Filed D.C. Superior court Superior Court of the District of ColumiBia 2c CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET Valerie Graham, etal Case Number vs Date: _June 3, 2022 District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, et a1] One of the defendants is being sued in their official capacity Reps Relationship to Lawsuit tight J Atiomey for Pini Fim Nae He DERE Law Firm 1 sett ro Se) Tee AS RG UniFed Bar No Cotter Type OF CASE: 2S Nonsury TD 6 Person Jury 12 Person Jury Demand: § Tobe proven at al om PENDING CASE(S) RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case No Jide Calendar Case No Jog Calendar NATURE OF SUIT: __(Check One Box Only) A. CONTRACTS, COLLECTION CASES Dor Breach or con 1s Under $25,000 Pi Grants Consent [116 Under $25,000 Consent Denied loz Breach of Warranty 17 oVER $25,000 Pitt, Grants Consent] 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied 06 Negotiable Instrument 27 Insurance’Subrogation 126 InsurancerSuibrogation [io7 Personal Propeny (Over $25,000 Ph. Grants Consent ‘Over $25,040 Consent Denied [15 Empioyment Discrimination] 07 Insurance/Subrogation 34 Insurance/Subrogation [E15 Special Education Fees Under $25,000 PIE: Grants Consent Under $25,000 Consent Denied (228 Motion to Confirm Arbitration ‘Award (Collection Cases Only) B. PROPERTY TORTS Dor Awomeobite 10s Desirction of Private Property 1 05 Trespass Der Comersion os Propeny Damage [07 Shoplittin, D.C. Code § 27-102 a) C. PERSONAL TORTS 01 Abuse of Process 2 10 Invasion of Privacy C217 Personal Injury- (Not Automobile, [or alienation of Affection E}11 Libel and Slander Not Mapractie) [2203 Assault and Battery © 12 Malicious Interference TD tsWrongfal Death (Not Malpractice) [04 Attomobie- Personal Inury CI 13 Malicious Proseetion 19 Weongtal Eviction (2105 Deceit (Misrepresentation) — [] 14 Malpractice Legal (20 Friendly Suit [06 False Accusation CES suactis Motes isan Webon) E21 Asbestos (or False Arrest to Nealigence-(Not Autonbie, 5) 22 TosirMass Tons 08 Fraud Not Malpractice) (23 Tobacco [p24 Lead Pai SEEREVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE FUSED Ccv-t96igune 2015Information Sheet, Continued C. OTHERS Tot Accounting 117 Merit Personnel Act (OBA) 02 at. Before Indgment OC. Code Title 1, Chapter 6) Bos Ejectment 1 1s Product Liaitey Foe special Wriv Warrants (DC Code § 11-941) (1.24 Application 0 Confirm, Modif. 110 Tramme Adjudication ‘Vacate Arbitration Award (DC Code § 16-4401) Ci writ of Repievin 1 29 Merit Personnel Act (OFIR) EA rrenforce Mechanics Lien 2 31 Housing Code Regulations 16 Declaratory Judgment CO 206i Tam 33 Whistleblower Dos change of Name 1s itel of ttormation loo Foreign JudgmenvDomestic [2] 19 Enter Administrative Onder as los Foreign Jadgmeninternational Judgment (D.C, Code § LNs Conection of Binh Cenificate __ 2-1802.05 (h) oF 32-151 9a} 1514 Correction of Marriage © 20 Master Meter (D.C. Code § Ceniticae 42-3301, et seq) 26 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Vehicle) B 2rPesiion for Civil Asst Forfeiture (Cureney) 2s Pesiion for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Other) 121 Petition for Subpoena [Rule 284 (b)} 22 Release Mechanics Lien 2 Role 270001) (Perpetate Testimony) © 24 Petition for Structured Settlement 1 25 Petition for Liquidation D. REAL PROPERTY (109 Real Property-Real Estate oe Quiet Tite TB? Spovitic Performance (525 Ciens: Tax / Water Consent Granted [04 Condemnation eminst Domain) E130 Lets: Tas Water Consent Denied 1 10 Mortgage Foreclosure/Judicial Sale [C) 31 Tax Lien Bid Off Certificate Consent Gramted (511 Petition for Civil Asst Forfeiture (RP) June 3, 2022 Attorney's § nature (e496) Jane 2015 DateSuperior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 ‘Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Website: www.decourtsg0v ‘Case Number _ Office of Planning, Data Management Division Defendant SUMMONS To the above named Defendant. You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attomey, within twenty one (21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the plaintifY who is suing you. The attorney’s name and address appear below. If plaintifY has no attomey, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons, ‘You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW,, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m, and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within seven (7) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Christopher LaFon - 483740 Clerk of the Court ‘Name of PhiniifsAtomey——— 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 320 ‘Address ~ . Depmty Clerk Washington, DC 20036 202 - 686 - 7600 ‘Telepinone RETREAT 202) 870-4028 ‘euler appetar au (202) 678-4828 pour traduction BE co nti di, hay gol (202) 879-4828 ‘SH Beh OH, 202)879.4020m BEAM —eArTOT Hore aeTeT?: (202) 879-4928 2m IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER. YOU FANL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO. A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DO NOT Pall, TO. ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME, Ifyou wish fo talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer. promptly contact one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help oF come t0 Suite S000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish trastation ‘Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espaitol CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. 4can TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA COR DIVISION CIVIL ? Seccién de Acciones Civiles 00 Indiana Avenue, NW Suite $000, Washington, D.C. 20001 “Teléfono: (202) 879-1133 Sti webs wor decourts go8 Beniandante contra Numero de Caso: Demandado CITATORIO Al susodicho Demandado: Por Ia presente se le cits a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestacién a fa Demanda adjunta, sea en persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veintitin (21) dias contados después que usted haya recibido este itatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esti siendo demandado en calidad de oficial © agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica 0 del Gobiemo del Distrito. de Columbia, tiene usted sesenta (60) dias, contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacién, Tiene que enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacién al abogado de ta parte demandante, El nombre y direecién del abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si cl demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que cnviarle al demandante una copia de la Contestacidn por correo a la direccién que aparece en este Citatori, A usted también se le require presentar la Contestacién original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito on 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. entre las 8:30 am. y 5:00 pm., de lunes a viemnes o entre las 9:00 am, y las 12:00 del mediodia los sdbados. Usted pucde presentar la Contestacién original ante el Jucz ya sea antes que usted le entregue al demandante una copia de fa Contestacién o en el plazo de siete (7) dias de haberte hecho la entrega al demandante. Si usted ineumple con presentar una Contestacién, podria dietarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga eftctivo el desagravio que se busca on la demanda SECRETARIO DEI. TRIBUNAL Nombre del abogado del Demandante Por Direccion Subacaretao Feet Felfone SOARRRSE TAL (202) 879-4828 \Veuiler appelor au (202) 879-4628 pour une Wadution BE cd meh i, hay soi (202) 879-4828 ‘eigen gtHC207) 879-4828 SAIPAN SOME CAI" AMET (202) 879-4628 sates IMPORTANTE: SI_USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES MENCIONADO 0, SILUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL. JUZGADO, PODRIA DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS ¥ PERIUICIOS U OTRO DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRIA RETENERSELE SUS INGRESOS, 0 PODRIA TOMARSELE SUS BIENES PERSONALES O BIENES RAICES ¥ SER VENDIDOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Si USTED PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO_DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGIDO, Si desea conversar con un abogado y le parece que no puede pagarle a uno, lame promo a una de muestra oficinas del Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a la Oficina 5000 det 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.., pane informarse sobre otros lugares donde puede pedirayuda al Vea al dorso el original en inglés See reverse side for English original CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. R4Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 ‘Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Website: www.decourtsg0v Case Number _. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics Defendant SUMMONS To the above named Defendant. You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attomey, within twenty one (21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the plaintifY who is suing you. The attorney’s name and address appear below. If plaintifY has no attomey, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons, ‘You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW,, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m, and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within seven (7) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Christopher LaFon - 483740 Clerk of the Court ‘Name of PhiniifsAtomey——— 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 320 ‘Address ~ . Depmty Clerk Washington, DC 20036 202 - 686 - 7600 ‘Telepinone RETREAT 202) 870-4028 ‘euler appetar au (202) 678-4828 pour traduction BE co nti di, hay gol (202) 879-4828 ‘SH Beh OH, 202)879.4020m BEAM —eArTOT Hore aeTeT?: (202) 879-4928 2m IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER. YOU FANL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO. A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DO NOT Pall, TO. ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME, Ifyou wish fo talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer. promptly contact one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help oF come t0 Suite S000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish trastation ‘Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espaitol CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. 