curtis has made clear that he only wants one space}.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent: Friday, May 05, 201712:12 PM
(b) (6)
To:
(Ole) •
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
1

Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •

(b) (6)

Thanks. Here are some suggested edits.
(b) (6)
From:
{OLC)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 201712:07 PM
(b) (6)
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC} •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Hart, Rosemary {OLC} ,

Rosemary suggested bulking up the F&L a little bit. See attached.

(b) (6)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7680

(OLC)

(b)(6)

 duplicate

 

'cluplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

'cluplicate

 
 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 12:18 PM
(b) (6)

To:

1

(OLC}; Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Attachments:

Fl - Election Commission2 + sgs +

II + rh .docx

One nit - changed "Federal" to "federal." Otherwise, looks great!
From:

(b) (6)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7231

{OLC)

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

'cluplicate

  

Document ID: 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

(b) (6)

From:

I

(OLC)

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 4:50 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject:

RE:

(b) (5)

Looking now.
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)

Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 4:49 PM
(b)(6)
To:
1 (OLC) •
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: FW:
(b)(5)

•=

Could you please take a look?
Thanks,
Rosemary

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7685

  

Document ID: 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

(b) (6)

From:

I

(OLC)

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 4:51 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (Ole}

Cc:

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject:

RE:

(b) (5)

Already done it. But thanks for flagging!
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 4:51 PM
(b)(6)
To:
1 (OLC) •
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: RE:
(b) (5)
I see t hat
From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Frida , Ma 5, 2017 4:49 PM

Document ID: 0 .7 .14615 .7102

(b) (5)

so we will need to adjust the F&L

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 5:00 PM

To:

lllllllllmmlll1(OLC}; Stewart, Scott (OLC}
RE: lllllllmllrmll

Subject:

And tome.
(b) (6)
From:
(Ole)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 4:59 PM
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC) •
Subject: RE: IIIIIIIDJSIIII

(b) (6)

Hart, Rosemary {OLC)

•

(b )(6)

It looks good to me.

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Friday, May OS, 2017 4:57 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
•
(b) (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Subject: RE:IIIIIIIDJSIIII

(b)(6)

Here ' s a redline showing change s from our last passback.
From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7342

(OLC) ,

(b)(6)

 duplicate

 

duplicate

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (Ole}

Sent:

Friday, May OS, 2017 5:06 PM

(Ole); Hart, Rosemary (Ole)

(b) (6)

To:
RE:

Subject:

(b) (5)

I think that we should wait for at least the next passback before sending to him, particularly given the time.
Thanks!
(b) (6 )

(Ole)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 5:05 PM
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole} •
Subject: RE:
(b) (5)
From:

(b) (6)

Hart, Rosemary {Ole} •

(b)(6)

Yes. Looks good to me. I assume I should wait for the final, final version to run the F&l paperwork to Curtis?
From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 5:04 PM
(b)(6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
(b) (5)
Subject: RE:
Great-proposed passback attached . •
From: Hart, Rosemary (OlC)
Sent Friday, May 5, 2017 5:02 PM
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole) •
Subject: RE: llllllliJmllll

(b) (6 )

(OLC) •

(b) (6 )

• look good to you?

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

I (Ole)

•

(b )(6 )

Looks good. A response to your question.
From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 5:00 PM
(b) (6)
To:~
1(OLC) •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
Subject: RE:
(b) (5)

Hart, Rosemary (OLC) •

(b) (6)

I marked a few edits in the attached.
(b) (6 )
From:
(OlC)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 4:59 PM

duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.14615.7677

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Monday, May 08, 2017 2:16 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Cc:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC};

Subject:

FW: Election Integrity EO

Attachments:

2017electionintegrity.eo v2.docx; FL - Election Commission4.docx

(b) (6)

(OLC); Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Curtis - attached is a proposed final EO on election integrity, along with F&L
is apparently no signing date on this, but it may be signed this week.
. Thank you.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7682

(b) (5)
(b) (5)

• There

 duplicate

 

duplicate

 

--1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

From:

llllllll:>Dmlll (OLC)

Sent:

Monday, May 08, 2017 2:30 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Thanks. I must have had a version control problem.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ol e)
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 2:16 PM
(b)(6)
To:lllllllfDmmlll1(0 le} •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Hart, Rosemary (Ol e) •

(b)(6)

(b) (5)

Thanks. I updated
Curtis.

From:lllllllfDmmlll {OLC)
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 2:11 PM
(b) (6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO

Stewart, Scott (OLC} ,

, and sent to

(b)(6)

See attached.

From: Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Sent; Monday, May 08, 2017 2:09 PM
(b) (6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ol e) •
(b)(6)
Cc:lllllllfDmmlll1(OLC) •
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Looks good to me. Curtis.

• could you please send me the latest F&L paperwork? I'll send that and the EO to

•
•

(b)(6)
(b)(6)

•
•

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

Thanks.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.12733

 I'll look a little later this afternoon.

On~lay 8, 2017, at 12:11 P~. Hart,Rosemary (OLC) ~

-.,,vrote:

Looks good to me, too.
From:~
{ OLC}
Sent : Monday, May 8, 201712:03 PM
(b ) (6 )
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC} •

•

(b )(6 )

Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO
Compari son doc attached . All looks good.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.12733

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

uplicate

 

Document ID: 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From:

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Sent:

Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:36 PM

To:

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Subject:

FW: Election Integrity EO

Document ID: 0.7.14615.12829

  

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Sent:

Tuesday, May 09, 20171:40 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC); Stewart, Scott {O LC)

Cc:

(b) (6)

(OLC}

Subject:

RE: Election Integrity EO

Attachments:

OLC Rules of Form and Style memo 2013 - FINAL.pdf

For numbers, we use Bluebook.
Attached is our latest style guide, which is on the OLC "G" drive.
From: Gannon, Curtis E. {OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 20171:35 PM
(b)(6 )
To: Stewart, Scott (OLC) ,
•
(b
) (6 )
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(b) (6 )

I changed the date on the letter, removed a colon, and added

{OLC) ,

(b) (6 )

m,m· I've printed and signed .

P.S . What is OLC style on spelling out numbers (such as 'fifteen")?

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 20171:25 PM
(b) (6 )
To: Stewart, Scott (OLC) ,
(b) (6)
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Subject: RE: Electi on Integrity EO

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:22 AM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. {OLC)
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
(b) (6)
Stewart, Scott (OLC) •
Subject: FW: Election Integrity EO

>·I

(b) (6 )

{OLC) ,

(b ) (6)

>

{OLC) ,

(b ) (6 )

>·

>

Curtis- Election Integrity is up for a Thursday signing. My last e-mai l- with the final EO and F&l - is
attached.

duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279

'

 duplicate

 

Document ID: 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 

 

duplicate

U.S. Department of Justice


Office of Legal Counsel


Office of the Assistant Attorney General


Washington, D.C. 20530

October 23, 2013

MEMORANDUM TO THE OFFICE
Re: Rules of Form and Style


This memorandum sets forth the official updated rules of form and style for the Office of

Legal Counsel (“OLC”).

I.

OLC uses the current edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, as

amplified, modified, or supplanted by the following rules:

1.1

Whenever available, cite the book-published version of an OLC opinion, as follows:

Proposed Tax Assessment Against the United States Postal Service,

1 Op.


O.L.C. 79 (1977).


1.2

Opinions in volumes 1-3 whose captions contain awkward groups of key words and

phrases may be cited using only the most pertinent key word or phrase.

For example,

Federal Improvements to Real Property Owned by a Former President,

3 Op.


O.L.C. 440 (1979),


is preferable to

(1) Presidential Protection Assistance Act (18 U.S.C. § 3056 note) Retroactive

Effect (2) Federal Improvements to Real Property Owned by a Former

President Title Thereto Removal Of, 3 Op. O.L.C. 440 (1979).


1.3

When citing volume 4 of the OLC opinions, cite volume 4A or 4B.


1.4

If the OLC opinion has not been published in a book, cite the version that has been

published on the OLC website, as follows:

(a)

Full general citation:


1


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 State and Local Deputation of Federal

Law Enforcement Officers During

(Mar. 5, 2012) (“State and Local

Stafford Act Deployments, 35 Op. O.L.C.
Deputation”), available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/opinions.htm.


