National Records Center P.O. Box 648010 Lee's Summit, MO 64064-8010 February 4, 2019 COW2018000161 Wendy R. Weiser Director, Democracy Program Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 Re: FOIA request no. COW2018000161; 2018-HQFO-00465; Brennan Center for Justice et al. v. DOJ et al., 17-cv-6335 (S.D.N.Y) Dear Wendy Weiser: This is the response to your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) request, dated January 10, 2018, received in this office on February 6, 2018, seeking (among other things).records related to PACEI, No. 2018-HQFO-00465. Upon review of your request and consultation with other DHS components involved in responding to your FOIA request, it was determined that USCIS would only have records responsive to Item 10 of your request. The other portions of your request seek records outside the purview of USCIS, as they would have been created by other agencies besides USCIS. We conducted a search utilizing terms and criteria that you provided in your request and searched USCIS Program Offices and files where we reasonably believed responsive records likely would be located. After compiling responsive records, we reviewed and processed the records pursuant to FOIA and its implementing regulation, 6 C.F.R. Part 5. As of the date of this letter, we have fully processed 100 pages that are responsive to your request. Enclosed are 30 pages released in their entirety and 70 pages released in part. We have reviewed and determined to release all information except those portions that are appropriately exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5) and (b)(6) of FOIA. We have determined that further segregation of the records would not be possible without disclosure of information that is appropriately exempt from FOIA disclosure. Exemption (b)(5) provides protection for inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. The types of documents and/or information we have withheld under this exemption may consist of documents containing pre-decisional information, documents or other memoranda prepared in contemplation of litigation, or confidential communications between attorney and client. Exemption (b)(6) permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in personnel, medical and similar files where the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The types of documents and/or information we have withheld may consist of birth certificates, naturalization certificates, drivers’ licenses, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, or various other documents and/or information belonging to a third party that are considered personal. www.uscis.gov COW2018000161 Page 2 If you have any questions about our response, please contact Assistant United States Attorney Casey Kyung-Se Lee, who can be reached at (212) 637-2714, or by e-mail, casey.lee@usdoj.gov. Sincerely, Jill A. Eggleston Director, FOIA Operations Enclosure(s) me: 333333333332, 333333333 3333.33.- 333 3.333 ,332 3333-.- 1?333333 PET-3 3 3.33.3? .3333 533.333 ?33' 3: 37-31.: "3371:3333: 33333.3; 3:33.335: 3333?; 33333333333333: 33:33:35: 3: 33,133 3:33:33: 333.333 {31.135144 $.13 @5845: 333339333""?333- 133$: 13:53:; 333333 31:33 :3 333 3:33:33. 3:3 33:33-32 337333;};39 33333 2.33333. . $333333: 331333333333, 33:34:33.3? 53:33.33? 3133.333?: 333,3 . 33:33:23, (:gw - 335 . . ?Fa-arr: magi; Mu) . an?, u, .4. . an" 9' rl?win' gazing-.30Ema-H. m% 1.. i i Ah mymi?e has: :3 Fri; 22 back if: an get, thi g? .3:me ice-?ak; 3:3. u- ammants was: haw by 37 a. any .3. 2r: ml; 3. j33: Ps3; ESE Ki? 232'": .5;:in Eh as; 1315' 5:52- .: i ?pm we: awe in: 3:23; I . 1:5 35m: my 52mm311 51:3 ?new.? "tiny-I. :1 m? an H751: gtnihmmrimt'izz733,r rim 77.71313 .73: qgizzmiitfg. may giant-3.553 . "1753!? 5.7. - srrirsiy perrsiss"; in 25:77am ?534.75! isn'xr?yed 7.: arm-.7; 5 mu? {59.5.7369 this mans?agn. Tim-m?. you. I I ?7.1.7.7 T5277 577%.? *5 {Er aft?; atmg?m? :it?f?imi? th?igii?tfs . . 7 :27: i?i?wsza {9.73 7.53:1: 577-777: tut-Ami: i117 mun .775 if I'zi'ticjm ?m Erma-?t Bar?W .Iat; 27:75? 552m?; Iv-mnmh Tm w-mm. ?411.: .?ita'fai'i {?5715}! 1; VJ Sabjg?t: - -. Sag-32:37: gm?; gm; image. his ?257; pm tgday Niki ?275 limit..- 51.737376. ?31717 .4 rem in?? 71:7!) at tilt '5 (?his 53' 4? i hr?r??b} in? 2-5} mm? imit??y if?; ?957,7 i577: 1?7. {.4727 3577575557 Him tad-his back it": tit-a7: 5mm- . Ti)- 1 2: St u?'iiz?'I gratis: {131 1m Bragmii?nf: 4.. We; 3: w: Saahjagzig .1 . 4 3131i}: Rig 2 'k ?nanny, ?mug: rt :i Ev} - Luff. 3:313: mam: me . . .1. ?is fir?rm =33 3:1: E33333 3:33: 33:33 E33: :3 ?333333.. 3?33 3-33-33 3:53 3:33 3E 33:33:3333: 333E 3:32: .3: 93:33:33.3? E: E. 33 1E: 13333333333-3333333~11 -333; a: .3 31-3233; 33333133 ?:32 3333:: 3333.331. EJ-E. 33333333 33?? 5331333315: 3:313 33:3 :33 ?the 3mm: :39; 3:33.. 3: 3:33:33 32:33, 3:32 3:3 .zEE.ij 1?33: 33 3:3??3 3. T33. Ef 3:33:33- 3?33 3:3- 333333353 3-. 33 13333333 33'. U. E: CHE 333333333323: :?gr23ii..93 8:25:33: 33 $333333an 3: H3 :23. 33: 3:135:33 A. .-.-. 5 ME 1:333:33 33:33.- 33,. 2* 1333 . ., .3 .. a 1 .1 .. .44.551a.. . nu?. . . ..man..rutIIJ{3.32% i? 1" ?3 war .6. .an an.? - . . . 6? 11:..1.1.T1.1 L-.. . . . . .. .. . ?.11 1L. Ln...15. .. 3.0...11.21.. .1 mm. 2.. ..-. .911.2. .53.vx. . :31. a .-. -.. 5. ...11 Rui?re run.? . a. w. .Irl l? .. E. .u . . Frem T6: 3 ELIE 1,1, Pf? r2: l? "I'd 1. 9-3225 Mud-em 5: 5:32:- r. ?11m .1 was: .mumm." gum. ctr.11In. ...K.. L. ..65awn1.2. .. mac n" Kc .5 .5. {J'z?z?irgz? Niger; {*iaggigc "33-1 EL 53 {El {Br-?1 1H ERNEY {71 hii?a if} {1252? {fit Na! :33; {*iaggigc 3-1- 1? RE EL 53 {ii ii?fi?f?fi?ij?? {71 s??i i hi?i?a {J'z?z?irgz? Niger; {*iaggigc ?33:6 E: 55; 55%? i135?? Ei'z?z?it? Nader; {*iagg?c ~33? From: Meckley, Tammy To: Cissna Francis 'Cc: Svmons, CraiCI M: McCament. James W: Ries, Lora Subject: Get Backs on Voter Registration Fraud Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:39:34 PM Attachments: GA Voter Reoistration' Aoolicationpdf NC Voter Reg Form.pdf- .FL Voter Reg CO Voter Reg Formodf AZ State Voter Reoistration DRAFT FINAL VA SAVE NonCitizen Cancelled #2 (3).docx FINAL DRAFT SAVE VA Notice of Intent to Cancel (3).docx Importance: High Good afternoon, Director. Please see below and attached responses to the questions that arose from yesterday?s call with the Secretary regarding voter registration fraud. I apologize for the length, but it think you?ll find all the content informative. Overview: The SAVE Program is used by some agencies to verify the citizenship of individuals registering to vote orto maintain voter rolls by verifying those already registered. The. states that use SAVE for maintenance of their voter rolls compare their voter roll to the citizenship or immigration status- claimed by registrants when they obtained a driver?s license or state ID. They use whatever immigration number was provided by the registrant to the DMV to do the initial SAVE check. If SAVE is unable to verify their citizenship with the DMV provided information, the state voter registration agency has to. follow?up with the individual for additional citizenship- information. The five states and five Arizona counties that use SAVE for list maintenance or voter registration are: Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017 Florida SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases in FY 2017. North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases in FY 2017. Virgini SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV "data through SAVE. Virginia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Georgi SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Arizona SAVE Agreement with Participating counties include: 1) Maricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases in FY 2017 and Maricopa ran .494. SAVE has also been contacted by the following states regarding voter registration (and some even started the process to register for SAVE access), but none of them completed the process of registering to use SAVE: Kansas; Michigan; Mississippi; Oregon; Tennessee; Maryland; Minnesota; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; Washington. Iowa was registered to use. SAVE at one time, but its MOA was terminated in 2015 after a Federal court struck down the administrative rule that gave it the authority to use SAVE. SAVE Registration: When an agency registers to use SAVE, it provides its legal authority and copies of any standardized notice letters used to inform registrants when there is a problem with their citizenship verification. This ensures that states can legally use the requested purpose and that it has adequate appeals and notification procedures. These authorities, procedures and letters are reviewed by OCC and necessary changes are made to the letters-to ensure that the notice is adequate. Attached are copies ofthe initial and follow-up notice lettersapproved for Virginia. SAVE Process and Voter Registration Forms: Also, attached are voter registration forms from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. With the exception of Arizona, none of these forms collect an Alien number. Forthe states of Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina, they are able to run the SAVE query by using DIVIV data since they are doing voter list maintenance. Georgia, however, uses SAVE for voter registration and the only way they could get data for a SAVE query is through an alternate processes. There is a check box'on the Georgia application to indicate that individuals do not have a driver?s license or Social Security number, so ifthey check this box they are then given the alternative to present another identifier, like an A?file number. Litigation History: There has been significant federal and state court litigation associated with state efforts to require proof .of citizenship on voting forms, including recent battles in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas over addingthese requirements to the National Voter Registration form (?national form?). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires state governments to offer Voter registration to eligible applicants at Departments of Motor Vehicles and public assistance agencies. Additionally, Section 6 of the NVRA establishes national standards for mail-in voter registration forms and requires stat-es to accept a federal mail?in registration form, known as the National Voter Registration form (attached). Because ofthe NVRA, eligible voters can use either the national form or a state mail?in form. Compare the attached National Form and Arizona State Voter Registration Form. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act which vested authority related to the national form with the newly established Election Assistance Commission (EAC). In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship with the state?s registration form. Arizona then asked the EAC to include these requirements in the national form?s general instructions. The EAC denied Arizona?s request, taking the position that Congress did not believe that dOCUmentary proof of citizenship was necessary or consistent with the purpose of the statute. Arizona then refused to register national form applicants who did not provide proof of citizenship with their forms, thereby creating a two-tiered voter registration system in the state. Litigation ensued and eventually made its way to the US. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council ofArizono, Inc. The Court ruled in Inter Tribal in June 2013 that the NVRA preempted Arizona from requiring an individual registering to vote using the national fOrm to provide documentation beyond that indicated on the Form. As such, states could not require applicants to provide additional documentation when usingthe federal form, unless the EAC. approved the state?s proposed changes ?to the instructions. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, Arizona asked the EAC to add citizenship requirements to Arizona?s state-specific instructions to the national form instead of to the national form?sgeneral instructions. In 2013, Georgia and Kansas filed comparable requests. The EAC deferred all three requests, stating that they did not have a quorum to vote. lVIore litigation ensued and in January 2014 the EAC acting director outright denied the states? requests. Kansas and Arizona pushed their case through the Court of appeals (unsuccessfully) and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the decision. In June 2015, the Court denied the petition for cer?tiorari. Despite ongoing legal battles and rulings against proof of citizenship requirements, states continued to pass legislation and issue requests to the EAC to include those requirements on the national form. After passing its citizenship requirement in 2012, Alabama issued a request to the EAC in December 2014, and Kansas issued'another request in November 2015. In January 2016, newly appointed EAC Executive Director Brian Newby notified Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that their requests were approved. This led to more litigation, which temporarily resulted in two-tiered voting registration systems in Arizona, Alabama and Kansas. These legal battles, both in state and federal courts, still remain in play in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia. SAVE Outreach The SAVE program has engaged with the National Association of Secretaries of State (known as NASS, it includes members from the 37 states where the secretary of state is the chief elections officer with oversight over voter registration) and presented attheir conferences in .2013 and 2017. To promote SAVE usage for voter maintenance and registration, engagement at the S1 level with NASS and the National Governors Association is recommended. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Best, Ta my Tammy M. Meckiey Associate Director Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate US. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529 II Iammariil? Ingram are EDI-MEET mam n-mrerunan; Voter Registration Verification by USCIS SAVE Overview Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program (SAVE) program is used by some state agencies to verify the citizenship of individuals registering to vote or to maintain voter rolls by verifying those already registered. The states that use SAVE for maintenance of their voter rolls compare their voter roll to the citizenship or immigration status claimed by registrants when they obtained a driver?s license or state ID. The data that agencies send to USCIS forthe voter registration SAVE check'is whatever immigration identification number was previously provided by the registrant to the state DMV to do the initial SAVE check. If SAVE is unable to verify their citizenship with the DMV provided information, the state voter registration agency has to follow-up with the individual for additional citizenship information. The five states and five Arizona counties that currently use SAVE for list maintenance or voter registration are: 0 Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017 a Florida SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases. in FY 2017. 0 North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases in FY 2017. 0 Virginia SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Virginia did not run "any cases in FY 2017. 0 Georgia SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. 0 Arizona SAVE Agreement with participating counties include; 1) Maricopa 2) La P32 3) Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases in FY 2017 and Maricopa ran 494. SAVE has also been contacted by the following states regarding voter registration (and some even started the process to register access), but none of them completed the process of registering to use SAVE: Kansas; Michigan; Mississippi; Oregon; Tennessee; Maryland; Minnesota; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; and Washington. Iowa Was registered to use SAVE at one time, but its MOA was terminated in 2015 after a Federal court struck down the administrative rule that gave it-the authority to use SAVE. SAVE Registration When a state voter registration agency registers to use SAVE, it provides its legal authority and copies of any standardized notice letters used to" inform registrant's when there is a problem with their Citizenship verification. This ensures. that states can legally use SAVE for the requested pUrpose and that it provides adequate appeals and notification procedures. These authorities, procedures and letters are reviewed by USCIS counsel and necessary changes. are made to the letters to ensure that the notice is adequate. Attached, for example, are- copies of the initial and follow-up notice letter-s approved for Virginia. Page 1 of 3 SAVE Process and Voter Registration Forms Also attached, for example, are voter registration forms from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. Only Arizona and Georgia use SAVE to verify citizenship at the point of voter registration; the other states use SAVE only to maintain voter lists. Arizona?s form collects an alien number (?A-file? number), which it uses to query SAVE for voter registration. The Georgia voter registration application includes a check box to indicate that individuals do not have a driver?s license or Social Security number; if they check this box they are then given the alternative to present another identifier, like an A-file number. The states of Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina do voter list maintenance by running the SAVE query with provided data. Litigation History There has been significant federal and state court litigation associated with state efforts to require proof of citizenship on voting forms, including recent battles in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas over adding these requirement-s to the National Voter Registration form (?national form?). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires state governments to offer voter registration to eligible applicants at Departments of Motor Vehicles .and public assistance agencies. Additionally, Section 6 of the NVRA establishes national standards for mail-in voter registration forms and requires states to accept a federal mail-in registration form, known as the National Voter Registration Form (attached). Because ofthe NVRA, eligible voters can use either the national form or a state mail-in form. COmpare, for example, the attached National Voter Registration Form and the Arizona State Voter Registration Form. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which vested authority related to the national form with the newly established Election Assistance Commission (EAC). In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide" proof of citizenship with the state?s registration form. Arizona then asked the EAC to include these requirements in the national form?s general instructions. The EAC denied Arizona?s request, taking the position that Congress did not believe that documentary proof of citizenship was necessary or consistent with the purpose ofthe statute. Arizona then refused to register national form applicants who did not provide proof of citizenship with their forms, thereby creating a two-tiered voter registration system in the state. Litigation ensued and eventually made its way to the US. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. The Court. ruled in Inter Tribal in June 2013 that the NVRA preempted Arizona from requiring an individual registering to- vote using the National Voter Registration Form to provide documentation beyond that indicated. on the Form. As such, states could not require applicant-s to provide additional documentation when using the federal form, unless the EAC approved the state?s proposed changes to the instructions. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, Arizona asked the EAC to add citizenship requirements to Arizona?s state-specific instructions to the national form instead of to the national form?s general instructions. In 2013, Georgia and Kansasfiled comparable requests. The EAC deferred all three. requests, stating that they did not have a quorum to vote. lVlore litigation ensued and in January 2014 the EAC acting director outright denied the states? requests. Kansas and Arizona pushed their case through the Court of appeals. (unsuccessfully) and petitioned the Supreme. Court to hear their challenge to the decision. In June 2015, the .Court denied the petition for certiorari. Page 2 of 3 DeSpite ongoing legal battles. and rulings against proof of citizenship requirements, states continued to pass legislation and issue requests to the EAC to include those requirements on the national form. After passing its citizen-ship requirement in 2012, Alabama issued a request to the EAC in December 2014, and Kansas issued another request in November 2015. In January 2016, newly appointed EAC Executive Director Brian N'ewby notified Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that their requests were approved. This led to more litigation, which temporarily resulted in two-tiered voting registration systems in Arizona, Alabama and Kansas. These legal battles, both in state and federal courts, still remain in play in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia. SAVE Outreach USCIS SAVE program staff have engaged with the National Association of Secretaries of State (known as it includes members from the 37 states where the secretary of state is the chief elections officer with oversight over voter registration) and presented at their conferences in 2013 and 2017. To further, and more effectively, promote SAVE usage for voter maintenance and registration, engagement at the DHS Secretary level with NASS and the National Governors Association is recommended. Potential Expansion of USCIS Role in Verifying Accuracy of Voting-Related Responses on USCIS Forms Page 3 of 3 Voter Registration Verification by USCIS SAVE Overview Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program is used by some state voter registration agencies to verify the. citizenship of individuals registering to vote or to maintain voter rolls by verifying those already registered. The data that agencies send to. USCIS for a voter registration SAVE check is either an immigration identification number alien registration number or naturalization certificate number) provided by the individual on the voter registration form or that was previously provided by the registrant to the state DMV to do the SAVE check associated with the driver?s license application. The states that use SAVE for maintenance of their voter rolls compare their voter roll to the citizenship or immigration status claimed by registrants when they obtained a driver?s license or state ID. If SAVE is unable?to verify the individual?s citizenship with the state form or DMV provided information, the state voter registration agency has to follow-up with the individual for additional citizenship information. The five states and five Arizona counties that currently use SAVE for list maintenance or voter registration are: 0 Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017 . Florida SAVE Agreement with Secretary ofState. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases in FY 2017. . North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases. in FY 2017. . Virginia - SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Virginia did not run any cases in FY 2017. 0 Georgia SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. 0 Arizona SAVE Agreement with participating counties include: 1) Maricopa 2) La Paz 3). Pima Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at. the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases- in FY 2017 and Maricopa ran 494. SAVE has also been contacted by the following states regarding voter registration (and some even started the process to register for SAVE access), but none of them completed the process of registering to use SAVE: Kansas; Michigan; Mississippi; Oregon; Tennessee; Maryland; Minnesota; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; and Washington. Iowa was registered to use SAVE at one time, but its MOA was terminated in 2015 after a Federal court struck down the administrative rule that gave it the authority to use SAVE. SAVE Registration When a state voter registration agency registers to use SAVE, it provides its legal authority and copies of any standardized notice letters used to inform registrants when there is a problem with their citizenship verification. This ensures that states can legally use SAVE for the requested purpose and that it provides adequate appeals and notification procedures. These authorities, procedures, and letters are reviewed by USCIS counsel and necessary changes are made to the letters to ensure that the notice is Page 1 of 2 adequate. Attached, for example, are copies ofthe initial and follow-up notice letters approved for Virginia. SAVE Process and Voter Registration Forms Also attached, for example, are voter registration forms from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. Only Arizona and Georgia use verify citizenship at the point of voter registration; the other states use SAVE only to maintain voter lists. Arizona?s form collects :an alien registration number number)", which it uses to query SAVE for voter registration. The Georgia voter registration application includes a check box to indicate that individuals do not have a driver?s license or Social Security number; if they check this box they are then given the alternative to present another identifier, such as an A?file number. The states of Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina do voter list maintenance by running the SAVE query with DMV provided data. SAVE Outreach SAVE program staff have engaged with the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and presented at their conferences in 2013 and .2017. NASS includes members from the 37 states where the secretary of state is the chief elections officer with oversight over voter registration. To further, and more effectively, promote SAVE usage for voter maintenance and registration, engagement at the DHS Secretary level with NASS and the National Governors Association is recommended. Potential Expansion of USCIS Role in Verifying Accuracy of Voting-Related Responses on USCIS Forms Page 2 of 2 U.S. DePartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 5: Tie: Nerf?W US Citizenship and Immigration Comparison of State Voter Data against USCIS Immigration Data PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL ww?usmgw PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 10 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 11 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 12 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 13 To: From: Re: October 3, 2017 Memorandum Dimple Shah Deputy General Counsel Office of General Counsel . kip-W, Chief Co'unsel I Options for. Analyzinglo 1? Information Craig Symons )9 My -, .i 3W US. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sewieea Office of the ChiefCozmsei Washington. DC 20529-2000 U. S. Citizenship 5 55 and Immigration 59:55,) lei? Services PRIVILEGED-ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO .NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 14 2 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 15 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT .DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFF-ICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 16 4 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 17 ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 18 6 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 19 I PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 20 8 PRIVILEGED- ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 21 9 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 22 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Voter Integrity 23 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 2 24 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 3 25 US. Department of Homeland Security US. Citizenship and Immigration Services Veri?cation Division Washington, DC 20024 US. Citizenship and Immigration Services . [at Information for Voter Registration Agencies: Conducting Veri?cations Through SAVE Background Agencies registered with the US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) SAVE Program .are authorized to conduct veri?cations to maintain their state?s voter registration rolls. This authorization is identified in each agency?s memorandum of agreement (MOA). Although the large majority of SAVE registered agencies sign a standard MOA, the voter registration MOA (VRMOA) is tailored to address veri?cations for voter registration purposes. This Fact Sheet provides general guidance for interpreting the VRMOA requirements, but VRMOAs may vary due to each state?s laws or policies. Therefore, if you. have any questions about interpreting this Fact Sheet, please contact SAVE. Operational Limitations for Verifying the Citizenship Status SAVE has the following limitations and requirements: 0 SAVE cannot verify U..S. born citizens under any circumstances. 