UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF … · I sent to Ms. Lazar and Mr. Hodan via...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ALVIN BALDUS , CINDY BARBERA, CARLENEBECHEN, RONALD BIENDSEIL, RON BOONE, VERABOONE, ELVIRA BUMPUS, EVANJELINACLEEREMAN, SHEILA COCHRAN, LESLIE W.DAVIS IIT, BRETT ECKSTEIN, MAXINE TiOUGH,CLARENCE JOHNSON, RICHARD KRESBACH,RICHARD LANGE, GLADYS MANZANET,ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RTSSEEUW, JUDYROBSON , GLORIA ROGERS , JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL , CECELIA SCHLIEPP, TRAVIS THYSSEN,

Plainti ffs,

TAMMY BALDWIN, GWENDOLYNNE MOOREand RONALD KIND,

Tntervenor-Plainti ffs,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountabil i ty Board,

Defendants,

F . JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR ., THOMAS E. PETRI,PAUL D. RYAN, JR ., REID J . RIBBLE ,and SEAN P . DUFFY ,

Intervenor-Defendants .

(cap tion continued on next page)

C iv il Acti onFi l e No. 11-CV-562

Three-judge panel28 U.S.C. § 2284

DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS M. POLAND IN SUPPORT OFPLATNTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY HEARING AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR HEARING ONDEFENDANTS' PROTECTNE ORDER MOTION

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 of 5 Document 113

VOCES DE LA FRONTERA , INC., RAMIRO VARA,OLGA WARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiffs,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity :MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountabil ity Board,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-1011JPS-DPW-RMD

I, Doug las M . Pol and, declare, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 2 8 U. S .C.

§ 1746, that the following is true and correct :

I am an attorney with the law firm of Godfrey & Kahn, S.C . , and I am admi tted to

practice in the State of Wisconsin and in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin. I represent plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. I make this declaration based on

my personal knowledge and in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Emergency Hearing and

Order to Show Cause-to Defendants to Provide Correct Data and Explain Failure to Disclose-

and for Hearing on Defendants' Protective Order Motion.

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of a January

13, 2012 memorandum from Kevin J. Kennedy, Director and General Counsel of the

Government Accountability Board ("GAB"), regarding "Redistricting Anomal ies-Municipal

and Ward Boundari es . " This memorandum was posted on the website of the Milwaukee Journal

Sentinel on January 13, along with an article titled, "Redistricting problem means thousands are

2Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-R M D Filed 01/1 6/ 1 2 of 5 Document 1 1 3

l isted in wrong district ." A true and correct copy of that article , retrieved from that newsp aper 's

website on January 16 , is attached as Exhibi t 2 to this declaration .

3 . Attached as Exhibit 3 to thi s dec l arat ion i s a true and correct copy of a November

10, 20 1 1 memorandum from Sarah Whitt and Shane Falk of the GAB regarding "Census Blocks

Conflicting w ith Municipal Boundaries."

4 . Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration i s a true and correct copy of an articl e

with the headlin e, "Errors in redistricting process could affect thousand s of voters," which

appeared in the January 11, 2012 edition of the Wisconsin State Journal, and which was retrieved

from that newspaper 's website on January 15 , 201 2.

5 . Attached as Exhibit 5 to thi s decl aration is a true and correct copy of an art ic le

with the headl ine, "Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in Afric a ," which appeared in the January

11, 2012 edition of the Journal Sentinel, and which was retrieved from that newspaper's website

on January 15, 201 2.

6. Attached as Exhibit 6 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs'

Second Supplemental Rule 26(a) disclosures , dated January 11, 2012 .

Attached as Exhib it 7 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the initial

disclosures that defendants served on November 16, 2011.

8. Attached as Exh ib i t 8 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the

amended initial disclosures that defendants served on November 25, 2011 .

9. Attache d as Exhibit 9 to this declarat io n is a true and correct copy of a l etter from

Rebecca Kathryn Mason, counsel for the pla intiffs, hand-de l ivered to Assistant Attorney General

Maria S . Lazar on November 29, 2011 .

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F il ed 01/16/12 of 5 Documen t 113

10 . Attached as Exhibit 10 to thi s declaration is a true and correct copy of a letter

from Ms . Mason to Patrick Hodan , counsel for the defendants , delivered by e-ma il on December

5 , 2011 .

11. Att ached as Exhibit 11 to thi s declarat ion i s a true and correct copy of Plainti ffs '

F i rst Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents, served on defendants

on November 22 , 2011 .

1 2. Attached as Exhibit 12 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of

Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production

of Documents, dated December 12, 2011. The documents produced by the defendants were

delivered to the plaintiffs on December 12, 201 1 . Those documents consisted of a 339-page

transcript of a July 13, 2011 legislative hearing on the Wisconsin Redistricting Plan and three

oversized maps of Acts 43 and 44, as well as a "thumb drive" containing census files from the

Legislative Technology Services Bureau, the Statewide 10 folder, and ward lines; no Microsoft

Word or pdf documents appeared on the "thumb drive." The November 10, 2011 memorandum

attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration was not among the documents produced at that time, and

to date has not been produced by the defendants.

13. Attached as Exhibit 13 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the second

set of discovery requests that the plaintiffs served on the defendants on January 12, 2012, which

included requests related to the anomalies in the redistricting data recently reported in the news

media.

14. Attached as Exhibit 14 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of a letter that

I sent to Ms. Lazar and Mr. Hodan via e-mail on January 14, 2012.

15. On January 16, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., I and Dustin Brown, another attorney at

Godfrey & Kahn, discussed the issues raised in my January 14 letter in a telephone call with

4Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 0 1l16I12 of 5 Document 113

defendants' counsel Ms. Lazar, Mr . Hodan, and Daniel Kelly. In this c al l , Mr . Kelly articulate d

the defendants' view that the anomalies identified by the GAB are not relevant to thi s li ti gation ,

because courts adopt the fiction that the census data i s accurate. They further expl ai ned that they

would move the Court for a protective order if the pl aintiffs did not withdraw the discovery

reques ts that relate to the anomalies . I decl ined their inv itation to withdraw the discovery

requests, because the plaintiffs dis agree as to the relevance of this issue.

16 . The defendants filed their motion for pro tect ive order (Dkt . 107) within an hour of

our phone call.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forego ing is true and correct.

Dated : J anuary 16 , 201 2.

s/DougZas M. PolandDouglas M. Po landState B az No. 1055189Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.One East Main S treet , Su ite 500P . O . Box 2 71 9Madison, WI 5370 1 -2719608-257-3911dpo [email protected]

7 7 5 202 8 _ 1

5Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-R M D Fiied 01/16/12 of 5 Document 113

EXHIBIT I

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 8 Documen t 113-1

State of Wisconsin \ Government Accountability Board2 1 2 Ees l WazNngton Aveuuq 1e0 Fl oorPos t O[(ire Boz 7984 JUDGE DAVID C. DEININGERMa d is on , R7 53707-798 6 ChairyersonVoitt(606)266-8005F. (608) 267-0500&mnil: gab@w's ronsingov KEViNJ . KENNEDYblryJ/gaE.M.gov Dirccmr and Gencral Counwi

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 13, 2012

TO: Wisconsin Municipal ClerksC ity of Milwaukee Election Commissi onWisconsin County ClerksMilwaukee County E l ec tion Commissi on

FROM: Kevin J. KennedyDirector and General CounselGovernment Accou ntabi lity Board

Nathani e l E. RobinsonElections Di v i sion Admi nistra torGovernment Accountability Board

SUBJECT: Redistricting Anomal ies-Muni cipal and Ward Boundaries

Introduction

I t i s cri tical to have the mos t acc u rate municipal and voting district boundary lines possible i n SVRS, i norder to assu re vo ters are assigned to correc t districts, avo i d voter and election official confu s i on, and tohave a manageab le workflow for clerks during this red i stric ting process. Throu gh th e conversations wehave had w i th local electi on offi cials, as wel l as state and l ocal geographi c information spec ialist s,municipal and ward boundaries anomali es have been brought to our atten tion th at directly impac t theG . A .B . Redistric ti ng Initiative. Thi s Memorandum identifies th ese anomalies, prov ides some examplesand a detailed anal ysis, and provides gui dance to help reduce the conseque nti al impact of theanomalies. If you discover that your jurisdi ction i s affected by these anom alies and you have notalready contacted the G.A.B ., please be sure to immed i ately raise i t to the attention of Electi onsSupervi sor, Ross Hein.

In preparati on to imp lement t he voting districts es tablished after the 201 0 Federal Decennial Census inSVRS for the December 1, 2012 release, some geographic information speci a l is ts an d clerk s hadcontacted the G.A.B. with questio n s regarding municipa l and ward boundari es anomal i es result i ng fromdifferences be tween Census data and actual municipal and ward boundari es. On November 18, 2011and in light of these known anomalies, th e G.A. B . provi ded all clerks wi th "Redis tr i c ti ng Update #5:Municipal and Ward Boundaries." At that time, the G.A. B . advised you as follows:

Census Data Accuracy

Some geographic information specialists and clerks have contacted G.A.B. wi thquesti ons regard i ng anomalies between census data and the actu al municipalboundaries and geography. According to the Census Buzeau,the Census geographicdata is accura te to approximately 50 meters. 50 meters can be enough for a house topotentially appear in the wrong distric t , so to address this, G.A.B. is allowing

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 8 Document 113-1

Redistricting Anomalies-Municipal and Ward BoundariesJanuary 13, 2012Page 2

counties to prov i de us with wards from the i r county GIS systems th at have beenadj usted to refl ec t actual physic al municipal boundaries and geography.

Using County GIS Data

The data from the county GIS sys tems tends to be highly accu rate, and in some casesat a survey level of acc uracy. So far, approximatel y 1 5 coun ties have provided u swith adjus ted wards. For those counties, we will use the adjusted wards i ns tead ofthe census-based wards we receive from WISE-LR. Using the adjusted wards alsoensures that all other districts that are built upon those wards (aldermanic, countysuperv i sory , S tate Assembly , State Senate, and Congress ional) w ill also follow thecorrec t municipal boundaries. We wi ll contin u e to implement corrected ward s ascounties are able to prov i de them to us. If we ge t corrected wards from a co unty afterDecember l ,we will work with th e impac ted clerks so you know i f you r bou ndarylines will be changi ng.

Correcting Exceptions

For counties that were not able to provide u s w i th adjusted wards from their countyGIS sys tems, clerks may see some d i screpancies with municipal boundaries in SVRSon December 1 when the new di stricts become available. G.A. B . is creating a spec i alexception report sp ecifically to iden ti fy any registered voters who appear in theincorrect mun icipal i ty after we i mplemen t th e new distric t maps. Clerks will begi ven instructions and train i ng on how to correct any regis tered voters who areinadvertentl y placed i n the wrong municipality. Future guidance will also prov i deinstructions as to any new voter registration issues that may arise.

Approximately 20 count ies have now taken advantage of the G.A. B.'s direction and coordi nated theloading of their more accurate municipal and ward boundaries from their county GIS systems intoSVRS. Thi s resulted i n a dramatic reduction of except ions that had to be corrected by t hemunicipalities withi n those invol ved counti es. This Memorandum provides a more detailedexplanati on of th e anomalies and reaffirm G.A .S.'s direct i on from November 18, 2011 regarding theuse of county GIS munic i pal and ward boundaries i n SVRS to minimize exceptions requiring fu rtheract i on by clerks.

REDISTRICTING ANOMALIES: MUNICIPAL AND WARD BOUNDARIES

Background

Every ten years, as part of the decennial Census, the U.S. Census Bureau collects demographic andgeographi c information from across the country and compiles the data for use by states, cou nties, andmunicipalities to draw new di strict lines. Th e census data i s broken down by censu s b l ocks, whichprovi de the bas ic building block for elec toral districts. Census blocks contain popula tion anddemograp hic information necessary to draw fair and balanced districts. The boundar i es for the censusblocks frequently follow admi n i strative boundaries s uch as municipal and school boundaries, andphys i cal geographic fea tures such as roads and waterways. Census blocks are used in Wisconsin tobu il d wards. Sea 5.15( 1 )(b), Wi s. Stats.; 2011 Act 39, Sec. 2. These wards are then comb ined to forma ldermani c, county supervisory, State Assemb ly, State Senate, and Congressional districts. 2011 Act39, Sees. 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 23; 201 1 Act 43, Sec. 6; 2011 Ac t 44, Sea 2.

The geographic information that results from the census, i ncl uding census blocks, roads and waterways,muni c i pal and school district boundaries, and other geographic data sets maintained by Census are



provided to states in the form of Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing(TIGER) map files . Accord ing to the US Census website (www.census.eov), the boundaries shown inthe TIGER map files are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and tabula ti on purposes only;their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination ofjurisdictional autho ri ty or ri ghts of ownership or entitlement.

In Wisconsi n, the Census TIGER map fi les and demographi c informa ti on are loaded into a [ool ca lledWTSE-LR , whi c h is adminis tered by the Legisla ti ve Techno logy Services Bureau (LTSB ). WISE-LR isthen used by the Wiscons in S tate Legislature, as well as count ies and munic i pali ties, to create newdi stricts.

Accuracy of TIGER and WISE-LR Maas

After the 2000 Cen sus redis tric ti ng effort , there was wides pread compl aints that the TIGER data fromthe 2000 cen su s was inaccurate i n both geograp hy and adminis trative boundaries. Specifically, whenthe TIGER data was overlai d with actual municip al boundaries, road lines, and bodi es of water, theTIGER data placed those featu res i n the wrong place. This caused excepti ons , such as voters whoappeared on the legi slative maps to be i n one district, but actu al ly li ve in a different dis tri ct . Thi s alsobecame apparent during the 2011 recall election s where addresses that were challenged u s ing th elegislative maps were then overturned by G.A. B . based on the more accurate informati on in StatewideVo ter Registrati on Sys tem (SVRS).

From information gath ered from localiti es t hus far related to the 201 0 redistricting, th ere appears to beconsensu s th at th e TIGER da ta from the 20 1 0 census was more accurate i n terms of geography (roads,waterways) than it was i n 2000. However, i t s t ill contai ns subs tanti al i naccuraci es w i th admini strativeboundaries, specifically municipal boundari es and sc hool district boundari es. Municipal boundaryi naccurac ies are usua l ly d ue to eit h er proj ectio n i ssues (the correct bound ari es appeari ng i n the wrongplace), or annexati ons that were not included in the TIGER 2010 da ta. According to the 201 0 Cen s u sTIGER/LineO Shapefiles Techn ical Documentation, t he posi tional accuracy of the TIGER 20 10 datameets a s tandard of approximately +/- 50 meters (+/- 167 feet). Thi s appears to have been achieved insome cases, bu t there are oth er cases where the d at a i s o ff by more than 50 meters. Even i f lines arewithi n 50 meters, that margin of error al lows for multip le houses to be pl aced in the wrong di s tric t a llalong the boundary l i ne. This becomes problema ti c particularly for mun i cip al boundaries, becausemany voters can be affected if the Census municipal boundary i s 50 meters or more away from itsactaallocation.

The LTSB loaded the TIGER maps into WISE-LR , which was then used by the Wisconsin StateLegislature, as well as counties and munici pali ties, to create new district and ward maps. In addi t i on tothe munic i pal and sc hool distric t boundary inaccuracies inheri ted from the TIGER maps, th e dis tric tand ward maps created in WISE-LR are also subject to i naccurac ies due to projecti on i ssues or thepositional accuracy limitations of t he TIGER and WISE-LR maps. The G.A.B. Redistricting Initiativehas implemented a SVRS update th a t i nc ludes the WISE-LR GIS shape fi l es (maps,) bu t also spec i ficgeo-codes for eac h registe red elector. The geo-code of a registered elec tor determines i n whi ch wardand districts the elector is assigned. Use of geo-codes res u lts in a very h igh location accuracy for eachregistered elector; however, thi s h igh location accuracy fu rther enhances the i dentifi cati on of thepositi onal accuracy limitations of the TIGER and WISE-LR maps. This becomes problematic for.simi l ar reasons as the problems caused by inaccu rate munic i pal boundaries because many voters can beaffected i f th e district or ward maps are 50 meters or more away from i ts actual location. For most ofth e state, SVRS contains the G IS shape fi les of t h e distri ct and ward maps exclusively from the WISE-LR maps. For about 1/3 of the s t a t e, SVRS con tains GIS s hape files from County or municipal GISpersonnel, which are more preci se than th e WISE-LR maps and can also be l oaded i nto SVRS.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01116/12 Page 4 of 8 Document 113-1


Reuorts and Analyses of Municipal and Ward Boundari es Anomalies

Several counties maintain electoral districts such as wards and county supervisory districts in their localGeographic Information Systems (GIS) systems. The local GIS systems tend to be highly accurate,based on survey dat a for the parcels of lan d in their county. Many of these counties took the censu sblock based wards and county supervisory districts, and loaded them into their local GIS systems. Theythen corrected the ward l i nes t o reflec t the actual physical municipal boundarie s, local geography, andparcel l ine s. These corrected districts no l onger strict ly follow the census blocks from the TIGER andWISE-LR maps, but instead follow the more accurate geography and administrative boundaries thatactually exist for that coun ty. Thi s is similar to what local c lerks h ave done via their address ranges i nSVRS in the p ast . The address ranges in SVRS reflect the actu al municipal b oundaries, and are notbased stric tl y on cen su s bloc ks from the TIGER and WISE-LR maps.