4can TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA COR DIVISION CIVIL ? Seccién de Acciones Civiles 00 Indiana Avenue, NW Suite $000, Washington, D.C. 20001 “Teléfono: (202) 879-1133 Sti webs wor decourts go8 Beniandante contra Numero de Caso: Demandado CITATORIO Al susodicho Demandado: Por Ia presente se le cits a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestacién a fa Demanda adjunta, sea en persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veintitin (21) dias contados después que usted haya recibido este itatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esti siendo demandado en calidad de oficial © agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica 0 del Gobiemo del Distrito. de Columbia, tiene usted sesenta (60) dias, contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacién, Tiene que enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacién al abogado de ta parte demandante, El nombre y direecién del abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si cl demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que cnviarle al demandante una copia de la Contestacidn por correo a la direccién que aparece en este Citatori, A usted también se le require presentar la Contestacién original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito on 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. entre las 8:30 am. y 5:00 pm., de lunes a viemnes o entre las 9:00 am, y las 12:00 del mediodia los sdbados. Usted pucde presentar la Contestacién original ante el Jucz ya sea antes que usted le entregue al demandante una copia de fa Contestacién o en el plazo de siete (7) dias de haberte hecho la entrega al demandante. Si usted ineumple con presentar una Contestacién, podria dietarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga eftctivo el desagravio que se busca on la demanda SECRETARIO DEI. TRIBUNAL Nombre del abogado del Demandante Por Direccion Subacaretao Feet Felfone SOARRRSE TAL (202) 879-4828 \Veuiler appelor au (202) 879-4628 pour une Wadution BE cd meh i, hay soi (202) 879-4828 ‘eigen gtHC207) 879-4828 SAIPAN SOME CAI" AMET (202) 879-4628 sates IMPORTANTE: SI_USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES MENCIONADO 0, SILUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL. JUZGADO, PODRIA DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS ¥ PERIUICIOS U OTRO DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRIA RETENERSELE SUS INGRESOS, 0 PODRIA TOMARSELE SUS BIENES PERSONALES O BIENES RAICES ¥ SER VENDIDOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Si USTED PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO_DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGIDO, Si desea conversar con un abogado y le parece que no puede pagarle a uno, lame promo a una de muestra oficinas del Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a la Oficina 5000 det 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.., pane informarse sobre otros lugares donde puede pedirayuda al Vea al dorso el original en inglés See reverse side for English original CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. R4Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 ‘Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Website: www.decourtsg0v an . Case Number District of Columbia Defendant SUMMONS To the above named Defendant. You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attomey, within twenty one (21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the plaintifY who is suing you. The attorney’s name and address appear below. If plaintifY has no attomey, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons, ‘You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW,, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m, and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within seven (7) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Christopher LaFon - 483740 Clerk of the Court ‘Name of PhiniifsAtomey——— 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 320 ‘Address ~ . Depmty Clerk Washington, DC 20036 202 - 686 - 7600 ‘Telepinone RETREAT 202) 870-4028 ‘euler appetar au (202) 678-4828 pour traduction BE co nti di, hay gol (202) 879-4828 ‘SH Beh OH, 202)879.4020m BEAM —eArTOT Hore aeTeT?: (202) 879-4928 2m IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER. YOU FANL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO. A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DO NOT Pall, TO. ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME, Ifyou wish fo talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer. promptly contact one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help oF come t0 Suite S000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish trastation ‘Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espaitol CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. 4can TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA COR DIVISION CIVIL ? Seccién de Acciones Civiles 00 Indiana Avenue, NW Suite $000, Washington, D.C. 20001 “Teléfono: (202) 879-1133 Sti webs wor decourts go8 Beniandante contra Numero de Caso: Demandado CITATORIO Al susodicho Demandado: Por Ia presente se le cits a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestacién a fa Demanda adjunta, sea en persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veintitin (21) dias contados después que usted haya recibido este itatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esti siendo demandado en calidad de oficial © agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica 0 del Gobiemo del Distrito. de Columbia, tiene usted sesenta (60) dias, contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacién, Tiene que enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacién al abogado de ta parte demandante, El nombre y direecién del abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si cl demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que cnviarle al demandante una copia de la Contestacidn por correo a la direccién que aparece en este Citatori, A usted también se le require presentar la Contestacién original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito on 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.. entre las 8:30 am. y 5:00 pm., de lunes a viemnes o entre las 9:00 am, y las 12:00 del mediodia los sdbados. Usted pucde presentar la Contestacién original ante el Jucz ya sea antes que usted le entregue al demandante una copia de fa Contestacién o en el plazo de siete (7) dias de haberte hecho la entrega al demandante. Si usted ineumple con presentar una Contestacién, podria dietarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga eftctivo el desagravio que se busca on la demanda SECRETARIO DEI. TRIBUNAL Nombre del abogado del Demandante Por Direccion Subacaretao Feet Felfone SOARRRSE TAL (202) 879-4828 \Veuiler appelor au (202) 879-4628 pour une Wadution BE cd meh i, hay soi (202) 879-4828 ‘eigen gtHC207) 879-4828 SAIPAN SOME CAI" AMET (202) 879-4628 sates IMPORTANTE: SI_USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES MENCIONADO 0, SILUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL. JUZGADO, PODRIA DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS ¥ PERIUICIOS U OTRO DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRIA RETENERSELE SUS INGRESOS, 0 PODRIA TOMARSELE SUS BIENES PERSONALES O BIENES RAICES ¥ SER VENDIDOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Si USTED PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO_DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGIDO, Si desea conversar con un abogado y le parece que no puede pagarle a uno, lame promo a una de muestra oficinas del Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a la Oficina 5000 det 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W.., pane informarse sobre otros lugares donde puede pedirayuda al Vea al dorso el original en inglés See reverse side for English original CV3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. R4SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION VALERIE GRAHAM. clo The Veritas Law Firm 1225 19" Street, NW, Ste, 320 Washington, DC, 20036 NO TO 182 clo The Veritas Law Firm 1225 19" Street, NW, Ste. 320 Washington, DC, 20036 DC NIGHTLIFE COUNCIL, clo The Veritas Law Firm 1225 19" Street, NW, Ste. 320 Washington, DC, 20036 Civil Action No. JOHN BAGWELL c/o Richard J. Bianco, Esq. 2001 L Street NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20036 PLAINTIFFS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, 1015 Half Street, SE, Ste. 750 Washington, DC 20003 OFFICE OF PLANNING, DATA MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1100 4th Street, SW, Suite 650 East, Washington, DC 20024 (as a potentially necessary party) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of the Attomey General 400 6th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 DEFENDANTS.COMPLAINT Valerie Graham, DC Nightlife Council and No to 182, through counsel, Andrew J. Kline, Christopher LaFon, and The Veritas Law Firm, and John Bagwell, through counsel Richard J Bianco, file this Complaint against the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (“BOE”) for a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief regarding Initiative 82 in this action, in which this Court has jurisdiction and all plaintiffs have standing for their respective claims. The Office of Planning, Data Management Division is included as a Defendant as a potentially necessary party SUMMARY 1, Valerie Graham seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against BOE due to BOE’ improper certification of Initiative 82 that provided it access to the ballot for the November 2022 general election as BOE used the wrong registered qualified elector totals to certify the Initiative and did not otherwise follow its own rules and regulations when certifying it for ballot access, 2. BOE’s certification required consideration of whether the ini ative was supported by petitions that contain the valid signatures of at least five percent (5%) of the registered qualified electors in at least five (5) of the eight (8) elect m wards. 3 D.C.M.R. §1003.1; D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(i)(1); D.C. Code § 1-204. 102, 3 The Code and regulations require that when considering the requirements, BOE must use the “official” count of registered qualified electors made by the Board 30 days prior to the submission of the signatures. D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(i}(1); D.C. Code § 1-204.102; 3 DCMR § 1003.3.4, The Code states that the only official voter roll is maintained by BOE in electronic form. D.C. Code § 1-1001.05(a)(1). 5. BOE should have used the “official” voter roll as of January 22, 2022, the one it had through its maintenance thirty days prior to the February 22, 2022 submission of petitions in support of Initiative 82, However, it did not do so. 6, Forits analysis, BOE relied upon an unofficial snapshot of active voters it makes on a monthly basis in the D.C. Register that purportedly showed the number of active voters as of December 31, 2021 7. However, those numbers were not “official” and were not affirmed by the Board in any public hearing, 8. The mistake is significant because the Council had altered the borders of several wards effective as of January 1, 2022, which means that the calculations by BOE should have been undertaken with the total number of registered, qualified voters on the voter roll made and held by BOE as of January 22, 2022 with the redistricting information included therein. 9. Graham seeks a writ requiring BOE correct that error and to correct other clear BOE mistakes and Code and regulation violations made during the certification process. 