0 ability to verify Citizenship is limited to naturalized and derived citizens.l USCIS only has comprehensive records on naturalized and, provided that they have acquired Certi?cates of Citizenship and updated their records with USCIS, derivedUS. citizens. 0 SAVE requires at minimum the bene?t applicant?s name, date of birth, and current immigration document number related to his or her claimed status. 0 SAVE cannot verify an individual?s naturalized or derived citizenship status based on a Social Security Number, driver?s license number, US. passport number or other document number not issued by a component of the Department of Homeland Security or predecessor, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Verifying the Citizenship Status of Voters To use SAVE to verify citizenship of naturalized and derived US. citizens registering 0r registered to vote, a user agency provide SAVE with the numeric identi?ers alien registration number and/ or certi?cate number) found on the individual?s immigration?related documents Certificate of Naturalization or Certi?cate of Citizenship). Refer to Section IV.B. la. of the standard VRMOA, which 1 Derived. citizens are persons born abroad who derive US. citizenship at birth from one or both US. parents who meet the requirements of US. law for transmission of citizenship to their children. These citizens may, but are not required to, apply to USCIS for a Certi?cate of Citizenship evidencing their US. citizenship. The term ?derived citizen? is also frequently used to refer to citizens who automatically acquired US. citizenship after birth but under the age of 18 under certain provisions of US. naturalization law. Additionally, although derived citizens may have US. passports issued by the US. Department of State demonstrating their US. citizenship, SAVE cannot verify them as citizens using the passport. 1 Revised: April 2015 26 states that the user agency must: Provide to the SAVE Program the information the SAVE Program requires to respond to User Agency requests for veri?cation of immigration or naturalized or derived citizenship status information, including (1) information from the registrant?s immigration or DHS citizenship documentation, Alien Registration, Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship number, for initial automated veri?cation, (2) additional information obtained from the registrants immigration or DHS citizenship documentation for automated additional veri?cation, and (3) completed Forms G-845 and other documents and information required for manual additional veri?cation, if necessary. Institute additional veri?cation for any registrant that cloes not verify as a naturalized or derivedcitiz?en on initial veri?cation (emphasis added). If SAVE is unable to verify the registrant as a naturalized or derived citizen after conducting the second step additional veri?cation, the User Agency will contact the registrant to obtain proof of citizenship in accordance with the provisions of this MOA (emphasis added). For manual only veri?cation, ensure that Forms and other documents and information required for manual verification are provided. As indicated, the user agency conduct second step additional veri?cation for any individual that does not verify as a U.S. citizen after initial veri?cation. To comply with the VRMOA, a user agency cannot terminate the SAVE veri?cation process after initial veri?cation when an individual does. not verify as a. U.S. citizen. This requirement to institute additional veri?cation applies to situations where SAVE returns any response other than U.S. citizen, such as a response indicating the applicant is a lawful permanent resident. If an individual does not verify as a U.S. citizen after second step additional veri?cation, the user agency contactthe individual and request proof of citizenship, a copy of the Certi?cate of Naturalization or Certi?cate of Citizenshipz, unless the agency has a' copy of the necessary immigration document to submit for third step additional. veri?cation. To comply with the VRMOA, the user agency PM also follow other related provisions. Accordingly, the VRMOA states the following at Section Ensure all Users perform any additional veri?cation procedures the SAVE Program requires and/or the registrant requests after the User Agency initiates a request for veri?cation. This provision has two aspects: 1) the user agency perform additional veri?cation required by 2) the user agency?m also. conduct additional veri?cation requested by the individual being veri?ed. It is not appropriate for a user agency to conduct veri?cations if it does not intend to complete the veri?cation process. However, an individual may request that the user agency not conduct additional veri?cation procedures. The following are examples of when a user agency may not need to conduct additional veri?cation after contacting the individual being veri?ed: 0 When the individual returns an authorized attestation form stating that the individual is not a U.S. citizen. 0 When the individual provides proof of citizenship accepted by the user agency without verification by SAVE, such as a U.S. passport. 0 When the individual does not res-pond Within applicable timeframes to the the user agency inquiry for attestation or proof of citizenship. 2 It is always best to provide SAVE with the alien registration number and the Certi?cate of Naturlaization or Certi?cate of Citizenship number whenever possible. It is also best to submit a copy of the appropriate Certi?cate for third step additional veri?cation. However, SAVE may be able to verify citizenship based upon an alien registration number on any document issued by US 2 Revised: April 2015 27 Section states that the user agency must: (1) Create standardized correspondence to request that a registrant provide a Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship to complete SAVE veri?cation and submit that correspondence to SAVE for approval prior to use With registrants. Every user agency that enters into a VRMOA must prepare standard noti?cation correspondence and provide it for DHS approval. This provision becomes signi?cant: 0 after a second step additional veri?cation. is conducted; 0 the individual does not verify as a U.S. citizen; and, the user agency does not have a copy of the necessary immigration document. Under those circumstances, the user agency must use this correspondence to contact the individual to request proof of citizenship. Sections n. may also apply at this stage of the veri?cation process. These sections state that the user agency must: Provide all registrants who do not verify as 'a citizen under the terms of the MOA with adequate written notice that their citizenship could not be veri?ed and the information necessary to contact (see attachment 1: Fact Sheet, which is subject to revision and reposting on the SA VE Website and Online Resources (emphasis added)) so that such individuals may obtain a copy of their Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship or correct their records in a timely manner, if necessary; Provide all registrants who are not veri?ed as citizens based solely or in part on the SAVE response with the opportunity to use the user agency?s existing process to appeal the denial and to contact DHS-USCIS to correct their records prior to a final decision, if necessary. ACCording to Section NB. 1 quoted above, the user agency provide the individual with the Fact Sheet, ?Information for Registrants: Verification of Citizenship Status and How to Obtain Your Document or Correct Your Record with USCI as part of the noti?cation. As- part of the VRMOA negotiation process and approval of the noti?cation correspondence, USCIS evaluated the appeals process of each user agency. Accordingly, Section .n requires that the individual also have the opportunity to appeal the. determination that he or she is not a citizen using the user agency?s existing process. Finally, note that Section lV.B.d. incorporates other requirements that user agencies must follow to comply with. the VRMOA. The section states that the user agency must: Ensure all Users performing veri?cation procedures comply with all requirements contained in the SAVE. Program Guide, web?based tutorial, and this MOA, and updates to these requirements (emphasis added). SAVE periodically updates its processes and requirements. Accordingly, the user agency must understand and monitor these requirements (including this Fact Sheet), and any updates thereto, as they relate to voter registration verification requests. 3 Revised: April 2015 28 Instructions for Conducting Voter Registration Veri?cations If! a the individual does not verify as a US. citizen on initial veri?cation. the electronic additional second step veri?cation process to request additional verification: 0 Identify in the ?comment? ?eld on the ?Request Additional Veri?cation? page that the request is to determine if the individual is a US. citizen; 0 Submit the case for additional veri?cation. SAVE will provide a response based on the information available in USCIS records or Will direct you to ?resubmit with docs.? the individual does not verify as a US. citizen on el?eetrbnic additional second step verification. the electronic third. step or paper only Form 8453 veri?cation process and submit a copy of the applicant?s immigration document showing U.S.citizenship: attach a copy of the applicant?s USCIS issued immigration document Certi?cate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship); 0 Submit the completed electronic third step request and/or the Form SAVE will provide a response based on the. information available in USCIS records. If you have any questions regarding this guidance or would like to request training please contact the SAVE Program at SAVE.help@uscis.dhs.gov. 3 If SAVE returns a second step response indicating that an individual has an immigration status other than US. citizen, lawful permanent resident, the user agency use the paper Form to submit the USCIS issued document to SAVE for third step additional veri?cation. Always identify in the ?comment? ?eld on the Form G- 845 that the request is to determine if the individual is a US. citizen. Please follow all instructions for submitting a paper Form G-845., 4 Revised: April 2015 29 U.S. Dopartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 ?at U. S. Citizenship Egg" and Immigration The Use of SAVE for Voter Registration Background The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program is an inter?governmental initiative using a web-based service to help federal, state and local agencies that issue. public benefits determine the citizenship and immigration status of applicants. SAVE is not itself a database, but is only a system that accesses Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agency databases containing information regarding. the status of nonimmigrants, immigrants, and certain naturalized and derived US. citizens. SAVE originally existed as a pilot program, implemented over two years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in voluntary cooperation with the states, and was then permanently authorized in Section 121(c) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99- 603. IRCA prohibited the granting of specified federal public benefits to certain non-US. citizens and imposed obligations upon benefit granting agencies to determine the citizenship and/or immigration status of applicants for these benefits. IRCA also required that each benefit applicant declare in writing whether he or she is a citizen or national of the United States. Ifthe applicant is not a citizen or national of the United States, the applicant must show thatsatisfactory immigration status, as set forth by federal law, to receive that benefit. IRCA required the esta-biishment- of an automated system for verifying the immigration status of n'onc'itizen applicants for certain federal benefits, originally including only the follow federal programs: - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program Medicaid Program - Certain Territorial Assistance Programs - Food Stamps - Unemployment Compensation Program - Title IV Educational Assistance Programs - Certain Housing Assistance Programs About a decade after SAVE was created, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L. No. 104-193, provided additional restrictions for certain programs funded by federal, state, and local governments. PRWORA established stricter citizenship or immigration status eligibility requirements for many programs and rendered certain categories of non- U.S. citizen ineligible for many benefits. Near the same time, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant. Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104?208, as amended, expanded purview by requiring DHS to respond to inquiries by federal, state, and local government agencies seeking to verify or determine the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the 30 jurisdiction of the agency for any lawful purpose. Se_e 8 U.S.C. 1373(c). Accordingly, SAVE is now required, by statute, to respond to inquiries made by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency "for any purpose authorized by law.? This is the legal authority SAVE relies upon when performing verification in association with state voter registration and state voter list maintenance. Federal law (the Help America 'Vote Act) also requires State election officials to maintain and update computerized voter registration lists to ensure voter eligibility while maintaining voter?s rights. 