B ased on ini tia l analysis, Rock County (which a t the t ime relied exclusi vely on GIS shape fi les of thedi s tric t and ward maps from WISE-LR) reported identifying approximately 200 addresses that wereplaced in the wrong municipality based on the TIGER 20 1 0 data. Rock County provided a speci fi cexample of some correc tions to municipal boundaries that directly c onflict with census blocks and thespecific statutory language of Acts 43 and 44, affecting State Assembly, State Senate, andCongressional districts. In this case, the municipal boundary between the Town of Harmony and theCity of J anesvil le was approximatel y 0. 1 mile off (528 feet) i n th e census data . Thi s caused cen su sb locks containing 9 houses that are in t he City o f Janesvi lle to be incorrectly placed in the Town ofHarmony. In addition, th e same error caused census blocks con tainin g one house or farm in the Townof Harmony to be incorrectly placed i n t he Ci ty of Janesville. Obviousl y, thi s situation also c reates thel i kelihood of a s hi ft i n the population for th e Ci ty of J an esvil l e and Town of Harmony under Acts 43and 44, whic h specifically attributed certai n censu s blocks to incorrect municipalities. Please see th eattached map for a v i sual representation of th e discrepancy.

This situation is repeated in many other counties, i f not all counties. In fact, the LTSB conduc ted alimited anal ysis of 1 9 counties comparing the circumference of municipal boundari es from the WISE-LR maps to th e circumference of municipal boundaries in coun ty shape file maps as they relate tolegi s lative and congressional di stricts and concluded that 4 ,204 voters were affected by incorrectmunici pal boundaries, 1,071 of which likely cha nge Assembly dis trict s and 66 of which like ly changeCongressional distri c t s.

The G.A. B . conducted a more comprehensive analysis of 16 coun ties to include district lines that bisecta municipality and al so district boundar i es for voti ng districts inc luding Senate di s tricts and thosebelow Assembly districts. B ased on ini ti al. an alysi s by the G .A.B . of Dane Coun ty, a comparison of theposi ti onal accuracy of the TIGER and WISE-LR maps with County GIS shape fil es for di stri ct andward maps produced the following results:

1. 1,266 regi stered voters were placed in th e wrong muni cipali ty i n the WISE-LR maps.2. 1,601 reg i stered voters were placed in the wrong Assembly district in the WISE-LR maps.3. 902 regis tered voteis were placed in the wrong Senate district in th e WISE-LR maps.4. 12 registered voters were placed in the wrong Congressional district in t he WISE-LR maps.5. 6,737 regi stered voters were placed in the wrong wards in the WISE-LR maps. (Th is figure

excludes any anoma l ies for th e Ci ty of Pi [chburg Wards 6-12 and Village of Black EarthWards 1-2, whi ch were not part of the analysis.)

S ta tus of Municipal and Ward Bounda ri es Anomalies

The G.A.B. analysis, and as supported by the l imited LTSB anal ysi s, has identified specific voters thatwere placed in incorrect municipalities or voting districts as a resu lt of the pos iti onal accuracy


Redistricting Momalies-Municipal and Ward BoundariesJanuary 13, 2012Page 5

limitations of the TIGER and WISE-LR maps. The G.A.B. has worked closely with County GISpersonnel from approximately 20 counties to recei ve their more accurate County GIS shape fi les to loadinto SVRS , which will correct a large portion o f thes e anoma li es. However, this currently addresses th ei ssue for approxi matel y 1 /3 of t he State, leavi ng 2/3 of the State in exclu si ve reliance upon the lessacc ura te TIGER and WISE-LR maps for di stric ts and wards. For that 2/3 of the State that reli esex clus i vely on the less accurate TIGER and WISE-LR maps and to ensure th at vo ters appear on th eproper poll books, the affected clerks will have to manual ly assign voting district combinations to anyregi s tered voter's address that appears on the mun i cipal or ward boundaries exception reports. Thismanual correction does not impac t the distric t and ward lines, which means that it will be difficult toass i gn a n applicant wis hin g to regi s ter with the Clerk or at the polls to the proper voting di s tric tcombinati on . Near these affe cted district and ward boundari es , i f the applicant were to enter hi s or heraddress i n VPA , it is li kely that the applic ant' s voting di stric ts and polli ng locati on woul d bemisiden6fied and result in additional confusion. While the Clerks will have a SVRS boundarymanagement tool in the future which can correct all affected residences rather than just those withregi stered voters, such a tool will not be available until after the Spri ng Electi on, The G.A.B . cont i nuesto work toward a solution to help resolve this i ssue for electi ons occurring through th e Spri ng Electionin Apri12012.

Distri cts Created by Acts 43 and 44 and Confl ict wi th Act 39

Because Acts 43 and 44 were pas sed creating the new State Senate, Assemb l y, and Congress ionaldi stric ts before municipalities had fi nish ed creati ng thei r local wards, these districts were bui l t usingcens u s blocks. The text of these Acts , now in statute, speci fies th e dis tric t boundaries accord i ng toindi vidual census blocks. For the City of Janesvitle/Town of Harmony example, the s ta tute clearlystates th at th e gi ven Assembly d i strict includes the Town of Harmony census block s 3004 and 3059.Thi s is problemati c for practical purposes because those census bloc ks do not reflec t the correctmun i cipal boundaries and the results of implementing these i ncorrect boundaries i n SVRS would pl acevoters on t he wrong p oll books for each election. In fac t, the practical i mpac ts of municipal and wardboundary anomali es have already been experienced by Rock County, where th e County C l erk hasreported publ ic l y on the Cl erk Li s t -serve that she relied upon the WISE-LR district and ward maps inSVRS to h er detriment. The Rock County Clerk initi a l ly struc k sign atu res on two separa te set s ofnomina ti on papers because SVRS identified those si gners as being outs i de the relevant CountyS uperv i sory district. The Rock County Clerk ac tu al l y di squ alified two County Supervisor candi dates asa result because she i niti al ly thought the candidates d i d not have enough va li d s i gnatures, but theG.A. B . b elieve s that she later reli ed upon the CountyGIS shape fi les to rehabilitate the suffi c i entstric ken s i gn atures and grant bal lot ac cess to the two affected candidates.

After the G .A.B . and/or local clerks make these corrections, the districts in SVRS may not match Acts43 and 44 precisely. In addition, these corrections also requ ire spl i t ting census bl ocks, whi ch mayconflict with Act 39's prohib itio n on s plitting censu s blocks. Secs. 59.10(2)(a), 59.10(3)(b) 1, 62.08( i),Wis. Stat s.; 201 1 Act 29, Secs. 1 3, 15, 23.

G.A.B . Redist ri ctin2 Initiative in SVRS

To update SVRS w ith the new districts resulting from 2011 Acts 39, 43, and 44, the C'i.A. II . technicalteam ha s l oaded the new censu s based wards, cou nty supervisory dis t ricts, alderman i c distric ts (in somecases), S ta te Assembly d i stricts, State S enate districts, Congressional districts, and municipalbou ndaries from WISE-LR , into SVRS.

Due to the inaccurac i es of the TIGER and WISE-LR data, some municipal and voting district boundarylines will appear in the w rong place in SVRS, wh i ch wi l l cause some registered voters to be assigned tot he wrong voting distric t s. This will u l ti mately result in some voters appearing on the wrong poll lists


Redistricting Anomalies-Municipal and Ward BoundariesJanuary 13,2012Page 6

and potentially receiving the wrong ballots. Clerks have been given exception reports that identifyvoters who may have been put in the wrong districts and the clerks were asked to correct them .Therefore, the more accurate the municipal and voting district boundary lines are in SVRS, the lessmanual work clerks need to perform and the more likely it is that voters appear on the correct poll listand receive the correct ballot . In addition, it is more likely ensure the accuracy of VPA for applican tsand the public. Finally, it is more likely that Clerks and Election Inspectors will correctly identifyvoting districts for applicants.

Phase 1 of the SVRS updates that are part of the G .A.B . Redi stricting Initiative were availab le to cl erkson December V. In Phase 1, clerks were able to fix addre sses that were put in the wrong place on themap. Phase 2 of the SVRS updates t hat are part of the G.A.B. Redistricting Initiative were available toclerks on January 9, 2012. Clerks are now able to overri de the votin g di s tric t ass i gnmen t , if it i s notassigned correctly (d ue to municipal or vo t i n g district boundary line issues). Clerks wi l l not be able tomove the boundary li n es themselves. If a muni cipal or voting di stric t bound ary li ne i s i n the wrongplace i n SVRS , a clerk shou ld work with the G .A .B . technical staff to determine whe[herthere is afeas i ble way to correct the boundary. The mos t effi cient way to correct thi s municipal and wardboundaries except i ons is with loca l GIS shape files from County or Municipal GIS personne l . Th eability to correct municipal and votin g di st ric t boundary l i nes in SVRS will not be ava i lab l e to clerksafter th e Spring 20 1 2 elections.

As a result of these iss ues, th e G .A .B . implemented an action plan on November 10, 2011 to address theeducational, administrative, and practi cal problems for the S pring 20 1 2 e lecti on s, particularly if c l erkshave no t completed correct ing thei r excepti ons pri or to printi n g poll books. For example, many voterswill s how up to vote, only to fi nd that they are not on the poll li st . When attempting to regi ster voters,an election official may be confused and register them in the wrong locati on or send them to anotherincorrect l ocation to regis ter. If a voter is not on the pol l list (because they appeared on t he wrong p olllist) they may be asked to re-register at the polls. Many pollin g places use street range l i s ts prin tedfrom SVRS to determine to whi ch polling place a voter should go. If the municipal or voting dis t ric tboundary lines are in accurate in SVRS , election workers w ill not have accurate reports at the pollin gplace and could send voters from polling place to polli n g plac e. Final ly, inaccuracies and confu s i onregarding correct voting locations are l ikel y to lead to ch al lenges to voter qualifications and di spu tes i nany recount process.

Use of Corrected Wards in SVRS

Approx ima tely 20 count ies thu s far have asked that we use their corrected municipal and/or wardboundaries in SVRS, rath er than t he WISE-LR boundari es to ensure th at th e l ines are placed accuratelyand thus voters show up on the correct pol l l i s t s. Because wards are th e building bloc ks for all t h e otherrepresentational distr i c t s, if we use th e correc ted wards, this also corrects th e muni c i pa l boundaries,county superv i sor, aldermanic, State Sen ate, S t ate Assembly, and Congressional distric ts. It is notpossible i n all cases to ma i ntain census block-based legislative d istricts simultaneously with correctedwards, as th e vot ing district lines would con fli ct w ith each ot her.

Ac t s 4 3 and 44 defi ne the State Senate, State Assembly, and Congress i onal distric ts at the cens u s blocklevel. The corrected municipal and ward boundaries deviate from the cens us block s from WISE-I.R ,th erefore using the corrected di stricts will result i n less than stri ct compliance wi t h the Acts, However,s t rict compliance w i t h the Act s is impossib le in practice. Us i ng geo-coded addresses for regi steredelectors (or applicants) has a sign i ficantly higher rate of positional accuracy than even the previousaddress-range-based SVRS voting districts. Us i ng th e more accurate local GIS shape files for districtsand wards remedies the positional inaccuracies of WISE-LR and he l ps to ensure that each voter willreceive the correct ballot. For example, res i dents of the C i ty of J anesvil l e cannot be gi ven a Town ofHarmony ballot simply because strict compliance wi th Ac ts 43 and 44, which were based on Census

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16l12 Page 7 of 8 Document 113-1

Redi stri cting Anomalies-Municipal and Ward BoundariesJanuary 13, 2012Page 7

data, define the districts using inaccurate municipal boundaries, At least one representative of theLegislative Reference Bureau has agreed that the specifi c i ntent of the Legislature cannot be determi nedfor th e municipal boundary excepti ons, such as the City of ]anesvii l efTown of Harmony example.

G.A .B .Aetion Plan

It is critical to have the most accurate municipal and voting district boundary lines possible in SVRS, inorder to assure voters are assi gned to correc t d istrict s, avoid vo ter and election official confu s i on , and tohave a manageable workflow for cl erks. To reach that goal , G.A.B .'s November 10, 2011 acti on plandirected the techni cal team to use corrected districts from county GIS shape files wherever it waspossible to do so . A more aggressive approach has now been implemented and the technical team willbe ob tai ning addi ti ona l county GTS shape files for voti ng di stric t boundary lines. Regardless of whenthese corrections occur (pre-Spring 20 12 election or after), i t i s likely that the fi n al di stricts wi ll nots tric t ly match those prescribed by Acts 43 and 44 because cen su s blocks were attri buted to incorrectmuni cipali ties or voting districts.

For the munic ipal and ward boundaries anomalies, the G.A .B . has adopted the following acti on plan :

The G .A .B . wi ll aggressi vely encourage county cl erks to contact their GIS personnel tocompile corrected ward boundary shape files to load in SVRS . St aff will work with county GISpersonnel , or municipal GIS personnel i f necessary, tha t are wil l i ng to provide corrected GISshape fil es for ward boundaries, then l oad them i n SVRS as soon as prac ti cal .

2. As part of the deployment of the G.A.B . Redis tricti ng Initiative, Phase 2 SVRS upda tes, theG.A .B . wi ll continue to work i n a cooperat i ve part nership w i th local c lerks to review theirboundary lines. Clerks shou ld report any boundary line issues to t he G.A .B . so t h ey can becorrected by the technical team. Clerks s hould use the i nciden t trac ki n g website th at has beenin use si nce September 21, 2011:

A. C l ic k on thi s link: http:Uwisapps.wi.gov/sites/GAF3/inc i dent

B. C l ick on "Create a Serv ice RequesP' on th e left-hand s i de of the page.

C. Enter you r information in to the form. The Service Request Title should be filled inwith a genera l description of what you are entering, such as "redistricting municipalboundary issue". The Details should be fi l led in wi th you r spec i fic question or anyother detail s you would like to provide. All in the remaining fie l ds w it h your contactinformation.

A ttachment: Rock County Munic i pal Bou ndary Exception Map (Janesville/T-Iarmony)

cc: Shane W . Fa lkS taff CounselGovernment Accountabil i ty Board

Case 2:1 1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW- RMD Filed 01/7.6/12 Page 8 of 8 Documen t 113-1

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS- pPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 3 Document 113-2

Redistrict ing problem means thousands are li sted in wrong di strict - JSOnl ine#cb=f8cddb ... Page 1 of 2

INJOUR�NAE CQPRINTTHIS

Redistricting problem means thousands arelisted in wrong districtBy Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel

Jan. 13, 2012 1 (132) Comments

Madison - State election officials said in a memo Friday that they could not entirely follow a new lawthat sets legislative boundaries - meaning that some voters are not actually in the districts wherelawmakers intended them to be.

The situation has arisen because lawmakers used inaccurate data to draw the maps, the memo said. Thatcould create new headaches for the state as it fights a lawsuit that argues the new maps violate the U.S.Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Acts.

Every 10 years, states must draw new election maps to account for changes in population recorded bythe U.S. Census Bureau. In Wisconsin, Republicans control the Legis lature and goveroor's office, andthey were able to approve maps last summer that would benefit them in elections starting in November2012.

But the Government Accoun tabi li ty Board, whi ch run s state el ections , said in a memo Friday thatl awmakers had rel i ed on census data that included errors when lawmakers drew the maps. S tate andloca l officials are in the process of correc ting that data, but the problem means " dis tric t s wi l l result inless than stric t compliance" wi th the law that establ ished the maps, the memo said .

"However, strict compliance with the (law) is impossible in practice," said the memo by KevinKennedy, the board's director, and Nat Robinson, the board's elections administrator.

For example, lawmakers used census maps that were off by 0.1 mile in part of Rock County, making itappear that nine houses in Janesville were instead in the Town of Hazmony. Likewise, a Town ofHarmony house incorrectly appeared to be in Janesville in the data the Legislature used.

That creates a problem because Janesville residents cannot be given a Town of Harmony ballot, thememo noted.

"This situation is repeated in many other counties, if not all counties," the memo added.

Legislative technology workers analyzed 19 counties and found that more than 4,000 voters were shownin the wrong municipality, including more than 1,000 of who would likely have to be moved into a newAssembly district.

Clerks are now fixinQ information in the state's voter database so that voters are assigned to the correctwards. But the memo said those registering to vote in clerks' offices or at the polls may not be placed inthe proper districts. Also, some voters who look up their polling places on a state website may be

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 3 Docu ment 1 13-2

http ://www . printthis . clickabili ty . com/pVcpt?expire=&title=Redistricting+problem +means+,., 1/16/2012

Redi stricting problem means thousand s are li s ted in wrong distri c t - JSOnline#cb=f8 cddb ... Page 2 of 2

direct ed to the wrong locat ion, the memo said .

If the problem is not corrected , "many voters wi ll show up to vote, only to find that they are not on th epoll li st ," the memo sai d. "Alen attempting to reg ister voters, an election offici al may be confused andregister them in the wrong location or send them to another incorrect location to register."

Election offic ia ls are trying to address the prob l ems quickly because the spring p rimary is Feb . 21.

In past decades, lawmakers waited for loca l offici als to draw their lines and then bui lt legi slati ve mapsalong those ward li nes. But this time, Repub l i can lawmakers drew the state maps first, using U . S . censusblocks.

The maps the U. S . Census Bureau provides are not entirely accurate, election officials are now saying.The maps sometimes show munic ip a l l ines 150 feet or more from where they actua l ly are.

Republ ican lawmakers acted quickly on the maps at a time when they faced recal l elect ions that couldhave cost them the S enate majority. Democrats made gai ns in those electi ons, but Republicans held ontothe majority with a one-vote margin.

A group of Democrats sued the state l ast year over the new maps , and they could use the newly founderrors to bol ster their arguments. A federal three-judge panel has scheduled a tri al in Milwaukee forFebruary.