(b)

Full pinpoint citation:

State and Local Deputation of Federal Law Enforcement Officers During

Stafford Act Deployments, 35 Op. O.L.C.
, at *7 (Mar. 5, 2012) (“State and
Local Deputation”), available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/opinions.htm (“state


deputation laws may provide FLEOs with the express authority to make arrests

for violations of state criminal laws”).


(c)

Subsequent short citation:

State and Local Deputation

at *7.


The number of the bound volume where the opinion will ultimately be published is

indicated on the even-page header of the slip opinion.

Note the use of the full date, not just the year, of issuance, in contrast to the citation of a

book-published opinion. This will help readers find the slip opinion on our website,

which has pages with links to our published opinions sorted both by title and by date.

Note also that, in a departure from Bluebook form, we do not cite the precise URL of the

opinion, just the URL of our opinions front page. This is because the URL of particular

opinions can change over time as the Department reorganizes its website. It also enables

us to avoid the space-consuming Bluebook convention of stating when the particular URL

was “last visited” by the author who is citing the opinion.

1.5

If the OLC opinion has not been published at all, cite it as you would any other OLC

memorandum:

Memorandum for Ambassador Michael Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, from

Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Whether the GATT Uruguay Round Must be Ratified as a Treaty at 4 (July 29,

1994).


Note the absence of a comma before the page citation and one space after the colon.

1.6

Cite unpublished correspondence to or from OLC as if it were an unpublished OLC

memorandum, except that the citation need not include the title or “Re:” line of the letter,

facsimile, or other document:

Letter for Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,

from William G. Myers III, Solicitor, Department of the Interior at 1 (Jan. 24,

2003).


In special cases, a “Re:” line can be constructed that appropriately describes the body of

the letter.


2


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 1.7
 Cite OLC e-mails also like unpublished memoranda, with the exact subject line of the email (as artless as it may be) following the “Re:” and with a parenthetical that includes

both the date and time the e-mail was sent:

See, e.g.,

E-mail fo

(b) (5)






.


Generally, due to the informal nature of the e-mail, indicating the department to which

the sender or recipient belongs will be sufficient. The formal title or position held by the

sender or recipient need not be included and should not be included unless it is clearly

indicated by the e-mail. In the case of multiple recipients in the “To:” line of the e-mail,

cite the lead recipient with an “et al.” Recipients in the “Cc:” line need not be mentioned

and do not warrant an “et al.”

1.8

Do not use the section symbol (§) to refer to sections of the United States Code in a

sentence unless the reference includes both the title and section (for example, 28 U.S.C.

§ 511):

“The rule codified at section 511,” not “the rule codified at § 511.”

“The rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 511,” not “the rule codified at 28 U.S.C.

section 511.”


1.9

Refer to a public law in text as “Public Law __-___,” not “Pub. L. No. __-___.”


1.10

As indicated by the previous examples, do not capitalize “section” or “title” or “chapter”

or “rule” when referring to a statute or regulation in text, unless the statute or regulation

is regularly capitalized (Title VII, Rule 10b-5).


1.11

Call a statutory provision in text by the first item in the citation string, not the last:

“Section 1603(a)” or “subsection (a),” not “subsection 1603(a).”

“Section 1603(a)(3)” or “subsection (a)(3)” or “paragraph (3),” not “paragraph

1603(a)(3).”

“Section 1604(a)(3)(C)” or “subsection (a)(3)(C)” or “paragraph (3)(C)” or

“subparagraph (C),” not “subparagraph 1604(a)(3)(C).”

“Section 1604(a)(3)(C)(ii)” or “subsection (a)(3)(C)(ii)” or “paragraph

(3)(C)(ii)” or “subparagraph (C)(ii)” or clause (ii), not “clause

1604(a)(3)(C)(ii).”


This is the citation form used by the United States Code. See Office of the Legislative

Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, House Legislative Counsel’s Manual on
Drafting Style, HLC 104-1, at 52 (Nov. 1995), available at http://www.llsdc.org/

attachments/files/94/Manual_on_Drafting_Style.pdf (last visited June 7, 2012).

3


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 1.12
 When citing U.S. Code or C.F.R. sections for the first time in the document, include the

year (and publisher or supplement number, if appropriate) of the statutory compilation

only if it is not clear in context that you are citing the most recent available compilation.

1.13

The Bluebook notwithstanding, it is permissible and sometimes preferable to cite a

segment of the U.S. Code with an “et seq.” (italicized), especially when the codification

of the statute is discontinuous or the statute is frequently amended:

Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002),

6 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

codified at

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. No.

100-707, 102 Stat. 4689 (1988), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 et
seq. (“Stafford Act”).

But: Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d.


1.14

Capitalize the shorthand for constitutional provisions (First Amendment, Article III,

Privileges and Immunities Clause).


1.15

Do not use a comma in Executive Order numbers:

Exec. Order No. 12531 (1985).


1.16

A short form should appear in parentheses with quotation marks the first time it is used,

preferably in text. Do not use “hereinafter” to introduce it. Short form titles of OLC

memoranda and opinions typically are italicized, unless they include the word

“Memorandum” or “Opinion” in the title:

Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress,


20 Op. O.L.C. 124 (1996) (“Dellinger Memorandum”).

Memorandum for Ambassador Michael Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, from

Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Whether the GATT Uruguay Round Must be Ratified as a Treaty at 4 (July 29,

1994) (“GATT Uruguay Round”).

Memorandum for Ambassador Michael Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, from

Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Whether the GATT Uruguay Round Must be Ratified as a Treaty at 4 (July 29,

1994) (“1994 Opinion”).


1.17

Do not use superscript ordinals, particularly in court names:

Lee v. Clinton,

1.18

209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000).


Avoid “see supra” and “see infra” cross-references to pages in the body of an opinion. If

a cross-reference is absolutely necessary, cross-refer footnotes (and accompanying text)

or parts of the opinion instead.


4


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 As indicated above, see supra

notes 11-12 and accompanying text, . . . .

As we discuss in more detail below, see infra Part III.C, . . . .


This helps to avoid inaccurate cross-references if the text of the document is later resized

or the page numbering of the document is changed when the opinion is published online

or in a bound volume.

II.

To resolve questions not addressed in the Bluebook relating to style, usage, punctuation,

and grammar, we employ the latest editions of The Chicago Manual of Style and The Elements of

Style (“Strunk & White”). The following are some unique OLC style conventions that amplify,

modify, or supplant these authorities:

2.1

“Attorney-Adviser,” not “Attorney-Advisor” or “Attorney Adviser.”


2.2

Form the possessive singular of singular nouns that end in “s” by adding “’s”:

“Justice Thomas’s dissent.”

“Texas’s flag.”

“Congress’s confusion.”


2.3

Avoid constructions that require the possessive form of “United States”:

“United States Constitution.”

“Constitution of the United States.”

Not “United States’ Constitution.”

Not “United States’s Constitution.”


2.4

Capitalize “Executive Branch” in all its usages, “Legislative Branch” when referring to

Congress, and “Judicial Branch” when referring to the federal courts.

Capitalize the “Executive” when used as a noun to refer to the President or an agent of

the President. Similarly, capitalize the “Legislature” or the “Judiciary” when referring

specifically to Congress or the federal courts.

Capitalize “Congress” but not “congressional,” “President” but not “presidential.”

Capitalize “State” when used as a proper noun to refer to one of the United States but not

when used as an adjective (“state government”) or a generality (“a state,” “various

states”).


5


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 2.5

(rules 7.82-7.90) and Strunk & White (ch. III) address

Both The Chicago Manual of Style

the use of hyphens. Our general disposition is to limit their use. In particular, we do not

hyphenate the phrase “separation of powers” when used as an adjective, e.g., “separation

of powers principles.”


2.6

When using dashes to amplify, explain, or indicate a sudden break, use em dashes (with

no space before or after the dash), not en dashes.

This sentence employs an em dash the most versatile of all dashes correctly.

This sentence employs an en dash a most inappropriate dash incorrectly.


(rules 6.80-6.96) provides additional detail on hyphens and

dashes in general and on em and en dashes in particular.