10. John Bagwell seeks a writ requiring BOE to provide an additional 10-day challenge period to Initiative 82 since he attempted to review the petitions at the office of BOE, during the challenge period, within their posted business hours, but the office was closed, thus denying him access to the petitions in violation of law. Nor did BOE return Mr. Bagwell’s message to inform him when the office purportedly re-opened. As the petitions were not posted anywhere but BOE’s locked office, despite his efforts, Mr. Bagwell, and potentially other voters,were denied the right to review the petitions during the challenge period. Notwithstanding, BOE denied Mr, Bagwell’s motion to intervene in the Graham challenge. 11, No to 182 seeks relief as it was denied the opportunity to have one or more watchers present during BOE’s initial, certification process for Initiative 82. 12. DC Nightlife Council seeks relief as BOE improperly withheld key documents without justification in response to a properly made FOIA request. PARTIES 13. Valerie Graham is a resident of the District of Columbia and has been during all times relevant to this Challenge. Valerie Graham is registered to vote in the District of Columbia and has been during all times relevant to her challenge, Valerie Graham is and has been during all times relevant to her challenge registered to vote at the address of 1710 15" Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20009, the address at which she resides, which has been located in Ward 2 at all relevant times. 14, John Bagwell is a resident of the District of Columbia and has been during all times relevant to this Challenge. John Bagwell is registered to vote in the District of Columbia and has been during all times relevant to her challenge, John Bagwell is and has been during all times relevant to her challenge registered to vote at the address of 4840 New Hampshire Ave NW 1, Washington, DC, 2011, the address at which he resides, 15. No to 182 isa political committee registered with the Office of Campaign Finance and organized in opposition to Initiative 82. 16. DC Nightlife Council is a non-profit trade organization created and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia.17, The Board of Elections and Ethics is an administrative agency for the District of Columbia. 18, The District of Columbia operates the Board of Elections and Ethics, 19. The Data Management Division is a part of The Office of Planning, which is an administrative agency for the District of Columbia. This entity is a defendant as it is a potentially necessary party. GENERAL BACKGROUND & ALLEGATIONS Background for All Claims 20. This matter concerns the use of the initiative process to obtain ballot access for what has been termed Initiative 82. 21. Ryan O'Leary, Chairperson of the DC Committee to Build a Better Restaurant Industry, filed the measure entitled Initiative Measure No, 82, the “DC Full Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers Amendment Act of 202% ” (“Initiative 82”) with BOE’s Voter Services Office on June 22, 2021 22. On August 26, 2021, BOE determined that Initiative 82 constituted a proper subject for an initiative. 23. On September 21, 2021, BOE held a meeting regarding formulation of the ballot languag (short title, summary statement, and legislative form) of Initiative 82 in which counsel for the proper and undersigned counsel participated and agreed to the language proposed to BOE’s Board for approval 24, The formulations were published in the DC Register on October 1, 2021 for a ten- day review period during which any registered voter could challenge the Board's formulations. 25. The review period ended on October 12, 2021 and no challenges were filed,26. During BOE’s October 13, 2021 hearing, the initiative formulations, as published in the DC Register, were read into the record. 27. Atthe October 13, 2021 meeting, the BOE Board approved a motion for issuance of the petition form adopted by the proposer for Initiative 82 28. The petition was an one-sided piece of paper that had room for five signatures and contained a circulator affidavit. 29. At BOE’s meeting, BOE’s registrar stated, “Pursuant to DC Official Code Section 1-204.102, the number of registered voters used to compute these requirements is the latest official counts of the registered voters, by the Board of Ele ns, which was issued 30, or more, days, prior to this admission of signatures. While the signature requirement cannot, yet, be determined, | have calculated the information of the proponent and the public, what these requirements would be, if the most recent voter registration figures published, by the Board, were used. The proponent is advised to check with the Board, on a monthly basis, as new statistics are issued, to get up-to-date estimates of the signature requirement.” 30. Upon information and belief, the proposer, through circulators, began circulating petitions among the public for signatures on or around October 13, 2021 and did so through February 22, 2022. 31. On January 1, 2022, redistricting became effective in the District of Columbia, which altered the border of several wards. See D.C. Code § 1-1041.03; D.C. Act 24-264. 32. On or around February 18, 2022, BOE provided to the publishers of the D.C. Register a citywide voter registration summary purportedly of the registered voters as of January 31, 2022 that stated, among other things, there were 57,804 registered voters in Ward 2 633. On February 22, 2022, O'Leary submitted 7,941 pages of petitions in support of Initiative 82 that the BOE has stated contained 33,228 signatures. 34. Many of those petitions contained less than the maximum five signatures, permitted on each, a great many include signatures that are invalid and should not be considered in support of Initiative 82 under clear law and regulations, and some fail to include anything other than the preprinted form, including Sheets Number 7925 through Sheets Number 7971 35. On January 28, 2022, undersigned counsel for Graham requested in writing the roll of voters for the District of Columbia from BOE. 36. On February 7, 2022, undersigned counsel requested a status update on the request and noted that counsel sought additional information for the purpose of analyzing petitions that would be submitted in support of Initiative 82, 37. On February 8, 2022, a representative of BOE provided a link to the excel spreadsheet containing the voter roll for the District of Columbia. 38. The process undertaken is the only manner in which one can obtain a copy of the voter roll 39. The official voter roll provided by BOE to undersigned counsel for Graham on that date revealed the follo 1g number of voters in each of the District of Columbia's ght wards: 65,131 in Ward 1, 58,055 in Ward 2, 59,888 in Ward 3, 65,102 in Ward 4, 72,110 in Ward 5, 71,425 in Ward 6, 70,009 in Ward 7, and 64,896 in Ward 8. 40. Undersigned counsel for Graham requested electronic copies of the petitions on February 22, 202241. On February 25, 2022, BOE was required to “post, by making available for public inspection, petitions for initiatives for 10 days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beginning on the 3rd day after the petitions are filed.” 42. On February 26, 2022, BOE provided undersigned counsel for Graham with multiple eds purportedly containing files that contained pdf images of all the submitted petition pages. However, the cds were missing petition pages 3901-4000, 5001-5101, 5201-5300, and 6501-7400. Once found to be missing, those were requested from BOE and were provide from BOE later that day or the following days. 43. On March 7, 2022, Valerie Graham, with the assistance of undersigned counsel, filed a challenge 44. Her challenge included evidence as permitted by D.C. Code § 1-1001.16 and 3 D.CMR. § 1006 that reveals that the Board should not certify and not place Initiative 82 on a ballot because the petitions failed to include valid signatures of five percent (5%) of registered qualified electors in Wards 2, 5, 7 and 8 based on errors with respect to the signatures/signature lines 48. Concurrent with and after the 10-day review and challenge period, the Board was conducting a 30-day petition verification process to determine whether or not the number of valid signatures on the Petition met the qualifying percentage and ward distribution requirements necessary for it to achieve ballot access. That process does not provide for interested parties such as Graham to make objections or submit a formal, additional challenge 46. ‘On March 24, 2022, the end of the 30-day process, the Board held a Special Meeting to issue a report on the status of the process47. Atthe meeting, BOE Executive Director Monica Evans reported that the Petition contained 26,935 valid signatures and was thus able to proceed to the random sample signature verification stage of the verification process required by 3 DCMR 1009.7. ion could be made 48. As part of that process, it would have to be shown that verific with 95% confidence regarding the validity of the sampled signatures for each ward. 49. Ms, Evans then reported that, based upon the random sample signature verification process to that point in time, the Petition showed acceptance for Wards 1, 3, and 4 (with 95% confidence), rejection for Wards 5, 7, and 8 (for lack of the requisite valid signatures), and “no decision” for Wards 2 and 6 (for lack of achieving a 95% confidence level one way or the other). 50. In accordance with the Board’s regulations, the Board moved to draw additional samples of 100 and 150 signatures for verification for Wards 2 and 6 so that a final 95% confidence determination could be reached with respect to those wards. 51, Accordingly, the Board adjourned the meeting until 3:00 pm when it was expected that the verification process for Wards 2 and 6 would be completed 52, When the meeting resumed, Ms. Evans reported that the signatures for Ward 2 purportedly had been verified at a 95% confidence level, but that further sampling and testing of Ward 6 was necessary to reach a 95% conclusive result 53. Ms. Evans recommended that a sample of 150 additional signatures from Ward 6 be drawn for verification so that a 95% confident acceptance or rejection could be reached for Ward 6. 54. The Board accepted the recommendation, and the meeting was adjourned again until 5:30 pm55. Upon reconvening, Executive Director Evans reported that the signatures in Ward 6 stil could not be verified to a 95% level of confidence 56, Based on consultations with the Office of Planning’s Data Management Division (“DMD”), Ms. Evans advised that further random samples could be pulled and tested until a conclusive result could be reached, but that it was unlikely that the review would be concluded that day, if at all. 57. She also reported that the DMD had recommended that, alternatively, the Board could process all 4,656 valid signatures in Ward 6 (in lieu of the random sampling process) to determine if there are enough valid signatures to meet the 95% level of confidence. 58. While recognizing that the statute requires a decision regarding the Petition’s numerical sufficiency within 30 days of its acceptance, the Board noted that its regulations also require that the review process result in a final determination as to whether the Petition should be accepted or rejected 59, The final determination was not reached within the 30-day timeframe. 