Find this a rticle at :h tt p : //www .jsoniine .cominewslstatep olitics (red i stri cting -problem -means-snme-wiil -vote - in -wmng-district-2j3qOdj -737323118 . html#cb=f8cdtlb4fe04774&o rigin = h tt p%3A%2F%2Fwww .jsonline .com%2Ff37rA19178ce8f4& relation = pa renLparen[&transport=pos tm essage&ty pe= resize8height=21 &ackData(idJ = 1 &width=130

❑Check the box to include the list of l i nks referenced i n the article.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/1 2 Page 3 o f 3 Document 113-2

htYp ://www . p ri n tthis . clickabili ty . com/pUcpt?expire=&title=Red i stri ctingi-problem+means +... 1 / 16/2012

EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-D PW-RM D Filed 01l16/12 Page 1 of 6 Document 1 1 3-3

State of Wisconsin \ Government Accountability Board212 East WusldnyROn Avcwq 3"' FloorPost ONlee Hox 7984 .RNGE TEiOMAS H. BARLANDMadison, WI 53709 -9984 Ch airy cnonVoke(606 ) 266 -8005Fa[ (608) 267-050 �y .E- mail: gab @ wiscortsin. gov KEVIN J. KENNEDYhttp://gnb . wi . gov Dimao r and Ctt a cml Coun sel

MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 10, 2011

TO: Nathanie l E. Robinson Ross HeinElect i ons Division Administrator El ecti on s Superv i sorGovernment Accoun tability Board Government Accoun t abil i ty Board

FROM: Sarah Whitt Shane FalkSVRS Functional Lead Staff Coun selGovernment Accoun tab ility Board Government Accountab i lity Board

SUBJECT: Census Blocks Confl i cti ng with Municipa l Boundaries

Through the conversations we have been having with loca l elec ti on official s, as well as state and localgeographic informati on special i sts, new issues have been brought to our attent i on th at directly impactt he Government Accou ntability Board's (G.A .B .) Redi stric ting Ini tia tive. Several prac ticali mplementation concerns have arisen regarding censu s blocks co nfli cti ng w i th actu al munici palboundar i es. This memo provides a summary of the issu es and a pl an of act i on th at addresses the issues.

Background

Every ten years, as part of the decennial Cen su s, the U.S. Censu s Bureau collects demographic andgeographic information from across the country and compiles the data for use by states, co u nties, andmunic i pali ti es to draw new district lines. The census data i s broken down by censu s blocks, whichprovide the basic bu i lding block for electoral di stric ts. Cen sus blocks con tain populati on anddemographic information necessary to draw fair and ba lanced di stric t s. The boundaries for the censusblocks frequently fo l low administrative boundaries such as mu nicipal and school boundaries, andphysical geographic features such as roads and waterways. Cen s u s bl ocks are used in Wisconsin tobui ld wards. Sec. 5.15(1)(b), Wis. S ta ts.; 2 0 11 Act 39, Sec. 2. These wards are then combi ned to formaldermanic, county supervisory, State Assembl y, S tate Senate, and Congressional districts. 2011 Act39, Secs. 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 23; 2011 Act 43, Sec. 6; 20 1 1 Act 44, Sec. 2.

T h e geograph ic information th at resul ts from the census, inc l uding censu s blocks, roads and waterways,municipal and school district boundaries, and other geographic data sets ma inta i ned by Census areprovided to s t a t es in the form oF Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing(TIGER) map fi les. According to the US Census website (www.census.eov), the boundaries shown inthe TIGER map files are for Census Bureau stat i stica l data collection and tabulation purposes only;their depiction and des i gnation for s ta ti s ti cal purposes does not constitute a determination ofjurisdictional au thority or righ ts of ownersh i p or entitlement.

In Wisconsin, the Census TIGER map fi les and demograph i c informati on are loaded into a tool calledWISE-LR, which is adminis tered by t he Legislative Techno logy Services Bureau. WISE-LR i s t henused by Wisconsin counties and municipal i t i es, as well as the S ta te Legisl ature, to create new districts.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 6 Document 113-3

of 5

Accuracy of TIGER Data and Census Blocks

After the 2000 Census redistricting effort, there was widespread complaints that the TIGER data fromthe 2000 censu s was inaccurate in both geography and admi ni stra tive boundaries. Spec ifically, whenthe TIGER data was overl aid with actual municipal boundaries, road lines, and bodies of water, theTIGER data placed th ose features in the wrong place. Th is caused excep tions, such as voters whoappeared on the legislative maps to be in one district, but actually live in a different district. This alsobecame apparent du ri ng recall elec tions where addresses that were challenged usi ng the legislati vemaps were the n overturned by G. A. B . b ased on the i nformati on in S tatewide Voter Registration System(SVRS).

From information gathered from locali ties thu s far related to the 2010 redi s tricting, there appears to beconsensu s that the TIGER data from the 2010 census was more accu rate i n terms of geograp hy (roads,waterways) th an it was in 2000 . However, it s t i ll contains subs tan ti al inaccuracies wi th adminis trativeboundaries, specifical ly municipal boundari es and school district boundaries. Municipal boundaryinaccuracies are usually due to either projection issues (the correct boundaries appearing in the wrongplace), or annexations that were not included in the TIGER 20 10 data. Accord i ng to the 20 1 0 Cen su sTIGER/LineOO Shapefiles Technical Documen tation , the positional accuracy of the TIGER 2010 datamee ts a standard of approximatel y +/- 50 meters (+!- 1 67 feet), Th is appears to have been achieved insome cases, but there are other cases where the data is off by more th an 50 meters. Even if lines arewithi n 50 meters, that margin of error allows for multiple houses to be placed i n the wrong distric t alla l ong the boundary l i ne. Thi s becomes problemati c particularly for muni cip al boundari es, becausemany voters can be affected if the Census munic i pal boundary is 50 me ters or more away from itsactual locati on .

Correcting Municipal Boundaries and Wards

Several coun ti es maintain elec toral dis tricts such as wards and county supervisory d i s t ricts in the i r localGeographic Information Systems (GIS ) systems. The local GIS sys tems tend to be highly accura te,based on survey data for the parcel s of land i n their county. Many of these coun ties took the cens u sb lock based wards and county supervisory districts, and loaded them into their local GIS systems. Theythen corrected the ward lines to refl ec t the actu al physi cal municipal boundaries, local geography, andparcel l i nes. These co rrected di str icts no longer follow t he census blocks, and i nstead follow the moreaccurate geography and administrative boundaries th at actually exist for that co u nty. This is simi lar towhat local c l erks have done via their address ranges in SVRS in the past. The address ranges i n SVRSreflect the actu a l mun i cipal boundaries, and are not based on census blocks.

Based on i ni tial ana lysis, Rock County i denti fi ed approximately 200 addresses that were p laced in thewrong munic ipali ty based on the TIGER 2010 data. Rock Coun ty provided a specific example of somecorrections to mun i cipal boundaries that directly con fl ic t with census blocks and t he specific statutorylanguage of Acts 43 and 44, affecting State Assembly, Sta te Senate, and Congressional districts. In thiscase, the munic ipal boundary between the Town of Harmony and the City of Janesville wasapproximately 0.1 mi l e off (528 feet ) in the cens u s data. This caused census blocks containing 9 housest hat are i n the C i ty of Janesville to be incorrectly placed i n t he Town of Harmony. In addi tion, thesame error cau sed census blocks containing one hou se or farm in the Town of Harmony to bei ncorrec tl y placed in the City of Janesville. Based upon th e incorrect municipal boundaries, the Townof Harmony even created a separate Ward for these 9 houses. In order to correc t th is by adjusting themun i c i pal boundaries, Rock County wou ld have to shift census blocks from the Town of Harmony tothe C ity of Janesville (likely negating the need for that Ward i n the Town of Harmony), igno ring oneentire census block (3004 whi ch is en ti rely i n the wrong municipality) and splitting another censusb l oc k (3095 which is half in Harmony and half in J anesville). Obviously, this situation a l so crea tes thelikelihood of a shi ft in the populat i on for the City of J anesville and Town of Harmony under Act 43,which specifically attributed certa i n cens u s blocks to incorrect municipalities. Please see the attac hedmap for a vis u al representation of the discrepancy. Th is s i tuation is repeated in many ot h er counti es, ifnot all counties.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 3 o f 6 Documen t 113-3

o f 5

Distri cts Created by Ac ts 43 and 44 and Conflict with Act 39

Because Acts 4 3 and 44 were passe d creating the new St ate Senate, Assemb ly, and Congression aldistricts before municipalities had finished creating their local wards, these districts were built usingcensus blocks. The text of these Acts, now in statute, specifies the district boundaries according toindividual census blocks. For the City of Janesville/Town of Harmony example, th e statute clearlystates th at th e given Assembly distr ict includes the Town of Harmony censu s blocks 3004 and 305 9.This i s problemati c for enforcement purposes because those census blocks do not reflec t the correctmunicipal boundaries and the results of implementing these incorrect boundaries i n SVRS woul d placevo ters on the wrong poll books for each election. After l ocal c lerks make these corrections, the di stric tsi n SVRS wou l d not match Acts 43 and 44 prec i sely . In addi ti on , these corrections a l so re qu ire s plitt ingcensu s blocks , whi ch may conflict w i th Ac t 3 9 's prohib ition on spl it ti n g census b locks. S ecs.5 9. 1 0(2)(a), 59 . 10 (3)(b)1 , 62.08(1), Wi s. Stats.; 20 1 1 Act 29, S ecs. 13, 15, 23.

G.A.B. Redistricting Initiative in SVRS

To update SVRS with the new di stricts resulting from 201 1 Ac ts 39, 43, and 44, the G.A.B. technicalteam is importing the new census based wards, county supervisory districts, aldermanic districts (insome cases), S tate Assemb ly di s t ricts, S ta te Senate di stric t s, Congressional districts, and mun i ci palboundaries from the Legislature, into SVRS.

Due to th e i naccuraci es of the TIGER 20 1 0 data, some boundary l i nes wil l appear in the wrong pl ace i nSVRS, which will cause some voters to be assigned to the wrong districts. This will ultimately resultsi n some voters appearing on the wrong poll lists, and potentially being given the wrong ballots. Clerkswill be g iven exception reports th at will ident ify voters who may have been pu t in the wrong dis tric t ,and they will be asked to correc t them. Therefore, the more accurate the boundary lines are in SVRS ,the less manual work clerks need to perform , and the more likely it is th at voters appear on the correctpoll list and recei ve the correct ballot . This manual correcti on process may al so confl i c t with preci secompliance with Acts 39, 43 , and 44.

Phase I of the SVRS updates that are part of the G.A .B. Redistricting Initiat i ve will be avail able toclerk s on December P. In Phase 1, clerks wi l l be able to fi x addresses that get put in the wrong pl aceon the map. They wi l l a l so be abl e to override. the district assignmen t , i f it i s not ass i gned correctly(due to boundary li ne i ssues). They wil l not be able to move the boundary lines themselves. If aboundary line is i n the wrong place in SVRS, G.A. B . technical staff will need to correc t i t. The abilityto correct boundary lines will be available to clerks in Phase 2 of th e SVRS updates after the Spr i ng2012 elections.

As a resu l t of th ese i ssues, the G.A.B . is i mplementing an action plan to address the educational,administrative, and pract i cal problems for t h e Spring 2012 elections, particularly if clerk s have notcompleted correcting th eir exceptions prior to print i ng po l l book s. For example, many vo t ers will showup to vote, only to find tha t they are not on the poll l i st. When a ttempting to register voters, an elect i onofficial may be confused and register them in th e wrong location or send them to another incorrectlocation to xegister. If a voter i s not on the poll list (because they appeared on th e wrong poll l i s t ) theymay be as ked to re-regis ter at the pol ls. Many polling places use street range lists printed from SVRSto determ ine to whic h poll i ng place a voter should go. If the boundaries are inaccurate in SVRS,elec tion workers wi ll not have acc u rate reports at the pol li ng place and could send voters from pollingpl ace to po lling place. Finally, inaccuracies and confus ion regarding correct voting locations are l i kelyto lead to challenges to voter qualifications and disputes in any recount process.


of 5

Use of Corrected Wards in SVRS

Approximately 21 counties thus far have asked that we use their corrected wards and/or municipalboundaries in SVRS, rather than the census-based lines we are getting from the Legislature, to ensurethat the lines are pl aced accurately and thu s voters show up on the correc t poll li s ts. Because wards arethe building blocks for all the o ther represen tational distr i cts, if we use the corrected wards, this alsocorrect s the munic i pal boundaries, county superv i sor, aldermani c, S tate Sen ate, State Assemb l y, andCongress i onal dis tri c t s. It i s not possible to maintain cens u s based legislative districts simul t aneouslywith correcte d wards, as the lines would confl ict wi th each ot her .

Ac ts 43 and 44 define the State Senate, St ate Assembly , and Congres sional d i stric ts at the cen su s blocklevel. The corrected wards and municipal boundaries deviate from the census blocks, therefore usingthe corrected districts could be interpreted as violating the statute. However, the statu te must beviolated in practice in order to give a voter the correct ballot. Residents of the City of Janesville cannotbe gi ven a Town of Harmony bal l ot simply because Ac ts 4 3 and 44, which were based on Census data ,define the districts usi ng inaccurate mun i ci pal boundaries.

Plan of Acti on

It i s critical to have the most accurate boundary li nes poss ible in SVRS , in order to assure voters oftheir correct di stric t s, avoid voter and election offic ial confu si on, and to have a manageable workflowfor clerks. To reach th at goal , the technical team wi ll u se the corrected dis tricts wherever it i s possibleto do so. Regardless of when these corrections occur (pre-Spring 201 2 el ecti on or after), it is likely th atthe final distric ts w i l l not precise l y match those prescribed by Acts 43 and 44 because cen su s b lockswere attributed to i ncorrect municipaliti es. The acti on plan i s as foll ows:

1. Work with counties th at are w i lling to provide corrected data. They can validate that municipalboundaries and all other ward based di stric ts are corrected accura tely when we imp lement thecorrected wards.

2. As part of the deployment of the G.A.B. Redistricting In i[iative, Phase 1 SVRS updates, workwi th local clerks to review th eir boundary l i nes BEFORE they start correcting i nd i vidual voterswho were placed in th e wrong dis tricts. Any boundary line iss ues should be reported to theG.A.B . Hel p Desk so they can be corrected by th e technical team .

3. Cons u lt with the Legislative Reference Bureau reg azdingthe use of corrected wards andmuni c i pal boundaries in relat ion ship to the State Senate, State Assembl y ; and Congress i onaldi stri cts which are defined in statate a t the census block level.

4. Develop a stra tegy to address voter and elec tion offi cia l confu sion regarding misplaced vo ters inSVRS and to correct information for voters register ing on Elec ti on Day. In addition, develop aplan to complete corrections following the Spring 2012 election, and to communicate w i thaffec ted munic i pal ities and counties regarding the May 15, 2012 adjus tmen ts.

5. Work wi th the Legislature to develop legisla tion th at wi ll make necessary technical corrections toActs 39, 4 3, and 44 to correct districts to properly reflect ac tual mun icipal boundaries rather thanbeing str i ctl y based on census blocks. The simplest way to accomplish this is to make technicalcorrections to the Acts to refer to t he actual wards that comprise th e districts, rather than referringto the census blocks.

Conclusion

The G.A. B . will use corrected wards and municipal boundaries at the earliest possible stage ofimplemen ting the new districts. The accuracy of the data in SVRS is a critical component to theintegrity of the system, voters' confidence in the system, and to the overall admin i strat i on of every


of 5

election. Clerks need effective tools in order co admin i ster elections fairly and correctly, and votersmost be assured that they will not be disenfranchised due to redistricting mapping inaccuracies . It is ofthe utmost importance that the most accurate data be used in SVRS at the earliest possible stage ofimplementation .

Than k you .

cc: Kevin KennedyDirector and General CounselGovernment Accountability Board

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 6 of 6 Docu ment 113-3

EXHIBIT 4


Errors in redistricting process could affect thousands of voters Page 1 of 2

�}� � madison.com

Errors in redistricting process could affect thousands of votersMARY SPICUZZA I Wi scon sin State Journal I m s aicuz z n('w madison .com 1 608-252- 6122 1 Posted : Wednesday,January Il , 2012 8 : 15 am

Thousands of people could be affected by an apparent error istate's controversial redistricting process th at caused them tolisted in the wrong municipalities, school distric ts or wazds , :election officials say.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus sa id Tuesday th a tinformation for I4,447 people in her area needs to be correc t

"And iYs bigger than Waukesha," she said_

The problems could lead to confusion for people trying tounderstand changing boundary l ines. I t is unclear how many peolstatew ide have been affected, and whether the error i s a resultproblems w i th the GOP-backed redistric ting legislat i on - whichpassed th e Legislature and was signed by Gov. S cott Walker t hissummer - or the implementation of it.

"Our job is to help clerk s assign voters to the proper distric ts based on the redistricting law," said Reid Magney, a spokesmanfor GAB . "The legislation provides some challenges , and we are working with municipalities to assign voters to the properdis tricts . "

Magney said he could not comment beyond that because of redistricting litigation .

A GAB update from Nov . 18 said some local staff and clerks have contacted GAB about " anomalies " between census dataand the actual muni cipal b oundaries and geography .

"Clerks w il l be given instructions and training on how to correct any registered voters who are inadvertently placed in thewrong muni c ipality ," the GAB update re ads .

Madison City Clerk Mari beth W itzel - Behl could not be reached immediately for comment about how many Madison-areavoters were being affected .

Nickolaus said trying to fix discrepancies in the maps has been a "trying situation " for municipal clerks as well as offi c ialswith the state Government Accountability Board. She added that she didn't know exactly how the error occurred.

"I know it wasn't an error on my part , which is always a good thing," Nickolaus said .

