1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH 

INSTITUTE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-357

Judge Timothy S. Black

Judge Karen Nelson Moore

Judge Michael H. Watson

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

This action came before the Court for a Final Pretrial Conference on February 11, 

2019, at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. 

I. APPEARANCES 

For Plaintiffs: Freda Levenson, Alora Thomas, Robert Fram, Theresa Lee, 

Emily Zhang, and Jeremy Goldstein

For Defendants: Phillip Strach and Steven Voigt

For Intervenors: Patrick Lewis, Katherine McKnight, Mark Braden, and 

Robert Tucker

II. NATURE OF ACTION

A. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging the Ohio 

congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation 

of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, of the right to vote guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments, and of Article I, § 4.

B. Plaintiffs invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1343, 1357, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and jurisdiction to grant declaratory 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 1 of 147 PAGEID #: 19553
2

relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Defendants and Intervenors deny that 

the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case or to grant the declaratory relief 

Plaintiffs seek.

C. The jurisdiction of the Court is disputed. The parties dispute whether 

Plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable and whether Plaintiffs have standing to 

bring this action.

D. The parties have not consented to entry of final judgment by the United 

States Magistrate Judge.

III. TRIAL SCHEDULE

Trial is set for Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Trial will begin at 9:00 a.m. 

each morning thereafter, and conclude for the day at 5:00 p.m. The estimated trial length 

is twelve days. See Order Establishing Time Limits for Trial. (Doc. 233). Plaintiffs and 

Defendants/Intervenors both have 35 hours of time to present their direct and cross 

examinations. The parties are bound only by their 35-hour maximum: if a party spends 

more time with a witness than as anticipated in its filing (Docs. 228 and 231), then that 

party will have to spend less time than anticipated with other witnesses.

Each day, the Court will recess for 15 minutes once at approximately 10:30 a.m. 

and again at approximately 2:45 p.m., with a 60-minute lunch break at approximately 

12:00 p.m. The Court intends to maintain a consistent schedule, although the timing and 

length of lunch breaks and recesses may vary depending on the flow of the trial. 

In order to allow adequate time to resolve any outstanding issues, and unless 

otherwise instructed, counsel shall be present in the courtroom at 8:45 a.m. every

morning. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 2 of 147 PAGEID #: 19554
3

IV. AGREED STATEMENTS AND LISTS

A. General Nature of the Claims of the Parties.

1. Plaintiffs’ Claims:

In Claim 1, Plaintiffs allege that Ohio’s congressional map violates their First

Amendment rights to associate with and advocate for a political party, to vote for

their candidate of choice, to express their political views, and to participate in the

political process.

In Claim 2, Plaintiffs allege that Ohio’s congressional map violates their right to 

vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Partisan gerrymandering 

substantially burdens the right to vote. A voter is “deprive[d] . . . of the 

opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot” since the legislature constrains voters’ 

ability to “vote for the candidate of their choice.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 

428, 447 (1992) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).

In Claim 3, Plaintiffs allege that Ohio’s congressional map violates their right to 

Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Each individual Plaintiff was 

placed in a district where their vote carries less weight or consequence than it 

would under a neutrally drawn map. The districts were each drawn to privilege 

partisan outcomes at the expense of all other criteria. Each district was constructed 

to disfavor Democratic voters on the basis of their political affiliation, with no

legitimate, let alone compelling, reason to do so. The map and its individual 

districts also have the “invidiously discriminatory” effect of “minimiz[ing] or 

cancel[ing] out the voting strength of . . . political elements of the voting 

population.” Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 751 (1973).

In Claim 4, Plaintiffs allege that since Ohio’s map has both the intent and effect of 

a partisan gerrymander, it exceeds the state’s power under Article I of the 

Constitution.

2. Defendants’ Claims:

Ohio’s current congressional districting plan comports fully with the Constitution. 

Defendants do not assert any affirmative counterclaims in this matter but oppose 

all of Plaintiffs’ claims and reassert the defenses asserted in their Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 37).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 3 of 147 PAGEID #: 19555
4

3. Intervenors’ Claims:

Intervenors reassert all defenses and denials contained in their Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Intervenors further assert that Plaintiffs 

are not entitled to any relief as asserted in Count I under the First Amendment for 

the following reasons:

a. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim

b. Plaintiffs’ claim is non-justiciable

c. Plaintiffs cannot show a violation under First Amendment standards for 

the types of claims they assert

d. The evidence does not show a violation of the First Amendment

Intervenors assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as asserted in Count 

II under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote for the 

following reasons:

a. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim

b. Plaintiffs’ claim is non-justiciable

c. Plaintiffs cannot show a violation under Fourteenth Amendment 

standards for the type of claim they assert

d. The evidence does not show a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

Intervenors assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as asserted in Count 

III under the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for the 

following reasons:

a. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim

b. Plaintiffs’ claim is non-justiciable

c. Plaintiffs cannot show a violation under Fourteenth Amendment 

standards for the type of claim they assert

d. The evidence does not show a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

Intervenors assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as asserted in Count 

IV under Article I, which empowers state legislatures to redistrict, for the 

following reasons:

a. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this claim

b. Plaintiffs’ claim is non-justiciable

c. Plaintiffs cannot show a violation under Article I standards for the type 

of claim they assert

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 4 of 147 PAGEID #: 19556
5

d. The evidence does not show a violation of Article I

Intervenors, as an affirmative defense, assert that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by 

the doctrine of laches because they waited inexcusably for years to bring this case, 

prejudicing Intervenors who reasonably relied on the districts created by the 2012 

plan remaining in place for 10 years.

B. Uncontroverted Facts. 

1. The parties’ joint list of uncontroverted facts is provided in Appendix A.

C. Contested Issues of Fact and Law.

1. Plaintiffs’ list of contested issues of facts is provided in Appendix B.

2. Plaintiffs’ list of contested issues of law is provided in Appendix C.

3. Defendants’ and Intervenors’ list of contested issues of fact is provided in 

Appendix D.

4. Defendants’ and Intervenors’ list of contested issues of law is provided in 

Appendix E.

D. Witnesses. 

1. Plaintiffs will call or will have available for testimony at trial those 

witnesses listed in Appendix F. The Plaintiffs’ statement of Witnesses and 

anticipated time allotments is listed at the start of Appendix F.

2. Defendants will call or will have available for testimony at trial those 

witnesses listed in Appendix G. The Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

statement of Witnesses and anticipated time allotments is listed at the start 

of Appendix G.

3. Intervenors will call or will have available for testimony at trial those 

witnesses listed in Appendix H. The Defendants’ and Intervenors’ 

statement of Witnesses and anticipated time is listed at the start of 

Appendix H.

Parties reserve the right to call at trial any witness listed by any other party in this 

case. The parties reserve the right to call non-listed rebuttal witnesses whose testimony 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 5 of 147 PAGEID #: 19557
6

could not reasonably be anticipated without prior notice to opposing counsel. The parties 

reserve the right to call foundation witness testimony if stipulations regarding document 

authenticity cannot be reached. A brief synopsis of each individual’s testimony is 

included in Appendices F–H.

E. Expert Witnesses. 

1. Plaintiffs will call or will have available for testimony at trial those expert 

witnesses listed in Appendix I.

2. Defendants will call or will have available for testimony at trial those 

expert witnesses listed in Appendix J.

3. Intervenors will call or will have available for testimony at trial those 

expert witnesses listed in Appendix K.

F. Exhibits.

The parties will offer as exhibits those items listed as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Exhibits – Appendix L

2. Defendants Exhibits – Appendix M

3. Intervenors Exhibits – Appendix N

Except for good cause shown, the Court will not permit the introduction of any 

exhibits unless they have been listed in the pretrial order, with the exception of exhibits to 

be used solely for the purpose of impeachment.

The parties shall state their objections to the admission of any exhibit and to 

any witness’s testimony either on the record at trial or in post-trial filings, and the 

Court will note those objections and, as necessary, rule upon those objections after 

trial.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 6 of 147 PAGEID #: 19558
7

G. Depositions. 

1. Plaintiffs will offer testimony by portions of depositions of the witnesses 

listed in Appendix O. 

2. Defendants and Intervenors will offer testimony by portions of depositions

of the witnesses listed in Appendix P.

H. Discovery. 

Discovery has been completed. 

I. Pending Motions.

Since the date of the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court has granted Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Substitute Larry Householder and Frank LaRose as defendants sued in their 

official capacity (Doc. 218); denied Defendants and Intervenors’ motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 222); granted Plaintiffs’ motion to Offer Trial Testimony of U.S. 

Congresswoman Marcia Fudge in Open Court by Live Videoconference (Doc. 232); and 

entered an Order Establishing Time Limits for Trial, which provided both Plaintiffs and 

Defendants/Intervenors with 35 hours of time to present their direct and cross 

examinations. (Doc. 233).

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Document 

(Doc. 161) and Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Ohio’s Motion to Seal Membership 

List. (Doc. 224).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 7 of 147 PAGEID #: 19559
8

V. MODIFICATION

This Final Pretrial Order may be modified at the trial of this action, or prior 

thereto, to prevent manifest injustice. Such modification may be made by application of 

counsel or by the Court. 

VI. SETTLEMENT EFFORTS

The parties have made a good faith effort to negotiate a settlement and believe no 

settlement can be reached.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 27, 2019

s/ Timothy S. Black

TIMOTHY S. BLACK

United States District Judge

s/ Karen Nelson Moore

KAREN NELSON MOORE

United States Circuit Judge

s/ Michael H. Watson

MICHAEL H. WATSON

United States District Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 8 of 147 PAGEID #: 19560
APPENDIX A

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 9 of 147 PAGEID #: 19561
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, Speaker of the 

Ohio House of Representatives, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Judge Timothy S. Black 

Judge Karen Nelson Moore 

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

I. Proposed Uncontested Facts

A. Redistricting in Ohio 

1. Under the United States constitution and laws of the State of Ohio as they existed 

in 2011-2012, the Ohio General Assembly (the “General Assembly”) is the body responsible for 

enacting legislation that defines the boundaries for Ohio’s congressional districts. To become 

law, a congressional district plan must be approved by a majority of both the Ohio House of 

Representatives and the Ohio State Senate, and then signed into law by the Governor of Ohio.

2. The bipartisan Joint Legislative Task Force on Redistricting, Reapportionment, 

and Demographic Research (“Task Force”) is tasked with assisting the General Assembly. The 

Task Force is a six-person bipartisan committee, with three members appointed by the Speaker 

of the Ohio House of Representatives and three by the President of the Ohio State Senate, with 

no more than two members from each chamber from the same political party. The majority and 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 10 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19562
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

2

minority caucuses of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate were apportioned 

an equal amount of money to assist with their work on the Task Force. 

B. The legislative history of HB 319.

3. On September 8, 2011, the House State Government and Elections Committee 

(“HSGEC”) issued a notice that indicated that the committee would hear testimony on Ohio’s 

congressional map. The congressional map was considered at hearings of the HSGEC on 

September 13 and 14. State representative Matthew Huffman introduced House Bill 319 (“HB

319”) and gave sponsor testimony at the September 13 hearing. At the September 14 hearing, the 

committee voted HB 319 out of committee to the full House by a vote of 14 to 8 on a straight 

party line vote. 

4. HB 319 was debated on the floor of the House on September 15, 2011, and 

approved the same day by a 56-36 vote. 

5. On September 19, 2011, HB 319 was introduced in the Ohio Senate. 

6. On September 20, 2011, the Senate Committee on Government Oversight and 

Reform (“SCGOR”), chaired by Senator Keith Faber, held a hearing on HB 319. 

7. On September 21, 2011, the SCGOR held a second hearing on HB 319 and added 

an amendment to include a $2.75 million appropriation for local boards of elections. After 

adding the amendment, the Committee then voted to approve the map on a straight party line 

vote. 

8. HB 319, as amended, passed the Senate later that same day—September 21, 

2011—by a vote of 24-7. Two Democratic members of the Senate voted in favor of HB 319.

9. HB 319, as amended, returned to the House for a vote on September 21, without 

going to any committee. The House passed the amended bill by a 60-35 margin on September 

21, 2011. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 11 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19563
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

3

10. HB 319 was signed into law by Governor Kasich on September 26, 2011.

C. Referendum on HB 319.

11. On September 28, 2011, an advocacy group called Ohioans for Fair Districts filed 

a mandamus action in state court seeking to compel the Ohio Secretary of State to treat Sections 1 

and 2 of HB 319 as subject to the constitutional right of referendum. 

12. A referendum petition on HB 319 was filed with the Ohio Secretary of State’s 

Office on October 12, 2011. 

13. On October 14, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a referendum could 

proceed if there were signatures of 6% of state electors collected by December 25, 2011. 

D. The legislative history of HB 369.

14. On November 3, 2011, Huffman introduced HB 369, which amended the 

congressional district map adopted in HB 319, in the House Rules and Reference Committee. 

15. On November 9, 2011, Huffman gave sponsor testimony before the House Rules 

and Reference Committee. 

16. HB 369 also changed the primary system in Ohio by consolidating two primary 

election dates (one for state, local, and U.S. Senate elections and the other for the U.S. House 

and presidential elections) into a single primary date. This change was projected to save the 

State approximately $15 million per year.

17. The Ohio House passed HB 369 on December 14, 2011, by a 77-17 margin. 

18. On December 14, 2011, HB 369 was introduced in the Ohio Senate by Faber and 

was passed the same day by a vote of 27-6. 

19. The Ohio General Assembly enacted HB 369, Ohio’s current congressional 

redistricting plan, on December 14, 2011. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 12 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19564
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

4

20. HB 369 was then signed into law by Governor Kasich on the following day, 

December 15, 2011. 

E. The 2011 Ohio Congressional District Plan.

21. The population of each congressional district in the congressional district plan 

enacted under HB 369 (the “2011 Plan”) is either 721,031 or 721,032, rendering the population 

deviation between districts as either plus one or minus one. 

22. The 2011 Plan splits 23 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Hamilton, Lucas, Mahoning, 

Trumbull, Medina, Richland, Tuscarawas, Muskingum, Ross, Scioto, Erie, Athens, Marion, 

Huron, Ottawa, and Fayette counties are split into two different congressional districts. Franklin, 

Stark, Lorain, Portage, and Mercer counties are split into three different congressional districts. 

Cuyahoga and Summit counties are split into four congressional districts. The remaining 65 

counties are maintained entirely in one congressional district.

23. The 2011 Plan created a district in northeast Ohio—Congressional District 11—

with a Black Voting Age Population of 52.37%. 

24. Ohio’s 11th Congressional District has been represented by an African-American 

woman—Marcia Fudge—since 2008. The 11th Congressional District has been represented by an 

African-American since 1993.

25. The 2011 Plan created a district in Franklin County—Congressional District 3—

with a Black Voting Age Population of 30.87%.

26. Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District has been represented by an African-American 

woman—Joyce Beatty—since 2013.

27. The 2011 Plan placed Representative Turner and Representative Austria into the 

same congressional district.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 13 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19565
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

5

28. The 2011 Plan placed Representative Kaptur and Representative Kucinich into the 

same congressional district.

29. The 2011 Plan placed Representative Renacci and Representative Sutton into the 

same congressional district. 

30. All other incumbent members of Congress as of 2011 were not placed into a 

congressional district in the 2011 Plan with another incumbent member of Congress.

31. Republican congressional candidates have won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. 

congressional seats in the last four election cycles held under the map. 

F. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan

32. The Proposed Remedial Plan splits 13 counties two ways: Clark, Coshocton, 

Franklin, Geauga, Hamilton, Highland, Holmes, Licking, Mahoning, Mercer, Morrow, Noble, 

and Wood. The only county split three ways is Cuyahoga County.

33. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, District 11 has a Black Voting Age 

Population of 47.48%

34. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, District 3 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 30.31%.

35. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, District 1 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 26.74%.

G. Ohio Issue 1

36. Ballot Issue 1 (“Issue 1”), the Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment, 

was approved by Ohio voters on May 8, 2018. 

37. Issue 1 passed with nearly 75% of the statewide vote.

38. Issue 1 will put in place a process that begins after the next census, with mapdrawing to start in 2021. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 14 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19566
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

6

39. Issue 1 was a bi-partisan effort to amend the manner in which the State of Ohio 

will draw its congressional districts following the 2020 Census. It will take effect on January 1, 

2021.

40. Issue 1 was supported by numerous groups and organizations including the Ohio 

Republican Party, the Ohio Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio 

Environmental Council, Common Cause, among other groups. 

41. Under Issue 1, the Ohio legislature can adopt a 10-year congressional redistricting 

plan with a 60 percent vote of members in each chamber in favor, and at least 50 percent of the 

minority party voting in favor in each chamber.

42. If the Ohio legislature fails to meet these vote requirements, then a seven-member 

Ohio Redistricting Commission (which, under Ohio’s constitution, is responsible for enacting 

district plans for the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate) may adopt a 10-year 

congressional redistricting plan with support from at least two members of the minority party on 

the commission. 

43. If the Ohio Redistricting Commission fails to adopt a plan, the Ohio legislature 

may then either (a) adopt a 10-year plan with only one-third vote of the members from the 

minority party supporting the proposal; or (b) adopt a plan by a simple majority vote with the 

plan lasting just two general election cycles (four years), rather than 10 years. 

H. The Plaintiffs are Ohio organizations and voters.

1. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute 

44. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (“APRI”) is the Ohio chapter of the A. Philip 

Randolph Institute. 

45. It has eight chapters across Ohio—in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, 

Warren, Youngstown, Akron/Canton, and Dayton, seven of which are currently active. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 15 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19567
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

7

46. Andre Washington has been the President of APRI for ten years and was the 

organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

2. League of Women Voters of Ohio 

47. League of Women Voters of Ohio (“LWVO” or “the League”) is the Ohio chapter 

of the League of Women Voters of the United States, founded in May 1920.

48. LWVO Executive Director Jennifer Miller was designated as the group’s Rule 

30(b)(6) witness. 

49. The LWVO supported Ballot Issue 1. 

3. Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats

50. Plaintiff Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats (“NEOYBD”) is a regional 

organization dedicated to “mentor, empower and recruit the next generation of young people of 

color who want to be involved in the political process” in Northeast Ohio. 

51. NEOYBD supported Ballot Issue 1 and canvassed to get it on the ballot in 2017.

4. Hamilton County Young Democrats 

52. Hamilton County Young Democrats is a Democratic organization that engages 

young people to be involved in politics and elections.

53. Nathaniel Simon has been the President of the Hamilton County Young 

Democrats since 2017 and was the organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

5. The Ohio State University Democrats 

54. The Ohio State University College Democrats (“OSU College Democrats”) is a 

student organization at the Ohio State University whose aim is to “advocate, educate, and engage 

people on the Ohio State campus in alignment with the [Democratic] party platform.”

55. The OSU College Democrats is chartered with the Ohio Democratic Party, Ohio 

College Democrats, and College Democrats of America. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 16 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19568
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

8

56. Alexis Oberdorf was the President of the OSU College Democrats from 

December 2017 to December 2018 and was the organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

6. Individual Plaintiffs 

57. Linda Marcy Goldenhar resides in the 1st District.

58. Dr. Goldenhar is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter 

who has voted in every congressional and presidential election since moving to and registering to 

vote in Ohio in 1992. 

59. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Dr.. Goldenhar would be placed in the 1st 

Congressional District.

60. Douglas John Burks resides in the 2nd District.

61. Dr. Burks is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter.

62. In the almost 40 years Dr. Burks has resided at his current address, he has been in 

both the 1st and 2nd Districts. 

63. Steve Chabot, incumbent Representative for District 1, represented Dr. Burks in 

the 2000s. 

64. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Dr. Burks is placed in the 1st Congressional 

District.

65. Sarah Marie Inskeep resides in the 3rd District. 

66. Ms. Inskeep is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election since 2012. 

67. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Inskeep remains in the 3rd Congressional 

District.

68. Cynthia Libster resides in the 4th District.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 17 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19569
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

9

69. Ms. Libster is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in almost every election she can recall, including elections for U.S. Congress. 

70. Ms. Libster’s current representative is Republican Jim Jordan. 

71. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Libster remains in the 4th Congressional 

District.

72. Kathy Deitsch resides in the 5th District. 

73. Ms. Deitsch is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. 

74. Ms. Deitsch’s current representative is Republican Bob Latta. 

75. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Deitsch would be placed in the 4th 

Congressional District. 

76. LuAnn Boothe resides in the 6th District. 

77. Ms. Boothe is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

78. Ms. Boothe’s current representative is Republican Bill Johnson.

79. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Boothe is placed in the 6th Congressional 

District. 

80. Mark John Griffiths resides in the 7th District. 

81. Mr. Griffiths is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election since 2012 except for 2014 when the Republican 

congressional candidate Bob Gibbs was unopposed.

82. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Mr. Griffiths is placed in the 9th 

Congressional District.

83. Larry Nadler resides in the 8th District. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 18 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19570
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

10

84. Mr. Nadler is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election he can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

85. Mr. Nadler’s current representative is Republican Warren Davidson. 

86. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Mr. Nadler remains in the 8th Congressional 

District. 

87. Chitra Muliyil Walker resides in the 9th District. 

88. Ms. Walker is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter; she 

believes she has voted in every congressional election since 2008 except when she was out of the 

country.

89. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Walker is placed in the 9th 

Congressional District.

90. Tristan Rader resides in the 9th District. 

91. Mr. Rader is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election at least since moving to his current residence in 

October 2013. 

92. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Mr. Rader is placed in the 9th Congressional 

District. 

93. Ria Megnin lives in the 10th District. 

94. Ms. Megnin is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress.

95. Ms. Megnin’s U.S. congressional Representative is Republican Michael Turner.

96. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Megnin remains assigned to the 10th 

Congressional District. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 19 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19571
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

11

97. Andrew Harris has resided, during the last 10 years, at 3 addresses in the 11th 

District. 

98. Mr. Harris is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. He 

registered to vote in the State of Ohio when he turned 18 in 2008. He is an active Ohio voter. 

99. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Mr. Harris remains in the 11th Congressional 

District.

100. Aaron Dagres resides in the 12th District; he is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in 

Ohio and is an active voter.

101. Mr. Dagres registered to vote in the State of Ohio in 1997. 

102. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Mr. Dagres remains in the 12th 

Congressional District.