The Chicago Manual of Style

2.7

Within a quotation, put one space after the ellipsis, including when it replaces the end of

a sentence or an entire sentence. Put one space before the ellipsis to indicate that the

sentence just quoted is incomplete. Replace a single word that you are omitting with an

ellipsis, not brackets (“[]”).

For example, if the original text is as follows:

Melissa just finished reading a book of short stories. She greatly enjoyed it and

immediately went to the library to find something similar. Tomorrow, she will

begin reading another book.


Then the following quotations would all be appropriate:

Melissa just finished reading a book of short stories. She greatly enjoyed it

and . . . went to the library to find something similar.

Melissa just finished reading a book of short stories. . . . Tomorrow, she will

begin reading another book.

Melissa just finished reading a book . . . . She greatly enjoyed it and

immediately went to the library to find something similar.

Melissa, it has been established beyond cavil, “greatly enjoyed [the book].”


2.8

Put hard spaces in front of the periods in ellipses (“◦.◦.◦.” or “◦.◦.◦.◦.”), so that a new line

does not begin with an ellipsis:


2.9

It is unnecessary to insert an ellipsis at the end of an incomplete sentence fragment (note

the absence of a period in the parenthetical quotation):

The Board found that Smith “was aware of the politically motivated

recommendations.” Special Counsel v. Smith, 30 M.S.P.R. 344, 348 (1988).

Special Counsel v. Smith,

30 M.S.P.R. 344, 348 (1988) (concluding that “Smith

was aware of the politically motivated recommendations”).


6


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 2.10

Avoid passive voice, unless it reflects genuine ambiguity, improves readability, or

Strunk & White ch. II.14.

provides helpful emphasis. See


2.11

Be restrained in the use of adverbs and adjectives, especially modifiers that invite the

reader to accept the proposition in text without scrutiny (“simply,” “clearly,” “obvious”).

If a modifier seems necessary to convey nuance, first hunt for a more precise or vivid

verb or noun. See Strunk & White chs. V.4 & V.8.


2.12

Do not italicize common Latin phrases or abbreviations in sentences of text (“e.g.,” “i.e.,”

“de facto,” “habeas corpus,” “bona fide”). “Among other things” is preferable to the

lawyer-ish phrase “inter alia,” but italicize “inter alia” when it used.


2.13

Avoid long string citations in text, especially in the middle of a sentence. If numerous

authorities support the point, pick the best two or three and use “e.g.” absent a special

reason to cover the waterfront. In parentheticals, a cursory explanation may suffice, such

as “same” or “similar.”

III.


The following are some style or citation forms that are preferred but not set in stone. You

will likely find conflicting examples in past OLC writings. The forms below reflect editorial

choices made during our most recent publications. Common sense may dictate variation:

3.1

In large opinions with many footnotes, make the first citation of a source in the text of the

document a full citation, even if it comes after a footnote with a full citation of the same

source. Alternatively, make a “supra” reference to the footnote in which the source was

first cited.

For example, if a citation appears initially in a footnote as:

9

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1485

(1833) (“Story”) (in military matters, “[u]nity of plan, promptitude, activity, and

decision, are indispensable to success; and these can scarcely exist, except when

a single magistrate is entrusted exclusively with the power”).


Then either of the following subsequent citations in text would be appropriate:

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1485

(1833) (“[t]he command and application of the public force . . . to maintain

peace, and to resist foreign invasion” are executive powers) (“Story”).

Story, supra note 9, § 1485 (“[t]he command and application of the public

force . . . to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion” are executive

powers).


3.2

Cite the unpublished opinions assembled during the Assistant Solicitor General,

Executive Adjudications Division, and early OLC eras (available as bound volumes in

our library) by combining the form for unpublished memoranda and letters with the form

for published opinions:


7


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 (a)

Volumes 1-14 (the Assistant Solicitor General era, 1933-48):

Memorandum for the Attorney General, from Golden W. Bell, Assistant

Office of Attorney General, 8 Unpub. Op.

Solicitor General, Re: Vacancy in the

A.S.G. 1538, 1540 (Dec. 5, 1938).


(b)

Volumes 15-16 (spanning the Assistant Solicitor General, Office of Executive

Adjudication s, and Office of Legal Counsel eras, 1948-53):

Letter fo




(b) (5)



).


3.3

There is no perfect way to cite the GPO editions of the Public Papers of the Presidents,

whose volume numbers usually (but not always) start over at “1” each year and which

sometimes combine multiple years into a single volume. Because the exact date of the

particular speech or paper being cited within the volume is often important, we have tried

in recent publications to include the full date in a parenthetical, which along with the

volume number should be enough information to permit the reader to find the correct

book:

(a)

For years with a single volume:

Letter Accepting the Resignation of Oliver Wendell Holmes as an Associate

Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Jan. 12, 1932), Pub. Papers
of Pres. Herbert Hoover 20, 20 (1932).


(b)

For years with multiple volumes:

Statement on Signing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Jan. 12, 2007), 1 Pub. Papers. of

Pres. George W. Bush 29, 29 (2007) (“The executive branch shall construe these

provisions in a manner consistent with the Appointments Clause.”).


(c)

For a volume with multiple years:

Remarks at a Fundraising Brunch for Rich Williamson in Rosemont, Illinois

(Aug. 2, 1992), 2 Pub. Papers of Pres. George Bush 1291, 1292 (1992 93)

(“Remarks at a Fundraising Brunch”).


(d)

For subsequent short citations:

Remarks at a Fundraising Brunch, 2 Pub. Papers of George Bush at 1292

(1992 93).


Note the mention of the year again in the subsequent short citation, without which the

reader will not know which volume 2 of the Bush 41 administration is being cited except

by going back to the original full citation.


8


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 3.4

Cite the editor(s)/contributing

author(s) of a constantly-updated treatise as if they were

the original authors, and insert the name(s) of the original author(s) into the title of the

treatise if they are not otherwise credited:

18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal

§ 4434 (2d ed. 2002).


Practice and Procedure

3 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 59.03

(5th ed. 1992).

John W. Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence: Hornbook Series § 32 (5th ed.

1999).


3.5

Other unique sources:

(a)

Congressional Research Service reports:

“[E]very President has taken the position that [the WPR] is an unconstitutional

infringement by the Congress on the President’s authority as Commander-inChief.” Richard F. Grimmet, Cong. Research Serv., IB81050, War Powers
Resolution: Presidential Compliance 2 (updated Sept. 10, 2002).


(b)

GAO Redbook:

2 Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law
5-12 (3d ed. 2006) (“Federal Appropriations Law”).

3 Federal Appropriations Law at 3-13 (3d. ed. 2008).


(c)

OGE advisory opinions (give a parallel citation to an online source):

Office of Government Ethics, Compensation Arrangements for Former Federal

Government Employees and 18 U.S.C. § 203, Informal Advisory Letter 93x31,

1993 WL 721251 (Oct. 26, 1993).

Office of Government Ethics, Compensation Arrangements for Former Federal

Government Employees and 18 U.S.C. § 203, Informal Advisory Op. 93x31

(Oct. 26, 1993), available at http://www.oge.gov/OGE-Advisories/LegalAdvisories/Legal-Advisories/ (last visited Aug. 4, 2012).


(d)

Revised Statutes: There were two editions the first in 1875; the second, making

technical corrections and incorporating subsequent amendments, in 1878. What is

confusing is that both were published in volume 18, parts 1 and 2 of the Statutes

at Large. The second edition was simply published as a replacement for volume

18. The OLC library has the replacement volume 18 in its collection of the

Statutes at Large; HeinOnline has the original volume 18.

To avoid any confusion as to whether you are citing the original or the

replacement volume 18, it is advisable to specify which edition of the Revised

Statutes you are citing and to indicate in a parenthetical if you are citing the

replacement volume 18:


9


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 Rev. Stat. § 1044 (1st ed. 1875), 18 Stat. pt. 1, at 193 (“No person shall be

prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense not capital, except as provided in

section one thousand and forty-six, unless the indictment is found or the

information is instituted within two years next after such offense is

committed.”).