N i ckolavs drew heavy critic ism in April after she announced that an inpu tting error caused her to fai l to reo ort tho u s a n ds ofvotes from the city o f B rookfi e td . The corrected vote totals pushed incumbent Justice David Pros ser to win the contested s t ateSupreme Court race after a recount .

Case 2:11-cv-00562-.7PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 2 Document 113-4

http://host.madison,com/wsj/news/IocaUgovt-and-politics/errors-in-redistricting-process-co... I / 15/2012

EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:21-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16l1 2 Page 1 of 4 Document 1 13-5

Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in Africa - JSOnline

.IwJd�.RR�NAE

Page I of 3

Cra PRINTTHI S

Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in AfricaClerks scrambling to get voters in right districts before primary

By Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of the Journal S entinel

Jan. 1 1, 2012 1 (153 ) Comrnents

Madison - Clerks in the state are scrambling to assign voters to the right di stri cts after l ast sumiuer'sredrawing of legislative maps, with changes to the process putting voters in incorrect locations acrosstown or even acros s the Atlantic Ocean.

The problems could add to the confusion for voters who may already be affected by the redistricting lawapproved by legisl ators last summer. Primaries for spring races ar e being held on Feb . 2 1 , leaving litt l et ime to sort out the problem s.

The errors affect thousands of voters around the state and stem from different sources, includinginaccuracies in U. S . Census Bureau data and problems with a new way of assigning voters to di stricts ina state datab ase.

"We're not only changing and moving districts, were changing the system beneath it," said JulieGlancey, the Sheboygan County clerk. "We had many, many voters who showed up (on the computermap) on the coast of Africa and we had to drag them back to the state of Wisconsin and put them wherethey belonged."

State elections officials said they were trying to help clerks resolve the problems .

They hope to fix the issues by the Feb. 21 election, but if they don't, some voters could wind up at thewrong polling place - or find that they don't appear on the polling list at their correct polling place . Inthat case, they would have to work with election officials to fix the situation .

"Our job is to help clerks assign voters to proper districts based on the law. The legislation providessome challenges. We are working with the municipal clerks to assign voters to their proper districts,"said Reid Magney, a spokesman for the state Government Accountability Board, which administerselections.

Magney provided only limited information on the problems, saying that he was unable to say more untilThursday because it could affect ongoing lawsuits over the redistri cting maps .

But a Nov. 1 8 memo from the accountability board to c l erks said that some stemmed from CensusBureau geographic data, which i s accurate to about 50 meters. ThaPs a b ig enough error margin that ahouse cou ld potentially be pl aced in the wrong d i stric t , accord ing to the memo.

State and local governments must draw new maps every decade for the districts of local officials, state

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 4 Documen t 113-5

http ://www . pri nuhis . cl ickabili ty .com/pt/cpt?expire=&titl e= G1 i tch+puts+some+Wisconsin+... 1 / l 5 /2012

Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in Afric a - JSOnlin e Page 2 of 3

legislators and members of Congress to account for shifts in population recorded by the U.S. census .

Different approach

I n past decades, lawmakers waited for local officials to draw their lines and then built legi slative mapsalong thos e ward lines. But thi s time, Republicans who control the Legislature drew the state maps first ,using U . S . censu s blocks.

Republicans who control the Leg islature acted quickly on the maps at a time when they faced rec al lelections that could have cost them the Senate majority. Democrats made gains in those elections , butRepublicans held onto the majori ty with a one-vote margin.There was no immedi ate ag reement amongclerks and state offic ial s on whether that deci sion to start with census blocks was adding to theproblems.

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said he believed some of the problems could havebeen detected earlier if the Republicans had taken the usual approach.

"It doesn't surprise me that we would have these kinds of difficulties given the haste with which theyrammed this through," Barca said. "It's so unfortunate. It conld have been avoided."

Andrew Welhouse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), disagreed. Hesaid most of the problems stemmed from the accountability board's decision to change how voters arehandled in the state's database.

"That's got nothing to do with the redistricting decisions that we made," Welhouse said.

Sheboygan County's Glancey also said she didn't believe that the problems for her office would havebeen resolved by using local ward lines to draw the legislative maps.

That's because those problems stem from changes to the way voters are now being entered into the statesystem for registering them.

Going forward, voters are being entered into different districts by the physical location of their addressin computerized maps. Previously, they were entered into different districts in the state voter databaseaccording to where their address fell in certain address ranges.

Local elections clerks, however, said that as part of the conversion to the new system many voters arebeing assigned to the wrong place on the map or not assigned at all.

Lisa Weiner, administrator of the Milwaukee County Election Commission, said her commission is notdirectly affected by the situation because municipalities in the county, rather than the commission, areresponsible for making any changes. Sue Edman, executive director of the City of Milwaukee ElectionCommission, did not return calls.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus said she may ask for help with the work from theaccountability board.

"I would think we're in the thousands of tlrings we have to check," Nickolaus said.

Maribeth Witzel-Behl, Madison ci ty clerk , said the new system will make redistricting easier in the


h ttp ://www . p rintthis . clickabi lity .com/pUcpt?expire= &title=Glitch+puts+some+Wlsconsin+... 1 / 15 /2012

Glitch puts some Wisconsin voters in Africa - JSOnline Page 3 of 3

future. But she said fo r now some voters are getting assigned to the wrong areas for c ity council, schoo lboard and legisl ative districts.

Witzel-Behl sai d the C ity of Madison has planners and mappers with sophisticated skill s to c lean upmany of the problems but that she still had 1 , 1 30 addresses for her office to correct .

° IPs going to be better in the long run , but in the meantime there's a lot of cl eanup to do," Witze l -Behlsaid .

Find this a rt icl e at :hHp://vnvw.Jwniine.wminews/s[atepolitics/clerks-scrambling-to-ge t-voters-in-6gh t-dist ricts•3v3ov36- 137102098.htm1

❑ CheCk the box to include the l i st of links refe renced i n the article.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-D PW-RM D Filed 01/16/12 Page 4 of 4 Documen t 113-5

http ://www . prin tthis . clickabiliry .com/pUcpt?expire=&title=Glitchl puts+some+Wi sconsin+... 1/15/2012

EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS- DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01i16/12 Page 1 of 4 Document 113-6


ALVIN BALDUS, CINDY BARBERA, CARLENEBECHEN, RONALD BIENDSEIL, RON BOONE, VERABOONE, ELVIRA BUMPUS, EVANJELINACLEEREMAN, SHEILA COCHRAN, LESLIE W.DAVIS III, BRETT ECKSTEIN, MAXINE HOUGH,CLARENCE JOHNSON, RICHARD KRESBACH,RICHARD LANGE, GLADYS MANZANET,ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDYROBSON, GLORIA ROGERS, JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIA SCHLIEPP, TRAVIS THYSSEN,

Plaintiffs,


Intervenor-Plaintiffs ,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counselfor the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,

Defendants,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., THOMAS E. PETRI,PAUI. D . RYAN, JR., REID J. RIBBLE,and SEAN P. DUFFY,

Intervenor-Defendants.

(caption continued on next page)

Civil ActionFile No. 1 I-CV-562

Three-judge panel28 U.S.C. § 2284

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SUPPLEMENTAT , RULE 26 DISCLOSURES


VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC, RAMIRO VARA,OLGA WARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiffs ,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-1011JPS-DPW-RMD

In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1 ) and 26(e)( 1 ) , plaintiffs

supplement their initial disclosures, tendered on November 16 , 2011 and first supplemented on

December 29, 2011:

1 . Rule 26(a)( l)(AXi) - the name, address and telephone number of each individual

likely to have discoverable information that the di sclosing party may use to support its claims or

defenses:

Narree/Address Subiect o/'inibrmution

Kathy Nickolaus Issues raised by January 11, 201 2 news article in theWaukesha County Clerk Wisconsin State Journal , "Errors in Redistricting5 15 West Moreland Blvd . , Room 120 process could affect thousand s of voters."Waukesha, WI 53188-3878(262) 548-7722

Plaintiffs re serve the right to i dentify any additional witness d i sclosed in any of the

documents produced in this litigation by defendants or third part ie s .

Plaintiffs make this second supp lement to their initial and fi rst supplemental disclosure

based upon the knowledge and information now reasonably availabl e to them . Accordingly,

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01(16l12 Page 3 of 4 Documen t 113-6

plaintiffs reserve the ri ght to further supplement their initial di sclosure in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of thi s Court, including the identification of

additional witnesses and experts in response to the initial disclosure or expe rt witness di sclosure

tendered by any party or in response to other information learned through the ongo ing discovery

process.

This supplement and plaintiffs' initial and first supplemental disclosure are provided

without prejudice to plainti ffs' right to introduce at a hearing or at trial any evidence

subsequently discovered .

Dated: January 11, 2012.

GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.

By:Douglas M. PolandState Bar No. 1055189Dustin S. BrownState Bar. No. 1086277One East Main Street, Suite 500P.O. Box 2719Madison, WI 5370 1-27 1 [email protected]@gklaw.com

Attorneys for Platntiffs

7334 399_ I

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l e d 0 1/16/12 Page 4 of 4 Documen t 113-6

EXHIBIT 7

Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 7 Document 113-7

.�

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ALVIN BALDUS, CINDY BARBERA,CARLENE BECHEN, ELVIRA BUMPUS,RONALD BTENDSET, LESLIE W. DAVIS, III,BRETT ECKSTEIN , GEORGIA ROGERS,RICHARD KRESBACH, ROCHELLE MOORE,AMY RISSEEUW, JUDY ROBSON, JEANNESANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIA SCHLIEPP, andTRAVIS THYSSEN,

Plainti ffs,

V. Case No. 11-C-00562(Three Judge Panel)

Members of the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board, each only in his officialcapacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVIDDEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMASCANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHYVOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Director andGeneral Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS ' LNI 'ITA.I. RULE 26(a) DISCLOSURES

NOW COME the defendants by their attorneys, J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, and

Maria S . Lazar, Assistant Attorney General , and make the following initial disclosures pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P . Rule 26(a)(I):

A. Ind ividual s potentially having knowledge regarding this matter.

Defendants as sert that the Government Accountability Board ("GAB") did not prepare,

edit , or in any other way draft the redistricting maps for the new boundaries which were passed

by the Legislature on July 1 9 and 20 , 2011 and signed into law (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44)


by the Governor on August 9, 2011. GAB and the individual defendan ts have be en sued because

of their statutory responsibility to implement the distr icts that are now the law of the State . The

defendant s had no communications with the Legislature, pri or to the enactment of the new

redistri cting maps on August 9 , 2011, with respect to the boundaries of the new maps .

Accordingly, the information and details provided in this Ini tial Rule 26(a) Di sclosure are

prelirriinary and to the best of the defendants' knowledge at thi s time . Defendants may amend

thi s Di sclo sure as more discovery is completed.

Based upon the foregoing, the defendants make the fo l l owing initial di sclosures i n

accordan ce with the Court 's Scheduling Order dated November 14 , 2011:

1 . Defendant Kevin J . Kennedy (GAB Director and General Counse l) , Nathani el E.

Robinson (GAB Division Administrator, Elections Division) , and other staff

members or contracted employees, including but not limited to, Ross Hein, Sarah

Whi tt, David Grassel, Ann Oberle, and David Meyer, with re spect to the

implementation of the new redist ricting maps .

2. Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies , or thos e individuals on the

Legislature ' s behalf, who were involved in drawing the redist rict ing maps which were

si gned into law on August 9, 2011 , including without limitation, tho se individuals

who reviewed the 2010 decennial census and assisted in determining the appropri ate,

constitutional boundaries for the state and Congressional distr icts as memori alized in

Acts 43 and 44 .

3 . I nd ividuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies , or those individuals on the

Legi s lature's behalf, who were involved in reviewing cen sus and population data

-2-Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 3 of 7 Documen t 113-7

from the 2010 decennial census to insure minimwn population deviation for the new

di stricts.

4 . Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legi s lature ' s behalf, who were involved in reviewing population and other data so as

to preserve, to the extent possible and practicable, the core population of prior

distri ct s as well as communities of interest .

5. Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies , or those ind i viduals on the

Legislature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature in insuring that the new

redi s t ri cting maps, to the extent possible, kept wards and municipaliti es whole within

legi slativ e district boundaries and to the extent possible, recognized local government

boundaries.


Legi s lature ' s behalf, who assisted the Legislature to insure that, if voters were shifted

from odd to even senate districts, they were not unnecessarily and unconstituti onally

disenfranchi sed by being deprived of the opportunity to vote.

7 . Individual s from the Legislature , and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legislature's behal f, who reviewed the 2010 decennial census data and the previous

di stri cting maps to insure that the new districts were as geographicall y compact as

practicable.

8 . Indiv idual s from the Legi slature , and/or its various bodies, or those indivi dual s on the

Legislature's behal f, who assisted the Legislature to prevent unnecessary and

unconstitutional vot er dilution of minority voters .

-3-Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 4 o f 7 Document 113-7

9 . Individuals from the Legislature, and/o r its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legislature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature to insure that the new distri cts

reflected communities of interest along with race and that , where possible , mino rity

citizens comprising a numerical majority of the ci ti zen voting age population .

1 0 . Individuals who reside in, or are familiaz with, challenged districts and/or pie-ex i sting

distri cts with respect to fact s about those districts that are relevant to the

constitutionality of the new redi strict i ng maps.

11. Experts retained on behalf of the Legislature , and/or its various bodies , who assisted

in preparing the redistri cting maps.

12 . Experts to be retained on behalf of the defendants who will assist in defending against

the allegations in the First Amended Complaint .

13. Other individuals whose identity will become known through further discovery.

B. Potentially relevant documents.

Defendants may use the following documents to support their defenses in this matter.

1. Documents in the possession of the GAB .with respect to the implementation of the

new redistricting maps.

2. The approved district maps which were created (by the Legislature or the Courts)

each decade from 1970 through 2002.

3. The decennial census from 1970 through 2010.

4. Documents which detail population growth and changes from 1970 through 2010,

including, but not limited to, historical, minority-based, social, and other community

of interest breakdowns.

-4-Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 5 of 7 Document 113-7

5. Documents in the possession of the Legisl ature , andlor its various bodie s, which were

utilized to draft the 2011 redist ric t i ng maps .

6 . Expert reports and analysis, if any , in the possession of the Legi s lature , and/or its

various bodies, which were utilized to draft the 2011 redistri cting maps .

7 . The defendants reserv e the ri ght to . supplement this response with any documents

that become known through further discovery .

All of the documents listed above, which are in the possession of counse l for defendants ,

have been made available for inspection by the other parties at a time and place mutually agreed

upon by all parties . Any copies that are requested as a result of any inspection may be obtained

at the expense of the requestor at the usual State copying rate .

C. Calculation of damages.

Monetary damages are not being sought in this action . Defendants re serve the ri ght to

present rebuttal evidence through their named fact and expert witnesses, as to any damages

al leged by the plaintiffs.

5Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS- DPW-R M D Filed 01/16/12 Page 6 of 7 Document 113-7

A. Insurance agreements.

The State of Wisconsin is self-insured.

Dated this 1 6th day of November, 2011.

J.B. VAN LEN

IAMA

G ne

S . LAZARAssistant Attorney GeneralState Bar # ] 0171 50

Attorneys for Defendants

Wisconsin Department of JusticePost Office Box 7857Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857(608) 267-3519(608) 267-2223 (fax)[email protected]

-6-Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 7 of 7 Document 113-7

EXHIBIT 8

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01/ 16/12 Page 1 of 14 Document 113-8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ALVIN BALDUS , CARLENE BECHEN , ELVIRABUMPUS, RONALD B IENDSEIL, LESLIE W.DAVIS, I T I, BRETT ECKSTEIN, GLORIAROGERS, RICHARD KRESBACH, ROCHELLEMOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDY ROBSON,JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIASCHLIEPP , TRAVIS THYSSEN , CINDYBARBERA, RON BOONE, VERA BOONE,BVANJELINA CLEERMAN, SHEILACOCHRAN, MAXINE HOUGH, CLARENCEJOHNSON, RICHARD LANGE, and GLADYSMANZANET,

Plaintiffs,

TAMMY BALDWIN, GWENDOLYNNEMOORE andRONALD KIND ,

Intevenor-P laintiffs,

Members of the Wi sconsin GovernmentAccountability Board, each only in hi s officialcapacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVIDDEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMASCANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TTMOTHYVOCTCE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Director andGeneral Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., THOMAS E.PETRI, PAUL D. RYAN, JR., REID J. RIBBLE,and SEAN P. DUFFY.

Intevenor-Defendants.

VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC.,RANIIRO VARA, OLGA VARA,

Case No. I 1-CV-00562JPS -DPW-RMD

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01/16/12 Page 2 of 14 Document 113-8

JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiffs,

V. Case No.ll-CV-1011JPS-DPW-R&ID

Members of the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board, each only i n his officia lcapacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVIDDEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMASCANE, THOMAS BARLAND, TIMOTHYVOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counse l for the WisconsinGovernment Accountability Board,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' ANIP.NDED INITIAL RULE 26(a) DISCLOSURES

NOW COME the defendants by their attorneys, J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General, and

Maria S. Lazar, Assistant Attorney General, and make the following amended initial disclosures

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rul e 26(a)(1):

A. Individuals potentially having knowledge that th e defend ants may use to

s upport their c laims or defenses.

Defendants assert that the Government Accountability Board ("GAB") did n ot prepare,

edit, or in any other way draft the redistri cting maps for the new boundaries which were pass ed

by the Legislature on July 19 and 20, 2011 and signed into law (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44)

by the Governor on August 9, 201 1. GAB and the individual defendants have been sued b ecause

of their statutory responsibility to implement the districts that are now the law of the State . The

defend an ts had no communications with the Legislature, prior to the enactment of the n ew

2 -

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l e d 01/16/12 Page 3 of 14 Document 113-8

redistricting maps on August 9, 2011, with respect to the boundaries of the new maps.