52 U.S.C. 21083; see 52 U.S.C. 20507. With respect to the mechanics of using SAVE, the SAVE Program currently provides verification services to over one thousand agencies. Only federal, state, and local benefit-granting agencies may register for the SAVE Program. The agency must be authorized by law to engage in an activity or provide a benefit for which immigration status verification is required. SAVE requires the agency to submit electronic copies of all applicable legal authorities authorizing the agency to: 0 Issue the stated benefit or license jor engage in other activity"; and 0 Verify immigration status before issuing the stated benefit or license or pursuant to engaging in the other activity. The SAVE Program reviews the submitted legal authorities to ensure that the agency is authorized to participate in the program. If the agency meets the eligibility criteria to participate in the SAVE Program, the agency is required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with outlining the purpose and the responsibilities for participation in the program. SAVE charges user agencies a fee based on the number and type of transactions they perform. If an agency?s account does not make any transactions in a given month, then SAVE does not charge that account. However, if an agency?s account makes any transaction in a given month, SAVE automatically charges a minimum service transaction fee of $25. - Initial Verification: $0.50 - Retry Initial Verification: $0.50 - Additional Verification: $0.50 - Maximum Charges for electronic cases: $1.50 - Paper-based Form 6-845, Document Verification Request: $2.00 The SAVE program monitors the accuracy of its responses by performing quality assurance audits. SAVE meets its goal for 99 percent legal instrument examiner accuracy on a basis. The- SAVE program is also undergoing a modernization effort to decrease-the percentage of cases requiring a manual review and is eliminating paper based requests in FY 2018. The SAVE Verification Process and Voter Registration Agencies Before gaining access to SAVE for voter registration, the state agency must provide USCIS with all applicable legal authorities and voter registration procedures that authorize the agency to engage in Voter regi-Stration activities. These authorities are reviewed by the USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel and the DHS Office ofthe General Counsel (OGC) is also notified ofthe state?s request. The state?s application to use SAVE for voter registration or voter list maintenance is not approved until the state ?may.? scisgnv 31 demonstrates that they have adequate notificatiOn and appeal processes in place to ensure that any voter denied registration has adequate due process. Once an agency is approved, role in verifying voter registration eligibility is limited to verifying naturalized or derived citizenship. SAVE cannot verify U.S.. born citizens under any circumstances. To use SAVE to verify naturalized or derived citizenship of individuals registering or registered to vote, a user agency must provide SAVE with the numeric identifiers Alien or USCIS number, l-94 arrival/departure document number, certificate or naturalization number) found on an individual's immigration-related documents a Certificate of Naturalization or a Certificate of Citizenship), first and last name, and date of birth. There are various other limitations related to the information necessary to conduct verifications: - SAVE cannot conduct verifications based on Social Security numbers. - Derived citizens often do not have a document of any type to show US. citizenship and in these cases. no citizenship record will exist with DHS. 0 Department of State-adjudicated derived citizens may not have a record with USCIS and US. Passports cannot be verified in SAVE. 1 SAVE can take up to three possible verification steps in order to reach a final verification result. The first step is electronic and takes only three to five seconds. If SAVE cannot verify the individual as a US. Citizen, the. requesting voter registration agency must perform any additional verification procedures the SAVE Program requires and/or the applicant. requests. Accordingly, when the initial response is ?Institute Additional Verification? or the individual requests additional verification because the status returned does not match their claimed citizenship. status, second step: additional verification is required. If the second step verification does not match their claimed citizenship status, the voter registration agency must submit a copy of the document (Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship) for a third step verification. The additional verification steps must be performed in these situations because. it allows USCIS staff to manually check data sources and provide a correct response. If the requesting agency has any concerns about a SAVE additional verification, it may call USCIS to discuss the verification. If an agency has alternative processes upon which to base its decision regarding the individual?s citizenship status, additional verification is not required. Voter Registration and Voting List Maintenance Current Enrollees and Issues SAVE is currently used by a limited number of agencies for voter registration related verifications (either at point of registration or later for voter roll maintenance): a. Arizona Counties 1) Maricopa2) La Paz Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. SAVE is. in negotiations with the State of Arizona to provide all 15' Arizona counties with access under a single uniform Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state. Colorado Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Florida Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. North Carolina State. Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Virginia Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Georgia Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. resumes? 1 SAVE is only able to verify information that relates to information found in the databases accessed by the system. Accordingly, if an individual with derived citizenship status has not applied for a Certificate of Citizenship with USCIS, the agency may not have that individual?s citizenship status in its databases, and SAVE will not be able to confirm that individual?s derived citizenship status. However, many derived citizens have received U.S. passports from the Department of State (DOS). If the DOS has provided USCIS with a record of the passport citizenship adjudication and USCIS has updated the individual?s alien file, SAVE would be able to find the citizenship record with the individuai?s Alien number. scisgov 32 These agencies represent only a small fraction .of the 1,150 agencies registered to use SAVE and only 0.07 percent of total query volume. Only four of the-ten agencies used SAVE in FY 2017 for voter registration and list maintenance, and the state of North Carolina was responsible for 93 percent of the query volume. As indicated by the above list of voter registration agencies using SAVE, they will either use SAVE at the point of registration or to. verify the immigration status of individuals already on voter rolls registered against State Department of Motor Vehicle records. For voter registration, the agency is usually limited by federal and state legal requirements concerning the information and documentation that they can collect from the individual to show citizenship. For list maintenance, the agencies are limited by the information contained within the Department of Motor Vehicle records, and they will have no direct contact with the individual before running a SAVE verification. It is almost never the case that a voter registration agency initiating a verification will have all .ofthe information and/or documents available to them to complete all three steps of a SAVE verification, if necessary. Accordingly, the requesting agency may need to. take extra steps to request additional information and documentation from the individual in order to satisfactorily complete a SAVE verification. scisgov 33 Please see below and attached responses to the questions that arose from yesterday?s call with the Secretary regarding voter registration fraud. I apologize for the length, but it think you?ll find all the content informative. Overview: The SAVE Program is. used by some agencies to verify the citizenship of individuals registering to vote or to maintain voter rolls by verifying those already registered. The states that use SAVE for maintenance of their voter rolls compare their voter roll to the citizenship or immigration status claimed by registrants when they obtained a driver?s license or state ID. They use whatever immigration number was provided by the registrant to the DMV to do the initial SAVE check. If SAVE is unable to verify their citizenship with the DMV provided information, the state voter registration agency has to follow-up with. the individual for additional citizenship information. The five states and five Arizona counties that use SAVE for list maintenance or voter registration are: Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV- data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017 Florida SAVE Agreement with Secretary of'State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases in FY 2017. North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases in FY 2017. Virginia SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies. voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Virginia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Georgia SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Arizona SAVE Agreement with Participating counties include: 1) Maricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima 4) Yuma S.) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases in FY 2017 and Maricopa ran 494. SAVE has also been contacted by the following states. regarding voter registration (and some even started the process to register for SAVE access), but none of them completed the process of registering to use SAVE: Kansas; Michigan; Mississippi; Oregon; Tennessee; Maryland; Minnesota; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; Washington. Iowa was registered to use SAVE at one time, but its MOA was terminated in 2015 after a Federal court struck down the administrative rule that gave it the authority to use SAVE. SAVE Registration: When an agency registers to use SAVE, it provides its legal authority and copies of any standardized notice letters used to inform registrants when there is a problem with their citizenship verification. This ensures that states can legally use SAVE for the requested purpose and that it has adequate appeals and notification procedures. These authorities, procedures and letters are reviewed by OCC and necessary changes are made to the letters to ensure that the notice is adequate. Attached are copies of the initial and follow?up notice letters approved for Virginia. SAVE Process and Voter Registration Forms: 34 Also, attached are voter registration forms from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. With the exception of Arizona, none of these forms collect an Alien number. For the states of Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina, they are able to run the SAVE query by using DMV data since they are doing voter list maintenance. Georgia, however, uses SAVE for voter registration and the only way they could get data for a SAVE query is through an alternate processes. There is a check box on the Georgia application to indicate that individuals do not have a driver?s license or Social Security number, so ifthey check this box they are then given the alternative to present another identifier, like an A-file number. Litigation History: There has been significant federal and state court litigation associated with state efforts to require proof of citizenship on voting forms, including recent battles in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas over adding these requirements to the National Voter Registration form ("national form?). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires state governments to offer voter registration to eligible applicants at Departments of Motor Vehicles and public assistance agencies. Additionally, Section 6 of the NVRA establishes national standards for mail-in voter registration forms and requires states to accept a federal mail-in registration form, known as the National Voter Registration form (attached). Because ofthe NVRA, eiigible voters can use either the national form or a state mail-in form. Compare the attached National Farm and Arizona State Voter Registration Form. In 2002, Congress passed the- H.e p America Vote Act (HAVA), which vested authority related to the national form with the newly established Election Assistance Commission (EAC). In .2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship with the state?s registration form. Arizona then asked the EAC to include these requirements in the national form?s general instructions. The EAC denied Arizona?s request, taking the position that Congress did not believe that documentary proof of citizenship was necessary or consistent with the purpose of the statute. Arizona then refused to register national form applicants who did not provide proof of citizenship with their forms, thereby creating a two-tiered voter registration system in the state. Litigation ensued and eventually made its way to the US. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council ofArizona, Inc. The Court ruled in Inter Tribal in June 2013 that the NVRA preempted Arizona from requiring an individual registering to vote using the national form to provide documentation beyond that indicated on the Form. As such, states could not require applicants to provideadditional documentation when using the federal form, unless the EAC approved the state?s proposed changes to the instructions. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, Arizona asked the EAC to add citizenship requirements to Arizona?s state?specific instructions to the national form instead of to the national form?s general instructions. In 2013, Georgia and Kansas filed comparable requests. The EAC deferred all three requests, stating that they did not have a quorum to vote. More litigation ensued and in January 2014 the EAC acting director outright denied the states? requests. Kansas and Arizona pushed their case through the Court of appeals (unsuccessfully) and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the decision. In June 2015, the Court denied the petition for certiorari. Despite ongoing legal battles and rulings against proof of citizenship requirements, states continued to pass legislation and issue requests to the EAC to include those requirements on the national form. After passing itscitizenship requirement in 2012, Alabama issued a request to the EAC in December "2014, and Kansas issued another request in Navember 2015. In January 2016, newly appointed EAC Executive Director Brian Newby notified Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that their requests were approved. This led 35 to more litigation, which temporarily resulted in two-tiered voting registration systems in Arizona, Alabama and Kansas. These legal battles, both in state and federal courts, still remain in play in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia. SAVE Outreach The SAVE program has engaged with the National Association of Secretaries ofState (known as NASS, it includes members from the 37 states where the secretary of state is the chief elections officer with oversight over voter registration) and presented at their conferences in 2013 and 2017. To promote SAVE usage'for voter maintenance and registration, engagement at the 51 level with NASS and the National Governors Association is recommended. Below please find the summary you requested on the verification option. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Craig 36 37 Thomas, Michael A From: Rijhwani, Sarita Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 2:35 PM To: Sawyer, Kristina (Kristy) Subject: RE: SAVE and disclosures Nice, thanks! From: Sawyer, Kristina (Kristy) Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 3:25:44 PM To: Rijhwani, Sarita Subject: FW: SAVE and disclosures From: Cantor, Jonathan Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 3:16 PM To: Sawyer, Kristina (KrisW) Cc: Hawkins, Donald Vogel, Lindsay Subject: SAVE and disclosures Kristy In responding to another Component regarding a similar issue, we could not help but notice parallels to the questions in the media regarding the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's (Commission) request for data from USCIS. We thought we would informally share some information with you. It is our understanding the Commission is requesting individual?s immigration status to cross-reference state voting records. The purpose is presumably to identify "vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voting registrations and improper voting. . . as it is ?unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held . . . for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner." Exec. Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22389 (May 16,2017); 18 U.S.C. 611(a). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373(c), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required to respond to a government agency?s request to verify or ascertain a person?s immigration status for any purpose authorized by law. Under this statute, DHS has several Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) in place with state boards of election to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify the immigration status of individuals registering to vote. Since response includes sharing personally identifiable information relating to US. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR), the information must be shared in accordance with Privacy Act requirements. DHS shares verifies immigration status for state boards of election pursuant to routine use of the SAVE System of Records Notice, which provides notice that DHS will share information with federal, state, and local government agencies when there is a legally authorized purpose and there is a Memorandum of Agreement in place. Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program System of Records, 81 Fed. Reg. 78, 619 (Nov. 8, 2016). Unlike state boards of election, the Commission is not a government agency. This assertion was argued by the US. Department ofJustice (DOJ). In its response to the Electronic Privacy Information Center?s Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in recently filed litigation, DOJ argued that the Commission is not an agencies within the meaning of the E?Government Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, or Freedom of Information Act. Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff?s Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and 1 Preliminary Injunction at 26-27, Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Commission, No. (D.D.C. July 17, 2017). As routine use only applies to government agencies, and the Commission is not a government agency, as the Acting Chief Privacy Officer, I have determined that this routine use does not apply. I have found that there is no applicable routine use that would permit DHS to share immigration status of individuals covered by the Privacy Act with the Commission, which means that DHS may not share immigration status relating to US citizens or LPRs with the commission under the existing SORN. Further, even if subject of the request is not a US. citizen or LPR, there may be other confidentiality restrictions on sharing information. For example, 8 U.S.C. 1367, generally prohibits DHS from disclosing any information regarding individuals who have applied for or received immigration benefits under the VAWA, non-immigrant status, or non?immigrant status, unless a statutory exception applies for legitimate law enforcement or national security purposes). This prohibition against disclosure applies to any information about the individual, not simply the information maintained in the specific petition or application for the benefit. Similarly, subject to certain exceptions, the asylum regulations at 8 C.F.R. 208.6 generally prohibit the disclosure of information contained in or pertaining to asylum applications, any credible fear determinations conducted under 8 C.F.R. 208.30, or any reasonable fear determinations conducted under 8 C.F.R. 208.31. DHS has extended the application of the asylum confidentiality regulations to information contained in or pertaining to refugee applications. If decides to share information with the Commission, prior to any sharing, the DHS Privacy Office requires an approved Privacy Threshold Analysis. Since I have already found there is no applicable routine use, it seems at a minimum that a newly updated SORN would be required. In addition, I have determined that given the enormous public interest, a stand-alone publicly-available Privacy impact Assessment signed by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer to discuss the privacy risks and mitigations associated with the sharing would also be necessary. Thanks JRC Jonathan R. Cantor, US, CIPP Chief Privacy Of?cer (A) Department of Homeland Security http: /Www.dhs.gov/ privacy Want to learn more about privacy? Visit U.S. DePartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 US. Citizenship [is . mi and immigrauon Eat? Services RECEIIDS MID SERVICES BIREETURHE Comparison of State Voter Data againstUSCIS Immigration Data PURPOSE USCIS was asked to aSsist DHS in determining the feasibility and utility of comparing state voter registration data against immigration data. The objective of this request is to determine the extent that such a comparison can identify voter fraud. PROPOSED ACTION 1121342? RECEIIDS MID SERVICES BIREETURHE U.S. DePartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 i?g US. Citizenship and Immigration ages Services Comparison of State Voter Data againstUSCIS Immigration Data PURPOSE USCIS was asked to aSsist DHS in determining the feasibility and utility of comparing state voter registration data against immigration data. The objective of this request is to determine the extent that such a comparison can identify voter fraud. 22? AFTION PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL wwgusmgm PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL From: Meckley, Tammy To: Symons. Craig 'Cc: Ries Lora Subject: RE: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from '81 Meeting Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:32:32 AM Here?s the list of query volume broken down by state. It was in the email i sent to you and D1 last night. Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DIVIV data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017. m- SAVE Agreement with Secretary of Stat-e. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DIVIV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases in FY 2017. North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies Voters already on the rolls by running data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases in FY 2017. Virgini SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Virginia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Georgi SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Arizona SAVE Agreement with Participating counties include: 1) lVlaricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases in FY 2017 and lVIaricopa ran 494. Tammy lVl. lVIeckley Associate Director Immigration Records and ldentity Services Directorate US. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529 lli'll?ll?l't? l?l?'i'Ii From: Meckley, Tammy Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:25 AM To: Symons, Craig Cc: Ries, Lora' Subject: RE: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 81 Meeting Craig, I pulled responses from other SAVE voter documents that we?ve written and pasted the content that addresses numbers two and threer I (biisr JHowever, I wanted to get this to you first. Best Tammy a. Arizona Counties 1) Maricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. SAVE is in negotiations with the State of Arizona to provide all 15 Arizona counties with access under a single uniform Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state. Colorado Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Florida- Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. North Carolina State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. . Virgini Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Georgi Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. a. 9L rv Fr Best Tammy Tammy lVi. Meckley Associate Director Immigration Records and identity Services Directorate US. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529 l?ih?ll??ll?? Mi?Ii ll?limllf?l? From: Symons, Craig Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:13 PM To: Meckley, Tammy Cc: Ries, Lora Subject: FW: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 51 Meeting Hi Tammy, Please see task numbers 2 and 3 below. Can your of?ce take those on? It. looks like the three of us will have to look at number 4. I think we?ll have a better idea about that item once we meet with Texas. Thanks, Craig Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel Of?ce of the Chief Counsel US. Citizenship and Immigration Services US. Department of Homeland Security man This communication, along with any attachments, may contain con?dential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying. of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in errOr, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you. From: Wales, Brandon S-ent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:49:03 PM To: Krebs, Christopher; Shah, Dimple; Maher, Joseph; Baro?ukh, Nader; Symons, Craig Ries, Lora Blank, Thomas; Petyo, Briana; Short, Tracy; Dougherty, Michael; Hoffman, Jonathan Cc: Wolf, Chad; Neumann, Elizabeth Subject: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 81 Meeting All, Sorry for the delay in getting this out, but I wanted to document yesterday?s meeting with 81 on. election integrity and make sure everyone knows what is expected. DECISIONS 1. We will maintain a clear distinction between ourwork to enhance election infrastructure security and our efforts to enhance election. integrity. 2. The Department will not independently conduct a nation-wide investigation into potential voter fraud. 3. Long-term responsibility for coordination and oversight of this effort will transition to PLCY atthe appropriate time. TASKS That?s what I have. lf-anyone has something I missed, please send it along. Also, as Chad said at today?s Chiefs meeting, this is a high priority for the WH and 51, and we need rapid completion on assigned tasks. Unless I hear otherwise from you, I will assume you will complete your task by next Friday, but sooner is always appreciated. As work is completed, please send it to me and lwill share, as appropriate, with this group. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please let "me know. Best, Brandon Brandon D. Wales Senior Counselor to the Secretary Department of Homeland Security From: Meckiey, Tammy To: Symons. Craig 'Cc: Rles Lora Su bject: RE: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from '81 Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:55:22 PM From: Symons, Craig Sent: ThUrsda'y, January 11, 2018 1:37:12 AM To: Meckiey, Tammy Cc: Ries, Lora Subject: RE: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 81 Meeting Hi Tammy, Sorry - I?m working backwards on e-mails and just saw your extensive response at 5:40 pm. Looking at the USCIS tasks below, do you think your 5:40 pm e-mail is already sufficiently responsive to numbers 2 and 3 or are there changes additions you?d like to make before we send this on to Brandon? Craig Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel US. Citizenship and Immigration Services pm This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you. From: Symons, Craig Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 8:12:43 PM To: Meckiey, Tammy Cc: Ries, Lora Subject: FW: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 51 Meeting Hi Tammy, Please see task numbers 2 and 3 below. Can your office take those on? It looks like the three of us will have to look at number I think we?ll have a better idea about that item once we meet with Texas. Thanks, Craig Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel US. Citizenship and Immigration Services US. Department of Homeland Securig This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you. From: Wales, Brandon Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:49:03 PM To: Krebs, Christopher; Shah, Dimple; Maher, Joseph; Baroukh, Nader; Symons, Craig Ries, Lora Blank, Thomas; Petyo, Briana; Short, Tracy; Dougherty, Michael; Hoffman, Jonathan Cc: Wolf, Chad; Neumann, Elizabeth Subject: Election Integrity Decisions/Tasks from 51 Meeting All, Sorry for the delay in getting this out, but I wanted to document yesterday?s meeting with 81 on election integrity and make sure everyone knows what is expected. DECISIONS 1. We will maintain a clear distinction between our work to enhance election infrastructure security and our efforts to enhance election integrity. 