103. Liz Myer lives in the 13th District. 

104. Dr. Myer is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, having 

voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

105. Dr. Myer’s U.S. Congressional Representative is Democrat Tim Ryan. 

106. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Dr. Myer remains in the 13th Congressional 

District. 

107. Beth Ann Blewitt Hutton resides in the 14th District.

108. Ms. Hutton is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every single election since registering to vote around 1971. With the exception 

of Representative Steve LaTourette, Ms. Hutton has always voted for Democratic candidates at 

the federal level.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 20 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19572
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

12

109. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Hutton is placed in the 13th 

Congressional District.

110. Terri Thobaben lives in Clinton County in the 15th District. 

111. Ms. Thobaben is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

112. Ms. Thobaben’s Congressional Representative is Republican Steve Stivers. 

113. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, Ms. Thobaben is placed in the 2nd 

Congressional District.

114. Constance Rubin has resided, during the last 10 years, at two addresses in the 16th 

District.

115. Ms. Rubin is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. She 

registered to vote in Ohio in 1973. 

116. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan Ms. Rubin is placed in the 14th Congressional 

District.

Defendants

117. Representative Ryan Smith was the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives 

at the time Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint was filed and was sued in his official capacity. 

On January 7, 2019, the Ohio House of Representatives elected Defendant Representative Larry 

Householder as Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives. In his official capacity, Speaker 

Householder has been automatically substituted for Mr. Smith pursuant to the operation of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 25(d).

118. Defendant Larry Obhof is the President of the Ohio State Senate and is sued in his 

official capacity.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 21 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19573
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

13

119. Jon Husted was the Ohio Secretary of State at the time this action was filed and was 

sued in his official capacity. In the November 6, 2018 general election, Jon Husted was elected 

Ohio’s Lieutenant Governor, and Frank LaRose was elected as the Ohio Secretary of State and 

currently serves in that role. In his official capacity, Mr. LaRose has been automatically substituted 

for Jon Husted pursuant to the operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

120. Mr. LaRose is the chief election officer in Ohio responsible for overseeing election 

administration pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3501.04.

Intervenors

121. Intervenor Steve Chabot is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s First Congressional District from 1995-2009 and 2011 to the present. 

122. Intervenor Brad Wenstrup is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s Second Congressional District since 2013. 

123. Intervenor Jim Jordan is a United States Congressman who has represented Ohio’s 

Fourth Congressional District since 2007. 

124. Representative Jordan has participated in a number of bi-partisan debates during 

his tenure representing the 4th Congressional District. 

125. Intervenor Bob Latta is a United States Congressman who has represented Ohio’s 

Fifth Congressional District since 2007. 

126. Intervenor Bill Johnson is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s Sixth Congressional District since 2011.

127. Intervenor Bob Gibbs is a United States Congressman who has represented Ohio’s 

Seventh Congressional District since 2013. Representative Gibbs previously represented Ohio’s 

Eighteenth Congressional District from 2011-2013. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 22 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19574
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

14

128. Intervenor Warren Davidson is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s Eighth Congressional District since 2016. 

129. Intervenor Mike Turner is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s Tenth Congressional District since 2013 and previously represented Ohio’s Third 

Congressional District from 2003-2013. 

130. Intervenor David Joyce is a United States Congressman who has represented Ohio’s 

Fourteenth Congressional District since 2013. 

131. Intervenor Steve Stivers is a United States Congressman who has represented 

Ohio’s Fifteenth Congressional District since 2011. 

132. Intervenor Robert F. Bodi is a resident of Westlake, Ohio, within Ohio’s 16th 

Congressional District. 

133. Intervenor Roy Palmer III is a resident of Toledo, Ohio, within Ohio’s 9th 

Congressional District. 

134. Intervenor Charles Drake is a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, within Ohio’s 

11th Congressional District.

135. Intervenor Nathan Aichele is a resident of Columbus, Ohio, within Ohio’s 3rd 

Congressional District. 

136. Intervenor, the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County (“RPCC”), is the local 

Republican Party in Cuyahoga County. 

137. Intervenor, the Franklin County Republican Party (“FCRP”), is the local 

Republican Party in Franklin County. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 23 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19575
APPENDIX A: JOINT UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

15

February 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Freda J. Levenson

Freda J. Levenson (0045916) (Trial Attorney)

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation

4506 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44103

Tel.: (614) 586-1958

flevenson@acluohio.org

Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Phillip J. Strach

Phillip J. Strach (Trial Attorney)

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100

Raleigh, NC 27609

Tel.: (919) 787-9700

phil.strach@ogletree.com

Counsel for Defendants 

/s/Patrick T. Lewis

Patrick T. Lewis (0078314) (Trial Attorney)

Baker Hostetler LLP

127 Public Square, Suite 2000

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Tel.: (216) 621-0200

plewis@bakerlaw.com

Counsel for Intervenors

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 24 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19576
APPENDIX B

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 25 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19577
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts .................................................................................................... 1

A. Republican congressional leadership sought a 12-4 map. .............................................. 1

B. The Ohio state Republican leadership was committed to a 12-4 map. ........................... 2

C. The national Republicans provided political data for the Ohio map drawers. ............... 3

D. A key part of the national Republican work and strategy was the Franklin 

County Sinkhole. ............................................................................................................ 4

E. The map drawers evaluated the districts that were drawn through the use of 

political indices. .............................................................................................................. 5

F. The map drawers used Maptitude to track changes to the partisan scoring of 

each district. .................................................................................................................... 7

G. Political indices were shared with Ohio legislators at the “Bunker” and digitally. ........ 7

H. Members of Congress and national Republicans also received updates of the 

political composition of draft maps. ............................................................................... 9

I. Prior to introducing a map, Republicans knew it would be a 12-4 map based on 

the political index work. ................................................................................................. 9

J. While local and national Republican lawmakers were receiving updates about 

the status of draft maps, the map was kept from the public and even from 

members of the General Assembly until September 13, 2011. .................................... 10

K. Republicans provided lawmakers with little time to debate the merits of the 

proposed plan. ............................................................................................................... 11

L. The Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling on the referendum pressured Republicans to 

begin negotiating, but they retained the position that the map had to be 12-4 in 

favor of Republicans. .................................................................................................... 11

M. HB 369 is introduced, and negotiations continue, but Democrats are unable to 

change the partisan breakdown of the map. .................................................................. 12

N. Contemporaneous Republican documents demonstrated that HB 369 would be a 

12-4 map. ...................................................................................................................... 14

O. The contemporaneous Democratic analysis of HB 369 concluded that the 

Republicans achieved their 12-4 map. .......................................................................... 15

P. Republicans and Democrats openly acknowledge that the Republicans secured 

their 12-4 objective because they had the raw political power to achieve their 

goal. ............................................................................................................................... 16

Q. The work of Dr. David Niven supports a finding that Ohio’s map was drawn 

with an intent to advantage Republicans and disadvantage Democrats. ...................... 17

R. The work of Dr. Wendy K. Tam Cho supports a finding that Ohio’s map was 

drawn with an intent to advantage Republicans and disadvantage Democrats. ........... 17

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 26 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19578
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

ii 

S. Voting Rights Act compliance does not explain the 12-4 map. ................................... 18

T. It was known at the enactment of the map that it was not drawn to comply with 

the Voting Rights Act. .................................................................................................. 19

U. Traditional redistricting criteria do not explain the map. ............................................. 20

V. The Partisan Bias Measures Illustrate That Ohio Was Gerrymandered ....................... 22

W. The Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Republican gerrymander. .............................. 23

1. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute ............................................................................ 23

2. League of Women Voters of Ohio ............................................................................ 24

3. Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats “NEOYBD” ............................................ 26

4. Hamilton County Young Democrats ........................................................................ 27

5. The Ohio State University Democrats ...................................................................... 28

6. Individual Plaintiffs .................................................................................................. 30

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 27 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19579
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

1 

I. Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

A. Republican congressional leadership sought a 12-4 map. 

1. John Boehner, then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, directed his political

team to engage in Ohio’s map drawing process.

2. In 2011, Boehner assigned Tom Whatman, the Executive Director of Boehner’s political

operation (called “Team Boehner”), to work on restricting in Ohio. Among other things,

he was tasked with serving as a liaison between Ohio’s Republican members of

Congress and Republicans in Ohio.

3. Whatman spoke to Ohio’s Republican members of Congress about what new districts

might look like in Ohio following redistricting. He used that information to formulate

proposals for the new Ohio congressional map.

4. Whatman provided instructions on the preferred shapes of districts to Kincaid, who

made changes to the draft maps.

5. Under the pre-2011 congressional map, the Republicans held between 8 and 13 seats.

The 1st, 6th, 15th, 16th, and 18th districts all flipped between Republican and

Democrats in the previous redistricting cycle.

6. 2010 was considered a wave election for Republicans. That year, Republicans won seats

in the 1st, 6th, 15th, 16th, and 18th districts that had previously been held by Democrats,

making the delegation 13-5 in favor of Republicans.

7. In 2011, Republicans considered drafting a new congressional map with a 13-3

Republican advantage (a “13-3 map”), thus preserving the seats of all 13 Republican

members of Congress elected in 2010.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 28 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19580
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

2 

8. However, doing so would result in a smaller margin of victory in several Republicanheld districts, which would risk those districts becoming competitive during a strong

Democratic election year and falling into Democratic control.

9. Republicans settled on drawing a map that would “lock down” a solid 12-4 Republican

advantage (a “12-4 map”).

10.

B. The Ohio state Republican leadership was committed to a 12-4 map. 

11. The Ohio Legislative leadership would not enact anything that was contrary to

Boehner’s wishes.

12. Prior to the enactment of HB 319, Batchelder spoke with Boehner approximately once

per month regarding the redistricting process.

13. Speaker Batchelder’s office sent out a memo explaining that the map would be a 12-4

map.

14. Based on various conversations, Batchelder developed “an idea” of what Boehner

wanted in a map. Batchelder then relayed Boehner’s requests to Mann.

15. When negotiating HB 369, Batchelder was not in communication with Boehner,

although at that point he knew what Boehner wanted in a map and so he did not need to

talk to Boehner about it.

16. Batchelder does not recall enacting any congressional redistricting map that went against

Boehner’s wishes.

17. Senate President Niehaus was also committed to ending up with a map approved by

Boehner, and he accepted input directly from Whatman.

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 29 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19581
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

3 

18. Niehaus told Whatman on September 11, 2011, that “I am still committed to ending up

with a map that Speaker Boehner fully supports.”

19. As a result, Whatman understood that “the Ohio legislature wanted to come up with a

map that Speaker Boehner supported.”

C. The national Republicans provided political data for the Ohio map drawers. 

20. The election results data used to create the maps had been initially generated by an effort

orchestrated with the help of the RNC. “[A]n outside group that the RNC was working

with” oversaw the conversion of precinct-level election results estimated down to the

census-block level—“the Project.” This outside group generated this data set for a

number of states—“including Ohio”—in 2011.

21. Hofeller was the main contact” between the RNC and those working on The Project.

22. Bensen received the block-level data from The Project for Ohio. He ran validation

checks and then loaded it onto Maptitude.

23. The data Bensen provided to the map drawers included data on individual elections and

“election averages” data based on two-party vote share, which could be viewed within

Maptitude by labels hovering over a congressional district, at the Census Block Level.

The data included elections going back to 2002.

24. Whatman, Kincaid, and Hofeller were directly involved in the drafting and approval of

Ohio’s districts. Their work on Ohio’s draft districts started as early as January 2011.

25. Whatman and Kincaid were conduits between national Republicans and the local Ohio

Republicans, including Mann and DiRossi.

26. Whatman collected input from Ohio’s Republican members of congress on drafts and

suggested changes to the draft map. Kincaid then implement Whatman’s suggestions

and then send back a draft of a map. After finishing the proposed map, Whatman sought

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 30 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19582
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

4 

Boehner’s sign-off. Once Boehner signed off on the draft map, Whatman showed the 

proposed draft to Ohio’s Republican members of Congress. 

27. By July 2011, Kincaid was already using various political indices to “score” the political

leanings of proposed congressional district maps to determine the best way to achieve a

12-4 map.

28. Kincaid sent Republican members of Congress analyses, in the form of Excel

spreadsheets, showing how a Republican was expected to perform in their new districts,

based on a series of partisan metrics. For example, 

29. DiRossi and Mann emailed Whatman about changes to the map and Whatman indicated

his opinion of them.

30. Whatman’s proposals carried a great deal of weight with the map drawers. For example,

the evening before HB 319 was introduced in the Ohio House, Whatman requested that

the boundaries of 16th District be altered slightly to encompass the headquarters of a

Republican donor. Kincaid responded to Whatman’s eleventh hour request by changing

the boundaries of 16th District late in the evening on September 12, 2011.

31. Hofeller also helped to draft districts.

D. A key part of the national Republican work and strategy was the Franklin 

County Sinkhole. 

32. On September 7, 2011, Whatman sent Niehaus and Judy talking points informing him

that Republicans were seeking to “lock down” 12 Republican seats. These talking points

were also shared with Mann and Batchelder.

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 31 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19583
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

5 

33. Whatman came up with a key proposal to enable a 12-4 map: creating a new

congressional district in the city of Columbus (what would become 3rd District). The

new district packed Democrats in Democrat-leaning Franklin County into a single

congressional district.

34. Absorbing so many Democrats into a single district was essential for creating a 12-4

map, because doing so bolstered Republican control of adjacent 12th and 15th Districts.

35. The strategy was referred to as the “Franklin County Sinkhole” and the impact of this

strategy was well known among Republicans at the time. For example, on September 2,

2011, Kincaid sent and circulated to Mann, DiRossi, and Whatman a “Franklin County

Sinkhole” spreadsheet he created that shows the political scoring effects of creating a

new district in the Franklin County area.

36. Parts of Franklin County were considered undesirable to the Republicans, given the

number of Democrats that lived in those parts. So for example, 

E. The map drawers evaluated the districts that were drawn through the use of 

political indices. 

37. The use of the election results data in the map drawing process enabled Republicans to

execute the Franklin County Sinkhole strategy and ensure a 12-4 map.

38. Mann and DiRossi were interested in viewing election results data.

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 32 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19584
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

6 

39. Political indices were the data Mann’s “principals,” Batchelder and Judy, were most

interested in receiving regarding the maps being drawn. Political indices blend together

data from different races to more accurately predict the voting tendencies of voters in

proposed congressional districts.

40. The political indices for each individual congressional district were relied on during the

map drawing process and distributed at meetings, including those attended by

Batchelder and Huffman.

41. Map drawers created the Unified Index to guide decision making.

42. The Unified Index was composed of results from the following five races: 2004

President, 2006 Auditor, 2006 Attorney General, 2008 President, and 2010 Governor.

43. At the legislative leadership level, choosing an index was Huffman’s assignment.

44. At the operational level, DiRossi created the Unified Index, using results from the five

elections, which were then averaged to reflect the two-party vote share.

45. The Unified Index scoring for a district would change any time the map drawers would

make a change to the boundaries of any district.

46. The Unified Index is more Democratic than the actual vote share in the decade

preceding the redistricting. Using a more Democratic index allowed the map drawers to

be confident that districts would not switch to Democratic control when there was a year

that favored Democratic candidates.

47. In addition to the Unified Index, some Republicans preferred to use McCain ‘08 election

results in Ohio as an index. The McCain ’08 numbers were included in indices, draft

maps and other work product.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 33 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19585
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

7 

48. Since it was based President Obama’s defeat of John McCain in 2008, the McCain ’08

index also reflected a strong Democratic outcome. Using this more Democratic metric

allowed the map drawers and stakeholders to be confident that districts would not switch

to Democratic control when there was a year that favored Democratic candidates.

49. National Republicans also used the Partisan Vote Index (“PVI”), to score districts. For

example, Kincaid preferred PVI values.

50. The map drawers included PVI, the Unified Index, and the McCain ’08 index in their

work product, including indices rating maps and draft districts.

F. The map drawers used Maptitude to track changes to the partisan scoring of 

each district. 

51. Maptitude enables a map drawer to generate color coded maps of a district, showing the

specific scorings of sub-portions of the district and its relative Republican or Democratic

strength, which could be viewed by map drawers.

52. Maptitude could produce an output on data sets for a particular map, including data sets

of the “various indexes,” including the Unified Index.

53. Maptitude would calculate the elections data in real time for each district as it was

drawn. The data could be viewed on the screen in a table.

54. The election results data provided by Bensen was loaded into Maptitude and was used

by the map drawers. The election results data included for statewide elections going

back to 2002. (They also loaded the Unified Index, which had a code “EA 12”).

55. DiRossi also created charts scoring congressional districts using various indices.

G. Political indices were shared with Ohio legislators at the “Bunker” and 

digitally. 

56. The map drawers knew that the Ohio legislative leaders were interested in how changes

to the map impacted the partisan makeup of the map.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 34 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19586
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

8 

57. Beginning in July 2011, the redistricting operations were based out of a secretly-rented

hotel room at the DoubleTree Hotel in Columbus, Ohio. DiRossi nicknamed the room

“the Bunker” and it was generally referred to by that name. No Democratic officials or

operatives were able to access the bunker, and the meetings regarding the map drawing

there were limited to Republican operatives and officials. There were three computers

in the Bunker. Mann and DiRossi each worked on one and Judy worked on a third.

Mann, Judy, and DiRossi were the only persons with passwords to the computers.

Maptitude was running on the computers. The Unified Index scorings for each district

was always on the computer screen. Judy would discuss them with Mann.

58. Batchelder, Niehaus, Huffman, Mann, DiRossi, Judy, Lenzo, and Braden all attended

meetings at the Bunker where draft maps and political data were shared.

59. The political index data was reviewed by legislative leaders during in-person meetings

by viewing it on the computer screens and printouts. For example, Judy discussed the

partisan leanings of proposed districts with Batchelder between two to five “ad hoc”

meetings at the Bunker and in the Speaker’s Office prior to the introduction of HB 319.

At these meetings, spreadsheets that contained the Unified Index information about the

districts under consideration were handed out.

60. Niehaus also would ask for political index information. DiRossi would inform Niehaus,

Faber, and Schuler of the impact of any changes to the index based on any “tweaks” to

the map.

61. Republicans continued to share political data among themselves as they worked on HB

369. For example, as regards to HB 369, Judy circulated and recalled reviewing

spreadsheets that included Unified Index information and having them at meetings.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 35 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19587
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

9 

H. Members of Congress and national Republicans also received updates of the 

political composition of draft maps. 

62. In addition to the updates that were provided to Republicans in the Ohio legislature,

information was shared with Republican members of the U.S. Congress as draft maps

were being drawn.

63. Kincaid created spreadsheets that scored districts based on index values and this

information was conveyed to the members of Congress.

64. Whatman and received Excel spreadsheets from Kincaid with political 

information regarding the map, including PVI and unified index data.

65. The spreadsheets used PVI values to score the districts. And Kincaid had PVI scorings

for the final map as enacted.

66. The spreadsheets also scored the districts based on the Unified Index’s average of five

elections (2004 President, 2006 Attorney General, 2006 Auditor, 2008 President, and

2010 Governor).

67. The spreadsheets were shared with the Republican members of Congress.

I. Prior to introducing a map, Republicans knew it would be a 12-4 map based 

on the political index work. 

68. Kincaid created and circulated an analysis comparing HB 319 with the pre-redistricting

map. The analysis, which was generated in Maptitude and then exported into an Excel

spread sheet, scored the two maps using PVI scorings as well as the “Ohio GOP

Average” based on the five elections in the Unified Index.

69. Kincaid’s analysis demonstrates clear Republican PVI gains in specific districts: a gain

of 7 points in District 1; a gain of 11 points in District 12; and a gain of 8 points in

District 15.

CONFID

ENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 36 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19588
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

10 

70. These scorings were communicated to DiRossi, who used them to create his own

analyses. DiRossi’s spreadsheet confirmed that Republican strength increased in

Districts 12 and 15 because, among other reasons, Democrats in Franklin County were

packed into newly created District 3. The PVI scorings illustrated that the Republicans

obtained 11 “likely” seats that were five points in favor of Republicans (R+5) and one

additional seat that would also likely elect a Republican because it was plus 3 points for

Republicans (R+3).

71. The outcome of the analysis was shared with other Republicans.

72.

J. While local and national Republican lawmakers were receiving updates 

about the status of draft maps, the map was kept from the public and even 

from members of the General Assembly until September 13, 2011. 

73. There were five public hearings held by the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting

and the House Committee on Redistricting, with Faber and Huffman chairing the

respective committees. These hearings were held in July and August 2011.

74. No maps were considered at the public hearings regarding congressional redistricting.

Nor were any maps or indices available at the hearings. Further, the committees had no

responsibility beyond hearing testimony at these hearings.

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 37 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19589
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

11 

K. Republicans provided lawmakers with little time to debate the merits of the 

proposed plan. 

75. The map was, according to plan, “held in the can” after it was drafted until September

13, 2011.

76. Members of the General Assembly—even Republican members—were largely kept in

the dark about the content of the maps until the end of the process.

77. There were no negotiations between Democrats and Republicans regarding HB 319. The

Democratic Minority Leader in the Ohio House, Armond Budish stated that “the map

was drawn by Republicans in secret behind closed doors with no meaningful input

whatsoever from members of the public, and now the map is being rammed through the

House in just a couple of days in order to prevent any meaningful input from anyone

else. . . .” Other Democrats also complained about how the map was introduced.

78. Not only did the Democratic leadership not have any input into the map, but many of

Ohio’s Republican legislators had little input into the map. Faber was given, at the last

minute, a map that he was asked to support.

79. The proposed map was shared with the Democratic leadership just before it was

introduced.

L. The Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling on the referendum pressured Republicans 

to begin negotiating, but they retained the position that the map had to be 12-

4 in favor of Republicans. 

80. On October 14, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court authorized a referendum to challenge HB

319. However, the Supreme Court declined to extend the 90-day period during which to

collect signatures in support of the referendum, giving opponents of HB 319 until

December 25, 2011, to collect the requisite number of signatures.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 38 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19590
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

12 

81. Negotiations began in mid-October 2011 soon after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that

the referendum effort could proceed.

82. The threat of a public referendum on HB 319 was the primary reason why HB 319 was

repealed and replaced.

83. The Republicans approached the Democrats about a replacement proposal after the

process was started for a citizen’s referendum on 319.

84. Democrats proposed a map that would allow for 6 competitive districts.

85. Republicans proposed a map that did not change the 12-4 partisan outcome. This map

was introduced as HB 369 on November 3, 2011.

