Texas Response to United States Motion to Compel

8/2/2019 Texas Response to United States Motion to Compel

1/23

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF TEXAS Case No. 1:12-cv-00128

RMC-DST-RLW

Plaintiff,

vs.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Defendant.

RESPONSE BY THE STATE OF TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES AND

INTERVENORS MOTIONS TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Texas enacted Senate Bill 14 in May of 2011. It is now almost one full year

from the date of enactment, and Texas is still forbidden to implement that law

even though SB 14 is clearly constitutional under the Supreme Courts ruling in

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), and even though

no court has found that SB 14 conflicts with any provision of federal law or is likely

to violate federal law. A decision to postpone this trial, which would preclude Texas

from implementing SB 14 in time for the November 2012 elections no matter how

this Court rules, will exacerbate section 5s constitutionally problematic intrusions

on state prerogatives. See Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Holder,

557 U.S. 193 (2009). Only the clearest showing that the current trial date is

impracticable could justify a decision from this Court to postpone the trial

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 23


2/23

2

especially when the Supreme Court has noted that the very existence of section 5s

preclearance regime presents serious constitutional questions.

Yet the United States and intervenors do not make any showinglet alone a

clear showingthat the current trial date is impracticable, much less impossible.

Their briefs recite a litany of complaints about the progress of discovery and

attempt to blame Texas at every turn for the current state of affairs. But on the

question whether discovery can be completed in time for a trial scheduled to begin

on July 9, 2012, the United States offers nothing but bald assertions and conclusory

statements. See United States Motion at 23, 1516; see also Intervenors Motion at

10. The United States never explains which discovery it will be unable to complete

or how it will be prejudiced if the Court holds to the trial date of July 9. Vague

and unexplained allegations of prejudice and impracticality wont suffice

especially when section 5s preclearance requirement already pushes the

constitutional boundaries of federal power.

It is no secret that the United States and the intervenors want to delay

implementation of SB 14 until after the November 2012 elections. They initially

requested a later trial date, knowing full well that such a late trial would foreclose

any possibility of Texas implementing SB 14 in time for this years general election.

Having lost the initial battle in this Court over the trial date, their fallback strategy

is transparent: bombard the State with massive discovery requests (many of which

are only marginally related to the issues in this case), claim that discovery is

moving too slowly, and then insist that the trial date be moved. Given the



3/23

3

incentives that the defendants have to delay the trial, this Court cannot accept

mere assertions that the trial date of July 9, 2012 is no longer possible.

In the end, the discussion in the defendants briefs is backward. The

defendantsfirst need to establish that the trial cannot begin on July 9, 2012. Only

then is it appropriate to consider whether the defendants or the State bear

responsibility for the (supposed) inability to maintain the trial date. Instead, both

the United States and the intervenors open their briefs by railing against the State

of Texas and absolving themselves of any responsibility for their inability to

complete discoveryapparently hoping that casting Texas in a bad light will

persuade this Court to vacate the current schedule without a clear showing that

discovery cannot be completed in time for a July 9 trial. Yet the parties can easily

complete discovery and prepare for trial under the current timetable. In the Texas

redistricting litigation, for example, the parties conducted 21 depositions in less

than 10 days (even with multiple intervenors in that case); the parties to this

lawsuit are equally capable of completing the depositions in a short window of time.

Past discovery disputes do not justify a decision to postpone the trial; the

defendants must show specifically that the parties are incapable of completing

future discovery, and must show specifically how they are unable to prepare for a

trial scheduled to begin on July 9, 2012. Nothing that the defendants have filed

comes close to making this showing.



4/23

4

I. The Parties are Fully Capable of Preparing this Case for Trial InJuly.

Neither the United States nor the intervenors have demonstrated that the

parties are unable to prepare this case for trial by July 9. Their briefs provide

nothing more than vague and conclusory assertions on this issue. This is plainly

insufficient to support their motion to continue. Cf. Carpenter v. Fed. Natl

Mortgage Assn, 174 F.3d 231, 237 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (explaining that a party who

moves to continue summary judgment to conduct further discovery must indicate

what facts she intended to discover that would create a triable issue and why she

could not produce them in opposition to the motion); Resolution Trust Corp. v. BVS

Dev., Inc., 42 F.3d 1206, 1216 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding denial of motion for

continuance of summary judgment based on plaintiffs failure to submit affidavits

describing the additional facts they sought to discover). The United States brief,

for example, claims that the discovery process has created cascading deleterious

effects on the schedule and prejudiced the Attorney General in defending this

action. See United States Motion at 15. But the United States never explains

what those deleterious effects are or how it has actually been prejudiced.

