IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT …

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION : FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., : Case No. 2:06-cv-896 : Plaintiffs, : : Judge Marbley v. : : Magistrate Judge Kemp JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as : Secretary of State of Ohio, : : Defendant, : : and : : THE STATE OF OHIO, : : Intervenor-Defendant. :

JOINT OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE APRIL 19, 2010

CONSENT DECREE (Doc. 288) BY DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE JON HUSTED AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT STATE OF OHIO

Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 10359

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the consent decree, to specify new procedures for the

casting of provisional ballots, and to require the counting of provisional ballots that are invalid

under state law. As both the Secretary and the State of Ohio have argued previously (Docs. 269

& 270), the consent decree is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with state law. As

such, there is nothing to modify or expand.

But even if the Court were to conclude that the decree is valid, plaintiffs’ motion is still

improper. First, Rule 60(b) does not authorize it. The rule permits courts to “relieve a party . . .

from a final judgment.” But “a court may not use Rule 60(b) to grant affirmative relief in

addition to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.” Moore’s Federal Practice (Civil)

§ 60.25 (2012). Because plaintiffs’ motion seeks precisely that—an award of relief in addition to

what the consent decree already provides—it is improper under Rule 60(b).

Second, a district court lacks equitable authority to expand a consent decree where (1) the

defendant withholds its consent, and (2) no constitutional violation has been adjudicated. Here,

the Secretary and the State of Ohio object to any enlargement of the decree. And this Court

never adjudicated the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, nor did the Secretary or the State

admit to them. “In the absence of an adjudication or admission of constitutional violation, the

district court’s authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the

terms of agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree.” Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd.

of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1153 (6th Cir. 1992).

In truth, plaintiffs are seeking (in the guise of a modification motion) a judicial

determination that Ohio’s provisional-ballots procedures are unconstitutional. The consent

decree must be strengthened, plaintiffs say, because Ohio’s “current provisional ballot system


arbitrarily disenfranchises voters covered by the Decree,” “violates the Equal Protection Clause,”

and “violates the guarantees of substantive due process.” Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at 3 (Doc. 288).

But as they have acknowledged elsewhere, “Plaintiffs in this case gave up their constitutional

claims two years ago.” Plts’ Mot. to Enjoin State Court Proceedings at 7 (Doc. 246). So long as

the decree remains in place, plaintiffs may not pursue the very thing they surrendered to obtain

the decree—the opportunity to litigate their claims.

Even if plaintiffs could overcome these threshold defects, their modification request is

flawed for an additional reason: Plaintiffs lack standing to secure additional relief in this case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs initiated this litigation in 2006, challenging Ohio’s voter-identification and

provisional-ballot laws. After extensive pretrial litigation, the parties at the time entered into a

consent decree in 2010 regulating the counting of provisional ballots cast with the last four digits

of the voter’s social security. The decree requires the Secretary to instruct the county election

boards to accept (1) provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, but in the correct polling

place, for reasons attributable to poll-worker error; and (2) provisional ballots where the voter

did not complete or sign the provisional ballot application for reasons attributable to poll-worker

error. The parties further agreed that “[t]his Decree . . . shall in no way constitute an

adjudication or finding on the merits.” Consent Decree at 2 (Doc. 210).

Two years after the decree’s entry, members of the General Assembly filed suit in the

Ohio Supreme Court, asserting that the consent decree conflicted with state law. Upon plaintiffs’

motion, this Court enjoined those proceedings and directed the parties to submit briefs on the

validity of the decree. The Secretary and the State argued that the consent decree was invalid


because it required them to disobey Ohio law without any finding of an underlying constitutional

defect.

While the Court considered the consent decree’s validity, plaintiffs filed a motion to

expand the decree under Rule 60(b)(5). A separate coalition of labor unions also filed a new

challenge to Ohio’s provisional-ballot laws. See Service Employees Int’l Union v. Husted, No.

12-cv-562 (S.D Ohio). Whereas the NEOCH case implicates a “distinct category of provisional

voters” (specifically, indigent citizens who vote using their Social Security numbers because

they lack personal identification), the SEIU case challenges Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules “with

respect to all Ohio provisional ballot voters.” Plts’ Notice of Related Cases at 2-3 (Doc. 301).