86. Huffman told Democrats that Republicans “weren’t going to draw less than 12 [seats].”

87. Judy told Democrats that if they presented a map that had less Republican seats, there

was nothing to discuss.

88. During the negotiations, Republicans would let Democrats massage things here or there,

but they could not touch the allocation of seats.

M. HB 369 is introduced, and negotiations continue, but Democrats are unable 

to change the partisan breakdown of the map. 

89. After the introduction of HB 369, negotiations between Democrats and Republicans

continued.

90. McCarthy recalled that negotiations between Republicans and Democrats reached an

impasse around November 18, 2011.

91. The impasse was still in effect as of November 30, 2011.

92. To put a referendum on the ballot, the Democrats needed more than 200,000 signatures.

93. The Democrats experienced difficulties in collecting the requisite number of signatures.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 39 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19591
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

13 

94. Initially, Republicans believed that the chance of obtaining the requisite number of

signatures seemed likely.

95. The Republicans, however, became aware of the problems that the Democrats were

experiencing in collecting the requisite number of signatures.

96. Publicity regarding the difficulties in obtaining the requisite number of signatures

affected negotiations regarding HB 369, weakening the Democrats’ ability to push for a

fairer map.

97. The Republicans also brought a state court lawsuit to force the enforcement of HB 319,

putting further pressure on the Democrats.

98. At some point, Batchelder came to the conclusion that the referendum effort would not

gather enough signatures.

99. The proposed changes by Democrats and the Black Caucus were then pushed aside.

100. Budish stated at the time, with respect to HB 369, “[w]e’ve tried to talk to 

[R]epublican leadership, to negotiate and to compromise, but unfortunately we’ve been 

refused. Leadership has refused to talk directly with democratic leadership.” Instead, he 

said, Republicans decided to try to cut secret backroom deals with individual democratic 

members. 

101.

102. HB 369 unified certain counties that were split in HB 319, but without changing 

the electoral tilt of the districts. 

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 40 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19592
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

14 

N. Contemporaneous Republican documents demonstrated that HB 369 would 

be a 12-4 map. 

103. Contemporaneous Republican analyses show no material change in the partisan 

composition of the districts included in the replacement map. 

104. For instance, a contemporaneous spreadsheet created by map drawers shows: (1) 

Four districts not changed at all (6th, 11th, 13th, and 14th Districts); (2) Two districts 

experienced “negligible” changes (7th and 16th Districts); (3) Eight districts experienced 

small changes (between 0.24% and 1.9%), which were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 

12th, and 15th Districts; (4) Only two districts experienced a Unified Index change of 2 

percentage points or greater: 8th District (2.60%) and 10th District (3.82%). However, 

neither of these changes altered the partisan lean of the district in question. 

105. Kincaid also circulated spreadsheets that showed that HB 369 remained a 12-4 

map. 

106. Kincaid helped create the content of a redistricting PowerPoint presentation 

celebrating Republicans’ successful efforts to move formerly competitive districts (1st, 

12th and 15th Districts) “out of play.” 

107. For instance, the PowerPoint presentation states that for Ohio 12th District that 

the “R + 8 scoring” means that “Tiberi would have been elected in a D plus 1 seat in 

2010 and then in 2012 was running for re-election in an R + 8 district . . . which was 9 

points more Republican than the district he was elected in in 2010.” And the reason that 

District 12 became more Republican was, in part, because “Tiberi had portions of 

Columbus in his district previously that he did not have in the district after they were 

redrawn in 2011 which would be why the PVI had changed, a part of why the PVI had 

changed.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 41 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19593
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

15 

108. It also states that for Ohio’s 1st District the scoring meant that “Chabot ran for 

election in 2010 in a D + 1 seat and would be run[sic] for re-election in an R + 6 

district”—and so a net gain of 7 points for the Republicans. And the reason that District 

1 became more Republican was because Warren County was added to the district and 

portions of Hamilton County were drawn out of the district. 

109. Kincaid confirmed that for the 15th District “Stivers was elected in a D plus 1 

district and running for reelection in a R plus 6 district” for a net gain of 7 points. And 

the reason that District 15 became more Republican was also because a new district was 

created in Franklin County so that District 15 no longer contained Democratic portions 

of Columbus. 

110. As a result of redistricting, Representative Johnson’s district, 6th District, became 

an R+5 district on the PVI scale, increasing 3 points from the prior map. 

O. The contemporaneous Democratic analysis of HB 369 concluded that the 

Republicans achieved their 12-4 map. 

111. Immediately after the passage of HB 369, the Democrats analyzed the differences 

between HB 319 and HB 369. The analyses was performed by Randall Routt, a 

Democratic staffer with a hybrid role of policy and IT-related work, and Christopher 

Glassburn, a former Democratic staffer, and communicated to other Democratic staff. 

112. Routt’s district-by-district analysis demonstrates that with one exception (the 10th 

District) the differences between HB 319 and HB 369 were trivial when it came to the 

partisan tilt of districts. 

113. Glassburn performed a contemporaneous analysis of HB 369 and concluded that 

the Republicans achieved their 12-4 map when HB 369 was enacted. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 42 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19594
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

16 

114. His analysis was based on data provided by the Cleveland State University. He 

relied primarily on 2008 presidential and 2010 governorship races. 

115. Glassburn concluded that Districts 3, 9, 11, and 13 favor Democrats and the rest 

favor Republicans. 

116. Glassburn’s district-by-district analysis confirms the basis for the 

contemporaneous view that HB 369 was a 12-4 map. 

P. Republicans and Democrats openly acknowledge that the Republicans 

secured their 12-4 objective because they had the raw political power to 

achieve their goal. 

117. Defendant Larry Obhof, who was in the Ohio Senate at the time has stated: 

“While a lot of Democrats voted for the current map, they really didn’t have a lot of 

negotiating power at that stage, because there was always the opportunity to say hey 

work with us and we’ll do a slightly better map, or we’ll do what we want and pass it 

with 51% of the vote.” 

118. Batchelder has stated that “Their theory was somehow or another that they could 

overcome a majority of people who were in the other party, and I don’t know how that 

would have happened.” 

119. Glassburn stated that the Republican leverage was based on the fact that they 

“held all the cards.” 

120. Senator Turner said: “To say that this map is bipartisan is laughable, no matter 

how many democrats in the House decided to tow the party line and vote for a map that 

is still 12 to 4.” 

121. Senator Tavares said: “What this map does is basically cherry-pick” areas to 

achieve a partisan aim. She continued: “Just like the people are not 12-4, they’re more 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 43 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19595
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

17 

like 50/50. We never believed we were going to get eight Democratic districts and eight 

Republican, but it should have been a little more even.” 

Q. The work of Dr. David Niven supports a finding that Ohio’s map was drawn 

with an intent to advantage Republicans and disadvantage Democrats. 

122. The manner and extent to which the Republicans mapmakers split political 

subdivisions and communities of interest, with resulting partisan gain, demonstrates 

their objective to crack and pack Democratic voters to optimize Republican seats in 

Congress. 

123. Analysis of the map shows that census tracts are split by congressional district 

lines 59% more times than in the previous map. 

124. For over 3.3 million Ohioans—more than a quarter of the state—the closest 

congressional district office is in another district. 

125. The map reveals patterns of splitting Democratic-leaning cities, neighborhoods, 

and counties and incorporating the pieces in the creation of Republican congressional 

districts. 

126. The systematic drawing of districts that disregard political boundaries and split 

communities of interest—and the partisan impact of these decisions: dilution of the 

opposite party’s vote—can only be explained by a strategic commitment to partisan 

gerrymandering on the part of the map makers. 

R. The work of Dr. Wendy K. Tam Cho supports a finding that Ohio’s map was 

drawn with an intent to advantage Republicans and disadvantage 

Democrats. 

127. Dr. Wendy K. Tam Cho used a computer algorithm to generate simulated 

congressional maps that adhered to the traditional, nonpartisan districting principles 

described in her report. This algorithm did not take into account any voting or 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 44 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19596
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

18 

demographic data when drawing the maps. Each map was constructed by combining 

Ohio voting precincts into different congressional districts, and only maps that met the 

traditional, nonpartisan districting criteria were deemed viable. 

128. With the above-described process, the algorithm generated a sample set of over 

three million viable simulated congressional maps, each of which was drawn without the 

influence of partisan intent. 

129. By comparing the challenged map against the simulated maps, Dr. Cho 

“determine[d] whether the partisan effect of the challenged map is to be expected given 

the underlying geography and population settlement patterns or if it is unusual among 

the set of non-partisan maps.” 

130. Dr. Cho’s analysis demonstrates that it is highly unlikely that a map reflecting as 

much extreme partisan unfairness as the challenged map could have been produced 

unintentionally. 

S. Voting Rights Act compliance does not explain the 12-4 map. 

131. Current 11th District is the successor district to the first majority black 

congressional district created in Ohio in 1968, which has consistently elected AfricanAmericans to Congress since. 

132. Dr. Lisa Handley conducted a district-specific, functional analysis of voting 

patterns by race to ascertain the black voting age population necessary to provide black 

voters with an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in the vicinity of the 11th 

District. 

133. Dr. Handley’s district-specific, functional analysis relies on three statistical 

techniques to estimate voting patterns by race: homogenous precinct analysis, ecological 

regression, and ecological inference. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 45 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19597
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

19 

134. Her analysis demonstrates that a 45% black voting age population (“BVAP”) 

district offers black voters a realistic opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to 

represent the 11th District. 

135. It also demonstrates that current 11th District contains far more minorities than is 

necessary to elect the minority preferred candidate. 

T. It was known at the enactment of the map that it was not drawn to comply 

with the Voting Rights Act. 

136. The Republican intent was to pack Democrats, not protect minority voters. 

137. There is no indication that Republicans engaged in the kind of analysis necessary 

to determine how many African Americans were needed at the time to create a Voting 

Rights Act compliant district. There are only ungrounded discussions of various 

percentage cutoffs of the BVAP. 

138. There is evidence in the record that Republicans were primarily concerned with 

partisanship and not opportunities to elect minority representatives. For example, the 

Republican Chair of Summit County was willing to have three Summit County wards 

placed into District 11 because “they were mostly black democrats [sic]” and this 

“helped the other districts in Summit County be more Republican.” 

139. District 11 was primarily drawn to pack Democratic voters for Republican gains 

in neighboring districts and not to advantage Democrats in general nor at the request of 

Democratic incumbent, nor to advantage black voters in Ohio. 

140. The packing of Democrats was the reason for the creation of District 3, not a 

Republican desire to create a “minority opportunity” district. 

141. A minority opportunity district could have been created in Franklin County under 

a different configuration of the map. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 46 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19598
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

20 

U. Traditional redistricting criteria do not explain the map. 

142. The map drawers just eye balled compactness and did not do any analysis of 

districts to make sure they were compact 

143. Communities of interest are not kept intact with the map. 

144. Communities of interest are often fractured by county and municipal splits. 

145. The map needlessly splits counties and municipalities. It is possible to create a 

map with far fewer splits. 

146. The location of the 2011 incumbents did not require the Ohio congressional map 

to be structured as it was. 

147. Congressional plans, which pair the same number of incumbents with the same 

match-up of political parties as under the Ohio congressional map, are still better than 

the Ohio congressional map on traditional redistricting criteria and partisan symmetry. 

148. Hypothetical maps that pair two 2011 Democratic incumbents, two 2011 

Republican incumbents, and one 2011 Democratic with one 2011 Republican incumbent 

are better the Ohio congressional map on traditional redistricting criteria. 

149. Two such hypotheticals split only 14 counties; the Ohio congressional map splits 

23 counties. 

150. One such hypothetical splits 36 municipal civil divisions, and another splits 34 

municipal civil divisions; the Ohio congressional map splits 73. 

151. Both of these hypothetical maps are more compact that the Ohio congressional 

map. 

152. Both of these hypothetical maps have a Voting Rights Act compliant district in its 

11th District. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 47 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19599
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

21 

153. Under both of these hypotheticals, District 15 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 30.17%. 

154. Under both of these hypotheticals, District 1 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 26.74%. 

155. One hypothetical has the following Democratic congressional vote percentages of 

the two-party vote: 

2012 2014 2016 2018 

CD Hypothetical 

Plan 1A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 1A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 1A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 1A 2012 Plan 

1 48.4% 39.5% 44.2% 36.7% 48.3% 40.7% 57.2% 47.8% 

2 30.2% 41.4% 28.4% 34.1% 26.8% 33.5% 31.9% 41.7% 

3 37.7% 71.4% 25.5% 63.6% 27.2% 68.2% 34.0% 73.6% 

4 25.9% 38.5% 24.0% 32.3% 22.0% 31.7% 26.4% 34.7% 

5 39.1% 40.6% 22.4% 30.4% 28.5% 28.8% 35.0% 36.1% 

6 49.4% 46.8% 42.9% 39.8% 33.6% 29.4% 34.2% 30.8% 

7 37.8% 43.6% 32.7% 0.3% 33.8% 31.4% 43.0% 41.3% 

8 10.0% 0.0% 26.2% 28.9% 26.7% 28.2% 32.5% 33.4% 

9 62.3% 76.0% 51.2% 67.7% 52.6% 68.6% 54.9% 67.8% 

10 59.4% 38.6% 44.5% 32.6% 48.9% 33.8% 55.0% 43.0% 

11 95.7% 99.7% 81.5% 79.2% 81.7% 80.3% 83.5% 82.3% 

12 39.3% 36.6% 32.8% 29.0% 37.9% 31.7% 53.8% 47.9% 

13 59.3% 72.9% 48.6% 68.4% 51.1% 67.6% 55.8% 61.0% 

14 61.0% 41.8% 52.6% 34.4% 52.6% 37.4% 50.5% 44.8% 

15 67.1% 38.6% 58.6% 34.1% 63.4% 33.7% 68.9% 40.5% 

16 49.2% 48.0% 27.9% 36.2% 37.7% 35.2% 44.1% 43.3% 

156. Another hypothetical has the following Democratic congressional vote 

percentages of the two-party vote: 

2012 2014 2016 2018 

CD Hypothetical 

Plan 2A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 2A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 2A 2012 Plan Hypothetical 

Plan 2A 2012 Plan 

1 48.5% 39.5% 44.2% 36.7% 48.3% 40.7% 57.2% 47.8% 

2 30.3% 41.4% 28.4% 34.1% 26.8% 33.5% 31.9% 41.7% 

3 37.7% 71.4% 25.5% 63.6% 27.2% 68.2% 34.0% 73.6% 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 48 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19600
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

22 

4 25.9% 38.5% 24.0% 32.3% 22.0% 31.7% 26.4% 34.7% 

5 39.1% 40.6% 22.4% 30.4% 28.5% 28.8% 35.0% 36.1% 

6 49.4% 46.8% 42.9% 39.8% 33.6% 29.4% 34.2% 30.8% 

7 37.8% 43.6% 32.7% 0.3% 33.9% 31.4% 43.0% 41.3% 

8 10.0% 0.0% 26.2% 28.9% 26.7% 28.2% 32.5% 33.4% 

9 62.3% 76.0% 51.2% 67.7% 52.6% 68.6% 54.9% 67.8% 

10 59.7% 38.6% 45.2% 32.6% 49.6% 33.8% 55.7% 43.0% 

11 92.0% 99.7% 77.6% 79.2% 78.7% 80.3% 81.5% 82.3% 

12 39.3% 36.6% 32.8% 29.0% 37.9% 31.7% 53.8% 47.9% 

13 61.2% 72.9% 50.3% 68.4% 51.8% 67.6% 55.5% 61.0% 

14 61.0% 41.8% 52.6% 34.4% 52.6% 37.4% 50.5% 44.8% 

15 67.1% 38.6% 58.6% 34.1% 63.4% 33.7% 68.9% 40.5% 

16 49.2% 48.0% 27.9% 36.2% 37.7% 35.2% 44.1% 43.3% 

V. The Partisan Bias Measures Illustrate That Ohio Was Gerrymandered 

157. Election results show that Democrats were successfully packed into four districts, 

thus, ensuring that they won their districts by large margins. 

158. The four measures commonly used by political scientists to detect and measure 

the effects of partisan gerrymandering (the efficiency gap, the mean-median, the 

Gelman-King asymmetry measure, and the declination) make clear that the Ohio map is 

an extreme partisan gerrymander. 

159. The partisan bias measures suggest that Ohio was gerrymandered. This suggestion 

is consistent with political science literature which has found that when one party 

controls the redistricting process, the partisan bias measures shift in favor of that party. 

160. This finding is also consistent with the big shift in Ohio’s partisan bias measures 

from 2010 to 2012. In 2010, prior to the new map Ohio’s partisan bias measures were 

less pro-Republican than they were in 2012, after Republicans enacted the new map. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 49 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19601
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

23 

W. The Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Republican gerrymander. 

1. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute

161. Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional map impedes APRI’s work and requires it to 

divert resources from its efforts by making it more difficult to engage voters through its 

education, registration, and outreach efforts, and by deterring and discouraging its 

members and other Ohio voters from engaging in the political process. 

162. The current congressional map causes APRI to suffer diversion of resources in 

accomplishing its mission, causing it to “hav(e) to divert resources to work harder to 

convince people and educate people that their vote does count and they should exercise 

their right to vote.” 

163. The congressional map causes voter confusion and apathy, which require APRI to 

divert its resources from its work to register and engage voters. “Because of the way 

these [congressional district] lines are drawn, people get confused, they’re frustrated. 

You could be in a county that’s split down the middle or split in three different ways and 

they don’t know where to vote or who to vote for so they get frustrated, they get 

confused, they get discouraged and they just don’t know what to do so...(they) do 

nothing. So we’re – you know, we have to spend time and resources to work this out” 

164. But for the gerrymandered map, APRI could use its resources to register more 

people to vote. 

165. Mr. Washington has to work to overcome voter apathy in his own home district, 

District 12, where “every third door I knock on people are saying my vote doesn’t count 

in this district, it doesn’t matter, the same person is going to get back in office.” 

166. APRI’s members are personally affected by the map as well. APRI has 

Democratic members in cracked and packed districts who feel “the person that I’m 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 50 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19602
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

24 

voting for doesn’t have to work for my vote because they know that they’re going to win 

anyway so it doesn’t matter if I vote or not, there’s no competition in there.” 

167. APRI member Ms. White is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic 

candidates for Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such 

candidates in the future. She is active in voter outreach, education, and get out the vote 

(“GOTV”) efforts for APRI, the Democratic Party, and as a union organizer. Ms. White 

currently resides in Ohio’s 5th District, where Democratic voters are cracked under the 

current map, and her vote is diluted. 

2. League of Women Voters of Ohio

168. Members of the League who are Democrats are injured by the congressional map 

because they live in congressional districts where Democrats are cracked or packed, 

diluting their votes. 

169. The LWVO’s members believe that, especially in Ohio’s congressional districts, 

citizens’ votes are diluted because the map is manipulated to guarantee an outcome. 

170. The current congressional map has impaired the League’s operations and diverted 

its resources across the decade because of the confusion created by the map’s “messy” 

district lines. 

171. This confusion requires the League to set up robust operations to answer calls 

from voters, confused by the district lines, to determine their polling location. The 

League has “hundreds of volunteers who are volunteering on election day to answer 

phone banks ...and the reason why we need to have hundreds of volunteers is because 

people are confused about their congressional districts . . .” 

172. For example in the recent special election in District 12, the League “had to stop 

what (they) were supposed to be doing . . . so (they) could help voters understand if they 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 51 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19603
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

25 

were in 12 or not.” Voters in Clintonville and Grandview were within a couple of blocks 

of District 3, 15, and 12, in any direction, and were confused as to whether they could 

vote. 

173. The Ohio congressional map causes the LWVO to divert resources because 

congressional candidates across the state, secure of reelection, will not agree to 

participate in candidate forums hosted by the League. 

174. Two examples are Congressman Stivers and Congressman Jordan, both of whom 

have missed League candidate forums. 

175.

176. This wastes a lot of the LWVO’s time and energy: the League will have reserved 

the room, paid for the sound, and made multiple calls; then the LWVO must tell the 

opposing candidate that they cannot come and speak either, thus impairing the League in 

the performance of its work. 

177. Although Congressmen Stivers and Jordan are two examples; it “happens all over 

the state.” 

178. The voter apathy caused when people feel that their votes do not count makes it 

harder for the League to perform its work getting out the vote. 

179. If the League did not have to divert resources to work on the problems caused by 

the current congressional map, it would be able to work more on voter education, 

outreach efforts, getting young people excited about government and registered, putting 

on candidate forums, and getting out the vote. 

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 52 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19604
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

26 

180. If the League did not need to have hundreds of volunteers to help with district 

line confusion on Election Day, it could reassign these volunteers to help ease the 

shortages of poll workers on Election Day. 

181. LWVO member Mr. Fitzpatrick is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic 

candidates for Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such 

candidates in the future. He is active in voter outreach and education both with the 

League and as a Democrat. Mr. Fitzpatrick currently resides in Ohio’s 14th District, 

where Democratic voters are cracked under the current map, and his vote is diluted. 

3. Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats “NEOYBD”

182. Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional map forces NEOYBD to divert resources 

from its mission by making it more difficult to get out the vote and keep Democratic 

voters engaged. 

183. The voter apathy that the map produces makes it more difficult for NEOYBD to 

fundraise and get members involved. 

184. NEOYBD’s membership itself is harmed by the voter apathy and confusion that 

the map creates: “why would [members] join the organization? Why would they get 

involved? Why would they talk to their neighbors about us? Because they feel their vote 

doesn’t count.” 

185. NEOYBD President Gabrielle Jackson, the President of NEOYBD for the past 

two years and the organization’s representative in this litigation, lives in the 9th District. 

She has experience working against voter apathy and confusion in the packed district 

where she lives: “It’s also known as the Snake on the lake. My representative is 

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. I live in Lakewood, Ohio. She lives in Lucas County. 

And it’s literally a thin line – the way this current map is drawn, it’s literally a thin line 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 53 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19605
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

27 

that goes along Lake Erie. There’s no adequate way for me, living on the west side of 

Cleveland to be represented the same as someone living in Lucas County.” 

186. But for the gerrymandered congressional map, NEOYBD could spend more of its 

resources more effectively to get out the vote, fundraise, and otherwise support 

Democratic candidates. 

