Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 4767

Transcription

1 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 4767 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE : NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE : ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., : Case No. 2:14-cv : Plaintiffs, : Judge Peter C. Economus : v. : Magistrate Judge : Norah McCann King JON HUSTED, et al., : : Defendants. : PLAINTIFF COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY CHURCH PRESBYTERIAN, U.S.A. s OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT HUSTED S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff College Hill Community Church Presbyterian, U.S.A., serves these Objections and Responses to Defendant Husted s First Set of Interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it seeks information not in the possession, custody, or control of the Plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it seeks information that was prepared for or in anticipation of litigation, constitutes attorney work product, contains attorney-client communications, or is otherwise privileged. 3. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it seeks information that is publicly available or otherwise equally available and/or uniquely or equally available from third parties. 4. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 5. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. These responses and objections are made to the best of Plaintiff s present knowledge, information and belief, and are made without waiving any further objections to, or admitting the relevancy or materiality of, any of the information requested. 1

2 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: Plaintiff s investigation, discovery, and preparation for proceedings are continuing and all answers are given without prejudice to Plaintiff s right to introduce or object to the discovery of any documents, facts, or information discovered after the date hereof. 8. In making these objections, Plaintiff does not in any way waive, or intend to waive, the right to object on any and all grounds to: a. the evidentiary use of information contained in these responses and objections; and b. discovery requests relating to these objections and responses. 9. Plaintiff will provide its responses based on terms as they are commonly understood, and consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff objects to and will refrain from extending or modifying any words employed in the requests to comport with expanded definitions or instructions. 10. All the General Objections set forth herein are incorporated into each of the individual responses set forth below and have the same force and effect as if set forth fully therein. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each and every person answering or assisting with answering these Interrogatories. Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff understands this Interrogatory to call for the identification of the person verifying Plaintiff s responses to these Interrogatories. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff identifies: Reverend Robert E. Jones Retired Pastor, College Hill Community Church Presbyterian, U.S.A. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify and list each and every person whose testimony, declaration, statement, and/or affidavit may be used in this litigation or who may have information or knowledge relevant or potentially relevant to any of the facts, claims, allegations, or defenses in this matter. For each such individual, provide the individual s contact information and a comprehensive summary of the information and knowledge held or potentially held by the individual. Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The request for each and every person whose testimony, declaration, statement, and/or affidavit may be used in this litigation or who may have information or knowledge relevant or potentially relevant to any of the facts, claims, allegations, or defenses in this matter imposes a burden to identify every 2

3 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 4769 individual, regardless of location, extent of knowledge of relevant or even potentially relevant information, or relationship to any Plaintiff, who may happen to have knowledge regarding any relevant or even potentially information in this case. This could include, by way of example, tens of thousands of people who may have voted or participated in any get-out-the-vote effort in Ohio, Ohioans who take public transportation, Ohioans who have trouble taking time off of work in order to vote, and so forth. Plaintiff cannot reasonably comply with the request to describe each and every such person because the overwhelming majority of them are non-parties who are not identifiable and whose activities and knowledge are not within Plaintiff s knowledge. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds with the possible witnesses that it has identified to date. Unless otherwise noted, the listed individual may be reached via Plaintiff s counsel: Plaintiffs in the Current Case Anthony Brice President, APRI Greater Cincinnati Chapter Carrie Davis Executive Director, League of Women Voters of Ohio Darryl Fairchild Dayton Community Organizer and Pastor Delores Freeman President, APRI Youngstown Chapter Reverend Robert E. Jones Retired Pastor, College Hill Community Church Presbyterian, U.S.A. David Morgan Member, APRI Trumbull County Chapter Reverend Dale Snyder Pastor, Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church Jamie Simpson Member, Omega Baptist Church Ray Wood President, Toledo Branch of the Ohio State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 3

4 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 4770 Individuals who have worked to assist qualified Ohio voters in registering to vote and casting their ballots during the early voting period: Pastor Shawn Braxton Pastor, New Life Cathedral Pastor Gerald A. Cooper Pastor, Wayman Chapel African Methodist Church Reverend Joseph R. Copeland Associate Minister, The Greater New Hope Missionary Baptist Church Eric Crew Cincinnati Community Organizer Brian Davis Director of Community Organizing, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless Upon information and belief, NEOCH is represented by: Subodh Chandra 1265 W. 6th Street, Suite 400 Cleveland Ohio (216) Jack Frech Director, Athens County Job & Family Services State Route 13 Millfield, Ohio (740) Georgine Getty Executive Director, Interfaith Hospitality Network Josh Spring Executive Director, Greater Cincinnati Homeless Coalition Individuals who have provided information on what they witnessed and experienced during the November 2004 election in Ohio: Mark Freeman Former Superintendent, Shaker Heights City School District Glorianne Leck Former Precinct Committee Person, Youngstown 4

5 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 4771 Individuals who have provided analysis about the use of early in-person voting in Ohio, as well as the effects cuts to early in-person voting will have on minority and/or other traditionally disenfranchised populations: Dr. Vincent J. Roscigno Distinguished Professor of Arts & Sciences in Sociology, The Ohio State University 207 Townshend Hall 1885 Neil Avenue Mall Columbus, Ohio (614) Dr. Daniel A. Smith Professor of Political Science, University of Florida Department of Political Science 234 Anderson Hall PO Box University of Florida Gainesville, FL (352) Dr. Karl Kaltenthaler, Director of Research Projects Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics 214 Olin Hall (330) Norman Robbins robbins41535@yahoo.com Mark Salling Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University 2121 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, OH (216) Daniel Brill Russell Weaver and Sonia Gill Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C Plaintiff reiterates that its investigation is continuing and that it has the right to introduce or object to the discovery of any documents, facts, or information discovered after the date hereof. 5

6 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 4772 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all documents that will or may be used as an exhibit in any hearing or trial in this matter, including but not limited to any preliminary hearing. Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. As noted in Plaintiff s General Objections, Plaintiff s investigation, discovery, and preparation for proceedings are continuing and all answers are given without prejudice to Plaintiff s right to introduce or object to the discovery of any documents, facts, or information discovered after the date hereof. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: All exhibits to date are being supplied to the Defendant in response to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the source and citation for every statistic cited in Your Complaint. Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory seeks information that is publicly available or otherwise equally available and/or uniquely or equally available from third parties. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with documents related to resources that experts Vincent Roscigno and Dan Smith used in compiling their analyses on July 7, 2014 and July 8, 2014, respectively. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the following sources and citations: League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463 (6th Cir. 2008). Diane Feldman & Cornell Belcher, DNC Voting Experience Survey, Mar. 3, 2005, at 2-3, available at OhioReportCover2Cover.pdf. Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, A Study of Early Voting in Ohio Elections (2011), available at EarlyVotingReport.pdf. (Doc. 18-3). 6

7 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 4773 Ohio Secretary of State, Voter Turnout: November 4, 2008: Official Amended Results (2011), ElectionResults/turnout aspx. Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, , 431 (6th Cir. 2012). Current Population Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau. Joe Hallett, HB 194 Foes Turn in Signatures: Petitions Signed by 300,000-plus Halt Election Law, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH (Sept. 30, 2011), available at Joe Guillen, New Ohio Elections Law Put on Hold After Groups Deliver Petitions to Put Issue on Ballot, THE PLAIN DEALER (Sept. 29, 2011), available at Daniel A. Smith, Ph. D., Analysis of Effects of Senate Bill 238 and Directive on Early In-Person (EIP) Absentee Voting by Blacks and Whites in Ohio (2014). (Doc. 18-1). Ohio Secretary of State, Ohio Population: County 2010 Census Redistricting, available at Norman Robbins et al., Analysis of Early In-Person and Mail-in Absentee Voting in Ohio in the 2012 General Election Compared to 2008 (Jan. 19, 2013), available at 10% pdf. Scott Powers & David Damron, Analysis: 201,000 in Florida Didn t Vote Because of Ling Lines, ORLANDO SENTINEL (Jan. 29, 2013), available at _1_long-lines-sentinel-analysis-state-ken-detzner. Declaration of Carrie Davis. (Doc ). Declaration of Dale Snyder. (Doc ). Declaration of Robert E. Jones. (Doc ). INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all facts that support, contradict, or relate to Your allegation in Paragraph 4 of Your Complaint and elsewhere that tens of thousands of citizens... may now be forestalled from participating in future elections. 7