Accordingly, the information and details provided in these Amended Initial Rule 26(a)

Disclosures are preliminary and to the best of the defendants' knowledge at this time.

Defendants may amend these Disclosures as more discovery is completed,

Based upon the foregoing, the defendants make the following amended initial disclosures

in accord ance with the Court's Scheduling Order dated November 14, 2071 :

1 Defendant Kevin J. Kennedy (GAB Director and General Counsel)Government Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenve, 3rd FloorMadison, WI53763(608) 266-8005

Implementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines, past elections and historical information.

2. Nathaniel E. Robinson (GAB Division Administrator, Elections Division)Government Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd FloorMadison, WI 53703(608) 266-8005

Implementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines, past elections and historical information.

3. Ross HeinGovernment Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd PloorMadison, WI 53703(608) 266-8005

Implementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administr ation, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines , and past eleetions .

3-

Case 2:11-cv-00562- J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 4 of 14 Documen t 1 1 3-8

4. Sarah WhittGovernment Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd FloorMadison, WI 53703(608)266-8005

Irnplementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin .4cts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines, and past elections.

5. David GrasselGovernment Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd FloorMadison, WI 53703(608) 266-8005

[mplementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines, and past elections.

6. Ann OberleGovernment Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd FloorMadison, WI 53703(608) 266-8005

Implementation of new redistricting maps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election procass,deadlines, and past elections.

7, David MeyerGovemment Accountability Board212 East Washington Avenue, 3rd FloorMadison, WI 53703(608) 266-8005

Implementation of new redistricting m aps (2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44),other election administration, including but not limited to, election process,deadlines, and past elections .

4 -

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 0 1/16/12 Page 5 of 14 Document 113-8

8. Ronald Keith Gaddie, factual and expert testimonyProfessor of Political ScienceThe University of Oklahoma455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222Norman, OK 73019-2001(405) 325-4989

Professor Gaddie will provide testimony regarding the constitutional requirements ofthe legislative maps at issue includin& but not limited to, contiguity, compactness,communities of interest, core district populations, population requirements, votingrights, municipal and county splits, pairings, potential disenfranchisement and thelack of impermissible political gerrymandering of districts.

9 . Individuals from the Legislature or one of its agencies who can provide factual,

population, census data and other historical information related to the constitutional

requirements of legislative maps at issue.

10. Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legislature's behalf, who were involved in drawing the redistricting maps that were

signed into law on August 9, 2011, including without limitation, those individuals

who reviewed the 2010 decennial census and assisted in determining the appropriate,

constitutional boundaries for the state and Congressional districts as memorialized in

Acts 43 and 44:

Adam FoltzRoom 211 WesT, State CapitolMadison, WI 53708(608) 266-3387

Tad OttmanRoom 2 1 1 South, State CapitolMadison, WI53708(608) 266-5660

5

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01I16/12 . Page 6 of 14 Docu ment 113-8

Joe HandrickReinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414)298-1 000

11. Individuals from th e Legislature, and/or its va ri ous bodies, or those individuals on the

Legislature ' s behalf, who wer e involved in reviewing census and population data

from the 2010 decennial census to insure minimum population devi a tion for th e new

districts :

Adam FoltzRoom 21 1 West, State CapitolMadison, WI 53708(608) 266-3387

Tad OttmanRoom 211 South, State CapitolMadison, WI 53708(608) 266-5660

Joe HandrickReinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 29 & 1000

12 . Individuals from the Legislature, andlor its various bodies , or those individuals on the

Legi slature' s behalf, who were involved in reviewing population and other data so as

to preserve , to the extent po s s ible and practicable, the core population of pri or

distri cts as well as communities of interest:

Adam FoltzRoom 211 West, State CapitolMadison, WI 53708(608) 266-3387

- 6 -


Tad OttmanRoom 211 South , State Capi tolMadison, W I >3708(608) 266-5660

Joe HandrickReinhart, Boemer, Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 298-1000

13 . Individuals from the 'Legislature, and/or its various bod i es, or those individuals on the

Legislature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature in insuring that the new

redistricting maps, to the extent possible, kept wards and municipalities whole within

legislative district boundaries and to the extent possible, recognized local government

boundaries:


Tad OttmanRoom 2 1 1 South, State CapitolMadison , WI 53708(608) 266-5660


14. Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legislature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature to insure that, i f voters were shifted

-7-


from odd to even senate di stric ts, th ey were n ot unnecessarily disenfranchised by

being deprived of the oppa-tunity . to vote:

Adam FoltzRoom 2 1 1 West, St ate CapitolMadison, WI53708(608)266-3387

Tad OttmanRoom 211 South , State CapitolMadison, WI53708(608) 266-5660

Joe HandrickReinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414)298-1000

15. Individuals from the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, or those indi vi duals on the

Legislature's behalf, who reviewed the 2010 decennial census data and the previous

districting maps to insure that the new districts were as geographically compact as

practicable :




8-

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RM D Filed 01/16/12 Page 9 of 14 Document 113-8

1 6. Individuals from the Legisl ature, and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the

Legis l ature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature to prevent unnecessary and

unconstitutional voter dilution of minority voters:


Tad OttmanRoom211 South, State CapitolMadison, WI 53708(608) 266-5660

Joe HandrickReinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C.1 000 North Water Street, Sui te 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 29 8-1000


Legislature's behalf, who assisted the Legislature to insure that the new districts

reflected communities of interes t :



Joe Hand ri ckReinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, W I 53202(414) 298-1000

9-

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01/16/12 Page 10 of 14 Document 113 - 8

18. Individuals who reside in, or are familiar with, challenged districts and/or pre-existing

districts with respect to facts about those districts that are relevant to the

constitutionality of the new redistricting maps.

19. Experts retained on behalf of the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, who assisted

in preparing the redistricting maps.

20. Experts retained, or to be retained, on behalf of the defendants who will assist in

defending against the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

Ronald Keith Gaddie, factual and expert testimonyProfessor of Political ScienceThe University of Oklahoma455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222Norman, OK 73019-2001(405) 325-4989

Professor Gaddie will provide testimony regarding the constitutional requirements ofthe legislative maps at issue including, but not limited to, contiguity, coinpactness,communities of interest, core district populations, population requirements, votingrights, municipal and county splits, pairings, potential disenfranchisement and thelack of impermissible political genymandering of districts.

21. Other individuals whose identity will become known through further discovery ,

Pursuant to Fed . R . Civ. P :- 26(a)(1)(A)(i), the part ies are to provide "the name, and if

known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable

information-along with the subjects of that inform ation--thaY the disclosing party may use to

support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be sol ely for impeachment . " Accordingly,

the names listed above consist of the individuals, presently known to the defendants, who the

defendants may use to suppo rt their claims or defenses . Gluck v. Anse tt Australia Ltd., 204

F . R . D . 217 (D.D . C . 2001) (plaintiff challenging defendants 26(a) disclosures required to show

10-

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 11 of 14 Docu ment 113-8

that defendant intended to use undisclosed individuals at trial); A Traveler v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

No. 1:06-cv-56, 2006 WL 2051732 (July 20, 2006, N.D. Ind.). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26, 2000 Notes of Advisory Committee, 19 ("A party is no longer obligated to disclose witnesses

or documents, whether favorable or unfavorable, that it does not intend to use. ... As case

preparation continues, a party must supplement its disclosures when it determines that it may use

a witness or document that it did not previously intend to use."); Crouse Cartage Co. v. Nat'l

Warehouse Inv. Co., No 1P02-0071-o-T(K, 2003 WL 21254617 (S.D. ind. April 10, 2003)

(challenge to 26(a) disclosures failed to clear "high hurdle" of demonstrating intent to use

undisclosed witness).

Moreover, the matter at issue in this case is the constitutionality of Acts 43 and 44.

Several of the individuals listed by the plaintiffs-aside from their expert-appear to be relevant

only to the intent of the Legislature when it enacted these Acts. The Wisconsin State Supreme

Court has expressly noted that legislative intent is determined by the language of a statute, not

the subjective views of individual legislators who may have supported a bill. "It is the enacted

law, not the unenacted intent, that is binding on the public." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court,

2004 WI 58,144,271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. While there may be some inquiry into the

action taken by the Legislature, "[g]ovemmetital action only fails rational basis scrutiny if no

sound reason for the action can be hypothesized." Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356,

367 (2001). Finally, it is quite difficult, if not nearly impossible to determine legislative intenY.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 636-37 (1987) (J. Scalia, dissenting) ("discerning the

subjective motivation of those enacting statutes is, to be honest, almost always an impossible

task. The number of possible motivations, to begin with, is not binary, or indeed finite ... To

look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does

11 -

Case 2:11-cv-00562- J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/1 2 Page 12 of 1 4 Document 113-8

not exist.") Indeed, if the trial in this case will delve into subjective motivations, it will not be

completed within the four days allotted. Therefore, some of the individuals identified in the

plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures are not relevant to this challenge, and, are appropriately not

identified by the defendants.

B. Potentially relevant documents.

Defendants may use the following documents to support their defeuses in this matter.

1. Documents in the possession of the GAB with respect to the implementation of the

legislative maps at issue.

2. The approved legislative maps which were created (by the Legislature or flie Courts)

each decade from 1970 through 2002.

3. The decennial census fi'om 1970 through 2010.

4, Documents which detail population growth and changes from 1970 through 2010,

including, but not limited to, historical, minority-based, social, and other community

of interest breakdowns.

5. Historical documents and information relating to the constitutional requirements for

the legislative maps at issue, including, but not limited to, contiguity, compactness,

communities of interest, core district populations, population requirements, voting

rights, municipal and county splits, pairings, and potential disenfranchisement.

6. Documents in the possession of the Legislature, and/or its various bodies, that were

utilized to draft the 2011 legislative maps at issue.

7, Expert reports and analysis, if any, in the possession of the Legislature, and/or its

various bodies, that were utilized to draft the 2011 legislative maps at issue.

- 12 -

Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01/16/12 Page 13 of 14 Document 113-8

8. The defendants reserve the right to further supplement this response with any

documents that become known through further discovery.

Any of the documents listed above which are in the possession of defendants will be

made available for inspection by the other parties at a time and place mutually ageed upon by all

parties . Any copies that are requested as a result of any inspection may be obtained at t he

expense of the requestor at the usual State copying rate.

C. Ca lculation of d amages.

Monetary damages are not being sought in this action . Defendants reserve the ri ght to

present rebuttal evidence through their named fact and expert witnesses, as to any damages

alleged by the plaintiffs:

D . Insurance agreemen ts.

The State of Wisconsin is self-insured .

Dated this 25th day of November, 201 1.

s.s. VAN H 11NAttorney ene 1

MARIA S . LAZARAssistant Attorney GeneralState Bar #101715 0


Wisconsin Department of JusticePost Office Box 7857Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857(608) 267-3519(608) 267-2223 (fax)lazarms@doj. state, wi. us

1 3 -

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 01/16/12 Page 14 of 14 Document 113-8

EXHIBIT 9

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-D PW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 2 Documen t 113-9

GODFREY:CKAHN n.ONE EAST MAIN STREET , SUITE 600 • POST OFFICE BOX 2719

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701 - 27 1 9

re t •808257.99 11 FnX•806 . 259.0809

www• GKLAW.COM

Direc t : 414 -287-85 1 2rmason@p ciaw.com

November 29 , 2011

BY HAND DHUVERY

Maria S . L .aiarAssistant Attorney GeneralWisconsin Department of Justice17 W. Main StreetMadison , Wisconsin 53703

Bafdus at at v. Brennan at atCase, No. 11 -CV-562

Dear Maria :

Pursuant to the state ' s amended Rule 26 disclosures, we are writing to schedule a date andtime to inspect the documents descri bed in paragraphs 8 . 1 th rough B.8 that defendants may use tosuppo rt their defenses . We are available to review the documents at any time du ri ng regular businesshours beginning tomorrow , Wednesday , November 29 .

Given the exped ited discove ry schedule , we request that the inspection and copying of thedocuments occur within the next week (that is , on or before Tuesday , December 6) . Please let us knowthe earliest date(s) you can accommodate the inspection of documents , and what time(s) thedocuments will be made availab l e for our inspection and copying .

It is our understanding that you are requiring us to inspect the documents at the Department ofJustice in downtown Madison .

GODFREY & KAHN , S. C .

Re becca Kathryn Mason

RKM : aeg

cc: P. Scott Hassett (via U.S. Mail)Peter G. Earle (via U.S. Mail)Thomas L. Shriner, Jr. (via U.S. Mail)

77 60 342_3

O FFICES IN MILWAUKEE, MADISO N, WAUKESN4 , GREE N BPY AND APPLETON , WISCONSIN AND WASHINGTON, D .C .

GODFREY 6 KAMN, S.C. IS A MEMBER OF TERRALEX! A WORlDWiOE NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS.


EXHIBIT 10

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-D PW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 3 Document 113-10

GODFREYM�6 KAHN s.c. ONE E AST MAIN ST R EET, SUITE 500, POST OFF I CE BOX 2 71 9MADISQN , WISCONSIN 53901 � 27 1 e

i EL1 608 . 259 . 391 1 fnx - 8 0 8 .2 5 7, 080 0

`i+k'w - GKLPW. C O M

Direc1:[email protected]

VIA E-MAIL (qhodan (aD re i n ha rt law .com)

Patrick HodanReinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202

December 5 , 2011

Baldus et al . v . Brennan at al. , Eastern District of Wisconsin Case No . 1 1-CV-562

Dear Mr . Hodan :

Thank you for the telephone call last week . We look forward to simi larly collegialcommunications moving forward .

Based on our conversation, it is our understanding that the state does not have any documentsavailable for our inspection at this time. It is also our understanding that you are continuing to searchfor discoverable documents and that you will provide copies of any documents as part of thestate's December 12, 2011 discovery responses.

As we discussed, your representation that the state does not have any documents available forour inspection at this time seems to contradict your client's Rule 26 disclosures, which explicitly andwithout equivocation enumerated eight categories of documents - including "Documents in thepossession of the Legislature, andlor its various bodies, that were utilized t o draft the 2011 legislativemaps at issue" and "Expert reports and analysis, if any, in the possession of the Legislature, and/or itsvarious bodies, that were utilized to draft the 2011 legislative maps at issue." The pleading then statedthat all of these documents "which are in the possession of counsel for defendants, have been madeavailable for inspection by the other parties at a time and place mutually agreed upon by all parties"(emphasis added).

Relying on these Rule 26 disclosures , on November 29 we sent a letter to the Depa rtment ofJustice to schedule a day and time to inspect the documents . Based on our phone conversation, it isour understanding that , now , there will be no inspection of documents and that we will not receive anyother response to that letter . Notwithstanding your clients amended Ru le 26 d i sclosures , thedisclosures stated that these documents exist , that attorneys for the defendants have such documentsin their possession , and that the documents were available for inspection .

The Cou rt recently ru l ed on the Motion to Compel . As l ong as the state does not intend to usethe undisclosed documents in support of its defense, plaintiffs may not be entitled to them through Rule26 disclosures . We are still entitled to them through the pend ing discove ry requests . If the state later

OFFI CES IN MIIWAUKEE. MADISON. WAUKESN P, GREEN BAY AND APPLETON, W IS CO N SI N AN D WAS HI N GTON , O .C.

GOO PREY fl %AH N . S.C. IS A M E M BER OF T EARALfX,' A WORLDWIDE NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT (pW P t RM S.

Case 2: 1 1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW- RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 3 Document 1 1 3-10

Patrick HodanDecember 5, 2011Page 2

attempts to use any of the documents described in the Rule 26 disclosures in its defense, however, theplaintiffs will ask the Court to preclude and/or strike the use of the documents. In fact, the Court'sdecision invites that.

We will exchange discove ry responses on December 12, and we will always be available todiscuss issues with you .

Sincerely,

GODFREY & KAHN, C. (SK

Rebecca Kathryn MasonWendy K. Arends

RKM : j rh

71730011

Case 2: 11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01/16/12 Page 3 of 3 Document 113-10

EXHIBIT 11

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01/16112 Page 1 of 10 Document 113-1 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEEASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ALVIN BALDUS, CINDY BARBERA,CARLENE BECHEN, RONALD BIENDSEIL,ROSS BOONE, VERA BOONE, ELVIRABUMPUS, EVANJELINA CLEEREMAN,SHEILA COCHRAN, LESLIE W. DAVIS III,BRETT ECKSTEIN, MAXINE HOUGH,CLARENCE JOHNSON, RICHARD KRESBACH,RICHARD LANGE, GLADYS MANZANET,ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDYROBSON, GLORIA ROGERS, JEANNESANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIA SCHLIEPP,TRAVIS THYSSEN, '

Plaintiffs ,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board, each only in his officialcapacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVIDDEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMASCANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and'CIMOTFi'YVOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Director andGeneral Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants,

Civil ActionFile No. 11-CV-562

Three-judge panel28 U , S .C . § 2284

PLATNTTFFS' FTRST SET OF INTEI2ROGATORIESAND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TO: Maria S. LazarAss i st ant Attorney GeneralWiscon sin Department of Justice1 7 West Main StreetP . O . Box 7 8 57Madison, Wisconsin 5370 1-7857

On November 18,2011, plaintiffs filed th eir Second Amended Comp lainrand a complementary Motion to Amendthe Caption.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW- RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 10 Document 113-11

DEFINPfION5

1. "You" and "your" means the defendants individually and as a group, and all other

persons acting on behalf of or in concert with the defendants , i ncluding, but not limited to,

attomeys, investigators, employees, or agents.