4. Hamilton County Young Democrats

187. The votes of the members of the Hamilton County Young Democrats have been 

diluted due to the construction of the 1st and 2nd Districts. 

188. These members have each been deprived of their opportunity to elect candidates 

of choice in Districts 1 and 2. 

189. The way Hamilton County, and particularly the City of Cincinnati, is split 

between the 1st and 2nd Districts burdens Hamilton County Young Democrats. 

190. The way the lines are drawn burdens Hamilton County Young Democrats and its 

members by creating confusion about which district someone lives in. 

191. This voter confusion causes young voters to become less engaged. 

192. The way the lines are drawn causes young voters to be apathetic about voting and 

convinced that being engaged in the process does not matter. 

193. This burdens Hamilton County Young Democrats by hampering its ability to 

associate with young people who could be potential members. 

194. Hamilton County Young Democrats encounters young people who decline to 

become engaged in the political process or to donate funds to the organization or to 

Democratic candidates because they believe the system is rigged based on the 

construction of the congressional map. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 54 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19606
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

28 

195. The congressional lines make it so that Hamilton County Young Democrats must 

divide their resources and focus between the 1st and 2nd Districts, instead of allowing 

them to focus on a district that contains the bulk of Hamilton County and the whole of 

Cincinnati. 

196. The Congressmen that represent Districts 1 and 2 are not responsive to the 

Hamilton County Young Democrats. 

197. Members of the Hamilton County Young Democrats have not received responses 

from Congressmen Chabot and Wenstrup. 

198. The President and Vice President of the Hamilton County Young Democrats have 

attempted to seek constituent services for residents of Hamilton County through their 

roles in the Office of the County Commissioner and in the Office of the Mayor of the 

City of Cincinnati. Congressmen Chabot and Wenstrup routinely do not reply to these 

requests. 

199. The Hamilton County Young Democrats expended resources on the campaign of 

Aftab Pureval in 1st District in 2018 as they felt that “he ha[d] the best chance [to win] 

in quite some time.” 

200. Mr. Pureval did not win the 2018 election. 

201. Under Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan, the percentage of the two-party vote 

for the Democratic candidate in District 1 was over 57% based on 2018 election results. 

5. The Ohio State University Democrats

202. The votes of the members of the OSU College Democrats have been diluted due 

to the construction of the 3rd, 12th, and 15th Districts. 

203. The OSU College Democrats and its members have found that the Congress 

people representing the 3rd, 12th, and 15th Districts are not responsive to them. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 55 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19607
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

29 

204. By diluting the members’ votes, the congressional map, and specifically the 

construction of the 3rd, 12th, and 15th Districts, impairs the OSU College Democrats 

ability to carry out its purpose. 

205. Because the larger constituency of young voters is split up across these three 

districts, it impairs the effectiveness of the voting bloc. 

206. The way the lines are drawn burdens OSU College Democrats and its members by 

creating confusion about which district someone lives in. 

207. This voter confusion causes young voters to become frustrated and less likely to 

become or remain engaged with the OSU College Democrats. 

208. This was illustrated in summer 2018 during the 12th District Special Election. 

Many individuals who engage with OSU College Democrats were confused about 

whether they were supposed to vote on Special Election Day, and OSU College 

Democrats had to expend it volunteer resources to engage with these voters, instead of 

on Get Out the Vote activity directed only at the 12th District. 

209. The locked up nature of the congressional map causes members of the OSU 

community to believe that their votes do not matter and to become apathetic. 

210. The apathy from young voters caused by the map impairs OSU College 

Democrats’ associational rights. 

211. In 2018, OSU College Democrats focused their resources on the Danny O’Connor 

campaign, both the Special Election and on the November 2018 General Election. 

212. Mr. O’Connor did not win the November 2018 election despite a 31.6 percent 

shift for the Democratic candidate. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 56 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19608
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

30 

213. Under Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan, the percentage of the two-party vote 

for the Democratic candidate in District 12 was over 54% based on 2018 election 

results. 

6. Individual Plaintiffs

214. Ms. Goldenhar’s vote has been diluted through cracking Democratic voters in the 

1st District. 

215. Ms. Goldenhar testified that the way the challenged map is drawn burdens her 

ability to associate and participate in the political process with other Democratic voters 

in the state of Ohio. 

216. Ms. Goldenhar has reached out to her representative, Mr. Chabot, multiple times 

via email and phone, and has never received a response. 

217. Dr. Burks canvassed, put out yard signs and donated money for Jill Schiller’s 

campaign for 2nd District in the 2018 elections. In the course of canvassing, Dr. Burks 

encountered several individuals who said that “they were not going to vote because it 

wasn’t worth it because they had a strong feeling of what the outcome would be.” Given 

the way in which District 2 is drawn, Jill Schiller’s campaign faced an “uphill battle.” 

218. Dr. Burks testified that his vote has been diluted through cracking Democratic 

voters in the 2nd District. 

219. Dr. Burks testified that the way the challenged map is drawn burdens his ability to 

associate and participate in the political process with other Democratic voters in the state 

of Ohio. 

220. Dr. Burks testified that the current congressional map made it more difficult for 

him to elect his candidate of choice. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 57 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19609
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

31 

221. Ms. Inskeep testified that her vote has been diluted through packing Democratic 

voters into the 3rd District. 

222. Through her electoral activities, Ms. Inskeep has encountered apathetic voters 

who feel like their vote does not matter as a result of the drawing of the current 

congressional map. 

223. Ms. Inskeep testified that Planned Parenthood decided not to invest resources in 

Ohio’s 3rd District because the Democratic candidate was going to win anyway due to 

the way the district was drawn. 

224. Ms. Inskeep testified that the current congressional map has caused there to be 

“less political activity and investment in [her] district.” 

225. Ms. Libster’s vote is diluted in Ohio’s 4th District, where Democratic voters are 

cracked under the current Ohio map. 

226. Through Ms. Libster’s canvassing and fundraising efforts and by talking to her 

neighbors, she has experienced how the 4th District’s design and the congressional map 

as a whole contribute to voter apathy in her community. 

227. Ms. Libster has attempted to fundraise for Democratic candidates including 5th 

District congressional candidate Janet Garret, but cannot amass support because of the 

voter apathy caused by the map. Voters are discouraged because Garret loses by “a thirty 

percent whapping all the time. It’s never ever – my vote – when I go in there to vote for 

Janet Garrett as a Democrat, it’s never going to happen. Snowball’s chance.” 

228. From her experience educating voters and talking to her neighbors, Ms. Libster is 

also aware of the voter confusion caused by the gerrymandered map. For instance, she 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 58 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19610
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

32 

has “friends. . . who live three miles away who are in the 12th District and didn’t even 

realize they were in the 12th District until we talked about it.” 

229. Ms. Libster’s Congressman, Jim Jordan, does not represent her interests as a voter 

because his district is so safe that he does not need to: “He doesn’t care about my vote. 

He doesn’t care about representing me.” 

230. The 2012 map makes Ms. Libster’s district so safe for Representative Jordan that 

she and other Democratic voters like her feel their votes have no power. She has stated: 

“I want my vote to matter. I don’t want to be disenfranchised as a voter. I don’t want to 

feel like every time I go vote for the Democrat they’re going to get pounded by thirty, 

forty percent.” 

231. Ms. Libster’s district covers so many communities and so much geographic space 

that she feels her representative could not effectively represent her even if he felt 

compelled to: “I mean, how do I go to my representative when he’s clear down in 

Urbana? If I live in Oberlin, how does that happen? That’s a long drive.” 

232. Ms. Deitsch lives in the 5th District, where Democratic voters are cracked under 

the current map, and her vote is diluted. 

233. Ms. Deitsch’s experience from canvassing, being involved in politics, and talking 

to her neighbors is that because the gerrymandered map makes elections a foregone 

conclusion, voters feel their votes do not matter. “[Y]ou would go and knock on the door 

and somebody would say to you it doesn’t make any difference who I vote for, they’re 

not going to win or I’m not going to give you money because they’re not going to win.” 

234. Based on the same experience, Ms. Deitsch knows that because the 2012 Map 

splits her “small county” between “three different [congress]people,” voters in her 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 59 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19611
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

33 

community are often confused about which congressional district they are in. This 

contributes to their disengagement from the political process. 

235. Like other Democratic voters in her district, Ms. Deitsch’s own vote does not 

matter. She feels that Bob Latta does not represent her interests as a voter because his 

district is so safe, that he does not need to. For example, despite inviting Representative 

Latta to events, and trying many times to contact his office personally, he has never 

responded to her or her neighbors. 

236. Ms. Boothe lives in Ohio’s 6th District where Democratic voters are cracked 

under the current map, and her vote is diluted. 

237. Through canvassing and talking to her friends and neighbors, Ms. Boothe has 

heard that Democratic voters in her area “feel that their vote is monopoly money” and 

“said it didn’t count.” This kind of apathy has made it more difficult for her to 

successfully organize with the Democratic Party. 

238. In Ms. Boothe’s experience, Representative Johnson is not responsive to her or 

her fellow Democrats in the 6th District. For example, she has not seen or heard back 

from Representative Johnson despite trying to call him. 

239. In Ms. Boothe’s experience, “[n]obody comes to the district. It’s so Republican 

that they don’t have to. The Republicans don’t have to come because they are going to 

win anyhow. And nobody that’s Democrat wants to run in that area, because you’re 

going to spend a lot of money and lose anyhow.” 

240. The geographic spread of Ms. Boothe’s district exacerbates these problems. 

241. Representative Johnson does not represent Ms. Boothe’s interests as a voter 

because his district is so safe, that he does not need to. For example, in the last election, 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 60 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19612
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

34 

she did not see him campaign anywhere near her, and she believes his opponent had no 

chance to win. 

242. As a result of the gerrymandered map, in Ms. Boothe’s district, “[her] vote is like 

monopoly money; you can cast it, but you can’t buy anything for it, because it’s too 

week.” 

243. Mr. Griffiths testified that his vote in Ohio’s 7th District has been diluted through 

the cracking of Democratic voters. 

244. Mr. Griffiths testified that the current congressional map made it more difficult 

for him to recruit volunteers and campaign for candidates of his choice. He explained 

that “a number of voters told [him and his wife] when [they] were circulating the [Issue 

1] petition that they don’t feel like it made a difference if they voted or not voted

because the system is such that it wasn’t going to make a difference.” Mr. Griffiths also 

testified that he knew “a number of people that [he and his wife] talked to said that they 

don’t vote for that reason.” 

245. Mr. Griffiths testified that “it has been very difficult to identify candidates willing 

to take on Bob Gibbs in this case because of how heavily gerrymandered the district is.” 

246. For example, Mr. Griffiths noted that in 2014 Congressman Gibbs ran unopposed 

in the congressional election, and he heard conversations that no one was willing to run 

against Congressman Gibbs. 

247. As another example, Mr. Griffiths noted that he spoke with Roy Rich when he ran 

against Congressman Gibbs in the 2016 election about “how difficult that [it] was to 

campaign in that district because of the size of the district and trying to get around to 

different people.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 61 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19613
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

35 

248. Mr. Griffiths testified that his wife wrote to Congressman Gibbs on a specific 

issue but received a letter in response from Congressman Gibbs on a completely 

different issue. Mr. Griffiths testified that his wife shared this information with members 

of the Indivisible group in Wellington, and other members had experienced the same 

situation with Congressman Gibbs. 

249. Mr. Griffiths testified that the mismatched letters situation demonstrated that 

Congressman Gibbs “doesn’t really care what we think or don’t think, whether we vote 

or not vote” because “[h]e is in a position, and still in a position, that he’s going to get 

re-elected” because of the way the district is drawn “whether or not he appeals to any 

small group of us Democrats that are scattered throughout the district.” 

250. Mr. Griffiths testified that “[i]t has been difficult to connect with other volunteers 

just because of the geographic” distance between areas that compose the 7th District. 

251. For example, Mr. Griffiths testified that the geographic distance between his 

home and Knox County caused him not to participate in certain canvassing activities. 

252. As another example, Mr. Griffiths testified that the geographic distance between 

his home and Huron County caused him not to participate in phone banking for 

Democratic congressional candidate Ken Harbaugh. 

253. Mr. Nadler lives in Ohio’s 8th District where Democratic voters are cracked 

under the current map and his vote is diluted. 

254. Through his political engagement including canvassing, Mr. Nadler testified that 

“there are people that I personally have encountered, who feel that it’s not worth their 

time to vote . . . because it’s not going to make any difference.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 62 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19614
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

36 

255. Because of this voter apathy, Mr. Nadler’s ability to get out the vote for 

Democratic candidates in his area is inhibited. 

256. Congressman Warren Davidson does not have to care about Mr. Nadler’s vote, 

because he is sure to be reelected. 

257. For example, every month Mr. Nadler asks one of Representative Davidson’s 

aides if Davidson will come to his area of the district for a town hall, but he has never 

seen him. Mr. Nadler identified many instances in which he and others tried to reach out 

to Davidson and received no response. 

258. Mr. Nadler also testified that because the map makes his district so safe for a 

Republican, his representative is farther to the right than he would otherwise be. “[I]f 

[Davidson] were listening to people, providing an open forum or multiple meetings for 

people to be heard, that it could moderate his views a little bit . . . . To be honest with 

you, I think he doesn’t do it because he knows he doesn’t have to do it.” 

259. Ms. Walker’s vote in the 9th District has been diluted through the packing of 

Democratic voters. 

260. Ms. Walker testified that she knows Democratic voters who feel like their vote 

doesn’t matter because of the way the current congressional map has been 

gerrymandered. 

261. Ms. Walker believes the geographic distances between areas in the 9th District 

make it difficult for Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur to adequately represent all her 

constituents. For example, Ms. Walker testified that she had not seen Congresswoman 

Kaptur in her neighborhood. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 63 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19615
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

37 

262. Ms. Walker also testified that the geographic distances between areas in the 9th 

District make it more difficult to campaign for Democratic candidates. 

263. Ms. Walker testified that she thinks the current congressional map makes it harder 

to fundraise for her candidates of choice because people believe that the “candidate’s 

going to win anyway.” 

264. Ms. Walker testified that she thinks the current congressional map has hurt her 

ability to educate voters because voters feel like their “vote is going to be manipulated in 

some way.” 

265. Ms. Rader’s vote in the 9th District has been diluted through the packing of 

Democratic voters. 

266. Mr. Rader testified that the geographic distances between areas in the 9th District 

has hampered constituent services and made it difficult for Congresswoman Marcy 

Kaptur to adequately represent her constituents. 

267. Mr. Rader testified that the fact that the congressional races in the 9th District are 

not competitive has caused Congresswoman Kaptur to “not draw in good competition” 

and as a result, “she doesn’t have to be out there as someone running in a more 

competitive race.” 

268. Mr. Rader testified that the geographic distance between areas in the 9th District 

has made it more difficult for him to organize constituents to visit Congresswoman 

Kaptur’s office in Toledo. 

269. Mr. Rader testified that the current congressional map has hurt his ability to 

campaign for Democratic candidates. As an example, Mr. Rader said that it was difficult 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 64 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19616
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

38 

to campaign for Democratic congressional candidate Keith Mundy in the 16th District 

because voters felt that the “district is already staked or the outcome is predetermined.” 

270. Mr. Rader testified that the current congressional map has hurt his ability to 

fundraise and recruit volunteers for Democratic candidates. As an example, Mr. Rader 

said that it was difficult to raise funds or recruit volunteers for Democratic congressional 

candidate Keith Mundy in the 16th District because voters “don’t want to give or get 

involved because they think the way that the districts are drawn, again, like I said, a 

predetermined outcome.” 

271. Mr. Rader testified that the current congressional map “discourages people from 

voting” by creating voter apathy. Specifically, Mr. Rader said that voters have said 

“Why should I vote because it doesn’t matter? There’s nothing I can do about it, so I 

don’t care.” 

272. Ms. Megnin lives in the 10th District, where Democratic voters are cracked under 

the current map, and her vote is diluted. 

273. Ms. Megnin is “someone who does regular voter canvassing” for Democratic 

candidates and issues. Because of the voter apathy caused by the map, she has a difficult 

time gathering support for Democratic candidates in her district. “[N]o matter how many 

doors we knocked on, how many campaign supports we did, how much strategizing we 

did, our structure guarantees that the people would not be able to be competitive in being 

represented.” 

274. Ms. Megnin herself would consider running for local office, but does not believe 

she “would have a chance of going beyond local because of the gerrymandering.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 65 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19617
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

39 

275. As a Democrat in District 10, Ms. Megnin’s Representative does not engage with 

her or other “residents of Dayton itself or other communities that might not be fully 

supportive of his views.” For example, “Mike Turner has not held a town hall meeting 

for his local constituents in his sixteen years as a congressional representative.” 

276. Ms. Megnin has tried to call Congressman Turner’s office “around a dozen” times 

over the past several years without receiving a response, and has had a similar 

experience with email and electronic petitions. 

277. The gerrymandered map had made Ms. Megnin’s district so safe for Congressman 

Turner that “[t]here’s no reason for the representative to have to listen to the citizens in 

order to keep their job.” 

278. Mr. Harris testified that District 11 is a packed district, and as a result his vote is 

diluted and is not as impactful as it would be otherwise. 

279. Mr. Harris’s congressional Representative is a Democrat, Congresswoman Marcia 

Fudge, but she is not the candidate of his choice. She is too far to the left, and she 

opposes Fast Track Authority and free trade generally. Free trade is extremely important 

to Mr. Harris. He is pro-business, and Congresswoman Fudge’s views in these areas do 

not align with his. On social issues, they agree more. 

280. According to Mr. Harris, Congresswoman Fudge is “from a far more liberal wing 

of the party that does not reflect local values, which is going to be what happens when 

you’re in a firm, reliably blue district.” 

281. Mr. Harris testified that Cleveland’s economy is not the same as Akron’s 

economy; that the current congressional map forces two very different communities into 

the same congressional district. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 66 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19618
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

40 

282. Mr. Harris’s Democratic friends are discouraged from voting because there is no 

meaningful choice in the 11th District. 

283. Mr. Dagres testified that he is injured by the current congressional map because 

the way that the 12th District was drawn dilutes his vote, and his voice. His district is 

cracked. His vote, and the votes of other Democrats in his district, is “watered down.” 

284. The systematic drawing of the district lines in the current map “took chunks, large 

chunks of Franklin County out of the 12th District and added additional voters in 

Muskingum, Richland, Morrow, and (another one).” 

285. Democrats are “not heard” in Mr. Dagres’s district. The district’s previous, longtime Congressman, a Republican, “would not hold any public forums, [and] would not 

respond oftentimes to requests from the public to be heard.” 

286. Mr. Dagres talks “to other voters through the community who say that why should 

they vote when their votes don’t matter, when there’s no opportunity for success.” 

287. Mr. Dagres was the President of the Licking County Democratic Club PAC from 

January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019, and he is a Central and Executive Committee 

member of the official party within Licking County. 

288. As such, Mr. Dagres has tried to recruit candidates to run for office, but due to the 

nature of the district, “people do not see running as a legitimate opportunity for them 

because they feel the race is not winnable or competitive. It makes it very difficult to 

recruit candidates to run,” including “highly qualified individuals who would do a 

superb job if elected to their roles who are unwilling to come forward and put 

themselves out there knowing that there is no opportunity for them to win.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 67 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19619
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

41 

289. Mr. Dagres knows specific individuals who did not run because the race is not 

winnable because of the way the district is drawn. 

290. It is also hard to raise funds or gain financial support for Democratic candidates in 

District 12 because of the perception that “it is unwinnable so why should I donate.” 

291. Dr. Myer lives at in the 13th District, where Democratic voters are packed under 

the current map, and her vote is diluted. 

292. In Dr. Myer’s experience talking to voters and prospective voters in her area, the 

gerrymandered map has made people less likely to engage with her efforts because they 

feel their votes do not matter. 

293. Dr. Myer feels that since her district spans such a large geographic area including 

Youngstown, Akron, and the rural northeast of the state, “people in this district aren’t 

necessarily interested in the same things or don’t have the same concerns.” 

294. Because Dr. Myer’s “district is one of the most crazy looking things you’ve ever 

seen crawling across the map towards the west and a little stripe to pick up Akron” 

where voters “don’t have the same concerns as people in my area” she feels her 

representative cannot respond to her concerns.. 

295. Because Democrats are packed into her district, in Dr. Myer’s experience, Tim 

Ryan is less responsive to what even Democratic voters want because he knows he will 

always be re-elected. 

296. Dr. Myer feels that in the Thirteenth District her vote is less valuable because “to 

put all the Democrats, as you well know, together, you know, it dilutes any power of our 

influence because we’re all lumped together.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 68 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19620
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

42 

297. Ms. Hutton lives in the Fourteenth District which is cracked under the 

congressional map, and her vote is diluted. 

298. Ms. Hutton contacted Representative Joyce’s office within the past 5 years, likely 

related to a gun issue. She received a form letter in response. She has not contacted his 

office since because she knows “how he’s going to vote.” 

299. Ms. Hutton testified that the way the challenged map is drawn burdens her ability 

to associate and participate in the political process with other Democratic voters in the 

state of Ohio. 

300. Ms. Hutton testified that the current congressional map made it more difficult for 

her to elect her candidate of choice. 

301. Ms. Thobaben lives in the 15th District, where Democratic voters are cracked 

under the current map, and her vote is diluted. 

302. Ms. Thobaben testified that “a lot of people that I have talked to” say they feel 

like “the probability of Democrats being able to get through any of their candidates is 

pretty remote” and that their votes do not count. This has made it more difficult to 

canvass for and elect Democratic candidates. 

303. Ms. Thobaben testified that “[my] vote doesn’t count because the district has been 

drawn in such a way that it dilutes my vote . . . It doesn’t matter if I vote for Democrats. 

They don’t count.” 

304. Ms. Thobaben does not “feel represented by Steve Stivers . . . he rarely comes to 

Clinton County.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 69 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19621
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

43 

305. Ms. Thobaben contacts her Congressman often using emails, texts, and she also 

“ha[s] him on speed dial.” But she has either received no response or only form 

responses. 

306. Ms. Rubin lives in the 16th District, where Democratic voters are cracked under 

the current map. Due to the way her district is drawn, Ms. Ruben’s vote is diluted. 

307. Ms. Rubin is injured by the current congressional map because, as a Democrat in 

District 16, she has “no influence whatsoever on how (her) congressman votes or even 

considers (her) point of view.” 