2. The Department will not independently conduct a nation?wide investigation into potential voter fraud. 3. Long?term responsibility for coordination and oversight of this effort will transition to PLCY 'at the appropriate time. TASKS That?s what I have. If anyone has something I missed, please send it along. Also, as Chad said at. today?s Chiefs meeting, this is a high priority for the WH and 51, and we need rapid completion on assigned tasks. Unlessl hear otherwise from you, I will "assume you will complete your task by next Friday, but sooner is always appreciated. As work is completed, please send it to me and I will share, as appropriate, with this group. if anyone has any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Brandon Brandon D. Wales Senior Counselor to the Secretary Department of Homeland Security From: Meckley, Tammy To: Cissna Francis 'Cc: Svmons, CraiCI M: McCament. James W: Ries, Lora Subject: Get Backs on Voter Registration Fraud Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:39:34 PM Attachments: GA Voter Reoistration' Aoolicationpdf NC Voter Reg Form.pdf- .FL Voter Reg CO Voter Reg Formodf AZ State Voter Reoistration DRAFT FINAL VA SAVE NonCitizen Cancelled #2 (3).docx FINAL DRAFT SAVE VA Notice of Intent to Cancel (3).docx Importance: High Good afternoon, Director. Please see below and attached responses to the questions that arose from yesterday?s call with the Secretary regarding voter registration fraud. I apologize for the length, but it think you?ll find all the content informative. Overview: The SAVE Program is used by some agencies to verify the citizenship of individuals registering to vote orto maintain voter rolls by verifying those already registered. The. states that use SAVE for maintenance of their voter rolls compare their voter roll to the citizenship or immigration status- claimed by registrants when they obtained a driver?s license or state ID. They use whatever immigration number was provided by the registrant to the DMV to do the initial SAVE check. If SAVE is unable to verify their citizenship with the DMV provided information, the state voter registration agency has to. follow?up with the individual for additional citizenship- information. The five states and five Arizona counties that use SAVE for list maintenance or voter registration are: Colorado SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Colorado ran 211 cases in FY 2017 Florida SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. Florida did not run any cases in FY 2017. North Carolina SAVE Agreement with State Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV data through SAVE. North Carolina ran 10,029 cases in FY 2017. Virgini SAVE Agreement with Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls by running DMV "data through SAVE. Virginia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Georgi SAVE Agreement with Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. Georgia did not run any cases in FY 2017. Arizona SAVE Agreement with Participating counties include: 1) Maricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. Yavapai County ran 23 cases in FY 2017 and Maricopa ran .494. SAVE has also been contacted by the following states regarding voter registration (and some even started the process to register for SAVE access), but none of them completed the process of registering to use SAVE: Kansas; Michigan; Mississippi; Oregon; Tennessee; Maryland; Minnesota; New Mexico; Ohio; Texas; Washington. Iowa was registered to use. SAVE at one time, but its MOA was terminated in 2015 after a Federal court struck down the administrative rule that gave it the authority to use SAVE. SAVE Registration: When an agency registers to use SAVE, it provides its legal authority and copies of any standardized notice letters used to inform registrants when there is a problem with their citizenship verification. This ensures that states can legally use the requested purpose and that it has adequate appeals and notification procedures. These authorities, procedures and letters are reviewed by OCC and necessary changes are made to the letters-to ensure that the notice is adequate. Attached are copies ofthe initial and follow-up notice lettersapproved for Virginia. SAVE Process and Voter Registration Forms: Also, attached are voter registration forms from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. With the exception of Arizona, none of these forms collect an Alien number. Forthe states of Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina, they are able to run the SAVE query by using DIVIV data since they are doing voter list maintenance. Georgia, however, uses SAVE for voter registration and the only way they could get data for a SAVE query is through an alternate processes. There is a check box'on the Georgia application to indicate that individuals do not have a driver?s license or Social Security number, so ifthey check this box they are then given the alternative to present another identifier, like an A?file number. Litigation History: There has been significant federal and state court litigation associated with state efforts to require proof .of citizenship on voting forms, including recent battles in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas over addingthese requirements to the National Voter Registration form (?national form?). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires state governments to offer Voter registration to eligible applicants at Departments of Motor Vehicles and public assistance agencies. Additionally, Section 6 of the NVRA establishes national standards for mail-in voter registration forms and requires stat-es to accept a federal mail?in registration form, known as the National Voter Registration form (attached). Because ofthe NVRA, eligible voters can use either the national form or a state mail?in form. Compare the attached National Form and Arizona State Voter Registration Form. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act which vested authority related to the national form with the newly established Election Assistance Commission (EAC). In 2005, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship with the state?s registration form. Arizona then asked the EAC to include these requirements in the national form?s general instructions. The EAC denied Arizona?s request, taking the position that Congress did not believe that dOCUmentary proof of citizenship was necessary or consistent with the purpose of the statute. Arizona then refused to register national form applicants who did not provide proof of citizenship with their forms, thereby creating a two-tiered voter registration system in the state. Litigation ensued and eventually made its way to the US. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council ofArizono, Inc. The Court ruled in Inter Tribal in June 2013 that the NVRA preempted Arizona from requiring an individual registering to vote using the national fOrm to 10 provide documentation beyond that indicated on the Form. As such, states could not require applicants to provide additional documentation when usingthe federal form, unless the EAC. approved the state?s proposed changes ?to the instructions. Following the Supreme Court?s decision, Arizona asked the EAC to add citizenship requirements to Arizona?s state-specific instructions to the national form instead of to the national form?sgeneral instructions. In 2013, Georgia and Kansas filed comparable requests. The EAC deferred all three requests, stating that they did not have a quorum to vote. lVIore litigation ensued and in January 2014 the EAC acting director outright denied the states? requests. Kansas and Arizona pushed their case through the Court of appeals (unsuccessfully) and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the decision. In June 2015, the Court denied the petition for cer?tiorari. Despite ongoing legal battles and rulings against proof of citizenship requirements, states continued to pass legislation and issue requests to the EAC to include those requirements on the national form. After passing its citizenship requirement in 2012, Alabama issued a request to the EAC in December 2014, and Kansas issued'another request in November 2015. In January 2016, newly appointed EAC Executive Director Brian Newby notified Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that their requests were approved. This led to more litigation, which temporarily resulted in two-tiered voting registration systems in Arizona, Alabama and Kansas. These legal battles, both in state and federal courts, still remain in play in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia. SAVE Outreach The SAVE program has engaged with the National Association of Secretaries of State (known as NASS, it includes members from the 37 states where the secretary of state is the chief elections officer with oversight over voter registration) and presented attheir conferences in .2013 and 2017. To promote SAVE usage for voter maintenance and registration, engagement at the S1 level with NASS and the National Governors Association is recommended. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Best, Ta my Tammy M. Meckiey Associate Director Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate US. Citizenship and Immigration Services 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20529 II Iammariil? Ingram are EDI-MEET mam n-mrerunan; 11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 l?R-?g?iag . . . '9 its, US. Cit1zensh1p and Immigration Act? Services 1Rls? IMMIE REEURDSMEI SERVICES DIRECTIIRME The Use of SAVE for Voter Registration Background The Systematic Alien Veri?cation for Entitlements (SAVE) program is required, by statute, to respond to inquiries made by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency ?for any purpose authorized by law.? origins are found in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Public Law (Pub. L.) No. 99-603. IRCA prohibited certain federal agencies from granting speci?ed federal public bene?ts to certain non-US. citizens, and imposed obligations ?upon those benefit granting agencies to determine the citizenship and/ or immigration Status Ofbenefit applicants. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Pub. L. No. 104-208, as amended, expanded purview by requiring DHS to respond to inquiries by federal, state and local government agencies seeking to verify or determine the citizenship or immigration status of any individual Within the jurisdiction of the agency for any lawful purpose. See 8 U.S.C. 1373(0). The SAVE Veri?cation Process Before gaining aeoess to SAVE for voter registration, the state agency must provide USCIS with all applicable legal authorities and voter registration procedures that authorize the agency to engage in voter registration activities. These authorities. are reviewed by the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel and the DHS Office of the General Counsel (OCC) is also notified of the state?s request. The state?s application to use SAVE for voter registration or voter list. maintenance is not approved until the state demonstrates that they have adequate notification and appeal processes in place to ensure that any voter denied registration has adequate due process. Once an agency is approved, role in verifying voter registration eligibility is limited to verifying naturalized or derived citizenship. SAVE cannot verify U.S. born citizens under any circumstances. To use SAVE to verify naturalized or derived citizenship of individuals registering or registered to vote, a user agency must provide SAVE with the numeric identi?ers alien registration number and/ or certi?cate number) found on the individual?s immigration? related documents a. Certi?cate of Naturalization or a Certi?cate of Citizenship), first and last name, and. date of birth. There are various other limitations related to the information necessary to conduct veri?cations: I SAVE cannot conduct veri?cations based on Social Security Number. I Derived citizens often do not have a document of any type to show US. citizenship and in these cases, no citizenship record will exist with DHS. I Department. of State-adjudicated derived citizens may not have a record with USCIS and US. Passports cannot be veri?ed in SAVE. 1 SAVE can take up to three possible veri?cation steps in order to reach a ?nal veri?cation result. The ?rst step is electronic and takes only 3?5 seconds. If SAVE cannot verify the individual as a US. Citizen, the requesting voter registration agency must perform any additional veri?cation procedures the SAVE Program requires and/or the applicant requests. Accordingly, when the initial response is ?Institute Additional Veri?cation? or the individual requests additional veri?cation because the status returned does not match their claimed citizen-ship status, second step additional veri?cation is required. If the second step veri?cation does not match their claimed citizenship status, the voter registration agency must submit a copy of the document (Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship) for a third step veri?cation. The additional veri?cation steps must be performed in these situations because it allows USCIS staff to manually check data sources and provide a correct response. If the requesting agency has any concerns about a SAVE additional veri?cation, it may call USCIS to discuss the veri?cation. If an agency has alternative processes upon which to base .its decision regarding the individual?s citizenship status, additional veri?cation is not required. Current Enrollees SAVE is currently used. by a limited number of agencies for voter registration related veri?cations (either at point of registration or later for voter roll maintenance): a. Arizona Counties Maricopa 2) La Paz 3) Pima .4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do veri?cation at the point of registration. SAVE is in negotiations with the State of Arizona to provide all 15 Arizona counties with access under a single uniform Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state. Colorado Secretary of State. Veri?es voters already on the rolls. Florida Secretary of State. Veri?es voters already on the rolls. North Carolina State Board of Elections. Veri?es voters already on the rolls. Virginia - Board of Elections. Veri?es voters already on the rolls. Georgia Secretary of State. Veri?cation at the point of registration. weeds? 