2. "Individual" means any person characterized as an "individual" in "Defendants '

Ini tial Rule 26(a) Disclosures" filed on November 12 , 2011 ("Defendants ' Disclosures") .

3 . "In your possession, custody o r control" means all documents which are in the

actual or constructive possession, custody or control of any of the defendants , their agents ,

employees, officers and all other persons acting on its or their behaif.

4 . "Communication," "document," "to identify," and "person" are defined as

provided in Civil L.R. 26(d)(2).

INTERROGATOI2IES

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs Alvin Baldus, Cindy Barbera, Carlene Bechen,

Ronald Biendseil, Ross Boone, Vera Boone, Elvira Bumpus, Ev anjelina C leereman, Sheila

Cochran, Leslie W. Davis TII , Brett Eckstein, Maxine Hough , Clarence Johnson, Richard

Kresbach , Richard Lange , Gladys Manzanet , Roche ll e Moore, Amy Risseeuw, Judy Robson,

Gloria Rogers , Jeanne Sanchez-Bell, Cece lia Schliepp, and Travi s Thyssen, by their attorneys

Godfrey & Kahn, S .C ., pursuant to Fed . R. C iv. P . 3 3 and the Court's Scheduling and Discovery

Order dated November 14, 2011 , hereby demand that defendan t s make ful l answer in writi ng

under oath to the following questions within twenty (20) days after serv ice of these

interrogatories-that is , on or before December 1 2, 20 1 1.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Answer each interrogatory separate ly and fully in wri ti ng under oath , unle ss it i s

obj ected to , in which event the reasons for objections must be stated in lieu of an answer.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS- DPW-RMD File g 01/16/12 Page 3 of 10 Document 113-1 1

2 . An evasive or incomplete answer shal l be considered a failure to answer under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).

3 . You are under a continuing duty to seasonably supplement your response with

respect to any question directly addressed to the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of discoverable matters. Furthermore, you are under a similar duty to correct any

incorrect response when you have later l earned that it is incorrect .

4 . For purposes of these interrogatories , when you are asked to identify a person,

identify the person's full name, age, telephone number, and current residenti al and business

addresses, together with a statement as to their relationship with you , if any, and if not presently

related, a statement as to whether any such relationship ever existed and the inclusive date s of it .

5 . In answering the interrogatories, you are required to fumish information that i s

available to you or avai lable subject to reasonable inquiry, including information in posse ssion of

other persons, firms, partnerships, corporations , or associations direct ly or indirectly employed

by or connected with you or anyone else otherwise subject to your control. Thi s include s

employees , contractors and agents of the Wiscons in State Senate and the Wisconsin State

Assembly.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1 :

Please identify all of the individuals or entities with whom or with which you consulted

or communicated regarding the Rule 26(a) submission you exchanged with plainti ffs' counsel on

November 1 6, 201 1-whether before, during or after the submission's preparation.


Please identify all of the indi viduals or entities with whom or with which you consulted

o r communicated regarding the preparation of your "Defendants' Answer and Affirmative

Defenses ..." (the "Answer") that you filed on November 4 , 2011 . Identi fy , in addit i on, al l of

Case 2: 1 1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filel 01/16/12 Page 4 of 10 Document 113-11

the individuals or entities with whom or with which you shared either: a) any draft of that

Answer and/or b) a copy of that Answer once filed .

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Please identify all of the individuals with whom you have had communications about the

possibility or necessity of testifying as a lay or expert witness at the t rial of this matter .


Please identify all of the individuals, other than those employed at the Department of

Justice, who have reviewed any draft materials of any kind connected with this litigation . If any

of those individuals are members of the State Bar of Wisconsin , identify them along with the

basis for the relationship between you and the individual .


Please identi fy all of the "individuals" to which you refer anonymously in paragraphs 2

through 10 of Defendants ' Disclosure s .


Please identify all of the "experts" to which you refer anonymously in paragraphs 11

and 1 2 of Defendants' Disclosures.


Please identi fy and describe the "state and/or governmental interests" that, in your

Answer you maintain are "directly advance[d]" by the new redist ricting law and describe how

they are advanced.


P l ease ident i fy all of the individual s or entities with whom or with which you consulted

or communicate d regarding the preparation of your responses to these interrogatorie s and

document requests.

Case 2: 11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD File(401/ 1 6/12 Page 5 o f 10 Document 113-11


Ple ase identify all facts that support the Defendant's assertion that the 2011 maps are

constitutional .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs , by their attorneys, pursuant to Fed . R. Civ . P . 34

and the Court's Scheduling and Discovery Order dated November 14,2011, hereby demand that

defendants, within twenty (20) days after service of this request-that is, on or before

December 12 , 2011-permit plaintiffs' attorneys to inspect and copy the following or , in the

alternative, produce legible copies at the office of plaintiffs' attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, S .C . ,

One East Main Street , Suite 5 00 , Madison, Wisconsin.

INSTRUCTIONS

Respond to each document request fully, unless it is objected to , in which event

the reasons for obj ections must be stated in lieu of providing responsive documents.

2. An evasive or incomplete response shall be considered a failure to respond under

Fed. R. Civ . P . 34(b)(2)(A) and (B).

3, You are under a continuing duty to correct any incorrect or incomplete response

as soon as you learn that it i s incorrect or incomplete,

4 . In responding to these document requests, you are required to fumish information

that i s avai labl e to you or subject to your reasonable inquiry, including information in possessi on

of other persons, firms, partnerships, corporation s, or associations directly or indirectly

employed by or connected with you or anyone el se otherwi se subject to your contro l. Thi s

includes emp loyees , contractors and agents of the Wisconsin State Senate and the Wisconsin

State Assembly.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fileq 01/16l12 Page 6 of 10 Document 113-11

If you refuse to produce a requested document , explain the grounds for the refusal

and identify the document by describing its nature (e.g, memo, letter, notes) , date, author(s) ,

recipient(s), and subject matter.

6 . If any requested document is withheld based on either attorney- client privilege or

the attorney work product doctrine or both, a privilege and work product log that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure related to di scovery requests, specifically identifying the

attorney or attorneys involved and the document, shall accompany the responses to these

requests.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1 :

P lease produce any and all documents that defendants intend to introduce at the tri al of

this matter, scheduled for February 21 through 24 , 20 1 2 , or whenever held .


Please produce any and all documents identi fied in response or in connection with the

preparation of the response to the Interro gatori es above .

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:

Please produce the "documents," including the "expert reports" and other materi als that

you identi fi ed in the Defendants ' Disclosures and that you admit already you have in your actual ,

possession, custody and control .

DOCI7IVMNT REQUEST NO. 4 :

Please produce any and all documents related to retaining the core popul ation of

Wisconsin's prior (2002) dis tricts , including but not l imited to any data or analyses used by the

legislature andlor its vari ous bodies , or tho s e individuals on the legi slature's behalf to draw the

2011 redistri cting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

Case 2:1 1 -cv-00562-JPS-DPW-R M D Fileq01/16/ 1 2 Page 7 of 10 Documen t 113-11


Please produce any and all documents related to maintaining communities of interest ,

including but not limited to any data or analyses, used by the legislature andlor its various

bodies, or those individuals on the legislature ' s behalf, to draw the 2011 redistricting maps

enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .


Please produce any and all documents related to shifting populations from even to odd

state senate districts, including but not limited to any data or analyses, that were used by the

legi sl ature and/or its vari ous bodie s, or tho se individuals on the legislature's behalf, to draw the

2011 redi stricting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .


Please produce any and all documents related to establishing compact distri cts, including

but not lim ited to any data or an alyses , that were used by the legislature and/or its various bodies,

or those individuals on the legi s l ature' s behalf, to draw the 2011 redistricting maps enacted as

Acts 43 and 44 .


Please produce any and al l documents related to minority voters , including but not

limited to any data or analyses, that were used by the ►egi sl ature and/or it s various bodi es , o r

those individual s on the leg i slature's behalf, to draw the 2011 redistricting maps enacted a s

Acts 43 and 44 .


Please produce any and all documents related to the preservation of political subdivi sion

boundari es (e.g., counties, municipalities , wards and district lines drawn by local political units),

including but not limited to any data or analyse s , that were used by the legislature and/or its

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD File4011 1 6/12 Page 8 of 10 Documen t 113-11

various bodies, or those individuals on the legis lature 's behalf, to draw the 2011 redistricting

maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44.


Please produce any and all documents related to the partisan make-up and effect ,

including but not limited to any data or analyses , that were used by the legislature and/or its

various bodies, or those individuals on the legislature ' s behalf, to draw the 2011 redistricting

maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44.


Please produce any and a ll documents related to the invo lvement of Democratic

legis lators in drawing the 2011 redistri cting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

DOCUMENT REQUEST N0. 12:

Please produce any and all documents related to census data from 1 970 through 2010 ,

including but not limited to, any documents detailing population growth and changes from 1970

through 2010 .


Please produce any and al l documents used by the legislature to create the 2011 distri cts

enacte d as Acts 43 and 44.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filec$01116/12 Page 9 of 10 Document 1 13-11

Dated: November 22, 2011.

GODFREY & KAI-IN , S.C.

By:Reb c Katirryn MasonState Baz No. 1055500Wendy K. Arends*One East Main Street, Suite 500P.O. Box 2719Madison, WI [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Adm ission to the United States District Courtfor theEastern District of Wisconsin is pending.

7I36053 I

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i ledg0l/16/12 Page 10 of 10 Document 113-11

EXHIBIT 12



ALVIN BALDUS, CARLENE BECHEN, ELVIRABUMPUS, RONALD BIENDSEI, LESLIE W.DAVIS, T Il, BRETT ECKSTEIN, GEORGIAROGERS, RICHARD KRESBACH, ROCHELLEMOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDY ROBSON,JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIASCHLIEPP,'TRAVIS THYSSEN andCINDY BARBERA,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-G562JPS-DPW-RMD

TAMMY BALDWIN, GWENDOLYNNEMOORE, and RONALD KIND,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountabi lity Board, each only in his officialcapacity : MICHAEL BRENNAN,DAVID DEININGER, GERALD NICHOL,THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARI ,AND,TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY,Director and General Counsel for the WisconsinGovernment Accountability Board ,

Defendants,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR,THOMAS E. PETRI, PAUL D. RYAN, JR.,REID J. RIBBLE, and SEAN P. DUFFY,

Tntervenor-Defendanu .

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 o f 23 Document 113-12

VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., RAMIROVARA, OLGA VARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICARAMIREZ,

Case No. I1-CV-1011Plaintiffs, IPS-DPW-RMD

V.

Members of the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board, each only in his officialcapacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVIDDEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMASCANE, THOMAS BARLAND, TIMOTHYVOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Director andGeneral Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants .

DEFENDANTS' ANSWERS TO PLAINTTFFS` FIRST SET OFINTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

The defendants , the Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability

Board ( "GAB") , Michael Brennan, David Deininger, Gerald Nichol, Thomas Cane ,

Thomas Barland , and Timothy Vocke, each in his official capacity only, and Kevin

Kennedy, in his official capacity as Director and General Counsel for the GAB only, by

their attorneys, J .B . Van Hollen , Attorney General , and Maria S . Lazar, Assistant

Attorney Genera l , and Reinhart Soemer V anDewen s.c., by Patrick J . Hodan, Daniel

Kelly and Coll een E . Fielkow , hereby answer Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and

First Request for Production of Documents ( "Di scovery Requests " ) as follows:

2Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/ 1 2 Page 3 of 23 Document 113-12

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

I . Defendants object to plaintiffs ' Discovery Requests to the extent they cal l

for information pro tected by the attorney- client privilege , the attorney work product

doct rine, or any other applicable doctrine or privilege . The inadvertent di scl osure of

privileged or protected information or documents by defend ants may not be deemed to be

a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection with respect to such information or

documents or the subject matter of the information or documents, and defendants reserve

the right to seek the return and/or destruction of any information or document that was

inadverten tly pro duced.

2. Defendants object to plainti ffs ' Discovery Requests to the extent they seek

responses by persons or entiti es other than defendants and to the extent they seek

information or document s not within defendants' possession , custody, or contro l .

3. Defendants object to plaintiffs' definition of "you" and "your " because it

seeks information from "all other persons acting on behalf of or i n concert with

defendants, including, but not limited to, attorneys, investigators, employees or agents."

Other than the individual defendants acting in their official capacity at the GAB and the

GAB employees, defend ants object to answering on behalf of any other persons.

Specifically, plaintiffs' requests for information from or relating to work by GAB's

li ti gation counsel are impermissible under the attorney client and work product

privi leges.

4 . Defendants object to plaintiffs' requests for documents to the extent they

seek documents that are not in the possession or under the control of the GAB and the

named individuals i n thei r official capacities.

3Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW- RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 4 of 23 Document 113-12

5 . Defendants object to plaint i ffs' Di scovery Reque sts to the extent they

purport to impose obligations on defendants beyond those permitted under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and/or local court rule.

6 . Defendants obj ect to plaintiffs' Discovery Request s as overbroad and

unduly burdensome to the extent that they seek the iden t ification of "all " and "any " facts

or documents concerning a given subject matter . Defendants further object to plaintiffs'

request of i t to "i denti fy " or "describe" facts and c ircumstances a s overly broad and

unduly burdensome . Defendants' investi gation is conti nuing, and defendants reserve the

right to supplement and/or amend their responses to plain tiffs' Discovery Requests as

additional information is obtained .

7 . Defendants object to plaintiffs' Discovery Requests to the extent they are

vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome , oppressive, irrel evant, and/or not reasonably

part icular .

8 . Defendants object to plaintiffs ' Discovery Requests to the extent they seek

information that is a matter of public record, i s publicly available, or is otherwise equally

accessi ble to all parties .

9 . Defendants object to plainti ffs ' Discovery Reque sts to the extent they seek

information or documents that are not relevant to the subject matter of this action or to

the claims or defenses of any party, are not re asonably calculated to l ead to the d i scovery

of admiss ible evidence, or are otherwise outside the prop er scope of discovery.

10 . Defendants object to plaintiffs' Discovery Requests to the extent they

relate to any legal conclusion or app li cation of any legal concept or cal l for an expert

opinion or testimony.

4Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 5 of 23 Document 113-12

11 . Defendants object to plaintiffs ' Discovery Request s to the extent they seek

cumulative or dupl i cative infomiation .

12 . Defendants object to plaintiffs ' Discovery Requests as overly broad

because they are not limited in time or scope to the time period in questi on .

13 . Defendants ' agreement to produce any category of document s is not a

represen tation that any such documents in that category actually exi st and can be located

though a re asonabl e search .

14 . Defendants expressly preserve all, objections it may have to the

genuineness, authen ticity, relevance, and/or admi ssib i lity of the informati on or

documents sought by pla intiffs' Discovery Requests.

15 . Defendants object to plaintiffs' requests for information in possession of

"other persons, firms, partnerships , corporations or associations," that are not subject to

the defendants ' control . Defendants further object to plaintiffs' requests for information

by "employees, contractors and agents of the Wisconsin State Senate and the Wisconsin

State Assembly. " These requests for information are overbroad and defendants' answers

herein are based on information possessed by the GAB and the named individuals in their

official capacities .

INTERROGATORIES


Please idenrify all of the individuals or entities with whom or with which youconsulted or communicated regarding the Rule 26(a) submission you exchanged withplaintiffs' counsel on November 16 , 2011-whether before, during or after thesubmission s preparati on .

5Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 6 of 23 Document 113-12

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No. I to the extent it calls for information

protected by the attorney client privi lege , work product doctrine and/or the common or

joint interest pr iv ilege . Defendants also object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks

information that i s not relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the claims or

defenses of any party, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence , or otherwise out s i de the proper scope of discovery. Without waiving these

objections and the foregoing General Obj ections, defendants state that their Rule 26(a)

Disclosure was prepared with the advice and consultation of their counsel who

investigated and drafted the November 16 , 2011 Rule 26(a) Disclosure and subsequent

amendment . Further answering, members of the GAB asked representatives at the

Legislative Reference Bureau and Legislative Technology Services Bureau on or about

November 14 , 2011 , whether they had been contacted about the defendants' Rule 26(a)

Disclosure .

INTERROGATORY NO. Z :

Please identify all of the individuals or entities with whom or with Which youconsulted or communicated regarding the preparation of your "Defendants' Answer andAY'farmative Defenses ...° (the "Answer " ) that you filed on November 4 , 2011 . Identify,in addition, all of the individual s or entitie s with whom or with which you shared either:a) any draft of that Answer and/or b) a copy o£that Answer once filed .

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory N o. 2 to the extent it calls for information

protected by attomey client privilege work product doctrine and/or the common or joint

mterest pnvi ege. De en ant s so o ject to e extent , this Interrogatory see s

information that i s not re levan t to the subject matter of this action or to the c laims or

6Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 7 of 23 Document 113- 1 2

defenses of any party, are not reasonably calcu l ated to l ead to the di scovery of admissible

evidence , or otherwise out side the prope r scope of discovery . Without waiving thes e

objections and the foregoin g General Objections, defendants state that their Answers

were prepared with the advice and con sultation of their counsel who investigated and

drafted the November 4 and 25 , 2011 pleadings. Further answering, defendants state that

they have not shared drafts of GAB pleadin gs in this matter with third persons outside the

GAB, other than the ir couns el . Further answeri n g, defendants state that they have not

shared a copy of the fil ed Answer with third persons out side the GAB , other than.their

counsel .


Please identify all of the indiv iduals with whom you have had communicationsabout the possibility or necessity of testi fying as a lay or expert witness at the trial of thi smatter.