308. The current congressional map divides Stark County up into three different 

districts. Ms. Rubin’s political advocacy activity is burdened because, due to this 

gerrymandered district, most voters she asks “do not know who their congressman is.” 

When she attempts to help them determine this, it is difficult because “the boundaries on 

that [congressional] map do not adhere to political boundaries.” 

309. Ms. Rubin’s advocacy activities are also affected by the fact that Democrats can’t 

win in District 16: “Voters who continually vote for candidates who never win 

eventually get discouraged and stop participating.” 

310. Ms. Rubin has a “difficult time finding candidates who are willing to run in 

districts whose outcome is preconceived. Elections cost a lot of money and a lot of time, 

and it’s hard to find people principled enough to run if they know their possibility of loss 

is a hundred percent.” And it’s hard for her party to raise money or advocate effectively. 

311. Ms. Rubin has no opportunity to influence how her Congressperson votes on 

legislation because he “knows he does not owe his allegiance to the voters; he only owes 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 70 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19622
APPENDIX B: Plaintiffs’ Contested Facts 

44 

it to the party who helped put him there and who drew the district lines to assure that he 

would win.” 

312. Ms. Rubin’s Congressman will not participate in public forums. He only meets 

with business owners and employees of a business. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 71 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19623
APPENDIX C

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 72 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19624
APPENDIX C

PLAINTIFFS’ LIST OF CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW

1. Elements:

a. Are partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable?

b. What are the elements of partisan gerrymandering claims under the First 

Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 

right to vote guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article 

I, § 4?

c. What standard applies to the parties’ relative burdens of proof?

2. Discriminatory Intent:

a. What if any discriminatory intent must be shown to sustain a claim that 

partisan gerrymandering violates the First Amendment, the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to vote guaranteed by the First 

and Fourteenth Amendments, or Article I, § 4?

3. Discriminatory Effect:

a. What if any discriminatory effect must be shown to sustain a claim that a 

redistricting scheme violates the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to vote guaranteed by the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments, or Article I, § 4?

4. Justification:

a. What facts if any would justify a partisan gerrymander?

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 73 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19625
APPENDIX D

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 74 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19626
APPENDIX D

DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’

LIST OF CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT

1. That any Plaintiff lives in a “packed” or “cracked” district.

2. That the 2012 Plan has placed a burden on any Plaintiff’s right to vote.

3. That the 2012 Plan has diluted the vote of any Plaintiff.

4. That any Plaintiff lacks an equal or fair opportunity to elect the Congressperson of 

their choice.

5. That any Plaintiff lacks an equal or fair opportunity to meaningfully influence 

congressional elections.

6. That any Plaintiff has been prohibited from meaningfully participating in the political 

process.

7. That any Plaintiff has been inhibited by the 2012 Plan in voting, volunteering for any 

candidate, fundraising, donating to a candidate, engaging others to vote, or otherwise 

participating in electioneering activities, etc.

8. That the 2012 Plan is unconstitutionally biased in favor of the Republican Party.

9. That the 2012 Plan was designed to create a 12 to 4 Republican advantage.

10.That there was a plan to consider drawing a map with a 13-3 Republican advantage.

11.That any version of the map had to be approved by any national Republicans.

12.That any particular district was drawn with the intent to make it a Republican District 

or a Democratic District.

13.That Redmap had any involvement or impact on Ohio’s congressional redistricting in 

2011.

14.How any political indices impacted the drawing of the congressional lines in 2011.

15.What role politics played in the drawing of the congressional lines in 2011.

16.That Democratic Party legislators, constituents, or representatives lacked political 

leverage in the redistricting process.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 75 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19627
APPENDIX D

17.That any partisan tilt or so-called “bias” in the 2012 Plan is the result, solely or 

otherwise, of partisan intent.

18.That any partisan tilt or so-called “bias” in the 2012 Plan is the result of anything 

other than geography and legitimate redistricting factors.

19.That any measure Plaintiffs provide of measuring partisan tilt or so-called “bias” is 

reliable, accurate, or meaningful.

20.That the 2012 Plan is unfair as measured by any manageable standards of assessing 

fairness.

21.That the 2012 Plan can be considered too partisan under any manageable standard 

when the legislature intended to pair two sets of Democratic and two sets of 

Republican incumbents.

22.That the 2012 Plan can be considered too partisan under any manageable standard 

when a majority of Democratic members of the legislature voted for it.

23.That the 2012 Plan can be considered too partisan under any manageable standard 

when the legislature intended to protect Democratic incumbents along with 

Republican incumbents.

24.That the 2012 Plan can be considered too partisan under any manageable standard 

when the legislature chose not to attempt to create a 13-3 Republican advantage, 

which was possible.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 76 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19628
APPENDIX E

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 77 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19629
APPENDIX E

DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’

LIST OF CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW

1. Do Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted?

2. Are Plaintiffs’ claims justiciable?

3. Do the allegations by Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint demonstrate only 

generalized grievances about legislative decisions?

4. Do Plaintiffs lack standing?

5. Should Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and laches?

6. Should Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed and/or the relief sought in the Second

Amended Complaint be denied under Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)?

7. Do Plaintiffs fail to identify a manageable standard for determining a Constitutional 

violation?

8. Do Plaintiffs’ gerrymandering theories fail to constitute evidence of individualized 

injury under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, or Article I of the United 

States Constitution?

9. Does the 2012 Plan violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment of the United 

States Constitution?

10.Does the 2012 Plan violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution?

11.Does the 2012 Plan violate Plaintiffs rights under Article I of the United States 

Constitution?

12.Has any Plaintiff demonstrated an injury under the 2012 Plan?

13.Is any injury demonstrated by Plaintiffs fairly traceable to the 2012 Plan?

14.Is any injury demonstrated by Plaintiffs redressable?

15.Is any injury demonstrated by Plaintiffs redressable by Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial 

Plan?

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 78 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19630
APPENDIX E

16.Have Plaintiffs submitted or defined a judicially manageable standard to assess 

whether the 2012 Plan violates the United States Constitution?

17.Did the overwhelming bipartisan support for the 2012 Plan violate the United States 

Constitution?

18.If Plaintiffs have submitted or defined a judicially manageable standard to assess 

whether the 2012 Plan violates the United States Constitution, then does the 2012 

Plan violate any such standard in light of the overwhelming bipartisan legislative 

support for the Plan and the numerous nonpartisan factors that influenced individual 

districts in the 2012 Plan?

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 79 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19631
APPENDIX F

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 80 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19632
APPENDIX F

PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES

Plaintiffs’ Opening 20 minutes

Defendants’ / Intervenors’ Opening 20 minutes

Plaintiffs’ Direct Examinations: 1075 minutes

Douglas Burks 30 minutes

Aaron Dagres 30 minutes

John Fitzpatrick 30 minutes

Rep. Marcia Fudge 30 minutes

Christopher Glassburn 120 minutes

Mark Griffiths 30 minutes

Jennifer Miller 40 minutes

Elizabeth Myer 30 minutes

Nathaniel Simon 30 minutes

Nina Turner 30 minutes

Andre Washington 30 minutes

Stephanie White 30 minutes

Dr. Wendy Cho 180 minutes

William S. Cooper 120 minutes

Dr. Lisa Handley 45 minutes

Dr. David Niven 90 minutes

Dr. Christopher Warshaw 180 minutes

Plaintiffs’ Cross Examinations: 825 minutes

Plaintiffs’ Reserved Rebuttal: 180 minutes

Defendants’ / Intervenors’ Time: 1480 minutes

Total Time: 3600 minutes = 60 hours

1. Douglas J. Burks

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Burks will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011

congressional map on himself.

2. Aaron Dagres

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Dagres will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011 

congressional map on himself.

3. John Fitzpatrick

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Fitzpatrick will provide testimony as to the impact of the 

2011 congressional map on himself.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 81 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19633
APPENDIX F

4. U.S. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge

Plaintiffs anticipate that Congresswoman Fudge will provide testimony about the 

treatment of the Eleventh Congressional District in the 2011 redistricting. On February 

25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Offer Trial Testimony of

Congresswoman Fudge in Open Court by Live Videoconference. (Doc. 232).

5. Christopher Glassburn

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Glassburn will provide testimony about the negotiations 

between Democrats and Republicans regarding H.B. 369.

6. Mark John Griffiths

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Griffiths will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011 

congressional map on himself.

7. Jen Miller

Plaintiffs anticipate that Ms. Miller will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011

congressional map on the League of Women Voters of Ohio and its Democratic 

members.

8. Elizabeth Myer

Plaintiffs anticipate that Dr. Myer will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011 

congressional map on herself.

9. Nathaniel Simon

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Simon will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011

congressional map on the Hamilton County Young Democrats and its Democratic 

members.

10. Nina Turner

Plaintiffs anticipate that Ms. Turner will provide testimony about the negotiations 

between Democrats and Republicans regarding H.B. 369.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 82 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19634
APPENDIX F

11. Andre Washington

Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Washington will provide testimony as to the impact of the 

2011 congressional map on the Ohio A. Phillip Randolph Institute and its Democratic 

members.

12. Stephanie White

Plaintiffs anticipate that Ms. White will provide testimony as to the impact of the 2011 

congressional map on herself.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 83 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19635
APPENDIX G

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 84 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19636
APPENDIX G

DEFENDANTS’ WITNESSES

Witness Name Witness Type Estimated 

Minutes Direct

Def/Int'v

Estimate of 

Plaintiffs'

Minutes Cross

B. Batchelder Defendant Fact 90 60

J. Boehner Intervenor Fact 60 40

R. DiRossi Defendant Fact 150 120

T. Judy Defendant Fact 60 40

M. Hood Defendant Expert 150 120

D. Johnson Defendant Expert 90 60

S. Trende Defendant Expert 90 65

J. Thornton Defendant Expert 120 90

T. Brunell Intervenor Expert 90 60

1. Honorable William Batchelder

Mr. Batchelder was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives from 2006 to 2015. 

Mr. Batchelder may be called to provide testimony regarding the 2011 Ohio 

congressional redistricting process and his involvement regarding the same.

2. Ray DiRossi

Mr. DiRossi was retained by the Ohio General Assembly as a consultant by the 

Republican members of the Task Force to assist in redrawing the Ohio congressional map 

in 2011. Mr. DiRossi may be called to provide testimony regarding the 2011 Ohio 

congressional redistricting process and his involvement regarding the same, as well as his 

prior involvement in the 2001 Ohio congressional redistricting process.

3. Troy Judy

Mr. Judy served as the Chief of Staff of the Ohio House of Representatives from 2009 to 

2014. Mr. Judy may be called to provide testimony regarding the 2011 Ohio 

congressional redistricting process and his involvement regarding the same. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 85 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19637
APPENDIX H

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 86 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19638
APPENDIX H

INTERVENORS’ WITNESS

Witness Name Witness Type Estimated 

Minutes Direct

Def/Int'v

Estimate of 

Plaintiffs'

Minutes Cross

B. Batchelder Defendant Fact 90 60

J. Boehner Intervenor Fact 60 40

R. DiRossi Defendant Fact 150 120

T. Judy Defendant Fact 60 40

M. Hood Defendant Expert 150 120

D. Johnson Defendant Expert 90 60

S. Trende Defendant Expert 90 65

J. Thornton Defendant Expert 120 90

T. Brunell Intervenor Expert 90 60

1. Honorable John Boehner

Mr. Boehner was the U.S. representative for Ohio’s 8th congressional district from 1991 

to 2015 and served as the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 

2015. Mr. Boehner may be called to testify regarding the 2011 Ohio congressional 

redistricting process and his involvement regarding the same.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 87 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19639
APPENDIX I

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 88 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19640
APPENDIX I

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WITNESSES

1. Dr. Wendy K. Tam Cho

Dr. Cho will testify concerning her simulated map analysis of Ohio’s congressional 

districts.

2. Mr. William S. Cooper

Mr. Cooper will testify to the remedial and hypothetical maps for Ohio’s congressional 

districts.

3. Dr. Lisa Handley

Dr. Handley will testify to the Voting Right Act (VRA) analysis she did for Ohio’s 

congressional district that includes Cuyahoga County

4. Dr. David Niven

Dr. Niven will testify to the analysis he did of Ohio’s congressional boundaries.

5. Dr. Christopher Warshaw

Dr. Warshaw will testify to the partisan bias and responsiveness of Ohio’s congressional 

districts. He will further testify to the effects that gerrymandering has representation in 

Congress.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 89 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19641
APPENDIX J

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 90 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19642
APPENDIX J

DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT WITNESSES

1. Dr. M.V. (Trey) Hood III

Dr. Hood will provide testimony as disclosed in his initial and supplemental reports.

2. Dr. Douglas Johnson

Dr. Johnson will provide expert testimony as disclosed in his report.

3. Dr. Janet Thornton

Dr. Thornton will provide testimony as disclosed in her report.

4. Mr. Sean P. Trende

Mr. Trende will provide expert testimony as disclosed in his report.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 91 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19643
APPENDIX K

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 92 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19644
APPENDIX K

INTERVENORS’ EXPERT WITNESS

1. Dr. Thomas Brunell

Dr. Brunell will provide expert testimony as disclosed in his report.

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 93 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19645
APPENDIX L

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 94 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19646
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P001 9/14/2011 Email from M. Dittoe to T. Judy, M. Lenzo, and C. Hawley, 

subject FW: Media Gaggle 9/14

LWV

P002 12/15/2011 Email from H. Mann to P. Halle, RE: RE: SP003 11/3/2011 Email from H. Mann to H. Pelger, subject FW: New 

Congressional Districts

S

P004 7/23/2016 C. Bensen Curriculum Vitae (Dkt. 59-2) BP005 2010 Presentation, "Election Data for Redistricting" LEP006 10/4/2011 Invoice for POLIDATA LLC BP007 2/16/2012 Invoice for POLIDATA LLC BeP008 6/1/2011 Email from M. Braden to C. Bensen, subject FW: BRP009 8/10/2011 Email from C. Bensen to H. Mann, M. Lenzo, and M. Thomas, 

subject RE:

JU

P010 8/11/2011 Email from C. Bensen to H. Mann, M. Braden, subject Re: (Case 

34304) Export equivalency file (6143525819)

P011 8/15/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, T. Horgan, Maptitude 

Technical Support, subject FW: TEST of Congressional districts as DBF

Be

P012 9/16/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, (no subject) BP013 7/10/2011 Email from C. Bensen to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, et al., subject 

Ohio Apportionment and Redistricting political data

Be

P014 7/22/2011 Example of Calculations for Election Averages EA11 to EA16 BeP015 7/22/2011 [Metadata] Example of Calculations for Election Averages 

EA11 to EA16

Bense

P016 10/4/2018 Screenshot of Polidata folder BL

Po

P017 10/4/2018 Screenshot of Polidata > Clark 07-24-11 folder BLESSING0

07-

P018 7/24/2011 Maptitude screenshot, Map1 - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) BLESSING0

07-2

1 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 95 of 147 PAG

 19647
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P019 9/14/2011 Chart, District/Pop BENSE

dvw_aggs

sep1

P020 Example of Calculations for Election Averages EA11 to EA16 BeP021 7/24/2011 Maptitude screenshot, Map1 - 2010 Final Counties (Ohio) BLESSING0

07-24

P022 9/14/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, (no subject) BP023 9/2/2011 Email from A. Kincaid to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, and T. Whatman, 

subject New Idea Redraft

LWV

P024 10/26/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, subject FW: Ohio

Congressional District Shapefile

Be

P025 11/9/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, subject test of indexes BeP026 Chart, District Indexes B

P027 Chart, District Indexes BP028 12/14/2011 Chart, District Indexes B

dvw_agg

h

P029 12/15/2011 Measures of Compactness B

[mtr_comp

e

P030 12/15/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, subject RE: BeP031 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 as passed Test 2 BENSEN_

Shape File

P032 7/15/2011 Email from M. Braden to M. Salling, H. Mann, C. Bensen, et al., 

subject RE: conference call

BR

P033 12/15/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, (no subject) BP034 12/15/2011 Email from H. Mann to C. Bensen, (no subject) B

2 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 96 of 147 PAG

 19648
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P035 8/29/2011 Email from H. Mann to B. Hansen, subject Out of Office: 

Weekly Redistricting Meeting

P036 8/3/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Policy Widgets, LLC

LWV

P037 7/5/2011 Email from V. Flasher to R. DiRossi and J. Licursi, subject Re: 

Time sensitive issue for OHROC/RSCC - Apportionment data

Bl

P038 7/5/2011 Email from J. Licursi to V. Flasher, R. DiRossi, et al., subject Re: 

Time sensitive issue for OHROC/RSCC - Apportionment data

Bl

P039 7/10/2011 Email from C. Bensen to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, et al., subject RE: 

Ohio Apportionment and Redistricting political data

Bl

P040 Final political index used DIRP041 Chart, District Indexes B

P042 Chart, District Indexes BP043 Screenshot of documents in BLESSING0012635 folder BP044 10/28/2009 Subcontract between Cleveland State University and Ohio 

University

LE

P045 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio)

BLESSIN

Revised 

P046 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 16)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P047 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 1)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P048 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 2)

BLESSIN

Revised De

3 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 97 of 147 PAG

 19649
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P049 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 3)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P050 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 4)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P051 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 5)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P052 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 6)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P053 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 7)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P054 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 8)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P055 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 9)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P056 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 10)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P057 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 11)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P058 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 12)

BLESSIN

Revised De

4 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 98 of 147 PAG

 19650
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P059 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 13)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P060 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 14)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P061 Maptitude screenshot, HB 369 Map Revised December 

14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 15)

BLESSIN

Revised De

P062 Screenshot of documents in Polidata > Clark 07-24-11 folder BLESSING0P063 Maptitude screenshot, Map 1 - 2010 Final Census Blocks 

(dataview Block 4015)

BLESSING0

07-24-1

P064 Ohio House Republican Caucus, William G. Batchelder, Speaker

- Map Talking Points

S

P065 5/12/2011 Discussion Points for Mark Braden Meetings LW

P066 6/2/2011 Proposed Agenda for Mark Branden Visit LWP067 Script & Agenda for Thursday, June 2 Meetings LWV

P068 7/5/2011 Email from K. Rench to B. Hansen and H. Mann, subject RE: 

redistricting meetings

HA

P069 7/1/2011 Email from H. Mann to R. DiRossi, M. Lenzo, et al., subject 

Weekly Reidstricting Meetings

P070 6/1/2011 Memorandum from H. Mann to W. Batchelder, et al., subject 

Proposed schedule for Congressional redistricting hearings

SE

P071 7/15/2011 Wyndham Cleveland at Playhouse Square, Group Rooming List LWP072 9/14/2011 Email from H. Mann to J. Renacci, subject Numbers LW

P073 Turner-Austria Option Talking Points LW

5 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 99 of 147 PAG

 19651
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P074 11/2/2009 Memorandum from Mark Salling to Ohio Legislative Task on 

Redistricting Reapportionment and Demographic Research and the Ohio Legislative Services Commission, subject Status of Development of 2011 Redistricting Database

B

P075 6/6/2011 Memorandum from Mark Salling to Ohio Legislative Task on 

Redistricting Reapportionment and Demographic Research and the Ohio Legislative Services Commission, subject Status of Development of 2011 Redistricting Database

BR

P076 9/2/2011 Email from A. Kincaid to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, T. Whatman, 

subject New Idea Redraft

LWV

P077 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes P078 Chart, Ohio Changes P079 Chart, Ohio Changes P080 11/1/2011 Email from H. Mann to R. DiRossi, M. Lenzo and T. Judy, 

subject I2:0901-0130-map0.pdf

LW

P081 Chart/Map - District/Member LWVOH_0P082 Chart, CD 9 Ideas P083 11/3/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to M. Braden, subject Re: Updated Fact 

Sheet

BR

P084 11/2/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to M. Braden, subject Congressional 

Index comparison

P085 9/21/2011 Email from S. Chabot to S. Towns, subject Re: Update... CP086 Cho CV P087 10/18/2018 Cho Initial Expert Report P088 11/26/2018 Cho Rebuttal Report P089 10/18/2018 Cho source code [confidential under protective order] Cho Depo 

p

P090 10/5/2018 Cooper Declaration, Initial Report C

P091 11/30/2018 Cooper Declaration Errrata and Exhibits C

6 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 100 of 147 PAG

 19652
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P092 11/26/2018 Cooper Supplemental Declaration and Exhibits C

P093 11/27/2018 Cooper Second Supplemental Declaration CP094 10/5/2018 Subpoena to Testify (Ray DiRossi) DP095 6/15/2018 Subpoena to Produce Documents (Ray DiRossi) DP096 10/7/2011 Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting, Letter from J. 

