RNC Consent Order Amicus Brief-filed

7/30/2019 RNC Consent Order Amicus Brief-filed

1/22

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________________________________________________________

No. 09-4615

___________________________________________________

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al.

Plaintiffs Appellees,

v.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al.

Defendants Appellants.

__________________________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

__________________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE KARL S. BOWERS, JR., HANS A. VON

SPAKOVSKY, ASHEESH AGARWAL, ROBERT N. DRISCOLL,

ROGER CLEGG, AND ERIC EVERSOLE IN SUPPORT OF

APPELLANT REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND INSUPPORT OF REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURTS

DECISION

__________________________________________________

Karl S. Bowers, Jr.

M. Todd Carroll

HALL&BOWERS,LLC

1329 Blanding Street

Columbia, S.C. 29201

Telephone: 803.454.6504Facsimile: 803.454.6509

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Date: February 24, 2010

Case: 09-4615 Document: 003110034965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2010


2/22

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................. 1INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4

I. The District Courts Consent Decree ................................................... 4II. Intervening Legislation: The National Voter Registration

Act and the Help America Vote Act .................................................... 5ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 7

I. The enactment of important federal voting rights statutessince the imposition of the Consent Decree renders it

outdated and unnecessary. .................................................................... 7II. The Consent Decree actually deters the implementation

of safeguards by the RNC that would help prevent vote

fraud and would promote and protect the integrity of

elections. ............................................................................................. 13A. Party monitors play key roles in protecting the

sanctity of polling places and ballots. ...................................... 13B. Ballot security programs assist in deterring vote

fraud. ........................................................................................ 15CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 17



3/22

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CasesBrunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 5 (2008) (per

curiam) ....................................................................................................... 11

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. ____, 128 S. Ct. 1610

(2008) ........................................................................................................ 16

Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 544 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2008) ................. 8

Tiryak v. Jordan, 472 F. Supp. 822 (E.D. Pa. 1979) .................................... 14

Statutes42 U.S.C. 15482(a) ...................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. 15511 ......................................................................................... 1142 U.S.C. 1973gg-10 ................................................................................. 10

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(a)................................................................................. 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4 ..................................................................................... 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(2)(A) ....................................................................... 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B) ....................................................................... 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(3) ............................................................................ 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6 ..................................................................................... 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)(1) ............................................................................ 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)(2). ........................................................................... 8

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-9(a)............................................................................... 1042 U.S.C. 15301 et seq. ............................................................................. 6

42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq. ........................................................................... 6

42 U.S.C. 1973gg-9(a) and (b) ................................................................ 11

Other AuthoritiesCommn on Fed. Election Reform,Building Confidence in U.S. Elections

2.5, at 18 (Sept. 2005) ............................................................................ 16



4/22

1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Karl S. Bowers, Jr. served as Special Counsel for Voting Matters with

the U.S. Department of Justice from 20072008. As Voting Counsel, Mr.

Bowers oversaw the activities of the Voting Section of the Justice

Departments Civil Rights Division, and he provided legal and policy

counsel on federal election law matters to senior officials in the Justice

Department. Mr. Bowers is also a former Chairman of the South Carolina

State Election Commission. Mr. Bowers is currently in private practice as a

partner in the law firm of Hall & Bowers in Columbia, S.C., where he

focuses on public policy matters including election and voting law,

campaign finance law, and legislative and regulatory matters.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former member of the Federal Election

Commission. He served for three years as the Counsel to the Assistant

Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice where

he provided advice and legal counsel on enforcement of federal voting

statutes. He is also a former member of the Fulton County Registration and

Election Board, which was responsible for administering elections in the

largest county in Georgia.

Asheesh Agarwal served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in

the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 20052008.



5/22

2

In that position, Mr. Agarwal supervised the Division's Voting Section.

During his tenure, Mr. Agarwal supervised the Division's program to

monitor elections around the country and personally monitored several

elections himself. Moreover, inNorthwest Austin Municipal Utility District

Number One v. Gonzales, Mr. Agarwal defended Congress's reauthorization

of the Voting Rights Act before a three-judge panel. Mr. Agarwal is

currently in private practice in the Indianapolis, Indiana office of a national

law firm.

Robert N. Driscoll served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Chief

of Staff for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice from 20012003.

He has testified before House and Senate Judiciary Committees on voting

rights matters, and he has represented jurisdictions in matters arising under

Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Driscoll is currently

in private practice as a partner in the law firm of Alston & Bird in

Washington, D.C., where his practice focuses on government and internal

investigations and civil rights matters.