Critically, the United States fails to identify any specific discovery that cannot be

completed before the discovery deadline of June 15, 2012, nor does it identify any

aspect of its trial preparation that cannot be completed before July 9, 2012. The

United States complaint that discovery delays have prevent[ed] the Attorney

General from analyzing the central legal issues is equally vapid. What, exactly,

has the Attorney General been unable to analyzeand what is he unable to analyze



5/23

5

in time for a trial that begins on July 9, 2012? The United States observation that

the parties have less time in which to review documents, identify relevant

witnesses, and depose those witnesses proves nothing. See United States Motion

at 15. Less time is not insufficient time; it is surely feasible to complete the

depositions before June 15, 2012, as the Texas redistricting litigation demonstrates.

And the United States does not even assert, let alone demonstrate, that document

review and witness identification cannot be completed in time for a trial that begins

on July 9, 2012.

The intervenors brief likewise fails to explain how they are unable to prepare

for trial based on the current schedule. The intervenors offer only a conclusory

sentence at the end of their brief, claiming that it is impossible for Intervenors to

review and analyze the thousands of relevant documents, undertake the necessary

depositions, and perform the expert analysis needed to be performed prior to trial.

See Intervenors Motion at 10. But the depositions can easily be completed before

June 15, 2012. And the intervenors should have no problem completing document

review based on the current trial schedule; document review is a task that can be

divided and shared among lawyers. Unsupported assertions of impossibility

cannot be enough to delay a section 5 preclearance trialespecially when the delay

is sought by intervening litigants who have every incentive to stall the

implementation of SB 14, which aggravates section 5s constitutionally dubious

infringements on state prerogatives. This Court has, no doubt, witnessed the



6/23

6

amazing speed with which lawyers can accomplish discovery when they learn that a

court means what it says about a trial date.

There is no doubt that this case can proceed to trial on the current schedule.

The issues in this case implicate a limited universe of facts. This is not a

redistricting case; it is a case that turns on the purpose and effect of a discrete

voting changea voting change virtually identical to one already upheld by the

United States Supreme Court. The Court will not need extensive testimony to

determine why particular legislative decisions were made or who made them. The

parties already have the benefit of a complete, publicly available record spanning

two sessions of the Texas Legislature, and that record provides extensive

information about the purpose of SB 14.

On all material discovery issues, the parties interests are aligned. Every

party needs to know how SB 14 will affect Texas voters, and the parties do not

disagree about the information needed to gauge the laws effects. Some

information, such as drivers license and voter-registration data, is in the States

possessionand has already been produced to the United States and intervenors.

Other information, such as passport, military identification, and citizenship data, is

in the United States possession. Texas has coordinated with the United States and

intervenors to identify and produce the information that is available to the State.

There is no reason that all necessary information cannot be collected and shared in

time for each party to prepare its case and expert analysis for trial, and neither the



7/23

7

United States nor the intervenors have identified any piece of discoverable evidence

that they will be unable to discover before June 15, 2012.

Finally, even if the parties were unable to complete discovery in time for a

trial that starts on July 9, 2012, that is not a reason for this Court to grant a

request by the defendants to postpone the trial. Texas bears the burden of proof in

this litigation, so any deficiencies in the factual record will redound to its detriment.

And because the State of Texas bears the burden of proof, it has the strongest

incentive to gather all relevant information and make it available to the parties as

quickly as possible.

The need to depose witnesses is not a reason to delay trial. As an initial

matter, there is no need to wait until mid May to begin depositions, as the

intervenors suggest. And even with such a delay, the parties would still have

sufficient time to depose trial witnesses. As we have already noted, the parties in

the Texas redistricting case conducted 21 depositions in less than 10 days. And this

case will not even require that extraordinary effort, not only because the parties

have more time, but also because the available public record, the relatively narrow

issues, and the shorter trial time will reduce the need to gather information from

fact witnesses and limit number of witnesses who will testify at trial.

