Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF TEXAS Plaintiff, vs. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00128 RMC-DST-RLW

RESPONSE BY THE STATE OF TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES AND INTERVENORS MOTIONS TO CONTINUE TRIAL Texas enacted Senate Bill 14 in May of 2011. It is now almost one full year from the date of enactment, and Texas is still forbidden to implement that law even though SB 14 is clearly constitutional under the Supreme Courts ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), and even though no court has found that SB 14 conflicts with any provision of federal law or is likely to violate federal law. A decision to postpone this trial, which would preclude Texas from implementing SB 14 in time for the November 2012 elections no matter how this Court rules, will exacerbate section 5s constitutionally problematic intrusions on state prerogatives. See Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009). Only the clearest showing that the current trial date is

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

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 23

especially when the Supreme Court has noted that the very existence of section 5s preclearance regime presents serious constitutional questions. Yet the United States and intervenors do not make any showinglet alone a clear showingthat the current trial date is impracticable, much less impossible. Their briefs recite a litany of complaints about the progress of discovery and attempt to blame Texas at every turn for the current state of affairs. But on the question whether discovery can be completed in time for a trial scheduled to begin on July 9, 2012, the United States offers nothing but bald assertions and conclusory statements. See United States Motion at 23, 1516; see also Intervenors Motion at 10. The United States never explains which discovery it will be unable to complete or how it will be prejudiced if the Court holds to the trial date of July 9. Vague and unexplained allegations of prejudice and impracticality wont suffice especially when section 5s preclearance requirement already pushes the constitutional boundaries of federal power. It is no secret that the United States and the intervenors want to delay implementation of SB 14 until after the November 2012 elections. They initially requested a later trial date, knowing full well that such a late trial would foreclose any possibility of Texas implementing SB 14 in time for this years general election. Having lost the initial battle in this Court over the trial date, their fallback strategy is transparent: bombard the State with massive discovery requests (many of which are only marginally related to the issues in this case), claim that discovery is moving too slowly, and then insist that the trial date be moved. Given the

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 3 of 23

incentives that the defendants have to delay the trial, this Court cannot accept mere assertions that the trial date of July 9, 2012 is no longer possible. In the end, the discussion in the defendants briefs is backward. The

defendants first need to establish that the trial cannot begin on July 9, 2012. Only then is it appropriate to consider whether the defendants or the State bear responsibility for the (supposed) inability to maintain the trial date. Instead, both the United States and the intervenors open their briefs by railing against the State of Texas and absolving themselves of any responsibility for their inability to complete discoveryapparently hoping that casting Texas in a bad light will persuade this Court to vacate the current schedule without a clear showing that discovery cannot be completed in time for a July 9 trial. Yet the parties can easily complete discovery and prepare for trial under the current timetable. In the Texas redistricting litigation, for example, the parties conducted 21 depositions in less than 10 days (even with multiple intervenors in that case); the parties to this lawsuit are equally capable of completing the depositions in a short window of time. Past discovery disputes do not justify a decision to postpone the trial; the defendants must show specifically that the parties are incapable of completing future discovery, and must show specifically how they are unable to prepare for a trial scheduled to begin on July 9, 2012. Nothing that the defendants have filed comes close to making this showing.

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 4 of 23

I.

The Parties are Fully Capable of Preparing this Case for Trial In July. Neither the United States nor the intervenors have demonstrated that the

parties are unable to prepare this case for trial by July 9. Their briefs provide nothing more than vague and conclusory assertions on this issue. This is plainly insufficient to support their motion to continue. Cf. Carpenter v. Fed. Natl

Mortgage Assn, 174 F.3d 231, 237 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (explaining that a party who moves to continue summary judgment to conduct further discovery must indicate what facts she intended to discover that would create a triable issue and why she could not produce them in opposition to the motion); Resolution Trust Corp. v. BVS Dev., Inc., 42 F.3d 1206, 1216 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding denial of motion for continuance of summary judgment based on plaintiffs failure to submit affidavits describing the additional facts they sought to discover). The United States brief, for example, claims that the discovery process has created cascading deleterious effects on the schedule and prejudiced the Attorney General in defending this action. See United States Motion at 15. But the United States never explains what those deleterious effects are or how it has actually been prejudiced. Critically, the United States fails to identify any specific discovery that cannot be completed before the discovery deadline of June 15, 2012, nor does it identify any aspect of its trial preparation that cannot be completed before July 9, 2012. The United States complaint that discovery delays have prevent[ed] the Attorney General from analyzing the central legal issues is equally vapid. What, exactly, has the Attorney General been unable to analyzeand what is he unable to analyze 4