Rev. Stat. § 1044 (2d ed. 1878), 18 Stat. pt. 1, at 193 (repl. vol.) (“No person

shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, except as

provided in section one thousand and forty-six, unless the indictment is found,

or the information is instituted within three years next after such offense shall

have been committed. But this act shall not have effect to authorize the

prosecution, trial or punishment for any offense, barred by the provisions of

existing laws.”).

IV.

The Bluebook, that apply to

The following are formatting conventions, not addressed in

most written work product, such as opinions or letters, that this Office produces. Book

publications follow a different set of rules.

4.1

Opinions and most other OLC documents are single-spaced, using 12-point font for the

text and 10-point font for footnotes.


4.2

Footnote numbers in the text and in the footnote should be in 10-point font. In footnotes,

indent the footnote number one-half inch, the same indent required for paragraphs in the

text. Insert two spaces between the footnote number and the text of the footnote.


4.3

Left-justify documents so that the text has a ragged right edge.

4.4

Use 12-point spacing between paragraphs in text and 6-point spacing between paragraphs

in footnotes and between footnotes.


4.5

Use a hard space between section signs and section numbers, paragraph signs and

paragraph numbers, and months and dates, so that they stay on the same line.


4.6

Use one-inch margins at the top, bottom, left, and right of the page (except for the first

page of documents with the OLC letterhead, see infra rule 4.7). We rarely use headers

and footers, but set the footer position to one-half inch so that the page number appears

one-half inch from the bottom of the page. The page number should be in 12-point font

and should not appear on the first page.


4.7

The letterhead at the top of this memorandum is the preferred form for most official OLC

documents: (a) the embedded image of the DOJ seal is one inch in diameter and is flush

to the left and top margins (do not use earlier versions with a smaller seal); (b) the

identifications of the author’s office and the office location are in 9-point font, one-half

line (6 points) below the horizontal bar; and (c) the body of the document begins two

lines (24 points) below the date.


10


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 4.8
 The signature lines (author and office) at the end of an opinion or memorandum should

be centered at a tab point 4⅛ inches from the left margin. If the author will not be

signing the document by hand above the signature line, insert two blank lines (24 points)

between the end of the text and the signature. If the author will be signing the document

by hand, insert four blank lines (48 points).

4.9

For formal opinions, our usual practice is to put section headings in boldface type, with a

period after the number or letter, and no explanatory language in the headings. The

subdivisions proceed from Roman numerals (I, II, III) to capital letters (A, B, C) to

Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3) to lower-case letters (a, b, c).

There are times, however, when explanatory headings can be useful, especially in

opinions that are long and subdivided down to the level of Arabic numerals or lower-case

letters. See, e.g., the Dellinger Memo; Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to

Try Terrorists, 25 Op. O.L.C. 240 (2001).

V.


Please let me know if you have questions about any of the rules set forth above. As

always, we are open to suggestions for changes or additions to the rules of form and style.


Virginia A. Seitz

Assistant Attorney General


11


Document ID: 0.7.14615.7279-000001

 --1
(_0L_c)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111

From:

(b) (6)

(OLC)

Sent:

Tuesday, May 09, 20171:51 PM

To:

Mitchell, Dyone (Ole)

Subject:

Perceptive data for Election EO

Attachments:

FL_ 20170509_ Proposed Executive Order Entitled, Establishment of Presidential
Advisory Commission on Election lntegrity.docx.accdb; Fl_20170509_Proposed
Executive Order Entitled, Establishment of Presidential Advisory Commission on
Election lntegrity.docx.docx

Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448

 1Legal Advice

LA

"Letter";"Memorand

2Form and Legality FL

"Email";"Published

3Bill Comment

BC

"Email"


4Bill No-Comment

NC


5Miscellaneous

MS


Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000001






 1Legal Advice

Letter


2Legal Advice

Memorandum


3Legal Advice

Email


4Legal Advice

Published Opinion


5Form and Legality

Letter


6Form and Legality

Memorandum


7Form and Legality

Published Opinion


8Bill Comment

Email


9Bill No-Comment

Email


10Miscellaneous

Letter


11Miscellaneous

Memorandum


12Miscellaneous

Email


13Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous


14Miscellaneous

Published Opinion


Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000001

 1 FL_20170509_PropProposed ExecutiveCurtis Gannon

Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000001

5/9/2017 12:00 AM


 Form and Legality Memorandum

Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000001

.docx FL FL_20170509_Propose(

Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000001

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal C ounsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D .C. 20530

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM

Re: Proposed Executive Order Entitled,


“Establishment ofPresidential Advisory

Commission on Election Integrity”
The attached proposed Executive O rder was prepared by the Office of the Vice President

and submitted to this Office for review with respect to form and legality.
The proposed Order would establish the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election

Integrity, chaired by the Vice President and including up to fifteen additional members. The

Commission would submit to the President a report that identifies (1) laws, rules, policies,

activities, strategies, and practices that either enhance or

undermine the American people’s


confidence in the voting processes used in federal elections; and (2) vulnerabilities in voting

systems and practices used for federal elections.
The proposed Executive Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

Curtis E. Gannon

Acting Assistant Attorney General


Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000002

 U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal C ounsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D .C. 20530

May 9, 2017

The President,
The White House.
My dear Mr. President:

I am herewith transmitting a proposed Executive Order entitled,

“Establishment

of


Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.” This proposed Executive O rder was

prepared by the Office of the Vice President and submitted to this Office for review with respect

to form and legality.
The proposed Executive Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

Respectfully,

Curtis E. Gannon

Acting Assistant Attorney General


Document ID: 0.7.14615.13448-000002

 U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM
Re: Proposed Executive Order Entitled,
"Establishment ofPresidential Advisory
Commission on Election Integrity"
The attached proposed Executive Order was prepared by the Office of the Vice President
and submitted to this Office for review with respect to form and legality.
The proposed Order would establish the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election
Integrity, chaired by the Vice President and including up to fifteen additional members. The
Commission would submit to the President a report that identifies (1) laws, rules, policies,
activities, strategies, and practices that either enhance or undermine the American people's
confidence in the voting processes used in federal elections; and (2) vulnerabilities in voting
systems and practices used for federal elections.
The proposed Executive Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

Curtis E. Gannon
Acting Assistant Attorney General

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

May 9, 2017

The President,
The White House.
My dear Mr. President:
I am herewith transmitting a proposed Executive Order entitled, "Establishment of
Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity." This proposed Executive Order was
prepared by the Office of the Vice President and submitted to this Office for review with respect
to form and legality.
The proposed Executive Order is approved with respect to form and legality.

Respectfully,

Curtis E. Gannon
Acting Assistant Attorney General

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 EXECUTIVE ORDER

ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
ON ELECTION INTEGRITY

By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and
in order to promote fair and honest Federal elections, it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1.

Establishment.

The Presidential Advisory

Commission on Election Integrity (Commission) is hereby
established.
Sec. 2.

Membership.

The Vice President shall chair the

Commission, which shall be composed of not more than
15 additional members.

The President shall appoint the

additional members, who shall include individuals with knowledge
and experience in elections, election management, election fraud
detection, and voter integrity efforts, and any other
individuals with knowledge or experience that the President
determines to be of value to the Commission.

The Vice President

may select a Vice Chair of the Commission from among the members
appointed by the President.
Sec. 3.

Mission.

The Commission shall, consistent with

applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used
in Federal elections.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

The Commission shall be solely advisory

 2

and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the
following:
(a)

those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies,

and practices that enhance the American people's confidence in
the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;
(b)

those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies,

and practices that undermine the American people's confidence in
the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;
and
(c)

those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices

used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter
registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter
registrations and fraudulent voting.
Sec. 4.
(a)

Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

The term "improper voter registration" means any

situation where an individual who does not possess the legal
right to vote in a jurisdiction is included as an eligible voter
on that jurisdiction's voter list, regardless of the state of
mind or intent of such individual.
(b)

The term "improper voting" means the act of an

individual casting a non-provisional ballot in a jurisdiction in
which that individual is ineligible to vote, or the act of an

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 3

individual casting a ballot in multiple jurisdictions,
regardless of the state of mind or intent of that individual.
(c)

The term "fraudulent voter registration" means any

situation where an individual knowingly and intentionally takes
steps to add ineligible individuals to voter lists.
(d)

The term "fraudulent voting" means the act of casting

a non-provisional ballot or multiple ballots with knowledge that
casting the ballot or ballots is illegal.
Sec . .5.

Administration.

The Commission shall hold public

meetings and engage with Federal, State, and local officials,
and election law experts, as necessary, to carry out its
mission.

The Commission shall be informed by, and shall strive

to avoid duplicating, the efforts of existing government
entities.

The Commission shall have staff to provide support

for its .functions.
Sec. 6.

Termination.

The Commission shall terminate

30 days after it submits its report to the President.
Sec. 7.

General Provisions.

(a)

To the extent permitted

by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the
General Services Administration shall provide the Commission
with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff,
equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to
carry out its mission on a reimbursable basis..

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 4

(b)

Relevant executive departments and agencies shall

endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.
(c)

.Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S. C. App.)

(the "Act"), may apply to the

Commission, any functions of the President under that Act,
except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by
the Administrator of General Services.
(d)

Members of the Commission shall serve without any

additional compensation for their work on the Commission, but
shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, to the extent permitted by law for persons serving
intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(e)

Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or

otherwise affect:
(i)

the authority granted by law to an executive

department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)

the functions of the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(f)

This order shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 5

(g)

This order is not intended to, and does not, create

any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7396

 Flynn, Caroline (OLC)

From:

Flynn, Caroline (OLC)

Sent:

Monday, May 15, 2017 12:18 PM

To:

Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

Subject:

RE: OLC paperwork for EO on Election Integrity

Hi Rosemary - very belated, but I wasn't sure why I was copied on this. Just letting you know in case
you meant to send it to someone else and they would still need it. Thanks, and see you tomorrow!

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7691

 Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

From:

Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

Sent:

Thursday, July 06, 2017 9:54 AM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC)

Subject:

Voting Fraud Commission

FYI, I fo rgot to mention that

good.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5458

(b) (5)

. That's

 Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

From:

Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

Sent:

Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:39 AM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject:

Election Integrity Commission

fyi
From: Colborn, Paul P (Ole)
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 201711:33 AM
To: 'GaryM Stern' •
(b)(6 )
Subje ct: RE: Yesterday's call
I don't know if the letter went out and I don't have a copy.

(b) (6)
From: GaryM Stern [mailto
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 201711:31 AM
(b)(6 )
To: Colborn, Paul P (OLC) •
Subje ct: Re: Yesterday's call

Yes, we talked late in the day. Did the letter go out? If so, let me know if you have a copy?

GaryM. Stem

General Counsel
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, !vID 20740
(b) (6)
(office)
301-837-0293 (fax)
(b ) (6 )

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:19 AJivl, Colborn, Paul P (OLC) •

•

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5454

(b) (6 )

?

• ,vrote:

 McCoy, Deneen (OSG)
From:

McCoy, Deneen (OSG)

Sent:

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3: 30 PM

To:

Gannon, Curtis E. (O LC); Koffsky, Daniel L (OLC)

Cc:

Yancey, Valerie Hall (OSG); Collyer, Keith A. (OSG)

Subject:

FW: House and Senate Questions for Response

Attachments:

House OS Questions for the Record - OLC.DOCX; Combined QFRs for 6-13-17
DOJ Hearing_OLC.DOCX

Hi Curtis/Dan,
Attached and highlighted are several questions for responses need from OLC. Please forward your
responses back to me by 3 pm Wednesday, July 19, 2017. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sara De11ee11 J-fcCoy
Fillancial Jlanageme1tt Specialist
US. Department of Justice
Office oftlze Solicitor Ge11eral
Office of Legal Counsel

.lfain Builduzg - Room 6642
(b) (6)
(b) (6)

Office
Cell Phone
(202) 514-364 8 Fax
"Ifyou FAIL, never gn-e up because F.A.LL means "First Attempt In Learning".
End is not the end. In fact, E.N.D means "EFFORT ,',"EVER DIES".
/fJ 'OU get NO as an ans1i·ser, remember ~VO mea/ls "NEXT OPPORTl/l'IHTP'.
- unknonm
1

1

From: Williams, Melissa (JMD)
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:23 PM
To: McCoy, Deneen (OSG)
(b ) (6 )
Collyer, Keith A. (OSG) •
(b) (6 )
Cc: Fick, Kevin (JMO) •
Subject: House and Senate Questions for Response

Document ID: 0.7.14615.6173

Yancey, Valerie Hall (OSG) •

(b ) (6 )

 We received several questions for response for OLC. They are highlighted in the attached documents. The
responses need to be recorded in MAX here: https://collect.max.gov/x/zFhKQb. The deadline for responses
is next Wednesday, July 19th by COB.
Thank you.

Melina Williams
BudgetAnalysl

u.s. Deparwnen.of Jusoce
Jusi:ice ManagemeN Divioon, Budgei Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 2724

Ob- -•
Cel "

I

Document ID: 0.7.14615.6173

  

Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

From:

Colborn, Paul P (OLC)

Sent:

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:30 PM

To:

Haas, Alex (CIV}

Cc:

Shumate, Brett A. (CIV)

Subject:

RE: letter from members of congress re Election Integrity Commission

Thanks much, Alex.
From : Haas, Alex (CIV)
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:28 PM
To: Colborn, Paul P (Ole)
~
(b) (6 )
Cc: Shumate, Brett A. (CIV} •
>
Subject: FW: letter from members of congress re Election Integrity Commission

Paul,
Tus letter was not directed to DOJ~but I wanted to make you a\,-are gi1:en your experience and the
issues cur.rent in play inYoh:ing minority requests foi: information.

Best,
.Alex

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5333

 Colborn, Paul (OLC)

 

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)

Sent: Tuesday, July 18,2017 3:31 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject: Letter from ranking minority members re Election Integrity Commission

Attachments: 


f?v? 

From: Haas, Alex (CIV)
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:28 PM

uplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5805

Colborn, Paul (OLC)

 

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:45 PM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Subject: Re: 2017.07.18 (5)
(5)
On Jul 18, 2017, at 9:12 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6) j> wrote:
FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

(5

 

Document ID: 07146155453

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5453

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5453

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

 

From: Stewart, Scott (0 LC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:04 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject: FW: Request for review of proposed Executive Order on Election integrity
Attachments: Voting Integrity EO.docx

We did con-3-1K win CRT. See 390:7 I looking fer 

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Frida Aoril21 2017 6:12 PM

duplicate

     

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7122

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

 

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:20 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject: RE: Request for review of proposed Executive Order on Election Integrity
wave seam-wed 2m: tar-i ma: :nese are :re ev?ta 1'15: 3 cw u- 
rer..a~. ctner :Iat ll er 1% 1 iere er?: cf'ler i: i 0 yr. 1"

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 3:08 PM

To: ((Eannon, Curtis E. (OLC) Hart, Rosemary (OLC) (6)

(OLC (b 
Cc: Stevl/art, ScottiOLC) 

Subject: FW: Request for revuew of proposed Executive Order on Election Integrity

 

From: Gore, John (CRT)
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:06 PM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7542

duplicate

 

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

 

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:21 PM

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

(5)?tnis neloedi
From: (5) (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2:55 PM

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) (6) Stewart, Scott (OLC) (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
Rosemary and Scott:

In case Its neloful: It Iooks II-ie you received Me 50 or? Anni 21. On 23. at 1:07 on], (5)

50.

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2: 52 PM

To: Gannon, CurtisE. Stewart, Scott(OLC) (6)
<0th 

Subject: RE: Election Integrity E0

I II mac-?e emails as soon as ne 3pm. call is over.

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2:50 PM

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) (6) Stewart, Scott (OLC) (6) (5)
- (OLC) (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO
Okay Thanks (D) (5)

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2:49 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6) Stewart, Scott (OLC) (6)
(6) (OLC) (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

I can 3306(6) and I Have a call at 3 with ODAG a'Id(b) (5 on sonnet'tmg that ODAG says IS a priority. I
call; We Ild 3e 30 minutes or less.