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No . 3 to the extent it calls for information

protected by the attorney client pri vilege work product doctrine and/or the common or

joint interest privilege. Defendan ts al so object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks

information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this acti on or to the claims or

defenses of any party, are not reasonably cal culated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, or otherwise outs ide the proper scope of di scovery. Without waiving these

objections and the foregoing General Obj ections , defendants direct plaintiffs to their

Amended Rule 26(a) Disclosure dated November 25, 2011 and futwe amendments, if

any . F er answenng, e en ants wi isc ose e report(s o t eu tesh sng expert s

pursuant to the Schedul ing Order in this case .

7Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l ed 0 1/16712 Page 8 of 23 Document 1 13-12


Please identify all of the individuals, other than those employed at the Departmentof Justice , who have reviewed any draft materials of any kind connected with thisliti gat ion . If any of those indi viduats are members of the State Bar of Wisconsin, identifythem along with the basi s for the relationship between you and the individual .

ANSWER:

Defendants obj ect to Interrogatory No. 4 because it calls for informati on protected

by the attorney client priv ilege work product doctrine and/oc the common or joint interest

privilege. Defendants also object to the extent thi s Interrogatory seeks information that

is not relevant to the subject matter of this action or to the ciaims or defenses of any

party, are not re asonably calculated to l ead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or

otherwise outsid e the proper scope of discovery. Without waiving these obj ections and

the foregoing General Objections, defendants state that they have not shared drafts of

GAB pleadings in this matter with third persons outside the GAB , other than their

counse l .


Please identify all of the "individuals " to which you refer anonymou s ly inparagraphs 2 through 10 of Defendants ' Disclosures.

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No . 5 to the extent it seeks information subj ect

to the attorney client pri vilege and work product doctrine. Defendants further object to

the term "anonymously " on the grounds this request mischaracte ri zes defendants ' o rigikal

informati on beyond the information located in Defendants' Amended Rule 26(a)

&Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD File d 01/16/12 Page.9 of 23 Document 1 13-12

Di sclosure , defendants obj ect to the vague and overbroad nature of this reque st . Without

wai ving the s e objections and the foregoing General Obj ect ions , defendants state that

additiona l names were added to the Defend an ts ' Amended Rule 26(a) Disclosure , to -wit :

Adam Foltz, Tad Ottman and Joseph Handrick (paragraphs 2-9). Additionally, the

defendants i dentifi ed P rofessor Ronald Keith Gaddie (factual and expert testimony) .


Please identify all of the "experts" to which you refer anonymou sly in paragraphsI 1 and 12 of Defendants' Disclosures .

ANSWER:

Defendants obj ect to Interrogatory No . 6 to the extent it seeks information subject

to the attorney client privilege and work product protecuon . Defendants further object to

the term "anonymously " on the grounds this Request mischaracterizes defendants'

ori ginal init ial Rule 26(a) Disclosure dated November 16, 2011. Without waiving these

obj ect ion s and the foregoing General Objections , defendants state their testi fying expert

report (s) will be exchanged with plaintiffs pursuant to the Scheduling Order.

INTERROGATORY NO. ? :

Please identify and describe the " state and/or governmental intere sts" that , i n yourAnswer you maintain are "directly advance[d]" by the new redistri cting law and describehow they are advanced .

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No . 7 to the extent it inappropri ately calls for a

legal analysis or explanation of the legal basi s for defendants' defenses to plaintiffs'

claims. Defendants further object as the r equest fails to specific all y identify where the

9Case 2:11-cv-00562- J PS-DPW-RMD File d 01/16/12 Page 10 of 23 Document 113-12

quoted phrases are located in defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs F irst Amended Complaint .

Defendants reserve the ri ght to assert any and all interests at t rial and that the Court,

itself, is entitled to rely upon any interests that it identifies. The redistricting Acts are

presum ed to be valid, Davis v. Grover, 166 Wi s. 2d 5 01 , 520 , 480 N.W.2d 460 (1992) ,

and the burden is on the plaintiffs-as chall engers-to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that they are unconstitutional. State v. Chvala, 2004 WI App 53 , ¶ 9, 271 Wis.2d

115, 678 N.W.2d 880; State ex re1. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, 5 8 Wis. 2d 3 2 ,

46 , 205 N . W .2d 784 (1973) . It i s no t enough that a cha llenger establi sh doubt as to an

act's con stitutionality nor is it sufficient that a chal lenger establ i sh the unconst itut ionality

of an act i s a possibil ity . Id. If any doubt exi sts, it must be resolved in favor of

constitutionality. State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel , 26 5 Wis. 55 8 , 564 , 61 N .W.2d 903

(195 3 ) . Finally, the appropri ate standard is not that the present redistri cting maps are the

best maps po ssible or that they serve the state or governmental interests better than any

alternative. Prosser v. Wisconsin Elections Board, 793 F. Supp . 859, 867 (W.D. Wis.

1992) . "The Constitution does not require that the Legi slature adopt the best plan ` that

any ingenious mind can devise . ' " Mayor of Cambridge v. Sec. of Commonwealth, 765

N .E.2d 749 , 756 (Mass . 2002) (quoting Atry. Gen. v . Sec . of the Commonwealth, 27

N.E.2d 265, 269 (Mas s. 1940)).

Without waiving these objectio ns and the foregoing General Objections ,

defendants state that the state and/or governmental interests advanced by 2011 Wisconsin

Acts 43 and 44 consist of having redistricting maps that comply with state and federal

constitutional requirement s.

1 0Case 2:11-cv-00562-J P S-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 11 o f 23 Documen t 1 13-12


Pleas e identify all of the individuals or entities with whom or wi th which youconsulted or communicated regarding the preparation of your responses to theseinterrogatori es and document requests .

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No . 8 to the extent it seeks i nformation subj ect

to the attorney client pri vilege and work product doct rine . Defendants al so obj ect to the

extent thi s Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the s ubj ect matter of thi s

action or to the cl aims or defenses of any party, are not reasonably cal cu l ated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, or otherwi se outside the proper scope of discovery.

Without waiving this objection and the foregoing General Obj ecti ons, defendants state

these responses were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel based on an

investigati on and interviews conducted by defendants' counsel .


Please identify all facts that support the Defendant' s assert ion that the 20 1 1 mapsare constitutional.

ANSWER:

Defendants object to Interrogatory No . 9 to the extent it inappropriately cal ls for a

legal analysi s or explanation of the legal bas is for defendants' defenses to plainti ffs'

claims. Defendants further object to the use of the phrase "2011 maps" as undefined and

vague, but for purpose of answering thi s Interrogatory, the defendants will under stand

"2011 maps" as referring to 2011 Wisconsin Acts 43 and 44 . Defendants further object

to plainti £fs' request for " all " facts as overbroad . Defendants furdher obj ect to the extent

thi s request seeks information and facts subject to expert opinion , which shall be

ilCase 2: 1 1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fil e d 01/16/12 Page 12 of 23 Documen t 113-12

provided pursuant to the Scheduling Order . The redistricting Acts are presumed to be

valid , Davis u Grover, 1 66 Wis. 2d 501 , 520, 480 N.W. 2d 460 (1992), and the burden is

on the plaintiff.s-as challengers-to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are

unconstitutional . State v. Chvala , 2004 WI App 5 3 , ¶ 9 , 27 1 Wis . 2d 115, 678 N .W.2d

880; State ex re L Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, 58 Wis . 2d 32 , 46 , 205 N .W .2d

784 (1973). It is no t enough that a challen ger establish doubt as to an act ' s

constitutional ity nor is it suffici ent that a challenger est ablish the unconstitutionality of an

act i s a possibil ity. Id. If any doubt exist s, it must be resolved in favor of

constitutional ity. State ex reL Thomson v. Giessel, 265 Wis. 558, 564, 6 1 N.W.2d 903

(1953).

Subject to and without waiving these objections and the foregoing General

Objections, defendants state the following facts and data demonstrate the constitutionality

of the legislative di stricts created by Acts 43 and 44: the population of Wisconsin as

recorded in the decennial census conducted by the federal government from 1970 to

present; the legislative and congressional maps created by the legislature and federal

court panels since 1 970 (including the facts and data underlying and contained therein);

data held by the Legislative Reference Bureau and Legislative Technology Services

Bureau; to the extent that the Court determines that legislative intent is relevant to

determining the constitutionality of the maps, l e gislative intent; and all facts and data

used or calculated by experts in thi s case . Further answering, expe rt an alysis of the

previous and following enumerated facts and data, as well as other facts as evaluated by

defendants' expert(s) as deemed necessary, will demonstrate the constitutionality of the

2011 legislative dist ricts: historical el ection data from Wisconsin , delayed voting data

12Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 011 1 6/12 Page 13 o f 23 Documen t 113- 1 2

from Wisconsin and other stat e s; and calculations and other analyses of compactness ,

contiguity , core retention , political pairings and other categories as determined by expert

analysis. Defendants' investigation is ongoing and defendants reserve the ri ght to

disclose additional facts and data as it becomes known or relevant to this acti on .

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REOUES'[' FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 :

Please produce any and all documents that defendants intend to introduce at thetri al of thi s matter, s cheduled for February 21 through 24, 20 12 , or whenever he ld .

RESPON5E:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, defendants wi ll

produce relevant, non-privileged documents in its possession , custody or control that

defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to thi s reque st . No decisions have yet

been made as to what will or wil l not be used as evidence at trial .

Defendants investigation i s ongoing and reserves the right to identi fy and

disolose additi onal data and documents as they become known or rel evant to this action.

IYEQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 :

Please produce any and all documents identi fied in response or in connection withthe preparation of the responses to the Interrogatories above.

RESPONSE:

Defendants object to Request No . 2 to the extent it call s for documents protected

by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other

applicable privilege or doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objection s and the

' s,--tiefendsa evant , -

13Case 2:11-cv-00562- JP S-DPW-RMD Filed 0 1l16/12 Page 14 o f 23 Document 113-12

documents in its possession , custody or control that defendants reasonably understand to

be responsive to this request.

REQUEST FOR PROAUCTTON NO. 3:

Please produce the " documents," including the "expert reports " and othermateri als that you identi fied in the Defendants' Disclosures and that you adm it youalready have in your actual, possession , custo dy and control .

RESPONSE:

Defendants obj e ct to Request No. 3 to the extent it calls for documents protected

by the attorney client privilege , the attorney work product doctrine or any other

appl icable privilege or doctrine . Defendants further object to the extent this Request

seeks documents not in the possession, custody or control of defendants . Defendants

fiuther object to the mischazacterizadon in this request , as defendants never "admitted "

that "expert reports" exi st in their possession or custody . Subject to and without waiving

these objections and the foregoing General Objections, defendants will produce relevant,

non-privileged documents in its possession , custody or control that defendants reasonably

understand to be responsive to this request Defendants further state that the report(s) of

its testify ing expert(s) shall be produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the Scheduling Order in

this case.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Please produce any and all documents related to retaining the core population ofWisconsin's pri or (2002) districts, including but not limited to any data or analyses usedby the legislature and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the legislature's behalfto draw the 2011 redi stricting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

14Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 15 o f 23 Document 113-12

RESPONSE:

Defendants object to Request No . 4 to the extent it seeks documents not in the

possession , custody or control of defendants . Defendants further object to the request to

the extent plainti ffs have access to the documents and data requested . Without waiving

these objections and the foregoing General Objections, defendants will produce rel evant ,

non -pri vileged documents in its possession, cu stody or control (including documents it

obtains from third-parti es) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to this

request. Defendant s fiutlaer state that the report(s) of its testifying expert(s) shall be

produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the Scheduling Order in this case.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S :

Please produce any and all documents related to maintaining communities ofinterest, including but not limited to any data or analyses , used by the legislature and/orits various bodies, or those individuals on the legislature' s behalf, to draw the 2011re di str i cting maps enacted as Act s 43 and 44 .

RESPONSE:


possession, custody or control of defendants . Defendants fiirther object to the request to

the extent plainti ffs have access to the documents and data requested . Without waiving

the se objections and the forego ing General Objection s, defendants will produce relevant,

non-p rivi leged documents in its possession, custody or control (including documents it

obtains from third-par ties) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to this

request. Defendants farther state that the report(s) of its testifying expert(s) shall be


15Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 16 of 23 Documen t 113-12

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Please produce any and all documents related to shifting populations from even toodd state senate districts , including but not l imited to any data or analyses , that were usedby the l egislature and/or its va rious bodies, or those individuals on the legislature ' sbehal f, to draw the 2011 redi stricting maps enacted as Acts 4 3 and 44 .

TtESPONSE :

Defendants object to Request No. 6 to the extent it seeks documents not in the

possession, custody or control of defendants. Defendants further object to the request to

the extent plaintiffs have ac'cess to the documents and data requested. Without waiving

these objections and the foregoing General Objections, defendants will produce relevant,

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control (including dociunents it

obtains from third-parties) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to this

request. Defendants further state that the report(s) of its testifying expert(s) shall be


RF.OUES'T ' FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

Please produce any and all documents related to establ ishing compact distri cts,including but not limited to any data or analyses, that were used by the legislature and/orits various bodies, or those individuals on the legislature's behalf, to draw the 20 1 1redistricting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 ,ItESPONSE:


possession , custody or control of defendanis . Defendants further object to the request to

the extent plaintiffs have access to the dceuments and data requested . Without waiving

these objections and the foregoing General Objections, defendants will produce re lev an t ,

non-pri vileged documents in its possession , custody or control (including documents it

obtain s from thi rd-p arties ) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to this


request . De fendan ts further state that the report(s) of its testifying expert(s) shall be

produced to plaintiffs pursuan t to the Sbheduling Order in this case.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

P lease produce any and all documents related to minority voters, includ i ng but notlimited to any data o r analyse s, that were used by the legislature and/or its variou s bodies,or those individuals on the legislature's behalf, to draw the 20 11 re di strictin g mapsenacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

RESPONSE :


possess ion , custody or control of defendants . Defendants fiuther obj ect to the request to

the extent plaintiffs have access to the documents and data requested . Without waiving

these objection s and the foregoing General Objections, defendants will produce relevant ,

non-pri vileged documents in its possession, custody or control (including documents it

obtains from third -parties) that defendants reasonably understand to be re sponsive to thi s

request . Defendants further state that the report(s) of its testifyin g expert( s) shal l be


REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 :

P lease produce any and all documents related to the preservation of politicalsubdivision boundarie s (e . g., counties, municipalitie s, wards and di strict lines drawn bylocal political un its), including but not limited to any data or analy ses , that were used bythe legi s lature and/or its various bodies, or those individuals on the leg islature 's behalf, todraw the 2011 redistricting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

RESPONSE:


possess i on , custody or control of defendants . Defendants further objec t to the request to

17Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-D PW-R MD Fi l ed 01/16/12 Page 18 of 23 Doc u ment 113-12

the extent plaintiffs hav e access to the documents and data requested . Without waiving

these objections and the fo regoing General Obj ections, defendants will produce relevant ,

non-pri vil eged documents in i ts possession, custody or control (including documents it

obtains from third-parties) that defendants reasonably .undersiand to be respons i ve to this

request . Defendants fu rther state that the report(s) of its te stifying expert(s) shall be

produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the Sch eduling Order in this case .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10 :

Please produce any and a l l documents related to the parti san make-up and effect,including but not limited to any data or analyses, that were used by the legi slature and/orits various bodies , or those individu al s on the legislature' s behalf, to draw the 20 1 1redistricting maps enacted as Acts 43 and 4 4.

RESPONSE:

Defendants object to Request No. 1 0 to the extent it seeks documents not in the

possession, custody or control of defendants. Defendants further object to the reque st to


these objections and the foregoing General Objections, defendants wi ll produce relevant,

non-privileged documents in its possession, custo dy or control (inc luding documents it

obtains from third-parties) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to this

request. Defendants further state that the report(s) of its testifying expert(s) shall be

produced to plaintiffs pursuant to the Schedulin g Order in thi s case .


Please produce any and all documents related to the involvement of Democrati ca ' n e r c as�ct§` .

18Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 19 o f 23 Documen t 113-12

FtESPONSE :

Defendants object to Request No. 11 t o the extent it s eeks documents not in the

possession , custody or control of defendants . Defendants further object to the request to

the extent plaintiffs have access to the documents and data requested . Without waiv i ng

these objections and the foregoing General Objections , defendants will produce relevant ,

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody o r control (including.documents it

obtains from third-parties) that defendant s reasonably understand to be re sponsi ve to th is

request .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 12 : ,

Please produce any and all documents rel ated to census data from 1970 through2010, including but not limited to, any documents detailing populati on growth andchanges from 1 970 through 2010.

RESPONSE:


possession , custody or control of defendant s. Defendants further obj ect to the request to

the extent plaintiffs have access to the dooumenu and data requested . Without waiving

these objections and the foregoing General Objections , defendants will produce relevant,

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or contro l ( including documents it

obtains from third-parties) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to thi s

request Defendants fin dher state that the report(s) of its tes t ifying expert(s) sh al l be


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 13 :

district s enacted as Acts 43 and 44 .

19Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD File d 01/16/12 Page 20 of 23 Document 1 1 3-12

RESPONSE :

Defendant s obj ect to Request No . 1 3 to the extent it seeks documents not in the

possession, custody or control of defendant s.. Defendants further object to the request to


these obj ections and the foregoing General Objec ti ons , defendants will produce relevant,

non-pri vileged documents in its possession, custody or control (including documents it

o btains from third-partie s ) that defendants reasonably understand to be responsive to thi s

request .

Dated this 12th day of December, 201 1.

Wisconsin Department of JusticePost Office Box 7857Madison, Wisconsin 53 707-7857(608) 267-351 9(608) 267-2223 (fax)lazarms@doj, state. wi . us

J . B . V .

MA%A S. LAQprPtAssistant AttorneyState Bar #1017150


Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S . C .