60. The Board ordered that the entire universe of valid signatures for Ward 6 be reviewed for signature authentication 61. On April 4, 2022, BOE’s General Counsel issued a Memorandum which concemed the “reallocation” of signatures across Wards, seemingly in an effort to address the redistricting, stating in part In verifying the status of signatures while conducting the random sampling requirements for signature verification, Data Services determined that the ward breakdowns needed to be recalculated to reflect the correct ward breakdown and to ensure all accepted voter signatures were assigned to the correct ward, During this review, Data Services reassigned voters to the correct ward based on the ward the voters were assigned to prior to the Board completing its redistricting activities. As a result of this process, figures in Column C changed from the calculations thatwere presented to the Office of Planning on March 31, 2021. Column E reflects the adjustments made to the initial calculation. Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E Column F Ward rasvar |S Reawired| scented in | Redistricting | Total Stat Totals 3/31 report | Adjustment | Signatures T 64280 3241 4905 0 4905 2 50632 2532 3500 593 2907 3 59661 2983 3696 oO 3696 4 64950 3247 3717 0 3717 3 71812 3576 3276 “I 3265 6 90685, 4534 3970 1165 5135 7 61790 3089 2269 431 1838, 8 60038 3002 1693 “130 1563 Totals 524088 26204 27026 i) (27026 62. Ms. Stroud’s Memorandum stated: A breakdown of the adjustments by ward is below: ‘* Exhibit 1 - Ward 2 Verification: Of the 3500 voters who were credited for signing the petition in ward 2, 651 were residents of ward 6 and were validated for ward 6 and adjusted into ward 6 totals. There were 58 ward 2 residents who were given credit in ward 6 that were subsequently adjusted into ward 2. The total adjustment in Ward 2 is 593 voters. (3500-651 +58) ‘* Exhibit 2 - Ward 5 Verification: Of the 3276 voters who were credited for signing the petition in ward 5, 11 were residents of ward 6 and were validated for ward 6 and adjusted into the Ward 6 totals. (3276-11) ‘* Exhibit 3 -Ward 6 Verification: Of the 3970 voters who were credited for signing the petition in ward 6, 58 were residents of ward 2 and were validated for ward 2 and adjusted into the Ward 2 totals, 651 were residents in ward 6 at the time they signed the petition but were initially credited in ward 2;431 voters who were given credit for signing the petition in ward 7 were residents of ward 6 at the time they signed the petition; 130 were residents in ward 6 at the time of signing the petition, but were given credit in ward 8; and 11 were residents in ward 6 at the time they signed the petition but were initially credited in ward 5. Ward 6 totals were adjusted to reflect these voters. (3970+651+431+130+11-58) ‘* Exhibit 4 - Ward 7 Verification: Of the 2269 voters who were credited for signing the petition in ward 7, 431 were residents of ward 6 and were validated for ward 6 and adjusted into the ward 6 totals, «Exhibit 5 - Ward 8 Verification: Of the 1693 voters who signed the petition in ward 8, 130 were residents of ward 6 and were validated for ward 6 and adjusted into the ward 6 totals. 63. That report also noted, “As a result of a subsequent review of voters’ statuses as well as resolving and updating a duplicate signature report to ensure that voters were given proper credit in the appropriate ward for signing the petition, the total number of accepted signatures inereased by 91 from 26,935 to 27,026.” 64, Interestingly, BOE had been an active participant in the May 24, 2002 meeting of the Subcommittee on Redistricting of the Committee of the Whole, of the Council of the District of Columbia with its Director, Alice Miller stating that the principal impact of redistricting was “realignment of number of registered voters in each of the wards,” and recommended strongly that the Council finalize the redistricting process by late December 2021 so that all aspects of the 2022 elections, including the primary and general election and petitions related to same, would be after redistricting was accounted for. 65. Eventually, the additional Ward 6 testing was completed and the report on the status of the Petition verification process was set for the Board's April 6, 2022 meeting,66. At that meeting, Executive Director Evans announced that the results of further signatures for that ward, testing of Ward 6 showed sufficient val 67. The Board found the Petition signatures to be numerically sufficient in five of the eight wards and certified the Initiative for ballot access in the November 8, 2022 General Election, subject to the outcome of the Challenge as to Ward 2. 68. The Board ruled on April 6, 2022 that the breakdown of registered voters in each ward to be used to calculate the 5% of registered voters in each ward would be based on the statistics published by the DC Register on January 21, 2022 that purportedly set forth the number of voters in each ward and in sums as of December 31, 2021, notably prior to redistricting 69. The Board improperly found that the published numerical summary constituted the “official” voter roll 70. BOE memorialized this decision in an April 8, 2022 written order TL On June 1, 2022, BOE dismissed Graham’s challenge determining, based on the use of the DC Register published statistic summary as setting forth the number of Ward 2 residents, that the signatures that remained as part of her challenge would not be outcome determinative and did not consider their validity 72. However, upon information and belief, if BOE utilized the right numbers in its certification analysis and followed its obligations under the DC Code and related regulations, BOE would have reached the determination that it should not grant ballot access to Initiative 82 because proponents have failed to meet the minimum signature requirement for Ward 2, meaning that the petitions containing all signatures failed to meet the minimum signature requirement for five of the eight wards. In other words, it is believed that the mistakes and errors set forth in this Complaint would be outcome determinativeAdditional Background of No to 182’s Claims 73. On or around February 26, 2022, No to 182, a political committee registered with the Office of Campaign Finance and organized in opposition to a proposed initiative, through undersi igned counsel so ned counsel, filed a petition with BOE for badges to be issued to under that counsel could serve as watcher(s) under 3 DCMR 1008. 74. BOE acknowledged No to 182’s application and request and repeatedly stated that No to 182 would be permitted to have watchers present during the certification process. 75. BOE did not permit No to 182 to have watchers during the process by which BOE’s personnel undertook analysis of whether the purported signatures in the petitions met the statutory requirements for acceptable signatures, including, for example, whether the individual that purportedly signed was a registered voter in the District of Columbia and whether their address at the time they signed was the address they were registered to vote at that time, among other things. 76. BOE did not permit No to 182 to have watchers during the process by which the Office of Data Management Services conducted a random sample and analyzed whether the signatures of those signatures randomly sampled were those of the person in which they purported to be, which included comparisons, upon information and belief, to voter registration cards and other documents on which the signature appeared filed with the District of Columbia, Additional Background of Bagwell’s Claims 77. Unrelated to Graham’s review, Bagwell and his counsel personally appeared at the offices of BOE to review Messrs. O° Leary and Eidinger’s submitted petitions on March 6, 2022 78. This was within the ten (10) day review period, and his visit was during the Board's posted operating hours, around 8:1579. However, when Bagwell and his counsel arrived at 8:15 AM, the opening time posted on BOE’s website, the office was closed. This was verified by speaking with a security person, who confirmed that nobody was in the BOE office. 80. Bagwell stayed for approximately twenty (20) minutes, but no BOE, representative appeared 81. Before departing, Bagwell, through counsel, called BOE’s main office number and left a message that he was present at BOE’s offices and sought to review the peti ns. 82. Neither Bagwell nor his counsel received a response to their telephone message by the end of the day, March 6, 2022, advising that the office had re-opened or giving other instructions. 83. The following day, March 7, 2022, Bagwell contacted BOE, through counsel, in a letter sent by email, informing BOE of the events of March 6, 2022 84. The purpose of the letter was to demand an opportunity to review the Petition during the consecutive 10-day period, as required by D.C. Code §1-100.16. 85. The BOE’s General Counsel responded to the Intervenor’s counsel the same day by phone followed by an email on March 8. 86. During the March 7 phone call, BOE’s counsel admitted that the Board’s office was not open between 8:15 ~ 8:42 AM because an employee had arrived “late.” She confirmed this in the March 8 email. 87. Also, during the call, BOE’s counsel promised to send electronic copies of the submitted petitions to Bagwell for review. However, BOE did not send the electronic copies to Bagwell’s counsel until after 5:00 pm on March 7, 2022, after the deadline for filing a challenge expired.88. __ In her email, the BOE’s counsel took the position that since the Board’s websit \dicates the 8:15 AM opening time is for Monday ~ Friday, and there are no weekend hours posted, the “late” employee arrival is of no consequence. 89, On March 28, 2022, Bagwell filed a Motion to Intervene with BOE to join in Graham’s Challenge and sought an additional review period for him and those similarly situated, as it is unknown on what other days and during what other hours during the challenge period BOE did not make the petitions available for review. 90. Thereafter, Bagwell, through counsel, repeatedly communicated with BOE counsel and staff, requested access to certain information which was before BOE for consideration and demanded basic due process protections, such as notice of hearings and the opportunity to be present and heard on issues impacting Mr. Bagwell 91. More specifically, while his Motion to Intervene was pending, Bagwell sought permission visit BOE’s office to review the signature card of the registered voters who had purportedly signed the pet and were counted as residents of Ward 2 for purpose of determining whether the proposers met the minimum signature requirements for Ward 2 92. After much prompting and follow-up, BOE initially agreed to provide Bagwell permission to do so, but thereafter retracted permission 93. Weeks later, after numerous email and telephone exchanges in which BOE claimed logistical challenges to making this basic information available, they simply stopped communicating on the subject without having provided access or formally denying the request. 