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2:43 PM
- Irv/"I (PMS) 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7673

IU. L, otuu (6) (6) 7, ncu l,
Rosemary (OLC) . (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Could you please help me draft some responses to questions ofthe DAG from a member of Congress about this
I'm sorry to say our deadline is the end ofthe afternoon

The questions iwrth their preamble}; are as follows

The Presidents May 1 l, 2017: Executive Order crated a Presidential Adxisorv Commission on
Election Integrity. Rather than protecting the right to vote in this country this commission seems
directed at ?nding cases of voter fraud and impersonation which are very rare and much less common
than voter disenfranchisement through strict voter ID laws.

1. \Yhat role did Justice Department employees plav in writing the May 1 1 Executive Order?

U.)

Were career attorneys in the ixil Rights Division consulted.j lfnot, tvhv??

The Executive Order says the commission "shall have sta? to provide support for its ?mctions.?
Has the Justice Department provided any staff to work full- or part-time for the commission.7



From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 1:32 PM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7673

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7673

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7673

duplicate

  

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7673

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:48 PM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. (6) Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject: FW: Request for review of proposed Executive Order on Election Integrity

From: Mann, James (CRM) [mailto (6) 1

Sent: Monda Aoril 24, 2017 7:10 AM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7406

 

duplicate

Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

 

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:31 PM
To: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

send 

my: yo .1 arncilb) (6) .

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:00 PM

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) 4 (6)
Cc: Stewart, Scott (OLC) (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

?ere are i: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesda Jul 19 201726sz

       

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7134

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7134

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7134

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7134

Stewart, Scott (OLC)

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:16 PM

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Cc: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Subject: Re: Election Integrity EO

Edited answers look good to me as well.

On Jul 19, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) (6) wrote:
Curtis: All of these loo-< good to me. I have added (5) in the

response to Question 81.
If there is time. you might want Paul to take a look at these if he hasn?t already done so.

Rosemary

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 7:05 PM

To: Hart, Scott(OLC)


Subject: RE: Election Integrity 

Thanks These are very helpful (5) In light ofthat.

I've proposed a few tweaks (but preserved for ODAG what you found out about the underlying facts.)

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:45 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6) Stewart, Scott (OLC)
(6) (6) (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Curtis: Below are some draft responses that Scott and I prepared, with some bracketed caveats
for internal consideration:

Happyto discuss.

Rosemary

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Wednesday, July 19,2017 2:43 PM

To: Stewart, Scott (OLC) (6) (6) (OLC)
(6) Hart, Rosemary (OLC) 4 (6)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity EO

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7515

Could you please help me draft some responses to questions ofthe DAG from a member ofCongress
aoout this I'm sorry to say our deadline is the end ofthe afternoon

The questions (with their preamble; are as follows

The President?s Ma}: 1 1: 2017: Executive Order created a Presidential Adxisory
Commission on Election Integrity. Rather than protecting the right to vote in this country
this commission seems directed at ?nding cases ofvoter fraud and impersonation which
are very rare and much less common than voter disen?anchisement through strict voter ID
laws.

1. What role did Justice Department employees play in writing the May 11 Executive
Order?

OLC Draft A's-user: (5)

notes: (5)



2. \\'ere career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division consulted.7 Ifnot, why"?

OLC Draft Ans-user (5)

:iriteroal notes: (5)



3? The Executive Order says the conmiission "shall have sta? to provide support for its
functions.? Has the Justice Department provided any staff to work full- or part-time
for the commission.j

OLC Draft Answer (5)

 

. :Intemal note: (5)



 

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)
Sent: Tuesda Ma 9, 2017 1:32 PM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7515

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7515

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7515

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.7515

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:22 PM

To: Colborn, Paul (OLC)

Subject: Re: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate

Appropriations Hearing

Good. (6) .
On Jul 30, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6) wrote:
Will do first thing in the morning. (6) ..)

On Jul 30, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) 4 (6) wrote:
Paul.

My dra? answers are included in the attached two documents. (Just search within them
for to get to each It would be great if you could review and comment before noon
on Monday

Thanks

Curtis

From: Forrester, Nate (OLC)

Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 11:35 AM

To: Overvold, Leif (OLC) Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
(6) Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6)
Whitaker, Henry C. (OLC) . (5)

Cc: Tutt, Andrew (OLC) Guarnieri, Matthew (OLC)
Subject: FW: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate
Appropriations Hearing

Importance: High

 
   
 

been asked to dra? QFR responses by Tuesday noon to a few of the
attached QFRs. Several of the assigned QFRs regard the opinion about responding
to requests for information from indixidual members, and one is about presidential
communications privilege. PauL have you gotten notice of this drafting request
already on a separate track? Either way: can I assume youtll be handling these: or
do you want us to assign an A-A in the bill comment rotation to work with you?

Here are the relevant QFRs. There are two others assigned to us in the body of the
QF text: but not below in the list that accompanies the referral (regarding the
CREW v. Trump Emoluments Clause litigation and the E0 creating the presidential
commission on election integrity). I think IV and CRT are meant to have the pen

An fhara hirn rarna??e-okr kin-f 17m A-

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

 UHL 1 an nun um

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

Kilmer-1: Earlier this month, Senators Grassley and Feinstein sent the
President a letter expressing concern over the Administration's policy to
not respond to members of Congress in the minority party. Senator
Grassley noted in this letter that ?[ulnless Congress explicitly tells the
Executive Branch to withhold information based on committee
membership or leadership position, there is no legal or Constitutional
basis for the Executive Branch fundamentally
misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of
professionalism and objectivity.?

The letter also explicitly states that the Administration's policy ?harms not
just the Members who happen to be in the minority party at the moment,
but also, Members in the majority party who are not currently Chairmen.?
On May 11th, Ranking Members Serrano and Lowey wrote a letter to
Attorney General Sessions, you were copied as well, with several
questions regarding the firing of FBI director Comey and his request for
additional resources. No response has even been received.

Did the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General have any role
in crafting the policy not to respond to oversight requests
from the members in the minority? If yes, what role did the
Attorney General and/or Deputy Attorney General play in crafting
this policy? OLC, ODAG

Has the Department of Justice or the White House directed any
agency not to respond to an inquiry from a Member of Congress?
ODAG

What is the policy at the Department with regard to responses to
congressional inquiries? OLA, ODAG

More specifically, is there a policy or guidance that would prohibit
or delay responses to Ranking Members of Congressional
Committees or subcommittees of jurisdiction? OLA, ODAG

Is there a policy or guidance that would prohibit or delay responses
to Democratic Members of Congress? OLA, ODAG

Cartwright-2: In a recent opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded
that individual Members of Congress do not have the right to conduct
oversight of the executive branch. According to this opinion, when an
individual member of Congress, someone who is not a chair of a
committee or subcommittee, requests information from the Justice
Department, for example, the department has no constitutional obligation
to respond. Since the beginning of this year my colleagues in the minority
have sent many letters and requests to the administration that have gone
unanswered, including 7 letters to the Department ofJustice alone. Does
your Department intend to respond to their questions? What message
does it send about the accountability of this administration and its interest
in being open, transparent, and looking to work with Congress if you are
declaring you are free from the responsibility of even answering letters
from duly elected members of Congress? OLC, OLA, ODAG

Document ID: 01146155350

Feinstein-2: On May 1, 2017, the Justice Department? 5 Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) issued a letter opinion for the counsel to the president
titled ?Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight
of the Executive Branch." In that letter opinion, the OLC took the position
that ?individual members of Congress, including ranking minority
members, do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of
a specific delegation by a full house, committee, or subcommittee.?

According to the Office of Legal Counsel, the executive branch is not
obligated to answer my requests or those of my Democratic colleagues.
This is unacceptable. As elected officials of a co-equal branch of
government, we have constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the
executive branch.

(MAX Feinstein) Is it your view that the Administration has no
legal obligation to respond to requests that do not come from a
committee chairman? OLC OLA ODAG

During your confirmation process, you said that you would ?make every
effort to answer [our] questions fully and quickly.?

(MAX Feinstein) Do you still intend to do so? If not, why not?
What changed? OLA ODAG

(MAX Feinstein) Will you make sure that all components of the
Justice Department are instructed to answer requests from
Congress, even those that are not from a committee chairman? (If
not, why not?) OLA ODAG

Leahy-l: On May 1, the Justice Department? 5 Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC) issued an opinion asserting that the Department is under no legal
obligation to respond to oversight requests from minority members of
Congress. The opinion indicates that responding to requests from
individual members of Congress, including Ranking Minority members, is
discretionary. This is a flawed opinion and falls grossly short of the
Department? 5 responsibilities to Congress. Senator Grassley aptly
described the memo as ?nonsense.?