Slagle to R. DiRossi and H. Mann, subject Transparency Report; Public Records Request

LWV

P097 5/12/2011 Discussion Points for Mark Braden Meetings LW

P098 5/31/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice REDISTRICTING: SOFTWARE DEMO - 

MAPTITUDE

D

P099 6/16/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice CONFIRMED: LEGISLATIVE TASK 

FORCE ON REDISTRICTING

D

P100 7/5/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice CONFIRMED: President Niehaus call 

with Congressman LaTourette

D

P101 7/1/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to H. Mann, subject Re: HOLD for 

redistricting software training

LW

P102 8/1/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Capital Advantage, LLC

LWV

P103 8/4/2011 Termination Agreement DP104 7/7/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject 2:45 p.m. CONFIRMED: 

REDISTRICTING TRAINING

D

P105 7/8/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: 

REDISTRICTING TRAINING

D

P106 7/7/2011 Redistricting Meetings Agenda LWVP107 5/1/2010 Slide from presentation, "Drawing the Lines" DiP108 8/30/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meet with 

Tom Whatman - DC

D

P109 7/12/2011 Double Tree Guest Suites Invoice LWP110 9/15/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meet with 

Niehaus at Bunker

D

P111 8/4/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to C. Morefield and H. Mann, subject Re: 

Plotter

Di

7 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 101 of 147 PAG

 19653
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P112 11/15/2011 2011 Political Indexes DIRP113 11/15/2011 Chart, The State Indexes DP114 Congressional map drawing contest - winning maps DIR

P115 Chart, HB319 Indexes DP116 Chart, HB319 Indexes DP117 9/26/2011 Bill Signings: HB 218 & HB 319 GOP118 9/2/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meet with 

Leadership on Redistricting Bill

D

P119 9/2/2011 Email from A. Kincaid to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, T. Whatman, 

subject New Idea Redraft

LWV

P120 9/5/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meet with 

Speaker and others re: Redistricting

D

P121 9/6/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meet with 

President Niehaus re: Apportionment and Redistricting

D

P122 9/8/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Senate 

Leadership Meeting

D

P123 9/9/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Senate 

Leadership Meeting

D

P124 9/10/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to K. Faber, subject (no subject) LW

P125 9/11/2011 Email from T. Niehaus to R. DiRossi, subject Redistricting 

"tweaks"

LW

P126 9/12/2011 Emails from R. DiRossi to T. Niehaus, subject Proposed map for 

LSC

LWV

P127 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Whatman, subject Stivers maps LWP128 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to A. Kincaid, subject Ohio final map with 

possible Stivers addition

LWV

P129 9/12/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Meeting at 

bunker about rollout

D

P130 9/14/2011 Email from H. Mann to R. DiRossi, subject Numbers LW

P131 12/15/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to H. Pelger, subject Re: RE: S

8 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 102 of 147 PAG

 19654
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P132 11/2/2011 R. DiRossi meeting notice, subject CONFIRMED: Brief 

Leadersheip on Congressional Maps

D

P133 Political Indexes - Proposed Congressional Districts DP134 11/2/2011 Chart, The State Indexes DP135 11/10/2011 Chart, Plan Comparison DP136 7/14/2011 Email from J. McClelland to L. Obhof, subject Niehaus Names 

Members to Senate Select Committee on Redistricting 

SE

P137 7/15/2011 Email from E. Bittner to L. Obhof, subject FW: Senate Select 

Committee on Redistricting

SE

P138 9/21/2011 Transcript, Ohio State Senate Session FP139 12/14/2011 Transcript, Ohio State Senate Session FP140 8/10/2011 2010 Ohio Common and Unified Redistricting Database, 

Technical Documentation Version 3, prepared for The Legislative Services Committee of the Ohio General Assembly by Dr. Mark Salling

C

P141 11/2/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to C, Glassburn and A. Budish, subject 

Re: counter - Draft Presentation, attaching presentation, "Redistricting Discussion"

SMC-KM-0

P142 Major Map Files from 2010-2011 CP143 Metadata and list of files produced in Memorex USB\Offers 

folder in Glassburn Production

Gla

P144 Maptitude screenshot, 319 original.map - Block Split - Block - 

Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 1)

GLA

P145 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 16)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P146 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 1)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

9 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 103 of 147 PAG

 19655
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P147 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview 

District 2)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P148 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 3)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P149 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 4)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P150 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 5)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P151 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 6)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P152 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 7)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P153 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 8)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P154 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 9)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P155 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 10)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P156 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 11)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

10 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 104 of 147 PAG

 19656
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P157 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview 

District 12)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P158 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 13)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P159 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 14)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P160 Maptitude screenshot, OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map - 

Block Split - Block - Block Group - Tract - BOE County (dataview District 15)

GLASSBUR

ADOPTE

P161 2010-2011 11-4 Identified P162 2010-2011 11-4-11 Identified P163 2010-2011 11-08-11 Mod Identified P164 2010-2011 11-08-11 retry Identified P165 2010-2011 11-8-11 R Mod Identified P166 2010-2011 319 Identified P167 2010-2011 319 Original Identified P168 2010-2011 369 dec 14 Identified P169 2010-2011 CongDraft Identified P170 2010-2011 CongressDraft Identified 

11 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 105 of 147 PAG

 19657
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P171 2010-2011 My Ohio Congressional Draft Identified P172 2010-2011 My Ohio Congressional Identified P173 2010-2011 Dem Congress 2 (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified P174 2010-2011 Dem Congress 3 (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified P175 2010-2011 Dem Congress 4 (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified P176 2010-2011 Dem Congress 5 (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified 

P177 2010-2011 Dem Congress Nov (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified P178 2010-2011 Dem Congress 1 (Dem Congress Proposal10182011) Identified P179 2010-2011 DemCounterDATA_NOV1_2011 Identified P180 2010-2011 DemCounterDATA_NOV1_2011_HUFF Identified P181 2010-2011 Congress646 Identified P182 2010-2011 Counter 2 Identified P183 2010-2011 Huffman R Cong Identified P184 2010-2011 Huffman Sykes Identified P185 2010-2011 Huffsykes Identified P186 2010-2011 New District 16 Identified 

12 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 106 of 147 PAG

 19658
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P187 2010-2011 Balanced Plan Identified 

P188 2010-2011 Balanced Plan 1 Identified P189 2010-2011 DemBalanced Identified P190 2010-2011 Nov 1 Counter Identified P191 2010-2011 Nov 4 2011 Identified P192 2010-2011 Nov 18 Identified P193 2010-2011 11-5 Identified P194 2010-2011 11-6 Identified P195 2010-2011 Nov 18 D Identified P196 2010-2011 Nov 2 Identified P197 2010-2011 Nov 3 Identified P198 2010-2011 Nov 8 Identified P199 2010-2011 OH_CD_Current Identified P200 2010-2011 OH_CD_Empty Identified P201 2010-2011 OH_CD_Political_EastToEast Identified P202 2010-2011 OH_CD_Political_Empty Identified 

13 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 107 of 147 PAG

 19659
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P203 2010-2011 OH_CD_Political_Training110805 Identified 

P204 2010-2011 OH_CD_Political_VRA2CD11 Identified P205 2010-2011 OH_CD_Training110805 Identified P206 2010-2011 R First Offer Identified P207 2010-2011 RandallCongressa Identified P208 2010-2011 Rep Congress Final Identified P209 2010-2011 Rep Congress Final2 Identified P210 2010-2011 Rep Congress Final3 Identified P211 2010-2011 Republican Congress Identified P212 2010-2011 Republican Offer_Nov1_2011 Identified P213 2010-2011 Republican New Identified P214 2010-2011 Republican New1 Identified P215 2010-2011 RepublicanNewDATA Identified P216 2010-2011 RepublicanNewDATA_NOV_1_2011 Identified P217 2010-2011 RepublicanNewDATA_NOV1 Identified P218 2010-2011 RepublicanNewDATA_NOV1_2011 Identified 

14 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 108 of 147 PAG

 19660
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P219 2010-2011 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN EQUIVALENCY FILE Identified 

P220 2010-2011 OFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL Identified P221 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\Memorex USB\Offers

Identified 

P222 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response

Identified 

P223 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Democratic Responses

Identified 

P224 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Democratic Responses\Nov 18 Files (DEM)

Identified 

P225 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Democratic Responses\Nov 2 Files

Identified 

P226 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Democratic Responses\Nov 5 Files

Identified 

P227 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Democratic Responses\Nov 6 Files

Identified 

P228 11/29/2018 Directory of Y: \OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

,production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 18

Identified 

15 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 109 of 147 PAG

 19661
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P229 11/29/2018 Directory of Y: \OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 18\NOV 18

Identified 

P230 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 18\Nov 18 D Backups

Identified 

P231 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 2

Identified 

P232 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 2\NOV1_2011REVISI0N 

(sent nov2)

Identified 

P233 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 2\NOV1_2011REVISION (sent nov2)\Nov 2 D Backups

Identified 

P234 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 5

Identified 

P235 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 5\11-5

Identified 

P236 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 5\Nov 5 Backups

Identified 

P237 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 6

Identified 

16 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 110 of 147 PAG

 19662
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P238 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 6\11-6

Identified 

P239 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Democratic Response\Nov 6\Nov 6 Backups

Identified 

P240 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans

Identified 

P241 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 18

Identified 

P242 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 18\Nov 18 Backups

Identified 

P243 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 18\Nov Modified (minus Renacci)

Identified 

P244 11/29/2018 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 3

Identified 

P245 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 3\Nov 3 Backups

Identified 

P246 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 3\NOV MODIFIED

Identified 

P247 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 8

Identified 

17 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 111 of 147 PAG

 19663
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P248 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 8\2011-11-08 REVISIONS TO MAP

Identified 

P249 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Nov 8\Nov 8 Backups

Identified 

P250 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Republican Plans

Identified 

P251 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Republican Plans\Nov 18 Files

Identified 

P252 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Republican Plans\Nov 3 Files

Identified 

P253 Directory of Y:\OPRI\20181129_Glassburn 

Production\Files\MemorexUSB\Offers\Republican Plans\Republican Plans\Nov 8 Files

Identified 

P254 10/5/2018 Handley Initial Expert Report Ha

P255 7/15/2018 Email from B. Hansen to C. Sulecki, subject FWD: did you 

attend

HA

P256 12/17/2018 "Trying to Thread the Needle: The Effects of Redistricting in a 

Georgia Congressional District" by Hood and McKee

H

P257 12/17/2018 Political Subdivision Split Between Districts Data H

P258 12/17/2018 "Unwelcome Constituents: Redistricting and Countervailing 

Partisan Tides" by Hood and McKee

H

P259 12/17/2018 "Partisan Classification of Ohio's Congressional Districts, 2012" 

Indexes

H

18 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 112 of 147 PAG

 19664
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P260 12/17/2018 "Partisan Classification of Ohio's Congressional Districts, 2012" 

With Races

H

P261 12/17/2018 Ohio House Republican Caucus "How the Problem Started" MCGP262 12/17/2018 "Partisan Classification of Ohio's Congressional Districts, 2012" 

with Unified Index

H

P263 12/17/2018 "Races Used in Hood Ohio Partisan Distribution Figures" HP264 12/17/2018 "2014 Statewide Races" in Hood Figure 7 HP265 12/17/2018 2002 Races by County HP266 11/12/2018 rdcy_OH_2002_2010_2x.DBF PrevioP267 11/12/2018 rdst_OH_2002_2010_2x.DBF PrevioP268 11/12/2018 VTD 2004-2010.xls PrevioP269 11/12/2018 VTD 2012-2016.xls PrevioP270 7/15/2011 Email from A. Meden to GOP_All and Dem_All, subject House 

Subcommittee on Redistricting Regional Hearings Announcement

H

P271 9/15/2011 Transcript, Ohio House Session HuP272 9/8/2011 Email from A. Meden to Undisclosed recipients, subject State 

Government & Elections Committee Notice

G

P273 9/13/2011 Announcment of Committee Meeting HuP274 9/13/2011 Announcment of Committee Meeting HuP275 9/21/2011 Transcript, Ohio State House Session HuP276 11/3/2011 Transcript of Video Recorded Session, Ohio House of 

Representatives

Hu

P277 12/14/2011 Rules and Reference Committee Minutes HuP278 H.B. 369, Rep. Matt Huffman, Sponsor Testimony Hu

P279 4/8/2010 RSLC Announces Leadership Additions, Jankowski and Fehrer 

to Further Strengthen RSLC Team

R

P280 6/15/2010 Email from C. Jankowski to T. Reynolds and E. Gillespie, subject 

REDMAP Political Report Draft

P281 6/1/2010 REDMAP Political Report: June 2010 RP282 7/1/2010 REDMAP Political Report: July 2010 R

19 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 113 of 147 PAG

 19665
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P283 9/1/2010 REDMAP Political Report: September 2010 RP284 9/21/2010 REDMAP September Political Report, Breakfast Briefing, 

Washington, DC

P285 Redistricting Majority Project REDMAP: A program of the 

Republican State Leadership Committee

R

P286 Draft Memorandum from C. Jankowski, subject RSLC 

Redistricting

P287 Draft Letter from JCJ Email Text P288 Letter from C. Jankowski to Legislative Leaders JanP289 3/30/2011 Appointment Record, subject Meeting with Tom Hofeller, Dale 

Oldham & Mike Wild, Organizer: Scott Ward

P290 2012 Spreadsheet, 2012 Cycle Redistricting Budget P291 2/29/2012 Letter from C. Jankowski to T. Hofeller re termination of 

agreement between SGLF and Geographic Strategies LLC

P292 1/27/2012 SGLF Request for Payment with Invoice attached SP293 1/3/2013 Memorandum from C. Jankowski to Interested Parties, subject 

REDMAP Impact on Today's House GOP Majority

RS

P294 Mailer from Congressman Bill Johnson, Ohio Leadership 

Briefing

JO

P295 11/16/2010 Email from M. Weaver to B. Johnson, subject Redistricting JOP296 4/25/2011 Email from M. Smullen to B. Johnson, P. Hashem, M. Weaver, 

M. Van Blargan, and D. Locke, subject redistricting / fundraising talking point

JO

P297 8/1/2011 Memorandum from Communications Counsel, Inc., M. Weaver 

and M. Dole, to the Johnson For Congress Team, subject Political budget 2012

P298 7/14/2011 Email from M. Smullen to B. Johnson, subject Redistricting JOP299 7/18/2011 Email from M. Weaver to B. Johnson, subject Tom Niehaus JO

20 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 114 of 147 PAG

 19666
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P300 2012 NRCC Presentation, "Redistricting, Strengthening the Majority 

in 2012"

P301 Excel spreadsheet from Douglas Johnson D. JoP302 8/18/2011 Email from J. McNulty to J. Jordan, R. Yonkura, subject 8/18 

AUGLAIZE FR BRIEFING

JO

P303 8/15/2011 Email from J. McNulty to J. Jordan, subject 8/15 MORROW 

BRIEFING

JO

P304 7/28/2011 Email from M. Smullen to B. Johnson, M. Weaver and P. 

Hashem, subject Dispatch article

JOH

P305 7/15/2018 Email from B. Hansen to C. Sulecki, subject Fwd: did you 

attend

HA

P306 8/1/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Capital Advantage, LLC

LWV

P307 8/3/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Policy Widgets, LLC

LWV

P308 7/11/2011 Email from H. Mann to T. Judy, R. DiRossi, et al., subject 

Congressional Redistricting Regional Hearing Schedule

G

P309 7/20/2011 Congressional redistricting timeline LW

P310 2012 NRCC Presentation, "Path to Victory and National Mood" P311 5/19/2011 Chart, District 12 Indices 

P312 5/19/2011 [Metadata] Chart, District 12 Indices TIBER

P313 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes P314 3/31/2011 [Metadata] Chart, Ohio Changes NRCP315 9/2/2011 Email from A. Kincaid to R. DiRossi, H. Mann, T. Whatman, 

subject New Idea Redraft

LWV

P316 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes P317 3/31/2011 [Metadata] Chart, Ohio Changes BRADP318 3/31/2011 Screenshot of Excel Formula for Average from Chart, Ohio 

Changes

BRADEN0

P319 11/19/2018 Ohio Map, District 9 P320 11/19/2018 [Metadata] Ohio Map, District 9 BRADP321 Ohio Map, District 11 

21 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 115 of 147 PAG

 19667
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P322 [Metadata] Ohio Map, District 11 BRADP323 Ohio Map, Hamilton County 

P324 [Metadata] Ohio Map, Hamilton County BRAD

P325 Ohio Map, Northeast P326 [Metadata] Ohio Map, Northeast BRADP327 Ohio Map P328 [Metadata] Ohio Map BRADP329 Chart, District Indices LW

P330 Chart, Ohio Changes LWP331 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes LWP332 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to A. Kincaid, subject Ohio final map with 

possible Stivers addition

LWV

P333 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes P334 3/31/2011 [Metadata] Chart, Ohio Changes NRCP335 10/3/2011 Chart, HB319 Indexes DP336 Maptitude screenshot, 10-27-11 Adam New Map.map - 2010 

Final Census Blocks (Ohio)

BLESSING0

P337 11/2/2011 Chart, The State Indexes DP338 11/5/2011 Chart, HB369/HB319 BLP339 10/19/2011 Chart, HB319 P340 10/19/2011 Chart, HB319 Excel Formula for Average NRCC00

P341 11/2/2011 Chart, HB319 Indexes DP342 Subpoena to Produce Documents (Michael Lenzo) LP343 7/29/2011 Email from M. Lenzo to M.Hardenbrook, J. Barron, H. Mann 

and M. Grodhaus, subject Apportionment Board Records Officer

LW

P344 10/7/2011 Letter from J. Slagle to R.DiRossi and H. Mann re Transparency 

Report; Public Records Request

L WV

P345 11/21/2011 Letter from M. Lenzo to J. Slagle LWVP346 Presentation, "Drawing the Lines" LEP347 1/12/2011 Letter from T. Hofeller to Colleague L

22 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 116 of 147 PAG

 19668
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P348 5/12/2010 PowerPoint Presentation, GOP Redistricting Conference, 

Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act, Presentation by Marguerite Mary Leoni

LE

P349 2011 2011 RNC Redistricting Legal and Technical Reference 

Materials

LE

P350 Twelve Points of Redistricting Awareness LEN

P351 9/28/2010 Presentation, "What I've Learned About Redistricting - The 

Hard Way!"

LE

P352 9/1/2011 Email from H. Mann to R. DiRossi , M. Lenzo, and T. Judy, 

subject FW: I2-0901-0130-map0.pdf

LW

P353 map Bates stamped LWVOH_00018251 LWP354 Compromise Proposal to Draw Fair Congressional Districts SMP355 11/3/2011 Email from S. Bender to K. McCarthy, subject RE: final release SMP356 11/30/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to M. Szollosi, subject Talking Points 

for Blade

SM

P357 12/22/2011 Email from R. Routt to G. Boas and A. Hoyt, subject HB 

369/HB319 Statistical comparison

S

P358 Chart, HB319 and HB369 Comparison SP359 12/12/2011 Ohio Redistricting Transparency Report, The Elephant In the 

Room 

LWV

P360 Presentation, "Ohio Redistricting Competition" LWP361 Ohio's Gerrymandering Problem: Why Haven't We Fixed this 

Yet?

LW

P362 5/4/2017 Proposal from J. Morgan to K. Barlow to provide the City of 

Placentia with map drawing services for redistricting new council districts, and J. Morgan Curriculum Vitae

M

P363 7/7/2011 Redistricting Meetings Agenda LWVP364 7/31/2011 Invoice for Applied Research Coordinates Ltd MP365 8/31/2011 Invoice for Applied Research Coordinates Ltd MP366 9/29/2011 Invoice for Applied Research Coordinates Ltd M

23 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 117 of 147 PAG

 19669
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P367 8/17/2018 Screenshot of Morgan document production folder M

Produc

P368 8/17/2018 Screenshot of Morgan document production ccBlock_oh_r07 

folder

Morgan D

Typ

P369 8/17/2018 Maptitude screenshot, Map1 - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) MO

2018>ccB

P370 Presentation, "Drawing the lines" LEP371 12/4/2011 Email from Jenna Mann to Bob Latta, subject 12.14.11-

Proposed Congressional Map

P372 6/26/2011 Email exchange between Jim Renacci and Tom Whatman, 

subject Ohio

R

P373 12/3/201 Email from Jim Renacci to James Slepian and Katelyn Barlage, 

subject I have an idea

R

P374 3/17/2011 Email exchange between Jim Renacci and James Slepian, no 

subject

RE

P375 7/8/2011 Email exchange betweeen Thomas Queen and Jim Renacci, 

subject Obhof

R

P376 11/13/2011 Email exchange between James Slepian and Jim Renacci, 

subject Google Alert - jim renacci

R

P377 3/4/2011 Email exchange between Jim Renacci, James Slepian and 

Katelyn Barlage, no subject

RE

P378 8/11/2011 Email from Mike Turner to Peggy Lehner and Ryan Dwyer, 

subject Montgomery Co TPs, enclosing Montgomery County Redistricting TPs

TU

P379 3/20/2011 Email exchange between Betsy Hawkings, Mike Turner, Adam 

Murka and Ryan Dwyer, subject redistricting meeting followup

T

P380 9/9/2011 Email from Mike Turner to scl@mail.house.gov, subject 

Redistricting

T

24 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 118 of 147 PAG

 19670
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P381 2/9/2011 Email exchange between Betsy Hawkings, Nick Raines and 

Mike Turner, et al., subject Ohio Chiefs lunch today

T

P382 4/29/2011 Email exchange between Betsy Hawkings and Mike Turner, 

subject Redistricting scuttlebutt

T

P383 9/2/2011 Map file, "Four-Way Split 9-2-11.map" BLESSI

Maptitud

Fou

P384 9/30/2010 Calendar entries for September 1, 2010 to September 30, 

2010

BO

P385 9/13/2011 Email from Heather Mann to Michael Lenzo, subject 

Congressional Redistricting Talking Points, enclosing "Congressional Redistricting Talking Points"

LW

P386 Assignment letter from Mike DeWine and Michael Hall to 

Mark A. Johnson, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, enclosing retention agreement

P387 8/29/2018 Affidavit of Non-Party Thomas B. Whatman in support of his 

Assertion of First Amendment Privilege

P388 12/14/2011 Transcript, Ohio State House SessionP389 House Bill # Rep. Matt Huffman, Sponsor Testimony 

P390 9/22/2010 REV_000

P391 REV_000P392 2010 REV_000

P393 9/6/2011 REV_0002P394 9/8/2011 REV_000

P395 9/23/2010 REV_000

25 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 119 of 147 PAG

 19671
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P396 9/29/2010 REV_000

P397 9/15/2011 REV_000

P398 12/14/2011 REV_000P399 12/14/2011 REV_000P400 10/27/2011 REV_0002

P401 10/21/2011 REV_000

P402 10/31/2011 REV_00023P403 REV_0002

P404 REV_00023P405 "319" Map Files [Glassburn Volume I Production] Glassbu

P406 "OFICIAL 269 ADOPTED FINAL" Map Files [Glassburn Volume I 

Production]

Glassbu

P407 9/9/2011 Email from T. Judy to H. Mann, Fwd: Talking Points LW

P408 4/19/2012 REV_000

P409 12/15/2011 REV_000P410 9/16/2011 REV_000

26 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 120 of 147 PAG

 19672
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P411 9/26/2011 REV_000

P412 4/25/2012 REV_000

P413 4/19/2012 REV_000

P414 2/6/2012 REV_000P415 2018 LWVO Agenda for Action 2017-2019 LWV

P416 2017 LWVO Agenda for Action 2016-2018 LWV

P417 10/2/2018 Chart, LWVO Active Members for State L

P418 6/30/2018 Chart, LWVO Balance Sheet and Statement of Equity L

P419 7/19/2011 OCAR Press Release, "Redistricting Competition Begins Today" LW

P420 2018 APRI Trumbull County Membership List O

P421 8/11/2011 Email from Mark Salling to John Barron, et al., subject June 

(and early July) 2011 Redistricting Database progress report, enclosing July-early August progress report

BR

P422 10/22/2011 Email exchange between Mark Salling and John Barron, et al., 

subject September 2011 Redistricting Database project 

progress report

S

P423 7/15/2011 Email from Mark Salling to Heather Mann, Mark Braden, Clark 

Bensen, Mike Lenzo, and Ray DiRossi, subject conference call, attaching census_versus_boe_MCDPlace_population_MS.xls

BR

P424 8/8/2011 Email exchange between Mike Lenzo, Clark Bensen, Troy Judy, 

Ray DiRossi and Heather Mann, subject Redistricting database

JU

27 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 121 of 147 PAG

 19673
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P425 4/26/2018 Video, https://www.cityclub.org/forums/2018/04/26/ohioballot-beat-the-bipartisan-congressional-redistricting-reformamendment-issue-1 MP426 12/28/2018 Cho Supplemental Expert Report 

P427 20/20/2018 Cho Errata P428 11/11/2016 A Massively Parallel Evolutionary Markov Chain Monte Carlo 

Algorithm for Sampling Complicated Multimodal State Spaces. Wendy Tam Cho & Yan Y. Liu. SC18: The International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis

P429 9/15/2018 Sampling from Complicated and Unknown Distributions: 

Monte Carlo and Markov Cain Monte Carlo Methods for Redistricting. Wendy Tam Cho & Yan Y. Liu. Physica A 506:170–178. 