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 5 of 23

in time for a trial that begins on July 9, 2012? The United States observation that the parties have less time in which to review documents, identify relevant witnesses, and depose those witnesses proves nothing. See United States Motion at 15. Less time is not insufficient time; it is surely feasible to complete the depositions before June 15, 2012, as the Texas redistricting litigation demonstrates. And the United States does not even assert, let alone demonstrate, that document review and witness identification cannot be completed in time for a trial that begins on July 9, 2012. The intervenors brief likewise fails to explain how they are unable to prepare for trial based on the current schedule. The intervenors offer only a conclusory sentence at the end of their brief, claiming that it is impossible for Intervenors to review and analyze the thousands of relevant documents, undertake the necessary depositions, and perform the expert analysis needed to be performed prior to trial. See Intervenors Motion at 10. But the depositions can easily be completed before June 15, 2012. And the intervenors should have no problem completing document review based on the current trial schedule; document review is a task that can be divided and shared among lawyers. Unsupported assertions of impossibility

cannot be enough to delay a section 5 preclearance trialespecially when the delay is sought by intervening litigants who have every incentive to stall the implementation of SB 14, which aggravates section 5s constitutionally dubious infringements on state prerogatives. This Court has, no doubt, witnessed the

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 6 of 23

amazing speed with which lawyers can accomplish discovery when they learn that a court means what it says about a trial date. There is no doubt that this case can proceed to trial on the current schedule. The issues in this case implicate a limited universe of facts. This is not a

redistricting case; it is a case that turns on the purpose and effect of a discrete voting changea voting change virtually identical to one already upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The Court will not need extensive testimony to

determine why particular legislative decisions were made or who made them. The parties already have the benefit of a complete, publicly available record spanning two sessions of the Texas Legislature, and that record provides extensive information about the purpose of SB 14. On all material discovery issues, the parties interests are aligned. Every party needs to know how SB 14 will affect Texas voters, and the parties do not disagree about the information needed to gauge the laws effects. Some

information, such as drivers license and voter-registration data, is in the States possessionand has already been produced to the United States and intervenors. Other information, such as passport, military identification, and citizenship data, is in the United States possession. Texas has coordinated with the United States and intervenors to identify and produce the information that is available to the State. There is no reason that all necessary information cannot be collected and shared in time for each party to prepare its case and expert analysis for trial, and neither the

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 7 of 23

United States nor the intervenors have identified any piece of discoverable evidence that they will be unable to discover before June 15, 2012. Finally, even if the parties were unable to complete discovery in time for a trial that starts on July 9, 2012, that is not a reason for this Court to grant a request by the defendants to postpone the trial. Texas bears the burden of proof in this litigation, so any deficiencies in the factual record will redound to its detriment. And because the State of Texas bears the burden of proof, it has the strongest incentive to gather all relevant information and make it available to the parties as quickly as possible. The need to depose witnesses is not a reason to delay trial. As an initial matter, there is no need to wait until mid May to begin depositions, as the intervenors suggest. And even with such a delay, the parties would still have

sufficient time to depose trial witnesses. As we have already noted, the parties in the Texas redistricting case conducted 21 depositions in less than 10 days. And this case will not even require that extraordinary effort, not only because the parties have more time, but also because the available public record, the relatively narrow issues, and the shorter trial time will reduce the need to gather information from fact witnesses and limit number of witnesses who will testify at trial. II. The United States and Intervenors Have No Grounds to Complain About Alleged Delay by the State of Texas. Because the defendants have failed to make any showing that the current trial date is impracticable, there is no need for this Court to consider the defendants repeated ad hominem attacks on the State of Texas. 7 But if the