Will you rescind the May 1, 2017, OLC memo? ODAG I OLC
Van Hollen-3: Justice Department Policy Re: Conversations with the
President. Attorney General Sessions has said that it is Department of
Justice policy to not disclose to Congress private conversations with the

President.

Can you provide this Committee a copy of this policy? ODAG 
OLC I OLP

When was this policy adopted? ODAG OLC OLP

Who crafted this policy? ODAG OLC OLP

What were the factors consudered when this policy was adopted by
the Department ofJustice? ODAG OLC /i?)lP

Nate:

Nathan A. F. Hester

From: Wahdan, Rana S. (OLA)
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 7:30 DM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5350

Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 10:38 PM

To: Forrester, Nate (OLC)

Cc: Overvold, Leif Colborn, Paul Whitaker, Henry C. Tutt,
Andrew Guarnieri, Matthew Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Subject: Re: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate
Appropriations Hearing

Once I have Paul's comments, I'll share them with the other components with which we're supposed to

coordinate. On several of the answers, that includes OLA (but I assume that will mean someone other

than Rana).

On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Forrester, Nate (OLC) (6) wrote:

Okay, gg'eat: I guess when the ensures are all fhtalized. send them to .e to compile and
foam-arc: to OLA by the Tuesday noon deadline. L'nless you're separate-tracking them back
to OLA, in which case I lljust 2e: Rana know that

- Roseman'

Nate/-

Nathan A. Forrester
Shir:- 21? Legal C:unze 

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Sunday, July 30,2017 12:57 PM
To: Forrester, Nate (OLC) Overvold, Leif (OLC)

 

Whitaker,

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations

Heanng

Thanks Nate I had already heard about these from JMD We have informed JMD (5)

I will work with Paul on draft

answers for the questions about the individual-members opinion and nondisclosure of presidential

communications

1 have already worked out draft

responses with Rosemary which I'll also run by Paul

From: Forrester, Nate (OLC)
Sent: Sunday, July 30,2017 11:35 AM

 

Document ID: 01146155781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5781

Colborn, Paul (OLC)

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 9:49 AM
To: Kaprove, Jared (OLC)

Subject: RE: Election Integrity Commission
thanks

From: Kaprove, Jared (OLC)
Sent: Monday, July 31,2017 9:44 AM

To: Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6) ;Golden, Melissa (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: Election Integrity Commission

Not yet, most of the Simple requests are for older things. The requests about the commISSIon that
would cover it are all much broader.

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 9:42
To: Kaprove, Jared (OLC) (6) Golden, Melissa (OLC) (6) 

Subject: Election Integrity Commission

Have we release the form and legality memo forthis under 

Document ID: 01146155790

Colborn, Paul (OLC)


From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:06 AM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate

Appropriations Hearing

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 11:03 AM

To: Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing

 

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Sent: Monday, July 31,2017 11:02 AM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing
(5) 

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Sent: Monday, July 31,2017 10:58 AM

To: Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing

   

Great Thanks I'll add page (5)

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Sent: Monday, July 31,2017 10:04 AM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing

look" good. I ve "wade some editing wage-snore in. me attamed revised Senate 13:15. :dori': have any

1 .
geinC-ws fort-1e Hue-e C4395.

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Sunday, July 30,2017 6:39 PM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5474

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

 

duplicate

Colborn, Paul (OLC)

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:32 AM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs -- Conversations with President and Voting
Rights
(5)

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 01,2017 10:27 AM

To: Colborn, Paul (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs -- Conversations with President and Voting Rights

Sorry I responded before seeing your earlier email (5)

From: Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 1,2017 9:56 AM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) (6)

Subject: FW: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs -- Conversations with President and Voting Rights

(5)


From: Escalona, Prim (OLP)
Sent: Tuesda Au ust 01 2017 9:48 AM

duplicate

         

Document ID: O.7.14615.6004

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

Forrester, Nate (OLC)

From: Forrester, Nate (OLC)

Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 1:54 PM

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate

Appropriations Hearing

Got it. thanks.
Nate/-

Nathan A. Forrester
Cffize :fLegal C:unsel

From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 01,2017 1:37 PM

To: Forrester, Nate (OLC) (6) 

Subject: RE: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing

Nate.

Below are OLC's responses to the OFRS on which we were identi?ed. incorporating any comments we received from

other components with which we consulted (ODAG OLP and CRT) Note that (5)

FROM THE HOUSE DOCUMENT

1. (MAX Kilmer 1) Earlier this month: Senators Grassley and Feinstein sent the President a letter
expressing concern over the Administrations policy to not respond to members of Congress in the
minority party. Senator Grassley noted in this letter that "[u]nless Congress explicitly tells the Executive
Branch to withhold information based on committee membership or leadership position there is no legal
or Constitutional basis for the Executive Branch fundamentally misunderstand
and rnisstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectixity.?

The letter also explicitly states that the Administration's policy ?harms not just the Members who
happen to be in the minority party at the moment: but also: Members in the majority party who are not
currently hairmen.? On May 11th, Ranking Members Serrano and Lowey ?rote a letter to Attorney
General Sessions, you were copied as well: with several questions regarding the ?ring of BI director
omey and his request for additional resources. No response has even been received.

a. Did the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General have any role in crafting the OLC ?s
policy not to respond to oversight requests from the members in the minority".7 If yes: What
role did the Attorney General and 'or Deputy Attorney General play in crafting this policy?
OLC, ODAG

OLC Dra? Response (5)




Document ID: 0.7.14615.11802

 (5)

I.)

Cartwright 2) In a recent opinion. the O?ce of Legal Counsel conchided that individual
Members of Congress do not have the right to conduct oversight of the executive branch. According to
this opinion. when an individual member of Congress. someone who is not a chair of a committee or
subcommittee. requests information from the Justice Department. for example. the department has no
constitutional obligation to respond. Since the beginning of this year my colleagues in the minority have
sent many letters and requests to the administration that have gone unanswered including 7 letters to the
Department of Justice alone. Does your Department intend to respond to their questions? \Vhat
message does it send about the accountability of this administration and its interest in being open.
transparent. and looking to work with Congress if you are declaring you are free from the responsrbility
of even answering letters from duly elected members of ongress'? OLC. OLA, ODAG

OLC Draft Response (5)

FROM THE SENATE DOCUMENT

Question 2: Responding to Congressional ()?noritv) Requests

 

On May 1. 2017. the Justice Depamnent?s O?ice ofLegal Counsel (OLC) issued a letter opinion for
the counsel to the president titled ?Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight
of the Executive Branch.r In that letter opinion. the OLC took the position that ?individual members of
Congress. inchiding ranking minority members. do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the
absence of a speci?c delegation by a full house. committee. or subcommittee.?

According to the Of?ce of Legal Counsel. the executive branch is not obligated to answer my requests
or those of my Democratic colleagues. This is unacceptable. As elected of?cials ofa co?equal branch
of government. we have constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

1. (NIAX Feinstein) Is it your View that the Administration has no legal obligation to respond to
requests that do not come from a conmiittee chairman.7 OLC OLA ODAG

OLC Draft Response

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.11802

 (5)

 

Leahy )13v 1. 2017. OLC )Iemo

On May 1= the Justice Departmenth Of?ce of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion asserting that
the Department is under no legal obligation to respond to oversight requests from minority members of
Congress. The opinion indicates that responding to requests from individual members of ongress:
including Ranking _\=Iinority members: is discretionary. This is a ?awed opinion and falls grossly short of
the Departments responsibilities to Congress. Senator Grassley aptly described the memo

as "nonsense.?

1. Will you rescind the May 1: 2017, OLC memo? ODAG OLC

OLC Draft Response

 

Leahy Voting Rights

The President's May 1 1: 2017: Executive Order created a Presidential Advisory Commission on
Election Integity. Rather than protecting the right to vote in this country this commission seems
directed at ?nding cases of voter fraud and impersonation which are very rare and much less common
than voter disenfranchisement through strict voter ID laws.

1. ?ha role did you and other Justice Department employees play in writing the May 1 1
Executive Order? ODAG OLP OLC

OLC Draft Response (5)

:Intema! notes (5)
i1 

Document ID: O.7.14615.11802

  



1
I

 
 

I.)

Were career attorneys in the ivil Rights Division consulted? Ifnot: why? ODAG OLP -
OLC

OLC Draft Response (5)

 

:1 fen". :1 0398

    

The Executive Order says the commission "shall have staff to provide support for its ?mctions.?
Has the Justice Department provided any sta?' to work full- or part-time for the commission?
ODAG OLP OLC

Lu

OLC Draft Response (5)

{intense} note (5)

4. Do you think the rare incidences of voter fraud and impersonation merit the creation of this
commission? ODAG OLP OLC

OLC Draft Response (5)




Van Hollen Special Counsel

2. Do you believe that the Constitution implicitly grants sitting presidents immunitx from criminal
prosecution? ODAG

OLC Draft Response (5)

 

Document ID: O.7.14615.11802

 (5)


Van Hollen Justice Department Policy Re: Conversations with the President

 

Attorney General Sessions has said that it is Depamnent of Justice policy to not disclose to Congress
private conversations With the President.

1. Can you proxide this Committee a copy of this policy".7 ODAG OLC OLP
2. When was this policy adopted.7 ODAG OLC - OLP
3. ?'ho crafted this policy?.j ODAG OLC OLP

4. \Vhat were the factors considered when this policy was adopted by the Department of Justice?
ODAG OLC OLP

OLC Draft Answer (5)

Crnm- Dan-- Inl 

Document ID: O.7.14615.11802

 YVOIIUGI I, l\allCl J. 

Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 7:30 PM

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.11802

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

Mitchell, Dyone (OLC)

From: Mitchell, Dyone (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:09 PM

To: OLC_Attorneys (JMD)

Subject: FW: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate
Appropriations Hearing

Attachments: Combined QFRs for 6-13-17 DOJ Senate Hearing_Policy Comments.docx; House
CJS Questions for the Record_Po icy Comments.docx

Importance: High



From: Forrester, Nate (OLC)
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 2:49 PM

To: Wahdan, Rana S. (OLA) (6)

Cc: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) Whitaker, Henry c. (OLC)

Daniel Colborn, Paul (OLC)
Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Tutt, Andrew (OLC)
Guarnieri, Matthew (OLC) <mguar_ Overvold, Leif (OLC)
Mitchell, Dyone (OLC)

Subject: FW: DUE 12 PM TUESDAY - DAG QFRs from 6/13/17 House and Senate Appropriations Hearing
Importance: High

Rana; Here are our collected draft responses to the QFRs assigned to OLC:
FROM THE HOUSE DOCUMENT:
Kilmer 

(MAX Kilmer 1) Earlier this month Senators Grassley and Feinstein sent the President a letter
expressing concern over the Administration?s policy to not respond to members of Congress in the
minority party. Senator Grassley noted in this letter that Congress explicitly tells the Execu?ve
Branch to withhold information based on committee membership or leadership position there is no legal
or Constitutional basis for the Executive Branch ?mdamentally misunderstand
and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity.?

The letter also explicitly states that the Administration?s policy ?harms not just the Members who
happen to be in the minority party at the moment: but also, Members in the majority party who are not
currently Chairmen." On May 11th= Ranking Members Serrano and Lowey wrote a letter to Attorney
General Sessions= you were copied as well, with several questions regarding the ?ring of FBI director
omey and his request for additional resources. No response has even been received-

a. Did the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General have any role in crafting the OLC ?s policy not
to respond to oversight requests from the members in the minority? Ifyes= what role did the Attorney
General and-"or Deputy Attomey General play in cra?ing this policy? OLC, ODAG

OLC Dra? Response: 


Document ID: 0.7.14615.5369

 (5)

Cartwright 2:

Cartmight 2) In a recent opinion: the Of?ce ofLegal Counsel concluded that indixidual
Members of Congess do not have the right to conduct oversight of the executive branch. According to
this opinion, when an individual member of Congress, someone who is not a chair of a committee or
subcommittee. requests information from the Justice Department. for example, the department has no
constitutional obligation to respond. Since the beginning of this year my colleagues in the minority have
sent many letters and requests to the administration that have gone unanswered= including 7 letters to the
Department of Justice alone. Does your Department intend to respond to their questions? What
message does it send about the accountability of this administration and its interest in being open.
transparent. and looking to work with Congress if you are declaring you are free from the responsibility
of even answering letters from duly elected members of origiess'.7 OLA. ODAG

OLC Dra? Response: (5)

FROM THE SENATE DOC 
Feinstein 
Question 2: Responding to Congressional (Minority) Requests

On May 1. 2017. the Justice Department?s O?ice ofLegal Counsel (OLC) issued a letter opinion for
the counsel to the president titled "Authority of lndixidual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight
of the Executive Branch." In that letter opinion: the OLC took the position that "indixidual members of
ongress= including ranking minority members. do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the
absence of a speci?c delegation by a full house: committee: or subcommittee."

According to the O?ce of Legal ounsel. the executive branch is not obligated to answer my requests
or those of my Democratic colleagues. This is unacceptable. As elected o?cials of a co?equal branch
of government. we have constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the executive branchDocument ID: 0.7.14615.5369

1. emSIein) 15 It your new mat me has no legal oongauon [0 respond to
requests that do not come from a committee chairman? OLA ODAG

Draft Response: (5)

Feinstein 3

Emoluments Clause litigation

Leahy 1(1)
May 1. 2017'. OLC )Iemo

On May 1. the Justice Department?s Of?ce of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion asserting that
the Department is under no legal obligation to respond to oversight requests from minority members of
Congress. The opinion indicates that responding to requests from indiu'dual members of ongress:
including Ranking members, is discretionary. This is a ?awed opinion and falls grossly short of
the Departments responsrbilities to Congress. Senator Grassley aptly described the memo

as "nonsense."

1. Will you rescind the May 1. 201?, OLC merno'.7 ODAG OLC

Draft Response:

Leah)? 6(1?4)

\intino Riohtc

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5369

 v?A-l Au usu

 

The President?s May 1 l, 2017: Executive Order created a Presidential Advisory Commission on
Election Integrity. Rather than protecting the right to vote in this country this conmiission seems
directed at ?nding cases ofvoter fraud and impersonation which are very rare and much less common

than voter disenfranchisement through strict voter ID laws

1. \Yhat role did you and other Justice Department employees play in miting the May 11 Executive
Order? ODAG OLP OLC

OLC Draft Response: (5)


I.

4



'Were career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division consulted.7 lfnot: why.O ODAG OLP OLC

Dra? Response: 

[Irzterrsai' moms: (5)



3. The Executive Order says the commission ?shall have staff to provide support for its functions" Has
the Justice Department provided any staff to work full- or part-time for the commission? ODAG

OLP 

Draft Response: 



[fasten-1m note: (5)

. 

4. Do you think the rare incidences of voter fraud and impersonation merit the creation of this
commission.7 ODAG A OLP OLC

Dra? Response: (5)

Van Hollen 1(2)

'll" I

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5369

DQQCIBI ounsel

2. Do you believe that the Constitution implicitly grants sitting presidents immunity from criminal
prosecution? ODAG

OLC Draft Response: (5)

Van Hollen 3(1?4)
Justice Department Policy Re: Conversations with the President

Attorney General Sessions has said that it is Department of Justice policy to not disclose to Congress
private conversations with the President.

1. Can you proxide this Committee a copy ofthis policy.7 ODAG 01.?

I.)

\Vhen was this policy adopted.7 ODAG OLC OLP

\yho crafted this policy?7ODAG OLC OLP



4..

What were the factors considered when this policy was adopted by the Department ofJustice'.?
ODAG OLC OLP

OLC Draft Response: (5)

il

I.

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5369

 

 

 

 

Nate,

Nathan 

:fL-szal xzel

From: Wahdan, Rana S. (OLA)
. . .

duplicate

 

Document ID: 0.7.14615.5369

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

duplicate