II. The United States and Intervenors Have No Grounds to ComplainAbout Alleged Delay by the State of Texas.

Because the defendants have failed to make any showing that the current

trial date is impracticable, there is no need for this Court to consider the

defendants repeated ad hominem attacks on the State of Texas. But if the



8/23

8

Court feels compelled to assign blame, it should recognize that Texas has

complied as quickly as practicable with the massive and unreasonably broad

discovery demands that the defendants have imposed. The Court should also

consider that the United States and the intervenors have engaged in numerous

delay tactics that advance their goal of preventing Texas from implementing SB

14 in time for the November 2012 elections. The defendants motions to

postpone the trial are only the latest efforts in their strategy to delay SB 14s

implementation for one more election cycle.

The compressed timetable for judicial preclearance results in large part

from the United States delay in rendering a decision in the administrative-

preclearance proceedingsthe Department of Justice took seven months to reach

a decision that the statute requires to be made within 60 days of the States

submission. Worse, the United States and the intervenors have refused to

coordinate their discovery demands or take reasonable steps to narrow their

requests, burdening not only the State of Texas but also the very same

defendants who now claim that they must review marginally relevant

materials. Since discovery began on March 14, the United States and

intervenors have persistently refused to use basic procedural mechanisms, such

as subpoenas, that could help frame the issues and move this case toward trial.

And the defendants have refused to make even a minimal effort to access

publicly available materials, demanding that the State of Texas process and

produce copies of readily available information at its own considerable expense.



9/23

9

Just as important, Texas began providing voluminous amounts of information to

the United States months before discovery began on March 14. Texas initially

provided information to the United States in August 2011. Before this lawsuit

was even filed, Texas provided extensive discovery in response to multiple

requests from the Department of Justice.

A. The State of Texas Has Acted With Dispatch in Responding to theDefendants Massive and Unreasonably Broad Discovery Demands.

The defendants would have this Court believe that Texas has consciously

sought to delay administrative and judicial preclearance proceedings, even though

delay only harms the State by delaying the implementation of SB 14 and directly

benefits the United States and intervening parties, who are determined to thwart

this law. See United States Motion at 2 (irresponsibly and inexplicably accusing

the State of Texas of acting with bad faith and delay at every step); Intervenors

Motion at 3 (accusing Texas of intentional acts that have made the schedule

unworkable). But the State has consistently worked to maintain the expedited

schedule granted by the Court.

1. Texas Has Coordinated with Non-Parties to Facilitate Discovery.The State has voluntarily coordinated with legislators, notwithstanding the

fact that they are not parties to the litigation. The State has agreed to accept

subpoenas for legislator depositions and document requests to prevent avoidable

delays. The State has also contacted individual legislators whom the United States

and the intervenors wish to depose and advised which of those individuals are

willing to appear without a subpoena. See Notice Regarding Subpoena (Doc. 83).



10/23

10

2. Texas Has Responded to Extensive Discovery on Short Notice.Since discovery commenced on March 14, 2012, the State of Texas has

answered 14 interrogatories from the United States and 25 interrogatories from the

intervenors. It has produced over 22,000 pages of documents collected from

multiple state agencies and officers. It has produced three 30(b)(6) witnesses for

deposition about databases maintained by the Secretary of States Office and the

Department of Public Safety. Throughout the process, Texas has been in near-

constant contact with the United States and the intervenors to address concerns as

soon as they arise.

3. Texas Provided the Legislative History of SB 14 to the United States

Months Before It Filed this Lawsuit.

Both the United States and the intervenors suggest that the State of Texas

has failed to produce the legislative history of SB 14 in a timely manner. These are

among the most misleading assertions that appear in their briefs.1 More than seven

months ago, the State of Texas provided the Department of Justice with the

legislative history of SB 14.2 If this material was unsatisfactory, the United States

had every opportunity to make further requests.

The United States complaint is not that the State of Texas failed to provide

the legislative history of SB 14 but that it did not create written transcripts of all

1See, e.g., United States Motion for Clarification (Doc. 88) at 15; Intervenors Motion for

Clarification (Doc. 85) at 3.2See Exhibit 1, Letter from Ann McGeehan to T. Christian Herren, Jr. (Aug. 31, 2011) (providing

transcripts of committee hearing, Senate Journals, written testimony, and evidence submitted to the

Senate regarding SB 362); Exhibit 2, Letter from Ann McGeehan to T. Christian Herren, Jr. (Sept.

16, 2011) (providing audiovisual recordings of House floor debates and committee meetings, minutes

from House committee meetings, and time-coded references for House floor debates on Senate Bill

14).



11/23

11

proceedings,3 but it ignores the fact that the Texas Legislature does not have its

proceedings transcribedas the United States Congress doesand instead

preserves its proceedings in audiovisual recordings, which were made available to

the United States. This does not represent a failure to produce legislative history,

and the defendants mislead this Court by implying that Texas has withheld any

portion of the legislative history from inspection. Indeed, the United States could

just as easily have produced written transcripts as the State.

The State of Texas did not produce the additional written materials

demanded by the United States because the Legislature ordinarily does not prepare

a full transcript of floor debates or committee hearings. If the United States goal

were to assimilate informationas opposed to interject delaythe Department of

Justice could have arranged for audiovisual recordings of legislative proceedings to

be transcribed. The Texas House of Representatives, for example, typically keeps

records of proceedings in electronic format.4

The Texas House Journal includes only

those portions of the floor debate that members move to have printed.5 Because a

single session in either house of the Legislature typically addresses dozens of bills,

the State of Texas provided the United States in 2011 with time-coded keys

identifying the speakers who participated in the floor debate on SB 14 and the

times when the debate occurred. Transcripts of Senate committee hearings on SB

3See Transcript of April 10, 2012 Hearing at 10:68 ([W]e dont have any transcripts for House

hearings, committee hearings or floor debate for 2009 and 2011 bills.).4See RULES AND PRECEDENTS OF THE TEXAS HOUSE, Rule 5 34. (All proceedings of the house of

representatives shall be electronically recorded . . . .); cf. SENATE RULES (82nd Legislature 2011)

Rule 11.11(a) (Each committee meeting shall be recorded on magnetic tape.).5See id. Rule 7 2(12) (providing for motions to print documents, reports, or other material in the

journal).



12/23

12

14 and SB 362 were available only because the Senate decided to have them

transcribed.

By insisting on a written transcript of all proceedings, the United States and

intervenors seek more than they are entitled to under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which do not obligate the State of Texas to create documents in response

to requests for production. See, e.g.,Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.D.C.

2000). By producing the legislative history in the form in which it is maintained by

the Legislature, Texas fulfilled its discovery obligations under Rule 34. If

transcripts were essential to the United States case, it had every opportunity to

prepare them on its own schedule, and at its own expenselong before it requested

written transcripts from the State of Texas. The State of Texas provided necessary

materials to do so during the administrative-preclearance process in 2011.

Nevertheless, at the Courts direction, the State of Texas has transcribed the full

legislative history on an expedited basis at considerable expense.

4. The State of Texas Cannot Be Faulted for Asserting State Legislative

Privilege, and It Cannot Be Required to Waive Well-Established Privileges

as a Condition of Securing a Prompt Preclearance Ruling From This

Court.

The United States and the intervenors complain that the States effort to

preserve privileges asserted by state officials and agencies has delayed the case

unnecessarily. The intervenors specifically focus on the fact that these privileges

are waivable, Intervenors Motion for Clarification at 2 (complaining of delays

caused by assertions of waivable privilege), implying that counsel for the State

must cajole its officials and agencies into waiving privileges in order to preserve a



13/23

13

timely trial that will allow SB 14 to be implemented for the November elections.

But if Section 5 forces a State to choose between waiving evidentiary privileges and

foregoing a prompt decision on its claim for preclearance, then this regime is surely

unconstitutional after Northwest Austin.

The defendants criticism of the States reliance on evidentiary privileges is

even more offensive when the United States has freely invoked privileges to thwart

discovery requests made by Texas.6 Indeed, in the very brief in which the United

States criticizes the State of Texas for asserting privileges to resist discovery, it

complains that the States discovery requests seek information covered by well-

established privileges. U.S. Motion to Clarify at 8 n.6. Apparently, the United

States may assert privileges without any collateral consequences, but states seeking

preclearance must carefully weigh whether an assertion of privilege will further

delay implementation of their laws.

The United States and the intervenors have seized on the States privilege

assertion as an excuse to demand further briefing and disengage from the discovery

process until all claims of privilege have been fully adjudicated. This time and

energy would have been better spent reviewing relevant, non-privileged materials

that the State has already producedand working to comply with the Courts

scheduling order. Moreover, the United States and intervenors simply assume that

the privileged materials are necessary to adjudicate the States claims. But the

6See Exhibit 3, Defendants Responses and Objections to the State of Texas First Set of

Interrogatories at 34 (invoking deliberative process and law enforcement privileges); Exhibit 4,

Defendants Responses and Objections to the State of Texas First Set of Requests for Production of

Documents at 45 (asserting deliberative process privilege, law enforcement privilege, and common

interest privilege).



14/23

14

public record provides an abundant and voluminous factual record to decide its

preclearance claim.

The United States and intervenors present a clear outline of how they believe

Section 5 preclearance litigation should proceed. In their view, a covered

jurisdiction is not entitled to an expeditious decision unless it (1) waives recognized

privileges, (2) produces documents and witnesses without formal discovery requests,

and (3) anticipates discovery requests by making sure that basic information is

requested, reviewed, and ready for production . . . at or before the formal opening of

discovery. Intervenors Motion for Clarification at 3. In short, under the United

States view of the law, covered jurisdictions can have their laws or their

sovereignty, but they cannot have both. Section 5 cannot constitutionally require

covered jurisdictions and their non-party officials to forfeit substantive rights as a

condition of securing a prompt and impartial preclearance decision.

B. The United States is Responsible for Much of the Delay That HasOccurred in the Administrative and Judicial PreclearanceProceedings.

1. The United States Took Seven Months To Render a Decision in theAdministrative Preclearance Proceedings.

The State of Texas submitted SB 14 to the Department of Justice for

administrative preclearance on July 25, 2011. On September 23, 2011, exactly 60

days later and on the last possible day to respond, the Department of Justice

informed Texas that its submission was insufficient and requested a breakdown, by

race and Spanish surname, of registered Texas voters without DPS-issued photo

identification. On October 4, 2011, Texas provided the data that were available but



15/23

15

explained that Texas does not record the race of voters when they register and

therefore could not produce a racial breakdown of registered voters without photo

identification. On November 16, 2011, the Department of Justice claimed that the

supplemental information provided by the State was insufficient and requested

additional information. The Secretary of States office provided that information on

January 12, 2012 but identified concerns about the relevance of the data to SB 14s

likely impact on Texas voters. On March 12, 2012, exactly 60 days later and again

on the last possible day to respond, the Department of Justice denied preclearance

to SB 14, citing the States alleged failure to provide evidence of significant in-

person voter impersonation not already addressed by the States existing laws. See

Amended Complaint (Doc. 63.1) 1421.

If the Department of Justice actually wanted to move as quickly as possible,

it could have notified the State immediately that additional information was

needed, but instead it chose to wait the full 60 days. The Department of Justice

cannot maintain the pretense that it has acted with haste, see United States

Motion at 2, when it twice waited until the last possible day to formally request

additional information from the State of Texas during the administrative

preclearance process, and again waited until the last possible day to deny

preclearance even though that decision was preordained under the rationale that

the Department used to deny preclearance to South Carolina's Voter-ID law in

December 2011.

2. The United States and Intervenors Have Made Unreasonably BroadDiscovery Demands on the State of Texas.



16/23

16

The United States and intervenors spend much of their briefs complaining

that the State of Texas has failed to produce documents in a timely manner.7 These

complaints fail to acknowledge the extraordinary breadthand occasional

irrelevanceof the parties document requests, which were neither reasonably

specific nor reasonably calculated to preserve the expedited trial schedule, and

which demand information that has little or no bearing on the purpose or effect of

SB 14.