Roger Clegg is a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1987-1991. He has held

several other positions at the U.S. Justice Department, including Assistant to

the Solicitor General from 1985-1987, Associate Deputy Attorney General



6/22

3

from 1984-1985, and Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Office of

Legal Policy in 1984. Mr. Clegg devotes significant time and resources to

the study of the prevalence of racial and ethnic discrimination by the federal

government, the states, and private entities. He is also a public advocate for

the cessation of racial and ethnic discrimination.

Eric Eversole served as Litigation Attorney in the Voting Section of

the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice from 20052007.

In that role, he represented the United States and initiated litigation in

numerous cases involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Help

America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act. Mr. Eversole

continues to work to ensure that eligible Americans are able to vote and to

ensure that their votes are counted.

Amici Curiae have a substantial interest in eliminating voter

intimidation, voter suppression and voter discrimination, in promoting

participation, integrity and public confidence in the electoral process, and in

the proper enforcement of federal election laws.



7/22

4

INTRODUCTION

This case requires the Court to consider whether the Consent Decree

between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican

National Committee (RNC), under which the RNC has labored since

1982, continues to serve a useful purpose in American elections. More

specifically, the Court must determine if the burdens placed on the RNC by

the Consent Decree almost three decades ago, when the landscape of society,

elections, and federal election law was dramatically different than it is today,

are necessary and serve the public interest, or whether the Consent Decree

must be vacated immediately because it is no longer necessary and is

contrary to the public interest.

I. The District Courts Consent Decree

As this Court is well aware, the Consent Decree at issue in this case

arose as a result of the DNCs allegations of voter intimidation by the RNC

in the New Jersey gubernatorial election in 1981. The RNC denied any

claims of voter intimidation, but nevertheless entered into this Consent

Decree with the DNC on November 1, 1982. The Decree initially did not

contain a sunset provision, and its key restraints included a requirement that

the RNC refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling

places or election districts where a significant effect of such activities



8/22

5

would be to deter qualified voters from voting. App. 0401-0403 (1982

Consent Decree 2(e)).

In 1987, the Consent Decree was modified following additional

allegations by the DNC that the RNC had engaged in voter suppression

efforts in Louisiana. At that time, the district court modified the Decree to

require the RNC to obtain court pre-approval of any ballot security programs

or poll watching efforts, with 20 days notice to the DNC. App. 0404-0406

(1987 Consent Decree Modification C). In addition to providing its chief

political rival with 20 days notice of its intended ballot-security actions, the

modified Decree also required the RNC to state a description of the

program to be undertaken, the purpose(s) to be served, and the reasons why

the program complies with the Consent Order and applicable law. App.

0404-0406 (1987 Consent Decree Modification C).

II. Intervening Legislation: The National Voter Registration Act and

the Help America Vote Act

Amici Curiae urge this Court to reverse the decision of the district

court and to vacate the Consent Decree. Since the initial imposition of the

Consent Decree in 1982, Congress has enacted two important pieces of

federal voting rights legislation that have rendered the Consent Decree

antiquated, outdated, and altogether unnecessary in light of authority vested

in the United States Department of Justice by these statutes.



9/22

6

In 1993, over a decade after initial entry of the Decree, Congress

passed the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.

(NVRA), which greatly expanded opportunities for individuals to register

to vote. Nine years after enactment of the NVRA, Congress epassed the

Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. 15301 et seq. (HAVA), which

provided the absolute right to cast a provisional ballot to any voter who has

been challenged at the polls. These statutes, in conjunction with other

enforcement efforts of the Justice Department, have had a transformative

impact on increasing and enhancing voter registration and voter

participation. The result, as more fully shown below, is the inescapable

conclusion that the Consent Decree is a relic of yesteryear and has outlived

any utility that it may have once had.

In addition to being unnecessary in light of this intervening

legislation, the Decree also undercuts sound public policy with respect to

ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. By allowing the fox to guard the

henhouse, the Decree hampers the important role that official monitors who

are supervised and trained by the RNC can play at polling places. Further,

legitimate poll watching activitiessuch as those that would be conducted

by the RNC if freed from the constraints of the Decreelead to increased

integrity and transparency in the electoral process, which in turn leads to



10/22

7

greater public confidence and participation in elections. For these reasons,

Amici Curiae urge reversal of the district courts ruling.

ARGUMENT

I. The enactment of important federal voting rights statutes since

the imposition of the Consent Decree renders it outdated and

unnecessary.

Since the entry of the Consent Decree in 1982, Congress has

significantly expanded the scope of voter protection by passing key voting

rights legislation. In 1993, the NVRA was enacted, and in the aftermath of

the 2000 presidential election, HAVA was passed in 2002. With the

enactment of these statutes, the authority of the Justice Department to

proactively prevent and deter voter suppression and intimidation of minority

voters was enhanced, and the existing regulatory and enforcement

machinery that is now in place sufficiently and more appropriately prevents

voter suppression and other tactics that the Consent Decree was originally

designed to address.

The NVRA, also colloquially known as the Motor Voter law

because it allows a citizens application for a drivers license to serve

simultaneously as a voter registration application, significantly enhanced

voting opportunities by making it easier to register to vote and to maintain a

voters registration. In particular, the NVRA made voter registration



11/22

8

available (1) at the local highway department, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(a);

(2) at all state offices that provide public assistance, id. 1973gg-5(a)(2)(A);

(3) at all state offices that provide state-funded programs that primarily serve

persons with disabilities, id. 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B); (4) at other state or local

government offices, such as public libraries and schools, id. 1973gg-

5(a)(3); and (5) by mail, id. 1973gg-4. Further, the NVRA requires states

to implement nondiscriminatory list maintenance programs to ensure that

accurate and current voter registration lists are available at polling places.

Id. 1973gg-6.1

While the NVRA is designed to assist the voter-registration process,

HAVA was enacted in 2002 to help prevent election fraud and to improve

voter access to uniform voting systems. See Ohio Republican Party v.

Brunner, 544 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2008) (explaining that HAVA helps

1 As part of its list maintenance procedures, the NVRA authorizes states

to remove names from voting rolls if a registrant fails to respond to a

postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card sent by forwardable mail via

the U.S. Postal Service and then subsequently fails to vote. 42 U.S.C.

1973gg-6(d)(1) and (2). The Consent Decree prevents the RNC from

making challenges based on undeliverable mail using the exact same

process, which is simply illogical and contrary to public policy. If Congresshas determined that that this process is accurate and reliable enough to

warrant the removal of registrants from voting rolls by local election

officials, which it has done with the enactment of the NVRA, then this very

same procedure should certainly be deemed appropriate for a private party to

utilize as the legal foundation for legitimate challenges to ineligible voters

who have changed residences.



12/22

9

Americans cast votes and helps to ensure that their votes count in multiple

ways), vacated on grounds related to the absence of a private right of action

under HAVA, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 5 (2008) (per curiam). As part of the

sweeping changes brought about by HAVA, states are now required to allow

any in-person voter whose eligibility to vote is challenged at the polling

place to cast a provisional ballot. 42 U.S.C. 15482(a). The validity of

provisional ballots is determined in a subsequent proceeding, and if it is

found that the vote was legally cast, then it is counted. Id.

In practice, under HAVA, even if a voter is challenged by a poll

watcher, that voter now has an absolute right to cast at least a provisional

ballot. Moreover, if the challenge was illegitimate or otherwise unsupported

by facts and law, the vote will be counted. HAVA, therefore, significantly

dilutesindeed, trumpsthe impact that any potential Election Day

misconduct might have on deterring qualified voters from voting, as it

provides legitimate voters with confidence that their votes will be counted

regardless of any third-party activities or interference, real or perceived.

Together, the NVRA and HAVA provide a measure of ballot security

at both the state and federal levels that was unavailable when the Consent

Decree was initially entered or when it was later modified. Both of these

statutes now ensure that voters have minimal resistance to registering,



13/22

10

casting a ballot, and having their votes countedthe very harms that the

Consent Decree was designed to protect against. Moreover, any attempt to

bypass these comprehensive statutes brings a violator within the jurisdiction

of the United States Department of Justice, which is given regulatory

authority that did not expressly exist at the time that the Decree was entered.

Today, the Justice Department is authorized to bring civil actions in

federal court to enforce the provisions of both statutes, and the Department

has proven to be a successful and prolific advocate in that regard. With the

passage of these laws, the Justice Department is now well-equipped and able

to effectively deter and combat voter suppression and intimidation. Even if

the DNCs primary argument for maintaining the Consent Decreethat the

RNC is allegedly involved in ongoing voter suppression effortsis accepted

as fact, the Justice Department is now fully empowered to take legal action

to prevent and deter voter suppression following the enactment of these post-

Consent Decree federal laws. See 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-9(a) (The Attorney

General may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court for such

declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out this subchapter.);

id. 1973gg-10 (listing criminal sanctions associated with violations of the



14/22

11

NVRA); id. 15511 (authorizing the Attorney General to bring suit to

enforce the HAVA).2

Nor have these statutory enforcement vehicles remained in idle since

their passage. To the contrary, since 1994, the Justice Department has

brought 18 enforcement actions under the NVRA. And since 2004, the

Department has brought 12 claims arising under HAVA.

3

2

Notably, the Consent Decree deputizes the DNC, which is not a state

actor, with the ability to enforce restrictions on ballot-security issues. The

NVRA and HAVA, however, delegate these enforcement efforts to the

Justice Department and other public officials. The NVRA, for instance,

envisions the Attorney General to be its primary enforcer with assistance

from state-level election officials. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-9(a), (b). Only in

narrow circumstances does a private right of action exist under the NVRA.

Id. Similarly, HAVA does not expressly provide for any private

enforcement efforts, see id. 15511 (authorizing only the Attorney General

to file suit to enforce HAVAs provisions), and the U.S. Supreme Court has

expressed doubt as to whether Congress has authorized courts to enforce

HAVA "in an action brought by a private litigant". Brunner v. Ohio

Republican Party, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 5, 6 (2008) (per curiam). In light

of the primary jurisdiction the Justice Department has over enforcing these

voter-protection statutes, it seems improper to allow the DNC to do an end-run around these provisions by way of the Consent Decree.

Moreover, each

election cycle, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers

to monitor elections around the country to ensure compliance with the

antidiscrimination requirements of the Voting Rights Act. As recently as

3For a list of these actions, see the Department of Justices Voting Section

compilation of cases at http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.

php.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.%20phphttp://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.%20phphttp://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.%20phphttp://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.%20phphttp://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/litigation/caselist.%20php


15/22

12

February 6, 2010, the Justice Department sent federal monitors to observe a

municipal election in New Orleans, Louisiana, and to coordinate with state

and local election officials there to deter and prevent discriminatory conduct.

Because of these powerful enforcement and monitoring provisions,

the Consent Decree is no longer necessary. If the DNC has legitimate

concerns about the potential for voter intimidation or the employment of

voter suppression tactics, it does not need the Consent Order in place;

instead, the DNC, like other political parties, organizations, and citizens,

should request that the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division monitor

an election. Not only will federal monitors have clearly-defined roles and

responsibilities, but they will also have actual enforcement authority of all

federal voting rights laws, including those that are duplicative of the

provisions of the Consent Decree.

As a result of the intervening passage of comprehensive voting-rights

legislation that is enforced by the Justice Department, the Consent Decree is

no longer needed to ensure the integrity of the ballot box and should be

vacated. In fact, its continued enforcement only jeopardizes confidence in

elections.



16/22

13

II. The Consent Decree actually deters the implementation of

safeguards by the RNC that would help prevent vote fraud and

would promote and protect the integrity of elections.

A. Party monitors play key roles in protecting the sanctity

of polling places and ballots.

In addition to the Justice Departments enforcement efforts, poll

watchers who have been well-trained and preapproved by political parties

have an important place in elections of today. With increased voter

participation and recent changes in the voting processsuch as the use of

electronic voting machines, the introduction of early voting, and voter photo

identification requirementsthe importance of having poll watchers in

polling places on Election Day is clear now more than ever.

The primary purpose for having poll watchers is to ensure that

elections are conducted properly and fairly for all voters and for all

candidates on the ballot. Poll Watchers observe the voting process in order

to identify irregularities or problems, and they can help understaffed poll

officials quickly identify and solve any such problems. From time to time,

election officials are sometimes inexperienced, poorly trained, or both, and

they can be overwhelmed with large crowds and long lines of voters on

Election Day. It is in these instances that independent poll watchers add

particular value to process. Well-trained and experienced poll watchers can



17/22

14

provide invaluable assistance to poll workers by identifying problems early

on and offering solutions before the problems become widespread.

Additionally, poll watchers also help ensure that all votes that are

legitimately cast are counted accurately by witnessing and verifying the

ballot-counting process. Moreover, the presence of independent poll

watchers can help prevent any malfeasance at the polls and ultimately

contribute to the honesty and integrity of elections. To be sure, as one of

this Circuits district courts summed: [B]ecause exercise of his authority

promotes an honest election, the poll-watchers function is to guard the

integrity of the vote. Tiryak v. Jordan, 472 F. Supp. 822, 824 (E.D. Pa.

1979).

Of course, these beneficial functions are thwarted if a particular

organization or political party is required to abstain from implementing a

reasonable poll watching program, which is the practical effect of the

Consent Decree and, more particularly, its preclearance requirement.

Despite the clear value of poll watchers and ballot-security initiatives, the

Consent Decree precludes RNC monitors from actively participating in the

process. The Consent Decree is therefore contrary to the public interest

because it effectively prevents one of the two major national political parties

from providing a key component to ensuring the integrity of the voting



18/22

15

process. In fact, it is hard to imagine that the Consent Decree was ever

intended to be used to thwart carefully conducted ballot security and poll

watcher programs, but it unfortunately has been perverted to bring about that

precise effect. As a result, it is clearly in the public interest that the Court

vacate the Consent Decree.

B. Ballot security programs assist in deterring vote fraud.

The Consent Decree effectively prevents the RNC from engaging in

legitimate poll watching and ballot security efforts. Poll watchers and

monitors from both the RNC and the DNC would ensure that their state and

local affiliates engage in legitimate poll-monitoring activities that use well-

trained observers who know and obey the law. Active poll monitoring

programs are an essential antidote to vote fraud, but the Consent Decree

severely restricts the RNCs ability to establish and operate such programs.

Both the RNC and the DNC, like other political parties, have an

interest in preventing actual or threatened vote fraud. The deterrence of vote

fraud helps preserve the integrity of the voting process and promote

confidence in our electoral system, and it helps prevent the dilution of votes

cast by legitimate voters. Flagrant examples of vote fraud have been

documented throughout this Nations history, and [t]here is no question

about the legitimacy or importance of the States interest in counting only



19/22

16

the votes of eligible voters. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553

U.S. ____, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 1619 (2008).Ballot security programs provide effective safeguards for use in the

deterrence of vote fraud, and they play an integral role in promoting and

inspiring public confidence in our electoral system. As one study observed:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist

to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Commn on

Fed. Election Reform, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections 2.5, at 18

(Sept. 2005).4

With the Consent Decree in place, the scope of the ability of the RNC

to help prevent vote fraud and to promote voter confidence in our electoral

system through legitimate poll watching programs is severely limited.

Therefore, the Consent Decree should be vacated to allow the RNCjust

like other political parties and organizationsto perform functions that will

help eliminate the problems associated with vote fraud.

Public confidence in the integrity and validity of elections, in

turn, encourages citizens to exercise their franchise and to fully participate in

the democratic process.

4 Also known as the Carter-Baker Report, this document is available at

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf.

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdfhttp://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdfhttp://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf


20/22

17

For the foregoing reasons, Amici encourage the Court to reverse the

decision of the district court and to vacate the Consent Decree.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Karl S. Bowers, Jr.

South Carolina Bar No. 16141*

M. Todd Carroll

South Carolina Bar No. 74000

HALL&BOWERS,LLC1329 Blanding Street

Columbia, S.C. 29201

Telephone: 803.454.6504

Facsimile: 803.454.6509

Counsel for Amici Curiae Karl S. Bowers, Jr., Hans A. von

Spakovsky, Asheesh Agarwal, Robert N. Driscoll, Roger Clegg

and Eric Eversole.

*Pursuant to Local Appellate Rule 46.1(e), counsel for Amici

certify that Karl S. Bowers, Jr. has filed an application for

admission to this Court.

Date: February 24, 2010



21/22

18

1. Pursuant to Third Circuit Rule 46.1, I certify that I am a member ingood standing at the Bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

2. Amicis Brief complies with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure32(a)(7) and 29(c)-(d). This brief contains 3,017 words, excluding

those parts of the brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate

procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), and has been prepared using a 14-point

proportionally spaced typeface with serifs. See Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5)-(6).

3. Ten hard copies of this brief were sent via Federal Express on thisdate to the Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit, 21400 U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA

19106. This electronic brief was transmitted on this same date.

4. The text of this electronic brief and the hard copies are identical.5. A virus check was performed using Trend Micro Worry Free

Advanced, and found no viruses or worms.


February 24, 2010



22/22

19

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Brief of Amici

Curiae Karl S. Bowers, Jr., Hans A. von Spakovsky, Asheesh Agarwal,

Robert N. Driscoll, Roger Clegg, and Eric Eversole in Support of Appellant

Republican Party and in Support of Reversal of the District Courts Decision

was filed on February 24, 2010, using the Courts Electronic Case Filing

system, which causes a Notice of Docket Activity to be sent by email to all

registered attorneys participating in this case.

February 24, 2010



RNC Consent Order Amicus Brief-filed

Documents