P430 2018 Cain, Bruce E., Wendy K. Tam Cho, Yan Y. Liu and Emily Zhang. 

2018. "A Reasonable Bias Method for Redistricting: A New Tool for an Old Problem." William & Mary Law Review 59(5):1521-1557.

P431 2017 Cho, Wendy K. Tam. 2017. "Measuring Partisan Fairness: How 

well does the Efficiency Gap Guard Against Sophisticated as well as Simple-Minded Modes of Partisan Discrimination?" University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 166.

P432 2018 Cho, Wendy K. Tam. 2018. "Algorithms Can Foster a More 

Democratic Society." Nature 558:487.

P433 2001 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Albert H. Yoon. 2001. "Strange 

Bedfellows: Politics, Courts, and Statistics: Statistical Expert Testimony in Voting Rights Cases." Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 10(2):237-264.

28 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 122 of 147 PAG

 19674
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P434 2005 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Albert H. Yoon. 2005. "Panethnicity 

Revisited: Asian Indians, Asian American Politics, and the Voting Rights Act." UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal 10:8-30.

P435 2015 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Yan Y. Liu. 2015. A High-Performance 

Approach for Solution Space Traversal in Combinatorial Optimization. SC15: The International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.

P436 2016 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Yan Y. Liu. 2016a. A Scalable 

Evolutionary Algorithm with Intensification and Diversification

Protocols Designed for Statistical Models. SC16: The International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.

P437 12/1/2016 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Yan Y. Liu. 2016b. "Toward a

Talismanic Redistricting Tool: A Fully Balanced Computational Method for Identifying Extreme Redistricting Plans." Election. Law Journal 15(4):351-366

P438 2017 Cho, Wendy K. Tam and Yan Y. Liu. 2017. Massively Parallel 

Evolutionary Computation for Empowering Electoral Reform: Quantifying Gerrymandering via Multi-objective Optimization and Statistical Analysis. SC17: The International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.

P439 2012 King, Douglas M., Sheldon H. Jacobson, Edward C. Sewell and 

Wendy K. Tam Cho. 2012. "GeoGraphs: An Efficient Model for Enforcing Contiguity and Hole Constraints in Planar Graph Partitioning." Operations Research 60(5):1213-1228.

29 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 123 of 147 PAG

 19675
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P440 2018 Liu, Yan Y. and Wendy K. Tam Cho. 2018. "Spatially Explicit 

Evolutionary Computation for Largescale Spatial Optimization." Technical Report.

P441 7/28/2015 Liu, Yan Y., Wendy K. Tam Cho and Shaowen Wang. 2015. A 

Scalable Computational Approach to Political Redistricting Optimization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment. XSEDE15: Scientific Advancements Enabled by Enhanced Cyberinfrastructure St. Louis, MO: pp. 6:1--6:2.

P442 4/4/2016 Liu, Yan Y., Wendy K. Tam Cho and Shaowen Wang. 2016. 

"PEAR: A Massively Parallel Evolutionary Computation Approach for Political Redistricting Optimization and Analysis." Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 30:78-92.

P443 6/1/1973 Tufte, Edward R. 1973. “The Relationship between Seats and 

Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67(2):540–554.

P444 10/18/2018 oh_presc2 P445 10/18/2018 cg1216.csv PrevioP446 10/18/2018 com08.r PrevioP447 10/18/2018 plaintiffs.r PrevioP448 10/18/2018 run0.txt – run63.txt PrevioP449 11/26/2018 dat12.txt P450 11/26/2018 rebuttal.r P451 12/28/2018 com.r PrevioP452 12/28/2018 dat18.txt PrevioP453 12/28/2018 pdat.txt PrevioP454 10/5/2018 Cooper Initial Expert Report Appendix 

P455 9/28/2018 PROPOSED_REMEDIAL_PLAN.DBF P456 10/5/2018 Cooper Report Appendix.pdf COP457 10/5/2018 OCURD_data(m.salling@csuohio.edu).zip C

30 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 124 of 147 PAG

 19676
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P458 10/5/2018 OCURD_documentation(m.salling@csuohio.edu).zip C

P459 10/5/2018 OCURD_shapes(m.salling@csuohio.edu).zip CP460 10/5/2018 OH.dbf CP461 10/5/2018 OH.prj C

P462 10/5/2018 OH.shp CP463 10/5/2018 OH.shx C

P464 10/5/2018 2010_VTDS_2012_2014_2016 election_data.xlsx CP465 11/27/2018 2011_Incumbent_addresses_11_27.zip C

P466 11/27/2018 HYPO1A.dbf C

P467 11/27/2018 HYPO2A.dbf C

P468 11/30/2018 2018-11-30 Incumbent Addresses PreviouP469 11/30/2018 Nov30.DBF Previou

P470 12/28/2018 2018_DATA.DBF Previou

P471 12/28/2018 New Incumbent address.xlsx Previou

P472 10/5/2018 OH data.sav 

P473 11/12/2018 Effgaps2.csv excel PreviouP474 10/5/2018 "USHouse_Data_updated.RData" W

P475 10/5/2018 "declination_data" W

P476 12/28/2018 Warshaw Supplemental Report ("An Evaluation of the Partisan 

Bias in Ohio’s 2011 Congressional Plan and its Effects on Representation: Updated based on 2018 Elections")

Previous

P477 8/14/2012 REV_000

P478 9/15/2011 REV_000

P479 4/19/2012 REV_000

P480 12/20/2011 REV_000

P481 7/26/2018 REV_000

31 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 125 of 147 PAG

 19677
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P482 12/20/2011 REV_000

P483 7/26/2018 REV_000

P484 12/20/2011 REV_000

P485 7/26/2018 REV_000

P486 11/6/2011 REV_000

P487 9/9/2011 REV_000P488 9/9/2011 REV_000P489 9/9/2011 REV_000P490 9/9/2011 REV_000

P491 9/9/2011 REV_000P492 9/9/2011 REV_000P493 9/9/2011 REV_000P494 9/9/2011 REV_000P495 9/9/2011 REV_000P496 9/22/2011 REV_000

32 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 126 of 147 PAG

 19678
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P497 12/14/2011 REV_000

P498 12/14/2011 REV_000P499 12/14/2011 REV_000

P500 9/16/2011 REV_000

P501 12/14/2011 REV_000P502 7/13/2011 Email from C. Boor to H. Mann, S. Marangoni and R. Kapala, 

subject Double Tree Suites Reservation

LW

P503 11/28/2011 Vouchers for payment for vendors Capital Advantage LLC and 

Policy Widgets LLC

LWV

P504 10/5/2018 analysis_ushouse.R WA

P505 10/5/2018 cces_OH.R WAP506 10/5/2018 cces2014_trustrep.r WAP507 10/5/2018 dataassembly_ushouse.R WAP508 10/5/2018 remedial_plan_analysis.R WAP509 11/26/2018 PrePost2011_Ohio.R WAP510 11/26/2018 rebuttal_competitiveness.R WAP511 11/26/2018 remedial_plan_analysis_imputations.R WAP512 12/28/2018 analysis_ushouse_2018.R PreviousP513 12/28/2018 dataassembly_ushouse_2018.R Previous

P514 12/28/2018 remedial_analysis_2018.R Previous

P515 8/1/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Capital Advantage, LLC

LWV

P516 8/3/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Policy Widgets, LLC

LWV

P517 9/11/2011 Email from C. Widener to T. Niehaus and M. Schuler, subject 

Fw: clark county

LW

33 of 38

CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 127 of 147 PAG

 19679
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P518 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Niehaus, subject Proposed map for 

LSC

LWV

P519 9/11/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Niehaus, subject Map 2 of 4 LW

P520 9/12/2011 Email from M. Schuler to H. Mann and T. Judy, (no subject) LWP521 9/20/2011 HB 318/HB 319 Senate Government Oversight & Reform

Committee File

Nie

P522 10/12/2011 Statement from Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted NieP523 12/14/2011 Transcript, Ohio State Senate Session NieP524 10/5/2018 Report of David Niven, Ph.D., "Dividing Neighbors and 

Diminishing Voices: An Analysis of Ohio's Congressional Districts"

N

P525 Oct. 2018 David Niven Curriculum Vitae N

P526 11/26/2018 Report of David Niven, Ph.D., "Response to Dr. Thornton and 

Dr. Brunell"

N

P527 9/20/2011 HB 318/HB 319 Senate Government Oversight & Reform

Committee File

O

P528 9/21/2011 Transcript, Ohio State Senate Session OP529 10/19/2011 Email from M. Rowe to A. Hoyt, R. Routt, et al., subject DRAFT 

COPY: Letter to Niehaus and Batchelder

S

P530 11/3/2011 Email from R. Routt to Senator Cafaro, et al., subject Re: 

Proposed Batchelder Maps and info, attaching maps

SM

P531 11/3/2011 Email from R. Routt to Senator Cafaro, et al., subject Re: 

Proposed Batchelder Maps and info, attaching maps

SM

P532 11/3/2011 Email from R. Routt to Senator Cafaro, et al., subject Re: 

Proposed Batchelder Maps and info, attaching maps

SM

P533 12/15/2011 Email from R. Routt to E.Stockhausen, subject RE: 11th 

Congressional District

S

P534 11/3/2011 Email from S. Cherry to R. Routt, subject Re: Redistricting Plan 

for LSC drafting

S

P535 10/28/2011 Email from R. Routt to E. Kearney, C. Tavares, et al., subject 

Proposed Republican draft concept map

S

34 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 128 of 147 PAG

 19680
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P536 12/22/2011 Email from R. Routt to G. Boas and A. Hoyt, subject HB 

369/HB319 Statistical comparison

P537 7/15/2018 Email from B. Hansen to C. Sulecki, subject Fwd: did you 

attend

HA

P538 5/12/2011 Discussion Points for Mark Braden Meetings LW

P539 Meeting Notice: "FW: Weekly Redistricting Meeting" P540 7/7/2011 Redistricting Meetings Agenda LWVP541 8/1/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Capital Advantage, LLC

LWV

P542 8/3/2011 Consulting Agreement between Republican Members of the 

Legislative Task Force and Policy Widgets, LLC

LWV

P543 8/16/2011 Email from Ray DiRossi to Matt Schuler, subject Tuesday at 

redistricting office

LW

P544 Maptitude screenshot, HB 319 As Enacted - Congressional 

Districts.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio)

BLESSIN

Enacted 

P545 Maptitude screenshot, HB 319 As Enacted - Congressional 

Districts.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks (Ohio) (dataview District 15)

BLESSIN

Enac

Dis

P546 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Niehaus, subject Proposed map for 

LSC

LWV

P547 2011 Ohio Redistricting Competition Rules and Scoring S

P548 Feb. 2012 Ohio Redistricting Transparency Report, The Elephant In the 

Room (2nd edition)

S

P549 11/17/2010 Email from A. Kuhn to S. Stivers forwarding email from D. 

DiSanto, subject Ohio Republican Delegation Meeting -- Thursday, Nov. 18

S

P550 1/8/2011 Email from K. Stivers to S. Stivers forwarding email exchange 

with J. Husted, subject line Congratulations

S

P551 3/22/2011 Email from M.B. Carozza to S. Stivers and A. Kuhn, subject 

Checking In

S

35 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 129 of 147 PAG

 19681
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P552 6/1/2011 Email from C. Whetstone to S. Stivers, M.B. Carozza and A. 

Kuhn, subject line redistricting

S

P553 8/15/2011 Email from L. Crotty to S. Stivers, M.B. Carozza, and A. Kuhn, 

subject For Approval: Fin Com Agenda, attaching Stivers August 16, 2011 Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

ST

P554 9/10/2011 Email exchange between S. Stivers, M.B. Carozza and A. Kuhn, 

subject line Checking In

ST

P555 12/7/2011 Email from L. Crotty to S. Stivers, subject Calls Today and 

Ingram Tracker, attaching Ingram 2012 Tracker spreadsheet

ST

P556 3/2/2012 Email exchange between S. Stivers, C, Whetstone and A. Kuhn 

forwarding email from A. Blake, subject line Redistricting

ST

P557 9/11/2011 Email exchange between M.B. Carozza, S. Stivers and A. Kuhn, 

subject line Checking In

ST

P558 9/15/2011 Transcript, Ohio House Session SzP559 Compromise Proposal to Draw Fair Congressional Districts SMP560 11/2/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to C. Glassburn and A. Budish, subject 

Re: counter - Draft Presentation, attaching presentation "Redistricting Discussions Nov. 2, 2011"

SMC-KM-0

P561 11/23/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to A. Budish, (no subject), attaching 

spreadsheet LWV and GOP Index Composite Scores

SMC-KM-0

P562 Presentation, "Summary of Compromise Efforts to Resolve 

Redistricting Impasse, Avoid Two Different Primary Elections and Save Taxpayers $15 million"

SM

P563 11/3/2011 Email from S. Bender to K. McCarthy, subject RE: final release SMP564 11/3/2011 Transcript of Video Recorded Session, Ohio House of 

Representatives

Sz

36 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 130 of 147 PAG

 19682
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P565 11/4/2011 Email from A. Budish to K. McCarthy, subject Fw: Frustration SzP566 11/15/2011 Email from D. Ramos to A. Budish, M. Szollosi, et al., subject 

Concerns about Redistricting

SMC-KM-0

P567 11/30/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to T. Heard, et al., subject Talking 

Points fro ^_Redistricting^_ Impasse

SM

P568 11/30/2011 Email from K. McCarthy to M. Szollos, subject Talking Points 

for Blade

SM

P569 12/4/2011 The Blade Editorial, "Crossing the lines" Sz

P570 12/18/2018 R-code TrP571 10/5/2018 Warshaw Report ("An Evaluation of the Partisan Bias in Ohio’s 

2011 Congressional Districting Plan and its Effects on Representation in Congress")

Wa

P572 11/26/2018 Warshaw Rebuttal Report ("An Evaluation of the Partisan Bias 

in Ohio’s 2011 Congressional Plan and its Effects on Representation: Rebuttal Report")

Wa

P573 2018 APRI Columbus Membership List O

P574 10/18/2014 APRI Dayton Membership List OA

P575 APRI Youngstown Membership List O

P576 2018 APRI Cleveland Membership List OA

P577 2/21/2018 APRI Akron/Canton Membership List OAP578 2018 APRI Toledo Membership List OP579 1/6/2011 Email from A. Washington to all APRI chapters, subject 2010 

labor/minority debriefing

OA

P580 9/2/2011 Email from A. Kincaid to R. DiRossi, H. Mann and T. Whatman, 

subject New Idea Redraft

LWV

P581 9/11/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Whatman, subject Widener 

proposal update

LWV

P582 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Whatman, subject Stivers Maps LWP583 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to T. Niehaus, subject Proposed map for 

LSC

LWV

37 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 131 of 147 PAG

 19683
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Householder, et al.

S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:18-cv-357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Plaintiffs' Ex. No. Date Description 

P584 9/11/2011 Email from T. Niehaus to T. Whatman, subject Redistricting 

"tweaks"

LW

P585 9/11/2011 Email from Chris Widener to President Niehaus and others re 

Clark County

LW

P586 Chart, Election Results (Breakdown in the districts between

Turner and Austria)

P587 9/12/2011 Email from R. DiRossi to A. Kincaid, subject Ohio final map with 

possible Stivers addition

LWV

P588 3/31/2011 Chart, Ohio Changes P589 District 16 maps P590 Chart, Ohio Changes P591 Colored Map with sixteen districts and counties 

P592 10/27/2011 Maptitude screenshot, 10-27-11 Adam New Map.map - 2010 

Final Census Blocks (Ohio)

BLESSING0

P593 Turner-Austria Option Talking Points LW

P594 Talking Points for Speaker Boehner 

P595 Spreadsheet with tables and column Turner/Austria L

P596 10/19/2011 Chart, HB319 P597 11/2/2011 Table HB 319 Unified Indexes/Proposal Unified Indexes D

P598 12/28/2018 Cooper Third Supplemental Declaration Previou

38 of 38

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 132 of 147 PAG

 19684
APPENDIX M

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 133 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19685
1

Appendix M

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, )

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, )

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE )

DEMOCRATS, NORTHEAST OHIO YOUNG )

BLACK DEMOCRATS, HAMILTON COUNTY )

YOUNG DEMOCRATS, LINDA GOLDENHAR, )

DOUGLAS BURKS, SARAH INSKEEP, )

CYNTHIA LIBSTER, KATHRYN DEITSCH, )

LUANN BOOTHE, MARK JOHN GRIFFITHS, )

LAWRENCE NADLER, CHITRA WALKER, )

TRISTAN RADER, RIA MEGNIN, ) No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB

ANDREW HARRIS, AARON DAGRES, )

ELIZABETH MYER,BETH HUTTON, ) Judge Timothy S. Black 

TERESA THOBABEN, ) Judge Karen Nelson Moore

and CONSTANCE RUBIN, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

RYAN SMITH, Speaker of the Ohio House )

of Representatives, LARRY OBHOF, )

President of the Ohio Senate, and )

JON HUSTED, Secretary of State of Ohio, )

in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

Trial Exhibit # Description Case/Deposition 

Reference

D1 Map of H.B. 369 Plan

D2 Map of H.B 319 Plan

D3 Map of Enacted Congressional Plan Used in 2002 through 

2012 Election Cycles

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 134 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19686
2

D4 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2002 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2002-elections-results/

D5 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2004 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2004-elections-results/

D6 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2006 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2006-elections-results/

D7 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2008 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2008-election-results/

D8 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2010 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2010-elections-results/

D9 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2012 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2012-elections-results/

D10 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2014 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2014-elections-results/

D11 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2016 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2016-official-electionsresults/

D12 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for August 

8, 2018 Special Election for Congressional District 12

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2018-official-electionsresults/

D13 Official Secretary of State Election Return Data for 2018 

General Election (Statewide and Congressional Races)

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/ele

ctions/election-results-anddata/2018-official-electionsresults/

D14 9/15/2011 - Ohio House and Senate Session Transcripts 

(Parts 1 & 2) with Errata Sheet

D15 9/21/2011 - Ohio House Session Transcript with Errata 

Sheet

D16 9/21/2011 - Ohio Senate Session Transcript with Errata 

Sheet

D17 11/3/2011 - Ohio House Session Transcript with Errata 

Sheet

D18 12/14/2011 - Ohio House Session Transcript with Errata 

Sheet

D19 12/14/2011 - Ohio Senate Session Transcript with Errata 

Sheet

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 135 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19687
3

D20 Expert Report of M.V. Hood, III (11/12/2018) Hood Exhibit 1

D21 Supplemental Expert Report of M.V. Hood III 

(12/28/2018)

D22 Expert Report of Douglas Johnson, Ph.D. (11/10/2018) Johnson Exhibit 1

D23 Resume of Douglas Johnson, Ph.D. Johnson Exhibit 2

D24 Rebuttal Report of Janet R. Thornton, Ph.D. Thornton Exhibit 1

D25

Chart - "District/Plaintiff's Original Districts" Dr. Cho's 3+ 

Million Outcome for Plaintiffs Revised Districts, 

Percentage from 2008-2010 Statewide Elections

Thornton Exhibit 8

D26 Expert Report of Sean Trende (11/12/2018) Trende Exhibit 1

D27 Curriculum Vitae of Sean Trende Trende Exhibit 5

D28 2/12/2018 - E-mail from Brad Wenstrup to Burks, BatesStamped INDPLTS_0015960 Burks Exhibit 2

D29 3/7/2018 - E-mail from Douglas Burks to Rapach, Smith 

and Others, Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0015983 Burks Exhibit 3

D30 3/7/2018 - FCNL memo, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0015984-15985 Burks Exhibit 4

D31 8/23/2018 - E-mail from Douglas Burks to Wenstrup, 

Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0016034 Burks Exhibit 6

D32 2/28/2018 - E-mail from Douglas Burks to Rapach, BatesStamped INDPLTS_0016084 Burks Exhibit 9

D33 5/23/2018 - E-mail from Douglas Burks to Paul Moke, 

Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0016023-16025 Burks Exhibit 11

D34

5/23/2018 - E-mail from Douglas Burks to 

steve@careerfastrack.com, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0016093-16094

Burks Exhibit 12

D35 Address-searchable Google map of Ohio 2012 Plan Dagres Exhibit 2

D36 Address-searchable Google map of Ohio Proposed 

Remedial Plan Dagres Exhibit 4

D37 Comments from Aaron Dagres, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0013073 Dagres Exhibit 6

D38 7/14/2018 - E-Mail from Patrick Barnacle to Aaron 

Dagres, Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0002971-2995 Dagres Exhibit 14

D39

11/17/2016 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to Debbie 

Sneddon and others, Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0018871-

18874

Deitsch Exhibit 2

D40

10/31/2017 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to 

Rep48@ohiohouse.gov and Others, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0024143-24144

Deitsch Exhibit 6

D41

4/29/2018 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to 

newsroom@dailystandard.com, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0021432

Deitsch Exhibit 7

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 136 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19688
4

D42

5/25/2018 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to Catherine 

Turcer and others, Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0021536-

21537

Deitsch Exhibit 8

D43

8/31/2018 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to 

mrotondorn@yahoo.com, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0021692

Deitsch Exhibit 10

D44

5/30/2018 - E-mail from Kathy Deitsch to 

adkinsandaffilies@yahoo.com, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0022390-22391

Deitsch Exhibit 12

D45

1/24/2018 - M. Griffiths' Statement to Government 

Oversight and Reform Committee, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0000173

Griffiths Exhibit 4

D46

1/22/2018 - E-Mail from Megan Griffiths to Mark Griffiths 

Re: Draft Version of M. Griffiths' 1/4/2018 Statement to 

Government Oversight and Reform Committee, BatesStamped INDPLTS_0001279-1280

Griffiths Exhibit 5

D47 11/3/2017 - Letter to the Editor - Elyria Chronicle, BatesStamped INDPLTS_0001114 Griffiths Exhibit 6

D48 M. Griffiths' Notes Re: Mileage to representatives, BatesStamped INDPLTS_0000161-162 Griffiths Exhibit 7

D49 Lorain Chronicle Letter to the Editor "Gerrymandering 

Must be Stopped", Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0001116 Griffiths Exhibit 8

D50 Warbaugh Campaign - Tally Sheet- Ohio 7th County 

(Lorain), Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0003100-3103 Griffiths Exhibit 10

D51

5/29/2018 - E-Mail chain from Alison Ricker to Hutton 

regarding the lawsuit, Bates-Stamped INDPLTS_0026808-

26809

Hutton Exhibit 1

D52 Written Statement, Larry Nadler, Bates-Stamped 

INDPLTS_0002909 Nadler Exhibit 1

D53 Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition of League of Women Voters 

of Ohio Miller Exhibit 1

D54 Ohio Redistricting Transparency Report The Elephant in 

the Room, Bates-Stamped LWVOH_00018400-18421 Miller Exhibit 2

D55 Plaintiffs' Privilege Log Miller Exhibit 3

D56 Ohio redistricting reform history, Bates-Stamped 

LWVOH_0074306 Miller Exhibit 4

D57

11/26/2012 - Letter from Dina Schoomaker and Linda 

Slocum to William Batchelder and Vernon Sykes, BatesStamped LWVOH_0022920Miller Exhibit 5

D58 11/25/2014 - Press Release, A. Henkener, C. Turcer, 

Bates-Stamped LWVOH_0086183-86184 Miller Exhibit 6

D59

Plaintiffs' responses and objections to legislative 

defendants' first set of interrogatories and first set of 

requests for production of documents

Miller Exhibit 7

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 137 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19689
5

D60 4/30/2015 - E-mail chain from A. Henkener to C. Turcer, 

R. Gunther, Bates-Stamped LWVOH_0050826-50827 Miller Exhibit 8

D61 7/23/2015 - E-mail chain from A. Henkener to C. Davis, 

Bates-Stamped LWVOH_0050401-50404 Miller Exhibit 9

D62 PowerPoint- Ohio Redistricting Competition, BatesStamped LWVOH_0074117-74132 Miller Exhibit 10

D63

Brennan Center for Justice Don't Judge a Book by Its 

Cover Alone document, Bates-Stamped 

LWVOH_0044874-44875

Miller Exhibit 11

D64 Ohio redistricting competition rules and scoring 2011, 

Bates-Stamped LWVOH_0044516-44533 Miller Exhibit 12

D65 Document - Membership Surge Continues Statewide, 

Bates-Stamped LWVOH_0099889-99890 Miller Exhibit 13

D66

Individual independent contractor agreement between 

Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, Inc. and League 

of Women Voters of Ohio, Bates-Stamped 

LWVOH_0095013-95015

Miller Exhibit 17

D67 Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Ohio State University 

College Democrats Oberdorf Exhibit 1

D68 Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Ohio A. Philip Randolph 

Institute Washington Exhibit 1

D69 11/8/2011 - Election Campaign Report, Bates-Stamped 

OAPRI_0000047 Washington Exhibit 8

D70 APRI Columbus Chapter Monthly Report, Bates-Stamped 

OAPRI_0000049 Washington Exhibit 9

D71 Letter from David Morgan to the APRI State Educational 

Conference, Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000059 Washington Exhibit 10

D72 12/9/2011 - E-mail from Delores Freeman to Andre 

Washington, Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000066 Washington Exhibit 11

D73

Plaintiff Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute's responses and 

objections to legislative defendants' first set of 

interrogatories and first set of requests for production of 

documents

Washington Exhibit 12

D74 12/9/2011 - E-mail from Kimberly Daniels to Andre 

Washington, Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000031 Washington Exhibit 13

D75

Document - The Toledo Federation of Teachers Salutes 

the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, Bates-Stamped 

OAPRI_0000033

Washington Exhibit 14

D76 Letter from Andre Washington to sisters and brothers, 

Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000035-36 Washington Exhibit 15

D77 1/6/2011 - E-mail from Andre Washington to all APRI 

chapters, Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000067-68 Washington Exhibit 16

D78

A Philip Randolph Institute - People Get Ready: 2012 Is 

Coming, Our One Year Plan, Bates-Stamped 

OAPRI_0000128

Washington Exhibit 17

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 138 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19690
6

D79 Document - Youngstown APRI chapter, Bates-Stamped 

OAPRI_0000135 Washington Exhibit 18

D80 Ohio Unity 2018 black voter empowerment campaign, 

Bates-Stamped OAPRI_0000145 Washington Exhibit 19

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 139 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19691
APPENDIX N

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 140 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19692
Appendix N

Intervenors' Trial Exhibit List

Exhibit 

Number

Document Description Document Date Bates Number Deposition

Deposition 

Exhibit 

Number 

Objection

Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Curriculum Vitae Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 1

Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Expert Report (10/5/2018) October 5, 2018 Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 2

Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Rebuttal Expert Report (11/26/2018) November 26, 2018 Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 3

Confidential Source Code Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 4

10/12/18 - Letter from E. Zhang to P. Lewis, et al. Re: Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Smith October 12, 2018 Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 5

Dr. Cho's Run Output File Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Exhibit 6

Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D. Supplemental Expert Report (12.28.18) December 28, 2018

10/9/2018 - Letter from N. Subhedar to P. Lewis, et al. Re: Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Smith October 9, 2018

Native of Dr. Cho's Run Output File- File Name "run1.txt"

Errata to Wendy K. Tam Cho, Ph.D Expert Report (10/18/2018) October 18, 2018

Declaration of William S. Cooper (10/5/2018) (also Niven Exhibit 10) October 5, 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 1

Brennan Center for Justice Overview: Ohio Redistricting Reform Proposal February 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 2

Ohio U.S. House Zero Deviation 2012 Plan William S. Cooper Exhibit 3

Ohio U.S. House Proposed Remedial Plan William S. Cooper Exhibit 4

Exhibit A - Documents Re: William S. Cooper Declaration William S. Cooper Exhibit 5

Errata to Declaration of William S. Cooper (11/30/2018) November 30, 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 6

Ohio U.S. House Proposed Remedial Plan 11/30/2018 Mod November 30, 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 7

Supplemental Declaration of William S. Cooper (11/26/2018) November 26, 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 8

Second Supplemental Declaration of William S. Cooper (11/27/2018) November 27, 2018 William S. Cooper Exhibit 9

Ohio U.S. House Zero Deviation Hypothetical Plan 1A William S. Cooper Exhibit 10

Ohio U.S. House Zero Deviation Hypothetical Plan 2A William S. Cooper Exhibit 11

Demonstrative Re: 2012, 2014, 2016 AVG William S. Cooper Exhibit 12

Third Supplemental Declaration of William S. Cooper (12.28.18) December 28, 2018

Lisa Handley Expert Report (10/5/2018) October 5, 2018 Lisa Handley Exhibit 1

Lisa Handley Expert Report (U.S. v. City of Euclid) (2/1/2007) February 1, 2007 Lisa Handley Exhibit 2

Lisa Handley Rebuttal Expert Report (U.S. v. City of Euclid) (5/10/2007) May 10, 2007 Lisa Handley Exhibit 3

Lisa Handley Expert Report (U.S. v. Euclid City School District) (3/1/2009) March 1, 2009 Lisa Handley Exhibit 4

Lisa Handley Rebuttal Expert Report (U.S. v. Euclid City School District) (4/15/2009) "Declaration of Dr. Lisa 

R. Handley" April 15, 2009 Lisa Handley Exhibit 5

Analysis of 2009 Election for Euclid City School Board District Board of Education March 5, 2010 Lisa Handley Exhibit 6

Rebuttal to Engstrom Report (U.S. v. Euclid City School District) (7/22/2010) "Declaration of D. Lisa R. 

Handley" July 22, 2010 Lisa Handley Exhibit 7

2009 Paper - Legislative Studies Quarterly " Has the Voting Rights Act Outlived its Usefulness? In a Word, 

"No"" - by Lublin, Brunell, Grofman, Handley November 1, 2009 Lisa Handley Exhibit 8

David H. Niven, Ph.D. Report (10/5/2018) - Dividing Neighbors and Diminishing Voices: An Analysis of Ohio's 

Congressional Districts October 5, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 1

David H. Niven, Ph.D. Curriculum Vitae October 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 2

David H. Niven, Ph.D. Response to Thornton and Brunell (11/26/2018) November 26, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 3

Rebuttal Expert Report of Janet R. Thornton, Ph.D. (11/12/2018) November 12, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 5

Geographic Terms and Concepts - Census Tract [www.census.gov] December 18, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 6

Niven Save File Exports David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 7

Ohio Congressional District Map, 2002-2012 SOS 001054 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 8

Ohio Congressional District Map, 2012-2022 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 9

davidniven.com Website Printout December 18, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 11

HarperCollins Publishing Website - Printout Re: David Niven December 19, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 12

Niven Tweets, 12/12/2017 December 12, 2017 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 13

Niven Tweets, 11/16/2017 November 16, 2017 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 14

Niven Tweets, 3/6/2018 March 6, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 15

Niven Tweets, 11/14/2018 November 14, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 16

Niven Tweets, 6/13/2018 June 13, 2018 David Niven, Ph.D. Exhibit 17

Christopher Warshaw Expert Report (10/5/2018) "An Evaluation of the Partisan Bias in Ohio's 2011 

Congressional Districting Plan and its Effects on Representation in Congress" October 5, 2018 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 1

Figure 1 Ohio Partisan Distribution 2004 to 2010 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 2

Figure 7 Ohio Partisan Distribution 2012 to 2016 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 3

Essay by Wendy Cho "Measuring Partisan Fairness: How Well Does the Efficiency Gap Guard Against 

Sophisticated As Well As Simple Minded Modes of Partisan Discrimination" Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 4

Figure 5 Cleveland Area Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 5

Christopher Warshaw Rebuttal Report (11/26/2018) November 26, 2018 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 6

Christopher Warshaw Expert Report (11/27/2017) in League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 159 MM 2017 (Pa.) November 27, 2017 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 7

Christopher Warshaw Expert Report (6/1/2018) Michigan case in League of Women Voters of Michigan v. 

Johnson , No. 2:2017cv14148 (E.D. Mich.) June 1, 2018 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 8

2017 Article of Gregory Warrington "Quantifying gerrymandering using the vote distribution" (5/15/2017) May 15, 2017 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 9

U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call Votes 114th Congress - 1st Session (2015) November 29, 2018 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 10

VoteView.com - Lindsay Graham Entry Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 11

Pew Research Center Article "From the very start, sharp partisan divisions over Obamacare" (6/25/2015) June 25, 2015 Christopher Warshaw Exhibit 12

Christopher Warshaw Supplemental Expert Report (12.28.18) December 28, 2018

Expert Report of Thomas Brunell (11/12/2018) (also Niven Exhibit 4) November 12, 2018 Thomas Brunell Exhibit 1

July 20, 2011 Columbus Regional Hearing Testimony- File Name "2011-07-20 Columbus Regional Hearing 

Testimony.pdf" July 20, 2011 DIROSSI 0000151-201

House Bill 319 Rep. Matt Huffman Sponsor Testimony- File Name "2011-09-13 Huffman Sponsor 

Testimony.docx" LENZO_000041-42

H.B. 369 Rep. Matt Huffman Sponsor Testimony Matthew Huffman Exhibit 19

Ohio House Republican Caucus, How the Problem Started- File Name "MCGREGOR000001-

MCGREGOR000007.pdf" MCGREGOR000002-7 Troy Judy Exhibit 30

OHIO House of Representatives JOURNAL Thursday, September 15, 2011, available at 

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/HJ-09-15-11.pdf September 15, 2011

OHIO House of Representatives JOURNAL Wednesday, September 21, 2011, available at 

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/HJ-09-21-11.pdf September 21, 2011

OHIO House of Representatives JOURNAL CORRECTED VERSION Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 

available at http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/HJ-12-14-11.pdf December 14, 2011

OHIO SENATE JOURNAL Wednesday, September 21, 2011, available at 

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/SJ-09-21-11.pdf September 21, 2011

OHIO SENATE JOURNAL Wednesday, December 14, 2011, available at 

http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/JournalText129/SJ-12-14-11.pdf December 14, 2011

Screenshot of Original Map Produced in Maptitude [Original_CD01] and associated native files GLASSBURN 0020 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 21

Maptitude screenshot - HB 369 Map Revised December 14th.map - 2010 Final Census Blocks 

(Ohio)(Template) [Map Revised December 14th]_001 and associated native files BLESSING0012635 Heather Blessing Exhibit 13

Demonstrative Exhibit – Maptitude Comparison of 319 to 369

File Name “FINAL HB 319.map” and associated files BLESSING0000003170

File Name "HB 319 As Enacted - Congressional Districts.map" and associated files BLESSING0000008229

File Name “HB 369 as Enacted FINAL.map” and associated files BLESSING0000002450

File Name "HB 369 Map Revised December 14th.map" and associated files BLESSING0000007750

Christopher Glassburn Production: Memorex USB \ 319 Original.map

Christopher Glassburn Production: Memorex USB \ OFFICIAL 369 ADOPTED FINAL.map

Compromise Proposal to Draw Fair Congressional Districts SMC-KM-000363-372 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 5

11/2/2011 - E-Mail chain from McCarthy to Glassburn and Budish November 2, 2011 SMC-KM-000263, 409-413 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 6

11/23/2011 - E-Mail from McCarthy to Budish November 23, 2011 SMC-KM-000184, 167-168 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 8

PowerPoint - Summary of Compromise Efforts to Resolve Redistricting Impasse SMC-KM-000155-165 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 9

11/18/2011 - E-mail chain from McCarthy to Judy November 18, 2011 JUDY 0001655 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 18

12/3/2011 - E-Mail chain from Cherry to McCarthy, Hoyt and Others December 3, 2011 SMC-AH-000067-68 Matthew Szollosi Exhibit 22

7/11/2011 - E-Mail chain from Bonier to Routt, Burke, Hoyt July 11, 2011 SMC-RR-029803 Randall Routt Exhibit 3

7/15/2011 - E-Mail Routt to Hoyt July 15, 2011 SMC-RR-031375-31378 Randall Routt Exhibit 4

7/18/2011 - E-Mail chain from Smoot to Routt July 18, 2011 SMC-RR-029783 Randall Routt Exhibit 5

7/19/2011 - E-Mail chain from Routt to Hoyt July 19, 2011 SMC-RR-031366-31368 Randall Routt Exhibit 6

7/21/2011 - E-Mail chain from Peterson to Bonier, Routt, Burke and Hoyt July 21, 2011 SMC-RR-029095-29096 Randall Routt Exhibit 7

9/8/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to Pavan September 8, 2011 SMC-RR-028740-28742 Randall Routt Exhibit 9

11/17/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to McCarthy, Rowe and Cherry November 17, 2011 SMC-KM-000204, 146-147 Randall Routt Exhibit 12

10/31/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to Hoyt October 31, 2011 SMC-AH-000137-138 Randall Routt Exhibit 15

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 141 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19693
Appendix N

Intervenors' Trial Exhibit List

Exhibit 

Number

Document Description Document Date Bates Number Deposition

Deposition 

Exhibit 

Number 

Objection

11/1/2011 Maps, E-Mail, Spreadsheet November 1, 2011 SMC-RR-000447, 451, 452, 

10785, 28680, 28681 Randall Routt Exhibit 16

11/3/2011 - Email from Routt to Hoyt and Others November 3, 2011 SMC-AH-000267-000303 Randall Routt Exhibit 17

11/3/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to Hoyt and Others November 3, 2011 SMC-AH-000241-266 Randall Routt Exhibit 18

11/3/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to Hoyt and Others November 3, 2011 SMC-AH-000220-240 Randall Routt Exhibit 19

11/17/2011 - E-Mail from Hoyt to Routt and Others November 17, 2011 SMC-RR-028279-28280 Randall Routt Exhibit 20

12/9/2011 - E-Mail from Routt to Hoyt, Rowe December 9, 2011 SMC-AH-000437-438 Randall Routt Exhibit 21

12/14/2011 - Maps, E-Mail chain December 14, 2011 SMC-RR-016520, 16522, 

16673-16675 Randall Routt Exhibit 24

12/14/2011 - E-Mail chain from Routt to Peterson December 14, 2011 SMC-RR-028384-28385 Randall Routt Exhibit 25

12/22/2011 - E-Mail chain from Routt to Hoyt, Cherry, McCarthy December 22, 2011 SMC-AH-000341-346 Randall Routt Exhibit 27

OAKS Voucher Worksheet, FY 12, Voucher ID: 00004784 LENZO 0002404-2415 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 3

Overview, Objectives, Project Overview SMC-KM-000436-438 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 5

7/25/2011 - E-Mail chain from Glassburn to McCarthy and Cherry July 25, 2011 SMC-KM-000036 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 7

8/9/2011 - E-Mail from McCarthy to Budish and Cherry SMC-KM-000068 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 8

8/5/2011 - E-Mail from McCarthy to Hoyt SMC-KM-000067 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 9

10/16/2011 - E-Mail from Cherry to McCarthy and Brown October 16, 2011 SMC-KM-000226, 399 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 13

Compromise Proposal to Draw Fair Congressional Districts SMC-KM-000363-372 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 15

11/2/2011 - E-Mail from McCarthy to Glassburn and Budish November 2, 2011 SMC-KM-000263, 174-178 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 16

11/10/2011 - E-Mail from McCarthy to Glassburn November 10, 2011 SMC-KM-000195, 171-172 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 17

11/14/2011 - E-Mail from Glassburn to McCarthy November 14, 2011 SMC-KM-000291, 450, 331, 

332 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 18

PowerPoint - Summary of Compromise Efforts SMC-KM-000155-165 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 20

12/15/2011 - E-Mail chain from Routt to McCarthy and Hoyt December 15, 2011 SMC-AH-000335-336 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 24

7/16/2018 Letter to Ben Guess from K. McCarthy, Heather Taylor-Miesle July 16, 2018 Keary McCarthy Exhibit 25

7/5/2011 - E-Mail from Glassburn to M. Keary July 5, 2011 SMC-KM-000029-30 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 5

2010 Ohio Common and Unified Redistricting Database Technical Documentation, V3_08_10_2011.pdf CTRL0000012608 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 7

8/31/2011 - E-Mail from Glassburn to M. Keary, S. Cherry August 31, 2011 SMC-KM-000015-16 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 8

9/6/2011 - E-Mail chain from T. Borier to R. Routt, C. Glassburn and Others September 6, 2011 SMC-RR-0029994-29995 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 9

9/16/2011 - E-Mail from S. Cherry to Glassburn September 16, 2011 SMC-KM-000251-255, 484 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 11

Compromise Proposal to Draw Fair Congressional Districts SMC-KM-000363-372 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 12

11/2/2011 - E-Mail from K. McCarthy to Glassburn November 2, 2011 SMC-KM-000263, 409-413 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 13

Major Map Files from 2010-2011 CTRL0000011317 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 14

Listing of files produced in a folder called Memorex USB\Offers Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 15

Screenshot - Nov 2 Dmap - Block Split-Blcok-Block Group-Tract BOE County Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 16

11/10/2011 - E-Mail from K. McCarthy to Glassburn November 10, 2011 SMC-KM-000195, 171-172 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 17

11/14/2011 - E-Mail from Glassburn to K. McCarthy November 14, 2011 SMC-KM-000291, 450, 331-

332 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 18

Summary of Compromise Efforts to Resolve Redistricting Impasse... SMC-KM-000155-165 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 19

11/23/2011 - E-Mail from K. McCarthy to Glassburn November 23, 2011 SMC-KM-000278, 169 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 20

Screen Shot ADOPTED FINAL.map [OFFICIAL ADOPTED FINAL_CD16]_01-03 GLASSBURN 0051 Christopher Glassburn Exhibit 22

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 142 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19694
APPENDIX O

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 143 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19695
APPENDIX O

PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

1. William Batchelder

2. Clark Bensen

3. Heather Blessing

4. Luann Boothe

5. Mark Braden

6. Ray DiRossi

7. Keith Faber

8. Ann Henkener

9. Matthew Huffman

10. Sarah Inskeep

11. Gabrielle Jackson

12. Chris Jankowski

13. Rep. Bill Johnson

14. Rep. Jim Jordan

15. Troy Judy

16. Adam Kincaid

17. Michael Lenzo

18. Cynthia Libster

19. Keary McCarthy

20. John Morgan

21. Lawrence Nadler

22. Tom Niehaus

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 144 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19696
APPENDIX O

23. Alexis Oberdorf

24. Larry Obhof

25. Tristan Rader

26. Randall Routt

27. Constance Rubin

28. Matt Schuler

29. Jim Slagle

30. Rep. Steve Stivers

31. Teresa Anne Thobaben

32. Catherine Turcer

33. Chitra Walker

34. Tom Whatman

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 145 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19697
APPENDIX P

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 146 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19698
APPENDIX P

DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’ DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

1. Heather Blessing

2. Steve Chabot

3. Keith Faber

4. Christopher Glassburn

5. Matt Huffman

6. Bill Johnson

7. Jim Jordan

8. Mike Lenzo

9. Keary McCarthy

10. Tom Neihaus

11. Larry Obhof

12. Randall Routt

13. Matt Schuler

14. Steve Stivers

15. Matthew Szollosi

16. All Individual Plaintiffs and Rule 30(b)(6) Designees of Organizational Plaintiffs

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 234 Filed: 02/27/19 Page: 147 of 147 PAGEID #:

 19699