The United States and intervenors have unapologetically engaged in a

massive fishing expedition in the hopes of uncovering facts they can use to

manufacture a claim of discriminatory purpose and have demanded that Texas

produce evidence of only marginal relevance to the States preclearance claim. The

defendants have sought, for example, documents related to voter identification bills

considered by the 79th (2005) and 80th (2007) Texas Legislatures. Apart from the

fact that these legislatures did not consider the bill at issue in this lawsuit, the

membership of the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures differs substantially from the

82nd Legislature that passed SB 14. Only 89 of the 181 members of the 79th

7 These complaints are based on the questionable premise that the State had a duty to produce all

responsive documents within 7 days of the initial request. At the time the United States and

Intervenors served their interrogatories and requests for production on the State of Texas, there was

no scheduling order in place. It was not until March 27seven days after the United Statesdiscovery requests and four days after the intervenors requeststhat the Court entered an order

setting a seven-day deadline for all written discovery. See Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 43). Texas

responded to the parties written discovery within 10 daysthe deadline it had proposed in

negotiations over the scheduling orderbut the only deadline in place was the 30-day deadline set

by Rules 33 and 34. Accordingly, the United States and the Intervenors have no cause to complain

about any alleged lack of production before April 20.



17/23

17

Legislature and 120 members of the 80th Legislature were members of the 82nd

Legislature.8 Even if materials from previous legislatures fall within the broad

scope of discoverability under Rule 26(b), the defendants are imposing needless

burdens on Texas and slowing the discovery process by demanding evidence that

cannot be probative of the 82nd Legislatures purpose in passing SB 14. The

defendants determination to discover these materials cannot be reconciled with

their purported efforts to complete discovery in time for the July trial date; they are

seeking to burden Texas with as much discovery as Rule 26(b) will allow so they can

blame Texas for the pace of discovery and persuade this Court to postpone the trial.

3. The United States Has Only Itself to Blame for the Delay in E-mail

Production.

The United States complains that the State of Texas did not include e-mails

in its initial document production but conveniently omits that the parties electronic

discovery agreement expressly provided that the parties would meet and confer to

agree on search terms before conducting e-mail searches. The United States did not

propose e-mail search terms until April 12, 2012.9 The intervenors proposed

additional search terms the next day.10 After proposing search terms, the United

States refused to identify the actual individuals whose e-mail accounts it wanted

the State to search, demanding instead that the State search the accounts of all

individuals reasonably believed to possess responsive information. When the

United States eventually identified individual e-mail account-holders on April 18,

8See Exhibits 5, 6.9See Exhibit 7, Letter from Daniel Freeman to Matthew Frederick (April 12, 2012).10See Exhibit 8, Letter from Ezra Rosenberg to Matthew Frederick (April 13, 2012).



18/23

18

2012, it listed 122 individuals, including legislative staff members and former

legislators. On the same day, the intervenors produced a list of 49 individuals.

Accounting for duplicate requests, the United States and intervenors listed a total

of 140 individuals whose e-mail accounts they wanted Texas to search. Then, they

demanded that these searches take place immediately. The United States

eventually agreed to identify a smaller group of accounts to be searched, but rather

than narrow its request, on April 24 the United States and the intervenors provided

a ranked list of 139 e-mail accounts. Despite the defendants refusal to narrow their

requests, the State of Texas contacted the relevant records custodians the same day

and asked them to begin searches immediately.

As this and countless other examples demonstrate, the State of Texas is

committed to working in good faith to ensure that all reasonable discovery requests

are satisfied in a timely manner. Further, the State of Texas is confident that even

the most rigorous discovery process can be completed within a period of time that

allows the trial to proceed as scheduled on July 9, 2012.

CONCLUSION

The parties in this casejust as in the recent redistricting litigationhave

ample time to complete even complex discovery if their focus remains on this

Courts scheduling order as opposed to dilatory procedural tactics. The motions to

continue the trial date should be denied.



19/23

19

Respectfully submitted.

GREG ABBOTT

Attorney General of Texas

DANIEL T. HODGEFirst Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell

JONATHAN F. MITCHELL

Solicitor General

ADAM W. ASTON

ARTHUR C. DANDREA

Assistant Solicitors General

PATRICK K. SWEETEN

MATTHEW H. FREDERICK

Assistant Attorneys General

209 West 14th Street

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 70711-2548

(512) 936-1695

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

THE STATE OF TEXAS



20/23

20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 26, 2012, I served the foregoing via CM/ECF on the

following counsel of record:

Elizabeth Stewart Westfall, David J.Freeman, Bruce I. Gear

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Civil Rights Division, Voting Section

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

NWB-Room 7202

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 305-7766/Fax: (202) 307-3961

Email: [email protected]



Jennifer Lynn Maranzano

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


(202) 305-0185

Email:

[email protected]

Counsel for the United States

Chad W. DunnBRAZIL & DUNN

4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530

Houston, TX 77068

(281) 580-6310


J. GERALD HEBERT

191 Somerville Street, #405

Alexandria, VA 22304

Telephone: 703-628-4673

Email: [email protected] for Eric Kennie, Anna

Burns, Michael Montez, Penny Pope,

Marc Veasy, Jane Hamilton, David

De La Fuente, Lorraine Birabil,

Daniel Clayton, and Sergio Deleon

Mark A. PosnerLAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS

1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite

400


(202) 307-1388

Email:

[email protected]

Ezra D. Rosenberg Pro Hac Vice

Michelle Hart Yeary

DECHERT LLP

902 Carnegie Center, Suite 500

Princeton, NJ 08540

(609) 955-3200/Fax: (609) 955-3259



Ian Vandewalker Pro Hac Vice

Myrna Perez

Wendy WeiserTHE BRENNAN CENTER FOR

JUSTICE AT NYU LAW SCHOOL

161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12

New York, NY 10013-1205

Tel: (646) 292-8362

Fax: (212) 463-7308






21/23

21

JOHN K. TANNER

3743 Military Road, NW


202-503-7696


MOFFATT LAUGHLIN

McDONALD

NANCY GBANA ABUDU

KATIE OCONNOR

American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation, Inc.

230 Peachtree Street, NW

Suite 1440

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1227

(404) 523-2721/(404) 653-0331 (fax)




LISA GRAYBILL

REBECCA ROBERTSON

American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation of Texas

1500 McGowan Street

Houston, Texas 77004

(713) 942-8146Email: [email protected]


PENDA HAIR

KUMIKI GIBSON

Advancement Project

1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850


(202) 728-9557

[email protected]

[email protected] for Texas Legislative Black

Caucus, the League of Women Voters

of Texas, the Justice Seekers,

Reverend Peter Johnson, Reverend

Ronald Wright and Donald Wright

Myrna Perez Pro Hac Vice

Ian Vandewalker Pro Hac Vice

THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR

JUSTICE AT

NYU LAW SCHOOL

161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12New York, NY 10013-1205

(646) 292-8329 / (212)463-7308 (fax)



Victor L. Goode

NAACP National Headquarters

4805 Mt. Hope Dr.

Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297

(410) 580-5120 (phone)


Robert S. Notzon

The Law Office of Robert Notzon

1507NuecesSt.

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 474.7563 (phone)


Jose Garza

Law Office of Jose Garza7414 Robin Rest Dr.

San Antonio, Texas 98209

(210) 392-2856 (phone)


Counsel for Texas State Conference of

NAACP Branches, Mexican American

Legislative Caucus of the Texas House

of Representatives



22/23

22

Ryan Haygood Pro Hac Vice

Natasha M. Korgaonkar

Leah C. Aden

Debo P. Adegbile

Dale E. HoNAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, Inc.

99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600

New York, New York 10013

(212) 965-2200 / (212) 226-7592 (fax)






FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,

SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP

Douglas H. Flaum

Michael B. de Leeuw

One New York Plaza

New York, New York 10004-1980

(212) 859-8000

Email:

[email protected]

Email: [email protected] for Texas League of Young

Voters Education Fund, Imani

Clark, KiEssence Culbreath,

Demariano Hill, Felicia Johnson,

Dominique Monday, and Brianna

Williams

Nina Perales

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND,

INC.

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205(210) 224-5476 / 210-224-5382 (fax)


Counsel for Mi Familia Vota

Education Fund, Southwest Voter

Registration Education Project, Nicole

Rodriguez, Victoria Rodriguez

/s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell

JONATHAN F. MITCHELLSolicitor General



23/23

23
