One Atlanta Center

1201 West Peachtree Street, NW

Suite 3250 | Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel: 404-888-9700| Fax: 404-888-9577
www.krevolinhorst.com
KREVOLIN | HORST
DOVIE MADLOCK
Tel: 404-835-9397
Email: [email protected]

June 2, 2021

Attn: ALEX WAN, in his official capacity as

Chairman of the FULTON County Registration and
Elections Board, MARK WINGATE, KATHLEEN
RUTH, VERNETTA KEITH NURIDDIN,and
AARON JOHNSON,intheir official capacities as
Members of the FULTON County Registration and
Elections Board
130 Peachtree Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Re: The New Georgia Project, et. al. vs. Brad Raffensperger,et. al.
United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Civil Action File No. 1:21-cv-01229-JPB

Dear Sir or Madam:

L202/Z0/9 GAD
Please find enclosed in connection with the above-referenced case a true and correct copy
of Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures. If you have any questions about the enclosed Disclosures,
please contactor have yourlegal counsel contact Adam M. Sparksat [email protected].

Sincerely,

Krevolin & Horst, LLC

ery
Dovie fet Ma Mick
Paralegal to Adam M. Sparks

/dim

Enclosure

KH654355.DOCX
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTADIVISION

THE NEW GEORGIA PROJECT;

BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND;
RISE, INC.; ELBERT SOLOMON;
FANNIE MARIE JACKSONGIBBS; and
JAUAN DURBIN,

Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
v.
1:21-cv-01229-JPB
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER,inhis official
capacity as the Georgia Secretary of State;
REBECCA SULLIVAN, in herofficial
capacity as the Vice Chairofthe Georgia
State Election Board; DAVID WORLEY,
in his official capacity as a memberofthe
Georgia State Election Board; MATTHEW
MASHBURN, in his official capacity as a
memberof the Georgia State Election
Board; ANHLE, in herofficial capacity as
a memberof the Georgia State Election
Board; MARGARET BENTLEY,in her
official capacity as Chairman ofthe
SPALDING County Board of Elections
and Voter Registration, GLENDA
HENLEY,in herofficial capacity as
Secretary of the SPALDING County Board
of Elections and Voter Registration;
BETTY BRYANT, VERA MCINTOSH,
and ROY MCCLAIN,in their official
capacities as Members of the SPALDING
County Board ofElections and Voter
Registration; CHARLES DAVE, in his
official capacity as BROOKS County
Elections Superintendent; ZURICH
DESHAZIOR, DON DISTEFANO, and
KAREN MURRAY intheir official
capacities as members of the BROOKS
County Board ofElections; ALEX WAN,
in his official capacity as Chairman of the
FULTON County Registration and
Elections Board; MARK WINGATE,
KATHLEEN RUTH, VERNETTA KEITH
NURIDDIN, and AARON JOHNSON,in
their official capacities as Members of the
FULTON County Registration and
Elections Board; KEITH GAMMAGE, in
his official capacity as the Solicitor General
of FULTON County; and GREGORY W.
EDWARDS, inhisofficial capacity as the
District Attorney for DOUGHERTY
County,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Plaintiffs submit theirInitial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and

Local Rule 26, as follows:

(1) State preciselythe classification of the cause ofactionbeing filed, a brief

factual outline of the case including plaintiffs’ contentions as to what
defendants did orfailed to do, and a succinct statement ofthe legalissues in
the case.

(a) The Cause of Action:

This action challenges provisions of the Georgia General Assembly’s recent

omnibus voting legislation, SB 202, under the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights

2
Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs assert that SB 202 imposeda litany of

unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on almost every aspect of the voting

process, while advancing no compelling—oreven legitimate—interest other than to

make absentee, early, and election-day voting moredifficult, especially for Black

voters. As such, Plaintiffs contend that the challenged provisions will operate,

individually and cumulatively, to impose unconstitutional burdens onthe right to

vote, to deny or abridge the voting rights of Black Georgians, to deny Black voters

in Georgia an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process andelect

candidates of their choice in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to

unconstitutionally restrict and criminalize protected speech, and to disenfranchise

voters on the basis ofan immaterial error or omissionin violation of the Civil Rights

Act.

(b) Brief Factual Outline:

The 2020 election cycle in Georgia saw historic turnout as Black voters

successfully elected their candidates of choice to the presidency and both of

Georgia’s U.S. Senate seats. The election also revealed several notable distinctions

in the use of, and access to, certain voting procedures. For instance, Black voters

disproportionately cast their ballots by mail; counties with disproportionately larger

Black populations were more likely to offer multiple drop boxes for voters to submit
their absentee ballots; and majority-Black neighborhoods disproportionately

accounted for the polling places that had to stay open late due to long lines—and

whereorganizers delivered free food and waterto voters waiting in often hours-long

lines to help prevent against voters having to leave the line for basic needs. Finally,

recognizing the hurdles that Black voters often face as the result of decades of

discriminationthat pervadesvirtually every aspectofdaily life for Black Georgians,

and makesit harder for themto successfully cast their ballots in Georgia’s elections,

the counties with the largest Black populations took affirmative steps to ensure that

their citizens had access to voting by several different means and at many different

times of the day, including by offering things like extended early voting hours,

outdoor drop boxes, and mobile voting units.

Following both the November 2020 general election and the January 2021

runoff, supporters of the losing candidates filed lawsuits seeking to overturn the

election results, falsely alleging widespread fraud and misconducton the part of

voters and ofelection officials. Despite nationwide scrutiny of Georgia’s elections,

which neither demonstrated nor provided evidence of any fraud, insecurity, or

wrongdoing, Republican membersof the General Assembly voted to pass SB 202,

which Plaintiffs allege was intended to and will havethe effect of making it harder
for eligible Georgia voters—particularly minority, young, poor, and disabled

voters—toparticipate in future elections.

Specifically, SB 202 imposes new identification requirements for absentee

voting; moves the dates for absentee ballot distribution closer to the election by 20

days, reducing the time absentee voters have to cast their ballots; repeals a law

requiring counties to mail absenteeballots to unregistered eligible voters who submit

an absentee ballot application and thenreturntheir registration card by the deadline;

restricts the use of absentee ballot drop boxes; bans mobile polling places; prohibits

state and local government officials from distributing unsolicited absentee ballot

applications; burdens voters with the risk of disenfranchisement due to meritless

challenges that require an immediate defense of their qualifications; invalidates

ballots cast by lawful voters before 5:00 p.m. in a precinct other than the one to

whichthey were assigned, regardless of the reasonortheir ability to travel to another

location (or wait until after 5:00 p.m.) to cast their ballot; bans any non-poll worker

from giving foodor drink, including water, to voters waiting inline; and compresses

the time period fora federal runoff election, reducing the numberof required early

voting days during any runoffelection.

What’s more, the Georgia Legislature enacted these sweeping changes to the

State’s electoral process just hours after the omnibus bill was introducedin its
enacted form, leaving the public with no opportunity to meaningfully engage with,

and lodge timely objectionsto, the proposed legislation.

Finally, Georgia has a well-documented history of discrimination, which

continues to impact the ability of Black Georgians to participate in the political

process. From the moment Blackcitizens of Georgia gained the right to vote, the

State has repeatedly implemented election laws to impede their access to the

franchise. The reverberations of this history of discrimination include the use of

explicit and implicit racial appeals in modern-day political campaigns and

significant disparities in housing, education, employment, health, criminal justice,

among other areas which persist to this day, and interact with SB 202’s voting

restrictions to deny Black voters an equal opportunity to vote and have their ballots

counted.

(c) Statement of Legal Issues:

The relevant legal issues include:

I. Whether the challenged provisions of SB 202 unduly burdenthe right

to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

2k Whether the challenged provisions of SB 202 were motivated by

discriminatory intent against Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act.
 3. Whetherthe challenged provisions of SB 202 interact with social and

historical conditions to disparately impact Black voters and deny them an equal

opportunity to participate in the political process and/or elect candidates of their

choice, also in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

4. Whether the challenged provisions of SB 202 were enacted with the

purpose of restricting Black voters, young voters, and Democratic voters from

casting ballots for their preferred candidates on the basis of those voters’ viewpoints,

in violation of the First Amendment’s protection of political association and

expression.

5. Whether SB 202’s ban on distributing food and drink at the polls

unconstitutionally criminalizes First Amendment-protected core political speech and

expression.

6. Whether SB 202 violates the Civil Rights Act byrequiring election

officials to reject absentee applications andballots solely on the basis of a missing

or incorrect date of birth—a requirement that is immaterial and redundant in

combination with SB 202’s driver’s license or state identification number

requirement.
 (2) Describe in detail all statutes, codes, regulations, legal principles,
standards and customs or usage, andillustrative case law whichplaintiffs
contend are applicable to this action.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendmentsto the U.S.

Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiffs allege in Count I of the Amended Complaint that the challenged

provisions of SB 202, individually and collectively, unduly burden the right to vote

in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A court considering a

challengeto a state election law must carefully balance the character and magnitude

of injury to the First and Fourteenth Amendmentrights that the plaintiff seeks to

vindicate against the justifications put forward by the state for the burdens imposed

by the rule. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v.

Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983). “However slight the burden may appear,. . .

it must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to

justify the limitation.” Fish v. Schwab, 957 F.3d 1105, | 124 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,

141 S. Ct. 965 (2020) (quoting Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S.

181, 191 (2008)) (cleaned up). “And even when a law imposesonly slight burden

onthe right to vote, relevant andlegitimate interests of sufficient weight still must

justify that burden. The more a challenged law burdens theright to vote, the stricter
the scrutiny to which wesubject that law.” Democratic Exec. Comm. ofFla. v. Lee,

915 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2019).

Plaintiffs allege in Count II that the challenged provisions of SB 202 violate

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they have both a discriminatory purpose

and effect. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits vote denial: the use ofvoting

laws, policies, or practices, like absentee ballot procedures and qualifications, that

deny, abridge, or otherwise limit Black voters’ access or increase the burden for

Black people to exercise the right to vote. 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Section 2 is violated

where “the challenged methods ofelection either have a discriminatory purpose or

effect.” Askew v. City of Rome, 127 F.3d 1355, 1373 (11th Cir. 1997).

Discriminatory intent may be established by proofthat the defendants used race as

a motivating factorin their decisions. Vill. ofArlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.

Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). Even where challengedlegislation appears neutral

on its face, discriminatory intent may be inferred by analyzing the context during

which and by whichthe challenged provisions were enacted, and by reviewing the

challenged provisions’ disproportionate racial impact. See id. at 266-68.

Whethera challenged practice has a discriminatory effect is evaluated under

the “results” test, which examines whether “a certain electoral law, practice, or

structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the
opportunities enjoyed by [minority] and white voters to elect their preferred

representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). This inquiry

requires a “totality of the circumstances” analysis that includes factors suchas:

[(1)] the history of voting-related discriminationin the State or political

subdivision; [(2)] the extent to which voting in the electionsof the State
orpolitical subdivision is racially polarized; [(3)] the extent to which
the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or
procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination
against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts,
majority vote requirements, and prohibitions againstbullet voting; [(4)]
the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating
processes; [(5)] the extent to which minority group members bearthe
effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment,
and health, which hindertheir ability to participate effectively in the
political process; [(6)] the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in
political campaigns; and [(7)] the extent to which members of the
minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

Id. at 44-45.

Plaintiffs allege in Count III that the challenged provisions of SB 202

unconstitutionally restrict Black voters, young voters, and Democratic voters’ ability

to cast ballots for their preferred candidates in future elections on the basis of their

viewpoints. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, incorporated to

the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right of political

association and freedomof expression through voting. See Shapiro v.McManus, 571

USS. 39, 46 (2015); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 314-15 (2004) (Kennedy, J.,

concurring in judgment). Underthe First Amendment, a state government “has no

10
powerto restrict expression becauseof its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or

its content.” Reed v. TownofGilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 164 (2015) (quoting Police

Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972)). A law regulating speech that

is adopted “because of disagreement with the message [the speech] conveys,” even

if facially content-neutral, is “presumptively unconstitutional and maybejustified

only if the governmentprovesthat[it is] narrowly tailored to serve compelling state

interests.” /d. at 163, 164 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791

(1989)). Strict scrutiny thus applies to a law that regulates speech because ofthe

government’s disagreement with the speaker’s political beliefs, expression, or

association. See Hand v. Scott, 888 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (11th Cir. 2018)

(recognizing that a voting law “that was facially or intentionally designed to

discriminate based on viewpoint--say, for example, by barring Democrats,

Republicans, or socialists from reenfranchisement on account of their political

affiliation—mightviolate the First Amendment”).

Plaintiffs allege in Count IV that, by making it a misdemeanorto distribute

food or drink, among other things, to voters waiting in line at polling places, SB 202

unconstitutionally criminalizes protected speech and expression. The First

Amendmentto the United States Constitution, incorporated to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment, protects the rights of free speech and expression—-

11
including “the type ofinteractive communication concerning political change that is

appropriately described as ‘core political speech.”” Meyer v. Grant, 486 US. 414,

422-23 (1988).

Plaintiffs allege in Count V that SB 202’s requirement that electors voting

absentee provide their date of birth in addition to another uniqueidentifier violates

the Civil Rights Act. Title I of the Civil Rights Act prohibits any personacting under

color of law from “deny[ing] the right of any individual to vote in anyelection

because of an error or omission on any recordor paperrelating to any application,

registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omissionis not material

in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such

election.” 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B). This provision was “intended to address the

practice of requiring unnecessary information for voter registration with the intent

that such requirements would increase the number oferrors or omissions on the

application forms, thus providing an excuseto disqualify potential voters.” Schwier

y. Cox, 340 F.3d 1284, 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). “[A]Jn elector’s year of birth is not

material to determining the eligibility of an absentee voter.” Martin v. Crittenden,

347 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2018).

(3) Provide the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of
eachindividuallikely to have discoverable information that you mayuse to
support your claims ordefenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying

12
 the subjects ofthe information. (Attachwitnesslist to Initial Disclosures as
Attachment A.)

See Attachment A.

(4) Provide the name ofany person who may be used attrial to present
evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 ofthe Federal Rules ofEvidence. For
all experts described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), provide a separate written
report satisfving the provisions of that rule. (Attach expert witness list and
written reports to Responsesto Initial Disclosures as AttachmentB.)

Plaintiffs have not yet identified expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2). Plaintiffs will amend this response at the appropriate time and

in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureorother Ordersof the Court.

(5) Provide a copy of, or a description by category andlocationof. all

documents, data compilations or other electronically stored information,
and tangible things in your possession, custody, or control that you mayuse
to support your claims or defenses unless solelyfor impeachment, identifying
the subjects ofthe information. (Attach documentlist and descriptions to
Initial Disclosures as Attachment C.)

See Attachment C.

(6) In the space provided below, provide a computation of anycategory of

damages claimed by you. In addition, include a copy of, or describe by
category and location of, the documents or other evidentiary material, not
privilegedor protectedfromdisclosure, on which such computation is based,
including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered,
making such documents orevidentiary material available for inspection and
copying as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. (Attach any copies and descriptions to
Initial Disclosures as Attachment D.)

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief; injunctive relief; an award of costs,

expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to
13
42 U.S.C. § 1988 and otherapplicable laws; and any otherrelief the Court deems

just and proper.

(7) Attach for inspection and copying as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 any
insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance
business maybe liable to satisfy part or all ofa judgment which may be
entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to
satisfy the judgment. (Attach copy of insurance agreement to Initial
Disclosures as AttachmentE.)

Plaintiffs are unaware of any insurance policy under which an insurance

business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment that may be

entered in the action.

(8) Disclose the full name, address, and telephone number ofall persons or
legal entities who have a subrogation interest in the cause ofaction setforth
in plaintiffs’ cause ofaction andstate the basis and extent ofsuch interest.

This is not applicable to Plaintiffs.

14
 Respectfully submitted, this 2nd day of June, 2021.

Adam M. Sparks
Halsey G. Knapp,Jr. Uzoma N. Nkwonta*
Georgia Bar No. 425320 Jacob D. Shelly*
Joyce Gist Lewis Zachary J. Newkirk*
Georgia Bar No. 296261 Jyoti Jasrasaria*
Adam M.Sparks PERKINS COIE LLP
Georgia Bar No. 341578 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 800
KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
1201 W.Peachtree St., NW Telephone: (202) 654-6200
One Atlantic Center, Suite 3250 Facsimile: (202) 654-9959
Atlanta, GA 30309 [email protected]
Telephone: (404) 888-9700 [email protected]
Facsimile: (404) 888-9577 [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Laura Hill*
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-3349
Facsimile: (206) 359-4349
[email protected]

Counselfor Plaintiffs
*Admitted pro hac vice

15
 Attachment A

These disclosures are based on the information in Plaintiffs’ possession,

custody, and control, as well as that which could be ascertained, learned, or acquired

by reasonable inquiry and investigation. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend,

supplement,clarify, or modify these disclosures to the extent additional information

not reasonably available at this time becomes available or is obtained through

discovery, including in supplemental disclosures, future discovery responses, or as

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1. It is expected that Plaintiffs, and in the case of Plaintiffs The New

Georgia Project (“NGP”), Black Voters Matter Fund (“Black Voters Matter”), and

Rise, Inc. (“Rise”), their present and former members,staff, employees, agents,

and/or associates, including thoselisted below, will have discoverable information

aboutthe allegations and claimsset forth in the Amended Complaint, including but

not limited to the harm that they and/or similarly situated Georgia voters have

suffered and/orare likely to sufferas a result of the challenged provisions of SB 202.

All Plaintiffs (including staff and employees ofNGP, Black Voters Matter, and Rise)

should be contacted only through undersigned counsel.

 NAME CONTACT INFORMATION

Nsé Ufot CEO

The New Georgia Project
Contact through undersignedcounsel
Cliff Albright Executive Director
Black Voters Matter Fund
Contact through undersigned counsel
Maxwell Lubin CEO
Rise, Inc.
Contact through undersigned counsel
Elbert Solomon Contact through undersigned counsel
Fannie Marie Jackson Gibbs Contact through undersigned counsel
Jauan Durbin Contact through undersigned counsel

2. Plaintiffs anticipate that present and former employees, agents, and

associates of the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, including but not

limited to the Division of Elections, and the Georgia State Elections Board will

have discoverable information related to the allegations and claimsas set forth in the

Amended Complaint, including, but notlimited to: the administration of elections in

Georgia and the impact of SB 202in future elections.

3. Plaintiffs anticipate that present and former Georgia county and

municipal election administrators will have discoverable information related to

the allegations andclaimsasset forth in the Amended Complaint, including, but not

limited to: the administration of elections in Georgia and the impact of SB 202 in

future elections. Persons in this category include, but are not limited to, the current

17
elections administrator in each county, listed here:

ections.sos.ga.gov/Elections/countyelectionoffices.do.

4. Plaintiffs anticipate that present and former membersofthe Georgia

General Assembly will have discoverable informationrelated to the allegations and

claims as set forth in the Amended Complaint, including but not limited to: voter

participation andelection administration in Georgia: communications regarding SB

202 and/orrelated bills; and the intended impact of SB 202, including the intended

impact on Black voters, other minority voters, young voters, low-income voters.

disabled voters, and voters who support Democratic candidates.

5. Plaintiffs anticipate that political party leaders, lobbyists, activists,

and organizerswill have discoverable information about the allegations and claims

set forth in the Amended Complaint, including but notlimited to: voter participation

and election administration in Georgia; communications regarding SB 202 and/or

related bills: and the intended impact of SB 202, including the intended impact on

Black voters, other minority voters, young voters, low-income voters, disabled

voters, and voters who support Democratic candidates.

18
 Attachment C

Plaintiffs have in their possession, custody, or control the following

documents, electronically stored information and tangible things that they may use

to support their claims:

1) documentsrelated to the harm Plaintiffs suffered and/orare likely to suffer as

a result of SB 202; and

2) documents related to the impact that SB 202 will have on Georgia electors

andelections.

Such documents are located at, or accessible from, the residences or places of

business of the individuals listed in Attachment A, above, and, asit relates to the

impact of SB 202, in the possessionof Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Plaintiffs note that other documents not reasonably available at this time may

be relevant and discoverable in this case. Plaintiffs expect these additional

documents to come to light during the discovery period, and Plaintiffs reserve the

rightto alter, supplement, or amendthis list of documents, either by amendmentto

these or other disclosures, or through the identification of said documents in

depositions or discovery responses.

19
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 2, 2020, I served the within and foregoing

PLAINTIFFS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURESoncounsel ofrecord forall parties by

email and onall parties by U.S. mail.

Dated: June 2, 2021 AdamM.Sparks

Adam M.Sparks
 KREVOLIN HORST
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 3250
Atlanta, GA 30309
Alex Wan, Aaron Johnson, Kathleen Ruth,
Mark Wingate, and Vernetta K. Nuriddin,
Fulton County Registration and Election Board
130 Peachtree Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
SPoHPbawy on
vo