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 8 of 23

Court feels compelled to assign blame, it should recognize that Texas has complied as quickly as practicable with the massive and unreasonably broad discovery demands that the defendants have imposed. The Court should also consider that the United States and the intervenors have engaged in numerous delay tactics that advance their goal of preventing Texas from implementing SB 14 in time for the November 2012 elections. The defendants motions to

postpone the trial are only the latest efforts in their strategy to delay SB 14s implementation for one more election cycle. The compressed timetable for judicial preclearance results in large part from the United States delay in rendering a decision in the administrativepreclearance proceedingsthe Department of Justice took seven months to reach a decision that the statute requires to be made within 60 days of the States submission. Worse, the United States and the intervenors have refused to

coordinate their discovery demands or take reasonable steps to narrow their requests, burdening not only the State of Texas but also the very same defendants who now claim that they must review marginally relevant materials. Since discovery began on March 14, the United States and

intervenors have persistently refused to use basic procedural mechanisms, such as subpoenas, that could help frame the issues and move this case toward trial. And the defendants have refused to make even a minimal effort to access publicly available materials, demanding that the State of Texas process and produce copies of readily available information at its own considerable expense. 8

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 9 of 23

Just as important, Texas began providing voluminous amounts of information to the United States months before discovery began on March 14. Texas initially provided information to the United States in August 2011. Before this lawsuit was even filed, Texas provided extensive discovery in response to multiple requests from the Department of Justice. A. The State of Texas Has Acted With Dispatch in Responding to the Defendants Massive and Unreasonably Broad Discovery Demands. The defendants would have this Court believe that Texas has consciously sought to delay administrative and judicial preclearance proceedings, even though delay only harms the State by delaying the implementation of SB 14 and directly benefits the United States and intervening parties, who are determined to thwart this law. See United States Motion at 2 (irresponsibly and inexplicably accusing the State of Texas of acting with bad faith and delay at every step); Intervenors Motion at 3 (accusing Texas of intentional acts that have made the schedule unworkable). But the State has consistently worked to maintain the expedited schedule granted by the Court. 1. Texas Has Coordinated with Non-Parties to Facilitate Discovery. The State has voluntarily coordinated with legislators, notwithstanding the fact that they are not parties to the litigation. The State has agreed to accept subpoenas for legislator depositions and document requests to prevent avoidable delays. The State has also contacted individual legislators whom the United States and the intervenors wish to depose and advised which of those individuals are willing to appear without a subpoena. See Notice Regarding Subpoena (Doc. 83). 9

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 10 of 23

2. Texas Has Responded to Extensive Discovery on Short Notice. Since discovery commenced on March 14, 2012, the State of Texas has answered 14 interrogatories from the United States and 25 interrogatories from the intervenors. It has produced over 22,000 pages of documents collected from

multiple state agencies and officers. It has produced three 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition about databases maintained by the Secretary of States Office and the Department of Public Safety. Throughout the process, Texas has been in nearconstant contact with the United States and the intervenors to address concerns as soon as they arise. 3. Texas Provided the Legislative History of SB 14 to the United States Months Before It Filed this Lawsuit. Both the United States and the intervenors suggest that the State of Texas has failed to produce the legislative history of SB 14 in a timely manner. These are among the most misleading assertions that appear in their briefs.1 More than seven months ago, the State of Texas provided the Department of Justice with the legislative history of SB 14.2 If this material was unsatisfactory, the United States had every opportunity to make further requests. The United States complaint is not that the State of Texas failed to provide the legislative history of SB 14 but that it did not create written transcripts of all

See, e.g., United States Motion for Clarification (Doc. 88) at 15; Intervenors Motion for Clarification (Doc. 85) at 3. 2 See Exhibit 1, Letter from Ann McGeehan to T. Christian Herren, Jr. (Aug. 31, 2011) (providing transcripts of committee hearing, Senate Journals, written testimony, and evidence submitted to the Senate regarding SB 362); Exhibit 2, Letter from Ann McGeehan to T. Christian Herren, Jr. (Sept. 16, 2011) (providing audiovisual recordings of House floor debates and committee meetings, minutes from House committee meetings, and time-coded references for House floor debates on Senate Bill 14).
1

10

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 11 of 23

proceedings,3 but it ignores the fact that the Texas Legislature does not have its proceedings transcribedas the United States Congress doesand instead preserves its proceedings in audiovisual recordings, which were made available to the United States. This does not represent a failure to produce legislative history, and the defendants mislead this Court by implying that Texas has withheld any portion of the legislative history from inspection. Indeed, the United States could just as easily have produced written transcripts as the State. The State of Texas did not produce the additional written materials demanded by the United States because the Legislature ordinarily does not prepare a full transcript of floor debates or committee hearings. If the United States goal were to assimilate informationas opposed to interject delaythe Department of Justice could have arranged for audiovisual recordings of legislative proceedings to be transcribed. The Texas House of Representatives, for example, typically keeps records of proceedings in electronic format.4 The Texas House Journal includes only those portions of the floor debate that members move to have printed.5 Because a single session in either house of the Legislature typically addresses dozens of bills, the State of Texas provided the United States in 2011 with time-coded keys identifying the speakers who participated in the floor debate on SB 14 and the times when the debate occurred. Transcripts of Senate committee hearings on SB

See Transcript of April 10, 2012 Hearing at 10:68 ([W]e dont have any transcripts for House hearings, committee hearings or floor debate for 2009 and 2011 bills.). 4 See RULES AND PRECEDENTS OF THE TEXAS HOUSE, Rule 5 34. (All proceedings of the house of representatives shall be electronically recorded . . . .); cf. SENATE RULES (82nd Legislature 2011) Rule 11.11(a) (Each committee meeting shall be recorded on magnetic tape.). 5 See id. Rule 7 2(12) (providing for motions to print documents, reports, or other material in the journal).

11

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 12 of 23

14 and SB 362 were available only because the Senate decided to have them transcribed. By insisting on a written transcript of all proceedings, the United States and intervenors seek more than they are entitled to under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not obligate the State of Texas to create documents in response to requests for production. See, e.g., Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.D.C. 2000). By producing the legislative history in the form in which it is maintained by the Legislature, Texas fulfilled its discovery obligations under Rule 34. If

transcripts were essential to the United States case, it had every opportunity to prepare them on its own schedule, and at its own expenselong before it requested written transcripts from the State of Texas. The State of Texas provided necessary materials to do so during the administrative-preclearance process in 2011. Nevertheless, at the Courts direction, the State of Texas has transcribed the full legislative history on an expedited basis at considerable expense. 4. The State of Texas Cannot Be Faulted for Asserting State Legislative Privilege, and It Cannot Be Required to Waive Well-Established Privileges as a Condition of Securing a Prompt Preclearance Ruling From This Court. The United States and the intervenors complain that the States effort to preserve privileges asserted by state officials and agencies has delayed the case unnecessarily. The intervenors specifically focus on the fact that these privileges are waivable, Intervenors Motion for Clarification at 2 (complaining of delays caused by assertions of waivable privilege), implying that counsel for the State must cajole its officials and agencies into waiving privileges in order to preserve a 12

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 13 of 23

timely trial that will allow SB 14 to be implemented for the November elections. But if Section 5 forces a State to choose between waiving evidentiary privileges and foregoing a prompt decision on its claim for preclearance, then this regime is surely unconstitutional after Northwest Austin. The defendants criticism of the States reliance on evidentiary privileges is even more offensive when the United States has freely invoked privileges to thwart discovery requests made by Texas.6 Indeed, in the very brief in which the United States criticizes the State of Texas for asserting privileges to resist discovery, it complains that the States discovery requests seek information covered by wellestablished privileges. U.S. Motion to Clarify at 8 n.6. Apparently, the United States may assert privileges without any collateral consequences, but states seeking preclearance must carefully weigh whether an assertion of privilege will further delay implementation of their laws. The United States and the intervenors have seized on the States privilege assertion as an excuse to demand further briefing and disengage from the discovery process until all claims of privilege have been fully adjudicated. This time and energy would have been better spent reviewing relevant, non-privileged materials that the State has already producedand working to comply with the Courts scheduling order. Moreover, the United States and intervenors simply assume that the privileged materials are necessary to adjudicate the States claims. But the
6

See Exhibit 3, Defendants Responses and Objections to the State of Texas First Set of Interrogatories at 34 (invoking deliberative process and law enforcement privileges); Exhibit 4, Defendants Responses and Objections to the State of Texas First Set of Requests for Production of Documents at 45 (asserting deliberative process privilege, law enforcement privilege, and common interest privilege).

13

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 14 of 23

public record provides an abundant and voluminous factual record to decide its preclearance claim. The United States and intervenors present a clear outline of how they believe Section 5 preclearance litigation should proceed. In their view, a covered

jurisdiction is not entitled to an expeditious decision unless it (1) waives recognized privileges, (2) produces documents and witnesses without formal discovery requests, and (3) anticipates discovery requests by making sure that basic information is requested, reviewed, and ready for production . . . at or before the formal opening of discovery. Intervenors Motion for Clarification at 3. In short, under the United States view of the law, covered jurisdictions can have their laws or their sovereignty, but they cannot have both. Section 5 cannot constitutionally require covered jurisdictions and their non-party officials to forfeit substantive rights as a condition of securing a prompt and impartial preclearance decision. B. The United States is Responsible for Much of the Delay That Has Occurred in the Administrative and Judicial Preclearance Proceedings. 1. The United States Took Seven Months To Render a Decision in the Administrative Preclearance Proceedings. The State of Texas submitted SB 14 to the Department of Justice for administrative preclearance on July 25, 2011. On September 23, 2011, exactly 60 days later and on the last possible day to respond, the Department of Justice informed Texas that its submission was insufficient and requested a breakdown, by race and Spanish surname, of registered Texas voters without DPS-issued photo identification. On October 4, 2011, Texas provided the data that were available but 14

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 15 of 23

explained that Texas does not record the race of voters when they register and therefore could not produce a racial breakdown of registered voters without photo identification. On November 16, 2011, the Department of Justice claimed that the supplemental information provided by the State was insufficient and requested additional information. The Secretary of States office provided that information on January 12, 2012 but identified concerns about the relevance of the data to SB 14s likely impact on Texas voters. On March 12, 2012, exactly 60 days later and again on the last possible day to respond, the Department of Justice denied preclearance to SB 14, citing the States alleged failure to provide evidence of significant inperson voter impersonation not already addressed by the States existing laws. See Amended Complaint (Doc. 63.1) 1421. If the Department of Justice actually wanted to move as quickly as possible, it could have notified the State immediately that additional information was needed, but instead it chose to wait the full 60 days. The Department of Justice cannot maintain the pretense that it has acted with haste, see United States Motion at 2, when it twice waited until the last possible day to formally request additional information from the State of Texas during the administrative preclearance process, and again waited until the last possible day to deny preclearance even though that decision was preordained under the rationale that the Department used to deny preclearance to South Carolina's Voter-ID law in December 2011. 2. The United States and Intervenors Have Made Unreasonably Broad Discovery Demands on the State of Texas. 15

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 16 of 23

The United States and intervenors spend much of their briefs complaining that the State of Texas has failed to produce documents in a timely manner.7 These complaints fail to acknowledge the extraordinary breadthand occasional irrelevanceof the parties document requests, which were neither reasonably specific nor reasonably calculated to preserve the expedited trial schedule, and which demand information that has little or no bearing on the purpose or effect of SB 14. The United States and intervenors have unapologetically engaged in a massive fishing expedition in the hopes of uncovering facts they can use to manufacture a claim of discriminatory purpose and have demanded that Texas produce evidence of only marginal relevance to the States preclearance claim. The defendants have sought, for example, documents related to voter identification bills considered by the 79th (2005) and 80th (2007) Texas Legislatures. Apart from the fact that these legislatures did not consider the bill at issue in this lawsuit, the membership of the 79th and 80th Texas Legislatures differs substantially from the 82nd Legislature that passed SB 14. Only 89 of the 181 members of the 79th

These complaints are based on the questionable premise that the State had a duty to produce all responsive documents within 7 days of the initial request. At the time the United States and Intervenors served their interrogatories and requests for production on the State of Texas, there was no scheduling order in place. It was not until March 27seven days after the United States discovery requests and four days after the intervenors requeststhat the Court entered an order setting a seven-day deadline for all written discovery. See Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 43). Texas responded to the parties written discovery within 10 daysthe deadline it had proposed in negotiations over the scheduling orderbut the only deadline in place was the 30-day deadline set by Rules 33 and 34. Accordingly, the United States and the Intervenors have no cause to complain about any alleged lack of production before April 20.
7

16

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 17 of 23

Legislature and 120 members of the 80th Legislature were members of the 82nd Legislature.8 Even if materials from previous legislatures fall within the broad scope of discoverability under Rule 26(b), the defendants are imposing needless burdens on Texas and slowing the discovery process by demanding evidence that cannot be probative of the 82nd Legislatures purpose in passing SB 14. The

defendants determination to discover these materials cannot be reconciled with their purported efforts to complete discovery in time for the July trial date; they are seeking to burden Texas with as much discovery as Rule 26(b) will allow so they can blame Texas for the pace of discovery and persuade this Court to postpone the trial. 3. The United States Has Only Itself to Blame for the Delay in E-mail Production. The United States complains that the State of Texas did not include e-mails in its initial document production but conveniently omits that the parties electronic discovery agreement expressly provided that the parties would meet and confer to agree on search terms before conducting e-mail searches. The United States did not propose e-mail search terms until April 12, 2012.9 The intervenors proposed

additional search terms the next day.10 After proposing search terms, the United States refused to identify the actual individuals whose e-mail accounts it wanted the State to search, demanding instead that the State search the accounts of all individuals reasonably believed to possess responsive information. When the

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

See Exhibits 5, 6. See Exhibit 7, Letter from Daniel Freeman to Matthew Frederick (April 12, 2012). 10 See Exhibit 8, Letter from Ezra Rosenberg to Matthew Frederick (April 13, 2012).
8 9

17

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 18 of 23

2012, it listed 122 individuals, including legislative staff members and former legislators. On the same day, the intervenors produced a list of 49 individuals. Accounting for duplicate requests, the United States and intervenors listed a total of 140 individuals whose e-mail accounts they wanted Texas to search. Then, they demanded that these searches take place immediately. The United States

eventually agreed to identify a smaller group of accounts to be searched, but rather than narrow its request, on April 24 the United States and the intervenors provided a ranked list of 139 e-mail accounts. Despite the defendants refusal to narrow their requests, the State of Texas contacted the relevant records custodians the same day and asked them to begin searches immediately. As this and countless other examples demonstrate, the State of Texas is committed to working in good faith to ensure that all reasonable discovery requests are satisfied in a timely manner. Further, the State of Texas is confident that even the most rigorous discovery process can be completed within a period of time that allows the trial to proceed as scheduled on July 9, 2012. CONCLUSION The parties in this casejust as in the recent redistricting litigationhave ample time to complete even complex discovery if their focus remains on this Courts scheduling order as opposed to dilatory procedural tactics. The motions to continue the trial date should be denied.

18

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 19 of 23

Respectfully submitted. GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas DANIEL T. HODGE First Assistant Attorney General /s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell JONATHAN F. MITCHELL Solicitor General ADAM W. ASTON ARTHUR C. DANDREA Assistant Solicitors General PATRICK K. SWEETEN MATTHEW H. FREDERICK Assistant Attorneys General 209 West 14th Street P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 70711-2548 (512) 936-1695 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF THE STATE OF TEXAS

19

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 20 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 26, 2012, I served the foregoing via CM/ECF on the following counsel of record: Elizabeth Stewart Westfall, David J. Freeman, Bruce I. Gear U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division, Voting Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW NWB-Room 7202 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-7766/Fax: (202) 307-3961 Email: elizabeth.westfall@usdoj.gov Email: daniel.freeman@usdoj.gov Email: bruce.gear@usdoj.gov Jennifer Lynn Maranzano U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-0185 Email: jennifer.maranzano@usdoj.gov Counsel for the United States Chad W. Dunn BRAZIL & DUNN 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, TX 77068 (281) 580-6310 Email: chad@brazilanddunn.com J. GERALD HEBERT 191 Somerville Street, #405 Alexandria, VA 22304 Telephone: 703-628-4673 Email: hebert@voterlaw.com Counsel for Eric Kennie, Anna Burns, Michael Montez, Penny Pope, Marc Veasy, Jane Hamilton, David De La Fuente, Lorraine Birabil, Daniel Clayton, and Sergio Deleon Mark A. Posner LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 307-1388 Email: mposner@lawyerscommittee.org Ezra D. Rosenberg Pro Hac Vice Michelle Hart Yeary DECHERT LLP 902 Carnegie Center, Suite 500 Princeton, NJ 08540 (609) 955-3200/Fax: (609) 955-3259 Email: ezra.rosenberg@dechert.com Email: michelle.yeary@dechert.com Ian Vandewalker Pro Hac Vice Myrna Perez Wendy Weiser THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU LAW SCHOOL 161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12 New York, NY 10013-1205 Tel: (646) 292-8362 Fax: (212) 463-7308 Email: ian.vandewalker@nyu.edu Email: myrna.perez@nyu.edu Email: wendy.weiser@nyu.edu

20

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 21 of 23

JOHN K. TANNER 3743 Military Road, NW Washington, DC 20015 202-503-7696 Email: john.k.tanner@gmail.com MOFFATT LAUGHLIN McDONALD NANCY GBANA ABUDU KATIE OCONNOR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. 230 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 1440 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1227 (404) 523-2721/(404) 653-0331 (fax) Email: lmcdonald@aclu.org Email: nabudu@aclu.org Email: koconnor@aclu.org LISA GRAYBILL REBECCA ROBERTSON American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas 1500 McGowan Street Houston, Texas 77004 (713) 942-8146 Email: lgraybill@aclutx.org Email: rrobertson@aclutx.org PENDA HAIR KUMIKI GIBSON Advancement Project 1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 728-9557 phair@advancementproject.org kgibson@advancementproject.org Counsel for Texas Legislative Black Caucus, the League of Women Voters of Texas, the Justice Seekers, Reverend Peter Johnson, Reverend Ronald Wright and Donald Wright

Myrna Perez Pro Hac Vice Ian Vandewalker Pro Hac Vice THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU LAW SCHOOL 161 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 12 New York, NY 10013-1205 (646) 292-8329 / (212)463-7308 (fax) Email: myrna.perez@nyu.edu Email: ian.vandewalker@nyu.edu Victor L. Goode NAACP National Headquarters 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297 (410) 580-5120 (phone) Email: vgoode@naacpnet.org Robert S. Notzon The Law Office of Robert Notzon 1507NuecesSt. Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 474.7563 (phone) Email: Robert@notzonlaw.com Jose Garza Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas 98209 (210) 392-2856 (phone) Email: garzpalm@aol.com Counsel for Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives

21

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 22 of 23

Ryan Haygood Pro Hac Vice Natasha M. Korgaonkar Leah C. Aden Debo P. Adegbile Dale E. Ho NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10013 (212) 965-2200 / (212) 226-7592 (fax) Email: rhaygood@naacpldf.org Email: nkorgaonkar@naacpldf.org Email: laden@naacpldf.org Email: dho@naacpldf.org Email: dadegbile@naacpldf.org FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP Douglas H. Flaum Michael B. de Leeuw One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004-1980 (212) 859-8000 Email: douglas.flaum@friedfrank.com
Email: michael.deleeuw@friedfrank.com

Nina Perales MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 224-5476 / 210-224-5382 (fax) Email: nperales@maldef.org Counsel for Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Nicole Rodriguez, Victoria Rodriguez

Counsel for Texas League of Young Voters Education Fund, Imani Clark, KiEssence Culbreath, Demariano Hill, Felicia Johnson, Dominique Monday, and Brianna Williams

/s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell JONATHAN F. MITCHELL Solicitor General

22

Case 1:12-cv-00128-RMC-DST-RLW Document 95

Filed 04/27/12 Page 23 of 23

23