94. On April 27, Bagwell’s counsel learned that BOE had scheduled a pre- hearing conference for the following day, April 28, 2022. BOE had not sent notice of the proceeding to Bagwell’s counsel, who was not available at the appointed time. Nor was 16the hearing “public,” so it did not appear on BOE’s calendar. Since the hearing would potentially impact Mr. Bagwell’s rights, counsel requested that it be rescheduled to a mutually available time and that Mr. Bagwell be provided notice of proceedings and the opportunity to be present, BOE’s counsel immediately denied this request. 95. On May 4, 2022, BOE denied Bagwell’s Motion to Intervene at its hearing and documented the denial in a May 9, 2022 written order 96. Notably, unlike during the challenge period for Initiative 82, BOE’s web site stated the hours in which it would be open on Saturday and Sunday for review of posted petitions in support of ballot access at in the June 2022 primary, stating that it would be open 8:30 am ~ 4:45 pm. Additional Background of DC Nightlife Couneil’s Claims 97. On April 1, 2022, DC Nightlife Council communicated a Freedom of Information (“FOIA”) Request to BOE seeking the following: 1, Documents identifying the creator(s) and owner(s) of the software by which the Board of Elections maintains the uniform, interactive computerized voter registration list for the District of Columbia; 2. The current contract(s) between the District of Columbia and/or any of its, agencies and the creator(s) and owner(s) of the software by which the Board of Elections maintains the uniform, interactive computerized voter registration li for the District of Columbia; 3. All manuals associated with the use of that software by the Board of Elections and its representatives, 4. All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how one creates the form of voter registration list in an excel chart; 5. All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how one creates the form of voter registration list active as of a day in the recent past, such as, for example, the generation of output on a Monday that creates an excel chart containing then-active voter registration list applicable to the preceding Tuesday;6. All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how cone creates the product that reveals the total number of qualified electors registered to vote in the District as of the last day of the month preceding publication in the District of Columbia Register for use in the Register each month, 7. An excel spreadsheet containing the uniform, interactive computerized voter registration list for the District of Columbia that was current on the date of January 22, 2022 with all personal identification removed, containing only the column listing the Ward associated with each elector, 8. Any guidelines, manuals, memorandum, internal documentation, or instructions concerning the validation procedures used in processing the petitions filed in support of Initiative 82: and 9, Any guidelines, manuals, memorandum, internal documentation, or instructions concerning the creation of the random samples used in validation process of the petitions filed in support of Initiative 82. 98. On May 6, 2022, BOE refused to produce any responsive documents to the FOIA Request categories I through 7. 99. BOE denied requested document categories 1 through 6 on the following grounds: “Requests numbers | through 6 are denied in accordance with D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(1), which provides that “[t]trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from outside the goverment” are exempt from disclosure where “disclosure would result in substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” The documents responsive to requests numbers | through 6 consist of the vendor's cost and pricing data, technical approach, and patent, trademark, and copyrights information. These documents are being withheld to protect the interests of both the government and the vendor. This exemption affords protection to those vendors who are required to furnish commercial or financial information to the government by safeguarding them from the competitive disadvantage that could result from disclosure.100, BOE denied requested category 7 on the following grounds: “Request number 7 1 of this 's denied because there is no document that is responsive to this request. At the nerate reports request, Data Services was not running and/or storing a daily report and did no reflecting a full list of voters on each day. Going forward, however, we can generate a daily voter file and count for public consumption (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays).” COUNTI ion for Writ of Mandamus Based on BOE’s Violation of D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(i)(1) and D.C. Code § 1-204.102 by Failing to Account for Redistricting (by Graham) Pet 101. _ All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein 102. Ms, Graham is a registered voter, member of the public, resident of Ward 2 of the District of Columbia and an interested party and permitted under the laws and regulations of the 's Court for the relief sought and has standing to do so. of Columbia to petition t 103. Ms, Graham choose not to sign a petition in support of the Initiative 104, Asaresident of Ward 2, BOE’s determination using numbers regarding Ward 2 that diluted and/or altered the consideration of her choice that acted as a vote caused her injury in fact, the interest sought to be protected by Graham is within the zone of interests protected under the statutory requirements for satisfaction of the minimum amount of support in at least five of the eight wards for an initiative and her constitutional right to vote and have her vote not diluted, and there is no clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review of BOE’s certification 105, The Supreme Court has explained that “there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is toaccompany the democratic processes.” Buckley v. Am. Const. L. Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 186 (1999) (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). 106. BOE’s certification required consideration of whether the initiative was supported by petitions filed with the BOE that contain the valid signatures of at least five percent (5%) of the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia, provided that the total number of signatures submitted shall include at least five percent (5%) of the registered qualified electors in at least five (5) of the eight (8) election wards. 3 D.C.M.R. §1003.1; D.C. Code § 1 1001.16(i)(1); D.C. Code § 1-204.102. 107. While BOE undertook that analysis, it did so with the incorrect number of registered qualified electors, including for Ward 2 108. BOE used numbers purportedly corresponding to December 2021, months prior to the filing of the petition, when the District of Columbia Code requires that BOE undertake analysis with the numbers corresponding to the official voter roll as it existed thirty (30) days prior to the filing of the petitions: “The number of registered qualified electors that is used for computing the requirements described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be consistent with the latest official count of registered qualified electors made by the Board 30 days prior to the submission of the signatures for the particula ve or referendum petition.” D.C. Code § I- 1001.16(;)(1); see D.C. Code § 1-204.102. 109, The regulations states, “The Board shall use the latest official count of registered qualified electors made at least thirty (30) days prior to submission of the signatures for the particular initiative or referendum measure to determine the minimum number of signatures required for ballot access.” 3 DCMR § 1003.3110, The Code and regulation are legislation consistent with the Charter Amendments regard. See, e.g., Price v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 645 A.2d 594, 599 (D.C. 1994) 111, Asa validly promulgated and unchallenged regulation, 3 DCMR § 1003.3 is binding upon the BOE. 112, The Code Official requires that BOE maintain and electronic voter roll that is the “official” voter roll for the District of Columbia: “The Board shall: [ ] Accurately maintain a uniform, interactive computerized voter registration list which shall serve as the official voter registration list for all elections the District, and shall contain the name, registration information, and a unique identifier assigned for every registered voter in the District. The voter, registration list shall be administered pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and pertinent federal and local law, and shall be coordinated with other District agency databases.” D.C. Code § 1-1001.05(a)(1) (emphasis added). 113, This maintenance became effective following statutory changes made in incorporating of the demands of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 into District of Columbia law (“HAVA”). See Dec. 7, 2004, D.C. Law 15-218, § 2(b), 51 DCR 9132. 114, Previously, the Board had only been charged with “maintain{ing] a permanent registry.” 69 Stat. 700, Pub Law 376 (Aug. 12, 1955). 115, Section 303(1)(A) of HAVA confirms that this computerized registration list is the sole list that is to be considered “official” Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall implement, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and administered at the State level that contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State and assigns a unique identifier to each legally registered voter in the State (in this subsection referred to as the ““computerized list”), and includes the following: (i) The computerized list shall serve as the single system for storing 2and managing the official list of registered voters throughout the State. (ii) The computerized list contains the name and registration information of every legally registered voter in the State. (ii) Under the computerized list, a unique identifier is assigned to each legally registered voter in the State. (iv) The computerized list shall be coordinated with other agency databases within the State. (v) Any election official in the State, including any local election official, may obtain immediate electronic access to the information contained in the computerized list. (vi) All voter registration information obtained by any local election official in the State shall be electronically entered into the computerized list on an expedited basis at the time the information is provided to the local official. (vii) The chief State election official shall provide such support as may be required so that local election officials are able to enter information as described in clause (vi). (viii) The computerized list shall serve as the official voter registration list for the conduct of all elections for Federal office in the State. 42 USC 15483; Public Law 107-252—Oct. 29, 2002 (emphasis added) 116. The proposers of Initiative 82 filed the petitions with BOE on February 22, 2022. 