At plaintiffs’ urging, the Court related the two cases. It also consolidated the NEOCH

plaintiffs’ motion to modify the consent decree with the SEIU plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunction. The parties will appear for a hearing on July 30, 2012.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ request to modify the consent decree runs into three hurdles. First, the motion

is improper under Rule 60(b). Second, this Court lacks equitable authority to expand the consent

decree over the defendants’ objections. Third, plaintiffs have no standing.

A. The Court cannot use Rule 60(b) to award additional relief to plaintiffs under the consent decree.

According to plaintiffs, “a party to a consent decree may only seek to modify or vacate

the decree by means of a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 60.”1 Plts’ Reply on

Validity at 5 (Doc. 281). Invoking that rule, plaintiffs ask this Court to “strengthen” the

1 Defendants do not believe that Rule 60(b) applies in this context. The Court has held that “the parties . . . did not intend the Decree to be final.” Order at 8 (Doc. 234). If that holding is correct, then no final order exists and Rule 60(b) does not apply. But given plaintiffs’ insistence that Rule 60(b) governs their motion for modification, defendants will brief the issue.


provisions in the consent decree that regulate provisional-ballot counting. Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at

1 (Doc. 288).

Rule 60(b) does not authorize plaintiffs’ request. The rule permits district courts to

“relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment” for six enumerated reasons.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). But the rule contains “no comparable provision addressing a party’s

request for an increase in the burdens of a . . . judgment.” Lorain NAACP, 979 F.2d at 1153.

For that reason, federal courts uniformly recognize a distinction between modifying a

final judgment and expanding a final judgment: “Rule 60(b) . . . cannot be used to impose

additional affirmative relief.” United States v. $119,980, 680 F.2d 106, 107 (11th Cir. 1982); see

also Stronjnik v. Can Pay Mining Co., 321 Fed Appx. 671, 672 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts may

not use Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to grant affirmative relief in addition

to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.”); Adduono v. Wolrd Hockey Ass’n, 824

F.2d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1987) (“Rule 60(b) . . . cannot be used to impose additional affirmative

relief.”); United States v. One 1961 Red Chevrolet Impala, 457 F.2d 1353, 1356 (5th Cir. 1972)

(“[S]uch further affirmative relief can not be sustained under Rule 60(b).”); Moore’s Federal

Practice (Civil) § 60.25 (2012) (“[A] court may not use Rule 60 to grant affirmative relief in

addition to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.”).

This Court has adopted the same interpretation of Rule 60(b). In Brinkman v. Gilligan,

85 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Ohio 1999), Judge Rice denied a motion to enlarge a consent decree

between the NAACP, the Dayton Board of Education, and the State of Ohio: Because “the

request at issue would materially increase the burdens on the State Defendants . . . the Court

concludes that Rule 60(b)(5) does not serve as the basis for providing relief.” Id. at 776.


Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion is a not-so-veiled attempt to secure additional relief

against the defendants. They urge this Court (1) to mandate individual poll-worker affirmations

for every NEOCH voter; (2) to direct county election boards to verify that poll workers directed

the voter to the proper precinct; (3) to require the counting of provisional ballots cast in the

wrong polling location; and (4) to require the counting of provisional ballots with missing names

or signatures, irrespective of whether poll-worker error caused the omission.

These modifications would dramatically expand the consent decree beyond its original

moorings. Because plaintiffs cannot use Rule 60(b) to obtain relief beyond what is already

contained in that judgment, the Court should dismiss their motion.

B. The Court lacks equitable authority to expand the consent decree over the defendants’ objections.

There remains the question whether this Court has inherent equitable authority to

entertain plaintiffs’ request to expand the consent decree. It does not.

1. Where no adjudication or admission of a constitutional violation has occurred, a court may not enlarge a consent decree.

The consent decree, as currently styled, requires the Secretary and other election officials

to accept certain provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or with incomplete information,

provided that a poll worker caused the error. Plaintiffs now seek to expand these provisions.

Here is the problem with that request: This Court never adjudicated the merits of

plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. To the contrary, the Court entered the decree without any

finding or admission that Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures violate the Constitution. See

Consent Decree at 2 (Doc. 210).

The Sixth Circuit has held that “a district court may not, in the name of modification,

circumvent the express terms of a defendant party’s consent in the absence of an adjudicated or


admitted violation of law.” Lorain NAACP, 979 F.2d at 1153; accord Fox v. Dep’t of Housing &

Urban Dev., 680 F.2d 315, 323 (3d Cir. 1982) (“[A] court may not impose additional duties upon

a defendant party to a consent decree without an adjudication or admission that the defendant

violated the plaintiffs’ legal rights.”). Because no adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims occurred

here, plaintiffs cannot seek—and this Court cannot order—an expansion of the consent decree

over the Secretary and the State’s objection.