8 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 4774 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts, where a subset of information would be sufficient, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D., Analysis of Effects of Senate Bill 238 and Directive on Early In-Person (EIP) Absentee Voting by Blacks and Whites in Ohio (2014). (Exhibit 1, Doc. 18-1). Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, A Study of Early Voting in Ohio Elections (2011), available at EarlyVotingReport.pdf. (Exhibit 3, Doc. 18-3). Mark Salling & Norman Robbins, Do White, African American, and Hispanic/Latino EIP Voters Differ from Election Day and Vote by Mail in Income? (2012), available at (Exhibit 4, Doc. 18-4). Franklin County Board of Elections, Franklin County: 2008 Early In-Person Voting (2012), available at (Exhibit 5, Doc. 18-5). Norman Robbins & Mark Salling, Racial and Ethnic Proportions of Early In-Person Voters in Cuyahoga County, General Election 2008, and Implications for 2012 (2012), available at (Exhibit 6, Doc. 18-6). Norman Robbins, Update, : Does Ohio Have Fair and Sensible Rules for Early In-Person (EIP) Voting? (2012), available at (Exhibit 7, Doc. 18-7). Russell Weaver & Sonia Gill, Early Voting Patterns by Race in Cuyahoga County (2012), available at (Exhibit 8, Doc. 18-8). INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all facts that support, contradict, or relate to Your allegation in Paragraph 81 and elsewhere of Your Complaint that Hundreds of thousands of voters relied on these methods of participation in recent elections and will now be denied an opportunity to do so. 8

9 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 4775 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D., Analysis of Effects of Senate Bill 238 and Directive on Early In-Person (EIP) Absentee Voting by Blacks and Whites in Ohio (2014). (Doc. 18-1). Norman Robbins et al., Analysis of Early In-Person and Mail-in Absentee Voting in Ohio in the 2012 General Election Compared to 2008 (Jan. 19, 2013), available at 10% pdf. Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, A Study of Early Voting in Ohio Elections (2011), available at EarlyVotingReport.pdf. (Doc. 18-3). Mark Salling & Norman Robbins, Do White, African American, and Hispanic/Latino EIP Voters Differ from Election Day and Vote by Mail in Income? (2012), available at (Doc. 18-4). Franklin County Board of Elections, Franklin County: 2008 Early In-Person Voting (2012), available at (Doc. 18-5). Norman Robbins & Mark Salling, Racial and Ethnic Proportions of Early In-Person Voters in Cuyahoga County, General Election 2008, and Implications for 2012 (2012), available at (Doc. 18-6). Norman Robbins, Update, : Does Ohio Have Fair and Sensible Rules for Early In-Person (EIP) Voting? (2012), available at (Doc. 18-7). Russell Weaver & Sonia Gill, Early Voting Patterns by Race in Cuyahoga County (2012), available at (Doc. 18-8). INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify with specificity all facts and reasons why Your efforts, actions, or operations will be affected by SB 238 and Directive

10 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 4776 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and reasons and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of inquiry. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Due to the accelerated nature of this proceeding, Plaintiffs are furnishing discovery responses as quickly as possible in compliance with Defendants' requests. The answer of this particular Plaintiff to this particular request is forthcoming. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify with specificity all of Your get-out-the vote programs for 2014 and future years that were to be held on dates and times when in-person voting will no longer occur as a result of SB 238 and Directive Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks information regarding all get-out-the vote programs that Plaintiff planned on holding in all future years during the early voting dates and times that were eliminated by S.B. 238 and Directive Plaintiff responds to the inquiry to the extent possible as to the types of efforts that it had anticipated undertaking in future years, while noting that it is presently impossible to give other than a general answer about all such future plans. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Due to the accelerated nature of this proceeding, Plaintiffs are furnishing discovery responses as quickly as possible in compliance with Defendants' requests. The answer of this particular Plaintiff to this particular request is forthcoming. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the specific purported harm you have or will sustain from SB 238 and Directive Among other things, identify whether you claim that any individual within your organization will be incapable of voting in any manner pre-election voting, no fault absentee voting, election day voting, or another means as a consequence of SB 238 and Directive

11 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 11 of 23 PAGEID #: 4777 Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Due to the accelerated nature of this proceeding, Plaintiffs are furnishing discovery responses as quickly as possible in compliance with Defendants' requests. The answer of this particular Plaintiff to this particular request is forthcoming. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all changes, occurrences, circumstances, or events (if any) that happened after the filing of Your Complaint that caused You to wait approximately two months before filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In so responding, do not identify any information protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition to the foregoing general objections, Plaintiff objects to the Defendant s use of the term wait. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff did not wait to file its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Ohio General Assembly and Defendant Husted are responsible for the timing of SB 238 and the 2014 Directives, and the immediate and irreparable harm that these restrictions will inflict during the 2014 Elections. Plaintiffs have worked tirelessly since the passage of these restrictions to gather up some of the voluminous evidence of this widespread harm in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Further answering, Plaintiff states that after filing its Complaint, Obama for America v. Husted, No. 2:12-cv-636, 2014 WL , at *5 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2014) ( OFA III ) was decided, and Directive was issued. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify with specificity all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to Your claim in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint and elsewhere that a disproportionate share of the Ohioans who voted on the now-eliminated evening hours and Sundays have lower incomes and less education... Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to Plaintiff s claims regarding the income level and educational attainment of Ohioans who disproportionately relied on the eliminated hours, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. 11

12 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 4778 Vincent Roscigno, Racial Inequality, Racial Politics and the Implications of Recent Voting Restrictions in Ohio: Analysis of Senate Factors One, Two, Three, Five, Six and Seven of the Voting Rights Act (2014). (Doc. 18-2). Mark Salling & Norman Robbins, Racial and Ethnic Proportions of Early In-Person Voters in Cuyahoga County, General Election 2008, and Implications for 2012 (2012). (Doc. 18-6). Ohio Development Services Agency, Ohio African Americans, available at (Doc. 18-9). Declaration of Ray Wood. (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote Sept. 22, (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote September 29, (Doc ). Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299, 329 (D.D.C. 2012). Obama for America v. Husted, 888 F. Supp. 2d 897, 907 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F. 3d 423, 431 (6th Cir. 2012). Declaration of Jack Frech. (Doc ). Declaration of Carrie Davis. (Doc ). Declaration of Darryl Fairchild. (Doc ). Declaration of Dale Snyder. (Doc ). Declaration of Josh Spring. (Doc ). Declaration of Erik Crew. (Doc ). Declaration of Georgine Getty. (Doc ). INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify with specificity all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to Your claim that the effects of reducing the number of early voting days will be felt disproportionately by minority voters and in voting locations that serve predominately minority voters, as You allege in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint and elsewhere. 12

13 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 4779 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to the way in which the cuts to early voting will disproportionately affect minority voters and voting locations that serve predominately minority populations, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 17) and supplied exhibits. These documents include: Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D., Analysis of Effects of Senate Bill 238 and Directive on Early In-Person (EIP) Absentee Voting by Blacks and Whites in Ohio (2014). (Exhibit 18, Doc. 18-1). Franklin County Board of Elections, Franklin County: 2008 Early In-Person Voting (2012). (Exhibit 5, Doc. 18-5). Norman Robbins and Mark Salling, Racial and Ethnic Proportions of Early In-Person Voters in Cuyahoga County, General Election 2008, and Implications for 2012 (2012). (Exhibit 6, Doc. 18-6). Norman Robbins, Update, : Does Ohio Have Fair and Sensible Rules for Early In-Person (EIP) Voting? (2012). (Exhibit 7, Doc. 18-7). Declaration of Shawn Braxton. (Exhibit 21, Doc ). Declaration of David Morgan, (Exhibit 17, Doc ). Declaration of Joseph Copeland. (Exhibit 20, Doc ). Declaration of Darryl Fairchild. (Exhibit 13, Doc ). Declaration of Jamie Simpson. (Exhibit 14, Doc ). Declaration of Anthony Brice. (Exhibit 18, Doc ). Declaration of Erik Crew. (Exhibit 24, Doc ). Declaration of Delores Freeman. (Exhibit 16, Doc ). 13

14 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 4780 Declaration of Georgine Getty. (Exhibit 25, Doc ). Declaration of Josh Spring. (Exhibit 23, Doc ). INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify with specificity all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to Your allegation in Paragraph 84 and elsewhere of the Complaint that A motivating purpose behind SB 238 and Directive was to suppress the turnout and electoral participation of African- American voters. Among other things, explain how you purportedly know this to be a motivating purpose and identify all support for this statement. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and bases supporting, contradicting, or related to the assertion that S.B. 238 and Directive were designed, in part, to suppress the turnout and electoral participation of African-American voters, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory, as it requests information that is irrelevant to the pending Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Sharon Coolidge, Early Voting Eliminated on Sundays Across Ohio, Cincinnat!com (Feb. 25, 2014), available at (Doc ). Darrel Rowland, Voting in Ohio: Fight over Poll Hours Isn t Just Political, The Columbus Dispatch (Aug. 19, 2012), available at stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html. (Doc ). Gongwer News Service, Vol. 83, Rpt. 35, Art. 3 (Feb. 21, 2014). INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim, if you claim this, that individuals who would have cast votes on days or times eliminated under SB 238 or Directive will be unable to vote. 14

15 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 4781 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the claim that S.B. 238 and Directive will prevent individuals who would have cast their ballots on the eliminated days or at the eliminated times from being able to vote, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D., Analysis of Effects of Senate Bill 238 and Directive on Early In-Person (EIP) Absentee Voting by Blacks and Whites in Ohio (2014). (Doc. 18-1). Declaration of Georgine Getty. (Doc ). Declaration of Josh Spring. (Doc ). Declaration of Erik Crew. (Doc ). Declaration of Dale Snyder. (Doc ). Declaration of Joseph Copeland. (Doc ). Declaration of Shawn Braxton. (Exhibit 21, Doc ). Declaration of Jack Frech. (Doc ). INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim in Paragraph 81 of Your Complaint and elsewhere that [V]oters will encounter longer lines and undue delays, and in many cases, will be prevented from voting altogether due to increased congestion during the remaining early voting period and on Election Day. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the claim in Paragraph 81 related to the increased congestion that will result during the remaining early voting period and on Election day, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying 15

16 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 4782 contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Declaration of Robert E. Jones. (Doc ). Declaration of Delores Freeman. (Doc ). Declaration of Mark Freeman. (Doc ). Declaration of Glorianne Leck. (Doc ). See Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Motion, Part III. (Doc. 17). INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim in Paragraph 81 of Your Complaint and elsewhere that Lower-income voters who cannot take unpaid time off of work to vote will be denied equal or uniform opportunities to vote compared to their wealthier counterparts. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the description in Paragraph 81 of how the cuts to early voting will disproportionately impact lower-income voters, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Declaration of Delores Freeman. (Doc ). Declaration of Jack Frech. (Doc ). Declaration of Georgine Getty. (Doc ). Declaration of Josh Spring. (Doc ). Declaration of Joseph Copeland. (Doc ). 16

17 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 4783 Declaration of Dale Snyder. (Doc ). Declaration of Erik Crew. (Doc ). Declaration of David Morgan. (Doc ). Declaration of Ray Wood. (Doc ). See Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Motion, Part I(B). (Doc. 17). INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim in Paragraph 81 of Your Complaint and elsewhere that Citizens from more urban counties will be denied equal or uniform opportunities to vote compared to citizens from less populous counties, as urban counties are straitjacketed into a restricted early voting schedule that is unsuitable for a populous county especially when each county is only permitted to have one early voting polling site. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the description in Paragraph 81 of how the cuts to early voting disadvantage citizens from more urban counties, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. See Amicus Brief of the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio Supporting Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 28). INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim in Paragraph 81 of Your Complaint and elsewhere that there are no plausible benefits to the State. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the statement in Paragraph 81 regarding how, when contrasting the burdens that 17

18 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 18 of 23 PAGEID #: 4784 S.B. 238, Directive , and Directive place on of voters, there are no plausible benefits to the state, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff directs Defendant s attention to: See Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Motion, Part I(C). (Doc. 17). INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim throughout the Complaint that SB 238 and Directive were specifically intended to suppress of the African- American vote. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the claim that S.B. 238 and Directive were intended to suppress the African-American vote, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Sharon Coolidge, Early Voting Eliminated on Sundays Across Ohio, Cincinnat!com (Feb. 25, 2014), available at (Doc ). Darrel Rowland, Voting in Ohio: Fight over Poll Hours Isn t Just Political, The Columbus Dispatch (Aug. 19, 2012), available at stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html. (Doc ). Gongwer News Service, Vol. 83, Rpt. 35, Article 3 (Feb. 21, 2014). Gongwer News Service, Vol. 83, Rpt. 35, Article 1 (Feb. 19, 2014). INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 18

19 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 4785 Identify all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning Your claim in Paragraph 65 of Your Complaint that defendant Husted Has publicly and repeatedly expressed strong support for forcing more populous counties into adopting restricted early voting hours that might be more acceptable in less populous counties. In addition to the foregoing general objections, Plaintiff objects specifically to this Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts supporting, contradicting, or concerning the claim that that defendant Husted Has publicly and repeatedly expressed strong support for forcing more populous counties into adopting restricted early voting hours that might be more acceptable in less populous counties, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. Ohio Secretary of State Directive (Aug. 15, 2012). Ohio Secretary of State Directive (Jan. 15, 2014). Ohio Secretary of State Directive (Feb. 25, 2014). Ohio Secretary of State Directive (June 17, 2014). Sec y of State Tie Vote Aug. 7, 2012 (Lucas County). (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote Aug. 2, 2012 (Franklin County). (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote July 13, 2012 (Cuyahoga County). (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote July 11, 2012 (Summit County). (Doc ). Sec y of State Tie Vote Oct. 25, 2011 (Montgomery County). (Doc ). INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify with specificity each and every instance where You claim the legislature purportedly attempted to silence debate or discussion of the effect of SB 238. In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. 19

20 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 4786 Ohio House of Representatives Journal at 2-3, 5-6 (Feb. 24, 2014), available at Gongwer News Service, Vol. 83, Rpt. 35, Article 3 (Feb. 21, 2014). Gongwer News Service, Vol. 83, Rpt. 35, Article 1 (Feb. 19, 2014). INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify with specificity the relief You seek in this matter. Among other things, identify with specificity the pre-election voting dates, times, polling place organization, and overall election voting structure that You desire to see implemented and identify how this differs from the laws currently in place. In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to the Defendant s request to identify information related to polling place organization and overall election voting structure as being irrelevant. Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff requests that the Court require Defendants to restore the eliminated week of same day voting and to set uniform and suitable hours that include multiple Sundays and weekday evening hours. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify all facts and support for your claim in Paragraph 64 of Your Complaint about indifference to the importance of ensuring that indigent voters are not disenfranchised. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory insofar as it seeks all facts and support for the claim that that Defendant Husted has expressed indifference to the importance of ensuring that indigent voters are not disenfranchised, and insofar as Defendant does not reasonably limit the scope of the inquiry. Additionally, Plaintiff objects to supplying contradicting facts to the extent that this calls for attorney work product. 20

21 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 4787 Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homless v. Husted, No. 2:06-CV-896, 2013 WL (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2013). SEIU v. Husted, Nos. 2:12-cv-562, 2:06-cv-896, 2012 WL (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2012). Dated: July 12, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Freda J. Levenson Freda J. Levenson ( ) Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Drew S. Dennis ( ) ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc Chester Ave. Cleveland, OH Tel: (216) Fax: (216) Dale E. Ho* Sean J. Young* ACLU Foundation Voting Rights Project 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY Tel: (212) Fax: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim Keenan (DC Bar# ) Marshall Taylor (DC Bar# ) Victor Goode ( ) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD Tel: (410) Fax: (410)

22 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 4788 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ohio State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People * Admitted Pro Hac Vice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff College Hill Community Church Presbyterian, U.S.A. s Objections and Responses to Defendant Husted s First Set of Interrogatories was served on all Counsel of Record via this 12th day of July, /s/ Sean J. Young Sean J. Young Attorney for Plaintiffs 22

23 Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 65-8 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 23 of 23 PAGEID #: 4789 VERIFICATION The foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true to the best of my knowledge. (Signature) STATE OF OHIO ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this day of, Notary Public 23