117. Under statutory requirements, BOE should have undertaken the certification process with consideration of the number of registered, qualified voters per ward with the numbers that were consistent with the official computerized voter roll kept by BOE as of January 22, 2022, i, the only “official” count of voters. D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(4)(1), 3 DCMR § 1003.3. 118, That understanding is consistent with BOE’s Chairperson’s public explanation during a February 2022 BOE meeting: “And by law, that's fixed as of 30 days prior to submission of the petition, That's your denominator. And the denominator shouldn't be larger than it needs to be because the larger the denominator, the larger the numerator, the number of signatures you'd have to get.” See Transcript, BOE February 2, 2022 Meeting, at 48:1- available at https://deboe.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx? guid=1b8a7434-149f-40b0-aa05- Ted 7d5e65d13 (last visited March 17, 2022)119, BOE’s erroris significant due to the redistricting that became effective as of January 1, 2022, and for all elections after February 1, 2022, which altered the border of several wards. D.C. Code § 1-1041.03; D.C. Act 24-264. 120, The Code makes clear that the official voter roll applicable for purpose of the BOE’s certification of Initiative 82 should have included application of the ward border changes: “Notwithstanding § 1-1011.01(h), and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Council adopts the following election ward boundaries to be effective January 1, 2022, and to be used in all elections held after February 1, 2022, in the District of Columbia.” D.C, Code § 1— 1041.03(a) (emphasis added). 121, BOE, despite maintaining the official roll and having access to the official role as of January 22, 2022, did not use the roll as of that date in its analysis 122, BOE, conversely, relied upon a static snapshot of the voter roll that was published in the D.C. Register in late January 2022 that purportedly set forth stati ies as of December 31, 2021 for information purposes. 123. That published purported snapshot is never referred to as official 124, Courts in the District of Columbia relying on the published purported snapshot in the context of identifying the voter roll did so prior to the adoption of the HAVA requirements in the District of Columbia, 125. Under D.C. Code § 1-1001.05(7), the BOE is charged to “Publish in the District of Columbia Register on the 3rd Friday of every month, the total number of qualified electors registered to vote in the District as of the last day of the month preceding publication.” 126. On January 21, 2022, BOE set forth a notice in D.C. Register Vol. 69, Issue 3 that including a snapshot of the voter roll as of December 31, 2021, Accessible through NoticeNumber 119015, located at hittps://www.deregs.de. gov/Common/NoticeDetail.aspx?N -1d=N119015 (last visited March 17, 2022) 127. Those statistics do not constitute the “official” voter roll as of 30 days prior to submission of the petitions 128. In fact, the Board did not address the accuracy or authenticity of those figures at any Board meeting held with the quorum necessary to officially act, See 3 DCMR 102.3 129, The Code is clear that the only “official” voter roll is that maint ned by BOE in computerized form. D.C. Code § 1-1001.05(a)(1), 130, The consistency with The Help American Vote Act of 2002's requirement for a computerized official roll is explicit in the statute itself. 131, Further, the definition of “voter registration” used by BOE includes the notion of constituency with the 2002 Act. See 3 DCMR § 9900.1 (defining “voter registration application” as “a Board-approved form that meets federal requirements pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act ("NVRA") (42 USC §§ 1973gg, et seq.) and the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA") (42 USC §§ 15301 - 15545) that a qualified elector uses to register to vote or to update voter registration information.”). 132. Notably, the requirement for publication in the D.C. Register of that information was created in 1982, well before the computerized version of the roll was deemed “official” by statute. D.C. Act. 4-183; D.C. Law 4-120. 133, Reliance on publication is not necessary for purpose of notice to the proposers. See, e.g., Dobrovolny v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1112 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 (1998) (holding “that the appellants’ inability to know in advance the exact number of signaturesrequired in order to place their initiative measures on the ballot” did not infringe upon their constitutional rights because it “in no way restricted their ability to circulate petitions”) 134, Notice to the proposers of the Initiative of the official voters’ roll is available through a request for a copy of the computerized database. See 3 DCMR § 510.1 (“Upon written request, the Board shall provide to any person a list of the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia or any ward, precinct or ANC SMD therein.”), 3 DCMR § 510.3 (“The Board shall make requested voter registration information available to the public on electronic or magnetic medium, or on any media in use by the Board at the time of the request.”). 135. The proposers of Initiative 82 were aware and took advantage of this disclosure method. See, e.g., Transcript, BOE January 12, 2022 Meeting, at 52-53, available at https://dcboe.org/CMSPages/GetFile aspx? guid-03a42706-d8a7-4215-ac2b-4db388a84216 (last visited March 17, 2022) (“On November 17th, I emailed the Board of Elections seeking a voter roll file in XLS format in order to create watch sheets for my petition circulators” stated by Nikolas Schiller, the field organizer for circulating Initiative 82 petitions). 136. The effect of the redistricting of the wards of the District of Columbia significantly impacts the number of voters per ward 137. BOE’s representatives stated in a public subcommittee hearing that they strongly believed all redistricting efforts needed to be completed before any election-related activities occurred in 2022 so that any petitions and primary voting would be considered by the people in each ward as would exist at the time of the primary and general election. See Hearing, available ar https://de.granicus.com/MediaPlayer php?view_id=&clip_id=6421&caption_id=15632289. 138. For example, as of December 31, 2021, prior to the application of emergency legislation that changed the boundary of the wards, the BOE reported that 50,632 qualified votersresided in Ward 2 and 90,685 resided in Ward 6. See Monthly Report, located at hnttps://dcboe.org/CMSPages/GetFile. aspx? guid=6a729f08-Sac5-4696-bec6-c13 10df6b80a 139. As of January 31, 2021, after redistricting took effect, 57,804 qualified voters resided in Ward 2 and 71,108 resided in Ward 6. See Monthly Report, located at https://deboe.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid 241b945b-4934-4ae5-8514-d35533d9ec36, 140. The number of qualified voters in each ward as of January 22, 22, however, is information that was and is maintained solely by BOE. 141, During the certification process and after thirty days beyond the submission of the petitions, BOE undertook significant manipulation of the ward assignment of voters that altered the Ward assignment of 2,330 accepted petition signers in an apparent attempt to quickly apply the effect of redistricting, 142, For example, the Board altered the Ward assignment with respect to the signature of Hollis Clark, a signature accepted by BOE in support of the Initiative. On January 5, 2022, Hollis Clark signed Petition page 5864, signature line 2 with the address of 1210 7th St, NW, Unit 401, in Washington, DC. She is registered at that address according to the copy of the roll with the designation of Ward 6, but after redistricting, the address is within Ward 2, BOE initially used her signature in support of the minimum requirements for Ward 6, but, on or around April 4, 2022, altered its computations and used her signature in support of the minimum requirements for Ward 2 143. In short, BOE had and has within its abilities to consider those on the voter roll at a date certain and to designate the correct ward with respect to each registered voter after redistricting was accounted for.144, BOE has within its powers to, and its responsibility was to, account for redistricting in formulating the minimum number of signatures required to meet the minimum signature requirements for the Initiative to be certified on the ballot 145, Upon information and belief, on or around January 28, 2022, BOE kept all the individuals appearing in the official voter roll database, but assigned those individuals who resided in a different Ward due to redistric 1g their new ward assignment, having failed to so on or before January 1, 2022 146. On January 28, 2022, counsel for Graham submitted a request on a publicly available form for a “list of registered qualified electors as of January 1, 2022” in conjunction with a stated intention to verify signatures collected in support of the Initiative 147. On February 8, 2022, BOE provided counsel for Graham a copy of the voter roll that accounted for redistricting for the purpose of considering a challenge to Initiative 82 upon information and belief, noting “Due to ward redistricting by the Council, our office has made some adjustments to the voter list report to include, Voter name, Residence address, Registration Date, Party , City Ward, and Voter status.” 148, The DC Code and the Help Ami cans Vote Act required the redistricting information to be electronically input on “an expedited basis,” which required BOE to input the new ward designations for those addresses that were moved from one ward to another on or immediately following January 1, 2022, 149. Under D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(0)(1), BOE only had 30 days to certify the Initiative for ballot access and within that 30 day period it did not do so. WHEREFORE, Graham petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to undertake analysis of whether the petitions submitted in support of the Initiative met theminimum signature requirement for Ward 2 using the proper, latest official count of registered voters made by BOE on January 22, 2022, or issue a writ requiring BOE to negate ballot access of Initiative 82, and accounting for all other issues discussed here and for all other relief that the Court deems just COUNT IT Petition for Writ of Mandamus Based on Data Management Division’s Violation of Failure to Randomly Sample Ward 2 Signatures under D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(0)(1) and 3 DCMR 1009.7 (by Graham) 150, All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein. 151, Ms, Graham is a registered voter, member of the public, resident of Ward 2 of the District of Columbia and an interested party and permitted under the laws and regulations of the District of Columbia to petition this Court for the relief sought and has standing to do so. 152. Ms. Graham choose not to sign a petition in support of the Initiative. 153. Asa resident of Ward 2, BOE’s determination using numbers regarding Ward 2 that diluted and altered the consideration of her vote caused her injury in fact, the interest sought to be protected by Graham is within the zone of interests protected under the statutory requirements for satisfaction of the minimum amount of support in at least five of the eight wards for an initiative and her constitutional right to vote and have her vote not diluted, and there is no clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review of BOE's certification. 154, 3 DCMR 1009.7 states: If the number of signatures in the random sample universe meets or exceeds the established minimum ward and District-wide requirements, the Board shall supply the Data Management Division of the Office of Planning with the signatures in the random sample universe, broken down by ward. The Data Management Division shall draw and identify for the Board a sample of one hundred (100) signatures from each ward to be verified, except where(a) The Data Management Division determines that sampling the signatures of a given ward would not be necessary for the Board to make a determination to accept or reject the petition; or (b) The Data Management Division determines that a sample larger than one hundred (100) must be drawn in order for the Board to make a determination to accept or reject the petition, and thus draws and identifies an appropriate sample size. 155. D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(0)(1) states: After acceptance of an initiative or referendum petition, the Board shall certify, within 30 calendar days after such petition has been accepted, whether or not the number of valid signatures on the initiative or referendum petition meets the qualifying percentage and ward distribution requirements established in subsection (i) of this section, and whether or not the necessary number of names ignatures of registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia, properly distributed by wards, appear on the initiative or referendum petition certification may be by a bona fide random and statistical sampling 156, On or around March 24, 2022, the Data Analysis and Visualization Unit (“DMD”) of the DC Office of Planning set forth its analysis and findings to BOE concerning the statistical sampling and analysis it undertook or on around that date. 157. Upon information and belief, DMD stated that it chose a random sample of 100 from Ward 2 to verify signatures of a random sample universe of 2,782 and determined that 94 of the 100 signatures sampled were valid. 158. DMD stated that it chose, after a random sample of 100, a “second random sample of 150” from Ward 2 to verify signatures out of a random sample universe of 2,782. 159, Before March 31, 2022, BOE purportedly undertook an analysis and determined that once accounting for redistricting and other issues, there were 2,907 signatures collected associated with Ward 2 in determining the total for Ward 2. Certain signatures initially allocated to Ward 2 were allocated to other Wards and certain signatures initially associated with Ward 6 were allocated to Ward 2.160, On March 31, 2022, DMD was provided with the new random sample universe of signatures associated with Ward 2. 161, On April 1, 2022, April Fool’s Day, DMD “indicated that it had verified that the sample samples of 100 used in the initial statistical calculations in the revised provision of RSU [random sample universe] for each ward” and because of that, “there was no need to do a new random sample for validation.” 162, However, those signatures that were part of the initial random sample from 2,782 names did not have the equal likelihood of being pulled from the random sample universe of 2,907, which is fundamental to random sampling, Addi nally, those signatures added to the Ward 2 universe after the sampling had zero change of being part of the random sample taken 163. Resources for the University of Texas, Yale University, California State Long Beach and the US. Department of Health and Human Services all explain to be a truly random sample, every subject in your target population must have an equal chance of being selected in your sample. 164. BOE’s acceptance of DMD’s decision not to conduct another random sample analysis after it altered the random sample universe of signatures allocated to Ward 2 violates 3 DCMR 1009.7 as DMD was to conduct a sampling from the random sample universe supplied by BOE. 165. DMD failed to conduct a signature validity testing through random sampling from the random sample universe created by BOE on or around March 31, 2022 and that was ultimately accepted by BOE. WHEREFORE, Graham petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to force DMD to conduct a signature validity analysis to determine if the random sample satisfies 30the required 95% confidence level from proper random sample universe/the random sample universe ultimate determined by BOE, or otherwise order that BOE must negate ballot access for Initiative 82, and accounting for all other issues discussed here and for all other relief that the Court deems just COUNT IT n for Writ of Mandamus Based on BOE’s Failure to Assign Correct Wards to Signatures for Random Sample Universe under 3 DCMR 1009.5 (by Graham) Pet 166. All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein 167. Ms. Graham is a registered voter, member of the public, resident of Ward 2 of the District of Columbia and an interested party and permitted under the laws and regulations of the District of Columbia to petition this Court for the relief sought and has standing to do so. 168. Ms, Graham choose not to sign a petition in support of the Initiative 169. Asa resident of Ward 2, BOE’s determination using numbers regarding Ward 2 that diluted and altered the consideration of her vote caused her injury in fact, the interest sought to be protected by Graham is within the zone of interests protected under the statutory requirements for satisfaction of the minimum amount of support in at least five of the eight wards for an initiative and her constitutional right to vote and have her vote not diluted, and there is no clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review of BOE’s certification. 170, 3 DCMR1009.5 provides, “Each signature in the random sample universe shall be ascribed to the ward in which the signer was a duly registered voter on the date the petition was signed, except that if the Board's records indicate that the voter filed a change of address after mn was signed, but that was received on or before the petition was 31submitted, the signature shall be included in the ward of the voter’s new address.” (emphasis added) 171, The Board, however, assigned signatures of residents of Ward 6 collected prior to December 31, 2021 to Ward 2, when the address prior to January 1, 2022 was in Ward 2. The signatures are this not ascribed to the ward in which the individual signing was duly registered on the date of the signature, as required by 3 DCMR1009.5. 172. For example, the Board altered the ward assignment with respect to the signature of Constance Carte Hirth, a signature accepted by BOE in support of the Initiative. On February 5, 2022, Mr. Hirth signed Petition page 7546, signature 5 with the address of 300 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 514, in Washington, DC. She is registered at that address according to the copy of the roll. BOE initially used her signature in support of the minimum requirements for Ward 6, but, on or around April 4, 2022, altered its computations and used her signature in support of the minimum requirements for Ward 2 173, Ms, Hirth was a resident of Ward 6 when she signed the petition 174, Upon information and belief, every accepted signature by a registered qualified voter on a petition dated on or after January 1, 2022 that resided in an address that was within Ward 2 before redistti ing and was outside of Ward 2 after redistricting, was assigned Ward 2 for purpose of determining whether the petitions included the minimum number of signatures for Ward 2. 175. BOE calculation of the acceptable signatures assigned Ward 2 when the signer signed the petition at the time their residence was in another ward violated 3 DCMR 1009.5. WHEREFORE, Graham petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to undertake analysis of whether the petitions submitted in support of the Initiative met theminimum signature requirement for Ward 2 after properly assigning signatures to the proper Ward accounting for the timing of the application of redistricting and accounting for all other issues discussed here, or otherwise order that BOE must negate ballot access for Initiative 82, and for all other relief that the Court deems just. COUNT IV ion for Writ of Mandamus Based on BOE’s Violation of D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(0)(1) and 3 D.C.MLR. § 1006.1 (by Bagwell) Pet 176, All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein 177. Mr. Bagwell is a registered voter, member of the public, resident of the District of Columbia and an interested party and permitted under the laws and regulations of the District of Columbia to petition this Court for the relief sought and has standing to do so. 178. Asa resident and registered, qualified voter in the District of Columbia, Mr. Bagwell had a right to review the petitions submitted in support of Initiative 82. 179. D.C. Code § 1-1001.16(0)(1) states: “The Board shall post, by making available for public inspection, petitions for initiatives or referenda, or facsimiles thereof, in the office of the Board, for 10 days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beginning on the 3rd day after the petitions are filed. Any qualified elector may, within such 10-day period, challenge the validity of any petition, by a written statement duly signed by the challenger and filed with the Board, specifying concisely the alleged defects in such petition.” 180, Bagwell and his counsel personally appeared at the offices of BOE to review the submitted petitions in support of Initiative 82 on March 6, 2022. 181, This was within the ten (10) day review period, and he arrived at BOE du ng the Board’s posted operating hours, around 8:15 am, 33182, When Bagwell and his counsel arrived at 8:15 am, the opening time posted on BOE’s website, the office was closed. This was verified by speaking with a security person, and by calling the office and leaving a message. 183, Bagwell stayed for approximately twenty (20) minutes, but no BOE representative appeared. 184, Bagwell, through counsel, called BOE’s main office number at approximately 8:30 am on March 6, 2022 and left a message before leaving that he was present at BOE’s offices and sought to review the petitions 185. Bagwell yet again contacted BOE, through counsel, in a letter informing BOE of same on March 7, 2022. 186. The purpose of the letter was to demand an opportunity to review the Petitions during a consecutive 10-day period, as required by D.C. Code $1-100.16. 187. The BOE’s General Counsel responded on March 8, 2022. 188. During the phone call, BOE’s counsel advised that the petitions would be made available to Bagwell’s counsel electronically 189. In her email, BOE’s counsel admitted that the Board’s office was not open between 8:15 — 8:42 AM and acknowledged that the office was closed because an employee arrived “late.” 190, In her email, the BOE’s counsel further took the position that since the Board's website indicates the 8:15 AM opening time is for Monday ~ Friday, and there are no weekend hours posted, the “late” employee arrival is of no consequence M4191, BOE’s counsel said nothing about the failure of anyone at BOE to contact Bagwell in response to his telephone message on March 6, 2022, when the review period was ongoing. 192, On March 7, 2022, after 5:00 pm, BOE sent electronic copies of the submitted petitions to Bagwell’s counsel. This was after the deadline for filing a challenge required an in personal submission at BOE 193. On March 28, 2022, Bagwell filed a Motion to Intervene with BOE to join in Graham’s Challenge and sought an additional review period for him and those similarly situated 194, Counsel for Bagwell continued to commu cate with counsel for BOE regai the opportunity to intervene in Graham’s challenge and to review information related to the petitions, including voter signature cards, after March 7, 2022 and after the Motion to Intervene was filed, Counsel for Bagwell was advised by both BOE’s counsel and the Office of the Registrar that he would be provided access and an opportunity to review signatures and voter roll signatures, but those assurance were repeatedly refused. 195. On May 4, 2022, BOE denied Bagwell’s Motion to Intervene at its hearing and documented the denial in a May 9, 2022 written order 196, Notably, unlike during the challenge period for Initiative 82, BOE’s web s e stated the hours in which it would be open on Saturday and Sunday for review of posted petitions in support of ballot access at in the June 2022 primary, stating that it would be open 8:30 am — 4:45 pm. WHEREFORE, Bagwell petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to post the petitions filed in support of Initiative 82 again for a period of ten consecutive days during office hours and permit him to file a challenge and then to consider the challenge asrequired for a challenge that would have otherwise been considered timely under the D.C, Code and related regulations, and accounting for all other issues discussed here or otherwise order that BOE must negate ballot access for Initiative 82, and for all other relief that the Court deems just. COUNTY Petition for Writ of Mandamus Based on BOE’s Violation of 3 D.C.MLR. § 1008 (by No to 182) 197, All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein. 198, No to 182 is a political committee registered with the Office of Campaign Finance and organized in opposition to Initiative 82. 199, 3 DCMR 1008.1 states: “Two (2) persons representing the proposer(s) and two (2) persons representing any political committee or committees registered with the Office of Campaign Finance and organized in opposition to a proposed initiative or referendum measure may be present during the counting and validation procedures and shall be deemed watchers.” 200. 3 DCMR 1008.4 states, “The Board shall issue a badge for each authorized watcher, with space for the watcher’s name, the serial number of the measure, and the name of the proposer(s) or political committee(s) represented by the watcher 201. On or around February 26, 2022, No to 182, a political committee registered with the Office of Campaigi n Finance and organized in opposition to a proposed initiative, through under ned counsel, filed a petition with BOE for badges to be issued to undersigned counsel so that counsel could serve as watcher(s) under 3 DMR 1008 202. BOE did not permit No to 182"s watchers to be present during the process by which BOE’s personnel undertook analysis of whether the purported signatures in the petitions met the statutory requirements for acceptable signatures, including, for example, whether the 36individual that purportedly signed was a registered voter in the District of Columbia and whether their address at the time they signed was the address they were registered to vote at that time, among other things. 203. BOE did not permit No to 182’s watchers to be present during the process by which the Office of Data Management Services conducted a random sample and analyzed whether the signatures of those signatures randomly sampled were those of the person in which they purported to be, which included comparisons, upon information and belief, to voter registration cards and other documents on which the signature appeared filed with the District of Columbia. 204. BOE acknowledged No to 182’s application and request and repeatedly stated that No to 182 would be permitted to have watchers present during the certification process. 205. No representative of No to 182 was issued to any of the watchers identified by No to 182 during the initial period of BOE validation. 206. Upon demand by undersigned counsel, BOE finally permitted a watcher on behalf of No to 182 to be present during the period in which representatives of BOE considered the validity of all signatures on petitions filed in support of the Initiative assigned to Ward 6. 207. BOE waived any defense s or reasons not to authorize a watcher to be present for all aspects of certification by No to 182 WHEREFORE, No to 182 petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to negate ballot access for Initiative 82 for the November 2022 election and for all other relief that the Court deems just. 37COUNT VI Relief under D.C. Code §2-537(a)(1) (by DC Nightlife Council) 208. All previous paragraphs of this Complaint are adopted and to be considered as fully set forth herein 209. On April 1, 2022, DC Nightlife Council communicated a Freedom of Information (“FOIA”) Request to BOE seeking the following: 1, Documents identifying the creator(s) and owner(s) of the software by which the Board of Flections maintains the uniform, interactive computerized voter registration list for the District of Columbia: 2. The current contract(s) between the District of Columbia and/or any of its, agencies and the creator(s) and owner(s) of the software by which the Board of form, interactive computerized voter registration list for the District of Columbia; 3. All manuals associated with the use of that software by the Board of Elections and its representatives, 4, All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how one creates the form of voter registration list in an excel chart; 5, All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how one creates the form of voter registration list active as of a day in the recent past, such as, for example, the generation of output on a Monday that creates an excel chart containing then-active voter registration list applicable to the preceding, Tuesday; 6. All sets of instructions, whether in paper or electronic form, that reveal how one creates the product that reveals the total number of qualified electors registered to vote in the District as of the last day of the month preceding publication in the District of Columbia Register for use in the Register each month; 7. An excel spreadsheet containing the uniform, interactive computerized voter registration list for the District of Columbia that was current on the date of January 22, 2022 with all personal identification removed, containing only the column listing the Ward associated with each elector; 388, Any guidelines, manuals, memorandum, internal documentation, or instructions concerning the validation procedures used in processing the petitions filed in 9, Any guidelines, manuals, memorandum, internal documentation, or instruetions conceming the creation of the random samples used in validation process of the petitions filed in support of Initiative 82. 210. On May 6, 2022, BOE refused to produce any responsive documents to the FOIA Request categories | through 7. 211. BOE denied requested document categories | through 6 on the following grounds: “Requests numbers | through 6 are denied in accordance with D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(1), which provides that “[tJtrade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from outside the government” are exempt from disclosure where “disclosure would result in substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained,” The documents responsive to requests numbers | through 6 consist of the vendor's cost and pricing data, technical approach, and patent, trademark, and copyrights information. These documents are being withheld to protect the interests of both the government and the vendor. This exemption affords protection to those vendors who are required to furnish commercial or financial information to the government by safeguarding them from the competitive disadvantage that could result from disclosure. “ 212, BOE denied requested category 7 on the following grounds: “Request number 7 is denied because there is no document that is responsive to this request. At the time of this request, Data Services was not running and/or storing a daily report and did not generate reports reflecting a full list of voters on each day. Going forward, however, we can generate a daily voter file and count for public consumption (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays).” 30213. D.C. Code §2-537(a) states, “Except as provided in subsections (a-1) and (a-2) of this section, any person denied the right to inspect a public record of a public body may peti the Mayor to review the public record to determine whether it may be withheld from public ination shall be made in wri inspection, Such deter 12 with a statement of reasons therefor in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the submission of the petition. (1) If the Mayor denies the petition or does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection, or if a person is deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies pursuant to subsection (e) of § 2-532, the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia” 214. D.C. Code §2-537() states “Any failure on the part of a public body to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (A) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request, unless such person chooses to petition the Mayor pursuant to § 2-537 to review the deemed denial of the request.” 215, Items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were wrongfully withheld by BOE in response to DC life Council’s FOIA request. WHEREFORE, DC Nightlife Council petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring BOE to provide all responsive documents to items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, for its attorneys? fees and expenses incurred, and for all other relief that the Court deems just. 404 Respectfully submitted, _/s! Christopher LaFon. Andrew J, Kline (D.C, Bar #358547) Christopher LaFon (D.C. Bar #483740) THE VERITAS LAW FIRM 1225 19% Street, N.W. Suite 320 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 686-7600 akline@theveritastawfirm.com clafon@theveritaslawfirm.com Counsel for Graham, No to I82 and DC Nightlife Council _/s/ Richard J. Bianco Richard J. Bianco, Esq, (D.C. Bar 475319) 2001 L Street NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 461-2400 tich@lawrjb.com Counsel for Bagwell