1 SAVE is only able to verify information that relates to information found the databases accessed by the. system. Accordingly, if an individual with derived citizenship status has not applied for a Certificate of Citizenship with USCIS, the agency may not have that individ'ual?s' citizenship status in its databases, and SAVE will not be able to con?rm that individual?s derived citizenship status. However, many derived citizens have received US. passports frOm the Department of State. (DOS). If the DOS has provided USCIS with a record of the passport citizenship adjudication and USCIS has updated. the individual?s alien ?le, SAVE would be able to ?nd the citizenship record with the individual?s Alien number. scisgov Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Voter Integrity Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 2 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product DRAFT Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 3 US. Department of Homeland Security US. Citizenship and Immigration Services Veri?cation Division Washington, DC 20024 US. Citizenship and Immigration Services . [at Information for Voter Registration Agencies: Conducting Veri?cations Through SAVE Background Agencies registered with the US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) SAVE Program .are authorized to conduct veri?cations to maintain their state?s voter registration rolls. This authorization is identified in each agency?s memorandum of agreement (MOA). Although the large majority of SAVE registered agencies sign a standard MOA, the voter registration MOA (VRMOA) is tailored to address veri?cations for voter registration purposes. This Fact Sheet provides general guidance for interpreting the VRMOA requirements, but VRMOAs may vary due to each state?s laws or policies. Therefore, if you. have any questions about interpreting this Fact Sheet, please contact SAVE. Operational Limitations for Verifying the Citizenship Status SAVE has the following limitations and requirements: 0 SAVE cannot verify U..S. born citizens under any circumstances. 0 ability to verify Citizenship is limited to naturalized and derived citizens.l USCIS only has comprehensive records on naturalized and, provided that they have acquired Certi?cates of Citizenship and updated their records with USCIS, derivedUS. citizens. 0 SAVE requires at minimum the bene?t applicant?s name, date of birth, and current immigration document number related to his or her claimed status. 0 SAVE cannot verify an individual?s naturalized or derived citizenship status based on a Social Security Number, driver?s license number, US. passport number or other document number not issued by a component of the Department of Homeland Security or predecessor, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Verifying the Citizenship Status of Voters To use SAVE to verify citizenship of naturalized and derived US. citizens registering 0r registered to vote, a user agency provide SAVE with the numeric identi?ers alien registration number and/ or certi?cate number) found on the individual?s immigration?related documents Certificate of Naturalization or Certi?cate of Citizenship). Refer to Section IV.B. la. of the standard VRMOA, which 1 Derived. citizens are persons born abroad who derive US. citizenship at birth from one or both US. parents who meet the requirements of US. law for transmission of citizenship to their children. These citizens may, but are not required to, apply to USCIS for a Certi?cate of Citizenship evidencing their US. citizenship. The term ?derived citizen? is also frequently used to refer to citizens who automatically acquired US. citizenship after birth but under the age of 18 under certain provisions of US. naturalization law. Additionally, although derived citizens may have US. passports issued by the US. Department of State demonstrating their US. citizenship, SAVE cannot verify them as citizens using the passport. 1 Revised: April 2015 states that the user agency must: Provide to the SAVE Program the information the SAVE Program requires to respond to User Agency requests for veri?cation of immigration or naturalized or derived citizenship status information, including (1) information from the registrant?s immigration or DHS citizenship documentation, Alien Registration, Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship number, for initial automated veri?cation, (2) additional information obtained from the registrants immigration or DHS citizenship documentation for automated additional veri?cation, and (3) completed Forms G-845 and other documents and information required for manual additional veri?cation, if necessary. Institute additional veri?cation for any registrant that cloes not verify as a naturalized or derivedcitiz?en on initial veri?cation (emphasis added). If SAVE is unable to verify the registrant as a naturalized or derived citizen after conducting the second step additional veri?cation, the User Agency will contact the registrant to obtain proof of citizenship in accordance with the provisions of this MOA (emphasis added). For manual only veri?cation, ensure that Forms and other documents and information required for manual verification are provided. As indicated, the user agency conduct second step additional veri?cation for any individual that does not verify as a U.S. citizen after initial veri?cation. To comply with the VRMOA, a user agency cannot terminate the SAVE veri?cation process after initial veri?cation when an individual does. not verify as a. U.S. citizen. This requirement to institute additional veri?cation applies to situations where SAVE returns any response other than U.S. citizen, such as a response indicating the applicant is a lawful permanent resident. If an individual does not verify as a U.S. citizen after second step additional veri?cation, the user agency contactthe individual and request proof of citizenship, a copy of the Certi?cate of Naturalization or Certi?cate of Citizenshipz, unless the agency has a' copy of the necessary immigration document to submit for third step additional. veri?cation. To comply with the VRMOA, the user agency PM also follow other related provisions. Accordingly, the VRMOA states the following at Section Ensure all Users perform any additional veri?cation procedures the SAVE Program requires and/or the registrant requests after the User Agency initiates a request for veri?cation. This provision has two aspects: 1) the user agency perform additional veri?cation required by 2) the user agency?m also. conduct additional veri?cation requested by the individual being veri?ed. It is not appropriate for a user agency to conduct veri?cations if it does not intend to complete the veri?cation process. However, an individual may request that the user agency not conduct additional veri?cation procedures. The following are examples of when a user agency may not need to conduct additional veri?cation after contacting the individual being veri?ed: 0 When the individual returns an authorized attestation form stating that the individual is not a U.S. citizen. 0 When the individual provides proof of citizenship accepted by the user agency without verification by SAVE, such as a U.S. passport. 0 When the individual does not res-pond Within applicable timeframes to the the user agency inquiry for attestation or proof of citizenship. 2 It is always best to provide SAVE with the alien registration number and the Certi?cate of Naturlaization or Certi?cate of Citizenship number whenever possible. It is also best to submit a copy of the appropriate Certi?cate for third step additional veri?cation. However, SAVE may be able to verify citizenship based upon an alien registration number on any document issued by US 2 Revised: April 2015 Section states that the user agency must: (1) Create standardized correspondence to request that a registrant provide a Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship to complete SAVE veri?cation and submit that correspondence to SAVE for approval prior to use With registrants. Every user agency that enters into a VRMOA must prepare standard noti?cation correspondence and provide it for DHS approval. This provision becomes signi?cant: 0 after a second step additional veri?cation. is conducted; 0 the individual does not verify as a U.S. citizen; and, the user agency does not have a copy of the necessary immigration document. Under those circumstances, the user agency must use this correspondence to contact the individual to request proof of citizenship. Sections n. may also apply at this stage of the veri?cation process. These sections state that the user agency must: Provide all registrants who do not verify as 'a citizen under the terms of the MOA with adequate written notice that their citizenship could not be veri?ed and the information necessary to contact (see attachment 1: Fact Sheet, which is subject to revision and reposting on the SA VE Website and Online Resources (emphasis added)) so that such individuals may obtain a copy of their Naturalization Certi?cate or Certi?cate of Citizenship or correct their records in a timely manner, if necessary; Provide all registrants who are not veri?ed as citizens based solely or in part on the SAVE response with the opportunity to use the user agency?s existing process to appeal the denial and to contact DHS-USCIS to correct their records prior to a final decision, if necessary. ACCording to Section NB. 1 quoted above, the user agency provide the individual with the Fact Sheet, ?Information for Registrants: Verification of Citizenship Status and How to Obtain Your Document or Correct Your Record with USCI as part of the noti?cation. As- part of the VRMOA negotiation process and approval of the noti?cation correspondence, USCIS evaluated the appeals process of each user agency. Accordingly, Section .n requires that the individual also have the opportunity to appeal the. determination that he or she is not a citizen using the user agency?s existing process. Finally, note that Section lV.B.d. incorporates other requirements that user agencies must follow to comply with. the VRMOA. The section states that the user agency must: Ensure all Users performing veri?cation procedures comply with all requirements contained in the SAVE. Program Guide, web?based tutorial, and this MOA, and updates to these requirements (emphasis added). SAVE periodically updates its processes and requirements. Accordingly, the user agency must understand and monitor these requirements (including this Fact Sheet), and any updates thereto, as they relate to voter registration verification requests. 3 Revised: April 2015 Instructions for Conducting Voter Registration Veri?cations If! a the individual does not verify as a US. citizen on initial veri?cation. the electronic additional second step veri?cation process to request additional verification: 0 Identify in the ?comment? ?eld on the ?Request Additional Veri?cation? page that the request is to determine if the individual is a US. citizen; 0 Submit the case for additional veri?cation. SAVE will provide a response based on the information available in USCIS records or Will direct you to ?resubmit with docs.? the individual does not verify as a US. citizen on el?eetrbnic additional second step verification. the electronic third. step or paper only Form 8453 veri?cation process and submit a copy of the applicant?s immigration document showing U.S.citizenship: attach a copy of the applicant?s USCIS issued immigration document Certi?cate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship); 0 Submit the completed electronic third step request and/or the Form SAVE will provide a response based on the. information available in USCIS records. If you have any questions regarding this guidance or would like to request training please contact the SAVE Program at SAVE.help@uscis.dhs.gov. 3 If SAVE returns a second step response indicating that an individual has an immigration status other than US. citizen, lawful permanent resident, the user agency use the paper Form to submit the USCIS issued document to SAVE for third step additional veri?cation. Always identify in the ?comment? ?eld on the Form G- 845 that the request is to determine if the individual is a US. citizen. Please follow all instructions for submitting a paper Form G-845., 4 Revised: April 2015 U.S. Dopartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 ?at U. S. Citizenship Egg" and Immigration The Use of SAVE for Voter Registration Background The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program is an inter?governmental initiative using a web-based service to help federal, state and local agencies that issue. public benefits determine the citizenship and immigration status of applicants. SAVE is not itself a database, but is only a system that accesses Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agency databases containing information regarding. the status of nonimmigrants, immigrants, and certain naturalized and derived US. citizens. SAVE originally existed as a pilot program, implemented over two years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in voluntary cooperation with the states, and was then permanently authorized in Section 121(c) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99- 603. IRCA prohibited the granting of specified federal public benefits to certain non-US. citizens and imposed obligations upon benefit granting agencies to determine the citizenship and/or immigration status of applicants for these benefits. IRCA also required that each benefit applicant declare in writing whether he or she is a citizen or national of the United States. Ifthe applicant is not a citizen or national of the United States, the applicant must show thatsatisfactory immigration status, as set forth by federal law, to receive that benefit. IRCA required the esta-biishment- of an automated system for verifying the immigration status of n'onc'itizen applicants for certain federal benefits, originally including only the follow federal programs: - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program Medicaid Program - Certain Territorial Assistance Programs - Food Stamps - Unemployment Compensation Program - Title IV Educational Assistance Programs - Certain Housing Assistance Programs About a decade after SAVE was created, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L. No. 104-193, provided additional restrictions for certain programs funded by federal, state, and local governments. PRWORA established stricter citizenship or immigration status eligibility requirements for many programs and rendered certain categories of non- U.S. citizen ineligible for many benefits. Near the same time, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant. Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104?208, as amended, expanded purview by requiring DHS to respond to inquiries by federal, state, and local government agencies seeking to verify or determine the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the 10 jurisdiction of the agency for any lawful purpose. Se_e 8 U.S.C. 1373(c). Accordingly, SAVE is now required, by statute, to respond to inquiries made by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency "for any purpose authorized by law.? This is the legal authority SAVE relies upon when performing verification in association with state voter registration and state voter list maintenance. Federal law (the Help America 'Vote Act) also requires State election officials to maintain and update computerized voter registration lists to ensure voter eligibility while maintaining voter?s rights. 52 U.S.C. 21083; see 52 U.S.C. 20507. With respect to the mechanics of using SAVE, the SAVE Program currently provides verification services to over one thousand agencies. Only federal, state, and local benefit-granting agencies may register for the SAVE Program. The agency must be authorized by law to engage in an activity or provide a benefit for which immigration status verification is required. SAVE requires the agency to submit electronic copies of all applicable legal authorities authorizing the agency to: 0 Issue the stated benefit or license jor engage in other activity"; and 0 Verify immigration status before issuing the stated benefit or license or pursuant to engaging in the other activity. The SAVE Program reviews the submitted legal authorities to ensure that the agency is authorized to participate in the program. If the agency meets the eligibility criteria to participate in the SAVE Program, the agency is required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with outlining the purpose and the responsibilities for participation in the program. SAVE charges user agencies a fee based on the number and type of transactions they perform. If an agency?s account does not make any transactions in a given month, then SAVE does not charge that account. However, if an agency?s account makes any transaction in a given month, SAVE automatically charges a minimum service transaction fee of $25. - Initial Verification: $0.50 - Retry Initial Verification: $0.50 - Additional Verification: $0.50 - Maximum Charges for electronic cases: $1.50 - Paper-based Form 6-845, Document Verification Request: $2.00 The SAVE program monitors the accuracy of its responses by performing quality assurance audits. SAVE meets its goal for 99 percent legal instrument examiner accuracy on a basis. The- SAVE program is also undergoing a modernization effort to decrease-the percentage of cases requiring a manual review and is eliminating paper based requests in FY 2018. The SAVE Verification Process and Voter Registration Agencies Before gaining access to SAVE for voter registration, the state agency must provide USCIS with all applicable legal authorities and voter registration procedures that authorize the agency to engage in Voter regi-Stration activities. These authorities are reviewed by the USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel and the DHS Office ofthe General Counsel (OGC) is also notified ofthe state?s request. The state?s application to use SAVE for voter registration or voter list maintenance is not approved until the state ?may.? scisgnv 11 demonstrates that they have adequate notificatiOn and appeal processes in place to ensure that any voter denied registration has adequate due process. Once an agency is approved, role in verifying voter registration eligibility is limited to verifying naturalized or derived citizenship. SAVE cannot verify U.S.. born citizens under any circumstances. To use SAVE to verify naturalized or derived citizenship of individuals registering or registered to vote, a user agency must provide SAVE with the numeric identifiers Alien or USCIS number, l-94 arrival/departure document number, certificate or naturalization number) found on an individual's immigration-related documents a Certificate of Naturalization or a Certificate of Citizenship), first and last name, and date of birth. There are various other limitations related to the information necessary to conduct verifications: - SAVE cannot conduct verifications based on Social Security numbers. - Derived citizens often do not have a document of any type to show US. citizenship and in these cases. no citizenship record will exist with DHS. 0 Department of State-adjudicated derived citizens may not have a record with USCIS and US. Passports cannot be verified in SAVE. 1 SAVE can take up to three possible verification steps in order to reach a final verification result. The first step is electronic and takes only three to five seconds. If SAVE cannot verify the individual as a US. Citizen, the. requesting voter registration agency must perform any additional verification procedures the SAVE Program requires and/or the applicant. requests. Accordingly, when the initial response is ?Institute Additional Verification? or the individual requests additional verification because the status returned does not match their claimed citizenship. status, second step: additional verification is required. If the second step verification does not match their claimed citizenship status, the voter registration agency must submit a copy of the document (Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship) for a third step verification. The additional verification steps must be performed in these situations because. it allows USCIS staff to manually check data sources and provide a correct response. If the requesting agency has any concerns about a SAVE additional verification, it may call USCIS to discuss the verification. If an agency has alternative processes upon which to base its decision regarding the individual?s citizenship status, additional verification is not required. Voter Registration and Voting List Maintenance Current Enrollees and Issues SAVE is currently used by a limited number of agencies for voter registration related verifications (either at point of registration or later for voter roll maintenance): a. Arizona Counties 1) Maricopa2) La Paz Pima 4) Yuma 5) Yavapai. They do verification at the point of registration. SAVE is. in negotiations with the State of Arizona to provide all 15' Arizona counties with access under a single uniform Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state. Colorado Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Florida Secretary of State. Verifies voters already on the rolls. North Carolina State. Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Virginia Board of Elections. Verifies voters already on the rolls. Georgia Secretary of State. Verification at the point of registration. resumes? 1 SAVE is only able to verify information that relates to information found in the databases accessed by the system. Accordingly, if an individual with derived citizenship status has not applied for a Certificate of Citizenship with USCIS, the agency may not have that individual?s citizenship status in its databases, and SAVE will not be able to confirm that individual?s derived citizenship status. However, many derived citizens have received U.S. passports from the Department of State (DOS). If the DOS has provided USCIS with a record of the passport citizenship adjudication and USCIS has updated the individual?s alien file, SAVE would be able to find the citizenship record with the individuai?s Alien number. scisgov 12 These agencies represent only a small fraction .of the 1,150 agencies registered to use SAVE and only 0.07 percent of total query volume. Only four of the-ten agencies used SAVE in FY 2017 for voter registration and list maintenance, and the state of North Carolina was responsible for 93 percent of the query volume. As indicated by the above list of voter registration agencies using SAVE, they will either use SAVE at the point of registration or to. verify the immigration status of individuals already on voter rolls registered against State Department of Motor Vehicle records. For voter registration, the agency is usually limited by federal and state legal requirements concerning the information and documentation that they can collect from the individual to show citizenship. For list maintenance, the agencies are limited by the information contained within the Department of Motor Vehicle records, and they will have no direct contact with the individual before running a SAVE verification. It is almost never the case that a voter registration agency initiating a verification will have all .ofthe information and/or documents available to them to complete all three steps of a SAVE verification, if necessary. Accordingly, the requesting agency may need to. take extra steps to request additional information and documentation from the individual in order to satisfactorily complete a SAVE verification. scisgov 13 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product Voter Integritv Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 1 14 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 2 15 Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product Privileged Attorney-Client Commination and Attorney Work-Product 3 16 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT Election Integrity Recommendations 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 17 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 2 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 18 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 3 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 19 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 4 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT 20 FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT Election Integrity Recommendations FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT FOR OFFICIAL USE DRAFT Email: Telework: Mondays (Alternating), Tuesdays and Fridays From: Johnson, Paul Sent: Friday, July 1.1, 2014 10:53 AM To: Mandanas, Maria (Joy); Burkley, Bruce Cc: Shoaseged, Michael; Rahi, Alissar Rayner, Raymond Subject: RE: Amendment of Fremont, Nebraska, SAVE Joy: Here is a request from City of Fremont to amend their MOA to. include asphalt and occupancy licenses. Note that the occupancy license provision was challenged in court, but has been resolved in Fremont?s favor. I?m afraid I was not on the original email to Alissar so I don?t have the attachments, but Michael can send you the current MOA. We will forward the other materials ASAP. Thanks. Paul M. Johnson Chief, SAVE Policy Guidance SAVE Program, Verification Division US. Citizenship Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security Tel: 202.443.0136 Cel: 202.725.6658 Telework: Alternating Monday and Friday From: Johnson, Paul Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:03 PM To: Rahi, Alissar Rayner, Raymond Cc: Shoaseged, Michael Subject: Re: Amendment of Fremont, Nebraska, SAVE Ray: Let's discuss when you?re back on Monday. Paul Johnson Chief, Policy Guidance SAVE Program, Verification Division US. Citizenship Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security Desk: 202.443.0136 From: Symons, Craig To: Busch, Philip Subject: FW: E-Mail Trail RE: Voter Information Date: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:49:08 AM Attachments: State V'ot'er Data Comparison to USCIS Data.doc ImageQOLpng Craig M. Symons Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel US. Citizenship and Immigration Services U..S.. Department of Homeland Security Tel. (202) Cell (703) 919-2170 This communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Thank you. From: Meckley, Tammy Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:26 PM To: Emrich, Matthew Busch, Philip Renaud, Daniel Cc: Valverde, Michael; Davidson, Andrew Nuebel Kovarik, Kathy; Symons, Craig Gentry, Anthony Muzyka, Carolyn Subject: RE: E-Mail Trail RE: Voter Information Hi, \/Iatt. To Phil?s point this ask seems to be In line with a criminal investigation regarding voter registration fraud. However, the department has been in discussions with USCIS on whether we could take state voter registration data (first and last name, address and DOB) and compare it to immigration data in our systems. While these may be two separate efforts, the end state is the same. This paper outlines our recommended approach and the legal considerations that was brief to the department. Also, please note that to date nothing has been done. Best, Tammy Tammy M. lVIeckley Associate Director Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. DePartment of Homeland Security- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Records and Identity Services Washington, DC 20529?2000 i?g US. Citizenship and Immigration Ec? Services RECEIIDS MID SERVICES BIREETURHE Comparison Of State Voter Data againstUSCIS Immigration Data PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL ww?usmgw LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS (USCIS OCC) B. Privacy Act Considerations PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL he mnact Anal-Wis: PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL D. The Role of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity and Litigation Risk PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL I: Il?li ill? Ill?ninnL?) PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT EXPRESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL