BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37.1 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.1

8/6/2019 BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37.1 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 -

1/26

Recommen!tions

3 9 S ee , e ,g " Neil A. Maizlish&Linda Herrera, A R eco rdL in ka g e P r ot oc o l fo r a D i ab e te sRegistry at EthnicaJi.y DiverseCommunity Health Centers, 12J . AM. MED.INFORMATICSASS'N 331, 335 (2005);Shaun J , Grannis et al.,Ana ly s is o f I d ent if ie rP er fo rm an ce U sin g aDeterministic LinkageAlgorithm, 2002 PROC. AMIAANNUALsYMPOSIUM 305,307-08; Carol Friedman &Robert Sideli, ToleratingSp e ll ing E r rol 'S Du ri ng P a ti en tvalidation, 25 COMPUTERS&BIOMEDICAL RF~


2/26

The Brennan Center therefore ,!mmends that in the verificationprocess,sta' employ"substantial match" criteria capable of compensating for typos and other common database-related errors in every field compared.w AAMVA and the SSAshould do the same. Whetherthe process of matching voter registration information to information in other databases isautomated or manual, that process must account for inevitable mistakes and minimize the riskthat these "falsenegatives" create hurdles for eligiblevoters. There are many technologies andprocedures available to help account for mistakes, from the most sophisticated software tomanual double-checks involving common sense. Whatever the particular matching proce-dure that a state chooses for verification purposes, the Brennan Center strongly recommendsthat it reflect the following standard: an individual's voter registration information win bedeemed "matched" if a reasonable person would find it substantially likely that a record inan existing government database refers to the same individual on the registration form.

Recommendations for addressing failed matchesEven with a "substantial match" protocol, states will inevitably fail to find matches fo r asignificant number of eligible citizens who provided accurate information on their regis-tration forms. There are many reasons for this: a match protocol that remains imperfect,a name change more recent than the last DMV entry, mistakes in Social Security records,and so on. Driver's license and Social Security databases are immense government systemsthat are not compiled for national identity or elections purposes. These databases will yielderrors when used for these ends. Indeed, the Social Security Administration's Director ofInformation Exchange and Computer Matching has admitted that at least 10% of theinformation obtained when attempting to match identifying information in the S S A ' sdatabase with other identifying data may be inaccurate."Given the potential for error even under favorable circumstances, the Brennan Centerstrongly recommends that an applicant be registered despite the failure of the state to finda match. Indeed, such a policy is required to make sense ofHAVA.42 A failed match shouldproduce only the single consequence expressly identified in the statute: a citizen registeringby mail and for the first time in a given jurisdiction is subject to an identification require-ment, unless the state is able to match the information in her registration form. The matchthus serves as one means by which the state may identify a voter; if the match fails, the statemust use some other means of identifYing the voter.4,~There are several readily availablealternative means to confirm a voter's identity-including matching her signature to thesignature on her registration card, requesting documentary ID for first-time voters who reg-ister by mail, or requiring the voter to swear to her identity under penalty of perjury.

Recommendations for addressing forms withincomplete informationHAVA states that a voter registration application may not be processed unless it includes an (identifying number-primarily, the number of the applicant's current and valid driver'slicense, or if the applicant has none, the last four digits of her SSN. If the applicant hasneither, the state must assign the applicant a unique voter registration number. HAVA then24 Making the List

40 In contrast, a more exactingstandard should be used whenseeking to remove names fromthe list because "false positive"matches could disenfranchiseeligible voters in that context.Further recommendations torpurge practices are describedbelow,41 Remarks of PeteMonaghan, Director ofInformation Exchange andComputer Matching of theSocial Security Administration,at the February 2004 meetingof the National Association ofSecretaries of State.42 For an explanation as towhy this policy is required byHAVA , see h t tp : //w , ,, ,'W.bren-nancenter.org/prograrns/dem ...vrhava.hrml.43 Thi~iswhat HAVAs spon-sors expected: in m eCongressional record, SenatorKit Bond described the verif i-cation provision by stating that"{i}n lieu o f the individual pro-viding proof of identity, Statesmay also electronically verify anindividual's identity againstexisting State databases." 148CONGo REC. S10488-02,*510489 (daily ed. Oct. 16,2002) (statement of Sen.Bond) (emphasis added).


3/26

44148 CONGo REC. 510488-02 (daily ed. Ocr. 16, 2002)(statement of Sen. Dodd).45 This practice is consistentwith HAVA because stareswould nor "process" applies-tions until a number wasassigned to and included withthe application. Se e 42 U.S.c. 15483(a)(5)(A)(iii).46 This practice similarly com-ports with HAVA's reservationof discret ion to the states . Se eid.

express'rescrves to each state the discretion to detenn! whether the information providedby an applicant on a form is sufficient to meet the HAVA requirement that this number beprovided.The Brennan Center recommends chat states exercise this discretion to protect eligiblecitizens from disenfranchisement because of immaterial error. Some voter registrationapplications will inevitably be submitted by eligible citizens without an identifyingnumber: because the form is unclear, because the citizen has lost her driver's license ordoes not know the number when she completes the form, or for some other reason. Asone of HAVA's chief sponsors explained, a missing or incomplete number need notbecome an insurmountable hurdle:

[Njothing in [the verification section of HAVA] prohibits a State from acceptingor processing an application with incomplete or inaccurate information. [This section]specifically reserves to the States the determination as to whether the information sup-plied by the voter is sufficient to meet the disclosure requirements of this provision. So,for example, if a voter transposes his or her Social Security number, or provides lessthana full driver's license number, the State can nonetheless determine that such informationis sufficient to meet the verification requirements, in accordance with State law. . . .Moreover, nothing in this section prohibits a State from registering an applicant once theverification process takes place, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant providedinaccurate or incomplete information at the time of registration ... or that the match-ing process did not verify the information+t

The Brennan Center recommends that states construe applications with missing orincomplete information, consistent with the law, so that eligible citizens may still becomeregistered. If an application has a missing or illegible identifying number, but the appro-priate number is discovered during the match process, states should process the form as ifthe number had been legibly provided in the first instance: there is no need to penalize thevoter if the information can be found by other means.s>Furthermore, ifno identifying number is found during the match process, the state shouldpresume that the applicant has no such number, assign a unique voter registration number,and proceed with registration.w If there is any lingering doubt about an applicant'sidentity, especially for first-time voters registering by mail, the state may still as k her toprovide some sort of identification before voting-but at least she will be registered, andable to resolve any doubt at the polls.

Recommendations for correcting errorsThe attempt to match information on a registration form to information housed in a largegovernment database compiled for a different purpose is inherently error-laden. Andbecause errors introduced into large databases tend to persist and create unanticipatedproblems, it is best to ensure ample opportunities to correct any errors, with minimalburden on the voter.

Brennan Center for Justice 25


4/26

The BrennanCenter=ommen.!.t wheneverthereisanyerroron avoter!rarionapplication or in the verification and matching process, state officials notify the appli-cants-not only by mail to all valid addresses on file, but also by phone if a valid phonenumber is available. The Brennan Center also recommends that states allow applicants toresolve errors by phone, by mail, or in person, without submitting a new form (which maypresent new opportunities for error). The state should make the correction process asstraightforward as possible, to increase the chance that errors are caught and correctedquickly.Furthermore, in order to ensure that voter registration applications near the end of anelection cycle are not unduly prejudiced, the Brennan Center recommends that statesprocess corrections to timely applications up through Election Day, even if the correctionitself is submitted after the voter registration deadline. If a correction arrives too late to berepresented on the poll books, it should be accepted and processed, so that any provisionalballots cast can be evaluated against the most recent, most accurate registration information.

Other recommendations for voter registrationdatabases and the registration processIn addition to the four most salient categories of findings addressed in detail above, thissurvey revealed several additional important ways in which state policies and practicesdiffer with respect to voter registration and the interaction with the statewide voterregistration databases. Based on our research, the Brennan Center makes the followingadditional recommendations:

Inputting and Storing Voter Registration Information Data entry audits. One of the primary sources of error in the registration process

is data entry. States should conduct regular audits of information entered into thevoter registration database, including procedures for checking the electronic recordsagainst original paper applications.

Online voter registration. One means of reducing errors in data entry is to allowapplicants to enter their own registration information. Arizona provides, andWashington has just proposed, an online gateway through which eligible citizensmay register to vote. With appropriate security protocols, such online systems offernot only greater convenience, but also greater accuracy aswell. Even if applicants arenot able to register online, they should be able to view and confirm their registra-tion information in the system through a secure public porral.v

Real-time synchronization. Although the Election Assistance Commission hasconfirmed that a single central voter registration database accessed by local terminalsis "most closely akin to the requirements of HAVA," the survey reveals that a smallminority of states continue tomaintain local databases that are regularly synchronizedat the state level. To the greatest extent possible, the official state records should be

26 Making the List

47 For modellegislarion onsuch public access portals, seehttp-.!/www.brennancenter.orglprograms/downloads/HAVAfPublic_access_portal_mode_%2Ohill_09.21.0S.pdf
http://http-.%21/www.brennancenter.orglhttp://http-.%21/www.brennancenter.orgl


5/26

48 AK, AZ, CA, CO , Flo IL ,lA, MD, MI, MN, TX, UT,WA,andWI.49 It is true that HAVAspecifically designates a "dri-ver' s license number" as theprincipal identifier, 42 u.s.C. 15483(a.)(5)(A)(i)(l),15483(b)(3)(B)(i)(I), butthis term naturally embracesID numbers issued by statelicensing agencies that serveas official identif ication fornon-driving residents.

u!red immediatelyupon any local change, s.!t mere is no confusion regardinga citizen's official voter registration status.

Security log. The state should keep an electronic log of all database transactions,to ensure database security and to correct processing errors. These records shouldindicate the date and time of each transaction, the identities of the persons whoaccessed the system, the identities of the persons who authorized the transaction, andthe reason for any modification to existing information.

Information privacy. States should adopt strict protocols for access to voter recordsstored in the database, including different layers of security to restrict access to infor-mation to authorized individuals for discrete authorized purposes. Sensitive personalinformation, such as a voter's social security or driver's license number, or the infor-mation provided by domestic violence victims, should be subject to greater protection.

Information Collected on the Voter Registration Application Registration forms. As is apparent from the forms reproduced in the Appendix

to the report, many states' voter registration forms are cluttered and confusing.A reasonable voter looking at these forms will often be uncertain about theinformation requested or required. For example, some forms may lead voters tobelieve that they may submit a recent out-of-state driver's license when such alicense will not in fact be accepted; other forms do not clearly state how the votershould indicate that she has no driver's license or Social Security number. Voterregistration forms should clearly label all mandatory and optional information, andexplain the consequences of errors or omissions.

Non-driver's identification card number. Only 14 states48 specify on the form thatvoters may provide a non-drivers state ID card number rather than a driver's licensenumber. Allowing other government-issued identification suits both the history andthe purpose of HAVA's verification provisions.s? An individual's authorization todrive a car does not reflect upon her eligibility to vote; HAVA selected the driver'slicense number because-like a non-driver's ID number issued by a state licensingauthority-it is a commonly available personal number verified by the governmentas belonging uniquely to a particular individual.

The Match Process Transparent standards. This survey was made necessary by the fact that the processand criteria by which most states will implement HAVA'smatching provisions is not

expressly provided in statute or regulation or publicly available policy guidance.States should develop uniform, non-discriminatory, and specific procedures thatmaximize election officials' ability to find matching records-and they should do soin a fashion transparent to the public.



6/26

Searching additional daUb! Congress designed HAVA'smarching !L-duresto help establish a unique Identifying number for each individual in the voter regis-tration database, and to serve as one means of verifying the identity of a first-timevoter who registers by mail. HAVA specifies the motor vehicle and Social Securitydatabases as targets of the matching process, but other government databases maysuit these purposes just as effectively. If information on a voter registration formcannot be matched with the motor vehicle or Social Security databases, states shouldattempt a match with other reliable government records that uniquelyidentify citizens, including records of agencies registering voters under the NVRA.

Procedures at the Polls Identification acceptable at the polls. The matching process represents just one way

to confirm the identity of a voter. When the state cannot find a match, it should lookto non-burdensome alternative methods, including signature matching, sworn affi-davits, or, as a last resort, documentary proof of identity. Any of these methods shouldbe sufficient to serve as proper identification.

Meaningful provisional ballots. Some states will apparendy still issue voters aprovisional ballot which is certain-at the time it is issued-to be void. For example,Texas will issue a provisional ballot to voters who arrive at the polls without identifica-tion, but that ballot will only be counted if identification was provided at the polls.These ballots are deceptive placebos: the voter believes that she has cast a valid ballot,but the ballot is actually meaningless. States should reconcile their election law so thata provisional ballot will be counted if the information submitted with the ballotcomports with information timely submitted on the voter's registration form.

Database access at the polls. By statute, the statewide voter registration databaserepresents the only official list of registered voters. Election officials should therefore beable to access the database at polling places on Election Day. Polling place access to asearchable database will reduce the number of registered voters whose names cannot befound on a printed page, reduce the number of provisional ballots, enable poll workersto determine quickly and easily if a voter is in the correct polling place, and generallyfacilitate a smoother election process with shorter lines. Jurisdictions like ForsythCounty, Georgia, have already reported tremendous success with such programs.w

Recommendations for voter registration databases andcontinuing list maintenanceAlthough the body of this report addresses only verification and matching for purposes of"making the list," states may attempt to match voter registration records with records inother databases for other list maintenance purposes as well. For example, states willattempt to match voter registration records with records of other databases to account forvoters who become ineligible because of death, criminal convictions, or relocation. These28 Making the List

50 See Gary]. Smith, Directorof Elections, Forsyth County,Ga., F o rs yt h C oun ty E l e ct ro n icPoll B oo k P r og r am , in THEELECnON CENTER. 200.5PROFESS10NAl. PRACTICESPAPERS 5:} (janis K. Womacked., 2005), available athttp://electionupdates.calrech.eduI2005%20Election%20Cemer%20Prof.%20Pract. %20Papers.pdf
http://electionupdates.calrech./http://electionupdates.calrech./


7/26

51 Notification should bemade by a certified, forward-able Jeerer to her last knownaddress, along with a postagepre-paid response card.52 This recommendation issimilar to that made by theMidwestern LegislativeConference of the Councilof Stare Governments in itsAugust 2002 repor t, whichrecommended that "[plroce-dures governing the purgingof duplicate registrationsshould include sufficientnotice to aflected voters andan opportunity to correcterrors in a timely fashion."

datab! too, are imperfect.And just as record m.lng may be beneficialor detrimen-tal in placing voters on the list, matching may be beneficial or detrimental in taking themoff of the list of active voters (or, better, labeling them as inactive). We therefore make thefollowing recommendations for using databases for other list maintenance purposes:

Ensuring accuracy of records Using other databases to correct records. We recommend that states attempt tomatch registration records with records of other government databases in order to

flag voter registration information that may need (0be corrected, supplemented, orupdated. Voters must be notified, of course, before any such change is made, bur theprocess should help keep the registration database as accurate as possible. All avail-able reliable databases should be consulted for this purpose, including those of socialservice and disability agencies.

Database purges Uniform procedures. Most controversial purges or attempts to purge the voter rollsoccur outside of a regular process that citizens can monitor and evaluate. States

should establish uniform, transparent, non-discriminatory, and regular proceduresfor purging the voter rolls. The procedures should specify how, and under what con-ditions, databases will be used in the purge process.

Accurate match criteria. Most states will attempt to match database information inorder to find, in the database of registered voters, records of citizens who have becomeineligible. Removing a voter from the rolls is in many ways the inverse of placing acitizen on the rolls, and requires inverse matching criteria. Ai; shown above, in verifi-cation, a "false negative" (an improper failure to match) could keep an eligible citizenfrom voting-and so a flexible protocol should be used to minimize the chance of animproper failure. In purging, the opposite is true: a "false positive" (an impropermatch) could keep her from voting-and so an exacting protocol should be used tominimize the chance of an improper match. When matching for purposes of purging,states should conclude that a voter may be ineligible only if there is no reasonabledoubt that she is the person listed in a record in a database of ineligible persons.

Notice and opportunity for correction. While the match criteria appropriate forverification and purging are very different, the appropriate opportunity to correcterrors is identical. In either case, the voter must be notified of any problem that arisesin the matching process.>' and afforded a practical and reasonable opportunity torespond, before the results of an attempted match may be used to impose an addi-tional burden or to block access to the polls entirely. 52 To ensure that such problemsare resolved well in advance of any election, states should not purge voters from thedatabase within 90 days of an election, unless the voter has become ineligible duringthat period.

Brennan Center for Just ice 29


8/26

Use of all relevant sources' infonnation. HAVAdirects stat" to l O O k 'agencyrecords on felony "status" when seeking to determine the eligibility of voters whohave been convicted. This must include not only records of conviction, bur alsorecords pertaining to the restoration of voting rights. States should ensure that anysearch for voters rendered ineligible by conviction includes clemency records as wellas, where applicable, records indicating whether citizens have completed their termsof incarceration, parole, or probation.

Authorization to remove names. States should develop clear rules to ensure that onlyauthorized state officials have the ability to remove names from the database and thatthese "purges" can be audited and monitored. The darabase should prevent anyoneperson, acting alone, from removing names from the list. The purging of any voterrecord must be authorized by at least two officials (preferably with different politicalaffiliations and at different levels of government).

30 Making the List


9/26

ethodology During the summer and fall of2005, the Brennan Center conducted an extensive phonesurvey, successfully contacting elections officials in 46 states and the District ofColumbia. The survey was conducted by research associates, legal interns, paralegals,and attorneys, closely supervised by staff attorneys. In each case, the surveyors attempt-ed to contact the individual designated by the state as responsible for determining hownew voter registration applications are or will be processed once the voter registrationdatabase is in use. The title and position of this official varied from state to state; theappropriate individual was often an election official in the office of the Secretary of Statecharged specifically with HAVA implementation. Where it was necessary tospeak withmultiple officials in order to determine state practice-for example, when severalstatewide officials shared responsibility, or when the state deferred substantial portionsof the registration process to county officials-the surveyors attempted to contact theseindividuals as welL In some states, surveyors spoke first with an election official withgeneral knowledge of registration policy, and then with a second official versed in thetechnical aspects of the database and matching process.

Because the status quo was changing so rapidly throughout 2005, the survey questionsreflected anticipated practices for the registration andlor matching process in 2006 in eachstate. More specifically, the survey addressed: the process by which information from voterregistration forms iscollected and entered into the state's database; the procedure for address-ing forms with missing or illegible information; the procedure for matching informationagainst data in other state records, if matching occurs; the procedure for correcting anyerrors in the process; and the consequences, if any, of an attempted match.The verification and matching process is sufficiently new that practitioners and advocateshave not yet established common, agreed-upon jargon; that is, different officials describethe same practices using different language. For example, consider a voter for whom thestate cannot find a match, but who may vote a valid provisional ballot upon presentationofID at the polls. In one state, an official will describe such a voter as "not registered"; inanother, the voter is "provisionally registered"; in a third, the voter is "registered, butflagged." Due to this lack of common language, the Brennan Center employed a flexiblesurvey instrument. Surveyors used a written guide, but did not follow this guide mechan-ically; rather, they were instructed to ask appropriate follow-up questions, in order to bestunderstand the actual practice-and the effect on the voter-in each state. The survey wasdesigned tobe completed in approximately 30 minutes. The surveyors took detailed notesof each call to memorialize the state's response.

After reviewing the survey responses and each state's relevant statutes and regulations,Brennan Center attorneys then prepared summaries of the pertinent state practices. In moststates, existing statutes and regulations address few of the relevant questions. Survey noteswere therefore used to fill in the interstices; thus, information in this report that does notreflect existing statute or regulation was derived from the interviews. Occasionally, infor-mation from the interviews seemed to conflict with existing state law; these inconsistenciesBrennan Center for Justice 31


10/26

-which may reflectmisunde",!ing on the part of the interviewer,the in!ewee. orboth-were noted in the summaries, but state policy as reflected in statute and regulationwas deemed controlling.Each relevant summary was then distributed by email to the appropriate respondent, witha two-week opportunity for the relevant election officials to correct misunderstandingsand to add information on policy decisions made since the surveys were conducted.Twenty-one of the officials who received these draft descriptions of state policies returnedthose descriptions with minor revisions or affirmations of their accuracy. Relevantmodifications were included in the attached summaries, except in the few instances inwhich the suggested revision was contradicted by existing state law. Where a state's statedpractices remained unclear, the Brennan Center attempted in early 2006 to follow up withparticular election officials. Such clarifications were also incorporated in this report.Since this research was conducted, states may also have substantively changed their policies;to the extent that such changes are communicated to the Brennan Center, they will not bereflected in this summary of findings, but will be reflected on an ongoing basis in the indi-vidual state descriptions collected in the Appendix, available online.In addition to surveyed facts and legal provisions for each state, the attached summariescontain the most recent available copy of the relevant pages of each state's voter registrationform and instructions. The applicable sections have been highlighted. In California,Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, and Ohio, a state-based formwas not available online; summaries for those states include the federal voter registrationform and the relevant state instructions. In Wyoming, each county uses a different form;the form included in the Wyoming summary is only a sample.

32 Making the List


11/26

Scope of S~te Summaries in 'ppendixThe state-by-state summaries attached to the electronic version of this report and availableat www.brennancenter.org describe states' standard voter registration practices, from thetime a voter fills out an application form up through the time that she casts a vote in ageneral election. The summaries reflect the information obtained by surveying electionofficials and the relevant laws and regulations in each state. At times, the informationfrom these sources appears inconsistent or contradictory. This may reflect the fact thatelection officials may have been articulating some of the policies discussed in this reportfor the first time. This confusion underscores the need for concerted attention to imple-menting the voter registration database process and the importance of adopting dearpolicies that protect the rights of eligible citizens to vote.These summaries reflect usual state practice, and may not account for certain specialcircumstances. The summaries of states' identification requirements, in particular, aretailored to individuals who vote in person in a regular election on Election Day. Statesmay provide different requirements and procedures for voters who vote by mail, voteabsentee, or vote early. These different procedures are not reflected here. Similarly, thisreport does not capture different procedures that may govern special elections or municipalelections.This report also does not reflect many of the different means by which a state mayconfirm an individual's voter registration information other than by matching to motorvehicle or Social Security records. For example, several states compare a voter's signatureat the polls to the signature submitted on a registration card. Some states also mail a non-forwardable confirmation card to the address on the voter's application; if the card isreturned as undeliverable, the application may be rejected. Other states authorize a phys-ical canvass of applicants' homes. Such practices are beyond the scope of this report.Finally, this report does not reflect the means by which a state may remove voters from thevoter registration rolls, or the means by which a state will flag certain voters as "question-able" or "inactive." For example, the report does not describe ongoing state database main-tenance practices, such as purging of voters who have become ineligible or inactive. Nordoes the report address challenge procedures or their aftermath.

http://www.brennancenter.org/http://www.brennancenter.org/


12/26

eport G lossary The verification and matching process is sufficiently new that practitioners and advocateshave not yet established common, agreed-upon jargon; that is, different officials describethe same practices using different language.To compare apples to apples, this report defines terms consistently across states-even ifa different descriptive word is used by a particular official or within a particular state. Thisglossary explains how terms are used within this report:DMV: the agency in each state responsible for maintaining motor vehicle license records,which is usually the same agency responsible for issuing state non-driver's identificationcards.Identifying number: the driver's license number, state non-driver's identification cardnumber, full Social Security number, or last four digits of the Social Security number, asappropriate within each state.

SSA; Social Security Administration.SSN: Social Security number.SSN-4: last four digits of the Social Security number.States: includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

34 Making th e L ist


13/26

James E. Johnson, ChairPartnerDebeuoise &P lim pto n L LPNancy BrennanExe cu tiv e Di re c to rRose K en ne dy G re en way C onse rv an cyZachary W CarterPartnerDorsey & Wh itn ey L LPJohn FerejohnProfessorN YU Sch ool of Law & S t an fo r d Un iv e rs it yPeter M. FishbeinSpe c ia l Counse lK a ye S ch o le r L LPSusan Sachs GoldmanHelen HershkoffProfessorN YU Sch ool ofLaioThomas M. JordeProfessorEmeri tusB oalt H all S ch oo l of Law , U C B erke leyJeffrey B. KindlerV ic e Cha irman & Gene ra l Counse lP fiz er In c.Ruth LazarusBurt NeuborneL e ge llD i re cto r, B re nn an Ce nte rP ro fe ss or ,N YU S ch o ol o f L awLawrence B. PedowitzPartnerWa ch te ll L ip to n, R os en &KatzSteven A. Reiss, General CounselPartner~il G otsh al &Ma ng es L LP

Richard ReveszDeanNYU School o f LawDaniel A. RezneckS e nio r A s sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e n er alO ffic e o f th e A tto rn ey G e ne ra lo f th e Dist ict o f Co lumb iaChristina RodriguezAss is tan t Proft ssorNYU Sch ool of LawStephen SchulhoferProftssorN YU S ch ool ofL ttwJohn SextonPresidentN e w Y ork U niv ers ityRobert ShrumSen io r Fe ll owN ew Y or k U niv er sityRev. Walter]. Smith, S.].President & CE. 0.Th e He tt lt hC tt re Chap la in c ySung-Hee SubPartnerS c h ulte R o th &Zabel L LPClyde A. SzuchMichael WaldmanExe cut iv e Di re c to rB re nn an C en te rAdam WinklerProfessorU CLA S ch ool o f Law


14/26

EXHIBIT 2


15/26

_ ...J l l f { l f 1 f l t l ~ f U l f l l t f f l l l l l l l f l f f . I ~ ~ l t t l l . t l t l t J l f


16/26

EXHIBIT 3


17/26

From www.dmv.ca.gov

Birth date verification and legal presence requirementsThe issue of identification reliability, integrity, and confidentiality is of prime concern to allcitizens. Eligibility for government services, issuance of various licenses, assessment ()f taxes,the right to vote, etc., are all determined through evaluations based on identification documents.It is critical that identification documents be authenticated and accurate in identifying eachindividual. The California driver license and 10 card have been declared as primary identificationdocuments in this state by the California legislature.State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (10) card and driverlicense to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States tohelp safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth datellegal presence document,see 'True Full Name" and "How to Change Your Name" for more information.Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable: US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office) US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree USCIS American Indian Card Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory US Passport or US Passport Card US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member,retired member, discharged from service, medicallreligious personnel) Common Access Card (only if deSignated as Active military or Active Reserve or ActiveSelected Reserve) Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship Northern Mariana Card USCIS US Citizen 10 Card Permanent Resident Card Temporary Resident Identification Card Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form 1-94) "Processed for 1-551" stamped in a valid foreign passport Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit Refugee travel document
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/http://www.dmv.ca.gov/


18/26

Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisd iction. Mustco ntain n am e, birth da te , place of birth , leg al pre sen ce sta tus, a nd ju dge 's S ig na tu re. Certification from California Departm ent of Corrections or Californ ia Youth Authority Employment Authorization Card Valid 1-94 stamped "Refugee," "Parole or Parolee," "Asylee," or Section 207, Section

208, S ection 209, S ection 212d(2), H P or P IP Valid 1-94 with attached photo stamped "Processed for 1-551 temporary evidence oflaw fu l a dm is sio n fo r permanent re sid ence " Notice of Action (1-797 Approved Petition) - must indicate approved extension of stay orcha ng e in statu s th at gra nts tempo rary or pe rm an en t re side ncy, o r in dicate s th at an origina l,d up lic ate o r re newa l R esid en t A lie n c ard is fo rth comin g. Imm igration judge's order granting asylum Mexican Border Crossing Card w ith valid 1-94 U .S . Border Crossing Identification card w ith valid 1-94

H ow to app ly for a driver license if you are over 18I fyou are a visitor in California over 18 and have a valid driver license from your home state or country, youmay drive in this state without getting a California driver license as long as your home state license remainsvalid.If you become a California resident, you must get a California driver license within 10 days. Residency isestablished by voting in a California election, paying resident tuition, fil ing for a homeowner's property taxexemption, or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to nonresidents.To apply for an original driver license if you are over 18, you will need to do the following: Visit a DMV office (make an Appointment(s) for faster service) Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL 44 form must be submitted. Copies will not beaccepted.) Give a thumb print Have your picture taken Provide your social security number. Itwin be verified with the Social Security Administration while youare in the office. Verify your birth date and legal presence If your current name no longer matches the name on your birthdatallegal presence document, see "True Full Name" and "How to ChangeYour Name" for more information. Provide your true full name Pay the awlication fee Pass a vision exam Pass a traffic laws and sign test. There are 36 questions on the test. You have three chances topass.(Sample Test)


19/26

EXHIBIT 4


20/26

~oter Registration ApplicalLQnBeforecompletingt.rm, reviewthe General,Application,a9te specific instructions.

Are you a cit izen of the United States of America? DYes o No This space for off ice use only.Wi ll you be 18 years old on or before election day? DYes o NoHyou checked "No" in response to either of these questions, do not complete form.(pleaseseestate-specific instructionsor rulesregardingeligibilityo registerpriortoage 18.)

(Circle one) I Last Name I First Name IMiddle Name{s) I(Circle one)1 Mr. Mrs. Miss Ms. Jr Sr II III IVHome Address ) Apt. or Lot # CitylTown State Zip Code2Address Where You Get Your Mail I f Di fferent From Above CitylTown State Zip Code3Date of Birth / / Telephone Number (optional) 10 Number - (See Item 6 in the ins truc tions for your s ta te)4 5 6

Month Day Year7 Choice of Party 8 Race or Ethnic Group(see i tem 7 in the ins truc tions for your Sta te) (see i tem 8 in \he ins truc tions for your Sta te)

I have reviewed my state's instructions and I swear/affirm that: I am a United States citizen

9 I meet the eligibility requirements of my state andsubscribe to any oath required. The information I have provided is true to the best of myknowledge under penalty of perjury. If I have provided false Please sign ful l name (or put mark)Ainformation, I may be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. Date: I Z Z Iitizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States. Month Day Year

H you are registering to vote for the first time: please refer to the application instructions for information on submittingcopies of valid identification documents with this form.

Please fill out the sections below if they apply to you.If this application is for a change of name, what was your name before you changed it?

First Name Middle Name(s)

Ifyou were registered before but this is the first t ime you are registering from the address in Box 2,what was your address where you were registered before?Apt. or Lot # CitylTown/Counly State Zip Code

If you live in a rural area but do not have a street number, or if you have no address, please show on the map where you live. Write in the names of the crossroads (or streets) nearest to where you live. NORTH + Draw an X to show where you live. Use a dot to show any schools, churches, stores, or other landmarksnear where you l ive, and write the name of the landmark.

C Example N--- 'I:t2:: >

Grocery Store0:: Woodchuck RoadPublic School I X

If the applicant is unable to sign, who helped the applicant fill out this application? Give name, address and phone number (phone number optional).

Mail this application to the address provided for your State.


21/26

EXHIBIT 5


22/26


23/26

EXHIBIT 6


24/26

EBRA BOWEN) SECRETARY OF STATE5TATE OF CALIFORNI A IELECTIONS1500 11th Street,5th Floor ISacramento, CA 9 s8 14 IT eI ( 91 6) 6 57 -2 16 61 F ax ( 91 6) 6 53 -3 21 41 www.sos.ca.gov

November 3, 2009

County ClerkiRegistrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum #09173

FROM:All County Clerks/Registrars of Voters~4Cathy MitchellChief of Elections

TO:

RE: Voter Registration: Use of National Mail Voter Registration Form

After posting a program on the Secretary of State's website that allows voters tomore easily fill out the National Mail Voter Registration Form (National Form), twoquestions have arisen.The first is why the National Form, not the state voter registration form, is postedon the Secretary of State's website.The second is whether county elections officials need to obtain a registrant's U.S.state or foreign country of birth before officially registering to vote anyone whoused the National Form to register.Using The National Form. Not The State Voter Registration FormCurrent state law and regulations specify how a state voter registration form mustbe constructed. Specifically, EJectionsCode section 2157 requires the statevoter registration form to:

o Be included on one part of a multipart card that is perforatedo Contain a serial numbero Use multiple type sizes and colors of inko Have its return postage pre-paid by the Secretary of StateFurthermore, Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 19056, requires thestate voter registration form to be 5" x 8" x .007."These requirements effectively preclude a state or local elections official fromaccepting a state voter registration form printed from a website. This is why theSecretary of State does not make the state form available on the Internet anddiscourages others from making it available on the Internet.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/http://www.sos.ca.gov/


25/26

Prior to 2009, the Secretary of State's website did allow a person to fill out a statevoter registration form online and have it mailed to them so the person could signand return it. That program was discontinued for three reasons:

1. It cost approximately $1.64"per form.2. Many people did not return the form because they mistakenly believedthey had registered to vote online and therefore did not need to sign andreturn the voter registration form.3. Many people requested the fOnTIS too close to the E-15 registrationdeadline and could not return them by the deadline.

Accepting the National Form: Elections Officials 00 Not Need to DetermineRegistrant's Country or State of BirthUnder California law, when a person submits a state voter registration form, he orshe is required to provide either their state of birth (if born in the U.S.) or countryof birth (if born outside of the U.S.).This requirement can be found in two places:Elections Code section 2150 (a)(6), which states in part:

(a) The affidavit of registration shall show:(6) The state or country of the affiant's birth.

Elections Code section 2157, which states in part:(a) Subject to this chapter, the affidavit of registration shall be in a formprescribed by regulations adopted by the Secretary of State. The affidavitshall: (1) Contain the information prescribed in Section 2150.

However, the requirement that a person provide this information to register tovote onlv applies to someone registering to vote using the state voter registrationform that is developed pursuant to state law and regulation. State law does notrequire a person using the National Form to provide any additional informationbeyond what is contained on the National Form in order to register.This is clarified in Elections Code 2162. which reads in part:

(a) No affidavits of registration other than those provided by the Secretaryof State to the county elections officials or the national voter registrationforms authorized pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act (42U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg) shall be used for the registration of voters.


26/26

The requirement that state and local elections officials accept the National Formfrom any person applying to register to vote can be found in the National VoterRegistration Act (NVRA). 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-4 (a). which reads in part:

(1) Each State shari accept and use the mail voter registration applicationform prescribed by the Federal Election Commission pursuant to section19739g-7(a)(2) of this title for the registration of voters in elections forFederal office.(2) In addition to accepting and using the form described in paragraph (1),a State may develop and use a mail voter registration form that meets allof the criteria stated in section 1973gg-7(b} of this title for the registrationof voters in elections for Federal office.

So, while (2) permits states to develop their own voter registration forms, (1)requires states to (unless they have been exempted under the NVRA) accept ascomplete a voter registration application submitted by a person using theNational Form.If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] orRobbie Anderson at [email protected] or via telephone at(916) 653-7635.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37.1 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.1