PATRICK J . HODANState Bar # 1 00 1 233

DANIEL KELLYState Bar # 100 1 941

COLLEEN E. FIELKOWState Bar # 1 03 8437



Tteinhart Boemer Van Deuren, S.C.1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 298- 1 000(414) 298-8097 (fax)[email protected](d).reinhartlaw. [email protected]

2 1Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-R MD Filed 01/16/12 Page 22 o f 23 Doc u ment 113-12

VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS

STATE OF WISCONSIN )) SS

DANE COUNTY

Kevin Kennedy, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

That he has read this document, and knows its contents; that these responses were

prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel and employees and agents of

defendants; upon whose advice and information he has relied; that the responses set forth

above, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and limited by the

records and information still in existence, and thus far discovered in the course of the

preparation of these responses; that he and defendants consequently reserve the right to

make any changes in the responses if it appears at any time that omissions have been

made or more information is available; that subject to these limitations these responses

are complete to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

BYKevin e y

Subscribed and sworn to before methis y D

Notary Public, State f WisconsmMy Commission

22

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RM D Filed 01/16/12 Page 23 of 23 Documen t 113-12

EXHIBIT 13



ALVIN BALDUS, CINDY BARBERA, CARLENEBECHEN, RONALD BIENDSEIL, RON BOONE, VERABOONE, ELVIRA BUMPUS, EVANJELINACLEEREMAN , SHEILA COCHRAN , LESLIE W .DAVIS III, $RETT ECKSTEIN, MAXINE HOUGH,CLARENCE JOHNSON, RICHARD KRESBACH,RICHARD LANGE, GLADYS MANZANET,ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RISSEEUW, JUDYROBSON, GLORIA ROGERS, JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL, CECELIA SCHLI EPP , TRAVIS THYSSEN,

P l ai nti ffs,


1 ntervenor-PI ai nti ffs,

V.

Members o f the Wisconsin Government Accounta bi lityBoard , each only in hi s o ffic i al capac i ty:MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY , Directorand General Counselfor the Wisconsin Government Accountab i lit y Board ,

Defendants,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., THOMAS E. PETRI ,PAUL D . RYAN , JR ., REID J . RIBBLE,and SEAN P . DUFFY,

I nte rvenor-De fendants .

(caption continued on next page)

Civil ActionF il e No. 1 1-CV -5 62

Three-jud ge panel28 U. S.C. § 22 84

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIESAND SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

TO DEFENDANTS

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 2 of 1 0 Documen t 113-13

VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., RAMIRO VARA,OLGA WARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiffs,

V.

Members of the Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard, each only in his official capacity: .MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERALDNICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, andTIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, Directorand General Counsel for the Wisconsin GovernmentAccountability Board,

Defendants ,

TO: Maria S. LazarAssistant Attorney GeneralWi scon si n Department of Justice1 7 West Mai n StreetP. O . B ox 7857Madi son , W isconsin 53 70 1- 78 57

CaseNo. 11-CV-10 11JPS-DPW-RMD

Patr ick J . HodanDani e l KellyCo ll een F i e lkowReinhart Boemer Van Deuren s.c.22 Eas t Mifflin S treet, Suite 600Madison, WI 53703

DEFINITIONS

"You" and "your" means defendants i ndi vidually and as a group, and a l l oth er

persons acting on behalf o f or in concert with defen dants, including, but no t l i m ite d to, attorneys,

investigators, employees, or agents.

2 . "In your possess i on, custody or control" means all documents that are in the

actual or constructive possession, custody or control of any oFthe defendants, their agents,

employees, o ffi cers and all other persons acting on its or their behalf.

"Communication," "document," "to identify, " and "person" are defined a s

provided in Civil L . R . 26(d)(2),

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD File d 01/16/12 Page 3 of 10 Document 113-13

4 . "I mplementati on" has the same meanin g as the word "implementati on" used

repeatedly by you in Defendants' Amended Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plai ntiffs, by their attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, S . C .,

pursuant to Fed . R . Civ . P . 33 and the Court's Schedul i ng and Discovery Order dated

November 1 4 , 2011, hereby demand that defendants make full answer i n writing unde r oath to

the fo llowing quest i on s w ithin twen ty (20) days after service of the se interrogatories-that is, o n

or before February 1 , 20 1 2.

INSTRUCTIONS

Answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is

objected to, in which event the reasons for objections must be stated in lieu of an answer.

2 . An evasive or incomplete answer shall be considered a failure to answer under

Fed . R . Civ. P . 33(b)(3).

3, You are under a continuing duty to seasonably supplement your response with

respect to any question directly addressed to the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of discoverab l e matter s. Furthermore, you are under a similar duty to correct any

incorrect response when you have later learned that it is incorrect.

4. For purposes of these interrogatories, when you are asked to identify a person,

i dentify the person's full name, age, telephone number, and current residential and business

addresses, together with a statement as to their relationship with you, if any, and if not presently

related, a statement as to whether any such relationsh ip ever existed and the inclusi ve dates of it .

5 . In answe ring the interro gatories, you are required to furn ish informa ti on that is

availabl e to you or available subject to reasonable inquiry, including information in possession of

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F i led 01/16/12 Page 4 of 10 Documen t 113-132

othe r persons, firm s, part nersh ips, corp orations, or association s directly or indirectly employed

by or connected with you or anyone el s e o therwi se su bject to your control. Thi s inclu des

employees, con tr actors, an d agents o f the Wi sconsin State Senate and the Wi sconsin Sta te

As sembly .

TNTERROGATORY NO. 10 :

When and in what manne r did you become aware of the "anomal i es" descr ibed in the

J anuary 10, 20 1 2 n ews art ic l e in the Wiscon s in State Journal with the headline "Errors in

red i stri c t i ng process cou ld affec t thousands of vo t ers"I and , apparently, described i n at least one

Government Accountabili ty Board ("GAB") memorandum?

INTERROGATORY NO . I i :

Ident ify every person wi th whom any GAB member o r empl oyee ha s commun i cated ,

verbally or in writing, about the "anomalies" referenced in Interrogatory No. 10 and describe the

circumstances and the substance of the communication. This includes but is not limited to any

local government officials with responsibility for voter registration or voting in any election.


Explain how, if at all, the "anomalies" affect the population variations from precise

equality reflected in the districts, whether legislative or Congressional, embodied in Acts 43 and

44,


Identify every person who participated in the planning, development, negotiation,

drawing, revision, redrawing, or discussion of the districts and maps codified in Wisconsin

' See hrip:/lhosLmad i son .co rrJwsj/news/locaUgovi-an d-po li tics/errors- in -redisKic t ing-process-could-affect-thousands-of-voters/article 04776e4a-36f8-llel-9d51-0019662963f4.htm1.

Case 2:1 1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16l12 Page 5 of 10 Document 113-133

Acts 4 3 or 44 or any other draft, potential, or proposed redistricting plan. Thi s includes but is

not limited to the "implementat i on" of Act 4 3 and 44.

INTERROGATORY NO . 1 4 :

I d e nt i fy every pe rson who was consulted about , or rece i ved i n formation concerning, the

districts and maps codified in Wi scon sin Act s 4 3 or 44 , or any other draft , potential, or proposed

redi s tricting pl an , before the proposed boundaries were released to the publ i c on Ju l y 8 , 2011.


Id e nt i fy eve ry person with whom any GAB member or employee has commun icated ,

verbally or in writing, about the planning, development, negotiation, drawing, revision,

redrawing, or discussion of the districts and maps codified in Wisconsin Acts 43 or 44 or any

other draft, potential, or proposed redistricting plan. This includes but is not limited to the

"implementation" of Act 43 and 44.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1 6:

I n Defendants' Amended Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures, paragraphs 9 through 19, you

descri be indi v idua ls who were "invol ved" in the redistricting process or "assisted" with it .

Please identi fy any individua ls (other than Messrs. Fo ltz, Ottman an d Handri ck ) who fi t the

descripti on s provid ed i n those paragraphs by nam e, addre ss, titl e, and r esponsi biliti es, regardless

of whether o r not you may use discover able informat io n from those individuals to support yo u r

defenses.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and the Court's Scheduling and Discovery Order dated

November 14, 2011, hereby demand that defendants, within twenty (20) days after service of this

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RM D Fil4d 01/16/12 Page 6 of 10 Documen t 113-13

request-tha t is, on or before February 1, 201 2-permit pl ainti Ffs' attorneys to inspec t a nd copy

the following or, in the alternative, produce legible copies at the office of plaintiffs' attorneys,

Godfrey & Kahn, S . C . , One East Main Street, Suite 500, Madison, Wisconsin .

INSTRUCTIONS

Respond to each document request fully, unless it is objected to, in which event

the reasons fo r objecti ons must be stated in lieu of providing responsive documents.

2 . An evasive or incomplete response shall be considered a failure to respond under

Fed . R . C i v. P . 34(b)(2 )(A) and (B).

3 . You are under a continuing duty to correct any incorrect or incomplete response

as soon as you learn that it is incorrect or incomplete .

In responding to these document requests, you are required to furnish information

that is available to you or subject to your reasonable inquiry, including information in possession

of other persons , 6rms, partnerships, corporations, or associations directly or indirectly

employed by or connected with you or anyone else otherwise subject to your control . This

includes employees, contractors and agents of the Wisconsin State Senate and the Wisconsin

State Assembly .

5 . If you refuse to produce a requested document, explain the grounds for the refusal

and identify the document by describing its nature (e . g. , memorandum, letter, notes) , date,

author(s) , recipient(s), and subject matter.

6 . If any requested document is withheld based on either attorney-client privilege or

the atto rney work product doctrine or both, a privilege and work product log that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure related to discovery requests, speci fi cally identifying the

a tt orney o r atto rn eys involved and the document, shall accompany the responses to these

requests .

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD F il e d 0 1/16/12 Page 7 of 10 Documen t 113-135

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 4:

To the extent not al ready produced , provide eve ry document of any kind that you in tend

to introduce at trial.


Provide every document that discusses, describes, or relate s to the "anomalies" re ferred

to in Interrogatory Nos. 1 0 and 11.


To the extent no t a lready produced , provide every documen t, re l ated in any way to Ac t

43 or 44 and their development, enactment, or implementation, sent to or received from the

following individuals by the GAB, its members or employees: Elisa Alfonso, Adam Foltz, Keith

Gaddie, Joseph Handrick, Mark Jefferson, Scott Jensen, Eric McLeod, Tad Ottman, Gerard

Randall, Alonzo Rivas, Prospectre Rivera, Jesus (Zeus) Rodriguez, Robert Spindell, Jim Troupis,

and Mike Wild.


To the extent not already produced, provide every document, including but not limited to

e-mail, concerning any analyses, data, plans, procedures, and/or repo rts reviewed, relied upon,

considered, or prepared by-- or available to-any persons involved in the planning,

development, negotiation, drawing, revision, redrawing, or discussion of the districts and maps

codified in Wisconsin Acts 43 or 44 or any other draft , potential, or proposed redistricting plan .

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 18 :


e-mail, concerning the objectives and/or motives of state lawmakers and members of Congress,

and of their staff, consult an ts, and experts, related to the planning, development, negotiation,

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01116/12 Page 8 of 10 Document 113- 136

drawing, revi si on , re drawing, or disc ussi on of th e district s and maps codified in Wisconsi n

Acts 4 3 or 44 or any othe r draft, potential, o r proposed redi strictin g plan .


To the extent not already produced, pro vi de every document , inc lu ding but not lim i ted to

e-mail, concerning the identities of persons who participated in the planning, development,

negotiation, drawing, revision, redrawing, or discussion of the districts and maps codified in

Wisconsin Acts 43 or 44 or any other draft, potential, or proposed redistricting plan.



e-mail, concerning the identities, contractual agreements, and compensation of any experts

and/or consultants (including attorneys retained by contract) retained to assist in the planning,

development, negotiation, drawing, revision, redrawing, or discussion of the districts and maps

codified in Wisconsin Acts 43 or 44 or any other draft, potential, or proposed redistricting plan.



e-mail, concerning the objective facts referenced, used, or relied upon by-or available to--any

persons involved in the plannSng, development, negotiation, drawing, revision, redrawing, or

discussion of the districts and maps codified in Wisconsin Acts 43 or 44 or any other draft,

potential, or proposed redistricting plan.


To the extent not already produced, provide all communications, including but not

limited to e-mail, with any persons or entities concerning the redistricting process or the

planning, development, negotiation, drawing, revision, redrawing, or discussion of the districts

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS- DPW-RM D F i led 01/16/12 Page 9 of 10 Document 113-13

and maps cod ifie d in Wisconsin Acts 4 3 or 44 or any other draft, potential, o r proposed

redistricting plan .

Dated: January 1 2, 20 1 2.

GODFREY & KAHN , S . C .

By:no�g�roianaState Bar No . ]055189Dustin B . BrownState Bar No. 1086277One East Main Street, Suite 5 00P.O. Box 27 1 9Madison, WI 53701 -2719608 -257-3911dpo tand@gklaw [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

73401712

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Fi l eB 01/16/12 Page 10 o f 10 Document 113-13

EXHIBIT 14

Case 2: 1 1-cv-00562-JPS-D PW-RMD Fi l ed 01/16/12 Page 1 of 4 Document 113-14

G4DFREWORKAHN n. ONE EpST MAIN STREET , SUITE 604 • POST OFFICE BOX 2719MA0190N, WISCONSIN 53701-2719

*[ l • 606.2 5 9. 3911 fex 1 608 . 257. 0809

w' ++ w' •GKIAW .COM

D i rect : 608 -2842625tlpoland@gklaw .com

January 1 4 , 201 2

BY E-MAIL

Maria S . LazarAssi stant Attorney GeneralWiscons in Department of JusticeP .O . Box 78 5 7Madison, WI 53707-78 [email protected]

Patrick J. HodanDaniel KellyReinhart Boemer Van Deuren s.c.1000 North Water Street , Suite 2 1 00Milwaukee, WI 53202Phone: [email protected]@reinhartlaw.com

Baldus et al, v. Brennan et al.

Dear Counsel:

We learned late yesterday of the existence of the attached memorandum, prepared by yourclient, the Govemment Accountability Board, on November 10, 201 1. The memorandum directlyaddresses, among other things, the use of 2010 census data in the redistricting process that resulted inActs 43 and 44, and concludes, in part, that "it is likely that the final districts will not precisely matchthose prescribed by Acts 43 and 44 because census blocks were attributed to incorrect municipaliries."

This memorandum was not disclosed in defendants' Rule 26 disclosures or their supplementald isclosures . Nor was it produced to plaintiffs in response to the production requests that we served onyou on November 22, 2011, which included the following requests, among others :


Please produce any and all documents related to retaining the core population of Wisconsin'sprior (2002) districts, including but not limited to any data or analyses used by the legislature andlor itsvarious bodies, or those individuals on the legislature's behalf to draw the 2011 redistricting mapsenacted as Acts 43 and 44.

OFFICES IN MIIWAUKEE, MADISON, WAUKESHA. GFEEN BAY AND APPLETON. WISCONSIN AND WASHINGTON, D.C .

GODFREY d KNNN, S.C. IS A MEMBER OF TERW*IEX,' A WORLDWIDE NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS.

Case 2 7.1-cv-00562-JPS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16(12 Page 2 of 4 Document 113-14

Maria LazarPatrick HodanJanuary 14, 2012Page 2


Please produce any and al l documents related to shifting populations from even to odd statesenate distri cts, including but not limited to any data or anal yses, that were used by the legislature andlorits various bodies , or those indivi dual s on the legi slature's behalf, to draw the 2011 redistric ting mapsenacted as Acts 43 and 44 .


Please produce any and all documents related to census data from 1970 through 20 1 0, includingbut not limited to, any documents detailing population growth and changes from 1 970 through 20 10 .

Your client's memorandum of yesterday, January 1 3, 2 01 2, i n i tse lf very signi ficant, only servesto emphasi ze the importance and relevance of the November 10 memorandum.

Please expl ain why you did not identify or produce the GAB 's November 10, 20 1 1memorandum, as we l l as all other related documents, in accord ance with your obligations under Rule 26and in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests.

Not only d id you fail to produce the memorandum and re l ated materia l s, you have not - even upto t his day - informed the plaintiffs o f the existence of problems with the census da ta and assignment o fvoters to l eg is l at ive districts that, in the words used in the GAB's own November 10, 20 11memorandum, "directly impact the Government Accountab i li ty Board's (G .A. B .) RedistrictingIniti ative." By fai ling to reveal even the existence of the problems identifi ed in the GAB's November10 memorandum, you have permitted expert witnesses for all parties to formulate, prepare, and tenderopinions, which you knew would be presented to the Court for its considerat i on, without infornring anyof those experts that they were formulating opini ons based on information tha t the GAB appears to haveknown was inaccurate as far back as November 10, 20 1 1 , if not earlier. We once again request that youprov ide us with all documents, data , and information in the GAB 's possession, custody, and control, inaccordance with the GAB 's discovery obligations.

We would appreciate heari ng from you, notwithstanding the hol iday, by Monday morning.Absent an explanation, we anticipate seeking appropriate reli ef from the Court.

Case 2:11-cv-00562-JPS-DPW- RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 3 of 4 Document 113-14

Maria LazarPatrick HodanJanuary 14 , 20 12Page 3

Very truly yours,

GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.

/s/ Douglas M. Poland

Douglas M. Po land

Attachment

cc: P . Scott Hassett (by e-mail)Thomas L . Shriner, Jr . (by e-mail)Peter G . Earle (by e-mai l)

7351 6 52_ !

Case 2:11-cv-00562-J PS-DPW-RMD Filed 01/16/12 Page 4 of 4 Document 113-14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF … · I sent to Ms. Lazar and Mr. Hodan via...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF … · I sent to Ms. Lazar and Mr. Hodan via...