The Sixth Circuit confronted this very issue in Lorain NAACP. A group of black and

Hispanic students sued the Lorain City School District and the Ohio State Board of Education,

citing racial segregation and discrimination in their school administration. 979 F.2d at 1143-44.

The parties entered a consent decree. Without any finding or admission of liability, the school

district agreed to balance the racial composition of its schools and faculty, and the State of Ohio

agreed to pay $1 million for implementation costs. Id. at 1144.

That financial contribution proved insufficient. As costs and salaries rose, school

officials struggled to maintain compliance with the consent decree’s provisions. Id. at 1146.

They asked the district court to modify the decree and enlarge the State of Ohio’s financial

contribution. Finding that “the parties had grossly understated the costs of desegregation,” the

district court increased the State’s payment to $9 million. Id. at 1147.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s order. The court observed that

“there has been no judicial determination of the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and no finding of

constitutional violation by any of the defendants, including the State.” Id. at 1150. Rather, the

State “accepted limited liability through the entry of a consent decree.” Id. at 1151. The order

increasing the State’s payments, the Sixth Circuit explained, “st[ood] contrary to, and effectively


eviscerate[d], the terms of the State’s consent from which the district court derived its authority

to enter the consent judgment.” Id. at 1153.

This case presents the same scenario. The Court entered the consent decree without any

adjudication or admission of liability. Plaintiffs now seek significant expansion of the consent

decree over the Secretary and the State’s objection. This Court must deny that request. “In the

absence of an adjudication or admission of constitutional violation, the district court’s authority

to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of . . . the consent

decree.” Id.

2. Plaintiffs cite no contrary authority that permits expansion of a consent decree over a defendant’s objection.

Plaintiffs fail to highlight a single instance where a district court enlarged a consent

decree over a defendant’s objection. That omission speaks volumes.

Plaintiffs do offer numerous cases where the defendant requested or acceded to an

expansion of its consent-decree obligations. See Cleveland Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 669

F.3d 737, 739 (6th Cir. 2012) (“The City . . . moved, on September 26, 2008, for an extension of

the [second consent decree’s] September 29, 2008 deadline.”); LULAC Dist. 19 v. City of

Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 427 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he city and LULAC filed a joint motion asking

the district court to reopen the case and enter a modified consent decree.”); Vanguards of

Cleveland v. City of Cleveland, 23 F.3d 1013, 1016 (6th Cir. 1994) (“In June 1992, the

Vanguards and the City entered into a proposed Stipulation and Order which recommended

modifications to the 1983 consent decree.”). This case is quite different—the defendants object

to the underlying validity of the consent decree as well as to any enlargement of the consent

decree.


Plaintiffs also reference a case where the district court delayed a consent decree’s

expiration because it found that a defendant had fully ignored the decree’s provisions. See

Thompson v. United States HUD, 404 F.3d 821, 828 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he court modified the

Decree because the Local Defendants had done almost nothing that they were required to do

under the Decree.”). But plaintiffs here do not seek to extend the existing decree past its April

2013 expiration. Rather, they urge this Court to modify the decree—and order additional

relief—against the Secretary and the State.

Finally, plaintiffs cite examples where a district court modified a consent decree to relax

a defendant’s duties in response to changed circumstances. See Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep’t,

679 F.2d 541, 562 (6th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he court’s modification of the decree is simply an

exercise of its equity jurisdiction to temporarily relieve the hardship on the City which strict

compliance with the decrees would have caused.”) (emphasis added). Again, plaintiffs here do

not seek to relax the consent decree’s provisions; they seek to enlarge them and impose further

burdens on the Secretary.

None of these authorities support what plaintiffs seek—expansion of a consent decree

against the defendants over their objection.

Indeed, one of plaintiffs’ authorities reinforces the very point. In United States v.

Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991), the federal government alleged unconstitutional

conditions in three Michigan prisons. The parties entered a consent decree without any

admission or adjudication of liability. Five years later, the district court entered a series of

orders—one of which expanded the decree over the State of Michigan’s objection. On appeal,

the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that district courts “retain the authority to modify consent

decrees upon affirmative proof of a defect or deficiency in an original decree which impedes


achieving the objectives of the decree.” Id. at 155. But the court also emphasized that “the

ordered modifications [must] further the purpose of the original decree without upsetting the . . .

scope of the basic agreement between the parties.” Id. (emphasis added).

The Sixth Circuit then reversed the district court’s modification—specifically, its

decision to “extend[] the [consent decree’s] classification plan to prison facilities statewide”—

for disregarding that principle. Id. at 159. That extension was “in derogation of the consent

decree, which, by agreement of the parties, limited the application of the classification plan to the

named institutions.” Id. The Sixth Circuit further observed that no constitutional adjudication

had occurred: “[T]he record reveal[ed] no affirmative factual proof of constitutional violations

to support this material extension and modification of the consent decree.” Id.

This case presents the same issues. This Court entered the consent decree in 2010, which

directed the Secretary and the State to count certain defective provisional ballots, in exchange for

the plaintiffs’ agreement to forgo adjudication of their constitutional claims. Citing changed

circumstances, plaintiffs now seek expansion of the decree. The Court must turn aside the

request. Any expansion of the decree beyond its original scope would be an “abuse[] [of]

discretion” and an “intru[sion] upon the sovereignty of [Ohio].” Id.

3. Plaintiffs cannot expand the consent decree by belatedly attempting to litigate the merits of their constitutional claims.

The rest of plaintiffs’ modification motion reads like a summary judgment request. They

allege that Ohio still rejects provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct or with incomplete

affirmation forms, even if poll workers prompted the voter’s mistake. “The continued rejection

of ballots cast by lawfully registered voters,” plaintiffs assert, “violates the United States

Constitution.” Plts’ Mot. for Mod. at 20 (Doc. 288). To “prevent unconstitutional

disenfranchisement,” plaintiffs urge the Court to strengthen the decree. Id. at 34.


It is too late to litigate these matters. When plaintiffs entered the consent decree in 2010,

they “relinquish[ed] [a] valuable right”—specifically, “the right to be made ‘whole’ by proving a

violation of [federal law].” Stotts, 679 F.2d at 557; see also Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909,

920 (6th Cir. 1983) (“[A] consent decree is a voluntary settlement agreement [in] which . . .

[p]laintiffs have exchanged their right to obtain adjudicatory relief which would fully eliminate

the effects of discrimination in the past as well as in the future.”). In their words, plaintiffs

“surrender[ed] their claims that the statutes are unconstitutional . . . ‘by agreeing to the consent

decree.’” Plts’ Mot. to Enjoin State Court Proceedings at 6 (Doc. 246) (citation omitted).

Two years later, plaintiffs desire to retain their benefits but eschew their burdens under

the consent decree. They insist on binding the State and the Secretary to the decree. Yet they

also want to pursue the very things they surrendered. Under the guise of a modification motion,

plaintiffs attempt both to litigate their claim that Ohio’s election code unconstitutionally

disenfranchises voters and to secure more invasive equitable relief against the Secretary. The

Court must reject that effort. “A party cannot simultaneously benefit from a decree and ignore

its corresponding affirmative obligations.” Stotts, 679 F.2d at 557.

If plaintiffs believe the consent decree is invalid or ineffective, they can ask the Court to

vacate it. At that point, the parties would return to their litigating positions. But as long as the

Court keeps the decree in place, plaintiffs must live with the bargain they struck. That means

forfeiting the right to litigate their claims and the right to request relief beyond the letter of the

consent decree.

C. Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures. A third obstacle fatally undercuts plaintiffs’ modification request: They no longer

possess standing to litigate these constitutional claims.


To satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show “(1) it has suffered

an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not

conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged act of the

defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed

by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167,

180-81 (2000). At the outset of the case, the Secretary and the State challenged plaintiffs’

standing because NEOCH failed to produce evidence that Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures

would inflict injury on the organization or its members.

This Court determined that NEOCH, as an organization, “ha[d] failed to establish

standing to sue on its own behalf.” Order at 7-8 (Doc. 108). But the Court held that NEOCH

had “organizational standing” to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules on behalf of its

“homeless members who did not have any form of identification required by the Voter ID Law

but who did have Social Security numbers.” Id. at 9.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied exclusively on “declarations of four NEOCH

members . . . stat[ing] that the declarant is homeless; is a United States Citizen, intends to vote in

the November 2006 election, does not have any form of identification required by the Voter ID

Law; and does have a Social Security number.”2 Id. at 9-10. Because “those voters would be

required to submit provisional ballots due to their lack of other identification” on Election Day,

the Court found that they had individual standing to challenge Ohio’s “provisions governing

whether provisional ballots could be counted.” Id. at 11-12. As such, NEOCH had

“organizational standing” in 2006 to sue on behalf of these members.

2 A fifth NEOCH member, Kyle Wangler, has since intervened as a plaintiff in this case.


Six years have now passed. Plaintiffs again allege that Ohio’s provisional-ballot

procedures will disenfranchise their members at the upcoming election, and they again seek

injunctive relief against the Secretary. Because plaintiffs seek to restart this litigation, they must

again demonstrate Article III standing. “To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication,

‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint

is filed.’” Arizonians for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (emphasis added).

On that score, the record demonstrates that plaintiffs lack such standing:

• James Caldwell’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment

building on Taylor Road, and that he has not voted in any recent election.

• Micky Trammel’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment

building on West 25th Street, and that he voted absentee in the last election.

• Kyle Wangler’s registration record indicates that he now lives in a single-family

home on Barkwill Avenue, and that he has not voted in any recent election.

• Anthony Willis’s registration record indicates that he now lives in an apartment

building on East 79th Street, and that he voted absentee in the last election.

• Edward Rinn is not registered to vote in Cuyahoga County.

See Aff. of Jane M. Platten, Exs. A-E.

None of these members has standing to challenge Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules in his

own right. First, it appears that four of the individuals are no longer homeless. If true, they are

no longer confined to provisional-ballot voting on Election Day.

Second, Mr. Rinn is not registered to vote in Cuyahoga County; Mr. Caldwell is

registered but has never cast a ballot; and Mr. Wangler is registered but last voted in 2004. If


these individuals do not vote, they face no risk of imminent injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot

rules.

Third, the other members (Willis and Trammel) cast absentee ballots in recent elections.

When casting an absentee ballot, they did not need to produce identification. Rather, they

submitted an application listing the last four digits of their Social Security number, and the

county election board mailed them a regular ballot. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.03. Assuming

that Mr. Willis and Mr. Trammel continue their practice of voting absentee, they face no risk of

casting a provisional ballot in an upcoming election. They accordingly face no risk of imminent

injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot rules.

This Court permitted plaintiffs’ challenge in 2006 precisely because they “ha[d]

demonstrated that four . . . members intended to vote on election day and had no form of

identification other than a Social Security number.” Order at 11 (Doc. 108). Plaintiffs have

failed to make that showing today. Absent a demonstration that any of their current members

face imminent injury from Ohio’s provisional-ballot procedures, plaintiffs lack standing to

maintain this lawsuit.


CONCLUSION

The Court should deny plaintiffs’ motion to modify the consent decree.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL DEWINE Attorney General of Ohio /s/ Aaron D. Epstein Aaron D. Epstein* (0063286) Assistant Attorney General *Trial Counsel 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 466-2872 Fax: (614) 725-7592 [email protected] Joseph N. Rosenthal (0018117) Amanda L. Scheeser (0074259) Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: (614) 644-7257 Fax: (866) 378-3771 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted

MICHAEL DEWINE Attorney General of Ohio

/s/ Peggy W. Corn Peggy W. Corn* (0042197) Assistant Attorney General *Trial Counsel 30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 466-2864 Fax: (614) 644-7634 [email protected]

David M. Lieberman (0086005) Deputy Solicitor 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 466-8980 Fax: (614) 466-5087 [email protected]

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant State of Ohio


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of July, 2012, this Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion to Modify the April 19, 2010 Consent Decree was filed electronically. Notice of this

filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system.

/s/ Peggy W. Corn


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Ohio,

Defendant,

and

THE STATE OF OHIO,

Intervenor-Defendant.

Case No. 2:06-cv-896

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Kemp

AFFIDAVIT OF JANE M. PLATTEN

State of Ohio

County of Cuyahoga

I, Jane M. Platten, being over the age of eighteen and under no disability, testify

on information and belief as follows:

1. I am employed by the Cuyahoga County Board of EJections, where I serve in the position of Director, performing duties relating to administering elections in Cuyahoga County, including maintaining a public database:of registered voters and their voting history.

2. Based on my position and responsibilities, I have first-hand knowledge of the process by which the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections maintains voter registration information.

3. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections public database (http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us) permits verification of a citizen's voter registration information. The database displays a voter's registration status,

1

Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 306-1 Filed: 07/06/12 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 10375

address, precinct number, polling location, district information, and voter participation history.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of James Caldwell's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of Micky Trammell's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election' s public database.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit Cis a tme and accurate copy of Anthony Willis's voter registration infonnation, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of Kyle Wangler's voter registration information, downloaded from the Cuyahoga County Board of Election's public database.

8. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections' records reflect that Edward Rinn is not currently registered to vote in Cuyahoga County. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of the results of a query for Mr. Rinn from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections public database.

Further Affiant sayeth naught.

•

~Q~G, otary Pubhc \- \ ~ - \ "\

2


My Voting Information

1___ __________ . _ _( Search: I Home Voters

Am I Registered?

Where Do l Vote?

Reglstnltlon

Using Optical Scan Ballots

ID Requirements

Declare or Change Party

Voter Info Guide

Vote By Mall

Provisional Voting

Poll Workers

Candidates

Election Calendar

Election Information About Us

Business With The Board

Community Outreach

FAQs Forms & Applications

Help America to Vote Act

Job Opportunities

links & Resources

Maps

Notices & Calendar

Reports & Historical Info

Sltemap

Spanish Advisory Board

VIdeos

Current Events & News

I I

EXHIBIT

A

You are here: limn~>~> Am I Registered?

~ l Am J Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use : ! the Polling ~cation Search to find out where you should vote.

; ! If your address is not current in our database. complete this Voter Realstratlon Card • print it, sign (mus~ j have the original signature) and mall It to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio : : 44115. l

l Enter your last na!lle and date of birth. H you do not see the code above the search box. please I click the search button again to view another code. · . .

~ I ; i

------------------------~._.iloo_.v.m.e.r.ln~ro~nm.a_ti_on------------------------: 1·. Voter lnfonnatlon Current Poll1ng Location Dl&trk:t Information

JAMES CAlCMal

1885 TAYLOR RO EAST CLEVElAND, Ott 44112

Party: X

City· Wlnl· Precinct EAST CI.EVELANO -04-C

Election Dates

Next election Is on 111812012

PROSPECT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

1843 STAtMOOO ROAD EAST Cl.EV6..ANO OH 44112·2G01

Get MtD ami DfredjO!I!

Voter registration ends on 101912012

~wBal!ots

Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 COUNTY COUNCIL OISl'RICT 10 EAST CLEVE CSD ·TAXIOI 1812 EAST CLEVE MUNI COURT DISTRICT EAST CLEVElAND LIBRARY DISTRICT HOUSE DIS"m!CT e STATE BOARD OF EDU DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE OISTRICT25

Vote by man application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM. 111312012

Voter Participation History

NOTE: VOTER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY NOT 8E IMMEDIATELY AVAilABLE AT THE ENOOF AN ElECTIOH. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERllFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.

• last election voted: • Precinct: • aanotType:<

ril VIew More

Poll Worker Participation History

NOTE: POLl WORKER PARTICIPATI<»> DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEOIATtlY AVAILABlE AT THE END OF AH ELECTION. PlEASE AllOW FOR CERTifiCATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.

: i

. i

. i : . . I .. . :

• Aceuslblllty statement : I http://tJoe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/201~

-------------------------------------------------------------· , i


My Voting Infonnation

-· ··· · ···

.

. . ... .

__ ---·-·--· I Search : I Home

Voters Am I Registered?

Where Do I Vote?

Registration

Using Optical Scan Ballots

lD Requirements


Voter Info Guide

Vote By Mall

Provisional Voting

Poll Workers

Candidates Election Calendar Election Information

About Us Business With The Board

Community Outreach


Help America to Vote Act Job Opportunities Unks & Resources Maps

Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info

Sttemap

Spanish Advisory Board VIdeos Current Events & News

EXHIBIT

Page I+ . . •! -

You are here:~> Y2!Jtl'l >Am I Registered?

Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use tnis application. If you do not have Internet Explorer. please use the Polling Location Search to find ou where you should vote.

. ;

. i

. ;

If your address is nof current in our database, complete this Voter Registration Card • print it, sign {must ! have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections- 2925 Eudid Avenue, Cleveland. Ohio · · 44115.

Enter your last name and date of blrth. lt you do not see thp code above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.

. i

. '

Detailed Voter Information : ; --------------------~~~~----~------------------~ Voter lnfonnatlon

MICKY TRAMMELL

t74525TH ST ClEVElAND, OH 4411~

Current Polling Location District lnfonnatlon :' 1·.

CLEVElAND CSO -TAX 10 I 1809 RIVERVIEW APARlMENTS CLEVElAND LIBRARY DISTRICT

CLEVElAND MUNICIPAL COURT OIST. 1795 WEST 25TH STREET CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 ' ' CLEVElAND 0H 4411~132 COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT 01 . i

Party: DEMOCRAT

Clly ·Want -Precinct:

HOUSE DISTRICT 10 Get MaR and PI!!Ctlon! STATE BOARD OF EOO DISTRICT 11

ClEVElAND ..{13.0

Election Dates

Next election iS on 11/612012

Voter registration ends on 10J9J2012

lilv'rew Ballots

Vote ay Mall (Absentee Voting)

STATE SENATE DISTRICT 21

Vote by mai application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM, 111312012

:voter Participation History

NOTE: VOTER PAATICIPAnON DATA MAY NOT 8€ IMMEDIATELY AVAILASLE AT THE END OF AN ElECTION. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERT!FICAT!ONSANO[>ATA ENTRY.

• l ast election voted: 31612012 • Prednct: CLEVELAND ·03-G • Ballot Type:< Absentee

~View More


NOTE: POLL v.QRKER PARTtCIPAnON DATA MAY NOT BE lMMEDtATf.LY AVAilABLE AT THE END Of AN ELECTION. PLEASE AlLOWFORCERnFtCATIONSANO DATA ENlRY.

• Accessibility Statement

I

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3120q



I

~~~ ~--__ -_-__ -___ j,_s_e_a-rc_h_:_,l

Home

Voters Am I Registered?

Where Do I Vote?

Registration

Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements


Voter Info Guide

Vote By Mall

Provisional Voting

Poll Workers

Candidates Election Calendar

Election Information

About Us Business With The Board

Community Outreach FAQs

Forms & Appilcations

Help America to Vote Act Job Opportunities Links & Resources Maps

Notices & Calendar

Reports & Historical Info Sitemap

Spanish Advisory Board Videos

Current Events & News

I I

EXHIBIT

c

. i

You are here:~>~> Am I Registered?

Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not haw Internet Explorer, please use : ~ the Polling Location Search to find out where you should vote. ; i If your address Is not current in our database, complete this Voter Registration Card . print it, sign {musi ; have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. Ohio 44115.

Enter your last name and date of birth. If you do not see the cod$ above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.

Detailed Votef Information Voter lnfonnatlon

ANTHONY INilliS

197&7WHST CLEVELAND, OH44102

Pa!11: DfMOCAAT

Clty ~WIRI·~: CLEVElAND ·15-L

Election Dates

Cunent PoUing Location

MICHAEl ZONE RECREAllON CENTER

8301 LORAIN AVENUE ClEVE\ANDOH 44102--4474

Get Map ;md Q!ttcllont

Next eledlon Is on 11/612012

Voter registration ends on 10/912012

~leW Ballots

Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)

DIStrict Information CLEVEI.ANDCSO ·TAX ID •1800 CLEVElAND liBRARY DISTRICT ClfVElAHD MUNICIPAl COURT OIST. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11

· COUtm' COUNCIL DISTRiCT 03 HOUSE DISTRICT 13 STATE 90ARD OF EDU DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE DISTRICT 23

Vote by mall application can be submitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM,111312012

Voter Partlclpatlon History

NOTE: VOTER PARllCIPATlON DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATElY AVAILABLE AT THE END Of AN ElECTION. PLEASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.

• l..a$t election voted: 1112J2010 • Prednct CLEVElAND -15-l • Ballot Type:< Absentee

t¥l View More


NOTE: POll WORKER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY. NOT BE IM\4EDIATEL Y AVAILABLE AT THE END OF AN ELECTION. PLEASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFICATIONS AND DATA ENTRY.

• Ac~5ibillty Statoment

; :

i '

I

' ! i

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/201

,,



1_ .. __ ~·- ---- I Search : I Home

Voters Am l Registered?

Where Do J Vote?

Registration

Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements .


Voter Info Guide

Vote By Mail Provisional Voting

Poll Workers

Candidates . Election calendar Election Information About Us

Business With The Board Community Outreach



Job Opportunities links & Resources Maps Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info Sitemap Spanish Advisory Board Videos Current Events & News

I:IU1JDII

D II

Page 1

You are here: !:f:2.m! > ~ >Am., Registered?

Am I Registered? You must use internet Explorer to use this application. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use the Polling Location Search to find out where you should vote.

; I . '

' I I : ! !

If your address is not c;urrent In our database, complete this Voter Registration Card • print It, sign (mus~ have the original signature) and mail it to the Board of Elections - 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio i i 44115.

Enter your last name and date of birth. tr you do not see the code above the search box, please click the search button again to view another code.

Detailed Voter Information

Voter lnformation

KYLE WANGLER

6111 BARKIMLLAVE CLEVELAND, OH 44127

Party: OEMOCRAT

City • wanl · PNclnct: CLEVElAND ·06-J

Election Dates

CLWrent Polling Location

ALEXIA MANOR

5125 HECTOR AVENUE ClEVELAND OH 44127

~ Map and Dlrect!oM

Next eledion is on 111612012

Voter registration ends on 1Qf912012 .

l¥Mew Ballots

Dlstllct tnfonnatlon ClEVElANDCSD-TAXIDI 1809 CLEVElAND UBRARY DISTRICT CLEVElAND MUNICIPAl COURT DIST. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11 COUNJY COUHCIL DISTRICT 08 HOUSE DISTRICT t1 STATE BOARD oF EOO DISTRICT 11 STATE SENATE DISTRJCT 21

i i I :

I i I I

; I

! : . i

. ~

. !

:! ~--~~~~------~~---------------------------------Vote By Mall (Absentee Voting)

Vote by·matl application can be sobmitted beginning on 1/112012 and ending at 12:00 PM, 111312012

Voter Participation History

NOTE: \'OTER PARTICf'ATION DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AVAI.ABL.EATTHE END OFAN ElECTlON. PlfASE ALLOW FOR CERTIFI<:ATlONS AND DATA ENTRY.

• Last election voted: 111212004 • Precinct CLEVELAND-13- D • BallOt Type:< Poll

OOVJewMore


NOTE: POLl Y.ORKER PARTICIPATION DATA MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AVAilASLE AT THE END OF AH ElECTION. PLEASE AllOW FOR CERllFI<:ATlONS AND DATA ENTRY.

• Accessibility Statement

http:/ /boe.cuyahogacounty .uslen-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite... 7/3/20 1'



( ____ ·-·-·--- I Search : I Home Voters Am I Registered?

Where Dol Vote7

Registration

Using Optical Scan Ballots ID Requirements


Voter Info Guide

Vote By Mail Provisional Voting PoU Workers

Candidates Election Calendar Election Information About Us

Business With The Board Com~unlty Outreach

FAQS Forms & Applications


Job Opportunities

Unks &. Resources

Maps

Notices & Calendar Reports & Historical Info Sltemap Spanish Advisory Board Videos CUrrent Events & News

EXHIBIT

E:

' .•.• ~ ' '")itii ,··

: I

Page 1 ofi . . ,,,, .... . . ,., .. "";':-· . ·. · • .• ,,;; ... .. ~> ·, .' . .......... .. .......

• c '! •

~ -.= ·ae· ~ ~ . . •,. ~ I-!:

·~·-:I I:

You are here: ti9.fM >~>Am I Registered?

Am I Registered? You must use Internet Explorer to use this appicatlon. If you do not have Internet Explorer, please use the Polling Location Search to find out where you should Vde.

i;

If your address Is not current In our database, oomplete this Voter Reglmatk!n Card • print it, sign (musti i have the original slgnature) and ma~ it 10 the Board of Elections- 2925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. OhiO ; ! 44115. L Enter yow a.t name and ct.te of birth. If you do not aee the code above the aean:h box. please dick thueareh button again to view another code.

Search for Voter Information - B6$Ciueda de lnformad6n de Sector

Last Name -Ape !lido:

Date ofBlrth-Fechade Nacimiento: I( ____ ¢ .. -·-·-.... ... -~'YYYY)

I Search - Busqueda I L ________________ _

Voter Search Results Voter registration was not found. Please check the entered Last Name and Date of Birth and fly again.

t. ; ~ · , I ..

If the information provided Is incorrect, please call the Registration department of Cuyahoga COunty · . Board of Electloos at ~16-443-3298 Md verify yoor registration information. ·

Boan1 or EleCtiOns 2925 EvcldAvenue Clelleland, Olllo 44115 (216} 44$-3200

• Access~ SUUmtnt . • Dlsc:Wrner

• PriYKY Policy • Public Reconlt Polley

.

. : ; ! : ;

.. :! : :

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/GetVotersTemplate.aspx?LanguageCD=en-US&Ite ...


Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT …